We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Cathy Fox please sign in and let everyone know.

Investigation into Prince Andrew and Epstein Sex Trafficking Ring

We're waiting for Cathy Fox to read recent responses and update the status.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Please could you send me the recorded information as to why the investigation into Prince Andrew and the Epstein Sex Trafficking Network was terminated as reported by Channel 4 news https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=KKJdMMUg5JI and now the Mail http://archive.fo/3AirY . Please send the documents the reason was recorded on.

Please send me the recorded information as to who was the most senior officer who decided that a full investigation into the Epstein Child Sex Trafficking Network should not go ahead and the limited investigation terminated. Please send relevant documentation.

Please send me the recorded information as to the date this occurred and the documents it was recorded on.

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Cyclops on behalf of Gary Quan, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 Attachment

Official Sensitive

 
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
United Kingdom
Our Ref: 01/FOI/19/011235
Date: 19/08/2019
 
 
 

 
Dear Ms Fox
 
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 01/FOI/19/011235

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 17/08/2019.  I note you seek
access to the following information:
 
Please could you send me the recorded information as to why the
investigation into Prince Andrew and the Epstein Sex Trafficking Network
was terminated as reported by Channel 4 news
https://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=7089&a...
and now the Mail
http://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=7089&am...
. Please send the documents the reason was recorded on.

Please send me the recorded information as to who was the most senior
officer who decided that a full investigation into the Epstein Child Sex
Trafficking Network should not go ahead and the limited investigation
terminated. Please send relevant documentation. 
 
Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act.  
 
If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above. Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details. 
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
 
Gary Quan

 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
 
Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?
 
You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.
 
Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  
 
Complaint
 
If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.
 
Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:
 
FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]
 
In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
 
The Information Commissioner
 
After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.
 
For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:
 
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

 

NOTICE - This email and any attachments are solely for the intended
recipient and may be confidential.  If you have received this email in
error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.  Do not
use, copy or disclose the information contained in this email or in any
attachment without the permission of the sender.  Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS) communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted
by law and any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. 
Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude binding agreements on
behalf of the MPS by email and no responsibility is accepted for
unauthorised agreements reached with other personnel.  While reasonable
precautions have been taken to ensure no viruses are present in this
email, its security and that of any attachments cannot be guaranteed.

 

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I note that the Met Police are way overdue a reply and now has failed in its duty to comply with the FOI Act as they are required to do.Please reply by return as you are more than 60 days overdue. This is clearly unaceptable and leave the Met Police open to allegations of cover up.

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Cathy Fox left an annotation ()

https://web.archive.org/web/201912040850...
Part of article ---
Scotland Yard says it is helping the FBI investigate sex-trafficking allegations against Prince Andrew's paedophile friend Jeffrey Epstein and his network of associates.

For the first time, the Met Police has admitted the force has 'liaised' with US law enforcement probing Epstein's alleged trafficking of women around the world in order to be abused.

One of the specific allegations levelled at the billionaire financier is that he arranged for a 17-year-old Virginia Roberts - now known as Giuffre - to be taken to London in 2001, where she had sex with Prince Andrew.

The Duke of York strenuously denies claims he partied with the teenager at Tramp nightclub before going back to Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell's house, in west London.

The Met confirmed an allegation of historic trafficking for sexual exploitation was made in July 2015 and that although the force had 'not received a formal request' over the allegation, discussions with US investigators had taken place.

However, the investigation in London was shelved around 17 months later when officers decided that as the investigation into human trafficking was 'largely focused on activities and relationships outside the UK' the complaint would no longer be actively pursued.

Since Epstein was found hanged in his Manhattan jail cell in August this year, the Met said its investigation would remain closed.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Dean Haydon made the initial decision to close the complaint by Miss Roberts.

At the time he was the commander in charge of specialist crime investigations.
Prince Andrew delivering a speech in ASEAN Business and Investment Summit (ABIS) in Nonthaburi, Thailand, earlier this month
+9

Prince Andrew delivering a speech in ASEAN Business and Investment Summit (ABIS) in Nonthaburi, Thailand, earlier this month

A review of the decision not to pursue the claims, which the Met confirmed in August had been carried out, was made by Alex Murray, now the Met Police Commander for Specialist Crime.

Today Commander Alex Murray said: 'Officers assessed the available evidence, interviewed the complainant and obtained early investigative advice from the Crown Prosecution Service.

'Following the legal advice, it was clear that any investigation into human trafficking would be largely focused on activities and relationships outside the UK.
Commander Chief Superintendent Alex Murray reviewed the decision not to pursue the claims of sex trafficking
+9

Commander Chief Superintendent Alex Murray reviewed the decision not to pursue the claims of sex trafficking

'The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has liaised with other law enforcement organisations but has not received a formal request asking for assistance in connection with this allegation.'

Associates of Epstein, including Maxwell and Prince Andrew, have faced calls to give statements to the FBI over what they saw during their time at his properties in Florida, New York and his private island in the Caribbean - Little St James.

Speaking to BBC Newsnight earlier this month, Prince Andrew said he would co-operate with the FBI if he was asked to give a statement.

He denied ever witnessing any wrongdoing by Epstein during the course of the friendship, which saw the prince regularly stay at the billionaire's home. Epstein even visited Windsor Castle and Sandringham, along with Maxwell who had known Andrew for much longer.

It also emerged last night that Prince Andrew faces being stripped of his role in the Sea Cadets as the fallout from his connections to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein continue.

The embattled prince has already faced calls to be removed from many of his other naval duties following his car crash BBC Newsnight interview earlier this month.

But now he could also be axed as Admiral of the Sea Cadets - a nominal figurehead role he has held since 1992.

A source at the charity for ten to 18-year-olds told the Mirror it was 'reviewing' the Duke of York's position, with another adding that after a 'cooling off period', he 'will not be involved any longer'.
Prince Andrew, Duke of York (centre) marches with the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm - where he is commodore-in-chief. He faces losing many of his military roles
+9

Prince Andrew, Duke of York (centre) marches with the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm - where he is commodore-in-chief. He faces losing many of his military roles

Senior military leaders have called for the 'embarrassing' prince to be stripped of some of the 58 other honorary military roles.

Sources in the navy claim the Duke of York, who previously worked as a helicopter pilot during the Falklands war, has become an embarrassment and should be 'quietly faded out' from his honorary military appointments.
Scotland Yard's full statement on its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking allegations

Commander Alex Murray, from the Specialist Crime unit, gave details of the investigations the Met Police carried out into the complaint of sex trafficking made by Virginia Roberts.

He said in a statement today: 'In July 2015 the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) confirmed it had received an allegation of non-recent trafficking for sexual exploitation.

'The allegation was made against a US national, Jeffrey Epstein, and a British woman.

'It related to events outside of the UK and an allegation of trafficking to central London in March 2001.

'The MPS always takes any allegations concerning sexual exploitation seriously.

'Officers assessed the available evidence, interviewed the complainant and obtained early investigative advice from the Crown Prosecution Service.

'Following the legal advice, it was clear that any investigation into human trafficking would be largely focused on activities and relationships outside the UK.

'We therefore concluded that the MPS was not the appropriate authority to conduct enquiries in these circumstances and, in November 2016, a decision was made that this matter would not proceed to a full criminal investigation.

'In August 2019, following the death of Jeffrey Epstein the MPS reviewed the decision making and our position remains unchanged.

'The MPS has liaised with other law enforcement organisations but has not received a formal request asking for assistance in connection with this allegation.'

During the BBC interview, Andrew denied claims he had sex with a 17-year-old girl, Virginia Roberts, but admitted he had 'let the side down' when he visited Epstein's home in New York – two years after the billionaire financier's conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution.

As charities continue to severe their links with the disgraced duke, this latest revelation will come as a blow to the royals who have been trying to keep Prince Andrew away from the spot light, even shunning him from meeting President Donald Trump next week.

The armed forces are bound by allegiance to the Queen which could make it difficult for them to take action.

Speaking to The Times on Wednesday senior current and former personnel in the navy and army said Prince Andrew had become a 'source of derision'.

One navy source said Prince Andrew should not be able to retain the titles which include his position as commodore-in-chief of the fleet air arm.

He is also the admiral of the sea cadet corps within the Royal Navy.

'As a service we would not be rushing to invite him to anything. It's safe to say there have been grumbles and it seems likely that the post would be passed on', the source added.

Prince Andrew is also the colonel of the Grenadier Guards and holds four other colonel-in-chief titles.

It was also suggested that the duke had become a joke after stating on the Newsnight interview that he was unable to sweat after his experiences in the Falklands.

They said: 'It's embarrassing to be represented by someone like that'. Adding that it came to a surprise to many who had previously served in combat.

It was also claimed that Prince Andrew's relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his reluctance to help authorities with their enquiries was not in line with army values.

Charities began to distance themselves from Andrew in the immediate wake of the Newsnight broadcast.

Andrew agreed to withdraw from public duty but initially wanted to remain a figurehead for some 200 charities and other affiliations.

But he was forced to back down after many made it clear they no longer wanted his backing.
Sources claimed Prince Andrew (pictured above) was 'stupid' to have done the BBC interview
+9

Sources claimed Prince Andrew (pictured above) was 'stupid' to have done the BBC interview

At least 23 organisations have either dropped him or accepted his resignation, including the English National Ballet, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and the Outward Bound Trust.

Several sponsors have also dropped their backing for his Pitch@Palace business initiative and the project has been told to find offices outside of Buckingham Palace.

In 2017 the Duke of Edinburgh withdrew from public life and the source claimed that this should be the course Prince Andrew takes, and that he could be replaced as commodore-in-chief of the fleet air arm by Prince Charles' eldest son William.

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Fox,

Thank you for your email. I have forwarded this onto the Information Manager who is dealing with your request who will be in touch with you.

Kind regards,

Julia

Julia Cox | Triage Case Officer | Information Rights Unit
Strategy & Insight | Strategy & Governance | METHQ | Metropolitan Police Service
Email: [email address
Address: Information Rights Unit, PO Box 313, SIDCUP DA15 0HH

GOVERNMENT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL
Not Suitable for Publication:
Recipients of this email should be aware that all communications within and to and from the Metropolitan Police Service are subject to consideration for release under the Data Protection Act, Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS will consider all information suitable for release unless there are valid and proportionate public interest reasons not to, therefore, sensitive information not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such.

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Fox,

 

Firstly, please let me apologise for the delay in getting this update to
you.

 

I am now responsible for this request and have drafted a response.  It is
currently under consideration by the relevant Decision Makers.

 

Once I have approval I will be sure to send the response promptly.  The
Decision Makers are aware of the fact that we have missed the statutory
deadline and are now in breach of Section 10 of the Act.

 

I hope to have a response to you shortly.  Apologies again for the delay
and for any inconvenience this may be causing.

 

Kind regards,

 

Shannon Stroud | Freedom of Information | Information & Insight | Strategy
& Governance | MetHQ |
Metropolitan Police Service
Address - Information Rights Unit, PO Box 313, SIDCUP DA15 0HH
Please consider the environment before printing this email

OFFICIAL

 

Recipients of this email should be aware that all communications within
and to and from the Metropolitan Police Service are subject to
consideration for release under the Data Protection Act, Freedom of
Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS will
consider information for release unless there is are valid and
proportionate public interest reasons not to, therefore, sensitive
information not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such. Further
advice can be obtained from the Information Rights Unit - 0207 161 3500.

 

 

NOTICE - This email and any attachments are solely for the intended
recipient and may be confidential.  If you have received this email in
error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system.  Do not
use, copy or disclose the information contained in this email or in any
attachment without the permission of the sender.  Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS) communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted
by law and any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. 
Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude binding agreements on
behalf of the MPS by email and no responsibility is accepted for
unauthorised agreements reached with other personnel.  While reasonable
precautions have been taken to ensure no viruses are present in this
email, its security and that of any attachments cannot be guaranteed.

 

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),
Shannon Stroud
Thankyou for your response.
Please tell me what the excessive delay has been
Please tell me who these decision makers are and how long this process will take for decision makers to decide on this
I also note that each day that goes past without a substantive reply, then the Metropolitan Police are intentionally or otherwise, covering up this important matter

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Fox,

Again, I can only apologise for this continued delay and any inconvenience it may be causing.

The decision currently rests with Frontline Policing. I will continue to raise this with them in order to get a response to you as soon as possible.

Kind regards,

Shannon Stroud

show quoted sections

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Thank your for your reply.
I did ask
"Please tell me what the excessive delay has been
Please tell me who these decision makers are and how long this process will take for decision makers to decide on this'
I also note that each day that goes past without a substantive reply, then the Metropolitan Police are intentionally or otherwise, covering up this important matter."

I ask under S16 what the excessive delay has been.
Whilst you aswered that "The decision currently rests with Frontline Policing" I am none the wiser, please tell me what "Frontline Policing" is and how they fit into the police structure."
I also clarify that i wish the decision makers names.
I also reiterate a little stronger that this delay stinks of a cover up.

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Cyclops on behalf of Shannon Stroud, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

2 Attachments

 

Official Sensitive

     

 

 

 

Dear Ms Fox,

 

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 01/FOI/19/011235

 

Please see the attached in respect of your Freedom of Information request
referenced above.

I would again like to sincerely apologise for the delay in getting this to
you.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Shannon Stroud

Information Rights Unit

 

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

 

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

 

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

 

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

 

Complaint

 

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

 

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

 

FOI Complaint

Information Rights Unit

PO Box 57192

London

SW6 1SF

[email address]

 

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

 

The Information Commissioner

 

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

 

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

 

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Phone: 0303 123 1113

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),
You have made absolutely no attempt to answer these points. Please do so.

"Please tell me what the excessive delay has been
Please tell me who these decision makers are and how long this process will take for decision makers to decide on this'

I ask under S16 what the excessive delay has been.
Whilst you answered that "The decision currently rests with Frontline Policing" I am none the wiser, please tell me what "Frontline Policing" is and how they fit into the police structure."
I also clarify that i wish the decision makers names.

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Cyclops on behalf of Rozmarie Loizou, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 Attachment

 

 

Official Sensitive

 

 

 

 

 

 

Information Rights Unit 

PO Box 313 

SIDCUP 

DA15 0HH

United Kingdom

Our Ref: 01/FOI/19/012787

Date: 19/12/2019

 

 

 

 

Dear Ms Fox

  

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 01/FOI/19/012787

 

I write in connection with your request for a review of the handling
and/or decision relating to 01/FOI/19/011235 which was received by the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 12/12/2019.   

 

A review will now be conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice
issued under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
 The reviewing officer will reconsider the original request before
responding to you with their findings.

 

There is no statutory time limit in relation to the completion of an
Internal Review.  However, the MPS aim to complete Internal Reviews within
20 working days or in exceptional cases, within 40 working days.  This is
based upon guidance published by the Information Commissioner.

 

If it is not possible to complete the Internal Review within this
timescale you will be informed at the earliest opportunity. 

 

If you are unhappy with the outcome of an Internal Review you may wish to
refer the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

 

For information on how to make an application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively,
write to or phone: 

 

Information Commissioner's Office 

Wycliffe House 

Water Lane 

Wilmslow 

Cheshire 

SK9 5AF 

Phone:  0303 123 1113

 

Yours sincerely 

 

R. Loizou

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email. Please note that has not been yet a 20 working day period to respond to your request. I have checked out system and can see that the person dealing with this matter is Yvette Taylor.

Yvette Taylor, please would you provide Cathy Fox with an update on this request?

Regards,

Justyna Gorecka | Administration Assistant | Information Rights Unit 
Strategy & Insight | Strategy & Governance | Met HQ | Metropolitan Police Service

Email [email address]
Address Information Rights Unit, PO Box 313, SIDCUP DA15 0HH
Protective Marking: RESTRICTED
Not Suitable for Publication: N
Recipients of this email should be aware that all communications within and to and from the Metropolitan Police Service are subject to consideration for release under the General Data Protection Regulations, Data Protection Act, Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS will consider information for release unless there is a valid and proportionate public interest reason(s) not to, therefore, sensitive information not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such. Further advice can be obtained from the Information Rights Unit - Email [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

These were items that should have been answered with the original request and/or under S16, or under ICO guidelines on how to answer. As you are jumping straight to an internal review, I will write further with ALL the points that should be examined under the internal review

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Fox

Thank you for your emails below. I am dealing with your procedural complaint dated 12/12/2019:

"Please tell me what the excessive delay has been Please tell me who these decision makers are and how long this process will take for decision makers to decide on this'
I also note that each day that goes past without a substantive reply, then the Metropolitan Police are intentionally or otherwise, covering up this important matter."

I ask under S16 what the excessive delay has been.
Whilst you answered that "The decision currently rests with Frontline Policing" I am none the wiser, please tell me what "Frontline Policing" is and how they fit into the police structure."
I also clarify that i wish the decision makers names.
I also reiterate a little stronger that this delay stinks of a cover up.

I will provide you with a response as soon as possible but no later than 14/01/2020. If any delay is anticipated, I will update you.

From your email below, it appears that you also wish to make a complaint about the decisions reached for your request. You have said you will provide all your reasons in due course. Once received, your complaint concerning our decisions will be recorded under a separate reference number.

Thank you

Yvette Taylor - Information Manager - Freedom of Information Team, Information Rights Unit (IRU)
STRATEGY & GOVERNANCE, MetHQ
Informal Resolution Champion
Member of Metropolitan Black Police Association (Met BPA)

Metropolitan Police Service
MetPhone 780074 | Telephone 020 7161 0074 | E-Mail: [email address]   
Address - Information Rights Unit, PO Box 313, Sidcup DA15 OHH

Please consider the environment before printing this email
PROTECTIVELY MARKED AS OFFICIAL SENSITIVE

Recipients of this email should be aware that all communications within and to and from the Metropolitan Police Service are subject to consideration for release under the Data Protection Act, Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS will consider information for release unless there is are valid and proportionate public interest reasons not to, therefore, sensitive information not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such. Further advice can be obtained from the Information Rights Unit - 0207 161 3500.

show quoted sections

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)'s handling of my FOI request 'Investigation into Prince Andrew and Epstein Sex Trafficking Ring'.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

You have chosen to categorise some of my legitimate questions which could have been answered very quickly under S16 as a "procedural complaint" and have assigned a 28 day deadline for this.

To show how farcical this is I quote "Please tell me what the excessive delay has been. Please tell me who these decision makers are and how long this process will take for decision makers to decide on this"

I asked how long it was going to take to answer, you choose not to reply to this at the time. By now you have already given a response and yet you are going to take 28 days to look at something you should have answered by return, and before the response it was referring to!

You delayed over 3 months on the original request yet you are going to take another 28 days to even respond to the question about when you were going to answer the orginal question - I perhaps naively assume you see the absurdity.

It is obvious to most observers that once again Metropolitan Polic are deliberately delaying.

I asked you
"Please tell me what the excessive delay has been. Please tell me who these decision makers are and how long this process will take for decision makers to decide on this "
You chose not to answer "Who" but answered "The decision currently rests with Frontline Policing"
This is a department or something similar. However I still waiting for an answer on this which i also asked
"I am none the wiser, please tell me what "Frontline Policing" is and how they fit into the police structure."

That is a S16 on a simple matter for you to answer quickly not a full blown FOI request.

You of course have STILL yet to answer what the orginal excessive delay was in which Met Police failed in their duty to comply with the FOI act and a reason could reasonably have been expected to be given for this breach of duty.

Further Met Police have tried to obfuscate. In their reply of 19th Dec from Loizou, instigating some sort of internal review, it is not clear upon which FOI request, then claiming in a reply on 19 Dec from Justyna Gorecka that a new request was initiated on 12 Dec, yet this obviously was not seen as a new request at the time as no new FOI Request number was given, despite a reply in the meantime.

My original request was:
"Please could you send me the recorded information as to why the investigation into Prince Andrew and the Epstein Sex Trafficking Network was terminated as reported by Channel 4 news https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=KKJdMMUg5JI and now the Mail http://archive.fo/3AirY . Please send the documents the reason was recorded on.

Please send me the recorded information as to who was the most senior officer who decided that a full investigation into the Epstein Child Sex Trafficking Network should not go ahead and the limited investigation terminated. Please send relevant documentation. "

You have ignored totally my request for the documents, rather than just the answers. Please tell me why you have done this and answer the FOI accordingly.

It is not clear from your answer which exemptions you are applying to which parts of the request. eg Do the exemptions apply as to why the the documents themselves were not produced in the answer, rather than just the Police names and if so which ones and why could the documents not be redacted?

Whilst of course I do not wish sensitive victim data to be revealed, it seems unreasonable that no data whatsoever can be released as to why a full investigation was not proceeded with, and why an investigation into whether that decision was correct does also has no public facing statement as to explain something of huge "public interest" as well as interest to the public.

It defies belief in fact and many of the public of course, in lieu of any facts to the contrary understandably believe that this is just a further part of the cover up of high profile persons abuse. This degrades public confidence in the Met and this does not appear to be adequately represented in the public interest tests done in answer to this request.

The reasons for not confirming or deny are certainly not at all convincing, especially since " the MPS decision to not launch a full criminal investigation into the allegation"

As well as Epstein - the American no doubt referred to, and who is dead, it is believed that offences were carried out by Ghislaine Maxwell who appears to be English. There is a great deal of information in the public domain about her offences, and her presence in England and even during that time earlier in 2019 with Prince Andrew.

It is thus very hard for the public to understand why any investigation into human trafficking was not launched.

You quote "Section 38 relates to information that, if disclosed, would or would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual. In this case, this exemption is engaged because if the requested information were disclosed, in particular the statements from the individual who made the claim, it would be likely to be distressing and upsetting to the victim, other potential victims and the surviving family members of the individual that is the subject of this request. This is because of the nature of the claims and the emotive nature of the alleged offence"

Have you contacted the victim to see if she is willing to allow some statements to be disclosed or if it would be likely to endanger her health?

You issue catch all statements that appear to be based totally on supposition ( see following quote marks)

"The allegation in this instance is one of non-recent sex trafficking. This is an emotive subject, and one that requires sensitivity around how it is handled in order to protect the privacy and mental well-being of potential victims. Should the MPS disclose the information that falls within this exemption, it would be likely to cause distress to the victim, as this information is undoubtedly extremely sensitive and personal in nature.

Furthermore, it could also potentially act as a ‘trigger’ to others that may have suffered similarly, and cause unnecessary anguish. This must be considered even more strongly given who the allegation concerns, as this would no doubt be quoted within the press and therefore openly commented on in public – bringing it to a wider audience.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

Disclosing this information would, again, demonstrate the MPS commitment to openness and transparency. It would highlight that we take all such allegations seriously, regardless of who may have been accused, and conduct thorough research before coming to any decision as to whether or not a formal investigation can commence.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

Disclosing this sensitive, emotive information would be likely to cause undue stress, anxiety and distress to victims and the named individual’s surviving family. Public safety – both physical and mental – must be considered when looking at the public interest in whether or not information should be released into the wider public domain. In this instance, it cannot be seen to be in the wider public interest to disclose information that will unquestionably cause distress to the public, due to its upsetting nature."

Have you any evidence for this?
It could equally be argued that secrecy is the fuel for pedophilia and transparency is a disinfectant, exposure reduces harm and that most victims and survivors dearly want as much exposing of this as possible before they can start to heal. Why is this not taken into account in the public interest tests or tests or evidence of harm? The public surely would be happier seeing something happen rather than what appears to be continual cover up? Why is this not taken into account?

Of course it is understandable in some circumstances why sensitive data and personal data should perhaps not be released but to hide under these plethora of exemptions, without even detailing which parts apply to which part of the question and not providing even a public facing statement for the original decision or review of the decision not to open an investigation into trafficking for sexual exploitation appears to show unwillingness for the Met Police to do they job that the public expect them to do.

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

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Further to my last email it has come to my attention that I relied on your copy of what I asked. This was not copied correctly by Metropolitan Police. I reproduce the correct request below.

"Please could you send me the recorded information as to why the investigation into Prince Andrew and the Epstein Sex Trafficking Network was terminated as reported by Channel 4 news https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=KKJdMMUg5JI and now the Mail http://archive.fo/3AirY . Please send the documents the reason was recorded on.

Please send me the recorded information as to who was the most senior officer who decided that a full investigation into the Epstein Child Sex Trafficking Network should not go ahead and the limited investigation terminated. Please send relevant documentation.

Please send me the recorded information as to the date this occurred and the documents it was recorded on."

It is therefore clear that a date was asked for and that none was provided, and it thus I want the internal review to also include why this date was not given

On a separate point the response included the following

"The MPS understands that there is a belief that this is very much a matter of public interest given the high profile, powerful nature of the individual in question. However, this man is deceased but his victims, associates and surviving family members are not. According to ICO guidance on the application of section 40, there is always a greater expectation that a public authority would not disclose such information when it relates to an individual’s private life. The living identifiable individuals are not high profile figures, and given the sensitive nature of the information, there is much less of an argument for disclosure."

It is stated "The living identifiable individuals are not high profile figures.." Ghislaine Maxwell is a very high profile figure and thus this argument is not valid and this reason should therefore be reviewed

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Cyclops on behalf of Yvette Taylor, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

2 Attachments

 

Official Sensitive

     

 

 

 

Dear Ms Fox

 

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 01/FOI/19/012787

 

Please see the attached in respect of your Freedom of Information request
referenced above.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Yvette Taylor

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

 

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

 

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

 

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

 

Complaint

 

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

 

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

 

FOI Complaint

Information Rights Unit

PO Box 57192

London

SW6 1SF

[email address]

 

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

 

The Information Commissioner

 

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

 

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

 

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Phone: 0303 123 1113

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS

Thank your for the reply of 24th Dec from Yvette Taylor.
However there is still unanswered questions.
1. Why have I not received an answer to my original request of
"Please send me the recorded information as to the date this occurred and the documents it was recorded on." ?
2. Why was this not addressed in the internal review if that is what the MPS reply of 24th of Dec was supposed to be?
My 20th Dec email said "It is therefore clear that a date was asked for and that none was provided, and it thus I want the internal review to also include why this date was not given" so it is clear that i wanted this included in the internal review. S45 5.9 " pay particular attention to concerns raised by the applicant" It seems Met police failed to do this.
3. In the "internal review", to explain the delay you give figures, but do not give easy comparable figures even when the link you give is checked. I do note there appear less requests than 2016, and any increase in this year upon last should be easily within the scope of an efficient organisation. Failing to answer, just causes more work
4. Your explanation of delay ignores the fact that you could have sent emails stating what the delay situation was. This would take about 2 minutes, but you failed completely to do this. You made no effort to keep me informed. You do not address this in you reply of 24th Dec
5. I am well aware what s 45 of the FOI Act says, I am also aware that it is a tactic that some authorities use to fail to give a prompt answer to queries that should be answered quickly by S16.
6. You failed to answer this "Please tell me who these decision makers are". I note you try and obfuscate to departments which is unacceptable as essentially the public cannot hold an person accountable

There is nothing in your reply or any previous replies that gives me or in my opinion the wider public, any confidence that the Metropolitan Police "Service" is doing anything but deliberately delaying and covering up a decision twice not to investigate an allegation of human trafficking of a girl to a prominent member of the Royal Family by Epstein and pimped by Ghislaine Maxwell.

I wish to be review the issues that you have failed to.

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Cathy Fox, thank you for your email dated 25^th December 2019. In
regards to the points you raise:

 

1. Why have I not received an answer to my original request of "Please
send me the recorded information as to the date this occurred and the
documents it was recorded on." ?

2.  Why was this not addressed in the internal review if that is what the
MPS reply of 24th of Dec was supposed to be?

My 20th Dec email said "It is therefore clear that a date was asked for
and that none was provided, and it thus I want the internal review to also
include why this date was not given" so it is clear that i wanted this
included in the internal review. S45 5.9 " pay particular attention to
concerns raised by the applicant" It seems Met police  failed to do this.

 

I can confirm that the response you have received was a review only
concerning the delay to your original request, namely a Procedural
Review.  This is to ensure cases are dealt with in a timely manner pending
any final decision being sent to an applicant. However, this procedural
review is not a review of the decisions made in a case – this can only be
done once a final response has been sent to an applicant. This was
mentioned in the response sent “Your complaint concerning the decisions
made regarding the same matter will be addressed following receipt of your
complaint about the decisions arrived at.”

 

However, now that you have received the MPS response to your original
request, should you be dissatisfied with the response you may seek a
review of that decision by emailing myself or [1][email address]

 

 

3. In the "internal review", to explain the delay you give figures, but do
not give easy comparable figures even when the link you give is checked. I
do note there appear less requests than 2016, and any increase in this
year upon last should be easily within the scope of an efficient
organisation. Failing to answer, just causes more work 4. Your explanation
of delay ignores the fact that you could have sent emails stating what the
delay situation was. This would take about 2 minutes, but you failed
completely to do this.  You made no effort to keep me informed. You do not
address this in you reply of 24th Dec 5. I am well aware what s 45 of the
FOI Act says, I am also aware that it is a tactic that some authorities
use to fail to give a prompt answer to queries that should be answered
quickly by S16. 6. You failed to answer this  "Please tell me who these
decision makers are". I note you try and obfuscate to departments which is
unacceptable as essentially the public cannot hold an person accountable

 

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the procedural Internal Review
you have the right to appeal the decision by contacting the Information
Commissioner's Office (ICO) for a decision on whether the request for
information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the
FOIA.

 

For information on how to make an application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively,
write to or phone:

 

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Phone:  0303 123 1113

 

I hope this advice assists you.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Mr Lyng

FOIA Information Manager

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Thankyou for the reply, which has delayed things more.

You could easily have treated all the issues as an internal review, wihtout any delay without ignoring the internal review request and just answering the email as part of a procedural review.

I repeat it here
1. Why have I not received an answer to my original request of
"Please send me the recorded information as to the date this occurred and the documents it was recorded on." ?
2. Why was this not addressed in the procedural review if that is what the MPS reply of 24th of Dec was supposed to be?
My 20th Dec email said "It is therefore clear that a date was asked for and that none was provided, and it thus I want the internal review to also include why this date was not given" so it is clear that i want this included in the internal review. S45 5.9 " pay particular attention to concerns raised by the applicant" It seems Met police failed to do this.
3. In the "prcedural review", to explain the delay you give figures, but do not give easy comparable figures even when the link you give is checked. I do note there appear less requests than 2016, and any increase in this year upon last should be easily within the scope of an efficient organisation. Failing to answer, just causes more work
4. Your explanation of delay ignores the fact that you could have sent emails stating what the delay situation was. This would take about 2 minutes, but you failed completely to do this. You made no effort to keep me informed. You do not address this in you reply of 24th Dec
5. I am well aware what s 45 of the FOI Act says, I am also aware that it is a tactic that some authorities use to fail to give a prompt answer to queries that should be answered quickly by S16.
6. You failed to answer this "Please tell me who these decision makers are". I note you try and obfuscate to departments which is unacceptable as essentially the public cannot hold an person accountable

There is nothing in your reply or any previous replies that gives me or in my opinion the wider public, any confidence that the Metropolitan Police "Service" is doing anything but deliberately delaying and covering up a decision twice not to investigate an allegation of human trafficking of a girl to a prominent member of the Royal Family by Epstein and pimped by Ghislaine Maxwell.

I wish to be reviewed these issues and the whole answering of the request

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

In addition to the last email, there are various points of relevance in this post to the internal review, which I would like the review to address. The full post is accessed via this link, but some text can be read below

https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2019/12/2...

I sent a Freedom of Information request to the Metropolitan Police on 17th August 2019, about the investigation into Prince Andrew and the Epstein Sex Trafficking Network by Met Police.

Their duty under the law is to reply within 28 working days. They failed to reply substantively even by 4th December, nearly 15 weeks, when I sent them another reminder that they, the Met Police, had failed to comply with the FOI Acts.

In my experience in FOI requests the Police are one of the worst offenders in failing to reply on time as well as in not providing information requested

The answer was incomplete. True to form the Met Police make pathetic excuses and do not even do internal reviews correctly. However so as to not get sidetracked on their incompetence, much of that failure is irrelevant to this post which is to analyse the information in the original reply, I will concentrate on that.

They eventually did provide this following information in their reply. WDTK Met Response attachment [3] .

“Commander Dean Haydon (Homicide, rape, sexual offences and child abuse Command, now Deputy Assistant Commissioner) was the officer who assessed the allegation into non-recent trafficking for sexual exploitation.

Earlier this year Commander Alex Murray reviewed the previous decision making and confirmed it remained entirely appropriate”

In the reasons the Police gave for not releasing more information they did give a little more information

The MPS did receive an allegation of non-recent trafficking for sexual exploitation. Information was collated and it was, after consideration and with consultation with legal advisors, decided that a full criminal investigation would not be launched.

The information that you have requested with regard to Mr. Epstein relates to work undertaken by the MPS in order to ascertain whether an investigation needed to be launched following an allegation of non-recent sexual trafficking.

Furthermore, it is vitally important to maintain the relationship between the MPS and the CPS. Disclosure would be likely to impact upon the ability of the MPS to have free and frank exchanges with the CPS in future, as there may be a concern that confidentiality would not be maintained. This would have an adverse impact on discussions around investigations in future, which would not be in the public interest. [CPS in Britain is the Crown Prosecution Service, MPS is the Metropolitan Police Service]

In this instance, the individual in question was an American national, convicted of related crimes in the USA, and therefore any allegations made here that concerned him were likely to result in some degree of international communication.

So it is clear that there was an allegation of non recent trafficking for sexual exploitation [by Virginia Giuffre]. A scoping exercise, (an initial investigation to investigate whether further investigation is needed) was then carried out by Commander Dean Haydon who decided that a further investigation should not be carried out. The reasons remain unclear and the Met Police refused to supply the reasons.

For some reason a review of this decision was carried out by Commander Alex Murray in 2019 which came to the same conclusion.

The decision not to carry out any investigation is in direct opposition to what Virginia Giuffre has tweeted that the Met Police told her.

The Met Police told her that they were going to forensically examine Ghislaine Maxwell’s house from top to bottom.

Even after Virginia questioned that saying “it has been so long how would you be able find anything?”, the Met Police replied that they had the technology to test the fibres in the carpet and so on.

Virginia states “ask Scotland Yard & MET why they decided NOT to further any investigation after I had been told that they were going to forensically examine Maxwell’s townhouse from top to bottom. Who’s protecting who??”

So it is of huge “public interest” that more information is divulged by Met Police, as

It appears that the Police have lied to a victim of sex trafficking
Their behaviour perpetuates a widespread belief that there is a cover up of child sexual abuse by high profile figures
The Met Police behaviour perpetuates the belief that the Police are a body that covers up the child sexual abuse

To attempt to justify claiming some exemptions the police have to give reasons for and against in a “Public Interest Test”. The Police are always very keen to differentiate between being in the public interest and the interest of the public. The following is given as part of their reply.

The MPS understands that there is a belief that this is very much a matter of public interest given the high profile, powerful nature of the individual in question. However, this man is deceased but his victims, associates and surviving family members are not. According to ICO guidance on the application of section 40, there is always a greater expectation that a public authority would not disclose such information when it relates to an individual’s private life. The living identifiable individuals are not high profile figures, and given the sensitive nature of the information, there is much less of an argument for disclosure.

It appears that the Police are saying that Ghislaine Maxwell is not a high profile figure, and that there is less reason why certain information should be disclosed.

The living identifiable individuals are not high profile figures, and given the sensitive nature of the information, there is much less of an argument for disclosure.

Ghislaine Maxwell is an extremely high profile figure. To even try to claim that this is not the case, raises suspicions that the Met Police are covering up. Who are they trying to kid? The pimp, Ghislaine Maxwell, for the most well known child sexual abuse and trafficking network in the world is somehow not “high profile”. This has no credibility.

Pull the other one Plod.

The Met also claims “Furthermore, we must consider the fact that there was no criminal investigation launched in response to this allegation. This, too, reduces the argument in favour of disclosure”.

So, because the Met Police decided not to carry out a further investigation ie a “criminal investigation” in their terms, this in their eyes reduces the weight of the argument for disclosure of information as to why they decided not to carry out a criminal investigation!

A beautiful circular argument. They won’t release the information about why they did not carry out the criminal investigation, as it is not important enough as they didn’t carry out a criminal investigation. Met Police logic!

Part of the trouble is of course, the default position of the Police always appears to be to release as little information as possible, contrary to the FOI Act. They then use the exemptions as broadly as possible, and as many as possible to attempt to convince people who do not understand FOI by sheer weight of exemptions that there are genuine reasons. In fact the justifications for the exemptions are often filled with gobbledegook as above.

Most people think it would be a no brainer, to investigate a proven and convicted pedophile’s sex trafficking network, and carry out a criminal investigation into Ghislaine. As the Met Police appear to think it is not, then it raises the question of what the Met Police are actually in existence for, if it is not to investigate pedophiles’ sex trafficking crimes.

Laughably if it was not so serious, under S30 exemption about Investigations, the Met Police claim

Disclosing the requested information would prejudice our ability to conduct criminal investigations of this nature in future, particularly if further victims / witnesses came forward. Disclosing this information may even deter other victims from coming forward, for fear that their information and / or statements may be made publicly available.

The are claiming that if they disclose why they did not carry out a criminal investigation, then this will deter other victims from coming forward. In the inverted world of the Met Police, when the victim actually wants to know the reason why the investigation did not proceed, they pretend it is because the victims information will be released. No. This can be redacted under personal and sensitive data, Section 40 not Section 30. BS

s38 The allegation in this instance is one of non-recent sex trafficking. This is an emotive subject, and one that requires sensitivity around how it is handled in order to protect the privacy and mental well-being of potential victims. Should the MPS disclose the information that falls within this exemption, it would be likely to cause distress to the victim, as this information is undoubtedly extremely sensitive and personal in nature.

Furthermore, it could also potentially act as a ‘trigger’ to others that may have suffered similarly, and cause unnecessary anguish. This must be considered even more strongly given who the allegation concerns, as this would no doubt be quoted within the press and therefore openly commented on in public – bringing it to a wider audience.

Under s38 Health and Safety (The information deniers love this one) the Met Police, again pretend that it is personal data (section 40 would take care of this) and although they have not checked with the victim, they say it is likely to cause distress to her. They also love including every other victim of abuse under this as by saying might trigger them. They never have information to back up this statement which is why they love it so much.

In my experience and conversations with victims, almost the exact opposite is the case

they feel that the authorities hide information unnecessarily to deliberately conceal the child abuse, or conceal the cover up
they want as much information to be released as possible (except personal data) and it is then THEIR choice to be able to look at the information or not, a choice they have been denied their whole lives, whilst much secret (and incorrect) information has been used to make decisions about their lives.

Met Police further claim

Furthermore, it is vitally important to maintain the relationship between the MPS and the CPS. Disclosure would be likely to impact upon the ability of the MPS to have free and frank exchanges with the CPS in future, as there may be a concern that confidentiality would not be maintained. This would have an adverse impact on discussions around investigations in future, which would not be in the public interest.

The above paragraph in this case is either to pretend that they have had conversations with CPS and offload the responsibility for the Police decision not to investigate futher to the CPS or they actually had conversations with the CPS, which may be surprising at this early stage when the Police have decided not even to investigate further. It would be interesting to find the truth on this.

Update 2019 Dec 29 23.34

To indicate just how unhelpful that the Met Police are, I have just found this from Commander Alex Murray, who was the person that reviewed the original decision not to investigate Virginia’s claim.

2019 Nov 28 Met Police Statement Regarding Allegation of No Recent Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation [13]

This statement which the Met Police have chosen not to refer to when replying to me,

States the allegation was made in July 2015
It was against an American Epstein, and a British woman [Ghislaine Maxwell]
The allegation of trafficking to central London was in March 2001
Officers assessed the available evidence, interviewed the complainant and obtained early investigative advice from the Crown Prosecution Service
Following the legal advice, [It nods to the advice being from CPS] it was clear that any investigation into human trafficking would be largely focused on activities and relationships outside the UK. We therefore concluded that the MPS was not the appropriate authority to conduct enquiries in these circumstances and, in November 2016, a decision was made that this matter would not proceed to a full criminal investigation.
In August 2019, following the death of Jeffrey Epstein the MPS reviewed the decision making and our position remains unchanged
The MPS has liaised with other law enforcement organisations but has not received a formal request asking for assistance in connection with this allegation.

Thus despite the offence allegation being made about a British woman and the offence in Britain, the British Met Police position is that any investigation would largely be focussed outside the UK and therefore they were not the appropriate authority to conduct enquiries. This despite admitting that US authorities have not asked for assistance.

The reason given for the Review of the original decision is the death of Epstein, [on 9/10th Aug] which to most people would mean increased urgency to investigate Maxwell, especially as there are valid suspicions that Epstein did not kill himself. The Met works to different ethical standards it seems.

Of interest are the dates,

2001 March the offence
2015 July allegation made (original or interview?)
2016 Nov Decision taken to not proceed with criminal investigation
2019 Nov Review of non investigation decision

Met Police are definitely saying that they contacted CPS for early investigative advice and are essentially saying the responsibility / blame rests with the Crown Prosecution Service.

The fact that the Met Police did not even tell me about the existence of this statement, despite the fact my FOI request preceeded it by many weeks, and the FOI answer was given a month after it, tells volumes about the Met Police and the FOI Unit.

Virginia blamed high levels of government

2019 Nov 28 Insider British police won’t pursue criminal charges against Ghislaine Maxwell for her alleged involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking activities [14a]

This may well be true, but equally it may be high level police, high level Crown Prosecution Service or any combination.

The subtext to this is one of Met Police corruption, especially in matters of sexual abuse and child sexual abuse. Police Corruption at high senior level has never been got , ever since it was widely recognised, and efforts made to root it out by Sir Robert Mark in the 1970’s.

However Met Police corruption is worthy of a post by itself and more research. I just include here some posts that I have already made which detail some corruption in the Met. The Operation Tiberius report has to be read to be believed – the sheer extent of the corruption.

2016 Feb 5 Cathy Fox Blog The Fall of Scotland Yard [5]
2016 Mar 5 cathy fox blog Operation Countryman [6]
2017 Feb 26 cathy fox blog Why is the latest met Police Corruption scandal dragging on? [7]
Goggzilla Operation Tiberius Unredacted [8]
2017 Mar 14 cathy fox blog Fenwick, Chamberlain, O’Hanlon, Jones and Fisher 8 Mar 1978 Court of Appeal (Police) [9]

Virginia did not traffick herself, but it appears that the Met Police is not interested in finding those who did traffick her.

If you want to get away with sex trafficking in the UK, it appears you just have to traffick more outside the UK and the Met will not investigate.

Due to the Met Police flawed and insupportable decision to not investigate Virginia Giuffre’s claims about of sex trafficking against Ghislaine Maxwell, even after the death of Epstein, and continued intransigence and lack of cooperation in the FOI, I will be posting on the Met Police corruption in much more detail in future post.

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Cyclops on behalf of Peter Deja, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 Attachment

    Official Sensitive

 

 

 

Information Rights Unit
PO Box 313, Sidcup DA15 0HH

  United Kingdom

  Our Ref: 01/FOI/20/012878

  Date: 03/01/2020

 

 

 

 

Dear  Ms Fox

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 01/FOI/20/012878

 

I write in connection with your request for a review of the handling
and/or decision relating to 01/FOI/19/011235 which was received by the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 2 January 2020.   

 

A review will now be conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice
issued under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
 The reviewing officer will reconsider the original request before
responding to you with their findings.

 

There is no statutory time limit in relation to the completion of an
Internal Review.  However, the MPS aim to complete Internal Reviews within
20 working days or in exceptional cases, within 40 working days.  This is
based upon guidance published by the Information Commissioner.

 

If it is not possible to complete the Internal Review within this
timescale you will be informed at the earliest opportunity. 

 

If you are unhappy with the outcome of an Internal Review you may wish to
refer the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

 

For information on how to make an application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively,
write to or phone: 

 

Information Commissioner's Office 

Wycliffe House 

Water Lane 

Wilmslow 

Cheshire 

SK9 5AF 

Phone:  0303 123 1113

 

Yours sincerely 

 

P Deja

Caroline Airley left an annotation ()

I congratulate you on your efforts to make MPS comply with the FOI Act. For reasons best known to themselves, police forces seem to think they are above the law when it comes to complying with the FOI Act.

There is a long history of police covers up of child abuse and when prominent people are the perpetrators especially. The perpetrators of the horrific abuse in the North Wales Care Homes have escaped exposure and justice. This was because they were police officers and Freemasons.

Is Prince Andrew a Freemason? His elder brother, Charles, is head of Scottish Rite Freemasonry, so we can presume Andrew is a fellow Brother. Say no more.

The death of Epstein was very convenient. This was a suspicious death but dismissed a suicide to save him being put in court and run the risk of him naming names. He knew Trump well. No one has provided an explanation for the CCTV camera outside his cell being out of order that day. How very odd. Was he killed by a professional hit man? Then who gave the orders?

Cyclops on behalf of Mike Lyng, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 Attachment

 

Official Sensitive

     

 

 

 

Dear Ms Fox

 

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 01/FOI/20/012878

 

In connection with your request for a review of the original MPS decision
01/FOI/19/011235, on the 2nd January 2020, in which you refer to a link,
namely: “In addition to the last email, there are various points of
relevance in this post to the internal review, which I would like the
review to address. The full post is accessed via this link, but some text
can be read below

[1]https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2019/12/2...  

This is to advise that as the review is unable to open this link, can you
please forward any additional concerns via email. 

In the meantime, the review will proceed on the basis of the content of
the two emails already received on the 2nd January 2020 concerning your
complaint.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Mr Lyng

FOIA Information Manager

 

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

 

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

 

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

 

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Phone: 0303 123 1113

References

Visible links
1. https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2019/12/2

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

My apologies for not including the full link, and the delay, as i have only just accessed this post.
The full link is
https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2019/12/2...
If you have more difficulties please advise

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 Attachment

Dear Cathy,

Thank you for your email with the link you have provided.

Unfortunately this link does not open, I have attached a screenshot of what happens when it is opened, please could you check the link and advise.

I have CC'd Mr Lyng into this email so he is aware of this update, as he is the Information Manager for your internal review request.

Kind Regards,

Fionna Ford | Triage Case Officer | Information Rights Unit
Strategy & Insight | Strategy & Governance | METHQ | Metropolitan Police Service
Email: [email address
Address: Information Rights Unit, PO Box 313, SIDCUP DA15 0HH

GOVERNMENT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL
Not Suitable for Publication:
Recipients of this email should be aware that all communications within and to and from the Metropolitan Police Service are subject to consideration for release under the Data Protection Act, Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS will consider all information suitable for release unless there are valid and proportionate public interest reasons not to, therefore, sensitive information not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such.

show quoted sections

Cyclops on behalf of Mike Lyng, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

2 Attachments

 

Official Sensitive

     

 

 

 

Dear Ms Fox

 

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 01/FOI/20/012878

 

Please see the attached in respect of your Freedom of Information request
for review referenced above.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Mike Lyng

 

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

 

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

 

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

 

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

 

Complaint

 

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

 

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

 

FOI Complaint

Information Rights Unit

PO Box 57192

London

SW6 1SF

[email address]

 

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

 

The Information Commissioner

 

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

 

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

 

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Phone: 0303 123 1113

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Thankyou for your reply. As you were not able to access the link i gave you have not answered all the questions. The link works fine and thus it may be the police network filters that are at fault. Often they filter out anti - child abuse sites absurdly under the chod abuse filter.
I think that technical department should be made aware of this and the link whitelisted. However this does not help that filters will be bannign other sites.
Please could you tell me what filters / programmes that MPS use to filter out inappropriate content.

Yours faithfully,

Cathy Fox

Cyclops on behalf of Rozmarie Loizou, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 Attachment

 

Official Sensitive

     

 

 

 

 

 

Information Rights Unit
PO Box 313
  Sidcup
DA15 0HH
  United Kingdom

  Our Ref: 01/FOI/20/013678

  Date: 26/02/2020

   

 

 

 

Dear Ms Fox

 

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 01/FOI/20/013678

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 22/02/2020.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

 

"Thankyou for your reply. As you were not able to access the link i gave
you have not answered all the questions.  The link works fine and thus it
may be the police network filters that are at fault. Often they filter out
anti - child abuse sites absurdly under the chod abuse filter. 
I think that technical department should be made aware of this and the
link whitelisted. However this does not help that filters will be bannign
other sites. 
Please could you tell me what filters / programmes that MPS use to filter
out inappropriate content."

 

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act.  

 

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] quoting the reference number above. Should your
enquiry relate to the logging or allocations process we will be able to
assist you directly and where your enquiry relates to other matters (such
as the status of the request) we will be able to pass on a message and/or
advise you of the relevant contact details. 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

R. Loizou

 

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

 

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

 

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

 

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

 

Complaint

 

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

 

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

 

FOI Complaint

Information Rights Unit

PO Box 313

Sidcup

DA15 0HH

[email address]

 

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

 

The Information Commissioner

 

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

 

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

 

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Phone: 0303 123 1113

Cyclops on behalf of Rozmarie Loizou, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 Attachment

     

 

 

 

Information Rights Unit
PO Box 313
Sidcup
DA15 0HH
  United Kingdom

  Our Ref: 01/FOI/20/013679

  Date: 26/02/2020

 

 

 

 

Dear Ms Fox

  

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 01/FOI/20/013679

 

I write in connection with your request for a review of the handling
and/or decision relating to 01/FOI/19/011235 which was received by the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 22/02/2020.   

 

A review will now be conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice
issued under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
 The reviewing officer will reconsider the original request before
responding to you with their findings.

 

There is no statutory time limit in relation to the completion of an
Internal Review.  However, the MPS aim to complete Internal Reviews within
20 working days or in exceptional cases, within 40 working days.  This is
based upon guidance published by the Information Commissioner.

 

If it is not possible to complete the Internal Review within this
timescale you will be informed at the earliest opportunity. 

 

If you are unhappy with the outcome of an Internal Review you may wish to
refer the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

 

For information on how to make an application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively,
write to or phone: 

 

Information Commissioner's Office 

Wycliffe House 

Water Lane 

Wilmslow 

Cheshire 

SK9 5AF 

Phone:  0303 123 1113

 

Yours sincerely 

 

R. Loizou

Cyclops on behalf of Yvette Taylor, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

2 Attachments

 

      Official Sensitive

 

Information Rights Unit
PO Box 313
Sidcup
DA15 0HH

 

Email: [1][email address]

 

[2]www.met.police.uk

 

Your ref: 
Our ref: 01/FOI/20/013679

 

30/03/2020

 

 

 
 

 

Dear Ms Fox

 

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 01/FOI/20/013679

 

Please see the attached in respect of your Freedom of Information request
referenced above.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Yvette Taylor

 

 

      Official Sensitive

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.met.police.uk/

Cyclops on behalf of Paul Mayger, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

2 Attachments

 

      Official Sensitive

 

Information Rights Unit
PO Box 313
Sidcup
DA15 0HH

 

Email: [1][email address]

 

[2]www.met.police.uk

 

Your ref:
Our ref: 01/FOI/20/013678

 

31/03/2020

 

 

 
 

 

Dear Ms Fox

 

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 01/FOI/20/013678

 

Please see the attached in respect of your Freedom of Information request
referenced above.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Paul Mayger

 

 

      Official Sensitive

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.met.police.uk/

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Cathy Fox please sign in and let everyone know.