How Professional Standards support misconduct – Lancashire and West Midlands


I am writing this article to demonstrate how the Professional Standards Department (PSD) within the UK police forces have an obvious bias towards defending their officers.

Police will always defend police (themselves).  Paint their roles any way you want, but the fact is PSD are all police officers, there is no independence within PSD.

It is ludicrous to believe that PSD can and will be objective during any investigation into ‘themselves’, all the time, especially when the complaint comes from a person who has challenged the police authority and, in this case, sued the police successfully for £35,000.

I highlight the following two examples showing clear signs of bias in both Lancashire police and West Midlands police PSD departments.

Lancashire police.

I have to be careful with this force as Lancashire police have paid almost £40,000 to a civil court using Tax Payers money, to have a restraining order put in place to prevent any Lancashire police officer being named.

This is currently being challenges a breach of Article 10 of the Human rights Act.

Lancashire police suggest that any article, written about any Lancashire police officer, or in fact, any mention of a Lancashire police officer by name or description, for any reason by a specific person (me), is a breach of their rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

So if, for example, an article was written by ANY OTHER PERSON, it is perfectly acceptable, however, if I wrote the exact same article, it becomes an imprisonable offence because apparently, if I say it, it is ‘harassing’ but not if anyone else does.  doesn’t this raise suspicions that Lancashire police are in fact, more concerned of what I have to say?

Police officers are public servants, what they do as public servants, is of public interest.  They are paid for by the public using Taxpayers money. Their public role is not their private life, nor is their public role their, ‘family life’. They elected to become public servants.

Any interference in Article 10 to discuss or mention a public servant is unlawful and is, without doubt, a breach of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.  Especially when the interference is aimed at blocking one individual who has incriminating evidence.

Some would say that Lancashire police have abused their powers and abused taxpayers money to get ‘what they want’.

Anyway, I digress…

So I will use a little ‘creative flair’ as in this article, their names are not really relevant.

A female Lancashire police officer, who we will refer to as PC SNOWFLAKE,  created and signed a false statement of truth.  This was submitted to Liverpool County courts as evidence in a civil application for an injunction. (the one blocking me from naming Lancashire police officers)

A number of points, within PC SNOWFLAKES statement of truth, were false and easily proved.

  1. PC SNOWFLAKE made a false allegation that the respondent stood outside a police station and noted down police car details and police officer details.
  2. PC SNOWFLAKE made a false allegation that the respondent went to schools where police officers children attended and ‘harassed’ the police parents.
  3. PC SNOWFLAKE made an unfounded allegation that she took 12 months off work, on sick leave because of the respondent.

Under oath, PC SNOWFLAKE ADMITTED these allegations (1 & 2) were in fact  ‘HEARSAY’, something she forgot to add in her statement of truth, which actually declared the allegations were fact.

PC SNOWFLAKE then had a massive lapse of memory as she just could not remember who told her this lie.

The statement was made available to the respondent prior to the civil case and on seeing the malicious fabricated statement, it was reported to Lancashire PSD (Professional Standards Department) as a criminal offence of perjury, due to it being a signed statement of truth and provable as being false.

The respondent, on seeing this defamatory material, made an application to the court, seeking an order for PC SNOWFLAKES medical history to be released to evidence the cause of her 12-month illness?

The police costly legal team (paid for by the taxpayers) defended this application which the court refused to order it.

Simply put, PC SNOWFLAKE made a false allegation that she refused to back up with any evidence whatsoever and then it is alleged she lied to the court about her illness.

Points 1 & 2 were shocking as this was completely fabricated evidence by a Lancashire police officer, it was malicious and untrue and was put in a signed statement which was then submitted to the court as evidence.

The respondent made a subject access request to Lancashire police, asking for any incident logs or reports of the malicious allegations made by PC SNOWFLAKE.  Of course, they had none, as there were no allegations made.  There is not a single incident, log or shred of evidence to support this malicious allegation by PC SNOWFLAKE, which, under oath, she admitted to being HEARSAY.  A contradiction to her statement of truth.

With relation to point 3.  The respondent was satisfied that PC SNOWFLAKE would be proven as a liar, as he had had a meeting with a senior police officer directly within PC SNOWFLAKES chain of command.  The senior officer was a Superintendant, who I will refer to as Supt IVORY as he referred to his own position in the police as being so senior, that it amounted to being in an ‘Ivory Tower’.

The meeting was covertly recorded by the respondent for his protection.

During the meeting, Supt IVORY  told the respondent and his wife that PC SNOWFLAKE had taken 12 months of work due to an illness.  After hearing the respondent and his wife expressing their concern, Supt IVORY assured them it was nothing to do with them and that the officer (PC SNOWFLAKE) was already very sick.

Supt IVORY even went on to describe how PC SNOWFLAKE had been in a flaming row with her Inspector prior to going on the sick, could this suggest that PC SNOWFLAKE in fact took a 12-month sickie at the taxpayer’s expense.

With this evidence served upon the court and Lancashire police, the respondent was certain that it would prove PC SNOWFLAKES statement to be not only a lie but a malicious fabricate on evidence.

The recorder, David Knifton QC was more concerned that the respondent had recorded a police officer.

Knifton made such a song and dance about it, he all but refused to even listen to the conclusive evidence from a very senior police officer.  It is believed that David Knifton QC intentionally avoided listening to the evidence as it was so damaging to the police and to PC SNOWFLAKE who had allegedly committed perjury on oath.

The evidence proved PC SNOWFLAKE was lying.  David Knifton, QC, suspiciously is a paid barrister when not acting as a ‘part-time judge’, and freely lists that he has undertaken paid work for the police while working as a barrister, surely a conflict of interest by this ‘part-time judge’.

Before PC SNOWFLAKE  took the stand, she was wished ‘Good Luck’, by the head of Professional Standards who was there who I refer to as PC BIASED.

It was unbelievable, that the head of PSD who was in charge of the complaint against PC SNOWFLAKE, and who was fully appraised of the lies she had told and yet, PC BIASED still wished her ‘good luck while she took to the stand and told a pack of lies.

The officer was questioned on the stand and could not provide a shred of evidence to back her malicious statement.

It must be said that if any police officer had reported that any man had gone to a school and intentionally ‘harassed’ parents of children, police, there would without any doubt be a police report and a log reference number.  There was not a single shred of evidence, PC SNOWFLAKE made it all up.

She was questioned over points 1 and 2.  Her face was as red a beetroot, she did not know what to say.  She told the respondents barrister that ‘someone told her’, yet when asked, she was unable to recall who.

So the evidence she provided, stating categorically that Mr Ponting did those things, was, in fact, HEARSAY and had zero merits in court!

The statement was false and alleged to be intentionally falsified to achieve a malicious goal.

She was asked about her 12-month illness and she failed to provide any supporting evidence in any way that her illness was in any way relating to Mr Ponting.  She said ‘ I know what was in my head‘, yes dear, it was all in your head!

A complaint of PERJURY has been made to Lancashire police over this matter and I am awaiting the outcome.





Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.