Review of 2020 – 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.

Part-time judge faces Bar Standards complaint

At a remote case management hearing on Monday 14th December, 2020, an Employment Tribunal judge in Leeds was told that a serving West Yorkshire Police officer, Sergeant Umer Saeed has lodged a formal complaint against a well known Leeds barrister, Olivia Checa-Dover (writes Neil Wilby).

It concerns a disputed account of a conversation between Sgt Saeed’s barrister at the time, Adam Willoughby, and Miss Checa-Dover, that took place on 17th January, 2019. She was representing WYP in those same Tribunal proceedings in which Sgt Saeed is claiming racial and religious discrimination against his employer (read more here).

The hearing of the claim was listed to open on 16th January, 2019 but that was, in the event, set aside as a reading day and, moreover, the Tribunal panel was aware that the parties were in negotiations with a view to settling the claim.

It was during those discussions that the subject conversation took place, on the following day.

It is said by Mr Willoughby that a coercive threat to end Sgt Saeed’s career as an operational police officer was made by Miss Checa-Dover. A matter she robustly denies, having an entirely different recollection of what took place between them.

There were no independent witnesses to the conversation, although Mr Willoughby relies upon detailed contemporaneous notes made in his ‘blue book’.

The evidential aspects of the dispute between counsel were fully ventilated in the hearing earlier this week as both barristers, having recused themselves from the claim, were subjected to lengthy and highly forensic cross-examination.

Solicitor Victoria Clegg also gave evidence for the police, which was very largely procedural. She is not the subject of complaint by her WYP colleague, Sgt Saeed. Essentially, Mrs Cleg confirmed that Miss Checa-Dover did not have instructions either from her or the chief constable to say the things she allegedly put to Mr Willoughby.

Although no reporting restrictions are in place, a full account of those proceedings is being delayed until Judge Knowles has made his determination on the present matters in issue. Those include whether to consolidate two further claims made by Sgt Saeed, concerning other detriments arising by way of the conduct of the defence of the claim by WYP, namely victimisation and disability discrimination, together with the original claim.

The hearing over-ran and it was not possible to hear final submissions from newly appointed counsel Dijen Basu QC (for Sgt Saeed) and David Jones (for WYP). The parties, and the judge, decided, after a short discussion, that those remaining matters could be satisfactorily dealt with on paper. It is expected that judgment will be handed down towards the end of January, 2021.

What emerged in evidence from Mr Willoughby and Miss Checa-Dover, some of it highly controversial, to say the least, will be reported alongside the judge’s findings, in what is an exceptional and sensitive case.

The status of Sgt Saeed’s complaint to the Bar Standards Board, made in March 2019, was not discussed in the hearing. It is assumed that any actions by the BSB have been stayed, pending the fact finding of Judge Knowles. They do not comment on individual cases and Sgt Saeed is reluctant to give any further details.

Umer Saeed is a nationally known figure in Black and Muslim staff associations. He is Chair of the West Yorkshire Black Police Association, and General Secretary and a Cabinet Member of the National Black Police Association. He is also a trained Police Federation representative and speaks four languages; Arabic, Punjabi, Slovak and Urdu. He joined the police service in June, 1999, spending most of his career in specialist teams, and has a BSc degree in Business Administration and Management. He is presently negotiating with WYP over study for a much coveted Master In Business Administration (MBA) qualification.

Adam Willoughby is the Head of Sports Law and Deputy Head of Employment Law at Broadway House Chambers in Leeds. He is described as “an impressive advocate” with “exceptional analytical ability”.

Olivia Checa-Dover is a police law specialist with KBW Chambers, much favoured by West Yorkshire Police. It is said that “she has an exceptionally sharp mind and an eye for detail“. She also sits as a legally qualified chair in police disciplinary hearings and was appointed as a Recorder (part-time judge) in April, 2019.

She represents WYP in another highly controversial, fiercely contested civil claim brought by Bradford GP, Dr Abdul Rashid, in which the force lost out at the High Court, on appeal (read more here). Mr Justice Lavender found that Dr Rashid had been unlawfully arrested in March, 2012, overturning a highly criticised County Court judgment of Mr Recorder Ben Nolan QC.

A hearing, to assess the amount of damages Dr Rashid will be paid, is expected to be listed for July, 2021.

The conduct of the police has been the subject of fierce criticism throughout those proceedings and the events that preceded them.

Miss Checa-Dover deleted her Twitter social media account shortly after publication of this article. Her chambers, KBW, blocked the author without any interaction beyond a single, innocuous tweet posted almost three months ago (see here).

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

Page last updated: Tuesday 22nd December, 2020 at 1135 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:

© 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.

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.

Criminals on the loose

Earlier this week, a watchdog report revealed another series of grotesque failures by beleaguered Greater Manchester Police (GMP).

Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary found that, in just one year, the force had failed to record 80,000 crimes in the year ending June, 2020 (an average of 220 per day). Thousands of others cases were also without proper investigation (read more here).

This is just one of them. Leaving three dangerous criminals, who had, apparently, also offended shortly prior to the events so graphically described here.

The response to this letter issued today by Gail Hadfield Grainger, and copied to a wide number of senior police officers, policing stakeholders and elected representatives, including the Home Secretary, will be a good indicator as to whether the “robust measures” allegedly now put in place, by GMP, to prevent such calamities are, in fact, effective:

“To the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police,

“My name is Gail Hadfield Grainger, my contact details are stated at the top of this letter.

“The principal purposes of this letter are (i) to complain about the way that the incident described below was handled by your police officers and (ii) to insist that a proportionate criminal investigation be instigated by experienced detectives, at least one of whom needs to be of managerial rank.

“This complaint is NOT suitable for local resolution. I will not be fobbed off. The matter requires rigorous investigation and those responsible properly held to account. That includes the supervisors, managers, commanders and chiefs who are responsible for the culture in which constables and civilian staff can treat victims of crime in this appalling manner.

“The Crime reference number for this incident is: CRI/06FF/0007643/20


“The particulars are as follows:

“In the evening of the 9th April 2020, two men attended my house to buy a mobile phone that I had been using for the previous year and was registered with my mobile phone network provider. I had advertised this phone for £440 on Gumtree. 

“When they arrived, I answered the door and asked if they were here to look at the mobile phone. They stated that they were. I said “wait there, I will go get it”. 

“As I turned around to go and get the phone, they unexpectedly followed me in – this made me feel extremely uncomfortable as I did NOT invite them in at any time.

“I did not express or imply permission for them to enter.

“I was at home with my two children, fortunately my partner was at my home address too. 

“The two men were Irish, with a strong Irish accent. They made small talk in my home, whilst one of the men stated that he was to “get the money from the car”. 

“He left the house.

“The remaining Irish man had the mobile phone and box etc in his hand, he asked me if the phone needed ‘wiping’ – I explained it was ready for sale and my details were ‘wiped’ from the phone. 

“This man slowly edged to my front door saying that he was wondering what was taking his friend so long to get the money. 

“It was at this point, he edged towards my front door, grabbed my handbag and ran to the silver/green colour Renault Megane, with dents visible on the bodywork and an Irish number plate. 

“My handbag contained my purse, cards and cash. My ring and watch was also in my purse. In the bag was also my make-up bag and my pencil case, Dictaphone and much more. My main worry at that time was whether I had left my spare key in my purse, also, and that the men would return to the house when I was sleeping in the house alone with my two children. 

“This fear lasted many days until I could get extra security on my house including cameras. 

“It was then that I chased the man to his car, screaming as I did so. The car had the door open and engine running ready for a quick getaway. They clearly pre-planned this robbery. 

“My partner got in his car and drove in the same direction, he spotted the car approaching Kearsley roundabout, at the Farnworth entrance to the roundabout.

“My partner followed them round Kearsley roundabout, down the slip road that takes you to to the M61 briefly, before joining the M60 and off at Junction 17 at Whitefield/Prestwich.  

“Whilst approaching the slip road at 50mph (the Irish men in the Renault Megane were travelling much faster as the temporary speed camera flashed) they purposely tried to ‘slam’ the side of their motor vehicle intentionally in a reckless manner into my partner’s car, almost causing him to have a serious crash as he tried his best to avoid the attack in the motor vehicles  – I would class this as attempted murder. 

“Their intention were clear, they committed another criminal act in order to evade being apprehended. 

“My partner decided that a handbag and phone are not worth losing his life over and returned back to my home.

“When he returned home, he was shaken and extremely distressed at the events, as was I, knowing that these men had been in my home, brazenly, without any consideration of the distress that it caused myself and my family. 

“It was at this point I rang the police, told them what had happened and described as much as I could. I was shaken, scared and expected the police to take action. Especially as I provided enough detail to the officer on the phone to warrant an arrest and a charge – given the circumstances. 

“I provided the IMEI number of the phone I sold to enable the police to track the phone should the two Irish men turn it on.I gave a description of the two men, the two phone numbers that they used (which could have easily been located through cell site analysis). I gave the route they took, the speed  camera that flashed (which would have revealed the VRN) and, as I found out by placing a post on Facebook (warning people in my local community to be vigilant as there were two criminals about), these same two males had already robbed someone and damaged a car when they stole the door mirrors from it.

“Given my past experience with the police, I am extremely hesitant to call them over anything. But, due to the seriousness of the crimes committed against me, I felt I had no other option than to phone the police and believe that they would investigate. As you can see from this letter, that was not done. I was left feeling scared, anxious and distressed, but expected officers to call and take a statement from me at the very least. I have previously experienced serious systemic and operational failings from Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and I have been expressly informed by the senior officers at GMP that these systemic and operational failings had been address and rectified. That is clearly not the case. 

“I believe there is one of two reasons why this crime was not investigated: Malfeasance, due to who I am and my relationship with GMP or serious incompetence that pervades the whole of Greater Manchester Police.

“Given the recent news articles coming to light such as this one:  –  it shows that it is not just me, but approximately 220 cases per day have not been investigated properly over the last year.

“I am distressed at the  thought of the perpetrators still being at large and that they have got away with so serious a crime, despite of all the detailed information that I gave. The actions of GMP (or rather lack of them) have caused significant loss and damage and may well give rise to a civil claim against the chief constable. I am taking appropriate advice on this issue.

“Since this burglary (whilst I was at home), my insurance company have attempted to contact the police for further information of the events, providing the crime reference number, but have told me that there is a lack of information available. So, I rang the police and asked for an update of what is happening in regards to the investigation – here is a synopsis of the call made on the 3rd of December 202 at 17.08hrs:Hannah PC 72436….. informed me that the case was indeed opened on the 9th of April 2020 and closed on the 10th of Aril 2020 and no investigation took place. 

“The offence was listed as ‘theft’ only. 

“There were no further lines of inquiry – which is peculiar as I didn’t call till the late hours of the 9th April 2020.

“The case was reopened briefly on the 10th of June 2020 and closed that same day. I believe that this is when I called for an update and to see when someone would be calling to take a witness statement  from me and witnesses – which would lead to the establishment of the facts of the case, in turn leading to the identification of the criminals – even though I provided ample enough information on the night for a prompt and effective investigation to take place. 

“I was told that NO investigating officer put their name to the case as NO investigation was started. 

“If I was to find out anything more about the steps taken (or lack of) Then I would need to contact the records management unit on 0161 856 2529. 

“There were NO steps to investigate taken

“GMP have failed their duty in many ways – for a crime of this class the public are entitled to  expect nothing less than an independent, prompt and IMPARTIAL investigation. Unfortunately, due to the INCOMPETENCE of Greater Manchester Police NOTHING at all was done in relation to the crime that was committed, including the attempt by dangerous criminals to cause very serious harm to my partner, at the very least. The police failed to record the relevant details of the case. 

“They failed to act on the information given 

“They failed to interview any key witnesses promptly OR at all

“The police failed to collect ANY evidence that may have led to the identification of those responsible and punishment accordingly. 

“Furthermore: This ill treatment by GMP has caused psychological distress to myself and my children. 

“I am in fear that if I ever need the police in an urgent matter (as I did previously) not only will they NOT attend promptly – but the police will breach their investigatory duty to act. 

“I believe GMP had an operational duty to investigate and this duty was breached

“Next time it could well be a murder, instead of an aggravated burglary or attempted murder/manslaughter (which your officers appear to have mis-recorded as a theft to minimise the need to investigate, raising a different range of performance issues).

“This matter now needs to be handled expeditiously and I expect to hear from a senior officer, of at least superintending rank, within the next 7 days, to discuss the best way forward from this horrific ordeal with a view to formulating an action plan that will lead to the apprehending of these dangerous criminals.

“I have copied in all the stakeholders whom I consider need to be aware of these grotesque failings of GMP.


Yours sincerely

Gail Hadfield Grainger”

As set out in the letter, the sender is well known to GMP. Her partner, Anthony Grainger, was shot by them in 2012. At the resultant public inquiry, the force was very heavily criticised over a long list of failings and the outfall from that still rumbles on (read here).

Was that a factor in the appalling treatment of Gail over this shocking experience at her home? We will see, once the layers of incompetence are pulled back and a proper investigation has taken place.

The signs are not promising, however. 24 hours after sending the letter not one GMP officer had been in touch with her, either by phone or email.

Another man, with now a great deal, to lose has also not spoken to Gail, or contacted her in any other way. Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester Mayor, has let her down very badly over the outcome of the Grainger Inquiry, after making false promises on network television (read more here). Accordingly, her hopes are not at all high that he will hold the chief constable to account over this latest issue.

Gail, measured and articulate as always, can be watched talking about her horrendous experience in a short video clip here.

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

Page last updated: Sunday 12th December, 2020 at 1045 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: ITV Granada

© 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.

The beginning of the end

In August last year, I assisted in breaking one of the biggest policing scandals in recent times. ITV led their regional news bulletin with this package (view here) and it went out later across the network.

It concerned a technology upgrade at one of the country’s biggest police forces that had gone badly wrong. On the evidence it appears that the original budget estimate of £27 million was now dwarfed by actual costs of £80 million and rising (read more here).

More crucially, it was putting officers’ and public lives at risk, according to the local Police Federation Chair, Stuart Berry.

A furious chief constable, Ian Hopkins, tried to deflect criticism and play down the defects of the system known colloquially as iOPS (Integrated Operational Policing System) and monumental extra cost to the taxpayer.

Allowing his force to ‘beta test’ a module of the system known as ‘Police Works’ had backfired grotesquely.

One journalist/broadcaster who criticised iOPS publicly, quite correctly describing it as ‘a disaster’, was pursued by Hopkins in an ugly vendetta and lost his job as a result. The out of control chief described me as ‘an odious man‘ for having the temerity to go public with a damning document, leaked to me, that revealed the scale and reach of the technology failings.

Earlier today, it was revealed that the new IT system was largely responsible for the failure to record more than 80,000 crimes in the year ending June, 2020 (an average of 220 per day). Thousands of cases were also without proper investigation say Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC).

The watchdog say that beleaguered Greater Manchester Police‘s (GMP) service to victims of crime was a “serious cause of concern”. Ms Billingham might well have said service was virtually non-existent if she had actually spoken to some.

In its routine ‘jam tomorrow’ response, Deputy Chief Constable Ian Pilling said it had “robust plans” to address the issues and, incredibly, sought to blame the CO-VID19 crisis for the problems.

Robust plans is, broadly, the response to every other crisis or scandal that besets GMP, on an almost weekly basis. It is police management speak for ‘cover our a***s’.

DCC Pilling is at the very heart of most of the more serious force failings. Not least this one, upon which I reported extensively, concerning the outfall from the Grainger Inquiry (read here).

During the period reviewed by HMIC, it was estimated that GMP had recorded 77.7% of reported crimes, a reduction of 11.3% from the corresponding period in 2018, prior to the launch of iOPS. Previous HMIC inspections of GMP in 2016 and 2018 were also critical of crime recording practices and were very largely ignored by the force leadership.

The toothless watchdog also noted that one in five of all crimes and one in four violent crimes reported to GMP were not recorded – and found officers prematurely closed some investigations on the false premise that victims did not support police action.

Zoe Billingham, who signed off the HMIC inspection, says: “In too many of these cases, the force did not properly record evidence that the victim supported this decision,

She added, “It is simply not good enough that, despite being urged by the watchdog to improve in 2016, concerns have not been addressed for over four years”.

Here is a graphic and prime example of a case where the investigation was closed just 12 hours after it was reported where the allegations include aggravated burglary and attempted murder. Good descriptions of the perpetrators and their vehicle were given to the call handler (read in full here).

A further inspection by HMIC is scheduled to take place within the next six months. Whistleblowers say that the problems inherent in iOPS are so deep rooted that they may never be fixed without ripping out PoliceWorks and starting again. A matter repeatedly denied by the force, the suppliers and the contractors involved in the installation and implementation of the system.

The force has NOT referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct over these serious failings.

Greater Manchester’s Deputy Mayor for Policing, Beverley Hughes, said the HMIC findings were “extremely disappointing”, but has given no indication of any holding to account of the chief constable over these latest catastrophic revelations. She sees her role, and has done since the day she was appointed, of pouring oil on troubled waters, making excuses and covering up for Ian Hopkins. That, essentially, is how the force has descended into such a desperate state.

The Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, is as usual, missing in action when these class of scandals reach the public domain (read more here). Trains, trams and cycle paths take priority over the risk to safety of every single one of his constituents via an utterly failed police force in the region.

He also approved a new two year contract, negotiated by his Deputy, for his perennially disgraced chief constable, at the very height of the iOPS, crime recording, risk to victims and officers scandal.

When asked, during a recent CO_VID19 press conference, the Mayor refused to confirm whether he maintained confidence in Ian Hopkins or whether his contract will be renewed in June, 2021.

The Police Federation, for their part, appear to have been absent from any criticism of iOPS since the time that problems were first identified.

Also absent since the scandal broke, and now routine when the force comes under fire, was CC Hopkins (read more here). An ugly trait made many times worse by being first on the scene if there is an personal glory to be squeezed out of any given situation.

The HMIC report can be read in full here. Following its publication, the Home Secretary has written to the Mayor to express her concern, not just over iOPS but the other reported failings of the force, and demand sight of the chief constable’s action plan to recover the situation.

It is the beginning of the end for Ian Hopkins. Andy Burnham has also belatedly realised that the failure to hold the worst chief constable in the country to account will cost him the Mayoral election in May, 2021.

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

Page last updated: Saturday 11th December, 2020 at 0645 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.

© 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.

Say one thing, do another

Earlier this month, a Liverpool Echo article announced that a Merseyside Police officer had been sacked for clearly using racist language during the stop and search of an Asian member of the public (read in full here).

It resonated immediately, as the racist term used by the young, inexperienced constable (it was his first ever stop) was identical to that, allegedly, uttered very recently by a senior officer in one of the three Yorkshire police forces. An incident that has created significant interest and commentary both within the subject police force and the wider police service, in which news of this nature appears to travel at lightning speed.

The officer’s name and rank are known, as, of course, is the police force. Never, it must be said, far from controversy. There is, however, a clear necessity to protect the identity of the miscreant, even by jigsaw means. The presumption of innocence must apply, as must data and privacy laws at this early stage of the investigation.

But the public interest requires that light be shone on this incident, particularly given the often ludicrous posturing of police leaders everywhere over diversity and inclusion.

At first blush, it appears that the force is going to try to ride out this controversy under a cover of secrecy. It is very, very important in terms of public confidence in the police service that they are not allowed to do so. It is simply unacceptable to spend millions promoting the recruitment from black and minority ethnic (BME) communities and then conceal racist officers within the senior ranks.

This is a summary of the racism allegation which, it is said, is now the subject of a complaint to the force by the victim:

The subject officer was on a Skype call from custody, who were seeking authorisation for an extension to the detention of a prisoner. After the decision was taken and matters concluded, s/he was unaware that the call was still open and proceeded to make at least one derogatory, racist remark about the DP, including the use of the term ‘Paki’. This was heard by at least one other supervisory officer; a constable (or, possibly, detention officer) and the prisoner. There is also said to be corroboration from custody staff and CCTV in the suite. It is assumed that a legal representative for the prisoner was also present.

Subsequently, it is said that the officer was frogmarched out of his/her office by PSD, escorted off the premises and told not to enter any other police premises or contact any other police officer, apart from the designated welfare officer (normally of similar or senior rank).

These actions, for those not familiar with Police Regulations, are the characteristics of a suspension, rather than gardening leave. However, it is known that s/he attended a week long residential course at the College of Policing in Ryton beginning on 30th November, 2020. The officer’s Twitter account after a hiatus in November, was briefly back in use last week.

There are several national newspapers trying to get the story past their lawyers and name the officer. There are very particular reasons why they would want to do so, given that officer’s role and wider profile. But the response of the police press office is not helpful. Although one of the reporters did mistakenly posit that the officer had been arrested.

“You have indicated that you intend to run a story which alleges that a senior officer has been arrested and suspended over a racial incident. I wish to immediately put you on notice that this information is incorrect.

“No senior officer has been arrested, suspended or subject to a criminal investigation. Should you proceed with a story, as outlined in your approach earlier today, then this would be inaccurate, misleading and very damaging both to the organisation and any individual police officers you decide to name.

“On the basis of the above clear position, we would be grateful if you would confirm, by return, that you will not seek to publish inaccurate or misleading information.

“Should it be indicated that you intend to publish such a story then we would ask for appropriate notice of this so that we can explore all immediate legal options together with a complaint to the Independent Press Standards Organisation, as the story you have indicated you intend to publish, would constitute a breach of your professional standards as outlined within the Editors Code of Practice as being both inaccurate, misleading and constitute an invasion of privacy.”

From other policing and media contacts, further information has emerged, more generally, about the subject officer’s alleged routine, narcissistic, bullying behaviour; fiddling crime figures (with tacit approval of the senior leadership team, allegedly), alleged abuse of authority, and reports of an altercation with a neighbour at home, in which there was pushing and shoving and damage to a vehicle.

S/he is said to have now left the marital home. The estranged spouse is also a well known, serving police officer.

It is, of course, difficult to foresee much, if any, of those accusations being progressed without whistleblowers within the force standing up to be counted, supported by the command team, and making witness statements. But the officer has plainly created a lot of ill-will amongst colleagues – and the perception is that the force has, it seems, done little to curb it.

There are also shades of the Mark Gilmore disciplinary proceedings here in that, once it became known within West Yorkshire Police that their chief constable was under investigation over one allegation, subordinates who felt abused, but cowed in his presence, made a series of other misconduct allegations around bullying and sexism (no finding was ever made and the ex-chief robustly denied he had done anything wrong). Gilmore eventually retired, on full gold-plated police pension, after spending over two years on gardening leave and then suspension. At first, he was found a ‘non-job’ at the National Police Chiefs Council, working remotely from home, in a vain attempt to disguise the fact that he had been removed from office. Largely defeated by the author of this piece.

The cost to the taxpayer of the Gilmore farrago was around £750,000. The damage to confidence in the police complaints system was much greater than that.

Further specific questions have been put to the police press office. The police watchdog has been asked to confirm whether a mandatory referral has been received by them from the subject force. The College of Policing is asked to confirm whether they knew of the allegations against the subject officer prior to attendance at the Public Order course.

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

Since this article was fist published on 4th December, 2020, a Humberside Police officer has been sacked after admitting using racially abusive language to describe a black colleague.

A police misconduct hearing ruled the “off the cuff” remark made by Detective Chief Inspector Stewart Miller, whilst on duty in Grimsby, was “unconscious racism”. 

Miller claimed he did not know the term “choc ice” was offensive and “deeply regretted” its use.

But following a two-day hearing, chaired by Leeds barrister Simon Mallett, he was found guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed immediately.

The Chair told the hearing: “It’s incredibly damaging to the public perception of the police, and to race relations locally, when there are national concerns about the policing of black communities.”

Miller didn’t hear the end of the Panel’s closing remarks; as soon as the finding of ‘instant dismissal’ was read out by Mr Mallett, he jumped to his feet and stormed out of the room in which the hearing was being held.

The dismissal leaves Humberside without one of its most senior detectives, a Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) leading some of the most high profile serious crime investigations in recent years.

Described by his peers as an ‘exceptional and experienced officer’ he had started out as a beat constable in Scunthorpe, also working in Grimsby and Hull, before becoming a detective. His ‘card had been marked’ by the senior leadership in the force earlier this year and he was described as being ‘difficult to handle’ by them.

Earlier this year, there were two ‘black marks’ added to his police record over discreditable conduct, the Panel heard. The force refuse to disclose any further details.

Head of the force’s Professional Standards Department, Detective Superintendent Matthew Baldwin, added: “There is no place for this kind of disrespectful language or attitude in modern policing and we will not tolerate it from any member of staff. This case clearly demonstrates that our officers and staff will not accept this kind of language and will confront and deal with it, if they hear it.”

On any independent view, a very sharp contrast in approach to the main subject of this piece and the force that deploys him/her. It is beyond incredible that his/her spouse works for Humberside Police in a senior capacity (different surname) and has made himself part of the cover-up, placing his own career in jeopardy when the full details can be revealed.

It is said, from a good source. that the subject officer is being investigated by her line manager, a noted ‘box-ticker’ and ‘company man’, whom it is alleged was complicit in massaging crime figures on their patch.

UPDATE: In a letter dated 7th January, 2021, to an experienced retired officer and former colleague of the subject officer, DCI [name redacted] a senior PSD functionary in the subject force said:

“You [the retired officer] do not appear to fit any categories of ‘complainant’. However, if you disagree with my view, please provide me with evidence to show you do have standing and I will re-consider my decision.

“I will state, however, that the force has not received any allegation internally or externally that [name redacted] or any other ‘Senior Police Officer’ made racist comments whilst on a Zoom or any other online call”.

To the informed observer, those three paragraphs are very carefully and cleverly worded. They claim that no allegations have been raised but do not say that the incident did not take place. The difficulty for that detective chief inspector and his deploying Department and force is that too many know that it did.

Page last updated: Monday 11th January, 2021 at 0905 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: The Guardian

© 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.



Pledge loses its shine?

Following the introduction of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act, 2011, police authorities, comprised very largely of elected councillors, were dissolved. Replaced by a new elected policing body, known as Police and Crime Commissioners.

It was a controversial move, rejected almost entirely by the electorate, and one that has been dogged by ineptitude and scandal ever since.

During the very first election campaign in 2012, a number of prospective PCCs made promises regarding re-distribution of what were considered excessive salaries.

One of those was Labour politician Mark Burns-Williamson, who was duly elected in West Yorkshire. He had previously served, without distinction, as chairman of the police authority for the previous nine years.

His pledge was confirmed via the local media, in these terms, during the week after his election victory:

“The salary level has been set by a pay review body, independently.

“I will set aside £5,000 for a separate account to support victims of crime”.

Not a particularly generous offer compared to, for example, Andy Burnham, who donates 15% of his £110,000 salary as Greater Manchester Mayor to the homeless. A gesture fulfilled every year since he was elected in 2017.

Nevertheless, if PCC Burns-Williamson had kept his promise, over the intervening 8 years, then a not insignificant sum of £40,000 would have been donated.

Via a freedom of information request, it has been established that the Burns-Wiliamson promise has not been kept. Far from it.

This is a list of all the donations he has made since 2012:

2012/13 National Police Memorial Fund £500 
2012/13 Care of Police Survivors £100 
2013/14 Bradford Safeguarding Board £1000 
2013/14 Shelter £50 
2013/14 War Memorial Trust £100

Total donations made: £1,750

Total set aside and donated to victims of crime, as pledged: Zero

Total unaccounted for: £38,250

A further information request has been made regard the status of the ‘separate account’, who administers it and its present balance.

The PCC’s press office has been contacted separately, requesting an explanation from Mark Burns-Williamson over the discrepancies. Burns-Williamson’s representative claims that he has made other donations via a private bank account but refuses to provide dates, amounts recipients.

When challenged further about the unsatisfactory response and failure to meet a high profile public pledge a curt response stated that no other information would be provided.

A complaint is being prepared with a view to submission to the Police and Crime Panel for West Yorkshire. A poorly run ‘scrutiny body’ hosted by Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, that is, itself, frequently caught out when failing to meet its statutory obligations on disclosure.

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

Page last updated at 0715hrs on Wednesday 2nd December, 2020.

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.

Photo credit: Stephen Bradbury

© 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.

Cover-up at all costs

There are many thousands of words written elsewhere on this website about the so-called ‘police watchdog’ in England and Wales, most recently here. Currently known as the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), having previously existed as the Independent Police Complaints Commission (2004-2018), the Police Complaints Authority (1985-2004) and the Police Complaints Board (1977-1985). Each of those ‘brands’ becoming more toxic than their predecessor (read more here).

The latest incarnation, the IOPC, is already regarded by those involved closely with the police complaints system as even worse than the thoroughly disgraced IPCC. Despite the high hurdle that undoubtedly presented, with its legacy of gratuitous self-congratulation, poor leadership, interminable delays, flawed decision making, and the inevitable partisan outcomes of ‘investigations’ carried out too frequently by inexperienced, under-qualified ‘casework managers’ or ‘lead investigators’ who had completed a six-week remote learning course to earn their badge.

Matters now made much worse by the controversial appointment of an inexperienced, under-qualified (in the police complaints arena) chief executive, Michael Lockwood, with, it appears, an unhealthy appetite for dining at the same table as those he is charged with holding to account. Most notably, his unctious currying of favour with the Police Federation of England and Wales, blowing an ill wind for those making complaints against the Fed’s members. Who just happen to account for over 80% of all warranted police officers.

Knowing whom the Home Office passed over for the job simply makes that situation almost unbearable. A no-nonsense, high-achieving criminal justice practioner with a proven track record of leadership and putting right great wrongs. Made to measure for an organisation so badly in need of a change in culture and the elimination of so many questionable practices.

It is a matter for that person to reveal how, and why, he was passed over. To do otherwise would necessitate an unconscionable breach of confidence.

Lockwood has, since his appointment, been embroiled in a ‘cronyism’ scandal over the appointment of Tom Whiting, his former number two at Harrow Council. Board minutes recorded that the £140,000 per annum appointment was ‘not previously budgeted for’ and Mr Whiting was not ‘financially qualified’.

A qualified accountant, Lockwood also hired his former personal assistant from the same council, but denied any impropriety in both cases.

He also lost his Deputy, Jonathan Green, in yet another embarrassing scandal after Green, who was recruited by the IOPC from the dental profession, was caught having an affair with a junior colleague. He headed up an inquiry that cleared five detectives of misconduct after Scotland Yard’s botched investigation into false claims made by jailed fantasist Carl Beech. The infamous Operation Midland.  One of the matters in issue was detectives misleading a judge in the course of obtaining search warrants.

In the face of well-rehearsed concerns of two prominent judges, the IOPC dismissed the misconduct allegations. The lead investigator on that probe, much younger than him, was said to be Green’s love interest. She admitted the relationship, but the married Green had denied it when first approached by The Times newspaper.

One of the main critics, retired High Court judge Sir Richard Henriques said he was ‘alarmed by the lack of knowledge of relevant criminal procedure’ of those within the IOPC, lamenting the fact that an ‘error-ridden’ criminal inquiry was ‘followed by such a lamentably slow and inadequate process’.

Green’s lover was replaced as lead investigator by another young female who had joined the IOPC, 16 months earlier, from Topshop, a leading clothing retailer. Not noted, of course, as a training ground for major police corruption investigations.

Against that troubled background, and being adjacent to current high profile and seriously unsatisfactory IOPC investigations involving such as the spectacularly failed Operation Resolve probe into the Hillsborough Disaster; outfall from the nationally known Anthony Grainger Inquiry; another high profile police shooting that resulted in the death of Yasser Yaqub on a slip road off the M62 near Huddersfield; and the death of Oldham man, Andre Moura, following a sustained beating in the back of a police van; a judgment was handed down at the Royal Courts of Justice this week in what appears, at first blush, to be a case of much lesser significance: A Section 18 search warrant, obtained by way of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (PACE) was followed by the mishandling of the partially disabled detained person, by a group of Hertfordshire and Thames Valley officers, that resulted in relatively minor injuries.

The incident happened in 2013. It has taken seven years of determined struggle, against the police and their gatekeeping ‘watchdog’ for the complainant, Julian Watson, to reach the stage where matters are heard, for the first time, before an independent arbiter. Almost three of those years have been spent waiting for a hearing of his judicial review application. The decision challenged was made by the IPCC in December 2017, and permission was granted by noted police action lawyer, Clive Sheldon QC, sitting as a High Court Judge, in July 2019. No explanation is given in the judgment as to how such an interminable delay came to pass.

The IOPC had considered an appeal by Mr Watson against a decision of the Hertfordshire Constabulary (“Hertfordshire”). He had complained about two of their officers. The force had decided that one of them, Police Constable Lobendhan, should face disciplinary proceedings, but the other, Police Sergeant Jinesh Solankee, had no case to answer. The watchdog decided not to uphold the appeal against the decision in respect of PS Solankee.

The background to the case is taken almost verbatim from Mr Justice Chamberlain’s concise judgment: In the early hours of 24th December 2013, PC Lobendhan and PS Solankee went to Mr Watson’s home in Milton Keynes to conduct a PACE search. Mr Watson did not want to let them in. There was a scuffle at the door during which PS Solankee discharged PAVA spray. The officers then entered and arrested Mr Watson for obstructing a constable in the execution of his duty. They handcuffed him in what is known as the “front stack position”, that is to say with his hands in front of his body. Two officers from Thames Valley Police (“TVP”), Police Constable Morgan-Russell and Special Police Constable Badshah, came to assist. A search of the house was conducted. A small quantity of cannabis was found. Mr Watson was arrested on suspicion of possession of a class B drug with intent to supply.

PC Lobendhan and PC Morgan-Russell took him to the police car and then on to Milton Keynes police station. The other two officers also travelled to the station. The custody suite was in a temporary building, accessed by external metal steps with a sharp non-slip coating. Mr Watson suffers from sciatica and trapped nerves, having fractured five vertebrae in a fall. He told the officers that he could not get up the steps with his hands cuffed in front of him. PC Lobendhan and PC Morgan Russell dragged him up the steps by his arms. He was facing down the steps in a semi-seated position. He suffered cuts and scratches on his way up. PS Solankee observed these events and did not intervene. Mr Watson was then booked into a cell.

Mr Watson was never convicted of any offence arising out of the search and arrest. The only charge to proceed was one of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. That charge was dismissed by the local magistrates.

In the meantime, on 31st December 2013, Mr Watson had made a written complaint about the conduct of the officers who arrested him. It covered several aspects of his treatment on 24th December, 2013. The one that matters for the purposes of the judicial review was “unnecessary brutality and injuries sustained in dragging me up steel nonslip sharp jagged steps to the Custody Office”. Mr Watson described what happened as follows:


“At the entrance to the Custody Office I told the police officers that my mobility disabilities would prevent me from being able to get up the ten steps with only one handrail and with handcuffs on. They refused to remove my handcuffs even though they were at least four officers present and, instead, one of them said: ‘If you don’t get up those steps we will drop you and drag you up and it will not be a pretty sight’. I again said that I could not negotiate the steps with the handcuffs on and that having told them of my disability is it was their responsibility to take care of that and act in an appropriate manner.


“The next thing I was aware of was being pushed backwards onto the steps and something (probably a foot or leg) put behind my legs making the trip over backwards and land heavily on the first few rungs of the steps. My dressing gown belt became undone so the front part of my body was exposed. They then proceeded to lift my arms above my head and pull on the handcuff central connector and drag me up the steps backwards. The steps are steel and finished on the step and nosing with very sharp gravel type non-slip finish.


“I was in considerable pain when I was dragged into the front desk area of custody, and after lashing out at their attempts to pull me to my feet, I was eventually allowed to kneel and pull myself up using a bench and wall. I notified the custody sergeant again of my disabilities and medication for it. I also asked for medical attention to my injuries that hurt very badly, but that I could not see as they were mostly to the back of my legs. During this time my dressing gown belt became loose and I was unable to gather the sides together and secure the belt with handcuffs on, so much to my embarrassment everyone was sniggering my immodest exposure.”


The complaint was considered by an investigating officer at TVP, Mick Osborne. He considered Mr Watson’s account, alongside those of PC Morgan-Russell, PS Solankee and PC Lobendhan. SPC Badshah had, by that time, left TVP and, he said, without explanation, it was not considered practical to obtain a statement from her. Mr Osborne also considered the custody record and viewed CCTV footage of the custody suite at the time when Mr Watson was brought into it. Mr Osborne produced a report on the basis of which a decision-maker in TVP decided that neither of the two TVP officers had a case to answer.


Mr Watson, unsurprisingly, exercised his right to appeal against that decision to the IOPC. On 29th March 2018, Philip Harrison, a Casework Manager at the IOPC, upheld the appeal. The letter containing Mr Harrison’s reasons included the following passage:


“…there is available CCTV which does show the top of the custody suite stairs, as well as the entry area of the custody suite. It is clear from this footage that you were dragged up the stairs and then into the custody suite. I have also reviewed photographs of the injuries he sustained while being dragged by the officers. The witness statement made by PC Morgan-Russell, following your arrest, confirms that he, along with PC Lobendhan, dragged you into the custody suite. However, as PC Lobendhan is not a TVP officer I cannot consider his actions or the outcome of the investigation into him as part of this appeal.


“PC Morgan-Russell does not appear to have provided any rationale, or justification, as to why he considered dragging you up an exterior set of stairs, while you were only dressed in a dressing gown, was the most appropriate use of force. There is no available evidence to demonstrate that he considered any other options, such as supporting you as you climbed the stairs or physically carrying you into the custody suite. There is also no evidence to suggest any consideration was given as to whether there were other more suitable access points that could be used.


“I have noted the comments the officers have made about your demeanour during this incident. While it is asserted you were aggressive at the outset in that you refused entry [into your home] by the Hertfordshire officers and used force to keep the door closed, it does not appear that this behaviour continued after entry was gained. After this point your behaviour is only described as abusive and uncooperative. I am also mindful that PC Morgan-Russell describes your resistance outside the custody suite as passive. In my opinion, these circumstances do not demonstrate a clear need to drag you backwards, rather than carry or support to you in another manner.


“In light of the lack of provided rational explanation as to why dragging you up the stairs was the most appropriate course of action, and the injuries he sustained while being dragged up the stairs, it is my view that there is sufficient evidence on which a reasonable tribunal properly directed, could find, on the balance of probabilities, misconduct in relation to PC Morgan-Russell’s use of force.


“The Police Standards of Professional Behaviour state under Equality and Diversity that ‘Police officers act with fairness and impartiality. They do not discriminate unlawfully or unfairly’. Home Office guidance further clarifies that ‘Police officers pay due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different groups.’


“PC Morgan-Russell records in his statement that you made him aware you were disabled prior to you leaving your home. PC Morgan-Russell further details that you stated you were unable to climb the custody stairs and would need to be carried up them. In light of this, and for the same reasons provided earlier in relation to PC Morgan-Russell’s use of force, I consider there is sufficient evidence on which a reasonable tribunal properly directed, could find, on the balance of probabilities, PC Morgan-Russell’s actions were discriminatory.”


Mr Harrison went on to say that the allegation that PC Morgan-Russell used excessive force would, if proven, be a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour in respect of use of force and equality and diversity. The breach would not be so serious as to amount to gross misconduct (conduct warranting dismissal), but could justify a finding of misconduct. The appeal was therefore upheld and a recommendation made that PC Morgan-Russell be required to attend a misconduct meeting. The meeting took place and PC Morgan-Russell was found to have committed misconduct. The sanction imposed was “management advice”.


Separately, Mr Osborne’s report was sent to Hertfordshire for a decision on whether either of their two officers had a case to answer. It was referred to Detective Chief Inspector Beeby. She decided, on 26th July 2018, that PC Lobendhan would have had a case to answer for dragging Mr Watson up the steps to the custody suite. As he had left the force in 2016, however, there was no further action that could be taken under Police Regulations. The remainder of the allegations against PC Lobendhan and PS Solankee were not upheld. No reason was given for the latter conclusion, despite the fact that it was, on any independent view, a prima facie breach of Standards in respect of challenging inappropriate behaviour.

Six months earlier, after just 10 years as a police officer, PS Solankee had been promoted to inspector.


Mr Watson appealed to the IOPC against the Hertforshire decision. There were two parts to the complaint: The first concerned what Mr Watson said was the excessive use of force at his home. The second concerned the use of force to drag him up the steps to the custody suite at Milton Keynes police station.


The appeal was determined by Claire Parsons, an IOPC Casework Manager. In a letter dated 17th December 2019, she explained to Mr Watson her reasons for not upholding the appeal. Ms Parsons made clear that she had considered a range of information: Statements provided by PC Lobendhan, Inspector Solankee (who by this time had, of course, been promoted), PC Morgan-Russell and SPC Badshah (contrary to what Mr Osborne at TVP had said); contemporaneous records; the result of the misconduct meeting relating to PC Morgan-Russell; and CCTV footage. In relation to the allegation of excessive use of force in dragging Mr Watson up the steps to the custody suite, Ms Parsons said this:


“In relation to the second part of your complaint where you state that having got out of the police vehicle at Milton Keynes Police Station, you were dragged by the offices from the car park up a flight of stairs into the custody office. I note that PS Solankee confirms in his account that when you all arrived at Milton Keynes custody office you refused to exit the police vehicle, and informed the officers that you could not move. PS Solankee states that you were laughing as you were saying this and as a result the officers removed you from the vehicle by force. PS Solankee describes you as passively resisting as you began to walk up the stairs towards the custody office, and then you began to fall to the floor, telling the officers that you were disabled so they would have to carry you up the stairs. PS Solankee confirms that force was used to get you into the custody suite. I have also reviewed the two statements submitted by PC Lobendhan in December 2013 and 19 July 2015. I note that PC Lobendhan states that you had thrown yourself to the ground whilst leaving your property to enter the police vehicle, and had to be physically helped to the car. PC Lobendhan also states that when you all arrived at Milton Keynes custody office and exited the police vehicle you fell to the floor ‘in a controlled manner’ and then refused to get up, informing the officers that you could not walk. PC Lobendhan states that, as a result of this, he and PC Morgan Russell carried you up the stairs ‘causing minor scrapes and scratches to the DP (detained person in police parlance)’. However, it is of note that PC Lobendhan has not provided any rationale in regards to his decision to drag you up an exterior set of metal stairs with another officer, whilst you were only in your dressing gown. PC Lobendhan has also not provided an explanation as to whether or not he considered other potential options to get you into the custody office, such as using an entrance that is specifically designed for disabled individuals, or arranging for more offices to assist with actually carrying you up the stairs in a safe and more dignified manner.


“I have reviewed the CCTV footage which covers the top of the stairs to the custody office, as well as the corridor which leads to the entrance of the custody office. The footage clearly shows PC Lobendhan and PC Morgan Russell dragging you up the stairs by your arms, as you were in a seated position being pulled backwards. Both officers continued to drag you along the floor of the short corridor and then into the custody suite. In my view, you do not appear to be physically resisting the officers whilst they are doing this. I also note from the CCTV footage that the female officer from Thames Valley police walked in front of you being pulled up the stairs by PC Lobendhan and PC Morgan Russell and PS Solankee was then seen to be walking up behind you, but does not physically touch you. I have also considered the photographs of the injuries you sustained as a result of the officers dragging you up the metal stairs to the custody office.”

Ms Parsons then recorded and endorsed the investigating officer’s conclusion in relation to PC Lobendhan, before continuing as follows:

“In relation to PS Solankee, in my view, there is insufficient evidence that he used excessive force against you. However, I do acknowledge that he witnessed PC Lobendhan and PC Morgan-Russell dragging you up the stairs. Therefore, it is my opinion that it would have been good practice for PS Solankee to have intervened, and made an attempt to establish if there was an alternative entrance to use in order to access the custody block. However, I find that this does not constitute misconduct, but this observation should be relayed to PS Solankee as a learning point for any potential situations of this nature that may arise in the future. As a result, I concur with the findings of the IO (investigating officer) and accordingly this aspect of your appeal is not upheld.”

This is the conclusion that Mr Watson challenged by way of judicial review.

Ms Parsons also said she was unable to comment, or reach a decision on the part of Mr Watson’s complaint dealing with his treatment in custody at Milton Keynes Police Station, because that was for TVP to investigate. That conclusion is not challenged in these proceedings.

The legal authorities governing the principles to be applied on judicial review of a decision of the IOPC were helpfully drawn together by Stephen Morris QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, in R (Ramsden) v Independent Police Complaints Commission [2013] EWHC 3969 (Admin), at para [21] (read in full here). This is a case I know particularly well, as Tony Ramsden is a good friend and I drafted all the pleadings for that application and the subsequent permission appeal. West Yorkshire Police carried out five investigations into his complaints, each one progressively worse than its predecessor, four were upheld by the IOPC. The one taken to judicial review failed narrowly. The WYP investigator, DCI Osman Khan (as he was then), has recently been appointed to the rank of assistant chief constable in the same force.


During the hearing of Mr Watson’s application, Neil Moloney, an in-house IOPC barrister, drew the judge’s attention to other authorities: R (Chief Constable of Northumbria Police) v Independent Office for Police Conduct [2019] EWHC 3169 (Admin) (read in full here). At paras [54] to [56], HHJ Philip Kramer, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, relied on the decision of the Visitors of the Inns of Court in Walker v Bar Standards Board (19 September 2013), which considered the meaning of the word “misconduct”. In that particular case, a barrister prosecuting in a criminal case had been disciplined for asking an improper question imputing dishonesty on the part of a defence expert. Giving the judgment of the Visitors, Sir Anthony May said at para [16] that “the concept of professional misconduct carries resounding overtones of seriousness, reprehensible conduct which cannot extend to the trivial”. At para [32], he asked the question whether the conduct in issue was “sufficiently serious to be characterised as professional misconduct”. This required him to ask whether it was “particularly grave”. The Visitors said at para [37] that the barrister’s conduct was far from trivial, but was, nonetheless, “a momentary, an uncharacteristic lapse which did not cross the line of seriousness which, in the end, was a matter of judgment”.


In the Northumbria case, Judge Kramer applied this in the context of police misconduct, ruling at para [55] that “for behaviour to amount to misconduct it must fall below a recognised standard of probity or competence relating to the task in respect of which the misconduct is said to arise. If it does not, it cannot be characterised as particularly great. For an error judgement to amount to misconduct it must be the result of actions which fall below those standards.”

In the instant application, the judge summarised the competing arguments of Mr Watson and the IOPC thus:

Mr Watson’s case can be very simply put: Mr Harrison had found that PC Morgan-Russell had a case to answer for dragging Mr Watson up the steps to the custody suite. PC Morgan-Russell was later found guilty of misconduct by using excessive force. Hertfordshire had, itself, found that there would have been a case to answer against PC Lobendhan had he still been serving. There was evidence to show that the two had used force to drag Mr Watson up the steps into the custody suite when there were other ways of getting Mr Watson there. PS Solankee was senior in rank to the other officers. He saw what was happening and did not intervene to prevent it. This means that he participated in the unjustified use of force or, at least, may have been guilty of misconduct by failing to intervene. Ms Parsons’ conclusion that there was no case to answer was not properly open to her in the circumstances. Mr Watson also complained that the IOPC had been late in providing the CCTV footage it had to the court. He said that it appeared that some of it had not been disclosed. A submission that must have some merit, given that the police say that there was no footage of the exterior of what is one of their main stations.


For the IOPC, Mr Moloney submitted that Ms Parsons gave a reason why there was no misconduct on the part of PS Solankee: The CCTV footage did not show that he had, himself, used force. As to the other officers, it was important to note, he said, that no criminal proceedings had been brought against any officer. PC Morgan-Russell was found guilty of misconduct and PC Lobendhan would have had a case to answer had he still been serving. However, the conduct of each officer had to be considered separately; and that is what Ms Parsons did.


In his skeleton argument, Mr Moloney submitted that Ms Parsons’ conclusion was properly reasoned: “Having criticised PS Solankee to the extent that she inferred that it would have been good practice for him to have intervened, she explained why this criticism did not meet the threshold for a case to answer for misconduct.”

When pressed by the judge about where the explanation was to be found, Mr Moloney pointed to that same paragraph and submitted that, when read in context of the rest of the decision, Ms Parsons should be understood to have concluded, in line with the approach in Walker and the Northumbria case, that PS Solankee was guilty of a minor lapse which, even if not trivial, did not reach the threshold for misconduct. In any event, Mr Moloney submitted, there was no reason to assume that Ms Parsons’ conclusion was based on the legally erroneous conclusion that PS Solankee could not be guilty of misconduct unless he had personally participated in the excessive use of force.

The judge’s analysis of Ms Parsons’ decision was conducted by reading her reasons as a whole, whilst bearing in mind that she is not a lawyer or a judge. She was dealing with complaints about two aspects of the conduct of the officers who arrested Mr Watson on 24 December 2013 (the use of force in the initial arrest and the use of force in dragging Mr Watson up the stairs to the custody suite). She was considering the position of both PC Lobendhan and Inspector Solankee. Having viewed the CCTV footage, the judge found there was no basis for disagreeing with her description of the evidence He says that it shows no more and no less than she describes. Contrary to Mr Watson’s belief, he found there is no evidence that any other relevant CCTV footage ever existed but did not expand upon that finding.

Moreover, the central part of Mr Watson’s legal challenge is not to Ms Parson’s description of the evidence, but to her conclusion that PS Solankee had no case to answer. On the footing that he had failed to intervene to prevent the other officers from dragging Mr Watson up the stairs to the custody suite. Mr Watson framed his judicial review challenge as one based on rationality, but the judge noted that, in public law, rationality and adequacy of reasons are often overlapping grounds of review. In a case where the decision-maker has a duty to give reasons, and no adequate reason is given for a conclusion, the decision will be unlawful, at least in a case where the failure to give proper reasons gives rise to prejudice: For example, in the well-rehearsed case of South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No. 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953, at para [36].

Mr Moloney did not suggest the contrary. He maintained that the passage quoted from Claire Parson’s letter (para [13]) did convey an adequate reason, or that one could be inferred.


The judge told the court that he had read that passage carefully: ‘There is no legal error in Ms Parsons’ conclusion that “there is insufficient evidence that [PS Solankee] used excessive force against [Mr Watson]”. It is the next part that causes the difficulty, he said: Ms Parsons’ conclusion that PS Solankee’s failure to intervene “does not constitute misconduct” is simply that: A conclusion’.

Contrary to Mr Moloney’s submission, no reason at all is given for it. The absence of a reason might not be fatal in a case where the reason could be inferred, but Mr Justice Russell did not accept that it is possible, safely, to infer the reason in this case: Ms Parsons had concluded that PS Solankee’s failure to intervene was contrary to “best practice”. But this does not show that she had formed the view that PS Solankee’s conduct failed to meet the threshold for misconduct, still less that she had in mind the appropriate legal test. The difficulty with this inference, which Mr Moloney invited the judge to draw, is that it is not the only one that could be drawn. Another is that Ms Parsons thought (wrongly) that, if the officer himself neither uses force nor instructs another to use force, evidence of his failure to prevent an excessive use of force by another officer could never be grounds for misconduct. In the absence of any expressed reason for the conclusion that there was no case to answer, it is not possible to know which of these two approaches (one permissible if properly reasoned, the other unlawful) was being adopted by the IOPC.


If, as Mr Moloney suggested, Ms Parsons was expressing a conclusion that PS Solankee’s conduct, though contrary to “best practice”, was not serious enough to meet the threshold for misconduct, that conclusion called for a justification. Mr Moloney said, in some desperation, that it may have all happened too quickly for PS Solankee to intervene. If that is the case, the judge said, it is unclear why PS Solankee was criticised at all. Mr Moloney next suggested that PS Solankee, a Hertfordshire officer, rather than TVP, did not know Milton Keynes Police Station and so could not be expected to know about other ways of accessing the custody suite. There is, however, no trace of that explanation in Ms Parsons’ reasons; and in any event, it would not make sense, given that she appears to have endorsed the conclusion of the investigating officer that the conduct of PC Lobendhan (also from Hertfordshire) would have given rise to a case to answer had he still been serving.


Having considered both the decision itself and Mr Moloney’s submissions about it, Mr Justice Chamberlain concluded that the decision that PS Solankee had no case to answer was inadequately reasoned and is, on that basis, unlawful. Accordingly, Mr Watson’s claim succeeded.

He made clear, however, that nothing in his judgment should be taken to suggest that the IOPC is obliged to find that Inspector Solankee (as he is now) has a case to answer, far less that he is guilty of any misconduct. The IOPC will have to consider the first of these issues. The second issue will fall to be decided only if the IOPC decides the first is in the affirmative and misconduct proceedings are begun by his force.

According to the social media platform, LinkedIn, Jinesh Solankee fits his role as a police inspector around his job as Managing Director of London-based The Hush Group Limited (read here). He joined Herfordshire Police in 2007.

As for the IOPC, the complaint of Julian Watson has opened the window, once more, into their appalling incompetence, blame avoidance culture and a mindset that the maintaining reputation of the police service over-rides basic statutory requirements of fairness, diligence and independence. Not to mention careful husbandry of public funds.

It would be unfair to single out Claire Parsons, at the very bottom of the perenially hungry food chain. She is as good as the training with which she was provided, the professional support network around and above her, and the corporate culture within which she operates. Her decision would have been quality assured by an, as yet, un-named Senior Casework Manager. In the extant circumstances, it is almost certain that her decision would have been reviewed by her Regional Director, Sarah Green, and, presumably, the IOPC Director of Investigations, Steve Noonan. If so, they are the ones responsible for this debacle. Ms Green, an IPCC/IOPC long-termer, has plenty of previous in this regard. Notably, at the conclusion of Operation Poppy, one of the largest investigations ever undertaken by the watchdog (read more here). She was also one of the central figures in the Anthony Ramsden case.

The performance of in-house barrister Neil Moloney was, quite frankly, embarrassing. If he didn’t know he was on a hiding to nothing, confronted only by a litigant in person who appeared to make no oral submissions, then there is little in the way of salvation for him. Even with 21 years of call, it is hard to see how he would make a living in private practice. But, again, in fairness to Mr Moloney, he is, very likely, the victim of the IPCC/IOPC doctrine of pushing the foot soldiers into the firing line to protect the generals. In this case, that would include their most senior lawyers, the aforementioned Sarah Green and General Counsel (formerly Head of Legal Services), David Emery. Another IPCC/IOPC long-termer, having previously served with the Metropolitan Police Service, but, on the credit side, always approachable, helpful and, in my own professional experience, a likeable individual.

Similarly, the Professional Standards Departments (PSDs) of two police forces emerge with little or no credit. Their preoccupation with defeating any civil claims that may follow public complaints drives all their decisions, however irrational and contrary to the evidence they may be. That, very regrettably, is the same scenario throughout the police service, whatever may be said otherwise.

Will this court reversal bring change to either the IOPC or police force PSDs? Regrettably, history shows that the answer to that question has to be an emphatic ‘no’: Few, if any, other institutions have a less impressive portfolio when it comes to not absorbing and failing to learn lessons from past failures.

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

Page last updated at 0815hrs on Monday 26th October, 2020.

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.

Photo credit: IOPC

© 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.

We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong

During this course of this week, details have emerged of three more sub-optimal North Yorkshire Police investigations. These add to a shocking catalogue over the past 10 years or so (read more here).

Not burglaries or car break-ins, but deaths in two different rivers in the county, 12 years apart. Denying closure for bereaved families over periods far longer than necessary.

This followed hot on the heels of the shocking news that NYP had misled the tame local and regional media by asserting that a promised review into the depressingly poor investigation of the murder of Diana Garbutt, in 2010, never took place (read more here).

In April 2007, John David Clarke died in the River Foss near Towthorpe, by a strange coincidence a village with which convicted murderer Robin Garbutt, former husband of Diana, has strong family connections. No murder investigation appeared to take place at the time.

Pathology suggested that the circumstances were consistent with drowning and found that Mr Clarke had been heavily intoxicated at the time of death.

At the inquest, also in 2007, the coroner ruled that he had died by drowning, with alcohol intoxication a contributing factor. The deceased had an alcohol addiction and was being treated for depression. On open verdict was recorded.

But the police, led by senior investigating officer Lewis Raw, failed to consider the likelihood of a man in such a condition walking well over four miles from York to Haxby – probably taking around two hours to do so – before accidentally, or deliberately, drowning in the river.

Other clues that this was not an accidental death did not appear to be investigated with the necessary rigour:

Messages recovered from Mr Clarke’s mobile phone card SIM card confirmed that the man now convicted of his murder, ex-Tesco worker, David Roustoby, was the last person to see him alive.

His partner, Sharron Houlden, had reported her car stolen to the police two days after the murder, and it was found burned out a short distance away.

According to police reports, Mr Clarke had made a complaint in November 2006, saying Roustoby had allegedly discharged a firearm and threatened to kill him. The latter was arrested, but never charged.

In the end, it took a confession, filmed at a friend’s house in August 2019, for Roustoby to be finally arrested, interviewed, charged and face trial. He thought he had, literally, got away with murder after drugging and then strangling David Clarke with a tie because he thought ‘he was a nonce’.

Police, during a renewed investigation codenamed Operation Jet, found no evidence to suggest that the deceased had such character frailties and prosecutor, Richard Wright QC, told the jury: “Claiming David Clarke was a sex offender was a wicked self-justification of the terrible thing [Roustoby] had done”.

“David Clarke had no convictions of sex offences and no allegations of any type had been made.”

Mr Wright also told them that it was possible Roustoby had not “entirely killed” Mr Clarke when strangling him and the victim was, possibly, still breathing when he was thrown in the river.

When confronted with his video confession, Roustoby claimed that he was trying to impress his friends; that it was all fantasy. He was jailed for life, with a minimum term of 19 years to be served.

Miss Houlden was handed a sentence of two years and eight months imprisonment (less time already spent in custody) after pleading guilty to assisting an offender at an earlier hearing in September, 2020. 

Another curiosity is that Supt Raw was also the senior investigating in the disastrous Garbutt murder probe codenamed Operation Nardoo (read more here). A recent freedom of information request revealed that a promised review of that ‘comedy of errors’ never took place. Moreover, in recent correspondence with the chief constable, it is clear that the force is still refusing to re-open the case and very uncomfortable over the renewed scrutiny.

19 year old Sonny Ferry, brought up in Rutland but working as a building labourer in the city, also died in the River Foss in York in April, 2019. He had been on a night out with friends but became separated from the group in a local nightclub. It later emerged his bank card had been used several times on the day he was found and police knew it was missing when the body was recovered.

Inspector Lee Partridge said, at the time, it was not known whether the teenager’s wallet had been lost or stolen before he fell in the river or was fished out by person(s) unknown.

There were attempts to use Sonny’s bank card at a Tesco supermarket, two petrol stations and two McDonald’s outlets in the city between 04:22 and 06:10 BST on 14 April, although some transactions were declined.

The police did not tell Sonny’s family about the missing wallet until two months later but, by that time it was too late to check relevant CCTV footage in the areas where he had been.

A 45-year-old homeless man was arrested on suspicion of theft, in relation to the missing velcro-strapped wallet, but was released without charge.

His parents, Stephen and Kate Ferry, submitted a formal complaint to NYP after the initial investigation was closed just one day after Sonny’s death.

The perennially disgraced Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) was asked to investigate the circumstances leading up to his death.

However, the ‘police watchdog’ said evidence did not suggest the officers breached standards of professional behaviour. A decision that may not sustain before a coroner’s or civil court.

An inquest will now take place on a date yet to be determined.

A third victim of what appears to be sub-optimal NYP contact died in the River Ouse in York city centre less than a week later. Sharron Scott, the mother of the dead man said her 29 year old son Steven O’Neill, who was from The Wirral area of Merseyside, was on a night out with his brother, a soldier based at Imphal Barracks in the Fulford Cross area of the city, when the tragedy occurred.

Ms Scott said she failed to understand how her son ended up in the river because he could not swim. She was dissatisfied with the explanations of the police and made a formal complaint to the IOPC.

North Yorkshire Police said, at the time, they were alerted by CCTV operators to suspicious activity on Kings Staith in the early hours of a Saturday morning. Upon arrival, a man ran off and a short time later entered the water. A rescue operation was mounted but he was dead when his body was recovered from the river. All deaths where there has been police contact are required to be mandatorily referred to the IOPC for what is described as an ‘independent investigation’.

An IOPC investigator subsequently wrote to Ms Scott, to say that the evidence gathered does not suggest officers breached the police service’s Standards of Professional Behaviour. It is unclear as to who gathered what evidence.

He finalised his assessment of the status of officers involved in the incident preceding Steven’s death, after ‘carefully’ examining ‘all evidence’ including bodycam and CCTV footage, radio transmission recordings and witness statements (much more likely to be informal witness accounts than formal statements). Three visits to the scene and an inspection of life saving equipment were also made by the IOPC, they say, although it is not made clear who made these visits and for what specific purpose.

He said: “My assessment of all the evidence gathered to date in the investigation does not suggest the officers involved with Mr Scott may have breached the Police Standards of Professional Behaviour or acted in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings.”

Ms Scott said she was “appalled” by the investigator’s conclusions, and was planning to take civil action against North Yorkshire Police if the decision was upheld.

She said she did not believe sufficient care was taken for her son’s safety when he ran along the riverside – or sufficient action was taken by officers to save his life after he had entered the water.

The IOPC claim that CCTV, footage from body worn cameras, witness statements and police radio transmissions were all analysed, suggests that none was seized by the watchdog in the ‘golden hours’ after the death of Steven. They would have viewed, presumably, what the police wanted them to see. Over the years, their record on such analyses, in a number of other similar death following police contact cases, does not, regrettably, bear a great deal of scrutiny.

Neither does the record of the genuinely appalling record, over a long period of time, of the Professional Standards Department of North Yorkshire Police in covering up wrongdoing by their colleagues. Very strongly aided by a complete lack of oversight, or appropriately rigorous scrutiny, by any or all of the disgraced Police and Crime Commissioner, Julia Mulligan, about whom much is written elesewhere on this website; the aforementioned IPCC/IOPC and Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary.

In the month following the deaths of Steven and Sonny, NYP was forced to apologise to both families for alarm and distress caused when a CCTV operator posted an “inappropriate, insensitive” comment on the York Press Facebook page about drunks putting themselves in danger close to the rivers in York.

The force says it “wholeheartedly acknowledges” that the comments were made without any regards for families grieving the loss of a loved one.

“The member of staff who made the comments will be dealt with appropriately,” the force said, via their press office. “We apologise for the alarm and distress caused”.

The CCTV operator wrote: “Well, I normally keep my opinions on police matters to myself but I work in the police control room and sit in front of the CCTV screens.

“What doesn’t get reported are the number of drunks that put themselves in these dangers.

“Thursday night shift we responded to four persons too close, dangling legs, trying to climb river ladders or walk across the wall across Ouse bridge.

“One idiot jumped in and managed to climb out. That’s four individuals in danger in just one shift. It’s the person’s (drunken and misguided) choices, not the river’s fault.”

Sharron Scott said the comments were posted after The Press had reported on the death in the Ouse of her son. The link being, of course, that he drowned after running away from police officers, who had been alerted by CCTV operators to suspicious activity in the area of King’s Staith.

Ms Scott said that specific role of CCTV operators in the chain of events which led to Steven’s death had made the comments by one of those operators particularly concerning.

She added that the comment had sparked a series of other derogatory, speculative and prejudiced comments about her son from other people on Facebook, suggesting for example that he was clearly a drug dealer as he came from Merseyside.

“This has been incredibly upsetting and distressing not just for me but also for the wider family who are grieving for Steven, and also for the families of other people who have drowned in York’s rivers,”

The operator’s comment was deleted after a complaint to the police, but the comments by other people which it had prompted had remained.

“I personally would like to see the operator sacked,” said Ms Scott.

Ms Scott has previously made clear that Steven was a hard-working man with no criminal record and she had no inkling of what suspicious activity was referred to by police.

Kate Ferry told the same newspaper: “Speaking with the full support of my immediate family, we feel that had the operator previously had the honour of meeting the two members of the York Rescue Boat, as did myself and my husband, and of witnessing the raw grief on the faces of the unpaid volunteers whilst they told us of their first-hand experiences with individuals of all ages who have sometimes drunk a little too much alcohol, in some cases have drunk far too much alcohol and in further cases have drunk no alcohol at all but have nevertheless perished in the rivers of York, they would never have made those comments.

“Ultimately we feel that what is needed at this time is empathy, respect, courage and honesty. We feel we all need to be honest with ourselves. Haven’t we all said something naively and then wished we hadn’t?”

There is no indication on the NYP website that the CCTV operator faced any misconduct proceedings and it is, therefore, unclear what sanctions, if any, were imposed.

The force has chosen to break the law, yet again, by failing to simple questions put to them by way of the Freedom of Information Act (read more here).

Page last updated at 0945hrs on Saturday 2nd January, 2021.

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.

Photo credit: Yorkshire Live

Page last updated at 0610hrs on Saturday 28th November, 2020.

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.

Photo credit: 

© 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.