From the section 'Values' on the page
https://www.southyorks.police.uk/sign-up/join-team-syp/our-values/
Values
- Impartiality – we treat everyone we interact with fairly and without bias or favour
This claim made by South Yorkshire Police is false.
Above, representation of Justitia ('Justice') in the arms of Ilshofen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. The scales signify that justice requires that the weight of evidence should be considered before issuing a legal ruling. Before issuing a ruling, there is a duty to consider more than one side. The scales represent the weighing of evidence, the strength or weakness of a particular side.
Since the 16th century, Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold, as here. Originally, this signified justice as blind to the injustice of a case but it has been reinterpreted. It now represents impartiality: justice should be applied without regard to wealth, power or other status.has been reinterpreted over time and is now understood to represent impartiality, the ideal that justice should be applied without regard to wealth, power, or other status.
This is the newest page of the site. It will include information and
comment about the progress of a complaint to the Independent Office for
Police Conduct to supplement existing pages:
https://www.linkagenet.com/themes/fefe-christianity-south-yorkshire-police.htm
https://www.linkagenet.com/themes/fefe-part-putin-policing.htm
On these pages, I provide arguments and evidence to show that the actions of South Yorkshire Police have shown gross bias and disregard for impartiality.
This page will be specifically concerned with a complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct and further exploration of bias and misrepresentation on the part of South Yorkshire Police, with comment on failures of Alan Billings, the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner. He is expected to provide oversight for the conduct of South Yorkshire Police but instead, I claim, contributes in significant ways to the problem of bias and failures in impartiality.
From the WRITTEN WARNING
issued to me by South Yorkshire Police PC's on 15.02.2022
Pursuant to Section 43 Part 4 Chapter 1
(Community Protection Notices) Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing
Act 2014.
' ... your conduct is having a detrimental
effect of a persistent or continuing nature on the quality of life of
those in the locality and the conduct is unreasonable.'
'If from this time and date, the conduct is
still having a detrimental impact on the quality of life of those in the
locality, you will be served a Community Protection Notice. It is a
criminal offence not to comply with the Notice ... If found guilty you
could be fined up to £2,500.'
'Details of the [alleged] conduct.'
COMMUNITY PROTECTION NOTICE
WRITTEN WARNING
'The Police have become aware of you contacting Lu Skerratt-Love via email and hand delivered letters. You have also been contacting her work colleagues via email and letter regarding her. In some of these correspondences you make mention of her personal faith. When you write these emails and letters it causes great upset to Lu and her colleagues at work. This is not fair and certainly not right to do so. It is important that you realise how much you are upsetting / distressing Lu with this conduct. You would not wish for such conduct for your loved ones. We are willing to help in any way.'
The 'work colleagues' and 'colleagues at work' mentioned are employees of the Church Army, in particular, Dr Tim Ling [Director of the 'Learning and Development Department' with 'Strategic Oversight' of the 'Research Unit'], Lu Skerratt-Love is an employee of the Church Army [in the Research Unit. She's also a Trustee of St Mark's Church, Sheffield, which claims to be a 'liberal' Church]. I have a record of all the emails I've sent and received which have any relevance whatsoever to these issues. The Church Army has, or should have, a complete record of the emails received from me or sent to me. When Lu Skerratt-Love approached South Yorkshire Police with her complaint, she should surely have been asked to produce some evidence for her complaint - a copy of the 'letters' (but there was only one letter) and copies of the emails. This essential seems to have been omitted. Can Lu Skerratt-Love, can the Church Army, now produce the evidence? If they can't, why not?
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 October, 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.
25 November, 2021. Email sent to Dr Andy Wier ('Research Team Leader' of the Church Army) in connection with his book, 'Creative Tension in Urban Mission: Missional Practice and Theory.' The email I sent never received him - 'Message blocked.'
15 February, 1922. Yet 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.
