Investigation Procedures and Cover ups Policies

ismail made this Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

My question is:

• Can you provide me your policy related to judiciary misconduct? According to MOJ and other bodies, it is the police duty and responsibility to investigate any complaint against any individual with regards to misconduct at public office. I do not see any
document or policy about misconduct at public office or engaging in criminal conspiracies by judges, home office staffs, treasury solicitors, civil servants...

• When a complaint about misconduct at public office (especially by judges) is made, what procedure do you follow to refer the matter to CPS?

• What is your policy and investigation procedure against pedophilia activity by police officers?

• What is your policy in relation to investigation of cover up activities by civil servants?

• How do you investigate complaints against members of judiciary who have assisted cover up and engaged in criminal conspiracies such as perjury, misrepresentation of facts, misconducts, submitting false documents ....?

• How do you investigate complaints against police officers? Can the same officers examine a complaint about their own colleague?

• What is your dissapplication procedure? Do you provide any letter or any right of appeal and reasons why you cannot record the complaints?

According to the law, the police has the duty and the power to investigate those matters, but this was not the case in my complaints. I have only been threatened by the police.

Please see below explanation / summary to understand my request.

Complaints I made to the police since 2010:

I and my wife are teachers in this country.

1. In January 2011, I made a complaint to the police about a First-Tier Tribunal judge (Judge Prior) for asking me to cut my wrists rather than my palm). I was mentally unwell at that time. Police failed to record the complaint as it was about a judge.

2. In November 2011, I made a complaint against Newsgroup newspapers Limited for sending individuals to threaten me to withdraw cases against Mr John Kay. I made a complaint to the police asking them to view the CCTV footages. Police held the
complaint for over a month and finally when the evidences (CCTV) were deleted, they withdraw any investigation. Complaint was also made about 400 pages of documents (case file) lost from the court’s premises.

3. In 2012, I made a complaint about HHJ Redgrave from Bow County Court for attempting to assault me and my wife in the court room. I made a complaint against her, but police failed to record or investigate after speaking to the court’s manager.

4. In 2011, a fraudulent judge under different identity heard a case of mine at Bow County Court. He claimed he was Judge Stone, but he was not. His identity was unknown and is still until present. Police was informed and a complaint made, but they refused to investigate as it was about a judge.

5. In May 2012, Home Office sent police officers to my house to threaten my wife to withdraw complaints and cases. Their identity was unknown. The complaint was investigated by Natalie Philsbury who confirmed that the home office sent the officers. I indicated that CCTV footages were available for police to further investigate.

6. In August 2012, police officers and bailiffs and other agents attended my home to manhandle my family and children. CCTV footages were stolen and I was injured by the violent and aggressive actions of the police officers present. A complaint was made but the police simply talked to the bailiffs and police officers (from Plaistow Police Station) and settled the matter by themselves. Files with corruption evidences and other important evidences were taken by the agents with the assistance of police officers.

7. While all the above took place, the home office attempted to cover up and threaten us. In November 2012, a social worker made a false witness statement under oath to the court. This amounted to misrepresentations. A complaint was made but police disregarded and refused to view evidences and to investigate by covering up.

8. In May 2014, a false note of judgment was submitted by the Treasury Solicitors to the court. A complaint was made about perjury, misrepresentation and misconduct at public office but police refused to investigate. No action was taken.

9. In February 2014, a complaint was made about fraud and perjury by judges / administrative staffs of the courts. No investigation was carried out despite evidences were available.

10. When I indicated over the phone that I will bring evidences to FOREST GATE police station for an investigation (as I received threats from G4S security officers – part of the home office). I was told to come on 2nd May 2014. On the same day at 2 am in the morning, two forest gate Police Station’s police officers [male] banged the door and ordered me to open. They entered the house without my consent and wanted to touch the children who were sleeping. It was very hot and children were sleeping. They put hands inside their blankets and touched them. These actions were carried out despite the mother and father of the children were present. These actions amounted to paedophilia. My elder child was mentally affected. A complaint was made and the
police refused to investigate appropriately. They attempted to cover up as these actions amount to child abuse.

11. The next morning, I went to the FOREST GATE police station to submit the evidences. The police refused to investigate and record the complaint against the judges. In the afternoon the same day, a police officer called my phone and threatened me to withdraw the complaint and not to pursue further complaints about judges’ misconducts and misconduct at public office. I was threatened to remain silent about criminal activities inside the courts.

12. While all these took place, the home office sent false prosecution notice, ill-treat us through vexatious letters and suspension of subsistence supports. They have institutionally attempted to cover up.

13. I complained against judges (senior judiciary members) who are engaged in institutional cover up and judicial corruption. They misuse their judicial positions for their own gains and assisting other public bodies who are discriminating against people who raise their voices against injustice.

I am making this FOI request and I hope that I do not receive any threats from other parties involved and I hope that police officers will not phone or attend my home at night to intimidate me or abusing my children.

Yours faithfully,

Ismail

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ismail

Freedom of Information Request Reference No:2014070000879

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 09/07/2014.

DECISION

I have decided to refuse access to the information you have requested
under the provisions of Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the Act).

REASON FOR DECISION

Section 8 of the Act provides:

(1)         In this Act any reference to a "request for information" is a
reference to such a request which-

(a) is in writing,
(b) states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence,
and
(c) describes the information requested.

I am not required to process your request without information that can
later be referred to, as per Section 8 (1)(b).  The information we require
is your full name.

According to ICO guidance:
The use of the phrase "the name of the applicant" in section 8(1)(b)
indicates that the real name of the applicant should be used when
requesting information and not any other name, for example, a pseudonym.
Although one of the underlying principles of the FOIA is that the identity
of the applicant is not taken into account, it can be relevant in certain
circumstances. For example, when:
 

*  a public authority has good reason to believe a requester is using a
pseudonym to shield his/her identity in order to avoid the possibility
of the request being considered as vexatious or repeated;

Therefore, we are of the view that it was the intention of the legislation
that an applicant should provide their real name so that the request can
be processed in accordance with the requirements of the FOIA.
The definition of "applicant" in section 84 of the FOIA adds weight to
this as the phrase in section 8(1)(b) should be read as " the name of the
person making the request". This also suggests that the use of a false or
fictitious name is not acceptable. Therefore, where a public authority
receives a request from a person using an obvious pseudonym, there is no
obligation to comply with the request; nor would it fall within the
jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner. If a public authority
chooses not to comply with the request it should, in keeping with its duty
under section 16, advise the applicant that the FOIA requires their real
name to be provided.
What constitutes a real name?
We consider that a relatively informal approach is also appropriate in
this context. Therefore, title and/or first name with surname satisfies
the requirement for provision of a real name, as does the use by a female
applicant of her maiden name. The prime consideration is whether enough of
a person's full name has been provided to give a reasonable indication of
that person's identity.
Example:
Mr Arthur Thomas Roberts could satisfy section 8(1)(b) of the FOIA by
stating his name in a request for information as "Arthur Roberts", "A. T.
Roberts", or "Mr Roberts", but not by stating his name as "Arthur" or
"A.T.R."
In the case of a company, it is not necessary to provide the full
registered name. It will be acceptable to provide another name which
exists as a real entity, such as a trading name. Similarly, a sole trader
could provide his or her real name or trading name.
In most cases, it will be reasonable for a real name to comprise a name by
which the person making the request is widely known and/or is regularly
used by that person and which is not an obvious pseudonym or fictitious
name.

To enable us to meet your request could you please resubmit your
application in accordance with the above requirements. If for any reason
you are unable to do so, please contact me for assistance or seek
assistance from any other available source.

We will consider your resubmitted request upon receipt as long as it meets
the requirements stated above. You will receive the information requested
within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act,
subject to the information not being exempt.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact us at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Administration Team Officer
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
Public Access Office
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.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

The request made was a Freedom of Information request pursuant to FOI Act 2000.

I am obliged to provide my personal information as this information is withheld from disclosure in reliance on the exemption in section 40(2) of FOIA, which provides that personal data will be exempt from disclosure where disclosure would infringe any of the data protection principles in Schedule 1 to the DPA.

However, I can provide a Crime Reference number which contain my personal details to assist you. CAD 6959 (2nd May 2014 - at Forest Gate Police Station East London)

It is very obscure why you need my personal information (full name and address) in order to respond to a FOI request. I understand the nature of the request which is serious.

I await your reply.

Yours faithfully,

ismail

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), [EDITED PLEASE IGNORE THE PREVIOUS REPLY]

The request made was a Freedom of Information request pursuant to
FOI Act 2000.

I am NOT obliged to provide my personal information as this information
is withheld from disclosure in reliance on the exemption in section
40(2) of FOIA, which provides that personal data will be exempt
from disclosure where disclosure would infringe any of the data
protection principles in Schedule 1 to the DPA.

However, I can provide a Crime Reference number which contain my
personal details to assist you. CAD 6959 (2nd May 2014 - at Forest
Gate Police Station East London)

It is very obscure why you need my personal information (full name
and address) in order to respond to a FOI request. I understand the
nature of the request which is serious.

I await your reply.

Yours faithfully,

ismail

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ismail,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014070001268

I write in connection with your request for a review of the original MPS
decision relating to 2014070000879 which was received by the Metropolitan
Police Service (MPS) on 11/07/2014.  

Your request for a review will now be considered in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response to
your request for a review of the original MPS case within a timescale of
20 working days.  In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve
this deadline.  If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised
time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Policy and Support Officer
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
Public Access Office
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.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear 'Ismail'

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014070001268

Further to our acknowledgement of 15 July 2014, I am now able to provide a
response to your complaint concerning your Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request reference number: 2014070000879.

I note that you sought access to the following:

"o Can you provide me your policy related to judiciary misconduct?
According to MOJ and other bodies, it is the police duty and
responsibility to investigate any complaint against any individual with
regards to misconduct at public office. I do not see any document or
policy about misconduct at public office or engaging in criminal
conspiracies by judges, home office staffs, treasury solicitors, civil
servants...

o When a complaint about misconduct at public office (especially by
judges) is made, what procedure do you follow to refer the matter to CPS?

o What is your policy and investigation procedure against pedophilia
activity by police officers?

o What is your policy in relation to investigation of cover up activities
by civil servants?

o How do you investigate complaints against members of judiciary who have
assisted cover up and engaged in criminal conspiracies such as perjury,
misrepresentation of facts, misconducts, submitting false documents ....?

o How do you investigate complaints against police officers? Can the same
officers examine a complaint about their own colleague?

o What is your dissapplication procedure? Do you provide any letter or any
right of appeal and reasons why you cannot record the complaints?

According to the law, the police has the duty and the power to investigate
those matters, but this was not the case in my complaints. I have only
been threatened by the police.

Please see below explanation / summary to understand my request.

Complaints I made to the police since 2010:

I and my wife are teachers in this country.

1. In January 2011, I made a complaint to the police about a First-Tier
Tribunal judge (Judge Prior) for asking me to cut my wrists rather than my
palm). I was mentally unwell at that time. Police failed to record the
complaint as it was about a judge.

2. In November 2011, I made a complaint against Newsgroup newspapers
Limited for sending individuals to threaten me to withdraw cases against
Mr John Kay. I made a complaint to the police asking them to view the CCTV
footages. Police held the complaint for over a month and finally when the
evidences (CCTV) were deleted, they withdraw any investigation. Complaint
was also made about 400 pages of documents (case file) lost from the
court's premises.

3. In 2012, I made a complaint about HHJ Redgrave from Bow County Court
for attempting to assault me and my wife in the court room. I made a
complaint against her, but police failed to record or investigate after
speaking to the court's manager.

4. In 2011, a fraudulent judge under different identity heard a case of
mine at Bow County Court. He claimed he was Judge Stone, but he was not.
His identity was unknown and is still until present. Police was informed
and a complaint made, but they refused to investigate as it was about a
judge.

5. In May 2012, Home Office sent police officers to my house to threaten
my wife to withdraw complaints and cases. Their identity was unknown. The
complaint was investigated by Natalie Philsbury who confirmed that the
home office sent the officers. I indicated that CCTV footages were
available for police to further investigate.

6. In August 2012, police officers and bailiffs and other agents attended
my home to manhandle my family and children. CCTV footages were stolen and
I was injured by the violent and aggressive actions of the police officers
present. A complaint was made but the police simply talked to the bailiffs
and police officers (from Plaistow Police Station) and settled the matter
by themselves. Files with corruption evidences and other important
evidences were taken by the agents with the assistance of police officers.

7. While all the above took place, the home office attempted to cover up
and threaten us. In November 2012, a social worker made a false witness
statement under oath to the court. This amounted to misrepresentations. A
complaint was made but police disregarded and refused to view evidences
and to investigate by covering up.

8. In May 2014, a false note of judgment was submitted by the Treasury
Solicitors to the court. A complaint was made about perjury,
misrepresentation and misconduct at public office but police refused to
investigate. No action was taken.

9. In February 2014, a complaint was made about fraud and perjury by
judges / administrative staffs of the courts. No investigation was carried
out despite evidences were available.

10. When I indicated over the phone that I will bring evidences to FOREST
GATE police station for an investigation (as I received threats from G4S
security officers - part of the home office). I was told to come on 2nd
May 2014. On the same day at 2 am in the morning, two forest gate Police
Station's police officers [male] banged the door and ordered me to open.
They entered the house without my consent and wanted to touch the children
who were sleeping. It was very hot and children were sleeping. They put
hands inside their blankets and touched them. These actions were carried
out despite the mother and father of the children were present. These
actions amounted to paedophilia. My elder child was mentally affected. A
complaint was made and the police refused to investigate appropriately.
They attempted to cover up as these actions amount to child abuse.

11. The next morning, I went to the FOREST GATE police station to submit
the evidences. The police refused to investigate and record the complaint
against the judges. In the afternoon the same day, a police officer called
my phone and threatened me to withdraw the complaint and not to pursue
further complaints about judges' misconducts and misconduct at public
office. I was threatened to remain silent about criminal activities inside
the courts.

12. While all these took place, the home office sent false prosecution
notice, ill-treat us through vexatious letters and suspension of
subsistence supports. They have institutionally attempted to cover up.

13. I complained against judges (senior judiciary members) who are engaged
in institutional cover up and judicial corruption. They misuse their
judicial positions for their own gains and assisting other public bodies
who are discriminating against people who raise their voices against
injustice.

I am making this FOI request and I hope that I do not receive any threats
from other parties involved and I hope that police officers will not phone
or attend my home at night to intimidate me or abusing my children. (sic)"

DECISION AND REASON FOR DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to uphold the original decision to refuse your request in
accordance with section 8(1)(b).  This is because you have not provided us
with your full name.

I believe that Ms. Loizou has already provided you with a comprehensive
refusal notice.  As such, there is not much more advice and guidance that
I can provide at this stage.  However, I will reiterate a few salient
points below.

Where a request for information is received and the applicant is either
anonymous or suspected to be using a pseudonym, there is no lawful
requirement to deal with this under the Act because the criterion defined
under section 8 is not met.  

Advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers FOI Central Referral
Unit goes on to say that if there is no harm in disclosing the requested
information and there is negligible cost, forces are encouraged to provide
the information.

However with regard to your request, the information that you have sought
would not be easily and quickly retrieved.  Due to its specific nature,
and the level of detail you are requesting, it is unlikely that generic
MPS policies and procedures could be easily located in order to answer
your very specific questions and scenarios.  Therefore, I believe the
correct approach was taken by Ms. Loizou in refusing your request under
section 8(1)(b).

As Ms. Loizou explained in her response, complaints made by individuals
that do not provide their real name would not fall within the jurisdiction
of the Information Commissioner (who oversees the Act).  Therefore, in
line with ICO guidance I would suggest you resubmit your request (and any
future requests), providing us with your real name.  Please see Ms.
Loizou's original response where she provides advice on what would be
considered sufficient in order to proceed with this request.

Other matters

Please bear in mind when submitting future requests that a Freedom of
Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request
itself, and any information disclosed, are considered suitable for open
publication.  This is because, under the Act, any information disclosed is
released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world, and not
just to one individual.  This can be demonstrated by the fact that the MPS
publishes requests and responses on our public facing website
(http://www.met.police.uk/foi/disclosure/...).  In addition
this is further demonstrated by the website through which you have
submitted this request.

I would therefore suggest that you do not include any unnecessary personal
information in the wording of your requests - for example, any contact you
may or may not have had with the police, any reference numbers, or any
additional contact details or locations.

In addition, let me please remind you that requests for information about
yourself should be made under section 7 of the Data Protection Act.

To do this, you need to complete a 3019 form (available from any MPS
Station, or from http://www.met.police.uk/information/req...,
or by calling 020 7161 3500 - please select option 1).  Please note that a
fee of £10.00 and proof of identification is required to process a
request. This process may also take up to 40 days from receipt of your
completed application.

Advising you of this route to access personal information does not in
itself either confirm or deny that the information you have referred to
within your request and complaint exists.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

S. Stroud
FOIA Quality and Assurance Advisor
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
Public Access Office
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.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

My full name is MR AFHAM ISMAIL. I haven't used pseudonym and my surname is Ismail.

Please proceed with the response to my request.

Yours faithfully,

ismail

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Ismail

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014070001500

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 16/07/2014.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

* My question is: • Can you provide me your policy related to judiciary
misconduct? According to MOJ and other bodies, it is the police duty
and responsibility to investigate any complaint against any individual
with regards to misconduct at public office. I do not see any document
or policy about misconduct at public office or engaging in criminal
conspiracies by judges, home office staffs, treasury solicitors, civil
servants... • When a complaint about misconduct at public office
(especially by judges) is made, what procedure do you follow to refer
the matter to CPS? • What is your policy and investigation procedure
against pedophilia activity by police officers? • What is your policy
in relation to investigation of cover up activities by civil servants?
• How do you investigate complaints against members of judiciary who
have assisted cover up and engaged in criminal conspiracies such as
perjury, misrepresentation of facts, misconducts, submitting false
documents ....? • How do you investigate complaints against police
officers? Can the same officers examine a complaint about their own
colleague? • What is your dissapplication procedure? Do you provide
any letter or any right of appeal and reasons why you cannot record
the complaints? According to the law, the police has the duty and the
power to investigate those matters, but this was not the case in my
complaints. I have only been threatened by the police.


* Please see below explanation / summary to understand my request.
Complaints I made to the police since 2010: I and my wife are teachers
in this country. 1. In January 2011, I made a complaint to the police
about a First-Tier Tribunal judge (Judge Prior) for asking me to cut
my wrists rather than my palm). I was mentally unwell at that time.
Police failed to record the complaint as it was about a judge. 2. In
November 2011, I made a complaint against Newsgroup newspapers Limited
for sending individuals to threaten me to withdraw cases against Mr
John Kay. I made a complaint to the police asking them to view the
CCTV footages. Police held the complaint for over a month and finally
when the evidences (CCTV) were deleted, they withdraw any
investigation. Complaint was also made about 400 pages of documents
(case file) lost from the court’s premises. 3. In 2012, I made a
complaint about HHJ Redgrave from Bow County Court for attempting to
assault me and my wife in the court room. I made a complaint against
her, but police failed to record or investigate after speaking to the
court’s manager. 4. In 2011, a fraudulent judge under different
identity heard a case of mine at Bow County Court. He claimed he was
Judge Stone, but he was not. His identity was unknown and is still
until present. Police was informed and a complaint made, but they
refused to investigate as it was about a judge. 5. In May 2012, Home
Office sent police officers to my house to threaten my wife to
withdraw complaints and cases. Their identity was unknown. The
complaint was investigated by Natalie Philsbury who confirmed that the
home office sent the officers. I indicated that CCTV footages were
available for police to further investigate. 6. In August 2012, police
officers and bailiffs and other agents attended my home to manhandle
my family and children. CCTV footages were stolen and I was injured by
the violent and aggressive actions of the police officers present. A
complaint was made but the police simply talked to the bailiffs and
police officers (from Plaistow Police Station) and settled the matter
by themselves. Files with corruption evidences and other important
evidences were taken by the agents with the assistance of police
officers. 7. While all the above took place, the home office attempted
to cover up and threaten us. In November 2012, a social worker made a
false witness statement under oath to the court. This amounted to
misrepresentations. A complaint was made but police disregarded and
refused to view evidences and to investigate by covering up. 8. In May
2014, a false note of judgment was submitted by the Treasury
Solicitors to the court. A complaint was made about perjury,
misrepresentation and misconduct at public office but police refused
to investigate. No action was taken. 9. In February 2014, a complaint
was made about fraud and perjury by judges / administrative staffs of
the courts. No investigation was carried out despite evidences were
available. 10. When I indicated over the phone that I will bring
evidences to FOREST GATE police station for an investigation (as I
received threats from G4S security officers – part of the home
office). I was told to come on 2nd May 2014. On the same day at 2 am
in the morning, two forest gate Police Station’s police officers
[male] banged the door and ordered me to open. They entered the house
without my consent and wanted to touch the children who were sleeping.
It was very hot and children were sleeping. They put hands inside
their blankets and touched them. These actions were carried out
despite the mother and father of the children were present. These
actions amounted to paedophilia. My elder child was mentally affected.
A complaint was made and the police refused to investigate
appropriately. They attempted to cover up as these actions amount to
child abuse. 11. The next morning, I went to the FOREST GATE police
station to submit the evidences. The police refused to investigate and
record the complaint against the judges. In the afternoon the same
day, a police officer called my phone and threatened me to withdraw
the complaint and not to pursue further complaints about judges’
misconducts and misconduct at public office. I was threatened to
remain silent about criminal activities inside the courts. 12. While
all these took place, the home office sent false prosecution notice,
ill-treat us through vexatious letters and suspension of subsistence
supports. They have institutionally attempted to cover up. 13. I
complained against judges (senior judiciary members) who are engaged
in institutional cover up and judicial corruption. They misuse their
judicial positions for their own gains and assisting other public
bodies who are discriminating against people who raise their voices
against injustice. I am making this FOI request and I hope that I do
not receive any threats from other parties involved and I hope that
police officers will not phone or attend my home at night to
intimidate me or abusing my children.

Your request will now be allocated to the relevant unit within the MPS and
will be processed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the Act).  

You will receive your response directly from the relevant unit within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act.  

In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve this deadline.  If
this is likely you will be informed and given a revised time-scale at the
earliest opportunity.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

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

Peter Deja
Logging and Allocations Team
Public Access Office

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
Public Access Office
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.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Captain Bryn Wayt left an annotation ()

There may be an answer to the police querying your "real" name in that you have used only your Christian name for 14 of your FoI Act 2000 questions, and your surname [Ismail] in another 10 such questions.

There may also be in the UK another Mr Afham Ismail who gets himself coverage in some UK newspapers for trying to sue the "The Sun" for a story they ran about this named man trying to procure monies from the benefits system (i.e. the UK taxpayer) which Mr Ismail tries to extract under the Libel Laws to the tune of £850,000

Ref: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/asylum-see...

Quote
Afham Ismail and his wife Bibi sued over story the newspaper ran in July last year which was based on documents filed with the courts in a "discrimination" action they were seeking to bring against the UK Border Agency (UKBA).

The story, headlined "Asylum seekers: Pay for us to have a hol", said the couple were demanding a £100,000 payout, arguing that their two children had been deprived of their rights to have enough books, toys, food and holidays, and said they also wanted an extra £50 a week in handouts, as they could not live on benefits of £181 a week.
Unquote

Perhaps you can verify if you are one in the same man, in that a Mr Afham Ismail wrote in these pages on the 14 May 2011 that you had been "here for the last 7 years" and was purporting to be an asylum seeker. I hope that avenue has been concluded ?
Likewise his claim for recompense for catching TB from one or other of the "sign on" centres.
In the 10 years that this man (perhaps two men?) has been in the UK he has had a notable struggles with various authorities on a number of profound matters. Not including this latest incursion.

ismail left an annotation ()

@Captain Wayt

Thanks for the annotation. Yes I can confirm that I am the same Afham Ismail, who sued The Sun and other corrupted local authorities including the Home Office. There are no two men. I am the One and Only AFHAM ISMAIL.

I cannot comment further. You can follow my request if you wish to.

Regards

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Ismail

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014070001500

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 16/07/2014. I note you seek
access to the following information:

" 1. Can you provide me your policy related to judiciary misconduct?
2. When a complaint about misconduct at public office (especially by
judges) is made, what procedure do you follow to refer the matter to CPS?
3. What is your policy and investigation procedure against pedophilia
activity by police officers?
4. What is your policy in relation to investigation of cover up activities
by civil servants?
5. How do you investigate complaints against members of judiciary who have
assisted cover up and engaged in criminal conspiracies such as perjury,
misrepresentation of facts, misconducts, submitting false documents ....?
6. How do you investigate complaints against police officers? Can the same
officers examine a complaint about their own colleague?
7. What is your dissapplication procedure? Do you provide any letter or
any right of appeal and reasons why you cannot record the complaints? "

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at the Territorial Policing Capability and Support - Crime Policy Unit.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

Questions 1, 4, and 5

The MPS holds no individual policies that cover these questions per se.

What is described in the questions are various forms of offences and as
such would be dealt with as for any other allegation of crime made to the
MPS.

The status of the individual has no bearing as to whether the MPS will
record the allegation and subsequently investigate.

The process for recording and investigating is as follows and there are
two parts to this:

Firstly:

The assessment by officers, of the allegation being made, as to whether a
crime has occurred, this assessment is made by officers following the
rules as set out by the Home Office.

As per the links below.

National Crime Reporting Standard
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...

National Standard for Incident Recording
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...

Allegations of crime made by the public to the MPS are therefore assessed
against the rules of NCRS which state:

An incident will be recorded as a crime for offences against an identified
victim,
if, on the balance of probability:
(a) the circumstances as reported amount to a crime defined by law (the
police will determine this based on their knowledge of the law and the
counting rules)
and
(b) there is no credible evidence to the contrary.

Once assessed and meeting the above criteria the incident will then be
recorded in accordance with the National Standard for Incident recording.

Secondly:

Officers will then investigate the allegation. This comprises of a General
Primary and Secondary investigation Toolkit that sets out the actions for
officers. There is no Toolkit specific to Misconduct in Public Office.

Question 2

At the conclusion of the investigation, the MPS will provide the case
papers and the evidence to the CPS, for the CPS to determine the
appropriate police case outcome. The Home Office has produced a
standardised list of possible outcomes for the CPS. These range from
'Investigation closed no suspect' to 'Charged Summonsed'.

Questions 3 and 6

Where a criminal allegation has been made, I refer you to the answer to
Question 1.
Allied to any criminal investigation the MPS will conduct an internal
investigation through The Directorate of Professional  Standards (DPS)
-The DPS is tasked with maintaining the highest professional standards for
the MPS. The command works with diligence and determination to deal with
allegations of breach of standards, complaints from the public, reports of
wrong doing and civil actions against the MPS. The officers in the DPS are
specifically trained for the role and would not be the direct colleagues
of those they investigate.  

The complaints system is explained on the MPS website via the following
link: http://content.met.police.uk/Site/compla...

Question 7

In relation to not recording an allegation of crime because the officer
finds that it does not meet the standard as described in the NCRS. If this
is a verbal exchange then the officer should explain why there is no
crime. If the allegation has been made in writing then the reason for
non-recording of crime will be communicated by the same medium.

If the complaint is about the behaviour, criminal or non criminal, of a
police officer, including that they have not recorded the allegation of
crime you are making about a member of the judiciary, then the following
link can be used to make a complaint:
http://content.met.police.uk/Site/compla...

Non criminal complaints about the conduct of members of the judiciary can
be made using their specific complaint reporting process, which can be
found on their individual websites for example: to complain about  a
judge:
https://www.gov.uk/complain-judge-magist...

Section 16 - Duty to advise and assist

I would like to advise you that the additional background information you
have supplied with your request contains unsubstantiated allegations made
about named individuals. When an allegation is made to the police it is
kept private whilst under investigation. Therefore, to make the same
allegation in a public document, available to the whole world, may amount
to defamation of the individuals named.
To assist you I have included a link to the Information Commissioners'
Office detailing how to ask for information to avoid this:
http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/officia...

I would also like to take this opportunity to advise you that Section 8 of
the Freedom of Information Act specifies what constitutes a valid request
under the provisions of the Act. An FOIA request has to be for
'information held' - the Act is not the route by which to ask general
questions around a topic and cannot request opinion or simply make
statements. For further information please refer to the following link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Requests that do not follow the advice of the Information Commissioner may
result in the requests being refused or being deemed vexatious under
Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act. For further information on
this please refer to the following
link:http://ico.org.uk/news/blog/2013/~/media...

Should you wish to make a complaint, please submit them in writing via the
complaints system.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact Deborah Solomon on telephone number 0207 161 4291 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Detective Inspector Keating
Capability and Support
Territorial Policing Command
In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law.  Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.

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
Public Access Office
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.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I sincerely appreciate the detailed reply you provided to the FOI. I also appreciate your efforts to provide me with the available information held by MPS.

However, I would like to respond to your advice you provide. This was purely a FOI request with the information and background for the MPS to understand the matter. Setting out the background of the issues with the named individuals, it has assisted you to provide me with a detailed reply. I should note that I have indicated only a few individuals' names but there are many other names which might be published if necessary. but |I have acted professionally with respect to my profession as a teacher.

You indicated that my allegations are unsubstantiated, however this is incorrect as you have not seen my evidences or your department has never recorded my complaints. I find this statement about defamation is victimising to me. when I complained to the police, rather investigating the issues, your department phoned me and threatened me to withdraw complaint against judiciary members. in such circumstances, there is no independency. I point out the Rotherham child abuse issues.

When we bring a complaint to the police (despite the risks involved), the police intimidated us, by stating that this is defamatory. As this is the truth, my statement is not defamatory. I do have evidences to substantiate all allegations. If need to publicise those matters, I have the right to do so pursuant to Article 10 ECHR and due to the fact that I am a victim. This will be justified.

Indeed, some officers attended my home to abuse the children at night. the child has written a letter by hand which I submitted to your department. no investigation has been carried out yet. There has only been threats received form the MPS. When we take actions against public bodies, the court itself sell case files and our claim to journalists who in turn publish our live sin newspapers for financial gain. the court has misused their judiciary powers and carried on campaigns against us.

You are not entitled to say that my allegations are unsubstantiated as this is in itself defamatory. You are unaware of what has happened and you are not ware of any of my evidences. Judges has committed criminal offences by assisting perjury.

Please feel free to contact me if you are ready to investigate my complaint and assess my evidences.

Yours faithfully,

ismail

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

I am out of the office until Tuesday 2nd September

If your query is urgent and is FOIA related please email: TP Mailbox - FOI Requests

If your query is urgent and relates to Information Management (except FOIA) please email: TP Mailbox - Information Management

Or if you are a member of the public and wish to submit a new FOIA request or are responding to a re-definition request, please use the following email address: [email address]

Otherwise I will respond to your query upon my return
Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law.

Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Find us at:
Facebook: facebook/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Ismail,
 
I write with regard to the concerns that you raise regarding the
Metropolitan Police Service. Can I request that you explain your concerns
and in particular how they pertain to any individual officer?
 
Yours Sincerely,
 
PS Jeremy Graves - DCC8 (2)
Directorate of Professional Standards
Complaint Support Team (CST)
22nd Floor West,
Empress State Building,
West Kensington,
London,
SW6 1TR
 
 
 

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

It is a group of officers in Forest Gate Police Station in Romford Road East London. I even receive phone calls threatening me to stop complaining about members of judiciary and other influential individuals who work for public bodies.

Yesterday I received a call forma lady officer indicating that they do not investigate complaints related to home Office Staffs. She also insisted that police want to visit my home to talk to me despite I disagreed. She also outlined that home office and courts work together.

I understand that there should have been an independency. I believe that a reform should be carried out in Forest ~Gate Police station in this borough because they target vulnerable people and majority of residents are migrants. There are a lot of vulnerable people in this borough. those officers do not investigate despite evidences provided and they only shift the burden on each other and intimidate me.

If you need anything further please feel free to contact me as I am very dedicated and committed to this country's best interest.

Yours faithfully,

ismail

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 Attachment

 
 
PC Dean Goddard 217KF
Professional Standards Unit - Newham
 
Telephone              
0208 217 5341
Email    
[email address].uk      
Address        
Professional Standards Unit
Forest Gate Police Station
350-360 Romford Road
E7 8BS
 
 
 
 

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Ismail

I am afraid I cannot assist you any further other than to advise you to put your complaints regarding the police not taking your complaints seriously in writing and refer you again to the MPS Complaints process via the following link: http://content.met.police.uk/Site/compla.... We are unable to conduct any investigation in public via this website.

Yours Sincerely

Deborah Solomon
TP Information Manager

show quoted sections

A.E. left an annotation ()

They misadvised you on use of a pseudonym:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/priv...

"Technically, you must use your real name for your request to be a valid Freedom of Information request in law. See this guidance from the Information Commissioner (October 2007).

However, the same guidance also says it is good practice for the public authority to still consider a request made using an obvious pseudonym. You should refer to this if a public authority refuses a request because you used a pseudonym."

Looks like you've been really messed around on this one, changing their mind back and forth.

Don't know if you know, you can escalate matters to the IPCC where the police have failed to investigate and the other behaviours you state: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/complaints

As for the commentator who tried to make you look bad, he doesn't know you and shouldn't be commenting in such a way below your FOI. There are plenty of corrupt people in the authorities so your story is not beyond belief.