Dear Northumbria Police,

Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,

Given the evidence contained in the documents below I would ask that the IPCC stop acting as the liver for police corruption and embrace it's duty of care to stop police corruption. A good start would be to supply the police report into my complaint done by Holt. Other people have been given their reports so there can be no reason not to give me my report unless there is something to cover up. If you do not have then you have not been doing your job correctly therefore please get a copy and given it to me. Furthermore please answer my letter that I have sent many times with police douments that show where the police are not telling you the truth about my case. If you unblock my email I would be delighted to send you yet other copy.

It is interesting to note that in the 15 years that I have been trying to secure justice and the mass of evidence that I have supplied no one has ever said no this bit of evidence is you have is wrong or I am lying. The reason is because the people are telling you the truth and you are covering up the corruption. We the people are asking for justice and the IPCC to do full fill it's duty of care. In other words if we are wrong then explain where we are wrong and we will go away.

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE
Our Ref: HJ/DAH/CO/00036/10
Professional Standards
Headquarters Ponteland
Newcastle upon Tyne NE20 OBL
Tel: 01661 872555 ext689!3
Fax: 01 661 868988
Email: [email address]

Our Ref: HJ/DAH/CO/00036/10

26 April 2010

Dear Mr Canning

On behalf of the Head of Professional Standards Department, I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence.

The facts are that you made your initial complaint in 1995 under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence act 1984 and at that time the policy was that an Investigating Officer's report was not to be disclosed to the complainant.

Complaints against the Police are now recorded under the provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002 which allows a copy of the Investigating Officer's report to be forwarded to the complainant and are therefore entitled to appeal against this decision to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Your original complaint was fully investigated by a senior officer and found to be unsubstantiated. Your subsequent complaints have been assessed and forwarded to the IPCC and have been dispensed with.

I therefore conclude that this matter is now finalised and that no further correspondence from yourself will be entered into.

Yours sincerely

H Jobson

Detective Chief Inspector

www.northurnbria.police.uk www.northurnbria-police-authority.org

Madeleine McCann

Holt 6 June 2007
Tel

6 June 2007.

Mr Holt
Ponteland Police H Q
Ponteland
Newcastle upon Tyne

Dear Mr Holt,

Ref :>DCC/PGH/95326 / Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act 1998S 7[1] subject access request.

Under the Freedom of Information Act and a subject access request under section 7[1] Data Protection Act 1998 I would like Holts report release to me.

I have noted with great dismay your report that outlines the extent of your inquiries into my complaint on page 1 and 2, moreover your conclusion that my complaint is, "Unsubstantiated" from paragraphs 21 to 48 of your report.

It is now manifestly obvious to me that you have not identified the heads of my complaint and HAVE transcended my faith PLUS my trust in you due to the following pivotal points;

1] You did not see or make any efforts to talk to the witnesses that I asked you to see. Calling once only on witnesses, then not following it up when they are found not to be in does not construe a balanced inquiry.

2] Not finding out who wrongly stated the distance of 28 miles from Lewisburn to Whittle Ponds to the prosecution barrister was unforgivable, given the fact that the distance is at least 36 miles. This fact alone would have totally altered the outlook of the jury at my trial. The distance was criminally understated to make it more likely that my old A registration 2.3 diesel Ford Sierra vehicle could have traveled the distance in the time given on miner country roads at the busiest time of the day. You should really try to drive the distance in the time given in an old big diesel car. It takes nearly one hour even on deserted winter roads, without summer traffic [tourists].

Yes it is that easy: if you want to embrace the truth.

3] You have clearly not read all the statements, as there can be no other inference than the Police were without doubt looking for two Peregrine Falcon eggs when my car was stopped on the 4th June 1992. There has been a univocal conspiracy to hide the fact that there were two very young Peregrine Falcon chicks [much younger than the chicks found in my vehicle] and, "Two eggs", sic, that had not hatched yet, therefore the chicks were still very young, in the Kielder nest site in question. Find enclosed the conclusive prove that you ignored. "I HAVE PUT IT ON A PLATE FOR YOU".

4] The fact that the Police did lie about the phone call to me to impart that some of my stolen birds had been found outside Wilkinson's home. See enclosed photo copies of the court transcript and police statements that affirm that the Police are guilty of perjury and you have turned your back on me and justice.

5] You have not followed up on the correspondence that I sent to the Police from 1992 to 1995. Like the Police in my case you have selectively chose what you want to look at and forgot about the rest. Selective investigations do not address the needs of justice.

The most lachrymose fact I am left with is that I really put my trust in you, despite what I had been told about the Police investigating their own. Like a young child I believed you when you purported, "These investigation are carried out more thoroughly than murder inquiries" "You have put it on a plate for use" "If I find Police officers have lied then they will be prosecuted" Compelling word that meant nothing in the end. I feel as though you have only paid me lip service, which has precipitated a Police cover up: Another Hillsborough. I suppose it is better than being shot in the head 5 times on a train and the accident being covered up! Does that annoy you well try going to jail for a crime that you did not commit due to withhold evidence and lies and see how angry you would be.

At the head of must miscarriages of justice there are police lies, Police perjury and partisan selective investigations. My wrongful conviction was no different. It now goes with the territory that I cannot have any more faith left in the Police investigating their own; therefore I would call for an independent inquiry headed by another body that does not have an interest in the Northumbria Police. Justice must be for use all and I have not received any measure OF JUSTICE from your inquiry. Do not tell me the usual indoctrinated rubbish that the Police have carried out a just and correct inquiry, as I know and have been told different. No one believes this old chestnut anymore. The British public is sick of police lies and cover ups. I understand that the Police want to protect their officers, Shorrock and my prosecution, but this does not, no matter how much you want it to absolve you from your duty to do what is manifestly right. I want an independent inquiry into my complaint by someone who is not just a mouth piece of the police.

Under the Freedom of Information Act could I please have a full copy of Mr Holt’s Report into my complaint?

Please pass this letter on to the relevant section so I can secure Holt’s Report.

Yours faithfully

Derek Canning.

WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THIS LETTER? Email sent 4 MARCH 2007
Emailed to Richard heron on the 19 March 2007 11am
Sent on the July 2007

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning llb[hons]

Dear Northumbria Police,

http://www.ligali.org/article.php?id=1824
IPCC: Protecting corrupt police, betraying public confidence
Submitted By: Keji Dalemo
Date: Thu 15 May 2008

The ability of the government to establish a body fully able to investigate complaints against the police has been called into question following the resignation of more than 100 lawyers from the police watchdog advisory board
The Police Action Lawyers Group (PALG), a nationwide coalition of lawyers representing members of the public who have lodged complaints against the police, resigned from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) expressing “increasing dismay and disillusionment” at “the consistently poor quality of decision making at all levels of the IPCC”.

The joint resignation letter from two of the PALG’s leaders to IPCC chairman Nick Hardwick was sent on behalf of the entire group of lawyers and signalled the last straw for the lawyers who said the IPCC’s handling of their earlier attempts to highlight their concerns had been “pitifully poor”.

The PALG had been on the IPCC advisory board since its inception in April 2004 yet within a year members found themselves confronted by a multitude of cases complaining about police misconduct that the IPCC had failed to handle properly. These cases included racism, corruption, violence, fabrication of evidence and even deaths in custody.

In October 2005 the PALG presented Nick Hardwick with a dossier containing 12 examples of cases highlighting some of the most serious failings which had yet to be addressed despite continually been brought to the attention of the IPCC.

An investigation carried out by the Guardian earlier this year showed poor administration to be rife within IPCC with casework managers with no legal qualifications and little relevant experience making crucial decisions; complainants being treated rudely and indifferently; and extreme delays- some going back years.

The same investigation seemed to support the widely held belief that the police are given immunity exposing the IPCC as biased in favour of police even rejecting cases where the evidence supporting the complainant was compelling.

A case in point is that of Toni Comer. In January 2008, the IPCC rejected a complaint alleging assault made by Comer who was famously captured on CCTV being battered by a male police officer outside a nightclub in Sheffield in July 2006.

The police were called after Comer was alleged to have caused criminal damage to a car outside the Niche night club which she was evicted from. The CCTV footage, which surfaced a year after the incident and subsequently made the news nationwide, showed PC Mulhall of South Yorkshire Police punching the then 18 year old Comer fives times while she lay on the ground after the two had taken a tumble down some steps while, drunk, she was said to have resisted arrest. The tape then showed Comer being taken to the police van with her trousers around her ankles.

PC Mulhall said in statement “…I struck her as hard as I was able with my right fist in an attempt to subdue her. There was no apparent effect so I did this twice more. When she continued to resist handcuffs, I now struck her as hard as I was physically able in an attempt to deaden her arm. In the end, I had to use brute force.”

It later transpired that Comer was an epileptic and the movements regarded as “resisting arrest” may have been caused by a fit.

The IPCC report on the incident concluded that “police officers are entitled by the law to use justified and proportionate force” on someone who is resisting arrest.

Comer’s lawyer responded “…Ms Comer has never had any confidence in the police complaints system and her scepticism has proved to be well-founded given today's decision."

A still from the shocking CCTV footage showing Toni Comer assaulted by a gang of British police officers

IPCC defending failure
In one of the most harrowing examples of police brutality and state enabled unaccountability, the IPCC last August ruled that no police officers should face disciplinary proceedings for the death of Roger Sylvester in 1999.

Sylvester fell into a coma and died a week after being restrained and arrested by 8 police officers after they attended a call reporting Sylvester naked and behaving strangely outside his home in Tottenham, North London.

The investigation into the killing of Sylvester began in October 1999 and was passed onto the CPS who in November 2000 decided that the officers involved should not be prosecuted. An inquest jury in October 2003 however returned a unanimous unlawfully killed verdict. The verdict was later quashed in 2004 after the case was passed onto the IPCC to investigate and the Metropolitan police requested a judicial review.

Using the report completed by the IPCC, the CPS in 2005 again concluded that there was “insufficient evidence” to prosecute the officers involved.

Nicola Williams, one of the three IPCC commissioners investigating the case, told attendees at a public meeting held in November last year that “the circumstances of his [Sylvester’s] death and the process that followed were unacceptable. I am sure that the length of time taken to reach this decision can only have compounded his family’s grief. I am very sorry about that”. Williams continued that “given the passage of time” the IPCC were unable to recommend appropriate disciplinary action.

While the IPCC were still defending their failure to bring to book the Met police for the death of Sylvester, the IPCC were put in charge of investigating the death of yet another African, Frank Ogboru, who died, 26 September 2007, while being restrained by police who were called because of an argument involving Ogboru at the flat he was staying in while visiting London from Nigeria.

Despite several eyewitness accounts stating that Ogboru was restrained by more than 4 officers and was audibly distressed repeatedly pleading “I can’t breathe” and CCTV footage showing the incident, on 30 April 2008 the CPS released a press statement concluding that the police could not be held accountable for the death of Mr Ogboru as the level of restraint used was ‘reasonable’ and that a jury was hence likely to find it lawful.

The CPS report continued that there was ‘insufficient evidence’ to prosecute the police’s restraint tactics as having breached a ‘duty of care’ to Ogboru. In a last ditch attempt to present an illusion of a thorough, impartial investigation, the CPS stated that they considered ‘other possible offences’ such as a breach in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the same and only grounds that the Metropolitan Police were found guilty of for killing innocent Brazilian Jean Charles De Menezes, but concluded, again, that there was ‘insufficient evidence’.

The IPCC’s investigation into the death of Frank Ogboru attracted public criticism from the beginning when the IPCC formally announced that Ogboru had died in hospital when he had in fact died at the scene while being restrained by the police.

The IPCC press release announcing the CPS decision continues to imply that Ogboru died at the hospital instead of at the scene of police restraint.

A still from the shocking CCTV footage showing Frank Ogboru assaulted by a gang of British police officers

________________________________________
E-mail this article to a friend
Printable version

________________________________________
If you found this article useful please click here to make a donation
________________________________________

Back to top

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Northumbria Police,

Police corruption probes in 19 forces UK

Scotland Yard has formed an internal unit called CIB3

Nearly half of all police forces in England and Wales have officers facing charges of corruption or dishonesty, according to a survey by The Times newspaper.
Altogether 105 police officers in 19 out of 43 forces are under investigation.
They include high-ranking officers such as superintendents and detective chief inspectors.
London's Metropolitan Police has by far the greatest problem with 51 officers suspended.
The survey results come days after Home Secretary Jack Straw warned senior officers that a "corrupt few" were damaging the reputation of a majority of honest members of the force.
In Gwent, one superintendent has been charged with offences relating to expenses fraud and three detective chief inspectors in other forces are under investigation.
Anti-corruption squads far and few between
The Times also revealed that only five forces have set up special anti-corruption units and eight have confidential hotlines for officers.
Many forces are reported to have said they had no corruption problem and others that they did not need special anti-corruption units because police officers themselves would volunteer information.
Scotland Yard recently set up CIB3 to look into police dishonesty.
One Met officer has been convicted and dismissed for burglary and drug offences.
Eight others face various charges of theft, taking the proceeds from a robbery and perverting the course of justice.
South Yorkshire, with 11 officers under scrutiny, came second followed by Cleveleland with eight and the West Midlands with seven.
Cheshire Constabulary refused to take part in the survey.
________________________________________
Forces with officers suspended or charged are:
Avon and Somerset - four officers charged with perverting the course of justice
Bedfordshire - one officer suspended
Cleveland - eight suspended, including Det Spt Ray Mallon who advocates Zero Tolerance
City of London - two suspended for allegedly perverting the course of justice
Durham - three suspended over theft allegations
Essex - one suspended for alleged theft
Gwent - one superintendent suspended over alleged expenses fraud
Hertfordshire - one suspended for allegedly selling information to a journalist
Kent - two charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
Lancashire - one charged over payment of rewards to Crimestoppers
Leicestershire - one suspended
Merseyside - three suspended and one detective chief inspector charged with corruption
Metropolitan Police - 51 suspended
Northumbria - one suspended
North Yorkshire - one suspended
Nottinghamshire - one suspended
South Yorkshire - 11 suspended over allegations surrounding compensation for guns handed in after a firearms ban
Warwickshire - one suspended
West Midlands - seven suspended
West Yorkshire - three suspended over theft allegations and one charged with drug offences
West Mercia - one charged with misusing the national police computer

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Northumbria Police,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/corrup...
Corrupt police can't be touched
Jason Bennetto Crime Correspondent
Thursday, 10 July 1997
• Share
• Print
• Email
• Text Size
o Normal
o Large
o Extra Large
SPONSORED LINKS:
Ads by Google

Become A Police Officer
Study Criminal Justice onlinewith U. of Phoenix. Learn more.
www.CriminalJusticePhoenix.com

Become A Police Officer
SWAT, K9, Narcotics, CSI & More.Online Degrees For Police Careers
www.Public-Service.US/PoliceCareers

Police Officer Schools
Request free info from schoolsoffering police training programs!
police.do-something.com

Become A Police Officer
Become a Police Officer Online!Full Financial Aid Available.
www.CashForCops.net
The chief constable of the country's second biggest police force has corrupt officers working for him but is powerless to sack them.
Edward Crew, head of West Midlands Police, said that some of his staff would have been automatically dismissed for dishonesty if they worked for a supermarket, but he was forced to keep them on because of protective practices.
"There are people working in this force that wouldn't be employed by Sainsbury's," he told The Independent. His concerns are shared by other chiefs throughout the country and the police complaints watchdog, who are urging the Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, to change the law.
Mr Crew, and fellow chief constables in England and Wales, have asked Mr Straw to reduce the standard of proof to allow forces to sack police officers considered corrupt or grossly incompetent. At present, it is extremely difficult to remove anyone - last year only 98 were sacked. To sack a police officer, evidence that proves "beyond reasonable doubt" that they are guilty is needed - a far higher standard than in civil cases or industrial tribunals. Instant dismissals are also prevented except in the most exceptional cases.
Mr Crew said: "In Sainsbury's, if they have a man whose hand is caught in the till they will release [sack] them. I couldn't do this, I have to prosecute and prove it beyond reasonable doubt. There are a very small number of officers in this force, and in the police service nationally, who I suspect of having been involved in serious breaches in the criminal law, where it's not possible to obtain evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt they were involved in that behaviour."
He continued: "I have officers in this force who should not be serving police officers. If we were assessing their standards of behaviour to the standard required of other employers, these people would not be working."
He added: "I have officers who have been to court and have been found not guilty of criminal offences by a jury and they continue to serve in this force because I cannot, in the current arrangement, [use] evidence that was given to the court."
Earlier this week, the West Midlands Police became the second force to set up a confidential internal telephone hotline for staff to pass on information about suspected corrupt officers. The call for reform of the system by Mr Crew, and the Association of Chief Police Officers has the support of the independent Police Complaints Authority (PCA). The Home Secretary has agreed to re-examine the issue.
The Police Federation, which represents all ranks below superintendent - the vast bulk of the 127,000 officers in England and Wales - is furious at the action by chief constables and have accused them of reneging on early promises.
Sir Paul Condon, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has already criticised what he believes is a growing trend among police officers accused of serious corruption and malpractice of avoiding disciplinary hearings by taking sick leave and retiring on grounds of ill health with index- linked benefits.
Mr Crew is also critical of the "double jeopardy" system, whereby evidence used against a police officer in a criminal trial cannot be re-used at a disciplinary hearing. The Crown Prosecution Service has privately admitted that it sometimes fails to bring charges against a police officer because it fears a jury will acquit him or her and thereby deny an opportunity for the evidence to be heard at a disciplinary hearing.
Mr Crew also believes that the high level of proof prevents him from sacking some officers who he believes have sexually harassed female colleagues.
Peter Moorhouse, chairman of the PCA, yesterday agreed that there are some corrupt officers who are being protected by the system, but said they were a "small minority". A PCA spokesman said: "We sympathise with Mr Crew and would like to see changes to the system."
The Police Federation argues that the police need extra protection against malicious complaints. Ian Westwood, vice chairman of the federation, said: "If chief constables believe officers are corrupt they should be dealt with at court and sentenced to imprisonment. We are concerned that people will be got rid of without proper evidence just because someone suspects they are corrupt."
Bent coppers, page 9

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Northumbria Police,

Please explain why the iPCC released Shorrock's confidential report
and the police report to Mark Robb complaint to Mark Robb without any difficulties
yet I am being denied the very same information by the same organisation that released
the same information to Mark Robb?
Why the double standards?
Why the injustice?
What are you trying to hide?
Who has asked you to withhold the information?
You no doubt will now be in possession of the statements between the police and Animal
Health that clearly states there are concerns about Guy Shorrock
and that he 'HAS A SECRET AGENDA' he 'DOES NOT LIKE PEOPLE WHO
BREED BIRDS' [like me] he WANT TO CLOSE PEOPLE DOWN WHO BREED
BIRDS' [like me]. Given the iPCC’s position and duty of care to me,
and the fact the iPCC has already released the same information
that I have requested to someone else then there is no
justification for withhold the same information that has been released in the past from me.
It clearly looks like a cover up as there can be no
reason why you should not want me to see the information if it was
fair and truthful. Have Northumbria Police asked you not to release
the information?
Why do you not want me to see the information?
Why do I have to fight the police and the iPPC every inch of the way?
How can there be trust without transparency?

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]

Dear Northumbria Police,

Why are the police breaking the law by not answering my information requests? Some would think there is a police cover up.

Instead of sending people round to tell me not to rock the corrupt boat start investigating my complaints and prosecute the real guilty parties.

Yours faithfully,

Derek Canning LLB [HONS]