Evidence that IPCC Case worker is biased towards police

To report this post you need to login first.

Hits: 85

Are the IPCC biased toward the Police?

This article is to make public a complaint against the police and the appeal process by the (not so independent)  IPCC that shows a clear bias towards police by the IPCC (now the IOPC).

IPCC Casework Manager, Kathryn Lawcock was assigned as the single point of contact (SPOC) to a family who has had a horrendous experience with Lancashire police resulting in multiple complaints against them.

This article will show how Kathryn Lawcock made a ‘questionable‘ decision that resulted in a failed appeal that now requires a costly judicial review to overturn.

The IPCC (now the IOPC) is supposed to be independent and caseworkers are supposed to be impartial.

A Police complaint resulted from a comment made about a victim of crime was posted on the Twitter account of the Chief Constable of Lancashire Police.  The message said “Paul Pussy Ponting“.

The victim reported this to the Lancashire Police & Crime Commissioner Clive Grunshaw as the comment was removed by the Chief Constable rather than take action for harassment.  The offender was later convicted of harassment!

After this complaint was ‘not upheld’ by the Crime Commissioner, the complaint was then appealed to the IPCC, it was dealt with by Casework Manager, Kathryn Lawcock.

In Kathryn Lawcock’s ruling, she stated that the comment made against the victim was ‘not offensive‘ and was simply a ‘personal opinion‘ of the person who wrote it.

Kathryn Lawcock herself was the victim of an online posting, calling her a “broomstick-riding witch“.  Kathryn Lawcock found this offensive and reported it to the authorities.  Her claim was fully supported by the IPCC public body resulting in a restraining order being granted.

Full details here http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/malicious-blogger-neil-wilby-banned-7972575

So Kathryn Lawcock can find it offensive the be inferred as a broomstick-riding witch’ yet, she says someone else cannot be offended by being named ‘Paul pussy Ponting posted on the Twitter account of the Chief Constable!

This was raised with the IPCC Internal Investigation Unit (IIU), who, rather than question why one of their Casework Managers made such a contradictory decision, actually told the complainant that they should not be researching the caseworker.

The caseworker is acting (or supposedly) as an impartial decision maker for a victim.  This is a very serious decision to be made and a victim has every right to research a public body employee tasked with this potentially life-changing decision that cannot be appealed without a costly judicial review.

The article about Kathryn Lawcock was found in the public domain, yet the IPCC IIU find it ‘harassment‘ that it was found and ‘referred too‘?

This is the letter received from the IPCC IIU (Internal Investigation Unit)

This was in reply to this complaint made by the victim. IIU-IPCC-complaint-against-Kathryn-Lawcock

Ironically, the emails referred to in this article (quoted as being sent from the 16th of November) imply that the victim had sent an offensive email to Katheryn Lawcock which could not be further from the truth.  The email, (shown below) is a perfectly reasonable email asking for the rationale for the decision made.

It would appear that the IPCC IIU (Internal Investigation Unit) are making threats of action against the victim simply for researching a caseworker for a public body who is tasked with an investigation.


Below is the exact email that the IIU say is ‘harassing’ or ‘attacking Kathryn Lawcock’?







    • Who is Darren the shit house Hogan…. oh yeah, he is the convicted shit house who has to scuttle around as an anonymous poster as he is to scared to post in his won name even though he was the big fucking hard guy who was going to please not guilty and get acquitted.

  1. Paul, I totally agree with John’s comment. I have found the IPCC (Don’t forget due to be scrapped as unfit for purpose, and corrupt, in January, so insist on delegation of your case to the new Authority ) utterly corrupt. “The truth is not our remit” wrote one. It’s no better, in fact worse for corruption and bias to the police, and paid by the police to lie, than its old face the PCA. It’s a shocking disgrace. HOW CAN POLICE PAY THEIR LYING LAWYERS, AND CLAIM IT IS “INDEPENDENT” ??? That rambling long threatening letter sent to you Paul, is typical of the ‘modern way’ a corrupt PSD said, of threatening victims who dare to complain. What we victims should be doing is a block class action to sue this IPCC rubbish. Corruption is rife, and we should sue the “broomsticks” who are employed to carry the lies. Now there are IPCC whistle-blowers who reveal they are ordered to find nothing wrong with the police. I have suffered IPCC allowed removals of evidence FOUR SEPARATE TIMES to hide the State’s crimes against me (State child torture). It’s a long story, but in short, I am in the process of bringing these barstaffs to the International Criminal Court for proportional participation in Crimes against Humanity. The IPCC is a fundamentally evil organisation whose role is to hide police crimes of evidential corruption, i.e. destruction of evidence / deletion of digital evidence / refusals to investigate / altering document text and a lot more. Don’t forget you have international legal options too. If it’s about child abuse, go to the UN and ICC and denounce these creeps of the IPCC and police so-called.

  2. The IPCC is corrupt as can be. They issue ridiculous rulings and then tell complainants to judicial review them. Who can afford the thousands of pounds to do that? That’s why they act as the do and cover up for police time and time again. It’s broken, and commonly known as not fit for purpose by public and politicians alike.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.