The two that got away?

In this, the first of a short series reviewing the past year, a second look is taken at two cases of miscreant police officers being shielded by senior management in their respective police forces.

In August, a very powerful story was published on this website. The latest in a lengthy series of exclusives dating back to early 2018.

It was a relentless, excoriating take-down of an organisation that staggers from crisis to crisis, scandal to scandal. It’s title was propitious, given what was to happen within Greater Manchester Police less than four months later: ‘Rotten to its core‘ (read in full here).

Within that piece there were exclusive and sensational revelations about yet another grotesque ‘cover-up’ by GMP. The information was triangulated from a number of very well connected policing and media sources – and confirmed, to a very limited extent, by the force press office.

In short, a serving police officer, attached to an elite unit and who cannot be named for legal reasons, committed very serious criminal offences in the early part of this year and has yet to face any form of justice.

A member of the public caught with significant quantities of Class A drugs about his person, not once but twice, would have appeared at the local magistrates’ court within days of being apprehended. Especially, if there were child safeguarding issues also in play.

Two weeks later, there was a sequel, headlined ‘Even more rotten‘ (read in full here). Another exclusive, it has also received no press coverage elsewhere.

Central to the piece was a letter sent to the Deputy Mayor of Greater Manchester by Gail Hadfield Grainger, a nationally known justice campaigner. The turgid response from the perennially ineffective Beverley Hughes told little, apart from confirming that ‘a criminal investigation was ongoing’.

Gail’s stake in the case is that the subject officer was a significant part of the police operation, codenamed Shire, that led to the death of her partner, Anthony Grainger. He was also active in the run-up to the public inquiry into the shooting that took place in 2017, reflecting his key role.

The now departed, and disgraced, Ian Hopkins, an unmitigated disaster as a chief constable, was said to be anxious not to give the bereaved Grainger family another stick with which to beat him and the force. Particularly, in the light of the scathing public inquiry report published in July, 2019 (read here).

The revelation that one of Operation Shire‘s key officers was corrupt, and a drug dealer, would have piled on the agony for both GMP and Hopkins. Not at all aided by the further revelation that the predecessor investigation to Shire, Operation Blyth, also had a now-convicted drug dealer in its midst.

It is worth repeating yet again, for emphasis, that the public interest is not served at all well by senior police officers interfering with justice, simply to preserve their own reputation. On the watch of Ian Hopkins it was not, sadly, a rare occurrence. Greatly aided by zero oversight by the Mayor, Andy Burnham and his Deputy Mayor – and the so-called ‘police watchdogs’ who simply sat on their collective hands whilst the country’s second largest police force descended into corrupt chaos.

Will the New Year bring justice for the victims of the corrupt, drug dealing, Greater Manchester detective? For the moment it seems not, but with the police force now in ‘Special Measures‘, as ordered by the Home Secretary, then just maybe a more rigorous scrutiny of this troubling matter can be undertaken.

The second strand to this piece features an article published at the beginning of December detailing another police ‘cover-up’, this time from across the Pennine hills. Great care has been taken not to identify the senior officer, beyond the fact that s/he is serving with one of the Yorkshire forces.

A large enough pool to prevent jigsaw identification, although the officer’s identity within police circles appears widely known, judging from the unprecedented feedback received privately following publication of the article.

There is no criminal offence involved in this particular case, but allegations of an overt racist act that could have far reaching consequences, not only for the employing force but for the wider police service, whose obsession with diversity and inclusion is all consuming. Which spawned the headline ‘Say one thing, do another‘ (read in full here).

Large amongst those two-faced organisations, who routinely discredit themselves by their proximity to such covering up, is the much ridiculed College of Policing (read more here). They had the audacity to take the miscreant officer into their Ryton-on-Dunsmore headquarters for a week, knowing that, at the time, s/he was banned from all other police premises.

This, presumably, to give the appearance that all was well – and throw enquiring journalists, and fellow officers, away from the scent of corruption.

The actions of the subject police force, since the exclusive article was published on this website, give all the appearance of downplaying the incident and desperately wanting it to go away. There has, for example, been no referral of the alleged gross misconduct to the police watchdog. A mandatory requirement in the prevailing circumstances. They, in turn, despite being very aware of what is alleged, have not called in the investigation under their statutory powers.

There has been no intervention from the subject force’s police and crime commissioner, either, despite both s/he and her/his staff being highly aware of this troubling case and its impact on the electorate in the force area.

Once again, the public are ill served by these ‘top brass’ shenanigans and concealing racists in the ranks goes very much against the grain. Not to mention the huge amounts of taxpayer funds wasted on payments to officers on gardening leave or suspension.

But, without a greater public outcry, or a whistleblower prepared to speak out publicly, and with compelling evidence to boot, those same very senior officers will continue to laugh in the face of journalists attempting to hold them to account.

The outrage of decent, genuine officers, past and present, in all three Yorkshire forces, continues unabated. This is the comment of one, a number of others are couched in rather more forthright language: ‘Inevitably, front line morale will be sapped once more by poor judgement of our superiors and lack of recognisable leadership. I don’t want to work with or for a racist’.

Page last updated: Wednesday 30th December, 2020 at 1205 hours

Photo Credits: Independent Office for Police Conduct

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

© Neil Wilby 2015-2020. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Hidden in plain sight

Written by a former Greater Manchester police officer, retired Inspector David Sutcliffe, an email circulated amongst key influencers in regional and central government has piled even more pressure on beleaguered Mayor Andy Burnham and his chief constable, Ian Hopkins.

Others caught in the crossfire are Deputy Chief Constable Ian Pilling, about much has already been written elsewhere on this website (read more here), and the most senior civilian in the force, Assistant Chief Officer Lynn Potts.

This is the full text of the email, published on social media on 14th December, 2020, edited for typos, syntax and legal reasons [text in square brackets]:

“Home Secretary / Greater Manchester MPs,

“You will all be aware of the recent national criticism of Greater Manchester Police and their crime recording and victim care issues. I noted that GM Mayor Andy Burnham and his Deputy, Bev Hughes, both feigned ignorance as to this issue. This can only be due to laziness, incompetence or [alleged] corruption, or a combination of all three.

“In 2014, I was a police inspector with numerous commendations for bravery/leadership and arrests made. I was mentioned in a Parliamentary debate after being the first inspector in the country to utilise the Dispersal Order and Premises Closure powers. Also, unlike [some] senior officers, I worked on operations and went out on my own and arrested people.

“After refusing an officer extra overtime, I was then subjected to a number of criminal allegations. The IPCC investigated and exonerated me on all counts, whereupon I tried to rid the [Greater Manchester] Police of [allegedly] corrupt individuals. They, however, and a number of senior officers (who had potential criminal culpability) were never subjected to any scrutiny and all documentation they have was either lost/destroyed or is being illegally withheld.

“I have spoken in person to Mr Burnham about this [alleged] corruption, posed a public question at one of his “Ask the Mayor” sessions (about his lack of scrutiny of senior officers and their actions within GMP), which is recorded on the internet, and sent him numerous documents detailing blatant criminality within the Force.

“Burnham and Bev Hughes’s response is [allegedly] to ignore everything. The persons perpetrating criminality were sent the evidential documents by Bev Hughes to reply to. So incompetent is she that she got those whom the allegations were against to provide the information for her reply!!!

“DCC Pilling, the man in charge of Professional Standards (and the crime recording issue) within GMP, has [allegedly] ensured that all evidence relating to his Department’s criminality, and that of senior officers with potential criminal allegations against the, has been destroyed/lost, or illegally withheld.

“Pilling authorised the promotion of senior officers who had potentially [and allegedly] committed serious criminal offences and ensured that investigations in relation to serious criminality by GMP officers had been quashed – and that as to whether racial bias had [allegedly] been a factor as to whether an officer was investigated.

“ACO Lynn Potts (who had a major part to play in this debacle) and the Chief Constable have also not disclosed any documents, as required to do so under GDPR.

“Hughes and Burnham have also [allegedly] broken the law in relation to non-disclosure under GDPR.

“Pilling’s attitude is typical of the arrogance and [alleged] criminality that pervades within the senior echelons of GMP: “lets go to court”, where they can waste public money to protect the indefensible.

“I have previously pointed out to Andy Burnham that more money has been spent hiding corruption in this case than would have been required to solve the city’s homelessness problem. Mayor Burnham espouses the rights of the people of Liverpool , but when it comes to the people of Greater Manchester he uses the same tactics as he constantly criticised South Yorkshire Police for, to obstruct justice.

“Burnham / Pilling/ Hopkins/ Hughes ( who are all of the main protagonists in this [present] crime recording debacle), you are all unfit to hold public office and your adherence to the Nolan principles is [allegedly] non-existent. Your attempts to evade any culpability are sickening.

“I am sure that you will pay lawyers to try to silence me. But instead why not publicly debate the issue? Let’s reveal all the evidence (including that you have illegally withheld) and let the people of Greater Manchester judge. We could do this next week!!!! You can get your well paid advisors and researchers to assist you and I will tell the truth!!!! If not, I hope that next year’s Mayoral elections are not cancelled, so that I will have a public platform to expose your ineptitude.

“I have attached a copy of the IPCC report in relation to my personal exoneration and as you can see that there are a number of potential liars initially exposed and I can assure you that there are even more involved in the subsequent “cover up”.

I hope this assists, David Sutcliffe.”

Those familiar with the inner workings of GMP and the Mayor’s office, including me (writes Neil Wilby) will not be, in any way, surprised at the contents of Mr Sutcliffe’s blistering condemnation. An officer highly rated by those who served with him in Stockport (J) Division.

Disclosure failings by both are well-evidenced, repeated and scandalous. Either by way of the Data Protection Act, General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) or Freedom of Information Act. The simple fact is, proven many times over, that Messrs Burnham and Hopkins place themselves above Parliament and it’s long overdue for the House to redress the balance and put the operations of both into special measures.

As for the rest of the Sutcliffe allegations; incompetence, corruption, cover-up, cronyism and racism, Burnham and Hopkins (or Mrs Hughes or Pilling) cannot feign ignorance of them, either. Particularly, by way of this piece, ‘Catalogue of Policing Scandals that shame the two-faced Mayor‘ (read in full here) published in August, 2019.

Grounded in its entirety upon protected disclosures to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) made by a well known police whistleblower.

The force’s horrendous crime recording and victim care failings received wide publicity very recently (read more here and here).

The headline of the first linked piece was very apposite in present circumstances: The Beginning of the End. For that is what it is, for both the Mayor and chief constable. Their positions are untenable as public confidence ebbs away and the Home Secretary has expressed serious concerns, in writing, over the actions, or more accurately, inactions of both.

Burnham’s response to Priti Patel was to claim that an excoriating report by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, the latest in a lengthening line and at the centre of the most recent scandal, also one of many, “presented an unfair picture”.

The Mayor also, incredibly, sought to defend the disastrous IT Transformation Programme, known colloquially as iOPS. The system has been plagued with problems since its much-delayed launch in July, 2019. A budgeted cost of £27 million is expected to, eventually, be closed off at a figure closer to £100 million (read more here).

Serving officers claim on social media that some of the software problems relating to operational matters are incapable of remedy. The force, and the contractors responsible for installation, commissioning and maintenance, deny that such problems exist.

Within hours of this article being published, the local and regional press reported another complete outage of the iOPS system, with call centre operators once again having to take down crime details on pieces of paper. In the force’s response, which sought to downplay the issue, the word ‘victim’ did not appear

This is a developing news story and will be updated. Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter here, and on Facebook here.

Page last updated: Wednesday 15th December, 2020 at 1245 hours

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

Picture credit: PA

© Neil Wilby 2015-2020. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

‘Get the white vote angry’

In October, 2020 I published an article on this website headlined ‘Search for the truth‘. An overview of a journalistic investigation into allegations of a multi-agency cover-up of child sex abuse in Oldham, Greater Manchester (read in full here).

The genesis of those highly emotive accusations, and indeed now its centrepiece, oft-repeated on social media, is an email sent by a BBC journalist to the Council’s leader at the time, Jim McMahon.

A subset is a reply that Oldham Council sent to a letter from the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) dated November, 2012. Its Chair, and author of the HASC letter, Keith Vaz MP, had met, immediately prior to its sending, a child sex abuse survivor from Oldham, Samantha Walker-Roberts (who has waived her right to lifetime anonymity) and her campaigning husband, the now deceased Steven Walker-Roberts. The latter also made written submissions to the Committee as part of a wider Parliamentary inquiry into child sex abuse.

Together, the email and the letter are alleged to prove that McMahon, now the MP for Oldham West, is complicit in the cover up and, due to his position at the time, central to it.

The accuser is Raja Miah, a local political activist (pictured above), whose output on social media and his other internet platforms frequently attracts the attention of the police and litigation lawyers.

These are, by any measure, grotesque allegations to make against anyone, let alone a family man with two young children who lives in the town he has served since 2003 and, of course, works in his constituency office there. He was brought up a short step away in Middleton, just beyond the Oldham Borough boundary.

Miah is best known as the founder and former Chief Executive Officer of two spectacularly failed schools, which led to him being blacklisted by the Department of Education and an investigation by the National Economic Crime Centre (NECC) into alleged misappropriation of millions of pounds of public funds. This followed a referral by the Serious Fraud Office.

The deep dive into the schools finances, strongly championed by the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Angela Rayner MP, has now been passed back to Greater Manchester Police by the NECC. To add to at least six other criminal investigations following complaints brought against Miah, and his closest supporters, by prominent local politicians.

Police sources say that both the Deputy Mayor, Bev Hughes, whose portfolio includes policing, and the chief constable, Ian Hopkins, are now both watching matters in Oldham much more closely. Better late than never, one might say.

Raja Miah strongly denies any wrongdoing. He was, however, kicked out of the Labour Party two months ago, a matter to which he has not alluded at all, amongst his quite prodigious social media ramblings.

It is no coincidence that Jim McMahon instigated and led the investigation into safeguarding, financial and governance irregularities at those schools and that the Miah ‘vendetta’ (Raja’s own word) began soon after the publicity outfall from that blacklisting and his consequent fall from public grace.

The MP told a local newspaper at the time:

“I have no doubt that the campaign of harassment and abuse [by Miah] is intended to intimidate me into withdrawing from the long-standing and ongoing investigation into allegations surrounding Collective Spirit Free School and the Manchester Creative Studio School – a matter which has been widely reported, debated in Parliament and subject to review by the Department for Education.

“I am thankful for the messages of support [I have received], but equally disappointed that such a sensitive and distressing issue [child sex abuse] has been used for political gain by others, and that some feel it appropriate to share wider.”

A great deal of time has been spent looking at the merits of the two core allegations – and the documents that Miah relies upon to underpin them. As with so much of the Miah output, there is little or no substance to them. That is also, on any independent view, clearly the case here.

The Keith Vaz letter was, I’m told, addressed to Charlie Parker, who was Oldham Council’s highly-rated chief executive at the time. In terms of protocol, that was entirely correct: A council chief executive is also one of its two statutory officers, paid a very generous salary to deal with, and co-ordinate, the response to such serious enquiries.

It was Parker who also wrote the reply to Vaz just over four weeks later. The contents are highly sensitive and cannot be repeated here. It can be stated with certainty, however, through the lens of this journalist at least, that the response was measured and appears to answer, in some detail, the two questions put to the Council by the HASC Chair. It is obvious that there was also input, as one might fairly expect, from a number of other officers concerned with child care and safeguarding in Oldham.

Miah, in an article he published without the specific authority of its subject, the child abuse victim referenced above, states that the letter was addressed to McMahon and copied to Parker. It wasn’t. It is further claimed that the Council refused to answer the questions asked by the HASC. That, again, is, quite simply, untrue. A further Raja lie is that the letter references Paul Waites, now a convicted sex offender. It didn’t.

The allegations linking McMahon to the letter and a ‘cover-up’ are contrived and fatuous. Anyone stating otherwise is simply not adjacent to the facts, or is running a quite evil agenda. Or both. His parliamentary office holds no copy of the letter and he does not have any recollection of having had input into it. The allegation that he deliberately withheld circulation of the letter is completely without merit. Simply because it was not his letter, or reply, to control.

It is a similar story regarding what is now widely known as ‘the Lee Rigby email’. Further evidence, Miah claims, that the MP was, at the material time and when Council leader, orchestrating a cover-up and preventing a wider broadcasting of concerns over alleged grooming of girls in local shisha bars.

In another lengthy piece on his Recusant Nine website he recycles documents from ‘a dossier’ given to him by former councillor and local Justice of the Peace, Hugh McDonald. Another with a deep grudge against McMahon, following his supension from the Labour Party in July 2013. McDonald was said at the time to have leaked sensitive police information to the press and to a safeguarding organisation. He later admitted his actions to council officials and apologised.

The fact that he has now released that same information, and more, to Raja Miah, in what seems a further pursuit of a common grudge against McMahon, can be fairly characterised as reprehensible.

It also goes to show that there was no genuine contrition at the time McDonald made his admisssions of guilt – and what now looks to be a very hollow apology. Indeed, he told the Oldham Times in November, 2019 that he ‘had no regrets’ about the incident and that ‘leaking information was a good thing’. The fact that McDonald sat as a magistrate for 35 years makes his actions even more unconscionable.

It is said that the ‘dossier’, to which Miah refers frequently, is the Standards Pack provided to McDonald, by the Council, during the investigation of the complaints against him.

This is the email at the heart of the present McMahon controversy, drawn from the dossier:

As a journalist, and also from the more detached, neutral perspective of an investigator, I’ve read this email many times. It doesn’t say what Raja Miah, and ‘the Rabble’ with whom he has surrounded himself, want to believe.

I am also aware, via policing contacts, that there was a Gold Group running alongside the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) set up in 2006 in the wake of Operation Messenger. That investigation reported, publicly, in 2010 that ‘child sexual exploitation is rife in Oldham, with police dealing with 26 individuals in the past 12 months’. 

Messenger was a dedicated Greater Manchester Police squad ‘battling a dark underworld of child rape and abduction in the Borough’. The force, working in tandem with other partner agencies, also said at the time that ‘in many of the local cases they had dealt with, the young people do not see themselves as victims. Drugs, money or housing could be received in exchange for sex’. 

Apart from the BBC investigation led by Jonathan Ali, it is in my knowledge that Andrew Norfolk of The Times (in 2012) and Geraldine McKelvie of The Daily Mirror (in late 2019) have both spent time in Oldham making journalistic enquiries, conducting interviews with a view to publication. In both cases no story ensued. These two journalists had, to their eternal credit, shone the first light on grooming scandals in Rotherham and Telford, respectively. Exposing police and council cover-ups in both cases.

Sally Chesworth, renowned former producer of BBC’s File on 4, and now producer of BBC’s Newsnight, has also taken a preliminary look at Oldham. She was born and brought up in the town. We have spoken regularly about the difficulties in grounding a story about the alleged CSA/CSE scandal in Oldham when there is a dearth of victims willing to come forward. It was Sally whom, along with Maggie Oliver, broke open the Rochdale grooming scandal in 2013 by way of an iconic File on 4 edition (listen here).

I spoke at length with Maggie about Oldham in a meeting in Manchester at the end of August, 2020. She elected not to get involved with the allegations of a CSA/CSE cover up in the town because of the questions surrounding the integrity of the main proponent, Raja Miah. A wise and propitious stance to take.

Returning to the Miah allegations, it was the Gold Group referred to above, headed at the time by Oldham’s Divisional Commander, Chief Superintendent Catherine Hankinson (now an assistant chief constable with West Yorkshire Police), that received credible intelligence regarding potential disruption at the funeral of Lee Rigby by far-right political activists and the attendant racial tensions. It was that to which Cllr McMahon (as he was then) alluded in his dealings with Kevin Fitzpatrick.

The claim by Raja Miah that the funeral of the fallen soldier was used to prevent the disclosure of CSE taking place at shisha bars in Oldham is not true. An email briefing was sent by GMP to councillors and officers of Oldham Council outlining an early stage investigation, and premises under surveillance. There are no circumstances where the police, or council, would have made this public during an intelligence gathering phase, and where the leaking and proposed reporting could have compromised an ongoing police investigation.

Discussions took place between the BBC and the police about the intelligence and it was agreed that, once a fuller picture emerged, it would be shared. It was during these discussions where the intelligence that the far right could use the funeral of Mr Rigby to protest was revealed. Whilst it is correct that this was shared with the media, as it would be in normal circumstances, it is not the case that the information relating to shisha bars would have been made public at such an early stage in a covert investigation, in any circumstances.

Once a clearer picture developed about the risk of venues, such as shisha bars, the usual process was followed to ensure local parents, such as colleges and others with safeguarding responsibilities, were informed. Further, the practitioner’s guidance (read here) was updated to include shisha bars on the list of high-risk venues. GMP also interacted with media enquiries and the matter was reported by the Manchester Evening News, BBC Manchester, BBC Asian Network and Radio 5. at the very least. The MEN ran this piece about the shisha bars, for example (read here). Kevin Fitzpatrick’s radio broadcast, from February 2014, which followed his investigation into the shisha bar allegations, can be heard here. He says: ‘This was a complicated matter that required detailed investigation’.

Enquiries have revealed that the leaking of the confidential email to BBC reporter Kevin Fitzpatrick was done via a long term associate of Hugh McDonald, Joe Fitzpatrick (Kevin’s father). He was central to the Phil Woolas Representation of the People Act court case (read more here) in which emails were disclosed wherein it emerged that Fitzpatrick senior had sought to create community tensions to ‘get the white vote angry’. He later became the chairman of the United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP) in Oldham.

As to the proposition that McMahon, and other Labour councillors, were either engaged in, or part of, a longer term ‘cover-up’ of child sex abuse in the town, there is no apparent basis to support such an inflammatory, damaging allegation: There was intensive, closely targeted media coverage, regionally; a high profile GMP investigation had been running for seven years; a safeguarding hub was active in the town and, from analysis of other documents in the Miah ‘dossier’, it is clear that the local police inspector running CSA matters, Haydn Roberts, was very much on top of the job and an active, and lucid, communicator. Notably, with his partner council and the late Michael Meacher MP.

That is not to say that everything was, or still is, perfect. Far from it. Mistakes and poor decisions will have been made in individual cases, or on a wider systemic scale. That is the nature of the job, and particularly so when dealing with highly sensitive, very personal caseloads where most, if not all, the actions or remedies require a judgement call from officers or social workers operating in a very difficult, stressful environment.

The present leader of Oldham Council, Sean Fielding, says:

“Child sexual exploitation is abhorrent. It would be naive to think that cases of child sexual exploitation do not take place, and the council and our partners must be equipped to prevent and detect them in all their forms.

“I am grateful to the survivors who have spoken about their experiences and am confident that if the Council, or our partners, could have done more to protect or support them, and others, that Malcolm [Newsam] and Gary [Ridgway] will identify this.”

Messrs Newsam and Ridgway are, of course, two of the most renowned child sex abuse investigators in the country. Both presently engaged on an Oldham strand of a wide-ranging, independent Assurance Review commissioned by the Mayor of Greater Manchester. Their report on the Rochdale and South Manchester strand, published earlier this year, was very widely acclaimed in the media and by public officials. Maggie Oliver also has great confidence in the capabilities and integrity of those two investigators. Not a view shared by ‘Raja’s Rabble’, who frequently seek to undermine them.

The most recent update on the Oldham Assurance Review can be read in full here. Their work spawned two high profile police investigations, Operation Green Jacket and Operation Exmoor (read more here) where large numbers of victims and alleged perpetrators have now been identified.

A similar wide-ranging police investigation, codenamed Operation Hexagon, has been established alongside the Newsam and Ridgway review in Oldham. It was recently revealed, by the force, that it was set up in November, 2019.

Former ally of Raja Miah, and himself a past Labour councillor in Oldham, Khazir Rehman, has this to say about the allegations against Jim McMahon:

“In 2014, at the height of Jim McMahon’s reign in Oldham, I was an Assistant Cabinet Member, part of the administration. These were my words after Shabir Ahmed [a leader of a Rochdale grooming gang better known as ‘Daddy’] was put away [sent to prison], ‘If supporting Keeping Our Girl’s Safe (KOGS) can save one girl from being abused, I would have done my job’. My ward areas, Fitton Hill and Hathershaw, had extensive work done in them, with Oldham Council funding, your money, it was my sole decision where these funds went to PREVENT grooming, by upping the game in raising awareness so that we could get more intelligence and train young people to recognise abuse.

“Jim McMahon said to me, ‘you are a bright lad and your heart has always been in the right place on many issues.’ Only a person whose own heart is in the right place would say this about someone else. Jim supported me in this work and congratulated me, after Ann Coffey MP, Parliamentary Chair for Missing and Runaway children, came to Oldham and took evidence of our response to the Rochdale grooming scandal, after the report was published.

“The press descended on Oldham to speak to us about the work we were doing, it was innovative; pumping cash into local organisations and generally supporting crackdowns on grooming gangs. Jim and I were two people that took no prisoners when it came to grooming, we said it how it is. Oldham was the only place in the WHOLE COUNTRY where we fought the hardest in this way against grooming gangs. Does this sound like an administration covering up grooming? No, we went after it and spent thousands of pounds on prevention. Here is the Coffey Report (at this link), commissioned by Police and Crime Commissioner at the time, Tony Lloyd, now the current Rochdale MP. Does this sound like an administration that was hiding child abuse? Please read the report, I know it does not fit with some people’s narratives, but I request if this is going to be a trial by social media, then give us a fair hearing as I was part of that council administration that certain people are accusing”.

With specific reference to the ‘Lee Rigby email’, this is what Kaiser (as he prefers to be known) has to say:

“If Jim McMahon is guilty of stopping a news report to protect the town from violence from the far right, and other thugs, that may have reacted at a sensitive time in our country’s history, then I am guilty also, as I supported him. The balancing act of public safety, public order, trumps disclosure of sensitive information. The investigation did not stop into the grooming allegations, which was only [police] intelligence at that point. Public order and protecting people’s lives and property will almost always trump any other consideration. Jim did his job correctly.”

On the issue of child safeguarding, the last words go to Jim McMahon:

“I take safeguarding very seriously and if others have concerns about it, they should be reported to the appropriate authorities immediately.

“Throughout my time as a councillor, and latterly as council leader in Oldham, I acted in the public interest and did my utmost to ensure that the leadership and culture was in place to protect vulnerable people.

“Any suggestion to the contrary isn’t just offensive, but more actively seeks to undermine public confidence. Moreover, it is blatant defamation.

“I find it incredible that Raja Miah, the failed former CEO of the crisis-hit Collective Spirit Free School and the Manchester Studio School feels qualified to make judgements about matters of safeguarding.”

Regrettably, Jim McMahon is far from alone in those views, as will be more fully articulated in another excoriating piece, solely concerned with those failed schools, which will be published on this website next month.

Interestingly, a co-director of Miah in one of a labyrinthine web of companies, Cllr Shoab Akhtar, was in the copy line of the ‘Lee Rigby email’. The company was RISE 2010 Community Interest Company (CIC). Cllr Akhtar says:

“I was invited by Raja Miah to be a director of the CIC in 2011. At the time, I was Deputy Leader and lead for community cohesion in Oldham. Raja had enjoyed success in his role with PEACE and, whilst I was reluctant to take on other commitments at that time, I did so.

“However, there were no meetings called during the year or so I was a Director of RISE and, in an unpaid advisory role, I had nothing to do with its running. My resignation followed the news that Raja was to became involved in free schools.

“I was, and am, opposed to that concept. I later became aware that over £40,000 had, apparently, been transferred from one of those schools [Manchester Creative Studio] into RISE. As there were no board meetings, it is difficult for me to see how that transaction [or transactions] came about”.

The former Mayor of Oldham added: “At all times, everything from my part was transparent and the connection with Raja Miah’s company was included on the Council’s Register of Business Interests and registered at Companies House”.

On the wider issue of CSE, and in the context of grooming, it is often said, and it forms a key part of the false narrative shared by Raja Miah, and his attendant Rabble, that grooming gangs are left unchallenged because of the reliance of the Labour Party on votes from the Asian community.

Firstly, as one prominent local leader has articulated frequently, ‘That is seriously divisive and hugely offensive to the Asian community in Oldham; to suggest that we are all, somehow, complicit in sexual abuse. It is a matter of fact that the vast majority from all communities in the town find abuse abhorrent’. Unsurprisingly, other influential Asians I have spoken to about this smearing are outraged by what the Miah supporters are propagating on social media, unchecked by the local police.

Secondly, it is not the case that child sexual exploitation crimes had been allowed to go unpunished. Though there were, plainly, serious mistakes made in the early stages of the Rochdale grooming scandal, and the Operation Span police cover-up that followed, it is a fact that the abusers were, ultimately, held to account for their actions. The role played by Malcolm Newsam and Gary Ridgeway cannot be overstated in shining a bright light on the Rochdale (and South Manchester) failings.

For those prepared to put in the hard yards, rather than simply rely on a lazy, tailored Raja Miah narrative that suits a particular, and mostly far right political agenda, there is sufficient evidence in the public domain to demonstrate that Oldham Council were open about the characteristics of this type of abuse, and covered it in blog posts (read here and here) and in Council meetings (read here) at that time. There was, it appears through this lens at least, no hiding from the crimes, information withheld or the crisis not fully acknowledged. In short, no cover-up.

As rehearsed earlier in this piece, there is also evidence available of significant work undertaken to review practices around CSE, the introduction of the multi-agency safeguarding hub (MASH), and the expansion of best practice across the Greater Manchester region. Moreover, funding was provided for the performance of the play “Somebody’s sister, somebody’s daughter” in secondary schools to inform young people of the lurking presence of CSE.

Project Messenger, running alongside the police operation of the same name, became an enlarged Project Phoenix team, which kickstarted a week of action to raise awareness of CSE, at which time the ‘It’s Not Okay‘ website was launched (see here). Included in that initiative was a Practitioners Guide to High Risk Venues (read more here). This includes the shisha bars that were at the centre of the concerns in 2013 and led to the covert police operation. Stalls were also placed in Oldham Market to raise wider public awareness of the problem.

A freedom of information request made last year shows that in the 10 year period between 2008-18, Greater Manchester Police recorded 502 alleged cases of child sex exploitation. It is not clear how many related to grooming or how many resulted in convictions. The police have been asked to clarify.

If any person or organisation has any other evidence of child sexual abuse, past or present, they are urged to get in touch with the police or the specialist unit at Oldham Council. Or, if mistrust of authorities is present (not unusual) then please contact the Maggie Oliver Foundation where specialist help is also available (see here).

A recent report published by the Home Office, following an investigation into Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation [Characteristics of Offending], concluded in its Executive Summary that “group offending was predominantly carried out by older white males” (read full report here).

As a postscript, it might also be noted that Oldham’s most notorious paedophile was a white, middle-aged male.

In November, 2006, Ronald Castree, a part-time taxi driver from Shaw, was arrested for the murder of 11 year old Lesley Molseed. He was convicted the following year at Bradford Crown Court and sentenced by Mr Justice Openshaw to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 30 years. Castree was found guilty of Lesley’s murder by a 10-2 majority. She had also been sexually assaulted. The murderer had a previous conviction for kidnapping and assaulting a young girl, aged just nine years old.

Coincidentally, this was the jury margin by which Stefan Kiszko was found guilty in 1976. He was ultimately cleared by the Court of Appeal in 1992.

Stefan’s conviction remains one of the most grotesque miscarriages of justice in police history (read more here).

This is a developing news story and will be updated. Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter here, and on Facebook here.

Right of reply has again been offered to Raja Miah. He has declined all previous invitations.

Other political party group leaders in Oldham, Cllr Hobin (Failsworth Independent Party), Cllr Hudson (Conservatives) and Cllr Sykes (Liberal Democrats) have also been invited to comment. The latter proved to be accessible, helpful, articulate and informative. Cllrs Hobin and Hudson opted to remain silent.

Page last updated: Wednesday 20th January, 2020 at 1155 hours

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

This article contains public sector information licensed under Open Government Licence v3.0 (read more here).

© Neil Wilby 2015-2020. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.



Disabled protesters unpick litany of lies

When it comes to calculated deception, witch-hunts and cover-ups, Greater Manchester Police (GMP) are generally in the vanguard of police forces in the UK.

A recent article on this website, ‘Scandals that shame the two-faced Mayor of Manchester’ (read in full here), highlights a significant number of them, grounded in protected disclosures by the country’s best known police whistle blower, Peter Jackson.

At the foot of that article there was reference to another GMP scandal involving surveillance of disabled protesters and the passing of data to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

What has come to light since is truly shocking: GMP has admitted that it has a written agreement to share information with the DWP about disabled persons, and other activists, who take part in protests. This revelation came about despite previous denials by both the police force, and the Government’s permanently under-siege Department, that any such agreement existed.

In December, 2018, the DWP told The Independent on-line newspaper that there was “no formal arrangement” between their Department and “any police force” that encouraged officers to pass on information.

Their spokesperson said, at that time, that the DWP “could not discuss the details of any on-going cases or provide further details”. In the light of what GMP are now saying either they, or the DWP, are not telling the truth.

In a recent article published by the Disability News Service (DNS), written by John Pring, the Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People (GMCDP) said it was “extremely concerned” that its local police force was “spying on disabled protesters and passing on their details onto the DWP”. GMCDP said the agreement was “yet another example of the punitive and unwarranted targeting of disabled people”.

Concerns about links between DWP and police forces such as GMP – and the impact on disabled people’s right to protest – first emerged last December after DNS reported that forces had been targeting disabled protesters taking part in peaceful anti-fracking protests across England.

The Independent piece had also set out how neighbouring Lancashire Police had admitted passing on details, and video footage, of disabled anti-fracking protesters to the Department for Work and Pensions.

“The DWP are a partner agency and where we have information to suggest that fraud may be being committed we have a duty to pass that on, including video footage if we have it,” a spokesperson for Lancashire Police said in a statement.

“They are the appropriate agency and it is their decision what, if any, action should be taken. We will, of course, facilitate the right of anyone to protest lawfully.”

Police officers supervising protests at the Cuadrilla shale gas (fracking) site at Preston New Road, near Blackpool, claimed they became suspicious of some disabled protesters who temporarily got out of wheelchairs.

In response to their enquiries late last year and earlier this year, GMP told DNS that it had passed to the DWP information about protesters taking part in anti-fracking protests at Barton Moss, Salford. These took place in 2013 and 2014. GMP were regularly criticised over their heavy-handed approach to protesters. The force also confirmed that it had shared information with DWP from protests not connected with shale gas extraction.

This disclosure raised further concerns that GMP might have passed information to the DWP about disabled persons who protested in Manchester about the government’s austerity-related social security reforms, particularly during high-profile actions around the Conservative Party conferences held in the city in 2015 and 2017. GMP later claimed that it had not shared any information with DWP about disabled activists who had taken part in those particular protests. The heavy-handed approach of the city’s police force towards protesters was also widely reported on social media.

It is a matter of considerable concern that GMP has previously denied, in response to a freedom of information request, having a written agreement to share data with DWP. The resort to deceit, on an almost routine basis, by this police force has been well rehearsed elsewhere. Whilst their permanent approach to the Freedom of Information Act (and Data Protection Act) is utterly deplorable. A matter upon which the author of this piece can report with absolute certainty.

As referred to above, the DWP has said that it has no such “formal arrangement” with “any police force”. GMP’s press office had initially suggested that it did have an agreement with DWP, before later denying there was one.

Greater Manchester’s beleaguered Deputy Mayor for Policing, Bev Hughes, told DNS in February this year that she had “consulted with senior officers within GMP, who have assured me that there is no formal ‘sharing agreement’ in place, and that the police act on a case by case basis, sharing information in accordance with the Data Protection Act”.

The Deputy Mayor has legal proximity to one police officer within GMP, the chief constable Ian Hopkins: Whose approach to the truth can safely be described as haphazard. Not least, over another emerging scandal involving the catastrophic failings of GMP’s Integrated Policing Operations System (better known as iOPS).

But, after DNS submitted a second freedom of information request to the force, a member of its information management team confirmed that there was such an agreement. Asked if GMP had an agreement to share information from various protests with DWP, he said he had “located a multi-agency agreement to which DWP are one of many partners”, but he said this had “not yet been assessed for disclosure to you”.

He added that most of the agreement “relates to controls/rules partners must adhere to when handling information”.

The disclosure officer later told DNS, on 17th April, 2019 that he had “identified the area of the force that is responsible for the sharing agreement” and had “posed your question to them, and am awaiting a reply”.

The force, as they so often seem to do, then failed to respond to further emails – which placed them in breach of the Freedom of Information Act – until late July, 2019 when a member of GMP’s information management team said he would “risk assess the agreement next week for disclosure” to DNS.

At the same time, the force’s press office refused to comment or explain why it had previously claimed there was no such agreement.

A disclosure request by information rights activist, Edward Williams, is visible, via open source. It is lawfully due for finalisation on 27thAugust, 2019 (follow its progress on the What Do They Know website here).

  1. Provide the written agreement with GMP to share information about disabled people and other activists who take part in protests.
  2. How many people has GMP provided information about under the agreement?
  3. State the protests or other events where information was gathered and sent to you in last 12 months. By this, I mean the place the event happened, and the date(s).

This may well duplicate some or, indeed, all of the request already made by the DNS, as part of their persistent, determined and highly commendable investigation. It is unlikely that Mr Williams will receive information before the end of this year: As yet, the information request has not even been acknowledged by the force.

Network for Police Monitoring (Netpol) coordinator, Kevin Blowe, pulled no punches as he told on-line, independent news magazine, The Canary:

“The police decision to collaborate with the DWP is about disrupting people’s ability to take part in protest and campaigns. It’s a perfect example of this type of disruption. It’s bad enough that the DWP already humiliates people who claim benefits. But if it’s going to go out of its way to find ways to stop people’s benefits – if they exercise what is supposed to be a fundamental human right – then I can see why people would be reluctant to potentially participate in something that may have a really terrible effect on their life.

Blowe continued: “This is a really worrying development, that I think is entirely vindictive. The suggestion that anyone who… takes part in protest if they’re disabled is likely to be committing fraud – which is what’s implied by the police getting involved in this – is about trying to make sure that the effectiveness of protest is undermined”.

Nationally known whistle blower, and retired murder detective, Peter Jackson, offers this view of his former force: “I have recently written to the Greater Manchester Mayor highlighting a large number of scandals concerning the leadership of GMP. This is a police force that is repeatedly gaining media attention for all the wrong reasons. Serious operational failings, senior officer misconduct, lies, cover-ups, deceit: Scandal after scandal. I was proud to have completed 31 years service with the force where my focus was on crime, locking up criminals and keeping people safe. Spying on disabled protesters, and reporting them to the DWP, was not what we were about during my time. I blame the leadership. GMP urgently needs a clear-out at the top, starting with the chief constable. We need proper ‘coppers’ in charge, inspirational leaders who command respect. People who can bring about changes to the embedded rotten cultures that now infest the force. We need openness, honesty, integrity and transparency. We need someone who can inspire their officers and restore confidence in policing. Sadly, for a number of years now GMP has had shockingly bad leadership and it is a broken force, failing the people of Manchester.’

Neil Wilby concludes: It is time for change, the Chief Constable is hanging on to his job by a thread, as droves of his own frontline officers lose confidence in him, and there is little or no oversight from those elected to provide it. Notably, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Greater Manchester. The region must also have the most supine group of MP’s in the country.

Page last updated: Wednesday 21st August, 2019 at 1005 hours

Photo Credit: Disabled News Service

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

© Neil Wilby 2015-2019. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

 

 

 

 

 

Second investigation into ‘lying’ chief constable flounders

Retired murder detective, Peter Jackson, the country’s best known police whistle blower, has written to the Mayor of Greater Manchester’s office to point out that his complaints against the region’s chief constable, Ian Hopkins, are, once again, not being investigated properly.

Under the applicable statutory framework, the Mayor is, ultimately, the Appropriate Authority who deals with such complaints. After a calamitous first investigation, in which his Deputy, ‘Bev’ Hughes attempted to dispose of the complaints by a hopelessly misconceived local resolution process, and misled the complainant by claiming she was conducting an ‘investigation’, Durham Constabulary was asked to assess and manage the probe into the misconduct allegations (read more here).

The ‘investigation’ by Mrs Hughes subsequently turned out to be no more than a phone call to Mr Hopkins. Not one scrap of paper was produced by her after the Independent Office for Police Conduct (more widely recognised under its previous guise of the IPCC) directed the hapless Deputy Mayor to disclose all documents relating to the process. Mr Jackson’s complaint against her ‘local resolution’ findings was, unsurprsingly, upheld by the police ‘watchdog’.

Bev Hughes had falsely claimed that she had conducted a three month investigation and Peter Jackson was, understandably, disconcerted when the truth emerged. She has faced no disciplinary process or sanction, arising from that disgraceful farrago.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which hosts the Mayor’s administrative functions first contacted Durham on 5th December, 2018. Three weeks later, after a flurry of communication between GMCA’s Deputy Director of Policing, Clare Monaghan, and a Durham civilian investigator, Darren Ellis, the small county police force took on the job of tackling serious misconduct allegations against the chief constable of the country’s fourth largest metropolitan force.

It looked a mis-match from the outset, and so it has proved. Not helped, it seems, by the unexpected announcement of the retirement of the Durham chief constable, Michael Barton. He is the Gold Commander of the Hopkins investigation, even though he appears to spend an extraordinary amount of his time ‘out of force’.

There are serious and well-grounded questions presently being asked surrounding the reasons given for that retirement, and its proximity to accepting the investigation into Chief Constable Hopkins. Mr Barton was less than half way through a contact extension agreed in 2016, which would keep him at the Durham helm until February 2021 (read more here).

Mr Jackson says he has lost confidence, both in Mr Ellis and the Durham investigation. He cites the following principal reasons:

– Witnesses that were identified in his evidential statements have contacted him to complain about the conduct of Ellis towards them.

– Those witnesses, a serving and a retired police officer, Paul Bailey and Scott Winters respectively, plus journalist Neil Wilby, have no confidence in Mr Ellis and, particulary, his ability to conduct a correctly framed, robust, proportionate investigation.

 – He is not reassured that Mr Ellis is adopting an appropriately thorough and independent investigation of his complaint. He fears another ‘whitewash’, along the lines of the previous feeble attempt to dispose of the complaints by the Deputy Mayor.

 – Ellis has been accused variously, of being sarcastic, patronising, confrontational, aggressive, insulting, deceitful, evasive, inept, unethical and unprofessional. Seeking, from the outset it seems, to break off contact with all parties on the complainant’s side.

 – Providing a straight answer to a straight question also appears to be beyond Durham’s finest.

Mrs Monaghan was provided with relevant e-mail correspondence to evidence this serious and quite astonishing catalogue of allegations. She has acknowledged the communication from Mr Jackson and is set to discuss the matter with the Mayor, Andy Burnham in the near future.

Clare Monaghan 2
Gretaer Manchester’s Deputy Director for Policing, Clare Monaghan.

Those Ellis emails, highlighted by Peter Jackson, include one to Neil Wilby, where, amongst other smearing, misdirected remarks, he references visiting the toilets at a friend’s house. Mr Ellis cites quotations he read on the walls of both the upstairs and downstairs facilities, referring to him as a fool. Ellis might well be correct in his assertion, but to use a police email address and IT systems, is unethical and unprofessional, at best. Not least, as the journalist is a deponent in the investigation of which the Durham detective is seized, at the behest of the complainant, and has extensive and detailed witness evidence relevant to what is asserted by Peter Jackson.

At the initial meeting between investigator and complainant, Mr Ellis gave the impression that he understood the seriousness of the matters in issue, and would conduct a thorough investigation. More crucially, he agreed to ‘go where the evidence takes him’, adding it into Mr Jackson’s first witness statement and asserting that such a crucial caveat would form part of the investigation’s Terms of Reference, agreed with GMCA.

As a former head of GMP’s elite Murder Investigation Team (MIT), Mr Jackson is much more aware than most, including Mr Ellis, that it is a well recognised, and sound, approach to examine evidence arising out of similar conduct in other incidents when conducting any investigation.

To Mr Jackson’s obvious dismay, Mr Ellis is said to be conducting the investigation ‘with his fingers in his ears’ whilst acting in an antagonistic manner towards highly informed and experienced witnesses. Conversely, and perversely, there appears to be excessive contact between Ellis and Mrs Monaghan. More alarmingly, Durham Constabulary appear to be willing to break the law to conceal the extent of it (read more here). 

Mr Jackson was recently contacted by a well informed local journalist, based in Manchester, who has reinforced the complainant’s view that the outcome of the present investigation is going to be another ‘whitewash’. Firmly held views, emanating from highly placed sources within both GMP and GMCA, are that the complaint is ‘trivial’ and ‘the investigation is going nowhere’. 

In an article, published on Wednesday 3rd April, 2019 in the Manchester Evening News, that has the look and feel of the under-fire Mr Hopkins calling in a favour from his friends at the local newspaper, the prospect of a ‘whitewash’ increases.  ‘Chief constable vows to clear his name’ screams the headline. The oxymoron, ‘I did not deliberately lie‘ is the theme of an article almost entirely absent of journalistic rigour. 

Mr Jackson has made it clear, in his evidence to both the Durham team and Mrs Monaghan, that the conduct of the chief constable in response to The Times article at the heart of the present complaints, was not a ‘one off’. It forms part of a much wider pattern of alleged behaviour that includes deceit, lies, ‘cover up’ and misleading of the public. 

For his part, Mr Ellis has repeatedly refused to inform the complainant of the outcome of his severity assessment. Although Ellis asserts that a Regulation 15 notice has been served on Ian Hopkins, he refuses to say whether the allegations amount to misconduct, or gross misconduct. Adding to the opaqueness, GMCA have refused requests by the BBC to confirm whether the regulation notice has been issued. GMP referred such enquiries to GMCA. The latter has been approached by Neil Wilby, via a freedom of information request, for a copy of the notice.

The terms of reference have been disclosed publicly and they appear to be a diluted version of what Mr Jackson was told to expect. There is no mention of the recording of the disreputable conduct that is alleged by Jackson, and the ‘go where the evidence takes us’ is missing. Mr Ellis has refused to explain these disparities and has cut off contact with the complainant, accusing him of leaking information to journalists.

In the light of the alleged misconduct of Darren Ellis, together with the highly conflicted position of the Deputy Mayor and GMCA, flowing from the disgraceful first attempt at the investigation of the Jackson complaints, a firm request has been made for a referral of these matters to the IPCC (now IOPC) for an independent investigation, by them, as a matter of urgency.

Page last updated on Monday 8th April. 2019 at 1725hrs

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

Picture credit:  Manchester Evening News

© Neil Wilby 2015-2019. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Chief constable faces investigation over ‘false’ statement

Greater Manchester Police is the fourth largest force in the country. It has been the subject of a barrage of well aimed press criticism over the past year or so. Almost all of it by the leading ‘serious’ newspaper in the United Kingdom, The Times.

The ‘newspaper of record’ has also taken the unusual step of calling for a public inquiry into police corruption in Greater Manchester, by way of its hugely influential leader column. Read by every Prime Minister since William Pitt the Younger.

The source of most of the articles has been disclosures made by a retired Manchester detective, Peter Jackson. At the time of his retirement, he was a superintendent heading up GMP’s murder investigation team. Popular with both his peers and subordinates, he served the public in his home city with dedication, and distinction, for 31 years.

One of these articles made the front page of The Times on Saturday 23rd June, 2018 (read here). It exposed serious failings by senior officers who watched a thirteen year old boy enter the home of a suspected paedophile, and notorious career criminal, Dominic Noonan, and allowed the child to remain in the property with the villain, and an accomplice, for two hours. The covert surveillance was part of a wider investigation into Noonan (now known by the name of Domenyk Lattlay-Fottfoy) codenamed Operation Nixon. GMP has a long history of being given the runaround by Noonan and tried unsuccessfully, in 2006, to block the airing of a TV documentary featuring his gangster family (view here).

The officer in charge of the Noonan covert police operation, Dominic Scally, was promoted afterwards and now heads up the North West Counter Terrorism Unit. A role to which a significant number of serving, retired and ex-GMP officers, with hundreds of years service between them, feel he is entirely unsuited.

Following the article, and acting with unusual alacrity, GMP chief constable, Ian Hopkins, issued a controversial press statement on the very same day (read here). The central theme was that The Times splash, background spread and leader were “wholly misleading and unfair”. It was an unvarnished, and unattractive, attack on the widely respected journalist, Fiona Hamilton, her venerable newspaper, and Pete Jackson. It went far beyond the acceptable, and was, on any independent view, a clear abuse of his authority as a senior police officer. To the extent that it may amount to disreputable conduct, as referenced in Police Regulations. Equally crucially, there was no rebuttal of the core allegations of serious police force failings, highlighted by Miss Hamilton.

Central to the defence of his officers, and their actions, was the claim by Hopkins that the force had referred itself to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (now rebadged as Independent Office for Police Conduct) over the alleged Op Nixon failings and his confidence in the ‘completely independent’ police watchdog to provide effective oversight. In this particular case, the misconduct probes were codenamed Operation Poppy 1 and 2. (Read IPCC outcome reports here). As with so many IPCC investigations, indeed almost all that could be classified as high profile, Poppy took so long it went to seed and was condemned as a ‘whitewash’ by many of those close enough to the seat of the action.

Unfortunately for Hopkins, a whistleblower came forward with a tape recording of a meeting in police HQ, at which the chief was plainly heard to say that the IPCC were “abysmal” and incapable of carrying out “thorough investigations“. The timing was important as the chief constable’s comments were made the year before the first Poppy investigation was launched. These revelations, unsurprisingly, led to a follow-up article in The Times, three days later, in which the damning audio was embedded (read and listen here). Hopkins was, quite rightly, put to the sword by the tenacious crime and security editor, Fiona Hamilton.

The chief constable refused to provide a statement explaining his disparaging comments, but was reported at the time, by police insiders, to be in a rage over the article – and obsessed with hunting down the source of the leak to the newspaper.

In October, 2018 a third, and even more devastating, article on this same topic was published by The Times. Evidence showed that Hopkins’ central claim in his June 23rd statement was false. The force did NOT refer the investigation to the IPCC. They had, in fact, spent eighteen months doing everything they could to avoid any scrutiny of the Noonan failings. The fact is, Operation Poppy was brought about following disclosures made to the police watchdog by Peter Jackson. The defensiveness of the force, and its senior officers, together with the propensity to bury wrongdoing was exactly as Miss Hamilton had foretold in her preceding articles.

There has been no public response by Hopkins, or the GMP press office, to these latest revelations.

Unsurprisingly, and following the third newspaper article, Peter Jackson filed a formal misconduct complaint against his former colleague, Ian Hopkins. The core matter in issue is straightforward: The chief constable was not truthful in his 23rd June, 2018 press statement over the IPCC referral. He claims it was not deliberate, but, it must be noted, he took almost six months to come up with his defence. There is no mention of, or apology for, the highly damaging abuse meted out to whistleblower and reporter.

The policing body that has oversight responsibility for chief constables is the police and crime commissioner (PCC) for the area, or region. It is, in almost every case, a post elected by the public at the ballot box. Greater Manchester is one of the exceptions: It has an elected Mayor, Andy Burnham, whom, in turn, and in theory, selects a suitably experienced and capable official to the role of Deputy Mayor for Policing.

Unfortunately, in this particular case, the Mayor’s pick could scarcely have been worse. A 68 year old ex-MP crony, Dame Beverley Hughes, whose Parliamentary career was dogged by controversy. Including misleading the House in 2004, claiming she hadn’t seen a report when it was later proved that she had. An incident that has now come back to haunt her, in a number of ways.  Burnham and his Deputy worked together in the Home Office in the early 2,000’s and were both protégés of the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett.

The only career experience of Beverley Hughes, remotely connected to policing, was spending six years as a Merseyside probation officer, over forty years ago, whilst she continued her university studies in tandem.

Remarkably, this particular police commissioner, elected or otherwise, is what is known within the relevant statutory framework as the ‘Appropriate Authority’ for the disposal of complaints against a chief constable. The presumption is that she would know the applicable laws and regulations, maintain the necessary impartiality and have unimpeachable personal and professional integrity. Regrettably, Beverley Hughes, on all the evidence I have seen, does not tick any of those boxes.

It is uncontroversial to say that the Jackson complaint was dealt with entirely inappropriately by ‘Bev’, as she likes to be known, and, as is often the case with PCC’s, the ‘cover-up’ of alleged misconduct by chief constables becomes the story. Essentially, a phone call between Ian Hopkins, and the Deputy Mayor, was the entirety of what she claims was an ‘investigation’ that led to a ‘local resolution’ of the complaint. In which Hopkins was found, by Bev, to have done nothing wrong: In the unseemly rush to get the press statement out, he claims an inadvertent error was made over who made the IPCC referral.

Those familiar with the chief constable’s micro-management style, particularly in relation to the force’s PR output, will argue strongly against the likelihood of a genuine mistake. As will those with close knowledge of the acrimony, and controversy, amongst the key players in the lead up to the Op Poppy investigations. Hopkins as deputy chief constable at the material time was central in that drama.

Bev Hughes’ actions or, more accurately, inactions, drove a coach and horses through the relevant statutory framework and not one single legal, or ethical, requirement was followed throughout the process. Overlaid by misleading the complainant from start to finish over how the matter was being progressed.

Those shocking procedural failures could well have been connected to either Bev’s overly-cosy relationship with a chief constable, over whom she has a statutory duty to provide oversight, or the fact that she also issued a troubling, and plainly co-ordinated, statement attacking the The Times article. She described it as “deplorable, totally unjustified and completely wrong”. No attempt to issue a correction can be traced.

‘Bev’ also had the temerity to reference the deaths of two young female police officers in an attempt to slur Peter Jackson, when the reality is that both may well still be alive if his own warnings to fellow senior officers, regarding the deranged killer, had been heeded at the time.

It is understood that a second Jackson complaint, this time against the Deputy Mayor, is due to be lodged with the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Panel (PCP) over her handling of the complaint against the chief constable. The complaint will allege misconduct in public office, a criminal offence that will require a mandatory referral to the police watchdog (the IOPC), by the PCP, for a decision as to if, or how, the complaint is to be investigated.  They are the appointed body – packed tight with even more of Andy Burnham’s Labour Party cronies – designated to deal with such issues.

The Mayor’s original stance was, incredibly, that his Deputy had acted “with complete integrity” over the Jackson complaint. It is not known if he intends to maintain that entirely erroneous position.

Following a robust response from Pete Jackson to the outcome of his complaint against Hopkins, and a merciless shaming of Burnham, Hughes and their Deputy Director for Policing, Clare Monaghan, on social media, Burnham finally intervened, in spite of his apparent confidence in the Hughes ‘investigation’, and referred the matter to the IOPC for a method of investigation decision. As a result, Durham Constabulary was contacted substantively by Mrs Monaghan on 24th December, 2018, with an invitation to investigate the Jackson complaint on behalf of the Greater Manchester Mayor. The latter having taken over conduct of the matter from his hapless Deputy.

In a police operation now codenamed Mackan, Durham chief constable, Mike Barton, will have overall responsibility, and sign off the investigation into Ian Hopkins, as Gold Commander. Silver Commander is Durham’s former head of professional standards, Darren Ellis, now employed by the force as a civilian investigator

A Durham Constabulary spokesman said: “Whilst some information has been received [from the Manchester Mayor’s office] there is a need for more to be forwarded at this stage.

“As the ‘instruction’ to engage with us is in the very early stages we are not in receipt of any preliminary assessments from GMP, nor any specific terms of reference.

“Until Durham Constabulary are fully ‘read in’ to matters and fully understand what is expected we will not move forward. To assist with this, we have arrangements in place to speak to an involved party in the near future.

“Until matters progress we are unable to estimate how long this piece of work will take.”

Which, de-coded, appears to say that Durham stand ready, but neither GMP, nor the Mayor’s office, despite the passage of five weeks, have given them the tools necessary to do the job. Given all that has gone before, that should surprise no-one. It is assumed that the ‘involved party’ is Peter Jackson, as his consent would be needed to allow Durham to proceed with evidence gathering.

Mike Barton, whom Durham colleagues variously describe as a “nutter” and a “maverick” (read more hereand here) also undertook the ‘outside force’ investigation, in 2016, into the gross misconduct allegations against GMP’s Assistant Chief Constable, Rebekah Sutcliffe, over the notorious ‘Titgate’ scandal. It is not known, at this stage, if Mr Ellis was involved. Ms Sutcliffe received a final written warning before a disciplinary hearing, chaired by Rachel Crasnow QC (who also chaired the recently concluded hearing into bullying allegations against ex-Cheshire chief constable, and former GMP deputy chief, Simon Byrne). The repentent Ms Sutcliffe made full and frank admissions from the outset, so that particular investigation was, on any view, rather less taxing than the present renewal (read more here). The curious might enquire why, with 42 other police forces to choose from, Durham’s turn has come around again so quickly*.

[UPDATE* A plausible answer may be that Greater Manchester’s portfolio holder for professional standards, Deputy Chief Constable Ian Pilling, and Barton were colleagues at Lancashire Constabulary. Both started their careers in that force, in 1980 and 1990 respectively. They would have been closely involved in the Sutcliffe investigation, as Pilling led the mob baying for her dismissal from the police service. Pilling’s predecessor as GMP PSB portfolio holder was also a former long-serving Lancashire officer, Dawn Copley. She joined in 1987 and left to join GMP as an assistant chief constable in 2010. She was never far from controversy, it is fair to say, and became the shortest ever serving chief constable in police service history after joining South Yorkshire Police. The intervention of two journalists, both of whom I know well, led to her removal after less than 24 hours.]

Nevertheless, given my own interaction with Durham Constabulary, there are serious and well-grounded concerns over their capability, or willingness, to carry out robust, thorough and impartial investigations on behalf of other police forces, or policing bodies. Indeed, my views are well rehearsed both on this website, the What Do They Know website, and on social media: “A grubby little police force that does favours for other police forces.” Durham is very well aware of that stance – and the well evidenced reasons upon which it is grounded. Much of which is set out in forensic detail here. Those robust allegations stand unchallenged by their controversy-courting chief constable whom, it must be said, is not usually backward in coming forward, as we say in Yorkshire.

Durham Constabulary also seriously, gratuitously and repeatedly, libelled me. Aided and abetted, incredibly, by the National Police Chiefs Council and, less surprisingly, North Yorkshire Police, over a freedom of information request that, ultimately, revealed a badly organised and shamelessly poor fraud investigation, carried out by Durham, on behalf of the latter, that is still, to this present day, the subject of a multi-agency ‘cover-up’.

Over £2,500 was spent in legal fees preparing a defamation claim against Mike Barton and Durham, but that was abandoned on counsel’s advice which was, essentially: ‘They have plainly libelled you, but will bleed you white on costs’.

A prescient remark, given what has transpired subsequently in other legal proceedings between us: Mr Barton and I will face one another in county court later this year. A claim under section 13(2) of the Data Protection Act, 1998 rests, presently, with Durham County Court (the third court to have dealt with the matter). He has, already, tried to circumvent the court’s mediation process on *three* separate occasions, and, instead, spent around £5,000 on legal fees, with a large Sheffield law firm and a London barrister, in a hopelessly misconceived defence of the claim. Which he would be perfectly entitled to do, of course, if it was his own money he was squandering. But it isn’t. It belongs to the hard-working precept payers of County Durham and Mr Barton should, in all truth, take better care of it.

[UPDATE ** Five days after this article was published I received an email from Small Claims Mediation Service (SCMS) to say the chief constable had, yet again, rejected mediation, in spite of a judge’s Direction to seek resolution by those means.]

The final cost, if the matter goes to trial, and Barton being cross-examined, by me, is something to be relished if it does, is likely to be well in excess of £10,000. To settle the claim would require a fraction of that cost, together with an admission of the breach, and an apology.

But there we are, that is how money-no-object, don’t-blame-me policing operates at the highest levels in this country. I see it every day with the three Yorkshire police forces with whom I’m closely involved.

For all these reasons, and the fact that I propose to provide a relevant, and collateral, witness statement to Durham, regarding well-evidenced integrity concerns around Ian Hopkins’ stewardship of GMP, in which I am both a significant stakeholder and a target for harassment by GMP senior managers, an even more keen eye than usual will be kept on the investigation into this complaint against the under-siege Greater Manchester chief constable. Made by, arguably, the country’s best known police whistleblower.

[***UPDATE. Information has been passed to me, by a bereaved complainant, of another sub-optimal Durham PSD investigation where dishonesty and/or deception may well be a factor. The evidence includes covert tape recordings of telephone conversations and meetings. Taken at their face they are concerning, to say the least.]

[****UPDATE. More information has come to light from another complainant who has very strong evidence of alleged, and potentially very serious, breaches of Standards of Professional Behaviour by Durham PSD. Darren Ellis is well aware of these as he, personally, refused to meet with the complainant. A sensible, measured, reasonable, but doggedly persistent, individual.]

[*****I wrote to Silver Command, civilian investigator Darren Ellis, on 20th February, 2019, to express concerns over both his own conduct and Durham’s suitability to carry out this investigation. His response was controversial to say the least (read more here)]

Greater Manchester Police and the Mayor’s office have been approached for comment. It will be something akin to turning wine into water if the latter even acknowledge the request.

Peter Jackson has declined to do so, in order to preserve the integrity of the Durham investigation.

Page last updated on Friday 22nd February, 2019 at 0020hrs

Picture credit: Scottish Parliament TV

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

© Neil Wilby 2015-2019. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

When the ‘cover-up’ becomes the story

Hi, Mabs. Ian Hopkins speaking.”

So began the search for a new member of the most troubled command team in British policing. Even before the post was advertised. In footballing parlance, Chief Superintendent Maboob “Mabs” Hussain from the neighbouring West Yorkshire force (WYP) had been “tapped up”.

Hopkins, the Greater Manchester Police (GMP) chief constable, ultimately, and he thought seamlessly, secured the transfer of Mabs from a rival team across the Pennines. Even though the tapping up did cause some discomfort within the GMP command team, emails disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act reveal.

The phone call was made on the same day that Hopkins and his deputy, Ian Pilling, claim they decided that another assistant chief constable was needed to bolster their dwindling team: 19th July, 2018. But no notes in day books were made, no meeting or briefing notes, no team discussion, no decision rationale, no disclosable data at all. Just a spur of the moment, informal discussion it seems.

It also appears that the police and crime commissioner was not consulted, either, as required by law.

But, those not so minor issues apart, all seemed fine and dandy; slick dresser Mabs had got a promotion, some might say well-deserved, and a pay rise of around £40,000, including benefits; Hopkins had been able to disguise the fact that no other senior police officer in the country wanted to work for him AND he had a black minority ethic (BAME) face in his leadership team, to underscore his commitment to the police service’s obsession with diversity. Smiles and handshakes all round.

Except that Hopkins had the dubious distinction of having, at that time,  TWO disgraced assistant chief constables on long-term absence from the force, with neither expected to return. The cost to the taxpayer was around £250,000 per annum. Which, in terms the man, or woman, on the crime-riddled, poverty-stricken streets of Manchester might understand, would pay for ten bobbies on the beat. Or, more than adequately feed fifteen families of five for a year.

The first of those, ACC Steve Heywood, is presently awaiting a charging decision from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) after an investigation by The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC, but perhaps better known as the IPCC). The latter said, in May 2018:

“Our investigation looked at the evidence given by ACC Steven Heywood at the [Anthony Grainger] inquiry, particularly in relation to how he recorded information in his police (sic) log book.

 
 

Heywood has been dogged by other major policing scandals since his full promotion to the command team in April, 2013. He had been in a temporary ACC role for eighteen months prior. He has been absent from the force for eighteen months on full pay. Again, a six figure salary plus benefits.

On 14th November, 2018, after almost a week of rumours swirling around social media, news was released to the press, by GMP, of Heywood’s retirement. Apart from his own failings, that led, at least in part, to the needless death of Anthony Grainger, Heywood has always sought to conceal his role in the handling of notorious villain, Dale Cregan, who eventually, and tragically, shot and killed two young Manchester police officers. The subsequent, and some say, contrived, sale of Heywood’s house also developed into a murky scandal centred around whether he was at risk from Cregan, at the time locked up in the Category AA wing (known as The Cage) of Strangeways jail. The artful financial wangling was followed by the inevitable, long-running, multi-layered GMP ‘cover-up’. The troubled ACC was also Head of Public Protection in GMP for at least some of the period covered by the Rochdale grooming scandal. The vexed question of ‘who knew what’ within the police force is presently being addressed via an inquiry run by the Greater Manchester Mayor.

The infamous ‘Boobgate’ scandal claimed the second of the miscreant ACC’s: Rebekah Sutcliffe, whom many believe owes her continued, if pointless, place in the police service to the astute advocacy of John Beggs QC. Who, somehow, managed to persuade a disciplinary panel, that included Sir Thomas Winsor, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, to conclude proceedings with a written warning, rather than dismissal. A remarkable achievement, in the light of the allegations against her and a previous chequered history with the force. Sutcliffe, who infamously told colleague, Superintendent Sarah Jackson, that she would be “judged on the size of her tits” is presently seconded to Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council, where she is overseeing a project to encourage exercise, healthy living and healthy eating (watch short video clip here) . A demeaning ‘non-job’ costing taxpayers £109,000, plus benefits, per annum. She was reprimanded in 2010 for trying to pull rank and gatecrash a Labour party conference hotel, to attend a drinks junket, when she had no accreditation to enter the secure site. There was also an IPCC ivestigation into her failure to declare a relevant relationship with chief superintendent, Paul Rumney, when chairing a disciplinary panel. Rumney, never far from controversy himself, was Head of GMP’s Professional Standards Board at the material time, thus creating a clear conflict of interest. That neither, oddly enough, appeared to notice at the time.

49 year old Sutcliffe’s secondment to Oldham council was due to end in September, 2018, but a spokesperson for the latter recently told Police Oracle: “There is no agreed end date for the secondment at this time. Rebekah is still the Strategic Director of Reform”. GMP refused to comment on if, or when, she would be returning to the force. It is believed she has five years of police service remaining before she becomes eligible for retirement. Her biography has been deleted from the GMP chief officer team webpage.

At a time when the police service cannot give away deputy and chief constable roles, another ACC, Debbie Ford, recently secured a rare neutral-rank transfer from GMP back to her former force, Northumbria Police (read here). Having told at least one former senior colleague, retired superintendent Pete Jackson, she was uncomfortable with being associated with scandal after scandal that routinely engulfs the force. As the former murder detective wryly observes: “Challenging the unethical, unprofessional conduct of her peers was an option she might have considered, rather than heading for the exit door”. There may be other personal, or professional, reasons why Ford left GMP, of course. But, if there are, the public is in the dark. Ford joins Sarah Jackson as a GMP departee, after the latter also sought a transfer from the troubled Manchester force to the less demanding rural acres of Cumbria.

Garry Shewan was another who walked away from an ACC role in the UK’s fourth largest force, doing a ‘moonlight flit’ as GMP’s £27 million iOPS technology upgrade, for which he had portfolio responsibility, crashed and burned. The budget for the project is believed to have roughly doubled and, incredibly, Shewan claims credit for a £60 million IT project on his LinkedIn profile.. “Honest Cop” Shewan, like Heywood and Sutcliffe, had also been dogged by scandal over the previous four years as both the author of this piece, and an increasing number of well respected police whistleblowers, rounded on him and exposed a number of troubling, alleged misdemeanours. Some of them very well evidenced. In one particular case, that resulted in the controversial, and many say unjust, dismissal of a junior officer, ex chief constable Sir Peter Fahy allowed Shewan to investigate complaints about himself. They had been made by the discipline lead of the local police federation, no less. In another case, Shewan wanted to manage a conduct complaint about him outside the statutory framework and through a restorative justice process in which he was the controlling influence. He had admitted giving a misleading statement about knowledge, or otherwise, of an investigation being carried out by Fahy into another chief constable, Lincolnshire’s Neil Rhodes. The issue being that Shewan had withheld crucial information that could have significantly informed that probe. The Operation Redbone outcome was significantly flawed as a result.

Hate crime champion, Shewan, was also not slow to complain about feeling ‘harassed’ when tackled about his conduct.

Yet another Manchester assistant chief constable to head for the exit door, as trouble rained down on him, was Terry Sweeney. His retirement triggered an angry response from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC, now IOPC).  He was under investigation by the IPCC for two separate allegations, after being served with a gross misconduct notice in relation to the disposal of body parts by GMP from victims of the notorious Harold Shipman. In addition, he was served with a criminal and gross misconduct notice in respect of his role in an allegedly poorly-handled investigation into a now-convicted child sex offender, Dominic Noonan. Sweeney was also involved in the alleged ‘cover-up’ of the unauthorised bugging of offices, occupied by senior leadership team members, by Superintendent Julian Snowball, who had purchased equipment for his illegal activities on the internet. Terry Sweeney was also formerly a Commander of GMP’s Rochdale Division and is yet another part, however small, of the ‘who knew what’ police mystery concerning child sex abuse in the town.

One of Sweeney’s sycophantic clique, during this troubled period, was Detective Chief Inspector (as he was then) John Lyons, latest holder of the poisoned chalice that is Head of Ethics and Standards at troubled Cleveland Police. Lyons is remembered well by former GMP peers for a discreditable, unpleasant, early morning drunken incident in Bolton town centre, in which subordinate officers were verbally abused. Sweeney is said to have smoothed the path so that his friend faced no meaningful sanction.

The IPCC Commissioner overseeing the Sweeney investigations, said at the time: “Greater Manchester Police has informed the IPCC that ACC Terry Sweeney is retiring on 31 October, 2014. The IPCC cannot prevent that happening, but we have been assured that ACC Sweeney will cooperate with our investigations after his departure.

“A police officer resigning or retiring when they are subject to investigation does not serve anyone’s purpose and can frustrate our investigations leaving important questions unanswered. Such a practice can only be damaging to public confidence in policing. We will continue pursuing all lines of enquiry before publishing our findings and evidence so that the public can decide for themselves.”

Sweeney faced no further action. Strangely, the IPCC report can no longer be located on their website.

Against this alarming, and continuous, backdrop, Chief Constable Hopkins has also been under heavy siege for the past twelve months, as a series of national newspaper front page splashes, in depth exposés, and a call for a public inquiry, has kept both him, and his scandal-rocked force in the headlines. For all the wrong reasons, it must be said. He was also lambasted over the Boobgate scandal, and some squarely put the blame on him for not nipping Becky Sutcliffe’s drunken antics in the bar, whilst stood with her at the boozy women’s policing function. Instead he delegated that unpleasant, hazardous task to a subordinate, whilst he sloped off to enjoy another ‘freebie’ at a nearby luxury hotel (read more here). Which might readily explain why no-one wanted to work for him as an assistant chief constable and end up with a reputation tarnished in the manner of Heywood, Shewan, Sutcliffe or Sweeney. Or have to backtrack to their home force in the manner of Debbie Ford.

An independent observer might also conclude that, given the present circumstances, and sensing there may be even worse to come, you would have to be desperate to walk into that firestorm.

Nevertheless, Hussain took up the role of Assistant Chief Constable at GMP on 1st October, 2018. He was the only candidate who applied, after the approach from Hopkins, and it is said, the only candidate interviewed; although no documented evidence of such an event has been disclosed to the author of this piece, after what have been quite exhaustive enquiries: Two freedom of information requests (one each to GMP and WYP) concerning the appointment; enquiries made of both police force press offices; fairly lengthy correspondence with GMP Deputy Chief Constable (DCC) Ian Pilling and one way correspondence with WYP Chief Constable, Dee Collins. Whom, it must be said, has this unappealing, unethical, unprofessional, and repeating habit of burying her head in the sand at the first sign of trouble. Particularly, when it is one of her ‘favourites’ under scrutiny. Mabs was, most certainly, in that group.

Documents disclosed by WYP under FOIA reveal the usual inconsistencies. Collins claims the matter of Mabs’ ‘tapping-up’ on 19th July, 2018 by Hopkins and subsequent application to GMP, was first discussed amongst her own command team the day after he was appointed (4th September, 2018). The only record in her day book, she says, is on that same date and a copy has been disclosed.

Yet, Collins had assisted in Mabs’ application, in early August, to the extent that, in section 11 of the application form (a blank form can be viewed here) it was required to be completed by the applicant’s chief constable, she filled it in and sent it back to Hussain, via email, with the jolly message: ‘If it is not what you want, alter it to suit’. 

No note in her day book about that event. Or, if there is, it has not been disclosed. A retired WYP command team member has revealed that, under Dee Collins’ leadership, the priority is what to EXCLUDE from notes of their meetings, rather than maintain an auditable record.

Taken at its face, and by reference to the disclosures made, so far, by both forces, Hopkins did not contact Collins. Which, given the recent history of each of those two police forces covering up for the other, and the fact that they are neighbours, with a large shared border, is difficult to contemplate.

There is no documented record, either, of Mabs contacting his own chief constable, or vice versa, after the Hopkins phone call.

The fact it was public knowledge, broadcast by Collins, no less, that Mabs was in line for the next ACC role in his home force, where he had served his entire 22 year police career, simply adds to the intrigue as to why a popular, high achieving, Bradford council estate lad made good, would take such a risk with this move to GMP.

At the time of his appointment as ACC, this is what a gushing Mabs said on the GMP website: “I’m thrilled to have been given this opportunity. I have great admiration for the work GMP has done for some time, knowing they are a similar size to WYP and respecting the way they have responded to particularly challenging times over the years. Their commitment to public service and the demands I can expect to face in my new role were all things which appealed to me to join the GMP family.”

So, let us look at this statement in more detail:

He was certainly correct about being ‘given’ the opportunity. Gift-wrapped, with a ribbon on top.

But then his fresh-from-the-strategic-command-course-sycophantic-management-speak sets the alarm bells ringing (Mabs had successfully negotiated the necessary College of Policing test six months earlier):

Firstly, he does not explain what it is he admires about GMP that places it above his former force. Both have a dreadful history of covering up industrial scale child sex abuse Rochdale, Oldham, Bradford (Mabs’ home city for all his life), Dewsbury, Keighley, Halifax, Huddersfield, Manchester Curry Mile, Mirfield. Similarly, their failures to tackle volume crime, particularly burglarly, are legion. Both have gun, and knife, crime that is out of control. Is all this ‘the [GMP] commitment to public service’ to which he refers? But, moving on, both have professional standards departments and counter-corruption units that are perennially inept, and, arguably, corrupt. Both have ACPO teams, past and present, mired in scandal. Both have chief constables that are, quite plainly, out of their depth. Both have the unenviable reputation for outrageous, high profile cover-ups. So what is it that makes GMP ‘admirable’, one has to wonder: The debacle in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena bombing; the Operation Grantham stored body parts scandal; or a multi-million pound organised crime investigation that collapsed after allegations of police officer corruption? These three examples are drawn from a lengthy list that also includes Operations Poppy 1 and 2, and Operation Leopard, of which more will be heard in a separate articles.

Secondly, no-one who knows even a little about policing, or reads the national newspapers, or watches police documentaries on TV, or listens to radio programmes such as File on 4, could conclude anything other than, in its present form, run by Hopkins, Greater Manchester Police is a scandal-hit shambles. Perhaps Mabs, an alert thief-taker, missed all that?

Thirdly, he describes Greater Manchester Police as ‘a family’. The implication is happiness, cohesion and belonging. Which couldn’t be further from the truth. There is a rush for the exit door into careers such as train, or tram, driver;  officers count the hours and days to retirement; morale in the force is at rock bottom says the GMP Police Federation; faith in the leadership team is correspondingly low, and, so stressed are the frontline officers with the working environment, record numbers are calling in sick. Add to that the internal strife caused by over-promotion of on-message sycophants, who have never seen an angry man; obsessive internal witch-hunts conducted against officers prepared to call out wrongdoing, and then draw your own conclusions as to whether this den of skulduggery, and two-faced-gittery, is a family of which anyone sensible would really want to newly marry into. Especially, if it means uprooting your own family from an area in which you’ve lived all your life, and leaving an organisation in which you started your career, progressed at a pleasing rate, and have always been well regarded.

For his part, and at the same time, Chief Constable Hopkins said of his new recruit: “I’m delighted to welcome Mabs to the GMP family. He is an extremely experienced officer and he will help us to continue to drive the force forward”. Over a cliff, presumably? As for police ‘family’, Hopkins is on his fourth, having previously worked in three of the smaller county forces before making the quantum leap to Manchester in 2008.  Becoming chief constable of GMP, by default, in 2015, as no-one else applied for that job, either.

As one might expect, the Manchester Evening News (MEN), in what police whistleblowers say is their adopted role as the public relations arm of GMP, ran a ‘Welcome to Mabs’ puff piece, as Hussain gave his first exclusive ‘interview’, just one day after joining the force (read full MEN article here).

Despite controversy over the appointment, broadcast widely on social media, MEN avoided asking any difficult questions. It all had the look, and feel, of a pre-planned ‘corporate comms’ operation, with softball questions, and answers, agreed in advance, to avoid any embarassing issues surfacing, inadvertently.

There was, however, one interesting passage: Mabs was, presumably, well prepared when asked this question by award-winning MEN reporter, Neal Keeling:

– Is it true you and your family get stopped routinely when you fly abroad?

“Yes. I do get stopped regularly, in particular flying to the States – my brother lives in America – and I do visit him regularly. I have been taken off a flight, because they forgot to check me getting onto a flight, which was rather embarrassing. It does frustrate me. I can understand the reason for checking people who fit a certain age group, ethnicity, and profile. But it does annoy me that it is happening so often.

“As a result I did write to Homeland Security. The Director General replied saying they couldn’t confirm or deny if I was on any international list. I have what they call a redress number, which I can use when I fly, which they say should hopefully limit the level of inconvenience caused. You have to go with the flow.

“It is frustrating. But people have a job to do. Flying out of America I still get stopped. I usually get told my name has been flagged up, and to expect some delay. I don’t mind security checks, it shows we are taking terrorism seriously.”

Even more interestingly, Mabs was not asked these questions by “Killer”, as Keeling is known to friends and colleagues:

– What, or who, persusaded you to apply to join GMP?

– Why uproot your family and leave a force where you have served all your career?

– Was the competition for the job, and the interview, tough?

– Are you concerned about the welter of bad publicity that has engulfed GMP recently, particularly in The Times and The Sunday Times, and on BBC television and radio?

– What do you think of two serving ACC colleagues being removed from the force? One of whom may be facing criminal proceedings and the other who brought national shame and ridicule on GMP and the city of Manchester.

– Are you concerned about another ACC retiring in what was, effectively, a moonlight flit after grotesquely failing on a major infrastructure project?-

– Has this poisoned chalice been handed to you?

– Have you questioned why and how the ACC vacancy arose?

– Have you spoken to ACC Debbie Ford about why she left?

– Joining from another force that has history of ‘problem’ senior officers (Norman Bettison and Mark Gilmore being very high profile examples), has this better equipped you to deal with a low calibre command team such as GMP?

– Will you robustly challenge inappropriate conduct of senior colleagues. Or look the other way, or walk away, as is the tradition in GMP?

– Were you asked in interview about the persistent allegations, circulating on social media, made by WYP whistleblowers against you?

– Have you been asked by either Mr Hopkins, or Mr Pilling, about them since you joined?

– Is there any truth in those allegations? Which include the proposition of failing counter terrorist unit vetting for a number of years.

– Were the whistleblower allegations robustly, and thoroughly, investigated by WYP, before you left, so that the air could be cleared and you could deal with any residual issues. If, indeed, there are any at all, on your application form and vetting declaration?

Whilst the MEN was giving Mabs the VIP treatment, Questions were being asked, by two investigative journalists, of the police press offices in Manchester and West Yorkshire about the allegations against Mabs. One of which, it is said, has been the subject of a complaint made by a serving WYP superintendent (also served as a detective chief inspector in professional standards for several years) and close working colleague.

Essentially, (i) have they been investigated – and (ii) what was the outcome?

Straighforward enough, and not at all unreasonable to expect honest answers from two of the country’s law enforcement agencies. But, no, all questions have been glibly deflected by both press offices, to both journalists, in a manner that seemed calculated to cause further exasperation.

Both those journalists, the author of this piece and the BBC’s Neil Morrow, readily accept that, if the wall of silence is maintained by both police forces, it is almost impossible to get to the truth of the issue of whether an investigation took place, or not. But, it can be said, with some certainty, that had one taken place, and cleared Mabs, then neither force would have been slow to trumpet that fact; discrediting the whistleblowers and those adopting their cause.

There has been email correspondence between Ian Pilling and Neil Wilby that appears to confirm that no checks have been made by GMP over the vetting issue and they had not asked, as of 14th September, 2018 any questions of WYP, at all, concerning the allegations against Mabs. The announcement of his appointment as the new GMP ACC had been made ten days earlier. The following day, 5th September, 2018, Pilling was passed, in strict confidence, correspondence between Neil Wilby, the WYP press office and Dee Collins dating back to January/February, 2018. The serving superintendent is copied into that correspondence. Which is shortly after the latest of the alleged incidents concerning Mabs. DCC Pilling cannot claim not to know the identity of that officer.

The official GMP line, says Pilling, is that if there has been any allegations concerning misconduct, during his service with WYP, then they were matters for the Appropriate Authority of that force, Chief Constable Collins, to deal with, not himself or Ian Hopkins. He was confident such an investigation would have been undertaken, but was not going to ask the question – and still hasn’t, on the evidence available. On 14th September, 2018, DCC Pilling says that he forwarded the concerns over the allegations to the West Yorkshire chief constable.

Following freedom of information request to both GMP and WYP, it appears that Ian Pilling did NOT contact Dee Collins, by email or letter, at least, to make enquiries as to whether that investigation into Mabs did, in fact take place. He didn’t contact DCC John Robins or Head of Professional Standards, Osman Khan, either. Neither did Ian Hopkins, nor his own Head of Professional Standards, Annette Anderson, contact any of the WYP officers named here.

It was also established, from the disclosure arising from those same requests, that there appears to have been no contact between any of the same three GMP senior officers and either the College of Policing or the National Police Chiefs Council, concerning Mabs’ appointment or any vetting concerns. The College’s senior selection team were made aware in January, 2018 of the whistleblower concerns, but no email correspondence between the College of Policing and either WYP, or GMP, has been disclosed upon request.

Dee Collins begins a three month secondment to the College of Policing in January, 2019.

A separate information request to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority seeking disclosure of correspondence between the de facto police and crime commissioner, Deputy Mayor of Manchester, Beverley Hughes, and her chief constable has, so far, been stonewalled.

By way of section 40 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act, 2011, the chief constable must consult the Police and Crime Commissioner (the Deputy Mayor in the case of GMCA) before appointing a person as an assistant chief constable of the force.

The response to the information request provided by the PCC is highly questionable. She claims that in respect of the appointment of deputy and assistant chief  constables, her oversight responsibility is confined to private chats between herself and the chief constable. No notes, or minutes, taken and no email traffic between the two. Indeed, no retrievable data is held says Baroness Hughes.

Material disclosed by GMP contradicts that position. Internal email correspondence between Ian Hopkins and Ian Pilling say she was sent a copy of Mabs’ application form, plus background papers, on 29th August, 2018. Put another way, the Deputy Mayor of Manchester has lied to journalist, Neil Wilby.

The stated position of the Deputy Mayor, according to her written response to the information request, has been robustly challenged. But no response had been provided by her within the required four week period under FOIA and the Information Commissioner’s guidance.

A complaint has been lodged with the Information Commissioner’s Office concerning the handling of the request, and a further complaint is being submitted to the appropriate authority alleging honesty and integrity breaches by Beverley Hughes. In this case, the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Panel.

Baroness Hughes, another living, breathing example of the abuse of the ‘honours’ system does, of course, have ‘previous’ for lying. Having resigned as a Labour government minister, in 2004, for doing just that – and in very similar circumstances to those prevailing here: Denying she’d received a memorandum when it was readily proved that she had not only received the document, but acted on it.

Whether, or not, it is possible to get to the truth of the WYP whistleblower allegations against Mabs Hussain is a moot point, without an unequivocal statement from either Ian Hopkins, Dee Collins, or Mabs himself. But, as with so many policing issues over the years, it is now the ‘cover-up’ that becomes the story.

In this particular case, without the ever-lengthening mystery, and the lies that inevitably follow, surrounding this matter, there simply is no story. It could have been put to bed by a two paragraph statement from WYP in February or March, 2018.

This cover-up may yet claim some very high profile scalps, even if the new GMP assistant chief constable emerges untarnished and free to get on with his new job.

The press offices of GMP, WYP and the Deputy Mayor’s Office have all declined to comment. Indeed, the latter two have not even acknowledged the request.

The enquiry to the GMP press office ends thus: “For the avoidance of doubt, and this has been made clear, previously, to DCC Pilling and WYP chief constable Collins, I [Neil Wilby] have no personal, or professional, issues with ACC Hussain. Other than the whistleblower allegations, he is known inside and outside of WYP to be a popular, professional, high achieving police officer. I am more than content for those views to be shared with Mabs.”

Statements had been specifically requested from Mabs Hussain, and Dee Collins, that directly address the issue of whether the police whistleblower allegations have been appropriately recorded, referred and subsequently investigated.

From the ensuing silence, inference can be drawn as to whether the answer is in the affirmative, or otherwise. Not one journalist or police officer, serving, ex-, or retired, spoken to believes it has.

The lay reader is invited to draw their own conclusion as to where that leaves the GMP chief constable and his latest command team recruit.

There is no ACC Maboob Hussain biography on the GMP chief officer team webpage, which was last updated on 29th October, 2018. A month after mabs joined the force (read here).

Page last updated on Saturday 24th November, 2018 at 1725hrs

Picture credit: Greater Manchester Police

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

© Neil Wilby 2015-2019. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.