Aiding & Abetting Dishonest Officers
Dear Cheshire Constabulary / John Gannon
by way of help from the Independent Police Complaints Commission [ IPCC ] and retired former Cheshire Police officers I am aware that it has been the practice of former Cheshire Chief Constables to excuse - not arrest, investigate then charge - numbers of their officers who they or the IPCC investigating Commissioners legitimately believe had committed serious criminal offences. IPCC records prove despite one of its Commissioners having satisfied herself one senior Cheshire officer - a Detective Chief Inspector working out of the Forces Professional Standards Department, the very Department tasked with investigating dishonest and corrupt officers - did commit a number of serious offences including blackmail, assault, causing mental harm [ I believe this means torture ] conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and misconduct in public office still the then Chief Constable elected neither to arrest, investigate or charge that officer.
Please confirm on what authority the former Chief Constable's of Cheshire were able to lawfully excuse any of their serving or indeed retired officers criminal practices.
Evidence indicates many of England's Chief Constables do cherry pick which of their dishonest officers shall or shall not be made subject to formal criminal investigations. Please confirm how many Cheshire officers who were legitimately believed to have committed a criminal offence or offences between 1998 - 2003 were excused from criminal investigations.
Mr Gannon your Force continues to accuse me of submitting vexatious requests, and does all it is able to persuade the Administrators of this site to censor and or remove my requests. I note only this week again my requests are claimed vexatious,intended to harass and of having no foundation. Sir for the record I wish it be known almost all of my requests come by way of your Force - and the Cheshire Police and Crime Commissioner - having elected not to deal with them privately. There can be no doubt all of my requests are important legitimate requests all of which are intended to benefit and indeed protect the greater public interest.
Yours faithfully,
ROBERT PICKTHALL
Dear Sir,
I refer to your recent request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, as set out below:
by way of help from the Independent Police Complaints Commission [ IPCC ]
and retired former Cheshire Police officers I am aware that it has been
the practice of former Cheshire Chief Constables to excuse - not arrest,
investigate then charge - numbers of their officers who they or the IPCC
investigating Commissioners legitimately believe had committed serious
criminal offences. IPCC records prove despite one of its Commissioners
having satisfied herself one senior Cheshire officer - a Detective Chief
Inspector working out of the Forces Professional Standards Department, the
very Department tasked with investigating dishonest and corrupt officers
- did commit a number of serious offences including blackmail, assault,
causing mental harm [ I believe this means torture ] conspiracy to pervert
the course of justice and misconduct in public office still the then Chief
Constable elected neither to arrest, investigate or charge that officer.
Please confirm on what authority the former Chief Constable's of Cheshire
were able to lawfully excuse any of their serving or indeed retired
officers criminal practices.
Evidence indicates many of England's Chief Constables do cherry pick which
of their dishonest officers shall or shall not be made subject to formal
criminal investigations. Please confirm how many Cheshire officers who
were legitimately believed to have committed a criminal offence or
offences between 1998 - 2003 were excused from criminal investigations.
I have to advise that this request is not valid in its current form as it
is not asking for recorded information therefore does not fulfil the
criteria of Section 8 and requires clarification. However, I can also
advise that the Constabulary still has the right to apply Section 14(1)
vexatious to this request as it does appear to lack serious purpose and is
vexatious when viewed in context inasmuch as there is a pattern of
behaviour and is part of an on-going campaign which is likely to lead to
further correspondence, requests and complaints, and may be considered as
obsessive.
Regards
John Gannon
Information Compliance
Professional Standards Department
Tel: 01606 364176
Dear Freedom of Information / John Gannon
several Months ago The college of Police confessed to the British Broadcasting Company [ BBC ] that it was a common practice for many English and Welsh Constabularies to retire sooner than prosecute its dishonest officers and therefore each Constabulary and indeed the Home Office would have made a record of those incidents and outcomes.
Sir your response, your Forces decision, not to provide me this information - or indeed any information relating to the child sexual exploitation of children living at the former Newton Hall Children's Home Frodsham - information which I am lawfully entitled - not only brings shame to all Cheshire Police Officers but also puts a dirty stain on the good name of British Justice world wide ...!
Sir I albeit you indicate no matter how I phrase my questions it is highly likely you/your Force will refuse them still I am willing to proffer them again but this time in a different style and in hope at long long last you will finally acknowledge the fact indeed I am human being
Please provide me copy of any standing orders / protocol which lawfully enabled/enables the Chief Constable of Cheshire to excuse his/her dishonest officers from formal arrest / investigation and prosecution. Please confirm how many Cheshire officers who were legitimately believed to have committed a criminal offence or offences between 1998 - 2003 were excused from criminal investigations.
Yours sincerely,
ROBERT PICKTHALL
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now