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

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.