Proportion of former Police Officers acting as IOPC Investigation Officers

Colin Alvin Rimmer made this Freedom of Information request to Independent Office for Police Conduct This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was successful.

Colin Alvin Rimmer
Delivered

Dear Independent Office for Police Conduct,

In the interests of establishing whether the IOPC is truly independent of the Police :-

Please can you confirm the proportion of IOPC complaint investigation officers who previously held positions in a Police authority of ANY kind, e.g. Metropolitan Police, Serious Fraud Office, City of London Police, or any other specialist or local Police authority.

Please break the statistics down in terms of IOPC complaint investigation officers who were former Police Officers, and IOPC complaint investigation officers who worked for the Police in a civilian capacity, but were not Police Officers.

As an example, I would specify a Police Officer working in forensics or as a financial transaction analyst to still qualify as a Police Officer, whereas an admin assistant or switchboard operator clearly wouldn't.

Please note that I am not interested in IOPC staff that play no part in assessing complaints against the Police.

Yours faithfully,

Colin Alvin Rimmer

Link to this Report
!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.
 
Thank you for your email.
 
If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any
attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate
department to prepare the response.
 
FOI & DPA Team
 
This message and its content may contain confidential, privileged or
copyright information. They are intended solely for the use of the
intended recipient. If you received this message in error, you must not
disclose, copy, distribute or take any action which relies on the
contents. Instead, please inform the sender and then permanently delete
it. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the IOPC. Only
specified staff are authorised to make binding agreements on behalf of the
IOPC by email. The IOPC accepts no responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. The IOPC cannot
guarantee the security of this email or any attachments. While emails are
regularly scanned, the IOPC cannot take any liability for any virus that
may be transmitted with the internet. The IOPC communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff.

Link to this Report
!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

Dear Mr Rimmer

Thank you for your email requesting information. This is being considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). We will now consult with the relevant department to gather the response to your request.

We propose to respond to you on or before the 16 November 2021 in line with the timescales prescribed by the FOIA.

While we are aiming to complete your request within that timeframe, it is possible that our response will be delayed as a result of our current working arrangements under the COVID-19 outbreak. We will keep you updated should we be unable to respond by the due date.

If you have any questions about this request please contact us. Please remember to quote reference number 5023076 in any future correspondence about this matter.

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information & Data Protection Team
Independent Office for Police Conduct
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
0300 020 0096

www.policeconduct.gov.uk
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
The IOPC is proud to have achieved Customer Service Excellence accreditation

show quoted sections

Link to this Report
!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

Dear Mr Rimmer

Thank you for your email.

Information about the policing backgrounds of IOPC staff is published in our staff diversity report which is available on our web site using this link: https://policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/defau...

This is our report for the year 19/20. The tables relevant to your request are on pages 11 to 16. Our career background data is separated between 'ex-police officer', 'ex-police civilian' and 'ex-police both'. The tables on page 12 and 14 separate this data by IOPC job title.

We expect to publish our report for 20/21 in the next few weeks. We recommend you revisit our web site in late November to see the most up to date report, which will be published on this web page: https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/who-we-...

We hope you find this helpful.

Your sincerely

Freedom of Information & Data Protection Team
Independent Office for Police Conduct
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW

0300 020 0096

www.policeconduct.gov.uk
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
The IOPC is proud to have achieved Customer Service Excellence accreditation​

show quoted sections

Link to this Report
Colin Alvin Rimmer
Delivered

Dear IOPC FoI & Data Request Team ,

Unfortunately you have NOT answered the specific question that I put to you. If you look back at the original request you will see that I asked for the proportion (percentage) of Police complaint investigation officers that came from a background in the Police as officers of some description (but not civilian, admin, call centre or clerical staff). The figures you have provided in your report are a percentage of the total IOPC workforce, which is not at all what I requested.

By way of example, what I am after is something along these lines :-

Out of the 1024 staff at the IOPC today, there are 300 active investigators who assess and make judgements on potential Police misconduct cases. Out of those 300 investigation officers, 120 (40%) held former positions as Police Officers, and 5% of the investigation officers previously held civilian positions at the Police.

It would of course be instructive to know how those figures have changed over time and to see which direction the trend is heading (i.e. More or less former Police Officers holding positions as IOPC investigators.

[material removed from public view due to defamation concerns]

Yours Sincerely,

Colin Alvin Rimmer
Ecohouse Victims Pressure Group

Link to this Report
!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.
 
Thank you for your email.
 
If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any
attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate
department to prepare the response.
 
FOI & DPA Team
 
This message and its content may contain confidential, privileged or
copyright information. They are intended solely for the use of the
intended recipient. If you received this message in error, you must not
disclose, copy, distribute or take any action which relies on the
contents. Instead, please inform the sender and then permanently delete
it. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the IOPC. Only
specified staff are authorised to make binding agreements on behalf of the
IOPC by email. The IOPC accepts no responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. The IOPC cannot
guarantee the security of this email or any attachments. While emails are
regularly scanned, the IOPC cannot take any liability for any virus that
may be transmitted with the internet. The IOPC communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff.

Link to this Report
!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This message has been hidden. Acknowledgement removed from public view because it quotes problematic material from the correspondence. Substance of message stated: " Thank you for your email. We will be conducting an internal review of our original FOIA response and expect to provide you with our findings on or before 16 December 2021. While we are aiming to complete your request within that timeframe, it is possible that our response will be delayed as a result of our current working arrangements under the COVID-19 outbreak. We will keep you updated should we be unable to respond by the due date." If you are the requester, then you may sign in to view the message. Please contact us if you have any questions.

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

3 Attachments

Dear Mr Rimmer

Please find attached our response to your request for internal review.

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information & Data Protection Team
Independent Office for Police Conduct
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW

0300 020 0096

www.policeconduct.gov.uk
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
The IOPC is proud to have achieved Customer Service Excellence accreditation​

show quoted sections

Link to this Report
Colin Alvin Rimmer
Delivered

Dear Gemma Thomson,

Thank you for your response

[extraneous material removed]

Yours Sincerely,

Colin Alvin Rimmer

Link to this Report
!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.
 
Thank you for your email.
 
If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any
attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate
department to prepare the response.
 
FOI & DPA Team
 
This message and its content may contain confidential, privileged or
copyright information. They are intended solely for the use of the
intended recipient. If you received this message in error, you must not
disclose, copy, distribute or take any action which relies on the
contents. Instead, please inform the sender and then permanently delete
it. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the IOPC. Only
specified staff are authorised to make binding agreements on behalf of the
IOPC by email. The IOPC accepts no responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. The IOPC cannot
guarantee the security of this email or any attachments. While emails are
regularly scanned, the IOPC cannot take any liability for any virus that
may be transmitted with the internet. The IOPC communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff.

Link to this Report
!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This message has been hidden. Acknowledgement hidden from public view due to quoting of material in request. If you are the requester, then you may sign in to view the message. Please contact us if you have any questions.

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This message has been hidden. Response hidden from public view as it quoted problematic material from the outgoing correspondence. Substance of response: "Dear Mr Rimmer Thank you for your email of 2 January 2022 in which you request confirmation as to whether or not a named member of our staff is a former Police Officer. We have considered your request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and this letter sets out our response. In relation to the context of your request, we would emphasise that the FOIA places a general duty on public authorities to allow access to official information it holds, subject to a number of statutory exceptions. The FOIA is a public disclosure regime and is said to be ‘applicant and motive blind’, which means information disclosed under it is thereafter deemed to be in the public domain and freely available to the public on request. We have decided that we are not obliged by the FOIA to provide the information you have requested. This is because the exemption under section 40(2) of the FOIA is engaged by this information. This exemption applies to personal data about someone other than the requester when disclosure would breach any of the data protection principles contained in Article 5 of the UK General Data Protection Regulations (UK GDPR). In this case we need to ensure that any personal data is processed in accordance with Article 5(1)(a), which means that it must be processed lawfully and fairly. The information you have requested clearly relates to this person in their personal capacity, with the result that it could be disclosed to you only if this was lawful and fair. In assessing the fairness of disclosing personal information under the FOIA it is necessary to recognise that such disclosure is effectively an unlimited disclosure to the world at large, without conditions, which could lead to unwarranted intrusion resulting in damage or distress. In addition, there is no presumption under the 1 February 2022 GDPR that openness and transparency should take priority over personal privacy. Since FOIA disclosures are made to ‘the world at large’ the IOPC would be prepared to comply with your request only if we could justify publishing this information on our web site. Other than in respect of its most senior staff, the IOPC does not publish information about its employees as this would clearly be contrary to their reasonable expectations. We conclude that your request does not identify a necessary justification for compliance with our FOIA duties in respect of this personal data. In reaching our decision, we have taken into account guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) on responding to FOIA requests for personal information about public employees. In particular we consider there is greater expectation of privacy in relation to less senior roles because such posts would not be expected to carry a level of accountability that would require the disclosure of significant personal details. It is also relevant that relatively few members of our staff occupy public facing roles in the sense of carrying responsibility for explaining the policies or actions of the public authority to the outside world, as would be the case for a member of the IOPC’s senior management team. This is why we publish details of our staff on a selective basis only. It may be possible to justify the release of the confirmation you require if it was likely that the decision making in question was affected by the individuals’ background and there were no measures in place to mitigate the risk of any bias or other deficiency on the part of IOPC employees. Our recruitment process relies on evidence of merit and appropriate skills and the performance of staff is regularly monitored and reviewed in accordance with our performance and development review process. Any shortcomings in performance or conduct are addressed by managers under our policies relating to capability and conduct. The IOPC therefore has confidence in its staff being able to carry out their work to the required standard. We conclude that your request does not identify a necessary justification for disclosure of this personal data after taking into account our procedures and practice in relation to recruitment, performance management and staff development. Having also considered the individual’s reasonable expectations regarding disclosure in all the circumstances of your request, we have decided that compliance is not supported by any of the conditions under article 6 of the GDPR because any legitimate interest in disclosure could not justify the invasion of privacy and potential detriment or other intrusion that would be likely to result. Accordingly, we have decided that disclosure would not be in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) UK GDPR, with the result that the exemption at section 40(2) of the FOIA applies to this information. We hope you find this helpful. If you have any questions about this request please contact us. Please remember to quote reference number 5023232 in any future correspondence about this matter." If you are the requester, then you may sign in to view the message. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Colin Alvin Rimmer
Delivered

Dear IOPC FoI Processor,

There is a strong public interest argument for knowing why the IOPC are dismissing cases that have a case to answer and showing unbridled bias towards protecting crooked Police officers who smear victims of fraud

[extraneous and personal information removed]

Yours sincerely,

Colin Alvin Rimmer

Link to this Report
!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.
 
Thank you for your email.
 
If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any
attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate
department to prepare the response.
 
FOI & DPA Team
 
This message and its content may contain confidential, privileged or
copyright information. They are intended solely for the use of the
intended recipient. If you received this message in error, you must not
disclose, copy, distribute or take any action which relies on the
contents. Instead, please inform the sender and then permanently delete
it. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the IOPC. Only
specified staff are authorised to make binding agreements on behalf of the
IOPC by email. The IOPC accepts no responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. The IOPC cannot
guarantee the security of this email or any attachments. While emails are
regularly scanned, the IOPC cannot take any liability for any virus that
may be transmitted with the internet. The IOPC communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff.

Link to this Report
!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This message has been hidden. Acknowledgment hidden as problematic material from the request was quoted: "Dear Mr Rimmer Thank you for your email. We will be conducting an internal review of our original FOIA response and expect to provide you with our findings on or before 8 March 2022. While we are aiming to complete your request within that timeframe, it is possible that our response will be delayed as a result of our current working arrangements under the COVID-19 outbreak. We will keep you updated should we be unable to respond by the due date. If you have any further queries regarding this matter, please contact us quoting reference number IR5023232." If you are the requester, then you may sign in to view the message. Please contact us if you have any questions.

This message has been hidden. misdirected correspondence removed from public view If you are the requester, then you may sign in to view the message. Please contact us if you have any questions.

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.
 
Thank you for your email.
 
If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any
attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate
department to prepare the response.
 
FOI & DPA Team
 
This message and its content may contain confidential, privileged or
copyright information. They are intended solely for the use of the
intended recipient. If you received this message in error, you must not
disclose, copy, distribute or take any action which relies on the
contents. Instead, please inform the sender and then permanently delete
it. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the IOPC. Only
specified staff are authorised to make binding agreements on behalf of the
IOPC by email. The IOPC accepts no responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. The IOPC cannot
guarantee the security of this email or any attachments. While emails are
regularly scanned, the IOPC cannot take any liability for any virus that
may be transmitted with the internet. The IOPC communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff.

Link to this Report
!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This message has been hidden. response noting previous email was misdirected removed from public view If you are the requester, then you may sign in to view the message. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Colin Alvin Rimmer
Delivered

Dear Independent Office for Police Conduct,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Independent Office for Police Conduct's handling of my FOI request 'Proportion of former Police Officers acting as IOPC Investigation Officers'.

[extraneous, personal and potentially defamatory material removed]

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

Yours faithfully,

Colin Alvin Rimmer

Link to this Report
!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.
 
Thank you for your email.
 
If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any
attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate
department to prepare the response.
 
FOI & DPA Team
 
This message and its content may contain confidential, privileged or
copyright information. They are intended solely for the use of the
intended recipient. If you received this message in error, you must not
disclose, copy, distribute or take any action which relies on the
contents. Instead, please inform the sender and then permanently delete
it. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the IOPC. Only
specified staff are authorised to make binding agreements on behalf of the
IOPC by email. The IOPC accepts no responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. The IOPC cannot
guarantee the security of this email or any attachments. While emails are
regularly scanned, the IOPC cannot take any liability for any virus that
may be transmitted with the internet. The IOPC communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff.

Link to this Report
!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This message has been hidden. Problematic material from outgoing correspondence quoted. Substance of response states: Dear Mr Rimmer I refer to your emails of 8 and 21 February, in which you request a review of the IOPC’s response to the request for information that you made on 2 January 2022. The purpose of an Internal Review is to determine whether the IOPC has dealt with the request in accordance with our obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Your request was for confirmation of whether or not a named member of our staff is a former police officer. Having considered your representations and the reasons for refusal put forward in our decision letter I have decided to uphold our decision that the exemption under section 40(2) is engaged by this information. You state: “I reasonably wish to know why my legitimate complaint against a Police officer was subverted by the IOPC. I believe that it was on account of the IOPC officer being unduly biased towards protecting the Police. The only way in which I can ascertain for certain whether bias played a part in the IOPC refusing to uphold my complaint, is to determine whether the IOPC officer was a former Police officer.” Our letter addresses the question of whether there may be a necessary justification for compliance with your request and concludes that this would neither be necessary for the purposes you have identified nor in the interests of accountability for our decision making more generally. In making this decision we took into account guidance from the Information Commissioner on the naming of public employees under FOIA and the means by which the IOPC ensures that its employees carry out their work to the required standard. I agree with these reasons for finding that section 40(2) is engaged and would remind you that the appropriate mechanism for challenging an IOPC decision is the judicial review procedure. The IOPC cannot undertake a fresh determination without a court order quashing our existing decision. If you wish to challenge the IOPC’s decision on your police complaint you must decide for yourself, after taking independent advice if required, whether or not you have grounds for a claim for judicial review. Under such a claim, any request for specific information would be considered in accordance with the rules on disclosure in civil litigation. Therefore if the required confirmation was relevant to seeking a review of this IOPC decision you would be likely to receive it in the course of proceedings. This concludes my review of our handling of your information request. As you may be aware, you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if you are dissatisfied with this response. Contact details are available at www.ico.org.uk . Yours sincerely If you are the requester, then you may sign in to view the message. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Colin Alvin Rimmer
Delivered

Dear IOPC FoI Officer,

The IOPC has perverted justice and the disciplinary process by failing to uphold a complaint that evidenced collusion between the Met Police and the SRA.

The Judicial Review is NOT a viable nor affordable means of challenging an illicit decision made by the IOPC, or any other public body for that matter, because it is beyond the means of the vast majority of UK citizens.

In an SRA consultation held in 2020, the SRA confirmed that 66% of the population have savings of less than £5,000 ; and that was before the pandemic. There is now rampant inflation and escalating energy costs. The effect of these matters combined means that the percentage quoted will have risen appreciably, meaning that the vast majority of the population do not have savings of £5,000, and are already living hand to mouth.

A Judicial Review could cost a person £25,000 , maybe more, so clearly it is beyond the means of the vast majority of the public - it is therefore neither a viable nor a practicable means of challenging an illicit decision made by a public body ; I think that this is precisely how the Government want things to remain. Public bodies simply don't want the public to have any ability to challenge their dubious decisions and their dubious protection of individuals who are culpable of wrongdoing.

This one page document explains why the Judicial Review facility is redundant to the public.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k1J1_Pg...

Even if an individual did happen to have a spare £25,000 kicking around, it would be madness to invest it in funding a Judicial Review in relation to challenging a relatively minor groundless decision made by a public body - there would be far more deserving purposes for such a large sum of money. More to the point, such is the level of corruption in the Government, its quangos, and regulatory authorities, it is highly likely that the High Court would be prejudiced towards protecting the authorities rather than acting in the public interest.

For the reasons, I would never consider bringing a Judicial Review. I have absolutely zero confidence in the justice system, zero confidence in solicitors (having been defrauded by SRA regulated solicitors), zero confidence in their regulator (the SRA - which covered up the fraud from the outset), nor the Metropolitan Police, which has made no arrests in over 7 years despite incontrovertible evidence of fraud and money laundering.

A fair synopsis of the situation is that the Government and its authorities are patently CORRUPT because they are all actively engaged in concealing criminality and obstructing justice against fraud [potentially defamatory material removed]

Yours sincerely,

Colin Rimmer

Link to this Report
!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.
 
Thank you for your email.
 
If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any
attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate
department to prepare the response.
 
FOI & DPA Team
 
We welcome correspondence in Welsh. We will respond to you in Welsh and
that this will not lead to delay.
Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg. Byddwn yn ymateb i chi yn Gymraeg
ac na fydd hyn yn arwain at oedi.
This message and its content may contain confidential, privileged or
copyright information. They are intended solely for the use of the
intended recipient. If you received this message in error, you must not
disclose, copy, distribute or take any action which relies on the
contents. Instead, please inform the sender and then permanently delete
it. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the IOPC. Only
specified staff are authorised to make binding agreements on behalf of the
IOPC by email. The IOPC accepts no responsibility for unauthorised
agreements reached with other employees or agents. The IOPC cannot
guarantee the security of this email or any attachments. While emails are
regularly scanned, the IOPC cannot take any liability for any virus that
may be transmitted with the internet. The IOPC communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff.
Gall y neges hon gynnwys gwybodaeth gyfrinachol, freintiedig neu
hawlfraint. Dim ond y derbynnydd arfaethedig ddylai eu defnyddio. Os ydych
chi wedi derbyn y neges hon trwy gamgymeriad, peidiwch â dosbarthu, copïo
neu gymryd unrhyw gamau sydd yn dibynnu ar y cynnwys. Yn lle, rhowch wybod
i’r anfonwr ac wedyn dileu’r neges yn barhaol os gwellwch yn dda. Barn yr
awdur yn unig yw’r safbwynt a barn a fynegir hyn ac nid o reidrwydd yn
cynrychioli barn yr IOPC. Dim ond staff penodol sydd ag awdurdod i wneud
cytundebau rhwymol ar ran yr IOPC trwy e-bost. Nid yw’r IOPC yn derbyn
unrhyw gyfrifoldeb am gytundebau diawdurdod y daethpwyd iddynt gyda
gweithwyr neu asiantau eraill. Ni all yr IOPC sicrhau diogelwch yr e-bost
hwn nac unrhyw atodiadau. Er bod e-byst yn cael eu sganio’n rheolaidd, ni
all yr IOPC gymryd unrhyw gyfrifoldeb am unrhyw firws y gellir ei
drosglwyddo gyda’r rhyngrwyd. Mae systemau cyfathrebu IOPC yn cael eu
monitro i’r graddau a ganiateir gan y gyfraith. O ganlyniad, gall unrhyw
e-bost a neu atodiadau gael ei ddarllen gan staff monitro.

Link to this Report