Special Inquiry Team

The request was successful.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

1. When was the Special Inquiry Team formed?

2. What is the function of the SET?

3. What cases and what types of cases has it been allocated in each of the last 5 years?

Yours faithfully,

Abdul Hai

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Someone has contacted me seeking more information. If you have anymore than please get in contact with me.

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Hai

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2017020001041

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 23/02/2017.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* 1. When was the Special Inquiry Team formed? 2. What is the function
of the SET? 3. What cases and what types of cases has it been
allocated in each of the last 5 years?  

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.  

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above. Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team
 
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 to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

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
Information Rights Unit
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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

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

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

The way that the Metropolitan Police behaved in Tower Hamlets is going to be looked into by HMIC. http://lovewapping.org/2017/03/rahman-wa...

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Hai

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2017020001041

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 23/02/2017. I note you seek
access to the following information:

"1. When was the Special Inquiry Team formed?
2. What is the function of the SET?
3. What cases and what types of cases has it been allocated in each of the
last 5 years?"

SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within the Specialist Crime and Operations - Special Enquiry Team. The
searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION

This letter is to inform you that it will not be possible to respond to
your request within the cost threshold. This response serves as a Refusal
Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
Please see the legal annex for further information on the exemptions
applied in respect of your request.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Costs Estimation - Question 3

Having made initial enquiries with the Special Enquiry Team (SET) it
became clear that it would exceed the appropriate limit to comply with
Question 3 of your request alone. The reason for this is because a manual
search of all records held over the last 5 years would be required in
order to establish what cases have been allocated to the SET during this
period. To explain further, not all of the assessments conducted by the
SET result in a criminal investigation or a criminal record, and matters
not recorded on the MPS criminal records system are not held in an easily
retrievable format. It would therefore exceed the appropriate limit to
conduct these particular searches and identify those cases that were not
recorded as a crime. The issue is compounded by the fact that this
information encompasses both electronic and hard copy documents, some of
which may now have been archived which would then require further
extensive searches. We therefore estimate that these searches alone will
take in excess of 18 hours.

We therefore estimate that the cost of complying with this request would
exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit has been specified in
regulations and for agencies outside central Government; this is set at
£450.00. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18
hours [at a rate of £25 per hour] in determining whether the MPS holds the
information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

Advice and Assistance

Under Section 16 we are required to provide you with advice and assistance
to assist you with submitting a new request for recorded information which
can be located, retrieved and extracted within the 18 hours specified by
the Act. I would like to advise you that we may be able to specify what
recorded criminal offences have been investigated by the SET over the
requested time period because this information can be easily retrieved
from the Crime Recording and Information System (CRIS). However as
highlighted above, this would only provide a portion of the total of those
cases that have been allocated. We may also be to comply with Questions 1
and 2 and confirm the types of cases the SET deal with within the
appropriate cost limit.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 161 4291 or via email at [email address],
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Deborah Solomon
Information Manager

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17(5) of the Act provides:

(5) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is relying on a claim that section 12 or 14 applies must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice stating that
fact.

Section 12(1) of the Act provides:

(1) Section 1 does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request
for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with
the request would exceed the appropriate limit.

Section 16(1) of the Act provides:

(1) It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and
assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do
so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information
to it.
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 to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

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
Information Rights Unit
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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  0303 123 1113

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

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Interesting developments it seems that the Met will be supporting Lutfur Rahman during his judicial review.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

1. When was the Special Inquiry Team formed?

2. What is the function of the SET?

3. What recorded offences has it investigated over the last 5 years?

Yours faithfully,

Abdul Hai

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Hai

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2017030001006

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 23/03/2017.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* 1. When was the Special Inquiry Team formed? 2. What is the function
of the SET? 3. What recorded offences has it investigated over the
last 5 years?

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.  

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above. Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team
 
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 to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

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
Information Rights Unit
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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

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

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Dear Mr Erlam

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Thank you for your request for information that was received on 3 April 2017 requesting:

1. how many discussions did the mayor have with the metropolitan police between 1st January 2017 and 9th February 2017?

2. How many such meetings after 9th February?

3. Who was the Met officer and what was the subject in each case?

We are dealing with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and we aim to send a response by 4 May 2017.

In some case, a fee may be payable. If we decide a fee is payable, we will send you a fee notice and we will require you to pay the fee before proceeding with your request.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 may restrict the release of some or all of the information you have requested. We will carry out an assessment and if any exemptions apply to some or all of the information then we might not provide that information to you. We will inform you if this is the case and advise you of your rights to request an internal review and to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office.

We will also advise you if we cannot provide you with the information requested for any other reason together with the reason(s) why and details of how you may appeal (if appropriate).

Yours sincerely

Jane Jones
Admin Officer
Legal Services
020 7364 4736
jane.jones@towerhamlets.gov.uk

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Raju Miah is Digital Communications Manager at the Metropolitan Police.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Hai

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2017030001006

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 23/03/2017. I note you seek
access to the following information:

"1. When was the Special Inquiry Team formed?
2. What is the function of the SET?
3. What recorded offences has it investigated over the last 5 years? "

SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within the Specialist Crime and Operations (SCO) - Special Enquiry Team
(SET). The searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION

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

Please find below information pursuant to your request above.

Question 1

"When was the Special Inquiry Team formed?"

The Special Enquiry Team has been in existence in a number of forms for
approximately 15 years. It was originally a unit within the SO6 Economic
and Serious Crime Command that dealt with fraud and corruption offences in
the public sector. In 2013, following an internal restructuring within the
MPS the unit was transferred to the SCO1 Homicide and Major Command.

Question 2
 
"What is the function of the SET?"

Please see the below extract from the SET Terms of Reference.

* To investigate sensitive and confidential enquiries within the
Metropolitan Police District involving high profile subjects and
domestic PEPs (politically exposed persons) which require Specialist
Crime involvement and do not fall within the remit of other specialist
units. For example MP's and Lord's Expenses.
* To assess and review allegations relating to offences committed by
those in public office and/or on the Parliamentary Estate where the
matter relates to the disclosure of their duties as a public official.
* To provide advice and assistance to other commands/force areas and the
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) regarding
allegations against MP's and Members of the European Parliament
(MEP's).
* To act as MPS lead for Electoral Offences. The SET are the MPS SPOC
for Electoral Fraud and Malpractice allegations, the majority of which
relate to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA), Parties
Political Elections and Referendum Act 2000 (PPERA) and Electoral
Administration Act 2006 (EAA).  
* Whilst respective boroughs maintain responsibility for the local
policing of elections, including policing polling stations and
community issues, the SET will provide specialist, focussed advice to
all MPS boroughs with regard to guidance and the SET works with the
Electoral Commission and local authorities in a proactive preventative
capacity to ensure free and fair elections.
* In addition commanding officers within the MPS may task the SET to
deal with other confidential cases not outlined above which are deemed
to be beyond the capability and capacity of borough police or other
units.

Question 3

"What recorded offences has it investigated over the last 5 years? "

Since 2013 the SET has investigated over 170 recorded criminal offences
relating to Misconduct in Public Office, offences under the Representation
of the People Act 1983 (RPA), the Parties Political Elections and
Referendum Act 2000 (PPERA) and the Electoral Administration Act 2006
(EAA), False Accounting, Perjury and Perverting the Course of Justice.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 161 4291 or via email at [email address],
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Deborah Solomon
Information Manager

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law.  Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 10 Lambs Conduit Street, London, WC1N 3NR.
 
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 to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

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
Information Rights Unit
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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

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

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Meeting with Stuart Cundy FOI

1. Has the mayor met or arranged to meet Commander Stuart Cundy of the Metropolitan Police?

2. If so, what is the subject or proposed subject? Is the conduct of the police in relation to the compromised voter fraud investigation or the investigation of financial fraud at the town hall?

3. Does the mayor consider that it is appropriate for such a meeting to take place while Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabularies is preparing arrangements for an inspection of this investigation?

4. Is there any connection with the police in Thailand?

Andy Erlam

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Subject: Call for evidence - New police investigation into Tower Hamlets voter fraud and all associated serious criminal offences.

Following the decision last week of the Met police to launch an entirely fresh investigation, we are appealing for details of all suspected offences. These will be presented and re-presented to the police.

The election offences are well documented as regards the mayoral elections but new allegations have arisen about election fraud by elected councillors as well as the Whitechapel by election in December.

In addition, new allegations of fraud and misfeasance connected with Tower Hamlets town hall have also been made.

These have included: continuation of fraudulent grants to voluntary organisations; abuse of leaseholders; misuse of council properties; irregularities in the collection of business rates; misuse of social services; suspected corrupt land deals; police overlooking serious crimes; misfeasance in public office.

We are looking for a short summary of the allegations, details and documentary evidence. These can be sent to this email or me Andy Erlam, 27 Old Gloucester Street, London, WC2N 3AX. If you wish to send these directly to the police, please indicate this and we will forward the contact officer's details. Anonymous allegations will be considered but please send as much detail as possible to enable the allegations to be investigated.

The deadline is 17th May.

We intend to have a conference with senior Met officers shortly afterwards to present all allegations for investigations. This may be a great opportunity to bring a higher standard of policing to the borough. Please circulate this as widely as possible. Thanks for your assistance.

Andy Erlam.

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Archive Move Delete Spam More
Fwd: Call for evidence - New police investigation into Tower Hamlets voter fraud and all associated serious criminal offences. PRESS RELEASE.
People
Andy Erlam <andyerlam@ymail.com> Today at 20:49
Message body
Anti-Corruption campaigners have appealed to people in Tower Hamlets have appealed for evidence of corruption, financial fraud at the town hall and connected serious crime.

Andy Erlam said: "We will be having a conference with senior police officers in early June after the Met's decision to start a new investigation into voter fraud and all associated criminal activity. Nothing is excluded, even concerns of police corruption."

The deadline is 17th May also the date of the Judicial Review application launched by Lutfur Rahman.

Further details: Andy Erlam 07795 547033.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Andy Erlam <andyerlam@ymail.com>
Date: 27 April 2017 19:49:15 BST
Subject: Call for evidence - New police investigation into Tower Hamlets voter fraud and all associated serious criminal offences.

Following the decision last week of the Met police to launch an entirely fresh investigation, we are appealing for details of all suspected offences. These will be presented and re-presented to the police.

The election offences are well documented as regards the mayoral elections but new allegations have arisen about election fraud by elected councillors as well as the Whitechapel by election in December.

In addition, new allegations of fraud and misfeasance connected with Tower Hamlets town hall have also been made.

These have included: continuation of fraudulent grants to voluntary organisations; abuse of leaseholders; misuse of council properties; irregularities in the collection of business rates; misuse of social services; suspected corrupt land deals; police overlooking serious crimes; misfeasance in public office.

We are looking for a short summary of the allegations, details and documentary evidence. These can be sent to this email or me Andy Erlam, 27 Old Gloucester Street, London, WC2N 3AX. If you wish to send these directly to the police, please indicate this and we will forward the contact officer's details. Anonymous allegations will be considered but please send as much detail as possible to enable the allegations to be investigated.

The deadline is 17th May.

We intend to have a conference with senior Met officers shortly afterwards to present all allegations for investigations. This may be a great opportunity to bring a higher standard of policing to the borough. Please circulate this as widely as possible. Thanks for your assistance.

Andy Erlam.

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Response (all information to be supplied).pdf1/ 1
FOI: 8215866 Discussions between the mayor and the Metropolitan police.1. how many discussions did the mayor have with the metropolitan police between 1st January 2017 and 9th February 2017? 2. How many such meetings after 9th February? 3. Who was the Met officer and what was the subject in each case? The Mayor of Tower Hamlets has attended the following meetings with officers of the Metropolitan Police in 2017:25th January 2017 – meeting of the Tower Hamlets Strategic Partnership, attendees included Mayor John Biggs and Detective Chief Superintendent Sue Williams2nd February 2017 - Mayor Biggs was accompanied by two Metropolitan Police officers (Chief Superintendent Martin Kirby and Doug Rushworth) on a visit to Newham Council to discuss their approach to enforcement.20th February – regular meeting between Mayor John Biggs and borough commander Detective Chief Superintendent Sue Williams. Also present: Will Tuckley and Pete Robbins. Subjects discussed: MOPAC priorities, Tower Hamlets electoral fraud, photo ID election pilot, Junior Citizenship, Anti-Social Behaviour Review21st February – meeting with Sophie Linden, Deputy Mayor Policing and Crime, to discuss MOPAC priorities. Attendees from the Metropolitan Police: Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Mark Simmons, Detective Chief Superintendent Sue Williams. Other LBTH attendees: Mayor John Biggs, Cllr Shiria Khatun, Will Tuckley, Denise Radley

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2017030001225

I write in response to your request for information that was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 13th March 2017. I apologise for the delay in responding to your request and any inconvenience caused. I note that you seek access to the following information:

"1. What meetings have been arranged by the Met to deal with the fall-out from the voter fraud saga?

2. What are the dates, venues, purpose and invitees of these meetings?

3. Which police officers will be attending each meeting and why?

4. Will the Met consider an alternative approach and invite all those closely involved in the case to ONE meeting?

5. What is the procedure for the Met handing over a case to the City of London police for ethical reasons."

Following receipt of your request, I have conducted searches to locate information relevant to your request. These searches located the requested information.

DECISION

I have disclosed the located information to you. Please find the answers to each of your questions below.

"1. What meetings have been arranged by the Met to deal with the fall-out from the voter fraud saga?"

Meetings are currently being arranged for individuals involved in the investigation into election fraud at Tower Hamlets.

"2. What are the dates, venues, purpose and invitees of these meetings?"

At this time no dates or venues have been identified as the invitations have recently been sent out. The purpose will be to discuss how each individual can assist the investigative process.

"3. Which police officers will be attending each meeting and why?"

Members of the investigation team will attend each meeting albeit named officers have not been identified at this time. The officers will attend each meeting to discuss the investigative opportunities that individuals have.

"4. Will the Met consider an alternative approach and invite all those closely involved in the case to ONE meeting?"

At this time it is felt that individual meetings are better suited to gathering evidence.

"5. What is the procedure for the Met handing over a case to the City of London police for ethical reasons."

A meeting between the MPS and City of London Police has taken place to discuss the terms of reference for the investigation. The appropriate information will then be passed from the MPS to the City of London Police.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

This notice concludes your request for information. I would like to thank you for your interest in the MPS.

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

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write or contact Ian Burgess on telephone number 0207 161 3640 quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Ian Burgess
Information Manager

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

The following information is for election related crimes.

Email: SETelections@met.police.uk
call 101, or
contact Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Subject: Freedom of Information Request.

1. What are the terms of reference of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabularies inspection of the Metropolitan Police "investigation" into voter fraud allegations and the election court finding on election fraud in Tower Hamlets? When were they finalised?

2. When did the inspection start and when is it expected to finish?

3. What staff resources are being devoted to the inspection.

4. Who has the inspector consulted about the terms of reference?

5. Why has the HMIC inspector leading the inspection not consulted the election petitioners who raised the election fraud allegations in the first place?

6. Has the inspector consulted the Police Committee about the terms of reference? If not, why not?

Yours sincerely,

Andy Erlam.

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Tower Hamlets police liaison with the Royal Courts of Justice in the 2015 election court hearing against Lutfur Rahman.

Freedom of Information Request.

1. Why was there liaison between Tower Hamlets police and the court manager prior to this case? I understand that this was at inspector level.

2. Why was Mr. Rahman provided with a two uniformed police officer escort on the first day he gave evidence and 5 uniformed officer escort on the second day? (The 5 officers on day 2 of Mr. Rahman's evidence said they had been drafted in from Paddington police station.)

3. Did Tower Hamlets police request that a seat be specifically reserved next to the witness box only when Mr. Rahman was giving evidence and what was the purpose?

4. If another part of the Met made these arrangements who and why?

5. What was the cost of the deployment of police officers to escort Mr. Rahman over the 2 days he gave evidence?

6. Why were the same facilities not offered to other witnesses, particularly those allegedly the subjects of threats, including most importantly death threats?

7. Why did the Met regard the case as 'sensitive'?

8. How was this overt police support of Mr. Rahman in-line with the Police Assignation?

I would be grateful if you would accept these questions as Freedom of Information Requests.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Erlam.

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

FS50666983 Mr Andy Erlam.doc1/ 6
Mr Andy Erlamandyerlam@ymail.com Ms Narinder MinhasInformation Rights UnitMetropolitan Police ServicePO Box 57192LondonSW6 1TRTelephone: 0207 161 2597Email:narinder.minhas@met.police.ukwww.met.police.ukICO ref: FS50666983Our ref: 20170500000747th June 2017Dear Mr ErlamFreedom of Information Appeal MPS Reference No: 2017050000074I am write in relation to your letter of complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) with regards to your request for information to the Metropolitan Police Service dated 27th December 2016 in respect of the above matter.Firstly, I would like to apologise for the time taken to complete this appeal and to thank-you for your understanding in that regard.I note that you have requested the following information:-1. How many complaints has the Met received about Tower Hamlets police in each ofthe last 5 years?2. What was the nature and outcome of each complaint?3. What is the attitude of the present Commissioner towards freemasonry in the police generally and towards the activities of Lodge 9179, the Lodge of St. James’s, in particular?4. Is Sir Bernard Hogan Howe a freemason?5. Is the Commissioner and Home Secretary aware that Lodge 9179 is engaged in ordering unofficial police operations?6. What would the Commissioner’s attitude be towards unofficial police operations being effectively ordered from the Lodge? Having considered the previous applications in respect of the requested information, Ican confirm that the MPS wish to vary it’s original decision as follows:-Question 1 & 2Please find attached the requested information.FOIA Response - Complaints for Tower Hamlets.xls
Questions 3 & 6I have decided that, in accordance with Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this part of your request is not considered a valid request as you appear to be asking for information about the Commissioners “attitude”. In my opinion this part of your request is not valid. Under the Act, members of the public are entitled to information held by a public authority, subject to the application of exemptions. By implication, information must be that which is ‘recorded’ and thus is unlikely to be ‘opinion’. In addition, the Act does not require authorities to create information, and thus we are not obliged to ‘create’ answers to questions asking about the Commissioners attitude towards freemasonry in general.As far as I can interpret from the wording of your request, you are not asking for specific recorded information instead for a general comment “what is the attitude of the present Commissioner towards freemasonry in the police generally and towards the activities of Lodge 9179, the Lodge of St. James’s, in particularly” and “what would the Commissioner’s attitude be towards unofficial police operations being effectively ordered from the Lodge.” As these remarks do not appear to be asking foranything that would be covered by recorded information held by the MPS, I believe they do not comply with section 8 and therefore the MPS is not obliged to comply. Decision Notice FS50576051 It was The Commissioners view that this particular request was seeking an opinion or explanation and not actual information that may be recorded therefore not a request for information as per section 8 of the Act, rather questions seeking an opinion. As they are not requests for information the Commissioner could not include them in his decision.https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak... Decision Notice FS50611176 The Commissioner considered that the wording of section 8(1)(c) is clear and should bear its plain meaning. This provision simply requires the request to describe the information requested. In this instance the request seeks an opinion or explanation from the Constabulary. It did not refer to anyactual information that may be recorded. It was The Commissioners view that this was not a request for information as per section 8 of the FoIA, rather it consists of questions seeking an opinion. As it was not a request for recorded information the Commissioner did not consider it further. https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak... Notice FS50558958 The Commissioner view was that the requests do not ask for recorded information. Instead they were phrased as questions designed to obtain an explanation from the council therefore it was concluded they were not a request for information as per section 8 of the Act.https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak... 4The MPS has decided to change our decision to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) whether it holds the requested information by virtue of section 40(5)(b)(i) Personal Information.
The MPS considers that to confirm or deny the existence of information relating to this request would indeed reveal personal information relating to a living individual and that such an acknowledgement either way, would be unfair, thereby breaching principle one of the Data Protection Act 1984.Personal data is defined in the Data Protection Act 1998 as information about a livingindividual who can be identified from that information, or from that information and other information in the possession of, or likely to come into the possession of, the data controller.The principle of ‘neither confirm nor deny’ is long established, and it is recognised that in some circumstances simply confirming or denying whether requested information is held could itself disclose sensitive and damaging information.Under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act, the MPS is not required to comply with the requirements of section 1(1)(a) i.e. the duty to inform the applicantwhether or not the information is held. Section 40(5)(b)(i) is applicable in circumstances where a confirmation or denial in relation to whether information is held would breach one or more of the data protection principles specified within the Data Protection Act 1998. In this instance, for the MPS to officially confirm or deny whether information is held under the Act would publicly disclose personal information about an individual. This would be personal data as defined within section1 of the Data Protection Act 1998. In order for section 40(5)(b)(i) of the Act to be applied, we must establish two elements. The first is that confirming whether or not the information is held would reveal the personal data of a data subject as defined in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act. The second is that confirming whether or not the information is held would contravene one of the data protection principles. In this instance, the requested information would clearly relate to a named individual who can be identified from that data. Confirmation or denial that the information is held would inevitably constitute a disclosure of personal data. Personal data is defined in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act (DPA) as:“data which relate to a living individual who can be identified-a) from those data orb) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of the data controller, and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intention of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual”.ICO guidance points to two main elements of personal data in that the information must relate to a living person and that person must be identifiable. Information will relate to a person if it is about them, linked to them, has some biographical significance for them, is used to inform decisions affecting them and has them as its main focus or impacts on them in anyway. The MPS is therefore satisfied that confirming or denying whether information is held would constitute the disclosure of personal data. As per the ICO’s guidance, page 36, paragraph 113 & 114 – If the authority complies with the request, it will, in effect, be making unrestricted disclosure of personal data to the general public on the strength of an individual requester’s private interests. A disclosure of this nature could constitute a disproportionate and unwarranted level of interference with the data subjects’ rights of freedoms (particularly their right to the protection of their personal data under Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).
https://ico.org.uk/media/1213/personal-i... responding to questions via FoIA we would be disclosing personal information in the public domain about an individual which would be unfair as disclosure would be to the world. The MPS is therefore satisfied that confirming or denying whether information is held would constitute the disclosure of personal data and it would be unfair to do so. Section 40(5)(b)(i) is engaged.The below link may be of interest to you with regards to Freemasons and the Metropolitan Police Service:- London mayor Sadiq Khan has refused to force Metropolitan Police officers to declare membership of the Freemasons, saying such a move would be illegal. Mr Khan said: “The met is bound by the legislation of the Police Regulations Act 2003which states that no restrictions other than those designed to secure the proper exercise of the functions of a constable shall be imposed on the private life of members of the police force.” Adding that an Italian case showed that a compulsory Metropolitan Police freemasonry register would breach human rights laws, he added:“In 2007, a European Court of Human Rights judgement was made in relation to an Italian lodge and a local authority which ruled that any requirement to declare [membership of Freemasonry] is in violation of Article 11 (the right of lawful association) taken in conjunction with Article 14 (the right not to be discriminated against) of the European Convention on Human Rights.”http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hom... tribunal in the case of Guardian & Brooke v The Information Commissioner & theBBC [EA/2006/0011 and EA/2006/0013] (following Hogan and Oxford City Council &The Information Commissioner [EA/2005/0026 and EA/2005/0030]) confirmed that ”Disclosure under FoIA is effectively an unlimited disclosure to the public as a whole, without conditions”.http://foiwiki.com/foiwiki/info_tribunal... Notice FS50070769 and Decision Notice FS50073129 refer. The MPS is also guided by the ICO’s DN FS50300474 as to whether a decision is correct to neither confirm nor deny that information is held:- http://ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/deci... Notice FS50669724 The Commissioner stated that the request clearly refers to a named individual. The Commissioner was therefore satisfied that confirmation or denial as to whether or not any information was held would disclose something about the named party and therefore result in the processing of his personal data.https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak... Notice FS50591863, First-Tier Tribunal EA/2015/0250 & Upper TribunalGIA/1496/2016 - The complainant requested information about a named MP. The Commissioner agreed with the MPS to neither confirm nor deny holding the information by virtue of section 40(5)(b)(i) Personal Information. The First-Tier Tribunal upheld The Commissioner's reasoning throughout the decision notice and permission was refused to appeal in the Upper Tribunal.

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Single point of contact Met Police Tower Hamlets elections
0207 275 4697.

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Message by Andy Erlam on Trial by Jeory forum.

The council “hotline” to report voter fraud isnt that hot. Out of 3 test calls, the first two were cut off after a confused staff member appeared not to be prepared to take calls or complaints. The Met police eventually revealed that they had a Single Point of Contact for anything to do with the election but it did not want contact details published. The line is unobtainable today and an alternative number cut you off after a brief unhelpful message.

It almost seems as though there is a deliberate policy by the Met and LBTH to make sure there are not too many complaints recorded. The Electoral Commission has congratulated the borough for the reforms introduced since 2015, so that cant be true.

We can look forward to the Mayoral and local councillor elections in May 2018 which are as corrupt as those held in 2014.

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Andy Erlam message via email.

Neither the Tower Hamlets election helpline nor the Met police single point of contact for the election are functioning today, election day, despite the history of massive voter fraud in the borough.

Ive just tested the "helplines". They are a shambles.

The council line 020 7364 7192 was answered in a confused way and i was then cut off - twice. On a third attempt it wasn't answered.

Police 0207 275 4697 is unobtainable.

Police staff office 0207 275 3885 - no reply, recorded general message, then cut off.

Obviously the Met and the council do not want any complaints about the election!

"There is a deliberate attempt by the authorities to obstruct genuine serious complaints from the electorate. It beggars belief after all that has happened that vote security is still neglected. The council, the Met police and the Electoral Commission should hold their heads in shame. With all their resources, they cant do the basics. I can only assume that there is a deliberate ploy to minimise recorded complaints and concerns. The 2018 mayoral election will again be plagued with corruption unless this is fixed."

Andy Erlam 07795 547033.

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

I think the police figure of ONE complaint in Tower Hamlets is completely inaccurate.

The election helpline provided by the council was not operable when tested today several times.

The police Single Point of Contact telephone number was also out-of-service. The staff room number given as an alternative point of contact had a recorded message, then cut off. Frankly, I find this absolutely staggering.

Given all that has happened in the borough in recent years, this is extremely concerning. Obviously if the official channels for making complaints are closed many complaints will not be received or recorded by the police or council.

This suggests that unless there are radical improvements on monitoring arrangements, involving the community, the 2018 mayoral election and local councillor elections will be as corrupt as the infamous 2014 mayoral election. This is the last thing that the borough needs.

Andy Erlam.

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Please advertise the INDEPENDENT vote rigging hotline. Messages, preferably by text, to:

07879 151031

We also have an email operated by Anti-Corruption Investigations LLP:

info@acillp.co.uk

We will not be able remedy problems immediately but we will take all complaints to the authorities and fight for prosecutions and other remedies. Anonymous information seriously considered. Otherwise please leave name and contact details.

"During election day none of the police and local authority "hotlines" were working. After all that has happened this is very concerning."

Please disseminate this information as widely as possible.

-ENDS-

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Inspection of the Met over its investigation into vote rigging in Tower Hamlets.

1. What are the terms of reference of this inspection?

2. Who was consulted before these terms of reference were agreed and why?

3. Why were the election petitioners not consulted and others with expertise such as Cllr. Peter Golds?

4. When will the inspection conclude? What happens to the report?

Yours sincerely,

Andy Erlam.

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Why is the Met police Special Enquiry Team involved in the Grenfell Tower fire enquiry?

The SET is used to investigate politically sensitive cases. See below.

Why do politically sensitive criminal enquiries need a different approach?

SET investigated voter fraud in Tower Hamlets. Police have been accused of a cover-up in that borough. There have been no criminal prosecutions after 3 years.

1. Why has SET been brought into investigate Grenfell?

2. Why do sensitive cases require a difference approach? We are all equal in the eyes of the law.

3. Are the police and is the government currently deliberately underestimating the scale of the casualties in order to manage public opinion?

Andy Erlam.
07795 547033.

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Lutfur Rahman Judicial Review judgement 10am Wednesday 21st. June 2017. Press Conference. 10am, main entrance Royal Courts of Justice, London.

Andy

The judgement will be handed down at the High Court in London at 10.00 next Wednesday.

The Petitioners will be making a media statement the media at 10.30 am immediately after hearing the judgement on the steps of the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London, WC2A 2LL.

Further information:

Andy Erlam 07795 547033.

Angela Moffatt 07714 792651.

Jason Pavlou 07879 151031.

Kareema Motala 07940 961833.

-ENDS-

Note to Editors.

Lutfur Rahman was banned from public office for 5 years having been found guilty of election fraud in 2015 by a special ground-breaking election court 5-week hearing in the Royal Courts of Justice. Richard Mawrey QC was the judge in that case.

Mr. Rahman's out-of-time JR application sought to begin to overturn that conviction. The Petitioners were represented by Mr. Francis Hoar, direct access barrister, at Fieldcourt Chambers, Lincoln's Inn, London.

The Petitioners have been highly critical of what they see as inaction by the Metropolitan police to proceed with criminal prosecutions and of both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Electoral Commission for "complacency and worse."

However, the police and the CPS joined Mr. Hoar in opposing Mr. Rahman's application.

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Not much information on HMIC. http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/h...

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Dear Mr. Currie,

Thankyou.

Presumably you will be asking why the SET team did not examine the 27 files of evidence presented to court and why the SET did not seek to interview witnesses? SET officers admitted nor reading the election court judgement which astonished me.

Councillor Peter Golds is hugely well informed about these matters but was never asked to supply evidence. There are several others. We work above party politics.

My suspicion is that the police were compromised in their work on Lutfur Rahman. There was no criminal investigation worthy of the name. Whether the present new investigation is any better remains to be seen. I do not know who or why but the further suspicion is that SET was engaged in a police cover-up.

I am disappointed that you have not apparently sought to obtain information from stakeholders in this case. I understand that you did consult the Met and the London Mayor's police office, neither of which can be said to be impartial. I would respectfully suggest that over-reliance on official sources may unintentionally influence your inspection.

I would like to offer to meet with you and know of several others with important and crucial information for your inspection.

As the Grenfell case shows, when community stakeholders are ignored or even targeted, otherwise good intended official inquiries go off-piste. Anyway, its a matter of course for your decision.

Please let me know if you wish to accept my offer.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Erlam.

Abdul Hai left an annotation ()

Disgraced former elected mayor of Tower Hamlets had lost his appeal today trying to overturn his election court convictions for election fraud.
K
The High Court today handed down the judgement rejecting Mr. Rahman's application.

Lead Petitioner Andy Erlam said today after the judgement: "We are delighted that the court rejected the application which seemed without merit. Mr. Rahman needs to admit to himself that he did wrong, serve his 5 year ban from public office and pay our legal costs which in total amount to about £500,000."

"There has been a complete cover-up by the authorities. The new and current Met criminal investigation needs to end with criminal charges against wrong-doers. There are 27 files of evidence tested to the criminal standard.

"The fraud squad, ideally from say, the City of London police, needs to be sent into the town hall to expose industrial scale financial fraud."

"Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabularies, which is scrutinising the Met's role in this case, have asked me to advise them on what matters to investigate and I an happy to do so."

"The Electoral Commission also needs a real shake-up with new duties to stamp out voter fraud. The Chief Executive and Chair of the EC should be sacked not awarded CBEs!

"I will also be writing to Jeremy Corbyn advising him to make Tower Hamlets Labour Party transparent, accountable and democratic. Presently it is a blot on his otherwise principled landscape."

Andy Erlam 07795 547033.