Following on from http://www.therealsyp.co.uk/?page_id=209 I referred the non-recording of the complaint to the IPCC, as is my right.
The IPCC decided to agree with South Yorkshire Police despite all of my submissions showing that Richard ‘Dick’ Goulding did in fact work within the PSD department and has a direct reporting line into the ‘Appropriate Authority’ role and upwards to the ‘Head of PSD’. He is the Executive Caseworker in the chart below, the complaint he handled the appeal on was against the ‘appropriate authority’ and ‘director of investigations’ along with the ‘Head of PSD’ – how can that be impartial ??
I asked the IPCC for copies of all submissions made by SYP that were considered by the IPCC in their assessment of the appeal. As expected, there was no ‘real’ evidence to support a ‘non-recording’ appeal. Instead there were attempts to taint my character, including multiple references to my logging subject access requests (which were made at the insistence of SYP) and multiple references to my logging of complaints against the ICU department.
What the submission of ‘Dick’ failed to mention was that the complaint against the ICU was UPHELD as were the two referals I made to the ICO in relation to the ICU dept making a pigs ear of the disclosures and CC Crompton and his band of legal and national experts on DPA refusing to disclose data they were required to do so.
‘Dick’ was then given free reign to defend the reasons why a complaint against him (yes he was allowed to tell the IPCC) should not be allowed to be logged !
So please somebody, tell me how the IPCC are (to quote from their website) independent, fair and impartial.
In my appeal, I submitted a structure chart for PSD showing how ‘Dick’ reports into the ‘appeal authority role’ then the Head of PSD, all of which were the subject of an appeal he handled ‘impartially’ . Because CC Crompton said he ‘considers’ Dick reports to him under the delegated role of ‘appeal authority’ then there is no conflict of interest.
What a load of rubbish !