HOME-PAGE           SITE-MAP          EMAIL   



See also

1a. Alan Billings, South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner: Complaint
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


This page and the pages listed above will be revised to exclude duplicated material and to achieve other benefits

2. Christian religion: criticism
3. Arise! Church Guide
4. Abuse, safeguarding and the Churches
5. Street Pastors Guide
6. Anti-woke supporters of Christian belief


See also:

6. Capability in education and policing

Pages on Christian religion and churches:

2. Christian religion: criticism
3. Arise! Church Guide
4. Abuse, safeguarding and the Churches
5. Street Pastors Guide




   South Yorkshire: Phase 2, the Police and Crime Panel and Erika Redfearn


For the time being, the content of this page is  restricted in scope. The page will be revised and extended, to include more  material on what I call 'Phase 2' of my complaint against the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner and the 'review' of my complaint against Sergeant Kirkham of South Yorkshire Police, a complaint which I can show was mismanaged, grossly unfair, absolving Sergeant Kirkham of all blame. The argument and evidence is available on other pages but some of it will be given on this page.


The naming of the page: this arises from the fact that the Police and Crime Panel will be examining my complaint against the Police and Crime Commissioner and Erika Redfearn will be The Decision Maker. Erika Redfearn is the Head of Strategic Development, Governance and Assurance. I'll find out as much background information as I can about this official with such a deeply impressive job description, one which inspires every confidence that the decision will be impeccably fair, the product of impartial reasoning.


I have to say, though, that would far prefer to give Alan Billings the opportunity to show that he can arrive at a decision which is impeccably fair, the product of impartial reasoning. I have no high expectations of his capacity for impartiality.


I included this in an email I sent to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner on 16 Morch:


The public documents available do not mention the involvement of any person other than the Police and Crime Commissioner, for example this, a primary source of information:


From the 1 February 2020, the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) became the relevant review body for conducting independent reviews of police complaints (previously known as “appeals”),

Please be aware that the role of the PCC is not to re-investigate your complaint, but to consider whether the outcome of South Yorkshire Police’s investigation of the handling of your complaint is reasonable and proportionate.

I am left wondering if this procedure is the norm in Review cases undertaken by the Office - or is it an ad hoc expedient in this particular case?


As I have argued in various places in communications with the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, my case raises very complex issues. If the Police and Crime Commissioner is to be spared the task of considering these issues and coming to a decision, if two other individuals are expected to consider the evidence [the role of an individual in the PCC's Office] and come to a decision [the role of Ms Erika Redfearn], then, as I see it, the Commissioner has gained, but my view is that  the two individuals would benefit by knowing this: this is very far from being a routine task. It will surely require a great deal of time and effort if justice is to be done. If I consider that the outcome is flagrantly unjust and subject to multiple objections, then that will certainly not be the end of the matter.








The Reference in the column to the left to 'Phase 2' of my complaints against South Yorkshire Police and the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner.

Phase 1 involved emails and documents which are generally thorough, detailed often long or very long, with abundant argument and evidence - these predominate in the pages listed in the first column of this page. Now, I'll be including more varied approaches. I've wide experience of campaigning. Below, a copy of an email I sent to the PCC Office on 17 March. The text is written in the stilted style appropriate to communicating with officialdom. A far more informal style will be the norm in Phase 2.

The copy:

After the two images provided here, explanation of the reasons for their inclusion and some possible uses.

So far, the materials I have produced to further my complaints against South Yorkshire Police and the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner
have taken the form of emails and Website documents which are generally thorough, detailed, often long or very long, with argument and evidence. I now intend to further my complaints using a wider range of methods. I have very substantial experience in campaigning for a variety of causes in the field of human rights and animal welfare, and over a very long period of time. I have also written on campaigning methods. I spoke at an Annual General Meeting of Amnesty International and expressed the view that many of the campaigning methods of Amnesty International were demonstrably ineffective, of the need to give far more thought to campaigning methods. The motion I instigated was passed overwhelmingly by the members who attended, about 1000 in number,as were the other motions I've instigated, on anti-personnel mines, which injure and kill civilians long after a conflict has ended, and human rights abuses in China. 
Most of my campaigning has been for large organizations but I have also engaged in 'solo' campaigning. It's a simple matter to have colour leaflets printed, with an image and explanation, and that is what I did in one solo campaign which was reported in local newspapers - the Sheffield Star and a newspaper in East Anglia - and a national newspaper, the Daily Telegraph. This was before the Web gave new opportunities in campaigning.
I'm giving a great deal of thought to methods of campaigning in connection with my complaints. It's quite likely that eventually, I'll be producing You Tube videos topublicize these issues (as well as other issues.) Producing colour leaflets for distribution to publicize the issues is another strong possibility. One of the images above, on Christian hate crime, could be used as an illustration on leaflets, but there are many other possibilities. Now, I mention another technique in the
repertoire of campaigning techniques, use of my van to publicize the issues and bring the issues. It's very likely that I'll proceed with this form of publicity, and soon. 'Strategic locations' for parking the van would allow opportunities for maximum impact, but so far I've given little thought to this particular aspect. I don't undertake action without first giving a great deal of thought to the contribution of the action to an overall plan or campaign, the potential effectiveness of action, potential disadvantages of the action,  and any ethical dimensions.

The photograph of one side of the van shows that I have publicity material for my project, 'Paul Hurt Design-Construction' on two of the panels. The Website page
www.linkagenet.com/themes/billingsgate2.htm has not been started yet. It will be unlike the other Web pages which deal with these issues. In the new page, I'll
use short, striking pieces of text with many images rather than extended text.

[I didn't proceed with the page with that address. The page added to the site is this page, with this address. So far, I haven't made use of 'short, striking pieces of text.'

A third panel of the van which is available for use on this side is blank at the 
moment. The sign shown above is just one example of a sign-with-a-message. There are many other possibilities. The signs on the van are magnetic and can be removed 
when not required. When I have available two magnetic signs, one for each side of the van - or a wider range of magnetic signs - then I can attach them to the van when required. They would not be left in place for most of the time. 
I hope my determination to pursue my complaints is not in question, or my determination to pursue my case using a variety of campaigning techniques. It will be found, I'm sure, that the information conveyed here takes an unusual form but as I see it, a fresh approach is needed. A new phase in my activities has begun. I will be concentrating more and more on the issue of hate and hate crime. It's farcical, grotesque, deeply disturbing that police time, police money, police resources can be devoted to action against someone, myself, of  course, for calling someone a 'blundering buffoon' and for sending a courteous letter about allotment law, security and related issues on allotments whilst doing nothing about very serious forms of 'Hate Crime,' what I refer to as 'Christian hate crime.' I've given a much more comprehensive set of examples of Christian hate crime in my emails to the two panels and in the pages of my Web site.

Obviously, if any objections are made to the content of the proposed sign or other signs I design, then I'll take the objections into account. Unlike so many of the people I've discussed in my Website, I not only believe in the importance of free expression but I practise what I believe. I do make it clear on the Home Page that I don't endorse unrestricted free expression.

'Arise!' the large group of Churches in Sheffield and North Derbyshire - they include the Rock Christian Centre, the Philadelphia Network Church and Sheffield 
Cathedral - claim to have distributed leaflets to every property in Sheffield a few years ago. I can well believe that Arise! distributed leaflets to most properties. The leaflets were evangelistic. They promoted Jesus as Saviour. The organization also claims that members walked along every street in Sheffield, praying as they walked.

Publicity material outside Churches is very common, of course. 
To give an example, outside a Church near to me, 'New Life Begins with Jesus.' The Websites of innumerable Churches and other Christian organizations publicize many grotesque, savage, inhuman views, whic surely amount to hate crime, using the criteria given by proponents of a certain view of hate crime, the view of South Yorkshire Police and Dr Billings.  I can see no possible objection - or no rational objection - to my use of leaflets and publicity material to give reasoned objections to Christian belief. In all my activities in the field of counter-evangelism (which is only a part of my wide-ranging activities) I have never yet encountered the least willingness to counter my criticisms, to produce any argument and evidence at all. I do regard the silence as having significance.

Two more images. 

I think that all the material here is relevant to the work of the Independent Ethics Panel, but not just to these people. No emails are provided for any members of the panel. If no email addresses are provided, then all I can do is to request that material I submit should be made available to members of the Panel. I request that the material in this email should be made
available to members of the Panel, and, also, to members of the Police and Crime Panel. Although I have email addresses for most members of the PCP,  I do not have the email addresses of all members. 
I  made a request concerning various other issues in an email sent to the office on 7 March but have received no reply. An extract from the email, with mention of  unresolved matters:
' ... I haven't been able to find sources of information concerning these issues -
(1) documentary evidence concerning grants awarded by the PCC since his election to the office in 2014. (2) Missing minutes - according to the page 


 the minutes of the Independent Ethics Panel are only available for the meetings up to and including the meeting of
16 December 2021. Mention is made of minutes for the first two meetings of 2021 but no clickable link is provided. (3) I have been able to find very little information about 'Hate Crime.' I would like information about sources of information available to the public. How can the public come to an informed opinion about this very contentious policing issue if there is insufficient information available? I would expect to be available, not exhaustive coverage in the public domain but coverage which is about far more than case numbers, increases or decreases in case numbers. To be specific, what are some of the spoken comments, tweets or facebook posts or other written comments which have involved police action? I am also very concerned about the omissions - spoken or written comments which came into the public domain and had prominence - language which South Yorkshire Police could have known about /but which never resulted in police action.] My site gives an example, on the page www.linkagenet.com/themes/police-pcc-panels.htm  It concerns Councillor Abdul Khayum, a former Chair of the Police and Crime Panel. A very short extract from the page:




'A LABOUR Councillor who is also a practising magistrate has been placed under official investigation over social media posts calling for the violent annihilation of Israel ... ' [I have no
information about the outcome of the investigation.]