Do you remember the Rotherham scandal? Where 1,400 children were sexually abused between 1997 and 2013 at the hands of rape Jihadists. Of course... IPCC Protecting Top Cops Involved in the Rotherham Scandal



Do you remember the Rotherham scandal? Where 1,400 children were sexually abused between 1997 and 2013 at the hands of rape Jihadists. Of course you remember it, why wouldn’t you? It’s only organisations like the IPCC that want you to forget. This is why the Independent Police Complaints Commission are so determined to drag out the complaint’s process for as long as they can (just as they did with Hillsborough), in the hope that it will fade from public memory and they won’t have to bother disciplining the very people they are so desperate to protect…




Or to be more precise: Top Coppers.


Take recent events, whereby this website made a Freedom of Information request to the IPCC to find out exactly how many serving coppers involved in the Rotherham scandal had been served misconduct notices; police officers that had wilfully ignored reports of children being raped, so as not to offend their most favoured victims: the Islamic community. These cops would probably have raped the children themselves rather than say something negative about their beloved religion of savagery, because one thing the police are very good at – apart from sitting on their fat arses trawling Facebook – is enforcing the government’s left wing narrative.


When I made my request to the IPCC for this information, they immediately reverted to cop rescue mode and denied my request out of hand. Not only did they refuse to disclose what progress they have made on their ‘burial’ – sorry – ‘investigation’ into the complaints made (as well as not having updated their website on the subject since February) they also refused to disclose the ranks of the 38 officers that have so far been handed misconduct notices. Not that there’s many of them left what with South Yorkshire Police allowing so many of the really bent cops involved, to take early retirement with full pension.




The reason I think it’s important that the IPCC disclose what ranks have been issued with misconduct notices, is so that we can see how far up the police hierarchy this corruption went.


The media would have us believe that it was just the lower rank and file who made the decisions about which victims to dismiss out of hand. I believe that it was the higher ranking officers that enforced the blanket attitude of immunising the Islamic community from any culpability, and instructed their lower ranking officers to act accordingly. Unless the IPCC reveal the ranks of ALL the officers concerned, you can guarantee that the bottom ranks, such as the constables and sergeants,will be thrown to the wolves, while the higher ranking officers such as the inspectors and superintendents, will be protected, shuffled around and promoted.


So far it seems that is precisely what the IPCC are intending…


I wrote back to the IPCC asking them to review their decision not to disclose, but they ignored me. So I asked them again. They ignored that too. Even though I was following the correct protocol for appealing decisions not to disclose information under FOI rules, the IPCC don’t think these laws apply to them and thought they could just ignore me in the hope that I would go away.


But I won’t go away.


Eventually, I appealed to the ICO and they sent a notice to the IPCC to respond. After dragging their heels for 6 months, the IPCC finally decided to reveal most of the ranks that have received misconduct notices, protecting the rest from disclosure. And guess what ranks they revealed? Yup, you got it. All the lower order ranks. 24 constables and 7 sergeants. The ones that don’t matter to the IPCC. Which leaves 7 higher ranks unidentified. The top brass that the IPCC will do anything to protect.


The IPCCs reasoning for refusing to disclose the ranks of this ‘unmagnificent 7’ is:“


“…The other 7 officers who are subjects of this investigation would be reasonably likely to be identified if their ranks were confirmed, meaning that the information you have requested would constitute their personal data.”


I have appealed against this to the ICO on the grounds that rank is not personal data and that the IPCC have no right to refuse to disclose on the assumption that it will be used to the detriment of the officers concerned.


I await the ICO’s decision with baited breath.

Rob Warner