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

Enter what you see:
This image contains a scrambled text, it is using a combination of colors, font size, background, angle in order to disallow computer to automate reading. You will have to reproduce it to post on my homepage Tip: Reload page if you have difficulty reading characters
Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
King of Hits
Home arrow Forums
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
My response to the Operation Hydrant report
Go to bottomPost New TopicPost Reply
TOPIC: My response to the Operation Hydrant report
My response to the Operation Hydrant report 7 Months, 3 Weeks ago  
If you've read the Hydrant Report, published to day on the Surrey Police website, you'll be interested in my response. Hydrant makes 27 very serious recommendations to Surrey Police - the wonderful Henriques Report made 43 to the Metropolitan Police, every one of which applied not only to my 2018 case but my 2001 one as well.

Dear Richard Fewkes,

I have now had a chance to read the Hydrant report into Operation Ravine, which I thought was thorough and efficient.
But I have two major areas of disagreement.

Both yourselves and Surrey Police (PCC and CC) seem to have ignored the damage done to victims of false allegations. Of course genuine victims must be informed about police errors, but there were none in my case, and the Carl Beech case must have informed you of the amount of false allegations made today, for whatever reasons. This must particularly start with police behaviour; I believe that Carl Beech was just the tip of the iceberg. Thanks to media coverage, exaggerations and even total invention make up the majority of claims. Other celebrities such as Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini illustrate the epidemic of this crime. Cases such as David Bryant are even more common and surely Hydrant should be urging the prosecution of liars.

Secondly, you state clearly that you have avoided examining individual officers and my ongoing complaints, still being investigated by Surrey Police PSD. So how can you later reject any possibility of bad faith? I certainly do not claim any such thing, leaving it to PSD to investigate. But I suspect Gross Misconduct at very least and possibly criminal behaviour such as False Arrest, Forgery and Perjury. Whether much can be explained away, as you suggest in your report, by lack of training and experience neither you nor I have any way of knowing.

PSD (to whom this is copied) have been examining for well over a year. I made many of my complaints in early 2017. I do hope your criticisms of Surrey Police (which I found almost as devastating as HHJ Taylor’s) will not be found also to have infected PSD. However I should stress - HHJ Taylor’s ruling was not, as some have attempted to imply, only about Failures To Disclose. To quote - it was also about a far more serious issue - persistent misleading of the Court.

To the layman, that is lying on oath.

I’m sure any decent Chief Constable would not want officers lying to obtain search warrants, forging warrants to obtain access to bank vaults, failing to report to the (now) IOPC Deaths In Custody, avoiding cross examination by feigning illness, perjuring themselves in the witness box - these are just some of the possible (I stress possible) acts being investigated by PSD.
I’m sure any decent Chief Constable would not want a PSD whose function became “brushing under a carpet”. I’m sure any decent Chief Constable would know that conviction rates dropping from 20% to “under 4%” implies many past years of unsafe convictions, before changes were made. Victims come in many sizes. At the heart of all this are the Falsely Accused.

Most of the really serious problems in police behaviour may have come in areas you decided were outside your brief. But I’m sure you would agree they are vital to be cleared up, if they exist. And neither of us can rule out Bad Faith. Three friends told me “Surrey Police are killing me”.

Perhaps most serious of all is my assertion that both Chief Constable Ephgrave and PCC Munro failed to investigate my complaints when I provided them with detailed evidence in early 2017. The enormous expense and waste of effort could have been avoided, let alone all the tragic consequences.

Thank you for your work on this, and that of your team. Please forward this to them also.

Best wishes,
Jonathan King
Logged Logged
  Reply Quote
Re:My response to the Operation Hydrant report 7 Months, 3 Weeks ago  
Many serious faults Hydrant picked up on - officers were not trained and under resourced; it shocked me to discover one officer had been in Transport Police; another in Family Liaison; several retired; none trained in this area, which was why they made so many mistakes (I had a tape of one officer admitting they were breaking the law as he tried to prise false allegations out of a friend).

Hydrant condemns Operation Fortune; the surveillance on me for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 6 months. They found I was totally innocent of any current offences or behaviour so police tried to suppress that from my defence, using anti-terrorism legislation. The judge refused to allow that and everyone in court gasped when the findings were revealed.

They also pretended to have lost the Merseyside Report which seriously criticised police behaviour 20 years ago during Operation Arundel - which led to my wrongful conviction in 2001. Again, when it was "found" (whilst the ghastly Rosina Cottage QC was on her feet, trying to say it did not exist) it gave massive quantities of evidence on my behalf, and the Court gasped once more.

PCC Munro is now saying the 27 serious recommendations should immediately be implemented. He was not so keen when I sent him evidence in early 2017. A total waste of space; do watch him in GUILTY.

No wonder Chief Constable Ephgrave jumped ship to the Met - applying days after telling the media he had no intention of resigning. Like Steve Rodhouse, useless or corrupt cops tend to get promoted upwards and if they get kicked out they get massive pensions, paid by us, the tax payer.

Am I expecting Surrey Police Professional Standards Department to find against the useless officers? Hydrant, despite finding them totally incompetent, has decided (without examination) that there is no evidence of "Bad Faith". PSD has loads of such evidence unless they, likewise, are under funded and untrained. So YES - I'm expecting several findings of Gross Misconduct and even a few of Criminal Behaviour. Knowing that their investigation will be closely scrutinised, they will find it hard to be incompetent.
Logged Logged
  Reply Quote

Re:My response to the Operation Hydrant report 7 Months, 3 Weeks ago  
JK you say
"Many serious faults Hydrant picked up on - officers were not trained and under resourced"

Now let look at this another way.
Would you allow someone NOT fully trained to,

fly your holiday airplane
Drive your bus
Service you gas boiler
Install electrical goods
Go to war
Or even sweep the streets without full training?
So now you cannot have the excuse of not having the resource because if you are an airline pilot short your not going to send someone to fly the aircraft if no competent to do so and of been tested in situations.

I know we go on about him all the time here but Mark Williams-Thomas is the perfect presentation of someone not trained in what he does but presents himself as expert on the next thing he decides bring the money in.
The buck stops with senior officers to allow this to go on, it will come to pass I am sure but to many officers will retire and dissappear.
Logged Logged
  Reply Quote

Re:My response to the Operation Hydrant report 7 Months, 2 Weeks ago  
And still the Jackanory Maestro MWT remains elusive in it all.

I'm assuming they are saving the best for last? I mean, surely he has had long enough by now!

I can imagine the Fairy tales told to kids in his household...

MWT:" Once upon a time, the wolf chased the three bears and the little pig said, 'Who's been eating my porridge?"

Child: "I think you have that wrong."

MWT:" Be quiet. Daddy is a detective remember? Anyway, they all lived happily ever after and the princess... "

Child:"Is that the end?"

MWT:"You know Daddy isn't very good at endings!"
Logged Logged
  Reply Quote
Go to topPost New TopicPost Reply