Dear Sir or Madam,

Please could you provide me with the parts of the minutes of any
meetings between yourselves and the police force where the climate
camp was discussed. If the police are to be publicly accountable
then the parameters they work within must be exposed to the light
of day when necessary. Unless there is something to hide there
should be no problem in releasing this information.

Please could you inform me what steps you are currently taking to
keep the police force under your control with regard to the climate
camp. At the moment it appears that you are doing absolutely
nothing. It is clear from
http://kentpa.kent.police.uk/Our%20role/... that
one of your functions is to hold the police to account. Can you
demonstrate that you are undertaking this function?

The attempts by the police to stifle any views other than those of
the Westminster government are an excellent way of ensuring people
stand up and defend themselves rigorously against attacks by vested
interests and those supporting the vested interests. Is this one of
your objectives?

Lastly, are the police officers in
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kol08/articl...
and http://blip.tv/file/1151078 acting in your name? They are
certainly not acting in my name.

Please note that "replies" which involve attachments in proprietary
file formats are not acceptable. A reply which is not in plain text
format will be deemed to be a refusal to answer.

Yours faithfully,

David Hansen

Dear Mr Hansen

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your Freedom of Information
request. We will undertake to respond to your request within 20 working
days in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act.

Regards

Mark Gilmartin
Chief Executive
Kent Police Authority
01622 604488 (w)
07989 992198 (m)
>>> David Hansen <[email address]> 07/08/08
16:41 >>>
Dear Sir or Madam,

Please could you provide me with the parts of the minutes of any
meetings between yourselves and the police force where the climate
camp was discussed. If the police are to be publicly accountable
then the parameters they work within must be exposed to the light
of day when necessary. Unless there is something to hide there
should be no problem in releasing this information.

Please could you inform me what steps you are currently taking to
keep the police force under your control with regard to the climate
camp. At the moment it appears that you are doing absolutely
nothing. It is clear from
[1]http://kentpa.kent.police.uk/Our%20role/... that
one of your functions is to hold the police to account. Can you
demonstrate that you are undertaking this function?

The attempts by the police to stifle any views other than those of
the Westminster government are an excellent way of ensuring people
stand up and defend themselves rigorously against attacks by vested
interests and those supporting the vested interests. Is this one of
your objectives?

Lastly, are the police officers in

[2]http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kol08/articl...
and [3]http://blip.tv/file/1151078 acting in your name? They are
certainly not acting in my name.

Please note that "replies" which involve attachments in proprietary
file formats are not acceptable. A reply which is not in plain text
format will be deemed to be a refusal to answer.

Yours faithfully,

David Hansen

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Hansen,

Please find attached a response to your Freedom of Information request
regarding Climate Camp from Mr Mark Gilmartin, Chief Executive, Kent
Police Authority.

If you have any difficulties opening the documents, please get in touch
and we will endeavour to assist.

Regards
Penny Rowland
Kent Police Authority
01622 677055

Mark Gilmartin
Chief Executive
Kent Police Authority
01622 604488 (w)
07989 992198 (m)
>>> David Hansen <[email address]> 07/08/08
16:41 >>>
Dear Sir or Madam,

Please could you provide me with the parts of the minutes of any
meetings between yourselves and the police force where the climate
camp was discussed. If the police are to be publicly accountable
then the parameters they work within must be exposed to the light
of day when necessary. Unless there is something to hide there
should be no problem in releasing this information.

Please could you inform me what steps you are currently taking to
keep the police force under your control with regard to the climate
camp. At the moment it appears that you are doing absolutely
nothing. It is clear from
[1]http://kentpa.kent.police.uk/Our%20role/... that
one of your functions is to hold the police to account. Can you
demonstrate that you are undertaking this function?

The attempts by the police to stifle any views other than those of
the Westminster government are an excellent way of ensuring people
stand up and defend themselves rigorously against attacks by vested
interests and those supporting the vested interests. Is this one of
your objectives?

Lastly, are the police officers in

[2]http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kol08/articl...
and [3]http://blip.tv/file/1151078 acting in your name? They are
certainly not acting in my name.

Please note that "replies" which involve attachments in proprietary
file formats are not acceptable. A reply which is not in plain text
format will be deemed to be a refusal to answer.

Yours faithfully,

David Hansen

show quoted sections

Dear Mark GILMARTIN PSE 53218,

"Please find attached a response to your Freedom of Information
request regarding Climate Camp from Mr Mark Gilmartin, Chief
Executive, Kent Police Authority."

I don't know what it is about officials that causes them to send
"replies" which consist of "Please find attached..." The most
charitable explanation is that they use e-mail software designed by
an incompetent supplier, software that contains the insecurity
feature of opening an attachment without asking the user whether
they wish it to be opened. On broken software like this attachments
will be displayed in-line, but not everyone is stupid enough to use
software by this vendor. Sensible people will not see attachments
to an e-mail in-line and this web site certainly doesn't display
attachments in-line. This insecurity feature has been a means for
transmitting all sorts of infections from computer to computer.
Being charitable, perhaps officials are simply unaware of their
mistake and the problems/inconvenience this will cause to others.

For the record below is the actual reply, in a form which search
engines can easily explore and thus it will be public. I will
respond to this in a while.

>>

From the Chief Executive of the Authority
Mark Gilmartin

First Floor

Gail House

Lower Stone Street

Maidstone

Kent ME15 6NB

Tel:
01622 677055

Fax:
01622 604489

e-mail
[email address]

Ask For:
Mark Gilmartin

Date:
18 August 2008

Dear Mr Hansen

FoI REQUEST – CLIMATE CAMP

Further to your email of 7 August 2008, please find the following
attachments:

Minutes of KPA meeting held on 16 April 2008
Draft minutes of KPA meeting held on 11 June 2008

I trust these prove helpful.

Your email asked me to set out how the Authority was holding the
Force to account in relation to the policing of the climate camp.
It is difficult to entirely separate out the ‘holding to account’
arrangements for a single (albeit extremely large event) and the
more general and wide ranging way the Authority discharges this
statutory obligation. Nonetheless, the following will, hopefully,
prove helpful:

There are regular, scheduled meetings between the Chief Constable
and Authority Chair (‘the Chair – Chief briefing’) which allow for
detailed discussions on a range of current issues.
During the period of the climate camp operation the Deputy Chief
Constable provided regular, daily briefings for the Chair.
The KPA attended and engaged in the daily operational briefings for
senior officers and staff.
Local Area members visited the site and liaised with senior
officers during the policing operation. Members also engaged in the
planning phase, in particular the engagement with local residents.
The KPA role involves ensuring that the policing operation complies
with the appropriate nationally mandated standards that include
health and safety, briefing and risk assessment arrangements.
The other main aspect of Authority – Force interaction relates to
the efforts to secure Home Office funding contributions given the
scale of the policing operation and its ‘national’ nature.
The Authority has programmed in an opportunity to discuss the
operational de-brief of the climate camp with the Chief Constable
and his team.

With regards to the reference to the video hyperlink, my own
enquiries reveal that there have been 80 or so ‘contacts’ to the
Force’s Professional Standards Department to date. This has led to
the identification of approximately six complaint cases. These will
all be dealt with in strict accordance with the legal and
regulatory framework overseen by the Independent Police Complaints
Commission (IPCC) and monitored locally by our Professional
Standards Committee.

I have endeavoured to provide this material in your requested
format, if there is any problem with file conversion or format
please let me know and I will make every effort to assist.

Yours sincerely

Mark Gilmartin
Chief Executive

cc Deputy Chief Constable
DCS Professional Standards
Michael Doherty Force FoI
KPA Members – Chair & Messrs Godwin, Reckless, Rowe & Smith
Suzanne Pearson

<<

Dear Mr Gilmartin,

>Further to your email of 7 August 2008, please find the following
attachments:

Thank you for providing these without fuss. Many organisations try
and hide things like minutes.

>Minutes of KPA meeting held on 16 April 2008

These minutes contain just one sentence on Kingsnorth.

"The meeting was informed that a Planning Team has been established
to co-ordinate policing for the Green Peace 'Summer Camp' at this
venue." That sentence is revealing, as it demonstrates a complete
lack of understanding by the police, who you are supposed to
regulate, about the camp. That complete lack of understanding was
revealed to the public by the oppressive and political policing of
the camp, something you failed to prevent.

The camp was not organised by Green Peace, or even Greenpeace,
claiming that it was is an elementary factual error which does not
show you or the police in a good light. "Intelligence led" policing
implies that there is some intelligence by those doing the
policing.

Was the term Green Peace used by the Chief Constable in the
presentation, or was it used by the person who drew up the minutes?

>Draft minutes of KPA meeting held on 11 June 2008

This contains nothing on Kingsnorth, other than the statement

"The Authority received a presentation from the Chief Constable,
which included the following subjects: - [snip]

"August Operational Challenges (including Operation Oasis, Climate
Camp)"

Are any notes available of the part of this presentation relating
to Kingsnorth? Is the presentation itself available? If you and the
Chief Constable have nothing to hide then there should be no
problem providing this presentation to those of us who pay your
wages.

The draft minutes also contain the following statement

"The Chair took the opportunity to advise Members of some Senior
Officer promotions, Ch/Supt Beautridge had secured the role of
Temporary Assistant Chief Constable, [snip]. The Chair
congratulated them on their promotions and wished them well; both
Members and Officers from the Force endorsed this sentiment.

Given Mr Beautridge's subsequent performance on the climate camp, a
performance which can politely be described as at best piss poor
(those who are not as polite as myself use rather more robust
language to describe it), is this an endorsement which you and the
others would repeat?

The descriptive part of your communication outlines a variety of
activities regarding "holding the Force to account". However, it is
clear from the actions of the police at Kingsnorth that you did not
hold them to account in any way before or during the camp. You
appear to have operated in the the usual rubber stamp mould which
critics allege.

You mention, "an opportunity to discuss the operational de-brief of
the climate camp with the Chief Constable and his team." Are any
notes and presentations of this available yet?

You also state that "approximately six complaint cases" have been
identified. That is a clear statement that you are not doing your
job of holding the police to account. You are not even trying to do
your job if you think there are only about six cases to
investigate.

There are hundreds, more likely thousands, of examples of police
officers harassing the fine upstanding people who attended the camp
which should be investigated. The frequent attempts to keep them
awake at night using a helicopter (presumably to make them more
likely to snap and give up peaceful means), attempts to prevent
people (particularly locals) attending with stop and search,
attempts to invade the camp
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/4....
the stopping of food deliveries
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/08/4... and all the
other attempts to provoke the fine upstanding campers. That record
will not go away.

You didn't say whether the police were acting in your name on the
earlier examples I gave. Are you able to answer the question now
and add your opinion on the examples I give here?

You have now had one chance to demonstrate your holding the police
to account and failed spectacularly. The draft minutes of the 65th
meeting do not indicate when the 66th meeting is/was to take place.
Has that meeting taken place yet? If it has taken place are the
minutes available yet?

Yours sincerely,

David Hansen

From the Chief Executive of the Authority

Mark Gilmartin

Mr David Hansen First Floor
Gail House
Lower Stone Street
Maidstone
Kent ME15 6NB

Tel: 01622 677055
Fax: 01622 604489
e-mail [Kent Police Authority request email]
Ask For: Mark Gilmartin
Date: 8 September 2008

Dear Mr Hansen

Thank you for your email from 26 August relating to the recent Climate
Camp. I have sought to answer the specific questions you raise in bullet
point format below:

o The term Greenpeace was not referred to in the Chief Constable’s
presentation on 16 April. There was a verbal reference by one of the
force’s officers and this is what was recorded by the Kent Police
Authority minute taker. The relevant section is attached for your
information. *

o A copy of the relevant section of the Chief Constable’s
briefing/presentation on 11 June is attached for your information. *
o The operational debrief of the Climate Camp is scheduled for the
Police Authority meeting on 3 September.
o In relation to complaints, the latest information I have to hand is
that that there are over 152 ‘contacts’ from members of the public
to the Force’s Professional Standards Department and a number of
these relate to 27 complaint cases (i.e. these cases have multiple
complainants). These figures are correct at the time of writing.
o Finally, as outlined above, the next meeting of the Authority is
taking place on 3 September and the minutes will be posted on the
website in accordance with the usual protocol.

I trust this information proves helpful and I will ensure that the
sentiment of your correspondence is shared with Members during their
deliberations on 3 September.

Yours sincerely

Mark Gilmartin

Chief Executive

* I am aware of your earlier request regarding proprietary software. If
you would prefer to receive these in hard copy format let me know.

Mark Gilmartin
Chief Executive
Kent Police Authority
01622 604488 (w)
07989 992198 (m)

Dear Mr Gilmartin,

Thank you for providing this further information.

>The term Greenpeace was not referred to in the Chief >Constable’s
presentation on 16 April. There was a >verbal reference by one of
the force’s officers and >this is what was recorded by the Kent
Police
>Authority minute taker. The relevant section is >attached for your
information. *

Unfortunately nothing resembling these notes/minutes was uploaded
to whatdotheyknow.com. Perhaps you could arrange for it to be
uploaded please?

Thank you for the relevant section of the Chief Constable’s
briefing/presentation *. It It contains two factual inaccuracies in
the notes for the third slide which, as the regulator, you may wish
to take up with the Chief Constable.

The first factual inaccuracy is the assertion that, "The previous
year’s protest at Heathrow required a significant number of police
officers." An accurate version of this comment would be, "The
Metropolitan Police decided to deploy a significant number of
police officers at the previous camp at Heathrow. They were not
required and entirely unnecessary for policing the camp." One may
debate the reasons why the Metropolitan Police decided to do this,
but it remains an uncontestable fact that these officers were not
required to carry out any legitimate police functions.

The second factual inaccuracy is the claim that, "The main aims are
to protect life, prevent offences and keep the peace, minimise
disruption to the community and facilitate peaceful and lawful
assembly. Any criminal activity will be dealt with robustly."

That is so full of factual inaccuracies that it is difficult to
know where to start. The campers were not threatening the life of
anyone, unlike the power station operators who threaten the lives
of everyone in the long term.

The offences and disruption to the peace were carried out by the
police, who you are supposed to regulate. To take one example, how
was flying a helicopter low over the camp day and night intended to
keep the peace? The only possible reason for that activity was to
disturb the peace, not just the peace of the campers but also of
residents.

The disruption to the community was carried out by the police. The
campers did not prevent locals going about their business, unlike
the police. The campers wished interested locals to come to the
camp, something which the police tried to prevent/discourage with
their, at best, disreputable activities (in particular their
criminal stop and search activities).

I hope that at least some people in the meeting laughed out loud
when the Chief Constable spouted these round objects, but given
that you did nothing to control his rather manic activities I
assume nobody saw through these round objects.

I note that there is no evidence that the criminal activity of the
police is to be dealt with robustly. Could you inform me what
robust action is being taken against the Chief Constable and the
rest of the police who carried out criminal activities? How many
have been recommended for prosecution? Is my guess that the number
is zero correct?

>The operational debrief of the Climate Camp is >scheduled for the
Police Authority meeting on 3 >September.

I have skimmed the papers at
http://kentpa.kent.police.uk/Our%20role/...
and can find no reference to this, or even an item on the agenda. I
will await the minutes, which I take it will be put on that page.

>In relation to complaints, the latest information I >have to hand
is that that there are over 152 >‘contacts’ from members of the
public to
>the Force’s Professional Standards Department

Thank you for this information. It reveals a huge lack of
confidence by the fine upstanding citizens who went to the camp
about the honesty of Kent Police in investigating itself. This lack
of confidence is entirely understandable given the mass criminality
undertaken by Kent Police at and around the camp.

Just for starters, if the fine upstanding citizens who went to the
camp had any confidence in Kent Police investigating itself then
there would be at least ten thousand complaints about the criminals
who stopped and searched campers. Then there were all the other
criminal activities. At a guess there must have been a hundred
thousand crimes carried out by police officers in relation to the
camp, yet only a small number of complaints have been made. One way
to look at this is to say that everything is rosy, the other way of
looking at it is to say that the fine upstanding citizens who went
to the camp have no confidence in the system. I think the second
explanation is the most likely.

>I will ensure that the sentiment of your >correspondence is shared
with Members during their
>deliberations on 3 September.

Thank you. I hope this will be reflected in the minutes.

I note that you did not repeat the praise of Mr Beautridge when I
gave you the opportunity to do so.

I note also that you have also not taken the opportunity to say
that the police were acting in your name in the references I gave
earlier. I will add one more example of this from
http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/home

"Kent Police are on form as ever with the lies - claiming that they
had to rescue rafters from the Medway. Rafters told quite a
different story saying that at no point were they in any danger.
'Its a bit cheeky for the police to say that we had to be rescued
when for starters we weren't in any danger, and secondly, they were
the ones who had confiscated our safety boat this morning,' said
Rebel Rafter Harold Cryer."

As with the earlier theft of other safety equipment (including life
jackets, flares and smoke grenades) interfering with a safety boat
is, I hope, something which you do not approve of. What steps have
been taken against the officers who interfered with safety
equipment and anyone who ordered this interference? Is my suspicion
that no steps have been taken against any of these officers
correct?

* given the complex nature of these slides something other then
plain text was necessary to send them. However, this could easily
have been done by selecting File | Export as PDF from the menu of
properly written software.

Yours sincerely,

David Hansen