4/9/13 Outlook Print Message
Appeal Against Police Outcome CO 740/12 [NOT
From: Felicity Stewart-Smith (email@example.com)
Sent: 04 April 2013 19:31:39
To: !NorthCasework (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Cc: IPCC North Casework (email@example.com); PSD WYP
(firstname.lastname@example.org); Osman Khan
Bcc: email@example.com (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Finalisation letter - 07.03.13.pdf (74.8 KB)
Appeal against Investigation Outcome CO 740/12 West Yorkshire Police
When prioritising this appeal under the IPCC triage system you should be aware that this case - and
the officer signing it off - will continue to attract around 1,500 pageviews per week on the uPSD
website. The reputational damage to WYP is considerable. The pages in question
are http://www.upsd.co.uk/inspector-paul-dwyer/ and http://www.upsd.co.uk/dci-osman-khan/
This is the new world where complainants can no longer be abused, in plain sight, by incompetent
and/or dishonest officers of West Yorkshire Police's inaptly named PSD.
The details of my Appeal are set out below and they will be published tomorrow on both of the above
website pages. If police officers want to act the fool at the taxpayer's expense then let the public see
what they are paying for. If the IPCC refuse to call these people to account then we will.
1. I feel I was not given enough information about what the investigation into my complaint
found and the action the appropriate authority plan to take following their investigation?
The finalisation letter is wholly inadequate and reflects a poor, one-sided, partial 'investigation'
signed off by an officer - DCI Osman Khan - who is still the subject of an unresolved and highly-
publicised complaint by me (IPCC ref 2012/015407). For that reason alone, Khan should have
been disallowed from handling my complaint in any way shape or form. Any competent officer
should have known that.
Khan also fails to identify the officers whom, he claims, carried out an investigation into my
complaint. West Yorkshire Police should be a public service organisation, not the secret service,
and those officers should have been named. For the record, and unless proved otherwise, it is
my belief that no such investigation took place at all and that is backed up by my local police
4/9/13 Outlook Print Message
Khan was very well aware that between my complaint being filed with T/CC Parkinson and the
outcome that there had been further significant developments in the shape of harassment of me
by PC 6454 Manson by setting up a "trolling" account specifically for that purpose. The outcome
letter is silent on that point.
Khan signally fails to deal with the incivility allegation against PI Dwyer. The explanation offered
by Dwyer - an NPT inspector - that he did not access emails on a police issue Blackberry
between 6pm on a Friday and 2.45pm is, on the balance of probabilities untruthful. He also fails
to deal with the point that T/CC Parkinson responded to my emails on the subject but Dwyer did
not even when he returned to duty. He had a clear obligation as a police officer of, managerial
rank, to do so. I was able with the assistance of a police source to identify Manson as the person
operating the Wetherby NPT Twitter account at the material time.
The proposition that Manson's response, according to Khan, was appropriate and proportionate
has no basis in fact. PS Matthew Appleyard is a Blobby Bobby and has no just cause to take
offence at such a description. His physical appearance is quite disgraceful and shambolic and
reflects poor personal conditioning and very probably a low self-esteem as a result of his regular
association with the country's most notorious rapist and paedophile. Further, it is not the place
of the highly erratic and personality-disordered PC Manson to act as either Appleyard's personal
protector or apologist. Neither, for that matter, is it Khan's.
Khan also omits to mention that the term Blobby Bobby was broadcast by West Yorkshire Police
Federation earlier in the same day and my own tweet to Wetherby NPT was entirely in that
It is also highly relevant to point out that Khan cannot fail to have been influenced by the fact
that his own line manager is another Blobby Bobby. Only even worse. That is the shambolic and
heavily overweight C/Supt Marc Callaghan.
Finally, Khan exhibits no evidence that he has investigated the complaint that Manson caused
my Twitter account to be suspended. There is no other plausible explanation and this matter
requires dealing with appropriately and transparently and with the commensurate amount of
information and electronic audit trail provided to me.
2. I disagree with the findings of the appropriate authority investigation into your complaint?
For the reasons set out above the findings of the investigation are flawed and the entire process
invalid as a result of the involvement of DCI Khan
3. I disagree with the proposed action resulting from the appropriate authority investigation into
Taking no action is a scandalous dereliction of Khan's responsibilities as a police office
4. I disagree with the decision that the appropriate authority has made about whether an officer
you complained about has a case to answer or if there has been unsatisfactory performance
There is prima facie evidence of incivilty on the part of Dwyer and prima facie evidence of
criminal harassment by Manson has not been dealt with appropriately
5. I disagree with the decision that the appropriate authority has made not to refer the
investigation of your complaint to the Crown Prosecution Service
4/9/13 Outlook Print Message
The matter of Manson's harassment requires a CPS referral. At the very minimum he should be issued
with a Police Information Notice (more commonly known as a harassment notice) under the
Prevention of Harassment Act 1997
As further examples of Khan's incompetence/failure to understand his own duties and
responsibilities I draw attention to the fact that he states that an appeal can be made within 28 days
when in fact the correct period is 29 days. Also, the weblink provided in the finalisation letter does
not take you to an appeal form. It lands you on the home page of a huge and multi-faceted website.
Finally, you are expressly requested not determine this Appeal without first making contact. It is
certain that there will have been material developments in uPSD's own investigations into this
matter, in the meantime.
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 17:13:09 +0000
Subject: Complaint Against Police [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
Dear Ms Stewart-Smith, please find attached a letter in relation to your recent
West Yorkshire Police
Professional Standards Department
REPORT MINOR CRIME ONLINE: Report a West Yorkshire crime online, request a callback or report lost
property, all via our website http://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/
This email carries a disclaimer, a copy of which may be read at