“South Yorkshire Police – Institutionally Corrupt and Not Fit for Purpose
It has been reported earlier how a senior person within South Yorkshire Police lied about and lied to this citizen when covering up local council corruption and defending a corrupt colleague who was operating as a gatekeeper for the council.
The relevant documents have already been produced.
This paper shows how not only is South Yorkshire Police institutionally corrupt, but that, despite having the evidence of its corruption, South Yorkshire Police has demonstrated that it is incapable of managing its own affairs with honesty and integrity.
This paper also adds to the evidence already showing that the local role of the PCC is politically partisan and also has a gatekeeper role in covering up local Labour Party corruption in the local authority.
The inextricable entanglement between South Yorkshire Police, the local council, and the Labour party is complete, effectively paralysing South Yorkshire Police in matters of politically sponsored fraud, corruption, and the relentless systematic abuse of vulnerable women who pose a threat by virtue of exposure of that corruption.
In summary, corruption was exposed, and local vulnerable women were abused by a council officer, who then went on to sabotage their community group.
The women complained.
This citizen also had cause to complain.
It was made clear throughout that the complaints, although the same perpetrators were involved, that the complaints must be kept separate.
An attempt was made to squash the case by falsely accusing this citizen of effectively using the abused women – a variation on the false accusation consistently made by Sheffield City Council that I was manipulating.
There was an investigation, including an interview at Snig Hill, and the conclusion was that the false accusation was just that – false.
The local corrupt senor officer ordered that the investigation into the abuses, and the associated corruption, be squashed – and over the years has continued with the same policy, no matter the seriousness of the ongoing corruption and continuing abuses.
A complaint was made to Detective Chief Inspector Mark Foster, from South Yorkshire Police’s Professional Standards Department, who refused to record the crimes or discipline the corrupt copper.
As part of the flawed process to dismiss the complaint, DCI Foster had joined the complaints, despite the insistence that they were separate.
An appeal was made to the IPCC, and DCI Foster lied to the IPCC !
Among the lies was a blatant lie about me.
DCI Foster wrote claiming that I had agreed to the joining of the complaints.
This lie was exposed, with a complaint lodged with the IPCC and senior SYP management about the corruption and cover-up of DCI Foster, who was in turn covering up for the local senior bent bobby that was covering up council / Labour party corruption.
( For example, when evidence of harassment was provided to the local bent cop, his reply was that he had been advised by the legal department of SYP that it was impossible for a council officer to be charged with a breach of the Harassment Act. When asked to provide that advice and name who advised him, he refused. Even when a FoI request was made to identify who gave himthat advice, his response was that the information was in an old notebook and would take too long to produce. )
The IPCC upheld our appeal, and asked SYP to record our complaints as crimes, and proceed with the investigations.
SYP did nothing.
When the IPCC was advised that SYP had refused to take the advice of the IPCC, the response of the IPCC was that they had no power to compel the Chief Constable to do anything he did not want to do.
( Another incident of the local bent bobby was to refuse to investigate the reported incidents of suspected child abuse at the local school by council personnel, whose governing body was also Labour party controlled. )
As time went by, and more abuses were reported, and squashed, DCI Foster repeated his lie to me and about me.
To this day, SYP suppress every complaint of criminal behaviour by the local council and the Labour party.
The local bent copper has electronically tagged my emails to SYP and had them forwarded to his workstation.
However, the last report in question was a hard copy, hand-delivered to Snig Hill police station.
When the acting policeman called at my house he said he had my report, but he only had a print-out of the email from the 101 crime incident reporting room.
On the day, he insisted that I repeat to him verbally everything that I had written in the report, and made notes, which would have been unnecessary had he read a copy of the report sent to Snig Hill, and marked for the personal attention of the Chief Constable.
A recent crime number has been raised for the ongoing abuses and harassment consistent with the ongoing fraud and corruption.
The SYP reaction was to have an officer sent to my house, who lied about having seen my report of the previous event, and then shut down the case.
Since then, further harassment has taken place, supported by council officers and local Labour councillors, and still SYP have done absolutely nothing, despite another crime number being raised.
A crime occurred on 3 July. It was duly reported.
Because the crime was squashed, as always, a formal complaint was raised on 28 July.
The acting officer was under orders from his bent senior officer.
On 2 September SYP replied, and asked for details.
This was a completely unnecessary request, as SYP already had all the details.
I replied on 8 September, providing sufficient details for the investigation to continue, notwithstanding that SYP already had the information, and naming DCI Foster as being central to the SYP corruption.
On 23 September, effectively ignoring the core issues of my letter of 8 September, SYP wrote again asking for information to which SYP already had access.
In the same letter of 23 September, SYP stated that that SYP would only look at the one case in isolation, and not consider either the history, context, previously reported crimes, or evidence already submitted.
It shall not be permitted for a police authority, as with others with purview over Sheffield City Council, to take incidents in isolation, remove them from context, and then trivialise each to insignificance.
On 24 September I asked:
Am I allowed to include witness statements that provide context and history to the current event and also their personal experience of the same ‘gatekeeper’ officer?
My question has been ignored.
On 6 October SYP wrote:
Initially we need the complaint allegations from you to allow an assessment and recording decision to be made (as per our letter dated 23/09/2015).
If it is deemed appropriate to investigate further evidence will then be requested from you.
Yet again, there is unnecessary communications and yet absolutely nothing has been done to either prosecute the offenders or to prevent further continuing abuses.
DCI has maintained his approach, never apologising for his lies, and neither the chief constable nor police commissioner have done anything about disciplining the one man within SYP whose integrity should be beyond reproach, but instead has been proved to be the antithesis of what his position demanded
The IPCC, and other agencies with purview, have the evidence already concerning DCI Foster, but see below . . . .
The pattern appears to be simple – do not record crimes, or complaints, if at all possible to do so, as that way the figures will always look good for the police force and their political masters.
It is not just with CSE that crimes were ignored, but is a central strategy of SYP.
In this case the strategy is to engineer an excuse for not processing the complaint at all.
It is evidence enough that DCI Foster is still employed by SYP to reasonably conclude that SYP, from the chief constable down, is institutionally corrupt and incapable of honestly managing its own affairs
Complaints against South Yorkshire Police increase
Complaints against South Yorkshire Police increase
14:19Wednesday 07 October 2015
Complaints against South Yorkshire Police went up by 44 per cent last year, new figures reveal.
Between April 2014 and March 2015 there were 660 official complaints lodged against the force, compared to 459 the year before.
The complaints lodged over the last year were made up of 1,412 specific allegations – up from 988 the year before.
The force hit the headlines and came under scrutiny last year following the publication of a report which suggested that 1,400 Rotherham children had been abused by men of largely Pakistani heritage while those in authority turned a blind eye.
It is believed child sexual exploitation sex scandal and the police force’s handling of the Hillsborough disaster may be to blame for many of the complaints.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission said there are wide inconsistencies in the way police complaints are handled by forces across the country.
Nationally, last year, there were more than 37,000 complaints made – a six per cent overall increase on the year before.
In South Yorkshire, the total number of appeals made by dissatisfied complainants was 146 – a 20 per cent increase.
The IPCC upheld 25 per cent of the appeals made about South Yorkshire Police complaint investigations.
Dame Anne Owers, Chairman of the IPCC, said: “The figures for England and Wales show a complaints system that is both over-complex and inconsistent, and is clearly failing to satisfy a significant number of complainants.
“Chief Officers and Police and Crime Commissioners should look closely at the figures for their own forces to satisfy themselves that complainants are being treated fairly and well.
“However, the underlying problem is the system itself. We welcome the fact that the government proposes to bring in legislation to simplify and streamline a system that at present satisfies neither those who need it nor those who have to operate it.”
Detective Chief Inspector Mark Foster, from South Yorkshire Police’s Professional Standards Department, said: “The Force has a dedicated team of investigators within the Professional Standards Department who are committed to investigating public complaints and misconduct. These matters come to light as a result of complaints from the public and from inquiries carried out internally.
“While the force has one of the lowest number of allegations recorded per 1,000 employees nationally, we recognise there has been an increase in public complaints. We remain committed to investigating matters raised by the public swiftly and thoroughly.
“There could be a number of reasons for an increase, including complaints made around child sexual exploitation and the Hillsborough disaster. In addition to this, a revised approach was recommended by the IPCC, which could go some way to explain the increase.
“The ‘there and then’ approach deals with a complaint made on the spot and clarifies the complaint recording requirements. If the complainant is not satisfied at this point, forces have been instructed to go a step further and record it as a complaint and then investigate the complaint in accordance with IPCC guidance. We welcome this change as it allows us to review and improve our working practices.
“That said, the amount of complaints received by SYP from the public is below the national average.
“We are committed to carrying out thorough investigations wherever a member of the public feels the service they have received fell short of what they, and the force, would expect.
“This is reflected in the fact that just 25% of our IPPC appeals are upheld, compared to 40 per cent nationally. We believe this demonstrates our commitment to ensuring the investigations we conduct as a result of a public complaint are taken very seriously and dealt with thoroughly.
“Police officers and staff are rightly held to a higher set of standards by the public, who justifiably expect a good level of service. Those who fall short of those standards will be dealt with appropriately.”