DCC Winton Keenen complaints

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Northumbria Police

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Northumbria Police.

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

I would like you to supply me with information on all complaints made against Winton Keenen when he was ACC and during his period as DCC.

I would like to also know;

1. How many complaints were made against DCC Keenen while he was Assistant Chief Constable.

2. How many complaints were made against DCC Keenen since he has been Acting DCC and while DCC.

I would like the data broken into date order and I am requiring it to include all complaints, even those that were not recorded.

3. Details of outcome of each complaint and any action taken against Winton Keenen.

I do not wish for you to disclose any personal data relating to Winton Keenen, the information I am requesting relates to his position in a public office while acting as a Chief officer.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Thank you for your email received today in which you make a request for
information that Northumbria Police may hold in accordance with the
Freedom Of Information Act 2000

We are in the process of dealing with your request and a response should
be provided to you by 19/10/16 which is in accordance with the
legislation.

Yours sincerely

Peter Storey
Disclosure Section

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation or individual to whom it is addressed. The message may contain information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege. No mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such privilege. This message has been sent over public networks and the sender cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of software viruses. It is your responsibility to carry out such virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website - http://www.northumbria.police.uk

Northumbria Police

Provision of information held by Northumbria Police made under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (the 'Act')

Thank you for your e mail dated 21 September 2016 in which you made a
request for access to certain information which may be held by Northumbria
Police.

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of
access to information held at the time of a request, by a Public Authority
(including the Police), subject to certain limitations and exemptions.

You asked:

I would like you to supply me with information on all complaints made
against Winton Keenen when he was ACC and during his period as DCC.

I would like to also know;

1. How many complaints were made against DCC Keenen while he was Assistant
Chief Constable.

2. How many complaints were made against DCC Keenen since he has been
Acting DCC and while DCC.

I would like the data broken into date order and I am requiring it to
include all complaints, even those that were not recorded.

3. Details of outcome of each complaint and any action taken against Winton
Keenen.

I do not wish for you to disclose any personal data relating to Winton
Keenen, the information I am requesting relates to his position in a public
office while acting as a Chief officer.

We have now had the opportunity to fully consider your request and I
provide a response for your attention.

1-3 Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two
duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty of
Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in
a request is held. The second duty at Section (1)(1)(b) is to disclose
information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are
relied upon, Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with
a notice which: a) states that fact, b) specifies the exemption(s) in
question, and c) state (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why that
exemption applies.

Northumbria Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information
relevant to your request as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption.

Section 40(5) Personal Information

A disclosure under Freedom of Information is a release of information to
the world in general and not an individual applicant. Therefore, simply
confirming or not that such information, if any, were held would disclose
personal information about an individual. The Police Service will not
confirm to the world in general whether or not any individual is, or has
been, the subject of an investigation.

You should consider this to be a refusal notice under Section 17 of the Act
for your request.

Due to the different methods of recording information across 43 forces, a
specific response from one constabulary should not be seen as an indication
of what information could be supplied (within cost) by another. Systems
used for recording these figures are not generic, nor are the procedures
used locally in capturing the data. For this reason responses between
forces may differ, and should not be used for comparative purposes.

The information we have supplied to you is likely to contain intellectual
property rights of Northumbria Police. Your use of the information must be
strictly in accordance with the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as
amended) or such other applicable legislation. In particular, you must not
re-use this information for any commercial purpose.

You may be interested to know that Northumbria Police routinely publish
information via the Disclosure Log. The aim of the Disclosure Log is to
promote openness and transparency by voluntarily placing information into
the public arena.

The Disclosure Log contains copies of some of the information that has been
disclosed by Northumbria Police in response to requests made under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Whilst it is not possible to publish all responses we will endeavour to
publish those where we feel that the information disclosed is in the wider
public interest.

The Disclosure Log will be updated once responses have been sent to the
requester.

I have provided the relevant link below.

http://www.northumbria.police.uk/freedom...

How to complain

If you are unhappy with our decision or do not consider that we have
handled your request properly and we are unable to resolve this issue
informally, you are entitled to make a formal complaint to us under our
complaints procedure, attached below

http://www.northumbria.police.uk/freedom...

If you are still unhappy after we have investigated your complaint and
reported to you the outcome, you may complain directly to the Information
Commissioner’s Office and request that they investigate to ascertain
whether we have dealt with your request in accordance with the Act.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection and Disclosure Advisor
Direct Dial: 0191 2956941

[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation or individual to whom it is addressed.  The message may contain information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege.  No mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such privilege.  This message has been sent over public networks and the sender cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of software viruses.  It is your responsibility to carry out such virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website - http://www.northumbria.police.uk

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Northumbria Police's handling of my FOI request 'DCC Winton Keenen complaints'.

Northumbria Police and DCC Winton Keenen are not being open and transparent with the public. I would remind you of what Winton Keennen told evening chronicle newspaper in 2013;

Acting Chief Supt Winton Keenen, from Northumbria Police’s professional standards division, said: “The public quite rightly expects police officers and staff to behave with the highest standards of professionalism. Where behaviour falls below that which is expected we have an open and transparent procedure.

“Complaints are independently investigated and monitored by Northumbria Police Professional Standards department and the IPCC to ensure appropriate, fair and proportionate action is taken.

“We are always striving to reduce the need for complaints by providing a professional and thorough service.”
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/nort...

Complaints made by members of the public against such senior officers, ACC's and DCC's, would not fall unde4r personal information. In Winton Keenen's words; “The public quite rightly expects police officers and staff to behave with the highest standards of professionalism. Where behaviour falls below that which is expected we have an open and transparent procedure". The public quite rightly expects their ACC's and DCC's open and transparent. The public have a right to know.

Please confirm when you answer the review if;

1, DCC Winton Keenen was asked if he was happy for details concerning complaints against him to be released to the public ?

2, Did DCC Winton Keenen refuse to disclose details about complaints made against him to public ?

Personal information exemption would not be engaged in this case.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

2 Atodiad

Delivery is delayed to these recipients or groups:

[1]FreedomofInformationMailbox@notes.nbria.local

Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - DCC Winton
Keenen complaints

This message hasn't been delivered yet. Delivery will continue to be
attempted.

The server will keep trying to deliver this message for the next 1 days,
19 hours and 50 minutes. You'll be notified if the message can't be
delivered by that time.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:FreedomofInformationMailbox@notes.nbria.local

Northumbria Police

Your request for an Internal Review of FOI 1016/16 has been received.

We shall get back to you as soon as this is concluded.

Regards

Peter Storey
Disclosure Section

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation or individual to whom it is addressed. The message may contain information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege. No mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such privilege. This message has been sent over public networks and the sender cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of software viruses. It is your responsibility to carry out such virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website - http://www.northumbria.police.uk

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Complaints made against DCC Winton Keenen.

DCC Winton Keenen is in the news today (13/11/2016) ........

Complaints against Northumbria Police fall
Ben O’Connell
Email

Figures released today show a fall in the number of complaints made by members of the public against Northumbria Police last year.

Statistics published by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) show that 314 cases were logged in 2015/16, compared to a tally of 417 the previous year.

Ninety-two per cent of cases were recorded within 10 days, an improvement on last year’s figure, and better than the national average of 88 per cent.

Today’s statistics also show that the time taken to resolve complaints through local resolution has improved, falling from an average of 62 days last year to 45 days this year.

The number of appeals considered by the IPCC has seen a small rise to 115, compared to 110 the year before.

Deputy Chief Constable Winton Keenen, said: “Over the last few years, we’ve made great progress, as is reflected by these improved complaints statistics. Through the implementation of the triage team, set up by Police and Crime Commissioner Vera Baird, we have revolutionised the way complaints are handled – dealing with them faster and understanding them better. In fact, our pro-active, customer-relations approach is now being adopted by other forces elsewhere in the country.

“Northumbria Police has one of the highest levels of public satisfaction in the country and we are determined to keep it that way. Yes, we are encouraged by our improved position, but we know there is still work to do, and will continue in our commitment to seek actively new ways of improving the process and ultimately improving standards.

“Offering the best public service is at the heart of what we do. The people of Northumbria rightly expect officers and staff to behave with the utmost professionalism and it really does help if people get in touch to let us know when we don’t get this right so we can do something about it.”

Ms Baird said: “Northumbria Police did not have a good record for how they dealt with complaints when I came into post, but typically they have confronted the problem and, with my support, we’re determined to improve and we are beginning to see pleasing results.

“It is important to restore confidence to people who feel they have a cause for complaint against the police. We all know that the police are no more perfect than the rest of us, but they do owe the public a professional service. We have to make sure that people get quick attention to put things right when they go wrong and proper outcomes.

“Our dedicated complaints triage team, who are the first point of contact for all complainants have been at the heart of resolving complaints, in some cases within a few hours. Things are certainly now going in the right direction.”

http://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/n...

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Martin McGartland

05 January 2017

FOI 1016/16

RE: DCC Winton Keenen complaints

Dear Northumbria Police,

This Internal Review should have been completed on or before the 16th November 2016.

I have made a complaint to the ICO this morning .

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Provision of information held by Northumbria Police made under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (the 'Act')

Thank you for your correspondence dated 19 October 2016 in which you
requested a review of the response to your request for access to certain
information which may be held by Northumbria Police.

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of
access to information held by a Public Authority (including the Police)
subject to certain limitations and exemptions

You asked for:

I would like you to supply me with information on all complaints made
against Winton Keenen when he was ACC and during his period as DCC.

I would like to also know;

1. How many complaints were made against DCC Keenen while he was Assistant
Chief Constable.

2. How many complaints were made against DCC Keenen since he has been
Acting DCC and while DCC.

I would like the data broken into date order and I am requiring it to
include all complaints, even those that were not recorded.

3. Details of outcome of each complaint and any action taken against Winton
Keenen.

I do not wish for you to disclose any personal data relating to Winton
Keenen, the information I am requesting relates to his position in a public
office while acting as a Chief officer.

In response we advised:

1-3 Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two
duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty of
Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in
a request is held. The second duty at Section (1)(1)(b) is to disclose
information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are
relied upon, Section 17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with
a notice which: a) states that fact, b) specifies the exemption(s) in
question, and c) state (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why that
exemption applies.

Northumbria Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds information
relevant to your request as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption.

Section 40(5) Personal Information

A disclosure under Freedom of Information is a release of information to
the world in general and not an individual applicant. Therefore, simply
confirming or not that such information, if any, were held would disclose
personal information about an individual. The Police Service will not
confirm to the world in general whether or not any individual is, or has
been, the subject of an investigation.

You should consider this to be a refusal notice under Section 17 of the Act
for your request.

Your request for Internal review stated:

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information
reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Northumbria Police's handling
of my FOI request 'DCC Winton Keenen complaints'.

Northumbria Police and DCC Winton Keenen are not being open and
transparent with the public. I would remind you of what Winton Keennen
told evening chronicle newspaper in 2013;

Acting Chief Supt Winton Keenen, from Northumbria Police’s professional
standards division, said: “The public quite rightly expects police officers
and staff to behave with the highest standards of professionalism. Where
behaviour falls below that which is expected we have an open and
transparent procedure.

“Complaints are independently investigated and monitored by Northumbria
Police Professional Standards department and the IPCC to ensure
appropriate, fair and proportionate action is taken.

“We are always striving to reduce the need for complaints by providing a
professional and thorough service.”
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/nort...

Complaints made by members of the public against such senior officers,
ACC's and DCC's, would not fall unde4r personal information. In Winton
Keenen's words; “The public quite rightly expects police officers and staff
to behave with the highest standards of professionalism. Where behaviour
falls below that which is expected we have an open and transparent
procedure". The public quite rightly expects their ACC's and DCC's open
and transparent. The public have a right to know.

Please confirm when you answer the review if;

1, DCC Winton Keenen was asked if he was happy for details concerning
complaints against him to be released to the public ?

2, Did DCC Winton Keenen refuse to disclose details about complaints
made against him to public ?

Personal information exemption would not be engaged in this case.

In response :

The Freedom of Information Act gives the public the right to ask for access
to information held by public authorities. Access is granted subject to
exemptions as outlined in the Act.

Specifically in this case Section 40 (5) of the Act was applicable.
Northumbria police would not wish to confirm or deny whether certain
information is recorded about staff

Information that identifies an individual person attracts this exemption.
As your request is about a named Officer, it must attract this exemption.

Such data, if held, would undoubtedly be classed as the personal data of
DCC Keenen as it is clearly about him

Additionally we have assessed that it would not be fair to disclose this
type of personal data in order to satisfy a Freedom of Information request.
To confirm as held and disclose the requested information would breach this
principle of the Data Protection Act.

When carrying out this review, it has been necessary to weigh up the public
interest in disclosure against the rights of the data subject. In this case
there is little public benefit in disclosing the personal data of a serving
Police Officer. It should be noted that what may satisfy public curiosity
is different to providing a tangible public benefit. It is a fact that the
Professional Standards Department consider all complaints received and will
take appropriate action against those Officers and staff that have not
acted appropriately.

A Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner's Office stated
that "to release the fact that a complaint has been made against an
employee may lead to assumptions being made about that employee’s
competence. However, the complaint may be unsubstantiated or malicious, or
certain employees may be involved more frequently with difficult
decisions that are more likely to result in dissatisfaction. Therefore,
releasing this information does not aid transparency or accountability
but could be misleading and unfair to particular employees." This is
particularly relevant in this case and is a deciding factor on the
exemption being maintained. This is no indication of whether such data is
held or not.

Having scanned the publicly information on this subject, it is clear that
this requestor has well publicised issues with Northumbria Police and with
several Officers, including DCC Keenen. Whilst the Act was set up to give
the public further access to recorded information, The ICO has confirmed
that it will defend public authorities against requests that could be seen
as vexatious in nature. The ICO further advises that requests should not
be seen as an opportunity to reopen grievances which have already been
fully addressed or to use requests as a way of "scoring points".

It is clear that this request has been submitted to further a campaign
against both DCC Keenen and Northumbria Police and could have been classed
as vexatious. However in the spirit of the Act it is appropriate to confirm
that Section 40 of the Act was fully applicable. I can confirm that the
opinion of Mr Keenen was sought and given full consideration as part of
this review.

In conclusion, it is the decision of this review that the original response
was fully applicable and provided in the spirit of the Act. Additionally,
further consideration could have been given to Section 14 of the Act.

Subsequent requests that are linked to underlying issues or complaints can
therefore fairly be considered as vexatious.

If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of this review then it remains
open to you to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner at the
following address:

The Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

Hayley Morrison
Head of Information Management Unit

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation or individual to whom it is addressed.  The message may contain information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege.  No mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such privilege.  This message has been sent over public networks and the sender cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of software viruses.  It is your responsibility to carry out such virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website - http://www.northumbria.police.uk

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Martin McGartland

13 January 2017

Dear Ms Morrison ,

Due to the false( lies) and the wild claims which you have included within your 10 January 2017 reply regarding "Having scanned the publicly information on this subject, it is clear that this requestor has well publicised issues with Northumbria Police" this is old news, well known so far as the corruption by your force, its chief and senior offices are concerned regarding me and my cases. The corruption by Northumbria Police in my cases dates back 20 years or more and you failed to mention that the force has paid me over £20,000 in damages to date as a result. A simple search on google "Northumbria Police Corruption Martin McGartland" returns following:

* https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=N...

* https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Northu...

* https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Northu...

* Sure you also know I even wrote a book (Dead Man Running) about the corruption by Northumbria Police in my cases; https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dead-Man-Runnin...

You will be aware that Northumbria Police nor any of the officers who I have named as being involved in the corruption in my cases have ever complained or taken any legal action against me. The reason for this is twofold; 1: They don't have a leg to stand on 2: Everything I have ever written, said, uploaded to the internet, published in books, in newspapers and in correspondence (concerning that corruption) is True.

What you failed to mention is that DCC Winton Keenen had Lied to me, as the victim of an attempted murder, not once or twice but time and time again. However, this request relates to complaints against DCC Keenen and I will give details in this reply as to why this request was made.

Your department, as you are very well aware, have been party to the corruption in my case. You, your department have delayed my outstanding subject access request by 12 months (1 year) to date. Why? Because of the corruption within Northumbria Police, including within your department when dealing with me and my case. So that information can be concealed, covered up and or withheld from me. Information that the law requires NP to release under DPA.

You have also claimed; " and with several Officers, including DCC Keenen. Whilst the Act was set up to give
the public further access to recorded information, The ICO has confirmed that it will defend public authorities against requests that could be seen as vexatious in nature. The ICO further advises that requests should not be seen as an opportunity to reopen grievances which have already been fully addressed or to use requests as a way of "scoring points". It's good to see that you are no longer relying on the Lie, good old "vexatious" (You, NP have milked that to death). Factually, you are well aware that my cases with NP have not been 'fully addresses' and are ongoing. You will also be aware that they ICO will take swift action against public authorities who lie, conceal, destroy, deface information which is being covered up and conealed for no other reason than embarrassment. The same is the case when public authorities deliberately make dishonest and false statements to do so. NP, your department included, are experts in the art of deceit, cover up, corruption, lying, manipulating and when it comes to dishonesty where I and my cases are concerned, I have the t-shirt and all the evidence to prove it.

Your rant, false and misleading reply needs to be addressed. Unlike you, because you have no evidence to back up your wild claims, I will use facts and evidence. I said I would give details in this reply as to why this request was made. Here goes...

I had good reason for making complaints against Supt Hutton who is the head of NP PSD and also DCC Winton Keenen (who is in overall charge of PSD) as a result of not one but 2 security and data breaches by NP concerning me in which I had never been made aware of until much later and after a flawed investigation by Supt Hutton, DCC Winton Keenen and their Professional Staandards Department (PSD). At the times of the data, security breaches against me (where two different members of PSD staff sent my information to members of public) I was in direct email contact with DCC Winton Keenen. He nor anyone from NP informed me of either of those breaches, it was covered up.

As a result I made the following complaints against DCC Winton Keenen and Supt Hutton on 12 September 2016 as follows;

"Martin McGartland

21 September 2016

Complaint against Supt Hutton and DCC Keenen

I want to make a new complaint that DCC Winton Keenen who is AA in my case (and who is also in charge of PSD);

1. DCC Keenen has covered up and failed to inform me of both the May and July 2016 data, security breaches. He also delayed telling me for more than 4 months about the May 2016 breach.

2. DCC Keenen played a role in the cover up and the whitewash of the 'investigation' in to the two breaches. He, NP did not inform me that they had happened or that there had been an 'investigation' (cover up and whitewash) until after and in a 9th Sept 2016 letter I was sent by PSD.

3. DCC Winton Keenen delayed referring the May 2016 breach to ICO and that he also delayed referring the July 2016 breaches to the ICO.

4. DCC Winton Keenen has protected all officers, staff behind the breaches (including senior officers) and has tried to pass them off as errors. I also believe that DCC Keenen and Hutton have put forward a totally misleading account concerning the entire May, July 2016 breaches including, how they happen, who the documents were sent to, number of people the documents were sent to, what documents were sent to both (DCC Keenen and Supt Hutton are trying to suggest that both were sent to same person) when I believe there were 2 or possibly more.

5. DCC Winton Keenen and Supt Hutton are both covering uo details of the people (both) to whom the May and July 2016 emails were sent to. I am concerned that this is being done because they may have information that one or both of those people maybe a potential security threat (directly or indirectly) to me and my safety.

6. DCC Winton Keenen and Supt Hutton are claiming that the person, persons who the May and July 2016 emails and documents were sent to can not be identified by them (the police). I am not convinced of this and I say they are lying. If one of those people sent an email to police and if they were a person of interest then it is unthinkable that the police would not be able to identify them if they needed to do so.

7. DCC Winton Keenen and Supt Hutton are are not being open or transparent with me and both are deliberately covering up details concerning the matter. Details of which both of them are fully aware I have a legal right to know (including, duty of care, my security, my safety etc).

8. DCC Keenen and or Supt Hutton (due to the two latest breaches) are now aware of similar breaches by NP officers and staff against me during the past 20 years and are both covering them up. One or Both (NP) should now give me a a written assurance as part of this complaint that there have been no other instances. If there have, they should write to me with full details.

I would expect PSD (Supt Hutton) to refer this serious matter to the IPCC because it is a complaint against her and also her boss (DCC Keenen and the person who is in charge of PSD). If PSD do not include DCC Keenen's name, details (as they are required, name of officer, rank etc) I will be making a further complaint (against Supt Hutton) as this has happened with all other complaints I have made against DCC Keenen. All records of any complaints I have made against DCC Keenen (acting in concert) have been deleted, omitted and or never been correctly included on PSD records, files and forms. This is evidence of very serious abuses of power by former heads of PSD and other officers (as well as DCC Keenen). It is also gross misconduct and corruption and it must now be refereed to the the IPCC without delay.

I will be making a FOI request concerning complaints made against Winton Keenen (while as ACC and now DCC). No doubt he will cover up my FOI too. He has much to hide.

You are required to supply me with a recording decision within 10 working days and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Copy to IPCC North Casework for thier informaation"

You will note that at the foot of my above complaint I said "I will be making a FOI request concerning complaints made against Winton Keenen (while as ACC and now DCC). No doubt he will cover up my FOI too. He has much to hide."

This was because of his conduct, his PSD's and NP's failure to make me aware of those two serious security, data breaches.

PSD (directed and controlled by DCC Keenen and Supt Hutton) failed to record or investigate those complaints. I appealed to the IPCC and on 04 January 2017 they made the decision that the complaints should be recorded and investigated.

However, Supt Hutton and DCC Keenen are still at their work (corruption) as they are atempting to investigate the complaints when the law, every rule in the book makes it very clear that they (including their PSD) nor any officers working under their direction and control can investigate those complaints.

Only today (13/01/2017), and after the IPCC ordered those complaints be investigated, PSD (Supt Huttons department) wrote to me stating: "Further to the IPCC's letter to you dated 4 January 2017 regarding case reference (?????) we have been directed to investigate the complaints you have made. Please accept this as acknowledgement that your allegations have been recorded as complaints against members of Northumbria Police. An investigator will be appointed and will contact you in the near future. Attached is a summary of your allegations for your information. If you require any amendments to the allegations please contact us on the above telephone number."

Three points regards that letter, attached "summary of my complaints";

1. There is no number on the top of the letter (it had not been included or was removed) - only a 101 telephone number (which they are aware I can not use as I do not live in their force area)

2. Notice the reference "complaints against members of Northumbria Police" DCC Winton Keenen and Supt Hutton's PSD officers had not included any details within the letter that the complaints were against their boss Supt Hutton and their Big boss DCC Winton Keenen

3. DCC Winton Keenen's and Supt Hutton's PSD officers, staff sent a "summary" - their summary - of my complaints which they reduced to 3 allegations from the above 8. They removed every reference to Supt Hutton and DCC Keenen. This was done so that no record would ever be recorded that any complaints had ever been made against those officers let alone investigated. This is just some of the corruption that is happening within NP, PSD day in and day out.

The above was also done so that those within PSD could keep the complaints "In-House", so that PSD could investigate their bosses (Supt Hutton, DCC Keenen) and no doubt, as in the past, find they did nothing wrong. The fact is, such complaints are required, by law, to be investigated by officers above the rank of DCC Keenen. This means that those complaints would need to be investigated by another police force. But Supt Hutton, DCC Keenen and their staff are once again making their own rules. I don't think so, not in my name.

I have made other complaints against DCC Winton Keenen in the past. The very same happened regards how those complaints were dealt with by Supt Hutton's PSD, her staff. All reference to DCC Keenen had been removed from all PSD, NP records (the PSD data base - which IPCC use regards complaints). It was as if complaints had never been made against DCC Winton Keenen.

I should add that I have all of NP's internal (including PSD) documents which I was given after making subject access requests. Those show that DCC Winton Keenen is the "Invisible Man" so far as any complaints that have been made against him.

So ... Hayley Morrison, Head of Information Management Unit ... your bosses have been "cooking the books". I have grounds for believing that this has been happening for many years - and with other chief and senior officers, in many other cases and that I have discovered the corruption either by accident (via subject access requests or because how my own complaints were dealt with). That is why I made this request under freedom of information act. There is a compelling public interest in such issues, those concerning the police etc Transparency, integrity regards police (Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence, plebgate (Andrew Mitchell case, as well as many others where there has been police corruption.

Now lets play a wee game of "Stop the Difference" - Hayley Morrison .... DCC Winton Keenen, Supt Hutton (and wee Steve Ashman -- I know you will be having a weeeee look) are you all Ready??? Here we go;

These are the list of my allegations that Supt Hutton, DCC Keenen's and their PSD recorded relating to my above 12 September 2016 complaints;

Allegation(s)
1, "Mr McGartland alleges that this officer has covered up and failed to inform him of both the May and July 2016 , security breaches, further alleging that the officer played a role in the cover up and the whitewash of the 'investigation' in to the two breaches. The officer did not inform the complainant that they had happened or that there had been an 'investigation' (cover up and whitewash) until after and in a 9th Sept 2016 letter sent by PSD.

2, "Mr McGartland alleges that the officer delayed referring the May 2016 breach to ICO and that he also delayed referring the July 2016 breaches to ICO"

3, "Mr McGartland alleges that these officers have protected all officers and staff behind the breaches (including senior officers) and has tried to pass them off as errors"
(Ends)...

Now compare the above with my 12 September 2016 complaints ... did you spot it? First there was 8 allegations and now there is just 3 . What about the "officer" and "officers"??? Whatever you do Lads & lasses (at Corrupt PSD) don't mention the boss (Supt Hutton) or the Big Boss (DCC Winton Keenen). And Whatever you do DO NOT - Orders from above - enter the boss or bosses details onto any document, on to the PSD database or any other Northumbria Police records. Its CORRUPTION Hayley but not as we know it.

I will end, tea time now, with this... you will be aware that Northumbria Police have made false, made up lies about me in the past, June 1999, when they smeared me to the press by stating my shooting was related to drugs, criminal gangs - nothing to do with the IRA. They covered that up too, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjqphnDx... .

Those Northumbria Police Lies that they told the press about me (at a time when I was fighting for me life), and which the press printed, resulted in those newpapers having to pay £500,000.00 in damages and legal costs. To this very day DCC Winton Keenen, CC Steve Ashman, Supt Hutton, NP and other officers continue to cover up, fail to investigate that matter and are protecting all those behind it. Shocking, sooooooo corrupt.

You may also be aware that DCC Winton Keenen tried to offer me a mickey mouse apology, which I have refused to accept because it is totally inadequate , see here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ira... And here; http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/nort...

As the evidence, and the facts, (for which you, NP have zero - none) shows, the only campaign there is that by your force, NP, against me. A 23 plus year campaigan of harassment, direct discrimination, bullying, smearing, concealing, corruption, cover ups etc against me by some of NP's most senior and chief officers during that period. So, your false claims and attempts to convince the ICO that NP are somehow the victims just goes to prove how corrupt your force is as well as cunning and ruthless.

There is no campaign by me, I'm the victim of a number of spectacular botched investigations including my 18 year old unsolved attempted murder case where your colleagues at NP have been persecuting me all that time and protecting IRA terrorists who tried to murder me. I am just fighting for some truth and justice. If you call that a campaign then who am I to question it. Fortunately for me, the ICO are already privy to the history of my case and they won't be so easily duped by you or NP where I am concerned.

I have made a complaint to the ICO this evening and asked them to issue a decision notice concerning this request.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Martin McGartland

13 January 2017

Dear Ms Morrison ,

Due to the false( lies) and the wild claims which you have included within your 10 January 2017 reply regarding "Having scanned the publicly information on this subject, it is clear that this requestor has well publicised issues with Northumbria Police" this is old news, well known so far as the corruption by your force, its chief and senior offices are concerned regarding me and my cases. The corruption by Northumbria Police in my cases dates back 20 years or more and you failed to mention that the force has paid me over £20,000 in damages to date as a result. A simple search on google "Northumbria Police Corruption Martin McGartland" returns following:

* https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=N...

* https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Northu...

* https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Northu...

* Sure you also know I even wrote a book (Dead Man Running) about the corruption by Northumbria Police in my cases; https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dead-Man-Runnin...

You will be aware that Northumbria Police nor any of the officers who I have named as being involved in the corruption in my cases have ever complained or taken any legal action against me. The reason for this is twofold; 1: They don't have a leg to stand on 2: Everything I have ever written, said, uploaded to the internet, published in books, in newspapers and in correspondence (concerning that corruption) is True.

What you failed to mention is that DCC Winton Keenen had Lied to me, as the victim of an attempted murder, not once or twice but time and time again. However, this request relates to complaints against DCC Keenen and I will give details in this reply as to why this request was made.

Your department, as you are very well aware, have been party to the corruption in my case. You, your department have delayed my outstanding subject access request by 12 months (1 year) to date. Why? Because of the corruption within Northumbria Police, including within your department when dealing with me and my case. So that information can be concealed, covered up and or withheld from me. Information that the law requires NP to release under DPA.

You have also claimed; " and with several Officers, including DCC Keenen. Whilst the Act was set up to give
the public further access to recorded information, The ICO has confirmed that it will defend public authorities against requests that could be seen as vexatious in nature. The ICO further advises that requests should not be seen as an opportunity to reopen grievances which have already been fully addressed or to use requests as a way of "scoring points". It's good to see that you are no longer relying on the Lie, good old "vexatious" (You, NP have milked that to death). Factually, you are well aware that my cases with NP have not been 'fully addresses' and are ongoing. You will also be aware that they ICO will take swift action against public authorities who lie, conceal, destroy, deface information which is being covered up and conealed for no other reason than embarrassment. The same is the case when public authorities deliberately make dishonest and false statements to do so. NP, your department included, are experts in the art of deceit, cover up, corruption, lying, manipulating and when it comes to dishonesty where I and my cases are concerned, I have the t-shirt and all the evidence to prove it.

Your rant, false and misleading reply needs to be addressed. Unlike you, because you have no evidence to back up your wild claims, I will use facts and evidence. I said I would give details in this reply as to why this request was made. Here goes...

I had good reason for making complaints against Supt Hutton who is the head of NP PSD and also DCC Winton Keenen (who is in overall charge of PSD) as a result of not one but 2 security and data breaches by NP concerning me in which I had never been made aware of until much later and after a flawed investigation by Supt Hutton, DCC Winton Keenen and their Professional Staandards Department (PSD). At the times of the data, security breaches against me (where two different members of PSD staff sent my information to members of public) I was in direct email contact with DCC Winton Keenen. He nor anyone from NP informed me of either of those breaches, it was covered up.

As a result I made the following complaints against DCC Winton Keenen and Supt Hutton on 12 September 2016 as follows;

"Martin McGartland

21 September 2016

Complaint against Supt Hutton and DCC Keenen

I want to make a new complaint that DCC Winton Keenen who is AA in my case (and who is also in charge of PSD);

1. DCC Keenen has covered up and failed to inform me of both the May and July 2016 data, security breaches. He also delayed telling me for more than 4 months about the May 2016 breach.

2. DCC Keenen played a role in the cover up and the whitewash of the 'investigation' in to the two breaches. He, NP did not inform me that they had happened or that there had been an 'investigation' (cover up and whitewash) until after and in a 9th Sept 2016 letter I was sent by PSD.

3. DCC Winton Keenen delayed referring the May 2016 breach to ICO and that he also delayed referring the July 2016 breaches to the ICO.

4. DCC Winton Keenen has protected all officers, staff behind the breaches (including senior officers) and has tried to pass them off as errors. I also believe that DCC Keenen and Hutton have put forward a totally misleading account concerning the entire May, July 2016 breaches including, how they happen, who the documents were sent to, number of people the documents were sent to, what documents were sent to both (DCC Keenen and Supt Hutton are trying to suggest that both were sent to same person) when I believe there were 2 or possibly more.

5. DCC Winton Keenen and Supt Hutton are both covering uo details of the people (both) to whom the May and July 2016 emails were sent to. I am concerned that this is being done because they may have information that one or both of those people maybe a potential security threat (directly or indirectly) to me and my safety.

6. DCC Winton Keenen and Supt Hutton are claiming that the person, persons who the May and July 2016 emails and documents were sent to can not be identified by them (the police). I am not convinced of this and I say they are lying. If one of those people sent an email to police and if they were a person of interest then it is unthinkable that the police would not be able to identify them if they needed to do so.

7. DCC Winton Keenen and Supt Hutton are are not being open or transparent with me and both are deliberately covering up details concerning the matter. Details of which both of them are fully aware I have a legal right to know (including, duty of care, my security, my safety etc).

8. DCC Keenen and or Supt Hutton (due to the two latest breaches) are now aware of similar breaches by NP officers and staff against me during the past 20 years and are both covering them up. One or Both (NP) should now give me a a written assurance as part of this complaint that there have been no other instances. If there have, they should write to me with full details.

I would expect PSD (Supt Hutton) to refer this serious matter to the IPCC because it is a complaint against her and also her boss (DCC Keenen and the person who is in charge of PSD). If PSD do not include DCC Keenen's name, details (as they are required, name of officer, rank etc) I will be making a further complaint (against Supt Hutton) as this has happened with all other complaints I have made against DCC Keenen. All records of any complaints I have made against DCC Keenen (acting in concert) have been deleted, omitted and or never been correctly included on PSD records, files and forms. This is evidence of very serious abuses of power by former heads of PSD and other officers (as well as DCC Keenen). It is also gross misconduct and corruption and it must now be refereed to the the IPCC without delay.

I will be making a FOI request concerning complaints made against Winton Keenen (while as ACC and now DCC). No doubt he will cover up my FOI too. He has much to hide.

You are required to supply me with a recording decision within 10 working days and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Copy to IPCC North Casework for thier informaation"

You will note that at the foot of my above complaint I said "I will be making a FOI request concerning complaints made against Winton Keenen (while as ACC and now DCC). No doubt he will cover up my FOI too. He has much to hide."

This was because of his conduct, his PSD's and NP's failure to make me aware of those two serious security, data breaches.

PSD (directed and controlled by DCC Keenen and Supt Hutton) failed to record or investigate those complaints. I appealed to the IPCC and on 04 January 2017 they made the decision that the complaints should be recorded and investigated.

However, Supt Hutton and DCC Keenen are still at their work (corruption) as they are atempting to investigate the complaints when the law, every rule in the book makes it very clear that they (including their PSD) nor any officers working under their direction and control can investigate those complaints.

Only today (13/01/2017), and after the IPCC ordered those complaints be investigated, PSD (Supt Huttons department) wrote to me stating: "Further to the IPCC's letter to you dated 4 January 2017 regarding case reference (?????) we have been directed to investigate the complaints you have made. Please accept this as acknowledgement that your allegations have been recorded as complaints against members of Northumbria Police. An investigator will be appointed and will contact you in the near future. Attached is a summary of your allegations for your information. If you require any amendments to the allegations please contact us on the above telephone number."

Three points regards that letter, attached "summary of my complaints";

1. There is no number on the top of the letter (it had not been included or was removed) - only a 101 telephone number (which they are aware I can not use as I do not live in their force area)

2. Notice the reference "complaints against members of Northumbria Police" DCC Winton Keenen and Supt Hutton's PSD officers had not included any details within the letter that the complaints were against their boss Supt Hutton and their Big boss DCC Winton Keenen

3. DCC Winton Keenen's and Supt Hutton's PSD officers, staff sent a "summary" - their summary - of my complaints which they reduced to 3 allegations from the above 8. They removed every reference to Supt Hutton and DCC Keenen. This was done so that no record would ever be recorded that any complaints had ever been made against those officers let alone investigated. This is just some of the corruption that is happening within NP, PSD day in and day out.

The above was also done so that those within PSD could keep the complaints "In-House", so that PSD could investigate their bosses (Supt Hutton, DCC Keenen) and no doubt, as in the past, find they did nothing wrong. The fact is, such complaints are required, by law, to be investigated by officers above the rank of DCC Keenen. This means that those complaints would need to be investigated by another police force. But Supt Hutton, DCC Keenen and their staff are once again making their own rules. I don't think so, not in my name.

I have made other complaints against DCC Winton Keenen in the past. The very same happened regards how those complaints were dealt with by Supt Hutton's PSD, her staff. All reference to DCC Keenen had been removed from all PSD, NP records (the PSD data base - which IPCC use regards complaints). It was as if complaints had never been made against DCC Winton Keenen.

I should add that I have all of NP's internal (including PSD) documents which I was given after making subject access requests. Those show that DCC Winton Keenen is the "Invisible Man" so far as any complaints that have been made against him.

So ... Hayley Morrison, Head of Information Management Unit ... your bosses have been "cooking the books". I have grounds for believing that this has been happening for many years - and with other chief and senior officers, in many other cases and that I have discovered the corruption either by accident (via subject access requests or because how my own complaints were dealt with). That is why I made this request under freedom of information act. There is a compelling public interest in such issues, those concerning the police etc Transparency, integrity regards police (Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence, plebgate (Andrew Mitchell case, as well as many others where there has been police corruption.

Now lets play a wee game of "Stop the Difference" - Hayley Morrison .... DCC Winton Keenen, Supt Hutton (and wee Steve Ashman -- I know you will be having a weeeee look) are you all Ready??? Here we go;

These are the list of my allegations that Supt Hutton, DCC Keenen's and their PSD recorded relating to my above 12 September 2016 complaints;

Allegation(s)
1, "Mr McGartland alleges that this officer has covered up and failed to inform him of both the May and July 2016 , security breaches, further alleging that the officer played a role in the cover up and the whitewash of the 'investigation' in to the two breaches. The officer did not inform the complainant that they had happened or that there had been an 'investigation' (cover up and whitewash) until after and in a 9th Sept 2016 letter sent by PSD.

2, "Mr McGartland alleges that the officer delayed referring the May 2016 breach to ICO and that he also delayed referring the July 2016 breaches to ICO"

3, "Mr McGartland alleges that these officers have protected all officers and staff behind the breaches (including senior officers) and has tried to pass them off as errors"
(Ends)...

Now compare the above with my 12 September 2016 complaints ... did you spot it? First there was 8 allegations and now there is just 3 . What about the "officer" and "officers"??? Whatever you do Lads & lasses (at Corrupt PSD) don't mention the boss (Supt Hutton) or the Big Boss (DCC Winton Keenen). And Whatever you do DO NOT - Orders from above - enter the boss or bosses details onto any document, on to the PSD database or any other Northumbria Police records. Its CORRUPTION Hayley but not as we know it.

I will end, tea time now, with this... you will be aware that Northumbria Police have made false, made up lies about me in the past, June 1999, when they smeared me to the press by stating my shooting was related to drugs, criminal gangs - nothing to do with the IRA. They covered that up too, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjqphnDx... .

Those Northumbria Police Lies that they told the press about me (at a time when I was fighting for me life), and which the press printed, resulted in those newpapers having to pay £500,000.00 in damages and legal costs. To this very day DCC Winton Keenen, CC Steve Ashman, Supt Hutton, NP and other officers continue to cover up, fail to investigate that matter and are protecting all those behind it. Shocking, sooooooo corrupt.

You may also be aware that DCC Winton Keenen tried to offer me a mickey mouse apology, which I have refused to accept because it is totally inadequate , see here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ira... And here; http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/nort...

As the evidence, and the facts, (for which you, NP have zero - none) shows, the only campaign there is that by your force, NP, against me. A 23 plus year campaigan of harassment, direct discrimination, bullying, smearing, concealing, corruption, cover ups etc against me by some of NP's most senior and chief officers during that period. So, your false claims and attempts to convince the ICO that NP are somehow the victims just goes to prove how corrupt your force is as well as cunning and ruthless.

There is no campaign by me, I'm the victim of a number of spectacular botched investigations including my 18 year old unsolved attempted murder case where your colleagues at NP have been persecuting me all that time and protecting IRA terrorists who tried to murder me. I am just fighting for some truth and justice. If you call that a campaign then who am I to question it. Fortunately for me, the ICO are already privy to the history of my case and they won't be so easily duped by you or NP where I am concerned.

I have made a complaint to the ICO this evening and asked them to issue a decision notice concerning this request.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 1016/16 - Complaints

Dear Mr McGartland

Following correspondence from the Office of the Information Commissioner
we have taken the opportunity to revisit the request you submittted and as
a result we provide a revised response below.
Provision of information held by Northumbria Police made under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (the 'Act')

Thank you for your correspondence dated 19 October 2016 in which you
requested a review of the response to your request for access to certain
information which may be held by Northumbria Police.

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of
access to information held by a Public Authority (including the Police)
subject to certain limitations and exemptions

You asked for:

I would like you to supply me with information on all complaints made
against Winton Keenen when he was ACC and during his period as DCC.  

I would like to also know;

1. How many complaints were made against DCC Keenen while he was Assistant
Chief Constable.

2. How many complaints were made against DCC Keenen since he has been
Acting DCC and while DCC.

I would like the data broken into date order and I am requiring it to
include all complaints, even those that were not recorded.

3. Details of outcome of each complaint and any action taken against
Winton Keenen.

I do not wish for you to disclose any personal data relating to Winton
Keenen, the information I am requesting relates to his position in a
public office while acting as a Chief officer.

In response
We have taken this opportunity to re-visit the request and have given
consideration to the recent Decision Notice dated the 25th April 2017
issued regarding your requests and a previous decision notice from 3rd
July 2012, again relating to you and regarding a similar request related
to the disclosure of complaint data regarding a Senior Serving Officer
within Northumbria Police. That decision notice stated that Northumbria
Police was entitled to apply Section 40(5)(b)(i) of the Act and that this
exemption was indeed engaged.  

Having reviewed other requests submitted by Mr McGartland, I believe that
this request is linked to the other numerous requests and therefore can
fairly be classed as vexatious in its nature.

You have been in touch with Northumbria Police for many years regarding
dissatisfaction with the on-going investigation into the incident when you
were shot in 1999.

We did initially consult the Decision Notice issued in 2012 (ICO reference
FS50435641) which was about another senior Officer involved in the same
investigation (Superintendent Chris Thomson). That Decision Notice
determined that information about that Senior Officer was classed as
personal data and disclosure could fairly be resisted.

That named Officer was the target of a campaign and was the subject of
eight separate FOI from those classed as working in concert. You have used
these requests along with other websites to further a campaign against
this other named Officer. This request is indicative of the beginning of a
similar campaign against Mr Keenen as you have now submitted a number of
requests specifically about Mr Keenen.

It is apparent that you target Senior Officers who may be involved in your
issues with Northumbria Police.

You have submitted a large volume of requests and many of these requests
are overlapping and often mix accusations and have become manifestly
unreasonable and burdensome, in terms of the resources required to deal
with them.

The requests submitted regarding Officers form a small part of a large
volume of requests submitted by you. Many requests mix accusations and are
placed into a public arena in an effort to further grievances against
Northumbria Police.

It is clear that you have issues with Officers that have dealt with you
and you use public facing arenas to air these grievances. A simple
internet search brings back multiple entries specifically about Mr Keenen
and in my view it is clear from the type and nature of the data available
in such searches that you are using the FOIA arena to further this
campaign against Mr Keenan.  Your recent Decision Notice from the 25th
April 2017 stated, “there is no wider value or purpose beyond the
complainant’s public pursuit of his grievance against Northumbria Police”
and my view is that this request is yet another example where he exploits
the FOIA process to embarrass and harass Senior Officers within
 Northumbria Police in an attempt to  further his own grievance.

It is clear that this request and other requests have been made as a
direct result of concerns about the handling of the investigation.
Responses that have been supplied have almost inevitably been followed up
by further requests for information, requests for clarification and
requests for internal reviews.

I believe that you are attempting to use the What Do They Know arena in an
effort to somehow embarrass and harass Northumbria Police.  I draw your
attention to the recent Decision Notice and set out in the Reason for
Decision that the Commissioner stated that the continued approaches from
Mr McGartland were “unreasonable and that the public comments made by the
complainant amounted to harassment of Northumbria Police and its staff”.
 It is my belief that you are again, via this request and the What Do They
Know platform, pursuing his campaign against staff members of Northumbria
Police and that your intention is to use the data to unfairly discredit Mr
Keenan.

As a result of the above, your request can be fairly be classed as
vexatious an daccordingly no response is required.

Please note that following this response, requests on this and related
matters will be classed as vexatious and no acknowledgement or response
will be provided.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Martin McGartland

18 July 2017

Dear Northumbria Police,

It is very clear that you are once again covering up details about complaints that have been made against DCC Winton Keenen and are lying to do so by making your latest false claims against me as a result of my exposing police corruption and cover up in my cases by DCC Winton "CoverUp" Keenen and Northumbria Police.

You refer to an ICO Decision Notice and set out in the Reason for Decision that stated “unreasonable and that the public comments made by the complainant amounted to harassment of Northumbria Police and its staff”. Those lies, false information were given to the ICO by you (including DCC Winton Keenen).

Let us all remind ourselves of what Northumbria Police's position was for 18 years during the time that they were lying and covering up (including by Winton Keenen) of the smear campaign against me during the time when I was fighting for my life. When Northumbria Police lied to the press (In Secret) by connecting my shooting to drugs, criminal gangs And more importantly by stating that my shooting was nothing at all to do with the IRA. Northumbria Police (including DCC "Cover-Up" Winton Keenen and Superintendent Chris "Where is her now" Thomson) covered up that smear campaign for 18 years. They lied and Lied and lied until my own investigations uncovered the evidence, the "smoking gun", in the form of 3 sworn independent
court witness statments that not only proved that Northumbria Police was behind the smearing of me But also that they had been behind the 18 year cover up. It was only then that Northumbria Police (And DCC Keenen were forced, while kicking and screaming, into coming clean and telling the truth. If it were not for my investigations Northumbria Police and DCC Keenen would have continuted with thier lies, their corruption and cover up. {The Evidence EX01 - the 3 sworn independent Court Witness Statements: https://www.scribd.com/document/34925451... }

Northumbria Police, while lying to ICO about the history of my case, omitted most of their deeds, they concealed the corruption from the ICO. Also, Northumbria Police did not make the ICO aware that DCC Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police covered up my complaints that I made to the force relating to the smearing of me, the 18 year cover up. That DCC Winton Keenen, Northumbria Police delayed my smear complaint for 3 years and them whitewashed it, never investigated my smear complaint. He even lied by claiming it was a Direction and Control matter { The Evidence EX02 - Winton Keenen Whitewash - Refer to page 23; https://www.scribd.com/document/73581080... }

And that Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police failed to investigated a new complaint that I made (when I uncovered the 3 sworn witeness statements) in 2014. That too was delayed by a further 3 years. Then Winton Keen and Northumbria Police applied to the IPCC to disapply the complaint But they concealed the 3 sworn witness statements and other compelling evidence from the IPCC. The end result was that the IPCC ordered that my smear complaint be investigated. The IPCC, in there decision letter, pointed out that Northumbria police had lied (inconsistencies) regarding the smearing of me at different stages.

Winton Keenen (his PSD) and Northumbria Police are continuing with the corruption by investigating my smear complaint even when they have been at the coal-face of the corruption, the cover ups (and whitewashes) relating to it, my case for the past 18 years. My smear complaint will result in another Northumbria Police, Winton Keenen whitewash, even further corruption.; Further Info regards the smearing of me by Northumbria Police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjqphnDx...

No proper investigation will ever be carried out as long as Winton Keenen, his PSD and Northumbria Police is involved with my cases. Winton Keenen lied in emails about an apology that he knew had never been given to me. Did Northumbria Police tell the ICO that? Of course not, butter wouldn't melt.

Northumbria Police also failed to tell the ICO that Winton Keenen lied to me about the Roger Ford review. Winton Keenen covered up the Roger Ford review (and the findings) from me as the victim. He also deliberately chose to ignore Roger Fords recommendations. In fact, Winton Keenen concealed those from me as the victim. He also covered up the findings, recommendations because of the overall cover up in my case. Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police have been protecting not only the IRA But also the IRA terrorists who tried to murder me. All this was concealed from the ICO.

Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police concealed over information from ICO including the important fact (further corruption) that the DNA of the person who tried to murder me was deliberately kept off the DNA Database for more than for more than 8 years. The too was done to protect the IRA, the IRA terrorist who tried to murder me. I, from my own investigations, uncovered this. This too was covered up from me as the victim by Northumbria Police. It was only at that stage that Northumbria Police was again forced (while kicking and screaming) into admitting to further corruption.

This, and a great deal more, has been covered up, never been investigated by Northumbria Police, Winton Keenen. Why? Because Winton Keenen (his old bosses) were responsible for the corruption, they all played a part. I could write a book about the corruption in my cases.

Winton Keenen has lied to me as the victim at every stage. Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police, so far as I and my cases are concerned, have been dragged kicking and screaming into admitting that they had lied, covered up and smeared me. I have been vindicated. I have also shown, when it concerns me, my cases, that Winton Keenen has lied time and again, has covered up my cases (and whitewashed my complaints), have been protecting the people, the terrorists (and the IRA) who tried to murder me.

Moreover, the evidence shows that had I not have pursued my case, exposed the corruption, the lies, the cover ups that Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police would have continued with thir cover up, the corruption in my cases. My attempted murder case would have been brushed under the carpet and the terrorists would continue to be protected from arrest.

The latest Winton Keenen, Northumbria Police lies (and corruption) and the false claims of "harassment of Northumbria Police and its staff” by me because, according to Team Winton of a "grievances". is nothing other than more lies. All I have done, will continue to do, is to expose the corruption, the abuses of power by Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police as well as the cover ups by them in my cases and the scandalous abuse of power.

The fact is that the latest Lie, False claim by Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police against me of "harassment" is nothing more than pure PoppyCock. More corruption, lying, giving false, incomplete information to ICO just to keep all of the complaints made against DCC Keenen secret (coveredup) from the public.

I have all the evidence I would need to backup (and prove) everything I have ever written and said about Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police so far as my cases are concerned. I wounder why the ICO never asked the important question. Why has no action ever been taken against Martin McGartland? The answer is simple. Because Winton "Coverup" Keenen and Northumbria Police will be well aware that they would have to give evidence and face cross-examination from me. Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police are not that stupid.

I am doing a public a service by Exposing corruption. Winton Keenen, his PSD is the one who is covering up details about complaints made against him, why would he do that. What is he hiding.

These are just the latest of many dirty tricks shamefully, disgustingly, and disgracefully employed by Winton "cover up" Keenen and Northumbria Police against me over the years. There will be many more Uncomfortable truths which will be exposed at a later date. Truth sounds like Hate to those who Hate the Truth.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

It is very clear that you are once again covering up details about complaints that have been made against DCC Winton Keenen and are lying to do so by making your latest false claims against me as a result of my exposing police corruption and cover up in my cases by DCC Winton "CoverUp" Keenen and Northumbria Police.

You refer to an ICO Decision Notice and set out in the Reason for Decision that stated “unreasonable and that the public comments made by the complainant amounted to harassment of Northumbria Police and its staff”. Those lies, false information were given to the ICO by you (including DCC Winton Keenen).

Let us all remind ourselves of what Northumbria Police's position was for 18 years during the time that they were lying and covering up (including by Winton Keenen) of the smear campaign against me during the time when I was fighting for my life. When Northumbria Police lied to the press (In Secret) by connecting my shooting to drugs, criminal gangs And more importantly by stating that my shooting was nothing at all to do with the IRA. Northumbria Police (including DCC "Cover-Up" Winton Keenen and Superintendent Chris "Where is her now" Thomson) covered up that smear campaign for 18 years. They lied and Lied and lied until my own investigations uncovered the evidence, the "smoking gun", in the form of 3 sworn independent
court witness statments that not only proved that Northumbria Police was behind the smearing of me But also that they had been behind the 18 year cover up. It was only then that Northumbria Police (And DCC Keenen were forced, while kicking and screaming, into coming clean and telling the truth. If it were not for my investigations Northumbria Police and DCC Keenen would have continuted with thier lies, their corruption and cover up. {The Evidence EX01 - the 3 sworn independent Court Witness Statements: https://www.scribd.com/document/34925451... }

Northumbria Police, while lying to ICO about the history of my case, omitted most of their deeds, they concealed the corruption from the ICO. Also, Northumbria Police did not make the ICO aware that DCC Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police covered up my complaints that I made to the force relating to the smearing of me, the 18 year cover up. That DCC Winton Keenen, Northumbria Police delayed my smear complaint for 3 years and them whitewashed it, never investigated my smear complaint. He even lied by claiming it was a Direction and Control matter { The Evidence EX02 - Winton Keenen Whitewash - Refer to page 23; https://www.scribd.com/document/73581080... }

And that Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police failed to investigated a new complaint that I made (when I uncovered the 3 sworn witeness statements) in 2014. That too was delayed by a further 3 years. Then Winton Keen and Northumbria Police applied to the IPCC to disapply the complaint But they concealed the 3 sworn witness statements and other compelling evidence from the IPCC. The end result was that the IPCC ordered that my smear complaint be investigated. The IPCC, in there decision letter, pointed out that Northumbria police had lied (inconsistencies) regarding the smearing of me at different stages.

Winton Keenen (his PSD) and Northumbria Police are continuing with the corruption by investigating my smear complaint even when they have been at the coal-face of the corruption, the cover ups (and whitewashes) relating to it, my case for the past 18 years. My smear complaint will result in another Northumbria Police, Winton Keenen whitewash, even further corruption.; Further Info regards the smearing of me by Northumbria Police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjqphnDx...

No proper investigation will ever be carried out as long as Winton Keenen, his PSD and Northumbria Police is involved with my cases. Winton Keenen lied in emails about an apology that he knew had never been given to me. Did Northumbria Police tell the ICO that? Of course not, butter wouldn't melt.

Northumbria Police also failed to tell the ICO that Winton Keenen lied to me about the Roger Ford review. Winton Keenen covered up the Roger Ford review (and the findings) from me as the victim. He also deliberately chose to ignore Roger Fords recommendations. In fact, Winton Keenen concealed those from me as the victim. He also covered up the findings, recommendations because of the overall cover up in my case. Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police have been protecting not only the IRA But also the IRA terrorists who tried to murder me. All this was concealed from the ICO.

Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police concealed over information from ICO including the important fact (further corruption) that the DNA of the person who tried to murder me was deliberately kept off the DNA Database for more than for more than 8 years. The too was done to protect the IRA, the IRA terrorist who tried to murder me. I, from my own investigations, uncovered this. This too was covered up from me as the victim by Northumbria Police. It was only at that stage that Northumbria Police was again forced (while kicking and screaming) into admitting to further corruption.

This, and a great deal more, has been covered up, never been investigated by Northumbria Police, Winton Keenen. Why? Because Winton Keenen (his old bosses) were responsible for the corruption, they all played a part. I could write a book about the corruption in my cases.

Winton Keenen has lied to me as the victim at every stage. Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police, so far as I and my cases are concerned, have been dragged kicking and screaming into admitting that they had lied, covered up and smeared me. I have been vindicated. I have also shown, when it concerns me, my cases, that Winton Keenen has lied time and again, has covered up my cases (and whitewashed my complaints), have been protecting the people, the terrorists (and the IRA) who tried to murder me.

Moreover, the evidence shows that had I not have pursued my case, exposed the corruption, the lies, the cover ups that Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police would have continued with thir cover up, the corruption in my cases. My attempted murder case would have been brushed under the carpet and the terrorists would continue to be protected from arrest.

The latest Winton Keenen, Northumbria Police lies (and corruption) and the false claims of "harassment of Northumbria Police and its staff” by me because, according to Team Winton of a "grievances". is nothing other than more lies. All I have done, will continue to do, is to expose the corruption, the abuses of power by Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police as well as the cover ups by them in my cases and the scandalous abuse of power.

The fact is that the latest Lie, False claim by Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police against me of "harassment" is nothing more than pure PoppyCock. More corruption, lying, giving false, incomplete information to ICO just to keep all of the complaints made against DCC Keenen secret (coveredup) from the public.

I have all the evidence I would need to backup (and prove) everything I have ever written and said about Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police so far as my cases are concerned. I wounder why the ICO never asked the important question. Why has no action ever been taken against Martin McGartland? The answer is simple. Because Winton "Coverup" Keenen and Northumbria Police will be well aware that they would have to give evidence and face cross-examination from me. Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police are not that stupid.

I am doing a public a service by Exposing corruption. Winton Keenen, his PSD is the one who is covering up details about complaints made against him, why would he do that. What is he hiding.

These are just the latest of many dirty tricks shamefully, disgustingly, and disgracefully employed by Winton "cover up" Keenen and Northumbria Police against me over the years. There will be many more Uncomfortable truths which will be exposed at a later date. Truth sounds like Hate to those who Hate the Truth.

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Northumbria Police (NP) malicious / false ‘vexatious’ claims (their Lies) are nothing new. NP have been using and abusing same by to cover up their gross misconduct – and misfeasance in public office by their Bent officers who are (and were) involved in the Martin McGartland's cases. They having been lying about ‘vexatious’ for more than 7 years, see ICO 2011 decision notice in which they found that request was NOT ‘vexatious’,
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

NP, Winton Keenen will say (and do) anything to cover up their corruption in the Martin McGartland cases.

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

25 Years of Serious CORRUPTION by Northumbria Police - from the very Top down - in the Martin McGartland cases ....
Read more:

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/dufferpad/v...

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/search?content_ty...

Google: https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=h...

.............................................