Complaints. The IPCC sat on my complaint for four years.

Waiting for an internal review by Independent Office for Police Conduct of their handling of this request.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I wrote to the IPCC in 2005. My complaint was not answered. or resolved.

I have reason to believe that your complaints procedure does not work effectively and that ,as a result, the police get away with misconduct.

In relation to Cumbria Constabulary and their retention of six family names on a secret intelligence computer, as perspective child abusers. Mr David Cherry, Data Protection and freedom of Information Officer is responsible for the detention of our names.

I have asked that all six names be removed, as not one of those named has any criminal record. Mr cherry is adamant that he has the right to retain those six names, indefinitely. We are not criminals.

I fear that there have been unlawful disclosures with regard to information held by the Constabulary, on our family, into the local community which may have been the cause of a vicious attack and two counts of GBH which I sustained in 2006. A sexual assault also. Both of which cases the police have not, in my opinion, taken seriously and have been instrumental in trying to cover up.

Please provide me with the following information under Freedom Of Information.

Are Officers or employees of the IPCC, Common Purpose Trained or Graduated? How much money has been spent in the last twelve months on courses?

Why does the IPCC not address all complaints and resolve them within a given time frame?

Yours faithfully,

Lorna Stewart

Athena Cass,

1 Attachment

[Subject only] FOI Ack letter.1001849.Ms Lorna Stewart.Dated.14.9.09.

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Independent Police Complaints Commission's handling of my FOI request 'Complaints. The IPCC sat on my complaint for four years.'.

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

Yours faithfully,

ivanataylor

Athena Cass,

1 Attachment

[Subject only] FOI Ack letter.1001898.Ivana Taylor.Dated.28.10.09.

show quoted sections

Phil Johnston,

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Stewart, <<Stewart L 1001849 - decision let.pdf>>
Please find attached to this email my response to your request. I am
sorry about the delay in replying.

Philip Johnston

show quoted sections

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Take a look at the above reply. The IPCC has admitted that its employees are Common Purpose Graduates. They have prevented this from being copied and pasted, for whatever reason? they do not want anyone to know what they are up to. Basically The IPCC is not independent at all, they are just as involved in the COVER UP as any other Common Purpose Trained government department. They are corrupt to the core and beyond. I do believe that this sinister organization has infiltrated all our government departments to the highest levels, and that they are snowballing their sinister agenda at fast pace until we are totally stripped of any justice. The whole barrel is rotten save it be a few decent apples, not many left and not much time left now folks. we are doomed. One thing they have not bargained for though. They cannot see beyond the confines of this system. There will soon be in operation a much better system which will sort them all out. I cannot wait to see them fall from their ivory towers. The higher they seem to rise and abuse power, the harder their fall will be.

Jamie Wood,

Dear Ms Stewart

Can you please contact me on 020 7166 3939.

Regards

Jamie Wood
Deputy Senior Casework Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
Phone: 020 7166 3939
Fax: 020 7166 3639
Email: [email address]
Web: www.ipcc.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Jamie Wood,

Can I not have your answer in writing? If not, why not?

You can call me on 01539446580

Thank you, in anticipation of your call, after 11 am please.

Yours sincerely,

ivanataylor

Paul left an annotation ()

Agreed,

IPCC is a corrupt Police apologist. Partner organisation!

You have no chance getting any justice through the IPCC, they will ignore clear and obvious evidence to find the Police not guilty.

Frankly they should be ashamed, they are a running joke

Tony Wise left an annotation ()

I really think that it's catching up with the IPCC. The people at the top of the IPCC are actually clueless as to the systemic bias in the lower levels of the casework of the IPCC. It's not that they're in denial of it but they refuse to even countenance that it exists. I agree that the whole organisation is a biased joke.

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

I agree with both above annotations. IPCC are a total waste of time and more importantly tax payers money. They are just as corrupted as the police as far as I have been able to establish through correct process.Biased, corrupt, retired lawyers and police with links to Freemasons and common purpose is my belief. Same with the CPS. If the issues you raise show them in a bad light, even though you speak the truth, they will either issue a fob off or simply, as in this case, refuse to answer, and lose the original complaints. This is why I have flagged them all up with ECHR, but I am not holding out any hope, that anything will change. I expect to find the same level of corruption all the way up to the Hague, as an MP has told me this is the case. He should know!! NO JUSTICE available in the UK.

Arthur Peasgill left an annotation ()

I don't know about Common Purpose or anything else. But I do know that the IPCC are members of the public sector that believe implicitly other members of the public sector before the public. There is a massive difference between the public and the public sector. The IPCC is more serious because they are supposed to bring the police to account. Every reasonably thinking and interested person in this country knows that is a total joke. The truth is the exact opposite. It's a good laugh whenever you see Mr Chairman trying to justify the unjustifiable. He squirms quite well. For example the FOI section of the IPCC is a total disaster at the moment. But watch their public sector colleagues at the Information Commissioner slap their wrists (eventually) and monitor them for the next 50 years with no discernible result ha ha. We're all mugs in the UK. If a member of the public hits a copper he's in a special court the next day. However when a copper hits a member of the public the IPCC investigates it for months and months and months and hides any wood from the trees deliberately in the process.

John left an annotation ()

I had the same problem I wrote to ipcc than an officer cid came to my house convicing me a local resolution he want answer me why a certain officer did nit want to take my statement I had to phone the supretendent of Newport Gwent. THe co in qustion came to my housethan to take a statement u could see she did not like it asking me am sure they seem nice people this men threathen me to kill me and my son damaged my door,I contact local councilor to speak to a Inspector, i live in Beachowood I do not if allowed to say names, His answer was dont phone this number wasted of time u talk to me and u wasteing my time I had numerous threats from the person who thrathed me I had my window smashed a few days ago in the night, One officer said to me did u see him they cant act, when I seen they vertiul call em a liar this co women offices very pally with this people, They even wrote a letter to race realtions lieing about me it did not work as I conviced him with proof what they wrote was lies.Apparently u can complaint but they got a right not to answer Ist A JOKE. This men who is threathen me on rasecist grounds and other things They forget we Maltese stood by Britain,

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

I now have another letter from Detective Inspector Keith Craven, Prfessional Standards?? Department Cumbria Police !!

As follows and I quote" Following the decision of the IPCC in relation to our appication for dipensation to investigate complaints 1-8, ... I wish to make clear ta all other matters raised by you at the meeting including the alleged unlawful arrest of your son.....
on December 13 2009 will be subject of a local investigation and you will be informed of the result in due course!!!

This is a cover up of police misconduct, perjury by PC Burke, Windermere Police, who told lies to Magistrates at Kendal Court, in an attempt to stitch up my son.

The IPCC are sitting on complaints re unlawful conduct of Cumbrian Police Officers, who have ,on numerous occasions, mistreated and wrongly accused our family.

I can site many Cover Ups and here is another!!

Where is Justice, Accountability and public scrutiny. We are dealing with corporate criminals.

I will post their response when I get one. Still waiting, its been seven years, and the abuse and persecution of our innocent family, by Cumbria police, based on racial perjudice continues, without resolution, this constitutes Human Rights violations!!

Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,

I am now in receipt of a letter from Keith Craven Professional Standards?? re the false arrest of my son and other very serious complaints which I have raised re conduct of police officers!!

If you look into your records re complaints dating back to 2004 you will realise that we have had no resolution to our complaints.

The unlawful arrest of my son will now be subject of a local investigation, despite thefact that PC Burke lied under oath, committing perjury in a Court of law.

Case Number CO/19/10/PS/LJF.

You have our full consent to look into this in the hope that there will not be another Cover UP of these serious corporate crimes, by Cumbria Police.

If I do not obtain justice I will go public and expose this corruption and fraud and unlawful conduct.

This is a formal seven day notice and I require our response.

Yours faithfully,

ivanataylor

Jamie Wood,

Dear Ivana Taylor

Thank you for your email to the Independent Police Complaints Commission
FOI requests on 24 August 2010.

In your email you have referred to a case number. This is not a
reference that is used by the IPCC and so we are unable to ascertain if
you have made a complaint through the IPCC and what case you are
referring to. If you could provide us with the IPCC reference number for
your complaint it would make it easier to identify the case and respond
to your request.

I must also advise you that before the IPCC is able to respond to a
Freedom of Information request we will require proof of identification.
This can be a copy of your passport or birth certificate. We also
require proof address and this can be verified by providing a copy of a
utility bill.

Yours sincerely

Jamie Wood
Deputy Senior Casework Manager (TCC)
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
90 High Holborn, London WC1V 6BH
Phone: 020 7166 3939 Fax: 020 7166 3639
Email: [email address]
Web: www.ipcc.gov.uk

show quoted sections

John left an annotation ()

I wrote the other how some officers and and ins treated me at the time I phone the Newport Argus they did not respond Because no doubt they put a spokesmen to descredit me so if anyone got a contact i show my response in person how they answer my complaint, I had to borrow money to pat an other solicitor 500 pounds it cost me this everytime the foriegner call them when i need help nice people its a russian roulate which poloce comes to u house some a very pleasant but some u just could see they treat u with contempt.I said in a previous complaint months before there would be repurcusions. And when u talking to inspector u write long letters. They dont like it because u going into details.I feel traped if anybody say anything u not believed and than they trying thier atmost to get u when u complain how rude they were to me.Like when i was telling the arresting officer he is my boss and they my collogues

Dear Jamie Wood,
Here is the reference number you have requested.2010/01/014170 this number was provised to me directly to my home address of 21 Park avenue, Windermere LA23 2AR on 13th August 2010. You therefore already know who I am and where I reside.

I have raised very serious concerns yet you seem unable to acknowledge them or deal effectively with them.

The letter is signed by Catherine Cooper.

Now, what is going to be done, before I go public and name and shame the whole cover up?

Yours sincerely,

Yvonne Stewart-Taylor ex Lib Lab Con Councilor

ivanataylor for electronic purposes.

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

http://www.ukcolumn.org/events/blowing-w...

Open this link and come on mass to this event. this site will give you full instruction as to how to present your evidence.

Now is our chance to bring the monsters down and reclaim our Common law rights, expel corrupt officialdom and expose this mass corruption, treason and tyranny in the UK. Lawful, peaceful, non violent mass non compliance is our weapon against all those responsible for destroying innocent families and abusing OUR CHILDREN. Thank you.

Jaden left an annotation ()

I am doing a compilation of corruption stories about the corrupt and toothless IPCC and the bent coppers they protect . They will be published in the book bent britain (BentBritain.com)

thanks

Detective J Thompson Dip.API
please email JadenThompson@aol.com

Jaden left an annotation ()

thank you for email Ivana, I look forward to working with you. Lets bring these corrupt morons to justice before there are more hate fuelled riots due to IPCC & police corruption

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

In November 2010, the broadcast of Florence Bellona on the problem of the adoption forced Britain had caused the stir. The words "forced adoption" refer to scandals such as that of "l'arche de Zoé" in which Westerners embark foreign children under the pretext of extract to their misery, and without checking if they are really abandoned, for the placing on the market of international adoption.
But the fact that European countries such as the United Kingdom knowingly removes his own children and make them adopt without the consent of parents of birth remains a little-known phenomenon, because the affected families do not have the right to refer their case outside the Court of justice family, still less than in talking to a journalist under sentence of imprisonment.
The United Kingdom has a questionable history in "child protection" since the 19th century. One of the most dramatic episodes lasted 70 years: children stolen from poor families were sent to Australia State program "Migrant Children" to create "a good white strain"! 40 years after the end of the program, the beginning of 2010, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have produced a public apology in the House of Commons for this historic disaster.
Recognition of forced exile, despite decades of campaign by the families of victims, has virtually been no media coverage and its managers were never punished. Today, the "gagging order" (gagging order) protects the State, the press freedom, but freedom of expression. The parents came to use alternative media to describe their ordeal and above all, to find their children.
In recent years, is more material poverty but the charges of child abuse which precede the withdrawal children by social services. First, Florence Bellone listened to the explanations of MPs wishing to abolish forced adoption, those of associations for the defence of families and the testimony of parents. It soon became apparent it that parents really abusing would pass not 10 or 15 years to find their children and to all courts including the European Court of Justice to obtain their returns… And above all, there are thousands of women accused of "future negligence" or "future emotional injury" of their child, since the early days of the grossesse… It away the infant at birth and were thus removed each new baby, on the sole basis of a psychiatrist paid by social services. Their crime: have been a victim of domestic violence, either by their parents, or their partner, and very often by the family of home or orphanage or themselves were placed. Several hundred mothers, alone or in couple, fled abroad to keep their baby.
Legal records of these families and stories have him know the extent and variety of the tactics used by social services to parents. Subsequently, by becoming "MacKenzie friend" (legal support to which parents are right when they have no lawyer), Florence Bellone was able to attend hearings in the courts as well as the examinations of the parents by social services. Very often, what appears first as the false evidence are only statements not verified the Court and accepted by the judge as compelling facts. The same is true of the legal "guardians" of abducted children, who represent the child in court!

The continuous survey

In a second report on the "stolen children", Florence Bellone gives more speaking parents who have lost their children, but children who were themselves adopted force or at least, force from their families. Some are now adults, others have only 11 to 13 years. A raid of the police to take an infant and a maintenance of a woman pregnant with a social worker will also give an idea of the nightmarish situations generated by "child welfare". Finally we will discuss the issue of foreign children whose families, on the British territory, fell in the trap: Matilde, girl French 11 year removed with his little sister Louison in June, managed to call his father, late August - abusing his family of home - and -surveillance. It says "their life in prison", and especially request assistance to find their father and leave the England…

S Worley left an annotation ()

I made a complaint to the IPCC some years ago after Surrey Police ignored formal complaints relating to problems caused by vehicles being parked across my driveway, despite Keep Clear markings and double yellow lines (for example, on one day, the access was blocked by different vehicles on all eight journeys to or from my home).

Our day-to-day life was severely disrupted and it was potentially dangerous (typical example, my teenage daughter, then aged about 14, was left to wait 20 minutes by herself in a dark car park because the driveway was blocked).

The IPCC did not uphold my complaint - on the basis that a complaint that complaints have been ignored does not qualify as a complaint.

(The chronic blocking of the driveway continued unabated. In 2010, information released by Tandridge District Council as a result of an investigation by the Information Commissioner, included internal correspondence showing the council had long been aware of the problem; the local councillor writes "we do not wish to see local people ticketed".)

Neil Coggins left an annotation ()

I have also had a complaint handled by Catherine Cooper of the IPCC. I have an ongoing complaint against HMRC's Civil Investigations dept, who refuse to prosecute an HMRC Tax Inspector who they have -already-admittted- broke the law in a Local Compliance check.

I told Ms Cooper that she had made mistakes in her memo (which supposedly was signed off by the Commissioner). She then -changed- the document and sent it back to me with revisions... but of course the Commissioner (allegedly) made a decision not to uphold my complaint based upon her first draft of the memo.

The lack of justice in the UK is simply shocking. I am now having to complain about Ms Cooper's misconduct in public office whilst pursuing a Judicial Review against HMRC.

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c... Outragious covering up for police misconduct, perverting and obstructing Justice and ignoring evidence has been my experience with the IPCC since 2004

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

POLICE CORRUPTION - NO RECOURSE TO JUSTICE IN THE UK
24 November 2013 at 20:51
Dear xxxxxI read with interest both your email and that of David Tomlinson. The content of which offers striking similarity to many cases I know of up and down the UK.I took particular note of David Tomlinson's mention of criminal investigations into the Deputy Chair of the IPCC. I can confirm that I am in possession of crime reference numbers relating to investigations concerning the reported offences of Perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office.These allegations relate to Deborah Glass the deputy-chair of the IPCC, two senior investigators and an investigator at the IPCC.The crime reference numbers were raised on the instruction of Constables of Inspector level within the Metropolitan Police. Despite being in possession of the crime reference numbers, the Metropolitan Police subsequently claim that this is NOT a criminal investigation but 'scoping an inquiry' - they have now been at this 'inquiry' for over 18 months since it was first reported.In my view the evidence that these individuals perverted the course of justice is compelling. They however remain in their posts, not suspended and continue to have influence in ongoing criminal inquiries into police conduct. Indeed one of the other individuals, Rebecca Reed also figures in the Hofschröer case as indeed I have heard figuring in other cases of alleged injustice. Notably in my case, Rebecca Reed was involved in fabricating claims to exonerate the Metropolitan Police from stated negligence in the investigation of child abuse.Rebecca Reed has many years after her report finally conceded that the key facts she presented to overturn an earlier IPCC report (which found the police to have been negligent and failing to safeguard the children involved) were simply NOT true. Rebecca Reed puts this down to being a 'simple error'.... maybe her pen slipped when she wrote "The police conclusively identified and met and spoke to a 15 year old boy" - of course none of that happened.This was exposed in the Private Eye article "Web of lies" http://tinyurl.com/obw53vq - and still Rebecca Reed failed to come clean, she was asked by my MP John McDonnell to ensure that her original comments were supportable by evidence from the police files, still she failed to come clean. It was only at the point she was informed that there was an intention of initiating a private criminal prosecution for perverting the course of justice that Rebecca Reed immediately confirmed that the claims were false.As you know, I have taken the very same evidence presented to the IPCC and brought a criminal prosecution in the Crown Court for the serious offence of perverting the course of Justice. The IPCC didn't even see fit to conduct a criminal investigation when presented with this information, describing the whole thing as a 'mistake' (that pen slip again) and exonerating those involved.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri... good people in this country should be up in arms about the level of corruption and injustice that has manifest itself and continues to destroy families and communities. I found it quite extraordinary that the current Attorney General Dominic Grieve suggested the Pakistani community were somehow responsible for corruption in the UK, he ought to walk the corridors of power in Westminster and open his eyes to the endemic corruption that has taken hold and causes immense suffering to the people they are supposed to be serving.Thanks for reading,xxxxx

Bernard Jenkin, MP
Westminster, UK

Dean Mr. Jenkin

Further to your parliamentary interview of James Patrick, police whistleblower, and others, you may also like to be aware of David Tomlin, ex Cheshire police officer, who has direct experience of corruption in the Cheshire Constabulary. The investigation was successfully deflected by the IPCC and government officials.

You would be well advised to read all the annotations from other people on the matter, too, if you would, please.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Here is one of the annotations:

Rachel Rutter left an annotation ( 7 June 2011)
Good luck. I have also had a bad experience and have brought matters to the attention of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister following confirmation by several Ministries that all public bodies are required by law to have an open and transparent complaints procedure. The MEP has confirmed that the Human Rights Act in the UK is a domestic Mandate therefore the remit and jurisdiction of the Government. However I warn you, the amount of contradictory rhetoric is staggering as are the complexities involved in progressing your complaints, the public information is at variance between Ministries and contradicts published literature. Just to inform you, I am also in the process of complaining against the IPCC for obstruction to pervert the course of justice, flawed investigations and breach of several Acts Passed by Parliament including Freedom of Information laws, Human Rights Article 6 Right to a fair trial, prohibition of abuse of rights Article 17. I would suggest you contact the ICO but it appears that no-one is willing to upset the apple cart in any event irrespective of the evidence available. It is apparent those in authority and influence consider themselves above the law and exempt. Hope this is helpful information. I believe the Internet is a vital tool in bringing matters to the attention of the public and alerting them as to what truly goes on behind closed doors.

I don’t know Rachel Rutter, but I do know of many people with similar complaints, and the Home Affairs Committee appears to have thrown in the towel on the IPCC problem. We’ve heard nothing, but then we are only plebs, and not being protected from crime by the establishment.

Surely, it is the right of all citizens to expect police to investigate crime and to root out corruption in the ranks?

These situations are not at all isolated. We have been telling the Home Affairs Committee about these matters for some time, and nothing is ever done. Keith Vaz, Chairman, now blocks my emails.

As I have advised you and many others recently, many MPs block emails from the public or delete them without reading them.
The Committee for Standards in Public Life is not interested, the Public Accounts Committee is not interested – who is?

When we heard that the Home Affairs Committee was looking into the problem of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), we thought they were concerned, and many of us have therefore sent them much information, but nothing has been done about the perversion of justice and other corruption that named police forces are allegedly involved in, and no solution has been found, to my knowledge, about the inadequacies of the IPCC – the core of said inadequacy being bias, and an old boys’ club protecting their own. They are not fit for purpose, and the Home Affairs Committee knows this.

Although your interview with the various ex and serving Metropolitan Police officers was primarily focused on the culture of manipulating crime figures to meet quotas (and in order for senior police officers to earn financial bonuses), you should be aware that there is corruption that has been covered up and is not being investigated by government DESPITE the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who write to ministers and MPs about the problem, and give them examples.

The most corrupt of all is the fact that these ministers and MPs just toss the information into the garbage, at best claiming that they have no powers over police, and that’s the end of it. See, for example, the attached letter from Michael Fallon concerning alleged crimes taking place through, and by, the Land Registry and its officials.

Even Lord Maginnis has pointed out government failures with respect to policing:

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (UUP)
“My Lords, in so far as I intend to pursue in more detail the issue that I raised earlier at Oral Questions, I want to make it clear that I am not anti-police. Concurrently with my first employment as a schoolmaster, I became a special constable and served for seven years. Later, as an Army officer, I had responsibility for joint planning and liaison with the police, and that during our troubled times in Northern Ireland. While I was an MP, I was parliamentary adviser to the RUC. I feel no need, however, to make similar ameliorating comments about my attitude to our virtually invisible and ineffective Home Office.

At the beginning of a new parliamentary year-I have seen 29 come and go here-one still waits with bated breath for some sort of signal that next year is going to be better. Such an expectation is difficult to sustain when one reads through the coalition's programme for business in 2012, particularly in relation to creating a fairer society. Everything I read there confirms my impression of those exceedingly well educated folk who occupy the Front Benches in another place but who seldom appear to have rubbed shoulders with reality. Ideas hatched in some intellectually gifted corner of the Palace of Westminster float through a maze of implementation levels that are ill defined, largely disconnected and often wholly inefficient.

It is some years since the noble Lord, Lord Reid, described the Home Office as not fit for purpose, yet we continue without respite to find it delegating responsibilities in a way that it seems to consider absolves it from any real decision-making role. Just try, as I have, to discover why a police constabulary appears to be inefficient or corrupt and you will get the answer that I got last November when I was told by the Home Office that it had not held "aggregate data" on police since 2004. Why not?

One may be advised to speak to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I have, only to be told that the fairly obvious injustice that concerns me was not within its bailiwick because my complaint overlapped with social services. I belatedly referred the issue to the Justice Department, but it could not intervene. I am referring to a case where a lady in her 80s was cheated out of her home. The Minister knows it well and over the past three years the Home Office has received hundreds-yes, hundreds-of communications through me about the matter. Successive Secretaries of State have been so concerned that none would meet me, despite the fact that Interpol was activated to pursue this elderly lady all the way to her son's home in Austria. Does anyone in authority care that social services and police in North Yorkshire have conspired in the persecution of Mrs Hofschroer and her son? Are details of dismissals, forced retirements and other shady and costly measures pertaining to North Yorkshire Police available to legislators in Parliament? No. Basic justice is distorted by the system, but I can see nothing to address this major issue in the Government's plans.

Not dissimilar, in terms of Home Office incompetence, is the well known case of Gary McKinnon, a once young man with autism who hacked the Pentagon's computers and whom the United States wants to extradite, potentially to imprison for the rest of his life in its prison system, where there are, conservatively, 60,000 rapes per year. His defence has cost his family their home. For over 10 years Gary, now 45 years old, has been left in limbo, and yet the Home Office happily, if somewhat inefficiently, spends millions accommodating the legal rights of Abu Qatada. Is that how we expect the Home Office and Justice to deal with disability-with cruel indecision, without compassion and with detached unaccountability? I think not, so surely it is about time we sought to replace our failing nanny state with a fair and just one.

Truly, the right hand at the Dispatch Box appears not to know and not to care what the left hand is doing. Is it not time that the Government recognised that principled strategic command is a prerequisite for effective delegation? One of the follies pertaining to and emanating from latter-day political correctness is that government and justice should not impinge on each other. That is why we foolishly established the introverted and expensive Supreme Court, effectively a third unaccountable legislature with which society barely identifies. Law can be effective only when it relates to what society as a whole is prepared to accept and support. Society's temper is reflected through those elected to another place and through this related scrutinising Chamber. The day we sought to wash government's hands of responsibility, and in so far as we continue to divorce the law from government, we deny society the access and safeguards that democracy is intended to guarantee.”
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=...

Why are parliamentarians not developing new laws, or making amendments to combat the problems and shortcomings of the Police Reform Act, that Theresa May et al use as an excuse to let the corruption and failures continue? What are law makers doing about it? Are they just biding their time long enough to pick up their pensions and get out without addressing any SERIOUS problems?

In one of Transparency International’s recent reports, the statement was made that, in the UK, nobody takes the lead on anything. Why do those in authority, such as Minister responsible for the Land Registry, Michael Fallon, feel they don’t have any power? What, exactly, is going on in the UK? Is everyone simply a puppet of some other power?

Many would say, yes, that is exactly what is happening, and the British people have been sold down the river.

Keep up the good work, I think everyone else has turned the lights off and gone home.

Meanwhile, a little further reading from David Tomlinson’s site follows. Francis Maude is copied into this communication, and he is looking for ways to improve public service efficiency. He might like to start with making MPs and government ministers do their jobs, and stop using correspondence clerks to deflect information AWAY from them, so they can ignore it.

Subject: For the Attention of The Deputy Prime Minister - Nick Clegg: re Evidence of Serious Corruption in Government Departments, Will It Be Fully Investigated? Dear Mr Clegg,With reference to my email of 13 October and your reply of 29 October 2010 (both attached for reference).Whilst it is appreciated that my email has been forwarded to the appropriate Government departments the whole point of bringing this matter to your attention is the fact that the appropriate Government departments; specifically the Home Office and the Independent Police Complaints Commission have failed to address these matters in either a lawful manner or in accordance with their own stated procedures in handling complaints.It is not expected that you should remember this but this matter was first brought to your attention back in June 2007 when you were Shadow Home Secretary, I’ve attached your response of 6 August 2007 for reference (Untitled). Your response particularly impressed me because you stated: “if there is any evidence of misconduct at any level of government then clearly this should be fully investigated”In this case there is very clear evidence of misconduct at several levels of Government: • The Independent Police Complaints Commission for aiding and abetting senior investigating police officers to excuse retired police officers and other members of the public from criminal investigation; and for failing to refer complaints of misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice reported against its Commissioners and Deputy Chair to an independent police force for investigation.• The Home Office, in particular its Permanent Secretary Sir David Normington and the Police Integrity Unit, who have knowingly stood by since March 2004 allowing Cheshire police officers to excuse retired police officers and other members of the public from criminal investigation and charges. The Home Office has maintained that this was purely a police complaint matter under the supervision of the IPCC whilst being fully aware that the majority of persons identified in the complaints reported in October 2003 were retired police officers and as such outside the provisions of the Police Act 1996, as confirmed by Cheshire’s Police Authority 18 December 2003, and therefore outside the lawful authority of the IPCC.It would appear that in order to preserve the purported integrity of the police complaints system both the Home Office and the IPCC have been willing to aid and abet Cheshire police in their attempt to conceal criminal offences and excuse persons from criminal investigation and in so doing have perverted the course of justice.On 9 July 2004 IPCC Commissioner Mike Franklin set Terms of Reference (attached) for Cheshire Constabulary’s investigation which effectively delayed any criminal investigation into the allegations of serious criminal offences reported against the retired police officers who were at that time outside lawful authority of the IPCC and the police complaints system:- IPCC Commissioner Mike Franklin had absolutely no lawful authority whatsoever to defer any investigation into any serious allegation of more serious criminal offences, such as conspiracy and mental harm which had been reported against retired officers, such as David Finlay, who were at that time outside the provisions of the Police Act 1996.At various times between January 2005 and 2008 the fact that Cheshire’s Investigating Officers and Chief Officers were conspiring to excuse retired police officers and other members of the public from criminal investigation and charges. However, both of Cheshire’s appropriate authorities, namely its Chief Constable Peter Fahy and the Police Authority repeatedly and wilfully failed to refer the allegations of serious corruption to the IPCC in accordance with their mandatory obligations under s.17 of the Police Reform Act 2002. The IPCC in turn chose to “turn a blind eye” to Cheshire’s wilful failure to refer allegations of serious corruption in the full knowledge that Cheshire’s Investigating Officer Superintendent Ian Wiggett was excusing retired police officers and other members of the public from criminal investigation.In January 2007 IPCC Commissioner Gary Garland granted Cheshire Constabulary permission to dispense with two investigations into allegations of crime reported against members of the public who were both outside the lawful authority of the IPCC; David Finlay a former Chief Inspector retired from Cheshire police in October 1999 and barrister Graham Wood someone who had never fell within the provisions of the Police Act 1996. In the same letter Mr Garland actually confirms that the IPCC has no power in respect of complaints against members of the public before granting Cheshire permission to dispense with the investigation into the allegations of aiding and abetting misconduct in public office reported against Mr Wood. In February 2007 formal complaints alleging misconduct in public office and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice were reported to the IPCC against its Commissioners Mike Franklin and Gary Garland. The IPCC never recorded the complaint against Garland, they never acknowledged and they never investigated it. Instead of referring the allegations of misconduct and perverting the course of justice reported against Mike Franklin to the police for investigation in accordance with PACE 1984 IPCC Deputy Chair John Wadham chose to carry out his own “internal” investigation and also chose to consider his own investigation findings instead of referring the file to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration. The IPCC has recently confirmed that there is no lawful authority for its Chair or Deputy Chair to conduct any criminal investigation in accordance with PACE 1984 into allegations of crime reported against its members:-http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/do... wilfully failing to refer the allegations of crime reported against the Commissioners to the police and purporting to conduct and consider an investigation into crimes reported against Mike Franklin IPCC Deputy Chair John Wadham has wilfully exceeded his lawful authority, attempted to conceal potential criminal offences and pervert the course of justice.IPCC Commissioner Naseem Malik was fully aware of the allegations that Cheshire’s Investigating Officers had excused retired officers and other members of the public from criminal investigation when she allowed Cheshire Constabulary to submit their “investigation file” to the Crown Prosecution Service in March 2008. In her letter sent April 2009 (attached) IPCC Commissioner Naseem Malik confirms that my complaints against David Finlay had been substantiated but because he was retired the IPCC agreed with Cheshire’s recommendation that no further action be taken. Subsequently, in her letter 4 June 2009 (attached) IPCC Commissioner Naseem Malik confirms that Cheshire Constabulary were conducting an investigation into allegations of misconduct in public and that retired officers had not been interviewed. In June 2009 after taking a year to consider Cheshire’s investigation file the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that not one person identified within the complaints reported to Cheshire Constabulary in October 2003 had been arrested, detained or interviewed in accordance with PACE 1984.This simply does not make sense Cheshire Constabulary conducted a criminal investigation into allegations of misconduct in public office for 5 years during which time no one is arrested or interviewed in accordance with PACE 1984. Complaints reported against a former Professional Standards Department Chief Inspector are substantiated but because he retired in October 1999 no further action can be taken? Misconduct in public office is a serious criminal offence in 5 years Cheshire Constabulary’s Investigating Officer did not arrest or interview David Finlay under caution in relation to the allegations of crime reported against him. The investigation into the allegations reported against David Finlay never fell under the supervision of the IPCC, he retired from the police in October 1999 and yet the IPCC supervised his entire investigation, granting Cheshire permission to dispense with investigations into the allegations of crime reported against him and others in the full and complete knowledge that the allegations reported against him were allegations of crime, that he was a member of the public outside their authority. The IPCC repeatedly ignored formal complaints that Cheshire police and its own members were conspiring to excuse members of the public from criminal investigation. The final proof that persons have been excused from criminal investigation came from the Crown Prosecution Service in their confirmation that no one had been arrested or interviewed under caution in relation to the allegations of crime reported in October 2003.More recently allegations that current and former IPCC members have committed misconduct in public office and conspired to pervert the course of justice have been reported to the IPCC. However, the IPCC’s Director of Standards and Quality Mike Benbow (Former Head of Dyfed Powys Police Professional Standards Department) has refused to refer the matter to an independent police force for investigation basically stating that there is no obligation on the IPCC to refer criminal matters to the police for investigation (see attached).The matter has again been brought to the attention of the Permanent Secretary Sir David Normington his reply (attached) stated that it is a matter solely for the IPCC. However, according to the IPCC’s procedure for serious complaints against Commissioners it is the also Home Office’s responsibility.Frankly this run-around by Cheshire Constabulary, the IPCC and the Home Office has gone on for far too long, Cheshire Constabulary has, with the assistance of the IPCC, excused retired police officers from criminal investigation for over 7 years; perverting the course of justice and no doubt seriously interfering with the administration of justice.Mr Clegg all that I ask is that you are seen to fulfil the statement you made back in August 2007:- “if there is any evidence of misconduct at any level of government then clearly this should be fully investigated.”I trust that this Government wants to ensure that the British public does indeed possess a fully independent police complaints system, one that operates with integrity and honesty. Not a police complaints system that is itself corrupt, prepared to conceal complaints and evidence of misconduct reported against its members and the police officers operating in its name. Currently the “police complaints system” appears to be fighting tooth and nail to conceal the evidence of serious corruption committed in its name by police officers and members of the Independent Police complaints Commission.We trust that you will be seen to ensure that a full, fair and open investigation is finally allowed to take place without prejudiceRegardsDavid Tomlinson”

read more http://www.honestgov.net/4.html

(Britain’s Anti-Corruption Champion, Kenneth Clarke, MP, is copied into this email too. We are not sure whether or not he still works there, as we never hear a peep out of him about anti-corruption. Perhaps he thinks that bribery is the only form of corruption?)

Can all of us be wrong, Mr. Jenkin? Some of these people have been crying for justice for nearly thirty years, and all been given the complete run-around by EVERYONE in authority. There is no recourse to justice in the UK, and this is most certainly a human rights violation.

Yours sincerely,

S Harris left an annotation ()

I have had a complaint to-ing and fro-ing with the IPCC and Met Police for 18 months. But what justice can I expect when my complaint includes allegations of perjury and perverting the course of justice by Metropolitan Police Officer Chris Mahaffey... who later became a senior investigator with the IPCC?

Paul Saunderson left an annotation ()

Here's an interesting case of alleged IPCC corruption:

https://grandmabarbara.wordpress.com/2-c...

Paul Saunderson left an annotation ()

Here's another story about the IPCC:

https://grandmabarbara.wordpress.com/1-n...

Paul Saunderson left an annotation ()

And here's a story about how the Common Purpose graduates running York Council have helped North Yorkshire Police defraud an old lady of her assets.

Of course, the Common Purpose graduates in the IPCC are party to this.

Paul Saunderson left an annotation ()

Mark Ritchie left an annotation ()

How can it be acceptable that when a person is the victim of corruption by a police force, to raise a complaint or to log it as a crime, you have to go to the very force that has committed the offence, giving them the ideal situation to cover it up and destroy evidence? That's what has happened to me and then the only recourse is to the IPCC who are made up of ex police officers???

Not in the slightest bit independent yet this is our apparent justice system and we seem to shrug our shoulders and accept it as a whole. If we all took a stand against this unlawful system then we would get change but its no good if its only a few.

CriminalsInPower left an annotation ()

My experiences of the IPCC are of total criminality. But they are just a tiny part of a massively corrupt establishment and a total cover-up of corruption by an amazing variety of people and organisations. The media refuse to tell you the story. See it at www.CriminalsInPower.weebly.com