WMPCC Correspondence FAO Emily Gilbert 4th September 2023 Dear Emily, Thank you for your response of May this year; the matter concerned a "local drugs issue" and I have since been in conversation with the Neighbourhood Sergeant who assured me that action is being taken in support of the new Public Spaces Protection Order. The reason for writing this morning is that I am hoping that the office of the Commissioner can persuade Professional Standards to get in touch, rather than ignore! 1) I'm still awaiting a reaction from my complaint of some months ago in which I pointed-out that my appeal was lodged 'well within time' and that WMP is the source of any delay: Chief Inspector Greasley Professional Standards Department Dear Inspector Greasley, I am in receipt of your letter dated 31st July 2020 in which you write that any appeal must be made within 28 days of an end of investigation letter and that my appeal is out of time, despite a correspondence, dated 24th June 2020, from Christopher Todd apologising for an "administrative error" that resulted in my appeal being "overlooked". A letter, signed by Karen Burnham and dated 22nd August 2019 (presumably the correspondence referred to in your own letter as finalising a complaint on 22nd August 2019 by way of local resolution) was replied to almost immediately with an emailed confirmation of receipt being received on Friday 23rd August 2019 at 14:01; for your convenience, and for clarity, I shall reproduce its essential contents here: Thank you for submitting your appeal form. This has been forwarded to the Professional Standards Department as the relevant appeal body, and your appeal will be considered by a senior officer in that department. We aim to keep you updated every 28 days. Here is a summary of the information you provided. Your name: David Austin Your email address: mail@dwaustin.net Your phone number: 07747095166 Your address line 1: 162 High Street Your address line 2: Lye Village Your town or area: Stourbridge Your postcode: DY9 8LT Date which you made your complaint: 28-04-2019 Name of the force dealing with your complaint: West Midlands Police Date of the decision letter: 20-08-2019 Reason for your appeal: I am in increased danger of an assault due to WMP's reluctance to interview my neighbour - a repeat of the threats, this time "I'll kill you", has recently been made in the High Street (7:30pm Tuesday 20th August, after much pushing earlier at 7pm), again with witnesses (numbering approximately one hundred!) and was accompanied by a form of "Liverpool Kiss" in which 164's forehead touched mine and his head lowered to touch noses (possibly also described as some sort of 'rut'). Surely you must now appreciate, Inspector, that any delay in resolving this issue is not down to yours truly? Etc, David Austin 2) I have just persuaded 101 to reopen a case that was closed, despite my submission of images of an assailant and the consequential cuts and bruises on my legs - feeling has not fully returned to all toes! Why does WMP have so little regard for my health? I am a straight male 'pale-face', just above average height and more-or-less symmetrical, but civilised; the attacker was another doggie who does not, always, pick-up and allows his pet to roam off-lead, but the original investigating officer wasn't a doggie either - so why did he close the case? Is a doggie 'pulling his strings'? 3) It seems that I am unpopular, with certain, but not all members of the force, because I am anti-dog; but there are plenty of officers within WMP who would not describe themselves as cynophiles - one has conceded that my neighbour should not be toileting his dog outside of my kitchen window, another considers that dogs should be on leads in this locality and I know that the, retired, Commander for this division did not describe herself as a dog-person; yet there has been no reaction to my complaint, submitted alongside my report of the latest assault (above) that a police officer (or an associate) obtained an address from DVLA records (presumably) from the registration of a car that I was driving (near where I had been campaigning against another bunch of vindictive dog-admirers), strode up a drive in Stourbridge and assaulted my brother! This breaches a dozen regulations, though, I concede, it is possible that the alleged officer was employed by West Mercia Police. 4) I must remark here that I remain disappointed that my witnesses were not interviewed by WMP during the notorious case of Sarah's Stitch-Up and I remain unsure as to the way forward as my appeal has already been heard by WMP (and Crown Court); any suggestions would be welcome as the consequential conviction still affects my reputation and earnings potential some seven years later and is the reason I am at home this morning, rather than beginning the new term with students at a local college - the Compliance Department have not provided clearance. It will take another four years, apparently, for this matter to be 'spent' - all because another local doggie complained over the manner in which I was litterpicking the High Street! 5) I must finally remark that I am disappointed with the failure of WMP to prosecute my abusive, threatening, violent, dumping, fouling neighbour (at 157); I must still negotiate his dog's faeces (outside of his apartment - 99% certainty of responsibility) when litterpicking and have this morning had to water the communal lawn which suffers the effects of his dog's urine; the neighbourhood sergeant (who appears conscientious and his team effective) is, unfortunately, another doggie, who, again, toilets his dog in public - can he be persuaded to 'walk' his pet around his own private garden, even off-lead, until it performs? Must note here that colleagues arrived to attend an incident at apartment 164 recently and had to approach the ground floor windows across the (communal) lawn - they put their foot in it! It is still embarrassing for yours to relate that the officers had great difficulty cleaning their boots on the way back to their vehicle; the occupant is another doggie whose dog barks at yours, even at four in the morning, and is also the new tenant of the apartment vacated by the abusive, threatening doggie of paragraph one! Please persuade Professional Standards to communicate! DAustin 162 High Street Lye Village Stourbridge. From: West Midlands Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (wmpcc@westmidlands.police.uk) Date: 05/22/23 10:36 To: mail@dwaustin.net Subject: WMPCC Reference: 2020-01005 Dear Mr Austin Please find attached response from Victims Commissioner Nicky Brennan, in relation to your email received on 20 December 2022. Kind regards, Emily Gilbert|Business Support Officer T: 0121 626 6060 A: West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner Lloyd House Colmore Circus Queensway Birmingham B4 6NQ