On 23rd January 2017 Wendy Elliot advised me that her enquiries into the misconduct allegation against me were complete and her report was with DS Husbands (PSD) for review. I sent an email to DS Husbands and copied in the email from Superintendent Thomas to my wife, Jane. I wanted to find out if PSD were involved or had knowledge of the unlawful interview!
‘DS Husbands, In relation to the copy of the email attached from Superintendent Thomas to my wife, could you confirm that the interview of myself by DI Taylor was conducted on behalf of Professional Standards as stated? Thank you, Richard B-Smith’
Surely, an easy question to answer??
On 1st February DS Husbands responded……… ‘Hi Richard, Thanks for your email. The Investigating Officer, Wendy Elliot is out of the office at this stage so I cannot discuss with her the specifics of your concern below. What I can say is that prior to a complaint matter being assessed there is an element of fact finding that can take place to establish the circumstances around the complaint and any other matters that may effect it prior to an assessment being done by PSD. Once I have spoken to Wendy I will get back in touch with you. Regards. Nick’
But PSD had already been consulted by DI TAYLOR, who told him it was not a conduct issue but perhaps a performance issue and so the assessment had been carried out prior to the unlawful interview!
Chief Inspector Dean Jones was my new CI, (Who I had not met). I sent him this email…
At 1420 on 01/02/17 I received a phone call from CI Dean Jones as a result of the above email. He explained that he was just settling in to his new role and asked for a potted history of what had happened, which I gave him. He said that he would need to speak to Superintendent THOMAS and DI TAYLOR, then would get back to me. I said I would send him a copy of my grievance, which I then did.
Would CI Jones turn out to be the senior officer with the integrity to sort this out?
I told my wife, Jane, of my conversation with CI Jones and she wasn’t best impressed to say the least. She again wrote to Supt THOMAS……
‘Dear Superintendent Thomas,
It is now over three weeks since I contacted and received a reply from you in respect of the crime of harassment against my husband and I. You have said that Chief Inspector Jones would oversee the investigation by ‘local PS’ and that you would look to resolve the matters as soon as possible. It, quite frankly beggars belief that ‘local PS’ is going onto rest days and has still not been told by DI Taylor the source of evidence from which CID investigated an alleged affair between my husband and ‘HIT member Andy’. He hasn’t even given an explanation as to why this information cannot be divulged. This is totally unacceptable and only serves to compound my feeling harassed. Where does this fit into the ‘victim’s charter’? I have now been waiting since the beginning of December, have been worrying and feeling angry and upset over Christmas and the New Year. The source of the evidence must be credible or I’m sure this would not have been investigated in the first place. Have you any idea of the stress and pressure this has put on our relationship? Please can this matter be addressed immediately in order that we can resume some normality into our lives?
Regards, Mrs J Barradale-Smith’
Jane received an out of office reply!!
However, on the same day, Jane received a response to her email from Temporary Chief Inspector Jonathan Roberts………..
The problem is, the more people that get involved, the more miscommunication happens, and people say things that perhaps they shouldn’t have or, as I’ve said previously, they don’t know the full story. What was clear is that Jane and I were getting more stressed and anxious about the whole situation. Here’s Jane’s response to T/DCI Roberts………
And then a response from Superintendent a Thomas. It seemed like there was not a lot of care coming from these senior officers!! Why was that?
4 thoughts on “(22) C I Jones – TCI Roberts”
One individual officer against the organisation. They picked on the wrong one though. I know that I probably would have twatted someone and lost my job and pension. You have my respect
LikeLiked by 1 person
That you and your wife maintained your dignity under such duress is a credit to your character.
I am sure you will both have learned that established institutions are not necessarily trustworthy, moral or ethical? A sad indictment of our society!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That you and you wife have maintained your dignity under such duress is a credit to your characters.
I am sure you have both learned that old and established institutions are not necessarily moral, ethical or free from corruption?
A sad indictment of our society!
LikeLiked by 1 person
O what a tangled web they weave, when first they practise to deceive! It appears colluding police and CPS personnel imagined that by swifly removing an investigating officer from an extreme animal cruelty case – after he turned out to be unflinchingly honest, diligent and impartial (rather annoyingly for them) – that that would be the end of it and the shocking footage showing hunt staff feeding live, captive fox cubs to packs of hounds at hunt kennels would never get the publicity they feared it would get.
Anybody reading this blog cannot be anything other than shocked by the concentrated efforts to thwart and undermine this police officer – simply for doing his job. Backed up by documentary evidence, his account of unfolding events certainly shines a light on the dark, venal forces at work inside the organisations that are supposed to protect victims of crime by bringing perpetrators to justice and enforcing our laws, not, I hasten to add, by cherrypicking which laws to enforce and which victims deserve protection and/or justice!
With regards to hunting, given that hunting with dogs is illegal in this country and has been for 15 years, I think most people would agree that it is wholly inappropriate for serving police officers to take part in, at their leisure, so called ‘trail hunts,’ which have simply carried on as usual in the absence of any attempt at enforcement. People who continue to take part in these illegal hunts, which always make ‘accidental kills’ unlike genuine drag hunts which never stray across highways and never claim lives, are the ones who are the ‘extremists,’ not the hunt monitors, who are merely observing and recording on film crimes against wildlife in, what seems like, a vain hope that there won’t be bloodsports enthusiasts and extremists in charge of ‘wildlife crime’ at the CPS, the authority which decides whether to proceed with a prosecution or not!
LikeLiked by 1 person