name removed 23 Oct 2012 (Account suspended)

18 March 2012

Dear Metropolitan Police Service, CPS, Mr Grieve, MP, QC, Attorney General, Mr Clarke Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Starmer, QC, Director Public Prosecutions,

I am making a formal request for information regarding MERLIN, MAPPA and MARAC and their detailed history and their precise role and status in policing and prosecution.

MERLIN
1] What is MERLIN? According to Wikipedia it is about Child Protection. But elsewhere it says it is a police database about vulnerable people, Found people, Missing Persons, as well as child protection.

The blurring of the lines seems to me to be problematic when police make mistakes and use the wrong forms for saying a person was FOU when in fact they were NOT found at all wandering.

How does one access documents to disprove what has been claimed in Metropolitan Police documents when the "facts" are in fact wrong and untrue and pointed out to be wrong by another agency but still the paperwork is kept wrongly, eg a Detective Inspector using a PAC form about potential child abuse when in fact there was nothing at all about that? And that the local social services has pointed out the mistake but it stays on file nonetheless? What sanctions can be brought by the wrongly accused? What legal remedy is there? After all, it is a terrible charge to be thought to be a potential child abuser and it would appear that any police personnel doing so might be called on a charge for so doing, especially where it has not been sought to be rectified, and then these documents are used in a subsequent investigation. As the ORIGINAL documentation is INACCURATE then it follows as night follows day that any SUBSEQUENT reliance on such evidential material will be INADMISSIBLE in Court.

MERLIN AND BROMLEY POLICE:
I would like to know how I can make specific complaint about such an issue. To whom do I address my complaints? Is it Bromley OCU or the Mayor's Policing Body or whom? Once a person's reputation has been maligned in such a way, it becomes seeded in all kinds of other people's minds that here is someone not to be trusted.

2] MAPPA
What is "MAPPA"? According to the internet there is an organisation calling itself MAPPA - Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. However this seems to be a shadowy operation based on loose partnership arrangements. According to one website, MAPPA is specific for KNOWN OFFENDERS but NOT for suspects or defendants.

So which is correct? That MAPPA is for ANY multi-agency public protection arrangements or that is solely for known offenders?

Again, the use of MAPPA seems to be being used interchangeably with modern policing in partnership with local authorities and NHS facilities such as GP practices, PCTs, hospital trusts and mental health trusts.

I would greatly appreciate the PRECISE definition of MAPPA and its PRECISE TERMS OF REFERENCE and its PRECISE DATA CONTROLLER and details of how an FOI request can be made to MAPPA itself, and how Data Subject Access requests can be made to MAPPA itself.

For if the public are to be protected, then they need to know who are the custodians of the information database on which their public protection is based.

MAPPA and BROMLEY
As I understand it, MAPPA was in force in 2006 in Bromley. Who were the agencies involved in 2006, if that is so? Where are the links/details for MAPPA in Bromley in
a] 2006,
b] 2007,
c] 2008,
d] 2009,
e] 2010,
f] 2011,
g] 2012?
And please provide the specific and comprehensive details of all MAPPA in Bromley for each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusive, to include named MAPPA agents and personnel as being NON-personal data as they are public servants or people acting on behalf of a public service. Thank you.

3] MARAC
I refer to a document on the Bromley Police part of the Metropolitan Police website authored by Julian Hurst, FOI.

I wish to know when "A purpose specific information sharing
agreement between Bromley Borough Police and Bromley Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC)." was first mooted.

It states:
"Summary An agreement to formalise information sharing arrangements between Bromley Police and partner agencies within the Safer Bromley Partnership and those representatives attending MARAC's. This is for the purpose of ensuring all members are aware of intelligence and information which fall within remit of MARAC and the sharing personal information attributable to victims,perpetrators or children of the family. (B)OCU or Unit / Directorate Bromley Borough"

It states:

"Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) is comprised of Bromley Police, Broomleigh Housing, Victim Support, Bromley council (Housing/Social Care/Drug and Alcohol), the Probation Service, the Education Authority, the Primary Care Trust, Domestic Violence One Stop Shop, Hyde Housing Association, Kelsey Housing Association, Woman's Aid, Social Services, Oxleas NHS trust and PCT."

MARAC specifically is shown as including Oxleas, and names Barbara Godfrey - giving her contact number.

The rationale is to provide support:

"The objectives of the partnership are to provide effective partnership working in order to enable the MARAC members to perform their necessary duties. This will provide an opportunity for early support and intervention to the
victims and their extended families, improving the quality of service to vulnerable victim and their families across the borough. It will assist with victim care and investigation in cases of domestic violence. It will also present opportunities for partner agencies to assist in dealing with offenders within their core business."

I wish to draw attention to the word "offenders". In legal terminology this can ONLY apply to people who have been convicted, and not to people who are suspects or defendants in a criminal investigation.

So, where it states "vulnerable victim" again this can ONLY be shown to be the case where a CRIME has been proved. Until then an alternative terminology must be used.

For a crime there must be a victim. Without a crime there is no victim. But for there to be a victim there must be a person convicted of a crime before the term "victim" can be used.

I am very surprised that such loose terminology is allowed to be here.

Including the use of the word "perpetrator" because again unless a person has been convicted of a crime, a person is INNOCENT OF ANYTHING UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Therefore I believe that this is wrongful to use, just as CareFirst is wrongful to use the word "perpetrator" where there is no crime proved and a person MUST be presumed innocent.

I find this all deeply disturbing.

We seem to have gone from a legal system where everyone is presumed INNOCENT until proven guilty to one where the person has to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE.

Because I know that it has happened. And I want this to be changed immediately so that we return to INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY ON ALL OFFICIAL FORMS IN USE FOR CAREFIRST, MARAC, MAPPA, MERLIN AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION IN USE BY MULTI-AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION AGENCIES.

OXLEAS
I wish to know how Oxleas should be proposed to be sharing MEDICAL data with Social Services and the Metropolitan Police in 2007 regarding a family member of mine when according to this document it was not legally entitled to do so.

Thank you very much,

Yours sincerely,

[first name removed] [last name removed]

Campaigner for liberty, truth and justice

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms [last name removed]

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012030002530
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 18/03/2012.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

"Dear Metropolitan Police Service, CPS, Mr Grieve, MP, QC, Attorney    
General, Mr Clarke Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice,     Mr
Starmer, QC, Director Public Prosecutions,

I am making a formal request for information regarding MERLIN,     MAPPA
and MARAC and their detailed history and their precise role and status in
policing and prosecution.  

MERLIN  

1] What is MERLIN? According to Wikipedia it is about Child  Protection.
But elsewhere it says it is a police database about     vulnerable people,
Found people, Missing Persons, as well as child     protection.   The
blurring of the lines seems to me to be problematic when police     make
mistakes and use the wrong forms for saying a person was FOU     when in
fact they were NOT found at all wandering.   How does one access documents
to disprove what has been claimed in     Metropolitan Police documents
when the "facts" are in fact wrong     and untrue and pointed out to be
wrong by another agency but still     the paperwork is kept wrongly, eg a
Detective Inspector using a PAC     form about potential child abuse when
in fact there was nothing at     all about that? And that the local social
services has pointed out     the mistake but it stays on file nonetheless?
What sanctions can be     brought by the wrongly accused? What legal
remedy is there? After     all, it is a terrible charge to be thought to
be a potential child     abuser and it would appear that any police
personnel doing so might     be called on a charge for so doing,
especially where it has not     been sought to be rectified, and then
these documents are used in a     subsequent investigation. As the
ORIGINAL documentation is     INACCURATE then it follows as night follows
day that any SUBSEQUENT     reliance on such evidential material will be
INADMISSIBLE in Court.      

MERLIN AND BROMLEY POLICE:  

 I would like to know how I can make specific complaint about such  an
issue. To whom do I address my complaints? Is it Bromley OCU or  the
Mayor's Policing Body or whom? Once a person's reputation has     been
maligned in such a way, it becomes seeded in all kinds of     other
people's minds that here is someone not to be trusted.  

2] MAPPA     What is "MAPPA"? According to the internet there is an
organisation calling itself MAPPA - Multi-Agency Public Protection
Arrangements.     However this seems to be a shadowy operation based on
loose     partnership arrangements. According to one website, MAPPA is    
specific for KNOWN OFFENDERS but NOT for suspects or defendants.   So
which is correct? That MAPPA is for ANY multi-agency public     protection
arrangements or that is solely for known offenders?         Again, the use
of MAPPA seems to be being used interchangeably with     modern policing
in partnership with local authorities and NHS     facilities such as GP
practices, PCTs, hospital trusts and mental     health trusts.         I
would greatly appreciate the PRECISE definition of MAPPA and its    
PRECISE TERMS OF REFERENCE and its PRECISE DATA CONTROLLER and     details
of how an FOI request can be made to MAPPA itself, and how     Data
Subject Access requests can be made to MAPPA itself.         For if the
public are to be protected, then they need to know who     are the
custodians of the information database on which their     public
protection is based.    

MAPPA and BROMLEY     As I understand it, MAPPA was in force in 2006 in
Bromley. Who were     the agencies involved in 2006, if that is so? Where
are the     links/details for MAPPA in Bromley in  

   a] 2006,     b] 2007,     c] 2008,     d] 2009,     e] 2010,     f]
2011,     g] 2012?    

And please provide the specific and comprehensive details of all   MAPPA
in Bromley for each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusive, to     include named
MAPPA agents and personnel as being NON-personal data     as they are
public servants or people acting on behalf of a public     service. Thank
you.    

3] MARAC     I refer to a document on the Bromley Police part of the    
Metropolitan Police website authored by Julian Hurst, FOI.         I wish
to know when "A purpose specific information sharing     agreement between
Bromley Borough Police and Bromley Multi Agency     Risk Assessment
Conference (MARAC)." was first mooted.      

It states:     "Summary An agreement to formalise information sharing
arrangements     between Bromley Police and partner agencies within the
Safer     Bromley Partnership and those representatives attending MARAC's.
    This is for the purpose of ensuring all members are aware of    
intelligence and information which fall within remit of MARAC and     the
sharing personal information attributable to     victims,perpetrators or
children of the family. (B)OCU or Unit /     Directorate Bromley Borough"
        It states:         "Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference
(MARAC) is comprised of     Bromley Police, Broomleigh Housing, Victim
Support, Bromley council     (Housing/Social Care/Drug and Alcohol), the
Probation Service, the     Education Authority, the Primary Care Trust,
Domestic Violence One     Stop Shop, Hyde Housing Association, Kelsey
Housing Association,     Woman's Aid, Social Services, Oxleas NHS trust
and PCT."         MARAC specifically is shown as including Oxleas, and
names Barbara     Godfrey - giving her contact number.         The
rationale is to provide support:         "The objectives of the
partnership are to provide effective     partnership working in order to
enable the MARAC members to perform     their necessary duties. This will
provide an opportunity for early     support and intervention to the    
victims and their extended families, improving the quality of     service
to vulnerable victim and their families across the borough.     It will
assist with victim care and investigation in cases of     domestic
violence. It will also present opportunities for partner     agencies to
assist in dealing with offenders within their core     business."        
I wish to draw attention to the word "offenders". In legal     terminology
this can ONLY apply to people who have been convicted,     and not to
people who are suspects or defendants in a criminal     investigation.  

 So, where it states "vulnerable victim" again this can ONLY be     shown
to be the case where a CRIME has been proved. Until then an    
alternative terminology must be used.    For a crime there must be a
victim. Without a crime there is no     victim. But for there to be a
victim there must be a person     convicted of a crime before the term
"victim" can be used.    I am very surprised that such loose terminology
is allowed to be     here.         Including the use of the word
"perpetrator" because again unless a     person has been convicted of a
crime, a person is INNOCENT OF     ANYTHING UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.    
Therefore I believe that this is wrongful to use, just as CareFirst     is
wrongful to use the word "perpetrator" where there is no crime     proved
and a person MUST be presumed innocent.     I find this all deeply
disturbing.   We seem to have gone from a legal system where everyone is
presumed     INNOCENT until proven guilty to one where the person has to
PROVE     THEIR INNOCENCE.         Because I know that it has happened.
And I want this to be changed     immediately so that we return to
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY ON     ALL OFFICIAL FORMS IN USE FOR
CAREFIRST, MARAC, MAPPA, MERLIN AND     ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION IN USE BY
MULTI-AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION     AGENCIES.  

 OXLEAS     I wish to know how Oxleas should be proposed to be sharing
MEDICAL  data with Social Services and the Metropolitan Police in 2007    
regarding a family member of mine when according to this document   it was
not legally entitled to do so.         Thank you very much, "

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, subject to
the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party.  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.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

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 P Deja on telephone number 02071613640 quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely

P 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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

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

name removed 23 Oct 2012 (Account suspended)

22 March 2012

Dear Mr Deja, Metropolitan Police Service, Mr Turner MP for the Isle of Wight,

Thank you very much for your agreeing to consider my Freedom of Information Request, and I look forward to receiving the MPS data presently.

Yours sincerely,

[first name removed] [last name removed]

Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms [last name removed]

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012030002530
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 18/03/2012.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

·        Dear Metropolitan Police Service, CPS, Mr Grieve, MP, QC,
Attorney     General, Mr Clarke Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for
Justice,     Mr Starmer, QC, Director Public Prosecutions,         I am
making a formal request for information regarding MERLIN,     MAPPA and
MARAC and their detailed history and their precise role     and status in
policing and prosecution.         MERLIN     1] What is MERLIN? According
to Wikipedia it is about Child     Protection. But elsewhere it says it is
a police database about     vulnerable people, Found people, Missing
Persons, as well as child     protection.         The blurring of the
lines seems to me to be problematic when police     make mistakes and use
the wrong forms for saying a person was FOU     when in fact they were NOT
found at all wandering.         How does one access documents to disprove
what has been claimed in     Metropolitan Police documents when the
"facts" are in fact wrong     and untrue and pointed out to be wrong by
another agency but still     the paperwork is kept wrongly, eg a Detective
Inspector using a PAC     form about potential child abuse when in fact
there was nothing at     all about that? And that the local social
services has pointed out     the mistake but it stays on file nonetheless?
What sanctions can be     brought by the wrongly accused? What legal
remedy is there? After     all, it is a terrible charge to be thought to
be a potential child     abuser and it would appear that any police
personnel doing so might     be called on a charge for so doing,
especially where it has not     been sought to be rectified, and then
these documents are used in a     subsequent investigation. As the
ORIGINAL documentation is     INACCURATE then it follows as night follows
day that any SUBSEQUENT     reliance on such evidential material will be
INADMISSIBLE in Court.         MERLIN AND BROMLEY POLICE:     I would like
to know how I can make specific complaint about such     an issue. To whom
do I address my complaints? Is it Bromley OCU or     the Mayor's Policing
Body or whom? Once a person's reputation has     been maligned in such a
way, it becomes seeded in all kinds of     other people's minds that here
is someone not to be trusted.         2] MAPPA     What is "MAPPA"?
According to the internet there is an organisation     calling itself
MAPPA - Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.     However this
seems to be a shadowy operation based on loose     partnership
arrangements. According to one website, MAPPA is     specific for KNOWN
OFFENDERS but NOT for suspects or defendants.         So which is correct?
That MAPPA is for ANY multi-agency public     protection arrangements or
that is solely for known offenders?         Again, the use of MAPPA seems
to be being used interchangeably with     modern policing in partnership
with local authorities and NHS     facilities such as GP practices, PCTs,
hospital trusts and mental     health trusts.         I would greatly
appreciate the PRECISE definition of MAPPA and its     PRECISE TERMS OF
REFERENCE and its PRECISE DATA CONTROLLER and     details of how an FOI
request can be made to MAPPA itself, and how     Data Subject Access
requests can be made to MAPPA itself.         For if the public are to be
protected, then they need to know who     are the custodians of the
information database on which their     public protection is based.      
  MAPPA and BROMLEY     As I understand it, MAPPA was in force in 2006 in
Bromley. Who were     the agencies involved in 2006, if that is so? Where
are the     links/details for MAPPA in Bromley in     a] 2006,     b]
2007,     c] 2008,     d] 2009,     e] 2010,     f] 2011,     g] 2012?    
And please provide the specific and comprehensive details of all     MAPPA
in Bromley for each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusive, to     include named
MAPPA agents and personnel as being NON-personal data     as they are
public servants or people acting on behalf of a public     service. Thank
you.         3] MARAC     I refer to a document on the Bromley Police part
of the     Metropolitan Police website authored by Julian Hurst, FOI.    
    I wish to know when "A purpose specific information sharing    
agreement between Bromley Borough Police and Bromley Multi Agency     Risk
Assessment Conference (MARAC)." was first mooted.         It states:    
"Summary An agreement to formalise information sharing arrangements    
between Bromley Police and partner agencies within the Safer     Bromley
Partnership and those representatives attending MARAC's.     This is for
the purpose of ensuring all members are aware of     intelligence and
information which fall within remit of MARAC and     the sharing personal
information attributable to     victims,perpetrators or children of the
family. (B)OCU or Unit /     Directorate Bromley Borough"         It
states:         "Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) is
comprised of     Bromley Police, Broomleigh Housing, Victim Support,
Bromley council     (Housing/Social Care/Drug and Alcohol), the Probation
Service, the     Education Authority, the Primary Care Trust, Domestic
Violence One     Stop Shop, Hyde Housing Association, Kelsey Housing
Association,     Woman's Aid, Social Services, Oxleas NHS trust and PCT."
        MARAC specifically is shown as including Oxleas, and names Barbara
    Godfrey - giving her contact number.         The rationale is to
provide support:         "The objectives of the partnership are to provide
effective     partnership working in order to enable the MARAC members to
perform     their necessary duties. This will provide an opportunity for
early     support and intervention to the     victims and their extended
families, improving the quality of     service to vulnerable victim and
their families across the borough.     It will assist with victim care and
investigation in cases of     domestic violence. It will also present
opportunities for partner     agencies to assist in dealing with offenders
within their core     business."         I wish to draw attention to the
word "offenders". In legal     terminology this can ONLY apply to people
who have been convicted,     and not to people who are suspects or
defendants in a criminal     investigation.         So, where it states
"vulnerable victim" again this can ONLY be     shown to be the case where
a CRIME has been proved. Until then an     alternative terminology must be
used.         For a crime there must be a victim. Without a crime there is
no     victim. But for there to be a victim there must be a person    
convicted of a crime before the term "victim" can be used.         I am
very surprised that such loose terminology is allowed to be     here.    
    Including the use of the word "perpetrator" because again unless a    
person has been convicted of a crime, a person is INNOCENT OF     ANYTHING
UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.         Therefore I believe that this is wrongful to
use, just as CareFirst     is wrongful to use the word "perpetrator" where
there is no crime     proved and a person MUST be presumed innocent.      
  I find this all deeply disturbing.         We seem to have gone from a
legal system where everyone is presumed     INNOCENT until proven guilty
to one where the person has to PROVE     THEIR INNOCENCE.         Because
I know that it has happened. And I want this to be changed     immediately
so that we return to INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY ON     ALL OFFICIAL
FORMS IN USE FOR CAREFIRST, MARAC, MAPPA, MERLIN AND     ANY OTHER
DOCUMENTATION IN USE BY MULTI-AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION     AGENCIES.      
  OXLEAS     I wish to know how Oxleas should be proposed to be sharing
MEDICAL     data with Social Services and the Metropolitan Police in 2007
    regarding a family member of mine when according to this document    
it was not legally entitled to do so.         Thank you very much,

DECISION

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (the Act) I have decided to refuse your request as it has been deemed
a “Vexatious Request”.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 14(1) of the Act provides:

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request
for information if the request is vexatious.

Please see the MPS response to your request reference 2012030002279 sent
today 4th April 2012 for the considerations taken into this request and
also for the other requests references:
2012030002303, 2012030002306, 2012030002307, 2012030002675, 2012030002695,
2012030003328, 2012030003332, 2012030003339, 2012030003344, 2012030003346
and 2012030003598

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact Mike Lyng on telephone number 02071613605 quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

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

name removed 23 Oct 2012 (Account suspended)

4 April 2012

Dear Mr Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police Service,
Mr Clarke Lord Chancellor Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Turner MP for the Isle of Wight, Mr Grieve Attorney General, Mr Garnier Solicitor General,
Mr Starmer,QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, CPS,

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 'MERLIN, MAPPA AND MARAC - details of history'.

I was very disappointed to receive notice of Mr Lyng's response to this FOI Request calling it "vexatious".

We are living in an era when the Metropolitan Police Service is under the spotlight in the Leveson Inquiry and Mr Lyng calls my FOI Requests vexatious! It is incredible I aver.

For if we go down the lines of every email, every telephone call, every fax, every text message, every letter scrutinised by the State - and its agents the Police - then we will have no freedom left to speak of.

Mr Starmer has upheld the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as being important for the public to be able to make enquiry of what is being done by the public authorities.

I fully support him - and it is in the background of requesting TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC LIFE that I have been making so many FOI Requests not just to the MPS but to its several partners - hence my request about MAPPA, Merlin and MARAC.

How many people actually are aware of these? That is why I was making my request.

I have no idea HOW to make ANY DATA APPLICATION because there are NO DATA CONTROLLERS.

MAPPA has come in for criticism in this respect alone -I am not the first to say this and am unlikely to be the last - well, that is until I am silenced by Mr Lyng preventing my FOI Request from being answered.

I request a comprehensive review of this because whilst Mr Lyng may say that I have been making a lot of FOI Requests, may I remind him that I am STILL waiting - some 5 years and 9 months - after my mother died in Princess Royal University Hospital, Farnborough, Kent, and that the South London Coroner wrote to me in July 2011 saying that he would not open any investigation into her death until I had adduced all the facts.

And it is this that I believe has been prevented by the Metropolitan Police Service not investigating the death properly when I made the telephone call on 28 June 2006.

Enough said.

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

I look forward to having a substantive response from you, in the hope of getting legal reform,

Yours sincerely,

[first name removed] [last name removed]

Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice

name removed 23 Oct 2012 (Account suspended)

7 APRIL 2012

Dear Mr Hogan-Howe, Commissioner Metropolitan Police, FOI Complaint Public Access Office Metropolitan Police,
Mr Clarke Lord Chancellor Secretary of State for Justice, Mrs May Home Secretary, Mr Cameron Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Independent Police Complaints Commission, Information Commissioner, Mr Turner MP for the Isle of Wight, Mr Maude, Mr Starmer, QC, Director of Public Prosecutions / CPS/HMRC, Mr Grieve, Attorney General, Mr Garnier, Solicitor General,

I wish to make a formal complaint that Mr Lyng, Metropolitan Police, has prevented Justice by refusing to answer various of my Freedom of Information Requests.

He claims they are "vexatious" but has also had to admit, earlier, that I, myself, am NOT being vexatious in making FOI Requests.

I believe that we are living in dangerous times - the world's economy has almost collapsed in 2008 and we have faced double dip recession and the world is coming to terms with what happened in the last few years. The world's economy has been shaken and we are living in a new world of uncertainty.

Out of uncertainty breeds disquiet and a quest for certainty and a quest for knowledge and information.

I totally agree with Mr Starmer, QC, Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the need for Information to be transparent and in the public interest.

Mr Maude, WHOM I PRAISE, is bringing about SHARING of Data Information releases so that there can be TOTAL sharing of Freedom of Information - quite right too.

We need to be proactive in protecting our National Health Service by being completely OPEN AND TRANSPARENT as to what goes on behind closed doors.

Too many times we read of elderly patients being denied treatment because they are "too old" yet if they can get a private consultant, suddenly they are deemed able to have treatment which might prolong their lives for several years - including cancer treatment.

Today's Daily Mail is a case in point. I shudder when I read this.

I complained to the Metropolitan Police in 2006 about my mother who claimed she had been assaulted in Princess Royal University Hospital by means of injection of Haloperidol.

She was NOT incapacitous. This was verified by the ward manager who stated she could leave that very morning if she did not like being in hospital - that was a few hours after first being injected.

The Police did not want to know.

What I want to know is whether under MAPPA, MARAC and MERLIN I have ANY redress whatsoever regarding my mother, as she was VULNERABLE - she was said to be on the "Vulnerable Adults" register and this was stated to me by my mother's Social Worker, London Borough of Bromley. Despite many requests for my mother's records from said social worker who was also her Care Manager, I have not been given the specific documentation which shows that my mother WAS on the Vulnerable Adults Register.

Yet I have asked the Police, the LAS, London Borough of Bromley, and the Care Quality Commission, and MP for Orpington, and a Councillor of LBB, and 3 successive Prime Ministers for help.

And I have NEVER been given my mother's FULL records from any facility, including the name and identity of the prescriber of the Haloperidol, or why when my mother came into hospital instead of being placed in ICU, which is where my family member was TOLD my mother would be placed, instead someone - again we do not know who - wrote that my mother's next of kin was in agreement with their plan not to go into ICU - yet I know for a fact that this particular next of kin who was on the spot did NOT in fact "agree" as he told me that very evening that our mother was going into ICU and he was very pleased.

So there is falsification of records, and this is surely a CRIMINAL ACT?

BUT THE MPS REFUSE TO DISCUSS IT - PREFERRING TO KEEP THE NHS AS PARTNERS AGAINST CRIME - BUT NOT INVESTIGATING THE CRIME THAT I HAVE REPORTED ON THEIR WATCH? THIS IS NONSENSICAL I AVER.

I wish to have proper answers.

My FOI Requests are important for public confidence in MAPPA, MARAC and MERLIN I aver.

Please give me answers to ALL my FOI Requests, pace Mr Lyng's denial of my rights as a free citizen of the European Community and citizen of the United Kingdom and citizen of the world.

Thank you very much for your help,

Yours sincerely,

[first name removed] [last name removed]

Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice

MERLIN, MAPPA AND MARAC - details of history
[first name removed] [last name removed] made this Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Waiting for an internal review by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) of their handling of this request.
From: [first name removed] [last name removed]

18 March 2012
18 March 2012

Dear Metropolitan Police Service, CPS, Mr Grieve, MP, QC, Attorney General, Mr Clarke Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Starmer, QC, Director Public Prosecutions,

I am making a formal request for information regarding MERLIN, MAPPA and MARAC and their detailed history and their precise role and status in policing and prosecution.

MERLIN
1] What is MERLIN? According to Wikipedia it is about Child Protection. But elsewhere it says it is a police database about vulnerable people, Found people, Missing Persons, as well as child protection.

The blurring of the lines seems to me to be problematic when police make mistakes and use the wrong forms for saying a person was FOU when in fact they were NOT found at all wandering.

How does one access documents to disprove what has been claimed in Metropolitan Police documents when the "facts" are in fact wrong and untrue and pointed out to be wrong by another agency but still the paperwork is kept wrongly, eg a Detective Inspector using a PAC form about potential child abuse when in fact there was nothing at all about that? And that the local social services has pointed out the mistake but it stays on file nonetheless? What sanctions can be brought by the wrongly accused? What legal remedy is there? After all, it is a terrible charge to be thought to be a potential child abuser and it would appear that any police personnel doing so might be called on a charge for so doing, especially where it has not been sought to be rectified, and then these documents are used in a subsequent investigation. As the ORIGINAL documentation is INACCURATE then it follows as night follows day that any SUBSEQUENT
reliance on such evidential material will be INADMISSIBLE in Court.

MERLIN AND BROMLEY POLICE:
I would like to know how I can make specific complaint about such an issue. To whom do I address my complaints? Is it Bromley OCU or the Mayor's Policing Body or whom? Once a person's reputation has been maligned in such a way, it becomes seeded in all kinds of other people's minds that here is someone not to be trusted.

2] MAPPA
What is "MAPPA"? According to the internet there is an organisation calling itself MAPPA - Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. However this seems to be a shadowy operation based on loose partnership arrangements. According to one website, MAPPA is
specific for KNOWN OFFENDERS but NOT for suspects or defendants.

So which is correct? That MAPPA is for ANY multi-agency public protection arrangements or that is solely for known offenders?

Again, the use of MAPPA seems to be being used interchangeably with modern policing in partnership with local authorities and NHS facilities such as GP practices, PCTs, hospital trusts and mental health trusts.

I would greatly appreciate the PRECISE definition of MAPPA and its PRECISE TERMS OF REFERENCE and its PRECISE DATA CONTROLLER and details of how an FOI request can be made to MAPPA itself, and how Data Subject Access requests can be made to MAPPA itself.

For if the public are to be protected, then they need to know who are the custodians of the information database on which their public protection is based.

MAPPA and BROMLEY
As I understand it, MAPPA was in force in 2006 in Bromley. Who were the agencies involved in 2006, if that is so? Where are the links/details for MAPPA in Bromley in
a] 2006,
b] 2007,
c] 2008,
d] 2009,
e] 2010,
f] 2011,
g] 2012?
And please provide the specific and comprehensive details of all MAPPA in Bromley for each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusive, to include named MAPPA agents and personnel as being NON-personal data as they are public servants or people acting on behalf of a public
service. Thank you.

3] MARAC
I refer to a document on the Bromley Police part of the
Metropolitan Police website authored by Julian Hurst, FOI.

I wish to know when "A purpose specific information sharing agreement between Bromley Borough Police and Bromley Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC)." was first mooted.

It states:
"Summary An agreement to formalise information sharing arrangements between Bromley Police and partner agencies within the Safer Bromley Partnership and those representatives attending MARAC's. This is for the purpose of ensuring all members are aware of intelligence and information which fall within remit of MARAC and the sharing personal information attributable to victims,perpetrators or children of the family. (B)OCU or Unit /Directorate Bromley Borough"

It states:

"Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) is comprised of Bromley Police, Broomleigh Housing, Victim Support, Bromley council (Housing/Social Care/Drug and Alcohol), the Probation Service, the
Education Authority, the Primary Care Trust, Domestic Violence One Stop Shop, Hyde Housing Association, Kelsey Housing Association, Woman's Aid, Social Services, Oxleas NHS trust and PCT."

MARAC specifically is shown as including Oxleas, and names Barbara Godfrey - giving her contact number.

The rationale is to provide support:

"The objectives of the partnership are to provide effective partnership working in order to enable the MARAC members to perform their necessary duties. This will provide an opportunity for early support and intervention to the victims and their extended families, improving the quality of service to vulnerable victim and their families across the borough. It will assist with victim care and investigation in cases of domestic violence. It will also present opportunities for partner agencies to assist in dealing with offenders within their core
business."

I wish to draw attention to the word "offenders". In legal terminology this can ONLY apply to people who have been convicted, and not to people who are suspects or defendants in a criminal investigation.

So, where it states "vulnerable victim" again this can ONLY be shown to be the case where a CRIME has been proved. Until then an alternative terminology must be used.

For a crime there must be a victim. Without a crime there is no victim. But for there to be a victim there must be a person convicted of a crime before the term "victim" can be used.

I am very surprised that such loose terminology is allowed to be here.

Including the use of the word "perpetrator" because again unless a person has been convicted of a crime, a person is INNOCENT OF ANYTHING UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Therefore I believe that this is wrongful to use, just as CareFirst is wrongful to use the word "perpetrator" where there is no crime proved and a person MUST be presumed innocent.

I find this all deeply disturbing.

We seem to have gone from a legal system where everyone is presumed INNOCENT until proven guilty to one where the person has to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE.

Because I know that it has happened. And I want this to be changed immediately so that we return to INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY ON ALL OFFICIAL FORMS IN USE FOR CAREFIRST, MARAC, MAPPA, MERLIN AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION IN USE BY MULTI-AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION
AGENCIES.

OXLEAS
I wish to know how Oxleas should be proposed to be sharing MEDICAL data with Social Services and the Metropolitan Police in 2007 regarding a family member of mine when according to this document it was not legally entitled to do so.

Thank you very much,

Yours sincerely,

[first name removed] [last name removed]

Campaigner for liberty, truth and justice

Link to this
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

19 March 2012
Dear Ms [last name removed]

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012030002530
I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 18/03/2012. I note you seek
access to the following information:

"Dear Metropolitan Police Service, CPS, Mr Grieve, MP, QC, Attorney General, Mr Clarke Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Starmer, QC, Director Public Prosecutions,

I am making a formal request for information regarding MERLIN, MAPPA and MARAC and their detailed history and their precise role and status in policing and prosecution.

MERLIN

1] What is MERLIN? According to Wikipedia it is about Child Protection. But elsewhere it says it is a police database about vulnerable people, Found people, Missing Persons, as well as child protection. The blurring of the lines seems to me to be problematic when police make mistakes and use the wrong forms for saying a person was FOU when in fact they were NOT found at all wandering. How does one access documents to disprove what has been claimed in Metropolitan Police documents when the "facts" are in fact wrong and untrue and pointed out to be wrong by another agency but still the paperwork is kept wrongly, eg a Detective Inspector using a PAC form about potential child abuse when in fact there was nothing at all about that? And that the local social services has pointed out the mistake but it stays on file nonetheless?
What sanctions can be brought by the wrongly accused? What legal remedy is there? After all, it is a terrible charge to be thought to be a potential child abuser and it would appear that any police personnel doing so might be called on a charge for so doing, especially where it has not been sought to be rectified, and then these documents are used in a subsequent investigation. As the ORIGINAL documentation is INACCURATE then it follows as night follows day that any SUBSEQUENT reliance on such evidential material will be INADMISSIBLE in Court.

MERLIN AND BROMLEY POLICE:

I would like to know how I can make specific complaint about such an issue. To whom do I address my complaints? Is it Bromley OCU or the Mayor's Policing Body or whom? Once a person's reputation has been
maligned in such a way, it becomes seeded in all kinds of other people's minds that here is someone not to be trusted.

2] MAPPA What is "MAPPA"? According to the internet there is an organisation calling itself MAPPA - Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. However this seems to be a shadowy operation based on loose partnership arrangements. According to one website, MAPPA is specific for KNOWN OFFENDERS but NOT for suspects or defendants. So which is correct? That MAPPA is for ANY multi-agency public protection
arrangements or that is solely for known offenders? Again, the use of MAPPA seems to be being used interchangeably with modern policing in partnership with local authorities and NHS facilities such as GP
practices, PCTs, hospital trusts and mental health trusts. I would greatly appreciate the PRECISE definition of MAPPA and its PRECISE TERMS OF REFERENCE and its PRECISE DATA CONTROLLER and details of how an FOI request can be made to MAPPA itself, and how Data Subject Access requests can be made to MAPPA itself. For if the public are to be protected, then they need to know who are the custodians of the information database on which their public
protection is based.

MAPPA and BROMLEY As I understand it, MAPPA was in force in 2006 in Bromley. Who were the agencies involved in 2006, if that is so? Where are the links/details for MAPPA in Bromley in
a] 2006,
b] 2007,
c] 2008,
d] 2009,
e] 2010,
f] 2011,
g] 2012?

And please provide the specific and comprehensive details of all MAPPA in Bromley for each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusive, to include named MAPPA agents and personnel as being NON-personal data as they are
public servants or people acting on behalf of a public service. Thank you.

3] MARAC I refer to a document on the Bromley Police part of the Metropolitan Police website authored by Julian Hurst, FOI. I wish to know when "A purpose specific information sharing agreement between
Bromley Borough Police and Bromley Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC)." was first mooted.

It states: "Summary An agreement to formalise information sharing arrangements between Bromley Police and partner agencies within the Safer Bromley Partnership and those representatives attending MARAC's. This is for the purpose of ensuring all members are aware of intelligence and information which fall within remit of MARAC and the
sharing personal information attributable to victims,perpetrators or children of the family.
(B)OCU or Unit / Directorate Bromley Borough"
It states: "Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference
(MARAC) is comprised of Bromley Police, Broomleigh Housing, Victim Support, Bromley council (Housing/Social Care/Drug and Alcohol), the
Probation Service, the Education Authority, the Primary Care Trust, Domestic Violence One Stop Shop, Hyde Housing Association, Kelsey Housing Association, Woman's Aid, Social Services, Oxleas NHS trust
and PCT." MARAC specifically is shown as including Oxleas, and names Barbara Godfrey - giving her contact number. The rationale is to provide support: "The objectives of the partnership are to provide effective partnership working in order to enable the MARAC members to perform their necessary duties. This will
provide an opportunity for early support and intervention to the victims and their extended families, improving the quality of service to vulnerable victim and their families across the borough. It will assist with victim care and investigation in cases of domestic violence. It will also present opportunities for partner agencies to
assist in dealing with offenders within their core business."

I wish to draw attention to the word "offenders". In legal terminology this can ONLY apply to people who have been convicted, and not to people who are suspects or defendants in a criminal investigation.

So, where it states "vulnerable victim" again this can ONLY be shown to be the case where a CRIME has been proved. Until then an alternative terminology must be used. For a crime there must be a victim. Without a crime there is no victim. But for there to be a
victim there must be a person convicted of a crime before the term "victim" can be used. I am very surprised that such loose terminology is allowed to be here. Including the use of the word "perpetrator" because again unless a person has been convicted of a
crime, a person is INNOCENT OF ANYTHING UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
Therefore I believe that this is wrongful to use, just as CareFirst is wrongful to use the word "perpetrator" where there is no crime proved and a person MUST be presumed innocent. I find this all deeply disturbing. We seem to have gone from a legal system where everyone is presumed INNOCENT until proven guilty to one where the person has to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE. Because I know that it has happened. And I want this to be changed immediately so that we return to
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY ON ALL OFFICIAL FORMS IN USE FOR CAREFIRST, MARAC, MAPPA, MERLIN AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION IN USE BY MULTI-AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION AGENCIES.

OXLEAS I wish to know how Oxleas should be proposed to be sharing MEDICAL data with Social Services and the Metropolitan Police in 2007
regarding a family member of mine when according to this document it was not legally entitled to do so. Thank you very much, "

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, subject to
the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third party. 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.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

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 P Deja on telephone number 02071613640 quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

P 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 and encouraged to discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and assist with any problems.

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

Link to this
From: [first name removed] [last name removed]

22 March 2012
22 March 2012

Dear Mr Deja, Metropolitan Police Service, Mr Turner MP for the
Isle of Wight,

Thank you very much for your agreeing to consider my Freedom of Information Request, and I look forward to receiving the MPS data presently.

Yours sincerely,

[first name removed] [last name removed]

Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice

Link to this
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

4 April 2012
Dear Ms [last name removed]

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012030002530
I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 18/03/2012. I note you seek
access to the following information:

Dear Metropolitan Police Service, CPS, Mr Grieve, MP, QC, Attorney General, Mr Clarke Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Starmer, QC, Director Public Prosecutions,
I am making a formal request for information regarding MERLIN, MAPPA and MARAC and their detailed history and their precise role and status in policing and prosecution.
MERLIN
1] What is MERLIN? According to Wikipedia it is about Child Protection. But elsewhere it says it is a police database about vulnerable people, Found people, Missing
Persons, as well as child protection. The blurring of the lines seems to me to be problematic when police make mistakes and use the wrong forms for saying a person was FOU when in fact they were NOT found at all wandering. How does one access documents to disprove
what has been claimed in Metropolitan Police documents when the "facts" are in fact wrong and untrue and pointed out to be wrong by another agency but still the paperwork is kept wrongly, eg a Detective
Inspector using a PACform about potential child abuse when in fact there was nothing at all about that? And that the local social services has pointed out the mistake but it stays on file nonetheless?
What sanctions can be brought by the wrongly accused? What legal remedy is there? After all, it is a terrible charge to be thought to be a potential child abuser and it would appear that any police personnel doing so might be called on a charge for so doing,
especially where it has not been sought to be rectified, and then these documents are used in a subsequent investigation. As the ORIGINAL documentation is INACCURATE then it follows as night follows day that any SUBSEQUENT reliance on such evidential material will be INADMISSIBLE in Court.
MERLIN AND BROMLEY POLICE:
I would like to know how I can make specific complaint about such an issue. To whom do I address my complaints? Is it Bromley OCU or the Mayor's Policing
Body or whom? Once a person's reputation has been maligned in such a way, it becomes seeded in all kinds of other people's minds that here is someone not to be trusted.
2] MAPPA
What is "MAPPA"?
According to the internet there is an organisation calling itself MAPPA - Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. However this seems to be a shadowy operation based on loose partnership arrangements. According to one website, MAPPA is specific for KNOWN
OFFENDERS but NOT for suspects or defendants. So which is correct?
That MAPPA is for ANY multi-agency public protection arrangements or that is solely for known offenders? Again, the use of MAPPA seems to be being used interchangeably with modern policing in partnership with local authorities and NHS facilities such as GP practices, PCTs, hospital trusts and mental health trusts. I would greatly
appreciate the PRECISE definition of MAPPA and its PRECISE TERMS OF REFERENCE and its PRECISE DATA CONTROLLER and details of how an FOI request can be made to MAPPA itself, and how Data Subject Access
requests can be made to MAPPA itself. For if the public are to be protected, then they need to know who are the custodians of the information database on which their public protection is based.

MAPPA and BROMLEY
As I understand it, MAPPA was in force in 2006 in
Bromley. Who were the agencies involved in 2006, if that is so? Where are the links/details for MAPPA in Bromley in
a] 2006,
b] 2007,
c] 2008,
d] 2009,
e] 2010,
f] 2011,
g] 2012?
And please provide the specific and comprehensive details of all MAPPA in Bromley for each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusive, to include named MAPPA agents and personnel as being NON-personal data as they are
public servants or people acting on behalf of a public service. Thank you.

3] MARAC
I refer to a document on the Bromley Police part
of the Metropolitan Police website authored by Julian Hurst, FOI.
I wish to know when "A purpose specific information sharing agreement between Bromley Borough Police and Bromley Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC)." was first mooted.
It states:
"Summary An agreement to formalise information sharing arrangements between Bromley Police and partner agencies within the Safer Bromley Partnership and those representatives attending MARAC's. This is for
the purpose of ensuring all members are aware of intelligence and information which fall within remit of MARAC and the sharing personal information attributable to victims,perpetrators or children of the
family. (B)OCU or Unit / Directorate Bromley Borough"
It states: "Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) is comprised of Bromley Police, Broomleigh Housing, Victim Support, Bromley council (Housing/Social Care/Drug and Alcohol), the Probation
Service, the Education Authority, the Primary Care Trust, Domestic Violence One Stop Shop, Hyde Housing Association, Kelsey Housing Association, Woman's Aid, Social Services, Oxleas NHS trust and PCT."

MARAC specifically is shown as including Oxleas, and names Barbara Godfrey - giving her contact number. The rationale is to provide support:
"The objectives of the partnership are to provide
effective partnership working in order to enable the MARAC members to perform their necessary duties. This will provide an opportunity for early support and intervention to the victims and their extended
families, improving the quality of service to vulnerable victim and their families across the borough. It will assist with victim care and
investigation in cases of domestic violence. It will also present opportunities for partner agencies to assist in dealing with offenders within their core business." I wish to draw attention to the word "offenders". In legal terminology this can ONLY apply to people who have been convicted, and not to people who are suspects or defendants in a criminal investigation. So, where it states "vulnerable victim" again this can ONLY be shown to be the case where a CRIME has been proved. Until then an alternative terminology must be used. For a crime there must be a victim. Without a crime there is no victim. But for there to be a victim there must be a person convicted of a crime before the term "victim" can be used. I am very surprised that such loose terminology is allowed to be here.
Including the use of the word "perpetrator" because again unless a person has been convicted of a crime, a person is INNOCENT OF ANYTHING UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Therefore I believe that this is wrongful to use, just as CareFirst is wrongful to use the word "perpetrator" where there is no crime proved and a person MUST be presumed innocent.
I find this all deeply disturbing. We seem to have gone from a legal system where everyone is presumed INNOCENT until proven guilty to one where the person has to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE. Because I know that it has happened. And I want this to be changed immediately so that we return to INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY ON ALL OFFICIAL FORMS IN USE FOR CAREFIRST, MARAC, MAPPA, MERLIN AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION IN USE BY MULTI-AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION AGENCIES.

OXLEAS I wish to know how Oxleas should be proposed to be sharing MEDICAL data with Social Services and the Metropolitan Police in 2007
regarding a family member of mine when according to this document it was not legally entitled to do so. Thank you very much,

DECISION

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) I have decided to refuse your request as it has been deemed a “Vexatious Request”.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 14(1) of the Act provides:

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.

Please see the MPS response to your request reference 2012030002279 sent today 4th April 2012 for the considerations taken into this request and also for the other requests references:
2012030002303, 2012030002306, 2012030002307, 2012030002675, 2012030002695,2012030003328, 2012030003332, 2012030003339, 2012030003344, 2012030003346 and 2012030003598

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write or contact Mike Lyng on telephone number 02071613605 quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
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 and encouraged to discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and assist with any problems.

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

Link to this
From: [first name removed] [last name removed]

4 April 2012
4 April 2012

Dear Mr Hogan-Howe, Metropolitan Police Service,
Mr Clarke Lord Chancellor Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Turner MP for the Isle of Wight, Mr Grieve Attorney General, Mr Garnier Solicitor General,
Mr Starmer,QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, CPS,

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 'MERLIN, MAPPA AND MARAC - details of history'.

I was very disappointed to receive notice of Mr Lyng's response to this FOI Request calling it "vexatious".

We are living in an era when the Metropolitan Police Service is under the spotlight in the Leveson Inquiry and Mr Lyng calls my FOI Requests vexatious! It is incredible I aver.

For if we go down the lines of every email, every telephone call, every fax, every text message, every letter scrutinised by the State - and its agents the Police - then we will have no freedom left to speak of.

Mr Starmer has upheld the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as being important for the public to be able to make enquiry of what is being done by the public authorities.

I fully support him - and it is in the background of requesting TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC LIFE that I have been making so many FOI Requests not just to the MPS but to its several partners - hence my request about MAPPA, Merlin and MARAC.

How many people actually are aware of these? That is why I was making my request.

I have no idea HOW to make ANY DATA APPLICATION because there are NO DATA CONTROLLERS.

MAPPA has come in for criticism in this respect alone -I am not the first to say this and am unlikely to be the last - well, that is until I am silenced by Mr Lyng preventing my FOI Request from being answered.

I request a comprehensive review of this because whilst Mr Lyng may say that I have been making a lot of FOI Requests, may I remind him that I am STILL waiting - some 5 years and 9 months - after my mother died in Princess Royal University Hospital, Farnborough, Kent, and that the South London Coroner wrote to me in July 2011 saying that he would not open any investigation into her death until I had adduced all the facts.

And it is this that I believe has been prevented by the
Metropolitan Police Service not investigating the death properly when I made the telephone call on 28 June 2006.

Enough said.

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

I look forward to having a substantive response from you, in the hope of getting legal reform,

Yours sincerely,

[first name removed] [last name removed]

Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice

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 'MERLIN, MAPPA AND MARAC - details of history'.

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

Jean James left an annotation ()

The Mental Health Act is being abused by criminals in the UK. This involves authorities. People can be declared mentally incapacitated with the signature of ONLY ONE SOCIAL WORKER rather than two psychiatrists.

There are cases of persons being put under the Court of Protection fraudulently, so that their assets can be stolen. These cases have involved solicitors, judges and imprisonment of relatives who have protested against the injunctions used to silence them.

Police, Home Office, Ministry of Justice and the whole government refuse to investigate.

Land Registry frauds are taking place all the time, and nothing is done by police and authorities.

Make of it what you will.It is serious, and is being covered up FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THOSE IN AUTHORITY AND MPs DO NOT ACT.

sandy Joyce left an annotation ()

Is a social worker qualified to deem a person mentally incapacitated? Surely this is acting in abuse of their powers and is most definitely misconduct in public office

read Wednesbury reasonableness

S. Prichard left an annotation ()

I did some research on this FOI as someone put annotation on people using positions of power. At least she did get prison.

A grandmother who abused her position at the Land Registry to help a gang make millions by stealing the homes of the elderly collapsed in court when she was jailed today.
Grandmother Surjeet Chana, 64, was a key figure in the plot that also involved a solicitor, a bank manager and drugs traffickers seeking a second source of income.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

Peter Hofschröer (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

This is what York Social Services intended to do with my mother, but fortuately, I was able to stop them.

They are not denying public accusations of corruption (see: www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2012-02...

There will shortly be calls for a public enquiry into this case.

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms. [last name removed],

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012040001071

I write to you today in respect of your five FOIA complaints (received
4/4/12) concerning the following case numbers:

* Original case number 2011080000363 (Internal Review Reference
201204000788)
* Original case number 2012020002013 (Internal Review Reference
2012040001071)
* Original case number 2012030000182 (Internal Review reference
2012040000809)
* Original case number 2012030002530 (Internal Review reference
2012040000799)
* Original case number 2012030003598 (Internal Review reference
2012040000786)

For ease of reference, whilst each complaint has been allocated its own
case reference numbers (as provided above), I will be responding to each
complaint within this one letter.

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to:

Uphold the original decision

REASON FOR DECISION

I additionally wish to note that each of these complaints handled within
this letter was received by the MPS straight after the Section 14(1)
decision issued for case numbers:

* 2012030002279
* 2012030002303
* 2012030002306
* 2012030002307
* 2012030002530
* 2012030002675
* 2012030002695
* 2012030003328
* 2012030003332
* 2012030003339
* 2012030003344
* 2012030003346
* 2012030003598

Whilst I have tried to assist you in this response by referring separately
to each complaint, please note that the MPS will no longer be able to
conduct internal reviews into requests regarding the subject matters
already deemed as vexatious, such as investigations into healthcare
matters.

I do appreciate that the original decision in some of the cases you seek a
review for were not, at the time, refused under Section 14(1). Section
14(1) was not engaged at the time as MPS staff was endeavoring to assist
you as much as possible. However, as the requests (now complaints) all
relate to healthcare/investigative subject matters now deemed as
vexatious, the MPS is required to consider your requests for Internal
Review as vexatious in themselves.

Please note that where any further requests or complaints request the same
or similar subject matter regarding you, healthcare matters, Princess
Royal University Hospital NHS Health Trust will not need to be
acknowledged by virtue of section 17(6) of the Act, as it would in all the
circumstances be unreasonable to expect the MPS to serve a further notices
in respect of these requests.

If the requests are for other types of information then this will be
assessed on a case by case basis.

Original case number 2011080000363 (Internal Review Reference
201204000788)

Original Request receieved 01/08/11
“I WISH TO KNOW WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE REPORTED "SUICIDES" THAT WERE
REPORTED AS HAVING TAKEN PLACE AT GREEN PARKS HOUSE AND IVY WILLIS HOUSE
AND/OR AS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST.
I am exceedingly concerned that there is report in both the Orpington News
Shopper and This is London in March 2011 of 2 "suicides" - one allegedly
at Ivy Willis House and the other at Green Parks House.
This is such a serious issue that it goes beyond inidividual issues and
goes into the public domain for where is the regulation of the facilities?
 Who was in charge?  What happened?  Why?  Was there lack of care as
claimed by someone of the Bromley Mental Health Forum?  If not, why is
such a claim made?
What investigations have been made of Oxleas as the provider of care in
Ivy Willis House and Green Parks House,Oxleas?
What investigations have been made of London Borough of Bromley as
supporting Ivy Willis House and Green Parks House, Oxleas?
What investigations have been made of the Bromley Adult Safeguarding and
Police Unit?
What investigations have been made of Bromley PCT?
Have these issues now been fully investigated and if so what lessons have
been learned?”

On 4/4/12 you have sought a review of a decision sent to you on 23/8/2011.

Our FOI complaints rights page sent on 4/4/12 explained that “a complaint
should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from the date of
the refusal notice”. You have therefore exceeded the time period in which
the MPS can process a FOI complaint. Any complaint in respect of this
request would need to have been received either by late October or no
later than 2011 for it to have been considered a valid complaint.

As you have requested a review in April 2012, the MPS is unable to process
your complaint, particularly in light of the fact that healthcare and
investigative matters your original request refers has been classed as
vexatious as of the letter to you dated 4/4/12.

Original case number 2012020002013 (Internal Review Reference
2012040001071)

Original FOI request (dated 12/2/12)
“1. I wish to know who called me on Sunday 29 April 2007.
2. I wish to have the transcript of the telephone calls between me and the
Metropolitan Police as is my right.
3. I have asked for my DPA1998 material but so far not been given it - I
have asked for this to be from 1 June 2006. I wish to ensure that the
telephone calls between me and the Metropolitan Police of 29 April 2007
are included.
4. I also contacted the Metropolitan Police to enquire about a CAB/CAD
incident report about 29 April 2007 and was informed that there was none
and that the Police do not place people on the Vulnerable Adults List but
that that is done by Social Services. This then became a matter that I
took up with the PHSO and Prime Minister and Mr Firn, CEO of Oxleas, and
London Borough of Bromley when I made formal complaint about the MAPPA
agency - because clearly it was the Metropolitan Police, Social Services
of London Borough of Bromley and Oxleas who engineered a telephone call to
me by Terri Baker Social Worker in May 2007.
And I wish to have the documentation on this please. And that my emails
and the Complaint I made were discussed at High Risk meetings held between
Metropolitan Police, London Borough of Bromley and Oxleas. I wish to know
what data emanating from me was then discussed.
5. Was the letter from Mr Stephen Firn, Oxleas CEO, the subject of data of
another person?
I made specific complaint of harassment. And I took this as a Human Rights
Issue.
6. I now wish to make formal complaint that I and my family were harassed
by the MAPPA agencies of LBB, Oxleas and Metropolitan Police and that our
automatic rights of freewill and freedom of expression and rights to a
family life were totally breached by the multi-agency unit including the
Metropolitan Police.
I wish my formal objections to be recorded and to be given a full
explanation - and apology.
I have explained to Mr Andrew Turner, MP for the Isle of Wight, my grave
concerns about the activities of "secret" policing and the issue of 19
December 2007 regarding an application for a Section 135[1] to Bromley
Magistrates emanated from a concerted attack on my family and right to
private lives. As I and my family were NEVER INFORMED of this application
nor of the agreement to the Warrant by the Magistrate/Judge of Bromley
Magistrates Court I believe that MAPPA owes us ALL A BIG APOLOGY AND A
VERY LARGE COMPENSATION for the grief brought about by your actions and
activities conducted furtively and in a stalinist way. It only came out in
late 2011 that this had happened - otherwise we would NEVER HAVE KNOWN. It
was when someone referred to the "proceedings" in 2007 and we said "what
proceedings in 2007!?" that this was disclosed.  
So what part did the Police have in all of this? THIS IS NOT POLICING OF
DIXON OF DOCK GREEN. THIS IS NOT THE ENGLAND THAT I LOVE AND KNOW.”

On 13/3/12 you were sent a FOI Internal Review decision in respect of
original case number 2012020001946.

On receipt of the Internal Review decision, you wrote to me on 14 March
2012 dissatisfied with our decision, making further queries about the same
request for which a Section 40(5) neither confirm nor deny response had
been provided.

I responded to you on 15/3/12 explaining that if you were dissatisfied
with the decision the MPS could only advise you to now contact the
Information Commissioner’s Office directly for a decision on whether your
request had been dealt with in accordance with the Act.

On 15/3/12 you responded to my email (including in the email the MP of the
Isle of Wight, the Attorney General and Mr Starmer QC, DPP CPS, Mr Clarke
Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice, the Mayor of London, Mayor of London
Policing Board and MAPPA) again expressing again your dissatisfaction with
the Internal Review decision, with further similar questions about the
telephone call in question.

You then again emailed the MPS on 4/4/12 (including in the email the Lord
Chancellor Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Grieve QC, the Attorney
General, Mr Garnier Solicitor General and the MP of the Isle of Wight)
requesting a review of your request  ‘Who called me’.

The MPS cannot conduct an Internal Review into an already Reviewed
request. The MPS is therefore unable to process your ongoing queries and
complaints dated 15/3/12 and 4/4/12, particularly in light of the fact
that healthcare and investigative matters to which your original request
refers has now been classed as vexatious within the letter to you dated
4/4/12.

Original case number 2012030000182 (Internal Review reference
2012040000809)

Original Request (dated 1/3/12)
Please provide full details of Metropolitan Police investigations  into my
Mother's death
I am becoming very alarmed about the NON-provision of data by virtually
all parties regarding my mother
Today I made a FURTHER complaint to the Metropolitan Police via your
online template complaining that STILL I have not been given the FULL
FACTS. WHY NOT?
Why am I still trying to find out what went on almost 5 and three-quarter
YEARS later?
I need to know what has gone on because by letter of July 2011 the South
London Coroner wrote to state that he would not initiate any investigation
until he had the FACTS OF THE MATTER.    
I have specifically complained about the following:
     
1] DO NOT RESUSCITATE ORDERS OF BROMLEY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST BETWEEN 30
APRIL 2006 TO 3 JULY 2006 RE MY MOTHER
a] Do not resuscitate orders NEVER agreed to by my mother. And never
agreed to by her family either. For on 1 July 2006 there was much debate
between the medical staff and the family as to what should be done and in
the end it was agreed that it would be up to the CRASH team to decide
whether or not to resuscitate, thereby taking the responsibility away from
the family altogether.    
b] This in turn had major ramifications because my mother NEVER agreed to
DNAR yet the Crash Team who began cardiopulmonary resuscitation on her on
3 July 2006 and then when the Records came they STOPPED because 2 doctors
had declared that she should not be resuscitated but the actual record in
my possession shows that no reason was given.
Why not?    
Did the police investigate these records and interview any personnel of
Princess Royal University Hospital and Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust in
2006? If not, why not? And if an investigation was carried out, why have
you NEVER given me the results?
And have the police since investigated these records and if not, why not?
   
And why have both the Metropolitan Police and the IPCC determined that I
am not to be allowed an investigation into their dealings with this matter
since 28 June 2006 to the present?    
As my mother's Executrix I am legally entitled to ALL this information but
it has been withheld from me and my family and has caused all of us great
stress and heartache.    
2] TEST RESULT FROM THE SWAB OF MY MOTHER'S BLACK "NECORTIC" HEEL TAKEN AT
ABOUT 1AM 29 JUNE 2006 AT PRINCESS ROYAL UNIVERSITY   HOSPITAL FARNBOROUGH
KENT    
The records are incomplete as there was a swab taken on 29 June 2006 at
about 1 o'clock in the morning and I witnessed this personally where 2
nurses took a swab from my mother's black heel - and they had a diagram of
it in their files - of a sloughy black "necortic" heel and the test result
has NEVER been given to my mother or her family.
Why not?
What did this show?
Did it show meningococcal septicaemia?
Why have we been prevented from knowing what this test result said?
When did the doctors get the result?
Why were we never told what the result was?
Did my mother have meninogococcal septicaemia or not?
What did she actually die from? It states septicaemia on the Death
Certificate as the first cause but it does NOT state what KIND of
septicaemia. Why not?
Was my mother's dead body a biohazard? What special precautions had to be
taken by the morticians to ensure that she did not pose a health hazard in
death to anyone who came near her dead body?
Was my mother's corpse highly infectious?
And if so why were we not protected?
Why was there no barrier nursing for my mother if she had septicaemia in
Medical Ward 6 of Princess Royal University Hospital in June 2006?
We have never had any explanation. Why not?    
Even now we do not know.I wish by rights to know what happened. As my
mother's Executrix I am legally entitled to ALL this information but it
has been withheld from me and my family and has caused all of us great
stress and heartache.
3] PRESCRIPTION OF HALOPERIDOL AND 2 INJECTIONS OF HALOPERIDOL 26/27 JUNE
2006    
Who was the person who prescribed the HALOPERIDOL on the night shift of
26/27 June 2006 to my mother? We have been prevented from knowing this.
Did the police make any investigation AT ALL into this?
If so, why have they NOT given me the identity of the doctor who
prescribed it?
This was the allegation of assault that my mother made on 27 June 2006 and
asked me to contact the Police which I did on 28 June 2006.
WHY have I never been given the name and GMC licence to practise number of
this person?
Was this person actually NOT on the Register of licensed medical
practitioners?
By what rationale did the Metropolitan Police determine that my mother's
case was not significant enough to warrant a full investigation on 28 June
2006? They did not even make an incident report allegedly - for I was told
that they had NOTHING in the archives regarding my call to the Police.
As my mother's Executrix I am legally entitled to ALL this information but
it has been withheld from me and my family and has caused all of us great
stress and heartache.    
I hold the Metropolitan Police to account for their actions in regards to
my dead mother - whose name is well-known to them as they well know. They
are also aware that the DPA1998 does not apply to dead people as they are
no longer alive. They are also aware that the FOIA2000 DOES apply to dead
people.
And that where there is an allegation of criminal activity that this
should be investigated properly.    
So where are the "4 reviews" of the case as told to me by Martin Thorpe
Metropolitan Police in March 2011 - almost a year ago - that he was
satisfied that there was nothing for the police to investigate?    
I wish to know what the CURRENT situation is as I cannot let this matter
rest - it is far too important for that as justice must be seen to be done
and be transparent.”

You wrote to the MPS on 4/4/12 (including in the email the Lord
Chancellor, Mr Grieve QC Attorney General, Mr Garnier Solicitor General,
Mr Starmer QC DPP, CPS/HMRC, South London Coroner and the MP of the Isle
of Wight) requesting an Internal Review of your FOI request submitted on
1/3/12. You request a review as the MPS refused to comply with your
request, classing it as vexatious.

Your request dated 1/3/12 was actually logged under case number
2012030000182 and classed as a repeat request under Section 14(2) in
consideration of previous responses sent to you on 22/2/12 and 28/2/12
(case numbers 2012020001897 and 2012020000637 refers). This was a response
provided by Mr Hurst rather than by Mr Lyng.

In respect of the letter sent by Mr Lyng on 4/4/12 in reference to the
following cases, you will see none of these cases were received on 1/3/12:

* 2012030002279 (received 15/3/12)
* 2012030002303 (received 15/3/12)
* 2012030002306 (received 15/3/12)
* 2012030002307 (received 15/3/12)
* 2012030002530 (received 18/3/12)
* 2012030002675 (received 15/3/12)
* 2012030002695 (received 14/3/12)
* 2012030003328 (received 17/3/12)
* 2012030003332 (received 18/3/12)
* 2012030003339 (received 22/3/12)
* 2012030003344 (received 24/3/12)
* 2012030003346 (received 24/3/12)
* 2012030003598 (received 27/3/12)

However, whether your complaint refers to the request refused by Mr Hurst
under Section 14(2) on 2/3/12 or Mr Lyng’s response under Section 14(1)
sent on 4/4/12, the MPS uphold the original decisions provided.

The original decisions provided are upheld in consideration of the
repeated volume of requests you have logged relating to your family,
investigations and healthcare matters. The MPS will not respond to any
further requests for Internal Reviews in connection with these matters.

Original case number 2012030002530 (Internal Review reference
2012040000799)

Original Request dated (18/3/12)

I am making a formal request for information regarding MERLIN, MAPPA and
MARAC and their detailed history and their precise role and status in
policing and prosecution.
MERLIN
1] What is MERLIN? According to Wikipedia it is about Child Protection.
But elsewhere it says it is a police database about vulnerable people,
Found people, Missing Persons, as well as child protection.
The blurring of the lines seems to me to be problematic when police make
mistakes and use the wrong forms for saying a person was FOU when in fact
they were NOT found at all wandering
How does one access documents to disprove what has been claimed in
Metropolitan Police documents when the "facts" are in fact wrong and
untrue and pointed out to be wrong by another agency but still
the paperwork is kept wrongly, eg a Detective Inspector using a PAC form
about potential child abuse when in fact there was nothing at all about
that? And that the local social services has pointedout the mistake but it
stays on file nonetheless? What sanctions can be brought by the wrongly
accused? What legal remedy is there? After all, it is a terrible charge to
be thought to be a potential child abuser and it would appear that any
police personnel doing so might be called on a charge for so doing,
especially where it has not been sought to be rectified, and then these
documents are used in a subsequent investigation. As the ORIGINAL
documentation is INACCURATE then it follows as night follows day that any
SUBSEQUENT reliance on such evidential material will be INADMISSIBLE in
Court.

MERLIN AND BROMLEY POLICE:
I would like to know how I can make specific complaint about such an
issue. To whom do I address my complaints? Is it Bromley OCU or the
Mayor's Policing Body or whom? Once a person's reputation has
been maligned in such a way, it becomes seeded in all kinds of other
people's minds that here is someone not to be trusted.

2] MAPPA
What is "MAPPA"? According to the internet there is an organization
calling itself MAPPA - Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.
However this seems to be a shadowy operation based on loose partnership
arrangements. According to one website, MAPPA is specific for KNOWN
OFFENDERS but NOT for suspects or defendants.
     
So which is correct? That MAPPA is for ANY multi-agency public protection
arrangements or that is solely for known offenders? Again, the use of
MAPPA seems to be being used interchangeably with modern policing in
partnership with local authorities and NHS facilities such as GP
practices, PCTs, hospital trusts and mental health trusts.
I would greatly appreciate the PRECISE definition of MAPPA and its PRECISE
TERMS OF REFERENCE and its PRECISE DATA CONTROLLER and details of how an
FOI request can be made to MAPPA itself, and how Data Subject Access
requests can be made to MAPPA itself. For if the public are to be
protected, then they need to know who are the custodians of the
information database on which their public protection is based.
     
MAPPA and BROMLEY
As I understand it, MAPPA was in force in 2006 in Bromley. Who were the
agencies involved in 2006, if that is so? Where are the links/details for
MAPPA in Bromley in
a] 2006,
b] 2007,
c] 2008,
d] 2009,
e] 2010,
f] 2011,
g] 2012?
And please provide the specific and comprehensive details of all MAPPA in
Bromley for each year from 2006 to 2012 inclusive, to include named MAPPA
agents and personnel as being NON-personal data
as they are public servants or people acting on behalf of a public
service. Thank you.
     
3] MARAC
I refer to a document on the Bromley Police part of the Metropolitan
Police website authored by Julian Hurst, FOI. I wish to know when "A
purpose specific information sharing agreement between Bromley Borough
Police and Bromley Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC)." was
first mooted. It states: "Summary An agreement to formalise information
sharing arrangements between Bromley Police and partner agencies within
the Safer Bromley Partnership and those representatives attending MARAC's.
This is for the purpose of ensuring all members are aware of intelligence
and information which fall within remit of MARAC and the sharing personal
information attributable to victims,perpetrators or children of the
family. (B)OCU or Unit/ Directorate Bromley Borough". It states: "Multi
Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) is comprised of Bromley Police,
Broomleigh Housing, Victim Support, Bromley council (Housing/Social
Care/Drug and Alcohol), the Probation Service, the Education Authority,
the Primary Care Trust, Domestic Violence One Stop Shop, Hyde Housing
Association, Kelsey Housing Association, Woman's Aid, Social Services,
Oxleas NHS trust and PCT." MARAC specifically is shown as including
Oxleas, and names Barbara Godfrey - giving her contact number.
     
The rationale is to provide support: "The objectives of the partnership
are to provide effective partnership working in order to enable the MARAC
members to perform their necessary duties. This will provide an
opportunity for early support and intervention to the victims and their
extended families, improving the quality of service to vulnerable victim
and their families across the borough. It will assist with victim care and
investigation in cases of domestic violence. It will also present
opportunities for partner agencies to assist in dealing with offenders
within their core business."
     
I wish to draw attention to the word "offenders". In legal terminology
this can ONLY apply to people who have been convicted, and not to people
who are suspects or defendants in a criminal investigation. So, where it
states "vulnerable victim" again this can ONLY be shown to be the case
where a CRIME has been proved. Until then an alternative terminology must
be used. For a crime there must be a victim. Without a crime there is no
victim. But for there to be a victim there must be a person convicted of a
crime before the term "victim" can be used. I am very surprised that such
loose terminology is allowed to be
here. Including the use of the word "perpetrator" because again unless a
person has been convicted of a crime, a person is INNOCENT OF ANYTHING
UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Therefore I believe that this is wrongful to use,
just as CareFirst is wrongful to use the word "perpetrator" where there is
no crime proved and a person MUST be presumed innocent. I find this all
deeply disturbing. We seem to have gone from a legal system where everyone
is presumed INNOCENT until proven guilty to one where the person has to
PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE. Because I know that it has happened. And I want
this to be changed
immediately so that we return to INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY ON ALL
OFFICIAL FORMS IN USE FOR CAREFIRST, MARAC, MAPPA, MERLIN AND ANY OTHER
DOCUMENTATION IN USE BY MULTI-AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION AGENCIES.
     
OXLEAS
I wish to know how Oxleas should be proposed to be sharing MEDICAL data
with Social Services and the Metropolitan Police in 2007 regarding a
family member of mine when according to this document
it was not legally entitled to do so.

Your letter dated 4/4/12 requests a review of the original decision for
this request sent to you 4/4/12.

On review and in respect of the refusal notice provided under Section
14(1), the MPS uphold the original decisions provided.

The original decisions provided are upheld in consideration of the
repeated volume of requests you have logged relating to your family,
investigations and healthcare matters. The MPS will not respond to any
further requests for Internal Reviews in connection with these matters.

Original case number 2012030003598 (Internal Review reference
2012040000786)
“How many RIDDOR Reports/Complaints to the HSE by [first name removed] [last name removed] does
the Metropolitan Police possess?
     
I am making a Freedom of Information Request requesting what ACTUALLY the
Metropolitan Police know of [first name removed] [last name removed]'s complaints about specific
incidents:
     
1] The prescribing and then injection of Haloperidol on the nightshift of
26/27 June 2006 at Princess Royal University Hospital, Farnborough, Kent,
Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust. A RIDDOR Report was communicated to the HSE
by [first name removed] [last name removed] and the Bromley FOI were sent an email by [first name removed]
[last name removed] outlining this RIDDOR Report.
   
2] The Ducato Van of April 2011 - complaint to HSE that there was a
potential breach of health and safety for attempting to transfer a patient
with a broken leg in an unsuitable van as opposed to a
stretcher in an ambulance
   
3] The RIDDOR Report of 9 May 2011 re the events of 7 and 9 March at A and
E Princess Royal University Hospital, Farnborough Kent. Imistakenly
referred to 2 nurses on 9 March 2011 whereas in fact 3 PEOPLE removed
their patient - 1 person pushing through the driver's doorway and over the
driver's seat and 2 people pulling through the front passenger's doorway
and pulling their patient from the front passenger seat.
     
The London Fire Brigade in the last few weeks has been extremely helpful
in providing me a pictorial guide with accompanying guidance to explain
how to remove a patient from a car in safety. A spinal board is used. It
may in certain cases be necessary to remove the top of the car so that
people can get full access to the patient to give maximum support to the
head and spine. A splint for a leg injury can also be used according to
First Aid Handbook of Dorling Kindersley.
     
I made specific complaint to South London Healthcare NHS Trust about this
on 30/31 March 2011 but in a signed letter addressed to me of 16 June 2011
Dr Streather simply stated that a senior doctor
from A and E persuaded the patient out of the car.
     
 I believe that the CCTV CAMERAWORK OF A AND E ENTRANCE AREA WHERE
THE AMBULANCES PARK IS KEY TO ALL OF THIS as it will be CONCLUSIVE
PROOF OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.
     
To this end, I demand the right to have the CCTV camerawork of these days
7 March 2011 and 9/10 March 2011 as I wish to be able to know if there is
any potential for a civil suit for personal injury
and negligence against the SLHT or individual staff - as I have contacted
the NMC about the actions of 2 nurses on 7 March 2011 but they have
refused to investigate further. Why? I have specifically requested from
SLHT this camerawork but had no reply. At the time of the incident I was
the Nearest Relative of their patient.”

Your email dated 4/4/12 requests a review of the original decision for
this request sent to you 4/4/12.

On review and in respect of the refusal notice provided under Section
14(1), the MPS uphold the original decisions provided.

The original decisions provided are upheld in consideration of the
repeated volume of requests you have logged relating to your family,
investigations and healthcare matters. The MPS will not respond to any
further requests for Internal Reviews in connection with these matters.

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.

Yours sincerely

Ms. S. Strong
FOIA Complaints 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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

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

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org