Police Cover-Up?

A Police Cover-Up ? Surely not.

Well actually the police call it protective practices – that’s a nice way of saying something grubby isn’t it.   Even the Professional Standards Department are in denial when it comes to ‘managing the Dunlop’s– or is the word ‘cover-up’?   A recent report in response to complaints regarding the Dunlop’s (attendance and involvement in an illegal slaughter on his premises) is that PC Matt Dunlop was off-duty!   Those complaints were made regarding the Dunlop’s carrying out the slaughter of animals on an unlicensed premises – their own house! In the substantial investigation that followed the itinerant slaughter man was given a caution, the owner of the sheep had his house searched and the Dunlop’s? Well – when asked to provide an interview to the Environmental Agency they refused – they maintained their right to remain silent – thus they actively evaded prosecution. Two serving officers that we employ to enforce the law – actively evade the law.   Actually, based on the previous behaviour of the Dunlop’s we are not really surprised – but now the PSD are also in denial!  

Not on duty in full Police uniform in his marked Police car. 

Matt Dunlop claims to be off duty. Hilarious!!! … we have photographs of PC Matt Dunlop, with another unnamed officer attending his home (the premises used for the illegal slaughter – the Dunlop’s are both guilty of using their house as an unlicensed slaughter premises). PC Matt Dunlop's fully marked police patrol car (car # 4348) can be seen. The PSD have copies of these pictures.

Matt Dunlop’s patrol car #4348 , Matt Dunlop not on duty (apparently???) – as he attends an illegal slaughter at his own house – in office hours.

Tax payers of Hampshire rejoice to see Hampshire Constabulary assets and personnel being utilised so effectively at the same time as government cutbacks will see badly needed police resources slashed and honest coppers thrown onto the redundancy scrapheap. In fact Hampshire Police plan to cut 1400 jobs! If this makes you as mad as it makes us please feel free to drop Alex Marshall , Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary a little email and ask him how he feels about abuse of Police resources. I’m sure Chief Constable Marshall will be happy to hear from you at Chief Constable Mailbox [chief.constable@hampshire.pnn.police.uk]  

Matt Dunlop’s un-named police colleague talking with Mr Jeal, the owner of the sheep, the Dunlops tenant. Mr Jeal’s 9 sheep were slaughtered for his own personal consumption (to keep it legal obviously) Mr Jeal must eat a lot of lamb. He’s also a bit of a magician as he managed to fit all 9 sheep into his one freezer. Apparently.

PC Matt Dunlop’s and his Police colleague – apparently both not on duty, just taking a stroll around his garden whilst talking with the itinerant slaughter man and the sheep owner only minutes before the slaughter occurs. Its nice that the Police protect is from such illegal activities isn’t it – oh sorry – that’s right – it's Matt Dunlop who IS the criminal!

Who’s going to protect us from him? Can we rely on people like PC Matt Dunlop to help prevent BSE entering the foodchain? Can we rely on people like him to prevent cruelty to animals? PC Matt Dunlop and Inspector Sam Dunlop don’t care about people, animals or the law – they only care about themselves! safe in the knowledge, presumably, that their colleagues will protect them should they be found out.  

So this is Matt Dunlop being off duty!  …. In the same way as he was on his meal break two years previously (again in full Police uniform!)   Sad isn’t it that the Dunlop’s and the PSD cannot face up to the truth.   That truth is that Matt Dunlop and Sam Dunlop (a traffic PC and an Inspector, both with Hampshire Police) have both broken the law, they hide behind their right to remain silent and not give an interview to another government body, they are responsible for you, the public, being put at risk to dubious unchecked brain and spinal tissue. The story goes on. And the PSD believe that Matt Dunlop was not on duty even when we and they are in possession of photographs that say otherwise! Humm.  

And what does the Police code of conduct say? That’s right, the Dunlop’s have to conform with that code even when off duty – so that little pathetic excuse doesn’t wash either. These 'Police' take us all for fools. They enforce the law but they don’t uphold it themselves. Such officers have no right to wear the uniform – this shames every honest hard working policeman and policewoman working for us right now.  

PC Matt Dunlop and Inspector Sam Dunlop, your denials are pathetic – we have the proof. You are corrupt, its that simple.   How can Inspector Sam Dunlop or PC Matt Dunlop ever be involved with the prosecution of a Hampshire citizen when they lack the basic honesty and integrity to be in the Police? Why do the authorities let the Dunlop’s serve each day to effectively steal taxpayers money, hanging on for their precious underserved pensions when we lose thousands of good cops due to the financial cutbacks. I say get rid of rubbish like the Dunlop’s and replace them with honest cops.   {full texts, details and documents relating to the complaints and responses will be published here soon}    

Dunlop's - if its not true - why don't you sue??? 

Is it because you're liars and lawbreakers and we have the proof?

Even chief Police officers don't want bad cops in their ranks! But they, like us, are frustrated that they cant be fired!

You still don’t believe it can happen? A little light reading for you : - by Jason Bennetto Crime Correspondent – from the Independent 10th July 1997 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/corrupt-police-cant-be-touched-1249816.html   … it appears that nothing has changed even three years later as the PSD and Hampshire constabularies handling (or lack thereof of the Dunlop’s) proves, the Police Federation are worried about malicious complaints - but how can a complaint be malicious if provided with facts and proof? Well?   from The Independent ...

Corrupt police can't be touched The chief constable of the country's second biggest police force has corrupt officers working for him but is powerless to sack them.

Edward Crew, head of West Midlands Police, said that some of his staff would have been automatically dismissed for dishonesty if they worked for a supermarket, but he was forced to keep them on because of protective practices. "There are people working in this force that wouldn't be employed by Sainsbury's," he told The Independent. His concerns are shared by other chiefs throughout the country and the police complaints watchdog, who are urging the Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, to change the law. Mr Crew, and fellow chief constables in England and Wales, have asked Mr Straw to reduce the standard of proof to allow forces to sack police officers considered corrupt or grossly incompetent. At present, it is extremely difficult to remove anyone - last year only 98 were sacked. To sack a police officer, evidence that proves "beyond reasonable doubt" that they are guilty is needed - a far higher standard than in civil cases or industrial tribunals. Instant dismissals are also prevented except in the most exceptional cases. Mr Crew said: "In Sainsbury's, if they have a man whose hand is caught in the till they will release [sack] them. I couldn't do this, I have to prosecute and prove it beyond reasonable doubt. There are a very small number of officers in this force, and in the police service nationally, who I suspect of having been involved in serious breaches in the criminal law, where it's not possible to obtain evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt they were involved in that behaviour." He continued: "I have officers in this force who should not be serving police officers. If we were assessing their standards of behaviour to the standard required of other employers, these people would not be working." He added: "I have officers who have been to court and have been found not guilty of criminal offences by a jury and they continue to serve in this force because I cannot, in the current arrangement, [use] evidence that was given to the court." Earlier this week, the West Midlands Police became the second force to set up a confidential internal telephone hotline for staff to pass on information about suspected corrupt officers. The call for reform of the system by Mr Crew, and the Association of Chief Police Officers has the support of the independent Police Complaints Authority (PCA). The Home Secretary has agreed to re-examine the issue. The Police Federation, which represents all ranks below superintendent - the vast bulk of the 127,000 officers in England and Wales - is furious at the action by chief constables and have accused them of reneging on early promises. Sir Paul Condon, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has already criticised what he believes is a growing trend among police officers accused of serious corruption and malpractice of avoiding disciplinary hearings by taking sick leave and retiring on grounds of ill health with index- linked benefits. Mr Crew is also critical of the "double jeopardy" system, whereby evidence used against a police officer in a criminal trial cannot be re-used at a disciplinary hearing. The Crown Prosecution Service has privately admitted that it sometimes fails to bring charges against a police officer because it fears a jury will acquit him or her and thereby deny an opportunity for the evidence to be heard at a disciplinary hearing. Mr Crew also believes that the high level of proof prevents him from sacking some officers who he believes have sexually harassed female colleagues. Peter Moorhouse, chairman of the PCA, yesterday agreed that there are some corrupt officers who are being protected by the system, but said they were a "small minority". A PCA spokesman said: "We sympathise with Mr Crew and would like to see changes to the system." The Police Federation argues that the police need extra protection against malicious complaints. Ian Westwood, vice chairman of the federation, said: "If chief constables believe officers are corrupt they should be dealt with at court and sentenced to imprisonment. We are concerned that people will be got rid of without proper evidence just because someone suspects they are corrupt."