INVESTIGATIVE PARALEGAL SUPPORT GROUP
Criminal, employment and family law matters
Tel: 0330 043 4089 Duty mobile 07885 810834 email casework@ipsg.co.uk
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.
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.