OPERATION GRANGE: A COMPLAINT TO THE IPCC

I believe Op Grange answers to the Home Office and their eventual findings will be driven by what Home Office / PM allows in the interests of the UK / current Government.
 If the investigation / review started out as trying to find a suitable whitewash closure, which I think likely, then it doesnt necessarily mean it will continue to do so. I believe that it is on the road to exposing at least some of the truth of what occurred.

I still think there are many people (some VIPs) that want to ensure that at any cost the truth does not get revealed, therefore O Grange have a difficult job.   IMO.

HelenMeg wrote:I believe Op Grange answers to the Home Office and their eventual findings will be driven by what Home Office / PM allows in the interests of the UK / current Government.
 If the investigation / review started out as trying to find a suitable whitewash closure, which I think likely, then it doesnt necessarily mean it will continue to do so. I believe that it is on the road to exposing at least some of the truth of what occurred.

I still think there are many people (some VIPs) that want to ensure that at any cost the truth does not get revealed, therefore O Grange have a difficult job.   IMO.

Completely agree. Some sort of truth will come out.

This case is far wider than a handful of self centred quacks.

IMO

Well done Hentie and others!

If anyone's interested here's an update on my complaint to the IPCC.

After having the IPCC forward my complaint to the MET, the MET rejected the complaint on the grounds that I did not meet the requirements of a complainant.  n.b. The 'normal' complaints process seems to be very much built around having personal experience of misconduct by members of the Police.  I am therefore appealing, (not that my ex-wife would agree!... Ho Ho Ho!)

So as no one can reject my appeal on a bureaucratic technicality for not following the proper appeal procedures within the necessary 28 day deadline I have decided to diligently follow the formal IPCC appeals process.  The gist of my challenge to the rejection is as follows:

"...Whilst I acknowledge that administrative processes require criteria to operate effectively it is clear that the nature of my complaint falls outside of the ‘normal’ range of ‘witnessing misconduct’ that the complaints’ process has been designed to handle.

My complaint presented robust, factual, grounds to show that limiting Operation Grange’s investigation to ‘an abduction’ scenario runs counter to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, Part 2 [Criminal Investigations], Section 23 –(1), Paragraph (a), that “all reasonable lines of enquiry are pursued” in an investigation. 

The facts underpinning my complaint do not go away simply because my complaint does not readily align with the usual criteria used within the complaints’ process.

(finishing off with...)
As a layman I consider that excluding relevant evidence (through the restriction of an investigation’s remit) is effectively removing (i.e. ‘disposing’) of that evidence from the investigative process. This would therefore appear to meet the criteria of perverting the course of justice under the Common Law of England and Wales. Hence why I consider my complaint to be of a most serious nature, and why it is appropriate to appeal against the Metropolitan Police Service’s failure to record it."

Coming at it from a 'your complaints process is faulty' works best for me (owing to my old job being the challenging of poor, and developing new, business processes for a dysfunctional monolithic employer!).  The logic goes that if my appeal is refused because the process can't accommodate such a complaint then an employee will eventually have to admit their process is imperfect and unsuitable. If/when this happens the inevitable consequence is that an individual has to either take responsibility to remedy the failing, (thus the blockage is removed), or alternatively admit their impotence and lack or empowerment within the system, (which Human egos never like to do!). If, and it rarely happens, there's an admission that the process has gaps but no one takes ownership to resolve the failing then this provides the necessary leverage to become an allowed 'exception' within that process.  Thus the appeal progresses.

If alternatively the appeal is rejected because it is considered invalid then, following through escalation if necessary, someone will be accountable to putting their name to a response that effectively says "I am ignoring the evidence of Eddie & Keela, homicide statistics, the Gaspar statements, etc. and see nothing wrong with limiting the remit to 'an abduction' scenario".  This, of course, has implications for them and I can't see it happening.

So, in light of the above logic I'm confident my complaint and appeal will inevitably be actioned. The current hiccoughs are simply the inevitable bureaucratic 'toing and froing' that happens when making approaches to organisations that either fall outside of the deployed processes or are things they don't want to, but should, do.   If/when it gets bogged down I'm happy to go and see my (personally un-voted for) MP to get them to help force a conclusion.  They don't have to have a view one way or the other on the case, as it will simply have then become a point of un-emotive, impartial, procedural logic that I need their help to unclog.

In the meantime what will, of course, make a difference are all the other individual complaints and appeals that have been sent. Even a brief paragraph of personal concerns provides an audit trail that will be on record that there are members of the public with concerns... and all business processes tend to log contact being made and report the data internally. Those things at the top of the list, with most numbers alongside, then tend to be the things that can't be ignored.

Thanks for the update Knitted - it is inspiring..

Well done YOU Knitted!

It's one thing to keep posting about the many, I shall call them abnormal issues as no other case has followed the same lines, but Tony is absolutely right, it's the few that actually take action.

I believe it's why so many whom we should be able to respect and hold in high esteem, do what they do.
Because of the apathy of the general public, they know they can get away with it!