Over 50000 views of this blog now. Thank you all so much. ❤️
At 8am on Monday 18th September 2017 I was at home with Jane. We were still in our pyjamas. The doorbell rang and we went downstairs to see who it was. Four plain clothes detectives from Kidderminster CID had attended our house with warrants to search our house and vehicles registered to our address including my daughters vehicle.
At least one of the detectives had gone to the back door of our house! Did they think I was going to run away?
(Note on page 2, the warrants were not signed)! What is also worthy of note is the wording where the Hunt Investigation Team has been renamed the Anti-Hunt Investigation Team. Whether or not this was a conscious decision to change the name, it puts a negative connotation on the members!
I didn’t know any of the officers. The officer in charge of the search was Detective Sergeant Craig Tennant. He looked uncomfortable from the moment he arrived. He explained what they had been asked to seize. They took my mobile phone, two laptop computers, (including Jane’s personal laptop), our tower computer and all of the paperwork I had collated in respect of the investigations into me. (He did ask if any of the paperwork was subject to legal privilege but I told him to take whatever he wanted, as I had nothing to hide). During the search, DS Tennant apologised to us, saying that he wasn’t comfortable doing it. He said that we worked for a disciplined organisation and he said that they had been ordered to do it.I asked him who had ordered them and he replied, Mark Travis. (Mark Travis was, and I think still is the Chief Superintendent).
DS Tennant told me that they required me to attend a police station to be voluntarily interviewed for the criminal offences of Malfeasance in a Public Office and Breach of the Data Protection Act.
The officers then left having removed our belongings. Jane and I were left stunned and silent. The last time I had been left feeling this way was after a burglary at my home many years earlier. This just felt like legalised burglary. What were they doing and who was behind it all?
Police officers are not allowed to make complaints, therefore the only recourse they have when things go wrong, is through the grievance procedure and so you would hope it is fit for purpose ensuring that people are confident in using it. Any police officers out there feeling confident, having read this? No, no, I didn’t think so!! Well, you’ve read what Superintendent Kevin Purcell said to me and Fed Rep 1 in my Grievance appeal meeting. Like I said, not a man to mince his words. I knew he would be mortified to find out that, having said in, what I thought were the strongest possible terms, that DI TAYLOR was a ‘danger’ to the organisation, that absolutely nothing happened to him. He would have serious concerns about this, wouldn’t he? I thought I would write and ask him………….On 31st August 2017 I wrote………
Superintendent Purcell, In respect of the attached email from Superintendent Thomas on 06/07/17, she states that she does not assess there is a performance matter or any misconduct issues in respect of DI Taylor. He has told Superintendent Thomas and CI Francis that in the same circumstances he would do the same thing again. My understanding is that ‘Misconduct’ is a breach of the standards of Professional behaviour and ‘Unsatisfactory Performance’ is an inability or failure of a police officer to perform the duties of the role or rank he or she is currently undertaking to a satisfactory standard or level. That being the case, I fail to see how Superintendent Thomas has come to this conclusion based on the findings of your letter of 09/05/17. Are you able to say whether or not you agree with Superintendent Thomas, as I fear that lessons have not been learned? Regards Richard Barradale-Smith.
On the following day, Supt Purcell wrote back………
Subject:Re: Grievance
Richard, I hope you are well. I dealt with the grievance and made all parties aware of my findings. There seems to be some misunderstanding in the difference between a grievance and misconduct. A grievance seeks to consider whether the person grieving has in effect given the circumstances dealt with in a manner that wasn’t appropriate. In my opinion or that of the force it doesn’t follow that a discipline must follow. It is a matter for Supt Thomas as to whether she considers any further action is appropriate. For my part Richard I hoped that your focus was on you not Martin Taylor. I am saddened that you are clearing feeling as you were and cannot move forward. Best Regards Kevin
Ah, I see. It’s MY fault that I cannot move forward. Yes, as you can see, it would appear that Superintendent Purcell had obviously drunk from the fountain of fantasy on the top floor and washed down a corporate bullshit pill before making a complete u turn! No longer did he think DI TAYLOR was a danger to the organisation. Shame on him. I wrote back…….
Subject:Re: Grievance
Superintendent Purcell, Thank you for your response. The Grievance Resolution Policy and Procedure is intended to repair working relations when they have been damaged in some way. I concur that it does not follow that a discipline must follow a grievance being upheld, but surely that is dependant upon whether the Fact-Finder is satisfied in ‘3.1.5 Delivering the outcome – showing how the individual and the organisation may learn from the issue to stop the same thing happening again’. ‘Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the courage to admit them’. DI Taylor has made it clear to two senior officers that he would do the same thing again!I therefore cannot see how the working relations have been repaired or that anyone has learned from the issue to stop the same thing happening again. It is in these very circumstances that it would appear appropriate for disciplinary action to take place. In my meeting with Superintendent Thomas on 05/07/17 she told me that it would have been for you to decide whether disciplinary action should have been taken and in your email below you state it is a matter for her! As stated in my grievance, all I wanted is an apology, (which you kindly gave on behalf of West Mercia), and for lessons to be learned. Unfortunately the latter has not happened. As for moving forward, this is what I am trying to do. In our meeting, in respect of DI Taylor, you said, “He’s a danger to me. He’s a danger to the organisation”. These are strong words and you will appreciate words that make moving on, in the knowledge that DI Martin could and would do the same/ similar thing again to me or any of my colleagues, very uncomfortable. Indeed, Sect4.11 in the Policy Guidance states, ‘Managers should not assume that individuals will just ‘get on with it, or get over it’. Respectfully submitted for your consideration. Regards Richard.
And…………I never heard from him again. He was apparently promoted to Chief Superintendent and has since retired!
Anyway, moving on…… On 14th September, 2017 I sent an email to DS Husbands in Professional Standards, as I hadn’t had an update for a while…
We just didn’t seem to be getting anywhere. Jane wanted to make a complaint so that the whole saga could be looked at properly. She sent the following to Professional Standards on behalf of us both to complain as victims of crime.
We received an automated response…..
And waited for a month, but….nothing…….
And……..nothing……
And on 19th August 2017 Jane received a letter….
But…..as you’ve seen, the Grievance procedure does not work. But also, Jane was complaining about the way HER crime was dealt with. She’s not a police officer. Where had her rights gone? Jane hen appealed this decision to the IPCC. Surely they would see sense?
On 14th September, Jane received the following letter from the IPCC.
As you can imagine, we were both extremely disappointed. Perhaps we were missing something? Perhaps we had moral expectations that were set far too high? Perhaps we had not interpreted the guidelines, regulations, Code of Ethics etc correctly?
Whatever, we were questioning what was happening!!
And so, at 1200 hours on Wednesday 5th July, 2017, I went to this meeting, a meeting that Superintendent THOMAS had written was very much to support me in my welfare………..
The meeting was with Superintendent Sue THOMAS and Jonathan Edmondson.
Sue THOMAS said, ‘You haven’t met Jonathan before so let me just put into context why Jonathan’s here.
As part of a ‘Force commitment’ and my commitment to the Chief Constable’s, it’s about maximising people’s contribution in the workplace and how we’re supporting people who are absent and how we can return them to work so that they are able to contribute and protect people from harm. (Protect people from harm was a force buzzphrase)!!!
That is what this meeting’s about, it’s very much about where you’re at and how you’re feeling.
But in addition to that, the position the Forces have taken is that cases are supported by HR. A new team has been set up to look at more complex cases and cases where individuals are off for an extended period.
As a result of it……….Jonathan’s now taken this case on. So, that’s why Jonathan’s here. Jonathan is pretty much here to advise you and I around process and options that are available to help you and your welfare.
Is that a good summary Jonathan’? (He said it was).
Sue THOMAS continued…..’So we don’t need any introductions Richard. I was very conscious that we were due to meet last week. I don’t know what happened with the phone call but, I didn’t get the information that you were coming. When I did, I’d already said, this was all happening and I just needed to understand the occupational health aspect, the HR aspect, understand if there was any update from Professional Standards, all of that information, so I just didn’t have everything I felt I needed to be fair to you.
So my final thing is, these meetings are quite normal. They are for people who’ve been off for an extended period. I personally do not intervene along the journey because it’s not right that I do as the Superintendent.
I know you asked me in your email recently why I’ve not been in touch, that’s, I have to give it to my sergeants to touch base, I’ve been speaking to your sergeant about it to bring him up to speed today, but your sergeant, inspector and chief inspector, there’s three levels of management there and my commitment is the case management which is at this level and what that can mean in terms of, and I’m not saying it’s for you but it can be, what my position is, recommending to the Chief Constable, things like, extensions of pay, recommending to a Richard Elkin (Head of HR), around half pay and extensions of full pay.
(If you understood the last bit, you’re better than me)!!
Potentially, and we’ve had a number of these sort of discussions around unsatisfactory performance, unsatisfactory attendance, (veiled threat)?, so it’s absolutely right that I remain out of that chain but I do on a monthly basis, get updates on everybody’s cases.
And so I am up to date with your case and I know about your case but it didn’t need my personal intervention with you. But as I say, it was just an appropriate time now, especially when you consider you’ve been off coming up to five months, that we have a meeting.
So, that’s kind of where we’re at.
Ok, so Jonathan will take a couple of notes and as much of that is about, and your more than welcome to see those notes, it’s just about making sure that we’ve captured where we’re at and where we can move forward to.
Before we get into this Richard, I want to be absolutely clear. This is not about performance, this is not about misconduct. I’m not here to discuss the investigation that’s ongoing that ‘local PS’ has been dealing with.
This has to be a meeting purely around your welfare. (Was it though)?
It’s just not right that I intervene in any of those things because there are processes running in all of those and I absolutely accept that any one or a combination of them could be factors or will be factors that are affecting your welfare and if you want to reference them, that’s fine but I just want to be absolutely sure. I’m not at liberty to start discussing any one of those.
So, I do have your ongoing updates from your supervisors and absolutely I’ve spoken to and seen your occupational health report. But one of the ways I always start these meetings is to say, assume that we don’t know most things and I want to hear it from your perspective as to how you are and how things are. So, it is over to you’.
So I then found myself in the very uncomfortable position of having to explain a medical issue to two non medically trained people, having already explained the issues to our occupational health department.
There was already a system in place where they could have referred me to the Force Medical Advisor, (FMA), a trained Doctor, and if he had any issues he could have written to my GP for clarification on anything.
Why were they doing this? It felt as though a they were trying to somehow shame me into going back to work, having been made ill at work!
I was asked who had diagnosed me and when was I diagnosed. I said my GP in, I thought October 2016.
Sue THOMAS said, ‘ That’s a gap for me because if he’d diagnosed that formally, he would have had the responsibility really to inform the organisation, or you would. So did you let your Sergeant or Inspector know? (I’m sure she said she was up to date with Occupational Health)???
I said that it was as a result of a meeting with my Inspector that I had been to see my GP.
Sue THOMAS went on to say, ‘It’s absolutely really good that your own GP has intervened and made an assessment but from an occupational perspective you still will need to see the FMA.
I think, where we are at normally, and it’s normally about now isn’t it. You yourself have said you were able to cope with it, you were coping, you’ve been coping for years. Something’s triggered it as a result of lots of stuff that’s going on and as a result of it now, that’s what’s causing……..
And they are a bit…they’ve both come together, I have to say. As a result of everything that’s going on in your life, it’s therefore triggered your original PTSD.
So what we need to just ensure is that we’re dealing with those two together. And that’s why, at the point where Dean Jones came to see you, and it was a couple of months ago, and I know when it was because I’d just come back off leave, just after Easter. I said, it might be a conversation that we have with Richard, how we can support you through your return to work. And that’s how it should have been given to you and I know you took that adversely and in the negative. It was a , we need to get back to work. That’s not what we’re saying. That’s never what I can say. What we need to say is, if you feel able to come back to work at any point, through your Doctor, through the FMA, through your medication, then we really ought to support it.
And the reality is, you’ve been able to do that for many years. What I don’t know and I still won’t know until I get to the FMA is…….and I’m hearing it from you and I’m not disbelieving you, but I have to take medical evidence as part of any decision making.
I said, ‘These series of events haven’t triggered it. It’s always been there. It’s just made it unmanageable’.
Sue THOMAS asked me if there was anything else I wanted to say.
I said, ‘I know that CI Jones wasn’t saying that you’ve got to come back to work but it was just, maybe untimely, having just served me notices for Gross Misconduct, for which you could lose your job. It just didn’t seem an appropriate time to be discussing that or looking at that’.
Sue THOMAS then said something I found astonishing.
‘And there is a pattern and Jonathan will bare me out on this, where the organisation are looking at…….and this is not about you, but it’s about the organisation, that people, some officers are being served forms and the very first thing they do is, do what Jonathan’?
Jonathan said, ‘Go off sick’.
Sue THOMAS continued, ‘Go off sick, so there’s a real, Chief Officer kind of saying is, we have to understand the reasons why people are going off sick as a result of being served forms. Because many people get served forms but are still in the work place. So we just need to understand, what is it……….I mean as it was you got served forms while you were sick actually. You know, it wasn’t quite the same with you, but there still needs to be’……
I interrupted, ‘And when I was served the initial forms for misconduct I didn’t go off sick then’.
Sue THOMAS said, ‘No, I know you didn’t and you and I sat at Ross and had those conversations many times. That was the misconduct ones. You’re absolutely right’.
What in hells name was she going on about then?
‘So this is just understanding where those forms and the stress of those forms and anything that’s ongoing as it is are impacting on your health and your welfare. That’s what we’re talking about’.
FFS, I think my three year old Grandson could work that one out!! 😡😡
I said,’ At the moment, the misconduct is with the IPCC and so there’s no time scale as to when that would be looked at and the Gross Misconduct isn’t being looked at until the IPCC look at the misconduct, so again there’s no timescale as to when those are going to be sorted’.
Sue THOMAS said that she knew that wasn’t helpful!!
I said that I had become disillusioned with everything because of the way I had been dealt with.
I said there was lots of things written in the Code of Ethics .’Whistleblowing will be a positive experience. Well I haven’t seen that positive experience’.
Sue THOMAS said, ‘We’ll I wouldn’t say you’ve Whistleblowed. Whistleblowing isn’t about grievances. Grievances is about you having a particular issue with the way that something’s been dealt with. It’s not necessarily whistleblowing’.
(Remember the ‘ IPCC having published guidelines for handling allegations of discrimination, (which include allegations raised internally through the grievance process) I didn’t write it!,
I continued, ‘ in respect of the Prosecutor, Mr Davies, that is Whistleblowing’.
ST. – ‘But that’s a separate matter to the grievance. They’re two separate things’.
Me – ‘No, no, that was in my grievance. That was part of the grievance. Other officers there didn’t challenge what he said and you know our own Code of Ethics states that we’ve got a duty to challenge inappropriate behaviour, inappropriate comments and so it is. My response to Nick Husbands (PSD) in respect of the Gross Misconduct is saying that I was a Whistleblower.
Because, essentially CPS have made a complaint, because I’ve made a complaint’.
Sue THOMAS said that I would have to go and see the FMA which I agreed to do.
We later talked about the unlawful interview conducted by Martin Taylor. I said……
‘I understand that we have to do things thoroughly but I just think that the way it was done was underhanded and all of those words like integrity, honesty that are in the Code of Ethics were just ignored. I also understand, and I think you said yourself, It’s a complex set of circumstances. I get that, but if you read the Code of Ethics it says that it’s even more important when things are complicated to stick to the Code of Ethics when we work and I just don’t feel that that’s happened’.
ST – ‘And I’m not seeking to take that away from you because the reality is,parts of your grievance were upheld. Daily, I see people breaching the Code of Ethics and breaching our values. I have to say, I’ve probably done them myself because, It’s not about getting things right all of the time. It’s just about, you know, we need to take some time and reflect and try to improve things. But breaching the Code of Ethics is not necessarily a disciplinary matter. It is, you know, about taking things forward. But I can’t take away how the set of circumstances looks from your perspective. You’ve had your opportunity to raise that through the organisation.
Kevin Purcell has taken the position where he does not feel that there’s any further action to take, other than, that he has discussed Martin Taylor’s interaction with you and with me and that it could have been done differently. (That’s certainly NOT what Kevin Purcell said in the meeting, as you have read)!!!
Kevin did report that back to me. He reported it back to me quite clearly with a view to saying that there’s no points and there’s no discipline but I’d like you to have a conversation with Martin as his Superintendent. And I have had that conversation with Martin and that was a discussion between a Detective Inspector who’s been involved in a number of cases, who clearly feels quite passionate about the circumstances anyway for lots of reasons and not least because he’s had the finger pointed at him for, from your perspective from the grievance.
But his view is very much he doesn’t feel in the circumstances that he would have dealt with that situation any differently, bearing in mind what he knew at that particular time. And that’s not for me to decide otherwise because Professional Standards knew that’…….
I can’t go on but I think you get the picture. The whole thing was a whitewash. We went from Supt Purcell saying that he was a danger to him and to the organisation and that he clearly didn’t learn from his mistakes to Supt THOMAS totally defending and sticking up for him. Why was that? Who intervened to protect Detective Inspector TAYLOR?
Unfortunately, I really don’t think that Superintendent THOMAS or Jonathan Edmondson cared too much about my welfare!!
On the following day, I sent an email to Superintendent THOMAS.
And her response…..
Could ANYONE have faith in our Grievance Procedure following this. Well, yes, Senior officers would, obviously.
One thing Superintendent Sue THOMAS is really good at, is spouting the most up to date corporate jingles, jargon and buzzwords. What she isn’t very good at, is actually putting these into practice! Sad to have to tell you, but it has to be more than ‘words written on a page’, to actually mean anything.
Here’s a letter I received on 8th June, 2017.
What on earth was going on? What was happening behind the scenes?Why couldn’t Superintendent THOMAS just be honest with me? Or, I don’t know, did she actually know what she was doing?
For, every day that I was waiting for something to happen, was a day putting increased stress and pressure on me!
So, let’s put this notice for Gross Misconduct into some sort of perspective.
At around the same time as I started dealing with this animal cruelty case, I was also responsible for looking after various ‘Risk Management Plans’ for people in our area. One of these was for a woman and her children who were deemed to be at very high risk, as a result of domestic violence issues. She had fled the marital home and had moved to an address not known by her estranged husband……and for obvious reasons, we needed to try and keep it that way. I cannot begin to tell you how much effort had been put in to keep the family safe.
During civil proceedings in the family court, the police were required to provide disclosure documents to the Barristers for both sides. The disclosure documents would obviously need to be redacted of all private / personal information to safeguard those involved.
This task was given to a Detective at Hereford…..but guess what? They didn’t redact personal information including this family’s new address which duly fell into the hands of her estranged husband………..and, you guessed it,………absolutely nothing happened to that detective at Hereford CID. Yet I was the one being served a notice for Gross Misconduct! You really couldn’t make it up!!
My wife, Jane and I still wanted answers to questions we had about lies I had been told!
And his response……..
PROPORTIONATE!! Being unlawfully interviewed and detained at a police station based on, (and this is CI Jones words), ‘the rumour had been well circulated within the local community, but what was also clear was that there was no evidence of any kind to support it’.
CI Jones, do you understand what PROPORTIONATE means? ………..and don’t even get me started on ‘Impartial’!!!!!
I hope you are getting a feel of how West Mercia Police regard the mental health and welfare of their junior officers as well as how they deal with whistle blowing.
They are extremely good at portraying to everyone how they care and spend lots of money on impressive posters. Sadly, this is nothing more than lip service to impress important visitors who step through the front doors of the Dream Factory! Well, Chief Constable Bangham, actions speak louder that corporate words and pretty pictures!
The Misconduct and Gross Misconduct forms came from our Professional Standards Department. They, of all people across the force should know what our code of ethics says and means!
It was nearly a year since this crime of animal cruelty had been reported to me and, already, it seemed that more time had been spent on investigating me than the criminals! Why was this? On 22nd May 2017 I sent my response to the allegation of Gross Misconduct……..
You see, what the police and the CPS had decided to ignore, was the law!!
And, not only had they decided to ignore the law, they decided they would break it!!
You see, by breaching their respective codes of conduct/ ethics, Stephen Davies’s and Beth Wells’ behaviour could easily have led to a miscarriage of justice and the case being dropped. When I tried to raise this both internally and then directly with the CPS it was quite clearly a public interest concern. I had nothing personally to gain. It was a protected disclosure. And at (f) above, ‘that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed’.
Isn’t that exactly what the CPS and West Mercia Police we’re trying to do? Deliberately concealing information I had given them in the public interest?…………And then punishing and intimidating me by serving me notices for Gross Misconduct!!
Is there nothing they would stop at in an attempt to bring me to my knees?
Following on from blog 25, my numerous failed attempts at raising concerns about Public Prosecutor, Stephen Davies. If you remember, Stephen DAVIES’S boss, Suzanne Llewelyn, said she was going to ‘discuss’ my concerns with the Assistant Chief Constable of West Mercia Police.
Well, it seems like she didn’t want to discuss my concerns at all, she just wanted to make a complaint about me for daring to bother her! It seems like senior prosecutors and senior officers wanted to put me back into my box!! Whilst I wasn’t being allowed to complain/ raise concerns about the CPS, they were all too ready and keen to complain about me!
And so one day after receiving, what I thought was a letter of hope, from Superintendent Purcell, on 12th May 2017 I had another visit at my home address from CI Dean Jones. Having previously stood in our kitchen a month earlier ‘offering reassurance’ and support, CI Jones wasn’t looking quite so supportive!
He served me with this,,
I was stunned. I couldn’t believe it. I had been served a notice of Gross Misconduct for attempting to raise a concern that was, (or should have been) in the public interest!
It was a sobering thought that, if the Gross Misconduct was found against me, then I could then face losing my job. Perhaps that’s what someone wanted?
You will note that the name of the complainant is ‘Crown Prosecution Service’. (Quite obviously, Suzanne Llewelyn, a senior prosecutor). You would therefore like to think that, before making the complaint, she would be completely satisfied that, in law, I had in fact breached the Data Protection Act. It would therefore be a given that I would be prosecuted or dealt with by way of misconduct, without a doubt.
Do you think that the Data Protection Act law was introduced, with this type of complaint in mind?
No, no it wasn’t. Suzanne Llewelyn was trying to make this law fit into this scenario so that she could flex her muscles, trying to punish me by going to the ACC so that she could ignore my concerns. There was no breach of the Data Protection Act!,
CI Jones then asked me when I was coming back to work!!
On 4th May 2017 I attended my Grievance Appeal Meeting at Worcester Police Station, accompanied by Fed Rep 1. Superintendent Kevin Purcell was holding this meeting, having considered my appeal.
Superintendent Purcell said that he had read my appeal, gone through it all, spoken to HR and he’d come up with this. I think you will agree that he isn’t a man to pull any punches!
‘We asked you to do a job with regards that Hunt. You were doing a good job, with no criticism and far from it, a good job, tidy job that was being well done. Had I come into possession of the information, the rumour, the gossip, the whatever, I would have called you in and said, “You ain’t going to like this. I’m going to take you off this and this is why”. And I would have expected you to be cross. Because that’s what I’ve got to do sometimes.
However, I’ve read all of this and what’s happened is, we haven’t had the integrity and the honesty to say to you, “we’ve got a concern over hear, and to protect you, the force, the organisation, everyone, we’re going to do this”.
So, the grievance that you’ve put forward, and I need to think about how I write it up, I agree with your interpretation of what’s happened. Which is, several things have been confused, which is, Are you being investigated? Why are you being asked to give an account before you leave the police station? Why is it all done this? I get it all. I absolutely get it and I’m not going to word it quite like this but, how staggered I am, in that the Inspector hasn’t had, at the time he’s made a mistake, but hasn’t had the thought thereafter or the humility to say, Actually I could have done this a different way and I confused a number of issues. Because, for me, that’s a great strength. So the first thing, getting it wrong, isn’t an issue for me. But once you’ve got it wrong, when you’re challenged about it, trying to defend an indefensible position is wrong.
Now, I can’t help, and I’ve worked at Hereford, as you know…….they’ve got nothing better to do. So you are a guy that’s doing ok for himself, you living the way you do. You’re probably a bit, not typical of the average bobby down there. So if anyone gets the chance to have a bit of a bite or a gossip, they will. And you can’t avoid that.
I cannot help it, whether your wife thinks you’ve had an affair in the past or are having one now or whatever. There is no evidence of that whatsoever but I can’t help the silly arses at Hereford who’ve got nothing better to do, I can’t help that. But what I can say to you, and I need to write it up in a fair and balanced way.
You were doing a good job. We thought there was some critical risk to the organisation if we let you continued. We should have, because our integrity says we will, called you in and said, actually this is an uncomfortable conversation but this is what we’ve got and to protect you and us, whether you like it or not, this is what we are going to do. And then, if we thought that potentially you had done something wrong, we should have had a proper look at the file, come back to you a week later and say, “Get your Federation friend in cause we need to chat to you”.
We didn’t do any of that and more importantly, I get we’ve made a mistake and I make mistakes every day. More importantly though is, if someone is so arrogant that they will not say, ‘actually I got this wrong’ and I reflect on it, then they’re going to have to do it because my final thing is going to be that the Inspector needs good advice and guidance, that they’ve got this so wrong. They’ve also got so wrong their attitude to the thing there, (code of ethics), that they’re a risk to me and to the organisation.
So that’s where I am, I’m hoping in return for that, we can find a way, and Sue THOMAS is really keen to get you back to work. It will be uncomfortable because you’ll think that some people have supported you, some have been gossiping, some have done this, some have done that.
You’ve got nothing to try and justify. But it will be uncomfortable,because you’ve been off for a while and going back will be hard and you’ll need good people around you. But Sue (THOMAS) is keen to get you back.
Sue didn’t have a view on what I found in this outcome but Sue, when I spoke to her about it, is pleased. She doesn’t see anything other than, she wants you back. She realises you’ve been dealt with poorly and that we should have done it better and she takes no great pride. It’s one of her Inspectors who is saying if effect, “I couldn’t give a toss, I’m not going to change my position”. Well, that don’t work, because every single day, every single one of us, you, me, doesn’t matter about rank, has to change our position. It’s a bit like standing on a beach watching an eighty foot wave coming, saying, well I’m not going to change, I could swim. I’m going to stand on the beach. You just don’t do it, you just recognise what’s coming and say, I’d better get out of here or I’d better change what I’m doing’.
Superintendent Purcell went on to say……
‘There’s no way around the fact that we have made mistakes and that we’ve added to those mistakes, grievously, because we’ve made it a personality assassination around you by they way were then continued to do this. So if we’ve made a mistake and then say, I got it wrong, then I can get that, but if we don’t do that it makes it look like we have got a problem with you and what are you going to feel like?
On behalf of the organisation, there is no, ‘well you need to reflect on this, you need to reflect on that’.
I will be saying to the organisation that they need to not allow Martin to have that view but to explain in no uncertain terms that he did get it wrong and that his unwillingness to accept that, doesn’t put him in a good light. If someone’s had a lesson already in another environment and then has the same issue again, we need to look a bit deeper at it’.
And true to his word, I received the following letter from him.
So, my Grievance Appeal submitted, I just wanted to chase up information about my Misconduct.(which had been discontinued).
Re the email I sent to my sergeant on 21st March……
Great, starting to look like we were getting somewhere and transparency would be provided!! Jane contacted the sergeant conducting our harassment crime investigation….
Jane also sent copies of this email to Supt Susan THOMAS, DCI Jonathan Roberts and Chief Constable Anthony Bangham. On 25th April 2017 the ‘Local PS’ responded.
And this was the outcome letter from this local PS….
So, after some considerable work, no clue as to who made up this allegation, but also, no evidence of any kind to support the widespread rumour. Jane and I were disappointed, but not surprised.
What I was then surprised about, was a phone call I had from my sergeant. He told me that Public Prosecutor, Stephen Davies, (who was of course no longer anything to do with this case)!!, had appealed the Professional decision of DCI Goosen, (PSD), that there was no case to answer in respect of my Misconduct. This surely couldn’t be right? DS Husbands had written on the 12th April, telling me that the appeal process had expired!! I thought I’d better write to him.
Mmmmm. I thought I’d better ring DS Husbands and find out what was going on!!! No one could find him!!! Mmmmm
And suddenly, all very secretive again. What dark forces were at play?
So……at the same time as not having any response to the public interest concerns I had attempted to raise regarding the behaviour of Public Prosecutor, Stephen Davies……..not satisfied in the knowledge that I had been investigated and exonerated, he was escalating his complaint through the IPCC, (now the Independent Office for Police Conduct). Now you will remember the response I got from the Independant Assessor of Complaints for the Crown Prosecution Service about my concerns. Let’s remind ourselves!
So….presumably the Independent Office for Police Conduct would be telling Stephen Davies the same thing……What do you think??
Fox Cub Cruelty. Exposing corruption by Police and the CPS. 