Please feel free to post a link to this article on the Lancashire police Facebook page.
Lancashire police have settled a claim for a serious data breach of a child costing the taxpayer £11,250 in compensation.
A Lancashire police Sergeant divulged private and sensitive information of a 13-year-old child to a self-confessed Police Informant named Paul Turner of Skelmersdale. Turner went on to publish this child’s private and confidential information on the internet putting the child at significant risk of harm.
After being alerted to this data on the internet, the devastated parents reported the incident to Lancashire police, not knowing it was Lancashire police who ‘leaked’ the data.
Lancashire police took NO action to have child’s sensitive data removed from the Internet.
Paul Turner who was operating as a Covert Human Intelligence Source (CHIS) and believed to be involved in a Lancashire police drug bust.
Turner was not apprehended by Lancashire police for what he did. The officer leaking the confidential information was never held to account.
The ICO found that the data breach was a serious breach of data, aggravated by the fact the victim was a vulnerable 13-year-old child.
The IPCC (now the IOPC) investigated this serious offence and said the officer should face a misconduct panel. Lancashire police refused to do this. The officer has since retired without being held to account.
Lancashire police paid the victim £11,250 in an out of court settlement. Lancashire police have never apologised to the child.
It is believed that Paul Turner now lives in Benidorm, Spain and it has been suggested that Lancashire police assisted in his relocation, although this has not been confirmed.
Turner was protected from a perjury allegation by Lancashire police. The evidence of perjury was confirmed by the court. Lancashire police refused to investigate suggesting his prosecution would not be in the public interest.
This is a blatant abuse of power by Lancashire police protecting a Police Informant. A secret audio recording with a Lancashire Superintendent confirms his belief that Lancashire police should have prosecuted Turner.
To give our readers an idea of how far-reaching this website is. This article received 281 visits in its first hour of publication.
So say a police officer in Scotland who has had previous contact with the parent who is registered with victims notification scheme regarding parole and if released or not due too not being notified, then says data protection is preventing him from helping a mother of the victim to say simple yes or no,yet proceeds to break the same data to the victims other parent whom was not interested in the victims safety or well-being yet recorded a phone call were said officer detailing the information is data protection breach is this correct or not