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.
I have to be careful with this force as Lancashire police have paid almost £40,000 to a civil court to have a restraining order put in place t prevent any Lancashire police can be named. This is currently being challenges a breach of Article 10 of the Human rights Act. Lancashire police suggest that any article, written about a Lancashire police officer, or in fact, any mention of a Lancashire police officer by name or description, and for any reason is a breach of their rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
Police officers are public servants, what they do as public servants is of public interest. They are paid for by the public. 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 (in any way) is unlawful and is, without doubt, a breach of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.
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 the naming of police officers)
A number of points in PC SNOWFLAKES statement of truth was false and easily proved.
- PC SNOWFLAKE made a false allegation that the respondent stood outside a police station and noted down police car details and police officer details.
- PC SNOWFLAKE made a false allegation that the respondent went to schools where police officers children attended and ‘harassed’ the police parents.
- PC SNOWFLAKE made an unfounded allegation that she took 12 months off work, on sick leave because of the respondent.
The statement was made available to the respondent prior to the civil case and on seeing this 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 for a court order seeking PC SNOWFLAKES medical history which surely would have evidenced the cause of her 12-month illness?
The police costly legal team (paid for by the taxpayers) defended this application and the court refused to order it. Simply put, the officer made a false allegation that she refused to back up with any evidence whatsoever.
Points 1 & 2 were shocking as this was fabricated evidence by a Lancashire police officer, it was malicious and untrue and was put in a signed statement that was then submitted to the court as evidence.
The respondent made a subject access request to Lancashire police, asking for any 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 log or shred of evidence to support this malicious allegation by PC SNOWFLAKE.
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 position as being so senior, that it amounted to being in an ‘Ivory Tower’.
The meeting was covertly recorded by the respondent.
During the meeting, Supt IVORY told the respondent and his wife that PC SNOWFLAKE and take 12 months of work due to an illness. After hearing the respondent and his wire expressed 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.
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 evidence. The evidence proved PC SNOWFLAKE was lying. David Knifton, QC, suspiciously is a paid barrister when not a ‘part-time judge’, and freely lists that he has undertaken paid work for the police while working as a barrister, a conflict of interest.
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 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, the officer 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 had zero merits and were a figment of her imagination. She was asked about the 12-month illness, and again failed to provide any evidence in any way that her illness was in any way relating to Mr Ponting. She said ‘ I know what was in my head’.