Tag: police incompetence

Posted on

Evading Scrutiny – West Yorkshire Combined Authority’s problem with the truth

You will be advantaged by learning four things from this blog entry:

  1. The means by which police force’s skew complaint investigations in their own favour. 
  2. How local Mayor’s office’s deliberately mishandle appeals regarding how police have handlined a complaint. 
  3. How the Mayor’s office then themselves avoid accountability for their behaviour. 
  4. The degree of contempt with which all of the above hold the public.

The issue concerns a mishandled complaint to West Yorkshire Police, then subject to an appeal to West Yorkshire Combined Authority Policing and Crime office. The appeal to WYCA was actioned so poorly as to amount to an unacceptable breach of standards and so a complaint was made about this. That office’s Jane Owen then arguably commits misconduct in public office with a misleading response designed to avoid any accountability for West Yorkshire Combined Authority.

Prior to reading this blog entry you may wish to look at the other post regarding how West Yorkshire Combined Authority deflects complaints made about itself and minimises complaints made about West Yorkshire Police. This can be found at:

Turning a Blind Eye. How West Yorkshire Combined Authority Helps Local Police to Evade Accountability.
My prior blog post on how West Yorkshire Combined Authority assists police to evade accountability.

Well it appears that little has been learned from that prior matter and appeals to the Combined Authority that West Yorkshire Police have mishandled a complaint made are still subject to evasion and avoidance by the office of Deputy Mayor Alison Lowe, who has ultimate responsibility for the mishandling of the appeal.

Alison Lowe, Deputy Mayor and the person responsible for policing issues at West Yorkshire Combined Authority.

Here’s how this happened in this specific instance… 

A complaint was made to West Yorkshire Police Professional Standards Department (PSD). The result of this was the usual lazy evidence-free shonking off of the complaint. The matter was referred to the Deputy Mayor’s Office at West Yorkshire Combined Authority who deliberately or accidentally failed to spot where PSD skewed their complaint investigation. 

There are a number of investigative criteria for the Deputy Mayor’s office to follow.

These are:

[Whether due regard was given to relevant guidance]

In this matter reference was made in the PSD or Deputy Mayor’s responses to College of Policing guidelines and how these were supposed to have been followed. The Deputy Mayor’s Office failed to locate the College of Policing Guidance to compare the outline of how police should have behaved in the incident subject to the complaint with objective standards.

The response of PSD was not set out in a format that showed a correct formal investigation had taken place. This was ignored by the investigator for the Deputy Mayor, Karen Gray. 

The next line of investigation missed by Karen Gray was:

[Whether reasonable lines of enquiries were undertaken to be able to provide a reasonable and proportionate outcome] [Where any aspects of your complaint were not addressed, or any lines of enquiry were not pursued, whether there were sound reasons given for this]

Neither the Mayor’s Office nor West Yorkshire Police made any enquiries with third party witnesses to establish what happened. 

In similar prior incidents it is known that and attempt has been made to contact witnesses by PSD, but not in this matter.

Again this shows that the standards outlined above in regards to the following of reasonable lines of inquiry have not been undertaken by PSD. The Deputy Mayor’s Office failed to consider this matter. 

[Whether enough information was given to the complainant to address the complaint and support the outcome]

PSD failed to respond to a request for information in their complaint response. Again the Deputy Mayor’s Office fail to spot this. Here a potentially significant breach of established protocol at the incident complained of has not been addressed by PSD & the matter has been ignored in the appeal to the Combined Authority.

[Where any aspects of your complaint were not addressed, or any lines of enquiry were not pursued, whether there were sound reasons given for this] 

The initial response of PSD failed to reply to the issues raised in the original complaint. This was again not addressed or spotted by Karen Gray in her appeal investigation. And the format for a formal, structured complaint response from PSD was not used.

[Whether reasonable lines of enquiries were undertaken to be able to provide a reasonable and proportionate outcome] 

The Deputy Mayor’s office failed to consider that the actions of the officers complained of forms a pattern of behaviour from West Yorkshire Police. 

In short then the appeal investigation by West Yorkshire Combined Authority’s Karen Gray was the usual mix of evasion of issues that she would have to find against police. Combined with a total failure so spot the ways in which police had skewed their own investigation to favour themselves.

A complaint was made about the exceptionally poor service provided in the appeal investigation by Karen Gray. 

This was responded to by Jane Owen, Casework Officer at West Yorkshire Combined Authority Policing and Crime office.

The response was:

Having carefully considered all your complaint points, I have concluded that this is not about the service this office has provided but rather is about how West Yorkshire Police handled your complaints CO-1490-22, CO-3251-20 and CO-2771-21 and is also about the outcome of the review of CO-1490-22 which was provided to you by Karen Grey on 20 October 2022. 

This is clearly outright mendacity. The complaint was clearly directed at Karen Gray’s seeming inability to be able to conduct a proper investigation and avoidance of consideration of key issues within the single complaint raised of poor service in this matter.

It is also an outrageous attempt to deflect any investigation into the very poor service standards at West Yorkshire Combined Authority Policing and Crime office. This is the kind of response provided when an organisation knows full well that their behaviour would not stand up to any form of scrutiny. 

Jane Owen goes on to state: 

As you are aware, the statutory guidance does not make provision for review outcomes to be challenged through the complaints process and consequently, if you wish to challenge the outcome of Karen’s review of CO-1490-22, you should consider seeking independent legal advice. 

This is also clear misdirection and also untrue. The link seen above details the complaint investigation into a prior mishandled appeal to WYCA carried but by Jane Owen’s colleague Julie Reid.

There is an offence in law of misconduct in public office. Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 2003[2004] EWCA Crim 868. 

The offence is committed when: 

  • a public officer acting as such; 
  • wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself; 
  • to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder; 
  • without reasonable excuse or justification. 

Let’s pause a moment and consider the overall picture.

The police failed to investigate a complaint made correctly and in line with their own prior procedures for so doing. When this was referred to West Yorkshire Combined Authority Policing and Crime office as an appeal to their Karen Gray, Gray lets police off the hook by failing to investigate several issues that show police failed to act correctly and in line with The Police Reform Act 2022. When these are pointed out in a complaint her colleague Jane Owen intervenes and outrageously claims that the issues raised as complaints about West Yorkshire Combined Authority Policing and Crime office are not in fact about that office as a means of deflecting any investigation into the suboptimal nature of their appeal investigation.

If you can think of a more blatant effort to conceal a public body’s failings performed in such contemptible way then please let me know. The actions of both Karen Gray in failing to conduct an appeal investigation correctly (not for the first time, it must be said) and those of Jane Owen in attempting to conceal or deny the failure of Gray by refusing to action a complaint amount to misconduct in public office.

You can see a video below of the hot air West Yorkshire Combined Authority spouts about their Police and Crime Plan. None of this concerns efforts to hold Plod to account for misdemeanours.

Outside of the Met West Yorkshire Police is regarded as the most corrupt and incompetent force in the UK.

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

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

The Force Won’t Be With You! Illegality at West Yorkshire Police

BEING the story of how a data access request led to a breach of the law by West Yorkshire Police.

Few people would argue against the notion that West Yorkshire Police has an international reputation for corruption and incompetence. One of the less enviable roles to have at the force is in the Data Management departments dubbed, rather imaginatively as Information Compliance and Right of Access. Those pesky members of the public requesting data they’re perfectly entitled to must grate! This in those departments you stand as gatekeeper for great swathes of your information that must not be released as it could show your brother officers out to be inept, lazy or actually corrupt.

Consequently the job of anyone in a data access role at West Yorkshire Police is more akin to a doorman at the gates of Hell stopping Desmond from escaping than the role suggested in legislation as a facilitator of access to information.

Consider Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act which states that a person…

“is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled”.

…at West Yorkshire Police data access employees certainly consider this. Particularly the blocking and concealing aspects. And it probably keeps them awake at night.

A data access request was made to Right of Access department at West Yorkshire Police in early October 2020.

Eventually the data was provided (in February 2021) and as is par for the course this was considerably outside of the time limits allowed in law for the production of it and is thus is a breach of the law.

Additionally the mishandling of the original requests suggests misconduct in public office and willingness to commit a Section 77 offence on the part of a person or persons at Right of Access dept. It is for you, dear reader, to decide if this also constitutes a criminal offence of misconduct in public office.

A complaint was made to the (equally imaginatively named) Professional Standards Department (PSD) which they fudged. They were then instructed to re-investigate the complaint by The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) for West Yorkshire.



Part of the re-investigation instructions relate to data that was clearly withheld by Right of Access Dept. from PSD in contravention of their duty of care and candour. That this withholding of data skewed the result of the PSD investigation resulting in the matter being referred to OPCC.

I’m willing to take a pretty safe bet that Right of Access did not inform PSD of the matters below in the original complaint investigation…

Eland Road Police Station, Leeds.

The original request for data made in October 2020 resulted in a letter of 4.11.20 from Right of Access dept. which stated that the request was rejected for 60 days as ROA had decided to impose an arbitrary and illegal ban on my making data access requests. The illegality of the ban was pointed out to ROA.

The pointing out that the ban was illegal appears to have generated a change of heart. A few days later (16.11.20) this ban was lifted and a further letter of 16.11.20 assigns the request a reference number. Great! It’s finally moving forwards! The letter of 16.11.20 claims the request is being processed.

However illogically the following day the request was then again refused in a letter from Right of Access dept. of 17.11.20.

This attracted an internal review request from me. The response from ROA to this was:

“internal reviews [has been set up]… an independent member of the team who was not involved in this decision will assess your requests and whether they should be processed.

The matter was also referred to the independent watchdog for data access rights, The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as a formal complaint.

ICO considers that 40 days is sufficient for the production of an internal review. The internal review was of course not concluded after this time and so the reviews were both chased with ROA after 40 days on 12.1.21.

West Yorkshire Police staff hard at work.

The result of the internal reviews were inconclusive and weak in that they upheld the original failure to produce the data without giving sustainable grounds in law.

Now here’s a hot tip next time a police force refuses your data access rights:

In order to act as a check on Right of Access dept. at West Yorkshire Police (experience leads me to not believe a word they say) I occasionally request the same data as has been requested from ROA from another police force to check matters such as the right of access in law to the data and entitlement to the same. This is something I specifically do as in the case discussed here where there is an outright refusal to supply the data. Having an uninvolved second party check what you’ve been told is truthful is frequently invaluable.

A letter in response from Humberside Police from them confirmed the rights to the same type of data requested from West Yorkshire Police.

So I wrote back to ROA on 20.1.21:

I refer to the attached correspondence with Humberside Police in relation to [reference number given]. In this correspondence I requested from that force the same documentation that has been requested from West Yorkshire Police…

Following the usual game of silly bastards that police force’s like to play in their initial response letter the data was provided in accordance with the obligation on Humberside Police in law.

The same legal obligation that has compelled Humberside Police to provide a copy of the data also obliges West Yorkshire Police to provide the same to me. Your internal review of the matter and the provision of the same from a local force must mean that the law compelling disclosure of this data from Humberside also compels the disclosure from your force.

I await a copy of the data requested…

A copy of the covering letter from Humberside Police confirming the right of access to the data requested was also sent to ROA on 19.1.21.

ROA wrote back on 21.1.21 saying the matter is with the ICO but that I am not prevented from making further requests.

I request again on this date a copy of all the data originally requested in October 2020. This request is acknowledged on 22.1.21. The data was finally provided in February 2021.

After the original refusals and messing around by ROA it must have galled the that they’d been backed into a corner with no further escape route. If the data is obtainable from one force it must logically be obtainable from all.

The point of the lengthy backstory above is this: ROA habitually seek to retain data that the production of would prove embarrassing to West Yorkshire Police. This purposeful retention of data breaches the law as it activates both yours and my Section 77 rights under data access legislation and the illegal retention of it is an example of misconduct in public office as the law is habitually flouted to avoid the production of data access requests.

In the above matter once the entitlement to data had been established from another force ROA had no option than to provide the data requested, but of course prior to this the data had been subject to so much hand-wringing and wrangling to avoid its disclosure, including the illegal imposition of a ban on requests being made and the arbitrary refusal of a legal and legitimate data access request.

Conclusion

I should not have to fact-check the legal position with requests to other police forces when a request for data has been refused by West Yorkshire Police. But it does help! Equally I should not have to do this for the purpose of getting ROA department backed into a corner from which they cannot continue to refuse access to data. Again though this does help! This is wasting my time and public money simply because ROA sees its position as a gatekeeper for information rather than accepting its actual position in law as a facilitator.

Section 77 cited above is clear: it is an offence to attempt to block access to data that the public has a right to.

Recently The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Police has had a number of members of the public complain about the police’s Right of Access dept. Will this lead to a broader investigation of systemic and purposeful effort to block public access to data by delay, dithering and denial? Watch this space.

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

ICO Address Police Breaches of the Law on GDPR

Police forces are notoriously bad at responding to subject access requests (those are requests for your own personal data) as well as requests for data overall from the force, especially if the request for access is made by the public.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has recently published a report (link seen below) outlining just what an absolute catastrophe police responses to these requests are.

Click to access timeliness-of-responses-to-information-access-requests.pdf

As ever with such a report the real eye-opener are the recommendations made by ICO. In this instance these are nine points which show how UK police forces are failing to deal with data access requests in anything like an efficient and professional way. Often this is because the purpose of data access legislation clashes with police’s wish to keep information regarding errors in procedure and process wholly secret.

Title page of ICO’s report.

This report will cause consternation in particular at failing Humberside Police, a force subject to many eye-watering fines from ICO in the past for failures to comply with the law on data access by the public. The recommendations ICO suggest will likely be impossible for the force to implement.

West Yorkshire Police – as expected one of the forces most likely to break the law to try to avoid the production of data – said at a meeting convened by their Police and Crime Commissioner recently that they would be looking at increasing the staffing in the Information Management Department in the next year (budget permitting) to cope with the demands made upon it. “Looking at” and “budget permitting” is another way of saying that nothing will be done to address the problem.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started