After a formal complaint was made against the Bedfordshire Chief Constable Garry Forsyth, Katie Beaumont 6973 , who is the ‘Transparancy Manager‘ for the the Police and Crime Commission (PCC) has refused to record the complaint.
Her grounds are;
I have reviewed the above and understand that you wish to make a complaint against Chief Constable Garry Forsyth, however I would like to inform you that, on immediate review of your complaint, the complaint is not regarding the conduct of the Chief Constable.
The Chief Constable has not had any personal involvement into this case and delegates such responsibilities to others within the organisation for reporting crime and investigating crime and complaints, you may have sent correspondence to the Chief Constable, however this would not be dealt with by the Chief Constable.
The complaint was
- Failing to investigate a criminal offence that was reported, for which he has a legal obligation to investigate, and;
- Using (and abusing) taxpayers money to fund an irrational and illegal defence to a Judicial Review that was conceded after costs were accrued (on notice), showing an intent to call my bluff.
Katie has been reminded that, Chief Constable Garry Forsyth is the respondent to a legal challenge in the High Court of London.
The Chief Constable Garry Forsyth is the named person on the High Court Judicial Review and from a legal point of view, Garry Forsyth is at all material times, the respondent.
The respondent, (Garry Forsyth) decied to use public money to defend an illegal decision. Even if Garry Forsyth ‘delegate’ this decision (or seek advice which is more the case), it is still the legal responsibility of the respondent.
The PCC, Festus Akinbusoye is therfore, via Katie Beaumont doing everything in his power to protect the Chief Constable when it is the legal duty of the PCC to hold the Chief Constable to account.