The Ferris Conspiracy Forum
Sign up  |   |   |  Calendar

  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 9,064
Reply with quote  #16 

TOP CLASS POST Magpie are you sure you ain't after my job here?


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 120
Reply with quote  #17 


  Making Whistleblowing work
Public Concern at Work is an independent authority on whistleblowing. We provide free help to prospective whistleblowers, advise on whistleblowing laws and
help organisations create a culture where it is safe
and accepted for staff to blow the whistle.



Hey that shark has pretty teeth dear and he shows 'em pearly white.
Just a jackknife has Macheath dear And he keeps it way out of site.

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #18 

Hi mactheknife,thanks for your excellent post on

'Public Concern At Work' with regards to whistle blowing.  


A lot of great information contained with the links in the post,

and should anyone genuinely feel the need to blow the whistle,

I agree that it should, as the post points out, be their first call -

after having checked out,

of course. 

I'd rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I am not".

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #19 

Officer who challenged Met chief may lose job

Vikram Dodd
Tuesday April 18, 2006
The Guardian

A high profile Scotland Yard officer who has repeatedly clashed with his bosses
over the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes faces being ousted from his job,
the Guardian has learned.

Brian Paddick gave evidence to the official inquiry into the shooting of the

Brazilian at Stockwell tube station last July, that challenged claims by his boss,

the Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Ian Blair, and is also facing an allegation

that he leaked information about the killing to a BBC journalist.


Mr Paddick told the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation into

the commissioner's conduct, that officials within Sir Ian's own office feared the

wrong man had been killed just hours after the shooting. Sir Ian has repeatedly

said that he and his aides had no inkling until the morning of the next day that the

man shot eight times by officers hunting suicide bombers was in fact innocent.

Within the past fortnight Mr Paddick has been told by his bosses that they want

to move him out of his post as deputy chief of territorial policing in the capital,

according to several sources.


Scotland Yard chiefs have told Mr Paddick they want to move him to a role where

he does not come into the force's central London headquarters and has little

contact with the public. He would be "put out to grass" until later this year when

he reaches 30 years' service and can retire on a full police pension.

Talks between the two sides are continuing.

Jenny Jones, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority which oversees

the force, said: "It does look like a punishment for the IPCC statement and

the alleged leak. We will be asking questions about this.

"Whistleblowing is an important part of democracy, letting people know when

misinformation is being given. We need to know if he's being punished for

whistleblowing or for something else."


A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said that discussions about the postings of

senior officers were "always ongoing" and declined to discuss individual cases.


Shooting inquiry witness on a collision course

· Senior officer's move seen as punishment for 'leak'
· Claims and rumours leave poisonous mood at Met

Vikram Dodd
Tuesday April 18, 2006
The Guardian

Ever since the shooting dead of an innocent man who was mistaken for a terrorist,
Brian Paddick has been on a collision course with the leadership of his own force.
Soon after the police killing of Jean Charles de Menezes on July 22 2005,
persistent allegations surfaced from within the Metropolitan police that senior
officers feared within hours that the wrong man had been killed.

Within police circles, the name of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick

kept coming up as someone who might have information challenging the assertion

by his boss, Sir Ian Blair, that the force was unaware for 24 hours of its fatal blunder.

Investigators from the Independent Police Complaints Commission interviewed

a series of senior officers, including Mr Paddick, about what they knew, and when.


Some inside the force see the decision by Met bosses to try and move Mr Paddick

from his job in territorial policing as punishment for his testimony to the investigation.


One senior officer said: "This is retaliation for his statement to the IPCC." Other

senior colleagues will dismiss any linkage.


Another possibility is that any move from his post could be linked to an allegation

that Mr Paddick leaked information to a BBC journalist concerning the shooting

at Stockwell tube station of Mr De Menezes. The alleged conversation was overheard

by somebody else in the room, and now the Metropolitan police authority is

considering what to do. Mr Paddick is understood to deny the allegation.

Mr Paddick is understood to be unhappy at the proposals to move him from his job

and some in the force characterise it as a clear signal that he is unlikely to advance

any further.


The IPCC is investigating Sir Ian's role in the aftermath of the shooting after

the De Menezes family alleged the commissioner and his force put out false

information. Mr Paddick told investigators in a sworn witness statement that

hours after the shooting staff in Sir Ian's office suspected an innocent man

had been killed.


When the allegation first surfaced it was rubbished by the force, leading Mr Paddick

to threaten to sue his own force for libel. Officers who give information to the IPCC

may gain protection from any reprisal from laws designed to protect whistleblowers.


The Guardian understands several sources have told the inquiry of fears among

senior officers that the wrong man had been shot. Other senior officers remain

convinced Sir Ian's statements are accurate and that he will be exonerated.


Over the weekend a second senior officer was named as having told the IPCC that

planning was under way within hours to cope with the fallout of having killed an

innocent man.


Assistant Commissioner Robert Beckley of Hertfordshire police was visiting the Yard

on July 22, in his role as a counterterrorism expert with the Association of Chief Police Officers.


The mood among senior officers at Scotland Yard has been poisonous at

times in recent months.


Last week Sir Ian Blair sent an internal message to staff condemning negative

leaks about the force. It has been leaked to the Guardian.


In the message Sir Ian, who has faced a firestorm of criticism since

becoming commissioner last year, said the press coverage about him and

the force was "distracting" and added:

"I will have no truck with those colleagues, senior or junior,

who choose to brief negatively.


The reason for my concern is not just personal, it's distracting you from your

jobs and your excellent achievement."


Mr Paddick was the face of the force at press conferences immediately after the

July 7 terror attacks on London. He became a hate figure for the right after running

a pilot scheme in south London where people caught with small amounts of cannabis

were cautioned rather than arrested, to give police time to tackle more

dangerous drugs. He is also an openly gay officer with the highest profile in a

service that has been plagued by homophobia.


Gareth Peirce, solicitor for the De Menezes family, said of the latest developments:

"What does it convey in terms of the family being able to arrive at the truth.


It creates a picture of incompetence, lack of professionalism and lack of coherence

at every level within the Met."

An IPCC spokeswoman said its investigation was expected to have been concluded

by next month.


A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said: "Discussions regarding senior officer

postings are always ongoing between the director of human resources and the

officers themselves."

Career controversy

1976 Joins the Metropolitan police

2001 Appointed borough commander in Lambeth, south London. Pioneers pilot

scheme whereby those caught with small amounts of cannabis are cautioned instead

of being arrested. The aim is to free up police time to concentrate on class A drugs

2001 Attracts controversy after going on to an anarchist website and saying how he

finds anarchism attractive. Tabloids dub him "Commander Crackpot"

2002 A former partner claims he smoked cannabis in front of Paddick.

An investigation clears the officer, but not before he is moved from Lambeth to a

desk job. Paddick successfully sues Associated Newspapers for damages for libel

over the allegations. Lambeth residents campaign for Paddick's return. 

2003 Becomes acting deputy assistant commissioner, responsible for territorial

policing; later gains the promotion full-time

July 2005 Is the public face of the Met as terrorists attack London, fronting

several press conferences

March 2006 Named as making statement to IPCC that questions claims by his

boss, Sir Ian Blair, about the Stockwell shooting

April 2006 Told he will be moved from his job



Avatar / Picture

Posts: 9,064
Reply with quote  #20 

Whistleblowing dos and don'ts - practical hints to help you get it right

Don't turn a blind eye - Audit Scotland's guidance on fraud or corruption.


For further practical guidance for whistleblowers, click here.


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #21 

A special page for police officers............  


Police officers - please see a discussion  document that

defines police corruption, that is located near the beginning of

the articles section.


Think about this, many of you may object to the idea of

this site, encouraging police victims to consider actions, or

for others to discover some of the many dishonest practices used by the

British police.Within this document created a few years ago

many of the arguments we hear to excuses dishonest action by police

officers is considered.


When you are a victim of the police I can tell you it is worse than

being the victim of other criminal groups because we know we have

no one to protect us or to stop such actions occurring again.

The very people others may mistakenly believe are there to protect

them are the threat.


Sufficiently corrupt officers may wish to interfere with our servers

for this site, but I should point out that the web addressing system

is controlled from outside the UK, and we can switch these over so

that the information on backup servers in other countries come on

line very quickly.In addition interfering with our server arrangements

will effect many other organizations within the UK, guaranteeing

press interest.


We will not name corrupt police officers by name or give details

to allow them to be identified on the net.

Nor will we name people tricked into being accomplices of them.

Should at any time we decide to change this policy we will give

2weeks notice here.

Hopefully in the future an honest and just complaints system will be

fully implemented, and then you may actually stick to the full spirit

of PACE.


However it is my view that large claims and complaints from

insurers is more likely to have an effect on cleaning up dishonest

police practices than governments suggesting that you police

yourselves better.


To honest officers:

Please see our discussion paper on police corruption at the start

of the articles section. Are you honest, truthful, and not use any of

the corrupt practices outlines.

If you are honest, then this site should help you to spread honest

practices and help to make other officers consider their errant ways.


We appreciate that you are in a minority and many people just cant

stick the culture of corruption, racialism and other questionable traits

that has developed, and that for many the only answer ultimately is

to leave.


However we don't want honest officers to leave, although

in a minority and with custom and practice many of your senior

officers will have become used to looking the other way or arranging cover

ups, if the system is ever to become changed it is necessary for good

honorable people to stay, and even perhaps become whistle blowers.


Corruption Defined:

The following document was produced by New Atlantis is 1998 or

early 1999, as a discussion document ahead of the Independent

Inquiry Society starting their study of police corruption within the UK.


It attempts to define corruption, not as just police officers receiving

brown enveloped stuffed with money, but other corrupt practices

that had been encountered during other investigations.

We could expand this list now, but for now have left the old document

that many officers and others have seen in the past.


Corruption defined:

If you look through official papers and reports you see corruption

featured. for example in the police inspectorates annual report.

It is said to be a minority of bad apples. 


Message to individual police officers:


You hear us talk of corruption and you close ranks, None you know

of.The problem is perhaps in the definition of corruption.

You in most cases are thinking of corruption in terms of payments

received by officers for advantage by criminal groups.

By this definition the police inspectorate and others are correct,

their are a few bad apples.


They exist in small numbers in every police force in the UK.

Yes you have had rule changes about evidence levels needed to

throw them out.


Our definition is wider, If you do something to the benefit of a friend,

retired police officer, or so someone supports any cause charity or

individual even if you make no personal gain, if it is to the

detriment of someone else it is corruptions.


If you use 'can say' statements to make witnesses say what you

want them to or trick, induce, seduce or by other means get a

witness to say something that they would not freely do it

is corruption.


If you take action designed or that you know will destroy any

persons living, business, relationships or reputation and this is

outside PACE (police and criminal evidence act) or is beyond the

minimum necessary to look for evidence this is corruption.


If you stop a person from gaining access to information that

would allow them to prove themselves innocent this is corruption.


If you suppress or hide information, alibis or evidence, or merely

omit to make the facts known openly available to the defense

then this is corruption.


To create phony charges that have no basis in fact mealy to

get a defendant remanded is corruption.


To get a defendant remanded without real and just cause or

to prevent them from pulling together a proper defense is



To leak information to others knowing they will be likely to

intimidate defense witnesses is corruption.


Top fail to look at the motives of those making accusations,

and where this is obviously the cause of unsubstantiated

complains is corruption.


To hold prisoners without proper food drink and representation

or to threaten coerce or  intimidate prisoners is corruption.


To give false evidence, falsify records, statements, selectively use

partsof information where you know it does not give a fair

representation is corruption.


To target a person so as to fit them up, in order to create

favorable statistics is corrupt.


To target a person with leaning difficulties or anyone else

unable to protect themselves from evil is corruption.


To operate a rotary door policy where criminals are set free in

exchange for giving a story against another, often so as to

gain more prosecutions for statically reasons as opposed to

prosecuting criminals is corrupt.


To purposely allow a criminal to go free, or to avoid detecting

a crime so as to increase overtime or for some other reason is



To take an easy suspect and manufacture a case to

save time, or through laziness to fail to fully investigate other

options is corruption.


To do anything else which is dishonest or

to the detriment of an innocent person gaining the end of a

persecution is corruption.


The war on crime argument.

You may have been persuaded that some guilty people will

escape what you are told is justice.


That it is a war, and that you cannot win a war by playing

according to the rules.


That some casualties in war are unavoidable.


The problem is the Innocent victims of the police

play by the rules while those with experience as well as paid

advisors do not.


The everyone does it argument:


Yes, you start as a flat foot, pound the beat, sort out the drunks,

eventually perhaps you get a chance to get involved in something

more interesting or into CID.


Other officers show you how its done.


Time is limited you need to make an impression, perhaps some

niceties get overlooked, perhaps the gang attitude prevailing

means you get carried along with the lynch mob.


Before long the occasional slip has become standard practice.


Time is short, particularly where time has been spent on an

investigation you feel the need for something to show for all

those hours. 


After all everyone else does it, Dixon of Dock Green  no longer has a

place in the modern police force.


Your involved in a war of crime, not a social worker.Stop.


As soon as you are involved in corruption, you are a criminal,

so is it a war on crime or a gangland war you think you are in?


We cant get prosecutions without argument:

A vast section of the population has lost all confidence in the police,

most would rather avoid than help, many of your superiors

have very limited ability, and often the criminals are perceived to

be more intelligent or have better resources.


You act as a gang for your own protection, and because you

have few friends in the community, old style policing is largely gone.


You realise that the spiral of corruption is becoming wider known

and therefore the amount of free help you can get from the

public is reducing.


Most reasonably well educated people will either avoid helping or

bring a solicitor with them even when making a witness statement.


Back some time ago, when aprentiships was common people could

either have an aprentiship or stay on to gain qualifications

for an office job.


If they did not get the qualifications, then they could not then get

an aprentiship and was left with military service or passing the far

easier police entry exams.


Many who stayed on but were not up to GCE,ended up in the

police, now these people are 50 or more and are running

the show.


OK some are not the brainiest, but do they need to be.


All they have to do is follow the rules, and collect information.


Probably a larger problem is that they are also poor people

managers, but that is not an intelligence problem just a case of

selecting from the ranks as opposed to selecting from the

wider population.


Moving officers fairly frequently in an attempt to avoid opportunities

for cash corruption also means skill in a specialty is not gained.


Added to this compared with other countries we have very little

training and a legal system that no-one understands.


What can you do.

You could leave, as you will know many honest officers can nolonger

stomach what is happening, don't feel they can do anything about it

and feel the need to all show a united front.


We don't want you to leave, that will not cure the problem, it just

means that more corrupt officers get promoted faster.


We realise you are in a paramilitary gang style organisation, and

as an individual you can do very little.


But start working on your colleagues, get them to do a little more work,

and point out their victims to them.


We would welcome you to join New Atlantis, yes you need

to behave honorably.


Do it openly, if you can, you will get problems, but document these,

and whenthe time comes publish.


If you have to leave the police force, due to intimidation or bullying

tell your local press, they problem will not cover it, but eventually

they may get the massage.What would we like.


An amnesty, a full stop, and start again. From that point corruption

within the police is not accepted by any of you.Never ever again.


Police officers, solicitors and others offered a two month amnesty

where if they admit the various miscarriages of justice, corrupt

practices used and fake evidence created they will not be



Where they have many years of corrupt practices that have

effected thousands of victims they may need to be given longer

to complete the full disclosure process.They have to say who else was involved.


A commission of independent people who would look at misdeeds in

the past and try to put as much right as they can, this means

getting innocent people out of prisons fast, giving compensation

in some cases, setting the record straight and in effect society

saying sorry to those who it has let down so badly.


By the use of computers and the commission to identify those

corrupt officers who have not come forward and to immediately

suspend them without pay until the case against them is


To establish a complaints investigation group, made up of some

military intelligence, honest officers and members of the public,

to follow up all complaints from this point on very rapidly and to

maintain records of complaints made to spot patterns emerging.

To establish a justice department that takes a first look at all cases

to see if their is any reason to proceed with any prosecution, and in

every case where it can to find another arrangement that allows

the individual to become a valid member of society.


Not realistic

Some may say these ideas are not realistic, that too many people

have their snout in the trough, that the best officers have got out

and only the scum is left.

That these thugs that run our police force, the gangs, don't mix with

ordinary people, and protect their own.

But the spiral is gaining momentum, more corrupt actions go on now

than last year, and so on.


Eventually the society that you live in will not only not work with you,

but turn against you.

You know that, and many police stations are now being created

castle likefor defending, but you are a minority, you can only

operate with the will of the people.


Do something quick or it may be too late.









Avatar / Picture

Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #22 

Undercover PC exposes sex bias

Secret filming reveals officers dismissing rape cases,

watching pornography and ignoring calls

David Smith
Sunday April 23, 2006
The Observer

Police officers have been caught by a secret camera
gloating at pornography, making sexist comments to
female colleagues and refusing to believe allegations
of rape.

A four-month undercover investigation by Nina Hobson,

then a serving constable in the Leicestershire force,

exposed a male chauvinist culture in which a policeman

was told by his senior officer to take a claim of rape

'with a big pinch of salt'.


Hobson, 35, first joined the police at 18 and, after a

five-year career break, returned in 2005. But this time

she wore a hidden camera and covertly filmed her

colleagues for Channel 4's documentary series Dispatches.

Last January she received an award from Leicestershire's

chief constable in recognition of outstanding work, only

to leave the force and turn whistleblower.


In her TV footage Hobson records a male officer who had

received a complaint of rape from a prostitute and

consulted a senior officer before leaving the scene.

Later he recalls the advice his inspector gave him:

'Yeah, just tell her if she wants to report it she reports

it to us next week when she's ready ... take this with a

big pinch of salt ... in my experience they'll come forward

and help each other out.'


Hobson commented later: 'The officer who raises that

comment was the first officer at the scene of a prostitute

rape, and when he was relaying the details to his senior officer,

it was then, "Take it as a pinch of salt", meaning it's a prostitute,

they do this all the time, it might not be genuine. If a young officer

is getting that sort of instruction from a senior officer, what hope

have we ever we got of changing the attitude of particularly men

in the police force to how they deal with a rape - be it a prostitute

rape, a domestic rape or a stranger rape? They're all rapes.'


On another night, one of Hobson's female colleagues expresses

disgust at the station's failure to send a scene of crime officer (Soco)

to visit an alleged rape victim. 'I'm absolutely appalled,' says

the female officer. 'She's ringing me every day ... Soco wasn't

sent round. It might have happened on Tuesday - so what?

There's still forensic evidence of it on the settee ... If I'd been

raped, than fucking hell, I'm not reporting it to the police. I'd

rather do myself in because the help you get from these people

are [sic] just ridiculous.'

Hobson added: 'We still hear police officers saying "She asked for it,

she had a short skirt on". I thought we might have moved on, but

we quite clearly haven't.'


In a separate piece of footage, two male officers visit Hobson's

home when they should allegedly be on duty patrolling the M1.

They encourage her to watch 'disgusting' pornography on a mobile

phone, apparently featuring a woman and a horse. One of the male

officers makes an attempt at humour: 'The woman in that died

three days later.' Hobbs also finds pornographic posters displayed

at a police station.


During a busy Friday night, as the police attempt to control

crowds, Hobson is sent on an errand by her sergeant, who

tells her: 'You want all the testosterone you can get. And

you haven't got any.' She explained later: 'He says, "I'm

sorry Nina that I gave you that job, but at the end of

the day, you were the woman, it's kicking out time, and I

want blokes out on the streets for any fights that might happen.'


The film also shows police on patrol playing 'hide and seek'

in their cars or fetching Chinese takeaways while pretending

to be busy. Officers play poker and cricket in the custody suite

while Hobson is waiting to bring in a prisoner. Two officers coming

to the end of their shift ignore reports of a woman being roughed

up by a man. A senior officer tells Hobson and her colleagues that

the antidote to an incapacitating spray, Captor, should be reserved

for officers not prisoners, and admits: 'I think if that went out in the

public domain there might be trouble.'


Leicestershire police said that it was aware of the Dispatches

programme, to be shown on Channel 4 at 9pm on Thursday.

Matt Baggott, the chief constable, said: 'I am sure many will

share my disappointment that Ms Hobson chose not to raise

these matters of concern at the time. There are a number of

ways colleagues can do so - if needs be anonymously.


'Sadly Ms Hobson appears to have chosen not to use any

of the channels available. Because of this, the incidents of

poor behaviour that she filmed were allowed to go unchecked

for months. This is not in the interests of Leicestershire Constabulary

or of the people of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.'


Thursday 27th April 9pm Channel 4. Dispatches: Undercover copper.

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 8,395
Reply with quote  #23 




Dear Dr Lindsay Thomson, Consultant Psychiatrist,

On 29 December 2004 I telephoned you on Tel: 01555 840 293 Ext 446 about the
sudden death of Police whistleblower, Arnold McCardle (RIP) and his unlawful
incarceration, at your behest, in the State Hospital, Carstairs.  You
terminated our telephone conversation by putting the phone down on me.
Bearing in mind that you are the same, "Dr Lindsay Thomson, held a care
review on 25 November 2004 to assess the effect of forcibly injected
anti-psychotic drugs on Mr McCardle's long-held 'delusional belief'."


Dr Thomson, In order to protect the lives of members of the public from your
own delusional beliefs, the IBRG request answers to the following questions

  1.. Why were you so eager to get ALL my details: and no worry whatsoever
about the death of Arnold McCardle?
  2.. Why was Arnold McCardle incarcerated against his will at the State
Hospital, Carstairs?
  3.. Why was Andy McCardle forcibly injected with anti-psychotic drugs
(against his will) at the State Hospital, Carstairs?
  4.. Was it to pervert the course of justice that you illegally detained
and DRUGGED Mr. McCardle against his will?
  5.. Please supply all the evidence to support your claim that Mr. McCardle
had a long-held "delusional belief".
  6.. Please supply the relevant law that 'allowed' you to deprive Mr.
McCardle of his liberty, and beliefs.
  7.. Dr Thompson please supply the name of the medical school where you
gained your primary medical qualification.
  8.. Please supply your date of birth?
  9.. Please supply details of ALL complaints against you, whether they be
oral or in writing, etc.
  10.. The name(s) of the persons who contacted The Sun Newspaper about M.
McCardle's death.
  11.. How many 'patients' have died in the last seven years while under
your 'care' - and their ages please?
  12.. Please supply the names of the persons who administrated the last
drugs to Mr. McCardle, and the TIME.
  13.. Supply the telephone log of Mr. McCardle's call to James Todd of
VOMIT: 020 7727 5300 on 26 Dec 04 at approx 5.00pm.
  14.. What time did Mr. McCardle die?  Supply the names of ALL the people
who witnessed his death.
  15.. Did Mr. McCardle die in the isolated torture chamber - the one with
the mattress on the floor?
  16..  Did other 'patients' witness Mr. McCardle's death, OR hear his
  17.. Were there Police Officers on the ward when Arnold McCardle died?
Their names and numbers please.
  18.. Were you on duty Psychiatrist, Dr. Thomson when Mr. McCardle drew his
last breath (RIP)?
  19.. Please supply ALL the names of the people on duty, and all the people
present when Mr. McCardle died.
  20.. Mr. McCardle was a European Community Citizen; how did you ensure his
legitimate expectations?
  21.. At approx 7.00pm on the evening of 26 December 2004, two Police
Officers visited the home of Kenneth McCardle and informed him that his
brother Arnold McCardle was released from Carstairs State Hospital - alive.
Please supply ALL the names of the persons who authorised this.  It is also
imperative that you supply the exact time that you gave the Police Officers
this message.
  22.. Please supply the exact time that the staff changed over on Boxing
Day evening, 26 December 2004.
  23.. Why did Carstairs State Hospital want to CREMATE Mr. McCardle's body?
The names of the persons who wanted this please.
  24.. Psychiatrist, Dr. Thomson, did you murder Arnold Lowe McCardle?  Did
you not have a vested interest in his demise?
  25.. Would Arnold McCardle be alive today if you had not incarcerated him
and forcibly injected anti-psychotic drugs into him?
  26.. Can you sleep at night now, knowing that you have cured Arnold
McCardle's "delusional beliefs" forever? Just as you promised?
  27.. When was the last psychiatric assessment done on you Dr. Thomson?
You are a serious danger to the public, are you not?

The following submissions are brief, but adequate enough to demonstrate that
it was you Dr. Thomson who suffered long-held delusional beliefs, and not
Arnold Lowe McCardle:


"The Sudden Death of Arnold McCardle unlawfully detained in Carstairs State

Message dated 27 December 2004 from Ann Mallaby
"The police visited me at 4.15 this morning to inform me that Andy McCardle
had died suddenly yesterday evening in Carstairs 'hospital'.
Rest in peace Andy.   May you not have died in vain.   May those who caused
your death, directly or indirectly, feel your pain in this life.    May
those who never knew you come to appreciate your struggle to bring the truth
to light, for all our sakes.   Ann"

In order to remind readers of the enormity of this death at the age of 54 we
quote from last week's VOMIT 52.

[[[[One of Mr McCardle's solicitors Yvonne McKenna, claims that she has
written to Chief Executive of Carstairs, Adrianna Adamson, three times
including one letter by recorded delivery requesting documents to enable her
to proceed with Mr McCardle's case.    Adamson has not replied and Mr
McCardle is slowly being converted to a cabbage by Thomson who should be
disciplined by the General Medical Council, which protects the killers in
the medical profession.    In the circumstances McKenna should have applied
to the court for access to the necessary documentation.   Mr. McCardle was
told by Adamson that he could now make unsupervised telephone calls to his
solicitors.     The ward manager countermanded her instructions.   Mr
McCardle's promised computer has not arrived. Mr McCardle has been
unlawfully detained in the Carstairs cesspit since 6 September 2001.    He
has information about notorious criminals acting with policemen, judges and
solicitors in organised crime.    Several solicitors have taken up his case
but have backed off without giving a reason.
Solicitor Yvonne McKenna can be contacted at McKenna Law Partners, 10 Acorn
Court, Glenrothes, Fife KY7 5LZ    Fax 01592 756460 James MacDonald of
Stirling who agreed to be Mr McCardle's Curator ad litem has been visiting
Pakistan.  Steven A Anderson, solicitor based at Sighthill (Fax 0131 442
3344), in spite of his multiple Legal Aid certificates has still done
nothing to secure Mr McCardle's release and compensation.]]]]

On the evening before his death Mr McCardle telephoned us.   He was allowed
an extra call on account of Christmas.    We told him about our 'cabbage'
statement.    Mr McCardle agreed that Thompson could be injecting an unknown
substance, which could kill him.    He had stated repeatedly that the only
way he would be allowed to leave the Carstairs State Hospital would be in a
box.   On 26 December he was upbeat with no signs of distress.    He said
that Adamson had told him that she had sent the documents to McKenna but
they must have been lost in the post and that she had sent another set of
documents.   We joked about the outrageous stupidity of Adamson and we
suggested that an AK45 was called for.   Mr McCardle corrected us saying
that we meant and AK 47 and (laughingly) said that he could use one. Our
telephone is now being used to warn us to keep quiet by buzzing us every
time we deal with the McCardle scandal.   See VOMIT 52 04 for further
information on Cullen, Dunblane and Crichton.

On 29 December 2002 -yes! 2002 - we circulated a copy of Mr McCardle's
letter dated 19 December 2002 in which he wrote "I don't expect to last much
longer" and "I don't have much faith in Andersons,  Sols., Unit 6, Sighthill
Centre, Sighthill, Edinburgh EH11 4AN.   Tel. No. 0131-442-2244." We added a
note, which said, "Andrew is lucky to be alive.   He may receive treatment,
which will turn him into a zombie with no memory recall.    His is a classic
case of Masonic corruption and the measures taken to stop exposure."  End.

We have always noticed that Christmas is a very dangerous time for any
person who the British State have targeted to destroy, example:  1) Mr.
McCardle lost his life on 26 December 2004.  2) The above letter of 19
December 2002 where Mr. McCardle states, "I don't expect to last much
longer".  3)  On 19 December 2000 I had to run for my life at Northwick Park
Hospital.  Note the 19 December on both cases.  4)  On 6 December 1996
I was fraudulently bankrupted.  5)  On 21 December 1998 I was robbed of my
home by the Inland Revenue who were in collusion with the High Court to
manufacture the necessary fraudulent High Court Orders:


As the attached Dr Alix Lewis document demonstrates: I had a close shave
with death myself on 19 December 2000, in exactly the same way that Mr.
McCardle was murdered.  Dr Alex Lewis was working with the authorities and
members of my family, behind my back, to entrap and incarcerate me in Pond
Ward at Central Middlesex Hospital.  I foresaw the outcome, which helped me
to generate speeds far in excess of Lynford Christie's best, across the
grounds of Northwick Park Hospital, while the transport was on its way to
cart me off to Pond Ward to be medically murdered.   Please see Phillip
Inman's three-page report in The Guardian, Jobs & Money of 10 May 2003, for
the evidence of why I was to be murdered in Pond Ward.  We now have the
evidence that Pond Ward and Carstairs State Hospital are state murder
chambers to medically dispose of whistleblowers exposing corruption and
persons whose face, or ethnic origins doesn't fit:

Do you know that the police in the UK hold a SECRET Irish blacklist?  See
The Times of 20 December 2003 for the evidence of this Irish oppression.
Where are the Irish: Psychiatrists, Doctors, Solicitors, MPs, Judges and
Businesses in the High Streets of the UK, etc, because of this RACIST
oppressive corruption?    How can you give credence to a Police Force who
are involved in the genocide of an ethnic community?

Do you know that, Billy Tracey, the Yorkshire Ripper is still walking the
Streets of England a free man, due to a mammoth Police and MEDIA cover-up?
Tony Holland and Noel O'Gara have the evidence of this.  I will deal with
the Real Ripper later in my correspondence.  Why won't the Sun Newspaper
cover this story?

SOCIETY"?  Hence the reason why over 500 Firms of Solicitors refused to take
on my case against the Inland Revenue, and the endemic corruption in the UK.
Was the regime in Iraq under Saddam Hussein as bad as this?  End.


Please see the attached document, "Mhijn Ashok - Victim of Endemic
Corruption in the UK".  Mr. Mahajan has 18 years + experience of endemic
corruption in the UK under his belt:  What chance would this gentleman have
with your delusional beliefs, Dr Thomson?  End.


Please see the attached document, "Yolande, Lauren & Tom, Little Caring
Farm".  What chance would this persecuted family have with your delusional
beliefs, Dr Thomson?  Would you 'remedy' the corruption here also with your
syringe?  End.


Please see the two attached documents, "Norman Scarth - Oldest Prisoner in
Britain" and "From Norman Scarth to The Registrar The European Court of
Human Rights".  79-year-old Norman Scarth is in jail to stop him exposing
the endemic corruption in the UK.  Nurses have refused to carry out their
superiors orders to DRUG Mr. Scarth - good for them, it is the start PG of
the Nazi mentality being broke in the UK: "I was only carrying out orders".
It was the Police who (only carried out orders) battered and kicked Norman
Scarth who was 74 at the time; the Crown then swung it by the Police and
Bailiffs perjuring themselves in court, assisted by 'Judge' Bentley -  and
Norman Scarth round up getting 10 years in jail:  Yes Dr Thomson, this is
the madness of the British 'Justice' System.

Who said the Nazis were kept from our shores; would you not find a Hitler in
every court in the UK?    Kerry MacGill who was the Solicitor at Lumb &
Kenningham, who did the deal with Peter Sutcliffe; was elevated to Crown
Court Judge in Leeds and Bradford for leaving the real Yorkshire Ripper,
Billy Tracey, to prowl the streets a free man.  Psychiatrist Dr. Thomson, I
suppose Billy Tracey, himself, would be the only person capable to bend your
mind around this with his lump hammer, and three-corner file:  And fix your
delusional beliefs forever?  End:


Please see the two attached documents and websites, "Noel O'Gara - Judge
Kerry MacGill" and Tony Holland, "How to corrupt a UK Police Officer. CI
Surjeet Manku".    Noel O'Gara Author of The Real Yorkshire Ripper  :

Was Tony Holland the last man to be transported to Australia - 1982?  Where
is The Sun Newspaper on this ONE?  Is The Sun also waiting for Tony Holland
to die before they start spewing crap about him?


Dr Lindsay Thomson, why did you hold a 'care review' on 25 November 2004 to
assess the effect of forcibly injected anti-psychotic drugs on Mr.
McCardle's long-held 'delusional belief''?  What was the outcome of your
'caring review' treatment?  Murder!  Dr Thomson, you had Mr. McCardle
illegally incarcerated in Carstairs State Hospital:  Are you telling us that
you cannot tell the difference between a madman and a man madly seeking
JUSTICE?  Where are the courts of law, and access to justice in the UK?  I
have been madly seeking justice for 24 years, Tony Holland is madly seeking
justice for 23 years, Ashok Mahajan 18 + years, Yolande, Lauren and Tom
Lindridge who were terrorised and denied justice and Police protection for
years; now have the 'caring' Psychiatric Hit Squad on their trail, Richard
21 years crying out for justice, illegally sectioned in Springfield Hospital
Tooting to stop him claming compensation, Norman Scarth 10 years, Margaret
Brown 25 years, defrauded of property, Jean Hooper 8 years, abducted from
her home by the Psychiatric Hit Squad for reporting her GP to the GMC: He
operates under TWO names; Dr Hazem Anwar Mohamed El-Naghi and Dr Hazem
Lloyd, and is also a Police Surgeon, Colin Peters 20 years, defrauded of his
property, Roger Jones 27 years, defrauded of his property, Margaret Gomm 12
years, defrauded of her property, James Todd 43 years, George Wescott 17
years, fought another running battle with the Psychiatric Hit Squad, Ann
Mallaby 10 years, defrauded of her property, and Sheriff Robert Younger
ordered her to have a Psychiatric Report,  Raymond Fox 7 years, John and
Blanda Masefield 27 years, Pamela Greenslade 11 years and Maurice Kellett 18
years etc, etc:

Dr Thomson, are you open minded enough to see the enormity of the picture
that has emerged here?  With NO access to justice, and you and Dr Alix
Lewis, (Psychiatric Hit Squad) putting this country's 'problems to right'
with your syringes.  Was it the sadism in you and Dr Lewis that attracted
you to this profession in the first instance?  Dr Thomson, you may not like
many of the questions in this correspondence but you will 'fully' understand
that these are pertinent questions now under the circumstances of Mr.
McCardle's sudden death, and his illegal incarceration at Carstairs STATE
Hospital.  Doctor Thomson, what questions would Mr. McCardle be asking you
today if he could talk?  End.


International Men's Organisation and Fathers Fighting Injustice Press


Fellow Citizens

Whistleblower Andy McCardle (RIP) died suddenly on the evening of 26
December 2004, in the State Hospital, Carstairs. An inquest must be held. Mr
McCardle (54) had been in good spirits - he was expecting to attend court
this week to secure his release.

On 5 December 2003, the Edinburgh High Court of Justiciary declared that Mr
McCardle's two-year detention in the State Hospital, from 2001, had been
illegal therefore he was "a free man". His freedom was short-lived, though,
no sooner had he stepped outside the court, when he was forced into a van
and taken back to Carstairs - despite the lack of production of any warrant.
A warrant was later produced, dated 4 December 2003, the day before the
Court's declaration.

Mr McCardle complained to the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman about the
Faculty of Advocates' handling of his complaint against Graham Bell, the
Court-appointed Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) who, although securing
his release, did not present the vital pieces of evidence, which would prove
criminality within the State Hospital. The Faculty stated, and the Ombudsman
agreed, that Mr Bell had properly exercised his discretion (not to do so).
In view of this, Mr McCardle had good reason to fear for his life whilst
incarcerated in a State facility whose employees had vested interests in his
demise, and who felt protected from exposure.

The State Hospital's consultant psychiatrist, Dr Lindsay Thomson, held a
care review on 25 November 2004 to assess the effect of forcibly injected
anti-psychotic drugs on Mr McCardle's long-held 'delusional belief'. Dr
Thomson concluded that this 'delusional belief' - of collusion between
Strathclyde Police, named lawyers, court clerks, judges and psychiatrists to
pervert the course of justice by preventing him testifying in court and
producing evidence of State involvement in the illegal drugs trade - was not
cured. She therefore felt duty-bound to continue to hold and treat Mr
McCardle as long as he held such belief.

Was it co-incidence that the legal watchdog website,, was unlawfully closed after the Parliamentary and
Health Service Ombudsman read the damning evidence, publicly displayed,
about Mr McCardle's illegal detention and criminality within the State
Hospital? Did Andy McCardle pay the ultimate price for his efforts to expose
the endemic corruption in the legal system, the police, the court service,
the medical profession and the judiciary? Was he, in fact, murdered?

Many questions need to be answered.

Contact details for Dr Thomson:

Dr Lindsay Thomson, Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist
The State Hospital
Lanarkshire ML11 8RP

The TRUTH is out there...........

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 9,064
Reply with quote  #24 



We still believe that they should be heard and agree with

Bilko's earlier post and now it is up to them.


Originally Posted by Bilko

Bilko agrees, Give the whistle blowers a shout on the forum.......

where would we be without them! Maybe someone among the ranks

of the boys in blue would like to blow their whistle......and tell of

any misconduct among the rank and

give any police officer reading (and we know you ARE reading) the

chance to do the right thing........Out the corrupt ones now........







Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #25 

Hi Magpie & Hammer6... thanks for excellent posts with regards to 'The Whistle Blowers'. 


Magpie's post on the 'Special Page For Police Officers' was excellently put, and Hammer6's post in relation to the Whistle Blower's News Letter and the horrific case of Arnold McCardle was very sad and extremely disturbing.  There are many questions that do indeed, need answering.  But will anyone be brave enough to answer them?


Admin fully concurs with Admin2's post above.

I'd rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I am not".

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #26 


"Have your say"


No act, not even silence, is without consequences.’

By David Grieve

Ethical dilemmas are the result of principles in conflict, an apt description of what has gripped

many fingerprint examiners in the UK and Scotland. As Pat mentioned, I have presented a

scenario during a discussion of ethics as to what is the right thing to do when an incorrect

conclusion of a latent print is discovered. This discussion is not limited to first discovery, but, as in

the SCRO situation, when the agency that made the error refuses to acknowledge the incorrect

conclusion. I present this as a discussion topic involving the absolutism of the Kantian model,

which I believe is appropriate for fingerprint work, for the consequences of making a latent print

identification can dramatically affect the lives and liberties of others, thus requiring a more rigid set

of values. Approached from the Kantian model, all examiners have a duty toward others where

strict adherence to the highest standards is an imperative. The duty toward others, especially in the

realm of justice, demands imposed standards, not voluntary compliance to personal values. When

presented with injustice, the examiner has the moral and legal obligation to do all that is possible to

right the wrong. The mechanism for doing so is what Kant called the greatest asset of the human

existence, the exercise of free will. No one, according to Kant, is predestined to do good or evil,

participate or ignore, to be moral or immoral. Free will is the execution of choice in how we act or

react, what we stand for or against, what values we cherish, and how we conduct our lives.

Kant warned that ends never justify means, but the apparent climate within Scotland, specifically

within law enforcement, the fingerprint service and, to a large degree, the government itself, ignores

this axiom. Those who subscribe to the fallacy that injustice is a necessary evil to achieve justice

fool no one. Years ago, I was informed that ethics are caught, not taught, and the actions, or rather

inactions, of major public institutions seem to verify this perspective. Entities that have not

established and enforce ethical standards only promote a lack of ethics in their staff, and there

appears to be no shortage of these. The statements of SCRO, Strathclyde Police and,

unfortunately, the majority government, are reactive, not proactive, meanderings with no consistent

core value. What is offered as pragmatism is in reality cheap rationalization that allows wrong to

continue. Studies into debacles such as Enron demonstrate that a lack of ethics at the top

invariably promotes even more horrendous violations of good conduct along the chain of command.

To get along one must go along, and some people respond to this with exceptional zeal.

The appeal of unethical behavior is that it is frequently easier to execute than doing the right thing.

It really takes little courage to lie, to steal, to deny, to ridicule, to stonewall, to threaten, to cajole, to

browbeat, and to cultivate an atmosphere of fear. Perhaps there is a little bit of bully in all of us, but

some people seem to relish subjugating and humiliating others, perhaps as pay back from some

school yard incident long ago. Reading Mr. Russell’s letter caused me to wonder who took his

lunch money from him when he was a kid. But as Kant stressed, even the biggest bully can take

away another’s free will. The individual who surrenders to unprincipled or unethical demands gives

away that precious gift, perhaps with some reluctance at first, but with repeated abdication, the

yielding of free will becomes easier and easier until there is no will left. And that is the tragedy of

this sordid mess.

I believe there are very few, if any, examiners in the UK who have not viewed the SCRO erroneous

identifications and have formed their own conclusions. Something of this notoriety so deeply

affecting the profession serves as a magnet to be observed and determined individually. The room

was packed in St. Louis to see the Mayfield presentation, a natural and normal response to an

admission of error. The fact the SCRO has never retracted their identifications of Shirley and David

Asbury, adds to the intrigue, and with the images readily available to examine at for years,

no examiner worth his or her salt would have missed checking to see what was the fuss. Therefore,

the silence among the fingerprint community within England, Wales and Scotland is not from

ignorance of the matter but a deliberate decision, one counter to the duty towards others imperative

of Kant. I cannot believe that all Scots, English and Welsh examiners would independently exercise

their free will to remain mute about the matter, for this has not occurred elsewhere in the world.

Therefore, the only alternative is that this silence has been imposed on them by others, that

examiners have faced the conflict of following the imperative or facing punishment or discharge,

and therefore free will has been surrendered. The examples of Allan Bayle and the Lothian and

Borders 14 support this determination, and I, too, have been contacted confidentially about this

deplorable situation. But the distinction must be made that as offensive as bullying may be, victims

of such tactics are willing participants.

Whistleblower laws are designed for situations such as this, when those in authority misuse public

trust, when unethical conduct is condoned or even encouraged, and when retaliation is the

anticipated result of someone bringing unethical behavior to the attention of management. The

need for such protection reveals just how prevalent unethical conduct has become, even among

agencies that exist to protect the public, but, instead, develop a “them versus us” mentality.

Discipline is maintained by a system of brutality and punishment, teamwork is limited to agreeing

with those in charge, and input is confined to an inner circle. However, those bent on silencing

dissent do more than abuse authority. In addition to the tactics of threats and intimidation, an

attempt will be made to neutralize the ethical conflict with five statements so often repeated that

they become more messages from the pulpit than anything resembling true information. There is

no surprise that all five neutralizers have been uttered by SCRO, both officially and in hallways, and

these are the strongest indication that the wrongdoing is, indeed, intentional.

First is the denial of responsibility, such as the absurd contention that SCRO got it right all along.

The concept of “sides” was not an original thought posted by Dave Charlton, but has been the main

thrust of SCRO since the beginning and led to the ridiculous statement that matters of “opinion”

have no right or wrong. As mentioned on CLPEX, the denial of responsibility now includes some

magical “key” to getting started in this comparison of the mark to Shirley’s left thumb print, some

mystical sorcerer’s stone that empowers the ridge features to transform into agreement. I testified

that trying to find agreement between the two impressions is like comparing a horse to a giraffe.

Any commonality is artificial, and, in the end, one is still a horse and the other is a giraffe.

Second is the denial of injury, and I have heard this one often repeated in the refusal of professional

organizations to get involved. Shirley was acquitted, thus she was not harmed. Asbury was

released from prison and not charged again. To further enhance the contention there was no injury,

the guilt of Shirley and David are still whispered regardless of a lack of evidence. Shirley managed

to outwit the entire Strathclyde Police Force as she circumvented the integrity of the crime scene

and entered the Ross home for lurid reasons. How else would her thumb print be there? As to

David Asbury, there are those who have commented on his guilt as the rationalization as to why the

Ross case has not been reopened. In short, no one was hurt except, of course, Marion Ross.

Third is the denial of a victim, and in this pursuit, Shirley is portrayed as a scheming shrew who is

only in this for the money and she was from the beginning. This was offered as the explanation

why the topic was removed from the IAI Board of Directors agenda. Asbury now can be explained

in the same light, as if anyone in his right mind would devise a plan that involved willingly being sent

to prison for some eventual payday. Mr. Russell went to great pains to repeat this assertion, that

there are no victims and any compensation for an injury that did not occur would be a travesty.

Fourth is condemnation of the condemners, and Mr. Russell is not alone in his spraying of venom.

During these six years, Pat Wertheim and I have gone from being cowboys, untrained at that, to

now being Internet experts, joined by many others throughout the world who have spoken out.

According to Mr. Russell, we cannot hold a candle to the folks from SCRO, or more condemning,

aren’t worthy of cleaning their toilets. But the most insidious part of the campaign to neutralize the

conflict is the final step, the appeal to higher loyalties. Our loyalty is requested because an agency

knowing its work will be independently reviewed did flawless work putting bad guys away. I agree

that independent review would have detected incompetence, but this review was not designed to

discover deliberate action. Nevertheless, I am amazed at how effective this neutralizer has been.

Sub-judice demands silence, the good of the profession requires no comment, or, what was used

on me, the need to avoid embarrassing a “sister agency.” Well, those who run SCRO are no

professional relatives of mine, nor are they related to any conscientious examiner. This righteous

stand may have been used often, but the appeal is hollow. No appeal to higher loyalty asks one to

be dishonest, no loyalty demands silence about wrongdoing as a means of protecting the

profession, and no decision to hold the next Society meeting in Scotland is an altruistic gesture to

the nobility of education.

Taken one at a time, these neutralizers may be accepted with just a small amount of gullibility as

justification to remain silent. However, when observed as a package, the combined statements

form the complete defensive cycle of classic denial. They also represent an emptiness of moral

value within a system that has no provision for the importance of ethics, let alone truth or justice.

Iain McKie ponders the role of the whistle blower and whether those breaking ranks with the status

quo would make a difference. The answer is an emphatic yes. The anathema to moral decay and

corruption is the whistle blower, the person who makes the conscious decision that continuing loss

of free will is too high a price to pay and summons what is left of the valuable commodity to speak

out. Whistle blowing is so feared by those who have abandoned principles and values that any

means will be used to deter the first person from speaking up. Retaliation will undoubtedly occur,

especially with a lone voice, but such tactics cannot prevail indefinitely. Fred Whitehurst spoke out

about certain FBI practices eventually prevailed, although it was an arduous task, and received full

retirement along with a most generous settlement. More important, Fred’s whistle blowing caused

much needed reform that has been beneficial to all. A contrast of how the FBI handled previous

instances of wrongdoing with the Mayfield case is an example of how one person can make a


Ethical conflict does have a method for inquiry. The model I use contains four steps: (1) determine

the facts; (2) decide which principles involved are authoritative; (3) ensure that the identified

principles truly apply to the situation; and (4) ascertain one’s own mind. As I am frequently

informed, the first step is perhaps the most difficult, for isolating fact from rumor and innuendo

requires objectivity just as demanding as doing latent print examinations. Yet without that

objectivity, neither can be done with reliability. One fact must be considered before the process

begins. No act, not even silence, is without consequences.

David Grieve

"Have your say"


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,165
Reply with quote  #27 

Hi Magpie... thanks for your excellent post with regards to 'The Whistle Blowers', and the fantastic links to 'have your say' with the Iain McKie, father of Shirley McKie. 


I thought that the article you included was very good, and agree fully with the moving statement, that 'every act, even one of silence, has it's consequences'.  How very true.


Great post

I'd rather be hated for what I am, than loved for what I am not".

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #28 

28 April 2006
For Immediate Release

IPCC Response to

Channel 4 Dispatches

Programme on Leicestershire


Following the broadcast of the Channel 4 Dispatches

programme 'Undercover Copper' the Independent Police

Complaints Commission (IPCC) has released the following

statement by John Crawley, IPCC Commissioner:


"The incidents and attitudes shown in the Channel 4

Dispatches programme and the issues they raise are

matters that have the potential to undermine public

confidence in Leicestershire Constabulary and could

equally damage the police service as a whole if not

addressed robustly and openly. For this reason the

Commission had already ahead of tonight's broadcast

met the Deputy Chief Constable to discuss the next

steps necessary to investigate specific incidents and

allegations involving serious misconduct. Having now

seen the programme I can confirm that we will be

overseeing investigation of the most serious allegations

including failure to take rape complaints seriously, officer

involvement in illegal pornography and the incidents of gross

dereliction of duty. We will agree the detail of our involvement

with the force in the next few days and make a further

announcement then.


We welcome the fact that the Chief Constable has already

committed himself to action on behalf of the people of

Leicestershire. It is equally important that dedicated

Leicestershire officers are supported in ensuring that

the sexism and shocking antics displayed tonight have

no place in a modern police service. The public will want

to know not just that the specific allegations are dealt

with but that this kind of behaviour is untypical of the force

and that the force's management is confidently able to offer

that assurance. The Commission has an overarching responsibility

for strengthening public confidence in the police service; we will

be taking an active interest in how the Chief Constable's plans

come to fruition."


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 9,064
Reply with quote  #29 


Police Woman Undercover Copper
Dispatches goes undercover to examine the hidden face of policing today. More


Welcome to theIndependent PoliceComplaintsCommission

The IPCC's job is to make sure that complaints against the police

are dealt with effectively.

We set standards for the way the police handle complaints and,

when something has gone wrong, we help the police learn lessons

and improve the way they work.



For members of the public. All the information you need about
making a complaint against the police.


For members of the police service. All the information you need
to deal with complaints, and what to do if you are the subject of a
complaint. (Cover your Own Ass First!) 

IPCC Resources

This section holds IPCC reports, guidelines, research and other
useful information.

IPCC Statutory Guidance

An Interactive Version of the IPCC’s Statutory Guidance -
Making the new complaints system work better for police forces,
has been launched.
See the Police section for more information

Latest press releases

04 May 2006
The IPCC has announced today that it will carry out an independent investigation...

4 May 2006
The IPCC has today confirmed early indications from their enquiry show
it will not be referring...

3 May 2006
The IPCC is to conduct a managed investigation into the actions
of Leicestershire Police Officers...


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 257
Reply with quote  #30 

The case of Carol Lingard is the latest example of

what can happen when whistleblowers' revelations damage

their careers even though legislation to protect them

has been in existence for six years.


Her employment tribunal hearing was told Mrs

Lingard was treated as a "grass" after reporting

claims that prisoners were being bullied at Wakefield

high-security jail.


Prison Service director general Phil Wheatley has

since apologised to her and acknowledged that

the Professional Standards Unit.


(PSU)established by whistle-blowing

legislation and his deputy all failed to deal

properly with her allegations.



introducedin 1999 to give

greaterprotection to whistleblowers.


It was designed to encourage people to raise concerns

about alleged malpractice in the workplace.


It also aims to ensure that organisations respond by

addressing the message, rather than the messenger,

while resisting the temptation to cover-up any

malpractice that might exist.


By oldbill.

This & That
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.