HAS THE MAN ACTING AS THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR NOTTINGHAMSHIRE BREACHED HIS OATH OF OFFICE?

Simon Patrick Tipping was born in Halifax, a location less than six miles away from where RM emerged from his mothers’s womb.

Of minor interest is the fact that Paddy attended the same University of Nottingham as RM, albeit 15 years prior to his own arrival at that place of indoctrination.

Paddy studied Philosophy, which means ‘love of wisdom’ and went on to become a Social Worker.

From there he moved into being a career politician, beginning at his local Nottingham City Council – a notoriously lumpen collective of self-serving clods who are currently trying their best to cover up the massive child abuse that took place in its and the County’s homes on a scale that has yet to be seen.

Being of a socialist bent, our Paddy joined the Labour party and dutifully followed a Fabian Path which he is still wandering down to day. In other words, he is a statist and he was elected to Parliament for the constituency of Rushcliffe.

As an MP, Paddy generally supported the bombing of Iraq in 2003 under the criminal leader, Tony Blair.

In 2009 he found himself up to his balls in the cesspit that was the first of a succession of expenses scandals to hit the phony politicians.

He escaped further investigation as a consequence of him suffering a heart problem. SOURCE

It was alleged that he had ‘overclaimed’ (cough) by some £18,000. Paddy, caught with his hand in the till, did the honourable and the only thing he could do unless he wanted to face jail time – he paid it back.

Interestingly, a man who admitted being guilty to stealing from the public purse, was then deemed a suitable candidate to be considered for the role of Police Commissioner with direct responsibility for a budget of around £200 million.

Throughout his working life – as a social worker, councillor, member of parliament and, now, chief commissioner for the county’s police ‘force’ – he has been a servant of the public.

In November 2012 he was ‘elected’ by a voting minority to his current position of Commissioner. Around 16% of the citizen electorate bothered to vote:

Police and crime commissioners (PCC’s) are required to pledge an oath to represent ‘all sections of the public without fear or favour’.

Just like anyone who is working as a Public Servant, Paddy is bound by the following principles which define his role, accountability and responsibilities.

These are taken to be self-evident: they cannot be circumvented or ignored.

Anything less, and that individual is committing fraud by way of misrepresentation. Which of course, is not to say that thousands of public servants are not committing fraud every day when they issue a bogus tax claim, ignore a legal notice or simply misapply the law. Whether or not the individual is aware of it is immaterial. Negligence is negligence.

It is even more of an issue for those who have sworn an oath of office. Anything less than adherence to that pledge is Negligence in Public Office. Thus, when Paddy swore his oath, he became immediately bound by the terms of his office to uphold it and by the Nolan Principles of Public Life to act accordingly:

Here is what Paddy swore to when he took up the office (with author’s own emphases):

“I Patrick Tipping  of  Bakersfield do solemnly and sincerely promise that I will serve all the people of Nottinghamshire in the office of police and crime commissioner without fear or favour.

I will act with integrity and diligence in my role and, to the best of my ability, will execute the duties of my office to ensure that the police are able to cut crime and protect the public.

I will give a voice to the public, especially victims of crime and work with other services to ensure the safety of the community and effective criminal justice.

I will take all steps within my power to ensure transparency of my decisions, so that I may be properly held to account by the public.

I will not seek to influence or prevent any lawful and reasonable investigation or arrest, nor encourage any police action save that which is lawful and justified within the bounds of this office.”

 

“The oath is designed to provide a platform for PCCs to set out publicly their commitment to tackling their new role with integrity. It will also echo the commitment police officers make to serve every member of the public impartially, while at the same time recognising the importance of the operational independence of the police service.

Cutting crime

Police and crime commissioners will work to cut crime by setting priorities in line with the needs of local people and holding chief constables to account.

They will bring local people closer to the police, building confidence in the system and restoring trust.

The swearing of an oath will be an important symbol of this impartiality, emphasising both the significance of this new role in local communities and that commissioners are there to serve the people, not a political party or any one section of their electorate.

An oath will also underline the particular importance of even-handedness in an office which holds to account the local chief constable and police force who themselves are bound to serve impartially.”  SOURCE

As Chief Constable, Chris Eyre is directly responsible for the actions of those constables who operate under him.

If you have a grievance against the police which you wish to take into Court as a Tort Claim, it is the man acting as Chief Constable who you may cite as the Defendant.

Between 24 February 2010 and 07 November 2011, RM was subject to a concerted campaign against him by Nottinghamshire Police.

This involved the police committing trespass with conversion, kidnapping, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, conspiracy and gross professional negligence against him.

As a direct consequence of the actions of Notts Police, he was evicted twice in the space of one year.

On both occasions, it is fair to state that without the Police force’s criminal intervention, the bovine bailiffs would not have been able to steal either house.

It is a fact that their actions have resulted in almost 4 years of extreme financial and physical hardship.

The fact is that the Bank was paid back twice what it falsely claimed to have loaned the RM.

No moneys were owed. End of.

A tort claim for damages against the Chief Constable, who is directly accountable to Paddy, was initiated in 2012.

In an offer letter of June 2013, the police made a derisory offer of £1,000 as full and final settlement of the matter:

That offer was rejected by RM.

The claim has since continued via concerted attempts by RM to settle it without resorting to the rigged Court system.

Since 2103, Paddy Tipping has been copied into to all the correspondence and the lawful presumption is that he is fully aware of the facts and significance of the claim against the Police.

The police have refused each and every offer of negotiation. Paddy is privy to this.

In yet another attempt to find settlement without recourse to the courts, a complaint about the failure of the Chris Eyre to settle a matter, the facts of which have been established was initiated through the office of the commissioner:

Served by Email.
A LETTER OF COMPLAINT TO THE IPCC.

Independent Police Complaints Commission
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

Our Ref: ‘NottsPolIPPC001’
[NOTTS POLICE refs: URN – NQ(LS)Ac10/00034/XXXXX & Ac12-0481MT]
Monday, 19 May 2014

Dear Sirs,
1. This is a complaint about Christopher EYRE, the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police Force.
2. An investigation was begun by his Legal Department on or around 28 August 2012 upon receipt of information concerning an incident on 26 February 2010 which had led to a Malicious Prosecution being made of both men, paul and michael.

3. Nothing came of this until on 11 March 2013 when he was served with a Letter of Claim for the series of torts committed against us by his force (subsequently expanded to include the period from February 2010 to November 2011 during which further torts were committed against both men) which requested that he forward said to his Professional Indemnification Insurers and provide us with confirmation this had been done along with the details of said insurers.

4. A reply from him on 03 June 2013 admitted the claim but only offered a derisory settlement figure. This was rejected on the basis it failed to take into account the Court of Appeal issued guidelines in the case of Thompson v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and HSU v. The Same (Times Law Reports, 19 February 1997) on compensation for torts committed by the police.

5. Since the serving of the Letter of Claim of 11 March 2013, Christopher Eyre has been repeatedly asked (eleven times in all) to confirm that the matter has been forwarded to the insurers and to provide the contact information of said. Each request has been ignored, with the most recent being made on 26 March 2014.

6. Furthermore, he has also ignored any and all reasonable attempts to settle the matter without recourse to the Courts. It is also worth noting that at no point has he offered any rebuttal of the facts as established in the affidavits and other documentation which forms the Private Record of the Parties.

7. This failure to negotiate a fair and reasonable settlement and to confirm the insurers have received all the relevant documentation is the basis for this complaint.

8. Please treat it as a most urgent matter. We look forward to hearing from you with a case reference number within three days of your receipt of this complaint.

Yours faithfully,
the claimants

All correspondence should be written and emailed to: XXX@thinkfree.org.uk

Without Prejudice – All Rights Reserved – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit – Errors & Omissions Excepted

 

Within days, Paddy wrote back with the erroneous claim that the complaint would not be recorded as Chris Eyre, the Chief Constable, was not dealing with it personally (“no direct involvement”):

 

Yet Paddy is bound by his public oath which

 

will also underline the particular importance of even-handedness in an office which holds to account the local chief constable and police force who themselves are bound to serve impartially.”

 

Meanwhile, one year on from taking office, Paddy gave an interview to the local rag in which he stated that he thought being in charge of a budget of £200 million was too much for one man to handle.

Paddy is in receipt of a salary of £75,000 per annum.

This is a man who admitted to embezzling £18,000 in 2009.

Yet somehow he is deemed fit to be a Commissioner of Police with a budget of £200 million?

Notwithstanding that issue, the question that is at the centre of this article is this: has Paddy, by way of his actions towards RM, breached his oath of office?

In other words, by refusing to record the complaint, how is he being “even handed” or even coming close to holding to account the local chief constable and police force who themselves are bound to serve impartially?

The facts of the matter speak for themselves: over the course of 18 months, Nottinghamshire Police Force committed, at best, acts of gross negligence against RM and his then associate. These actions resulted in him losing real property and being made homeless on two occasions.

At worst, RM is a survivor of a series of criminal actions that were launched against him by the Chief Constable whose oath binds him to protect and serve RM’s interests.  That is what they are paid to do, irrespective of what goes on in the fake reality of a copper’s mind.

Anything less than that and he is stealing a living. Chris, by the way, is currently in receipt of a wage that is in excess of £142,000.

I will give a voice to the public, especially victims of crime and work with other services to ensure the safety of the community and effective criminal justice.

What are you going to do about those members of the public who have been on the receiving end of crimes committed against them by the police constables themselves? To deny that fact is to be willfully negligent and, as has been demonstrated, negligence in public office is a civil and criminal breach of one’s oath.

To return to the ancient land of Elmet from whence both RM and Paddy originate is to remind ourselves of the long line of ancestors that came before us. That ancestral lineage is thousands of years old. Our forebears were moral people who knew, in an instance, the difference betweeen right and wrong.

Would RM be able to ask them directly, he knows exactly what those ancestors would say about the concerted way he was attacked by the Chief Constable and his police ‘force’.

 

 

IT WERE WRONG, LAD; PLAIN AND SIMPLE.”

 

Therefore, being thoroughly availed of the facts of the matter, RM asks you directly, Paddy: what would your ancestors say about clear and apparent refusal to do the right thing by a man towards whom you have a duty of service, notwithstanding the fact he heralds from the same lands as you?

The fact is the police have caused RM significant loss and harm. The scales of equity are out of kilter. They needs must be balanced.

That which is wrong needs putting right.

The people of the ancient lands from whence Paddy and the RM originate know the difference between that which is wrong and what is right. Or ‘reet’ as they say.

Will Paddy do the right thing?

The complaint to Paddy, on his recommendation was resent to the PSD who fudged it.

This led to the following Public Notice being served on the parties:

Friday, 11 July 2014
In the matter between

RM
V
Chris Eyre, the man acting for and on behalf of Nottinghamshire Police Force, Defendant (D)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Our Ref: ‘NottsPolIComIPCCPSD005DEC’
IPCC Ref: CO/471/14; 2014/027612
PDS Ref: Ac 12-0481 MT (F)
NOTTS POLICE refs: URN – NQ(LS)Ac10/00034/Kaye&Ajetunmob & Ac12-0481MT
Force reference no: 3342/14
_______________________________________________________________________________________

PUBLIC NOTICE OF VOID ACTION

Served by email on Chris Eyre, Craig Sutherland, Malcolm Turner, men acting for and on behalf of the office of Chief Constable of Notts Police Force, Paddy Tipping, a man acting as the Commissioner for Notts Police and Amanda Kelly, a woman acting as the CEO of the IPCC
Made pursuant to the letters received from Paddy Tipping on 03 June 2014, Craig Sutherland on 1 July 2014 & Anthony Cutt on 10 July 2014,

As stated in the NOTICE OF PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE of 09 July 2014,”Under the Maxim of Law, “Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa.”No one should be judge in his own cause. 12 Co. 113.

The ultra vires correspondence received on 10 July from Anthony Cutt of the IPPC is refused on the basis that at no point in the referenced Notice is there any mention of us wishing to appeal: if we wanted to appeal, then we would have stated as such.

This correspondence is therefore taken as further evidence of gross incompetence and/or misrepresentation by the IPCC.

For the avoidance of doubt: what we are stating is that the entire investigation of the complaint is incurably void: for the reasons stated in the Notice, there exists a fundamental defect in the IPCC’s process of investigation – namely the misrepresentations of the complaint by the PSD and the blatant conflict of interest as demonstrated by Craig Sutherland.

In other words, because of the IPCC’s failure to apply due process of the law to the complaint, the response of Craig Sutherland is incurably void and there is, literally, nothing to appeal.

The IPCC is therefore required to set aside the response to the initial complaint without delay and deal with those issues which arise from the Notice of Professional Negligence.

It must also be stressed that the IPCC does not have the necessary jurisdiction to refuse to do so.1

Kindly confirm that this has been done at your earliest opportunity and once again, please be courteous enough to include our ref number on any and all correspondence.

Yours faithfully,
RM

1 Ref the judgments of Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen Craig v Kanssen [1943] 1 KB 256); Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard [1963]; and Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [1978].

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Error & omissions excepted.

Further correspondence meant that an ‘appeal’ was made. And the IPPC then falsely tried to claim it was out of time. Amanda Kelly head of IPCC on a salary of £125, 000 has been copied in too. She is well-aware that the IPCC has attempted to whitewash it all. Whether or not she is also ‘stealing a wage’ remains to be seen.

It is a fact that Paddy has a duty of care to serve the interests of the people. He is duty bound not only to stand up for the public who have been on the receiving end of police criminality and to settle the matter as expediently as possible to avoid the public incurring further expense by way of an expensive trial, the facts of which will result in a costly defeat for Chris Eyre.

Paddy is duty bound to hold the Chief constable accountable for his actions. When that constable has committed a series of wrong doings, how is he holding him to account by refusing to record a valid complaint against him and not negotiating a settlement of the matter?

This is at a time when the Notts Police Force are under pressure regarding their complicity in the cover up of crimes against children who were in the purported care of the councils of Nottingham and the Shire.

Will Paddy and Chris do the right thing by those who have been wronged by the constables who operate beneath them and to whom they also have a duty of care under their oaths to serve and protect?

Could it be Paddy has reached his Tipping point?

Watch this space.