Superintendent Alison Ross

December 28, 2019

NOTE: The contents of this page are true and published because they are in the public interest.  My opinions are clearly stated as such and should not be taken as fact.  My opinions are formed on the basis of my observations and some are my deductions based on what I saw, read and heard.

Hypocrite. Liar. Another crooked cop. Superintendent Alison Ross is the current head of the so-called “professional standards” branch of the Cheshire constabulary. What is evident about the Cheshire constabulary is that they have no concept of professional standards with their legal department compounding perverting the course of justice, with police criminality going uninvestigated and covered up. It is an absolute disgrace that “law enforcement” is left in the hands of these crooks and criminals.

This particular crook came to my attention with an online article in the Warrington Guardian about the sacking of PC Regan. PC Regan is said to have made sexual comments to a female teenager that she had previously helped. Apparently no real harm was done except that the teenager left Regan’s apartment “feeling uncomfortable”. What upset me more than the account of that incident is the lies and hypocrisy that then issued from Alison Ross:

“We are a public service and it is essential that the communities we serve have both confidence and trust in the service we deliver.

“We actively promote the highest of standards of personal and professional
behaviour and integrity to all officers and staff.

“I want to ensure that anyone who turns to us for help or who finds themselves in need of our assistance can be completely confident that they will be treated with the courtesy, respect and professionalism that they deserve…..”

And this is the head of the department which refuses to investigate and which covers up the criminality of its members who perverted the course of justice and criminal constables Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer who started by perverting the course of justice and followed that up with perjury. It should be mentioned that this cover up was initially sanctioned by crooked former head of “professional standards” superintendent John Armstrong. So I guess Alison Ross is just continuing the tradition of crooked heads of “professional standards”.

Anyway, taking Ross at her word, I wrote and asked her if she was now willing to investigate the crimes of PCs Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer. It seemed a reasonable question, seeing as how at that time I had no reason to suspect she was crooked. This is the link to my email.

However, I was not totally surprised to get the accustomed refusal and lies in reply. You can see her reply here. The big lie, which I have heard so many times is that my original complaints against Anderson and Rimmer were “full(y) investigated”, which of course they never were. Criminals, investigator inspector Richard Hill and complaints manager Miles Dignam, violated just about every guideline issued by the IPCC (as the IOPC then was) in order to avoid investigating and properly dealing with my complaints.

So the dubious morality of the Cheshire constabulary is that a constable who causes someone to feel upset is dismissed, but criminal constables Eoin Anderson who conspire to pervert the course of justice and follow that up with perjury are allowed to carry on, even though the harm to the public was and is far greater. Go figure. No wonder the police are held in so much contempt.

Next Steps

As always, when I write about someone , I like to pass it by them so that they cam comment and point out anything that they consider to be untrue or in error. Accordingly, I sent Ross an email you can see HERE. (Click on the link)

I didn’t actually expect to hear back, but her reply is HERE. The first thing to note is that the subject line starts “FW”, for Forward, rather than “Re”,for reply. The language also appears to be very much that of force solicitor David Bryan, so Ross may just have forwarded my email to him and forwarded his reply, possibly modified, to me.

Her reply contains the sort of cautionary guff that I have previously heard from Bryan. I don’t take it seriously because I am safe from legal action while I keep the comments truthful and ensure that my uncomplimentary opinions are honestly and reasonably held. Needless to say, I hold the Cheshire constabulary in the utmost contempt for their criminality and defence and cover-up of criminality. This is not what the public deserves or expects from a police “service”. I say with reason that they are a criminal organisation in that they profit from the criminal activity of their members.

You can see my initial reply HERE. I point out David Bryan’s department’s violation of the Solicitors Regulation Authority Principles and Code of Conduct. I do not know whether the solicitor involved did that of her own volition or whether Bryan directed her. I shall ask him.

I also make the point that they should be on the side of truth and justice along with me and most of the population. Instead of which they have made this adversarial. Their members made stupid criminal and crooked mistakes, but they are treating me as the enemy for pointing them out and wanting something done about them. You really would have thought that we would be on the same side, but they are just circling the waggons and firing at anybody who has the audacity to question their integrity. It just exposes their lack of integrity and earns them contempt.

In that initial reply, I neglected to respond to Ross’ offensive statement “I would remind you that the Chief Constable successfully defended both the initial allegations and the subsequent appeal brought by you”. Why is that offensive? Simply because it is gloating over the results of their criminality. Yes, I lost my case against them for malicious prosecution because Constables Eoin Anderson and Nicola Rimmer are disgusting little criminals who swore by Almighty God to tell the truth and then went on to tell a pack of lies. And Ross is so proud of it that she wants to remind me of it? Makes you sick. HERE is my further reply.