Independent Police Complaint Commission : December 2012

Thursday, 20 December 2012

Melanie Ford Senior Casework Manager Independent Police Complaints Commission

On Wednesday, 19 December 2012, Mr Cercel receives the result of the complaint he raised against Mr Larkin, complaint which was investigated by Melanie Ford, Senior Casework Manager at the Independent Police Complaints Commission:

Friday, 7 December 2012

CONCLUSION

Mr Cercel was victim of criminal offences and other human rights infringements by police officers of West Mercia Police Force – Worcester Police Station since 13 August 2011.

Between 13 August 2011 and 10 January 2012, Mr Cercel tried achieving equality and respect for his human rights by himself, without any help from any agency.

As it was obvious he will not succeed, since 30 January 2012 he started contacting and involving the I.P.C.C.

The I.P.C.C. has not followed procedures and failed to record “the more serious complaint” but sent it back to the Professional Standards Department of the police force to be dealt with as a “local resolution”.

At a later stage, the only result of the decision of involving the I.P.C.C. was that being aware of the investigation against them, the police officers started humiliating more and more the victim.

We can assume that at this stage the police officers (probably from past experience) were aware that nothing will happen to them.

The decision of Mr Andrew Larking took on 29 November 2012 seems to confirm this assumption.

TO CONCLUDE:

Mr Cercel was exposed to criminal offences, exposed to aggravated discriminative behaviour and “institutional racism” by members of West Mercia Police Force.

He was told that the only body that can take action against them is the I.P.C.C.

Months later, enduring a very humiliating wave of revenge from police officers who in their pride wanted to show him that he is less of a human being in comparison to them, Mr Cercel received humiliating correspondence as a result of his complaint, a response that could easily afect anyone`s health condition: “the police officers have not evicted you, that is your perception”.

This proves that foreigners have their racial vulnerabilities exploited in the United Kingdom both by civil offenders and by the bodies that should prevent those events from happening.

Monday, 3 December 2012

Internal Investigation Unit Independent Police Complaint Commission

On 3rd December 2012, Mr Cercel receives confirmation of his complaint against Mr Andrew Larkin.

EVIDENCE:

Internal Investigation Unit Independent Police Complaint Commission

On 30 November Mr Cercel complaints to the IIU of the IPCC against Mr Andrew Larkin and provides evidence against him and requests that he be taken to the Crown Prosecution Service to be criminally prosecuted.

EVIDENCE:

HATE OFFENDER Mr Andrew Larkin Independent Police Complaint Commission

As he was still in a state of shock, as the response of Mr Larkin meant that every HATE OFFENDER will continue to harass Mr Cercel and infringe his human rights, realising that the best way to get answers to his questions is by email, Mr Cercel emails Mr Larkin.

EVIDENCE:

Shortly after, Mr Larkin replies:

RACIST Mr Andrew Larking IPCC

Upon reading the findings of Mr Andrew Larkin, Mr Cercel calls him – as he was advised – to enquire about the shocking new he just received.

Please pay attention to the following discovery:

“Mr Cercel was not illegally evicted by police officers, as they just came to the house to prevent a breach of peace – we all know that the landlords were very aggressive and shouting and threatening – and that intervention ended with Mr Cercel being made homeless so that the landlords could be calmed down so that there would be no breach of peace”.

YOUTUBE EVIDENCE:

RACISM Mr Andrew Larkin Independent Police Complaint Commission

On 29 November 2012, Mr Andrew Larkin emails the victim explaining that his appeal has not been upheld as he has wrongfully been reporting “civil issue” and also because these are “civil issues” but not criminal ones, it was accepted for the police officers to disregards procedures and expose him to discriminating behaviour.

EVIDENCE:

LETTER

see page "Beyond Any Doubt"

Second future NR Appeal

On 28 November 2012, Mr Cercel tries recording a second NR Appeal by providing evidence that Ms Louise Beech Robert from the Professional Standards Department of West Mercia Police Force is continuing to make up laws and procedures as she is obviously disregarding existing ones only to humiliate Mr Cercel.

EVIDENCE :

NR Appeal – non recorded appeal confirmation

On 20 November Mr Cercel receives confirmation of his NR Appeal.

EVIDENCE:

NR Appeal – non recorded appeal

Receiving previous advice that he must re-record the complaints and failing for the 3^rd consecutive time, Mr Cercel on 10 November contacts the IPCC to raise a NR appeal against West Mercia Police Force.

EVIDENCE:

Independent Police Complaint Commission 10 October 2012

As he was preparing for the date around 14 October, date in which a “more serious” complaint will be escalated against the police officers, our victim emails the IPCC with links to online evidence against the hate offenders .

Later that day he will be told that the wait time will be increased by 8 more weeks :( .

EVIDENCE:

Obvious victimisation Independent Police Complaint Commission

On 28 September 2012, upon being provided with obvious evidence that he is being victimised by the police force, forwards the evidence for the attention of the IPCC.

EVIDENCE:

Independent Police Complaint Commission Casework Administrator Jack Paynter

Mr Paynter replies to Mr Cercel on 29 August with updates and acknowledgments in regards to his complaint.

EVIDENCE:

Independent Police Complaint Commission Casework Administrator Jack Paynter

On the same day, 23 August, Mr Cercel replies to the letter Mr Paynter wrote to him on 1^st of August.

EVIDENCE:

Independent Police Complaint Commission Casework Administrator Jack Paynter

On Thursday 23 August, our victim email Mr Paynter and provides updates on his case.

EVIDENCE:

Independent Police Complaint Commission Casework Administrator Jack Paynter

On the 1^st of August, Mr Jack Paynter provides the answer from his manager … only problem is that it appears to be signed by him !

EVIDENCE:

Independent Police Complaint Commission Casework Administrator Jack Paynter

After the first email from 31^st July, Mr Cercel contacted by phone Mr Jack Paynter, Mr who advised him to write the below.

EVIDENCE:

Mainland Europe, undertaking medical treatment

As he was preparing to go abroad and undertake medical treatment, our victim updates the IPCC via email, on 31^st July 2012.

EVIDENCE:

Independent Police Complaint Commission Casework Administrator Jack Paynter

Further to Mr Cercel's email from 17 July, Mr Paynter replies.
It is very important to take into consideration the information provided, especially the:

“... is unable to access any of the below evidence, he or she will contact you”;

as you will see at a later case, that was the case but no contact has been made.

EVIDENCE:

Independent Police Complaint Commission & Chief Inspector Jerry William Reakes and Investigator Peter Moore

On 17 July 2012, Mr Cercel, finding out that although he made criminal complaints against Chief Inspector Jerry William Reakes and Investigator Peter Moore; the two police staff are continuing to discriminate him; he emails the IPCC to have this information taken into consideration.

EVIDENCE:

Independent Police Complaint Commission Casework Administrator Jack Paynter

On 30 June, Mr Cercel re-sends the evidences, as they were requested, in a different format for the attention of Mr Jack Paynter.

EVIDENCE:

Independent Police Complaint Commission Casework Administrator Jack Paynter

On 28 June, shortly after receiving Mr Cercel's email, Mr Jack Paynter explains that the evidence was not acceptable because of a system problem.

EVIDENCE:

Beyond any doubt evidence

Further to the IPCC acknowledging his appeal against the findings of Investigator Peter Moore in his complaint, Mr Cercel emails mandatory “beyond any doubt evidence” to the IPCC on 27^th June 2012.

EVIDENCE:

Investigator Peter Moore and the Independent Police Complaint Commission

On 18 June, shortly after receivings the results of the “local resolution” wrongfully investigated by Investigator Peter Moore from West Mercia Police, Mr Cercel forwards the findings to the “more serious complaint” he already made against the Investigator.

EVIDENCE:

Internal Investigation Unit of the Independent Police Complaint Commission

Further to the reply received by The Internal Investigation Unit of the Independent Police Complaint Commission from Ms L Hyland on 11 June 2012, Mr Cercel emails back, on the 15^th June.

EVIDENCE:

Enquiries Independent Police Complaint Commission IPCC

As a result of the continuous delay in following procedures and upon further legal advice, our victim emails the IPCC on 15 June 2012.

EVIDENCE:

Internal Investigation Unit of the Independent Police Complaint Commission

Frustrated as his complaint are not being properly handled by the IPCC staff (by not following procedures and providing misleading information to him), our victim emails the Internal Investigation Unit on 10 June.

On 11 June Ms L Hyland replies.

EVIDENCE:

Enquiries Independent Police Complaint Commission IPCC Steven Ireland Customer Contact Advisor

Further to the victim's email from 21^st May, Mr Steven Ireland, on 24 May, apparently provides misleading information to him; again, his complaint was never taken into consideration as a “more serious” one.

EVIDENCE:

Enquiries Independent Police Complaint Commission

Further to the answer he was provided on 21^st May, Mr Cercel replies the same day explaining obvious GROSS MISCONDUCT by police officers.

EVIDENCE:

Independent Police Complaint Commission Ian Downey Customer Contact Adviser

On 17 May 2012, Mr Cercel contacts by email the IPCC to remind them that several months have passed and he is experiencing a long and unexplained delay, besides the by now normal police officers not following procedures.

Mr Ian Downey replies to our victim on Monday 21^st May.

EVIDENCE:

Independent Police Complaint Commission & West Mercia Police Force = Human Rights Infringements

On 15 April 2012, our victim forwards an other email to the IPCC to highlight even more aggravated victimisation by the West Mercia Police Force.

EVIDENCE:

I.P.C.C. & West Mercia Police Force = Human Rights Infringements

Further to obvious victimisation by the West Mercia Police force, Mr Cercel, on 12 April provides the IPCC with more “beyond any doubt” of discrimination and other human rights infringements.

EVIDENCE:

FAO Ms Jane Furniss

As there was a long and unexplained delay by the Professional Standards Department of the West Mercia Police Force – and more importantly, as they were conducting only a “local resolution” aimed at covering criminal offences (human rights infringements) conducted by their officers; further to several attempts to mediate the situation and further to being threatened with arrested if he continues to demand equality, on the 28^th of March 2012, Mr Cercel makes a complaint to the Chief Executive of the IPCC – Ms Jane Furniss.

EVIDENCE:

IPCC

5 February 2012 – Mr Cercel receives a confirmation of the appeal being recorded by West Mercia Professional Standards – and, as in his understanding due to the nature of the complaint, the IPCC was expected to conduct an investigation against the police force – he calls the IPCC to enquire about the letter received and about how the situation will be resolved.