After almost 12 months of desperately trying to defend the former Chief Constable of Lancashire police (Andy Rhodes) from potential prosecution, the Crime Commissioner, Andrew Snowden and the IOPC have been provided with the evidence that they both previously refused to consider, claiming it was not available.
The evidence provided to them includes;
A criminal report that was sent to Lancashire police showing the offence of Perjury with DC Karen Harrisons statement of truth submitted by the Chief Constable as ‘evidence’.
The response to the criminal report where the police, rather than investigate the evidence of a serious Criminal Offence (as police must do), said that they intended to test the (perjured) evidence in a Civil Court.
A copy of DC Karen Harrisons’ perjured statement which contained TWO specific perjured allegations. Both are proven false.
A Copy of SAR requests to Lancashire police which verify that the statement of DC Karen Harrison was substantially and knowingly false and used in live proceedings and on oath.
A copy of an audio recording with Superintendent Eddie Thistlethwaite of Lancashire police who clearly stated that DC Karen Harrison was ‘already very ill‘, and went off sick (for 12 months) after an argument with her Inspector.
Supt Thistlethwaite is (was) a senior officer in Lancashire police.
DC Karen Harrison stated on oath in a Courtroom that her illness was 100% attributed to me, Paul Ponting, the recording of the Senior Officer rejected this.
The police had a lawful duty to investigate the crime of perjury when reported to them, but they refused to say they are going to test the evidence, even knowing it was perjured.
The police refused to do their job, (investigate crime), and knowing they were acting unlawfully, used public money to fund a witch hunt in a civil court, brought by Andy Rhodes who used fabricated evidence to do so.
At no time has DC Karen Harrison been willing to provide any supporting evidence of her supposed illness.
Clearly, there is a mass of information being withheld by Lancashire police. Senior Officers clearly know the truth (Eddie Thistlethwaite was recorded discussing it).
DC Karen Harrisons’ medical records will no doubt identify the truth behind her 12-month illness and she refused to provide any medical evidence, even to the court to support her statement.
I allege Lancashire police are intentionally Perverting the Course of Justice by hindering this serious allegation.
The civil court does not require such a high burden of proof, however, civil courts are not free for all for lies to be spouted to win over a Judge. Any provable lies, material to the case, even in Civil hearings are Perjury contrary to S1 of the Perjury Act 1911. Evidence of Perjury must be investigated, but Lancashire police are BLATANTLY refusing to even look at the evidence, so much so that the High Court will have to enforce this.
The fact is, DC Karen Harrison knowingly and intentionally committed perjury, she told bare face lies that are easily provable but Lancashire police force is refusing to investigate ‘one of their own‘. In fact, The Chief Constable, Andy Rhodes himself knowingly allowed the perjured evidence into his own evidence bundle after being alerted to it.
The evidence has now been provided after the Crime Commissioner refused to access the information which was always ‘readily available to him as the Police and Crime Commissioner, therefore he made a decision not to investigate the Chief Constable on criminal or misconduct grounds.
The IOPC appeal also took no consideration of the readily available information, and they too decided no investigation. Check out the embarrassing recorded telephone call with Clara Harriot of the IOPC over the indication test.
Both the OPCC and the IOPC have been steadfast that there is NO EVIDENCE, that, if proven, could result in criminal or misconduct proceedings. They both are desperate to avoid looking at the evidence as it unquestionably shows misconduct as a minimum.
We now await the next EXCUSE from the OPCC and/or the IOPC.
The evidence provided is only intended to support the indication test. The test is one that must be done to see if there is only an ‘indication’ of misconduct.
The IOPC has already said that (on the words of the complaint alone), there is an indication of misconduct.
The OPCC and IOPC are now on notice that a Judicial Review will commence if they do not consider the complaint based on the new evidence that they have and a fresh indication test is made to direct an investigation.
Chief Constables are not above the law.