Detective Superintendent Harris, a high-ranking officer of Greater Manchester Police (GMP), was tasked with one simple job, reviewing a complaint against PC Tyldesley (read about that here).
Despite the officers seniority and experience, Superintendent Harris missed, (or more likely wilfully ignored), the most crucial evidence presented, (that PC Tyldesley admitted to listening to a legally privileged conversation and making notes of what he heard in his pocket notebook and sharing the information).
This raises serious questions about his competency and, more concerning, the alleged abuse of his position to hamper the complaints system.
The complaint in question was supported by indisputable evidence, highlighting serious misconduct of an officer and the officers admissions to that misconduct. The submissions made in the complaint report were clear, well-documented, and were impossible to overlook.
However, Superintendent Harris inexplicably ignored the key evidence, failing to even acknowledge it’s existence. It is alleged that was a deliberate effort to protect individuals from misconduct proceedings.
As expected, Superintendent Harris found that PC Tyldesley had done nothing wrong, and the complaint was not upheld.
Inspector Elizabeth Green of the PSD offered a right of appeal to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, not the IOPC.
Considering the accusation against PC Tyldesley was so serious, and the IOPC guidelines state that if misconduct proceedings could be brought (if the allegation is proven) then the appeal body must be the IOPC.
Inspector Elizabeth Green of PSD stated that PC Tyldesley “Has only breached PACE“, and that would never be misconduct. A detailed rationale was provided to Elizabeth Green of how the conduct of PC Tyldesley (if proven) would easily be misconduct, and more likely, gross misconduct.
Elizabeth Green has refused to respond the the detailed rationale because it would be impossible to refute it, instead, she has said that if the GMCA find it to be a matter of misconduct, they can forward it to the IOPC, proving that Inspector Green cannot be satisfied in her decision.
Oddly, the question would be, why was a Detective Superintendent involved in a complaint in what Elizabeth Green would say is a minor issue?
A formal complaint was submitted against Detective Superintendent Harris, but Elizabeth Green refused to record it saying that the appeal to the GMCA will investigate Supt Harris.
Inspector Elizabeth Green has also sent emails with a signature suggesting she is a Sergeant. Whatever rank she is, she seems to be making decisions whether to record a complaint against a Senior Officers some 3 or 4 ranks above her, and unsurprisingly, doing her best to defend ‘her boss’.
Considering the allegation against Supt Harris is the abuse of her position as a senior officer to hinder a police complaint, Elizabeth Green is trying to bypass the formal complaints process to bundle his misconduct into the review of PC Tyldesley’s complaint.
New information was provided to us this evening, emails from PC Tyldesley that suggest he has tried to fabricate a crime against the person who made a complaint against him.
PC Tyldesley was notified of the formal complaint on the 19th December 2024, yet, yet took it upon himself to try to have a witness (the solicitor representing the complainant) to support Tyldesley in a fabricated criminal allegation, against the solicitor client! Of course, the solicitor refused.
PC Tyldesley made at least three attempts to persuade the solicitor to speak to him even though at the time PC Tyldesley was under investigation. This attempt to interfere with a witness was FIVE days after discovering a serious complaint was made against him.
Further details will be published soon.
Be the first to comment