This message was received today – thanks Michael.
Message: Great site and i thought you’d be interested in the following example of the IPCC’s ‘Wilful blindness to evidence’
NO UNLAWFUL SEC 32 Search.
In a recent MANAGED IPCC and Police professional Standards investigation, this is just one example of the wilful blindness to the actual evidence. Ignoring the evidence is just one example of their tactics to explain away the unexplainable.
Part of this MANAGED INVESTIGATION was looking at the accusation that a search (Sec 32) was performed without lawful authority. The response from the managed investigation report was to state;
“There is no evidence that a Section 32 search was used at MR XYZ’s house, and his complaint that a Section 32 search was unlawfully used is therefore unsubstantiated”
Of course this is plainly untrue and the piece of PRIMARY evidence which relates to all searches performed by the police is the form, required to be provided in all cases which forms the record of search. As you will see from the link below, this is clearly indicating a Sec 32 search. (highlighting added for indication)
Now of course that’s not the only EVIDENCE of what the police’s actions were. There is of course the officers Evidence and action book (EAB). Or in plain terms their pocket notebook. I wonder what that stated?
Well the first officer made two entries detailing a Sec 32 search was being performed;
“I told him I could not do that (I needed to conduct a Section 32 PACE search after his arrest to recover telephone in connection”
“I explained to MR XYZ that we were going to carry out a Section 32 PACE search for his mobile phone which was to be seized as evidence”
So that was the first officers account of what happened, mentioning no less than twice that he was using Section 32 of PACE powers of search. The second officer on the scene at the time of the search also recorded in his EAB as follows;
“DC MacDonald then explained that we were going to conduct a Sec 32 search of the premises for his mobile phone which was to be seized as evidence of the offence”
So despite the clear and irrefutable evidence that a Sec 32 search was performed the Metropolitan Police Professional standards dept showed wilful blindness to this failure to act lawfully.
So behind the bland narrative of the IPCC or Police professional standards report, lays the truth.
There are plenty more such examples…….
On further examination this seems to have originated here so for completeness I’ll post the begin text:
This is the place to post any remarkable examples of IPCC or Police Professional standards wilful blindness to evidence of misconduct or criminal conduct by Police.
As we all know the IPCC and Police do not publish even 1% of reports, why not? Because they’d be ashamed to do so and other complainants failed by this farce of a system would start linking with others. Publishing their reports, or parts of their reports is the start to exposing and bringing some real accountability.
No more brushing the FILTH under the carpet.
… and the end:
I have plenty more far worse examples of the tactics employed, if you have any please PM me and we’ll get them edited and posted.