Are the IPCC biased toward the Police?
This article is to make public a complaint against the police and the appeal process by the (not so independent) IPCC that shows a clear bias towards police by the IPCC.
IPCC Casework Manager, Kathryn Lawcock was assigned as the single point of contact (SPOC) to a family who has had a horrendous experience with Lancashire police resulting in multiple complaints against them.
This article will show how Kathryn Lawcock made a ‘questionable‘ decision that resulted in a failed appeal that now requires a costly judicial review to overturn.
The IPCC is supposed to be independent and caseworkers are supposed to be impartial.
A Police complaint resulted from a comment made about a victim of crime was posted on the Twitter account of the Chief Constable of Lancashire Police. The message said “Paul Pussy Ponting“.
The victim reported this to the Lancashire Police & Crime Commissioner Clive Grunshaw as the comment was removed by the Chief Constable rather than take action for harassment. The offender was later convicted of harassment!
After this complaint was ‘not upheld’ by the Crime Commissioner, the complaint was then appealed to the IPCC, it was dealt with by Casework Manager, Kathryn Lawcock.
In Kathryn Lawcock’s ruling, she stated that the comment made against the victim was ‘not offensive‘ and was simply a ‘personal opinion‘ of the person who wrote it.
Kathryn Lawcock herself was the victim of an online posting, calling her a “broomstick-riding witch“. Kathryn Lawcock found this offensive and reported it to the authorities. Her claim was fully supported by the IPCC public body resulting in a restraining order being granted.
So Kathryn Lawcock can find it offensive the be inferred as a broomstick-riding witch’ yet, she says someone else cannot be offended by being named ‘Paul pussy Ponting‘ posted on the Twitter account of the Chief Constable!
This was raised with the IPCC Internal Investigation Unit (IIU), who, rather than question why one of their Casework Managers made such a contradictory decision, actually told the complainant that they should not be researching the caseworker.
The caseworker is acting (or supposedly) as an impartial decision maker for a victim. This is a very serious decision to be made and a victim has every right to research a public body employee tasked with this potentially life-changing decision that cannot be appealed without a costly judicial review.
The article about Kathryn Lawcock was found in the public domain, yet the IPCC IIU find it ‘harassment‘ that it was found and ‘referred too‘?
This is the letter received from the IPCC IIU (Internal Investigation Unit)
This was in reply to this complaint made by the victim. IIU-IPCC-complaint-against-Kathryn-Lawcock
Ironically, the emails referred to in this article (quoted as being sent from the 16th of November) imply that the victim had sent an offensive email to Katheryn Lawcock which could not be further from the truth. The email, (shown below) is a perfectly reasonable email asking for the rationale for the decision made.
It would appear that the IPCC IIU (Internal Investigation Unit) are making threats of action against the victim simply for researching a caseworker for a public body who is tasked with an investigation.
Below is the exact email that the IIU say is ‘harassing’ or ‘attacking Kathryn Lawcock’?