Detective Inspector Richard Stott of Bedfordshire police let off ‘STOTT FREE’ say Mrs D Cox

Detective Inspector Stott of Bedfordshire police was assigned to review a complaint against DC Patrick, but, DI Stott didn’t uphold it and went on to ignore glaring conduct issues, identified by the IOPC.

On appeal, the IOPC upheld my review of the dodgy DI Stott decision… but, Bedfordshire PSD (Mrs D Cox) is determined to protect DI Stott from an investigation.

Bearing in mind, DI Stott is a ‘detective’ which should imply he has in-depth investigative skills.  He is also an Inspector, so he supposedly has plenty of experience, yet, the IOPC criticised DI Stott for failing to investigate a complaint into one of his police colleagues.

Wilful neglect to undertake your duties as a police officer is an offence of Misconduct in Public Office at Common Law.

A complaint was made to Bedfordshire PSD about the conduct of DI Stott, in relation to his willful neglect in reviewing a complaint against DC Patrick, and the complaint recording officer, Mrs D Cox, stated;

Your complaint against Detective Inspector Stott has been recorded as a complaint against police, it will show up on the officers’ complaint history and they have been informed that a complaint has been recorded against them. It is correct, that no further action is being taken in respect of the complaint against Detective Inspector Stott.

No rationale was given by Mrs D Cox why no action was being taken against Detective Inspect Stott.  It would appear at first sight that Mrs D Cox is herself assisting DI Cox to evade the complaints process.


The IOPC made the following observations about the conduct of Detective Inspector Stott

I have concluded that the outcome of your complaint was not reasonable and proportionate. Therefore, your application for review is upheld.

I cannot see where [DI Stott] looked at evidence that provided a justification into actions taken by DC Patrick in his investigation.

Furthermore, due to the lack of evidence looked at by [DI Stott], I believe that this allegation was not investigated reasonably or proportionally.


I am of the view that this was not dealt with reasonably and proportionately by [DI Stott].

 Even as a complainant being treated as a witness, being a witness does not negate the need for [DI Stott] to investigate concerns about the independence of an investigation.

 I have not been provided with any information to confirm or deny that the [DI Stott] did look into this allegation and therefore I do not believe that this allegation was reasonably or proportionately investigated.


I am of the belief that it was not reasonable and proportionate for [DI Stott] to come to the decision about not upholding this complaint. This would be because no evidence was looked at to reach this decision.

I am also of the belief that this allegation should have triggered a local investigation, rather than it being dealt with by other handling. This is due to the seriousness of the allegation and that the actions of the officer could be considered misconduct if proven.


How far will Bedfordshire police go to cover this corruption up, only time will tell, but everything will be made public.


1 Comment

  1. Mrs Cox should be ashamed . Her job is to record complaints to fail to acknowledge that the corrupt conduct of Di Stott is not investigated proves Mrs Cox is either incompetent or colluding in a corruption cover up. Keep us posted

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.