Who is in charge of SYP Legal Department? Give us a name!

To follow on from previous posts, here are a few more photographs, showing the damage which South Yorkshire Police states it did not cause, at 20.20 on the evening of 07 November 2017, when at least 8 SYP Officers, entered this Hooton Roberts property at night, only to find (surprise, surprise) that the house door was and I quote ‘open’.

Well the police are ‘upright citizens’ aren’t they? So surely we must believe them?

Here is the nice remainder of a large, sturdy, ‘locked’, wooden gate, which was discoverd by the owner on release from police custody on 09 November 2017.


And here is the matching gate and hinge area, from which it seems to have been forced, in order to gain entry to the house drive.


Now I’m probably not the brightest brain on the planet.. but… it strikes me that that gate wasn’t quite open, before South Yorkshire Police arrived. If such damage had been apparent, surely our brave officers would have stated that, and then pursued a line of enquiry, to find out who did it.. and haul them into Court? SYP works in mysterious ways.

To continue with, the ‘open door policy’ of the owner of the property. Here are a couple of nice little pictures of ‘the open door’. The owner had left the property on the morning of 07 November 2017, locking this double door. On 09 November 2017, this was the picture seen.


Doesn’t look to me as if that double door had been terribly ‘open’. Again, there is no mention within the police explanation of ‘no damage caused’, that there might have already been damage to the property before officers arrived in the dark. Surely such law-trained individuals would have mentioned and queried any such ‘prior damage’, had there been any? Yet there is nothing within the anonymously sent letter below to indicate any such concern.

This letter makes it very clear that South Yorkshire Police, in pursuit of its duty, having forcibly taken the owner into custody, in hospital and in a cell, remaining for at least 48 hours, took immense care of the property.

29Nov2017 SYP letter claiming no damage ANONYMISED

This anonymised letter, from some individual at South Yorkshire Police Legal Department, makes no claim that there was any previous damage to the property of their ‘guest’.

It does state however that: “No items of property were taken by the police and no person other than police officers were present during the search.”

In that case were there police dogs with them? Did a usually reliable Alsatian suddenly turn to larceny, leaving the premises with a leather jacket and £1000, a swathe of paperwork and bunches of keys, including a safe key, stuffed in its jaws? Surely not! But if not, what is the explanation?

The letter continues by stating: “We have been informed by an officer present at the search that the entrance door was unlocked when they arrived and keys to internal doors were found within the property which allowed officers access to individual rooms.”

For the record: the owner is not noted for using a jemmy as a ‘key to unlock the doors’

Perhaps I can ask which of the 8 officers, tramping about within that house, was spoken to by the individual at the Legal Department of SYP? Was it  PC 3963 Gaffney; DS 2622 M Johnson – Officer in Charge; DC 3055 Z Gagen; PS 3313 D Fields; PC 1177 M Baker; DC 2128 R Smith; PC 2204vP Fulley; or PS 1016 D Makell? Or was there some part-or-quasi police officer on the site during that evening?  Or perhaps the Sergeant who made the authorisation (do scroll down or click the links on the side bar, for more information) was also present to see how easily the ‘open’ doors were entered? The side bar link also shows a thug, dressed as a police officer, seemimgly jemmying an internal door, on 07 November 2017.

From the photographs above, that property doesn’t seem to me to have been very open.. but then, I have not been ‘toughened up’ by South Yorkshire Police training. Perhaps there is something I am missing?

For my next post, I have some hilarious photographic evidence of those officers, as they attempt to ‘lock the door’ on leaving. They must surely have noticed that there was no remaining lock on that door, as they left? They struggled with it for long enough, both to gain access and to attempt to ‘lock the door as they left’.

“Upon departure of police officers the entrance door was locked and the key added to your property in custody. The police had no involvement in any locks being changed at the property.”

The police certainly had involvement in knowing that there were no remaining/workable locks, leaving the building wide open to thieves, when they were certain that their ‘guest’ was in no position to protect it. Culpability is an interesting phenomenon.

Perhaps whichever individual, within SYP’s Legal Department, might be in charge of it, could have those officers in, and ask  for their camera evidence of that break-in, for a full account of what they were doing there, for a full account of what they removed, and then relay that information to the owner of that property, together with a police fine for ‘owner distress and bodily harm’, and a squad of tradesmen/women to put right the damage ?

A full apology from whoever currently sits in the (musical) chair of the Chief Constable, wouldn’t go amiss.

Having made the offer to be there to let them in, the owner has still not been informed about what these officers were supposed to be searching for.  There had been an unnecessarily violent arrest, of a person who was known to police to be ‘still recovering from a series of operations’.

..but what does seem to have been taught through violence to the person and the property, is that South Yorkshire Police say one thing.. but possibly do another.

Here is a link to Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984:

It states very clearly:

(7)An officer who—

(a)authorises a search; or

(b)is informed of a search under subsection (6) above, shall make a record in writing—

(i)of the grounds for the search; and

(ii)of the nature of the evidence that was sought.

The owner of the property still does not have that information.



About officialaccountability

Seriously concerned that there is so little (if any?) corporate accountability within our publicly-funded bodies. Working for change - preferably for the better. That could include wholesale sackings to much applause?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Who is in charge of SYP Legal Department? Give us a name!

  1. Julie Meese says:

    Has anyone had any further information about this travesty? Did the owner of the property learn the grounds for the search and the nature of the evidence sought?
    I’m also at a loss to understand why there is almost zero reaction to this story. No outrage, no concern about police brutality, nobody expressing anger that the police have (once again) committed criminal offences and got away with it. Why not??

  2. joe public says:

    Its one way to get the crime rate down. Make sure the victims dont report a crime because they fear SYP. Who can protect you from them ?

    • Problem is.. that would only ‘get the crime rate down’ within the general public. Wouldn’t necessarily do it within SYP. Pity there doesn’t seem to be a police force about. If you happen to hear of one, passing through, do let me know..

  3. Pingback: officialaccountability – issues in Hooton Roberts | Rotherham Politics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s