Re: New DCI

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: dpsmailbox-.cst@met.pnn.police.uk

...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:

New DCI - Page 26 <a href=

" />
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: dpsmailbox-.cst@met.pnn.police.uk

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: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.ukmailto:enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

@ 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…

by Guest 27.03.15 9:19

Someone has limited the remit of the IPCC.

by Guest 27.03.15 10:06

The IPCC have more than enough on their plate.

https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/update-investigation-allegations-historical-corruption-relating-child-sex-abuse-metropolitan

Update on the investigation into allegations of historical corruption relating to child sex abuse in the Metropolitan Police
Mar 26, 2015
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is to manage a further three investigations detailing allegations of corruption in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) in relation to child sex offences dating from the 1970s to the 2000s.
This is in addition to the 14 referrals announced on 16 March. All relate to allegations about:

Suppressing evidence;
Hindering or halting investigations;
Covering up the offences because of the involvement of members of parliament and police officers

These three referrals are:
1)      Allegation that a child abuse investigation in central London gathered evidence against MP’s, judges, media entertainers, police, actors, clergy and others. The file was submitted to start proceedings against those identified and two months later an officer was called in by a senior MPS officer and told to drop the case.
2)      Allegation about police actions during a child abuse investigation in the 1980s.
3)      A related allegation about the same investigation.
The IPCC is also assessing a further six referrals it has received from the MPS relating to similar matters.

by HelenMeg 27.03.15 10:09

I have not even received a response yet

by Bishop Brennan 02.04.15 16:22

BlueBag wrote:Someone has limited the remit of the IPCC.

I think the crucial thing is that the remit of Operation Grange itself was limited and made public. The wording of the remit will forever act as a valid SY defence against ANY complaint against OG: they were told to treat this as an abduction, and they have spent £10m and 3 years doing just that. Not their fault that the remit was badly drawn up. They followed the remit, guv.

by HelenMeg 02.04.15 16:35

My reply arrived today:

Dear xxxxx

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). I acknowledge and note the contents of your email dated 24 March 2015.

Further to your email, the IPCC is responsible for overseeing the police complaints process and acts as a guardian of the process. The IPCC deals with complaint against the conduct of police officers in England and Wales. As such the IPCC does not have any remit over criminal matters and the manner in which the police conduct an investigation.

I appreciate the concerns that you have raised and suggest that you raise these with the relevant police force.

Kind Regards

Mohammed Rahman
Customer Contact Advisor
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW

by Doug D 02.04.15 18:15

HelenMeg:

Your reply from Mohammed Rahman, the same advisor that forwarded ‘Knitted’s’ complaint on.

‘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)’

Right & Left hands come to mind, but it’s the same person!!!!!

by Knitted 02.04.15 21:08

Interesting...

HelenMeg... is that the whole content of your letter or just a post of the the key bit? If it's all of it then the brevity or the response you received compared to mine is surprising to say the least.

Either way I guess I was lucky, but at least we got one complaint through and passed by the IPCC to the Met before they ~~were nobbled~~ decided not to deal with each one quite as rigorously.

by Doug D 03.04.15 8:53

Not McCann, but comment from DCS Bonthron from DPS. Release issued at 10.46 last night in order to avoid the papers.

Two Croydon sergeants subject to DPS investigation

Met Police Press Release 02-Apr-2015 22:46

During an ongoing misconduct investigation, being carried out by the Directorate of Professional Standards, detectives were made aware of the suggestion that two officers failed to properly respond to a call for a police response to a serious incident, when Andrew Else was fatally stabbed on 24 April 2014.

As a result of this information in July 2014 two Sergeants from Croydon Borough have been placed on restricted duty pending the outcome of the investigation.

The officers have not been arrested but have been interviewed under caution and a file passed to the CPS for consideration.

Detective Chief Superintendent Alaric Bonthron, from the DPS, said:

"The suggestion that any police officer has in some way failed to do their duty and respond properly to any call for a response must be fully and properly investigated.

If any officer has failed in their duty it is only right that they are held to account.

"Everyday in London police officers work hard to keep the public safe. Allegations such as these trouble us all."

Local officers were on scene of Andrew's murder within approximately seven minutes of having been called. A man was arrested at the scene and pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility on Friday, 13 February 2015 at the Old Bailey.

…………………………………..

At some stage in the future they are going to have to justify and explain how Grange has been a properly conducted investigation and what on earth they have been doing all of this time and this must be a complete nightmare scenario for the DPS.

by HelenMeg 18.04.15 21:53

Knitted wrote:Interesting...

HelenMeg... is that the whole content of your letter or just a post of the the key bit? If it's all of it then the brevity or the response you received compared to mine is surprising to say the least.

Either way I guess I was lucky, but at least we got one complaint through and passed by the IPCC to the Met before they ~~were nobbled~~ decided not to deal with each one quite as rigorously.

That was the whole content of the letter. Your letter of complaint was very well written - whereas mine was less detailed - I probably sounded as though I was someone who could just be 'brushed' off..

I wonder if DCI Wall is working full time on Op Grange. I wonder what she is doing, day after day after day..

by HelenMeg 21.05.15 21:35

Day after day after day... its been around 5 months since she took over -hope she is still making progress

by Lands_end 22.05.15 10:04

Doug D wrote:Not McCann, but comment from DCS Bonthron from DPS. Release issued at 10.46 last night in order to avoid the papers.

Two Croydon sergeants subject to DPS investigation

Met Police Press Release 02-Apr-2015 22:46

During an ongoing misconduct investigation, being carried out by the Directorate of Professional Standards, detectives were made aware of the suggestion that two officers failed to properly respond to a call for a police response to a serious incident, when Andrew Else was fatally stabbed on 24 April 2014.

As a result of this information in July 2014 two Sergeants from Croydon Borough have been placed on restricted duty pending the outcome of the investigation.

The officers have not been arrested but have been interviewed under caution and a file passed to the CPS for consideration.

Detective Chief Superintendent Alaric Bonthron, from the DPS, said:

"The suggestion that any police officer has in some way failed to do their duty and respond properly to any call for a response must be fully and properly investigated.

If any officer has failed in their duty it is only right that they are held to account.

"Everyday in London police officers work hard to keep the public safe. Allegations such as these trouble us all."

Local officers were on scene of Andrew's murder within approximately seven minutes of having been called. A man was arrested at the scene and pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility on Friday, 13 February 2015 at the Old Bailey.

…………………………………..

At some stage in the future they are going to have to justify and explain how Grange has been a properly conducted investigation and what on earth they have been doing all of this time and this must be a complete nightmare scenario for the DPS.

Oh C'mon. TWO CROYDON SERGEANTS? If I'm not mistaken this is the same Croydon that has a rather disreputable disfunct populace which has rubbed off on the police service. We only have to cast the mind back a few years when anothe poor little girl was murdered , body hidden in the house and the police failed to find it with in a week? Not that I'm unduly cynical or anything.

by jeanmonroe 10.08.15 12:42

Whatever 'happened' to the TEN 'new' 'suspects' DCI (KM 'mini me') Wall FOUND, via the 'files', AFTER DCI Redwood retired.?

You know the 'ones', the 10 (TEN) 'new' suspects DCI Redwood and his 'elite, experienced' 38 strong, FULL TIME, solely dedicated team, 'MISSED, DIDN'T FIND, FAILED TO FIND', when he was IO at OG, FOR THREE and a HALF YEARS!

Were 'the 10', 'new' suspects, 'found', all DCI Wall's 'own work', apparently, interviewed by Kate 'mini me' and PJ?

Under 'arguido' status, in Portugal?

Lest we forget, there are STILL 3 supposed 'arguidos' in Portugal, 'arguidoed' at, ex 30 year career, MPS officer, DCI Redwood's, 'request'.

by willowthewisp 10.08.15 13:01

Dodgy Dave seen on Cornwall Beach with 2.2 million in his back pocket doing underground surveillance with Metodo 3,Henry and Dave Edgar on behalf of Brian(fix it) Kennedy, surrounded by Sam,Rebecca,Rupert, Andy and their offspring entourage of corrupt reporters from MSM, sky, what's the next move Dave,shelve the case!?
It's marvellous this "Punch and Judy" with the PJ from Portugal, but "we've got deeper pockets than them eh Dave" Roll out the Barrell we'll have a Barrow of fun! nah