Dear management of Merseyside Police,

in particular, Assistant Chief Constable Ian Critchley, Deputy Chief Constable Serena Kennedy and Chief Constable Andrew Cooke.

My current post is written in the context of my concerns raised in the post “Serious corruption in Merseyside Police: exposed and explained“.

Together, you are the three highest officers of Merseyside Police. As you well know, it so happened that I got serious concerns over credibility of a dozen of your subordinates, whom I believe to either having committed criminal offences of (1) perjury, (2) perverting the course of justice and (3) corrupt exercise of police powers and privileges, or being mixed up in cover-up of those criminal offences by way of wilful turning a blind eye on that corruption, irresistible evidence of which I provide to Merseyside Police since April 2019.

As you will also know, in November and December 2019, realising that all those subordinates below you appear to be corrupt, I challenged the three of you on the issue of recusal of the officers from dealing with me and transferring their leverage against my complaints on their corruption – Operation Kobus, ‘investigation’ into my UK business, which was destroyed by them – to another UK police force so that it can be properly continued by officers of integrity. I did so not out of the blue but because Merseyside Police has directly indicated to me in the initiated by me High Court proceedings that you and only you are the appropriate authority for being addressed by such a request.

Having reviewed “Service Confidence” policy and procedure of Merseyside Police, I used your own official policy, a legally binding document, when challenging three of you with the evidence of serious corruption in your command line.

What I got in response was full endorsement of the serious corruption, overwhelming evidence of which was brought up to you. For example, the official letter of Assistant Chief Constable Ian Critchley in response to my evidence of serious corruption by the officers stated:

“My decision is that the investigation will continue to be undertaken by [the officers concerned] and the current investigation structure will remain.

In making this decision I believe that it is … ethical, being in line with the Code of Ethics for policing and is what the public would expect me to do.

I am satisfied that my officers … [are acting] in a way that is in line with the high standards of quality I expect and set for my investigation teams …”

I believe that by this letter Assistant Chief Constable Ian Critchley has cynically tarnished the trust given to him to follow the Code of Ethics and to maintain the reputation of the UK policing, because he has blatantly endorsed officers, whose committal of serious criminal offences had striking, shocking evidence. Effectively, he stated that “black is the new white”.

The two other officers mentioned in your own official procedure document – Deputy Chief Constable Serena Kennedy and Chief Constable Andrew Cooke – effectively, fully endorsed the cynical enabling of dishonesty and corruption by ACC Critchley.

I do believe that, being public servants and receiving annual salaries which range between ₤110,000 for Assistant Chief Constable Ian Critchley to ₤180,000 for the Chief Constable Andrew Cooke (when added by bonuses), you are also given with very high public trust and are expected by the UK public to make most ethical, most impartial and most fair decisions at the most delicate moments for the police force you are running. That is why the public pays you so much monies: it wants your decisions to be unimpacted by any other factors except the public interest, the interest of the public which allows you to earn these big monies and enjoy a range of other benefits.

It is plain for me that by, effectively, saying that black is white, lies are truths and committal of criminal offences (or, at the very least, serious concerns over it) by the police officers in your command lines is “in line with the high standards you set for your investigation teams”, you have wilfully or – at the very-very-very best – recklessly endorsed serious corruption. By that you have cynically betrayed the public trust. You have put it under the carpet in, what I believe to be, the obvious hope that no one ever will be able to scrutinize your decisions and put you to the account.

Luckily, unlike you, I have read the Code of Ethics of the UK Police recently. It says by direct words:

4.1.7. You are not expected to know the Code of Ethics word for word. What is expected is that you apply the intent of the Code to your decisions and ask yourself questions such as:
• Is my decision in line with the principles and expected behaviours outlined in the Code of Ethics?
• Will this action or decision reflect well on my professionalism and policing generally?
• Would I be comfortable explaining this action or decision to my supervisor?
• Would I be prepared to defend this action or decision in public?

As a result of your multiple failures to properly address irresistible evidence of serious corruption which I was continuously providing to you directly in my official letters, I have made it now public. Likewise, I now invite you to defend in public your decision to take no action over the evidence of serious corruption provided to you by me since at least November 2019. Together, the three of you earn annually around ₤400,000. As a person who generated – directly or indirectly – for the UK state more than ₤600,000 in taxes, I want to question you in public on the decision to fully endorse the corrupt conduct of your subordinates and to hold you accountable for those decisions.

Those questions are asked in the context of irresistible evidence of serious corruption available at this link.

1 Is it in line with the high standards of the UK Police when police officers secretly portray to the court under oath an international businessman, whose large financial firm has paid almost £2 million pounds for the sponsorship contract to Liverpool FC, as a mysterious person whose whereabouts are unknown and who sold a fake airline ticket to Nigeria for £750 in a low-level online fraud, when attempting to forfeit millions in his bank accounts in his absence and understanding he did not do that fraud with the fake £750-worth airline ticket?

2 Is it in line with the high standards of the UK Police to secretly portray to the court under oath a licensed in the UK payment firm, through which the fraudulent payment went, as a perpetrator of the fraud with no business footprint and no website, deliberately withholding from the court the known to the applying officer fact that there is a fully licensed and regulated payment business with the website, registered brand name and all signs of legitimacy, rather than a shady letterbox company? Is it in line with the high standards of the UK Police to know that there is a website of the company and it has licence of the UK regulator but instead state by direct words under oath that “there is no website and no business footprint” so as to create the opposite picture for the judge?

3 Is it in line with the high standards of the UK Police to send £1.577 million account freeze notices to the artificially created non-existent address of the affected person, especially after the account freeze order is obtained in the above described misleading way?

4 Why did you call such a conduct in points 1 to 3 above being fully “in line with the high standards that you set for your investigation teams“? Do you have some special standards which are different from the rest of the UK Police?

5 How do you think, does the official endorsing the conduct described in points 1 to 3 above by saying that it is fully in line with the high standards (of the UK Police) put the reputation of policing into shade?

6 What would be the damage to the public interest if the officers who demonstrated the conduct described in points 1 and 2 above and supported by firm evidence of dishonesty, would be recused from participating in the investigation against the victim of their corruption, if that person merely asked to deal with the other officers who do not have biases due to having committed criminal offences of perjury by themselves? Do police officers have no duty of impartiality?

7 How do you think, does the management of an abstract police force, who wilfully or recklessly enable and endorse serious corruption, deserve to be in their highly paid office, continuing exercising the high trust given to them by the public? Do you believe that a wilful or reckless endorsing of serious corruption is an act of gross misconduct?

I know that you will likely do everything possible to avoid replying those questions in public. You have already betrayed the public interest and you have made decisions which are undefendable from the standpoint of good faith. You are wholly compromised and the public interest lies strongly in the dismissal of yours from your positions. That is why I have filed official complaints against you.

However, it is fair to give you the ability to respond to those simple questions in public – after you rejected to reply my letters – and, at the very least, to try to defend your decision. That is why I ask these questions. The longer you refuse to reply on those, the longer and deeper you oppose yourself to the public interest.

Please, reply my questions, as your last opportunity to defend your now wholly compromised integrity which, I believe, cannot be fixed anymore.