Worcester Police Station: 2012

Friday, 7 December 2012

CONCLUSSION

On 13 August 2011, Mr Cercel was victim of an illegal eviction.

To make things even worst, the landlords – White british citizens – called for help of police officers, incident number 300-S-13082012.

Chief Inspector Jerry Reakes-Williams, PC 1353 Slaymaker, PC 1733 Cutler and CSO 6496 Parmar attended the HATE CRIME but failed to stop it, provided false information to the victim, helped by escorting the victim out of the premises thus directly HELPING with the HATE CRIME.

At subsequent dates, Mr Cercel tried recording the criminal offences (HATE CRIMES) yet because he experienced what The Race Relations Act defines as “institutional discrimination”,

the following police officers at the following dates dicriminated him by disregarding his human rights and ignoring procedures:

15 August 2011 PC3050 DOIDGE
16 August 2011 C60080 Richard Miles and PC 2193 Kennet
18-25 November 2011 Inspector Peter Funnell
25 November 2011 Inspector Janet Heritage
15 December 2011 PS 3091 Carl Jones & PS 675 Ian Booth
10 January 2012 PS 3091 Carl Jones

Our victim contacted the INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSION on 30 but because staff there disregarded procedures, Mr Cercel had to endure “the agravated rage” of demanding equality and respect for his human rights:

5 March 2012 PS 3091 Carl Jones and PC 302 Royle threatened to arrest him
6 March 2012 PC 302 Royle PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner provided false information to him
12 February 2012, 13 March 2012, 3 April discriminated & harassed by Investigator Peter Moore
22 March 2012 discriminated by PS 1981 David Qubain
15 April 2012 discriminated by PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner
1 June 2012 provided false information by Chief Inspector Jeremy Reakes-Williams
15 June 2012 ignored by Chief Executive David Brierley
12 July 2012 ignored by The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
31 2012 July provide false information and discriminated by PS 3146 Paul Tyres
5 November 2012 provided false information and discriminated by Mr Stephen Wiggins and Ms Louise Beech-Roberts
9 November 2012 discriminated by PS 3146 Paul Tyres
14 November 2012 discriminated by Chief Constable David Shaw

TO CONCLUDE:
Mr Cecel has been, undoubtedly, victim of the biggest HATE CRIME of modern time, as under the view and protection of police officers he lost access to many of his fundamental rights, right amongst which the right to a home, the right to not be discriminated, the right to higher education, the right to be protected from a humiliating and degrading treatment.

He was treated like a criminal for demanding equality and respect for his human rights!

Thursday, 29 November 2012

IPCC

On 28 November 2012, Mr Cercel added to the complaint reference number 2012/019568 the following email; in an attempt to highlight that Ms Louise Beech Roberts has continued to infringe his human rights.

EVIDENCE:

WEST MERCIA POLICE FORCE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS DEPARTMENT Ms Louise Beech Roberts

Incident 0436-S-091112 has unfortunately a tragic ending; as Mr Cercel is again provided with false information as Ms Louise Beech Robert and the entire Professional Standards Department want to show him that he will not get his fundamental rights respected whilst they have something to say!

EVIDENCE:

I.P.C.C. 2012/019568

On 20 November 2012, Mr Cercel receives confirmation of his NON RECORDED APPEAL against the West Mercia Police Force.

EVIDENCE:

FAO Chief Constable David Shaw

On November 20, as a result of the continuous discrimination and humiliation he is exposed to, Mr Cercel writes further to the OFFICIAL COMPLAINT TO THE CHIEF CONSTABLE.

EVIDENCE:

IPCC

On 10 November, the next day after his phone conversation with PS 3146 Paul Tyres; our victim contacts the I.P.C.C. to appeal against a NON RECORDED APPEAL.

EVIDENCE:

WEST MERCIA POLICE FORCE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS DEPARTMENT Ms Louise Beech Roberts

Together with the NR Appeal, our victim makes more attempts to record the criminal offences at the police force. He gets the confirmation number 0436-S-091112.

EVIDENCE:

West Mercia Police Authority Chief Constable David Shaw

On Friday, 9 November 2012, after receiving several emails and after a phone call confirming the emails received; emails in which the victim was told that WEST MERCIA POLICE FORCE WILL CONTINUE TO DISREGARD PROCEDURES AND HUMAN RIGHTS, he gets in touch and contacts the I.P.C.C. to explain the obvious.

At the I.P.C.C., very polite and helpful staff told him what was already obvious – that he has to make an appeal with them (already did that on Saturday, November 10, 2012 8:26 PM) against a non recorded appeal and then re-record the complaints. This is how the above reference number was born, number which had an appointment on 11th of November at 10:00.

EVIDENCE:

EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINT:

PS 3146 Paul Tyres

On the 9th of November, Mr Cercel makes an attempt to contact the Professional Standards Department of West Mercia Police Force and he bumps again into PS 3146 Paul Tyres.

EVIDENCE:

Dear Mr Stephen Wiggins and Ms Louise Beech-Roberts

In regards to incident reference number 0247-S-18102012, on 5^th November, as the Bonfire parties were being set up, Ms Louise Beech-Roberts emails Mr Cercel the following:

EVIDENCE:

and shortly after, without having any real chance of reply or anything like; on the assumed basis that foreigners are idiots and scared of police officers who provide false information to them, Mr Cercel receives a second email:

EVIDENCE:

That is utterly amazing and nice! The Professional Standards Department of West Mercia Police Force has Mr Cercel as a contact person in their contacts list. Fascinating, yet he “strongly” replies :

EVIDENCE:

PC 2815 Humpries and PC 2644 Meredith West Mercia Police

Later that same day, Mr Cercel receives confirmation of his email.

EVIDENCE:

PC 2815 Humpries and PC 2644 Meredith 0247-S-18102012

29 November 2012: two days after the meeting, meeting in which the police officers continue to serve false information to the victim (in a desperate attempt that he might believe them), Mr Cercel emails – as it was requested of him – the following details.

He also offers free legal training to the police officers!!!

EVIDENCE:

0247-S-18102012 West Mercia Police Force Worcester Police Station

Following legal procedures, our victim tries re-recording the criminal complaints at the Police Station, as he was advised.

He manages to book an appointment for the 27^th October 2012, at 20:00 HRS GMT

IPCC

On the 1^st of August, the IPCC has recorded Mr Cercel's second appeal.

EVIDENCE:

PS 3146 Paul Tyres

On Tuesday, 31^st July 2012, PS 3146 Paul Tyres finishes the investigation against the Chief Inspector.

EVIDENCE:

PS 3146 Paul Tyres

On 26 PS 3146 Paul Tyres refuses to take further evidence into consideration.

EVIDENCE:

PS 3146 Paul Tyres

On 25 July – PS 3146 Paul Tyres – emails Mr Cercel and confirms he will be investigating his complaint.

EVIDENCE:

PS Ian Booth Worcester Police Station 356-S-23072012

On the same day – 23 July, at 6:26 PM, our victim replies to the email received from PS Ian Booth.

EVIDENCE:

Ms Wedgbury West Mercia Professional Standards Department – CO/346/12

Monday, July 23, 2012 6:12 PM, our victim provides further clarification in regards to the complaint against the Chief Inspector.

EVIDENCE:

PS 675 Ian Booth

On 23 July 2012, PS 675 Ian Booth “scares” our victim with his grammar …

EVIDENCE:

Ms Verity Wedgbury

On 23 July 2012, Ms Verity Wedgbury acknowledges the victim's complaint against the Chief Inspector's discriminative behaviour regarding incident 234-S-13072012.

EVIDENCE:

Chief Inspector Jerry Williams – Reakes protects Mr Roger Owen and Mr Russell Milner

The incident number 234-S-13072012 refers to a HATE COMPLAINT against the above two civil offenders, civil offenders who forming a criminal group trespass the private property of Mr Cercel and disregards his human rights, but the above named Chief Inspector decides not to follow procedures and encourage the civil offenders to continue harassing the victim.

HATE CRIMES & RACISM WORCESTER UNITED KINGDOM

As our victim gets advised, between 1^st and 9^th July, he records the following HATE CRIMES:

Monday, July 9, 2012 8:37 PM - Chris Jones, Calum (branch administrator), David Payne and Virginia Martin.

Monday, July 9, 2012 8:02 PM- Jenna Mitchell, Karen Milligan, Tina di Fazio and R Napper.

Monday, July 9, 2012 7:26 PM- Petra Sandi, Laura Castle and Robin Fisher.

Sunday, July 8, 2012 5:14 PM- Ashley Toogood and Eike Anderson.

Friday, July 6, 2012 5:26 PM- Nathan Hodgetts, Ian Pickford and Ms Sarah.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 9:20PM – Russell Milner and Simon Cawley.

Wednesday,July 4, 2012 8:01 AM – Mick Morris, Jacqueline Kearney and Chris Chapman.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012 5:31 PM – David Hull-Blanshard, Anne Daniels, Donald Kerr, Peter Robinson, Martin Owens, Steven Poole, Carl Flint, Robert Davies, Stuart Laverick, Penny Lawrence, Emma Hunt, Lamin Sanneh and Robert Parker with John Ryan.

Monday, July 2, 2012 10:13 PM – Vicky Hughes (Baker), Mandi Rawlings, Dave Rogers and Nigel Haddock.

Sunday,July 1, 2012 8:55 PM – Chris and Paul Christie.

EVIDENCE:

Beyond any doubt !

On 30 June 2012, Mr Cercel sends via email to the I.P.C.C. Admin Caseworker mandatory “beyond any doubt” evidence against all police officers.

EVIDENCE:

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

On 29 June 2012 our victim successfully fills out, signs and mails the complaint to the MP in relation to The Victim’s Code. Now the Local Government MP will refer the complaint to the The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman who will investigate the complaint.

EVIDENCE:

You will see at a later stage why this was a waste of time !

Independent Police Complaint Commision

On 28 June 2012 our victim receives confirmation of his appeal against the "local resolution" of Investigator Peter Moore – the I.P.C.C. will soon be investigating a “more serious complaint”.

EVIDENCE:

Chief Executive David Brierley and Deputy Chief Executive Ian Payne

On 15 June 2012, Mr Cercel e-mails both Mr David Brierley (Chief Executive) and Mr Ian Payne (Deputy Chief Executive) of the West Mercia Police Force and complains about being a victim of discrimination as in his case the procedures of The Victim’s Code were not followed.

EVIDENCE:

Chief Inspector Jeremy Reakes-Williams

On 1^st June 2012, Chief Inspector Jerry Reakes-Williams continues to discriminate our victim – sending an email in which he confirms he will not be following procedures whilst protecting racist offenders (directly discriminating Mr Cercel).

EVIDENCE:

PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner

15 April 2012 - PS 1090 Warner – in a collective effort (effort that The Race Relations Act defines as institutional discrimination) explains the victim that she will not be taking any actions against the racist offenders.

OMG ! She even admits that this is racism !!!

EVIDENCE :

TRANSCRIPTS:
PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner: Hello again!
Costin: I am sorry, I got the sim to a different phone, now it should be ok!
PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner: Ok!
Costin: Ok, I didn`t properly hear you before, earlier. I had the impression you told me those are not hate crimes and it was something legal for me to be harassed by teachers, to be removed from the course because I went on peole’s Facebook pages and contacted the press or use my Yahoo account. Can you please confirm your findings in my investigation ?
PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner: I am confirming that I do not believe that a crime has been committed!
Costin: Ok!
PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner: Ok ? I do not – from the evidence you have given me – do not think they are harassing you …
Costin: Ok, you have been … have you been able to access the videos I have sent ?
PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner: Yes, I have ! Yes!
Costin: Have you been able to see all the PDFs and JPEGs I sent ?
PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner: Yes, I printed them off, I’ve read them, I highlighted them, I’ve made notes from them !
Costin: Ok, if I’m not asking too much would you be able to explain to me why it’s not a HATE CRIME ?
PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner: Because no crime has been committed ! It’s a HATE incident as you believe it to be a hate incident, therefor we have to record it as a hate incident !

Investigator Peter Moore

On 3 April 2012, Investigator Peter Moore send the victim a letter in which he is expressing his diasppointment as he is unable to investigate nothing because of “To date I have heard nothing from you”.

EVIDENCE:

EPIC FAIL !!! LOL !!! POWER TO THE PHONE CALL RECORDING SOFTWARE !!!

Investigator Peter Moore

March 28 2012 - after an other phone with Investigator Peter Moore, investigator who decides he will not be investigating nothing, the victim writes a further complaint to the I.P.C.C., explaining the discrimination he is being subject of.

EVIDENCE:

PS 1981 David Qubain

To accentuate the feeling of “INSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION” – on 22^nd March 2012 PS 1981 David Qubain confirms our victim – Mr Cercel – that because other of his colleagues are not following procedures, he is not prepared to do that either.

EVIDENCE:

Investigator Peter Moore

Investigator Peter Moore, on 12 March 2012 – upon being confronted with all the evidences – decides to keep the victim`s complaint to a “local resolution” instead of the “more serious” complaint.

EVIDENCE:

TRANSCRIPTS:
Costin: Yes ?
Investigator Peter Moore: Oh, hello. Is that Mr Cercel ?
Costin: Speaking !
Investigator Peter Moore: Hello, this is Peter Moore from West Mercia Professional Standard Department.
Costin: Hello !
Investigator Peter Moore: Hello ! I missed you; I think you called last week and I was away.
Costin: I called on Tuesday, yes, and I spoke with your line manager. He told me you will give me a phone call today.
Investigator Peter Moore: Yes, and I have done !
Costin: Yes, I know, thank you for that.
……
Costin: Ok, I understand; so a police officer can come into my house and threaten me whenever he wants, yes ? I do not agree to it, but he can come, yes ?
Investigator Peter Moore: What I’ve said is, if you’ve done something wrong, for example if you’ve gone into the college and you behaved in a certain way which may have made you liable to arrest, the officer can come to you and say “Mr Cercel, when you did this and this and this, you may have made yourself liable to arrest and I am warning you about that!”; so there is no problem with him doing that, he hasn`t arrested you, I presume?
Costin: No, he was just intimidating me!
Investigator Peter Moore: Right, but what he`s saying to you is that if you behave in a certain way, it could lead to you being arrested. That’s why …
Costin: I am assuming you’ve spoken with him already, yes ?
Investigator Peter Moore: I haven`t spoken with anyone; the only person I’ve spoken with is you. I got some documents you made reference to certain reports and gave me numbers; I’ve printed those off and I’ve read those things …….….. that have happened to you necessarily; what I’m investigating is if that officers have responded to you and how they dealt with you. Does that make sense ?
Costin: Sir, I understand perfectly what you are saying; I am just trying to say that I have been harassed at the college, I have dialed 112; the police was suppose to come, take a statement from me and then go and take actions against the harassers; what has the police done ? They came and harassed me in my house. Isn’t that against the law ? Shouldn’t the police officers be arrested and … ?
Investigator Peter Moore: Well, the difficulty is you may believe, you may believe that you’ve been harassed by the college, but it may be that the college is saying and they have certain rights to do so; for example if you attend the college and you do things that are against their policies and ..
Costin: Two seconds, stop, stop, stop!
Investigator Peter Moore: Yea ?
Costin: Royle explained me, PC 302 Royle explained me that I have been suspended I’ve made complaints against the staff – that is a human right I have – I have made complaints against the staff, I have contacted the press and I have looked on people’s Facebook …
Investigator Peter Moore: Right !
Costin: Since when are those actions, illegal actions that you can be removed from the college for ?
Investigator Peter Moore: Well, that is ultimately a matter for the college; the college have a right to allow or not whoever they want into the college …
Costin: No, they don`t have it; we are talking about The Education Act !
Investigator Peter Moore: You don`t necessarily have a .. if, if you do things in a certain way and the college don`t agree with it, they may have a right to exclude you from the college. If my child for example goes to school and behaves in a certain way at that school, that are against their procedures and against their principles; they can exclude my son.
Costin: Just a second, you are unaware that we all have human rights; indifferent to our nationality…
Investigator Peter Moore: I am not unaware of that at all; no, I’m perfectly aware.
……..
Investigator Peter Moore: I understand!
Costin: In the recording you will see Carl Jones threatening he will arrest me and that he will not be taking into consideration my complaint; what will happen then to him ?
Investigator Peter Moore: Well, I … let me have a look at it first; I have to see it … in order to … it depends what .. you know, what, what the evidence shows on there and what he said; I’ll have to ask him about why he did what he did and why he did it.
Costin: Ok, let`s assume for a few seconds that in the recording you will see that he threatens to arrest me and he will not take my complaint into consideration; what will happen then to him ?
Investigator Peter Moore: I can’t say, I can’t say; we’ll have to determine how serious it is.
Costin: You will have to determine what ?
Investigator Peter Moore: We will have to determine how serious it is. So first of all we have to … in terms of what he’s done …
Costin: Yes ?
Investigator Peter Moore: So he, so for example if he makes a decision that he believes your behaviour, previous behaviour at the college would leave you liable to arrest, we’d have to determine what information he was considering, considering to come to that decision and whether that actually fits within the law and whether there would have been a power for you to be arrested. Now, if, if, if there isn’t; then obviously we would uphold your complaint.
Costin: And what would happen to him then ?
Investigator Peter Moore: Well, we would have to decide whether there was any discipline measure that we needed to take or whether it has to have some training or advice around it.
Costin: Ok, can I move my complaint to an other colleague of yours or to your line manager ?
Investigator Peter Moore: Can you move your complaint ?
Costin: I have a complaint with you, yes ? You first wrote my complaint on the 13^th of January; already because you failed to take action against Carl Jones and everybody else, they were allowed to come and continue to discriminate and harass me.
Investigator Peter Moore: Right !

PC 302 Royle PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner

The day after being threatened with arrest, our victim finds the courage and faces his harasser, PC 302 Royle :

EVIDENCE:

TRANSCRIPTS:

PC 302 Royle: We didn`t know why you were told to leave, we didn’t had an idea, if they’d said to me “Constantin has assaulted a member of staff, that’s why we let him go”, I would of taken statements and you would have been arrested; as it happened they told me that you were removed only because you were told that you weren’t allowed on premises till your meeting on Thursday, there is no arrest against you.
Costin: What was the reason they told you I was suppose to be removed ?
PC 302 Royle: Removed ? Effectively they said that when they had the last meeting with you they told you “don’t come in until the meeting on Thursday!” because you were making complaints against staff, contacting press, going on people’s Facebook and they were saying that you effectively were nuisance; this is what they told me, so they told me that in their meeting they sat down with you and you said “you will twist my words because English isn’t my first language” so they arranged for an interpreter they thought the best thing they could do for the College would be you don`t go back until the 8^th when you have your meeting when you will have your say with the interpreter.
Costin: Do you understand that on that day they will try to find reasons to …
PC 302 Royle: I am not the Local Educational …

and once you are done laughing ... our victim, FOLLOWING PROCEDURES (our victim was the only person in all this dispute who followed both the procedures and the lawful authority) escalated the complaint to the Duty Sergeant, PS Elizabeth Warner:

EVIDENCE: http://youtu.be/OQP8AGitIts

(same video as the above one)

TRANSCRIPTS:

Costin: PC Royle with one of his colleagues from the Dines Green Police Station – Mr Carl Jones coming at my place. The first thing they have started doing was threatening me that if I will continue making complaints I will be arrested. What happened now is I have made a complaint against Carl Jones, he wasn’t even supposed to be there; I have dialed today, this morning at West Mercia Police Professional Standards; they told me that by Monday it should all be taken care of; because the complaint I have made with them is being dealt with by a sargeant, an investigator that isn’t at the moment in the office as he has a week leave.
PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner: Ok!
Costin: So now, I need to know. I have been the victim of Institutional Racism at the College since September. Yesterday was the last thing, thing that made me realise that if I don`t get the police involved I won`t feel safe. I am paying for a course at The University and I have everybody from my module leader to the vice principal involved, harassing me and disregarding my human rights, being racist and discriminative with me. Those are criminal offences, they need to be arrested, they need to be removed from the property, I need to continue my course.
PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner: Do you have any idea in mind of what crime they are committing ?
Costin: Harassing from The Harassment Act 1997, there was also Article 1 of the Malicious Communication; I don’t know them all by heart …
PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner: The reason why I’m asking you is that what you’ve told me it doesn’t sound like they are committing a crime; it might not be the right thing to do, it might not be very grown-up and it might be racist, I don’t know, I haven`t investigated it; but from what I hear it’s not a crime !
Costin: Sorry, two seconds; PC Royle told me he will not be investigating anything, he won’t even take the complaint into …
PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner: Well, that`s because there isn`t a crime to investigate! You came to us with a situation and it’s called a HATE incident ! Ok ? Not a HATE CRIME ! You perceive something to be racist, homophobic, ageist … a HATE INCIDENT! In order for it to be a HATE CRIME there needs to be a CRIME ! There is no crime there and I have experience …
Costin: I have been harassed, I have been called “homeless” in front of my colleagues !
PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner: I think being contacted by your own tutors isn`t harassed because if were to do with a harassment incident or have to do with a harassment crime we would be telling your tutors never to contact you again; which means you can`t go to university again. That`s not a good outcome, is it ?
Costin: They have suspended me!
PS 1090 Elizabeth Warner: If we were to go ahead you won`t be able to go to university and that`s not what we want to do to you, is it ?

PS 3091 Carl Jones and PC 302 Royle

On 5 March 2012, whilst investigating incident number 119-S-05032012; PC 302 Roylee and PS 3091 Carl Jones (the same from December – January) visit the victim in his house and instead of following procedures mandatory under The Victim`s Code and HATE CRIME/INCIDENT REPORT decide to intimidate him – by threatening to arrest him if he continues on demanding equality and respect for his human rights !!!

EVIDENCE:

TRANSCRIPTS:
Costin: No, no, not these ones; two seconds; the ones about the police and the landlords and the solicitor.
PS 3091 Carl Jones: What do you think Fife Council is going to do with them ?
Costin: I think they will send them to the police to start criminal prosecution …
PS 3091 Carl Jones: We already have this and there will be no criminal proceeding in relation to the physiotherapist, the landlord or that solicitor.
Costin: Do you want to call the Ombudsman to confirm that it’s European Law ?
PS 3091 Carl Jones: No! You need to go to the Citizens Advice Bureau and get a solicitor. You don`t seem to understand.
Costin: Ok, 2 seconds.
PS 3091 Carl Jones: What I will say is that if the College says to PC Royle that you behaved in a manner that is unlawful you may be arrested as well; you understand that ? Ok?
Costin: Unlawful for what ? Two seconds, let me see if I got this right …
PC 302 Royle: I will tell you what’s happening: I will record this as an incident because you believe – on this basis – I will not record it as a crime where at the moment I’m gonna start arresting people; because there is no evidence of a crime but you are telling me you believe it’s racist, so I will record it to get your name on our system with your beliefs and that is where it will end at the moment.
Me: Ok !

Investigator Peter Moore West Mercia Professional Standards Department

On the 13^th of February 2012, Investigator Peter Moore calls our victim to inform him that he will be investigating a local resolution.

The victim tries to explain that these are all HATE CRIMES and he doesn’t want a simple local resolution:

EVIDENCE:

TRANSCRIPTS:
Costin: Yes ?
Investigator Peter Moore: Hello, is this Mr Cercel ?
Costin: Yes!
Investigator Peter Moore: This is Peter Moore, I’m from West Mercia Police from the Professional Standards Department.
Costin: Yes sir ?
Investigator Peter Moore: I am ringing about …
Costin: The complaint I made to the I.P.C.C.
Investigator Peter Moore: That’s right, they’ve passed it to me and I shall look at it.
Costin: Yes.
Investigator Peter Moore: So I just wanted to introduce myself and to explain what my role is, if that’s ok?
Costin: Yes ?
Investigator Peter Moore: The first thing to say is that I work for West Mercia Police but I’m not a police officer and my role is to look at how the police have done their job, to make sure that they done things that they should have done and to ensure that they’ve applied to the law and also to the processes and procedures that are in place.
Costin: Yes ?
Investigator Peter Moore: And I look to make sure that standards of professional behaviour are being adhered to; so that’s my role.
Costin: I understand. I want to make sure that my complaint is against police officers for misconduct, gross misconduct and me not having the chance to make a complaint, yes ?
Investigator Peter Moore: Yes !
Costin: Ok.
Investigator Peter Moore: In terms of how the gravity of the complaint is assessed, that`s not done by me but by someone else; they will look at it and see , you know, where your complaint falls into;in terms of something being gross misconduct it means that very serious and an officer would , is likely to loose their job. Ok ?
Costin: Yes ?
Investigator Peter Moore: So for something to be gross misconduct, that`s the possible outcome.
Costin: I know !
Investigator Peter Moore: And .. ok, you understand that ! And in term of these officers what we’ll look at is, as I said at the start, we`ll look to see if the complied with the law, they complied with the policy and procedures and that they’ve acted within their professional responsibility, the standard of their professional behaviour, so that`s where I focus. And ultimately we look at if we show that if they have committed misconduct, we look to see what we can learn from that and how we can put that right. Ok ? So it may be that they have to have some training or might have some advice or something such as that. Do you understand ….
Costin: Yes, I understand what you are saying …
Investigator Peter Moore: Ok !

Investigator Peter Moore West Mercia Professional Standards Department

Contrary to popular belief, the I.P.C.C. sends the “more serious complaint” to the Professional Standards Department of The West Mercia Police Force, where Investigator Peter Moore decides on 6^th February 2012 – without following procedures – to record the complaint against his colleagues as a simple “local resolution” and not the real “more serious complaint”.

EVIDENCE: