In almost every corner of the globe, cops of all persuasions are gearing up to look like storm troopers and it's definitely NOT to protect the public as they are now turning to face the public who are NO LONGER accepting their servitude. It may not be to long into the future when good strong brave men may need to rise up against the tyranny that confronts men daily from the legal parasites who are destroying and weakening the very men who may be required to stand up to the utter scum and dregs that masquerade as law enforcement.
Mr. Keith Vaz MP
The House of Commons,
London, SW1A 0AA.
20 MAY 12

Dear Mr Vaz,

Re:IPCC investigation.

My letter comes to you as Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee with particular respect to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the independence of which the Select Committee is considering. following the recent demonstrations outside the IPCC offices. In my dealings with the IPCC over the past 3 years, I have found it to be a waste of time and completely useless in that it is biased in favour of the police. Further more, the IPCC fails to comply with the Police Reform Act by which it was established.

I am enclosing with this letter a CD containing a bundle of documents in evidence against the City of London Police and the IPCC, that is contained in the pdf file "ACTION V COLP BUNDLE" For my Particulars of Claim please read the pdf file "Particulars of Claim 270611". This is a synopsis of events and details laws and precedents applicable to this case. It should NOT BE NECESSARY for the Complainant to have to look up the LAW - the investigating officer at the IPCC OUGHT TO HAVE DONE THIS before referring my complaint back to the police. .

My initial complaint about the City of London police at the G20 Meltdown protest in 2009 was made directly to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), who immediately referred my complaint back to the City Police to investigate without seeking my consent to do so. Under the terms of the Police Reform Act 2002 part 1 handling of complaints: (Reference can be found at Police Reform Act 2002C.30 Schedule 3, Part 1, Section 2.)

Initial handling and recording of complaints

2 (1) where a complaint is made to the Commission—

(a) it shall ascertain whether the complainant is content for the police authority or chief officer who is the appropriate authority to be notified of the complaint; and

(b) it shall give notification of the complaint to the appropriate authority if, and only if, the complainant is so content.

It is my submission that the IPCC are contravening the Police Reform Act 2002 in that a complainant has no option but to give their consent by signing the declaration at the end of the complaint form. The IPCC here assume that either everyone is familiar with the Police Reform Act 2002, or that there is no option available not to give consent to the complaint being referred to the relevant police force. Passing a complaint to the police force about which the complaint is made nullifies the “independence” of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The IPCC standard letter (22nd April 2009) states: “please be advised that the IPCC is legally required to forward all complaints to the appropriate authority ---“. it has to be noted that the IPCC was created as part of the Police Reform Act 2002, and that the above statement in the IPCC letter is at odds with the terms of the Police Reform Act 2002.

Finally, the IPCC have demonstrated their bias against my complaint by claiming that the witnesses who gave statements in my favour were not independent simply because they were passengers on my bus. On the other hand they confirm that the police witness statements are independent. Do not officers in the same force interact with each other? Police are on record as conspiring to pervert the course of justice many times (see articles on the CD). They are also criticised in the Draft Report by the MPA Civil Liberties Panel appended to the bundle.

You may wish to consider these facts in the context of the committee's inquiries.

Yours faithfully,

P.Talbot-Jenkins BSc(Hons)

    Here a murdering met cop from 2009 freely walks the streets for three years while the Crown finally gets round to fixing a court date. Any other murderer, apart from a FREEMASON, would not have such a luxury and would NOT be getting bail to wait three years for a hearing on his guilt. The UK operates a two tier justice system, a them and us system that sees some of the most vile bastards on the planet getting away with murder.

    Ian Tomlinson, a bystander caught up in the G20 protests in London, died after a policeman struck him with a baton and shoved him to the ground in "a gratuitous act of aggression", a court has heard.

    The 47-year-old, who was trying to pass through police cordons to the hotel where he lived in east London, was walking away from police lines with his hands in his pockets when PC Simon Harwood assaulted him without warning, Southwark crown court was told during the opening day of a trial for manslaughter. Tomlinson had played no part in any demonstration and posed not the slightest threat to officers, Mark Dennis QC told the jury. Harwood – who was wearing a riot helmet with a balaclava pushed up to his nose – targeted Tomlinson because he was upset after an activist who wrote graffiti on his police van wriggled free of his grip, bringing taunts from onlookers.

    "This was a rush of blood to the head," Dennis said. "It was more akin to thuggish behaviour than proper, reasonable policing." Although protests at the meeting of G20 leaders in London on 1 April 2009 had brought significant disruption to the area, by 7pm – when Tomlinson was going home from spending time with a newspaper vendor friend – the scene around Cornhill was relatively quiet, Dennis told the jury.

    Tomlinson, a long-term alcoholic who had previously been homeless, had been drinking heavily but appeared merely disoriented and was not impeding police when Harwood took it on himself to help other riot officers clear a pedestrian passageway by Royal Exchange Buildings. "It did not appear that Tomlinson was posing any threat to anyone – indeed, he was facing away from the police at the moment that he was struck on the upper thigh with the baton and then violently pushed to the floor," Dennis said.

    "To strike out as he did, simply because Tomlinson may not have been moving as quickly as the defendant might have wanted, was a wholly disproportionate response by the defendant to the circumstances that then existed. "There had been no need to use any force upon Tomlinson, let alone a forceful baton strike followed by a powerful push to the back that sent him flying. The display of force has all the hallmarks of a gratuitous act of aggression by a lone officer whose blood was up, having lost the self-control to be expected of a police officer in such circumstances and who was going to stand no truck from anyone who appeared to him to be a protester and to be getting in his way."

    Tomlinson walked slightly further, clutching his right side, before collapsing. He was pronounced dead in hospital 45 minutes later. Some of his children, watching from the public gallery, wiped away tears as they heard about the unsuccessful efforts to revive him. An initial postmortem concluded that Tomlinson died from a heart attack. Several days later, an American man in London on a business trip during the protest passed video footage to the Guardian showing an officer seemingly assaulting Tomlinson. The officer was later identified as Harwood, now 45, a policeman since 1995 and a member of the Metropolitan police's Territorial Support Group (TSG). Two further postmortems found the heart attack was caused by internal bleeding connected to a liver injury, consistent with Harwood's actions.

    Given the short time between Harwood's actions and Tomlinson's death, "there was only one event that could realistically have occasioned that damage", Dennis said. Tomlinson would have been "taken completely by surprise", with no chance to protest himself from a heavy fall, Dennis said. He added: "In such circumstances, an unlawful assault that causes the death of another amounts to the offence of manslaughter."

    The jury was shown a series of photographs and CCTV stills tracking the two men's movements from just after 7pm to when Harwood struck Tomlinson, shortly after 7.20pm, and then Tomlinson's last moments. Harwood, detailed to drive his fellow TSG officers, became actively involved in policing the protest after trying to arrest an activist writing graffiti on his parked van. The man wriggled free, leaving Harwood clutching just a jacket, to the cheers of those watching.

    Harwood then drew his baton and joined the operation to clear the street, which by then contained just a few onlookers, Dennis said. It was now he encountered Tomlinson. Dennis said: "Having struck Tomlinson and sent him flying to the ground, the defendant simply turned away and ignored him." Members of the public helped Tomlinson to his feet.

    On returning to his base at Catford police station in south London, Harwood gave a witness statement which mentioned the failed graffiti arrest but did not specifically talk about Tomlinson. Instead, the court heard, the policeman talked about being "surrounded" and helping to clear police lines using "reasonable force". Harwood added in the statement, using capital letters for emphasis: "I do not remember how many persons I struck, but done so in order to prevent any further RIOTING and (to) preserve my safety."

    Given that Harwood accepted he was the officer seen striking Tomlinson in pictures and video footage which the jury would also see, Dennis argued, there were two key issues to decide: whether his use of force was lawful; and whether it led to Tomlinson's death. Harwood, from Carshalton, Surrey, sat impassive in the dock as the evidence was heard, dressed in a dark blue suit and striped tie. He denies manslaughter. The trial is scheduled to last up to five weeks.



    A new study has found that young black people in some parts of the UK are more than 30 times more likely than white youngsters to be subjected to random "stop and search" inspections by police.

    Human rights advocates say that authorities encourage racial profiling. But now, there's a new mobile phone app to help those stopped report their experiences - and it has the backing of senior police officers.

  • Stop and Search app UK

    For any man who has been through a nasty divorce or separation they will be well aware of how UK's thug cops, many of them freemasons, are used by crooked lawyers, judges and golddiggers in a malicious campaign of threats and persecution just before they steal your life from you. We have thousands of cases well documented on this website that shows some of the victims of bloody murderers and thugs used by a masonic cabal to destroy mens lives not part of their creepy network of power.

    Builder, 42, wins five-figure payout from the police after being dragged from shower by 19 officers after row with lover (who happened to be an officer's ex-wife)

    Stephen Whenary, 42, left with catalogue of injuries when 19 Cleveland Police officers stormed his Norton home and sprayed him with CS gas
    He was originally charged with assault and resisting arrest but judge threw out case declaring police evidence was 'riddled' with discrepancies
    Builder awarded five-figure payout after a six-year campaign for justice
    Mr Whenary: 'For six years I have struggled to work because of the psychological damage that I have suffered as a result of the attack'
    He has now moved home and married his partner Lynne

    A man who was dragged naked, bloodied and bruised into the street by a team of 19 police officers who stormed his house has been awarded a five-figure payout. Stephen Whenary, 42, was pulled from the shower, beaten around the head with a baton, sprayed with CS gas and arrested after police received a report he had been arguing with his partner, the ex wife of an officer, in 2005. Outraged by his extensive injuries Mr Whenary embarked on a bitter six-year campaign for justice and sued Cleveland Police for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

    The self-employed builder was unable to return to work for 13 weeks due to the the extent of his injures as well as the psychological trauma. At the time of the attack Mr Whenary was living with Lynne, who has been married to a police officer. He was originally charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.

    However, the case was thrown out by a judge after ruling that police evidence presented during the four-day trial was riddled with discrepancies. After the force agreed to settle out of court Mr Whenary said: 'I’m glad it is all over now. 'It was never about the money it was always going to be about getting them to apologise for what they did to me. Sadly, I am still waiting for them to actually say sorry. 'It is still with me every single day but hopefully I will get my life back on track.

    'For six years I have struggled to work because of the psychological damage that I have suffered as a result of the attack. 'I just try not to think about it too much and try to live my life as best I can.' The incident happened at about 5.30pm on Sunday, August 21 2005 when police were called by a neighbour after hearing the defendant and his partner arguing. It is unclear why the couple were arguing.

    Mr Whenary suffered a cut to the back of his head, lacerations to his shoulders, a large bruise on his arm, deep cuts on his feet and minor cuts and abrasions on his wrists. Despite the trauma of the injuries he received, his relationship with Lynne survived and the pair married five years ago. Mr Whenary added: 'There was no way that I was going to let them beat me.

    'It all put a lot of stress and strain on our relationship but we got through it and we are now happily married. 'We had to move out of the house where it all took place because there were just too many bad memories, but now we are in a new house, we are able to put it behind us.' In December 2007, following an 18-month investigation carried out by the same force, the Independent Police Complaints Commission ruled the officers had no case to answer and would not face criminal or misconduct charges.

    It was revealed that the only officer to face a reprimand was PC Shaun Mahaffey, who received a superintendent’s warning after he went on holiday instead of giving evidence at the trial. It was PC Mahaffey who was alleged in court to have smashed the shower door and hit Mr Whenary over the head with his baton. At Mr Whenary’s trial in May 2006, the court was told that at one point, there were 19 officers in the house in Pine Street, Norton, near Stockton, Stockton-on-Tees, three of whom have never been traced.

    The court heard that nearly every officer in Stockton responded when a police constable put out a call for help. District Judge Roger Elsey was told that Mr Whenary was pulled from the shower and beaten about the head with a baton after he acted with alleged ‘superhuman’ strength. He was then dragged outside, naked and bleeding.

    Mr Whenary’s solicitor, Scott Taylor, of Taylor Goodchild, said: 'This has been a long protracted process but our client was determined to get the force to take responsibility for what happened and apologise for the injuries and mental trauma that it cause to him and his wife.' Following the collapse of the trial, an investigation was launched by the force’s Chief Constable Sean Price, who is currently suspended after he was arrested last August and held on suspicion of misconduct in a public office, fraud by abuse of position and corrupt practice. He has always denied the claims and is planning to take civil action, claiming unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and trespass.

    A spokesman for Cleveland Police said: 'An out of court settlement was agreed between both parties before any mediation process took place. 'Cleveland Police believe that the arrest and initial use of CS spray were lawful and proportionate to the circumstances. 'The claim was settled as we acknowledged that there had been a misunderstanding during the incident as to whether Mr Whenary was in possession of a CS canister which an officer believed had been taken from him.

    'Following a complaint made by Mr Whenary, our Professional Standards Department found the complaint to be unsubstantiated. 'This was upheld by the IPCC and therefore there were no disciplinary or criminal matters against any officer arising out of this complaint. 'We hope that following this settlement all parties can now move on from this unfortunate incident.'

    The British Royal family won't hesitate to use their freemason henchmen in the police to take extreme measures to ensure they stifle dissent at their vile pompous ceremonies. We know of activists incarcerated in psychiatric gulags to stop any protest with their satanically controlled thug cops prepared to go to any lengths to fabricate a false impression to the world that everyone loves the royal parasites.

    Activists who were rounded up before last year's royal wedding are challenging the Metropolitan police in the high court on Monday in a case that could have implications for the way the Queen's diamond jubilee celebrations and the Olympics are policed. Scores of people were arrested and many more detained before the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton last April, leading to claims that police were unlawfully criminalising legitimate protests before they had taken place. Lawyers acting on behalf of 20 of those involved are seeking a judicial review of the police action at the high court.

    Sophie Priestley, of Tuckers Solicitors, is representing two environmental campaigners who were detained at what police described as an "environmental training camp" near Heathrow, the day before the wedding. She said: "It appears that the police were determined to restrict or remove the sight of protest from central London during the royal wedding. With the Queen's jubilee celebrations and the Olympics approaching it should not be forgotten that the real strength of our heritage and tradition lies not in the spectacle and pageantry of events like these, but rather in the rich history of our hard-won democratic freedoms." In the months leading up to the wedding, a series of demonstrations by students, trade unionists and others saw hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets to protest against government cuts. There were outbreaks of disorder and in one case student demonstrators attacked a car carrying Prince Charles and his wife Camilla. Senior police chiefs said at the time they were planning to take pre-emptive action to ensure there was no repeat of the trouble.

    Lynne Owens, then assistant commissioner at the Met, told journalists: "We have both overt and covert policing activities on going and we will prevent people coming to London to cause criminal behaviour if that is their intention." The police raided several squats and activist camps in the days before the wedding and stopped other protesters on the morning of the event. Sophie Naftalin, of Bhatt Murphy solicitors, is representing 15 protesters who were pre-emptively arrested on the day of the wedding. They were all detained until after the wedding celebrations but no further action was taken against them.

    "This matter touches upon the most important of constitutional rights – namely the right to free expression – which is fundamental to any properly functioning democracy," she said. "While our clients recognise the difficulties of policing large-scale operations, it is nevertheless clear that the police must strike the right balance between maintaining public order and allowing people to express their political beliefs." Two of those taking action in court on Monday were detained at Sipson environmental camp near Heathrow and say they had no intention of protesting. Police claimed the camp was occupied by "extreme leftwing or environmental groups" and claimed there was evidence to suggest paint bombs were being made at the site. No paint bombs were found and lawyers say police had no evidence of any link between the camp and any royal wedding protests. All those detained were later released without charge.

    Theodora Middleton, one of the activists, said: "We simply cannot have a situation where the police are allowed to break into people's homes without any evidence that a crime has been committed. This kind of harassment, based it seems on crude political profiling, is entirely inappropriate in a democratic society." Daniel Randall, who was detained near Trafalgar Square on the day of the demonstration, said: "This was a very explicit manoeuvre by the state to prevent people raising dissenting voices." Another of the protesters, Hannah Eiseman, said: "It seemed like they had their script and once we were on the wrong end of that, we were being treated like criminals… any possible dissent was being cleared and human rights were being suspended briefly to make way for pageantry. Pageantry is all well and good, but human rights are way more important."


    These are the thug scum that act for Her Majesty and the Crown torturing youngsters to comply.
    Long Range Acoustic Device The Ministry of Defence has confirmed a device which can be used as a "sonic weapon" will be deployed in London during the Olympics.

    The American-made Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) can be used to send verbal warnings over a long distance or emit a beam of pain-inducing tones. The equipment was spotted fixed to a landing craft on the Thames at Westminster this week. An MoD spokesman said it would be used "primarily in the loud hailer mode".

    Royal Marines operating in patrol craft from HMS Ocean are also heavily armed with conventional firearms. The piercing beam of sound emitted by the device is highly directional. Some versions of the LRAD are capable of producing deafening sound levels of 150 decibels at one metre. But the device, which was used this week during Exercise Olympic Guardian, can also be used to broadcast verbal warnings, such as ordering crowds to disperse. The San Diego-based LRAD Corporation has previously sold the device to the US Army, which deployed them in Iraq for crowd control. They have also been bought by the US Navy and Air Force as well as a number of police forces worldwide. It has been successfully used aboard ships to repel Somali pirates.

    The panel-shaped LRAD is mounted onto steerable gimbals and said to be far more efficient than a normal loudspeaker. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "As part of the military contribution to the police led security effort to ensure a safe and secure games, a broad range of assets and equipment is being used by our armed forces". "This includes the LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) which will be deployed during the Olympic Games primarily to be used in the loud hailer mode as part of the measures to achieve a maritime stop on the Thames."

    Will activists be allowed to brutalize them with batons and throw them into the back of vans? The utter scum and dregs of the earth that operate as UK's police state are now acting like all the other protesters and activists that these evil masonic bastards have attempted to crush with brutality and techniques like kettling stopping young activists from access to food, water and toliet. We have been on these protests were these vile bastards have treated protesters as enemies of the state when THEY are paid by the public to protect the PUBLIC. Not the masonic hierarchy that has been enslaving and bleeding the long suffering public dry.

    A chief constable will join more than 20,000 rank and file police officers from England and Wales in a protest march against "cuts and privatisation" this week.

    In the strongest demonstration of anger available by law to the police, officers will carry banners declaring the cuts are "criminal" as they march past the Home Office and down Whitehall in London. The march comes as some rank and file officers are demanding full industrial rights to withdraw their labour – something which as crown servants, they are not legally entitled to do. Among the thousands of police – all of whom have to take a day off to take part –will be Tony Melville, chief constable of the Gloucestershire force, who last month announced he was quitting over the changes to policing.

    Melville has already spoken out publicly against the cuts and reforms, including the election of police and crime commissioners. He told fellow officers he would be joining them on the march on Thursday via his Twitter feed. "Thanks for supportive msgs after my resignation. Regularly support my officers in expressing their views. Taking leave to be in L'don on 10/5," Melville wrote. A spokesman for Gloucestershire police said the chief constable did not want to make any further comment.

    "Mr Melville believes it is important to support officers in expressing their legitimate views," she said. "He regularly attends events … to show support for his officers … and he is proud to do so with this march as well." No other chiefs have publicly declared they will be attending, but many have expressed support privately, according to the chair of the Police Federation, Paul McKeever. Others, however, remain committed to driving through the changes to working conditions, pay and pensions and the cuts that the government requires. Peter Fahy, chief constable of Greater Manchester police and the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on workforce development, said he had "huge sympathy for our police officers undergoing a pay freeze and changes to pension entitlements".

    But he said he would not be joining them on the march, adding: "We have the opportunity to build a new pay system which recognises the expertise and professionalism of police officers and helps forces to retain and develop high quality staff … I believe that policing has to make its contribution to the reduction in public spending and we cannot pass our debts on to the next generation." More than 1,200 of Fahy's officers are travelling to London on Thursday, while more than 1,000 are expected from the West Midlands force and some 3,000 Met officers have said they will be taking part in the demonstration, which begins at Millbank. McKeever said officers had felt driven to act because the police service was under threat from a "volatile mix" of reforms and cuts being imposed by the government. They include, he said, 20% cuts to force budgets; reductions in police pay, which for some constables would mean losing thousands of pounds a year; changes to working conditions; creeping privatisation of the service; cuts to frontline officers of more than 5,000 in the last year alone; and the politicisation of policing with the election of police and crime commissioners.

    "These changes will be catastrophic," said McKeever. "There will be more civil disorder and there will be more crime." Anger within the rank and file is at its greatest for many years, federation representatives say. Jackie Bowen, secretary of the Greater Manchester police federation, said there was growing anger and frustration among officers at the inability of the organisation to call a strike.

    "It is overwhelming, we are getting emails and messages every day saying; 'Why can't we go on strike?'" she said. "It's about having industrial rights to help us in our fight against such rapid and detrimental changes to the way police officers work." The Police Federation nationally has promised officers it will hold a ballot on whether members want the right to strike later in the year.

    Ian Pointon, chair of the Kent federation, told his members last week Acpo had "sold us down the river". He highlighted the "privatisation" in forces such as Surrey and the West Midlands – where private contractors are bidding for roles to investigate crime, detain suspects, disrupt criminal networks and respond to incidents – as the real aim of the government. "Police officers will be transformed into the equivalent of France's CRS, whilst the local patrols will be provided by G4S or some other company. It's a recipe to give 'private clampers' domain over the public. It's a recipe for disaster," he said.


    Abolish the iPCC demo outside the iPCC HQ 90 High Holborn London, Michael Doherty organizer of the demo and Camp[ain4Justice has managed to get the issue concerning corruption in the iPCC raised on BBC News at 10, which has led to the iPCC now being investigated following his first demo on the 1 May 2012, it was a resounding success a great day was had, there were many speakers and a good crowd too. lot's more to come, so stay tooned!
    Since the Scarman inquiry there has been a significant decrease in reprehensible conduct by police in police stations and cells (Editorial, 7 April). Not just the racism that Scarman addressed directly, but more generally. He set up the system of Independent Custody Visitors (ICVs) that has done so much to constrain the police on their own premises. Getting a kicking in the cells is no longer the routine that existed before these representatives of the local community had access to them and to the CCTV record.

    However, the ICV system faces some constraints that Scarman didn't envisage. First, the lack of CCTV in vans means that these vehicles are now the location of choice for lamentable lapses from proper professionalism. In London the opposition to CCTV in vans has been from both the operational end of the Metropolitan police and from the various forms of the police authority. Given the ease of fitting them in buses, this opposition seems to be based more on self-interest than on practicality. Second, the authority has made systematic inroads into the independence of the capital's ICV scheme under both the Livingstone and Johnson administrations. They have both consistently sought to reduce this democratic oversight of the police to a box-ticking adjunct of the authority's statistics-gathering.

    Here in London all the mayoral candidates want to give the police more money, more staff, more powers and more weaponry. They never raise the issue of effective democratic accountability of those state forces permitted to use force against citizens. All the main parliamentary parties are happy to undermine such democratic oversight as does exist and to further constrain it by way of secret judicial proceedings wherever they can get away with it. We have to support Estelle du Boulay, Helen Shaw and those custody visitors now cloaked in institutional anonymity in their steadfast striving for democracy against the overbearing state.

    Nik Wood, London

    racist cop
    The murder by cop that triggered UK riots is being covered up by high level freemasons in the London met police. Only one of many assassinations by the scum working as hit men for a vile police state.

    A full inquest may never be held into the death of Mark Duggan because “sensitive information” could jeopardise the police investigation, it was revealed today.

    The family of the 29-year-old, whose fatal shooting by Scotland Yard triggered the London riots last summer, today accused the authorities of withholding information. A coroner holding a pre-inquest review into the death in Tottenham on August 4 said that sensitive material relating to police “decision making” meant the probe may not take place. Instead a judge could hold an inquiry that would allow for “closed sessions” where details are kept private.

    Duggan’s aunt, Carole, who was accompanied to the hearing at North London coroner’s court by his fiancée Semone Wilson and his brother Marlon, said they believed the news was “delaying tactics”. She said: “We believe the IPCC are withholding information from us which is delay tactics. Maybe they think we will go away, come to terms with what has happened, but we are a grieving family and we will always grieve for Mark.” Duggan was being followed by officers from Operation Trident in a covert operation when armed officers stopped the taxi he was travelling and shot him dead.

    But at a pre-inquest review today it was revealed that the IPCC may have information that they wish to withhold even from a coroner and therefore an inquest may not be possible. Even if one does take place it will now be pushed back to January next year to allow for a criminal trial to take place into the circumstances in which Duggan got the gun. But the news has prompted fears for the family that his case may echo that of Azelle Rodney who was shot dead in 2005 by police and whose family are still waiting for a public inquiry seven years later.

  • Masonic Met exposed

    Police chiefs hire retired colleagues on £1,100 a day to act as consultants

    An influential policing body paid retired senior officers up to £1,100 a day to act as consultants. Bosses at the Association of Chief Police Officers signed contracts worth hundreds of thousands of pounds with companies run by their former colleagues. The payments, revealed after Freedom of Information requests, showed that former Cumbria assistant chief constable Graham Sunderland agreed to act as a consultant to ACPO just a month after leaving the force in February 2009.

    He was given two year-long contracts in 2009 and 2010, each worth £60,000 for at least 120 days’ work drawing up a strategy for identifying disaster victims at major incidents. In total he was paid £182,223 through his company, Epic (GS), including expenses and extra days. Former Essex chief constable David Stevens, who retired in June 2005, became an ACPO consultant the following month. Over several years, his firm Devana Services was paid £194,517, initially at a rate of £900 a day and then at £1,100 a day. Former detective superintendent Brian Shelby was paid £205,982 through his firm Pyrope Solutions.

    ACPO agreed four six-monthly contracts between September 2008 and October 2010 to work on the e-borders programme which tracks migrants arriving in the country. The FOI requests, made by the Yorkshire Post, revealed more than £800,000 was paid in total to ten consultants. Jonathan Isaby, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘Very serious questions need to be asked about how former police chiefs seemingly went through a revolving door that saw them retire, only then to be paid exorbitant amounts of money.

    ‘The employment of highly paid external consultants in any taxpayer-funded body needs close scrutiny in order to ensure taxpayer value for money, and ACPO is no exception. ‘These revelations only go to underline the need for even more transparency when it comes to scrutinising who is spending our hard-earned cash.’ Acpo has provoked controversy in the past because it is run as a private company despite fulfilling many public functions and representing the interests of policing’s most senior officers.

    Tory MP Julian Smith said: ‘This story yet again raises very serious questions about the status of ACPO as a private company when it relies on so much taxpayer cash. ‘It is surely the moment to call time on the set-up and put in place a new structure that allows the spotlight to be shone on everything it does. ‘Whether through appearance or reality, this makes ACPO look more like a gold-plated jobs for the boys club rather than the above reproach leadership organisation for our country’s police forces that it has to be.

    ‘Further questions that need answering include the basis for paying these huge amounts of money, who authorised them and what process of procurement was used.’ An ACPO spokesman said: ‘As in other organisations, temporary staff with specialist knowledge and skills can help the police service meet resourcing gaps, such as in preparation for the London Olympics. ‘Temporary appointments such as these are the exception and have sharply reduced in line with financial pressures. ACPO will also review procedures for use of temporary staff to ensure they are up to date.’

    A Home Office spokesman said: ‘Like all organisations reliant on public money, the Association of Chief Police Officers has a responsibility to spend appropriately. ‘As part of the work to create a new police professional body, we are engaged in discussions with ACPO about their future role and funding.’

    ACPO in England is FOI compliant while in Scotland ACPOS is not!!!!

    ACPOS is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act because we are an independent organisation and not listed in the Schedule of Bodies that must comply with the Act. We will act in the spirit of the legislation and respond to reasonable requests for information when it is available and not costly to compile.

  • A green light to oppressive policing