Minneapolis and UK Policing #6 

by TIM HICKS

~~~~~ 

Introduction

The NYE has been running a series of articles on the impact of the death of Mr George Floyd in Minneapolis on policing in the UK.

• Minneapolis and North Yorkshire #1 covers the impact of the death of Mr George Floyd in Minneapolis on policing in North Yorkshire.
• Minneapolis and North Yorkshire #2 Covers UK national and North Yorkshire Police policy on chokeholds.
• Minneapolis and North Yorkshire #3 and Public filming York Incident (which contains a correction to article 3) cover public filming of the police, particularly when filming alleged police misconduct and the incident in York referred to above.
• Minneapolis and UK Policing #4 – NYE Vindicated which posed the question how often are chokeholds being used by the UK Police.

Use of chokeholds/neck restraints

The College of Policing was established in 2012 as a professional body for everyone who works for the police service in England and Wales. According to its website:

“The purpose of the College is to provide those working in policing with the skills and knowledge necessary to prevent crime, protect the public, and secure public trust. 

We have three complementary functions: 

• • Knowledge – we develop the research and infrastructure for improving evidence of ‘what works’. Over time, this will ensure that policing practice and standards are based on knowledge, rather than custom and convention.

• • Education – we support the development of individuals in policing. We set educational requirements to assure the public of the quality and consistency of policing skills and we facilitate the academic accreditation and recognition of policing expertise.
    

• • Standards – we draw on the best available evidence of ‘what works’ to set standards in policing for forces and individuals. Examples include our Authorised Professional Practice (APP) and peer reviews.
    

We will have a mandate to set standards in professional development, including codes of practice and regulations, to ensure consistency across the 43 forces in England and Wales. We also have a remit to set standards for the police service on training, development, skills and qualifications, and we will provide maximum support to help the service implement these standards.”

[My highlighting in bold]

The College of Policing policy is below:

“Regarding your query about choke holds, the national personal safety training for officers in England and Wales does not contain any choke holds or restraint technique where officers apply pressure to the throat or neck area of a person. Officers are actively discouraged from this, due to the inherent dangers of putting pressure on the neck or throat, particularly during restraint.” 

If officers believe that they or other members of the public are in imminent danger, they are permitted to use any reasonable and necessary force to prevent that danger. In such circumstances officers could use their professional judgement to deem it reasonable, proportionate and necessary to use a restraint technique which could potentially cause serious injury. 

[Source: College of Policing]

The guidance is clear that chokeholds should be avoided, but individual officers are able to use whatever level of force they feel is necessary to manage violence or threat that is presented to them or another person. This is because guidance cannot cover all eventualities. A police officer may have to do something that is not contained in the guidance, or do something that the guidance advices them is dangerous/runs a high risk of injury in order to protect themselves or others. A hypothetical example is if an unarmed officer drives a car at a person who is about to shoot someone.

However, all police officers and staff have to use the College of Policing National Decision Model to help make the best decision and to explain their actions afterwards. They must expect to be asked to account for the force that is used and to explain why they thought it was necessary and proportionate to the threat they faced.

Sussex Police issue a clarification and the NYE issues a correction

The fifth article in the series Minneapolis and UK Policing #5: More chokeholds covered the differing response to use of neck restraints by the IOPC to three incidents in Sussex, London and Leeds. It has proven to be controversial.

In this article I stated:

“Arrest in Brighton by officers of Sussex Police in which it is alleged a neck restraint was used. 

This video surfaced of a man being arrested in Brighton by officers of Sussex Police on the 7^th of July: Video here which allegedly shows three officers acting in joint enterprise restraining a man, with one officer apparently applying restraint to a man’s neck. Excellent article from the Brighton and Hove News containing a full statement by Sussex Police can be read here. 

Contrary to what was first thought, the IOPC investigation in Brighton is unrelated to the use of a neck restraint on the man on the ground. The IPCC investigation focuses on a use of force prior to the video being taken and not on the restraint of the man on the ground. Indicating that the officer’s conduct in applying it was acceptable. In the Leeds and London incidents, police officers are under investigation for applying a neck restraint, indicating that it isn’t.”

https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Montpelier-Road-arrest.jpg

Police officers restraining a man in Brighton

Following a request for clarification on the apparent contradiction between the way the Metropolitan Officers and the Sussex Officers were treated, Sussex Police issued this statement clarifying the situation: 

“After body worn video footage in relation to the whole interaction was seen by the IOPC and Sussex Police’s Professional Standards Department (PSD) it was decided that Sussex Police would solely refer the matter relating to an interaction prior to the restraint in the street, which did not form part of the published video. 

“A male officer, stationed at Brighton and Hove, is being investigated by the IOPC for misconduct. The officer has not been suspended from duty, but is working on non-public facing duties pending the outcome of the IOPC investigation. 

Advice was sought from specialist staff safety trainers in relation to the restraint and the technique used, which is approved by the Home Office, and this was considered appropriate and proportionate.”

A spokesperson for Sussex Police also confirmed to the NYE that neck restrains are not authorised in Sussex Police force policy.

The initial line I took on the Montpelier Road incident was to connect it to the controversy over use of neck restraints and choke holds. It now transpires that the restraint used was not a chokehold or neck restraint and was therefore within the College of Policing Guidance. So the line I took in the article was wrong.

I am happy to publish the above statement from Sussex Police clarifying the situation and to issue a correction.

This nevertheless does not change the overall concern expressed in the article, which is that it appears the law is not being applied consistently to officers from different forces.

Incidents involving alleged use of chokeholds/neck restraints

There have been incidents allegedly involving the use of use of neck restraints/chokeholds by police officers in London (Metropolitan Police), Leeds and Halifax (both West Yorkshire Police).

Video of the London incident which contains graphic images that some readers may find disturbing can be seen here. Video of the Elland Road incident which also contains graphic images can be seen here.

In the incident in Halifax (see lead illustration) this BBC Report states that a chokehold was applied and includes an interview with Mr Hassan Ahmed, the man who was arrested referred to above, in which he states he thought he was going to die. The officer was filmed stating “chill out or I’ll choke you out” and then, “Chill out or you’re going to sleep.” Another officer then assisted him to arrest the man, but did nothing to restrain the Constable allegedly applying the chokehold.

Video footage of the incident can be seen in this ITV Report, along with an interview with the man that recorded it.

West Yorkshire Police issued this press statement to the NYE:

Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Osman Khan of West Yorkshire Police said:  

“We are aware of a video circulating showing the arrest of a man at Spring Hall Gardens, Halifax on Sunday 16 August in relation to assault offences.  

We immediately reviewed the footage and looked into it as a matter of urgency to establish the full circumstances.

We have reviewed the actions of the officers involved and a referral has been made to the Force’s Professional Standards Directorate. 

“Our investigation remains ongoing and we have made a voluntarily referral to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC). The officer involved has been suspended from the force.

“The man arrested was released under investigation.” 

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) issued this statement to the NYE:

“The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is to investigate the actions of West Yorkshire Police officers following the arrest of a man in Halifax on 16 August. 

Video footage showing part of the arrest in Spring Hall Lane was shared widely on social media and shows the man being restrained on the ground by officers.

After receiving a voluntary referral from the force, the IOPC is now independently investigating the incident. 

We would like to speak to anyone who may have seen or heard this incident which took place at around 3pm on Sunday. 

Witnesses can email SpringHallLane@policeconduct.gov.uk or ring 0300 303 5730

 IOPC Regional Director Miranda Biddle said: 

“We can understand why the images circulated have caused considerable public concern and we would like to reassure members of the community that we have taken the decision to independently investigate this incident after West Yorkshire Police made a voluntary referral to us. 

An investigation has now commenced to ensure that we are able to fully understand what happened. It is vital that we are able to impartially determine the facts. 

We have already begun to gather evidence but we would like to speak to anyone who was in Spring Hall Lane in Halifax at around 3pm on Sunday who may have witnessed this incident.”

I do not know what happened before the video clip, or the full circumstances of the arrest, so I will not comment. It is now down to the officer concerned to justify his actions.

In my opinion, this incident raises various issues:

1. Was a chokehold applied?
2. If in fact a chokehold was applied, a) why did the second officer not order his colleague to immediately release him from it, and b) why has the second officer not been the subject of investigation, for failing to challenge improper conduct?
3. Even if a chokehold was not applied. Is it acceptable for a police officer to obtain compliance by threatening a man he is arresting with use of a chokehold, which is a prohibited technique that could endanger his life?
4. Has this officer applied chokeholds when making arrests before? He certainly appeared confident and earnest in his threats.
5. Irrespective of the two threats to use a chokehold quoted above, was the use of force in this arrest appropriate or excessive?
6. Did the second officer report his colleagues conduct?
7. West Yorkshire Police has now had two incidents of alleged use or threatened use of a neck restraint in the past five weeks. Is this a widespread practice in West Yorkshire Police, given that in both cases other officers stood by and failed to intervene?

Elland Road and Minneapolis compared

I would further comment that there are some striking similarities between the Minneapolis incident and the Elland Road incident. In both cases, the officers fall into three groups:

1. The one officer that applied the neck restraint.
2. The two officers who acting in joint enterprise, assisted the officer to applying the neck restraint by holding the arrested person down.
3. The one officer in Minneapolis and at least three at Elland Road who were not involved in restraining the arrested man, who observed a neck restraint being applied but did not restrain or report their colleagues.

In the Minneapolis incident, all four police officers were eventually charged, even though application of a neck restraint was authorised by Minneapolis Police Department force policy and the two police officers that assisted in applying a neck restraint were probationers in their first few days of policing after leaving the police training academy.

Inconsistent treatment of Yorkshire Police Officers that fail to challenge and report misconduct

Under the College of Policing Code of Ethics, if a Constable that sees a police officer committing an act of misconduct, he has a duty to intervene and restrain him. He also has a duty to report that officer’s misconduct.

“10.1 According to this standard you must never ignore unethical or unprofessional behaviour by a policing colleague, irrespective of the person’s rank, grade or role.

10.2 You have a positive obligation to question the conduct of colleagues that you believe falls below the expected standards and, if necessary, challenge, report or take action against such conduct.”

 This must be particularly true if the alleged misconduct -applying a chokehold or a neck restraint- may be life threatening.

In none of these cases did any of the seven other police officers present (one in London, one in Halifax at least five at Elland Road) report any concern at all over the conduct of the officer applying the restraint. Extraordinarily, the IOPC investigation was only triggered because the police were filmed by a member of the public and the video was uploaded onto social media.

I freely admit that I am not a lawyer, I was not present and I do not know what happened before the video was taken. But it seems to me that if there is sufficient evidence to justify an investigation into an officer for applying a chokehold or neck restraint, then prima facie there must be enough to warrant an investigation of the other officers that acted in joint enterprise with him by holding the arrested person down while the chokehold or neck restraint was applied. It follows from this that the other officers that failed to intervene or report it as a potential act of misconduct should also face investigation as the Metropolitan Police Officer has done. There are at least ten officers involved in the London, Halifax and Elland Road incidents. In summary:

• All three officers alleged to have applied a chokehold or neck restraint are the subject of an investigation. Which is consistent with the College of Policing guidance and across both forces.
• One Metropolitan Police Officer and three West Yorkshire Police officers held an arrested person down while a chokehold or neck restraint was allegedly applied. Yet only the Metropolitan Officer is the subject of misconduct proceedings for contravening the Code of Ethics by not “challenging and reporting improper conduct” and failing to meet its requirements on “authority, respect and courtesy and honesty and integrity”. This is clearly inconsistent.
• One Metropolitan Police Constable and the six West Yorkshire Police Constables were present at the three incidents, but did not restrain their colleague or report his misconduct. Only the Metropolitan Officer is the subject of misconduct proceedings. Again this is inconsistent.

The IOPC can direct forces to record incidents and then ‘call them in’ to be investigated by the IOPC. It can also consider incidents that have not been referred to it by police forces and decide whether and how it will investigate them. The IOPC sets the Terms of Reference of all its investigations. They are shared with the force and the IOPC decision maker can then decide whether to amend them in response to feedback. Should anything happen during the course of the investigation, the Terms of Reference can be amended.

So it is clear that the IOPC has power to investigate the six West Yorkshire Constables that allegedly did not challenge or report potential misconduct, not just the two that allegedly applied a chokehold or neck restraint. Yet it is not doing so.

The IOPC, the West Yorkshire Police Six (WYP6) and a culture of impunity

Notwithstanding the publicity over the death of Mr Floyd and President Trump banning use of chokeholds across the USA, it appears that some Police Officers may be defying the College of Policing standard to apply chokeholds/neck restraints without adequate justification, failing to intervene when they are allegedly applied and failing to report potential acts of misconduct. This is concerning:

• It must be clear to police officers from their training, that use of chokeholds is discouraged by the College of Policing guidance and force policy. It follows from this that use of a chokehold or neck restraint is going to be very, very difficult to justify. Particularly if the entire incident is captured on video.
• Police Officers must also know that with the proliferation of CCTV and mobile ‘phones, police officers will be routinely filmed, particularly if they are making arrests, or are suspected of misconduct. The Halifax incident was filmed covertly from inside a house, so the officer was not even aware he was being filmed.
• Such is the credibility of video evidence, that video uploaded onto social media ten minutes later can create a storm of controversy overnight and simultaneously be used as the basis of misconduct proceedings or a criminal prosecution.

I can only conclude that this continuing use of chokeholds is tacitly approved and that police officers will routinely ignore the Code of Ethics, to back up their colleagues no matter what.

In my view this is because:

1. The police have not been subject to adequate supervision. Even very serious infringements of discipline and serious crime have gone unpunished by Chief Constables, the IOPC and its predecessor organisation the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
2. Police misconduct regulations and the Code of Ethics have been applied inconsistently across all forces by Chief Constables, the IOPC and the IPCC.

I believe this has led to a culture of impunity in some police forces:

“The impossibility, de jure or de facto, of bringing the perpetrators of violations to account – whether in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings – since they are not subject to any inquiry that might lead to their being accused, arrested, tried and, if found guilty, sentenced to appropriate penalties, and to making reparations to their victims.” 

“Impunity arises from a failure by States to meet their obligations to investigate violations; to take appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators, particularly in the area of justice, by ensuring that those suspected of criminal responsibility are prosecuted, tried and duly punished; to provide victims with effective remedies and to ensure that they receive reparation for the injuries suffered; to ensure the inalienable right to know the truth about violations; and to take other necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of violations.”

[Source: United Nations Commission on Human Rights Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity].

The IOPC:  Upholding lower standards of police conduct in Yorkshire

The IOPC was provided with a draft of this article and asked for a comment, but declined to do so. In response to a previous request for comment on the inconsistent approach taken to the Metropolitan Police compared to the West Yorkshire Police, an IOPC Spokesperson confirmed: 

“Every investigation has its own unique set of facts and our decisions are made on the evidence available to us at the time – the majority of which is not in the public domain.”  

This is true and I would again emphasise that I have not had access to all of the evidence that the IOPC has considered. Nevertheless in my opinion this comment does not address the issue of why a Constable from the Metropolitan Police is now facing the possibility of proceedings, while the WYP6 who appear to have committed the same offences are not.

This contradictory response by the IOPC is concerning. The College of Policing was established to uphold national standards published in the Code of Ethics. The public expect the police to meet that standard and that the IOPC will hold all police officers to it. The people of Yorkshire have the right to expect the same standard of policing as Londoners.

Currently there appears to be one standard on challenging and reporting unethical or unprofessional conduct by police officers in London and a lower standard in Yorkshire. It is essential that the IOPC upholds this principle across all forces, not just the Met. The current situation and the failure of the IOPC to comment openly on it undermines public confidence in the police service and the IOPC.

Further, the refusal by the IOPC to engage and meaningfully respond to this concern is contrary to its commitment promulgated on its website, to have a “clear and transparent process to handle any …. feedback you have about our service”. The public also expects the IOPC to be open and accountable.

It is the duty of journalists to hold the police and the IOPC to account and to challenge this.

We know that the NYE is widely read by police officers. I hope that these NYE articles will lead to greater awareness of the dangers involved in applying chokeholds/neck restraints and help deter them from using them.

To this end, the NYE will continue to follow this issue, to improve standards of policing and confront the culture of impunity that appears to exist in some police forces and public bodies.

Right of Reply

If you are mentioned in this article and/or do not agree with the views expressed in it, or if you wish to correct any factual inaccuracy. Please let me know using the letters@nyenquirer.uk email address. Your views and a correction will be published if appropriate.

by TIM HICKS 

~~~~~

NYE vindicated concerns and comments vindicated.

The NYE has been running a series of articles on the impact of the death of Mr George Floyd in Minneapolis will have on policing in the UK.

• Minneapolis and North Yorkshire #1 covers the impact of the death of Mr George Floyd in Minneapolis on policing in North Yorkshire.
• Minneapolis and North Yorkshire #2 Covers UK national and North Yorkshire Police policy on chokeholds.
• Minneapolis and North Yorkshire #3 and  (which contains a correction to article 3) cover public filming of the police, particularly when filming alleged police misconduct and the incident in York referred to above.
• Minneapolis and UK Policing #4 NYE vindicated which posed the question how often are chokeholds being used by the UK Police.

The articles cover use of chokeholds by the UK police and the impact the events in Minneapolis will have on policing in the UK, in terms of application of use of force and public filming of the police. There are a number of themes running through them, which have been vindicated by subsequent events.

1. UK Police policy from the College of Policing effectively prohibits use of chokeholds, unless there is an absolutely realistic prospect of loss of human life. The College of Policing had confirmed to the NYE that:

“Regarding your query about choke holds, the national personal safety training for officers in England and Wales does not contain any choke holds or restraint technique where officers apply pressure to the throat or neck area of a person. Officers are actively discouraged from this, due to the inherent dangers of putting pressure on the neck or throat, particularly during restraint.”

Our own force is North Yorkshire Police, which also very helpfully confirmed that:

“North Yorkshire Police do not train our officers and staff in the use of ‘chokeholds’ as part of Officer Safety Training. It is not an approved technique.”

2. It is in the public interest for police officers to be filmed while they are about their duties and particularly if they are committing an act of misconduct. The cases quoted below where filming of police officers has led to investigations by the IOPC vindicate this comment.

3. Far from being prohibited, some police officers have been routinely using chokeholds and are still continuing to use them. Some examples which also vindicate this comment:

• Arrest in Brighton by officers of Sussex Police in which it is alleged a neck restraint was used.

This video surfaced of a man being arrested in Brighton by officers of Sussex Police on the 7^th of July: Video here which allegedly shows three officers acting in joint enterprise restraining a man, with one officer apparently applying restraint to a man’s neck. Excellent article from the Brighton & Hove News containing a full statement by Sussex Police can be read here.

Police officers restraining a man in Brighton

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has issued this statement. Please note that I have set one sentence in bold type:

“A Sussex Police officer has been advised that he is subject to a misconduct investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) and will be asked by investigators to give an account of his use of force. 

The investigation follows an incident where a man was restrained following his arrest in Brighton, East Sussex on 7 July. Video footage showing only part of the incident was shared widely on social media. 

Our investigation focuses on a use of force prior to this video being taken and not on the restraint of the man on the ground which has been shared on social media. 

Body worn video in relation to the whole interaction was seen by the IOPC and Sussex Police Professional Standards Department and it resulted in Sussex Police referring solely the matter relating to the interaction prior to the restraint in the street. 

IOPC Regional Director Sarah Green said: 

“Having examined a range of evidence including body worn video and witness statements, we have taken the decision that this is now an investigation for misconduct. An investigation does not mean that misconduct proceedings will necessarily follow.” 

Our investigation resulted from a conduct referral from Sussex Police following the incident when police were attempting to locate a missing teenager at an address in Montpelier Road, Brighton. They arrested a man, 28, on suspicion of threats to cause criminal damage and, following the arrest, further restraint was required by the officers.” 

• Arrest of a man by officers of the Metropolitan Police in which it is alleged that excessive force was used

Two constables from the Metropolitan Police arrested a man in the street in Islington, North London. The man was handcuffed and on the ground with one officer kneeling on him. A crowd gathered and started filming the arrest while pleading with the constable not to apply pressure to the man’s head.

BBC report here. The Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Sir Steve House is quoted in the article as saying:

“The video footage that I have seen today and is circulating on social media is extremely disturbing. Some of the techniques used cause me great concern – they are not taught in police training.”

His comments mirror those of the College of Policing and North Yorkshire Police quoted above.

Video (which contains graphic images that some readers may find disturbing) can be seen here.

When I last reported on this case, one officer had been suspended from duty and the other placed on restricted duties. The IOPC has now issued this statement with the latest developments:

“The Independent Office for Police Conduct has launched an independent investigation into the conduct of two Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officers when making an arrest in Finsbury Park, London on 16 July 2020. This follows a voluntary referral from the MPS. 

One officer has been advised that they are subject to a criminal investigation for Common Assault and investigation for Gross Misconduct on use of force; authority, respect and courtesy; discreditable conduct and honesty and integrity. A second officer has been advised they are subject to a misconduct investigation on challenging and reporting improper conduct; authority, respect and courtesy and honesty and integrity. 

We have also launched a witness appeal. We would like to hear from anyone who witnessed the arrest on Isledon Road, London N7, on Thursday 16 July 2020 when a black man was stopped and restrained by two MPS officers. 

IOPC Regional Director Sal Naseem said:

“We are independently examining whether the use of force and the stop and search on this occasion were appropriate and proportionate in line with approved police policies. We will also investigate whether the officers treated the man differently because of his race. 

This incident took place in public and was witnessed by several members of the public. A video of the incident has been widely shared on social media platforms. 

We would ask anybody who was in the area that day and saw police activity to get in touch with us.” 

Appeal for witnesses

Did you see anything? If so, please call our incident line on 03003035724 or email isledonroad@policeconduct.gov.uk 

Source: IOPC

• Use of neck restraint by three officers from West Yorkshire Police

Now it is alleged that an officer of West Yorkshire Police has been filmed kneeling on the neck of a man while policing a football match at Leeds. (See lead illustration) Guardian article giving full details here. Statement from the IOPC below:

“A West Yorkshire Police officer has been advised that he is subject to a criminal investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) following the arrest of a 17-year-old made outside Leeds United football ground on 17 July. 

The officer will be interviewed by our investigators on suspicion of common assault and also investigated for gross misconduct.  

Video footage showing part of the arrest in Elland Road was shared widely on social media and shows the 17-year-old boy being restrained on the ground by officers. In the footage an officer uses their knee, at one point, to restrain the teenager. 

We decided to independently investigate the incident after we received a voluntary referral from the force.

IOPC Regional Director Miranda Biddle said: 

“We understand why the images that were circulated caused considerable public concern. After the footage was shared on social media, a voluntary referral was made to us in relation to the conduct of the officer.  

Having examined a range of evidence including body worn video and initial accounts from the officers involved in the restraint, we have taken the decision that this is now a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation does not mean that criminal charges will necessarily follow.  

It is vitally important that the circumstances of this incident are subject to an independent investigation so we can fully understand what happened and impartially determine the facts.

We have already begun to gather evidence but would like to speak to anyone else who was at Leeds United’s ground at the same time for these celebrations and may have witnessed the incident.”

Appeal for witnesses

We would also like to speak to anyone who witnessed the incident which took place at around 5pm as fans gathered to celebrate Leeds United’s promotion to the Premier League. 

Witnesses can email Ellandroad@policeconduct.gov.uk or ring 0300 303 5725.

How often are the UK police using illegal choke holds?

Following the death of Mr Floyd, both the College of Policing and Chief Constable Winward of North Yorkshire Police confirmed that the technique that caused the death of Mr Floyd could not be used in the UK. I found this to be reassuring and reported positively to this effect in the NYE articles on this subject.

So I have been shocked that despite the case of Mr Floyd and public concern over use of this technique, police officers appear to be using it routinely across multiple forces.

As one of our readers wrote to me:

“I find it difficult to believe that so many separate but essentially similar incidents across geographically diverse Police forces is coincidental. Despite the College of Policing position set out in your article it does perhaps suggest a covert training agenda and the militarisation of the Police Service.” 

I am also shocked that in the three incidents above, not one of the five other officers present (two in Brighton, one in Islington and two in Leeds) restrained their colleague from applying a knee to a prisoner’s neck or head.

Inconsistency in the IOPC response to use of neck restraints 

The College of Policing statement and Sir Steven House’s comments above support the view I expressed in the NYE articles that following the death of Mr Floyd and given the above guidance, it would be impossible for a police officer in the UK to justify using a choke hold, unless it was clear that here was a very real overt threat to life.

On the three recent occasions film has emerged of officers choke holds are alleged to have been used in the UK, the officers were immediately referred to the IOPC. At first sight, this would seem to indicate that use of this technique is now unacceptable to both the police service and the public.

However:

• Contrary to what was first thought, the IOPC investigation in Brighton is unrelated to the use of a neck restraint on the man on the ground. The IPCC investigation focuses on a use of force prior to the video being taken and not on the restraint of the man on the ground. Indicating that the officer’s conduct in applying it was acceptable. Conversely, in the Leeds and London incidents, police officers are under investigation for applying a neck restraint, indicating that it isn’t.
• Both of the London officers were acting in joint enterprise to use excessive force to arrest the prisoner by use of a neck restraint. I do not therefore understand why criminal charges may be preferred against one of them, not both of them. In the Minneapolis case, the three other officers present were all charged with aiding and abetting the murder of Mr Floyd by the officer that applied the neck restraint.
• All the officers in London and one officer from Leeds have been placed under investigation for applying a neck restraint. None of the Sussex officers are under investigation over the use of a neck restraint.
• Of the three officers that applied a neck restraint, two are under investigation and one isn’t.
• Of the five officers who stood by and allowed one of their colleagues to apply a neck restraint, only one in London has been served with misconduct papers for (not) challenging and reporting improper conduct; authority, respect and courtesy and honesty and integrity. Paradoxically, the two officers in Brighton and the two in Leeds are not being investigated for not restraining their colleague from applying a neck restraint. Although their conduct appears to me to be exactly the same as the officer in London.

I have concluded that the police have been commonly applying choke holds on an everyday basis and have no concern that this act of misconduct will lead to any consequences for them. Hence the reason they have been applied in defiance of the College of Policing standards. In short, they have a culture of impunity.

If this is so, then it is in the public interest that those police officers that indulge in this practice -and those that acquiesce to it- are prosecuted. To deter other officers from using excessive force, or from failing to challenge and report improper conduct.

That having been said, this has to be done consistently across all forces.

The current contradictory response by four police forces, the College of Policing and the IOPC sends dangerous mixed messages. At present it appears that it is acceptable for police officers in Sussex to apply neck restraints, but not for officers of the Metropolitan, North Yorkshire or West Yorkshire forces. You cannot have one (higher) standard of discipline for the Metropolitan Police Service and a lower one for the County Forces.

I put these concerns to the IOPC and an IOPC Spokesperson confirmed: 

“Every investigation has its own unique set of facts and our decisions are made on the evidence available to us at the time – the majority of which is not in the public domain.”  

Although this is true, it should be said that I certainly concede I have not had access to all of the evidence that the IOPC has considered. Nevertheless, in my opinion this comment does not address the issue of why Constables from the Metropolitan Police are now facing the possibility of proceedings, whilst officers of Sussex Police, who appear to me to have behaved in the same way, are not. Or, put another way, why is the IOPC failing to hold all police officers to the same standard, in accordance with the national guidance from the College of Policing?

I will let our readers draw their own conclusions.

The NYE will continue to follow this story.

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on the conviction (for rape and other sexual offences) of a trusted public servant.

~~~~~

Sussex Police has confirmed, in a statement on the force’s website, that former teacher James Andrew HUSBAND (68) has been convicted of six offences – five counts of indecent assault and one count of rape, all against a girl in her mid-teens between 1990 and 1994.

The report does not disclose that James Andrew HUSBAND (pictured above) is listed as the Clerk to Pickering Town Council on the Council’s website (as it appears at the time of writing).

The Council has offered the following statement:

Astonishingly, Pickering Mayor Councillor Joy ANDREWS would appear to be entertaining some doubts as to whether or not the Council can legitimately terminate the Clerk’s employment.

Does the Council imagine that a conviction for rape and sexual assaults is consonant with the Clerk’s role as Responsible Officer and Head of Paid Service?

If it is the case that – despite his conviction – the Clerk’s employment has not already been terminated, is he still on the payroll?

Is he still receiving his salary? If so, when will this cease? Upon his release?

How does the Pickering electorate respond to the notion that the Precept may be haemorrhaging into the pocket of a convicted rapist and abuser of a minor?

How does the Pickering electorate respond to the notion that their lady Mayor and her fellow Councillors must have been aware of the Police investigation into the Clerk (which began two-and-a-half years ago in January 2016) and his subsequent prosecution for some considerable period of time – without feeling it necessary to disclose to rate-payers that they may be unwittingly subsidising the legal representation of a sex offender?

Has the Clerk’s conviction brought Pickering Town Council into disrepute?

Has the Council’s secrecy and indecision over the Clerk’s crimes brought the Council into disrepute?

Indeed, what could be more disreputable than concealing child abuse?

How does the wider public respond to the notion that Mayor Joy ANDREWS and her fellow Councillors have thus far not even found it necessary, politic or appropriate to express condemnation of the Clerk’s conduct and offer their sympathies to the victim?

In my view, it is a matter of public duty that the North Yorks Enquirer take a much closer look at the elected members of Pickering Town Council; they appear to eschew transparency. That is often an early indicant that impropriety is afoot; we shall see.

I look forward to visiting Pickering Town Council, with video crew, on the occasion of the next meeting of Full Council on 23rd July 2018, with a view to interviewing Mayor Joy ANDREWS (pictured below).

Operation Yewtree and the Cross Report.

• Crime and Parliamentary affairs correspondent TIM HICKS reports on the Cross Report – North Yorkshire Police’s response to our criticism over its investigation into its failure to detect Jimmy Savile and Peter Jaconelli for fifty years. 

• He also reveals exclusively that despite being under investigation for paedophile offences in Surrey and Sussex, North Yorkshire Police nevertheless provided Savile with a police car and driver to take him to a community event for young people it had organised and Savile shared the platform with the Chief Constable.

Operation Yewtree, the Cross Report and the need for one single Savile investigation.

Recently, victims of Jimmy Savile have been asking for there to be one single investigation into Jimmy Savile, headed by a High Court Judge

According to Solicitor Alan Collins, speaking to the BBC:

“It should be one inquiry, chaired by a high court judge. I fear if this does not happen, an opportunity will have been lost, not only for the victims but for the country as a whole. “The risk (of not having one inquiry) is justice may be incomplete.”

My best estimate is that there are approximately forty separate largely uncoordinated investigations into Savile and his associates as follows:

• Thames Valley Police
• Greater Manchester Police
• Cheshire Police
• Lancashire Police.
• West Yorkshire Police.
• Surrey Police.
• Sussex Police.
• Metropolitan Police.
• The BBC.
• The Crown Prosecution Service.
• HM Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC).
• The IPCC.
• Thirty NHS Hospitals (Including the Whitby Memorial Hospital and Rampton High Security Psychiatric Hospital).
• North Yorkshire Police.

The Scarborough and Whitby aspect

The investigation by North Yorkshire Police, the IPCC, HMIC and the NHS investigations into Whitby Memorial Hospital and Rampton High Secure Psychiatric Hospital all concern the Scarborough and Whitby areas.  Real Whitby has been asked to give evidence to the NHS enquiry and to the HMIC investigation.

In summary, the concerns over the Savile Case in Scarborough and Whitby relevant to these enquiries raised in the national and local press, and by Real Whitby are:

1.     That Savile imported patients from Rampton Secure Psychiatric Hospital to Scarborough to meet with Peter Jaconelli at his ice-cream parlours and they may have been abused by them there.

2.     Officers from North Yorkshire Police may have been members of Savile’s Friday Morning Club, which met at his flat in Leeds. This has been denied by North Yorkshire Police and we have separately published the response of North Yorkshire Police to this concern, which was as follows: “The available information indicates that no members of North Yorkshire Police socialised regularly with Mr Savile.  Accordingly, the formal response I must give to your request is that there is no information held.”

3.     That Savile operated in Scarborough and Whitby in a paedophile Ring with Peter Jaconelli, who was well known locally to be a paedophile, but was left alone by the police because of his influence as a senior Conservative politician, Mayor and influential local businessman.  Consequently, North Yorkshire Police failed to arrest Jaconelli, (Britain’s most successful paedophile who operated untroubled by the police for all of his adult life) which would surely have led them to Savile, (Britain’s most prolific paedophile and rapist).

4.  That when asked for intelligence on Savile by Surrey Police in 2007, North Yorkshire Police Force Intelligence Bureau replied that it had none, although according to national newspaper reports, Savile, Jaconelli and Corrigan had in fact featured in a 2003 paedophile investigation conducted by North Yorkshire Police.  As a result, Surrey Police did not have the intelligence from North Yorkshire it needed to assist in its investigation and the best opportunity of bringing him to justice was lost.

In response, North Yorkshire Police has threatened to arrest a journalist from Real Whitby if we continue to cover stories on North Yorkshire Police – including of course its failure to arrest Peter Jaconelli and Jimmy Savile. It has also submitted a report to the IPCC in which it asserts there are no conduct matters that should be referred to the IPCC

The North Yorkshire Police report to the IPCC

North Yorkshire Police have kindly provided Real Whitby with a copy of this report, which is available through the North Yorkshire Police Website and can be accessed here.

The author is Assistant Chief Constable Sue Cross, a highly experienced officer with extensive CID experience who retired recently after a distinguished career with North Yorkshire Police.

Some observations on the Cross Report

I would make the following comments on the report:

The initial response by North Yorkshire Police and the HMIC investigation

• The report does not mention that the initial response of North Yorkshire Police was to deny all knowledge.  A force spokesman commented in 2012:  “When the allegations surrounding Jimmy Savile were publicised, we carried out extensive searches of force records which did not reveal a local connection”.  As a result of this misleading statement (which has now disappeared from the force website) North Yorkshire Police were omitted from the initial direction by the IPCC to forces involved in the Savile investigation to consider if there were conduct issues which should be referred to the IPCC over way the Savile investigation was handled.  As a result of information received from Real Whitby North Yorkshire Police was retrospectively directed by the IPCC to consider if there were any conduct matters that should be referred to it on the 15^th of May 2013.

• The Home Secretary directed HMIC to establish which police forces received reports and/or allegations in respect of Savile and related individuals prior to the launch of Operation Yewtree (5 October 2012); and, with regard to those forces, the extent to which those allegations were robustly investigated and if there were any police failings in so doing.  Because North Yorkshire Police initially denied any local connection with Savile and related individuals (Jaconelli), it was excluded from the HMIC investigation, which was completed in March 2013.
  

Rampton

• Although contemporary press reports and by the management of Rampton High Secure Psychiatric Hospital have confirmed that patients visited Scarborough on two occasons and met Jaconelli, Corrigan and Savile, there is no mention of the Rampton visit first revealed by the Sunday People in 1972, or of any investigation into it.
  

Inappropriate contacts with Savile by officers of North Yorkshire Police and participation in Savile’s Friday Morning Club (FMC)

• The report denies any inappropriate contacts with Savile by North Yorkshire Police officers, or that any North Yorkshire Police officer participated in the Friday Morning Club, which met at Savile’s flat in Leeds. This goes beyond the original comment we received from North Yorkshire Police following a Freedom of Information Act request that “The available information indicates that no members of North Yorkshire Police socialised regularly with Mr Savile.  Accordingly, the formal response I must give to your request is that there is no information held.” The report states that North Yorkshire Police confirmed that there were only eight members of the FMC, all of whom have been identified and interviewed and none of them were from North Yorkshire Police. It then goes on to state that North Yorkshire Police sent a police driver and vehicle to Savile’s Flat in Leeds in 2008. This may be the basis of the allegation that there was a ninth man from North Yorkshire Police in Savile’s circle.  (The reference to the alleged ninth member of his Friday Morning Club in Real Whitby referred to in the report comes from the upsd website).
• The report confirms inappropriate contact by Officers and Police staff of North Yorkshire Police who were based at Selby Police Station with Savile in 2008.  This occurred when a police driver visited Savile’s Flat in Leeds in a police vehicle, which was used as a taxi to transport him to Selby in North Yorkshire for a public event organized by officers and police staff from Selby Police Station.  The Report does not state the contacts of the individual officers with Savile, how these arrangements were made, who the driver was, who authorised the use of the vehicle, if the police car was a marked car or if the driver in uniform.  This In my view this was an inappropriate use of a police officer and vehicle.  Given the fact that North Yorkshire Police had received intelligence that Savile was investigation at that time for multiple paedophile offences by two other forces it also constitutes an inappropriate contact.  It also shows that the initial response of North Yorkshire Police denying any knowledge of any local connection with Savile was misleading.
• The (then) Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police Grahame Maxwell was one of the judges at the event and this is also withheld from the report. It was completely inappropriate for the Chief Constable to share a platform with Jimmy Savile at a social event for young people, while he was known to be under investigation for multiple paedophile offences by two other forces.
• Savile apparently was able to make his own way back to Leeds without difficulty after the event, which begs the question why was he provided with his own personal police car to get from Leeds to Selby in the first place.
• It now transpires that contrary to the above Freedom of Information Act response, “there is no information held” information was available which confirms that officers of North Yorkshire Police had contact with Savile on at least two occasions and probably misused a police car and driver. The report constantly uses the caveat “the available information indicates that”, which indicates it is possible there were other contacts with Savile which are not yet known, including possibly other contacts at his flat in Leeds.
• The report also confirms that Police officers from Selby Police Station met Savile at another public event in South Milford in 2008.
• No mention is made of social or duty contacts between police officers, Corrigan and Jaconelli.
  

The failure to arrest Peter Jaconelli, which could have led North Yorkshire Police directly to Jimmy Savile.

• The report states: “Checks of North Yorkshire Police databases (live and historic) do not show Savile as a Nominal in his own right or nor an associate of anyone else and there is no intelligence held regarding the alleged association of [Name Redacted but thought to be Peter Jaconelli] and Savile prior to the media coverage associated with Operation Yewtree”.  North Yorkshire Police simply claims it was unaware that Savile was an associate of Peter Jaconelli, (although this was reported in the national press, the television and well known locally) and therefore ignores this issue alltogether.
• According to the witness evidence we have collected, Peter Jaconelli was abusing children from 1947 until his death in 1999.  He seems -like his associate Savile- to have been an obsessive and addicted abuser, who used his access to children at his ice cream parlours, restaurants, local schools and his judo club to the full.  Assuming that he abused one child a week, his victims could run into thousands over a fifty two year reign of abuse.  Because he was an associate of Savile, Jaconelli he therefore fell within the second tier of Operation Yewtree which investigates Savile associates and should therefore feature heavily in the report.  Yet his status as a Tier 2 suspect for Operation Yewtree and the failure of North Yorkshire Police to arrest him or develop any intelligence on him at all, is not addressed anywhere in the report.

The 2003 Paedophile investigation and the failure to pass on intelligence to the Surrey and Sussex Police investigations into Savile

• The report claims that Savile was not held as a “nominal” (ie someone that had been notified as a person of interest to another force in police intelligence as a result of an all forces INI check), although this is flatly contradicted by HMIC, Surrey and Sussex police, which all confirm that he was, on at least three occasionsAccording to Surrey Police : “At the start of the enquiry [into Savile] in 2007, Surrey Police conducted a check via INI (Impact Nominal Index) – a system designed to share intelligence between forces. A request was sent to every police force in the country to check their records for information relating to Savile. This returned no trace of similar allegations. Sussex Police then received an allegation in 2008 and, as a result of them conducting an INI check, they liaised with Surrey Police. The Jimmy Savile Stoke Mandeville Hospital Trust were also aware of the details of our investigation and subsequent interview with Savile in 2009.” According to the  Full Surrey Police Operation Ornament Report (Paragraph 7.15) the initial INI was sent to North Yorkshire Police on the 20^th of July 2007 and responses were received on the 22^nd of July.  According to the HMIC Report Sussex Police also conducted an INI check (Paragraphs 2.13 and 7.4.).  It also subsequently filed a crime report on Savile which was made available to other forces via INI in April 2008 (Paragraph 7.7).
• The report is concerned throughout with rebutting comments by Real Whitby, but does not state that these allegations have been made by witnesses and other national and local media organisations, and are supported by evidence of HMIC, Surrey and Sussex Police.  Reports linking Savile, Jaconelli and Corrigan were made by the Scarborough News, Sunday People and the Daily Express Article here and here, before Real Whitby started to investigate.
• The Daily Express and Scarborough News linked Savile, Jaconelli and Corrigan because: “Two other women contacted Scarborough’s local paper last week saying officers interviewed them in 2003 while investigating a paedophile ring which focused on young girls on the seafront. They were not abused but both said Savile’s name was mentioned to them by the Officers. One said police also mentioned two other businessman, former Scarborough mayor Peter Jaconelli and arcade boss Jimmy Corrigan, both now dead.” This is completely omitted from the report.
• The report was written nine working-days after receipt of the request from the IPCC. This did not give enough time in the context of a historical enquiry going back to the late 1940’s to develop historical witness evidence. ACC Cross did not appeal for witnesses during her investigation and none are referred to in her report.  In contrast, by adopting a longer term approach, Real Whitby has tracked down ten witnesses that allege that Peter Jaconelli was a paedophile and abused them.  Their evidence is specified in the article here.
• ACC Cross has not interviewed most of the witnesses developed by Real Whitby, or referred to their evidence in the report.  Although some of them were not known at the time ACC Cross wrote her report, they should still have been interviewed retrospectively.
• ACC Cross has apparently not made any attempt to interview or trace the two witnesses referred to above that came forward to the Scarborough News as part of her investigation.
• The report does not deny the claims of the above two witnesses that they were interviewed by North Yorkshire Police and questioned about Savile, Jaconelli and Corrigan.
• It appears that ACC Cross has not questioned the officers who allegedly conducted these interviews, or examined their Police Notebooks or recordings of interviews to identify what was said in these alleged interviews.
• It should be noted that Sussex Police did maintain INI information. Consequently, when its investigation started in 2008 its officers knew to immediately contact Surrey Police, a classic example of good intelligence sharing and cooperation that the North Yorkshire Force Intelligence Bureau was unable to match.  In short, it appears that North Yorkshire Police lost intelligence from other forces on at least three occasions.  This is not addressed in the report.
• The Director of North Yorkshire Police Force Intelligence in May 2013 must have been aware from press comment in Real Whitby and elsewhere that INI information had been sent to North Yorkshire Police but apparently mislaid.   Yet this omission is not explained.
• I have no doubt the intelligence analysts in the Force Intelligence Bureau would have two remembered INI enquiries for as prominent a person as Jimmy Savile, yet they apparently said nothing.  This omission is also not explained.
• ACC Cross did not interview Real Whitby journalists or other journalists from other national and local newspapers that have covered this case, to ascertain what evidence we have to support the allegations she was investigating.  Contrast this with the approach of the Metropolitan Police, which ensured that two detectives meticulously interviewed journalists at Scotland Yard and Whitby to obtain evidence from them.
• The report states: The “Real Whitby” blog site article effectively alleges that North Yorkshire Police interviewed witnesses regarding Savile because, according to the article Savile featured in the investigation conducted in 2003 with regard to a paedophile ring in which the author of the Real Whitby blog site names two offenders as [Name Redacted].  The available information indicates that the material investigation was conducted using the HOLMES (Home Office Large Major Enquiry System) facility and that Savile is not recorded in the HOLMES system in any form.” This confirms  that North Yorkshire Police conducted a major investigation into historical abuse in Scarborough going back to the 1980’s in 2003 as the Daily Express alleged. This investigation was so big that it had to be handled through HOLMES.  Yet North Yorkshire Police claim that, this investigation failed to discover any evidence of Jaconelli and Savile’s offending, claims it did not know of their association and there was nothing in police intelligence about them. The reasons for this are not addressed in the report, which gives no explanation for this failure to detect the two longest running and most successful paedophiles in British criminal history. Further, North Yorkshire Police had in fact received three pieces of intelligence on Savile that he was the subject of a major paedophile investigation from Surrey and Sussex Police in 2007 and 2008.

On the basis of this blatantly superficial and inadequate investigation by ACC Cross Mr Moir Stewart, the IPCC Director of Investigations has now exonerated North Yorkshire Police of any blame for its failure to detect Savile (Operation Yewtree Tier 1), Jaconelli or Corrigan (Operation Yewtree Tier 2):  “I am now able to let you know we have completed that review of all the evidence and material relating to the late Jimmy Savile and have decided to take no further action with regard to your force.” 

I subsequently wrote to Mr Stewart (who is a retired police officer) pointing out that all of the evidence and material had not been considered and that therefore the basis of his decision not to take any further action in respect of North Yorkshire Police was consequently unsound.  On this basis I asked him to re-open the investigation into North Yorkshire Police on the basis of (1) fresh evidence provided by Real Whitby and (2) failure of process in the North Yorkshire Police investigation by ACC Cross.  An IPCC spokesman has recently confirmed:

‘We have now advised other police forces, from which we received Savile-related information, that we do not intend to take further steps in regard to any of their officers at this time. These forces are: Thames Valley, Greater Manchester, Cheshire, North Yorkshire and Lancashire. After careful assessment of all the information so far available we have determined there is insufficient evidence of any recordable conduct matters specific to individual police officers which would merit a referral to the IPCC. The forces have provided rationale to the IPCC, as requested, for their decision-making in not recording or referring any conduct matters. We have received your further correspondence and are presently considering it.’

I also wrote to Chief Constable Jones asking that he order the investigation be reopened for the same reasons and I have received no response.

The unanswered questions

In summary therefore, the position of North Yorkshire Police appears to be that it knew and knows nothing about Jaconelli, although every schoolboy and parent in Scarborough knew about Savile’s associate Peter Jaconelli and many witnesses have come forward to confirm that the allegations about him were accurate and widely known.   Further, it appears that North Yorkshire Police provided a police vehicle and driver to transport Savile (who was at that time known to be under investigation for multiple paedophile offences by two forces) to a social event for young children and its Force Intelligence Bureau apparently lost police intelligence on Savile on at least three occasions at a critical time in the investigation.

North Yorkshire Police has nevertheless exonerated itself, asserts it is blameless for its failure to detect Jaconelli, Corrigan and Savile.  According to North Yorkshire Police it is entirely above any criticism and there are no grounds to refer any officer of North Yorkshire Police to the IPCC for disciplinary action.

The two critical failures of the British Police Service to arrest Savile both occurred in North Yorkshire.  They are:

1.  The failure of North Yorkshire Police to arrest Jaconelli, (Britain’s most successful paedophile who operated untroubled by the police for all of his adult life) which would surely have led them to Savile, (Britain’s most prolific paedophile and rapist).

2.  When asked for intelligence on Savile by Surrey Police in 2007 North Yorkshire Police Force Intelligence Bureau replied that it had none, although according to newspaper reports, Savile, Jaconelli and Corrigan had in fact featured in a 2003 paedophile investigation conducted by North Yorkshire Police. As a result, Surrey and Sussex Police did not have the intelligence from North Yorkshire it needed to assist in its investigation and the best opportunity of bringing him to justice was lost.

However, as a result of the Cross Report, both the above key questions – arguably the two most important questions in the entire Savile investigation – remain completely unanswered and conveniently (for North Yorkshire Police) ignored and the ability of Savile and Jaconelli to offend in Scarborough and Whitby for fifty years untroubled by the local police remains completely unexplained and ignored, by North Yorkshire Police, the IPCC, HMIC and Operation Yewtree. Until they are answered, North Yorkshire Police, the IPCC, HMIC and Operation Yewtree investigations have no credibility.

The need for one impartial investigation

Savile lived in Leeds and regularly entertained police officers while they were in uniform and on duty, using police vehicles at his flat as part of his “Friday Morning Club”.  The West Yorkshire Police investigation named Operation Newgreen largely exonerated itself from any criticism and has been severely criticised as a whitewash.  Subsequently a retired Leeds policeman has claimed that “there wasn’t a copper in the city who didn’t know Savile was a pervert”.  Full story here.

Returning to the need for one investigation led impartially by a High Court Judge this article started with.  Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done and this means in practice that serving and retired police officers should not investigate the police. The spectre of police officers from successive police forces individually exonerating their force from any responsibility for the catastrophic national failure of the British Police Service to detect Jimmy Savile and Peter Jaconelli undermines this principal, the credibility of Operation Yewtree and of the British Police Service.

There must be full and open disclosure of what went wrong – no matter how painful it is – if we are to learn the lessons of the Savile affair and prevent it from happening again. That will not happen with the current arrangements.

The lessons will only be learned and the police response to major paedophile investigation will only improve, if there is one inquiry led by a High Court Judge that can examine all of the evidence from all the investigations, come to an overall view and make recommendations. It is only by coordinating and examining the reports of four police forces and HMIC, that I have been able to identify serious failings in the North Yorkshire Police handling of the Savile investigation.

To quote one 64-year-old victim speaking to the BBC: “Surely it would be best… if there was just one inquiry led by someone competent and, when all the evidence was gathered from up and down the country, they collated it and then we might know exactly why Jimmy Savile got away with serious sexual abuse for nearly 50 years.”

Real Whitby will cooperate with any subsequent re-investigation into Savile and will report the response of the IPCC to the fresh evidence we have uncovered in due course.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~