Re: New DCI

by Knitted 24.03.15 17:39

HelenMeg wrote:
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?

Hi Aquilla, I don't see how my lifestyle choices detract from the pros and/or cons of me, or any other members, writing to the IPCC. If you don't agree with it that's fair enough... but I feel strongly it is worth doing. Me? I made a conscious decision some years ago to leave the rat-race. I simply do not now earn enough to pay tax. I live a very frugal life and I find it, personally, very rewarding knowing my engagement in unfettered capitalism is as negligible as possible. Yes, I have lots of email addresses, I like it that way and it's more secure. My point about my writing to my MP under a pseudonym is simply what's it got to do with him what name I use? I am free to call myself whatever I wish. I appreciate my approach to life may be unorthodox, but to imply I have some kind of agenda, or that my approach must be somehow less worthy, isn't logical. Anyway, regardless, on my email to Dame Owers I used my birth name and gave my address in full. I make no apology for trying to make a difference. Many of us here seem to have concerns about Grange's remit... so surely formally voicing those concerns is better than keeping quite . If I am missing something then please let me know what it is. All I can say, again, is that I believe writing to the IPCC is better than not writing to the IPCC. I appreciate others will disagree... and that's absolutely fine.

by **Tony Bennett** 24.03.15 18:40

worriedmum wrote:Yes, I have. I do not live in Canada and I do pay taxes. Hopefully everyone who reads this post will spend five minutes doing the same.

My mood goes up every time I read of another CMOMM member devoting a few minutes to explaining to the boss of the IPCC why they think Operation Grange is a charade, and needs to be investigated yes

@ worriedmum

@ HelenMeg

@ Blue Bag

@ Knitted

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].uk

by Mo 24.03.15 18:55

Tony some people find it difficult to put a good statement together. I know that a copy of a letter has been put together on this thread which people could copy, but don't you think the IPCC would be a bit cheesed off receiving numerous letters saying the same thing.

Perhaps there might have been a way of one letter with a list of our email addresses attached - only those of course who gave permission.

by Knitted 24.03.15 18:56

Tony Bennett wrote:
worriedmum wrote:Yes, I have. I do not live in Canada and I do pay taxes. Hopefully everyone who reads this post will spend five minutes doing the same.
My mood goes up every time I read of another CMOMM member devoting a few minutes to explaining to the boss of the IPCC why they think Operation Grange is a charade, and needs to be investigated

@ worriedmum

@ Blue Bag

@ Knitted

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].uk

... and HelenMeg too!!! friends

by **Tony Bennett** 24.03.15 19:30

Mo wrote:Tony some people find it difficult to put a good statement together. I know that a copy of a letter has been put together on this thread which people could copy, but don't you think the IPCC would be a bit cheesed off receiving numerous letters saying the same thing.

Perhaps there might have been a way of one letter with a list of our email addresses attached - only those of course who gave permission.

Thank you.

There is absolutely no doubt that a personal letter or e-mail, from somone expressing their reasons for writing in their own words, is much more powerful, as you suggest, than merely copying and pasting someone else's letter.

A letter to Dame Ann Owers need not be long. Indeed, a concise letter with two or three key points is enough to be effective.

I think anyone who is troubled by the remit and the subsequent conduct of Operation Grange is capable of explaining the basis of the objections.

Any e-mail must be polite and respectful, and needs to set out specific reasons why you think Grange needs to be investigated.

It does not need to be long, nor written in the Queen's English

@ Knitted Thank you, the omission of @ HelenMeg friends

from my list was an oversight, which I've been pleased to correct in my post above

by **Nina** 24.03.15 20:00

Go on then Tony, give us a hug big grin

by **Tony Bennett** 24.03.15 21:00

Nina wrote:Go on then Tony, give us a hug

Ten for you any time Nina friends

And one more for luck friends

by **Nina** 24.03.15 21:43

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nina wrote:Go on then Tony, give us a hug
Ten for you any time Nina

And one more for luck

Awwww

give over.
Mine wasn't clever with words, just straight from the heart, so if there are any members fearing they cannot put anything together just tell how you feel and why. No nastiness, no swearing, no pointy fingers, just plain and simple. Just send it roses

by HelenMeg 24.03.15 21:55

Yes, my e-mail was not clever or particularly articulate. It just said what I felt about Operation Grange. It wasn't very long
but just raised a few points that I felt strongly about.
I dont think anyone need to feel worried about not being able to write well -just get your point across
in a short and sweet manner if necessary. We are all entitled to use this service no matter how bad our skills are at communicating..

by **Tony Bennett** 24.03.15 21:57

Nina wrote:
Awwww give over.

Shouldn't that be 'gi' o'er' where you come from? winkwink

by **Nina** 24.03.15 22:12

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nina wrote:
Awwww give over.

Shouldn't that be 'gi' o'er' where you come from?

Yes, it should Tony.
I sat for a long time trying to put something really succinct and clever together, and couldn't cos I am neither, so just wrote from the heart then felt better. So wanted to say to members, just write, don't live with regret that you didn't.

by Mo 24.03.15 22:42

Thank you everyone for your points. I am more of a report writer than a letter writer-I will give it a few bullet points. Thank you

by Knitted 25.03.15 23:08

A bit of an update for those following this thread:

Today I received a written response (dated 23/5) from the IPCC to my email about Grange's remit.

I've been given a reference number and they have explained they have passed my complaint to the Professional Standards Department (PSD), of the Metropolitan Police Service Serious Misconduct Investigations Unit (SMIU).

I am to wait 15 working days for PSD/SMIU to contact me with their response. If I am not happy with the response from PSD/SMIU then I can appeal back to the IPCC using the reference I've been given. That's how the process works according to the IPCC website, so no real surprise and I had to start somewhere. However, it's comforting to know that it's now formally in the system and that my quite understandable concerns will be either satisfactorily answered and assuaged, or if not, that they'll be escalated back to the IPCC for their attention.

by HelenMeg 26.03.15 10:36

Thanks for the update!

by Doug D 26.03.15 13:19

Knitted, you had more luck than I did!

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 25 March 2015, the contents of which have been filed and noted on the above reference, please quote this in any future correspondence.

We are completely independent of the police service and are responsible for making sure that the police complaints system in England and Wales works effectively and fairly. I note your comments. For reference, the IPCC deals with certain complaints against police officers and staff in England and Wales. The rules and regulations of the police complaints system are set out in the Police Reform Act 2002, under these rules complaints can be made by members of the public who:

*       have been the victim of conduct you felt was inappropriate by a police officer or member of police staff
*       were present when the alleged inappropriate conduct took place, or close enough to see or hear the inappropriate conduct, or have been adversely affected* by the incident
*       are distressed as a result of a friend or a relative being treated badly by the police
*       are acting on behalf of any of the above.

*Being adversely affected may include distress, inconvenience, loss or damage, or being put in danger or at risk. This might apply for example, to other people present at the incident or to the parent of a child, young person or friend of the person directly affected.

As such, I am unable to forward your correspondence as a complaint to the force as it does not appear to fall within the categories above. If you would like to register your comments with the Metropolitan Police, you may wish to send them to the force's Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS): email: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If you have any queries on the information above, do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours sincerely

Hannah Reek
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 6FS
Tel: 0300 020 0096
Email: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 26.03.15 13:29

Looks like someone a bit higher up has made a policy regarding complaints about OG.

by Doug D 26.03.15 13:40

Probably can’t argue with 2, 3 & 4, but as a taxpayer have I not:

‘ been the victim of conduct you felt was inappropriate by a police officer or member of police staff’?

by Guest 26.03.15 13:43

If you have to be a victim before you make a complaint, then any taxpayer is a victim of OG throwing money at an investigation with a limited remit.

Victims of inappropriate conduct by whoever decided the boundaries of the investigation.

by Knitted 26.03.15 13:53

Intriguing!

Maybe it's just a case of the luck of the draw on who replied to our respective emails? Or maybe if they've all of a sudden received a few too many emails about Grange (either from those interested in justice who want to challenge/clarify the remit, or from others who want it closed down) and so they've started to bounce anything with 'Grange' back?

... Or maybe those with something to be concerned about and who monitor this site have made a few phonecalls and exerted some influence?

Anyway, my calendar has a big X on it for when the 15 working days is up so I hope to have had a satisfactory reply by then. Failing that I'll follow the formal process, tenaciously until my personal complaint is satisfactorily answered.

by **Nina** 26.03.15 16:42

I have received the same reply as Doug D.

by espeland 26.03.15 16:48

Nina wrote:I have received the same reply as Doug D.

Me too

by Doug D 26.03.15 17:37

At least the IPCC cannot claim in the future that they were unaware of any problems with Operation Grange!

‘Knitted’s complaint has seemingly got through the system prior to some presumably ‘higher authority’ clamping down and ordering any further complaints to be rebuffed, but even so, they have acknowledged and referenced the other complaints, noted our comments and acknowledged that they have been read as ‘am unable to forward your correspondence as a complaint to the force as it does not appear to fall within the categories above’ can only have been ascertained after having been read in full.

With parliament being dissolved there is probably little point in taking it any further today, but give it a couple of weeks and we can make it one of the first matters to receive attention on the desks of the newly elected MP’s.

Eta:

Nina, espeland and others:

Out of interest has your response come from the same (Hannah Reek) or a different ‘Customer Contact Advisor’?

by **Nina** 26.03.15 18:18

Doug D wrote:At least the IPCC cannot claim in the future that they were unaware of any problems with Operation Grange!

‘Knitted’s complaint has seemingly got through the system prior to some presumably ‘higher authority’ clamping down and ordering any further complaints to be rebuffed, but even so, they have acknowledged and referenced the other complaints, noted our comments and acknowledged that they have been read as ‘am unable to forward your correspondence as a complaint to the force as it does not appear to fall within the categories above’ can only have been ascertained after having been read in full.

With parliament being dissolved there is probably little point in taking it any further today, but give it a couple of weeks and we can make it one of the first matters to receive attention on the desks of the newly elected MP’s.

Eta:

Nina, espeland and others:

Out of interest has your response come from the same (Hannah Reek) or a different ‘Customer Contact Advisor’?

I got a reply from Sadaf Yousaf, Customer Contact Advisor, so basically someone akin to call centre staff.

by Knitted 26.03.15 18:45

Nina wrote:
Doug D wrote:Snipped:
Out of interest has your response come from the same (Hannah Reek) or a different ‘Customer Contact Advisor’?
I got a reply from Sadaf Yousaf, Customer Contact Advisor, so basically someone akin to call centre staff.

Mohammed Rahman replied to me... (my email was sent 20/3 - his reply 23/3)

by espeland 26.03.15 18:53

Nina, espeland and others:

Out of interest has your response come from the same (Hannah Reek) or a different ‘Customer Contact Advisor’?

Mine came from Sadaf Yousaf.

by Guest 26.03.15 19:20

Whatever... Dame Owers never saw any of this you can be sure.

by Doug D 26.03.15 19:30

Nina, espeland:

Thanks for that, so three different negative respondents. That probably confirms it to be a newly ‘directed response’ to Grange complaints, from above, instigated after ‘Knitted’ and maybe some others, got through the system, (unless, shock, horror, the IPCC employ some other staff that are incapable of understanding the basic criteria for 'what is an acceptable complaint')

by **Nina** 26.03.15 23:45

Doug D wrote:Nina, espeland:

Thanks for that, so three different negative respondents. That probably confirms it to be a newly ‘directed response’ to Grange complaints, from above, instigated after ‘Knitted’ and maybe some others, got through the system, (unless, shock, horror, the IPCC employ some other staff that are incapable of understanding the basic criteria for 'what is an acceptable complaint')

The reply also just looks like a copy and paste affair as we got the same one.

by Knitted 27.03.15 0:33

Doug D wrote:Knitted, you had more luck than I did!

Snipped:
As such, I am unable to forward your correspondence as a complaint to the force as it does not appear to fall within the categories above. If you would like to register your comments with the Metropolitan Police, you may wish to send them to the force's Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS): email: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

...the fundamental difference between the reply I received and later ones seems to be that the IPCC took my complaint and forwarded it, as opposed to saying it was not appropriate for them to do so. Here's a scan of three bits of text that illustrate the different approach:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />
n.b. Prior to the last bit, they gave me the full contact details of the Met's PSD/SMIU, (i.e. address, telephone extension and email)... and not just the email you received.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.03.15 9:13

Doug D wrote:Knitted, you had more luck than I did!

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 25 March 2015, the contents of which have been filed and noted on the above reference, please quote this in any future correspondence.

We are completely independent of the police service and are responsible for making sure that the police complaints system in England and Wales works effectively and fairly. I note your comments. For reference, the IPCC deals with certain complaints against police officers and staff in England and Wales. The rules and regulations of the police complaints system are set out in the Police Reform Act 2002, under these rules complaints can be made by members of the public who:

*       have been the victim of conduct you felt was inappropriate by a police officer or member of police staff
*       were present when the alleged inappropriate conduct took place, or close enough to see or hear the inappropriate conduct, or have been adversely affected* by the incident
*       are distressed as a result of a friend or a relative being treated badly by the police
*       are acting on behalf of any of the above.

*Being adversely affected may include distress, inconvenience, loss or damage, or being put in danger or at risk. This might apply for example, to other people present at the incident or to the parent of a child, young person or friend of the person directly affected.

As such, I am unable to forward your correspondence as a complaint to the force as it does not appear to fall within the categories above. If you would like to register your comments with the Metropolitan Police, you may wish to send them to the force's Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS): email: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If you have any queries on the information above, do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours sincerely

Hannah Reek
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 6FS
Tel: 0300 020 0096
Email: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

@ Knitted @ Nina @ HelenMeg @ Doug D and others

First, it is very interesting that there are different responses from different bureaucrats! - some saying they've passed letters on to the Met Police's Professioanl Standards Department, others not.

I can find no law which says that their ability to investigate complaints is limited in the way they suggest. They may have developed some procedural rules. But I can find nothing which bars them from investiagting complaints such as those now being made about Operation Grange.

I think it might be a good idea for short e-mails to be sent back to the IPCC reminding them of their legal duties under the Police Reform Act 2002. Here's a reminder of some of them:

The Police Reform Act 2002, Section 10, gave the IPCC, inter alia, these functions:

General functions of the Commission

Subsection (1): The functions of the Commission shall be—

(a) to secure the maintenance by the Commission itself, and by police authorities and chief officers, of suitable arrangements with respect to the matters mentioned in subsection (2);

(b) to keep under review all arrangements maintained with respect to those matters;
(c) to secure that arrangements maintained with respect to those matters comply with the requirements of the following provisions of this Part, are efficient and effective and contain and manifest an appropriate degree of independence;
(d) to secure that public confidence is established and maintained in the existence of suitable arrangements with respect to those matters and with the operation of the arrangements that are in fact maintained with respect to those matters…

Subsection (2): Those matters are—

(a) the handling of complaints made about the conduct of persons serving with the police;

(b) the recording of matters from which it appears that there may have been conduct by such persons which constitutes or involves the commission of a criminal offence or behaviour justifying disciplinary proceedings;

(c) the manner in which any such complaints or any such matters as are mentioned in paragraph (b) …are investigated or otherwise handled and dealt with.

Both the duty and the need of the IPCC to investigate all credible allegations of criminality and misconduct was also set out in the fact sheet below:

QUOTE

Fact sheet: The Independent Police Complaints Commission (clauses 121 to 125)

Background

1. Since 2004, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (“the IPCC”) has had a remit to provide independent oversight of the police complaints system, including the investigation of complaints and alleged misconduct in England and Wales. Its primary statutory purpose is to increase public confidence in the complaints system.

2. The need to extend the IPCC’s powers has become increasingly apparent since the publication of the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s report on 12 September 2012,1 and the Home Secretary’s subsequent commitment to provide the IPCC with the powers and resources it requires to investigate the tragedy effectively. More recent impetus has been provided in light of the Home Secretary’s specific commitment on 12 February 2013 to drive up standards of integrity and professional behaviour in policing to the highest level, and her announcement that the IPCC would be expanded to deal with all serious and sensitive complaints against the police. While the IPCC itself has found that corruption is not endemic in the police, its reports clearly indicate that police integrity needs to be strengthened and there needs to be a greater consistency in standards across all forces. There have been a number of high-profile cases over the past few years that also demonstrate the need for action.

UNQUOTE

I also refer to the following:

QUOTE

THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE ELEVENTH REPORT FROM THE HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE SESSION 2012-2013 HC 494: Independent Police Complaints Commission the handling of complaints made about the conduct of persons serving with the police;

POLICE COMPLAINT PROCEDURES

More cases should be investigated independently by the Commission, instead of referred back to the original force on a complaints roundabout. “Supervised investigations” do not offer rigorous oversight of a police investigation, nor do they necessarily give the public a convincing assurance that the investigation will be conducted objectively. This kind of “oversight-lite” is no better than a placebo. (Paragraph 23)

UNQUOTE

I also refer to matters dealt with in the following report:

Corruption in the police service in England and Wales:Second report – a report based on the IPCC’s experience from 2008 to 2011 (2012)

A clear finding in this report is that the general public expects an independent body like the IPCCto be investigating cases of serious police corruption.

This is supported by previous research, which placed investigating police corruption as a higher priority for the IPCC than investigating deaths following police contact (Inglis and Shepherd, 2007). It is evident, from the figures provided in this report, that in the great majority of these cases, IPCC investigations are able to substantiate the need for misconduct proceedings, and in nearly half of those cases, to uncover evidence that
justifies a referral to the CPS.

The IPCC is clear that it wishes to have oversight of the most serious cases of police corruption that cause greatest public concern and damage public confidence in policing. Over the past four years, we have increased annually the number of independent investigations relating to corruption matters from a handful to around 15 in the year ending March 2012…

We are aware from a number of recent or current investigations of allegations involving very senior officers (i.e. those of ACPO rank), that it is not easy for those with concerns about the behaviour of their superiors to know where to take them. We believe that the system for escalating such matters to an external body, whether HMIC, SOCA or ourselves could be further improved. We will work with those bodies, along with the National Crime Agency and the CPS to establish more effective systems that command public confidence…