Hampshire Police put their reputation before child abuse crimes

It now transpires following a FOI disclosure, that contrary to the findings of Essex Police, the terms of reference for Operation Flamborough that followed child abuse crimes at Stanbridge Earls School, were established (as was always claimed by campaigners fighting for justice) to protect the reputation of Hampshire Police and Hampshire County Council and NOT the victims of abuse.

Operation Flamborough was also set up to enhance public confidence in these failing agencies.

Assistant Chief Constable Sara Glen reported directly to the former Hampshire Chief Constable Andy Marsh. Andy Marsh is now the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary where his wife, Nikki Watson, is the Assistant Chief Constable.

If your desired outcome is to protect reputation, could it be the case that one conveniently hides the truth and instead engage in establishment cover ups?

After all, none of us could believe the Lord Janner, Rotheram and Rochdale cases where it emerged that child protection agencies, including the Police and local authorities, had concealed the sexual abuse of vulnerable girls.

In addition to these FOI findings, the Department for Education (DfE) has also admitted that they, along with, wait for it…..

1. Representatives of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, Simon Hayes
2. Representatives of the Police Federation
3. Hampshire Constabulary Professional Standards
4. The IAG
5. Hampshire County Council
6. Public Relations Officers from Hampshire Constabulary, and
7. Public Relations Officers for Hampshire County Council

…”oversaw” a supposed criminal investigation.

In other words these were civil servants and public servants (along with members of the public) reporting to elected politicians such as Cllr Roy Perry, Leader of Hampshire County Council and father of Caroline Nokes MP. Government Ministers also had oversight of a criminal investigation. Is that lawful?

Surely this in the very least suggests political interference?

It is also worrying to me, that parties embroiled in the Police “Gold Group”, who had no right to know the victims, or the alleged abusers, identities or their complaints, were given access to information by Hampshire Police, without these people’s knowledge or consent.

Simon Hayes - Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Simon Hayes - Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner

We know this from comments made in a public meeting in 2014 when a “member of the public” who claimed to be a “neutral observer”, turned out to be part of this Gold Group and who had been sent to that public meeting by the PCC Simon Hayes to agitate and attack me. He made comments at that public meeting that could only have come from these Gold Group meetings.

Of course there is a duty to protect children by sharing information but only when it is appropriate. Equally there is also a duty of confidentiality and privacy as enshrined in common law and Acts of Parliament. Above all the Police have a duty to follow the truth where ever it may lead even if it damages the establishment’s reputation and ends politicians careers as a consequence. The protection of the police’s reputation should play no role when investigating crime.

Sadly though, it appears to be far more important to Hampshire Police and Hampshire politicians to protect their reputations than to protect vulnerable children and convict child abusers. One can only wonder why.

This entry was posted in Avon & Somerset Chief Constable, Avon & Somerset Constabulary, Caroline Nokes, Caroline Nokes MP, Chief Constable Andy Marsh, Child Abuse, Child Protection, Children's Services, Cllr Roy Perry, Conservative Party, Hampshire, Hampshire Constabulary, Hampshire County Council, Hampshire PCC Simon Hayes, Hampshire Safeguarding Children's Board, Police & Crime Commissioner, Policing, Romsey, Romsey & Southampton North, Romsey Conservatives, Stanbridge Earls School and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Hampshire Police put their reputation before child abuse crimes

  1. John and others,

    I would be grateful for any further information on the following members of Hampshire Constabulary who also feature in my present High Court case against the force.

    ACC Sara Glen
    Supt Colin Smith (ex head of PSD)
    Roger Trencher the Force Solicitor
    Ch Supt Anne Wakefield

    Kind regards


    • Lindsay Fraser says:

      Julian, please leave a few bits for me over Trencher !! After being told he had committed “serious criminal offences” against me, HMIC told me to report him to Pinkney, his Chief Constable as HMIC has no remit to prosecute. Pinkney of course never replies to emails regarding Trencher, so ‘same-force, self-investigation’ strikes again to protect their little mafita. He will not therefore be “Counsel for the Defence” at the I:C:C:, he will instead be a defendant on charges of pretending to be a police officer with delegation powers, calling me a liar, childish, etc. pressure to not proceed over the main “Denial of the Truth” corruption Indictments in my UK state-caused child torture cases. The fun bit is this man Trencher, after writing “confirming my suspicions” that I was lying, as he put it, regarding my accusation he had no qualifications for I.C.C. Articles, claimed he had no knowledge nor qualifications in international Articles, yet proceeded to grind on about how the UN / I.C.C. had no jurisdiction over Britain (a Signatory). He’s as nuts as he is aggressive. He is completely potty, as he argues against himself. He probably could not get a proper solicitor’s job, so plummed for being a troll. So do leave a few bits for me as I want him Indicted. When I formally advised him of the Prosecutor’s decision, he never replied. That’s the way to shut him up from his tirades of verbal abuse and insults, and “disbelief of everything you say” !! I won the UN Tribunal investigation (which also called Hampshire Police conduct “disgusting”) so now the I.C.C. is to “execute the Findings of the UN”. I’ll update. The Submissions for the Pre Trial stages are going in to the Court in October, (delayed because of a re-organisation of 5,000 documents of evidence) so I’ll let you know progress once I know it. Goddard has said there should be a Commission in her departure letter, and you know, the Spanish Government Lawyer has been saying for two years that IICSA should have an independent Prosecutor for profound police cover up cases, where evidence has been deleted and ignored in child abuse, and also ignored evidence of familial revenge punishment against the victim for reporting child torture (my cases) . Lovely police torture-service. You are punished when abused if you report it. I.C.C. is the only option. We have 32 Defendants both officials and police officers all to be Indicted on proven “Denial of the Truth” (Crimes against Humanity / the Child) which is cover up of crimes of child sex abuse and child torture “not in the national interest to prosecute” as I was given to a psychotic by adoption as a medical experiment and I was later fed anti-convulsants (phenobarbitone / mogadon) to shut me up, and I was daily beaten into silence by that brute of an army officer husband. Julian, Good luck with your cases, but please remember to leave a few Trencher-scraps to drag to the Hague. And Trencher, if you are reading this, I do not mind what you “disbelieve” because what is about to happen is going to happen whether you call me a liar or not. Trencher, far from deflating me and putting me off, you have fired up my determination to bring you and your tribe to justice. And there is nothing you can say to stop me. As police-troll, you did that favour for me. Made me determined. Lindsay Fraser

  2. Lindsay Fraser says:

    Update on my cases, hopefully of particular interest to John. On advice by the CPS, I made a complaint against Trencher to the Solicitor Regulator, sending Trencher’s outrageous emails and asked for an investigation into the Hampshire Solicitor. He had ‘disbelieved’ everything I had written about my problems with his force, to a degree that when I reacted angrily about the fact that denial of the truth could provoke suicides in vulnerable abuse victims he ended up calling me “childish” and suggested I was from Spectre the James Bond thing (and he called me ‘childish’). All I had originally asked for was the contact of the force solicitor for the Court forms, but he started a tirade of “disbelief” to pressure me into sending him documents that are sub-judicial at present- He was using three aggressive psychological strategies basically to inflame, by disbelieving everything, then using false (and never fulfilled) promises of giving me a specialist abuse officer if I sent him my evidence, (and he is not even a police officer !!) then mirroring back at me, my angry responses to him, all strategies to get documents before time, before the Prosecutor (I.C.C.) makes those decisions. I did not send him anything, but his aggressive approach has got him an investigation against him opened. I have called for him to be sacked as he is ‘old school’ acting well beyond his remit, and moreover, a danger to vulnerable child abuse victims / survivors, when too many still commit suicide at being disbelieved. Trencher inferred I was a liar, a problem he will have to face as I do have the evidence !! and which I forwarded to the Regulator. A further development is the EU Commission has also just opened an investigation into process including against Hampshire Police / Trencher. The ECJ does not prosecute officers, (the I.C.C. does this, and is independent of any Brexit) but the ECJ does apply pressure to have rules obeyed. My 5,000 documents of evidence have proven to the satisfaction of the UN, that same-force, self-investigation into their own corruption just produces more corruption. I am mainly doing my cases to force changes for a fairer justice for the abused. I was tortured by the state institutions, have the evidence, and am fighting against the subsequent cover ups, by exposing the mechanisms of corruption at the top Courts. Trencher can eat his words in his retirement coming… !! If he is not sacked, he will be a defendant. Anyway he went to great pains to insult me, by saying his “suspicions were confirmed” about me, when I stated he was not qualified in international criminal law !! So how can he defend a force when he is not qualified, which he admitted was the case ?? With his aggressive attitude and absent knowledge of Articles and I.C.C. process, (he does not even know the connection between the UN and I.C.C. !!) he would, if allowed to be Counsel for the Defence, be a bull lost in a china shop, and ejected. Keep your fingers crossed for me, as I might even win !!

  3. Lindsay Fraser says:

    John, I love your comments about Roger Trencher !! He’s as thick as two fat planks, and kindly provided email evidence against himself of 1) email bullying of the Witness, me, 2) Absent knowledge of his force’s international legal obligations. This means that he cannot represent his force as Counsel for the Defence CHAMBER 11 at the International Criminal Court. In fact, he might even be judged a defendant. His unsubstantiated subjections, and legal ignorance, would risk forcing a Re-Trial. They will have to pay a professional. I will win on serious contraventions of generic international law, to which Britain is Signatory, as my 5,000 documents of evidence of their part of failures to even investigate let alone prosecute, extended Maltreatment Crime connected to another force’s destruction of evidence of my state-caused child torture cases, left the United Nations to describe the Hampshire Force’s interpretation of local law as quote “disgusting” unquote. The I.C.C. ‘executes the findings of the UN’ in almost all cases, but I do not want to win because the Defence is an incompetent and insulting email-clown. I want to win in worthy ‘lawfare’ against fair Defence, purely on the Articles matched to the evidence, and to force changes.

  4. Eternal Optimist says:

    There may be some light at the end of this particular tunnel. Have a look at the new Chief Constable’s profile, in particular her views on young people’s brain development, and there may be some hope that she will not wasn’t to inherit the legacy of Marsh who wanted things swept under the carpet. OK – so he said “closed doors”, but it’s much the same. It was because decades old abuse was covered up so long that the recent events were possible.

    The Stanbridge Earls saga has one or two surprises coming up and maybe Ms Olivia Pinkney wants to see Hampshire Police get some better press. They aren’t all bad!

    Odd for the Facebook SES members to keep claiming nobody has been prosecuted when a young man who was abused at the school was in court last year – and many think unfairly so, under the circumstances.

    • admin says:

      Thank you for this, yes I understand that a few “surprises” are in store for those parents who continue to deny there was any wrong doing in the school. It seems really strange that certain people continue to claim there was nothing wrong with the school and no child abuse took place when there have been “convictions”. Maybe life is easier with your head stuck in the sand or up your own arse!


      Over the last few years, and even as recently as this week I have received threats to “kill” me for trying to expose the truth about this school and what went on there, and these people call themselves “parents”. Not that Hants Police would ever be bothered with threats to kill me as I don’t count when it comes to protection, I am fair game apparently. Selective political policing at its best.

      More bizarrely some parents have even claimed that I was responsible for the school closing. You certainly have to wonder whether it was the children or parents who needed help with their “behaviour, education and understanding” when you read comments as deranged as that! Sadly some parents seem hell bent on continuing their campaign to blame everyone else but themselves for the protection and care of their children.

  5. admin says:

    To the person who sent me a threatening comment via the comments form under this blog post, you have been reported to the police along with your location and IP address which came up with the blog post – nicely done!

  6. John Caine says:

    This is precisely the same modus operandi I have found with Arnewood School cover up. Lies, deceit and cover up at every level, and largely by all the same holier than thou “usual suspects”. They are now confident enough not even to feel they need to be clever about it. They have it so sewn up by a network of cronies and people of like mind they think they are invincible in their realm of unaccountability. But really the emperor has no clothes. The more they clear themselves in the face of clear cut dire failings, the more suspect they look in the eyes of the public. So many horrendous failings and no one is ever accountable? The words forest and trees come to mind.

    • admin says:

      Yes there is certainly an air of certain people are above the law where Hampshire is concerned. One of the people threatening me over SES on Facebook is the wife of a serving Hampshire Police Officer – no prizes for guessing what will happen there – move along nothing to see…

      • John Caine says:

        Yes, it’s despicable and disgusting. I have also seen Hampshire Police’s “selective policing” at work up close and all evidenced in black and white. They block due process if they don’t like you and the rule book goes out the window. So far I have 10 or 11 “neglect of duty” complaints upheld through the ranks re the handling of just 2 criminal cases I reported. Guinness Book of Records kind of stuff. I have also proved they did not record and investigate the Arnewood School Teacher when they should have, which allowed him to go on to commit more offences against kids. It was all kept out of the system and off radar. PSD has refused to accept a complaint about this and it’s now with the IPCC. It is in reality a very dirty police force. Let’s hope the new Chief Officer is not in the mould of the old, and cleans it up. On the other hand Hayes needs to be replaced too. He is part of the same problem, not the solution.

        Example of cover up and blocking in motion: The Hampshire Complaints co-ordinator was being very helpful, until someone instructed her not to communicate with me. That’s when I pointed out two upheld complaints so far have disappeared from the complaints system. These were in reference to the Force Solicitor (Roger Trencher) and Chief Superintendent Anne Wakefield.

        From: John Caine
        Sent: 11 March 2016 13:27
        To: ‘professional.standards@hampshire.pnn.police.uk’
        Subject: FW: Upheld complaints

        Attention: Sandra Naik

        Dear Ms. Naik,

        Unclear whether you will be coming back to me on this. If not please refer on as a complaint. The IPCC has informed me of the names of the officers who received management advice as to point 8. Please confirm the system shows these “neglect of duty” upheld complaints. See updates , point (9,10,11) below, you have the complaint number (CO.173.15).

        John Caine

        From: professional.standards@hampshire.pnn.police.uk [mailto:professional.standards@hampshire.pnn.police.uk]
        Sent: 09 March 2016 12:08
        To: …………………….
        Subject: FW: Upheld complaints
        Importance: High

        Mr Caine

        I have responded in red.

        Sandra Naik
        Complaints & Misconduct
        Professional Standards Department

        From: John Caine [mailto:……………………]
        Sent: 07 March 2016 17:18
        To: Franks, Stephen
        Subject: Upheld complaints

        Dear PSD,
        I thought a summary of the info I have requested would be helpful. I know I have sent you 2 or 3 emails.

        In reference to the attached decisions and other. Can you confirm in writing what my upheld complaints against the following officers/staff are and what they are classified as in your complaint system. I would assume “neglect of duty”.

        1) DI Justin Norris – Ref CO.317/11 neglect of duty
        2) DS Philip Holden – Ref CO.638/12 neglect of duty
        3) Superintendent Ian Whyton – Ref CO.317/11 neglect of duty
        4) Sup Colin Smith (ex head of PSD) – Ref CO.607/13 neglect of duty
        5) Roger Trencher the Force Solicitor No complaints Upheld
        6) CS Anne Wakefield No complaints Upheld
        7) PC Leon Simon and also confirm “neglect of duty” recorded – Ref CO.173/15 2 x neglect of duty
        8) Also the non recording complaint I had upheld about the New Milton local police team. Name all the officers that received management advice. – Can you provide the reference for this case.

        9) PCSO Clarke
        10) PC Simon
        11) Inspector Lori Stokes

        Thank you
        John Caine

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *