The police took my 39-page document that illustrated the difficulties I have had over past 11 years, I managed to cram in 11 years of my life in 39 pages, I am also a victim of perverting the course of Justice. Those pages gave details of the crimes how they operated, how the police have conducted themselves when we needed Protection form the perpetrators. the Damage and financial loss we suffered as a result of crime, the cover up of crime, and as can be seen in my campaign, the victims are unsupported, vilified, victimised, and forcedly denied access to Justice. New ways of committing Fraud are not being dealt with by the Forces, institutions, and regulatory bodies. leaving victims with no unobstructed path to Justice, I have intrusted 6 people with the same documents that I sent to the police, and if you are reading this then you will know that everything the police have said in this letter is a Lie it is not only a Lie, the police sat down and decided on a strategy on how to best deal with the issues that were presented to them, and took the decision to "Attack" threaten and discredit a victim that has suffered the effects of crime and corruption for 11 yrs.! The police have never asked me to provide evidence which I have coming out of my ears, they refused to consider that the perpetrators were guilty, because the perpetrators themselves are enjoying the protection and the benefits of their proceeds of crime. There is a clear code of conduct for Victims of crime, one is to take a formal statement from the victim, access their needs, detail the damage and loss that they have suffered as a result of crime. I have never been given the benefit of the legal requirements set out for victims in the ministry of Justice website. I have never been asked how I the Damaged affected me, nor have I ever been asked to provide evidence. So I have no Idea what the police are relying on to say its civil, or there are no crimes. I did not make a formal complaint on police conduct, I sent in a crime report, it was marked Subject matter "Crime" as you read through the letter you will see the mention of the legal regulator, this was a warning to me that the police and the legal industry will join forces against me, something that they have been doing for 11yrs! but here for the first time the police have put it in writing. all the things they accuse me of is what was being done to us on a much larger scale and over 4yrs. After you read the police response to me, I have provided the MOU between the police and now the SRA. when you see what is in place to protect corrupt solicitors, then you will know that no one stands a chance once they have been targeted and fleeced by a corrupt solicitor and his network of co-conspirators. I hope that Michael Gove and Theresa May will tackle this issue of corruption that the MOU allows to flourish, creating more and more Victims, they will be reading My campaign on Tuesday, the letter form Derbyshire constabulary has vindicated everything I have said, when you are a victim of crime conducted By corrupt solicitors, the victim is treated appallingly, and further victimised for trying to seek Justice. The Police are trying to drive me in to a corner of going to the IPCC yet the Police themselves are not treating my report to them as a complaint? I know this is something they would dearly wish for me to do, because its already been set up for me to fail. You would think lessons would have been learned given the revelations of Police corruption, those victims were vilified, wronged, and denied Justice for 27hyrs! all because the wrong people were in charge, people that did not take responsibility for their incompetence and the cover up that followed. This letter goes on an on about the chief super intendant's conduct, and his relationship with family member who have an investment in the land to be developed, I already have a letter from Derbyshire Constabulary that he is related?? I have no intentions of pursuing a complaint, I’m more interested in exposing the truth. and to campaign to end the unlawful MOU between Her Majesties' Police forces that allows crime to flourish and victims to be left abandoned by the criminal Justice system. Fax: Our ref: Your ref: 0300 122 7723 CN/NF/C/151101230600 Ms N Ferrie 110 Brighton Road Alvaston DERBY DE24 8SY Professional Standards Department29 April 2016 PRIVATE Dear Ms Ferrie I refer to your letter of 2 January 2016 and apologise for the delay in forwarding a response. The issues you raise appear to relate to the complaint you made via Action Fraud on 12 November 2015 and to matters you originally raised in 2008, on 6 July 2012 (Incident 602/06072012 refers) and again on 14 September 2012 (Incident 349/14092012 refers) concerning the alleged fraudulent acquisition by the B**** family of Chellaston Road, Derby, and by Mr Atwal of land adjacent to Chellaston Road. It is not the function of the police complaints system to resolve legal disputes over property ownership, particularly where judgment has been passed in the courts, and the police will not become involved in a dispute over land acquisition in what is essentially a civil matter between the disputing parties. Indeed, on page 9 of your letter you appear to acknowledge that this is a civil matter: "It took some time for us to get your officers to accept that we were dealing with this matter which was a civil matter at Bakewell/l’s solicitor .. ." [My emphasis] There are established procedures in place to ensure that such disputes are properly resolved. The public interest is unlikely to be served where the outcome would benefit few people and not the wider public and it is not the role of the police to arbitrate in disputes of this nature, which is entirely a matter for the courts. It is also not the role of the Professional Standards Department to investigate alleged frauds where the alleged perpetrator is not a person serving with the police and in order to ensure that proper consideration has been given to the issues you raised, I forwarded your correspondence to the Constabulary's Economic Crime Unit to determine whether any of the matters you raised require investigation under the Fraud Act 2006. You provided a large amount of documentation which it has taken time to review. However, I am now in a position to confirm that those enquiries found no evidence of criminality. There is insufficient evidence to provide any realistic prospect of a conviction against any of the parties involved and any further protracted investigation would not increase that possibility. It is also significant that on a lesser burden of proof no action has been taken against any person by their own regulatory bodies. This in itself undermines any prospect of a successful prosecution. Your recent correspondence raises no new issues and from the circumstances presented to me, having regard to the National Crime Recording Standards, I believe on the balance of probabilities that no crime has been committed in this matter. Therefore, in order to manage your expectations appropriately, Derbyshire Constabulary will not be recording the matters you raise. The issues you raise remain a civil matter and are not matters for further investigation by the police. I can only suggest that if you wish to pursue this matter further through the proper channels, you obtain independent legal advice regarding any further course of action open to you. .. You have now been afforded the opportunity to debate these matters at considerable length. For the avoidance of doubt, no further discussion will be entered into concerning these matters and Derbyshire Constabulary will not respond to any further correspondence along similar lines if it merely means restating this position. • In correspondence you also alleged that "Derbyshire Police Chief Superintendent **** is involved, he is related to a wealthy businessman in the area where the land was to be developed ...", and that Chief Superintendent ****^ abused his position as a serving Derbyshire Police Officer to bring undue influence to bear on the actions of his officers. Derbyshire Constabulary takes seriously any allegation alleging corruption on the part of one of its officers. 'Corruption', in this context, includes the abuse of a position or role for personal gain or the benefit of another. Whilst acknowledging your concerns, I have not recorded the issues you raise as a complaint against police. This is because, in accordance with Paragraph 2, Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and Regulation 3 of the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012, a complaint does not have to be recorded where the appropriate authority considers that the complaint is oppressive or otherwise an abuse of the procedures for dealing with complaints". An oppressive complaint is a complaint that is "without foundation which is intended or likely to result in harsh, burdensome or wrongful treatment of the person complained against”. An abuse of the complaints system will occur where there has been manipulation or misuse in order to progress a complaint which, in all the circumstances of the particular case, should not have been made or should not be allowed to continue. However, whilst your complaint has not been recorded for the reasons above, in view of the nature and seriousness of your allegations, Case Investigator Leighton of the Constabulary's Counter Corruption Unit has looked into the issues you raised to see whether any of the matters you reported required further investigation under paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 as recordable conduct matters. Having done so, no evidence has been found of any link, familial or otherwise, between Chief Superintendent *****, Mr **** from Leamington Spa, the B****s family or any proposed development of land in the area of Chellaston Road, Derby. There is no evidence to indicate that a criminal offence may have been committed or" that Chief Superintendent ***** has behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings. Similarly, no evidence has been found of any corruption by any Derbyshire Constabulary officer in respect of the matters raised in your letter and your earlier correspondence. As such, your complaint is without foundation and is clearly made with the intention to cause officers to take action as you deem fit. Such complaints are deemed vexatious by the Police Reform Act 2002 and are a ground for the police to refuse to record any future complaints from you of a similar nature. It would, in my judgement, be oppressive and an abuse of the complaints system to record a complaint against an officer in these circumstances. You should be aware that corruption is an extremely serious allegation to make against any police officer, particularly on the basis of no more evidence than that he possesses the same name as a person whom you suspect of criminal activity but who, in actual fact, has committed no crime. I therefore do not propose to take any further action with regard to your complaint. Should you disagree with my decision, you may appeal to the Independent Police Complaints? Commission. In that regard, further information can be obtained from the IPCC online at http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/en/Pages/complaints.aspx or you can contact the IPCC direct on 0300 020 0096 and request hard copies of information they provide on their website. You need to notify the IPCC of any appeal within 28 days of the day following the date of 'this letter, i.e. by 5.00 pm 27 May 2016, as an appeal received after that date will not be considered. However, there are certain circumstances in which a recorded complaint does not have to be dealt with under the Police Reform Act 2002. This is called disapplication and means that an appropriate authority may disapply the requirements of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002 insofar as they relate to complaints against police and may instead handle a complaint in whatever manner the authority considers appropriate, including taking no action. In that regard, in order to manage your expectations appropriately, in the event that I am directed to record your complaint it would be my intention to invoke Paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002 and Regulation 5 (a) of The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2012 to disapply the requirements of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002. This would mean that the Constabulary would be entitled to handle your complaint in whatever manner it considered appropriate and no action would be taken. In that event, before a final decision was made, you would be written to further inviting you to make any representations you would wish to be taken into account as to why your complaint should not be subject of disapplication. Yours sincerely I have replied to Derbyshire Constabulary with a FOI request. they probably thought they would never hear form me again, or rather that's what they want ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is the Document that has Blocked my access to Justice for the past 11yrs NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Memorandum of Understanding between The Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales and Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Introduction 1. The Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales (ACPO) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) ("the parties") are committed to working together to achieve the appropriate public interest outcomes in the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences and the regulation of legal services. In support of that aim, this memorandum of understanding ("Memorandum") sets out the framework for effective liaison and communications between ACPO and the SRA. 2. The aims of this Memorandum include: a. To assist both parties in their investigation or supervision work in the public interest so far as such assistance is lawful; b. To provide a framework for the lawful flow of information between the SRA and ACPO. 3. ACPO and the SRA recognise and respect their differing statutory duties, operational priorities and constraints, and confidentiality requirements. However, in the public interest they commit themselves to professional co-operation in preventing or taking action in relation to dishonesty, default and/or criminal acts involving law firms or solicitors including those involved. Legal status and effect 4. Nothing in this Memorandum of Understanding shall, or is intended to: a. creates any legal or procedural right or obligation which is enforceable by either of the parties against the other; or b. creates any legal or procedural right or obligation which is enforceable by any third party against either of the parties, or against any other third party; or c. prevents either of the parties from complying with any law which applies to them; or d. fetter or restrict in any way whatsoever the exercise of any discretion which the law requires or allows the parties to exercise; or e. creates any legitimate expectation on the part of any person that either of the parties to this Memorandum of Understanding will do any act (either at all, or in any particular way, or at any particular time), or will refrain from doing any act. Nevertheless, the parties are genuinely committed to pursuing the aims and purposes of this Memorandum in good faith, and intend to act in accordance with its terms on a voluntary basis. Roles and responsibilities 5. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is an independent, professionally led strategic body. In the public interest and, in equal and active partnership with Government and the Association of Police Authorities, ACPO leads and coordinates the direction and development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In times of national need, ACPO, on behalf of all chief officers, coordinates the strategic policing response. 6. The SRA is the independent regulatory body established by the Law Society for the regulation of legal services by law firms and solicitors in England and Wales. The SRA's powers arise from various statutes and regulations including the Solicitors Act 1974, the Administration of Justice Act 1985, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, the Legal Services Act 2007 and the SRA's Handbook: http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/welcome.page 7. The SRA has statutory and rule-based powers to require the production of documents or information, such as section 44B of the Solicitors Act 1974 and section 93 of the Legal Services Act 2007. 8. The SRA may inspect material that is subject to a law firm's client's legal professional privilege (LPP) or confidentiality but may only use such material for its regulatory purposes. The SRA also protects the LPP and confidentiality of clients. LPP material will not be disclosed by the SRA to any other person other than where necessary for its regulatory purposes. Material that is not subject to LPP may be disclosable in the public interest, in the absolute discretion of the SRA, including material comprising communications in furtherance of crime or fraud. Information sharing 9. Where it is lawful and in the public interest to do so, the parties agree to disclose information to the other: a. to enable the assessment of risk o the public such as to: i. minimises the risk of financial default; ii. minimise the risk of fraud or other criminality; and iii. identify the risk of financial failure. b. so that alleged criminality, misconduct, breach of the SRA principles, or other failures are properly investigated and decided upon; c. to enable the proper processing of claims or applications for redress or compensation of any description; and d. for the purposes of regulatory, disciplinary or other legal proceedings, whether in public or not; provided that the recipient is reasonably considered able to take regulatory or other proper action upon the information. 10. The recipient of information received from the other party will: a. complies at all times with the Data Protection Act 1998 and any related or analogous legislation; b. keeps the information secure; c. uses the information only for proper purposes, such as regulatory, disciplinary, contractual or other legal investigations or proceedings; and d. liaises or co-operate where appropriate to avoid action that prejudices or may prejudice an investigation by another party or person. 11. Proper purposes may also include further lawful disclosure of the information such as to persons under investigation, witnesses, legal advisers, other regulators, professional bodies, prosecuting bodies, and law enforcement agencies including HM Revenue and Customs and the Serious Organised Crime Agency (or anybody that in future carries out the functions of such bodies). 12. The parties agree to ensure that disclosures to the other party are lawful. 13. The disclosing party also agrees to notify the recipient of: a. any restrictions on the use to which the information can be put, and b. any restrictions which apply to the onward disclosure of the information, and In the absence of such notification, the receiving party may assume that there are no such restrictions (in addition to any restrictions that apply as a matter of law). Practical exchange of information 14. The SRA has a Fraud and Confidential Intelligence Bureau (FCIB), whose role includes the lawful facilitation of intelligence and information sharing with other bodies. 15. ACPO may seek a Production Order from the court to examine a client file held by the SRA under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or other statutory authority. Such an Order does not override material or information protected by legal professional privilege. 16. The SRA may seek information from ACPO pursuant to section 44BB of the Solicitors Act 1974 or any analogous or replacement power. 17. All information exchanged between the parties should be passed via the nominated Single Point of Contact (SPOC). The nominated SPOC for ACPO is XXXX of the XXXX. The nominated SPOC for the SRA is XXXX of the FCIB. Additional assistance 18. Either of the parties may request additional co-operation in the following areas, and such requests shall be given due consideration; a. sharing subject-matter expertise; b. supplying witness statements, expert advice or oral evidence for use or potential use in court or tribunal proceedings Security and assurance 19. The parties agree to a. only uses the data for the purposes for which they have received it; b. store data securely; c. ensures that only people who have a genuine business need to see that data will have access to it; d. report data losses or wrongful disclosure to the SPOCs. e. only holds it while there is a business need to keep it; f. destroys it in line with applicable guidelines; g. provide assurance that they have complied with these principles, upon request. Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) 20. Both parties undertake to comply with the requirements of the DPA and the HRA in the operation of this agreement. Freedom of Information (FoI) Act 2000 21. If a FoI request is received in relation to the other party's information then the receiving party will inform the other party and invite representations on the potential impact of disclosure. Costs/charges 22. No charges will be made. Resolving issues 23. Issues and problems that arise between the two will be resolved through discussion by the SPOCs, with escalation to more senior managers where necessary. Reporting and review arrangements 24. This Memorandum will remain in force until terminated by either party. The parties will use their best endeavours to review its operation every two years. 25. Any changes to this Memorandum may be agreed in writing. Transparency 26. This Memorandum is a public document and the parties may publish it as they separately see fit. Signatories ........................................................ for ACPO Date 30/08/2013 Name: Description: ........................................................ for the SRA Date 24/10/2013 Name: David Middleton Description: Executive Director how on earth can anyone get Justice when this hefty document is in place purely in the interest of the legal industry. so the minute a solicitor sets out to defraud you, he knows there is nothing, and I mean nothing you can do about it, this document is in direct contradiction of the Victims codes of practice, the right to the protection of your personal data, the right to access Justice, the right to restorative Justice, and it flies in the face of the Publics "right to the protection of life and property" and the right to a "Fair Trial" all wrapped up in a voluntary agreement between two Private in industries, in their own interests!? when is a victim of crime not a victim of crime, when it committed by a solicitor, I have a couple of other things that are on the back burner for now, Thanks for all your support please keep sharing and signing, let’s not let these Bastards trample all over us, our Criminal Justice System and our Human Rights, Let’s get this MOU kicked into touch! All comments are welcome xx :) PS I made a conscience decision not to mention anyone's names, to keep it legal