Email this site to a contact

 

"A suitable reply" = An obvious "get lost!"

Home Office

 

The Home Office is, among other, responsible for the police.

I approached the Home Office for help on two occasions: The Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson, in 2010, and David Blunkett, in 2003 - who, relative to Alan Johnson, is '5 or 6 Home Secretaries ago'. I have lost count. There have been so many under New Labour since 1997.

Sections

2009-10 - The Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson, Home Secretary

I first approached Alan Johnson, and Sir Paul Stephenson, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, with a letter dated 28 November 2009 which was partly a 'cry for help' because of the treatment by the police following my 28 May 2009 Subject Access Request (Kensington & Chelsea police # 5), and partly to show the massive disconnect between my first-hand experience with the police (which I summarised, including the latest events - and supported with 11 enclosures to both), and what Mr Johnson and Sir Paul Stephenson had recently said in the media.

In relation to Mr Johnson, I quoted his undertaking reported in the media, and on a government website:

  • (2) The relaunch of the 'Policing Pledge’ (triggered by the death of Mrs Pilkington and her daughter) - which starts with:

“The police service in England and Wales will:

1. Work to keep you and your neighbourhoods safe from harm;

2. Always treat you fairly, with dignity and respect, ensuring that you have fair access to our services at all times”

(NB: In relation to "being treated fairly and with dignity", these are rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 which, among others, also states " and without prejudice”.

In my 28 November 2009 letter, I also highlighted my rights under this Act by capturing excerpts from the government website Equality and Human Rights Commission website (http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/fairer-britain), states ...

“Being treated fairly and with dignity… means that everybody should have access to public services…and the right to be treated fairly by those services.

This applies to all public services…

UK law includes a range of human rights which protect you from poor treatment and prejudice, and which require you to have equal and fair treatment from public authorities”)

I concluded my letter by asking for support in "taking immediate action in relation to K&C police, and ensure the implementation of my rights: pursuing Andrew Ladsky and parties he instructed for the offences they committed against me; ensuring that police records are amended to reflect my feedback, and my outstanding questions answered"

I sent another letter to Mr Johnson and Sir Stephenson, dated 2 December 2009, following receiving 'a reply' from Acting Chief Inspector, Steve McSorley who, I determined from the K&C police's website, is Head of Kensington police 'Professional Standards' - as it leads to very damning conclusions about the management - or more appropriately, lack of management - of Kensington police (see detail - Kensington police # 5)

The reply was a 23 December 2009 letter from the Home Office's Direct Communications Unit, stating

“In writing to Sir Paul Stephenson you have taken the right course of action. It is the Chief Officer who is responsible for the day to day operational management of the force and not the Home Office. The Home Officer and its Ministers are not able to act as an avenue of appeal, and have no power to influence or intervene in any investigations”

BUT: the Minister heading the Home Office IS responsible for ensuring that HIS departments perform AS PER THEIR LEGAL REMIT.

From Sir Paul Stephenson, a 3 December 2009 letter that my “letters dated 28th November and 2nd December” have “been forwarded to Inspector Campbell McKelvie, Directorate of Professional Standards Customer Service Team”

It was followed by an 8 December 2009 letter from Hema Patel, Caseworker, Directorate of Professional Standards, Customer Service Team – posted eight days later - on 16 December 2009, enclosing a one-page photocopy headed “What happens next?”, described in the letter as “an information leaflet explaining the various processes” - and asking me for a telephone number on which I can be contacted. I took delivery of the letter on the 24th, and replied on 28 December 2009.

Then: TOTAL SILENCE!...

...which prompted me to send this 2 February 2010 letter to, among others, Alan Johnson and Sir Paul Stephenson, headed "When am I due to killed?". I justified the header by the fact that (1) they had ALL gone into 'silent mode' or, as I wrote, "retreated to your communal bunker"; (2) I had informed ALL of them that I have a death threat hanging over my head since 15 June 2009 (NB: About which, NOBODY in the police has contacted me).

The next correspondence was a letter dated 21 January 2010 from Crispin Lee, Detective Inspector, Directorate of Professional Standards - that was posted on 4 February 2010 i.e. on the day that my 2 February 2010 letter was delivered to Sir Paul Stephenson's Office.

In this letter, he said to have contacted the 'Independent' Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), (which is part of Alan Johnson's Ministry -see website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/contact-us.html), to ask for dispensation in dealing with my complaint which, 'of course', he obtained - including, evidently, the right by Kensington police to NOT comply with the legal requirements imposed under the Data Protection Act 1998 = a continuation of the evident right granted by the Home Office to Kensington police to operate above the law of the land (see Kensington police # 5, for detail)

What gives the police, a department under Alan Johnson's control, the right to continue to ignore the law of the land? THAT is a question for him to answer (Kensington police # 5)

The second letter from the Home Office, dated 24 February 2010, was a repeat of the previous message: 'Not our problem!

It IS YOUR problem Mr Johnson. YOU HAVE A DUTY to ensure that (1) your departments perform as per their legal remit; (2) as per the law of the land. These are YOUR obligations to me, the taxpayer.

Contrast my experience with Kensington police, its 'Professional Standards' department, the Directorate of 'Professional Standards', and the IPCC - against the above claims made by Mr Johnson - including my rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.

WHY am I - ILLEGALLY - being denied my rights by the Home Office?

WHY is it that Alan Johnson, as Minister with responsibility for the police and the IPCC does not take action?

 

This is a repeat of another recent experience, with another Minister: Jack Straw, 'Justice' Secretary to whom I sent two 'cries for help' (WLCC # 20 , # 25) - as well as copied him on two of my letters to judges and one to HMCS 'Customer Service' (WLCC # 23 , # 24 , # 29). Outcome: like his predecessor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton: he took NO action = ENDORSED CONDUCT... and his department, the Ministry of 'Justice' (quite likely with his endorsement) continues to do this (Outcome of my 2 January 2010 Subject Access Request)...

...under the leadership of Gordon Brown, Prime Minister, who has also opted to ignore my 'cry for help'.

WHY?

(And these are just a few of the individuals in Government who have turned their back on me - see MPs-Home - and in the State - see overview of my 'cries for help' / complaints - My Diary 6 May 08)

My card has been marked by the State (and other parties) from the time I 'dared' to challenge the FRAUDULENT service charge demand in 2002 - sent under the instructions of Andrew David Ladsky. WHY?

  • Is Ladsky the ruler of England? Of the United Kingdom?

  • Do they ALL report to him - all the way up to the Prime Minister?

In the Guardian of 9 Feb 10, "Alan Johnson on Tory Crime policy - Live", Alan Johnson is reported as saying:

2.15pm "Johnson says that 20 years ago people would have seen the Tories as the party of law and order, and Labour as more concerned with civil rights. This has now changed, he says..."

I cannot comment about "20 years ago" (I was my usual law-abiding individual, working very hard, paying a substantial amount of tax, minding my own business, etc.) - but I can comment - with a mountain of 'black on white' evidence in support - about my experience under New Labour since 2002: it does NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE 'LITTLE PEOPLE' (even some of the 'bigger people' e.g. My Diary Feb 09) - and concurrently, does not give a damn about its legal obligations.

Yet, it has taken a massive amount of money from me by claiming that it was for services I could rely on in time of need. When the time came, after 33 years of my being in this country, when I was FORCED to have contact with these services - SOLELY as the result of actions against me by criminals: rather than be there for me - the victim - these services HAVE - AND CONTINUE TO BE THERE ONLY FOR THEM. WHY?

The Home Office is STILL "not fit for purpose"

Back in 2006, the newly appointed Home Secretary, John Reid, described the Home Office as "not fit for purpose", while another Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, described the department as "dysfunctional"

Sir John Gieve, another Home Secretary, in June 2006, faced a grilling by the Home Affairs Select Committee, asking for the reason why more than 1,000 foreign prisoners were not even considered for deportation after serving jail sentences. He was also criticised over the running of the immigration and Nationality Directorate and his failure to give a full account of how the nanny of the former lover of David Blunkett (yet another Home Secretary under New Labour), was given a visa.

In relation to the prison service (which was subsequently moved under the Ministry of Justice), some outrageous "compensation" payments were made to prisoners by the Home Office - see My Diary 20 Feb 07. And "compensation" payments continue to be made by the Ministry of 'Justice' (MPs-Home)

In My Diary 20 Feb 07, I ask: "Do I need to commit an illicit act to get support in exerting my rights - in obtaining justice and redress?"

Other evidence:

In its 18 Jun 06 article, "Why was Gieve moved to Threadneedle Street?", The Sunday Telegraph reported:

"Further embarrassment came after Sir John Bourn, the head of the National Audit Office, refused to sign off last year's accounts"

"The Home Office has failed to maintain proper books and records in 2004-05, '' Bourn said. I am unable to reach an opinion as to whether they show a true and fair view.''

The same article also states "Whitehall insiders suggest that Gieve was offered the job at the Bank of England as a consolation prize by Gordon Brown"

And there is the problem:

(1) Ministers appointed NOT on the basis of their competence to run departments (as candidly admitted by Jacqui Smith, predecessor to Alan Johnson who said that she was not up to the task) - making them easier to manipulate, as well as more likely to:

(1) make blunders in the process of trying to assert their authority / raise their profile / hang on to their job (e.g. Jacqui Smith's "list of undesirables") ;

(2) cover-up their department's failure, partly to protect their reputation, but also in the hope of gaining allies within the department (e.g. arrest of Damian Green under Jacqui Smith) ; hide embarrassing information (e.g. under John Reid, the "fantastical bureaucratic structure aimed at obstructing inquirers at every turn") ; make false claims (e.g. ban, in March 2010, by the Advertising Standards Agency, of a Home Office campaign claiming that the police has to spend 80% of its time on the streets - on the ground that it broke the rules on being "legal, decent, honest and truthful" as, among others, it did not apply to all 140,000 police officers in England & Wales. Channel 4, FactCheck, Cathy Newman, 16 Apr 10 "Police on the streets 80% of the time?"

(2) Ministers who stay in their post for so little time (another example: three heads of Local Government and housing in c. 10 days. That must be a record for the game of musical chairs typical of New Labour departments' appointments), that they have no/little understanding of the ministry they are heading, and therefore no hold on them (e.g. in spite of the 400 strong IPCC being set-up many years ago, at December 2009, the Home Office STILL does NOT know whether the IPCC is fulfilling its remit = a massive benefit to the police which can therefore continue in its ways, totally unhindered - and takes maximum advantage of it (Kensington police # 5 ; Kensington police # 9.2). Note also that, nine months previously, in March 2009, the Parliament's Public Accounts Committee had already "criticised the IPCC for being unable to show if it is working effectively" (point # 9.2)

The lack of understanding and control of the ministries also leads to kneejerk reactions that expose serious disconnect with reality (e.g. Alan Johnson's 'Policing Pledge' (above) v. the statistics - released at the same time - that the police failed to investigate 1.5 million reported crimes in 2008 - Kensington police # 9.2). An analogy that springs to mind: What they do is akin to putting the image of an ice cream on radioactive material: looks inviting, but come into contact with it, and you suffer very dire consequences.

The consequence of the lack of understanding of the ministries, concurrent lack of control and therefore authority, added to the knowledge that they are not going to stay in the ministry for long - means that, rather than rock the boat, they chart an easy course of turning a blind eye and a deaf ear (e.g. current state of the police - K&C police # 9.2 ; Alan Johnson's hands-off attitude in my case) - leaving them to concentrate on their key priorities: cashing their salary and perks, continuing to build their pension pot, as well as their network of contacts - in readiness for when they are no longer MPs (or, depending on some of them, in breach of the House of Commons' code of conduct: while they are still MPs - My Diary 9 Feb +)...

...leaving me, one of the 'little people' - to whom they have a duty of care - to pay the price in more ways than one.

As Harriet Sergeant, guest contributor, wrote in her 28 Feb 10 article in The Sunday Times, headed "The state sector's big evil: it does not sack" (triggered in part by the death, through neglect, of up to 1,200 people at the Stafford Hospital - and subsequent events):

"However horrific is the offence, rarely is anyone brought to book, let alone sacked... those responsible for shocking treatment of the public remain untouched and even flourish...

...Making politicians look good too often has come at the expense of the public in their care"

Back to sections

2003

In August 2003, I sent an identical letter to a dozen various media (e.g. The Guardian ) in which I related the horrendous nightmare I was going through, including my experiences with various government departments - which included with Kensington & Chelsea police.

In each instance, I copied various ministries, including the then Head, David Blunkett, Home Secretary as the Home Office is responsibility for the police.

The Home Office's 27 August 2003 reply stated that it had forwarded my letter to Mr Prescott's Office

"for a suitable reply" i.e. which was a 'Get lost!'

I found it interesting that a complaint to the police against a landlord (K&C police # 1) was de-facto referred to then Office of John Prescott.

Had Mr Prescott issued directives to the Home Office on how the police should handle complaints by leaseholders against their landlord?

Did these directives include harassment and intimidation of 'troublesome' leaseholders who insist on exerting their statutory rights?

Well, I guess 'somebody' had to 'run the show' at the Home Office.

 

THE HOME OFFICE MINISTERS CAUSED ME TO DEVELOP THIS WEBSITE, AND ARE CAUSING ME TO CONTINUE MAINTAINING IT.

THIS OUTCOME IS OF THEIR OWN   DOING .

Back to top