Banner
today rss facebook twitter

Email correspondence with Bexleyheath police
in connection with the obscene blog posted by
someone associated with Bexley council

1) Enquiry to Chief Superintendent Stringer following his deputy’s failure to honour his promise to keep me informed. (2 November 2011)
2) Chief Superintendent Stringer’s response and promise. Once again not fulfilled. (4 November 2011)
3) Further enquiry to Chief Superintendent Stringer. (7 December 2011)
4) The Chief Inspector’s reply passing the enquiry to his deputy whose failure caused the correspondence in the first place. (8 December 2011)

This correspondence follows on from earlier letters

Dear Commander Stringer,

Your Assistant Commander Williams wrote to me on 16th September and his letter suggested that investigation into the above numbered crime was not concluded. However another letter at about the same time told me that the investigation is at an end.

Would you or he please now confirm that the investigation is at an end - or not - as I think it is time for the police failure to be escalated to the IPCC. I shall be content with a simple yes or no email response.

My apologies for not going directly to Assistant Borough Commander Williams, his letter did not reveal an email address.

Yours sincerely,


Dear Mr Knight,

I will find out and respond to you early next week.

Regards,

Dave Stringer
Bexley Borough Commander


Dear Chief Superintendent Stringer,

In the six months since this crime was reported I have been told in writing that the investigation is at an end, that it is continuing and a month ago that you didn't know. Since then I heard you say at the BCPEG meeting on

21 November that it is 'on' again. That being the case I think I should let you know what I find disturbing about this case in the hope that you can address my concerns and we eventually reach a conclusion that we can both be happy with. I would much rather not spend my time criticizing the Metropolitan Police.

In one of your letters you (that is the Met. Police) said it was necessary to employ a data specialist. If I may say so he could not have been a competent one because he told me that the URL bearing my name was no longer available and so couldn't be traced. That was never the case, it remains available to this day.

A proper investigation would have approached Google who run the 'blogspot' facility to ask if the blogger had left any obvious clues. If he had not the owner (some sort of user name would have been provided) of the blog bearing my name should be compared with the user name of any similar blog run by any councillor or likely council staff. (Short list on request.) If a matching owner (Google user name) was not found the IP addresses which Google collects should be compared. Only when those enquiries are complete could any investigation possibly be said to have reached a conclusion.

The arrest and charging of the blogger known as Olly Cromwell threw up some interesting examples of how muddled the police enquiry has been and how dismissive you have been of the crime committed against Elwyn Bryant and myself by one of Bexley council's associates. Throughout Mr. Cromwell's court hearing all references to a blog were of mine not his and the file his defence lawyer was given show that the police had given up on the crime against Elwyn and me by the beginning of July 2011. It had been dismissed as a "counter-allegation" and by implication of no importance.

Never had I seen it as counter anything at all, it was simply a hate crime and if similar recent reported cases are anything to go by, one that would warrant a jail sentence. To dismiss it so lightly does not give any confidence in your investigation and it should not be forgotten that Elwyn Bryant had nothing to be "counter" about. He was a totally innocent bystander singled out for attack for no reason whatever.

The correspondence claims that Bexley council's computers were examined and showed nothing. No serious investigation would have stopped there. There is no indication that you spoke in suitable terms to either Ms. Teresa O'Neill or Mr. Will Tuckley who responded positively to complaints about the obscene blog; it was removed as soon as they learned of it. If they have not been questioned it would be a serious omission.

It was also very disturbing to find that the case files had been marked, I am led to believe, RESTRICTED and confirmed as being not in the public interest to disclose anything about the investigation. From that it is far too easy to conclude that the police in Bexleyheath are Bexley council puppets. I hope you will in due course be able to do enough to demonstrate that that is not the case.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Knight


Dear Mr Knight,

I have asked Det. Supt. Williams to respond to you.

Regards,

Dave Stringer


Return to the top of this page