Re: New DCI

by Anna 20.03.15 9:29

Seriously, shocking I feel to try to get an investigation stopped at such a late stage now... that really would be throwing money away without a conclusion. We should now at least wait and see what they come up with, and only then complain if you feel there is cause.

That is so funny though, a copy sent to the CMOMM forum New DCI - Page 24 Icon_lol

and from a member of the public, wonder who that could be?? New DCI - Page 24 Icon_biggrin

Why not just post it then with name and email address redacted!

Actually not funny, encouraging people to complain about people doing their job, which is as yet unfinished, and we are not privy to what they are doing - which of course is as it should be.

by Guest 20.03.15 9:41

Anna wrote:Seriously, shocking I feel to try to get an investigation stopped at such a late stage now... that really would be throwing money away without a conclusion. We should now at least wait and see what they come up with, and only then complain if you feel there is cause.

That is so funny though, a copy sent to the CMOMM forum and from a member of the public, wonder who that could be?? Why not just post it then with name and email address redacted!

Actually not funny, encouraging people to complain about people doing their job, which is as yet unfinished, and we are not privy to what they are doing - which of course is as it should be.

You appear to have missed the point Anna.

No one is trying to get it stopped.

It's a complaint about the prejudicial remit which Redwood has re-affirmed a number of times in the press.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.03.15 10:36

Anna wrote:Seriously, shocking I feel to try to get an investigation stopped at such a late stage now... that really would be throwing money away without a conclusion. We should now at least wait and see what they come up with, and only then complain if you feel there is cause.

That is so funny though, a copy sent to the CMOMM forum and from a member of the public, wonder who that could be?? Why not just post it then with name and email address redacted!

Actually not funny, encouraging people to complain about people doing their job, which is as yet unfinished, and we are not privy to what they are doing - which of course is as it should be.

I see we have a visitor from another place.

I don't think anyone is seeking to STOP Grange. The request appears to be to INVESTIGATE it.

If we all adopted the 'Anna' view of police investigations, we should all shut up about such police investigations as Stephen Lawrence, Hillsborough, Daniel Morgan, Cyril Smith and goodness knows how many other corrupt police investigations.

And what a good job that Les Balkwell complained to the IPCC, while the so-called 'investigation' into his son's death was continuing.

The IPCC did investigate, even though a police investigation was in progress, and, after a 4-year-long investigation, upheld 26 findings of misconduct against eight senior Essex Police Officers.

I think there will be a number of people like Anna, with an agenda, who will do all in their power to stop people making complaints about Grange.

They just want people to shut up - and trust the police (!)

by Knitted 20.03.15 14:07

Update: My email to IPCC, with a few minor tweaks, has been sent.

It's cathartic to have summed up my concern with Operation Grange's remit and to have passed it to the very people who are employed, and best placed, to take action. Why didn't I do it sooner? I'd hate to be sitting here in another few years' time, after Grange has run its (restricted) course, and dwell on the fact that I didn't at least try to make a difference, no matter how small, for Madeleine! So it's been time on my keyboard very well spent... and I can't recommend it enough!!

Please find the time to raise your own concerns if you can thumbup

by Guest 20.03.15 14:40

I've emailed her.

I hope lost of people do.

by cbeagle 21.03.15 19:08

Anna wrote:Actually not funny, encouraging people to complain about people doing their job, which is as yet unfinished, and we are not privy to what they are doing - which of course is as it should be.

From the remit: The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness

Not seen much of that openness and transparency.

by jeanmonroe 23.03.15 11:39

Speaking of 'openness and transparency'

Since DCI Wall took 'command' of OG (22nd December 2014) £616,798 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINETY EIGHT GBP'S) (91 DAYS @ £6,778 a day) of UK taxpayers money, via HO, has been 'allocated', to the specific 'investigation' known as Operation Grange. (a single 'missing' child investigation)

Does anyone care to 'guess' what this vast amount of UK taxpayers money, has been 'spent' on, by DCI Wall, since DCI Wall took 'command' @ OG on 22nd December 2014?

Taxpayers money, taxpayers 'scrutiny'.

Public money, public 'scrutiny'.

MY 'money', MY 'SCRUTINY'.!

Just can't seem to remember the Home Office asking me, 'isitok2 use YOUR money, not the parents of the 'missing' child's, Madeleine's PRIVATE 'fund' money, to indefinitely, without your scrutiny, 'fund' Operation Grange?'

Do MET/SY have to keep annual 'accounts' of 'expenditure' of operations, they undertake?

'itemised' accounts?

I'd like to see OG's annual 'accounts' for the almost 4 YEARS, they've been 'investigating' a SINGLE child's 'disappearance'' almost 8 (EIGHT) YEARS ago.

FOI?

by Gaggzy 23.03.15 19:42

jeanmonroe wrote:Speaking of 'openness and transparency'

Since DCI Wall took 'command' of OG (22nd December 2014) £616,798 (SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND NINETY EIGHT GBP'S) (91 DAYS @ £6,778 a day) of UK taxpayers money, via HO, has been 'allocated', to the specific 'investigation' known as Operation Grange. (a single 'missing' child investigation)

Does anyone care to 'guess' what this vast amount of UK taxpayers money, has been 'spent' on, by DCI Wall, since DCI Wall took 'command' @ OG on 22nd December 2014?

Taxpayers money, taxpayers 'scrutiny'.

Public money, public 'scrutiny'.

MY 'money', MY 'SCRUTINY'.!

Just can't seem to remember the Home Office asking me, 'isitok2 use YOUR money, not the parents of the 'missing' child's, Madeleine's PRIVATE 'fund' money, to indefinitely, without your scrutiny, 'fund' Operation Grange?'

Do MET/SY have to keep annual 'accounts' of 'expenditure' of operations, they undertake?

'itemised' accounts?

I'd like to see OG's annual 'accounts' for the almost 4 YEARS, they've been 'investigating' a SINGLE child's 'disappearance'' almost 8 (EIGHT) YEARS ago.

FOI?

All perfectly valid questions.

I can imagine Pedro's Pizza Parlour in Praia da Luz is hoping a breakdown of the MET's annual expenditure is not forthcoming. Our pizza-gobbling, beer and wine-swigging coppers' spending has been putting his kids through college!

by Knitted 23.03.15 22:35

Knitted wrote:Update: My email to IPCC, with a few minor tweaks, has been sent.

Does anyone know when an acknowledgment to my formal complaint to the IPCC might be received? It's been over 24 working/office hours... and I've not heard a pip-squeak! Sad

If no acknowledgement is ever received can anyone suggest when it might it be appropriate to then copy my original letter to my local (Tory) MP (Roger Gale) demanding action so that he might reply?

by Guest 24.03.15 8:00

Knitted wrote:
Knitted wrote:Update: My email to IPCC, with a few minor tweaks, has been sent.
Does anyone know when an acknowledgment to my formal complaint to the IPCC might be received? It's been over 24 working/office hours... and I've not heard a pip-squeak!

If no acknowledgement is ever received can anyone suggest when it might it be appropriate to then copy my original letter to my local (Tory) MP (Roger Gale) demanding action so that he might reply?

You should have got a reply. They told me they can't do anything unless they forward it to the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) and did I want to do that even though I asked not to.

That made me wonder what the point of the IPCC really is!

I also think Dame Owers has never seen my mail even though addressed to her.

by Knitted 24.03.15 8:43

Well, I got no reply... nor an acknowledgment... nor a 'bounce back' of an error in the email used...

The screen shot below, with expanded dialogue box, shows it was sent to "enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk" 4 days ago...

(n.b. I cc'd my email to a respected member of this forum so there's an independent audit trail that it was sent).

New DCI - Page 24 Owers_10

by **Tony Bennett** 24.03.15 9:00

BlueBag wrote:
Knitted wrote:
Knitted wrote:Update: My email to IPCC, with a few minor tweaks, has been sent.
Does anyone know when an acknowledgment to my formal complaint to the IPCC might be received? It's been over 24 working/office hours... and I've not heard a pip-squeak!

If no acknowledgement is ever received can anyone suggest when it might it be appropriate to then copy my original letter to my local (Tory) MP (Roger Gale) demanding action so that he might reply?

You should have got a reply. They told me they can't do anything unless they forward it to the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department (PSD) and did I want to do that even though I asked not to.

That made me wonder what the point of the IPCC really is!

I also think Dame Owers has never seen my mail even though addressed to her.

I can explain that.

It is part of the established procedures that any complaint against a police force MUST legally be officially recorded as a complaint by the very police service against whom you are complaining - in this case, the Met. There is just no way of avoiding this. I have protested against it in the past, when I first came up against the rule, but to no avail.

It clearly gives any group of officers valuable advance notice that they are under scrutiny. It's one of many things that needs to be changed about the way the IPCC operates.

If I may suggest, @ Blue Bag, and so that your complaint can be offically recorded, please write back to the sender of the letter, if only to say something like: "I think it;s a bad rule, but I hereby give consent for my complaint to be passed to the Met Police Professional Standards Department".

@ Knitted Be patient. You WILL receive a reply, and I can guarantee that Dame Ann Owers will know about your complaint. I suggest it is likely she will be consulting with some very senior Establishment figures right now about how to reply to it.

P.S.

The Head of the Met Police Professional Standards Department is Alaric Bonthron. Look out for a post I hope to put up later in the day on the 'Have Your Say - News topics' forum about an interesting item concerning this man.

by Knitted 24.03.15 9:45

Tony Bennett wrote:Snipped:

@ Knitted Be patient. You WILL receive a reply, and I can guarantee that Dame Ann Owers will know about your complaint. I suggest it is likely she will be consulting with some very senior Establishment figures right now about how to reply to it.

... Thanks for the reassurance... I had naturally assumed I'd have, at least, received an acknowledgement. Nonetheless, unless/until I hear otherwise I shall afford Dame Owers and her team all due respect. I appreciate they're swamped at the moment... and so I'll have to trust that those that she has forwarded my complaint to are keen and conscientious in their efforts to provide her with an honest and comprehensive reply.

by Guest 24.03.15 9:51

Tony Bennett wrote:P.S.

The Head of the Met Police Professional Standards Department is Alaric Bonthron. Look out for a post I hope to put up later in the day on the 'Have Your Say - News topics' forum about an interesting item concerning this man.

?????? !

I'm guessing it's going to be something more substantive than that his name was arrived at by randomly stabbing at a typewriter with a stick, then.

by HelenMeg 24.03.15 9:54

I have sent my e-mail .

I have seen the article in Daily Mail - supporting withdrawing police from this investigation.
This appears to be an orchestrated attempt to get the investigation stopped.

by jeanmonroe 24.03.15 10:06

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30381355

'snippet'

Inside the Metropolitan Police Service's most secretive section, which investigates bad apples in the force.

"OK, folks, good morning and welcome, what have we got from the weekend?"

On the 23rd floor of the Metropolitan Police's west London office, Detective Chief Superintendent Alaric Bonthron begins a morning briefing for one of the force's most secretive sections.

Known as a "grip and pace" meeting, it's a regular catch-up for senior officers from the Department of Professional Standards, the 380-strong unit responsible for dealing with complaints against officers and staff, deaths in custody, police misconduct - and corruption.

"We had a CAD (computer-aided dispatch) message from an anonymous female alleging that police were involved with the supply of drugs," says one of the dozen senior officers sitting around the table, in a room with panoramic views over London.

Another policeman chips in with details of a separate allegation.

"One officer... tried to persuade another officer to amend their notes whilst they were with a prisoner in a hospital, I understand," he says.

"tried to persuade another officer to amend their notes"

(ala Hillsborough?)

"We are a force within a force" Det Ch Supt Alaric Bonthron, Head of the Met's Professional Standards Unit

Det Ch Supt Bonthron checks that the information is being dealt with appropriately and moves on down a list which also includes the latest court cases and misconduct hearings.

These are busy times for the department, spread over four floors and with a budget of £24 million.

Over the past two months it's carried out investigations into a Met policeman over allegations of voyeurism and inciting prostitution; a Heathrow community support officer who admitted stealing a wallet containing almost £2,500; and a police recruit, who's accused of publishing extreme pornography.

This was also the unit which investigated the so-called "plebgate" affair, which led to one officer being jailed - and sacked, along with three others.

Bonthron says he's sometimes shocked by what his colleagues have got up to.

"There are things that make you look up and think 'has somebody actually really done that?'," he says, adding that "99.9 percent" do a good job when they come to work.
==========================================================

Bonthron says he's sometimes shocked by what his colleagues have got up to.

"There are things that make you look up and think 'has somebody actually really done that?'," he says, adding that "99.9 percent" do a good job when they come to work.

I wonder if his, fellow Metropolitan Police 'colleague', DCI Redwood, 3 1/2 years, 'investigation' at OG will, in the future, be 'included' in the 'bad' 0.1%?

by **Tony Bennett** 24.03.15 10:14

HelenMeg wrote:I have sent my e-mail.

This is so good to hear. There is nothing to be frightened of in sending an e-mail to Dame Ann Owers. Almost all members of CMOMM want an honest investigation into what really happened to Madeleine. And if someone has reasonable cause to believe that there is something seriously wrong with Grange, it is not only possible and reasonable for them to complain to the IPCC, but I would suggest it is not far short of being a duty to do so

I have seen the article in Daily Mail - supporting withdrawing police from this investigation. This appears to be an orchestrated attempt to get the investigation stopped.

YES. In the coming days, I am sure there will be more voices like that of David Jones in the Mail. In which case, I would like to stress the urgency of people sending in e-mails to Dame Ann Owers - giving their own reasons for asking for an IPCC enquiry into Grange.

Numbers are important here. Don't leave it up to 3 members of this forum.

Help to make it 30 people. Or perhaps 300:

enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

by **Tony Bennett** 24.03.15 10:27

jeanmonroe wrote:"There are things that make you look up and think 'has somebody actually really done that?'," he says, adding that "99.9 percent" do a good job when they come to work.

What a liar Alaric Bonthron is!

He probably threw this report into his waste paper bin:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

New investigation after '2,000 police officers' are implicated in corruption

New DCI - Page 24 Ymetpo10

Exclusive: Independent investigation reveals thousands of officers are suspected to be crooked

Tom Harper

Friday 17 October 2014

Police corruption is to be investigated by a powerful committee of MPs amid fears of widespread impropriety – as The Independent reveals that thousands of officers are suspected to be crooked.

The Home Affairs Select Committee will launch an inquiry next month into the police’s relationship with organised crime, focusing on the infiltration of forces by criminal networks. The inquiry, which will allow MPs to hear from witnesses under the protection of parliamentary privilege, follows a series of scandals including the inquiries relating to Stephen Lawrence, Daniel Morgan, phone-hacking and Plebgate. It comes as The Independent can reveal for the first time the Government’s official estimate of how many members of police staff were suspected of being compromised by dealings with criminals.

An analysis of intelligence by Home Office researchers found between 0.5 and 1 per cent of the 200,000 police officers and civilian employees in England and Wales in 2003 were “potentially corrupt”, and involved in leaking information to criminals, stealing property during raids, fabricating evidence, helping villains to escape prosecution and “using their power to obtain money or sexual favours from the public”.

However, the previously unnoticed report said the problem at the time was “far wider” and made clear the 2,000 figure did not include officers suspected of “criminality and misconduct”, which included dealing and using drugs ranging from steroids to crack cocaine, fraud, domestic violence and “sexist, racist and homophobic behaviour”.

The report suggested that police who had committed crimes should be dealt with behind closed doors (Ian Forsyth /Getty Images). The report cited raids where suspects were apparently expecting police, had no incriminating evidence and had “already got the kettle on when the police arrive”. One investigator is quoted as saying: “A good villain can’t operate without having a bent officer...it’s impossible.”

The report said the suspected criminality was not limited to junior officers and found “examples of higher-ranking officers implicated in corruption or other unethical behaviour”. The Home Office report also recommended that, in some cases, police who had committed crimes should be dealt with behind closed doors, rather than mount prosecutions in open court, with “alternative outcomes” such as “disciplinary procedures” and “disruption tactics” being “less damaging to the morale of the organisation”.

Another theme running through the 2003 paper was the fear of “bad publicity and criticism” that resulted from publicising investigations into police corruption. “Media strategies accompanying investigations might be used to minimise negative publicity,” the report suggests.

Critics said this “kid-gloves” approach to the police from successive Labour governments was one of the reasons why the Home Secretary, Theresa May, is having to deal with a series of historical scandals, such as Hillsborough, the Daniel Morgan murder and corruption of the Stephen Lawrence investigation. Conservative MP Lorraine Fullbrook, a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: “Labour’s kid-gloves treatment of the police bred a lack of accountability which ultimately let down the public. There has been a loss of confidence in the police as a result, which is quite dangerous. Theresa is trying to tackle these historic issues to restore the public’s trust.”

There was “endemic corruption” in the Metropolitan Police, according to a secret Scotland Yard report from 2002 (Harry Engels/Getty Images). Earlier this year, The Independent revealed the existence of a secret Scotland Yard report from 2002, code-named Operation Tiberius, which concluded there was “endemic corruption” in the Metropolitan Police. The file found organised crime networks in north-east London were able to infiltrate the Met “at will” to frustrate the criminal justice system. Following pressure from the Home Affairs Select Committee, Scotland Yard later admitted it held an astonishing 260 crates of documents on police criminality relating to Operation Tiberius – yet none of the rogue detectives appears to have been successfully prosecuted.

The separate 2003 Home Office report into police corruption was unearthed by The Independent after being buried in exhibits submitted to the Leveson inquiry. The research found up to 1 per cent of the 200,000 police officers were “potentially corrupt”, but warned: “There is likely to be a far wider range of unethical behaviour within the police service that is not picked up.” In one force, 15 per cent of all corrupt activity related to the disclosure of information to criminals, and 11 per cent to the “inappropriate association with criminals”.

It said Scotland Yard had a particular problem with the corruption of detectives by informants from the underworld. Prosecuting police officers is “particularly difficult”, according to the report. One investigator was quoted as saying: “Unlike a criminal, a corrupt officer knows exactly what can be deployed against him … they know how to cover their tracks.”

The report also found a systemic problem with officers sharing a “solidarity …that stands in the way of colleagues reporting on one another where corruption is evident”. Policing minister Mike Penning said: “The public expect the police to act with honesty and integrity and it is right that the full force of criminal law is available to punish and deter acts of corruption by police officers. This Government has introduced a range of measures to tackle misconduct.”

Police corruption: previous reports

Operation Othona 1994-98 Top-secret intelligence-gathering exercise on police criminality later inexplicably shredded by the Met.

Macpherson inquiry 1998 Judicial probe into Stephen Lawrence murder, concluded Met was “institutionally racist”.

Operation Tiberius 2002 Huge intelligence-gathering exercise found Met suffered “endemic corruption” and was being infiltrated “at will” by organised crime gangs.

Hillsborough Independent Panel 2012 Review of 1989 disaster when 96 Liverpool fans were crushed to death at Hillsborough Stadium. Concluded police had wrongly smeared fans as drunk and violent, and found 116 police statements had been altered to mask police failings.
Daniel Morgan Independent Panel 2013 Investigating claims a private investigator was murdered in 1987 as he was about to blow the whistle on police corruption. Yet to report.

Ellison report 2014 Review of Stephen Lawrence murder concluded Met had placed an undercover police officer as a “spy in the Lawrence camp”, and found senior officers withheld intelligence of police corruption from the Macpherson inquiry

by Knitted 24.03.15 11:56

Tony Bennett wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:I have sent my e-mail.

This is so good to hear. There is nothing to be frightened of in sending an e-mail to Dame Ann Owers. Almost all members of CMOMM want an honest investigation into what really happened to Madeleine. And if someone has reasonable cause to believe that there is something seriously wrong with Grange, it is not only possible and reasonable for them to complain to the IPCC, but I would suggest it is not far short of being a duty to do so

I have seen the article in Daily Mail - supporting withdrawing police from this investigation. This appears to be an orchestrated attempt to get the investigation stopped.

YES. In the coming days, I am sure there will be more voices like that of David Jones in the Mail. In which case, I would like to stress the urgency of people sending in e-mails to Dame Ann Owers - giving their own reasons for asking for an IPCC enquiry into Grange.

Numbers are important here. Don't leave it up to 3 members of this forum.

Help to make it 30 people. Or perhaps 300:

enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

Excellent stuff Helen !!

...and to all the fellow members...

We all, in our own way, put lots of effort into this forum. Many of us read far more than we type, but it's all time very well spent.

BUT.. if Operation Grange closes down having just looked at an 'abduction' just imagine how many words will, quite rightly, be typed on this site within minutes, within hours... and over the ensuing weeks... picking apart every single thing that bugged us as 'not being quite right' about it all?

If it shuts down having just looked at 'an abduction' then I bet most of us might well type 100 words, or even 1000 words, in these threads expressing our concerns and frustration. So why not start expressing our concerns now?

A few hundred words sent NOW to Dame Anne Owers at enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk might, just might, make a difference... Maybe they won't... Maybe they will... Who knows? But if we don't even try then what's the point?

One thing is certain... those very same 100 words each of us type in this forum after the event of Grange being closed down will be 100 words ultimately wasted as they won't have been seen by the IPCC and won't have, possibly, resulted on that one formal 'awkward question' to DCI Wall that ends up tipping the scales.

If Grange is kosher, and it's doing a great job, then no harm done and any email is a few hundred words typed unnecessarily... but if something is indeed amiss with Operation Grange then it's a few hundred words that will weigh on someone's conscience... and that's all we need. Just one person, just one minor administrative cog in the process having their attention grabbed by several emails turning up at once, might be all that's needed to light the touchpaper, that then ignites the fuse, that then blows any cover-up wide apart.

So, please, if you have any concerns about Grange then knock out a quick (or a long!) note to to Dame Anne Owers at enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk airing your own particular concerns...

Let's all ensure that we're not sitting here in a few months time kicking ourselves that we missed our window of opportunity to make a difference...

by HelenMeg 24.03.15 12:12

I agree - its really important that we act and address our complaints / concerns to those who can make a difference.
Whilst writing down all our questions to DCI Wall here on the forum is entertaining and helps us put our thoughts in order, unfortunately its not as likely to create change as addressing them to the IPCC.

At this stage, we may as well make sure our efforts have as much impact as possible. .

by jeanmonroe 24.03.15 12:25

HelenMeg wrote:I agree - its really important that we act and address our complaints / concerns to those who can make a difference.
Whilst writing down all our questions to DCI Wall here on the forum is entertaining and helps us put our thoughts in order, unfortunately its not as likely to create change as addressing them to the IPCC.

At this stage, we may as well make sure our efforts have as much impact as possible. .

HelenMeg wrote:

"Whilst writing down all our questions to DCI Wall here on the forum is entertaining and helps us put our thoughts in order"
===========================

Operation Grange 'officers/staff' READ this 'forum' DAILY.

They'd be 'remiss' and 'negligent' not to do so.

They will take ANY 'information' from ANYWHERE and ANYONE if it 'helps' them 'solve' a 'case'.

Believe me, OG 'staff' are reading 'here' right NOW!

THEY ARE NOT 'DAFT'!

(Probably 'sick' of me!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
..she, DCI Nicola Wall, attributes her low media profile to the fact "we solve cases so quickly nobody gets involved…"

C'mon then!

"Time is money, and all that"

£11+ MILLON UK taxpayers MONEY, to date!

"CHOP, CHOP" TOP COP!

Time to 'raise' that 'low, media, profile', of yours! winkwink

by Liz Eagles 24.03.15 12:35

Here comes the party pooper.

There are hues and cries from two members of this forum to sound a battle cry and complain to the IPCC.

The first is from Knitted who freely admits he's opted out from society, doesn't pay income tax, has several email addresses etc and has conversed with his own MP for years under a pseudonym.

The second is from Helen Meg, who I believe resides in Canada.

by Guest 24.03.15 13:30

aquila wrote:Here comes the party pooper.

There are hues and cries from two members of this forum to sound a battle cry and complain to the IPCC.

The first is from Knitted who freely admits he's opted out from society, doesn't pay income tax, has several email addresses etc and has conversed with his own MP for years under a pseudonym.

The second is from Helen Meg, who I believe resides in Canada.

Three (at least).

I was rather hoping more people would complain.. did anyone else?

by HelenMeg 24.03.15 17:09

aquila wrote:Here comes the party pooper.

There are hues and cries from two members of this forum to sound a battle cry and complain to the IPCC.

The first is from Knitted who freely admits he's opted out from society, doesn't pay income tax, has several email addresses etc and has conversed with his own MP for years under a pseudonym.

The second is from Helen Meg, who I believe resides in Canada.

Hi I reside in UK !! Do you feel it is not good idea then?