South Yorkshire Police

The South Yorkshire Police is paid to protect people in an area including Barnsley, Doncaster & Rotherham as well as Sheffield. Yorkshire has the best police force that money can buy; one that colludes with local politicians in concealing crime, especially the Rapes carried out by Pakistani Perverts. They are guilty of Misconduct In Public Office as well as Perverting The Course Of Justice.

But while the management was allowing hundreds of English girls to be abused, it was busy seeing itself all right - see Top South Yorkshire cops got £120,000 in bonuses while sex abuse scandal was unfolding.

Let us not forget that one of theirs was 'Sir' Bernard Hogan-Howe, who is now running the Metropolitan Police and alleging that he is against Racism when Englishmen are accused but refusing to act again Pakistanis if they are racist. That goes double if they happen to be his little mate, 'Lord' Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed of Rotherham.

Of course they deny their evil - see e.g. South Yorkshire Police deny hiding girls' sex abuse or South Yorkshire Police 'must get a grip' on child abuse. Lying is routine corruption in the police.

NB They managed to conceal at least 1,400 crimes in Rotherham & another 200 in Sheffield - see South Yorkshire Police Ignored 200 Rapes By Pakistanis In Sheffield

 

Top South Yorkshire cops got £120,000 in bonuses while sex abuse scandal was unfolding
Exclusive: Top South Yorkshire cops got £120,000 in bonuses while abuse scandal was unfolding
At least £120,000 in bonuses were paid to senior South Yorkshire Police officers while the child grooming scandal was unfolding, The Star can reveal.

More than £50,000 was paid in just two years to former chief constable Med Hughes, who ran the force between 2004 and 2011.

But South Yorkshire Police have refused to reveal what bonuses were paid between 2002 and 2008 on the grounds it would be too ‘time-consuming’ to retrieve the information. [ They lie the way they breathe - Editor ]

A response to a Freedom of Information request by The Star said prior to 2009/10 there was no obligation to provide information on senior officers’ bonus payments, making it difficult to ‘locate, retrieve and extract’ details of the payments.....

South Yorkshire Police were criticised earlier this year by Home Secretary Theresa May, who said in the early 2000s the force was ‘allegedly so intent on meeting Home Office targets about car theft and burglary that it ignored hundreds of young girls being abused in Rotherham and Sheffield’.

 

South Yorkshire Police Cutting 850 Jobs [ 98 April 2016 ]
QUOTE
SOUTH Yorkshire Police is set to slash almost 850 staff over the next four years. The cuts, which would see the number of support staff falling from 1,733 to 1,001, are outlined in the county’s policing plan, which also reveals public confidence in the police has fallen in Rotherham over the past year.
UNQUOTE
South Yorkshire Police are the mob who let Pakistani Perverts rape 2,000 English girls; that was just in Rotherham. So why employ them if they won't do their job? NB One of the best police force that money can buy was 'Sir' Bernard Hogan-Howe who is very anti-Racist when Englishmen are accused but determinedly ignores racism when Pakistanis are the perpetrators, especially if they are his little mate 'Lord' Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed of Rotherham

 

South Yorkshire Police Chief Suspended After Hillsborough Lies Regurgitated [ 28 April 2016 ]
QUOTE
The Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police has been suspended in the wake of a jury's damning verdicts over the Hillsborough disaster. David Crompton's force was accused of 'retelling discredited lies' at the inquests which found 96 fans were unlawfully killed at the stadium in Sheffield in 1989.

Mr Crompton was suspended by the area's Crime Commissioner Dr Alan Billings, who said he 'had been left with no choice.. following the run-up to and delivery of the Hillsborough verdicts'.........

Earlier today, former head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Lord MacDonald said prosecutors will consider charges of gross negligence, manslaughter, perversion of the course of justice, perjury and misconduct in public office.
UNQUOTE
Would anyone be fool enough to believe a word spoken by a sour faced rogue like this? The Hillsborough Disaster happened in 1989; the Hillsborough cover up has been going on ever since. The Rotherham cover up has been going on since 2004 if not earlier.

The South Yorkshire Police colluded with the Labour Party to bring us 2,000 Rapes in Rotherham. The pay off? Pakistanis using industrial scale Vote Rigging to get power to use and abuse billions, or is it mere millions? Not one policeman has been charged, far less convicted.

Police Spent Millions Perverting The Truth About The Hillsborough Massacre [ 1 May 2016 ]
QUOTE
South Yorkshire Police should be disbanded. Officers must be prosecuted. The bad cops must be weeded out. Twenty-seven years on, it is time they made way for the good ones”

This week, the cops and robbers narrative was turned on its head. The line between good and bad was blurred. The findings of the Hillsborough inquest were chilling enough even before taking into account the suspension of South Yorkshire’s police chief for continuing – 27 excruciating years later – to perpetuate the myth that Liverpool fans were somehow to blame for the deaths of 96 of their fellow supporters. The findings were chilling enough even before we found out that Chief Constable David Crompton had used millions of pounds of public money to pay lawyers to maintain a version of events during the inquest. They were chilling enough before we learnt that a message on a website for South Yorkshire’s retired officers told them to be “proud” of the work they did that day..........

This is a dereliction of duty so heinous that on Wednesday, it even managed to unite political parties in the Commons. Theresa May and her Labour counterpart, Andy Burnham, displayed a dignity and decency that, for once, could make Parliament proud. The MP Frank Field said that though trustworthy institutions had been damaged by the events of that terrible day, “one institution shines through gloriously – the family”. And then we remembered that the families who lost people that day were compensated for around £3,500, while officers who claimed for the trauma of Hillsborough were given, on average, £93,000..........

South Yorkshire Police should be disbanded. Officers must be prosecuted. The bad cops must be weeded out. Twenty-seven years on, it is time they made way for the good ones.
UNQUOTE
It takes eighteen months to make a copper, which is to say a hardened liar. What they miss when they go out is not the drinking and driving but the pleasure of being able to commit Perjury. It was the South Yorkshire Police who colluded with the Labour Party to allow Pakistani Perverts to Rape 2,000 English girls in Rotherham.
PS This article does not mention that one of theirs, 'Sir' Bernard Hogan-Howe became the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, which meant he was able to ignore the active Racism of his little mate, 'Lord' Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed of Rotherham.

 

Police conspired to protect Rotherham child sex abusers  [ 1 May 2016 ]
The headline is verbatim. The perpetrators are South Yorkshire Police and Pakistanis. The policy comes from the top, from Her Majesty's Government but then Her Majesty's Government Is Rotten.

 

South Yorkshire Police Used Perjury To Pervert The Course Of Justice [ 15 May 2016 ]
South Yorkshire Police
carry on business as usual. Yorkshire has the best police that money can buy. Putting a man in prison for ten weeks is False Imprisonment achieved by Unlawful Arrest. The pigs will probably allege that they didn't do it by Perjury. Lying is just too easy. Their victim should sue. The police don't care; it is only tax payers' money. Keeping themselves out of prison does matter to them.
PS They did a 27 year cover up on the Hillsborough Disaster. The Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham described them as being 'rotten to the core'. Will they get sorted out? Not a chance.

 

Fifteen South Yorkshire Police Sacked [ 13 September 2016 ]
Those are just ones who got caught and whose faces didn't fit. Who are they? Pass. What did they do? Pass. Police get secret 'Justice'.  South Yorkshire Police setting standards in corruption all day and every day.

 

South Yorkshire Police Look For Dead Boy On Greek Island [ 18 October 2016 ]
South Yorkshire Police ignore 1,400 rapes in Rotherham because they were only English girls attacked by Pakistani Perverts.

 

South Yorkshire Police Pensioning Off Old Police [ 31 March 2017 ]
Lots of them want out. It seems that they are 'burnt out'. They have plenty of practice at ignoring crime, at colluding in the wholesale Rape of English girls in Rotherham & Doncaster et cetera. The pay off to that was industrial scale Vote Rigging in favour of the Labour Party. The old ones will be replaced by new faces with lower pay; the "mix" will be controlled by the management. Hand picking the Brainwashed, the ones who have been propagandized; who will be used to keep Pakistani Perverts out of prison is the idea. Hiring a lot of Pakistanis, the real experts on corruption will make matters even worse. The oldies know where the skeletons are buried. Blackmailing them to buy their silence was not so easy.

 

Posted on Categories HMIC, South Yorks Police, SYPCC        Neil Wilby linkedin   https://neilwilby.com/author/neilwilby/

 

 

https://neilwilby.com/2017/04/06/a-cuckoo-in-the-nest/

https://neilwilby.com/2017/04/06/a-cuckoo-in-the-nest/
QUOTE
Q

For the second time in just over a month, two days spent in the austere halls of Royal Courts of Justice gave further, and, at times, quite remarkable, insight into the inner workings of five different policing bodies: The Police Federation, a police force Misconduct Panel, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, a Police and Crime Commissioner’s (PCC’s) office and the Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA).

The two cases are both pathfinding judicial review claims, and the issues that fell to be determined by senior judges will have far reaching implications for both the police service and the wider public. One hearing was very much low key, the other attracted wide media coverage due, in the main, to the presence in court of three high profile policing figures, almost obsessive references to an even higher profile MP (Andy Burnham) and the backdrop of the scandal surrounding the Hillsborough Disaster cover-up by South Yorkshire Police.

Andy Burnham seen arriving at Birchwood Park, Warrington to hear evidence at the new Hillsborough inquests. Alongside is Steve Rotheram MP who has also campaigned tirelessly for bereaved families and survivors.

The first claim, heard on 8th February, 2017, before Mrs Justice McGowan, was listed as Thames Valley Police -v- Police Misconduct Panel (CO/2810/2016). The substantive issue was the challenge by the chief constable of that force to a finding of the Panel at the conclusion of a gross misconduct hearing. It was submitted on the chief’s behalf, via his counsel, Stephen Morley, that the Panel had got the decision ‘badly wrong‘.

The Panel’s finding was that the officer, PC White (named as an Interested Party in the proceedings), facing a breach of order and instructions charge, and multiple neglect of duty charges, should receive a final written warning. The charges against PC White concerned various items of property, to the combined value of £10,000, that he had kept and not actioned on police databases, in one case impacting adversely on a prosecution case. Other evidential materials were also found in his locker, and bag, during a subsequent search, that were not booked in, either.

The chief constable contended that the officer should have been dismissed as a result of ‘integrity failings‘, and the fact that ‘he knew he had done wrong’ and failed to correct his actions. It is the first time since police regulations were changed in 2015 – which affected the composition of Panels amongst other innovations – that such a challenge against a Panel finding has been mounted.

The Misconduct Panel, through its lawyer chairman, declined to take any part in the judicial review proceedings on the grounds that the claim form was improperly served and, in effect, the legal action was a nullity. The defence of the chief constable’s claim was taken up by the Police Federation, on behalf of their member officer, PC White. They were represented by the formidable Alexandra Felix, a specialist criminal and regulatory barrister.  Her submissions, made with some force, could be summarised thus

(i) Dealing with police misconduct matters, including criminal offences, is a management function. ‘It is about learning and development, not punishment’. In this sense, it is set apart from other professional bodies or services.

(ii) Discipline is an operational matter and the chief constable picks the Panel – ‘it’s his Panel‘ and ‘part of the internal process‘. As such, the chief constable did not have the legal capacity to bring these judicial review proceedings.

(iii) The filing and service of the proceedings, in their present form, was a ‘procedural failure’. Civil Procedure Rule 57.4 had not been complied with. As such, the proceedings should be struck out.

There was extended discussion and argument, in which the judge took full part, concerning the meaning of ‘integrity’ and where it falls, in a police misconduct sense, in relation to ‘honesty’. Both, of course, being fundamental requirements of being a police officer under the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics.

Judgment was reserved, pending further written submissions being made by all parties to the claim. It is awaited, with considerable interest, and is likely to become a cited authority whichever way the judge finds.

It was accepted by both counsel present in court that her findings would have far reaching consequences on police misconduct matters, and the role of disciplinary panels within it. Other than the judge, her clerk, three lawyers and the Police Federation representative, I was the only other person present in Court 5 for what had been a fascinating, and highly informative, hearing. Not least, the public airing of the proposition that the powerful, and extremely wealthy, Federation had an almost unshakeable grip on police misconduct matters, concerning all ranks between constable and chief inspector, and the consequent fate of their members accused of either serious misconduct, or criminal offences. If the Fed takes up an officer’s cause, removal from the police service is nigh impossible. But, if the rank and file ‘union’ withdraws support, then the officer concerned is, almost inevitably, cast to the dogs.

To those not so familar with the labyrynthine processes of the police misconduct regulations, it is worth pointing out that it is not within a chief constable’s very considerable powers to simply dismiss a police officer . All the necessary steps, within the statutory framework, have to be followed. Whether he (or she) agrees, or not.

The second judicial review application, a much higher profile case and played out before a packed Court 3, has already been the subject of two articles on this website [1] ‘Bad on their merits‘ (preview of the hearing based on disclosed pleadings) and [2] ‘Much ado about nothing’ (a report of proceedings in David Crompton -v- Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire). 

This article focuses on the specific roles of the South Yorkshire PCC, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMCIC) and the Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association (CPOSA) in those proceedings, heard before Lady Justice Sharp and Mr Justice Garnham, and their approach to both evidential and misconduct matters.

The Chief Inspector, Sir Thomas Winsor, is one of the key links the joins the two cases, as he was a member of the Misconduct Panel that found ACC Rebekah Sutcliffe guilty of gross misconduct in the controversial ‘Boobgate‘ scandal, but deemed that a final written warning was the appropriate sanction. Most observers, including her own chief constable, felt she should have been dismissed from Greater Manchester Police. ACC Sutcliffe has been sent out on secondment to Oldham Borough Council and is unlikely to undertake an operational policing role again.

PCC Alan Billings was, of course, listed as defendant in the case and present in court throughout the hearing, alongside his chief executive, Michelle Buttery, and Communications Manager, Fiona Topliss. it was argued, on his behalf, before the court, that he had followed misconduct procedure (in this case Section 38 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibilty Act, 2011) to the letter. Albeit, ignoring the advice of HMCIC along the way (as he was lawfully entitled to do).

The court also heard that two press releases, issued after the Hillsborough inquest jury determinations, were not the catalyst for former chief constable’s suspension (the main limb of Crompton’s claim). But, rather, the straw that broke the camel’s back. There are many, including me, who believe Dr Billings, accepted on all hands as a decent, honourable man, should have stepped in sooner.

Since he was elected in October, 2013 there must have been deep concerns about the constant adverse publicity that Crompton brought to his force over such as his notably poor handling of the Rotherham abuse scandal, and the infamous Cliff Richard/BBC farrago, over which the pop star is now claiming in excess of £1 million damages [3]. For example, the embattled police chief suffered a series of severe maulings at the hands of the all-party Home Affairs Select Committee (see the 3rd September, 2014 session below, courtesy of The Needle Blog).

The chairman of that committee concluded, after hearing the evidence by David Crompton, that it was incompetence on a grand scale on the part of South Yorkshire Police.

The appearance of CPOSA in the Crompton claim comes by way of legal costs support for the former SYP chief constable. To the independent-minded observer this is a huge investment for, potentially, very little return. The claim was brought on the premise that if a decision to, firstly, suspend the disgraced chief constable then, ultimately, force his resignation, was quashed, it would ‘restore his damaged reputation‘. Which relies entirely on the premise that David Crompton’s reputation was not irreparably destroyed BEFORE he was suspended. On any reasonable view, it was in tatters, and ‘Disaster Dave‘ as he was dubbed in the national press in 2014, had, indisputably, been under constant media (and Parliamentary) attack from his very first week in office in April, 2012.

Very few people are aware that, at the time of his appointment to head up South Yorkshire Police, David Crompton was under investigation by the IPCC, who were managing an investigation by one of his former forces, Greater Manchester Police (GMP), into misconduct and racism allegations made by former West Yorkshire Police Legal Services Director, Ajaz Hussain. Crompton, as far as I can trace, has never spoken publicly about this. The officer investigating the Hussain complaints, David Whatton, had been a GMP senior officer colleague of Crompton’s between 2002 and 2004. Whatton, on any reasonable view a perverse choice of investigating officer, ultimately cleared Crompton of wrongdoing.

The proposition, therefore, appears to be that CPOSA will rally round a chief officer, however incompetent and discredited he (or she) appears to be. Given that it is an organisation that has, over the years received an extraordinary, and controversial, amount of public funding [3a] then such unconditional support is very troubling indeed.

Chief constables, and their deputies and assistants, are expected to set the highest possible standards and, to the man (or woman on the Clapham omnibus, it would seem entirely improper that they should they provide mutual aid to those that don’t cut the mustard. In this context, it was a suprise to me, at least, that a former chief constable I hold in high regard, Neil Rhodes, was alongside David Crompton for almost all of the two day hearing. In a curious twist of fate, Rhodes was also CPOSA friend to Hussain which had led to another high profile court drama in 2013 [3b].

Tom Winsor is, plainly, a busy man. He did, however, find time to spend the entire two days of the Crompton claim in court, following proceedings assiduously – as one would expect of a successful, and highly experienced, regulatory lawyer. Indeed, as claim and counter-thrust was made in submissions, by counsel for the various represented parties, it became clear that the Crompton case was not about the former SYP chief, at all. It was brought as a means for policing bodies to continue to police themselves, as they have done for almost two centuries. Sir Thomas is the cuckoo in the nest – and he is not at all content to eat scraps from any elected official’s table. Particularly, one who may be minded to remove a chief constable against his specific advice which, it was advanced on behalf, should be regarded as akin to statutory guidance. His criticism of the decision making, and capacity, of Dr Billings, the PCC in question, pulled no punches.

But is Sir Thomas, himself, above criticism in this matter? Definitely not, on the basis of submissions made to the court on his behalf: There are four key issues that invite scrutiny:

Screen Shot 2017-04-06 at 11.20.54
Sir Thomas Winsor, who took over as Chief Inspector in September, 2012 had previously made his name as a highly regarded lawyer and reforming rail regulator

(i) His HMIC inspection of South Yorkshire Police in June 2015 rated the force as ‘good’. A peer review in May 2016, managed by the College of Policing and the interim chief constable, Dave Jones, and involving a number of experts in their specialist fields, found serious failings in the management and operational effectiveness of the force [4]. The disparity between HMIC’s findings and the peer review is, so far, unexplained. It was not directly tested in court, although it formed part of the written submissions made on behalf of the PCC. In another curious turn of events, just two weeks after the court hearing concluded another HMIC inspection saw SYP heavily criticised.

(ii) It was asserted, without any evidence, supporting information or details of source, that public confidence was NOT adversely affected by David Crompton’s running of the police force in South Yorkshire. Contrast that with ample, and highly informed, feedback from a large number of elected representatives (MP’s, MEP’s and councillors) in the locality, and the public who interacted either with DrBillings personally, or via his office. Plus an almost weekly round of stinging media criticism of the force, and one might take the view Dr Billings was in a much better position to take a stance on this issue.  Indeed, it was his emphatic view that confidence in his chief constable had almost ebbed away when the decision was taken to suspend him. Even the Home Secretary of the day, Theresa May, knew the game was up for Crompton and South Yorkshire Police. It was, therefore, nothing short of astonishing that, from his London office, Sir Thomas could deem otherwise. A fair-minded observer might take the view that his motivation for doing so ought to be examined independently.

(iii) The proposition was advanced, on his behalf, that Sir Thomas had a ‘bird’s eye view‘ of the performance of police forces and, therefore, by default, chief constables. There seemed no good reason to single out Crompton for opprobium. Which, given the beleagured South Yorkshire chief’s well chronicled list of failings, turns attention to how bad some of the other chief constables must be, if Crompton is not ranked below them. It may also explain why so many chief officers have left the police service, in disgrace, over the past five years. Often retiring to avoid disciplinary sanction.

(iv) Much was made in court of the fact that Crompton had broadcast an apology, on behalf of his disgraced force on 12th September, 2012, the day of the publication of the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report. Reinforced, it was said by another apology on the day of the jury determinations at the new inquests. It was claimed, in court, on behalf of both Crompton and HMCIC that he had not resiled from those apologies. That was, quite simply, incorrect. Crompton’s true feelings and views about the Hillsborough Disaster – and the role of the Liverpool fans in it – were exposed in the national press following disclosure of emails sent both internally to other South Yorkshire Police officers and, externally, to other senior policing figures, notably Sir Norman Bettison and Sir Hugh Orde. Crompton challenged the Panel Report as one sided, and wanted to set up a PR offensive to counteract the bereaved families fight for truth, then justice [5]. Sir Thomas Winsor, and his his legal team, were silent on this point. Did he not know, or was it just another Crompton flaw that he was, conveniently, prepared to overlook?

The sum of all these parts is that HMIC, and their Chief Inspector, are not all they crack up to be. Others have raised well evidenced doubts concerning the police force inspections they carry out and, particularly, their lack of rigour. But that is not the chief concern: As a watchdog, with a crucial role in maintaining confidence in those charged with the public’s safety and security, how can Sir Thomas sit there, stony faced, and allow unevidenced assertions, and in some parts, what may be considered as untruths, about the policing abilities of, and the public confidence in, David Crompton to be presented as fact?

Another unspoken factor may have been the career record of Sir Dan Crompton, David’s father, which ended with service as a leading light in none other than Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. Crompton senior’s own adverse views on Hillsborough, and those bereaved families campaigning for justice, are also well known and for which he has steadfastly refused to apologise since they were first made public in 2013 [5].

Running a protectorate for the incompetent is, presumably, not what Her Majesty the Queen would have had in mind when she touched Tom Winsor’s shoulder with her sword in September, 2013. The revelations on the Strand, on two sunny days at the end of March, 2017, may yet be scrutinised, a short distance away along London’s riverside, before an MP’s Select Committee.

Page last updated: Thursday 13th April, 2017 at 1405hrs

[1] Neil Wilby – ‘Bad on their merits‘  24th January, 2017

[2] Neil Wilby – ‘Much ado about nothing’  29th March, 2017

[3] Neil Wilby – ‘David Crompton – The South Yorkshire Years’ 27th April, 2016

[3a] Yorkshire Post – Payouts to legal fund of shamed top officers set for axe 22nd January, 2013

[4] Daily Star – ‘Hillsborough Email Smear‘ 24th February, 2013

[5] uPSD WYP – ‘Sir Dan Crompton’  16th June, 2017

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article — I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

Copyright: Neil Wilby 2015-2017. Unauthorised use or reproduction of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from and links to the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
UNQUOTE
Bent or what?

 

South Yorkshire Police Commissioner Being Investigated For Perjury [ 12 May 2017 ]
QUOTE
A POLICE watchdog is launching an investigation into alleged perjury by former South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner Shaun Wright after concluding the allegations merit an inquiry.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission has completed an initial assessment into claims Mr Wright committed perjury while giving evidence in Parliament about the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal and has now announced a formal inquiry............

It is claimed Mr Wright — lead councillor for children’s services in Rotherham between 2005 and 2010 — committed Perjury when he told a parliamentary committee in 2014 he knew nothing of widespread CSE in Rotherham.
UNQUOTE
The South Yorkshire Police are the crooks who spent years protecting the Pakistani Perverts who raped and abused English girls for a decade or more; there were over 1,400 in Rotherham alone. You don't have to believe that Wright was part of a criminal Conspiracy to Pervert The Course Of Justice so that Pakistanis would carry on Vote Rigging for the benefit of the Labour Party. Lots of people do though. The  Independent Police Complaints Commission might get a result but the perpetrators have had years to destroy the evidence.

 

Survey reveals lack of confidence in South Yorkshire Police
Almost half of them "lack confidence". The rest are stupid, lying or Pakistani