Pig Sick

So, last time I wrote about my dealings with Northumbria Babylon, it appeared as if the Feds had utterly outmanoeuvred me about the incidents with the scum in the VW Golf and, with the aid of the IOPC, had successfully pissed all over the bonfire I’d lit over the vanities of Doyle and Hall. Even appealing to IOPC top honcho got me nowhere, as you can see below -:

I spoke with Ms Turner who has confirmed that she does not have (and has never had) a relationship of any nature with any officer or indeed anyone else in the employment of Northumbria Police. Having reviewed IOPC systems, I can find no information regarding Ms Turner having a relationship of any nature with any police force. Your allegation of corruption against Ms Turner is not supported by any evidence and, as a result, I can only reasonably conclude that it is not upheld. FAIR ENOUGH I SUPPOSE.

Ms Turner has explained that she reviewed your email and considered that there were a couple of questions which required a response: “do I have any further avenues for appeal or complaint against Northumbria Police for what I consider to be an unarguable case of institutional and individual incompetence, intimidation and corruption?” And: “how do I complain about you and the disgrace of a report than you have produced to maintain the appalling miscarriage of justice that has been visited on me?”

I am satisfied that she duly addressed those questions in her reply and that her response was reasonable. Of course, in replying to any correspondence there is always an exercise of discretion as to the extent to which it warrants or requires a response and the level of detail that should be provided. I have noted some further questions in your email which relate more specifically to you asking her to justify aspects of her decision.

She could have chosen to address those matters but instead decided that your disagreement with the decision and stated intention to complain would be best dealt with by providing you with the response she elected. I might have responded differently to your email but that does not mean that Ms Turner was wrong and it certainly does not, in my opinion, amount to a breach of the IOPC’s Code of Conduct. I am satisfied that Ms Turner exercised her discretion reasonably in this instance and on that basis I have also found this aspect of your complaint to be not upheld. FUCKING FRAUDS!!

However, it is clear to me that you remain dissatisfied in this regard. I would therefore suggest that the obvious way for you to get the clarity you seek would be to reply to Ms Turner’s email directly specifying what more you want from her by way of a response. As she was the decision-maker in respect of your review, she is best-placed to provide you with that clarity.

As Ms Turner explained to you, her decision is final in law and there is no further right of appeal against it. Should you remain dissatisfied with her decision, I can only suggest that you obtain independent legal advice with a view to seeking judicial review of the decision. BUDDY, SPARE ME A DIME

Whilst I appreciate that this response may come as a disappointment to you. I do hope that you will be able to appreciate that your complaint about the conduct of a member of IOPC staff has been given serious consideration and received a thorough response.

So, here’s the email I fired off to her (in bold), with her response (in italics). Frankly, it’s game over on this one, which is a disgrace as Doyle should be in the nick.

Dear Ms Turner,

I recently received feedback on my complaints about your disinclination to investigate why Northumbria Police are able to get away with such outrageous conduct towards me, from either or both Jonathan Francis and Lesley Hyland; the letter was unclear about this. While my complaint was, predictably, dismissed, I can read between the lines that you've sailed very close to the wind, as either Francis or Hyland has suggested you respond precisely to my questions, rather than just the airy fairy generalised, patronising dismissal of my concerns you sent last time. So, here goes. I've numbered them for you.

1.     I am somewhat bemused by your reference to “allegations” that I received 15 threatening emails from one of Doyle’s few close personal friends, who served time in prison for football hooliganism. These emails were a matter of indisputable truth; I forwarded all of them to Northumbria Police’s investigating officer Victoria Dawson, who passed them on to operational officers, with whom I discussed their content, deciding not to opt for the prosecution of the sender as I pity him rather than feel anger or any need for retribution. Similarly, you refer to the fact I “allege” Lowther didn’t contact me. There’s no disputing this point either; he did not contact me. Your suggestion that these two facts are matters of conjecture shows your own objectivity has been seriously compromised from the outset. I would ask if you were working, not independently as you claim, but for the exclusive benefit of Northumbria Police, in the completion of your evaluation of the treatment of my complaint.

I have used the word ‘allegation’ to describe a complaint or allegation. I did not intend to any other meaning.  No, I was not working for the exclusive benefit of Northumbria Police.

2. Why are you satisfied Doyle’s Twitter account was subject to adequate scrutiny when he was permitted to deactivate, and delete huge numbers of Tweets that contained abusive comments about me? I refer again to the description of me as being a “scruffy, fat, irritating keyboard warrior.” Is this a professional opinion, or a personal one, that you seem so keen to uphold? Of course, later you do go on to defend Doyle’s right to hold his own opinions, while purposefully invalidating my right to regard Doyle as a “swaggering bully.” What gives you the right to hold such contradictory opinions?

I believe I have provided a comprehensive response in the decision letter in respect of this point. To reiterate briefly, I am satisfied that CSA Soulsby had made relevant searches and enquiries on twitter in relation to the posts on the twitter account of PC Doyle, but that this search did not identify any posts or comments which referred specifically to you. This is a professional decision made in the capacity of my role within the IOPC, I do not have a personal opinion about the review I carried out.  I do not believe my opinion is contradictory as you suggest. 

3. Doyle lied to Hall by claiming that he had left Benfield FC in summer 2019. He had not. He left in summer 2020, which is why he was able to stir up hatred against me later that year, partly because I am a member of the Labour Party and was an active campaigner in the December 2019 General Election. Why was this egregious falsehood not investigated properly? We must remember, of course, that PC Doyle had vented his spleen at me in a vicious tirade after he discovered I had voted Remain in June 2016, which is why he was so happy to see me threatened by ultra-right wing known risk supporters from North Shields in December 2017. On reflection, the conduct of Hall in relation to Doyle’s lies about this situation is not “sloppy” as I previously described it. Rather, it is dangerously incompetent or wilfully corrupt. This is where a legal intervention is needed, rather than you absolving them of all responsibility. They need arresting for this. Incidentally, I realise discussion of your motives for your conduct may be beyond this current forum and something that needs to be looked at by another agency later.

Whatever form the professional reflection Hall undertook is of little consequence to me; I do not accept she shows any insight, much less contrition, into her unacceptable conduct. Clearly Doyle will have no insight of his behaviour, having been exonerated at every turn.

To conclude, I am more than unhappy with the response I have received from you, which has amounted to nothing more than granting carte blanche to the thugs and morons of Northumbria Police, while simultaneously denigrating my character and right to oppose the vicious conduct of the so-called upholders of law in the North East.

As I stated in my decision letter, I was satisfied that a proportionate investigation was carried out. PC Doyle provided the date he had resigned. Also, as stated in my decision letter, it is unfortunate that you were not contacted to provide further details of your complaint once you had made it and some learning has been identified from this. However, I do not agree with you that the investigation was not carried out properly.

What an incredible tissue of horseshit eh? So, that’s one complaint denied by an exhausted procedure, one complaint ignored by Northumbria’s finest and one final shot at justice for the incident on New Year’s Eve still to be resolved. As you’d imagine, I’ve gone to the IOPC with this one as well.

Despite initially presenting as fair and even handed, the investigating officer 7020 Seymour has proved, through her subsequent conduct, to be biased, corrupt and fraudulent in both her dealings with me and the investigation into 2242 Duffy, 8020 Oliver and 3902 Henderson. The fact that Duffy has not been dismissed, Oliver has not been issued with a final warning and Henderson not been required to undertake self-reflection about her conduct shows that Seymour is unfit for this role, unfit to serve in the police and guilty of malfeasance in a public office.

Looking at the decision letter, my first objection is to the assertion at the bottom of page one that I was barred from the Co-Op on Front Street in Tynemouth. This was not true, or at least it was not known to me that such a ban was in place, as I had been in the Co-Op exactly one week previous on Christmas Eve 2020 and had been served without a problem. It seems to me that this assertion was made by the duty manger to Oliver, who behaved in a flirtatious and unprofessional manager after arriving. At no point was I asked if I was barred. At no point was the duty manager’s assertion questioned by Oliver, Duffy or Seymour, who accepted the side of the duty manager without question. This shows blatant prejudice against me. Even worse, the veiled threat that Duffy and Oliver would have fitted me up for this incident shows they are dangerously biased when it comes to dealing with members of the public who do not display obeisance in their presence.

The following risible assertions by Seymour, from the conclusion, need unpicking: You are barred from the store (1); and were identified to police as being responsible for being abusive to staff within the store (2). Officers dealt with you based on this information only and not based on any discriminatory factor (3). As noted, the BWV shows no overbearing behaviour or discrimination by the officers (4).

1 – I now know I’m barred from the store, but I didn’t know then.

2 – I wasn’t in any way abusive to staff in the store; I left willingly after being cornered and harassed by 3 of them.

3 – The cloyingly flirtatious way Oliver spoke with the duty manager showed an unprofessional attitude and as a consequence what was relayed to him and how he responded should be discounted, other than to investigate the nature of the words exchanged and whether any other transaction took place.

4 – As explained previously, Seymour is wrong in her assertion that Duffy and Oliver spoke to me in an acceptable fashion. They didn’t; they were aggressive, domineering and intimidating.

Duffy and Oliver state they do not feel they discriminated against me, but acted fairly but sternly towards me. This is an unbelievable example of Seymour’s bias and inability to investigate properly. The way Duffy and Oliver spoke to me was aggressive, menacing and intimidating.  It is exactly why so many people hate the police. I don’t believe there is any evidence of Seymour listening to the BWV from the incident, as any reasonable person would have been shocked and appalled by the conduct of these officers. Unlike Seymour’s glib and arrogant dismissal of my protestations, any normal person would recognise the conduct of Duffy and Oliver as swaggering bullies, determined to intimidate a wholly innocent member of the public into silence. They should be disciplined for this and Seymour brought to book for this appalling miscarriage of justice akin to the sort of conduct that lead to the Birmingham 6 and Maguire 7 being fitted up by the British police state.

Also, I know for a fact that some officer in a van drove past North Shields police station, where I’d wasted an hour trying to speak to Henderson, and gave me a middle-fingered salute. I’d like to know who deleted the CCTV of this; my money would be on Seymour.

As regards allegation 2, Seymour’s attitude is to dismiss my complaint out of hand, in order to protect her pal’s back, just like she did with Duffy and Oliver. Perhaps the day wouldn’t have been so busy if thugs like Duffy and Oliver didn’t go out of their way to threaten and harass innocent civilians.

The fact I’ve had no word back from the IOPC shows that they and Northumbria Police, individually and as a whole, are corrupt and incompetent.