Judging by a piece on the Crimebodge website on the enquiry into the Rotherham scandal, it certainly looks as if this is what could be happening. According to the Crimebodge piece that I’ve partially quoted below, the IPCC, may be throwing misbehaving junior officers to the wolves in order to protect senior officers who were involved in the Rotherham scandal.

The IPCC seemed to me to be very very reluctant to answer the Freedom of Information Act questions put to them by Crimebodge and that in itself is suspicious, especially when we are dealing with a force that is a byword for sleaze and for pandering to Muslims.

Here’s a section of the Rotherham questions put to the IPCC by the author of the Crimebodge website. The rest of the article can be found by following the link at the bottom of the excerpt.

Crimebodge said:

Do you remember the Rotherham scandal? Where 1,400 children were sexually abused between 1997 and 2013 at the hands of rape Jihadists. Of course you remember it, why wouldn’t you? It’s only organisations like the IPCC that want you to forget. This is why the Independent Police Complaints Commission are so determined to drag out the complaint’s process for as long as they can (just as they did with Hillsborough), in the hope that it will fade from public memory and they won’t have to bother disciplining the very people they are so desperate to protect…

Coppers.

Or to be more precise: Top Coppers.

Take recent events, whereby this website made a Freedom of Information request to the IPCC to find out exactly how many serving coppers involved in the Rotherham scandal had been served misconduct notices; police officers that had wilfully ignored reports of children being raped, so as not to offend their most favoured victims: the Islamic community. These cops would probably have raped the children themselves rather than say something negative about their beloved religion of savagery, because one thing the police are very good at – apart from sitting on their fat arses trawling Facebook – is enforcing the government’s left wing narrative.

When I made my request to the IPCC for this information, they immediately reverted to cop rescue mode and denied my request out of hand. Not only did they refuse to disclose what progress they have made on their ‘burial’ – sorry – ‘investigation’ into the complaints made (as well as not having updated their website on the subject since February) they also refused to disclose the ranks of the 38 officers that have so far been handed misconduct notices. Not that there’s many of them left what with South Yorkshire Police allowing so many of the really bent cops involved, to take early retirement with full pension.

The reason I think it’s important that the IPCC disclose what ranks have been issued with misconduct notices, is so that we can see how far up the police hierarchy this corruption went.

The media would have us believe that it was just the lower rank and file who made the decisions about which victims to dismiss out of hand. I believe that it was the higher ranking officers that enforced the blanket attitude of immunising the Islamic community from any culpability, and instructed their lower ranking officers to act accordingly. Unless the IPCC reveal the ranks of ALL the officers concerned, you can guarantee that the bottom ranks, such as the constables and sergeants,will be thrown to the wolves, while the higher ranking officers such as the inspectors and superintendents, will be protected, shuffled around and promoted.

So far it seems that is precisely what the IPCC are intending…

Read the rest of this piece here:

http://crimebodge.com/ipcc-protecting-top-cops-involved-in-the-rotherham-scandal/

The article then goes on to chronicle Crimebodge’s battle to get disclosure of police rank data from the IPCC and the results that they eventually got. Unsurprisingly the results of the disclosure when they eventually arrived strengthened Crimebodge’s suspicions that the IPCC is protecting senior officers. The IPPC refused to identify the number of officers of senior ranks that have been issued ‘misconduct notices’ on the grounds that this could constitute ‘identifying data’.

I am troubled by the IPCC’s refusal to give out the number of senior police officers who have been reprimanded by way of misconduct notices for several reasons. Firstly, the scale of the Rotherham scandal is so vast and the number of victims so horrendously large, that the public have both a moral and political right to know which officers encouraged and enforced South Yorkshire Police’s policy of turning a blind eye to Islamic Rape Gangs. Secondly the refusal of senior officer data really does confirm the suspicions that the IPCC is protecting senior officers from public opprobrium and possible civil legal action by victims of Muslim sex criminals and the families of these victims.

This development in the Rotherham case should leave people in no doubt that South Yorkshire Police have chosen yet again to look after their own and say ‘sod you’ to everyone else. They do this even though it’s ‘everyone else’ who pays the wages of these incorrigibly corrupt cops. The police have patently failed to protect the ordinary decent people of South Yorkshire and have turned a blind eye to the epidemic of Muslim sexual savagery that has afflicted this area along with too many others for far far too long now.

I find that reading the Crimebodge article leaves me with even less confidence in the probity of the IPCC and its ability to deal with problem of Islamopandering in South Yorkshire Police than I had before and I had very little confidence in them to start with.