Incredible emails from Mathew Johnson at the IPCC - date order is top down

Friday 26th Sept, from MJ:

Dear Mr Belchamber,

Thank you for your emails received earlier this week.

I am sorry, but not surprised, that you find my decision unhelpful; as I said in the assessment, the complaints process, which is about misconduct and resulting disciplinary action (in this case in respect of the former Chief Constable only), is not suited to addressing the matters you raise. I appreciate that you feel there is a reluctance to look at your evidence and provide a straight response however I am confined by law as to what matters I can make decisions on. In this case, given that the Chief Constable is no longer serving, I considered 1) Whether the investigation by the Hampshire Constabulary on behalf of the Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner was appropriate and came to the correct findings and 2) whether, if the former Chief Constable was still serving, would he have a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct. On the evidence before me I considered that the findings were correct – there was no evidence of misconduct by the Chief Constable – and hence he would not have had a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct.

I can confirm that the formal appeal decision you have received is the final position of the IPCC and that any challenge to that must be by way of judicial review.

Thanks for your reply.  

I am not sure if you will be interested but my action will continue and your response below and my comments which I will insert as below will be a part of it.

The absurdity of your reply further consolidates my belief and determination to expose this fraud and cover up.

I am sorry, but not surprised, that you find my decision unhelpful; as I said in the assessment, the complaints process, which is about misconduct and resulting disciplinary action (in this case in respect of the former Chief constable only), is not suited to addressing the matters you raise.

So you seem to be suggesting that allowing obtaining money by false pretences, breach of duty of care significant in at least one death, corruption and fraud do not amount to misconduct - ridiculous

I appreciate that you feel there is a reluctance to look at your evidence and provide a straight response however I am confined by law as to what matters I can make decisions on.

My response to your decision points out inconsistencies, bias and refusal to face the facts and a clear explanation as to why your conclusion on each allegation is wrong, and this proves beyond all doubt that the Hampshire report and Martyn Underhill’s acceptance of it and the protection now from the IPCC are all further steps in this appalling corruption, fraud, and extensive cover up.

In this case, given that the Chief Constable is no longer serving,

What has that to do with anything? Would a thief be let off for a discovered theft if he happened to be thieving no longer?

I considered 1) Whether the investigation by the Hampshire Constabulary on behalf of the Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner was appropriate and came to the correct findings

And I have explained in a few simple paragraphs that the findings we incorrect, and in the case of one of them, Dorset Police have even now admitted one of the costs were incorrect and therefore misleading, but as the larger costs have still not even been explained, that no proper findings were even possible!!

and 2) whether, if the former Chief Constable was still serving, would he have a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct

I’m not sure what Martin Baker is doing now but the news at the time was that as well as receiving a £90K pension “he became a director of two consultancy companies that offer services to the new police and crime commissioners.” As I have always said, the closer I have looked at all this from the start the more it stinks. If he was found to have been a part of fraudulent operations in his time in Dorset Police, how would that look for him now? This is protection, pure and simple.

On the evidence before me I considered that the findings were correct – there was no evidence of misconduct by the Chief Constable – and hence he would not have had a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct.

You are entirely and obviously completely wrong, the evidence before you proves the finding were incorrect. You have refused to engage with the evidence. I repeat, how can allowing his force to make a £million pounds on the back of a pack of lies including misrepresentation of camera safety benefit and misrepresentation of enforcement / “education” costs, which IS obtaining money by false pretences which IS fraud, amongst numerous other failures and even doing nothing when these issues are put directly to him in a formal complaint not amount to serious misconduct?

MJ replied:

Thank you for your email.

I’m sorry that you consider my response to be absurd. I was only trying to explain what decisions I can and can’t make and the ambit of the IPCC.

I wish you good luck in your mission to improve road safety.

My response:

Dear Mr Johnson,

“I was only trying to explain what decisions I can and can’t make and the ambit of the IPCC.”

I can hardly believe my eyes.

Your introductory letter stated “I have today decided not to uphold your appeal. In short the reason for this is because I can see no evidence of misconduct by the former Chief Constable of Dorset Police”

So is this or is this not your decision? Were you or were you not allowed to reach this decision? Was it within the ambit of the IPCC? Could you in fact have decided to uphold the appeal because you could see evidence of misconduct?

And how could you not have seen any evidence when it has been put in front of you in black and white? It can only be that your eyes were closed to it, or perhaps you were told to close your eyes to it.  

Perhaps you were not allowed to disagree with the “findings” (perhaps “losings” would be more accurate) of Hampshire and Martyn Underhill’s acceptance of them in which case WHAT ON EARTH is the point in the appeal process?

How on earth is it that the IPCC, after all that has gone before, has managed to ignore the fact that Dorset Police were key players in amongst many other things, a £1million fraud facilitated by misrepresentation of speed camera safety benefit and finances, which Martin Baker presided over and could not possibly have been unaware of? And that it has been concluded that there was no financial misrepresentation, when the absurd top cost given, which Colin Smith, the chief Hampshire investigator agreed with me didn’t stack up, remains unexplained?  If you don’t believe me you can hear it for yourself:  http://www.dorsetspeed.org.uk/2014/cs.mp3 Perhaps you should read and believe some of the other things I have written. Unlike what has come from Dorset Police and all those who have tried to protect them, it is 100% accurate and complete. It was never my plan to use or release these recordings but I am now forced to. My full analysis of all the meetings and recordings will follow, believe me, one day soon heads are going to roll and unless you see sense and reconsider your “decision” one of them could well be yours.

Note that I was also given the impression that I would get a “proper, honest breakdown” of the course costings (which never happened) and it was on this basis amongst many other things that I accepted the terms of the complaint. I was led into a trap to accept terms which were then used to the letter to try to protect Martin Baker and Dorset Police as my analysis of the first meeting will demonstrate beyond all doubt.

Some of what I am now presenting is new but I should never have been forced into going this far, but how on earth have you managed not to “see” the earlier evidence which should have been more than enough??

If you have any further explanation I would be delighted to hear it but you have demonstrated the blindness of the IPCC probably better than I could have with so few words and I expect you will now stick your head in the sand alongside Martyn Underhill, James Vaughan, Nicky Searle, Colin Smith, Sally French, and a long list of others who I will be naming and shaming in a news article which I am starting on. Some may think this is over but I have so much to do I hardly know where to start.

“I wish you good luck in your mission to improve road safety.” None of this has anything to do with road safety, it is about corrupt and incompetent policing which you are now aiding and abetting which is probably far more widespread than just road safety. If that ever gets sorted out, improved road safety will come with little effort or persuasion.

One last thing – let’s have a look at the remit of the IPCC described here:  http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/speeches/IPCC_response_to_College_of_Policing_consultation_on_its_Strategic_Intent.pdf

“The IPCC’s primary statutory purpose is to secure and maintain public confidence in the police complaints system in England and Wales. We are independent, and make decisions independently of the police, Government and interests groups. We investigate the most serious complaints and incidents involving the police across England and Wales, as well as handling certain appeals from people who are not satisfied with the way the police have dealt with their complaint.”

How on earth is what you and the IPCC have delivered on this case consistent with this?