Great Manchester Police have failed to uphold the complaint against Inspector Paul Mycock, saying.
Chief Inspector Arthern informed you that he and the deputy crime registrar have reviewed the circumstances and in line with the National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS) the crime will stand with no further action.
Going on to say
You can apply to GMP asking for your record/information to be deleted. It will be assessed to see if it meets the criteria for deletion.
Reviewing the words used in an email to Inspector Paul Mycock that he, a experienced Inspector of Greater MAnchester Police suggests ARE an offence of pursuant to the Malicious Communication 1988
- You are speaking utter bullshit. (offensive at best and an honest held opinion)
- If you are suggesting you didn’t know, they you are either crap at your job or as bent as the other bent cops coming out of the woodwork across the UK. (rude at best, and an honest held opinion)
- So, you are speaking bullshit and you are to much of a shit house to own up. (rude/offensive at best but an honest held opinion)
- No wonder the police are so despised, the good cops don’t stand a chance when the bent are above them. (fact and honest held opinion).
Honest-held opinions are protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act – Right to Freedom of Expression.
Being criminalised against a right under Artice 10 is in itself an offence.
The CPS view on Malicious Communications
The CPS seeks to define “grossly” offensive as cases which are more than:
Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or
Satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment; or
The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.
It is alleged that Inspector Paul Mycock has abused his position as a police officer but using a system only available to police officers to record a crime that does not meet (by a long shot) the ingredients of the offence alleged. Had any member of the public made such an allegation, they would have been told by lower-raked officers that this does not meet the threshold for MAlicious Communications.
Any complaint against a police officer that, IF PROVEN, could amount to misconduct or criminal proceedings MUST be referred to the IOPC. Unsurprisingly, GMP has tried to bypass the IOPC and have an appeal held internally. The case has been escalated as an abuse of the complaint process, and the IOPC are aware.
All parties are aware that a Judicial Review will be considered for any outcome.
Inspector 11224 Paul Mycock of Greater Manchester Police is accused of corruption and abusing his powers as a police constable by recording a crime against Paul Ponting for a blunt email that Mr Ponting wrote to Inspector Mycock.
Inspector Mycock was (and still is) the subject of several formal complaints after he is alleged to have improperly investigated (or not investigated at all) a crime where a female received a death threat. Inspector Paul Mycock was, shall we say, not entirely truthful about CCTV evidence that he had in his possession.
Had Inspector Mycock considered the evidence properly, things may not have escalated to the stage where Mr Ponting received information of a credible threat to his life (a contract killing) and sent Inspector Paul Mycock the following email expressing his dissatisfaction. The full email chain is below.
Email Chain with Inspector 11224 Paul Mycock
Inspector Paul Mycock’s final response was telling Mr Ponting that his email was a criminal offence and that Mycock had actually RECORDED the crime against Mr Ponting of Malicious Communications, which is an either-way offence that is imprisonable.
It is without any doubt that Inspector Paul Mycock knows that the email is a far cry from a Malicious Communication, and recording it as a crime (even though he suggests he immediately finalised it) is an abuse of police power and could amount to corruption. In fact, this amounts to several criminal offences, including S26(7) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
Inspector Mycock threatened to exercise a power or privilege of a constable (arrest and prosecution). The intent was to the detriment of Mr Ponting and arguably to the benefit of Inspector Mycock, as he is subject to several complaints.
No reasonable person would expect a police officer to threaten the arrest and prosecution for making said comments. They are not a criminal offence and this has been confirmed by a Chief Inspector of GMP.