King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

Enter code here

Topic History of: PCC Munro/CC Ephgrave/Surrey Council PCP
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
'M'	JK you are really determined to see justice work I think it's the tip of a very large iceberg that the SS FA ship is sailing into. The media is picking up on a really good story but this time the allegations areally not false and it's the best story to tell.
JK2006	Just to clarify - read the link below; Munro's justification for NOT investigating CC Ephgrave was that his Chief Constable "had no direct involvement" in the crimes of lying on oath to a magistrate. So, essentially, he felt that a Chief Constable had no direct responsibility for the acts of his officers. But Ephgrave had been informed, in detail, about the behaviour and had replied, via his official lawyer (who wrote "I represent the Chief Constable" - not Surrey Police or his Deputy or his dog), that he admitted the offences but that the Search Warrant "would have been granted anyway" - thus condoning the "means" to the "ends" - activity roundly condemned by HHJ Taylor in her ruling at Southwark Crown Court. A similar "excuse" for not following Due Process in reporting three Deaths In Custody would surely have been "they would have died anyway". I'm sorry; to me this is Direct Responsibility for the Surrey Police culture. The battle continues. www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/pol...investigate-14035291