INVESTIGATIVE PARALEGAL SUPPORT GROUP

Criminal, employment and family law matters


Tel: 0330 043 4089 Duty mobile 07885 810834 email casework@ipsg.co.uk


Blog Post

The Whistleblowing Bandwagon

Julian King • Dec 31, 2018

What should police whistleblowers be doing?

An unusual situation has arisen which has caused a split in the whistleblowing fraternity as far as police officers are concerned, we have been asked to give our views and answer questions from interested parties.

As a small voluntary organisation we network with other organisations including whistleblowing organisation. Thank you to those persons who have brought to our attention links to specific videos and interviews however; there were so many we have included some token video clips which support what this post is really about.

In some ways this post links to our previous post where we withdrew support for the APPG on whistleblowing for several reasons, one of those being an issue regarding whistleblowers being rewarded which we did not agree with.

Questions have been asked by both police whistleblowers and some victims of child abuse/exploitation which is natural as the general public are unlikely to know some of the differences between police whistleblowers and those from other sectors.

Questions asked primarily relate to the accuracy of the information provided by Jon Wedger including Maggie Oliver's case which he mentions in various interviews.

To summarise, the following questions are the ones which crop up the most:

(a) When did Jon first make his disclosures and why hasn't he publicly named those involved? The inference is that he remained silent for several years during which his boss Mr Ian Dyson has since been able to move on unchallenged and promoted to the Commissioner for the City of London police including receiving the Queen's police medal.

(b) Maggie Oliver says she resigned so that she could blow the whistle however; Mr Wedger gives a very different account as to the circumstances of Maggie leaving Greater Manchester police.

Whilst the above are questions of interest to the public, there are other areas which are of interest to us specifically as the IPSG with regards to why neither officer had not taken their respective police forces to an employment tribunal with regards to their treatment .

As a police whistleblower, by submitting an employment tribunal claim this is the only time you will ever have any power or control over your police force because you are able to obtain disclosure fairly quickly in comparison with a civil case. This process and these documents may provide information as to why something was or was not done and most importantly highlight any corruption publicly as the hearings are held in public. In the circumstances of the above cases, this may have also led on to an investigation and senior officers prevented from moving up the ranks if they had been guilty of covering up matters which should have been investigated which is also known as corruption.

In Jon's case, he says in video interviews that the senior officer who bullied him and covered up was subsequently promoted and received the Queen's police medal (QPM).


What is the difference between resigning and being required to resign? Being required to resign is a police disciplinary sanction. The information provided by Jon in the following video interviews which we have trimmed go into detail regarding his alleged conversation with Maggie regarding this matter. This appears to be a case of one person's word against another however; both versions cannot be correct.

Information being provided by Jon in various interviews and speeches was clearly not right, embellished or false. Whilst the public may have been taken in, it was glaringly obvious to serving and retired officers that he was providing false information and despite requests to correct or take the videos down he has failed to do so.

Jon also provided me with a section of a list which appears to be known as the "RAINS" list in certain circles indicating that the Chief Constable in my force was involved in Satanic Ritual Abuse.

Whilst I am quite happy saying former Chief Constable Paul Kernaghan was guilty of misconduct in public office and should have been investigated and prosecuted, I was not happy to publish information concerning the information Jon has now published on you tube videos regarding Mr Kernaghan's alleged involvement in Satanic Ritual Abuse.

Interestingly, Jon has never publicly named names despite pressure from the public however; he did name Mr Kernaghan from the RAINS list believing he had died which was not the case, he is still very much alive and from looking at his roles since leaving the police you be forgiven for thinking he was the government's cover  up guy.

Video testimony of the alleged bullying of Jon by his boss Mr Ian Dyson

I was asked not to release the name of Mr Wedger's previous boss however was not given any valid reason for witholding the name. The reason he gave was that he had on ongoing court case against Mr Dyson however; this apperas to be a personal injury claim against the Metropolitan police and not Mr Dyson personally. 


It was is in the public interest to do so considering the status of the officer who has since been promoted moving up the ranks in different forces and who is now the Commissioner of the City of London police. We have contacted Mr Dyson who has referred us back to the Metropolitan police and we are still none the wiser however in a recent you tube video Mr Wedger points out the previous office of Mr Dyson at Charing Cross police Station and states that he 

From Jon's own video interviews and timelines he has given, the bullying incident with Jon following him submitting an intelligence report goes back to 2006 or earlier, this is when any corruption should have been challenged but appears to have been raised several years later.

The issue regarding paedophiles residing on canal boats also goes back as far as 2000.

Without Fear or Favour

In Jon's video interviews or speeches such as the last one at the Democrats and veterans Party Conference he uses the phrase without fear or favour regularly however; this seems to be contradicted by his failure to act at the time including the main bullying and alleged cover up incident concerning Mr Dyson. He does receive a round of applause but it is unlikely that the audience would have been aware of how long ago these incidents took place where Jon appears to have remained silent for a number of years.

What do we expect “police whistleblowers” to do ?

Simply to follow their oath, the best place to be able to make a difference no matter how minor is whilst serving in the police not after having left.

British police officers have some of the strongest powers in the civilised world. As examples, they have jurisdicton and the same powers in any police force in England and Wales (43 forces). They can search without a warrant, they can arrest without a warrant.

A Constable has the same warrant as a Chief Constable and another officer no matter how senior cannot order an officer to arrest someone.

Maggie states that she left the police force to blow the whistle and Jon appears to have waited several years before raising concerns regarding his former boss Ian Dyson, now the Commissioner of the City of London police.

Pete Jackson, Maggie Oliver and Paul Bailey later met Andy Burnham as a group and provided serious disclosures concerning the leadership at Greater Manchester Police and although promised an update by a specific date, there was no update and no action appeared to have been taken.

We have seen this time and again where matters are with the PCC however; they seem to work hand in glove with Chief Constable and rather than hold them to account acquiesce in wrongdoing and corruption by their failures.

Why is a police whistleblower different from other whistleblowers?

In practice what that means is that it is not as simple as passing the buck by reporting something and then walking away if a crime has been committed by a senior officer as alluded to in Jon's interviews.

In Jon's case, from his own video interviews he appears to have submitted an intelligence report which caused him to be spoken to by his boss many years ago, this only appears to have been formally raised when other cases have started to appear in the press. The perception is that he has jumped on the back of other peoples cases and when Jon may have been looking for a way to leave the force.

Another point raised by police whistleblowers was that in interviews Jon has stated that he expected to be rewarded or promoted. This was an unusual statement, police officers know that everyone goes through the same promotion system by completing Sergeants exams and applying for a selection board when suitably qualified.

Further, Jon has stated that he was the only police officer that had blown the whistle whilst still serving when there are very many including PC James Patrick to name just one.

We would have expected Jon to have formally challenged the corrupt behaviour by his boss at that time especially; when he says he was then sacked from that department and moved elsewhere.

It could be argued as stated in one of his own video interviews that if you did not act, you were acquiescing in the corruption and part of the problem. Staying silent for so many years especially; with regards to the seriousness of the matters alleged is not an option for a police officer.

With regards to Maggie's case there is this glaring difference as to the reason she left the force, having known Mr Wedger for several years and each being a listening ear for each other according to video footage, it is still unclear as to what actually happened or why different versions have been given.

Both former officers stand by what they have said however; both versions cannot be right.

Mr Wedger's version appears plausible where he says that Maggie was under investigation, had her house searched, been arrested and even believed she was going to prison informing her children of this.

This is what happens to police whistleblowers and the police play dirty, it is plausible that the police placed Maggie in a difficult position where she had to resign.

For the IPSG this is important as we would wish to see any corrupt/bullying officers brought to account or named in the public interest as a deterrant; especially when the issues are so serious such as child sexual exploitation.

So far we have not seen any senior officers publicly named who were personally involved in the bullying/victimisation, Mr Wedger states that Maggie Oliver was “stitched up” by Peter Fahy who we know was the former Chief Constable of GMP.

In Jon's case it appears that there was some form of investigation in the years leading up to his ill health retirement and that no action was taken against anyone as the senior officers involved denied what happened.

Again this is pretty standard as part of the culture in many police forces. forces cover up in these situations and we would want to know who was involved in any cover up.

It is also standard practice for police whistleblowers to be victimised and silenced by whatever means along the lines of our page “Shooting the Messenger”.

It is common knowledge and has been in the press recently that several members of the Directorate of Public Standards (DPS) for the Metropolitan Police are being investigated for corruption, this would be a good time for Mr Wedger to highlight which members of the DPS were involved in the cover up of his allegations?

Profiting from whistleblowing

This is another area that has featured regularly on social media, Maggie was on Celebrity Big Brother and Jon is high profile on social media with facebook and go fund me pages with merchandise featuring his portrait including the latest tee shirt campaign.

Perhaps victims/survivors who are seeking help may prefer for someone to write a letter on their behalf etc rather than being given a tee shirt.

I don't know whether this is appropriate for a police whistleblower, on one hand it is a good way of raising awareness but on the other hand people are still questioning why they are being referred to as whistleblowers when despite promises no names have been forthcoming from Jon.

Police whistleblowers have been fitted up and have gone to prison losing everything and some have taken their own lives.

Whilst Jon and Maggie have gone through hard times, they have emerged with more than most. All whistleblowers will have suffered mentally from being in such a position and there are many still suffering trying to seek justice.

We have no problem with both former officers promoting themselves however, at this stage we do not feel that reference should be made to being a police whistleblower until names are published of these senior officers and what the officers actually did at the time to challenge any improper conduct or corruption..

One of our aims is to prevent police whistleblowers committing suicide, there is no "I" in whistleblowing and we need to challenge the conduct of these senior officers who can tip both police whistleblowers and also members of the public over the edge.

In Jon's case various reasons have been given for not disclosing names and those reasons are not considered valid, he is still very much in the public eye attending minor demonstrations and appears to be now focussing on satanic ritual abuse.

Do the public really want to see information of public interest and which should be in the public domain kept secret until those officers may have retired or the details appearing in a book written several years later when it is too late to take action or prevent those officers committing the same cover ups regarding child abuse/exploitation?

Legal Protection for Police Whistleblowers

Identified from some of the videos we have viewed, Jon has stated that police officers do not have any rights with regards to employment law.

This is not true when whistleblowing is involved as police officers are covered by section 191 of the Employment rights Act 1996 and the Public Interest Disclosure Act.

This legislation was specifically amended to include police officers, the benefit of utilising this legislation is that officers can tell their story and expose what has been going on in a public hearing.

Jon's campaign

The following video clip which is around 11 minutes should be looked at in the entirety to also do justice to the other people who attended this protest outside the Houses of Parliament.

One of things that has become apparent is that whilst Jon states that he has this network of other police whistleblowers supporting him including Chief Constable Mike Veale, none appear to have supported him publicly recently and it is interesting that the posters being displayed show just 3 officers, Jon and two senior officers Mike Veale and Bob Quick.

Mr Veale appears to have gone quiet having resigned under investigation.

Jon has gone solo and from our own personal contact with Jon have found that he did not want to involve other police whistleblowers in his campaigning or fund raising efforts.

Our own personal view and comments

One of the main areas that appears to have let Jon down is that having viewed a number of his own videos there appear to be various inconsistencies and embellishments which seemed designed to beef up his own case.

Whatever we say is likely to attract criticism, both Maggie and Jon have a large number of supporters and when talking about such emotive topics such as child abuse/exploitation feelings run high.

One police whistleblower had likened this situation to "Stolen Valour" where people have pretended to be in the military and been involved in various actions. I don't see it quite like that, these former officers are passionate and out there raising awareness however; we don't feel that they should be doing this on the back of portraying themselves as police whistleblowers.

We don't feel that Maggie or Jon can be considered police whistleblowers in the true sense, legislation was available that they have could have used to lawfully highlight their situations and name names. This is still a bone of contention for many people that despite becoming minor celebrities, victims/survivors are still in the dark about who did what and are they still covering up?

Jon's case is much easier to comment on because we are simply referring to his own own testimony from his own videos.

The following interview of Jon with a US radio station that focuses on conspiracy theories gives probably the best indication of why Jon has gone down this route.

He also mentions information that he has never said previously including the canal matter where he now says that paedophiles were setting themselves up as giving children with learning difficulties respite care with canal boat trips.

Whilst it may be a play on words, Jon describes himself as a Scotland Yard detective but in the interview describes being seconded to the Paedophile Unit to conduct research regarding the Canal issues and also talking to a Scotland Yard detective.

He refers to 3 cases he had worked on being shut down, he was probably frustrated about this and may have made a decision at some stage that he wanted to leave the force.

We have not seen any evidence that he has made any disclosures at the time that these matters took place, the closest we come to this is where he says he submitted an intelligence report which appears to be the catalyst for his meeting with Ch Supt Dyson.

All officers submit intelligence reports as part of their work, this is different from submitting what would be known as a report on a Form 728 in the Metropolitan police and even submitting a crime report for Misconduct in public Office or Perverting the Course of Justice.

The interview below with Opperman is just a short clip however if anyone wants to listen to the full version it can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcUSKvgVu1U&t=41s

In Conclusion

Both former officers have obviously gone through a difficult time but so have victims/survivors who we are supposed to protect as part of our oath.

The public deserve to know the truth and especially in these cases where the former officers have decided to promote themselves so publicly.

The public are fed up of hearing spin and nonsense from the government, police whistleblowers need to be doing more than just talking and showing what they actually did when they were serving officers to tackle the alleged corruption that they have talked about.

29 Oct, 2020
Controlling girlfriend 'first woman convicted' of new domestic abuse offence This is a good result for Bedfordshire police but we must clarify that the coercive element of this offence resulted in a sentence of 6 months where the overall sentence was 7 years for other offences. It was the good work of one uniformed police officer that was able to identify the offence despite police being called out for domestic abuse incidents for over a year. By contrast we have raised issues with the PCC in Bedfordshire concerning a female victim of coercive control who received a very poor service and was dealt with by different officers including a CID officer. The Domestic abuse Unit in Bedfordshire had refused to deal with the case returning it to a uniformed officer having assessed the case as "Medium Risk", the DAU apparently only dealt with High Risk cases despite the reporting uniform officer raising his own concerns regarding the case. One of the officers who had dealt with the victim was later dismissed along with two other officers for conduct and comments made concerning a domestic abuse victim. We have found not only in Bedfordshire but also other local forces that there is an inconsistency as to how coercive control cases are dealt with and who investigates them. Whilst raising awareness is a good thing, the police need to be to be able to investigate those offences by those with sufficient time and experience which; a response police officer on a shift responding to emergency calls is unlikely to have. With cuts in police resources and the lack of detectives which has been in the press on a regular basis, we need to rethink how the investigation of such offences are going to be dealt with. Law makers have introduced new legislation to help in dealing with domestic abuse however; some of the legislation is not being properly utilised for varying reasons and little thought has gone into who is actually going to be investigating these offences. Coercive control is one of those offences that if investigated properly is very time consuming and could include forensic examination of computer equipment, applying for and examining bank accounts, taking statements from witnesses etc so it is not an attractive option for a responding police officer who may as an alternative decide to record the matter as a "non-crime domestic incident" which will then not be investigated further.
29 Sept, 2020
The statement prepared by his solicitors was in the name of John Wedger not Jon so not sure which is the correct first name. His length of service was 23 years and not up to 27 and a half years as in interviews he has given. The first line on Mr Wedger's website states "I am a retired Police Detective with over 25 years service in the investigation into child abuse". This is clearly incorrect, from his statement it appears he did 2 years in Haringey and then was transferred to Harrow and Brent for 2 years making a maximum of 4 years. There was no mention of whistleblowing or having served at New Scotland Yard in the parts of the statement that have been published. He was on the river police for 2 years. His last 3 years appears to have been investigating road deaths. History of police service 1994 to 2002 (No postings shown) 2002 - 2004 River police 2004 - 2007 - Charing Cross police station (Clubs and Vice Unit) 2007 - 2011 - Child abuse investigation team (Haringey and Harrow) 2011 - interviewing instructor at the police training school 2012 - 2014 - Investigating public order such as individuals and groups organising disorder 2014 - 2017 - Investigating road deaths
17 Sept, 2020
As set out in the notice of the Chair determined that Mr Wedger "played or may have played a direct and significant role to matters under investigation and / or has a significant interest in an important aspect of the matters to which the inquiry relates" The Chair goes on to say "I have reached this conclusion on the basis that I understand that Jon Wedger was a Detective Constable in the MPS, including in the CID from 1998. According to the information contained within the application submitted on his behalf, he has significant experience in CSE issues, and on each of the themes identified. He has particular experience in respect of Tower Hamlets, from the perspective of an investigating officer, dealing with cases relating to CSE." Maggie Oliver is in a different category however; irrespective of our own views at this stage does seem to have more relevant experience in this area specifically with regards to grooming gangs. Mr Wedger in recent videos has dismissed grooming gangs as not being a problem suggesting shifting the focus onto his own interest in satanic ritual abuse. Should they be giving evidence is debatable but can they give evidence? according to the wording from IICSA yes they based the information they have provided to the Chair. With regards to Mr Wedger we have asked IICSA to conduct due diligence and verify his statements with the Metropolitan police however; this does not appear to have been conducted.
by Julian King 16 Nov, 2019
IPSG withdraws support for WBUK
by IPSG 30 Aug, 2019
Summary of this case The Claimant left the service of Greater Manchester Police Authority (“GMPA”), having agreed a settlement of claims of sex discrimination against it. Eighteen months later, in accordance with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (“ PRSRA ”), the GMPA ceased to function: its policing role was thereafter performed by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (“PCCO”). The Claimant wished to claim for acts of sex discrimination by the PCCO and the Commissioner, harassment, and victimisation of her for not having complained of sex discrimination against the GMPA, though she was not and never had been employed by the PCCO. An Employment Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider her claim. The Claimant appealed, arguing that Schedule 15 of the PRSRA , paragraph 5, provided that the PCCO succeeded to the liabilities of the GMPA, and that the duty not to discriminate was such a liability; that in any event, section 108 Equality Act had that effect, and it was necessary to provide for post-termination claims of discrimination and victimisation under the Equality Act and the Employment Rights Act (in respect of whistleblowing) to ensure the effectiveness of Page 2 the anti-discrimination provisions and of the revised Equal Treatment Directive 2006/54 . It was held that “liability” held its natural meaning, and the context tended (contrary to the Claimant's submissions) to confirm this; that in order to ground liability section 108 required a relationship which had to be between employer and employee, and the Claimant had never been an employee of the PCCO; and that the Equal Treatment Directive did not require that a different interpretation be given to the Act nor was it necessary for it to be effective that there should be one. Hampshire Constabulary One of the effects of this ruling can be seen in an ongoing Hampshire Constabulary case: Mr J King -v- Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary and Michael Lane the PCC for Hampshire https://supportorgs4u.wixsite.com/goodcopdown/post/why-fighting-this-hampshire-police-case-is-important-for-all-whistleblowers The claims against Michael Lane PCC have been withdrawn and the case continues against Hampshire Constabulary at this stage. Alternative avenues are now being considered against the PCC especially with regards to breaches of the Data Protection Act. Initial complaint to the Police and Crime Panel concerning Michael Lane has not been fruitful. Perhaps not surprising as some members of the PCP are involved in the actual case having been involved with Mr King's disclosures including the Chair of the Police and Crime Panel Dave Stewart who has been accused of police corruption when he had previously been a DI on the Isle of Wight. By the time the allegation was looked at Mr Stewart had been promoted to DCI on the Professional Standards Department. An example of the lack of transparency and integrity of the PSD was that that the matter was dealt with by Det Supt Pat Ogden who was now DCI Stewart's immediate line manager. Hampshire Constabulary have failed to provide a copy of the report to Mr KIng following a Subject Access Request and had also suppressed the report from the above mentioned employment tribunal along with other relevant evidence. This is yet another layer of accountability removed from the complaints process and forces will no doubt use this additional avenue to continue victimising whistleblowers utilising the PCC. PCCs are notorious for failing to hold Chief Constables to account and acquiescing in corruption and victimisation of police whistleblowers. There is little transparency and Hants PCC employed a serving senior officer on 70K so the line appears to be blurred as to independence.
by Julian King 04 Feb, 2019
Go Fund me page by John Murray a friend and colleague of Yvonne Fletcher https://uk.gofundme.com/justice-for-pc-yvonne-fletcher
by Julian King 18 Jan, 2019
Concern regarding disparity of treatment of police officer who was dismissed despite being acquitted at court.
by Julian King 10 Jan, 2019
We previously published a post "The Whistleblowing Bandwagon" and gave Mr Wedger a right to reply or amend anything he thought was innacurate before publishing and unfortunately he asked us not to contact him again. We we were previously able to establish from Mr Wedger that the Canals project was closed down eventually by Thames Division and the Haringey Care Home matters by Barnardos. We have submitted FOI requests to establish what the outcome was in those cases. A couple of videos have been posted today where Mr Wedger was apparently having a meeting with Nick Hurd and Mike Penning and also a second video which was directed at me personally in an attempt to deflect from the real issues believing we are conducting a campaign against him. It is important to separate the two aspects of his meeting, the first was to ask for a motion/bill to provide total protection for police whistleblowers and the second was in relation to child abuse /exploitation matters. Our interest is primarily with police whistleblowing and challenging those senior officers as mentioned in our previous post on this topic. In such serious matters as covering up of child abuse/exploitation as Mr Wedger describes we will pursue those matters as we always do so they are not simply buried, our FOI requests will give an indication of the scope of issues we have been involved with. To take no action is not an option for us as left unchallenged these officers progress up the ranks continuing to cover up which also affects victims. In the case of the allegation against made against Mr Wedger's previous boss, he has been promoted several times since and is now the Commissioner for the City of London Police. Our views remain unchanged with regards to not considering Mr Wedger to be a police whistleblower in the true sense because he kept quiet for many years and in his videos he says that he was expecting to be rewarded or promoted, at the end of the day he was just doing his job which he was paid to do. Mr Wedger has provided false information in video interviews relating to other whistleblowers seemingly to bolster his own cause, this has not helped him because it has become difficult to distinguish what is the truth and what is not. The most important thing missing from our perspective in the video interview with Anna Brees today is that there is no mention whatsoever of any discussion with the MPs concerning protection for police whistleblowers which; was apparently the main aim of the visit by Mr Wedger. He mentions his campaign however; you could be forgiven for thinking that this was all about Mr Wedger, there is again the noticeable absence of any other police whistleblowers which is consistent with our contact with him where he declined help and wanted to go go it alone. Whilst saying that he could not do this on his own in his video, he is asking for support for his campaign from the public and not other police officers. He says that Sir Mike Penning MP has been involved in this case since March 2016 when a file was apparently lost by the Home Office however; he omits mentioning that the file was found and no doubt he and Mike Penning MP would have had copies. What has Mike Penning been doing about this case for the last 2 years and 10 months? Mr Wedger states that it was confirmed in the meeting today that Mike Penning was removed from his post as Policing Minister because of his involvement with him which sounds unusual and needs clarifying. He now says that the MPs are also suggesting that he should not name names as are his legal team because apparently it would not assist his cause, he then goes into other odd reasons for not disclosing names including that he may be arrested for perverting the course of justice and having his house searched. We know that two senior officers complained of are former Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and the the current Commissioner of the City of London Police Ian Dyson. There is apparently also a middle ranking officer who could still be serving. Considering some of these matters go back to the early 2000s, it is natural for questions to be asked as to why Mr Wedger, and now Mike Penning and Nick Hurd MP (Policing Minister) want to maintain the anonymity of senior officers said to have acted corruptly. We understand that Mr Wedger's allegations have already been investigated and the officers denied Mr Wedger's version of events. I would guess that it is very unlikely that any further action will be taken at this stage. The MPs and his legal team would no doubt be happy for this to be kept under wraps for as long as possible. Previously the reason given for not publicly naming was that it would affect his personal injury claim, Conclusion Today's events have again created more questions than answers. We will follow up what we have heard today by writing to the Home Office with regards to the following : 1. What was the outcome of any discussion regarding additional protection for police whistleblowers. 2. Confirmation as to the circumstances of Sir Mike Penning MP being removed from his post as Policing Minister
More posts
Share by: