Chief Superintendent Claire Richards. A consummate liar.
"I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental
human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and people and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue
to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law." Police Oath of Attestation.
"The Department of Work and Pensions are a separate statutory body with their
own professional governance and complaints framework that deals with the conduct of its investigatory staff whilst they are on duty. As such Merseyside Police will not become involved in such disputes." Chief Inspector Nicolas Gunatilleke, Staff Officer
to the Chief Constable (Jon Murphy).
"There is no seperate policy regarding crimes committed by DWP officials." Answer to my FOI request of January 2017- see the attached document 'Someone is telling porkies'.
"You can contact
us about any aspect of the service you've received including: mistakes that have been made; unreasonable delays; how you've been treated; not being kept informed...The independent case examiner can't look at matters of law or government policy. They won't
look at benefit or maintenance decisions, for example, because you can appeal against these." DWP Complaints Procedure. Of course not, matters of law are for the police...durr!
"Where any person, including police personnel,
reports a hate incident it must be recorded as such: Regardless of whether they are the victim or not; Whether a crime has been committed or not; Irrespective of whether there is any evidence to identify the hate element." National Standard for Incident
"Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the UK in 1948, informs us that all are equal before the law with no discrimination. Any chief constable who denies those on benefits this fundamental human right
must consider those on benefits to be subhuman." How I signed off my letter dated 15th October 2016 to Chief Constable Andy Cooke after telling him what a sham the complaint process is.
Throughout 2013 I called Merseyside Police numerous times
telling them I had been framed for benefit fraud by employees of the DWP but they always put me off, telling me to try a solicitor, citizens advice, MIND and such like. A couple of times though when I pressed the police operator they would shamefully admit
"we don't investigate the DWP". Like any normal person I found this incredible. I was telling the police that I, as someone who was mentally impaired, had been framed for fraud and the police wouldn't lift a finger. Solicitors, wouldn't help until I was issued
with a summons but one did advise that I try my MP - more of that later.
In October 2013 I sent my dossier addressed to the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, Jon Murphy. My dossier was five pages describing the crimes and naming the criminals: DWP
fraud investigator, Edward Whiteside; Allison Johnston of the Birkenhead Benefit Office; Allison McLiesh of FIS Appeals, Coatbridge and last but definitely not least, First-tier judge David Hewitt, followed by 29 pages of documented evidence. A child could
see that I had been framed. I reported it as a hate crime as I was targeted while mentally impaired. (see below for first page of my dossier)
On 29th October by return of post I received a reply from Chief Inspector Gareth Thompson, assistant to the
Chief Constable telling me he had considered my crime report but this was between me and the DWP. I believe Thompson was a decent man whose hands were tied. He indicated he was well aware I had been framed as he wrote "I appreciate your frustration".
A month or so later I mentioned my crime report to an acquaintance who was a retired police officer who expressed astonishment that for such serious crimes I had not been issued with a crime reference. He told me the police must
investigate such serious crimes. I then decided to complain to the IPCC. Here is my complaint...
On 26th October
2013 I sent the Chief Constable a dossier of crimes committed by employees of the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and a lawyer acting as a Courts and Tribunal First-Tier judge. These crimes included forgery, fraud, misconduct in public office and perverting
the course of justice. I also provided documented evidence of these crimes. I identified the initial crime as being a hate crime and the others regarding a cover up of this crime.
On the 29th October, I received a reply from Mr Thompson informing me that there would be no investigation of these crimes by the police and I should complain to the DWP. Since when do people
report crimes to the DWP especially when the DWP have committed them and is covering them up? This, I believe, is a dereliction of duty by Merseyside Police, leading to the conclusion that those receiving sickness benefit are denied the civil right to be protected
from criminals within the DWP by the police. This is totally unacceptable.
In April 2014 I was visited by Superintendent Claire Richards and a male colleague and explained how I had been framed. I told them all they had to do was ask
whoever amended my award to income-based, who gave them my wife's maiden name and they would be told it was Edward Whiteside. Then just round up the lot of them. Richards said I would hear from her within two weeks. Ten weeks later I wrote reminding her of
my complaint. Her reply stated I had no right of appeal and dismissed my complaint on the grounds that my crime report had been investigated by the Force Solicitor and that DCI Thompson told me there was no misconduct. Both of which DCI Thompson's
reply proves are lies. (see below). Normally, you would expect a police officer to lie to cover up the crime of a colleague. Richards though, is lying to cover up the crimes of a DWP fraud investigator she doesn't know from Adam. Nevertheless, should
I eventually prove her lies in court, the slammer beckons Richards.
As can be seen from the first page of
my dossier, I reported the crime as a hate crime. Although I knew I was targeted because I was mentally impaired, I thought that if I mentioned the possibility of a racial motive due to my wife's ethnicity this would guarantee a positive response. Silly
me. Like all police forces, Merseyside Police has its policy and procedure document for dealing with hate crime. The crime report must be logged, blah, blah, blah. None of this was done and Richards conveniently omits this from her reasons for finding against
For the police to tell victims to complain to the DWP adds insult to injury as it is members of the DWP's Fraud and Error Service, which 'investgates complaints', who are the criminals framing victims in the first place.
Superintendent Claire Richards is now Chief Superintendent Claire Richards and the Sefton Area Commander. It appears that lying, corrupt police officers are highly thought of by Chief Constable Murphy.
After the thumbs down from the rotten Richards,
I wrote directly to the IPCC in London and was advised to complain to Merseyside Police Professional Standards which I did. I received a reply from DCI Mark Kameen which was more of a threat than a civilised response. I later discovered that Kameen was
the head of the notorious racist and thug infested Matrix squad.
It was earlier this year that Chief Inspector Nicloas Gunatilleke wrote to me confirming that Merseyside Police do not record reports of crimes, including hate crimes, commited by employees
of the DWP against those receiving state benefits. This letter is a vindication of my complaint. I also wrote to the Metropolitan Police who confirmed this intolerable and illegal state of affairs. In the letter from the Metropolitan Police, DS Marcus Barnett,
tells me that the Met has no jurisdiction outside of Greater London which is at odds with what I have read. ( see below for both letters)
I then wrote to the
Minister for Police, Mike Penning, asking him the same questions. You guessed it, I have had no reply.
I followed up on Gunatilleke's response by asking him on whose authority such crimes are not recorded and for how long this policy has been in force.
His reply simply repeated his mantra of the first response.
In March I tried again by contacting the head of the Merseyside Police Professional Standards, Detective Chief Superintendent Karen Cummings, telling her of the disgraceful treatment by Richards when
I complained via the IPCC and sending her proof that I had indeed been framed.
Update: on 7th July, 2016, I received a reply from the office of Mike Penning apologising for the delay and informing me "that decisions around
the investigation and charge of an offence are an operational matter for the Chief Officer of the force concerned." So, my accusation of treason against the now ex-Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, Jon Murphy, is wholly appropriate. I have now
written to his successor, Andy Cooke, on whether the policy has been changed (I doubt it).
Update: On 5th August, Professional Standards,
headed by Karen Cummings, replied refusing to consider my complaint against Claire Richards on the convenient grounds that it is outside of the time limit. However, I have been given a doggy's chance with an appeal to Murphy's replacement, Chief Constable
Andy Cooke. Something about this though reminds me of that Who classic 'Won't Get Fooled Again'..."Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss".
Update: On 2nd September, I received a reply to my appeal informing me it was in order and was to be reviewed not by the Chief Constable as I was told but by...Karen Cummings!
Update: On 11th October, my appeal was disallowed by Karen "cover-up" Cummings for being outside the time limit. This is the process of the police force of a banana republic.
In Jaunary 2017 I made my FOI request to Merseyside Police asking just exactly how long they had been discriminating against those on benefits by
refusing to record the crimes of DWP officials. The laughable reply is below. see 'someone is telling porkies'. As this was another stinking Cooke lie, I immediately followed it up with another FOI request, this time asking for the number of DWP officials
charged and prosecuted by Mersyside Police for crimes against those on benefits since 01.01.2009. The answer, needless to say, was a resounding ZERO. Hah, bloody hah! see the document 'February surprise'.
If anyone has any doubts about this discrimination here is my response to an answer to my enquiry to the Met. You couldn’t make it up…
confirming the discrimination. My question was how long has this been going on for?
<Salma.Siddique@met.pnn.police.uk> on behalf of CCCMailbox-InternetMailbox@met.pnn.police.uk <CCCMailbox-InternetMailbox@met.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 24 February 2017 14:17
RE: Online form submission: CDS-252-17-000
If you have a complaint against the DWP then you can find more details on the complaints procedure
MetCC Digital Contact Centre
Metropolitan Police Service
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 24 February 2017 13:39
To: CCC Mailbox - Internet Mailbox <CCCMailbox-InternetMailbox@met.pnn.police.uk>
Subject: Online form submission: CDS-252-17-000
Your enquiry: If you have already contacted the police regarding
this enquiry and have a reference number, please enter it here: -
If you want to contact a specific officer, please provide a name or shoulder/warrant number: If your enquiry relates to a specific location, please provide it below. This will help
us direct your enquiry to the most appropriate team: -
Tell us your enquiry - How long have the police refused to record crimes committed against those in receipt of state benefits by officials of the DWP because
the DWP is a statutory body?
Your contact details:
First name - Philip
Surname - Grace
In March 2017, I sent Merseyside Police a reminder,
that having sent Cooke the documentary evidence proving the DWP's submission to the court contained fabricated evidence framing me for benefit fraud, not to record this was a breach of the oath of attestation. This actually prompted a response from Fiona Hatch
of the Crime Demand Unit. Unsurprisingly, she tells me my crime report which I have always said was a hate crime, is not a hate crime but 'an issue with the DWP of whether or not you informed them about 'any income from pension, permanent health
insurance or compensation', rather than a hate crime. This would not be something the police would investigate, the investigation would be taken up by the DWP and your own legal representation." The Hatchimal, thinks I don't know that hate crimes must
be recorded based on the perception of the victim that it is a hate crime not on the opinion of a dim-witted, bent cop like the Hatchimal. If I now complain about this decision, then I am back to square one. Happy days!