The Lancashire Police and Crime Commissioner refused to investigate the former Chief Constable (Andy Rhodes) for perjury, so the IOPC insisted that he be investigated, as there was evidence of the crime of Perjury, contrary to S1 of the Perjury Act 1911.
When the Crime Commissioner refused the IOPC direction, the IOPC decided to review their own decision!
The IOPC had confirmed that the MODE of investigation is being determined, which is how Andy Rhodes will be investigated, but now, Clara Harriott, Senior Assessment Manager of the Independent Office for Police Conduct has made a comment (recorded on a phone call) suggesting she is now ‘re-considering even if the former Cheif Constable should be investigated, even though evidence of perjury has been provided!
s.7 Perjury Act incriminates people associated with any act of perjury
You should have made criminal allegations against Harrison to the IOPC (Police Reform Schedule 3 s.4). It was not for Lancashire Police to investigate.
Your recording with Clara if you did it without her permission, I have heard that it may be a criminal offence for you to play it. Watch out!
the recording requires no permission and is of a public office, for which, there is a public interest.
Police Reform Act Schedule 3 s.16 states the police cannot investigate their Chief Constable
This is going via the OPCC who is reviewing it with a blindfold on.