12 Apr Mayor’s Office Attempts Cover-Up Of Hogan-Howe Misconduct
Not content with calling my first complaint ‘fanciful‘ when I presented documentary evidence of misconduct by Britain’s most senior police office, the Mayor’s office has now tried to suppress my further complaint of a repeat offence.
In normal circumstances, once a complaint has been submitted, it is proper to regard its progress as confidential until a final determination is made. However, there is clearly an intention here not to deal with my legitimate complaints seriously. So, until the Mayor’s office starts behaving responsibly and properly investigating the overwhelming evidence of misconduct I have presented, we will continue this in public.
—– Original Message —–
From: Jason Collins
To: [email protected]
Cc: Professional Standards
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:12 AM
Subject: Further Complaint against Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Bernard Hogan Howe
Dear Mr Reynolds,
Thank you for your e-mail of the 10th of April.
I note your objection to the term ‘fanciful’. This is taken from Paragraph 2 Schedule 3 Police Reform Act 2002. This is not defined in the legislation and therefore has its normal meaning which is essentially that it is baseless or without reason. Our letter of 13th March explained why that was the case. We note also that you have appealed this decision to the IPCC.
You have said that you have made a further complaint. This is in fact almost identical to the complaint we have already dealt with and is therefore either repetitious or an abuse of process as it is attempting to circumvent the appeal provisions. Unless there is anything you can add to what you have already sent which a) clearly differentiates it form your previous complaint (other than a new quote from the Commissioner) or b) shows that it is not an attempt for an appeal to be dealt with by MOPAC rather than the IPCC, it is likely that we will recommend that the Deputy Mayor does not record this complaint.
I hope that this information is of help.
Professional Standards Team
—– Original Message —–
From: Peter Reynolds
To: Jason Collins
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: Further Complaint against Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Bernard Hogan Howe
Dear Mr Collins,
The second complaint is almost identical because Sir Bernard’s second offence of misconduct is almost identical which, in fact, further aggravates it.
The second complaint is neither “repetitious or an abuse of process” nor is it “attempting to circumvent the appeal provisions”. It refers to an entirely separate incident in which Sir Bernard makes further entirely false and misleading statements about cannabis and once again ventures into the world of politics.
We shall pursue the appeal in respect of the first complaint and if you refuse to record the second offence we shall pursue an appeal in respect of it as well.
For the avoidance of doubt, I consider that your contention that the first complaint is “baseless or without reason” is itself fanciful and completely absurd. Sir Bernard is engaging in politics in clear breach of Police Regulations. Furthermore he is promoting false propaganda, misleading the public and falsifying scientific evidence. That he has repeated it makes the second offence more serious.