I
've
been advised by those that know that this website is too complicated and cumbersome for people to easily read and understand. Looking over it I think they're right and being fair I don't think my pasting of copies of the actual correspondence into the site and expecting people to follow the threads has exactly helped either.

I wanted people to understand that this was not some flight of fancy that all the information and events described within the narrative were based on fact and documentary evidence. However, it is now too complicated and convoluted to easily understand.

I plan to pare back the site and write a logical, sensible and comprehendible summary of the information and events and link the evidence into the narrative, enabling the Reader to review the evidence should they so desire. 


We believe that the information and evidence produced provides objective grounds for the reasonable suspicion that a high level conspiracy has existed within Cheshire Constabulary and Cheshire Police Authority to excuse particular members of the public and retired police officers, including retired chief officers, from criminal investigation and criminal charges since October 2003.

Furthermore, the information and evidence provides objective grounds for the reasonable suspicion that members of the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Home Office, including Ministers, may have aided and abetted Cheshire's attempt to pervert the course of justice and excuse persons from criminal investigation and charges.


You may be asking yourself why would the police, the IPCC and the Home Office all want or even bother to conspire to pervert the course of justice and excuse these persons from criminal investigation?

The answer is quite simple the allegations reported to Cheshire Constabulary in October 2003 were of serious corruption within their Professional Standards Department, the police who police the police; and within the conduct of the Disciplinary Hearings held before the Chief Constable on 20 and 22 March 2000.

The IPCC was set up to stop the police investigating the police but in truth the various police Professional Standards Departments still investigate the vast majority of complaints "on behalf" of the IPCC.

But what if it could be proven that officers within a Professional Standards Department were corrupt, that they had lied and abused their lawful authorities to unlawfully obtain evidence without warrant or lawful excuse?

What if it could be proven that a Chief Constable asked to decide whether his Professional Standards Department officers had acted fairly and lawfully during an internal disciplinary investigation chose to ignore evidence and the admissions made by the officers that they had unlawfully obtained evidence and wilfully exceeded their lawful authorities during the course of their investigation to find that they had acted fairly and lawfully throughout the course of the investigation?

What if it was all a matter of record, a record produced by the police themselves?

What if it could be proven that the police policing the police were corrupt, where would that leave public confidence in the British police complaints system?

How would you cover up alleged serious corruption, particularly one where the complainant possessed evidence produced by the police themselves demonstrating the corruption?

Stonewall!

For as long as it takes, stonewall.......... to date almost 7 years.

But we've changed tactics................

Freedom of Information........

Useful..........?? 

We'll see!!