Post by Joe K on Mar 25, 2014 14:18:36 GMT
From the unProfesssional Standards Department website:
This perfectly decribes my own expereinces with the IPCC (and the PCC, for that matter).
IPCC-Rogue-Graeme-Thame
Page last updated Tuesday 12th March at 1950hrs
Employing caseworkers who are ill-equipped to deal with the rigours of reviewing police investigations – and making the quasi-judicial decisions that flow from their assessments – lies at the heart of much of the groundswell of the public’s dissatisfaction with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Tens of thousands of complainants are affected every year as hopelessly inadequate, or plainly fraudulent, police investigations into officer misconduct go unchecked – and the public’s confidence in the police suffers as a consequence.
One such individual would be Casework Manager, Graeme Thame, employed in the Manchester (Sale) office of the IPCC. He is relatively new to the organisation having previously operated as a consultant assisting people with impairments. Some might argue he is working alongside a few of those in the IPCC Sale office. His facebook profile picture (click here) is also a bit of a curiosity as it features the logo of The National Sarcasm Society. One of the offerings on their largely unfunny website is this interesting little gem: “I am tired of people treating me like I am an idiot. I’ve made some mistakes in the past, but then again who hasn’t. I know I don’t always think things through and a lot of what I’ve done has been driven on impulse. That doesn’t mean though I am stupid or inept. How do I get people to start treating me like I know what I doing without making myself look more like an idiot“.
In the light of the above, it is not clear why Thame would have been allocated the review of a police investigation into the outfall from a well-publicised, highly aggravated matter between the IPCC and Wakefield businessman, Tony Ramsden that is now rumbling on into its third year .
The ‘Recordable Conduct’ complaints that arose from judicial review proceedings, heard at Leeds High Court in September 2013, were “investigated” by uPSD regular DCI Osman Khan, a senior functionary in the nationally discredited Professional Standards Department (PSD) of West Yorkshire Police, and an Appeal by Mr Ramsden quickly followed.
“Oz”, as he likes to be known, produced even by his own very poor standards, one of the most disgraceful investigation outcomes uPSD have seen over the past few years. And there are some shockers in a portfolio that now exceeds 70 West Yorkshire Police cases.
The complaints submitted by Mr Ramsden were deliberately mis-recorded by Khan’s PSD stooge Sarah Morris; the investigation failed to address key issues; ignored probative evidence put forward by Mr Ramsden and relied in part on uncorroborated testimony of, arguably, the Force’s most dishonest officer; another of uPSD’s old favourites, DI Damian Carr.
A key factor in all this is that Khan should not have been investigating the Ramsden complaint in the first place: He had no hierarchal independence from two of the officers under complaint and much of the content of this recordable complaint complaint concerned a previous investigation outcome that Khan had signed off. He was, in effect, investigating himself and two of his close-working PSD colleagues. Which, of course, in itself breaches IPCC Statutory Guidance and is, further, an affront to natural justice. It should also be pointed out that the recordable conduct matters should, in any event, have been identified and recorded by either the IPCC or the police. Both declined to do so, putting Mr Ramsden in the position of police watchdog. It was a shocking dereliction of duty/responsibility by the IPCC’s Anthony Coulson, to whom the matter was delegated and the Head of PSD at the time, C/Supt Marc Callaghan, who incredibly styles himself as ”Big Boss Hogg”.
The decision by Mr Ramsden to appeal to the IPCC over the outcome of the police “investigation” was an easy one to make. There are five grounds upon which an Appeal can be based. Khan’s investigation drove a coach and horses through the lot and a copy of the Ramsden Appeal can be viewed by clicking here. The disclosure request that accompanied the Appeal is also available at this link. Needless to say, Graeme Thame has never once referred to this schedule or produced a single sheet of paper on it to Mr Ramsden. Which, of course, continues to prejudice his position in uncovering the full extent of the police cover-up.
As an Appeal that contained issues previously investigated by police, and reviewed by the IPCC, Mr Ramsden’s submission on 11th October 2013 should have been considered by the IPCC’s triage assessment team as an urgent case. It wasn’t – and all efforts to elicit an explanation by another of the IPCC’s never-answer-a-straight-question senior managers, Claire Hall, have failed.
It was only after pressure brought to bear against the IPCC’s ducking and diving Head of Casework, David Knight, that the Ramsden case was given the priority it warranted.
On 23rd December, 2013 Mr Ramsden received the first of a number of emails from Graeme Thame, which have become increasingly bizarre as the weeks dragged by. His first email, after announcing his appointment as the person responsible for determining the Appeal, stated that the outcome of the Appeal could be expected in January, 2014. Nothing too startling in that, as an Appeal of the type submitted by Mr Ramsden would normally take two to four weeks to determine. In this particular Appeal, the issues are very straightforward (and well evidenced), and as it had been classified as an urgent case an outcome was, not unreasonably, expected by Mr Ramsden in mid-January. It was propitious that the first email contained an error in that Thame stated he was leaving the office shortly (just after midday on 23rd December and would not be back “until Monday 30th January”. Stickler for accuracy is Graeme. Obviously.
Graeme Thame was passed substantive material containing prima facie evidence of misconduct concerning fellow caseworkers Rebecca Reed and Anthony Coulson together with fellow Sale office occupant, lawyer Glynis Craig. Their lies, individually and collectively, would impact on the Appeal under consideration. This was Thame’s lame response: “I hope you do not expect me to comment on the work or conduct of my colleagues. That is not my job and it simply would not be appropriate or professional”. So, if your IPCC colleagues are identified as dishonest, and their skulduggery impacts on an Appeal, you just let that pass by you then, Graeme? Nice one.
He added: “With regard to my own work, I am happy to let my assessments speak for themselves. I can assure you that I am in the process of making an independent, thorough and rigorous assessment of the investigation you have appealed against. I will then make my decisions based on that assessment”. Trouble is, we are still waiting to see that assessment almost two months later.
Another extraordinary missive arrived in Mr Ramsden’s inbox on 27th January from Graeme Thame. In the general spirit of “making things up as I go along” it claimed “the IPCC did not operate a face-to-face service” when it is in certain the knowledge of Mr Ramsden that two of his justice campaigning acquaintances had meetings logged with IPCC functionaries, one of those involved Thame’s boss, the slippery Jon-Paul Napier.
Thame went on to make the incredulous claim that: ”It just so happens that there is only one allegation which you have evidence relating to which I have not had access to”. He was referring to the tape of the Carr meeting. He omitted to mention the most damning piece of evidence of all. The transcript of the High Court trial. He repeats the felony further on in one of his regular, lengthy, self-important emails “I want to have the benefit of all available evidence”. Errr, no you don’t, Graeme.
On 29th January Mr Ramsden asked his Complaint/McKenzie friend, Neil Wilby, to call Thame on his behalf whilst he was detained on business in London: Principally, to discuss the tape recording of a meeting with DI Carr in June 2012 and its method of delivery to the IPCC.
That telephone call between Thame and Wilby was also recorded. Its factual substance, other than the discussions relating to DI Carr, was that the Ramsden Appeal was expected to be finalised by Thame “within two weeks”. A variety of highly implausible excuses were provided by Thame as to how he had managed to already take over five weeks considering the matter.
The rest of the call was taken up, largely, by a Graeme Thame monologue setting out his own brilliance/infallibility in all matters and his self-importance in the wider scheme of things. It was, to say the least, an unattractive and quite condescending delivery.
Neil Wilby was left with the clear impression that Thame was “flannelling” and had no reasonable grounds to have extended the outcome of the Appeal beyond mid-January and that there was a wider agenda being pursued by the IPCC. He reported accordingly to Mr Ramsden who, it is fair to say, had already formed the same view from his own increasingly strained correspondence with the IPCC
It is a matter of record that, within a week of the Thame phone call, documents were filed by Neil Wilby with West Yorkshire Police which attested to his unassailable view that the IPCC were stalling the Ramsden Appeal and the fact that the Thame/Wilby telephone call of 28th January had simply confirmed that position.
On 18th February Mr Ramsden sent an email saying that in the continued absence of the Appeal decision from the IPCC he was contemplating seeking judicial intervention to force the issue. Thame immediately countered by saying that it would be a waste of Mr Ramsden’s time and money as the Appeal would be finalised “by next week” (which ended on 28th February).
The last email contact from Graeme Thame came on Friday 28th February in which he stated quite clearly, of his own volition, that if the Appeal decision wasn’t issued later that day there was no reason at all why it would not be available “early next week” (3rd or 4th March).
Unsurprisingly, neither of those eventualities came to fruition and Thame has disappeared off the radar again, with no response to an email from Tony Ramsden seeking an explanation as to why Thame had deliberately misled him again.
Of equal concern, is the fact that Thame told Neil Wilby that he would have a number of questions for Mr Ramsden and the police arising from his investigation review. Indeed, it would have been very surprising if he didn’t. Those questions have not materialised, which would imply that the work of the IPCC’s wayward caseworker is not as careful, or thorough, as one might expect.
The intention now is for Mr Ramsden, who describes Thame as “pompous, self-praising and a liar” is to seek urgent judicial review of the failure of the IPCC to discharge its obligation to deliver an outcome to an Appeal in a timely and lawful manner. Without the Court’s intervention it seems the IPCC will delay matters indefinitely.
It is, of course, a plain and very well established fact that the IPCC is a sham and a shambles. This latest farrago with Tony Ramsden is just another glaring example of that.
The sham is the use of the term ‘Independent’ in its title. The IPCC are police apologists, nothing else, and it would be much more palatable to the public, and Mr Ramsden in particular, if their title and stated core values reflected that position.
The shambles is the outcomes of almost every case it handles, large or small. Most recently, the IPCC has been publicly flayed (yet again) over the revelations that they bungled the investigation of police corruption allegations surrounding the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence, causing further untold anguish to the bereaved family.
A key factor in the undermining of public confidence in the police is having a watchdog with no teeth. The IPCC recruits unqualified, inexperienced staff into key caseworker roles where they are making quasi-judicial decisions on what are very often police investigations designed only to cover up wrongdoing by their Force colleagues. Graeme Thame is a classic example of that failing: Hopelessy under-equipped and temperamentally unsound.
IPCC caseworkers are then inducted into a culture where both the police and IPCC can do no wrong and are then imbued with a sense of invincibility as every legal challenge to those same police and/or IPCC miscreants is faced down out of a bottomless public purse. There is also the tribal element where all IPCC functionaries pledge to cover for one another when clear failings are identified against them. Again, this is something Mr Ramsden to which has fallen victim over the covering up for the dishonest duo, Rebecca Reed and ex police officer, Anthony Coulson.
There are thousands of cases where complainants are left bewildered and bemused after providing substantive and probative evidence only to find their Appeals against hopelessly inadequate or perversely decided police investigation are not upheld by the Balance of Probability Bandits. The Ramsden case now opens up new ground where the IPCC simply refuse to provide an outcome that, whichever way it is viewed, is going to cause further serious damage to the reputations of West Yorkshire Police and the IPCC.
More to follow…..
Page last updated Tuesday 12th March at 1950hrs
Employing caseworkers who are ill-equipped to deal with the rigours of reviewing police investigations – and making the quasi-judicial decisions that flow from their assessments – lies at the heart of much of the groundswell of the public’s dissatisfaction with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Tens of thousands of complainants are affected every year as hopelessly inadequate, or plainly fraudulent, police investigations into officer misconduct go unchecked – and the public’s confidence in the police suffers as a consequence.
One such individual would be Casework Manager, Graeme Thame, employed in the Manchester (Sale) office of the IPCC. He is relatively new to the organisation having previously operated as a consultant assisting people with impairments. Some might argue he is working alongside a few of those in the IPCC Sale office. His facebook profile picture (click here) is also a bit of a curiosity as it features the logo of The National Sarcasm Society. One of the offerings on their largely unfunny website is this interesting little gem: “I am tired of people treating me like I am an idiot. I’ve made some mistakes in the past, but then again who hasn’t. I know I don’t always think things through and a lot of what I’ve done has been driven on impulse. That doesn’t mean though I am stupid or inept. How do I get people to start treating me like I know what I doing without making myself look more like an idiot“.
In the light of the above, it is not clear why Thame would have been allocated the review of a police investigation into the outfall from a well-publicised, highly aggravated matter between the IPCC and Wakefield businessman, Tony Ramsden that is now rumbling on into its third year .
The ‘Recordable Conduct’ complaints that arose from judicial review proceedings, heard at Leeds High Court in September 2013, were “investigated” by uPSD regular DCI Osman Khan, a senior functionary in the nationally discredited Professional Standards Department (PSD) of West Yorkshire Police, and an Appeal by Mr Ramsden quickly followed.
“Oz”, as he likes to be known, produced even by his own very poor standards, one of the most disgraceful investigation outcomes uPSD have seen over the past few years. And there are some shockers in a portfolio that now exceeds 70 West Yorkshire Police cases.
The complaints submitted by Mr Ramsden were deliberately mis-recorded by Khan’s PSD stooge Sarah Morris; the investigation failed to address key issues; ignored probative evidence put forward by Mr Ramsden and relied in part on uncorroborated testimony of, arguably, the Force’s most dishonest officer; another of uPSD’s old favourites, DI Damian Carr.
A key factor in all this is that Khan should not have been investigating the Ramsden complaint in the first place: He had no hierarchal independence from two of the officers under complaint and much of the content of this recordable complaint complaint concerned a previous investigation outcome that Khan had signed off. He was, in effect, investigating himself and two of his close-working PSD colleagues. Which, of course, in itself breaches IPCC Statutory Guidance and is, further, an affront to natural justice. It should also be pointed out that the recordable conduct matters should, in any event, have been identified and recorded by either the IPCC or the police. Both declined to do so, putting Mr Ramsden in the position of police watchdog. It was a shocking dereliction of duty/responsibility by the IPCC’s Anthony Coulson, to whom the matter was delegated and the Head of PSD at the time, C/Supt Marc Callaghan, who incredibly styles himself as ”Big Boss Hogg”.
The decision by Mr Ramsden to appeal to the IPCC over the outcome of the police “investigation” was an easy one to make. There are five grounds upon which an Appeal can be based. Khan’s investigation drove a coach and horses through the lot and a copy of the Ramsden Appeal can be viewed by clicking here. The disclosure request that accompanied the Appeal is also available at this link. Needless to say, Graeme Thame has never once referred to this schedule or produced a single sheet of paper on it to Mr Ramsden. Which, of course, continues to prejudice his position in uncovering the full extent of the police cover-up.
As an Appeal that contained issues previously investigated by police, and reviewed by the IPCC, Mr Ramsden’s submission on 11th October 2013 should have been considered by the IPCC’s triage assessment team as an urgent case. It wasn’t – and all efforts to elicit an explanation by another of the IPCC’s never-answer-a-straight-question senior managers, Claire Hall, have failed.
It was only after pressure brought to bear against the IPCC’s ducking and diving Head of Casework, David Knight, that the Ramsden case was given the priority it warranted.
On 23rd December, 2013 Mr Ramsden received the first of a number of emails from Graeme Thame, which have become increasingly bizarre as the weeks dragged by. His first email, after announcing his appointment as the person responsible for determining the Appeal, stated that the outcome of the Appeal could be expected in January, 2014. Nothing too startling in that, as an Appeal of the type submitted by Mr Ramsden would normally take two to four weeks to determine. In this particular Appeal, the issues are very straightforward (and well evidenced), and as it had been classified as an urgent case an outcome was, not unreasonably, expected by Mr Ramsden in mid-January. It was propitious that the first email contained an error in that Thame stated he was leaving the office shortly (just after midday on 23rd December and would not be back “until Monday 30th January”. Stickler for accuracy is Graeme. Obviously.
Graeme Thame was passed substantive material containing prima facie evidence of misconduct concerning fellow caseworkers Rebecca Reed and Anthony Coulson together with fellow Sale office occupant, lawyer Glynis Craig. Their lies, individually and collectively, would impact on the Appeal under consideration. This was Thame’s lame response: “I hope you do not expect me to comment on the work or conduct of my colleagues. That is not my job and it simply would not be appropriate or professional”. So, if your IPCC colleagues are identified as dishonest, and their skulduggery impacts on an Appeal, you just let that pass by you then, Graeme? Nice one.
He added: “With regard to my own work, I am happy to let my assessments speak for themselves. I can assure you that I am in the process of making an independent, thorough and rigorous assessment of the investigation you have appealed against. I will then make my decisions based on that assessment”. Trouble is, we are still waiting to see that assessment almost two months later.
Another extraordinary missive arrived in Mr Ramsden’s inbox on 27th January from Graeme Thame. In the general spirit of “making things up as I go along” it claimed “the IPCC did not operate a face-to-face service” when it is in certain the knowledge of Mr Ramsden that two of his justice campaigning acquaintances had meetings logged with IPCC functionaries, one of those involved Thame’s boss, the slippery Jon-Paul Napier.
Thame went on to make the incredulous claim that: ”It just so happens that there is only one allegation which you have evidence relating to which I have not had access to”. He was referring to the tape of the Carr meeting. He omitted to mention the most damning piece of evidence of all. The transcript of the High Court trial. He repeats the felony further on in one of his regular, lengthy, self-important emails “I want to have the benefit of all available evidence”. Errr, no you don’t, Graeme.
On 29th January Mr Ramsden asked his Complaint/McKenzie friend, Neil Wilby, to call Thame on his behalf whilst he was detained on business in London: Principally, to discuss the tape recording of a meeting with DI Carr in June 2012 and its method of delivery to the IPCC.
That telephone call between Thame and Wilby was also recorded. Its factual substance, other than the discussions relating to DI Carr, was that the Ramsden Appeal was expected to be finalised by Thame “within two weeks”. A variety of highly implausible excuses were provided by Thame as to how he had managed to already take over five weeks considering the matter.
The rest of the call was taken up, largely, by a Graeme Thame monologue setting out his own brilliance/infallibility in all matters and his self-importance in the wider scheme of things. It was, to say the least, an unattractive and quite condescending delivery.
Neil Wilby was left with the clear impression that Thame was “flannelling” and had no reasonable grounds to have extended the outcome of the Appeal beyond mid-January and that there was a wider agenda being pursued by the IPCC. He reported accordingly to Mr Ramsden who, it is fair to say, had already formed the same view from his own increasingly strained correspondence with the IPCC
It is a matter of record that, within a week of the Thame phone call, documents were filed by Neil Wilby with West Yorkshire Police which attested to his unassailable view that the IPCC were stalling the Ramsden Appeal and the fact that the Thame/Wilby telephone call of 28th January had simply confirmed that position.
On 18th February Mr Ramsden sent an email saying that in the continued absence of the Appeal decision from the IPCC he was contemplating seeking judicial intervention to force the issue. Thame immediately countered by saying that it would be a waste of Mr Ramsden’s time and money as the Appeal would be finalised “by next week” (which ended on 28th February).
The last email contact from Graeme Thame came on Friday 28th February in which he stated quite clearly, of his own volition, that if the Appeal decision wasn’t issued later that day there was no reason at all why it would not be available “early next week” (3rd or 4th March).
Unsurprisingly, neither of those eventualities came to fruition and Thame has disappeared off the radar again, with no response to an email from Tony Ramsden seeking an explanation as to why Thame had deliberately misled him again.
Of equal concern, is the fact that Thame told Neil Wilby that he would have a number of questions for Mr Ramsden and the police arising from his investigation review. Indeed, it would have been very surprising if he didn’t. Those questions have not materialised, which would imply that the work of the IPCC’s wayward caseworker is not as careful, or thorough, as one might expect.
The intention now is for Mr Ramsden, who describes Thame as “pompous, self-praising and a liar” is to seek urgent judicial review of the failure of the IPCC to discharge its obligation to deliver an outcome to an Appeal in a timely and lawful manner. Without the Court’s intervention it seems the IPCC will delay matters indefinitely.
It is, of course, a plain and very well established fact that the IPCC is a sham and a shambles. This latest farrago with Tony Ramsden is just another glaring example of that.
The sham is the use of the term ‘Independent’ in its title. The IPCC are police apologists, nothing else, and it would be much more palatable to the public, and Mr Ramsden in particular, if their title and stated core values reflected that position.
The shambles is the outcomes of almost every case it handles, large or small. Most recently, the IPCC has been publicly flayed (yet again) over the revelations that they bungled the investigation of police corruption allegations surrounding the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence, causing further untold anguish to the bereaved family.
A key factor in the undermining of public confidence in the police is having a watchdog with no teeth. The IPCC recruits unqualified, inexperienced staff into key caseworker roles where they are making quasi-judicial decisions on what are very often police investigations designed only to cover up wrongdoing by their Force colleagues. Graeme Thame is a classic example of that failing: Hopelessy under-equipped and temperamentally unsound.
IPCC caseworkers are then inducted into a culture where both the police and IPCC can do no wrong and are then imbued with a sense of invincibility as every legal challenge to those same police and/or IPCC miscreants is faced down out of a bottomless public purse. There is also the tribal element where all IPCC functionaries pledge to cover for one another when clear failings are identified against them. Again, this is something Mr Ramsden to which has fallen victim over the covering up for the dishonest duo, Rebecca Reed and ex police officer, Anthony Coulson.
There are thousands of cases where complainants are left bewildered and bemused after providing substantive and probative evidence only to find their Appeals against hopelessly inadequate or perversely decided police investigation are not upheld by the Balance of Probability Bandits. The Ramsden case now opens up new ground where the IPCC simply refuse to provide an outcome that, whichever way it is viewed, is going to cause further serious damage to the reputations of West Yorkshire Police and the IPCC.
More to follow…..
This perfectly decribes my own expereinces with the IPCC (and the PCC, for that matter).
