Record the complaint, under a heading, which is not related to the real complaint.
Don’t take into account the details of the complaint.
Don’t record the details of the complaint.
Don’t record the incident dates referred to, in the complaint.
Refer only to any previous complaint and the date of that complaint.
Misrepresent the facts of the previous complaint.
Officially: deal with the complaint as if, there were no need to record the complaint
as in (Regulation 5, (2), section (b) of the Police, (Complaints and Misconduct)
Regulation 2012.): e.g.. “The matter is already the subject of a complaint made
by or on behalf of the same complainant.”
9. Officially: record the reason for the disapplication as in, (Regulation 5, (2),
section (a) of the Police, (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulation 2012.). e.g..
Regulation 5, (2), section (a) “more than 12 months have elapsed between the incident,
or the latest incident, giving rise to the complaint and the making of the complaint
and either that no good reason for the delay has been shown or that injustice would
be likely to be caused by the delay”
10. Make a application to the IOPC to disapply the currant complaint on the Ground
that “More than 12 months have elapsed between the incident and the making of the
Quote from Mr Steve (x) “The matters of complaint related to concerns raised initially
in 2012 and then subsequently in 2014. Parts of this complaint were investigated
and you were provided with an outcome at the time. You now raise complaints about
matters, which again occurred in 2014.”
Quote from Mr Steve (x) “Following my assessment of your complaint, I believe that
it does not need any more investigation because it is Out Of Time (OOT).”
In the recording of the said complaint, Mr Steve (x) of the Police standard:
1. Failed to record the correct date of the complaint.
6. Failed to record the fact that, the complainant is alleging that, Helen Mackay
of Tiffany & co, an ex-military police officer, was enlisted by the metropolitan
police to provide a false witness statement, on the 5th September 2016, in an attempt
to try and stop an application notice, make by the complainant, to strike out the
metropolitan police’s defence.
7. Failed to record the fact that, the complainant is alleging that the following
police officers and staff members supplied material evidence that was used to procure
a court Judgement by fraudulent means.
M.H Wood from the Paddington Green Police Station :
Incident date - 27-5-2014 to the 9-1-2017.
2. DS Brendan Gibbs – 195682- from the Paddington Green Police Station:
Incident date - about -10-6-2014 to the 9-1-2017.
3. PC 1422CW –M.Humphrey- from the Paddington Green Police Station :
Incident date, about - 18-6-2015 to the 9-1-2017.
4. PC 1183CW H. Whyte from the Belgravia or the Paddington Green Police Station
-Incident date, about - 18-6-2015 to the 9-1-2017.
5. PC AD Watts 190715- from the Paddington Green Police Station: :
Incident date -18-6-2015 to the 9-1-2017.
6. Directorate of Legal Service –about January 2016 to 9th January 2017.
7. Not a member of the police force but colluded with the above individuals to commit
fraud in court. Helen Mackay of Tiffany & Co the European Director of Security -
5th September 2016 to the 9th January 2017.
THE SHAMEFUL AND DISGUSTING BEHAVIOR OF THE IOPC. :
The magical tricks of Emma (x) of the IOPC, who wilfully and/or otherwise, misinterpret
the IOPC Statutory Guidance, on the issue of Grounds for disapplication. In favour
of the (MPS) Metropolitan Police Service.
“ According to Statutory Guidance a complaint which is assessed as being “out of
time “ is one which has been made after 12 months giving rise to the original incident
and there being no good reason provided for the delay.”
Comment: Emma (x)’s interpretation of the law, is totally wrong, she appears to be
making up her own version of the law.
The Statutory Guidance she refers to is in effect:
Regulation 5, (2), section (a) of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations
2012“more than 12 months have elapsed between the incident, or the latest incident,giving rise to the complaint and the making of the complaint and either that no good
reason for the delay”
Emma (x) of the IOPC wilfully and/or otherwise failed to take into account the rules,
in regards to a chain of events. Statutory Guidance Notes: “12 months have passed
between the incident (or the latest incident in a chain of events) and the making
of the complaint.
In so doing she failed to follow the construction ofthe Police Reform act 2002,the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012 and the Independent Police
Complaints Commission Statutory Guidance.
She appears to replicate the decision and reasoning of Mr. Steve (x) of the Police
standard, in her decision to disapply my complaint.
She acts as if, she was unawareof the true nature of my complaint, in regards to
fraud in the civil court.
Comments: My complaint to the IOPC fell into the category of a chain of events,
of wrong doing by the Metropolitan Police.
From the point of, illegally placing my image on the Met Police Most wanted Poster,
Continued, when I made a complaint to the then (IPCC) Independent Police Complaint
Further continued, when I started the court proceedings and throughout the court
proceedings, upon till, the interim Hearing on the 9th January 2017.
Evidence supplied to the Police Standard and the IOPC, in the process of the complaint
and the Appeal. Which they wilfully and/or otherwise turned a blinded eye to.
Mr Steve (x) of the Police Standard, wilfully and/or otherwise, disregarded the present
complaint and inappropriately misapply, the disapplication rule, in regards to (Regulation
5, (2), section (a) of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulation 2012.) “More
than 12 months have elapsed between the incident, or the latest incident, giving
rise to the complaint and the making of the complaint.”
End analysis: Together, the IOPC and MPS showed total disregard, toward the complainant
and the Police Complaint Procedures. It appears that, people like me, will not be
treated fairly and/or equally, no matter what the law Say’s.
It appears that, the IOPC and MPS, has an unwritten rule, that people like me, must
turn to the courts, in order to obtain the benefits of what is written in Law.
What surprise me, are the blatant disregard and the apparent racism, toward people
like me, within the system.
If it where not for the Internet, my story would be hidden, if there were no court
proceedings, I would have, no evidence of wrongdoing.
I can only imagine, what travesty of injustice went on in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s,
in regards to people like me.
We are in the 21st Century and change must happen. What is written in law, we as
people, regardless of colour or creed, must receive the benefits of these laws, without
fear of injustice, being dispensed upon us, by the establishment