Category: British police

Posted on

Turning a Blind Eye. How West Yorkshire Combined Authority Helps Local Police to Evade Accountability.

In this blog post you will learn how local authority organisations tasked with holding the police to account will fail to do so. Because even when there is significant evidence of misconduct on the part of the force, including attempts to suppress a reasonable investigation, the supervisory organisation will ignore this and prefer instead their own tick box review of police misconduct which fails to address or examine the police’s deliberate mishandling of a complaint.

The issues raised concern West Yorkshire Police and West Yorkshire Combined Authority.

One of the issues we continue to return to in this blog is the inability of supervisory organisations to be able to hold other organisations lower down the food chain to account.

This occurs for a number of reasons. In this matter it is both historically the case that locally based organisations tasked with holding West Yorkshire Police to account are incapable of doing so, but also when such organisations commit an error in their own review of an investigation they ignore the error in any subsequent correspondence. At all stages the emphasis is maintenance of public confidence in the police complaint system, which results in a failure to properly examine and investigate complaints raised with proper rigour.

This matter concerns West Yorkshire Combined Authority and their inability to be able to hold West Yorkshire Police to account when the police’s Professional Standards Department Standards Dept. fail to properly investigate a complain. Indeed even when they appear to have deliberately scuppered a complaint investigation WYCA do nothing. The authority’s website states that one of their functions is “holding the Chief Constable to account” categorically this is not true. When an instance of abuse of power or process occurs WYCA look the other way.

Alison Lowe OBE is the West Yorkshire Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime (DMPC). She is pictured below. The supervision of the local force is her responsibility and ultimately that of West Yorkshire Mayor Tracy Brabin.

Alison Lowe is currently the person next in line responsible for supervision of police after the local mayor.

But first let’s travel back into the mists of time. 

Prior to West Yorkshire Combined Authority taking over supervision of police complaints in relation to West Yorkshire Police there existed a Police and Crime Commissioner. This was Mark Burns-Williamson.

During his time as police and crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire he proved not only significantly gaffe prone but also incapable of holding West Yorkshire Police to account.

The reason for this inability to hold the force to account is widely known. Burns-Williamson was involved in a messy love triangle in which he wrote an unfortunately worded letter to his rival. This matter was suppressed by West Yorkshire Police DI Simon Bottomley and since then until the end of his tenure in post in 2021 Burns-Williamson would avoid using PCC powers to hold the force to account. He was literally caught by the nuts by West Yorkshire Police who because of their suppression of the complaint about the letter had a significant hold over him. This prevented the Police and Crime Commissioner from fully exercising their reasonable duties in holding Police to account.

The Burns-Williamson inaction figure is available in bearded and clean-shaven variants. Optional dodgy contents of his office safe play set also available!

Burns-Williams time as commissioner was characterised by a series of notorious exposures of misconduct in public office on the part of the organisation he was tasked with supervising. West Yorkshire Police have an international reputation for incompetence and dishonesty practiced even on those in their own ranks and the period of a Police and Crime Commissioner supposedly supervising them was characterised by a new intensity of incompetence, corruption and smearing from all levels of the force.  

Now let us move forward to the present. 

The College of Policing publishes a Code of Ethics, which is routinely ignored and in fact the subject of of humour amongst many police forces. It also provides a series of guides of behaviour and conduct that it deems reasonable for officers to be able to show in the course of their duties. This covers a number of different aspects of policing and is in effect a Code of Conduct broadly similar to The Highway Code in that it provides a structure of behaviour that would give the public confidence they are being policed correctly. The more an officer adheres to what the College of Policing guidelines are in a situation the less likely it is that they will go off on their own tangent and open themselves and their Chief Constable to a charge of misconducting themselves.  

One of these guidelines covers how officers should conduct themselves when undertaking visits to the home of a member of the public. The code is clear in how officers should behave when on home visits.

This isn’t photoshopped.
A lot of modern Plods really are this out of condition!

In an October 2020 visit to a member of the public’s home two officers of West Yorkshire Police attended. One of them breached the guidance in a clear and obvious way. So clearly in fact that the breach was obvious to all, including the colleague they attended with. This was subject to a complaint to West Yorkshire Police made shortly afterwards.

Complaints to West Yorkshire Police are examined and considered – although more often than not dismissed on spurious grounds – by their Professional Standards Department. The logic of allowing police to investigate themselves is perhaps better left to others to explain.

In this matter they did three things to dishonestly skew the complaint in their favour. The three facts below represent a salutary warning to anyone who makes a complaint regarding the police that they will seek to loose evidence not in their favour and misdirect the investigation.

One

A complaint of the breach of the Code was made shortly after the visit. The officers in attendance wore body worn video, which could have proved the substance of the complaint to be factually accurate. But the body worn video was allowed to be destroyed before being viewed by Professional Standards Department at West Yorkshire Police. No attempt to retain the material for viewing was made. Thus the first piece of clear evidence that misconduct occurred on the home visit was lost. Likely deliberately.

Two

Significantly also a witness present at the home address during the visit was not questioned or approached in any way by police investigating the complaint. Again as with the loss of the body worn video footage this likely occurred to skew the process of the complaint investigation in favour of West Yorkshire Police exonerating the officer whose conduct had been highlighted. In the same way police failed to interview the other officer not subject to the complaint of a breach of the Code. Again this is deliberate action to skew the complaint investigation in the police’s favour.

Three

Then in the most devious manipulation of the complaint process West Yorkshire Police misdirected the complaint by investigating the officer who had not committed the breach of The College of Policing guidance rather than the one who clearly did. This together with the destruction of body worn video footage – which would have proven the complaint was factually sound – and the refusal to approach a witness to the facts are suggestive of an organisation which has attempted to suppress an investigation which would have found against one of their officers.

This is not however a new thing for West Yorkshire Police. Their Professional Standards Department standards department has dozens of different ways of minimising, trivialising, diffusing and reducing a complaint to the point where, however reasonable and valid it may be, the matter will not be investigated or assessed with rigour due to it. The point of this is of course the maintaining of professional reputation.

What price police reputation and integrity? Well at the moment about the same as this old badge goes for on eBay.

The 2021 independent report into the murder of journalist Daniel Morgan and the failure to solve the crime by the Metropolitan Police defined institutional corruption as:

“Concealing or denying failings, for the sake of the organisation’s public image, is dishonesty on the part of the organisation for reputational benefit and constitutes a form of institutional corruption.”

In circumstances large or small the police are prepared to manipulate cynically the complaints system in order to get officers off the hook. And in such situations the need for reasonably effective and careful supervision of police Professional Standards Departments is clear.

However staff at West Yorkshire combined authority specifically the Deputy Mayor’s office, who are tasked with supervision of police complaints where the complainant seeks review, seem to be suffering an unfortunate hangover from the days of Mark Burns-Williamson.

Police failed to find in favour of the complainant. The mishandling of the complaint worked rather well for them. So the matter was referred to the Deputy Mayor’s office at West Yorkshire Combined Authority. This is the next stage in the procedure of the complaints process. 

The matter was initially assessed and investigated by Karen Grey of West Yorkshire Combined Authority. 

And important fact to remember in relation to any complaint that you may refer to such as a Police and Crime Commissioner, a local authority, or The Independent Office of Police Complaints is that the matter that was originally under investigation by the police’s Professional Standards Department will not be investigated again.  

This means that police can misdirect any complaint made about their behaviour at the initial stages of that complaint and that the later appeals stages will not look for or attempt to correct those errors. The complaints system is being tactically gamed therefore to maintain the police’s professional reputation. Local authority organisations and IOPC are assisting in this.

The body tasked with review of the Police findings in respect of a complaint will conduct a tick box exercise which is essentially to review if the police have fulfilled their own tick-box exercise within their earlier complaint investigation. There will be no investigation into egregious breaches of procedure or abuse of process.

In keeping with this the investigation of the wrong person was missed by Karen Gray. The destruction of body worn video footage barely warranted a mention and the failure to interview a witness or the other officer present likewise. In short the means by which West Yorkshire Police had skewed the investigation, by dishonest means and to evade finding against one of their own officers for a breach of the College of Policing Code, were ignored by the review process.

This does not in anyway represent effective oversight of the police’s own handling of complaints. The same personnel who were present when the organisation was the Police and Crime Commissioner up until 2021 have moved to the new Combined Authority / Mayor’s office. Given that the reasons PCC Mark Burns-Williamson was incapable of holding police to account are well-known I’m forced to ponder what the WYCA’s excuse for the same lamentable lack of diligence is?

The suboptimal nature of the Combined Authority’s review of the police handling of a complaint, the critical facts of West Yorkshire Police’s own purposeful mishandling of the complaint in order to draw conclusions that police had handled the complaint in line with their obligations

A further review by Julie Reid, Head of Policing and Crime at West Yorkshire Combined Authority, failed to acknowledge that Karen Grey had made any errors in the handling of the complaint. So in effect then while the original complaint was subject to malfeasance from police, the complaint to WYCA about Gray’s mishandling of the original matter was also covered-up.

The ultimate price of this is paid by the public of course. While police are able to cover up misdeeds with impunity and the review organisation also fails to admit it has failed to spot key errors in its own investigation the standard of policing will never improve

Posted on

An Easter Miracle!

Only around one in ten complaints made to the police of poor conduct, breach of the College of Policing Code of Ethics etc. are found in favour of the person who’s complained.

This is because poor, ineffectual and incompetent investigations into complaints are par for the course from police forces. The more misconduct that’s happening in a force the greater the urgency to suppress public admittance of this by mishandling complaints.

The mantra is “We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong”. Every police force does this.

As a police force West Yorkshire Police has more to hide than most. They’ve an international reputation for corruption and incompetence but also an obsession with maintaining a public image. Consequently obtaining agreement from them about their low standards of policing requires more of an effort than with most other forces.

In this instance however they were banged to rights.

A transcript of a online live chat with an officer left them with no wriggle room. This is proof of why all your interactions with the police should always be recorded… because the first instinct of most police officers when caught out is to lie.

The report made concerned a crime committed in the breach of s.92 of The Care Act 2014 (as amended). Wakefield Council had knowingly as a care provider created false information on a person receiving care in their area. This is a criminal offence under the Act.

I’ll write more on this in a blog entry one day soon.

Note also the length of the replies given. When police are trying to hide something in a complaint response they avoid discussing the subject, fail to speak to relevant people and avoid issues they’d find uncomfortable to discuss. Here, as I said, a transcript of the chat means they can’t avoid making a finding against themselves.

It should be noted that police have still failed to investigate this offence reported. So despite an unusual degree of honesty seen below it’s still a case of “bad cop – no donut for you”.

I present the Professional Standards Department response in full with a few small redactions.

From: Allen, Gemma <gemma.allen@westyorkshire.police.uk>
Sent: 14 April 2022 07:32
To: XXXXXX@XXXXXX <XXXXXXXXXX>
Subject: Your complaint to West Yorkshire Police [OFFICIAL]

Classification: OFFICIAL

Dear Mr. XXXXX,

I refer to the complaint that you made to West Yorkshire Police. I am sorry that you have felt dissatisfied with the service offered by West Yorkshire Police on this occasion and, where we can, seek to learn from feedback offered by members of the public.

I can confirm that this matter has been recorded in accordance with the Police Reform Act 2002 under Complaint reference CO-2675-21. Please quote this reference number in any future correspondence regarding your complaint arising from the same matter.

It has been established that your complaint raised the following concerns / allegations. In response, I have made reasonable and proportionate enquiries into this matter and can offer you the following explanation of the enquiries conducted, what facts have been established, the outcome and any proposed action to be taken:  

Complaint 1: Delivery of duties and services

Employee concerned:  Staff member 730037 Maroof

Details of allegation:

You state that the call taker has incorrectly referred you to the council to make a complaint whom you state have committed a criminal offence under The Care Act.

The operator has asked you to provide evidence that the council’s acts were purposeful and fraudulent however you believe that this should be the role of the police and is not your responsibility.  

Enquiries conducted: 

The details of the Police chat transcript have been reviewed. 

The call taker, staff member 730037 Maroof has been requested to provide a response.

The Department of Health guidance for providers regarding The False or Misleading Information Offence has been reviewed.

I have consulted with The Police National Legal Database (PNLD). 

A request for review has been made to The Force Crime Registrar. 

Facts established: 

The Police chat transcript shows that you have made an allegation to West Yorkshire Police that Wakefield Council have produced a social care document which includes the purported current health situation of a family member which is out of date. You state that your family members health has deteriorated over the past year and yet old records have been used to produce the report. You report that you believe this was an intentional act by a social worker as it was likely to avoid the provision of social care for the patient who would otherwise be identified as having clear social care needs. The chat transcript shows that the call taker, 730037 Maroof sought advice and directed you to make a formal complaint against the council in the first instance. You state to the call taker that the “Article 16 right to restrict the processing of the data has been applied.”

The call taker, 730037 Maroof has responded to your complaint to state that he felt that referring you to the Councils complaints process was an appropriate response at the time. The call taker has expressed his apologies if his assessment of the information was incorrect. 

It has been confirmed that The Care Act 2014 has put in place a new criminal offence applicable to care providers who supply, publish or otherwise make available certain types of information that is false or misleading, where that information is required to comply with a statutory or other legal obligation. The offence is contained at Section 92 of the Care Act 2014. FOMI is a criminal offence and the investigating body for that offence will be the police, conducted in line with the “The Director’s Guidance On Charging”. The police can pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry. FOMI is a strict liability offence that applies to providers of care services as corporate bodies or partnerships. This means that a prosecutor has to prove that the information was, as a matter of fact, false or misleading, but does not have to prove that there was intent to provide false or misleading information on the part of the corporate body or partnership.

The Police National Legal Database (PNLD) outlines that Section 92 of the Care Act 2004 creates an offence so that providers of health services and adult social care in England, which supply, publish or otherwise make available information that is false or misleading, could be subject to criminal sanctions. The offence applies to a care provider as a corporate body.

92(1) A care provider of a specified description commits an offence if –

(a) it supplies, publishes or otherwise makes available information of a specified description,
(b) the supply, publication or making available by other means of information of that description is required under an enactment or other legal obligation, and
(c) the information is false or misleading in a material respect.

However, it is stated in law that it is a defence for a care provider to show that it took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to prevent the provision of false or misleading information as mentioned in subsection 1. This means that if the Council have already taken reasonable steps to rectify the matter then the offence has not been committed. By taking steps to restrict the data by invoking Article 18 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which provides an individual’s right to restrict the processing of the data, they have fulfilled this responsibility. Article 16 of GDPR then covers the rectification of the data.

Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) Fraser from the Force Crime Registrar has reviewed the matter and confirmed that your report is a state based crime therefore the Police only have to record the offence when the relevant “points to prove” are made out. Unlike victim based crimes the Police do not have to record these offences at the point they are reported.

Finding: The service level was not acceptable under the circumstances

Rationale: 

The information you have provided on the chat record shows that the matter has been reported to the council and that they have already taken reasonable steps and exercised due diligence in restricting the data. The matter does not require recording or further investigation at this time. 

My enquiries show that Call taker Maroof has attempted to ask reasonable questions during your chat report when he has asked you if you have evidence to prove that it was done purposely and fraudulently. The call taker appears unfamiliar with Police Procedures around reporting of potential state based offences however he is not a Police Officer and could not reasonably be expected to know that the offence of FOMI does not require criminal intent on the part of the perpetrator. The call taker has attempted to seek advice whilst you remained on the chat facility and it appears he has been given information which has led him to make a recommendation that you should firstly report the matter to the council. His assessment would have been reasonable and proportionate under the circumstances if you had not already provided information to suggest that you had already reported the matter to the council. It appears that the matter was not fully understood and that you required further clarification before the chat was ended. It would have been more helpful to your understanding for the call taker to refer you for an appointment with a Police Officer so that the outcome could be fully understood and explained in more detail.

In conclusion, it is considered that learning has been identified in respect of this complaint.

Outcome/Action: Learning from Reflection

Details: An opportunity for learning has been identified which has been provided to the call taker through his direct supervisor.

Complaint 2: Individual behaviours

Employee concerned:  Staff member 730037 Maroof

Details of allegation: You state that the call taker terminated the chat abruptly with no explanation

Enquiries conducted: 

Call taker Maroof has been requested to provide a response. 

The chat transcript has been reviewed. 

Facts established: 

Call taker Maroof has responded to state that due to time passed he cannot fully remember his reasons for ending the chat at the time. After review of the transcript he states that he may have felt that he had advised you what to do and so believed the chat could be closed. It may have been that you had gone offline after receiving his response so he assumed it was completed. He added that he can’t say for sure given the time that has passed but either way he does not think that he gave “no explanation” as he clearly provided advice on what you should do.

The chat transcript shows that the chat was ended 20 seconds after the call takers last response to you.

Finding: The service level was not acceptable under the circumstances

Rationale: 

The outcome of this complaint should be read in conjunction with the information provided in Complaint 1. Although the call taker has remained respectful throughout the chat, it does appear that you had not been provided with a sufficient explanation of the outcome or the opportunity to understand the advice provided. This is believed to be because the call taker did not fully understand the police procedures around state based crime reporting.  

In conclusion, it is considered that learning has been identified in respect of this complaint.

Outcome/Action: Learning from Reflection

Details: An opportunity for learning has been identified which has been provided to the call taker through his direct supervisor

It is considered that reasonable and proportionate enquiries have been made into this matter. The issues you raise in your complaint do not justify criminal or disciplinary proceedings against any officer concerned and therefore the matter has not been considered by the Crown Prosecution Service. 

You have the right to a review of the above decision. Should you wish to request this, please contact the below review body by the 13th May 2022. Please quote the relevant complaint reference number (above) if you request a review. 

Due to the wording of your initial complaint, the review body is: 

West Yorkshire Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. Should you wish to request a review, please contact:https://www.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/policing-and-crime/complaints-and-conduct.

Please accept my apology on behalf of West Yorkshire Police for any confusion, inconvenience or distress that this incident has caused, and I thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. I hope the above action taken re-assures you that your complaint has been taken seriously and demonstrates West Yorkshire Police’s commitment to continuous improvement.

I hope that any future contact you may have with West Yorkshire Police will not be adversely affected by this experience.

Yours sincerely,

PC 1449 Allen

Service Review Team

22566

Professional Standards Directorate

*   Email: Gemma.allen@westyorkshire.police.uk

+ Address: West Yorkshire Police, Professional Standards Directorate, Headquarters, WF1 3QP

Posted on

West Yorkshire Police Caught Out Over Serious Misconduct Issue

When caught out the first reaction of many police officers is to lie.

The blog entry below relates to an illegal arrest and breach of PACE by West Yorkshire Police. Even by the low standards of that force this is a shocker.

This blog entry also relates to a effort to hide information by Plod’s Right of Access dept. and a clear effort to deceive by West Yorkshire Police Professional Standards dept.

The last two offences were exposed by the active intervention of The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who have forced police to produce documents Plod has spent the best part of a year trying to hide precisely because they prove misconduct in public office.

The background to the complaint is related to an ultra vires arrest of myself on 22nd of May 2020 without legal justification or reasonable grounds. Here’s a little background:

In May 2020 I was sent in error documents and data intended for the Metropolitan Police. This data concerned Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings against an individual living in Kent and was sent to me accidentally by The Ministry of Justice.

The data amounted to a significant data breach containing as it did many personal and financial details for this man. Given the seriousness of this I informed The Information Commissioner’s Office that a significant data breach had taken place.

Four days later I was arrested by West Yorkshire Police on the request of The Ministry of Justice under allegations that I myself had breached The Data Protection Act.

This is of course not true. Emails obtained from the Data Security Manager at HMCTS Liverpool state that they intend to have me arrested “to give him a shock” following my referral of this matter to ICO. And of course the matter was not pursued beyond the inconvenience of arrest.

This arrest also resulted in the removal of electronic devices from my home containing legally privileged, legally professionally privileged and litigation privileged materials stored electronically on those devices. This is a breach of PACE 19.6. The subsequent examination of the contents of these devices by digital forensics officers at West Yorkshire Police without triage of the privileged contents amounts to a breach of common law, which Plod then tried to hide.

As you might expect from the generally inept nature of this force the efforts to hide the data on this illegal examination resulted in the eventual revelation of misconduct in public office.

A complaint about the illegal arrest was made to West Yorkshire Police Professional Standards (PSD) in June 2020.

Part of the response to this dated 14.8.21 from the reliably evasive PC Vicky Silver at West Yorkshire Police PSD states:

The devices which were seized from your home were booked into property stores under crime reference 13200256161 and itemised to be ‘Nokia Mobile phone’ Exhibit reference DMW1 and a ‘HP Laptop’ Exhibit reference DMW2, seized devices were booked into property with the intention for these to be examined, upon the MoJ being informed of the process and timescales involved they requested no further action be taken and for your devices to be returned. PS Shand confirmed no examination took place on your devices and they were not examined, nor switched on whilst in Police possession. The records held show the devices were only removed from property stores in order to affect their return to yourself. 

Much of the above was a lie. The most significant elements of which West Yorkshire Police have now been caught out on. 

PS Shand refers to Police Sgt. Anthony (Tony) Shand. The disclosures forced by ICO show that his testimony to PSD regarding the devices not being digitally examined was a lie.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has been involved in a data access request made to Right of Access at West Yorkshire Police from August 2020. This request was originally made 27.8.20.

West Yorkshire Police Right of Access dept. has ever since been attempting to withhold evidence such as radio traffic, CCTV footage and the record of what happened to the electronic devices when in police custody.

The below is an extract from a Right of Access dept. letter to me dated 5.3.21. It can be seen that both the image showing the property record is cropped and they also deny the items were taken out of the property store for digital examination.

Cropped at the point of items being booked in. ICO later compelled the release of the unedited data.

ICO as Right of Access department’s professional regulator has made an active intervention and compelled the release of documents from West Yorkshire Police which were previously withheld.

These documents show the booking out of the electronic devices when in the property store for digital forensic examination, thus breaching common law, as of course legally privileged materials were stored on them. The version seen above was cropped to hide the removal of the devices for examination, breaching common law in so doing.

A copy of the most recent disclosure showing the data which ICO forced police to disclose is below. This shows data wholly contrary to what was stated in the PSD complaint response, seen above, of August 2020 and Right of Access department’s response of March 2021. The devices clearly were removed on the dates shown for digital forensic examination. Below is seen the unedited version of the property record – that shown above was edited by Right of Access dept. to remove incriminating data.

Laptop booked out for forensic examination 26.5.20 and returned to property store 10.6.21.
Likewise phone booked out on same date and later returned when examined.

On this basis PS Tony Shand in his testimony to PSD and PC Vicky Silver both sought to purposefully mislead in the response to the complaint made.

Right of Access dept. also sought to mislead in their response to me of March 2021 and further edited the property record by cropping out the incriminating data.

Both departments and individuals at West Yorkshire Police have stated things that they know to be untrue in an effort to avoid professional embarrassment, an allegation of misconduct in public office and the breaching of Common Law in relation to privileged material on the electronic devices. There is also the breach of PACE 19.6 in the removal of the devices from my home.

Right of Access dept. attempted to withhold the relevant document until instructed by their professional regulator ICO to release the information. Indeed an examination of the images on this page shows that they deliberately cropped the first disclosure sent to me in March 2020 to hide data. This amounts to a breach of S.77 of FOI 2000 by West Yorkshire Police as there has been a purposeful effort to hide relevant data. This is a criminal offence under the relevant Act.

That there existed significant opportunity for WYP to produce the relevant data prior to ICO intervention but they avoided doing so to try to hide misconduct in relation to the electronic devices.

The purpose of withholding the data was to avoid professional embarrassment to West Yorkshire Police over a breach of Common Law in the retention and examination of legally privileged material contrary PACE 19.6 and the seizure and retention of the same without a warrant.

It is now clear from the disclosure made as the result of pressure from ICO that West Yorkshire Police has not only committed purposeful misconduct in public office over the seizure, retention and examination of legally privileged material without a warrant but also that they have attempted to cover this up by wholly misleading statements in the complaint response and the subsequent effort made to hide disclosure requested.

Had ICO not forcibly intervened in this matter then the degree of misconduct and breach of legally privileged material would have remained hidden.

Given that they lie so glibly over such a serious matter none of the other assertions made by West Yorkshire Police Professional Standards dept. in any complaint response can be trusted to be factual and truthful.

As anyone who has ever dealt with that department will be aware!

Posted on

How South Yorkshire Police Evade Investigating Crimes & Evade Accountability

On Tuesday 22nd of September 2020 I alerted South Yorkshire Police to a crime taking place in their area.

This followed the original reporting of this matter via an online form for just such a purpose. The online form had not received a response some considerable time after being completed, so the appropriate phone call was made.

This call was to the non-emergency number and it took the duration of a trip from Leeds to Bridlington on the East Yorkshire coast for the police to pick up the call, so around one and a half hours.

Finally managing to speak with an officer he disputed that the incident being reported was a crime. In fact I was advised to call South Yorkshire Police in relation to this matter by two other agencies that I had already reported the crime to: they considered the seriousness of the matter sufficient to warrant police attention. The officer spoken to was a PC PC Marc Horsbrough.

In the call Horsbrough’s behaviour and attitude was lazy, gave the impression he couldn’t care less and was reluctant to record the crime even when the relevant legislation was pointed out to him. More seriously he later he called me back and the content of that call amounted to unwarranted personal attack on me and a flat refusal to record a crime.

I should point out at this stage that the crime has now been recorded and the suspect interviewed: further developments are awaited. This took place only after the completion of a futher online form, not via the non-emergency phone service to South Yorkshire Police.

A formal complaint was made to South Yorkshire Police Complaints and Discipline Team:

  1. A complaint of a crime was made. This was done via the online form. That the response from the online form took longer than the 72 hours it states online for any action to be taken in respect of the referral of a crime.   
  2. That the online form had still not been processed some 7 days later.   
  3. That from comments made by Complaints and Dicipline in their email of 2.10.20 it would appear that this online referral has been lost.    
  4. That a series of phone calls were made by me on Tuesday 22.9.20 and Wednesday 23.9.20 to SYP to establish what was happening in relation to the online referral.   
  5. That these calls were either cut off when transferred to the appropriate department or else rang out for an exceptionally long period.   
  6. That on eventually speaking to an officer he stated that he had no copy of the online form in front of him but proceeded to dismiss the referral to SYP as being not something that police would deal with. This is incorrect. CPS guidance has been quoted that clearly shows the activity being reported is a criminal offence. The officer was Marc Horsbrough. working in either the Comms dept or Crime Recording around 12:45 – 1.30pm on 23.9.20.    
  7. That the same officer rang me back several minutes later.  
  8. That his comments on the call back amount to harassment and intimidation. His manner during this second call was offensive, uncivil and harassing.    
  9. That the officer concerned did this solely for the purpose of causing harassment, vexation and distress. On the second call he refused to give his name or service number when asked which is usually indicative of an officer misconducting himself.   

    That overall the standard of conduct in relation to this matter is sufficient to cause loss of reputation for the force.       

The complaint was given the reference number CO/665/20.

Calls to and from police stations are recorded on a system called Airwave. When South Yorkshire Police later claimed that they could not trace the officer involved they were simply being disingenuous: the record of all calls will have enabled an easy trace of officer identity and indeed the identity of the officer has been found out by other enquiries.

From 5th of November 2020 to 13th of March 2020 no communication from police was received in relation to this complaint. They additionally failed to respond to emails requesting a progress update. The Police Reform Act 2002 states that police should keep complainants updated every twenty eight days with a progress update on the complaint.

So I wrote to The Independent Office for Police Complaints (IOPC). I have addressed the issue in prior blog entries that IOPC is very significantly staffed by former police officers, and provided the results of a data access request showing this, and so they cannot in any way claim to be “independent”. IOPC wrote back on 23rd of March to state:

“Upon receipt of your correspondence, we contacted the Complaints and Dicipline [sic]Team Department (PSD) of South Yorkshire Police to ascertain the status of your complaint. The PSD have advised that your complaint has been recorded under their reference CO/665/20, and that the investigation of the matter is still live. They stated that they have asked the case handler of your complaint to make contact with you.”

Around a month later still no response from South Yorkshire Police. IOPC cannot investigate a complaint when it is still with the relevant force, meaning that they cannot step in on this matter and compel South Yorkshire Police to act.
So I again wrote to IOPC who stated:

“I have contacted the PSD and asked them to make contact with you and provide an update.”


I then wrote to police a few more times to chase an update on the basis that they had failed to comply with the instructions of their professional regulator. On 15th of June, some three months after IOPC originally made contact with South Yorkshire Police on this matter the following came from George Henson at their Complaints and Discipline Team:

“I can confirm the receipt of your email and I have passed it onto the case handler of your complaint referenced above.”

…which tells me nothing about the progress of the complaint. This was the last communication received from South Yorkshire Police in relation to this matter.

A recent update to The Police Reform Act 2002 states that police are only obligated to inform a complainant when something has taken place in relation to the complaint investigation. As there has been no such update the clear conclusion is that there has been no proper investigation of this matter. We are now over one year elapsed from the complaint being made.

Likely this is because the Airwave system on which calls to and from police stations are recorded retains data for a set period. The failure to investigate this complaint is probably down to South Yorkshire Police attempting to “run down the clock” towards the deletion of this data which will show clear misconduct on the part of one of their officers. This will enable their Complaints and Discipline Team to then dismiss the complaint on the basis of lack of evidence.

The original crime was referred to an Inspector Stephen Fennell and has been investigated, albeit at a very slow pace.

The exceptionally poor service received before this investigation took place suggests anyone living in South Yorkshire who has a crime to report should really not bother. The delays and wasted time attempting to contact police on their non-emergency number and their lethargic attitude which attempts to actively put people off referring a crime are bad enough. However in my case the officer, because I had quoted the relevant section of law at him, took umbrage. His fragile police ego had been dented and his response was to abuse me on a call back and refuse to record the crime. The actions of South Yorkshire Police since have all been directed towards evasion of responsibility for the actions of this officer in a way which breaches their duty of care and obligations to investigate complaints under the relevant law.

Posted on

The Not-Independent Office of Police Complaints

Were you aware of the numbers of former police officers working for the supposedly Independent Office of Police Complaints?

The organisation describes itself on its own website:

We are independent, and make our decisions entirely independently of the police and government.

But a document that IOPC prefers not to draw attention to can be accessed online at:

Copy of IOPC staff diversity stats 310320 FINAL proofread.xlsx (policeconduct.gov.uk)

This shows the – frankly – shocking numbers of former officers and former police civilian staff employed at IOPC. An organisation that is supposed to be independent in relation to complaints made against the police.

Can it really be expected that staff working for IOPC are prepared to justly and reasonably criticise their former force or colleagues they’ve worked with hand in glove for years? Of course not. There’s a reason officers on Twitter use the hashtag #PoliceFamily

Indeed the figures speak for themselves: there’s a roughly one in ten chance of a complaint made about the police being upheld.

In the event of a complaint against the police you would be better off ignoring the police complaints process altogether and moving directly to instruct solicitors.

More seriously in the event of a fatality during contact with the police the staffing ratio of former officers presents a considerable barrier to a free and open investigation of the facts in such serious cases.

Ain’t life in Britain grand!

Posted on

The Definition of Institutional Corruption

Private Investigator Daniel Morgan was murdered in South London in 1987. His killer has never been found.

Morgan’s employer Southern Investigations went on after his death to provide stories for the Murdoch press, often obtained illegally.

The murder however set in chain a series of investigations which have revealed links between police, the Murdoch controlled newspaper company News International and organised criminal groups. Is is widely thought that Morgan was on the verge of revealing links between corrupt police officers and organised criminals. This is certainly the belief of the Morgan family.

The Metropolitan Police carried out an initial sub-optimal investigation with basic elements of police work left undone. This happened on more than one occasion as successive investigations were botched. Of course police would not have been inclined to investigate properly if they thought the murder would reveal ongoing corruption or even their own involvement in Morgan’s death to hide what he knew.

This has resulted in several re-investigations and an independent panel (the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel) headed by Baroness O’Loan which produced its long-awaited report last week. (written in June 2021).

Another element of this case worthy of note is that the police and other organisations were accused by the panel of institutional corruption.

This was defined by the panel as:

“Concealing or denying failings, for the sake of the organisation’s public image, is dishonesty on the part of the organisation for reputational benefit and constitutes a form of institutional corruption.”

The report into the murder makes depressing reading. It details how The Metropolitan Police systemically failed the Morgan family and then lied and attempted to cover up their failures in order to preserve their professional reputation.

Again this is a pattern familiar to anyone who has dealt at any level with the organisations I mention in this blog.

On that basis all of the organisations mentioned in this blog to date are also institutionally corrupt since they also conceal or deny failures to maintain a professional reputation. That this takes place even in the face of overwhelming evidence of incompetence, deceit and failure.

Arguably since 1987 this kind of behaviour has grown more prevalent from state-run organisations. Again the report states there was a failure in the Morgan case:

“to acknowledge professional incompetence, individuals’ venal behaviour, and managerial and organisational failures”.

The British state has a pattern of dealing with the failure of its agents and organisations. The Morgan family’s statement following the results of the panel say that:

“At almost every step, we found ourselves lied to, fobbed off, bullied, degraded and let down, time and time again.”

Again since 1987 the means by which state funded organisations deny error, evade blame and continue to practice incompetence and institutional corruption have been refined and improved with each passing decade.

The panel found that:

“culture of obfuscation and a lack of candour is unhealthy in any public service”

Danial Morgan’s brother has stated:

“police don’t like to own up to anything” and that his “experience of the police over many, many years is that they put their own reputation over anything else”.

To relate that to the wider picture again I say that this is equally true any of the organisations mentioned in this blog.

The Met has attempted to downplay the panel’s findings by claiming the conclusions it reached applied to the police 35 years ago. This is a standard diversion tactic organisations use.

Panel member Professor Rodney Morgan shot back that “institutional corruption is not used in a historic sense – it is used in a current sense”.

You may be interested to learn that Britain is the most corrupt country in the world, according to journalist Roberto Saviano, who spent more than a decade exposing the criminal dealings of the Italian Mafia.

You can read more on the Daniel Morgan murder and the fallout from the recent report here: /https://bylinetimes.com/2021/06/15/the-daniel-morgan-report-from-institutional-racism-to-institutional-corruption-no-hierarchy-of-sickness-in-met-police-failures-says-morgan-fami/

Posted on

Daylight Robbery! How Police Evade Accountability on Data Access Requests

In a November 2020 report The Information Commissioner (or ICO) wrote the forward to a report and stated:

“It is my hope that police forces, and other organisations, will read this report, understand their current position and identify actions they can take to improve or maintain good performance. We will continue to work with the police to support their compliance with information rights laws.”

Some hope of that!

When the Commissioner wrote of “their current position” she was using soft-soap language for what would have been more accurately described as clear flouting of the law and institutional efforts to evade disclosure of information.

The full report can be read at https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/reports/2618591/timeliness-of-responses-to-information-access-requests.pdf

A copy of the title page of the report.

Let’s take a look at West Yorkshire Police as being a recent example of this failure to comply with both the law on data access requests, ICO guidance and their general obligations to maintain good relations with the public.

The Office of The Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire has for some months now been aware of suboptimal handling of data access requests by West Yorkshire Police. They have noted an increasing number of complaints from members of the public about poor service and inadequate provision of data by Information Access departments at that force.

A Professional Standards Department investigation into a complaint brought by a member of the public that subject access requests made had been delivered late, were missing data and had been purposefully frustrated by police was mishandled by Professional Standards Department. The Office of The Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire (the PCC) found that the investigation had been substandard in several areas.

As per usual for a police Professional Standards Department the conclusion to the investigation ran along the lines of “We have investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong”. This outcome is usually achieved by PSD adjusting the frame of reference to the complaint to disregard all that inconvenient evidence that proves the complaint is correct. This indeed appears to have been done in this instance.

Accordingly PCC wrote in their examination of the complaint handled by PSD:

“The decision I have reached is that the outcome of the complaint was not reasonable and proportionate… [that a proper complaint investigation involved] Full consideration of the Information Management Department’s handling of [the complainants] requests over the last year, including all the ones he brought to the complaint handler’s attention and the involvement of the ICO in those requests”

Which is as I stated: police complaints department ignoring evidence which proves the force has misconducted itself.

PCC wants a re-examination of major aspects of the complaint and also wants to see:

“Full consideration of the wider context concerning the timeliness of replies to Subject Access requests by West Yorkshire Police, including the engagement with the ICO. This should take into account the findings and recommendations from the ICO’s report from November 2020 “Timeliness of Responses to Information Access Requests by Police Forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland”

…in other words the report I referenced above.

This is to say the least mildly inconvenient for police. An examination of the timelines for a dip-sample of data access requests made (but not fulfilled on time) is one of the easiest ways to see that police have broken the law in relation to these requests.

But of course if West Yorkshire Police were to investigate themselves and report to PCC the errors made in supplying data requested by members of the public then it would be impossible to hide the scale of information deliberately hidden.

So the response of Rene Prime, Reviewing Officer at Professional Standards Department to PCC states:

“Unfortunately, I do not agree with the actions you propose should be taken to resolve the complaint. I agree that full consideration should be given to [the complainant’s] contact and requests to Information Management over the last year and the issues that have arisen around those requests, however I do not consider that it is appropriate to consider the wider context of perceived issues within the Information Management Team.”

Which is as slippery a way as can be found to avoid PCC discovering the full extent of West Yorkshire Police’s efforts to evade the production of data requested by members of the public. This reply also in effect “cuffs off” (to use a West Yorkshire Police term) the recommendations of PCC which have been made in the light of the many other individual complaints from members of the public regarding failed data access requests.

The standard approach to data access requests made by police forces is not compatible with legislation allowing the public access to data.

Secretive, evasive and mendacious: police hate requests for information from the public.

Instead they seek to frustrate access requests, deny even the production of non-contentious materials and in most cases seek to delay the production of data beyond time limits in law so that the requester will be liable to forget all about the request and go away. At all stages the intention is to frustrate, vex and delay. This is often because the police operational mindset is focused towards evading any form of insight into their working practices or accountability. Ergo the more the public get to know about police methods and actions by data access requests the less the freedom for police to do more or less as they wish. An informed public is aware of the abuses of power and the bending of the law that the police perform daily.

The above correspondence gives you something of an insight into the attempts police make to avoid production of data which would make them accountable. This time last year the police complaints process was subtly changed to make the local PCC engage more with appeals into poorly handled complaints. It will be interesting in the light of the above to see if West Yorkshire Police’s PCC has the guts to challenge ongoing breaches of the law over data access requests to West Yorkshire Police.

Posted on

Top Tips for Aspiring Criminals

Have you ever seen a magician who happens to be very capable at making watches, wallets and suchlike vanish from your pocket or wrist? It’s quite a sight when someone that capable manages to remove something from your person without you being aware of it.

A friend of mine works for a local police force. Every so often he updates me on all the recent criminal activity they’ve not been able to stop. Generally it’s quite a lot: they’re forever behind the curve and not in front of it.

But like with the magician who can remove your watch or wallet in a stage show once you know what’s happening it’s easier to not let it happen to you. So here’s a couple of tips which might help you to protect yourself.

There are two big recent growth areas of crime. The first of these is the theft of high powered vehicles. Audi’s seem to be targeted especially at present and are then broken down for parts: Audi spares being especially expensive.

A nice new Audi.
Probably won’t be there for long!

One village with only about 140 homes was recently targeted. Each night over seven nights two homes were burgled and car keys removed. These days this sometimes comes with an assault on the homeowner if the burglar is disturbed. In the olden days such a thief would make off in fear when an upstairs light came on.

The second growth area is the wedding robbery. This again takes place by stealth. At a busy wedding the criminal (often a young woman between 18-30 years old who no-one would otherwise suspect) invites herself. When everyone is dancing around at the end of the night jewels, gold and expensive watches are removed from wrists, necks etc. and often looked after by elderly relatives who are not dancing themselves. This is when the sneak thief strikes & distraction techniques seem to be used. The gangs concerned in this type of robbery seem especially to be targeting Asian weddings.

Posted on

The case of Julian Assange & Press Freedom

I write in relation to the Julian Assange extradition attempt by the US government. This has received a ruling today which has stated that Assange cannot be extradited to America on the basis of mental health concerns.

It is widely considered that the case against Assange has been cooked up as revenge against Wikileaks publication of atrocities by the US military in the Middle East. That such was designed to frighten any journalist in the future from exposure of similar state backed horrors.

As this post will detail The Ministry of Justice in the UK is quite prepared to commit abuse of process to also persecute those who publish material which exposes its wrongdoing and incompetence.

Assange in transit in a prison van from Belmarsh high security prison where he has been held.

The ruling in the case is that extradition cannot take place as America cannot guarantee the safety of Assange in a US prison in the light of his apparent suicidal ideations. These thoughts probably stem from his continued persecution for many years over Wikileaks publication of video footage of atrocities committed by the US military against civilians.

The points made regarding the safety of the US prison system of course apply equally – if not more so – to British prisons. Belmarsh was the choice of prison for Assange on the basis of the additional security given to inmates there.

The other thing that struck me about the judgment is that the extradition to America was refused not on grounds which assert and re-enforce the freedom of the press or the ability of such as Wikileaks to publish material which challenges authority but on the grounds of safety for the defendant.

The decision was made by a District Judge. Anyone familiar enough with the British legal system will likely be aware that the judge has chosen an anaemic third way in order to dismiss the case for extradition. No wonder the decision is likely to be appealed! Rather than outright confrontation of the prosecution case which was designed both as an act of revenge against Assange and a threat to any future journalists exposing official misconduct the judge chose a way which avoids these prosecution arguments being confronted and carefully debunked.

If a decision was made to extradite on the basis of the case put on behalf of the prosecution then the risk to press freedom in future would have been grave. As it is the case has been a warning shot to anyone thinking of publishing contentious material regarding state backed misconduct.

The judge has accepted the proposition advanced by Assange’s legal team that an American prison is not sufficiently safe for someone with suicidal thoughts.

Were he still alive Jeffrey Epstein would also likely agree that an American prison is an insufficiently safe environment for people who have – like Assange – embarrassed or risk embarrassing those who hold the levers of power in America.

We don’t have to look to a high-profile case such as this to see official misuse of power in an act of revenge against those who publish material which would embarrass authority, as our own Minisry of Justice in Britain are quite prepared to carry out misconduct in public office in this way.

In May this year I was sent material in error by MoJ. This was a letter intended for the Metropolitan Police in relation to Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings against an individual in the Kent area.

The data sent to me in error constituted a considerable Data Protection Act breach and covered the name, address, date of birth and bank details of the individual and other compromising data. Such data in the wrong hands could have resulted in considerable fraud committed against the data subject by the misuse of his personal details. I informed both The Information Commissioner’s Office and the data subject about this.

I also posted – with no small amount of schadenfreude – the tweet seen below. No aspect of the content of this tweet breached revealed data on the data subject and thus was not actionable. It simply and quite rightly embarrassed MoJ as an organisation which is incompetent in the handling of personal data.

Despite the fact that MoJ were wholly in the wrong over this entire matter they decided to go on the offensive and instructed West Yorkshire Police to arrest me in relation to offences under The Data Protection Act.

Police, having seen no evidence of any offence committed in civil or criminal law, nevertheless took the word of MoJ as gospel and in so doing broke the law themselves not least by committing a wrongful arrest.

I was arrested and held in custody at the police station. It was relegated much later in an email chain from the Head of Security at MoJ that the purpose of this was “to give him a shock”. I’d embarrassed MoJ in public with the tweet and reported the data breech to ICO. Consequently MoJ wished to revenge itself and were prepared to commit misconduct in public office to do so.

Of course the other thing the emails between MoJ and West Yorkshire Police also reveal is the sudden loss of interest in the matter when I was arrested – the arrest being the short, sharp shock MoJ was aiming for. An internal investigation by police also admits there were no grounds for arrest and no offence had been committed.

The point of my explaining all this shabby behaviour and breach of duty of care from two shifty little organisations is clear. Just as Assange has been intimidated and subject to abuse of process because of what he published so have I.

Such actions from organisations such as MoJ and West Yorkshire Police serve to wholly undermine public confidence in the organisations themselves and damage their own reputation. Further it exposes the organisations as being comprised of the inept, the incompetent and the petty-minded.

If MoJ or West Yorkshire Police would like a right of reply to the content of this article then I am happy to publish any point of view they may give. I may equally produce further evidence in response which confirms the facts already stated above!

Posted on

A Christmas Card from Humberside Police!

I’ve written on here many times before about how Humberside Police are particularly useless, even in a hotly contested field of local forces.

However even I fell off my chair at the sheer incompetence of the subject access response provided by their Information Compliance department this week.

A subject access request provided by the force amounts to a nonfeasance as the response:

1. Fails to provide the data requested.

2. Is issued outside the legal time limit for a response to be provided.

3. Repeats back the same information put in the original request.

Here’s the letter in full. I have redacted the header.

The key sentences are in the fourth and fifth paragraphs seen above. These are reproduced from the original request. Data cannot be obtained from the Police National Computer – however data that has been entered into the PNC by a local force can be obtained from the same regional police force. Hence the request to Humberside Police.

The substantive reply is seen below:

Here we focus on the second paragraph. It essentially repeats the data I put to police in the first instance.

Consequently the force has failed to react correctly to the subject access request in every conceivable aspect.

This suggests that the intention is to continue frustrate any further request made for the data using the rights conferred in italics in the letter to do so as the response to any further requests that might be made.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has been informed.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started