Strathclyde Police - Railroading - Anthony O'Donnell and John Pollock
Reprise
Strathclyde Police received a criminal incident referral (the Referral) (15 Jun 10) for consideration and action. The Referrer travels extensively on assignment and receives mail intermittently. He requested acknowledgment of receipt, information about interviews to discuss the issues and transmittal of all correspondence by both recorded delivery and PDF email attachments. Strathclyde Police neglected to comply with any of those requests; instead, high-ranking police officers have procrastinated then retroactively issued irresponsible general denials.
[Strathclyde Police Referral]
Responses to the Referral received from Anthony O'Donnell, Chief Inspector, Glasgow Central and West Division dated 14 July 2010 received 27 July 2010 and in response to an appeal to John Pollock, Chief Superintendent, Professional Standards Department dated 07 September 2010 received 08 October 2010 show that they have both placed themselves above the law.
The Referrer sent a prepublication notice and excerpt of content to O'Donnell
[Strathclyde Police - Railroading]
A final notice sent to House (17 Aug 10) with a copy to O'Donnell reminded them that they had neglected to substantiate O'Donnell's frivolous and vexatious response to a criminal referral which named National Union of Journalist officials and officers. That notice informed House that the issues would receive international media attention and a complaint to Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service claiming dereliction of duty of care and neglect to address a criminal referral with due diligence in accordance with law.
Kenny MacDonald, Inspector, Chief Constable's Secretariat, Strathclyde Police responded by letter (18 Aug 10 received 24 Aug 10):
I write on behalf of Chief Constable Stephen House, in response to your email which was received on the 17 August 2010. I have forwarded your letter to our Professional Standards Department who will ensure that you are contacted in due course regarding the above matter. I trust this will be of assistance meantime.
Strathclyde Police, Professional Standards Department neither confirmed McDonald's assertion nor contacted the Referrer (10 Sep 10).
O’Donnell did not process the Referral or substantiate his claims; instead, he arbitrarily denied an investigation and refutation which John Pollock, Chief Superintendent, Professional Standards Department endorsed. The Referral will now form part of a complaint against O’Donnell and Pollock to Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for dereliction of their duty of care.
Their arrogance and insolence showed a lack of responsibility and respect for members of the public who pay their salaries and to whom they have a duty of care. Convening a public inquiry into the issues contained in the Referral has now become essential to the public good. [Public Inquiry]
NUJ Criminal Referral
Chief Inspector Anthony O'Donnell, Strathclyde Police, Glasgow Central and West Division also John Pollock, Chief Superintendent, Professional Standards Department misrepresented content to create a general denial in response to a criminal referral. Court rules do not allow arbitrary or general denial (denying all allegations in a complaint).
The Referrer totally rejects the responses as false, misleading, and a distortion of facts that reflect the true position. O’Donnell effectively parroted language evidently presented to him by NUJ which follows a distinct pattern of planned deception and disingenuous behavior over an eight-year period. Pollock followed suit.
O'Donnell wrote a general denial in response to a request for police action. He violated independent investigation procedures and effectively conformed to NUJ political expedience. Neither O’Donnell nor Pollock genuinely interpreted the complaint or associated statutes. They violated independent investigation procedures and effectively conformed to NUJ political expedience. By that, they obstructed due process of law which has delayed and denied justice.
 |
||
|
|
|
|
NUJ has evidently manipulated O'Donnell as part of a pattern to evade law. O'Donnell neither presented a legal argument to support his contentions nor cited a legal precedent that permits a general denial. He must petition a court to allow him to pursue that process.
The following statement contains O’Donnell’s response to a reasoned, peer-reviewed referral. His categoric statements without substantiation insult the intelligence of the Referrer who has fifty years experience reading law and spent many years investigating both academic corruption and abuse of elderly people. His comment about consulting a solicitor to advise on civil law ranks as deliberately offensive. [O’Donnell Letter]
AO-10-0714-0000. Professor Trummel. having reviewed the documentation that you have provided, I can see no justifiable reasons as to why Strathclyde Police should involve itself in your ongoing dispute with the NUJ. The matters you raise are civil matters and are not criminal. There are many ways in which you can seek redress and most of these will be outlined with the conventions of the Union itself. Failing this I suggest you consult a solicitor who can advise you on civil law and seek your redress through the Civil Courts.
 |
O’Donnell ludicrously used a ploy for which police forces throughout the UK have become notorious. He arbitrarily claimed that the issues classify as civil and not criminal. Even a first-year plod knows that fraud, harassment, stalking, computer crime, money laundering, and abuse of elderly people, among other crimes allegedly supported or perpetrated by NUJ officials and officers, classify as criminal offences.
O’Donnell’s comment about seeking redress using NUJ conventions when the complaint predicates on fraudulent use of those conventions clearly demonstrates another attempt to create a merry-go-round and evade his responsibility to address the issues. The many criminal aspects of the complaints against NUJ could also classify as organized crime and, in that case, warrant investigation by Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA).
 |
||
|
|
||
Strathclyde police officers and by extension Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) (both public authorities for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998) must comply with human rights conventions. Police officers and prosecutors must apply the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) at each stage of investigation of a criminal referral.
Both Strathclyde police officers and CPS have a commitment to uphold and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone who comes into contact with the criminal justice system, whether as victim, witness or defendant. O’Donnell arbitrarily referred the issues back for consideration under NUJ conventions. By that, he completely ignored HRA convention rights that override NUJ rules. Police officers must not act in a way incompatible with HRA convention rights incorporated into domestic law and must take all reasonable steps to ensure that investigators comply with CPS obligations under HRA.
Those obligations extend to trade union members as victims of crime, witnesses in the criminal process, as well as those accused of committing crimes. NUJ officials and officers and Strathclyde police officers have totally ignored HRA protocols and substituted their own arbitrary rules of procedure.
Applicable Convention Rights incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998:
Article 3: Prohibition of Torture. A person has the absolute right not to be tortured or subjected to treatment or punishment which is inhuman or degrading.
Article 5: Right to Liberty and Security. A person has the right not to be deprived of their liberty 'arrested or detained' except in limited cases specified in the article (e.g. where they are suspected or convicted of committing a crime) and provided there is a proper legal basis in UK law.
Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial. A person has the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable period of time. This applies both to criminal charges against them and to cases concerning their civil rights and obligations.
Specific fair trial rights guaranteed under Article 6 include the right to:
Determination of the charge within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law;
Be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law;
Be informed promptly of the nature and cause of the accusation;
Have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence;
Defend oneself, or to have legal representation of one's choice, and the right to have it provided free if a person has insufficient means to pay; and
Cross examine prosecution witnesses; and the right to call witnesses for the defence.
Article 10: Freedom of Expression. A person has the right to hold opinions and express their views on their own or in a group. This applies even if those views are unpopular or disturbing. This right can be restricted only in specified circumstances.
Article 11: Freedom of Assembly and Association. A person has the right to assemble with other people in a peaceful way. They also have the right to associate with other people, which includes the right to form a trade union. These rights may be restricted only in specified circumstances.
Article 14: Prohibition of Discrimination. In the application of the Convention rights, a person has the right not to be treated differently because of their race, religion, sex, political views or any other personal status, unless this can be justified objectively. Everyone must have equal access to Convention rights, whatever their status.
Court rules do not allow O'Donnell arbitrarily to use a general denial in response to criminal referrals. He has not genuinely interpreted the complaint or associated statutes; moreover, he has refused to process a criminal referral solely on the basis of NUJ political expedience allegedly propagated by rogue lawyer (Roy Martin Mincoff #112029) as NUJ in-house solicitor.
Mincoff, presently subject to investigation by Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for gross professional misconduct and alleged criminal activities that relate to the current referral, continues to support Jeremy Dear, NUJ General Secretary, Michelle Stanistreet, NUJ Deputy General Secretary, and Paul Holleran, NUJ Scottish Organiser in alleged criminal harassment that forms a basis for both Strathclyde
According to Metropolitan Police (Camden), NUJ officials filed frivolous criminal allegations against the Referrer (28 Jun 10), effectively an unlawful retaliation for filing complaints against them. False and malicious, the allegations exposed the member to risk of arrest, imprisonment pending trial, and possible wrongful conviction and sentence. By that, NUJ attempted either to preempt or to evade police investigation of the criminal referrals already recorded against them; thereby, perverting the course of justice.
Mincoff adopted similar illegal tactics to those a mafia used a decade ago to silence the author after he exposed crimes in Seattle. Seattle mafia filed false and malicious criminal charges against the member with police which resulted in him going to jail for 111 days. Nine judges in Washington Supreme Court unanimously absolved him of any wrongdoing when he wrote articles that exposed mafia crimes.
NUJ has provided no reason why Jeremy Dear, NUJ General Secretary and Claire S Kirby (then NUJ in-house solicitor) neglected their duty of care to act with UK Consul to have the Referrer immediately released from jail on grounds of habeas corpus and no case to answer. By that, they both committed criminal negligence which endangered the life of an NUJ member.
Neither Dear nor Kirby have refuted those assertions. With full knowledge of the imminent jailing, under Vienna Convention and other international laws. They delayed then denied solidarity and support guaranteed by Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system. It allows release of a prisoner from unlawful detention and applies in many international jurisdictions. Historically an important legal instrument, it safeguards individual freedom against arbitrary state action: arbitrary action retroactively supported by general denials submitted by O'Donnell and Pollock who evidently think that the term habeas corpus refers to a Laurel and Hardy movie (1928).
During the ensuing eight years, five instances of physical assault and threats to cause grievous bodily harm associated with NUJ occurred. Reported to UK police, those acts of criminal negligence and endangerment to life did not receive proper investigation due to police officers allegedly maintaining a blue code of silence in consort with NUJ officials and officers.
Following the Strathclyde and Metropolitan police referrals, Christopher Graham Wheal, an NUJ officer, used an unprovoked and dastardly email attack to threaten grievous bodily harm (17 Jul 10) for publishing details of the Strathclyde and Metropolitan police referrals. It required use of a dictionary to define his gutter language which construed as a death threat when applied to a man seventy-seven years of age. Metropolitan Police (Camden) has received a complaint claiming that Wheal committed a criminal offence by threatening grievous bodily harm in violation of Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Section 4.
In a distinct conflict of interest, Dear and Mincoff among others negotiated a £262,000.00 quid pro quo with Gareth R Thomas MP (former Minister of State, Department for International Development) and Jack Straw MP (former Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor). By that, they denied an NUJ member due process of law.
Wheal financially benefitted from that government grant. Dear has since unlawfully withheld member accounting documents so that the extent of financial benefit to Wheal and other NUJ-Left sycophants remains unknown.
|
|
|||
 |
Will you piss off with your inane ramblings. My nephew was killed in a tragic accident on Tuesday and all I get is wank from you. Now take me off your email list, or better still, fuck off and die you complete and utter tosser*. One more peep from you and if I bring harassment charges you'll be lucky. I find you personally I'll fucking break your legs. [sic] Christopher Graham Wheal, NUJ Officer. |
||
|
This reprobate describes himself as a journalist and writing instructor. *tosser. A derogatory term for a stupid, irritating, or ridiculous person.
|
|||
Criminal Negligence
The term “criminal negligence” describes misfeasance or nonfeasance where fault lies in the failure to foresee and to allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. Dear, Kirby, and Mincoff allowed that negligence to rise to the level of willful blindness to cover up the reality of the situation. A reasonable person standard determines the degree of their culpability.
Criminal negligence becomes gross criminal negligence when failure to foresee an incident involves a wanton disregard for human life which applies in this case. The test of the mens rea (guilty act) bases upon an assessment of whether Dear and Kirby had foresight of the consequences and had intent for them to occur.
Dear and Kirby have never refuted allegations that they had full knowledge of the circumstances prior to jailing of an NUJ member and neglected to act in his behalf. They knew that he faced a danger to his life yet further endangered his safety by their negligence when a reasonable person would have foreseen the injury and taken preventive measures.
Dear has spent the last eight years covering up crimes of prior restraint and accepted a government pay-off to NUJ in 2005 to bury HM Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) involvement in those issues. Anthony O’Donnell has started a similar merry-go-round relating to issues that occurred a decade ago which has effectively granted Dear impunity. [Without Let or Hindrance]
|
A Collusive, Coercive, Disingenuous Quintet |
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
Straw |
Ricketts |
Sheinwald |
Miliband |
Thomas |
||
|
David Miliband MP, Former Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; Sir Peter Ricketts, Permanent Under-Secretary and Head of the Diplomatic Service; Sir Nigel Sheinwald, British Ambassador to the United States; Jack Straw MP, Former Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor; and Gareth Thomas MP, Former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development colluded in a cover-up of HM Foreign and Commonwealth Office dereliction with Jeremy Dear, General Secretary, National Union of Journalists.
|
||||||
Anthony O'Donnell
O'Donnell did not fairly address the substance of the facts. If he intended to deny any part of the Referral or needed qualification of facts, then he should have asked for substantiation after identifying the parts that he considered true and material. Instead, he arbitrarily denied everything.
He used his own interpretation and construction which ignored content that clearly met all legal requirements. He used general denial to cover up dereliction, bias, and misconduct and ignored the readiness of the Referrer to verify allegations under an oath.
Police officers must maintain a high-level duty of care which means that they must not commit any act that could harm victims of crimes. If they do not satisfactorily meet that standard, then they have a legal obligation to consider those adversely affected by acts or omissions and to make reparation.
The term "duty of care" has special legal significance when applied to police officers. It describes an obligation imposed by law which applies particularly to them. That obligation forms part of a fiduciary duty owed to the public that they serve. The standard that they maintain must reach at least the level of responsibility that a reasonable person upholds.
|
Anthony O'Donnell |
||
 |
||
|
O'Donnell writes: "As the Area Commander for Glasgow City Centre, my focus is on keeping the streets of Glasgow safe and protecting the people who both live and visit Glasgow". An irrelevant and immaterial evasion of the issues referred. |
||
Police officers must also exercise reasonable care to protect the public interest from harm by others. They must not violate victims’ rights through willful blindness or negligence until Scotland becomes a police state.
O’Donnell’s primary claim to fame lies in a kick in the crotch a German football lout gave to him. ...Hamburg hooligan ringleader Rene Wurzbach... 32-year-old graduate assaulted and injured three cops as his 300-strong mob rampaged through Glasgow city centre....Wurzbach paid his entire £1,600 fine on the spot by credit card at Glasgow Sheriff Court.
[Norman Silvester]
Wheal sounds like another Wurzbach. Perhaps Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service will give O’Donnell another kick where it hurts for dereliction of his duty of care by not properly addressing the Referral.
O'Donnell arbitrarily denied all allegations in the Referral by using a pattern or practice in contravention of court rules which only permit general denial when the response to a referral intends in good faith to controvert all assertions of fact. Rarely do general denials pass that test neither do reputable judges allow them.
O'Donnell did not interview the Referrer or send interrogatories to ascertain the true situation and has effectively railroaded him by denying an investigation of criminal conduct. Railroading forces rapid investigation or litigation to prevent careful consideration and criticism. It usually employs dragooning, subjugation, persecution, coercion, or threats and certainly does not constitute ethical police behavior.
O'Donnell used ambiguous language to evade resolving a specific issue which arguably defines as obstruction of justice. The response indicates that he had no intent to process the complaint in the first place. General denial has no place in the adjudication process. O'Donnell should have substantiated his reasons for refusal or delay by citing precedents and provide the name of a person, email address, and statute under which the Referrer could appeal his decision.
O'Donnell’s delaying tactics can only interpret as political expedience given the involvement of three former Labour ministers, arguably accessories after the fact to international crimes, who form an integral part of the issues upon which the Referral premised. Instead of taking action to mitigate damage, O'Donnell has obstructed and delayed justice then denied it contrary to law.
Moreover, the delay and disingenuous behavior to evade providing a reasoned response to a criminal referral filed with Strathclyde police officers has allowed NUJ to additionally file false and misleading criminal complaints against the Referrer in Republic of Ireland. NUJ has switched legal process between jurisdictions to confuse and manipulate due process of law: an abuse of process that denies justice to its members. That jurisdictional arbitrage retaliates for filing legitimate Strathclyde and Metropolitan police referrals.
Jurisdiction “shopping” or arbitrage primarily denies due process by taking advantage of discrepancies in law among competing jurisdictions. That arbitrage unlawfully changes a legal venue by denoting various international geographical locations that suit the arbitrager.
NUJ has unlawfully devolved the issues presently subject to criminal investigation under English law to both Scotland and Republic of Ireland. By that, they have attempted to preempt investigation of criminal activity and to manufacture evidence to pervert justice. Delay and general denial by Strathclyde police officers has set in motion yet another phase of criminal harassment by NUJ to which Strathclyde Police has effectively acquiesced. [Anarchistic Arbitrage]
O'Donnell has not provided a copy of the NUJ response to the Referral for comment and refutation or provided a legal argument citing precedents with particularity that permit the withholding of a response. He has not challenged the offenders about withholding critical information or cited a precedent that permitted them to do so. Moreover, he arbitrarily adopted a narrow construction of law when responses generally require liberal construction, at least until a judge finds otherwise.
Strathclyde Division, Professional Standards Department coordinates investigation of complaints about that division and its officers. It acts on behalf of, and reports directly to, Neil Richardson, Deputy Chief Constable who has overall responsibility for disciplinary matters within the force and ultimately reports to Stephen House, Chief Constable.
The Department claims that it aims to deliver the highest possible standards of policing while acting in a professional, caring and sensitive manner and admits that occasionally this high standard of service falls short of its expectations. The serious breaches of conduct and discipline by Anthony O’Donnell and John Pollock classify for investigation by a higher authority. They disregarded laws and issued arbitrary general denials in response to a complaint about neglect to investigate a criminal referral.
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (Scotland), or a public inquiry, must independently address the alleged police dereliction and machination, not a department of Strathclyde Police. Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. Investigation of complex issues that involve several police divisions by a single division engenders biased investigation.
John Pollock
O’Donnell and Pollock have shown how use of Professional Standards Department creates a distinct conflict of interest by effectively making Stephen House, Chief Constable his own prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner as Pollock insolently demonstrated in his response to the appeal of O’Donnell’s general denial:
I refer to the above matter and the response sent to you by Inspector MacDonald dated 18 August 2010. I have reviewed the document you submitted and I do not consider Strathclyde Police has any role in your long running dispute with officials from the National Union of Journalists and other organisations.
Please refrain from libelling unfounded allegations against any member of Strathclyde Police.
Since Thursday 26 August 2010, you have, on a daily basis, sent e-mails to numerous Police Officers and Members of Staff entirely unconnected with your allegations.
This conduct has unacceptably interfered with the efficiency of the organisation and I consider your behavior unreasonable and vexatious.
Strathclyde Police will no longer accept any e-mails you send. Any further correspondence should be forwarded in hard copy to the above address by Royal Mail or equivalent postal provider.
This absolutely false and misleading general denial does not warrant a definitive response at this time. An independent investigation will determine the facts. The Referrer will not enter into arguments with anarchistic, subliterate police officers. Pollock's letter demonstrates how some police officers place themselves above the law by refusing to investigate and substantiate findings for political expedience.
The Referrer has published for sixty-six years and never had a libel complaint against him. Few investigative reporters can claim that record yet Pollock without substantiated proof implies a libel by writing: "Please refrain from libelling unfounded allegations against any member of Strathclyde Police". In itself, that disingenuous comment could support a libel charge against Pollock.
Pollock blatantly lies in another statement: "Since Thursday 26 August 2010, you have, on a daily basis, sent e-mails to numerous Police Officers and Members of Staff entirely unconnected with your allegations". Anyone investigating legal issues who uses the term "numerous" immediately becomes suspect. The Referrer has distributed no email to Strathclyde police employees as Pollock describes; instead, a selected list of 244 officers and staff received a single media release in a mass mailing disseminated internationally to thousands of recipients (08 Aug 10).
Censorship by Pollock ranks as both illegal and immoral. If Strathclyde Police officers and staff members wish to opt-out from receiving media releases, then they may individually apply to unsubscribe using the email address of the material that they received (only one recipient opted-out after distribution of the media release to thousands of addresses).
For Immediate Release
Strathclyde Police - Delay and Denial of Justice - 880-36-30
Strathclyde Police has neglected to properly address criminal referrals which name National Union of Journalist (NUJ) officials and officers. That neglect has encouraged NUJ to file more frivolous and vexatious criminal charges against a journalist and an NUJ officer to threaten him with grievous bodily harm.
The linked exposé introduces a sub-section of a series of new articles that reveal a decade of alleged criminal activity by Jeremy Dear, General Secretary, National Union of Journalists who has obstructed justice for political expedience by using delay and denial of due process of law, defamation, harassment, and other unlawful practices.
Strathclyde Police officers have effectively granted Dear impunity by delaying and denying justice. They neglected to respond to criminal referrals with diligent investigation and have used stonewalling and other aberrant behavior to evade their duty of care. Moreover, they contemptuously addressed those referrals with frivolous and vexatious responses.
Through their unwillingness to act, Strathclyde police officers have effectively allowed NUJ, and the international mafia who originally jailed the journalist, to again put a price on his head. They have allowed psychopaths to gain control of legal proceedings.
A reasonable person must ask: Do Strathclyde police officers need a corpse before they investigate NUJ threats of grievous bodily harm and process police incident reports of aggravated assault that show probable cause for referral to Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)?
At least five police divisions have shown a pattern or practice of arbitrary general denial. That ploy, for which police officers throughout the UK have become notorious. obstructs justice by claiming that criminal issues classify as civil, thereby removing the responsibility for them to investigate.
By using general denial, high ranking police officers have neglected to recognize a decade of alleged criminal actions by NUJ General Secretary supported by successive in-house solicitors who have obstructed justice for political expedience. They have delayed and denied due process of law by neglecting diligently to investigate charges of defamation, harassment, and other unlawful practices which include aggravated assault and threats of grievous bodily harm.
Strathclyde police officers have neglected their duty of care by arbitrarily refusing to process criminal referrals solely on information allegedly propagated by a rogue lawyer. Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) presently has complaints of gross professional misconduct by successive NUJ in-house solicitors under consideration.
Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. Investigation of complex issues that involve several police divisions by one of those divisions engenders biased investigation. Use of Strathclyde Professional Standards department creates a distinct conflict of interest by effectively making Strathclyde Chief Constable Stephen House his own prosecutor, judge, and jury.
Full Text: Law Enforcement Railroading
Home Page: http://contracabal.com
Contact: Professor Paul Trummel
Interference by Pollock with the free flow of information will not be tolerated. The public (which includes police officers) has a right to know about crimes that could affect their employment and reputation. By his admonition and censorship, Pollock defies the Convention Rights incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998:
Article 10. Freedom of Expression. A person has the right to hold opinions and express their views on their own or in a group. This applies even if those views are unpopular or disturbing. This right can be restricted only in specified circumstances.
Freedom of speech, an absolute right not an abstract philosophy, should not subserve political considerations. Moreover, information technology remains a right not a privilege despite technocratic claims to the contrary. Legislative and judicial decisions have determined the right of individuals to distribute information freely.
Laws do not provide much protection when despotic police officers interfere with computer resources because they disagree with the content of messages: a disagreement probably based upon disclosure of their own malfeasance. Their addiction to political correctness frequently causes them to invoke censorship of Internet activities.
They fear dissent and have an aversion to controversy. They not only empower their systems administrators to handle frivolous email complaints by arbitrarily removing computer access but also allow them to censor incoming mail - an outrageous invasion of personal privacy. They act upon an irrational expectation that certain categories of email may contain something that they would not wish others to read then arbitrarily reject it.
Interference with email transmission not specifically proscribed by international law classifies as a serious offense which Strathclyde police officers and staff should note.
Conclusion
The outrageous responses by O’Donnell and Pollock to a criminal referral show arrogance, insolence and a lack of responsibility. They show no respect for members of the public who pay police salaries and to whom they have a duty of care. Their neglect to act according to law has effectively granted NUJ impunity to continue harassment of the Referrer by launching a campaign of anarchistic arbitrage. Convening a public inquiry into the issues contained in the Referral has now become essential to the public good. [Anarchistic Arbitrage]
|
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended 2010) |
||||||
 |
Stephen House, Chief Constable, muzzle. Fit Strathclyde Police Canidae (dogs, wolves, jackals and foxes) with muzzles to prevent them biting journalists. lead. Attach noosed rope to rabid Canidae to reduce anthropomorphism. |
 |
||||
|
O'Donnell |
Muzzles and Leads |
Pollack |
||||
Raymond Boyle wrote:
The last number of years has seen a growing importance placed on media relations by police forces throughout the UK. This has resulted in an increased concern with public relations practice and in particular that area focused on media relations.
The study centered on Strathclyde Police, the largest force in Scotland and among the largest in the UK. Outside of the Metropolitan Police, Strathclyde, has been throughout the 1990s at the forefront in developing more pro-active media relations strategies.
The paper examines the development of the Spotlight Initiative which attempted to tackle low level, quality of life crime (in some quarters associated with the phrase “zero tolerance”). Central to Spotlight has been the development of a more systematic and structured approach to public relations focused on the role of the media, specifically local and Scottish national newspapers, in communicating with local communities.
Spotlight Strathclyde: Police and Media Strategies (1999)
The research argued that the growing importance of media relations by Strathclyde police force has broader implications for police-media relations throughout the UK. O’Donnell and Pollock need to take note of Boyle’s findings before they answer Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service about the charges referred and their dereliction in addressing them. [A Patent Stitch-up]
Stephen House, Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police has now had adequate time to address the issues; however, he has neither responded to the Referral or the subsequent complaints against O'Donnell and Pollock. Consequently, the Referrer will file a complaint against House with The Regional Procurator Fiscal (RPF)
The Procurator Fiscal Service acts entirely independent of the police and investigates allegations of criminal conduct in the public interest when the complainant alleges that an officer on duty has committed a crime.
After looking into the case, the Regional Procurator Fiscal will decide whether or not to report the case to the Crown Office (the headquarters of the Fiscal Service). Then Crown Counsel (senior prosecution lawyers) will consider the case and will decide whether to prosecute. Police officers accused of a crime have the same rights under law as any other person.
Stephen House, UK's fourth-highest paid police chief at £169,584 a year, joined Strathclyde Police from London's Metropolitan force (2007). He received a £25,150 performance-related bonus (2008) for hitting the targets he helped set. His bonus amounts to about 15% of his salary in addition to £15,448 in relocation expenses and a "rent allowance" of £5410.
As chief constable of Scotland's largest police force, House received nearly £65,000 worth of perquisites on top of his £170,000 a year salary. He also received a bonus, a housing allowance and council tax subsidy. The taxpayer also paid his taxes for private use of a car.
House also benefitted from temporary accommodation and council-tax costs worth £17,426 which covered 16 months from November 2007. In addition, the force paid £1,248.25 to meet the tax liability for his "private miles" on a car. Total perquisites amounted to £64,682, which took his remuneration (2008) to £234,257. His salary has now increased to £173,994. House and his four deputies reportedly received bonuses of £95,786. [Herald Scotland]
Contacts
Professor Paul Trummel
PO Box 3692
Chester, CH1 9RH
Stephen House. Chief Constable
Strathclyde Police Division
Police Headquarters
173 Pitt Street
Glasgow, G2 4JS
Neil Richardson, Deputy Chief Constable
Strathclyde Police Division
Police Headquarters
173 Pitt Street
Glasgow, G2 4JS
Anthony O'Donnell, Chief Inspector
Glasgow Central & West Division
Strathclyde Police Division
50 Stewart Street
Glasgow, G4 0HY
John Pollock, Chief Superintendent
Professional Standards Department
Strathclyde Police Division
Police Headquarters
173 Pitt Street
Glasgow, G2 4JS
 |
© Copyright 2010 by Paul Trummel |
|||
