Misconduct hearings outcomes

dennis fallon made this Freedom of Information request to West Midlands Police

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

The request was refused by West Midlands Police.

Dear West Midlands Police,
I note from your website that "Since 1 May 2015 police misconduct and special case hearings have been held in public in accordance with new national legislation. The change was introduced to increase transparency, accountability and public confidence".
Unfortunately your reports regarding the hearings often lack details, thereby undermining the whole process and preventing the public from knowing the nature of the alleged breaching of standards, and therefore I would appreciate disclosure regarding the 3 completed cases currently displayed on your website(30th July 2019).

Former Officer PC 23138 James Wilson, case heard 25th July 2019, Breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour accused, Discreditable Conduct; Fitness for Work, case summary Following a mandatory blood test, the presence of Cocaine was detected in PC Wilson’s blood,Finding Gross Misconduct,Outcome,would have been dismissed.

PC 7369 Singh,case heard 3rd July 2019,Alleged breaches,Discreditable Conduct; Authority, Respect and Courtesy, case summary,Officer engaged in inappropriate relationships with vulnerable members of the public who he met during the course of his police duties. Officer pleaded guilty to offences of Corrupt/Improper exercise of police powers and privileges by a Constable,Finding Gross Misconduct,Outcome,Dismissed without notice.

Former PC 6233 Estridge,case heard 2nd July 2019,Alleged breaches,Discreditable Conduct; Authority, Respect and Courtesy, Confidentiality; Orders and Instructions,case summary,Officer engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a vulnerable member of the public who he met during the course of his police duties. He also misused West Midlands Police systems to conduct checks for a non-policing purpose,Finding Gross Misconduct,Outcome,officer would have been dismissed.

FOI Q1.Regarding PC 23138 James Wilson, and his mandatory drug test for cocaine, is he the same James Wilson who was jailed for drug driving in October 2018 ? https://www.expressandstar.com/news/loca...

FOI Q2.Regarding PC 7369 Singh,and his inappropriate relationships, is this the officer Palvinder Singh who sent sexual messages to vulnerable victims and contacted prostitutes while at work and was jailed for 14 months in July 2019 and,if so,why was the officer`s first name not revealed on the case hearing report, which means the report was rendered opaque?
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crim...

FOI Q3,Regarding Former PC 6233 Estridge, what was the officer`s first name and why was it omitted from the report thereby preventing case details to be researched in the media?

End of FOI requests.
The public lose faith in the integrity of the police when they only selectively disclose information, so providing answers to these questions will be helpful to restore confidence.

Yours faithfully,
Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Freedom of Information,

Please accept this as an acknowledgement of receipt of your e-mail by the
Freedom of Information Unit.
 
If your email is a valid request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act, your request will be dealt with within the legislative
deadline of 20 working days.  Should we be unable to meet this deadline
for any reason you will be notified as soon as possible.
 
Please note that if your email is a request is for your own personal data
you should make a subject access request to the Data Protection Unit.  You
can do this by completing a WA162 form, which is available on the West
Midlands Police website.  Search the West Midlands Police website for
'Subject Access' or go directly to this page:
[1]https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...
 
If you require further information please contact 101 and ask for the
Freedom of Information Unit.
 
You might find what you are looking for on our website:
[2]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/
 
If you have information about any crime, you can contact us on the
non-emergency number: 101.
 
In an emergency, for example where life is in danger or a crime in
progress, call 999.

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...
2. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/

Freedom of Information,

5 Attachments

Dear Mr Fallon

 

 

 

FOI Request Reference: 13181/19

 

Thank you for your request for information, received 30/07/2019.

 

REQUEST

 

I note from your website that "Since 1 May 2015 police misconduct and
special case hearings have been held in public in accordance with new
national legislation. The change was introduced to increase transparency,
accountability and public confidence".

Unfortunately your reports regarding the hearings often lack details,
thereby undermining the whole process and preventing the public from
knowing the nature of the alleged breaching of standards, and therefore I
would appreciate disclosure regarding the 3 completed cases currently
displayed on your website(30th July 2019).

 

Former Officer PC 23138 James Wilson, case heard 25th July 2019, Breaches
of the Standards of Professional Behaviour accused, Discreditable Conduct;
Fitness for Work, case summary Following a mandatory blood test, the
presence of Cocaine was detected in PC Wilson’s blood,Finding Gross
Misconduct,Outcome,would have been dismissed.

 

PC 7369 Singh,case heard 3rd July 2019,Alleged breaches,Discreditable
Conduct; Authority, Respect and Courtesy, case summary,Officer engaged in
inappropriate relationships with vulnerable members of the public who he
met during the course of his police duties. Officer pleaded guilty to
offences of Corrupt/Improper exercise of police powers and privileges by a
Constable,Finding Gross Misconduct,Outcome,Dismissed without notice.

 

Former PC 6233 Estridge,case heard 2nd July 2019,Alleged
breaches,Discreditable Conduct; Authority, Respect and Courtesy,
Confidentiality; Orders and Instructions,case summary,Officer engaged in
an inappropriate relationship with a vulnerable member of the public who
he met during the course of his police duties. He also misused West
Midlands Police systems to conduct checks for a non-policing
purpose,Finding Gross Misconduct,Outcome,officer would have been
dismissed.

 

FOI Q1.Regarding PC 23138 James Wilson, and his mandatory drug test for
cocaine, is he the same James Wilson who was jailed for drug driving in
October 2018?
[1]https://www.expressandstar.com/news/loca...

 

FOI Q2.Regarding PC 7369 Singh,and his inappropriate relationships, is
this the officer Palvinder Singh who sent sexual messages to vulnerable
victims and contacted prostitutes while at work and was jailed for 14
months in July 2019 and,if so,why was the officer`s first name not
revealed on the case hearing report, which means the report was rendered
opaque?

[2]https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crim...

 

FOI Q3,Regarding Former PC 6233 Estridge, what was the officer`s first
name and why was it omitted from the report thereby preventing case
details to be researched in the media?

 

End of FOI requests.

The public lose faith in the integrity of the police when they only
selectively disclose information, so providing answers to these questions
will be helpful to restore confidence.

 

RESPONSE

 

Please see attached for information relating to question 3, in addition
West Midlands Police will neither confirm nor deny that we hold any of the
requested information as the following exemptions apply.

 

S40 (5) – Personal Data

 

This exemption and explanatory notes are shown here:

 

[3]https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...

 

When citing Section 40(5), there is a requirement to consider whether
disclosure would be fair.  In this case release would not be fair and
therefore Section 40(5) is classed as absolute and there is no requirement
to consider the public interest.

 

No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information you have
requested does or does not exist.

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

For further information and data on West Midlands Police see our
publication scheme and disclosure log

 

[4]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/

 

RIGHT OF APPEAL

 

Your attention is drawn to your right to request a re-examination of your
case under West Midlands Police review procedure, which can be found at:

 

[5]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revie...

 

Please note that such an appeal must be received within 40 working days of
the date of this correspondence. Any such request received after this time
will only be considered at the discretion of the FOI Unit.

 

If you require any further information, then please do not hesitate to
contact me.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Andrea Mobberley

Freedom of Information
Corporate Communications | West Midlands Police
T: 101 (ext. 801 2068)

[6][email address]

Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.

[7]If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

[8]Description: twitter icon [9]Description: Instagram
Icon [10]Description: YouTube Icon [11]Description: Facebook icon

[12]View all our social network links

 

 

Our vision: Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in
need

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.expressandstar.com/news/loca...
2. https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crim...
3. https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...
4. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/
5. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revie...
6. mailto:[email address]
7. website
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/
8. http://www.twitter.com/wmpolice
9. http://www.instagram.com/westmidlandspol...
10. http://www.youtube.com/westmidlandspolice
11. http://www.facebook.com/westmidlandspolice
12. Social Networks
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/cont...

Dear Andrea Mobberley,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of West Midlands Police's handling of my FOI request 'Misconduct hearings outcomes'.
Thank you for dealing with my request but, unfortunately, you have totally undermined the fundamental spirit of Freedom Of Information by failing to dislose anything,with everything being exempt using the personal data excuse. In the current climate of transparency, I find this interpretation to be inappropriate and contrary to the public interest, contrary to the statement declared on the WM Police website, discriminatory, and demonstrative of unprofessional standards.
I would like to request an internal review of my request, preferably by a person more open and less sensitive than Carl Bird esq, on the basis of the following considerations and observations.
The Misconduct section of the WM Police website states "Since 1 May 2015 police misconduct and special case hearings have been held in public in accordance with new national legislation. The change was introduced to increase transparency, accountability and public confidence". Please read and reread the last 6 words of the previous sentence. The feeble excuse you provided for not showing complete identification is, quote,"With regards to why the information requested in question 3 was not published, there is no
standardised format for the publishing information, therefore different individuals may supply
and/or publish information in a different format. We must stress that this information is NOT
deliberately withheld, and is solely based on the fact that there is no standard format".
I note that the fact you admit that WM Police, the 2nd largest police force in England, has no standard format for publishing information is a DISGRACEFUL reflection on the quality of your operations compared to other Forces. For comparision, the high standards demonstrated by the Metropolitan Police include the FULL NAMES of accused officer and the FULL background details of the alleged charges, which provides complete information for media reporting. I am not exagerating the quality demonstrated by the Metropolitan Police, sadly West Midlands Police by comparison are embarrassingly feeble, that is why I want WM Police to improve ( or actually make ) standards to an acceptable level. Please LOOK and learn from the Metropolitan website to see how things should be done by a genuinely transparent Force not seeking to hide behind the excuse of`personal data`.
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-...
By CONCEALING the first name of the accused officers it prevents knowing their gender and prevents researching further details, but of course the Metropolitan Police have the opposite approach and actually provide the details without being asked, displaying a much better display of helpfulness.
I wish to post an opinion that the current lack of standards leads to discriminatory processes, in that some officers have their full name disclosed but others have half their name concealed, so some are exposed and some are protected.
WM Police are supposed to be in a new Era of transparency, far from the Era of the disbanded WM Serious Crimes Squad who fabricated evidence, forced confessions, and took early retirement before misconduct hearings, and I only wish to see the production and implementation of higher standards in the Force today.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/lo...

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

Yours faithfully,

Dennis Fallon( BScHons)

Freedom of Information,

Please accept this as an acknowledgement of receipt of your e-mail by the
Freedom of Information Unit.
 
If your email is a valid request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act, your request will be dealt with within the legislative
deadline of 20 working days.  Should we be unable to meet this deadline
for any reason you will be notified as soon as possible.
 
Please note that if your email is a request is for your own personal data
you should make a subject access request to the Data Protection Unit.  You
can do this by completing a WA162 form, which is available on the West
Midlands Police website.  Search the West Midlands Police website for
'Subject Access' or go directly to this page:
[1]https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...
 
If you require further information please contact 101 and ask for the
Freedom of Information Unit.
 
You might find what you are looking for on our website:
[2]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/
 
If you have information about any crime, you can contact us on the
non-emergency number: 101.
 
In an emergency, for example where life is in danger or a crime in
progress, call 999.

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...
2. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/

dennis fallon left an annotation ()

Link to the Era of WM Serious Crimes Squad https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/lo...

Dear West Midlands Police,
To clarify reference link to Serious Crime Squad misconduct comparison
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/lo...

Yours faithfully,

Dennis Fallon( BScHons)

dennis fallon left an annotation ()

WM Serious Crimes Squad forged confessions
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/mi...

Dear West Midlands Police,
This particular email is simply to make a public record on the WDTK website, you do not need to read it or take any action on it.As a matter of record, comparing the transparency of the West Midlands Police Force and the Metropolitan Police Service, this is a comparison of typical future misconduct hearings displayed on their corresponding websites. It is obvious that the Metropolitan Police demonstrate far more detail.

WM POLICE.Officer name = pc5058 Cope,HEARING DATE = 3rd September 2019 2pm, STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOUR BREACHED= discreditable conduct, CONDUCT THAT GAVE WAY TO BREACHS = Gross Misconduct,CIRCUMSTANCES On 12 July 2019 PC Cope was convicted of Driving a Motor Vehicle with excess alcohol contrary to the road Traffic Act 1988, Section 5.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.Officer name =pc Glen Cheal
PUBLIC DECLARATION = Notice for Hearing to be held in public –9th–13th September 2019. Police Constable Glen Cheal,based at South West BCU, will answer allegations that hisconduct amounts to a breach of Standards of ProfessionalBehaviour, in respect of: Discreditable ConductAuthority, Courtesy and RespectOrders and InstructionsUse of forceDuties & ResponsibilitiesHonesty and IntegrityOn 6thJune 2014 PC Cheal was on duty assigned as a vehicle operator in a marked police car. He was in the company of another officer. At approximately 01:10 they were assigned to a reported incident in Veronica Road SW17.It is alleged that on arrival, PC Cheal was involved in the detention and arrest of a member of the public. During that detention and arrest, PC Cheal used force which was unecessary, unreasonable and disproportionate.It is alleged that PC Cheal subsequently provided dishonest accounts of his involvement with that member of the public, namely by asserting that the member of the public was aggressive and fought with him, and in particular the member of the public punched him to his face and/or kicked him.That the matters set out above are individually and/or collectively so serious that they amount to gross misconduct.The hearing will start on Monday 9h September 2019 and is listed for 5days. It will be held from 09:30hrs in the hearing room, 14th Floor, Empress State Building, Lillie Road, SW6.

I note that in all case, even the simplist, the Metropolitan Police demonstrate complete transparency and helpfulness, with no alternative agenda.
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-...

Yours faithfully,
Dennis Fallon (BScHons)

Dear West Midlands Police,
Your response to my FOI was legally due for completion by 29th August and, like yourselves, I have little tolerance for lawbreakers.I note that your misconduct hearing outcomes page now shows another paedophile officer discovered amongst your ranks, namely hearing 9th September 2019, pc 6675 McNeil ,On 17 July 2019 PC McNeill pleaded guilty to two counts of taking indecent images of children and one count of possessing indecent images of children, Proven - Gross Misconduct , Outcome -Would have been dismissed.
Obviously the West Midlands Police Federation control the way these hearings are reported but the previous week, on September 9th, the police website reported more details, namely "A former police officer who downloaded indecent images and videos of children from the internet has been jailed for 15 months. Jonathan McNeill, 55, has been convicted of the offence of making indecent images of children. Investigators traced the images back to McNeill, and he was arrested on 18 June last year at his home on Lavender Avenue, Coventry.Officers searched his home and recovered computer equipment. McNeill, who worked in Force Contact in Coventry at the time, took early retirement from the force in December. In all, police recovered 497 still and moving images from McNeill’s phone and computer devices. He admitted three charges of making indecent images of children by downloading them from the internet and storing them.A former police officer who downloaded indecent images and videos of children from the internet has been jailed for 15 months. Jonathan McNeill, 55, has been convicted of the offence of making indecent images of children.Investigators traced the images back to McNeill, and he was arrested on 18 June last year at his home on Lavender Avenue, Coventry.Officers searched his home and recovered computer equipment. McNeill, who worked in Force Contact in Coventry at the time, took early retirement from the force in December. In all, police recovered 497 still and moving images from McNeill’s phone and computer devices. He admitted three charges of making indecent images of children by downloading them from the internet and storing them. Today (3 September) at Wolverhampton Crown Court, he was sentenced to 15 months in prison and put on the sex offenders register for 10 years. Detective Helen Henry from the forces Public Protection Unit said: “As a police officer, McNeill knew the devastating effect child abuse has in our society.
“Anyone who downloads such images contributes to the abuse of children around the world and will be dealt with robustly."
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/news...
The purpose of my FOI is to understand how the reports of WM Misconduct Hearings are so heavily edited and inconsistent compared to other police forces and how officers, knowing they cannot escape a conviction, can cleverly plead guilty to get a reduced sentance and still take early retirement which, you may be surprised to know, the public think is totally outrageous.Totally.
Please complete my delayed request as soon as possible, even if Carl Bird thinks the request deregatory or the WM Police Federation don`t like it.
Yours faithfully,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Freedom of Information,

Please accept this as an acknowledgement of receipt of your e-mail by the
Freedom of Information Unit.
 
If your email is a valid request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act, your request will be dealt with within the legislative
deadline of 20 working days.  Should we be unable to meet this deadline
for any reason you will be notified as soon as possible.
 
Please note that if your email is a request is for your own personal data
you should make a subject access request to the Data Protection Unit.  You
can do this by completing a WA162 form, which is available on the West
Midlands Police website.  Search the West Midlands Police website for
'Subject Access' or go directly to this page:
[1]https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...
 
If you require further information please contact 101 and ask for the
Freedom of Information Unit.
 
You might find what you are looking for on our website:
[2]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/
 
If you have information about any crime, you can contact us on the
non-emergency number: 101.
 
In an emergency, for example where life is in danger or a crime in
progress, call 999.

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/abou...
2. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/

dennis fallon left an annotation ()

Another WM paedophile child grooming officer will appear in Court on 20th Sept, misconduct hearing notified on police website only 6 days prior to Sept 25th,officer described as PS 7707 Shaw but media shows full name of Stephen Shaw.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr...

Dear West Midlands Police,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
This is to confirm that I have requested an internal review, on 28th August 2019, of West Midlands Police's handling of my FOI request 'Misconduct hearings outcomes'.

I have only subsequently received automated replies, and post this to emphasise an appeal is requested.

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

Yours faithfully,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Freedom of Information,

 

Dear Mr Fallon

 

FOI Internal Review Reference: 014800/19

 

Thank you for your correspondence, received 28/08/2019 where you requested
West Midlands Police to review its response to your request in relation to
information about named individuals and whether they were the same
individuals that had committed other offences. Also requesting the name of
a Police officer and asking why details had been omitted from the force
website.

 

The force responded on 28^th August 2019, under reference number 13181/19,
and advised that we would neither confirm nor deny that the requested
information was held in relation to the named individuals by virtue of
Section 40(5) – Personal Data exemption. And in relation to question 3,
the force advised that there is no standardised format for the publishing
of information, therefore different individuals may supply and/or publish
information in a different format.

 

REQUEST

You have requested an internal review of the force failing to disclose
anything, with everything being exempt using the personal data exemption.

Having no standard format for publishing information

And because, by concealing the first name of the accused officers, it
prevents knowing their gender and prevents researching further details

 

RESPONSE

The response has now been reviewed and the force maintains that your
request was refused on a proper basis, and that a Neither Confirm nor Deny
response by virtue of Section 40(5) exemption was applied appropriately.
This position is upheld for the reasons outlined within the response
provided on 28^th August 2019 under reference number 13181/19. Question 3
was answered.

In Summary, the force considered:

 

The force had to first establish that the information constitutes personal
data within the meaning of the DPA.

 

In this instance the information constitutes personal data within the
meaning of the DPA, this is because the questions submitted relate to
named individuals.

 

The force was then obliged to consider whether disclosing information
would contravene the GDPR data protection principles as information should
not be disclosed if it would contravene any of the principles. Information
held by the force must be processed fairly and lawfully. Consideration was
given to whether there is a legitimate interest in disclosing the
information, should it be held, that can only be met by the disclosure.
This has to be balanced against the rights of the individual.

 

In this instance there are no conditions that were met for the processing
of personal data to be lawful. They are:

(a) the data subject has given consent to the processing of their personal
data for one or more specific purposes;
(b) processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the
data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data
subject prior to entering into a contract;
(c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to
which the controller is subject;
(d) processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the
data subject;
(e) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in
the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the
controller;
(f) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests
pursued by a controller, except where such interests are overridden by the
interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which
require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject
is a child. This shall not apply to processing carried out by public
authorities in the performance of their tasks.

Therefore the information was withheld in accordance with an appropriate
exemption. Should the information be held, there is no legitimate reason
for disclosure.

 

The force understands that you have a personal interest in the information
requested but under FOIA the public interest means the public good, not
what is of interest to the public, and not the private interests of the
requester.

Should it be held, to release information would be making an unrestricted
disclosure of personal data to the general public on the strength of one
requester’s private interests. This could constitute a disproportionate
and unwarranted level of interference with the individuals’ rights and
freedoms – including their right to privacy and family life under the
Human Rights Act 1998.

 

In addition you should be aware that Section 14 (1) of the Freedom of
Information legislation states that an authority is not obliged to comply
with a request for information if the request is deemed vexatious.
Requests are deemed vexatious if they fit one of more of the following
criteria:

 

* Complying with the request would impose a significant burden on the
authority

* It is fair to regard the request as obsessive

* The request is harassing to the authority or causing distress to its
staff

*The request is designed to cause disruption or annoyance

*The request lacks any serious purpose or value

 

Also, Section 14 is considered where there is evidence of a pattern of
behaviour which a person would describe as obsessive or manifestly
unreasonable. Although the act is ‘applicant blind’ in that the motives of
the applicant cannot normally be taken into account, this is not the case
with regard to S14 and in determining this course of action an authority
is allowed to take into account any evidence that comes into its
possession regarding the subject matter requested or the applicant
themselves including the frequency of contact and the manner of approach.

 

The tone and content of your latest correspondence and that submitted
historically are deemed to be provocative and accusatory. The force
requested you to refrain from making personal and/or derogatory comments
about named employees in our response to you on 20^th May 2019, under
reference 8029, however you have continued to do this.

 

The force has also advised that similar information requested for
additional details about officers and their misconduct is not available to
you under FOI.  

 

The force also notes that you have submitted additional correspondence on
28th and 29^th August, and 19^th September in relation to this internal
review before the statutory deadline for response was even due. 

 

In continuing to submit requests and correspondence of this type, despite
our advice to the contrary, evidence has been provided of a pattern of
behaviour that may be identified as being vexatious, and we will now
consider the exemption - Section 14(1), in relation to any further
requests that you submit in the same manner. Should they subsequently be
deemed as vexatious they will not be responded to.

 

Please be advised that there are normal business processes in place within
force to deal with complaints and FOI should not be used as an attempt to
circumvent these processes. FOIA was not designed to provide individuals
with a means by which they can campaign, because they feel that they have
been disadvantaged or to address issues that they have with the force or
its functions; there are other avenues and means by which decisions/
actions can be challenged through appropriate regulatory bodies.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information
Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9
5AF

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Mrs R Williams

 

 

59614 Rebecca Williams l FOI Manager

Lloyd House l West Midlands Police

T: 101 (ext 801 2068)

Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.

[1]If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. website
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/

Dear Rebecca Williams ( Freedom of Information),
Thank you for advising me to contact the Information Commissioner if I wish to achieve a substantive reply.
I hoped you would be professional enough to deal with requests in a civil way instead of your office working hard to avoid being helpful, there is nothing derogatory about my requests apart from possibly, on 28th August, mentioning that I did not want Carl Bird to deal with my appeal because I find him easily irritated and he considers truthful statements of fact to be derogatory when they are not, although they may be irrelevant or unpleasant revelations for him to see repeated. When I was in court, accused of speeding at 35mph,I had to swear on the Holy Bible to tell the truth, which I did, but the District Judge Khalid Qureshi (who the CPS fetched down from Manchester) effectively called me a liar, despite my strong and truthful defence, by finding me guilty of the trumped up charge, with profound consequences for me, in favour of the weak testimony of a biased police employee. The experience was a total shock to me and my previous belief in an honest police force, my sworn truth before Almighty God was overturned by a couple of pipsqueaks using the force of the law to obtain money by duress and ruin my professional reputation. I paid the imposed fine and court costs immediately and now, quite understandably, I am simply keeping an eye on police related issues to determine how else they operate contrary to the public interest. Addtionally, whilst I was on duty as a professional person I had to display my Cerificate of Qualification and Responsible Person Certificate on public display, fully accountable for everything that went on, and I think it unethical for anyone in a responsible position within a public authority to seek to hide their identities if they are honourable.
FOR THE RECORD, I find your final response to me to be misguided and unacceptably threatening. You claim "The force understands that you have a personal interest in the information requested" BUT this is not true, I have an interest in the greater public interest of knowing the full naming of potentially corrupt officers, especially those who are seriously deviant, because WM Police use the fake excuse of protecting personal data when, in comparison, other forces routeinly reveal complete details and do not need to be interrogated to obtain basic facts. I believe you are obsessively neurotic in refusing to disclose the gender or first names of officers at misconduct hearings, and are misinterpreting the principles of the FOIA (unless, of course, every other police force in the country is wrong), and then you have the cheek to accuse me of being vexatious when WM Police are the odd ones out and behaving abnormally. I believe you are WRONG in your opinion that, quote "In this instance there are no conditions that were met for the processing of personal data to be lawful. They are: (a) the data subject has given consent to the processing of their personal data for one or more specific purposes " for the reason that subjects of legal or quasi-legal proceedings have no right to withhold their identities unless for exceptional circumstances, such as the current hearing where the undercover cop known only as 'Officer E' had accidentally recorded his colleagues , officers A and B,making alleged racist and abusive comments in one of their staff rooms on April 5, 2018.
You state, QUOTE " In addition you should be aware that Section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information legislation states that an authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the request is deemed vexatious.
Requests are deemed vexatious if they fit one of more of the following criteria:
* Complying with the request would impose a significant burden on the authority
* It is fair to regard the request as obsessive
* The request is harassing to the authority or causing distress to its staff
*The request is designed to cause disruption or annoyance
*The request lacks any serious purpose or value
I REJECT ALL OF YOUR ACCUSATIONS OF VEXATIOUSNESS, and find the accusations offensive. Asking you to clarify details that other forces provide CANNOT reasonably be conceived a significant burden unless you are feeble, it should be routine business. The requests are NOT obsessive, they are simply persistant, as is my professional nature, to get to the truths which for some reason you seek to avoid revealing. The requests are only harassing the authority because I don`t accept your `copy and paste`refusals when I deem them to be wrong.The requests are NOT designed to cause disruption or annoyance, they do take a thankless effort to design to try to obtain clarification of the half truths which the police release to the media to maintain an air of confusion, the fact that they may cause disruption or annoyance is entirely your own fault, as your information storage and retrieval systems seem to be clumsy and difficult to interrogate to retrieve data and I have a policy of not accepting half baked responses.
VEXATIOUSNESS POINT "The request lacks any serious purpose or value", i dispute this possible allegation, i would like to clarify your confusion, requests posted by myself have the serious purpose of clarifying the mistakes and half truths revealed to the media and which erroneously become part of the official record and widely misreported.
QUOTE "Also, Section 14 is considered where there is evidence of a pattern of behaviour which a person would describe as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable". The crunch word in your misinterpretation of section 14 is `evidence`(from the Latin evidentia, obvious to the eye) , there is NO evidence of obsessiveness, this is purely a subjective misinterpretation of the reality of persistancy in the face of unreasonable obstuctiveness. If you simply provided the answers without spending massive time and effort to generate various excuses from your big book of excuses there would be no problem. I entirely reject your perceived allegations of vexatiousness, if you simply complied with the standards of other police forces your lives would be a lot less stressful, that is not my problem. I will let anyone reading this make their own judgement of who is interpreting the situation correctly.

Thank you for your help, despite it being a refusal and threats, I shall mark this request as `refused`and, if allegations of vexatiousness are raised again I shall use this as a reference defence. You are paid to do your job, I am simply going to considerable unpaid effort for the public record and for my own sense of duty. You should be treating my requests with respect not disdain.
This request is now closed.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon (BScHons)

Dear Freedom of Information,
Although I have marked this request as `closed by refusal`and you have threatened me for being allegedly derogatory and vexatious, I have forwarded your negative response to the Information Commissioner for further attention, I do note that my genuine concerns about police integrity have coincidently been confirmed by HMIC Zoe Billingham in her latest report.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...
I do hope you will not be accusing her of being derogatory, and I hope you will make an effort and show a bit of respect by clarifying an issue mentioned by me on 29th August, namely FUTURE Misconduct hearing pc5058 Cope, the drink driving police officer, whose case hearing has now been completed by the Chief Constable and is reported by yourselves as `FINDING, Proven - Gross Misconduct : OUTCOME,Proven - Gross Misconduct`.
Obviously someone within WM Police has either accidently or deliberately not reported the outcome properly so,in the public interest and in pursuance of normal standards of integrity, please clarify the outcome in the normally accepted format to restore a bit of confidence in the organisation.
If you wish to be pedantic you may treat it as a new request and take 20 days, otherwise just respond to it by return if it is not too much effort, as it will demonstrate a reformed attitude.
Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Freedom of Information,

Dear Mr Fallon

 

FOI Request Reference: 016151/19

 

Thank you for your request for information, received 17/09/2019

 

REQUEST

 1. How the reports of WM Misconduct Hearings are so heavily edited and
inconsistent compared to other police forces

 

RESPONSE

Please be advised that this is not a valid Freedom of information Act
request as it does not fulfil Section 8 of the Act. It is not a request
for specific recorded information and the authority does not have to
answer your question if this would mean creating new information or giving
an opinion or judgement that is not already recorded. Please be advised
that the FOI Act only extends to requests for recorded information. It
does not require public authorities to answer questions generally and does
not extend to requests for information about policies or their
implementation.

The force does not hold specific recorded information in relation to if
its reports of misconduct hearings are heavily edited and inconsistent
with other forces.

 

REQUEST

 2. How officers, knowing they cannot escape a conviction, can cleverly
plead guilty to get a reduced sentence and still take early retirement

 

RESPONSE

Please be advised that this is not a valid Freedom of information Act
request as it does not fulfil Section 8 of the Act. It is not a request
for specific recorded information and the authority does not have to
answer your question if this would mean creating new information or giving
an opinion or judgement that is not already recorded. Please be advised
that the FOI Act only extends to requests for recorded information.  It
does not require public authorities to answer questions generally and does
not extend to requests for information about policies or their
implementation.

The force does not hold specific recorded information in relation to a
scenario/s that may involve if an officer knew they could not escape a
conviction, pleads guilty to get a reduced sentence and takes early
retirement.

 

However, in order to assist, information is available in the public domain
regarding The Police (Conduct, Complaints and Misconduct and Appeal
Tribunal) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 and Home Office guidance in
relation to this.

 

[1]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/...

 

[2]https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

 

 

RIGHT OF APPEAL

 

Your attention is drawn to your right to request a re-examination of your
case under West Midlands Police review procedure, which can be found at:

 

[3]http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revie...

 

Please note that such an appeal must be received within 40 working days of
the date of this correspondence. Any such request received after this time
will only be considered at the discretion of the FOI Unit.

 

I hope that this is of assistance.

 

In addition you should be aware that Section 14 (1) of the Freedom of
Information legislation states that an authority is not obliged to comply
with a request for information if the request is deemed vexatious.

Requests are deemed vexatious if they fit one of more of the following
criteria:

 

 * It is fair to regard the request as obsessive

* The request is harassing to the authority or causing distress to its
staff

*The request is designed to cause disruption or annoyance

*The request lacks any serious purpose or value

 

Section 14 is also considered where there is evidence of a pattern of
behaviour which a person would describe as obsessive or manifestly
unreasonable. Although the act is ‘applicant blind’ in that the motives of
the applicant cannot normally be taken into account, this is not the case
with regard to S14 and in determining this course of action an authority
is allowed to take into account any evidence that comes into its
possession regarding the subject matter requested or the applicant
themselves including the frequency of contact and the manner of approach.

 

The force requested you to refrain from making personal and/or derogatory
comments about named employees in our response to you on 20th May 2019
under reference 8029, and on 24^th September 2019 under reference number
14800/19, however you have continued to do this.

 

The force has also already advised under reference number 13181/19 on
28^th August 2019, in response to a similar request for information about
why information in relation to Officer`s misconduct is/is not published,
that there is no standardised format for publishing the information
therefore it is not available to you under FOI, however you have
requested similar information again.  

 

In continuing to submit requests and correspondence of this type, despite 
our advice to the contrary, evidence has been provided of a pattern of 
behaviour that may be identified as being vexatious, and we will now
consider the exemption - Section 14(1), in relation to any further
requests that you submit in the same manner. Should they subsequently be
deemed as vexatious they will not be responded to.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Mrs R Williams

 

 

Freedom of Information Unit

 

 

 

 

59614 Rebecca Williams l FOI Manager

Lloyd House l West Midlands Police

T: 101 (ext 801 2068)

Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.

[4]If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

 

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged
or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the
originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or
alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions
expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West
Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for
virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No
responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage
arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/...
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
3. http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/revie...
4. website
https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/

Dear Mrs Williams,
I appreciate you may be busy so there may be an element of confusion, because you have just sent me a reply to questions I have not asked. I originally designated this request as closed on 24th September (refusal) as you surprisingly disclosed you have no standard policy in place for officer identification, and my rambling email of 17th September actually contains no questions, it was simply to put on record the justifications I feel appropriate to support my interest in transparency compared to other police forces. WM Police seem to have an inappropriate air of secrecy and I have an inappropriate policy of including truthful additional observations which may be annoying and irrelevant background, but do not form part of the clearly identified questions..You have the duty to treat all requests with respect, even if you consider them unbalanced or irritating.
Please do not confuse my persistance with vexatiousness or my addition truthful observations with being derogatory as they are only intended to provide a wider perspective on the public website for people who may be unaware o9f the local picture.
Emails may become confused depending on how they are received at your end, the email thread and be viwed as a continuum on the public website.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...

TO CONCLUDE, please read my email of 29th September to note that I have given up trying to obtain a substantive reply from you regarding this particular request but, knowing you wipe your misconduct hearing outcomes every 28 days, I do not accept you refuse to disclose the outcomes properly either.
Apparently,on 12 July 2019 PC Cope 5058 was convicted of Driving a Motor Vehicle with excess alcohol contrary to the road Traffic Act 1988, Section 5, and the Misconduct Hearing of 3rd September found `them`proven Gross Misconduct, Outcome : Gross Misconduct. Obviously the Outcome report is an error, so I simply request the true outcome before it is wiped from your website.
Sorry about the previous confusion, thank you in anticipation of simple clarification of this one issue.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon (BScHons)

Freedom of Information,

Dear Mr Fallon

FOI 14800/19. Additional Correspondence

I write in response to the additional correspondence that you have submitted on 29th September 2019

REQUEST
In relation to the case hearing that has now been completed by the Chief Constable and is reported by yourselves as `FINDING, Proven - Gross Misconduct : OUTCOME,Proven - Gross Misconduct`.
Please clarify the outcome in the normally accepted format

RESPONSE
Please be advised that your correspondence has been read as a request to update the force website with the outcome of a misconduct hearing. Please be advised that this office deals with Freedom of Information requests for specific recorded information, this office does not update the force website with outcomes of misconduct hearings and therefore we cannot assist with this and you may wish to contact the Professional Standards Department to progress your enquiry further.

https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/cont...

Should the correspondence actually be a request to supply the outcome of the misconduct hearing. Please be advised that, as previously advised, personal information of third parties is not available to you under FOI as it is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 40 - Personal Information. Any information that relates to an individual, or from which an individual could be identified, constitutes personal data and to release information that constitutes personal data into the public domain contravenes the Data Protection Act and GDPR. The outcome of a misconduct hearing in relation to a named individual is the personal data of a third party and therefore it is exempt from disclosure.

In addition, and as previously advised, Section 14 is considered where there is evidence of a pattern of behaviour which a person would describe as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable. An authority is allowed to take into account any evidence including the frequency of contact and the manner of approach.

It has been noted, and the force has brought to your attention, that the tone and content of your correspondence are deemed to be provocative and accusatory. However you have continued to use the same language. Additionally, Please be advised that it is the Commissioners guidance that a request in isolation may not appear vexatious, but if it is the latest in a series of overlapping requests or other correspondence then it may form part of a wider pattern of behaviour that makes it vexatious. It has been noted that you have submitted overlapping correspondence, and requests on the same/similar subject despite already previously being advised that the information is not available to you under FOI.

In continuing to submit requests and correspondence of this type, despite our advice to the contrary, evidence has been provided of a pattern of behaviour that has been identified as being vexatious, and we will now consider the exemption - Section 14(1) and Section 14(2), in relation to any further requests that you submit in the same manner. Should they subsequently be deemed as vexatious they will not be responded to.

Yours Sincerely

Mrs R Williams

59614 Rebecca Williams l FOI Manager
Lloyd House l West Midlands Police
T: 101 (ext 801 2068)
Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.
If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

Dear Mrs R.Williams,
I appreciate that everyone has the option to be helpful (which the public assume to be your purpose) or unhelpful. In my working role I went out of my way to be helpful to EVERYONE even directing them RESPECTFULLY in the right direction even when the enquirers were old or young, agressive or stupid, mentally ill or distressed, even if I was extremely busy, or even if the problem was nothing to do with my line of work( the procedure, if you are not familiar,is called `signposting`). I never showed `attitude`which appears, sadly, to be the modus operandi of your department. A massive lack of empathy and unprofessionalism has been revealed but I do not blame yourself, it is probably an issue with the quality of your leadership and the agenda you seem to have to avoid revealing any information, although I will admit that some of your disclosures have eventually been very interesting.
You may be working in isolation in an air conditioned box but there is a wider world out there where council taxpayers, who fund your wages and pension plan, expect higher standards from those `in control`.
I admit I am annoyed with the low standards I, perhaps mistakenly, observe within your Lloyd House business operations but, considering that WM Police are the second largest police force in the country with a budget of over one million pounds per day, I am extremely annoyed to understand the true quality of service you provide, having recently been beaten up and robbed, in broad daylight on a major High Street, by a couple BAME teenagers who ran away,laughing, and the nearest police took 15 minutes to arrive. There is nothing like the brown fists of reality hitting you in the face to bring a sense of the reality of how much protection the police actually provide from their base 6 miles away, with the local police station closed down.
I am sorry that my latest diatribe does not conform to your perceptions of reality outside of your box but, if you actually pay attention, my comments and questions are not derogatory, just exposing a few realities with which you may be uncomfortable. Please change your office policy to be a bit more respectful and professional, if possible.
I have simply requested, QUOTE "In relation to the case hearing ( PC Cope 5058, drink driving ) that has now been completed by the Chief Constable and is reported by yourselves as `FINDING, Proven - Gross Misconduct : OUTCOME,Proven - Gross Misconduct`, please clarify the outcome in the normally accepted format" BUT your strange reply is "Please be advised that your correspondence has been read as a request to update the force website with the outcome of a misconduct hearing " and is therefore REFUSED and I should contact Professional Standards (PS) MYSELF if I want to know.
In my humble opinion I though PS was part of the police force, and they hold information regarding to hearings, and FOI department has the legal responsibility to extract information held which is not on public display. I don`t know if you really understand your job, it is your legal responsibility even if it causes you annoyance, the Head of PS has no right to conceal the outcome of a hearing. The assumption is, of course,that the drink driving officer was not dismissed (which I can understand if they were only slightly over) but PS (and the Chief Constable by implication) have no conceivable right to decive the public in this way.
It is your job to retrive information and you refuse to do so, advising me to try to do it myself.
You seriously believe you are behaving ethically in your work but I am outside of your box and I think otherwise.
Thank your for clarifying the situation, despite your usual threats, I shall mark this request as now CLOSED as I did provide you with sufficient opportunity to help.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon (BScHons)

Freedom of Information,

Dear Mr Fallon

I write in connection with your additional correspondence submitted 1st October 2019 in relation to our response provided under FOI reference number 016151/09 on 1st October 2019. Please note that each of your enquiries have been responded to in the order that they have been received by the force, and due to the nature and frequency of your correspondence this may account for why you are not always able to link our response directly to the enquiry that you have submitted. Please be advised that, in order to assist, the force does try and reference the date and reference number of the enquiry that we are responding to.

REQUEST
Misconduct Hearing of 3rd September found `them` proven Gross Misconduct, Outcome : Gross Misconduct. Obviously the Outcome report is an error, so I simply request the true outcome

RESPONSE
Please refer to the response that was provided to you on 2nd October 2019 under reference number 14800/19, this was provided in response to your enquiry submitted on 29th September 2019. The above is a duplication of the enquiry submitted on 29th September 2019 and the force has already provided a response to this..

We have previously advised that Section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information legislation states that an authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if the request is deemed vexatious. Requests are deemed vexatious if they fit one of more of the following criteria:

* It is fair to regard the request as obsessive
*The request is designed to cause disruption or annoyance
*The request lacks any serious purpose or value

In your submissions to us you have now noted that some of your correspondence/enquiries fall into the following categories

They cause an element of confusion
The e-mail is rambling and does not intend to submit any questions for recorded information held
The purpose is to put on record the justifications you feel appropriate
The purpose is only intended to provide a wider perspective on the public website for people.

In addition to this you have noted that you believe that you have received responses to questions that you have not submitted.

As previously advised, Section 14 is considered where there is evidence of a pattern of behaviour which a person would describe as obsessive or unreasonable and an authority is allowed to take into account the frequency of contact and the manner of approach. It is the Commissioners guidance that a request in isolation may not appear vexatious, but if it is the latest in a series of overlapping requests or other correspondence then it may form part of a wider pattern of behaviour that makes it vexatious. It has been noted that you have submitted overlapping correspondence, and requests on the same/similar subject despite already previously being advised that the information is not available to you under FOI.

In continuing to submit requests and correspondence of this type, despite our advice to the contrary, evidence has been provided of a pattern of behaviour that has been identified as being vexatious, and we will now consider the exemption - Section 14(1) and Section 14(2), in relation to any further requests that you submit in the same manner. Should they subsequently be deemed as vexatious they will not be responded to.

Yours Sincerely

Mrs R Williams

59614 Rebecca Williams l FOI Manager
Lloyd House l West Midlands Police
T: 101 (ext 801 2068)
Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.
If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

View all our social network links

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

Dear Freedom of Information,
Please DO NOT respond to this email, move on to something else less controversial, this particular request is now marked as CLOSED (refused). I have already identified that it is your legal duty to obtain unpublished information held by the Force, which you refuse to do because you seem annoyed and consider it `personal data`, in contravention to Home Office guidelines which emphasisesthat “the presumption should be of transparency where possible.” Steps should be taken to allow as much of the hearing as possible to take place in public, such as the use of screens. Reputational concerns ought not to be a valid reason for reducing the extent to which a hearing is public. At the bottom of page 1 of Home Office guidelines, quote "Public interest means the wider public interest in, for example, seeing justice done, understanding the police disciplinary system, upholding the integrity of the police etc. rather than the interest of the public in the case", and section 18 advises "There may be certain circumstances where it would not be appropriate for an officer to be named, for example, a firearms officer where a court has made an anonymity order, or where the officer is an undercover officer and their identity should be protected".
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...
THE PUBLIC have the right to judge, in the light of the guidelines, if the conduct of WM FOI department in concluding that names at misconduct hearings are `personal data` when this appears to be in contravention of the Guidelines on transparency to generate public confidence, and also judge if the Chair of a misconduct hearing has the right to produce and publish an illegal outcome (outcome = Gross Misconduct) which is not available to them under the list of possible outcomes.

The possibly illegal and non-transparent activities surrounding misconduct hearings held by West Midlands Police are, to some people, a cause for concern, but if you are refusing to chase up Professional Standards Department to establish if they hold a legally correct outcome, rather than the meaningless outcome published, that is your judgement which may, in turn, be judged by others.

This request is CLOSED, move on, there is nothing further to be seen here.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)

Freedom of Information,

Dear Mr Fallon

I write in response to your correspondence of 2nd October 2019, sent in reply to our e-mail to you on 2nd October 2019 under reference number 016151/19 (Additional correspondence)

Please be advised that this office deals with Freedom of Information requests for specific recorded information. Your latest correspondence does not contain a request for recorded information under the Act and appears to have been submitted in order to put on record the justifications you feel appropriate and is only intended to publish your opinion on a public website.

Please be advised that submission of correspondence to this office should not be made for individuals own purposes or as a platform to air personal grievances. This is considered a mis-use of the force e-mail system.
Freedom of Information legislation cannot be used to circumvent normal business processes in place to deal with issues or complaints, this office does not deal with complaints and will not comment or respond to additional enquiries submitted outside of a FOI request. Should you have an issue with any of the force processes please re-direct these as appropriate.

https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/serv...

No further correspondence will be entered into regarding this matter

Yours Sincerely

Mrs R Williams

59614 Rebecca Williams l FOI Manager
Lloyd House l West Midlands Police
T: 101 (ext 801 2068)
Preventing crime, protecting the public and helping those in need.
If it’s not 999, search WMP Online

View all our social network links

This email is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged or confidential information. If received in error, please notify the originator immediately. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this email is strictly forbidden. Views or opinions expressed in this email do not necessarily represent those of West Midlands Police. All West Midlands Police email activity is monitored for virus, racist, obscene, or otherwise inappropriate activity. No responsibility is accepted by West Midlands Police for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use of this email.

Dear Rebecca Williams,
I have already advised you that I have CLOSED this request so there is no point in your office making comments.You quote " Please be advised that this office deals with Freedom of Information requests for specific recorded information" BUT I have simply asked if the police( ie: Professional Standards Department) can disclose the correct outcome of a misconduct hearing, as the outcome disclosed on the misconduct hearing page of the website shows an inaccurate and illegal outcome which does not correspond to any authorised outcome. You confirm that no different information is recorded, and I accept that, but unfortunately that results is the WM Misconduct Hearings Procedures, and Professional Standards Department, being in conflict with Home Office Guidelines and brought into disrepute.
I apologise if I have caused you stress looking for information that should, but apparently does not, exist.

I accept that something is wrong within the Force but you have been unable to identify it, so your department is in the clear.
Thanking you in conclusion,

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon(BScHons)