A complaint was made against the former Lancashire Chief Constable regarding a civil claim he brought against a man named, Paul Ponting.
Within the evidence bundle, submitted by the Chief Constable, significant false statements were identified. So false, they were very easily disproven and considered perjury.
When the perjured evidence was brought to the attention of the Chief Constable, the response was, ‘the evidence will be tested in Court‘, or words to that effect.
The falsified statement was made by a female police officer, who we will refer to as ‘DC Haribo’ of Lancashire police.
DC Haribo had previously unlawfully arrested Mr Ponting, who successfully sued Lancashire police for her stupidity abusing her power.
When the Chief Constable brought his claim against Mr Ponting, DC Haribo was asked if she would give evidence against him, from the witness statements, it would appear DC Haribo jumped for joy at the opportunity and seemingly thought it was an open invitation to make anything up for the Chief.
So, DC Haribo got to work like the busy bee that she is, writing her
story statement. The statement would have been more convincing if it began with “once upon a time“. Obviously, QC David Knifton loves a good story as he was lapping up everything DC Haribo was spewing out in court.
DC Haribo went on to make all sorts of fanciful malicious claims in her signed MG11 witness statement, they included that Mr Ponting sits outside Ormskirk police station watching and videoing cars. Mr Ponting has never done that and actually speaks out about such activities
DC Haribo, now on a roll, fabricated that Mr Ponting goes to the Schools where police officers children attend and ‘harasses’ the police parents… WOW, now that is a bold statement!
Little did the jelly brain DC think ahead, as any such activity by any person would be the result of a police log/record of the incident, and if any of her ‘bullshit’ was true, Mr Ponting would at least have been spoken to by police? well, he was not and knew nothing about this pathetic lie.
What Mr Ponting did, (to prove the lie), was to make a Subject Access Request, and that was for ANY information, log, report, email, incident, inference, even a note on a bog roll, of any such allegation.
As expected, the response was, NO SUCH INCIDENT/LOG/REPORT EXISTED.
DC Haribo went on to try to say, when questioned under oath, was that the information was what she had ‘heard from other police officers’, so, DC Haribo was asked, on oath, who told her?
DC Haribo said, ‘I can’t remember‘… what she really meant was, “I made that up“.
Not one single police officer has ever come forward to ‘assist’ her in substantiating this complete and utter lie from DC Haribo. Clearly no police officer will stick their neck on the block for this lying cop.
DC Haribo is a liar, as no such incident ever occurred. No one told her, she made this up out of her desperation for revenge on Mr Ponting and it backfired.
Now, as this was hearsay (and false), DC Haribo was defended by her gang in the Professional Standards Department when a complaint was made, suggesting it was ‘her honest belief‘ and because of this, the complaint was ‘swiftly’ brushed under the carpet. PSD never saw this as defamation of Mr Ponting, nor did they think it appropriate or reasonable to find out who was spreading such bullshit. They just left the malicious lie to fester in public records.
Further on in DC Haribo’s
story statement, clearly, her wild imagination was now starting to flow, she made the mistake of putting herself as the witness, therefore, no defence of hearsay.
DC Haribo stated, in reference to a social night out, “MR PONTING WOULD STALK US AND TAKE PICTURES OF US TO PUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA”…
Utter bollocks, but bingo!
DC Haribo has now foolishly dropped the possibility of a hearsay defence and now assumes the role of a fabricated victim. She also infers others, in her reference of ‘STALK US‘. Now she must be put to strict proof, of this and that day will come.
Obviously, stalking is a serious criminal offence so of course, DC Haribo will have reported this as after all, she is a DC…a ‘detective’, and detectives, ‘detect crimes’, which DC Haribo has clearly done here, and not only that, she now has witnesses to the crime. (remember ‘US‘).
Again, Mr Ponting heard nothing about this supposed crime he had committed, no phone call from the police asking for an interview, how very strange as Lancashire police are notorious for arresting Mr Ponting for anything they possibly can.
So after reading this drivel in DC Haribo’s statement, Mr Ponting again contacted Lancashire police, and requests yet another Subject Access Request for any such allegations relating to the supposed allegations.
This time, PSD clicked on that DC Haribo was digging herself (and more importantly, the Chief Constable) into a big hole. So, they refused to provide any information whatsoever.
Of course, there was nothing on record. Think about it, if there was, Lancashire police would be the first to provide it, even a ‘hint’ of it, to show that Mr Ponting was wrong, but like the spineless bullies they are, they hide behind police protocol.
So, back to the Chief Constable…
With all the false evidence in the ‘evidence bundle’, this was reported back to the claimant (the Chief Constable), and with the easy task to validate DC Haribos fantastic stories, and with a duty of candour, the Chief Constable said ‘the evidence‘ will be tested in court.
What evidence you absolute plonker?
No evidence was provided only un-substantiated malicious allegations. and being a civil trial, the bent judge (QC David Knifton), could then use his vindictive discretion to side with the police.
So, a complaint was made, against the Chief Constable, to the ex-Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), Clive Grunshaw (now replaced by another puppet who seems to be sitting on the fence).
The complaint was picked up by Ian Dickinson who did everything in his limited power to fob the complaint off.
Without going into great detail, Ian Dickinson had all of the evidence, in the form of the evidence bundle, the police records and access to all of the supposed witnesses, but insisted Mr Ponting furnish him with ‘evidence’?
Mr Ponting firstly asked Mr Dickinson what evidential threshold does the PCC use when reviewing evidence, i.e. was it beyond reasonable doubt, or, on the balance of probabilities? (the latter is the case but he wanted Ian Dickinson to confirm this).
Rather than answer this simple question, Ian Dickinson skipped around like he was dancing on hot coals, avoiding the question at all costs, only to then refuse to record the complaint, of which substantial evidence is readily available to him. Naughty Mr Dickinson…
Mr Ponting then reported this failure to the IOPC who decided that Mr Dickinson was wrong. (which was pretty obvious to any normal person with an IQ above 10).
The IOPC instructed Mr Ian Dickinson of the Lancashire police and Crime Commissioners office to record and investigate the Chief Constable.
Ian Dickinson, clearly now backed into a corner, objected, stating some waffle about the ‘IOPC indication test’, and that he could not determine the Chief Constable did anything wrong and that, even under instruction by the IOPC, he still can’t see any wrongdoing.
Ian Dickinson asked the IOPC for ‘help‘, it was almost detected his sheer panic of having to go against the institution! What Ian Dickinson was in fact doing was looking for any way out of this hole that he was digging.
Suffice to say, the ‘indication test‘, has now been referred to the IOPC, who must now see if there is any indication of criminality or misconduct by the Chief Constable. There is, but what will they say… place your bets.
There is a massive amount of evidence that supports the ‘indication’ that a criminal offence or misconduct may have occurred.
It is believed that Mr Ponting is awaiting information now from the IOPC and intends to challenge any ‘Wednesbury unreasonable‘ decision made by Judicial Review.
The IOPC have had their fingers burnt once before by Mr Ponting who started the legal process for Judicial Review against the IOPC, for their attempt to ‘defend’ Lancashire police’
This cost the IOPC many thousands of pounds in costs (public money… YOUR MONEY) and they admitted they made an unlawful decision (in defending Lancashire police).
The question is, how far will the IOPC go to protect the Chief Constable of Lancashire police, or, will they just, do their job properly for a refreshing change!