Please provide full details of Metropolitan Police investigations into my Mother's death

The request was refused by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

name removed 23 Oct 2012 (Account suspended)

1 March 2012

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), Mr Turner MP for the Isle of Wight, Mrs May Home Secretary, Mr Clarke Minister for Justice, Mr Starmer DPP, CPS, HMRC, South London Healthcare NHS Trust, South London Coroner's Office,

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, I aver.

I look forward to hearing from you with your response.

You have my email and address should you wish to write to me via these means.

Thank you very much,

Yours sincerely,

[first name removed] [last name removed]

Executrix of my mother

Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms. [last name removed]

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012030000182
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 01/03/2012.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

"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, I aver.
   
I look forward to hearing from you with your response.
   
You have my email and address should you wish to write to me via these
means.    

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
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
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)

24 March 2012

Dear Metropolitan Police Service, CPS, Mr Starmer, QC, DPP, Mr Grieve, QC, Attorney General, Mr Clarke Lord Chancellor Secretary of State for Justice, South London Coroner,

Further to my Freedom of Information Request regarding my mother who died in Princess Royal University Hospital, I wish to ask why my complaint about the Police was not upheld.

For according to the Metropolitan Police very few alleged crimes are NOT investigated.

" Freedom of Information Request Reference No:
I note you seek access to the following information:
The MPS policy that allows a borough crime manager to refuse to investigate a case where there is prima facie evidence and where the victim wishes to pursue the matter.

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

Please see below extract from the Crime Screening and Secondary Investigation

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in answer to your request.

Decision not to further investigate screened IN crime
There will be occasions when a crime is screened 'IN' as detectable but the level of resources required to detect it would clearly be totally disproportionate to the potential outcome.

These cases will be very rare and the decision not to further investigate a potentially detectable crime will only be considered in exceptional circumstances. This important decision will be the responsibility of the Crime Manager who may delegate this task to a
nominated deputy with the appropriate knowledge and skills, who must consider the potential loss of the detection as an important factor.

Other 'special factors' (see Annex C) in relation to the victim, suspect and location should also be taken into account. If any of these factors are present then the crime should normally be further investigated. Each crime must be assessed separately, based upon its specific, individual circumstances.

Where a Crime Manager (or nominated deputy) decides that a potentially detectable crime does not warrant further investigation then the reasons must be fully recorded on the DETS screen of the crime report.
The needs of the victim have to be carefully considered and a full explanation must be given to them of the reasons why no further investigation is taking place.

It may be necessary for the victim to be given advice and referred to other agencies that can be contacted for assistance (e.g. civil remedies).

Annex C - Special Factors Influencing Further investigation
• evidence of repeat victimisation;
• vulnerable victim or suspect;
• suspect is a promnom or devnom; or a prolific or priority offender.
• Suspect has previous convictions for a similar offence or there is good intelligence to suggest this to be the case;
• offence is linked to other crime, that is, credit cards tendered were stolen in a robbery, stolen vehicle used;
• there is a realistic prospect of retrieving stolen property;
• property stolen is hazardous;
• a weapon was used during the commission of an offence;
• significant injury was caused;
• the offence was against or in a significant public building or utility;
• the offence was committed against a person serving the public, for example, police, nurse, prison officer and so on;
• the suspect was in a position of authority or trust; and
• there is a marked difference between the actual or mental ages of the suspect and the victim, or if there is any element of corruption.
Note: When considering the special factors above, each crime must be assessed separately, based upon the specific circumstances to which it relates. It may be
necessary for the victim to be given advice and referred to other agencies that can be contacted for further assistance"
You may also find the following links useful:
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/polici...
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication...
crime-research/ncrs?view=Binary
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication...
crime-research/counting-rules/count-general?view=Binary
Territorial Policing Command"

What I wish to know is WHY the Metropolitan Police did NOTHING not even when my mother died in their bailiwick.

They KNEW that the Coroner had been contacted by Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust and that my mother had been injected by a WEAPON - A SYRINGE OF HALOPERIDOL.

"• a weapon was used during the commission of an offence;"

It was a WEAPON as my mother was powerless to prevent it being injected into her. She screamed in protest but to no avail. The auxiliary nurse even upbraided her in my presence a few hours later saying to the whole ward "She kept you awake all night didn't she?!" and then I explained that she had been protesting against being assaulted by injection of Haloperidol against her will, without consent and that she maintained that this was ASSAULT AND BATTERY, as she was fully compos mentis.

The person has never been identified by South London Healthcare NHS Trust who prescribed the Haloperidol which gave permission for it to be injected against my mother's will. Why not? My mother was at the MERCY of the people running her care on the Medical Ward 6 of Princess Royal University Hospital - she was very ill and unable to move. She could not run away. She was immobile except for lifting her arms and screaming.

With all the news about Elder Abuse, I remain dissatisfied that I am still waiting 5 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS LATER for answers.

WHY?

Yours sincerely,

[first name removed] [last name removed]

Executrix of my mother

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms [last name removed]

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012030003344
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/03/2012.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

·        24 March 2012     Dear Metropolitan Police Service, CPS, Mr
Starmer, QC, DPP, Mr Grieve, QC, Attorney General, Mr Clarke Lord
Chancellor Secretary of State for Justice, South London Coroner,    
Further to my Freedom of Information Request regarding my mother who died
in Princess Royal University Hospital, I wish to ask why my complaint
about the Police was not upheld.     For according to the Metropolitan
Police very few alleged crimes are NOT investigated.         " Freedom of
Information Request Reference No: I note you seek access to the following
information: The MPS policy that allows a borough crime manager to refuse
to investigate a case where there is prima facie evidence and where the
victim wishes to pursue the matter.     Decision I have today decided to
disclose the located information to you in full.     Please see below
extract from the Crime Screening and Secondary Investigation     Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) in answer to your request.     Decision not to
further investigate screened IN crime There will be occasions when a crime
is screened 'IN' as detectable but the level of resources required to
detect it would clearly be totally disproportionate to the potential
outcome.     These cases will be very rare and the decision not to further
investigate a potentially detectable crime will only be considered in
exceptional circumstances. This important decision will be the
responsibility of the Crime Manager who may delegate this task to a
nominated deputy with the appropriate knowledge and skills, who must
consider the potential loss of the detection as an important factor.    
Other 'special factors' (see Annex C) in relation to the victim, suspect
and location should also be taken into account. If any of these factors
are present then the crime should normally be further investigated. Each
crime must be assessed separately, based upon its specific, individual
circumstances.     Where a Crime Manager (or nominated deputy) decides
that a potentially detectable crime does not warrant further investigation
then the reasons must be fully recorded on the DETS screen of the crime
report. The needs of the victim have to be carefully considered and a full
explanation must be given to them of the reasons why no further
investigation is taking place.     It may be necessary for the victim to
be given advice and referred to other agencies that can be contacted for
assistance (e.g. civil remedies).     Annex C - Special Factors
Influencing Further investigation • evidence of repeat victimisation; •
vulnerable victim or suspect; • suspect is a promnom or devnom; or a
prolific or priority offender. • Suspect has previous convictions for a
similar offence or there is good intelligence to suggest this to be the
case; • offence is linked to other crime, that is, credit cards tendered
were stolen in a robbery, stolen vehicle used; • there is a realistic
prospect of retrieving stolen property; • property stolen is hazardous; •
a weapon was used during the commission of an offence; • significant
injury was caused; • the offence was against or in a significant public
building or utility; • the offence was committed against a person serving
the public, for example, police, nurse, prison officer and so on; • the
suspect was in a position of authority or trust; and • there is a marked
difference between the actual or mental ages of the suspect and the
victim, or if there is any element of corruption. Note: When considering
the special factors above, each crime must be assessed separately, based
upon the specific circumstances to which it relates. It may be    
necessary for the victim to be given advice and referred to other agencies
that can be contacted for further assistance" You may also find the
following links useful:
http://www.metpolice.uk/foi/pdfs/policie...
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication...
rime-research/ncrs?view=Binary
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication...
crime-research/counting-rules/count-general?view=Binary Territorial
Policing Command"     What I wish to know is WHY the Metropolitan Police
did NOTHING not even when my mother died in their bailiwick.     They KNEW
that the Coroner had been contacted by Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust and
that my mother had been injected by a WEAPON - A SYRINGE OF HALOPERIDOL.  
  "• a weapon was used during the commission of an offence;"     It was a
WEAPON as my mother was powerless to prevent it being injected into her.
She screamed in protest but to no avail. The auxiliary nurse even
upbraided her in my presence a few hours later saying to the whole ward
"She kept you awake all night didn't she?!" and then I explained that she
had been protesting against being assaulted by injection of Haloperidol
against her will, without consent and that she maintained that this was
ASSAULT AND     BATTERY, as she was fully compos mentis.     The person
has never been identified by South London Healthcare NHS Trust who
prescribed the Haloperidol which gave permission for it to be injected
against my mother's will. Why not? My mother was at the MERCY of the
people running her care on the Medical Ward 6 of Princess Royal University
Hospital - she was very ill and unable to move. She could not run away.
She was immobile except for lifting her arms and screaming.     With all
the news about Elder Abuse, I remain dissatisfied that I am still waiting
5 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS LATER for answers.     WHY?

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, 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 Commissioner Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),Mr Clarke Lord Chancellor, Mr Grieve QC Attorney General, Mr Garnier Solicitor General,
Mr Starmer QC DPP, CPS/HMRC, South London Coroner,
Mr Turner MP for the Isle of Wight,

I am requesting an internal review of my FOI Request as made on 1 March 2012. Ms Louizou wrote to tell me that it was being processed. When it did not come, I wrote again but this time I had a very hostile response from Mr Lyng informing me that I may NOT have a response as my requests are "vexatious".

For the record, I am complaining and have complained about the Metropolitan Police Service NOT investigating my mother's allegations of a criminal assault when I contacted them on 28 June 2006 - and I believe that the MPS should have contacted the CPS and the DPP - and again in December 2010 when I was given a police reference number for the reporting of alleged criminal activity in the last few days of my mother's life, including the issue of the DNAR.

NOBODY WANTS TO KNOW - SPECIFICALLY THE METROPOLITAN POLICE IT APPEARS TO ME - BUT WHY?

Please provide full details of Metropolitan Police investigations into my Mother's death
[first name removed] [last name removed] made this Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Please answer the question above so we know whether the recent response contains useful information.
From: [first name removed] [last name removed]

1 March 2012
1 March 2012

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), Mr Turner MP for the Isle of Wight, Mrs May Home Secretary, Mr Clarke Minister for Justice, Mr Starmer DPP, CPS, HMRC, South London Healthcare NHS Trust, South
London Coroner's Office,

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, I aver.

I look forward to hearing from you with your response.

You have my email and address should you wish to write to me via these means.

Thank you very much,

Yours sincerely,

[first name removed] [last name removed]

Executrix of my mother

Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice

Link to this Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 March 2012
Dear Ms. [last name removed]

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012030000182 I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 01/03/2012. I note you seek access to the following information:

"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, I aver.

I look forward to hearing from you with your response.

You have my email and address should you wish to write to me via these means.

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 contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
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]

24 March 2012
24 March 2012

Dear Metropolitan Police Service, CPS, Mr Starmer, QC, DPP, Mr Grieve, QC, Attorney General, Mr Clarke Lord Chancellor Secretary of State for Justice, South London Coroner,

Further to my Freedom of Information Request regarding my mother who died in Princess Royal University Hospital, I wish to ask why my complaint about the Police was not upheld.

For according to the Metropolitan Police very few alleged crimes are NOT investigated.

" Freedom of Information Request Reference No:
I note you seek access to the following information:
The MPS policy that allows a borough crime manager to refuse to investigate a case where there is prima facie evidence and where the victim wishes to pursue the matter.

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

Please see below extract from the Crime Screening and Secondary Investigation

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in answer to your request.

Decision not to further investigate screened IN crime
There will be occasions when a crime is screened 'IN' as detectable but the level of resources required to detect it would clearly be totally disproportionate to the potential outcome.

These cases will be very rare and the decision not to further investigate a potentially detectable crime will only be considered in exceptional circumstances. This important decision will be the responsibility of the Crime Manager who may delegate this task to a nominated deputy with the appropriate knowledge and skills, who must consider the potential loss of the detection as an important factor.

Other 'special factors' (see Annex C) in relation to the victim, suspect and location should also be taken into account. If any of these factors are present then the crime should normally be further investigated. Each crime must be assessed separately, based upon its specific, individual circumstances.

Where a Crime Manager (or nominated deputy) decides that a potentially detectable crime does not warrant further investigation then the reasons must be fully recorded on the DETS screen of the crime report.
The needs of the victim have to be carefully considered and a full explanation must be given to them of the reasons why no further investigation is taking place.

It may be necessary for the victim to be given advice and referred to other agencies that can be contacted for assistance (e.g. civil remedies).

Annex C - Special Factors Influencing Further investigation
• evidence of repeat victimisation;
• vulnerable victim or suspect;
• suspect is a promnom or devnom; or a prolific or priority offender.
• Suspect has previous convictions for a similar offence or there is good intelligence to suggest this to be the case;
• offence is linked to other crime, that is, credit cards tendered were stolen in a robbery, stolen vehicle used;
• there is a realistic prospect of retrieving stolen property;
• property stolen is hazardous;
• a weapon was used during the commission of an offence;
• significant injury was caused;
• the offence was against or in a significant public building or utility;
• the offence was committed against a person serving the public, for example, police, nurse, prison officer and so on;
• the suspect was in a position of authority or trust; and
• there is a marked difference between the actual or mental ages of the suspect and the victim, or if there is any element of corruption.
Note: When considering the special factors above, each crime must be assessed separately, based upon the specific circumstances to which it relates. It may be necessary for the victim to be given advice and referred to other agencies that can be contacted for further assistance"
You may also find the following links useful:
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/polici...
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication...
crime-research/ncrs?view=Binary
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication...
crime-research/counting-rules/count-general?view=Binary
Territorial Policing Command"

What I wish to know is WHY the Metropolitan Police did NOTHING not even when my mother died in their bailiwick.

They KNEW that the Coroner had been contacted by Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust and that my mother had been injected by a WEAPON - A SYRINGE OF HALOPERIDOL.

"• a weapon was used during the commission of an offence;"

It was a WEAPON as my mother was powerless to prevent it being injected into her. She screamed in protest but to no avail. The auxiliary nurse even upbraided her in my presence a few hours later saying to the whole ward "She kept you awake all night didn't she?!" and then I explained that she had been protesting against being assaulted by injection of Haloperidol against her will, without consent and that she maintained that this was ASSAULT AND BATTERY, as she was fully compos mentis.

The person has never been identified by South London Healthcare NHS Trust who prescribed the Haloperidol which gave permission for it to be injected against my mother's will. Why not? My mother was at the MERCY of the people running her care on the Medical Ward 6 of Princess Royal University Hospital - she was very ill and unable to move. She could not run away. She was immobile except for lifting her arms and screaming.

With all the news about Elder Abuse, I remain dissatisfied that I am still waiting 5 YEARS AND 8 MONTHS LATER for answers.

WHY?

Yours sincerely,

[first name removed] [last name removed]

Executrix of my mother

Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice

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