See also
1a. Alan
Billings, South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner: scrutiny,
accountability
1b.
Same content as (1) but in single column
1c. Alan Billings: Ichtheology, the
Billingsgate Challenge
1d. Police
and Ethics Panels
1e. S. Yorks
Police: IOPC
1f. S. Yorks Police, PCC, Panels
1g. Alan Billings: 'Hate Crime'
1h. Capability in
education and policing
1i. 'Treating people properly'
Introduction
The Office of the South Yorkshire
Copy of the document sent to me on 3 February, 2023 giving the outcome of my complaint to the Professional Standards Department of South Yorkshire Police
The document I received from the Office of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, mentioned in the third column of the page, contains this: 'Unauthorised use or disclosure of the content may be unlawful.'
I can find no such warning in the document I received from the Investigator of the Complaints and Discipline Section of the Professional Standards Department of South Yorkshire Police. For this reason, I quote the document in its entirety, omitting the name of the Investigator:
Dear Mr Hurt,
Following receipt of your complaint, which was recorded under Schedule 3 of
the Police Reform Act 2002, I was appointed to undertake reasonable and
proportionate enquiries. May I thank you for yourpatience whilst I have carried out my reasonable and proportionate enquiries
into your complaint,
recorded under reference CO/1620/22.
As mentioned previously, from your initial complaint, the allegations raised
were as follows;
1. The complainant alleges that an officer has mishandled serious concerns
taken to him
by the complainant. He is unhappy that a Community Protection Notice has
been
issued against him.
PS 160 Kirkham
2. The complainant, Mr Hurt, is unhappy with the issuing of a Police
Information Notice on
him on the 24th of November 2015. The complainant is unhappy that the Police
Information Notice was factually incorrect and believes that a subsequent
investigation
into this by a senior Officer was inadequate.
PC 3571 Stevens
PC 3951 Terry
Unknown Officer
I must remind you that I am not able to investigate or re-investigate any
crime connected with your
complaint and it is not possible for the complaints process to interfere
with the criminal justice process
or judicial findings. My role is to review the police action that has been
undertaken in the context of
the complaint that you have made and to determine whether the level of
service you received was
acceptable or unacceptable.
In order to do so, I have reviewed available records held on police systems
which are relevant to your
complaint and have obtained accounts from relevant Officers.
1. The complainant alleges that an officer has mishandled serious concerns
taken to him
by the complainant. He is unhappy that a Community Protection Notice has
been
issued against him.
PS 160 Kirkham
PC 160 Kirkham confirms that a warning was issued to you, to protect a
vulnerable person who was
complaining about your actions.
• The complainant states that he was never given a written warning before
the
delivery of the Community Protection Notice and would like to know why this
essential step was omitted.
Mr Hurt, I can confirm that a Community Protection Notice was not issued to
you.
I can confirm that it was a Community Protection Notice – Written Warning
that was issued to you, on
the 15th of February 2022.
This warning informs you that ‘if from this time and date, the conduct is
still having a detrimental
impact on the quality of life of those in locality then you will be served a
Community Protection Notice’.
• The complainant alleges that he was never approached for his view or asked
for
evidence before the Community Protection Notice was issued.
He states that the Community Protection Notice contained gross
misrepresentations and amounted to defamation of character in the ‘Details
of
the Conduct’ section.
PC 160 Kirkham confirms that a Community Protection Notice – Written Warning
does not need to be
subject to interview. He confirms that the evidence exists and therefore,
the warning was served.
Mr Hurt, from viewing the relevant investigation of which the Community
Protection Notice – Written
Warning was issued in relation to, I note the evidence that PS 160 Kirkham
is referring to. I can see that this includes but is not limited to a number of e-mails that were sent
to Church Army and Durham
University and a letter that was hand delivered to Church Army – asking for
the note to be brought to
the attention of Ms Skerratt-Love.
• The complainant states that he would like to know whether it was PS 160
Kirkham who instructed the two Police Officers to deliver to him the
Community
rotection Notice. He states that he has very good reason for thinking that
PS160 Kirkham was showing Christian bias when he made the decision, as Lu
Skerratt-Love is a fellow Christian.
PS 160 Kirkham confirms that he did authorise the issuing of the Community
Protection Notice – Written
Warning, to protect a female complaining about your actions.
PS 160 Kirkham confirms that this is not true. He confirms that he does not
know the victim or her
religious beliefs.
From the above, I have determined that the level of service provided was
acceptable.
2. The complainant, Mr Hurt, is unhappy with the issuing of a Police
Information Notice on
him on the 24th of November 2015. The complainant is unhappy that the Police
Information Notice was factually incorrect and believes that a subsequent
investigation
into this by a senior Officer was inadequate.
PC 3571 Stevens
PC 3951 Terry
Unknown Officer
• The complainant states that this was issued without any attempt to
ascertain his views
beforehand or to find out what evidence he could present. He confirms that
he did had
evidence available.
PC 3951 Terry explains that the process of issuing a Police Information
Notice at that time did not
require any formal interview.
• The complainant states that the details of ‘alleged conduct’ included the
allegation that
he had called two individuals ‘blundering buffoons’, which is factually
incorrect.
The complainant alleges that he never called Mrs Conheeney a ‘blundering
buffoon’,
only Mr Conheeney.
PC 3951 Terry explains that unfortunately, as too much time has lapsed, she
does not recall if the
comment that she heard on the voicemail was directed to Mr or Mrs Conheeney.
Unfortunately Mr Hurt, having viewed the relevant investigation on the South
Yorkshire Police Crime
Recording System and having viewed the information that the Crime Support
Team have on file in relation to this investigation, I have been unable to obtain a copy of the
voicemail to listen to.
• The complainant alleges that the police only took the complaint seriously
and acted on
it as Mr and Mrs Conheeney are middle class. He states that if a working
class couple
had made a complaint about a trivial matter then it would have been taken
seriously
and would not have led to the issue of an ‘Harassment Warning’.
PC 3951 Terry assures that the class of the complainant and you is
irrelevant and was not a factor in
how the matter was dealt with.
PC 3951 Terry confirms that the matter was dealt with appropriately, given
the evidence provided by the victim.
• The complainant states that the handling of the matter was examined by a
senior Officer
at the time, but he believes that his examination was superficial and he
failed to address
the issues.
Unfortunately Mr Hurt, despite having viewed the relevant investigation on
the South Yorkshire Police
Crime Recording System and having viewed the information that the Crime
Support Team have on file
in relation to this investigation, I have been unable to identify who the
senior Officer was who examined the handling of the matter.
From the above, unfortunately I have been unable to determine whether the
level of service provided
was acceptable.
Mr Hurt, I can confirm that I have asked for the following additional
allegation to be added to your
complaint.
3. The complainant is unhappy that he received a telephone call from an
Officer late in the
evening in October 2022, asking him to remove material from his website
relating to Lu
Skerratt-Love. He states that he made it clear that this was out of the
question and
believes that this was an outrageous request. The complainant would like
South
Yorkshire Police to determine who phoned him.
Within one of your e-mails to me you state that as PS 160 Kirkham took the
action he did in connection
with the complaint of Ms Skerratt-Love he may know the identity of the
member of South Yorkshire
Police who telephoned you.
I can confirm that I have made contact with PS 160 Kirkham. He confirms that
he is not aware who
telephoned you.
I can confirm that I have also searched for any reports made by Ms Skerratt-Love
regarding you from
October 2022 and have been unable to locate any, the most recent report made
by her regarding you
you being in January 2022.
On the 16th of January 2023 I made contact with you via e-mail, asking you
to confirm which date in
October 2022 it was that you were contacted, what the number was that the
person called from and if
the person introduced themselves to you – providing you with their name or
collar number.
On the 20th of January 2023 I received a response from you, stating that you
are unable to undertake
the task of searching for a phone number. Unfortunately Mr Hurt you also did
not provide me with the
date of the call or inform me whether the person introduced themselves to
you – providing you with theirname or collar number.
From the above, I have been unable to determine whether the level of service
provided was acceptable.
May I apologise for the stress and inconvenience that has been caused and
hope that the explanations
that I have provided offer you reassurance.
Your complaint will now be closed. You have a right to request a review of
this decision if you
wish. Such requests should be made in writing within 28 days to the South
Yorkshire Police and Crime
Commissioner, at the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, Carbrook
House, Carbrook Hall
Road, Sheffield, S9 2EH.
A Word version of the review form can be found on the Commissioner’s
website. Further information
and advice can be obtained by email at info@southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.
It is important to understand that the relevant review or appeal body cannot
reinvestigate your
complaint. It can only assess whether the handling or the final outcome of
your complaint was
reasonable and proportionate. Reasonable and proportionate means doing what
is appropriate in
the circumstances, taking into account the facts and the context in which
the complaint has been raised, within the framework of legislation and guidance.
Finally, may I take the opportunity to thank you for bringing your concerns
to our attention and
allowing us to provide you with an explanation. It is important that we
understand the reasons why
members of the public feel that the level of service we have provided has
fallen short of their
expectations and that we take action to address this where any failures are
identified. It is only by
maintaining an open dialogue with members of the communities we serve and
explaining the action that we have taken or are taking, that we will build positive relationships
that drive forward and
improve the standard of service delivery across the force. We appreciate
your contribution to our
ongoing efforts to engage, learn and improve.
Yours sincerely,
'The Investigator' [Name withheld here]
Complaints Resolution Officer
South Yorkshire Police
Professional Standards Department
Extract from email sent to members of the Police and Crime Panel, 22 December, 2022
The content of this email is wide-ranging and extensive, you'll find. My main reason for contacting you and other members of the Police and Crime Panel is to make certain that you receive a copy of a document which contains strong criticism of some actions of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner. I have found great difficulties in what should have been a simple task. Before providing the copy of the document, I outline the difficulties.
Alan Billings holds South Yorkshire Police to account and the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel to account - that's the theory. Has he been successful in ensuring that the public can comment on the work of the Commissioner? His department doesn't seem to be a model of efficiency. In fact, the initial impression would be unfavourable, if one of the criteria is this very reasonable one: ensuring that the public can contact members of the Police and Crime Panel and members of the Independent Ethics Panel easily, without the need to devote time and effort to internet searches and sending emails to find out how emails can be sent to these people.
If someone wants to complain about South Yorkshire Police, then it's very simple - a well-designed and efficient system is in place. It isn't only complaints and criticisms to the Police and Crime Panel which meet with difficulties. Attempts to find out information too.
https://southyorkshire-pcc.
commissioner-for-south-
For further details about the South Yorkshire
Police and Crime Panel please visit: www.southyorks.gov.uk
Clicking on this link gave an error message:
Using information supplied on the page
https://southyorkshire-pcc.
COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER
The appropriate authority for complaints made against the Police and Crime Commissioner is the Police and Crime Panel. The Panel has delegated authority for the initial receipt of complaints to the Chief Executive of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. Complaints received which are about the conduct of the Commissioner will be referred to the Police and Crime Panel.
Complaints should be sent to:
PCP Legal Adviser
Barnsley MBC
Town Hall
Church Street
Barnsley S70 2TA
Email: PCP@syjs.gov.uk
Clicking on the email link gave an error message.
The page 'Police and Crime Panel'
https://southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/what-we-do/police-crime-panel/
includes this:
I am ultimately accountable at the ballot box during police and crime commissioner elections, held every four years. During those four years, I am held to account by the Police and Crime Panel. The Panel is made up of 12 people – ten Councillors from each of the four districts in South Yorkshire, plus two independent members of the public ... I have to report regularly to the Panel to account for the decisions I make, or to be questioned by them and members of the public.
So far from holding the Police and Crime Commissioner to account, the Police and Crime Panel has shown itself to be compliant, subservient. In this little world, Dr Billings is very much the Master, the Police and Crime Panel (and the Independent Ethics Panel) are very much the servants.
But this section isn't about Dr Billings' claims and the realities which make so many of his claims impossible to accept but about the basic matter of operational efficiency. He's responsible for the operational efficiency of his organization. He can't blame South Yorkshire Police for any deficiencies.
On the same page:
For further details about the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel please visit: www.southyorks.gov.uk
Yet again, clicking on the link will get you nowhere. More exactly, clicking
on the link takes you to a page with the familiar message
This site can't be reached.
Minutes of Independent Ethics Panel meetings are published on the page
https://southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/what-we-do/iep/meetings-agendas-minutes/
and to give an adequate account of the Panel, I need to be able to consult the minutes. I can, but the minutes available online only go up to 16 December 2020. There are minutes listed for 25 February 2021 and 27 April 2021 but there's no link at all, not even a link which you can click on which leads nowhere. So, the minutes haven't been updated in years and the minutes for 2021, 2022 and for this year aren't available to the public at all.
Since the Police and Crime Panel are supposed to 'hold the Commissioner to account,' they can take account of the gross inefficiencies in the organization he's responsible for. This would be one of the easier problems to be addressed by them. The problems to do with Alan Billings' failures to follow the problem of impartiality and other failures discussed in these pages are much, much harder.
After an internet search, I found a promising phone number and at last, I got somewhere. I was able to send the document I'd written giving critical comments about the Police and Crime Commissioner. I asked that the document should reach members of the Panel.
I brought the missing links to the attention of an official. Now, I am assured, the email address PCP@syjs has been fixed. However, at the time of writing, the link to www.southyorks.gov.uk has still not been fixed. I see it as necessary to bring the document to the attention of Alan Billings, to members of the Police and Crime Panel and to members of the Independent Ethics Panel. If the link had not been broken, I could have submitted the document to members of the Police and Crime Panel. I was able to send the document, but not directly to members of the Panel. I have reasons for thinking that they may well not have received the document. I've taken the step of sending the document individually to the members at email addresses which I know will work. I haven't been able to send the document to members of the Independent Ethics Panel.
Any member of the public who would like to contact the Commissioner's Independent Ethics Panel for any reason will have a frustrating time. I'm a member of the public who needs to contact the Independent Ethics Panel and I've had a frustrating time. No email addresses are provided for any Panel member.
From my page
www.linkagenet.com/themes/fefe-christianity-south-yorkshire-police.htm
A concise summary of events and dates
8 September, 2021. Email sent to Lu Skerratt-Love
pointing out difficulties (mainly security, safety) to do with the
proposed garden church at some allotments near to my allotments. Email
not received by Lu Skerratt-Love. Tim Ling of the Church Army had
decided to block emails from me to Lu Skerratt-Love. By 12 September he
had blocked emails from to himself and all members of
the Research Unit. Since that time, no members of the Church Army have
received emails from me.
In the section at the end of this column, Some Documents, a screenshot
of the email sent to Lu Skerratt-Love and the response.The screenshot is
too wide to be included here. The response included this: 'Delivery has
failed ... Your message wasn't delivered. Despite repeated attempts to
deliver your message, the recipient's email system refused to accept a
connection from your email system.'
All Lu Skerratt-Love's complaints to South Yorkshire Police about alleged emails from me were made when she must have known that she had never received emails from me, are based upon falsification.
8 September, 2021. Letter from me to Lu Skerratt-Love and Tim Ling,
quoted in its entirety after this summary. After this one letter, no further
letters sent.
22 November, 2021.
Card received from South Yorkshire
Police asking me to contact them. When I contacted them, told that Lu
Skerratt-Love had complained about receiving unwanted emails from me. Told
to stop this. I pointed out that Lu Skerratt-Love hadn't received any emails
from me. They were blocked. Considered making a complaint but decided not to
- I didn't want to cause any difficulties for the Police Constable who
communicated the information.
15 February, 1922.
Another complaint from Lu Skerratt-Love,
about alleged emails and letters, to other members of the Church Army as
well as herself. Again, a complete fabrication. After the email and letter
mentioned above, no further emails and letters have been received by these
people. I decided that a complaint to the Professional Standards Department
of South Yorkshire Police is fully justifiable. I informed Simon Kirkham and
the members of police who visited on 15 February.
I decided to make a complaint to the Independent Office for Police
Conduct instead. I have extensive material on a previous visit from South
Yorkshire Police, outlined in the fourth column of this page and in far more
detail on the page
www.linkagenet.com/education/capability.htm
This previous visit took place in 2015. The Professional Standards Department has a time limit of one year. The Independent Office for Police Conduct has no time limit, provided the person can provide reasons why the complaint wasn't submitted earlier.
Chief Inspector Ian Proffitt and 'hate crime'
Before I turn to Dr Billings, the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner (sarcastically referred to below, in one place, as the 'South Yorkshire Thought Police and Hate Crime Commissioner) some information about developments, lack of developments, evasion and inaction.
Chief Inspector Ian Proffitt of South Yorkshire Police was given the task of considering and coming to a decision about my complaint. I found that Chief Inspector Proffitt has a policing speciality: 'hate crime.' He explains that South Yorkshire Police has a 'no tolerance approach to hate.' He claims that 'Our main goal is to prevent hate and we will work wherever possible to achieve this.' He seems to be referring not just to the expression of hate but the thought and emotion. This really is the thought crime of George Orwell's 1984. Is the prevention of hate 'the main goal' of South Yorkshire Police? Does he believe that calling someone a 'blundering buffoon' is an example of hate crime?
On 28 August 2019, I contacted Chief Inspector Proffitt by email. The email contained this:
I ask South Yorkshire Police to revoke the Police Information Notice ('Harassment Warning.')
No reply received. On 10 October 2019 I sent him a further email. An extract:
'About six weeks ago, on 28 August 2019, I sent you an email which contained this:
I ask South Yorkshire Police to revoke the Police
Information Notice ('Harassment Warning.')
'I now ask that you communicate your decision to me at
the earliest convenient opportunity.
Finally, after this urgent reminder, Chief Inspector
Proffitt did find a convenient opportunity to communicate his decision
to me. On 26 October, he replied. My request that the Harassment Warning
should be revoked was refused.
''Is South Yorkshire Police claiming the right to police emails? Is South Yorkshire Police claiming that an email which uses the words 'blundering buffoon' is a reason for threatening an individual with criminal sanctions for using these words?'
Chief Inspector Proffitt has said,
'To encourage reporting of hate crimes and incidents, officers have been raising awareness of the forces ‘Hate Hurts. Report it’ campaign launched at the end of February. The campaign was launched to highlight the very real and hurtful impact hate has on victims, and South Yorkshire Polices’ [sic] no tolerance approach to hate.'
'Chief Inspector Ian Proffitt continued: “Having the opportunity to gather feedback enables us to build stronger partner agency relationships, provides different community groups with a voice and encourages reporting. Our main goal is to prevent hate and we will work wherever possible to achieve this.'
'To find out more about the ‘Hate Hurts. Report it.’ campaign please visit our website: '
'http://www.southyorkshire.police.uk/…/z-crime-ty…/hate-crime. You can also report any hate crimes through either 101, 999 in an emergency, or anonymously through the True Vision website.' I would think there are very few occasions when use of the 999 service to report hate would be a reasonable use of the 999 service. Sometimes, I'm informed, people who have waited and waited for a reply when they phone the 101 number give up and dial 999 to report an incident. Often, this amounts to a reckless misuse of the service. Ian Proffitt is completely irresponsible to mention the 999 service in connection with 'hate crimes,' given that a proportion of alleged 'hate crimes' are nothing of the kind.
The 101 service has become completely overloaded, as I know from personal experience. This year, there have been incidents of vandalism and damage on countless occasions. My own allotments have been attacked often. Gradually, allotment holders have identified the group of youths responsible. I challenged them on one occasion and had a missile thrown at the van. I've phoned the 101 service to report incidents and each time, have given up after an hour or so waiting for an answer. Other allotment holders have had the same experience of the 101 service. To find that Chief Inspector Proffitt is encouraging the public to use the 101 service to report hate, to make an already overloaded service even more overloaded, is very depressing.
