18/10/2020
The latest -
Independent Office for Police Conduct
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
Professional Standards Department,
South Wales Police Headquarters,
Cowbridge Road,
Bridgend CF31 3SU
18-Oct-20
Reference - CO/01341/20
Dear Sirs ,
Principle issue - The letter from the dated 16 October 2020, (see Annexure 3 )from Professional standards Department states that “By way of managing expectations, this has not been assessed as a matter which may lead to a member of South Wales Police facing conduct proceedings, but that there may be issues of learning or performance which could require reflection and remedy. This will be kept under review as your issues are explored.”
That is not acceptable under the circumstances – that is why this appeal is made to the IOPC against the very wording as above. I the victim want a full investigation with a completely different team of officers from a different police station and a complete blanket security against any officers at present able to access the details.
And there shall be conduct proceedings.
Personal notes and observations
I am in receipt of your letter dated 16 October 2020, and in response I do want to raise some points in order to show my trust in the ability of the Professional standards to reflect and commit to bring change by virtue of internal affairs.
I have doubts and there is good reason and evidentially so .
Therefore at the outset I would like to let you know that in my life experience a lot of it comes from my own personal experience in handling public administration and civil administration on top dealing with organizational parochial self interests in various departments of governments charged with deliverance of ‘equity’ in a manner to interpret the law in line with jurisprudence . Of course I am an ex pat of Republic of India and that is a far more versatile experience , and there are people like me in a very eite numbers who affect those changes which has seen that nation after its freedom from the British colonial regime. I was indeed born right in the middle of state business , my grandfather being a civil servant in the Colonial eras and my own father being in Military intelligence , Indian Armed forces , I myself was duly attached to the internal affairs of the home department to afflict co ordination in order to eliminate obstacles to the constitutional legitimacy , The republic of India thankfully does have one and in that it did not follow the British but France , though discarded the French system in its legislative retaining the British model there in , simply due to the corruption that follows in by the notion of the French legislative which allows unaccountable power to the Monsignor le president’s ‘Presidential entourage’ . The republic also therefore rejected the American model due the illegitimacy of accountability of the ‘Electoral college votes’ whilst the Congress is set by rather of a ‘horse trading’ a prime element which is devoid of the very accountability that ‘democracy’ seeks to establish.
That said all is not perfect unless, we (people / citizens) make it so, neither here nor there , the primary factor is recourse and adherence to disgruntlement and a constant flux of change, whilst ensuring not trying to mend that is not already broken. State exists for the people not the other way round. And there can be no democracy without Egalitarian state, unless the fall of Egypt, Rome, N**i Germany, Bolshevik Russia or the British empire is ignored …that being the caveat.
Happens all the time.
I like what is achieved in the Republic of India in a relative short period of time and the path is set which is good, with some challenges which are inevitable in a landmass 27 times that of the British islands and 16 times the population size, now I am equally disappointed that it is to the contrary here, which seems quite foolish.
That said there is hope, that is the only way one can think given the circumstances.
Frankly I am not quite oblivious of the socio political flux or the current palaver of ‘take control back’, and I know that the approach in legislative is constantly tilting with a vacuum of political resistance towards what the Harvard law school defined as ‘critical race theory’ . Please Google it, it’s very enlightening.
And do, or else the perspective will be marred due to close proximity of the observation, everything tends to blur whether you are standing too close or too far from the observation point. That is simple physics.
Now I will describe what is problematic step by step –
1. Prologue
1.1 Firstly, let us remind ourselves the Police department is required to investigate one the First information report is lodged, collect statements as per the report, log it , and during which follow the steps of inquiry process and evidence gathering diligently , without prejudice and bias , then submit the findings to CPS to ascertain whether it is either way or indictable only offence . or whether it is civil offence or a criminal one at that either. Complainant then has a chance to challenge the CPS on the merits of the decision accessing the investigation evidence via a judicial review.
1.2 It is not an option for any investigating officers to cherry pick what they will or will not do whilst the inquiry sought is specifically requiring them to focus and check the details and collect legitimate witnesses. That is paramount in following PACE 1984. Or to subvert their duty by throttling and misleading the complainant of Police powers and or duty or to ally with the perpetrator in doing so, whilst investigation is not even carried out diligently guided by the First information report and the statement of the victim, no matter whether or not the state machinery, or the secretary of state himself or herself is the perpetrator , again I remind the statue in regard Entick v Carrington and ors [1765] KB.
1.3 Secondly, please note once criminal damage is occured it has to be treated like so no matter how the breach of civil dispute led to the act of criminal damage. The causation does not render the Actus reus negligible but reinforces the mens rea instead. State is limited in its powers to exercise absolute power post Glorious revolution. The leading case in this regard is Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98.
1.4 No part of the Allotments Act 1950 as enacted , absolves any public authority to follow 'fairness of process' i.e guaranteed under Article 6 of the HRA, or 'express communication' or thereby to cook up evidences in prejudice in constructive discrmination, to exercise the powers of judiciary without a demolition order or deem any applications merit by simply declaring it 'unauthorized' without citing exact reasons in detail, and are in fact not able to deem it 'unauthorized unless they can categorically prove that the structure is more than the stipulated and is implemented all over the allotment plot holders ( so to say law cannot be applied to certain segments or retrospectively ) .
1.5 The Act also does not authorize the perpetrators herein case TA, and the CCC to have demolition enacted prior to a termination notice issued validated by a court order when it is challenged.
1.6 Let alone conduct theft of considerable amount of property post or pre-demolition.
2. Subject Access request - GDPR 2016
2.2 This substantial complaint now requires at this stage all the evidences that are supplied herewith to be considered and for a enhanced GDPR 2016 disclosure is now immediately sought in regard to the Incident reference – 2000339 360 and conjoined 2000 339695 consisting.
a. List of all the Calls made in regard to the Crime reference number . Chronologically from 16th September 2020 till date. With details of the officers rank , station and badge number in chronological date and time order.
b. All electronic and or transcript, hand written notes, by any officer having access to the records or any editing therein in chronological date and time order. .
c. List of all officers who have logged in to view , edit , the internal record keeping system till date in chronological date and time order.
d. Any or all body cam recordings made by any officer attending the premises of Victim.
e. All data that the professional standard department has access to at the moment of this request being made and disclosures of all officers having accessed the data in chronological date and time order, in the professional standard department.
3. List of officer’s complaints is made against -
a. DS Darren Chandler 1812
b. PC Syke 6534 and PC. Maththew Burke 6534
c. PC Carvell White 5695 – Dispute resolution team.
4. Complaint in reverse chronology date order –
4.1) PC Carvell White 5695 – Dispute resolution team. –
I spoke to the above named officer on 14/10/20 , at 1400 hours who failed to give his rank and department at the outset. Upon asking I was surprised he was merely a constable and was calling me in regard to an complaint I had made about DS Chandler 1812 .
Well I entered into speaking to him regardless and upon trying to explain to him the above reasons in Section 2 of this document he retorted ‘It is merely my opinion’ and the “matter will not even go to the CPS’ and that nothing wrong was done, and insisted the matter was ‘civil dispute’ .
Once I challenged him on that and beseeched the evidences in my statement ( see Annexure 1) he appeared to interject and counter accuse me I was putting word in his mouth and recanted that he said ‘It is merely my opinion’ and the “matter will not even go to the CPS’ and that nothing wrong was done, and insisted the matter was ‘civil dispute’
It seemed he was advocating DS chandler than taking my grievance and had already made up his mind and although claimed to have seen the paperwork he clearly had no wish to discuss the legitimacy.
That is unacceptable behavior , it seemed like he was deliberately watering down the evidences and legitimacy of the complaint itself and had no wish to adhere.
He was seemingly attempting to bully me into submission of some sort to accept his version of interpretation.
I am therefore not surprised that the letter from the professional standards body is so unchangingly worded – ““By way of managing expectations, this has not been assessed as a matter which may lead to a member of South Wales Police facing conduct proceedings, but that there may be issues of learning or performance which could require reflection and remedy. This will be kept under review as your issues are explored.”
To my mind whether such officers who have no legal knowledge are involved in lower level negotiations it is not surprising that they become victims of organizational parochial self interest and hence a part of the nepotistic approach.
This must be brought to official investigation. These calls need be recorded if it is not there already and I am prepared to testify, with another witness present who had overheard the conversation on speakerphone. Of course I have required that in my GDPR 2016 in section 3 above among other requirements.
This must be brought to official investigation.
4.2) PC Syke 6534 – Please see my comments in regard to PC Sykes , in my email to Anthony Hughes , station head of LLanishen Police station in Cardiff on Tuesday 22 Sep2020 at 23.24 hours , see Annexure 2.
Further more on 9th Oct 2020, PC Syke 6534, he appeared on this occasion to be running a body cam , and attempted to create confusion or contradictory statements from me the victim whilst he was well aware the written statement properly constituted was already submitted as his own was below standard and incoherent to what was reported to PC. Maththew Burke 6534. Copied to public service centre and sent to PC Anthony Hughes . A clear Attempt of entrapment.
As yet he is not relieved of the position and investigation rights is a farce ,
This conduct must be brought to official investigation.
4.3 ) DS Darren Chandler 1812 - After PC Sykes presented himself on the first occasion trying to get a sign on a incompetently prepared statement. On or about 27/09/2020, in a rebound meeting with DS Chandler 1812 on 06/10/2020 a delayed meeting about 5 pm instead of 11 am as was supposed to be when he promised certain actions, as prescribed in my counter email Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 13:00 , he called me on Monday 12th Oct itself at about 2 pm and hotly contested the issues raised and refused to look into the evidence and tried to ‘advise’ ( he is neither legally trained nor he is a member of the CPS) me on the matter being civil only and when I asked him to provide his assimilation in writing and justify his decision in light of the statement I made with evidence ( annexure 1) , he refused to give anything in writing.
It was clear he was suppressing the very context of the case being filed as such ‘criminal damage’ simply because he has spoken to Celia Hart the Officer in charge from the Port and park authority of the Council, and failed to take evidences in regard .
Frankly that – a) that No part of the Allotment Act 1950 allows any public authority to depoart from ‘fairness of process’ and conduct a demolition.
b) The demolition took place on 16th Sep 2020 at 10 am well before 12.20 email which notified me the victim at 1545 hours that such termination has been issued and demolition will be on card , upon which I issued the council a cease and desist notice immediately along with a NIP.
c) that Council violated their own bylaw by committing theft of the property as listed , and not following fairness of process by never ever issuing any solid reasons why any structure was deemed out of bounds whilst no inspection to update any other issues were carried out to determine appropriateness between 18th Aug and 16th sep 2020 when the arbitrary demolition without a court order was carried out.
d) Nor there was or is any evidence that the council refrained upon my NIP and ‘Cease and desist notice’ since the demolition and theft were already carried out at 10 am onwards on 16th Sep 2020.
Thus making the matter nothing but a criminal damage by a public authority , which was being gagged and covered up by DS chandler 1812 .
That being so he was certainly perverting the course of justice and he has of course taken all junior officers including the professional standards division into his ambit of ‘parochial self-interest’.
I therefore accuse the south wales police of nepotistic malpractice and therefore demand a full investigation from the impartial police force based elsewhere than Wales and no officer less than a chief constable to approach the matter.
The evidences must be presented to CPS after such criminal investigation who will be authorized to make a decision which I may deem suited to challenge whether the remedy do not come forth from the criminal damage as suffered.
I also will seek compensation for this ill treatment in regard from the South wales police department for the suffrage of mistreatment , and perjury to the course of justice. And am in position to approach the judiciary for any decision contrary to legitimate expectation as guaranteed under the Statue from Entick v Carrington [1765] EWHC KB J98. And pursuant to Article 6, 14 and Part II First protocal of the HRA 1998 , read in together with section 3.1) of the same Act .
Mr. K Dev .73 Doe close, Penylan,( off Colchester avenue )
Cardiff. CF23 9HJ MOBILE-0044-(0)7514813863,
Please find Attached
Annexure 1
a) 21 09 2020 Victim statement
b) 16 09 2020 Evidences of criminal damage annexures.
Annexure 2
a) 22 09 20 Email to PC Hughes
b) 28 09 2020 Email from Det Sgt Chandler
c) 30 09 2020 Email to DET sgt Chandler
Annexure 3
a) Annexure 3 INITIAL TO COMPLAINANT 2020 -- BCU Flexible Approach-614
