The force that Kristian was once so proud to belong to has a lot of questions to answer in this matter. The parents of Kristian Abbott made a complaint to the then Chief Constable Michael Todd, about the behaviour of the investigating officer in the case,way back in November 2007. The Abbott's were somewhat surprised when the reply to their complaint was finally answered by an officer from the “Professional Standards” department. The so-called professional standards department of GMP is actually their Internal Affairs Dept. and used to be known as “Y” Dept.

I say surprised, because the investigation into the allegations made against Kristian, was being carried out by none other than the “Professional Standards” department of GMP. So now what we have is an investigation into an investigation, being carried out by the same department that was carrying out the original investigation. To make this more simple, imagine if you will, Dracula was put in charge of the National Blood bank and then, when blood supplies went missing, you asked one of the Brides of Dracula to investigate.

The investigation into the investigation reported on the complaints of the Abbott's in April 2008 and, guess what, completely refuted the allegations made against the detective sergeant. Hardly surprising is it.

The allegation concerning S A, took place according to the prosecution at a place that was firmly within the West Yorkshire police boundaries. When the search of the lane where the offence is supposed to have happened took place, it was carried out by West Yorkshire police as it was in their area of responsibility. So why was the investigation into this allegation not carried out by West Yorkshire Police? According to GMP it is because Kristian was one of their officers. That is something that is being examined.

In the police guidelines and regulations, it is stated that any investigation into an officer must be carried out by officers not familiar with, or known to, the officer under investigation. Barnard lives less than 250 metres from Kristian's house. One of the officers assisting the detective sergeant investigating the case,(the IO) a pc who used to be based with Kristian at Littleborough for some considerable time. Doesn't that fall under the heading “familiar”?

It has always been the Abbott's belief that this whole sorry affair, has been as a result of a personal and vindictive vendetta waged by the assistant IO against Kristian. Indeed Kristian says, that the IO once investigated him and several other officers over an allegation made against them and he told Kristian “I will get you one day”. That is not unfortunately provable and we only have Kristian's word for it.

However, given the way that the IO investigated both allegations against Kristian, and the zeal with which he searched for evidence that might prove him guilty rather than otherwise, and given that the IO deliberately suppressed evidence, conspired to pervert the course of justice and committed perjury in the witness box, it might be possible to believe that he could have said this to Kristian.

The police officers from the Professional Standards Dept.,who were “investigating” one of their own i.e. the IO, interviewed Carrie Abbott, Kristian's wife, about the allegations made by Mr & Mrs Abbott, but failed to take a statement from her simply saying when asked, well her story was not the same as The Abbott's had said. How will anybody ever know? Surely statements should have been taken from everyone that might have been relevant? Might one suggest that this is a somewhat naive viewpoint as we are talking about a police investigation into their own colleagues in the same department. What did the Abbott's expect? Honesty and transparency?

After the trial, an acting assistant chief constable, one Terry Sweeney, was quoted as saying that GMP always investigate these matters thoroughly and this case was no different. This incensed the Abbott's so much because during the D G case, it was shown quite clearly, that the IO had not in any way shape or form investigated the case properly. Indeed, under oath he admitted as much. He said when asked that he had made assumptions, about the whereabouts of Kristian on the night the offence was alleged to have taken place. That is to say, he had not checked anything whatsoever, he had simply assumed that Kristian was the officer concerned in the allegation. Some investigator eh?

The problem is that the CPS and the defence rely on the investigating officer to do his or her job properly, so that all the evidence pointing both towards and away from guilt is put before the jury. unfortunately, in our opinion, the IO, had decided that Kristian. was guilty and so tried to make the evidence fit.

Mr & Mrs Abbott wrote to Sweeney and informed him of their annoyance and their concerns regarding the way the IO had investigated the cases. They even accused the IO of perjury, conspiring to pervert the course of justice and failing to carry out a proper investigation as was his duty. Sweeney replied that a thorough investigation had been carried out by the "professional standards department" of GMP and that was that. The problem is that the so-called investigation was completed in early 2008 long before the case had come to Court so how can a thorough investigation into the complaints by the Abbott's have been carried out? Oh yes, the main responsibility of acting assistant deputy not quite anyone Sweeney is, yes you guessed Professional Standards! You could not make this stuff up.

The Abbott's then wrote to the present Chief Constable Peter Fahy, and the response, if any, has not yet been made available to this writer. The one thing that we have been told is that any complaints about the professional standards department, seem to be always answered by and dealt with by the “Professional Standards” Branch of GMP. Well, Well, completely transparent and independent then?

What next for the Abbotts? Well they have the right to complain to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and if they are not satisfied with the response from that group they can instigate civil action against GMP for their actions. It would not be prudent to mention the detail of any such future claim at this time.

The only problem with complaining to the IPCC, is that their record is not the best in these kind of affairs. It was at the beginning of 2008 that a group of over 100 lawyers who worked with the IPCC finally severed all links with them in protest at the way the IPCC operated. Why was this? Well these lawyers and others in articles about the IPCC, stated that the IPCC had too many former police officers working for it, and that the IPCC seemed to be always biased in favour of police officers against whom complaints were being made. So, the Abbotts may expect to be fobbed off with the same line that Sweeney, and the chair and deputy chair of the Greater Manchester Police Authority gave. That is that a through investigation was carried out by the Professional Standards Department of GMP and therefore there is nothing further to be said. Oh hang on this is where we came in wasn't it?

Where does that leave it? Well, the only assumption that one can come to, is that Greater Manchester Police is an inward looking, self policing, corrupt bunch, who can make up any lies they want and nothing is to be done about them. There is also the notion that there is simply no independent body that one can go to and say look this is wrong and needs changing. There is also the sad feeling, that no-one in government is about to change anything soon and given the way that Jack Straw has behaved over the Michael Shields affair, there is not much hope with him.

The people of the United kingdom have the right in the 21^st century to expect a Police Force that is prepared to be investigated by truly independent bodies with fear or favour. How utopian!

Looks like it will be the civil courts for the Abbotts at some future date and that will no doubt result in a large payout to Kristian, which has to be borne by the taxpayer, and which will undoubtedly result in less money going into policing the streets of Manchester. Is this a lesson that is simply too difficult for these sad old men of GMP to take on board? Sadly it seems so as they keep making these mistakes and instead of admitting them and bringing about changes, they always seek to cover them up.

This seems to be the theme running through the whole of the English Justice system, that rather than look at upholding the truth and justice, they seek to uphold procedure and privilege. It was said on a legal advice site, “why change something that has stood the test of a thousand years?” because it needs changing that is why!!

After 5 weeks there has been no response to the Abbott's letter to the Chief Constable Peter Fahy. This seems to be how all public departments in the U.K. respond to complaints by just simply ignoring them. That is probably why the UK is in the situation it is in with the banks at the moment. No-one has the guts to say, hang on there is something wrong here why don't we try to change it? Mr. Fahy must feel that if he ignores the complaints from the Abbott's about the IO and his perjury etc etc. then the Abbott's will just forget about it all. What a foolish man.