It is not often I praise the IOPC, but on this occasion, they have correctly identified wrongdoing in the police.
DC Patrick (DC Dipstick as he is fondly referred to by some), made a few intentional ‘fuck ups‘ during his attempt to screw over a female victim of the police. (Angela – not her real name).
I wrote several articles on this website holding Matthew Abbs and Aime Abbs to account, this is what I do.
The ‘Abbsies‘ knew I wrote the articles, but in a sinister police vendetta against his ex, Matty Abbs made false allegations that Angela (his ex) had written the articles (my articles) and Matthew Abbs stooped to maliciously taking the matter to the Family Courts to try to seek a non-molestation order against her.
As this related to the articles I wrote, I was to be a witness in those proceedings.
So, what the sneaky devils did, (those pesky police) was they arrested Angela (before the Family Court proceedings) on further false allegations, just so they could sneakily apply unlawful bail conditions, and those bail conditions were to prevent her from contacting me (her witness) and the author of the articles she was accused of writing!
Due to this underhanded tactic of the police, which was signed off at a senior level by Supt Laura Hunt, Angela could not defend her case, and an unsafe non-molestation order was obtained against her by lying Abbsie and his pal DC Patrick
Now, after I posted further articles as I am lawfully entitled, she was charged with a breach of a non-molestation even though she did nothing at all to get the non-mol order and certainly didn’t breach it.
Introducing DC Patrick
DC Patrick was assigned as an investigating officer for the crimes alleged to be committed by Angela. In a bizarre fuck up, DC Patrick disclosed that he was a ‘mate’ of DS Abbs in what was promised to be an impartial investigation. Within evidential disclosure, it was identified that DC Patrick had DS Matthew Abbs stored in his mobile phone, with DS Abbs’s private email address and mobile number under the cute label ‘Abbsie Mob‘ (aww, how cute). It was not stored as DS Mathew Abbs, or maybe Sergeant Abbs.
Allegedly working with Abbs to frame Angela, DC Patrick contacted me after unlawfully obtaining my email address and attempted to label me as a witness for the police. (the silly dipstick should have done his research, I do not support police corruption)
I raised three complaints against DC Patrick which was quickly covered up by Detective Inspector Richard Stott.
Di Richard Stott’s response to my complaint (before not upholding it) was
Although no failings were identified through your complaint, we would like to apologise on behalf of the organisation that you had cause to complain and we hope you are assured that we have taken your complaint seriously, looked into the matter professionally and responded in a satisfactory manner.
This is the standard Bullshit PSD often comes up with to try to make a problem go away and why the UK police force is on its arse.
So, off to the IOPC I went. I wasn’t expecting much as my faith in the IOPC is lower than a snake’s belly, but we must play their childish games first before we can raise the bar and seek a Judicial Review (the nemesis of the police)
Allegation ONE – UPHELD
DC Patrick acquired my personal email address and attempted to make me a prosecuting witness.
Complaint Outcome by DI Stott – (as written by the IOPC)
Detective Inspector Stott, concluded that the actions taken by DC Patrick were as a result of a legitimate policing enquiry under the direction of the CPS. DI Stott was satisfied that all the actions taken by DC Patrick were relevant to the investigation. DI Stott also explained that the role of a police officer is to ‘gather evidence’, whether this supports or undermines a prosecution case. The evidence would be considered on its own merits if the matter had reached a charging decision.
IOPC comments upholding my complaint
Whilst police are permitted to be exempt from certain legal rules pertaining to the access of personal data, I cannot see where the complaint handler (DI Stott) looked at evidence that provided a justification into actions taken by DC Patrick in his investigation.
Furthermore, due to the lack of evidence looked at by DI Stott, I believe that this allegation was not investigated reasonably or proportionally and therefore I do not agree with DI Stotts decision on this allegation.
Allegation TWO – UPHELD
I reported that DC Patrick had carried out what was supposed to be an ‘independent investigation’ on behalf of Norfolk Police, however, he is not ‘independent’ as he is friends with the DS Matthew Abbs third party and has provided them (Abbs) with information for a court case.
DI Stott believed it was disproportionate to disclose information to you, as the complainant, as DI Stott stated there was no legitimate authority to disclose information. There was a lack of authority or consent from those involved in the ‘Norfolk investigation’. Therefore, the opinion was noted, but not further investigated.
However, I am of the view that this was not dealt with reasonably and proportionately by DI Stott. Even as a complainant being treated as a witness, being a witness does not negate the need for DI Stott to investigate concerns about the independence of an investigation. It is right and correct that DI Stott is careful not to breach GDPR, however, a balance can be struck where DI Stott could have explained what they have done to deal with the concern.
Additionally, I have not been provided with any information to confirm or deny that the did look into this allegation and therefore I do not believe that this allegation was reasonably or proportionately investigated.
DC Patrick made an unlawful GDPR request against a personal website (UK Corrupt Police) **THIS WEBSITE**.
Police complaint (view by the IOPC)
DI Stott reached the same conclusion in relation to this allegation as allegation one. DI Stott provided the reasoning for service level acceptable as investigating the identities of those using the UK Police Corrupt (this website) forum was part of a legitimate policing enquiry and therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
I am of the belief that it was not reasonable and proportionate for DI Stott to come to the decision about not upholding this complaint. This would be because no evidence was looked at to reach this decision. I am also of the belief that this allegation should have triggered a local investigation, rather than it being dealt with by other handling. This is due to the seriousness of the allegation and that the actions of DC PAtrick could be considered misconduct if proven.
I am upholding your review and recommend that Cambridgeshire Police conduct a reasonable and proportionate investigation into your allegations.
So, now it is back to the police to see how they can convert it up a different way. I am under no illusion they will do their best to cover it up, if they do, a Judicial Review will commence.