Clive Grunshaw, the Police and Crime Commissioner of Lancashire (PCC) supposedly has an important role to play. In part, that is, to hold the Chief Constable and his office to account for any wrongdoing.
Clive Grunshaw himself has been investigated for allegations of false accounting. He was ‘cleared’ of wrongdoing, by… the Chief Constable!
A quote from the website of the Police and Crime Commissioner, Clive Grunshaw states:
“I want to use my role to give the public a voice at the highest level, and give you, the people of Lancashire, the ability to ensure that the police are accountable.”
Ian Dickinson of Clive Grunshaw’s office is dealing with a serious allegation against the newly appointed, Andy Rhodes, the Chief Constable of Lancashire police. It has been alleged (with evidence) he perverted the course of justice. by intentionally deleting evidence and failing to report a crime.
The job of the PCC, is to ‘ensure the police are accountable‘ however, from his lack of investigation (read it here), it is apparent he is intentionally trying to cover for and defend the Chief Constable from what amounts to a potential criminal offence rather than hold him to account! This is misconduct in a public office.
In a reply from the PCC office, an ‘unnamed‘ police officer from the Chief Constable’s office, intentional lied to the PCC investigation, stating that Andy Rhodes ‘cannot delete tweets in his Twitter account‘. This was a lie to try to cover up the Chief Constable from deleting the evidence in question. This is a provable lie and only a fool would believe this!
Rather than search for proof as would be normal practice in any investigation, Ian Dickinson of the PCC’s office simple took that ‘lie’ as fact. Basically, the investigation went like this:
- Did the Chief Constable delete the evidence?
- No, he cannot delete the evidence.
- Okay, complaint finalised.
- End of investigation.
Ian Dickinson and Clive Grunshaw were both fully aware that the victim in which the evidence related did in fact have a personal chat with the Chief Constable via the same Twitter account, therefore proving Andy Rhodes had full access to his Twitter account.
When the victim asked Ian Dickinson for the name of the officer that intentionally lied to protect the Chief Constable, Ian Dickinson REFUSED to provide this information to avoid a further complaint!
It is clear that the Police and Crime Commissioner is not fit for purpose and potentially also perverting the course of justice.