The concept of CSCV was started by Tom Haye with approval from Hampshire Constabulary after a visit from Home Secretary Theresa May.
A 6 month trial began in January 2016 after funding was received from the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner.
The CSCV programme was officially approved for a national rollout by Chief Constable Mike Barton of Durham Constabulary.
Scott McGready joins the CSCV programme as "National Protect Lead" after a meeting with Tom Haye.
Ian Maxted joins the CSCV programme as "National Tactical Lead".
What first started out as a way to quickly share ideas soon grew into the lifeblood of CSCV. For many volunteers this was their only method of communication with each other, and indeed the programme team themselves.
£1.2 million in funding was sought from the Home Office to pay previous costs covered by Hampshire Constabulary, as well as cover any costs moving forward.
Already a Cyber Volunteer in Lincolnshire Police at this time, Greg attended a CSCV meet up at Derbyshire Police's headquarters and subsequently joined the CSCV leadership team after meeting Tom Haye, Ian Maxted and Ian Davis there.
In parnership with Police Rewired (and various sponsors), Greg Stevenson organised and hosted Hack the Police: Lincoln; an engagement to open the doors of policing to members of the public who wanted to volunteer their time and skills to help improve digital policing.
Members of CSCV (Namely Scott McGready, Ian Maxted, Ian Davis, and Richard Berry) were invited to the Netherlands to present at DEX-XL18.
Ian Maxted delivered a presentation on "Warthog" which transpired later to be nothing more than vapourware (despite claims at the conference of it being a finished product). A USB drive was given to the Dutch National Police supposedly containing source code for "Warthog".
Unofficial word came to the then CSCV leadership team that the funding propsal had been accepted, albeit at a smaller rate, and that money would be coming soon. £150,000 backdated to repay costs covered by Hampshire Constabulary for financial year 2018/2019 and £220,000 for financial year 2019/2020.
Without any warning, or input from the then senior leadership team, Richard Berry manipulated Barbara Spooner into the CSCV team as "National Coordinator".
A budgeting spreadsheet, outlining how the £150,000 and £220,000 would be spent, started circulating around a select group of leads. Disgust was echoed at some of the proposed figures (namely 2 "programme leads" being paid £650 / day, 3 days a week and £500 / day on administrators).
Barbara Spooner is listed as a director of Blue Light Investigations & Consultancy Ltd.
Scott McGready departs the CSCV program. An email was sent to Tom Haye, Ian Davis, Greg Stevenson, Ian Maxted (a copy can be found here). A Slack message (found here) was also posted to the wider CSCV team announcing the reasons for departure which was promptly removed before the wider membership could see it.
As a direct result to Scott McGready's leaving message, Barbara Spooner was forced to introduce herself to the wider CSCV team and try to silence any questions around Scott's departure. A copy of this message (which was also promptly removed) can be found here
Barbara Spooner founds Blue Lights Consultants Ltd. alongside Mark Addis.
Jo Mitchell, a contact of Barbara Spooner, is brought in to work on the business case and funding strategy of the programme moving forward.
Mark Addis, another contact of Barbara Spooner, and co-founder of "Blue Lights Consultants Ltd." is brought in to work on the business case of the CSCV programme.
Under direction of ACC Berry, the new CSCV business case worked on by Barbara Spooner, Jo Mitchell, Mark Addis, and Ian Davis is written in order to seek further funding and justify the programme's existence.
Despite losing their home, ex-CSCV volunteers assisted policing with a time-sensitive enquiry that, by the force's own admission, wouldn't have been solved without the help of the expert ex-volunteers.
After successfully solving the challenge coin, members of Team Duckbear take to Slack to query the state of the programme (due to lack of interaction with the programme team to date) and the state of their members' applications.
Questions started being asked in the CSCV Slack workspace about the running of the programme, funding, and updates on current projects. The CSCV programme team started deleting messages which were posted but quickly changed tact and shut down the entire platform instead. This cut off many volunteers from each other with all of their history, work, and projects lost into oblivion.
James Washington, one of the members of Team Duckbear, publishes a scathing blog post about CSCV and the lack of updates. https://directiveoperations.io/2019/09/22/you-cant-keep-us-all-silent-lets-make-this-public/
Hampshire Constabulary responded to two FOIs (Organisational Structure for the CSCV (Cyber Specials Cyber Volunteers) national team) and (Business cases & funding requests CSCV (Cyber Specials Cyber Volunteers)) stating that the did not hold the information requested. This decision was contested by Scott McGready and escalated to an internal review.
In an attempt to bring the CSCV programme's decisions and CSCV's behaviour to the public's attention, Scott McGready publishes an exposé on CSCV. Covering the time spent working with CSCV as National Protect Lead, various peculiar decisions that were made, and the money spent to date.
FOI sent to Hampshire Constabulary requesting a detailed breakdown of all invoices and expenses was refused on grounds of "data protection". A clarified FOI was submitted.
FOIs that Hampshire Constabulary refused or claimed "not held" were re-submitted to the Home Office.
Due to a lack of sufficient response from other FOIs, or other organisations claiming not to have any responsibility for CSCV, additional FOIs were submitted to the National Police Chief's Council.
After receiving virtually no feedback from any official, or unofficial, source on CSCV, Scott McGready sent Rod Hansen, Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary, an email pleading with him to read the "Breaking the lock on CSCV" article and come to a conclusion - be that refute or investigate.
Due to the developing nature, and lack of responses by anyone, Scott McGready submits a Subject Access Request (SAR) to Gloucestershire Constabulary asking for emails related to, or mentioning, himself.
22nd November was cited as the date of delivery of Scott McGready's SAR.
Due to lack of responses by CSCV, Hampshire Constabulary, Gloucestershire Constabulary, and the Home Office, Scott McGready reached out to policing minister, Kit Malthouse.
Despite an intitial promising response claiming to forward any claims to Kit's Private Office within the Home Office, no further contact was made by Kit's office or staff.
Despite responding within the alotted time, unlike other organisations, requests for the current business case for CSCV was refused due to being too "wide ranging":
"Unfortunately, I am unable to accept part 2 of your request for information under S8(c) of the Freedom of Information Act. The Freedom of Information Act allows for you to be provided with specific recorded information. Your request is too wide ranging and seeks ‘all’ documentation relating to business cases and funding requests."
Despite responding within the alotted time, unlike other organisations, requests for lists of invoices received for CSCV was refused due to it relating to "personal information":
"The NPCC does hold information captured by parts 1 and 3 of your request. Part 1 relates to personal information and I am withholding by virtue of S40.."
While other FOIs were unsuccessful, the NPCC did handily provide an image of the organisational structure of CSCV showing members of the governance board as well as names and titles of the CSCV senior leadership team.
Gloucestershire Constabulary confirm that Scott McGready's allegations of misuse of public funds by Richard Berry and Ian Maxted are being investigated.
Hours after the official acknowledgement by Gloucestershire Constabulary that Scott McGready's complaint would be looked into, Richard Berry calls Scott McGready. The call was not answered.
Convenient is the timing of the call, and the fact that Richard Berry had only previously called Scott McGready once during the entire time with CSCV
Unlike GlosPol, NCA delivers Scott McGready's SAR. There are a number of emails missing. Despite 2 followup emails, the NCA did not respond or update the SAR.
As Scott McGready's SAR was now overdue, Gloucestershire Constabulary were called to chase the current status of the SAR and ask for an estimated time of delivery. No updates were given.
A letter, dated 21st November, was received by Scott McGready further delaying their SAR by 30 days.
23rd December was cited as the new date of delivery of Scott McGready's SAR.
Due to seemingly lack of progress by any official body to investigate the CSCV programme team, and take seriously the allegations Scott McGready raised, an email was sent by him to Ben Snuggs, Hampshire Constabulary's Assistant Chief Constable.
Gloucestershire Constabulary's Deputy Chief Constable decides not to record a complaint against Richard Berry or Ian Maxted on the subject of abuse of powers, nepotism, threats, and misuse of public money due to "insufficient evidence".
Despite promises of delivery within 30 days, Scott McGready's SAR was now overdue and no contact had been made by GlosPol to explain the delay. The Data Protection Team at GlosPol couldn't give any update on the outstanding SAR, whether it would be delivered on time, or if it was being delayed yet again.
Despite already delaying the original SAR twice, GlosPol requested another 30 days for delivery of SAR due to the original request being "complex".
22nd January was cited as the new date of delivery of Scott McGready's SAR.
Claiming "due to a high volume of emails being returned following the search parameters" GlosPol delayed the delivery of Scott McGready's SAR. It is noted that once a timescale has been determined, Gloucestershire Constabulary will contact any parties and advise them of a new date of delivery.
Due to Gloucestershire Constabulary's continued delaying of Scott McGready's SAR, a complaint was made to the Information Comissioners Office. It was advised that this complaint would take 8 weeks to be assessed and assigned to an officer for investigation.
Gloucestershire Constabulary's Data Protection Team contacted Scott McGready to advise them that "due to a high demand of cases" their SAR would be delayed without any timescale for completion. Gloucestershire went on to note that they had notified the Information Commissioner's office and were working with them to reduce the ongoing workload.
The Government Internal Audit Agency reach out to Scott McGready to request an interview about the allegations of misuse of public funds by CSCV.
Two Government Internal Audit Agency investigators interview Scott McGready, and others, about the allegations of misuse of public funds by the CSCV programme team. Despite multiple promises of regular updates, to date no update has been given to anyone. No expenses were paid to Scott McGready despite him travelling 400 miles at the request of the GIAA.
Unhappy with Gloucestershire Constabulary's decision not to record a complaint or investigate Richard Berry or Ian Maxted, a complaint was made to Independent Office of Police Complaints (IOPC) asking them to reassess and examine the complaint.
Adding to the growing silence by the CSCV team, the original CSCV domain (cscv.uk) was allowed to expire by the programme team. This means that emails sent to [email protected] (which is still listed on the main website) are being lost in the ether.
Two members of the current CSCV leadership team, who're both accused of shunning the volunteer community, threatening volunteers, and earning £650/day are announced as nominees for the National Cyber Awards.
Barbara Spooner is nominated for "Cyber Person of the Year" and Ian Maxted is nominated for "Cyber Volunteer of the Year", despite not being a volunteer.
It should be noted that Richard Berry is on the judging panel for the awards, despite rumours of being on "restricted duties".
Due to the IOPC being contacted, GlosPol's Deputy Chief Constable confirmed to Scott McGready in writing that a complaint against Richard Berry and Ian Maxted would be recorded and the IOPC would be contacted regarding how to investigate, and by whom.
Due to increased attention, Sunday Mirror picked up the story and published an article on CSCV both online and in print
Despite multiple chances to renew, or re-register the original CSCV.UK domain, the programme team never bothered. As a result of this, some member of the public registered the domain and redirected all traffic to the Breaking the Lock on CSCV article.
No attempt by the current programme team has been made to recover the domain from it's current owner.
Plans to migrate CSCV towards being a Community Interest Company (or CIC) have seemingly been set in motion by Barbara Spooner (CSCV's National Coordinator), and Stuart Spencer (CSCV senior management according to FOI response). The mandate of "Digital Safety CIC" is similar to that of CSCV's:
The original Office 365 platform, set up by Scott McGready much to the annoyance of Ian Maxted, for basic email and calendaring was confirmed to be killed off at this date. Emails sent to and from @cscv.uk pre-dating their switch to @cscv.police.uk are no longer available for FOI. It is unlikely a backup of these emails was taken by the programme team.
Hours after Tweeting about Barbara Spooner and Stuart Spencer setting up Digital Safety CIC, Jo Mitchell (previously a business analyst that worked with CSCV to develop the business cases) follows Scott McGready on Twitter. It's unclear the reasons behind this move.
Incredibly bizarre and coincidental that one of the business analysts working with @ukcscv followed me not long after me tweeting the below... 🤔.
— Scott McGready 🐿🏴 (@ScottMcGready) July 2, 2020
Something something “don’t go on my linkedIn profile” something something #ukcscv https://t.co/xnfAaw3Uiv pic.twitter.com/CHLevNG0Na
A few days after Jo Mitchell followed Scott McGready on Twitter, the official CSCV Twitter account was transferred to Barbara Spooner and made private. This means members of the public cannot see historical tweets made by CSCV.
The National cyber awards removes the CSCV leadership team who were nominated for awards (Ian Maxted for "Cyber Volunteer of the year 2020", and Barbara Spooner for "Cyber Policing Individual of the Year 2020") as well as removing Richard Berry as a judge.
It is unclear whether mounting media attention, official investigations into CSCV (and by extension, the new programme team), or multiple emails sent by many ex-volunteers to the awards organisation, highlighting the absurdity of nominating those individuals for awards when, in their perception, they had done more harm than good.
Despite promises by GIAA that Scott McGready would recieve regular updates- no emails or updates were sent after February. Multiple emails were sent between February and July asking for an update with none being responded to to date.
The ICO wrote to the NCA and Gloucestershire constabulary to urge them to reply to Scott McGready in a reasonable timescale. Currently Scott McGready's SAR has been delayed by Gloucestershire Constabulary for 270 days, 240 days more than legally allowed.
The NCA still have not responded to Scott McGready, despite multiple emails being sent in January, about missing emails from their SAR.
Additionally the ICO stated that the complaint, despite the clear ignorance of the law, would not be a finable offence as it "did not follow a pattern of behaviour". The ICO confessed to not having any powers to force Gloucestershire Constabulary, or any organisation, to comply with the SAR. It was noted that court was Scott McGready's only option if Gloucestershire did not deliver the SAR.
The NCA contact Scott McGready notifying them of a SAR review, as requested by the ICO. The review was requested due to emails known to exist being omitted by the NCA, without explanation. Several emails were sent by Scott McGready in January and February 2020, notifying the NCA of these obvious omissions. Despite the communications- the NCA never acknowledged or actioned those communications in any way.
Due to Gloucestershire Constabulary's continued lack of delivery on Scott McGready's SAR (despite 280 days passing since originally submitted, 250 more than the legal maximum) an email was receieved from Gloucestershire Constabulary's Chief of Staff.
The email notifies Scott McGready that the delay is "not the level of service which [they] aspire to" as an organisation and will be investigated. No timescale for said investigation, or delivery of Scott McGready's SAR was given.
Statistics surrounding how many SARs are currently outstanding, number of staff working on fulfilling SARs, and dates of initial ICO contact by Gloucestershire Constabulary were sought. These FOIs seek to verify claims made to Scott McGready by GlosPol's Data Protection Team regarding his outstanding SAR (currently 282 days since submission).
FOIs should be replied to within 20 working days according to GlosPol's FOI team, placing date of delivery no later than Thursday 27th August 2020.
Scott McGready writes to his MP, and the PCC of Gloucestershire to request they look at the unlawful and extreme delay to his SAR. Despite the quick reply from the office of the PCC, it was noted that the remit of complaining about the SAR delay falls within the Chief Constable's remit and not the PCC. As a result, the PSD team from Gloucestershire Constabulary were copied into the email (despite that very team noting the delay would be indefinite).
The IOPC (Independent Office of Police Complaints) agree the scope of investigation of CSCV and the new leadership team. The investigation is a result of numerous complaints made by Scott McGready, and others, to the IOPC about the conduct of Barbara Spooner, Richard Berry, and Ian Maxted.
The investigation is expected to last 18 months.
Legal action is initiated by Scott McGready against Gloucestershire Constabulary in order to get them to comply with their original SAR. As a result of this action, others have also started legal proceedings against Gloucestershire Constabulary with regard to their SARs also being wrongfully delayed.
It is estimated that it may take 12 months for legal action to be successful and the delayed SARs to be delivered, as per the law.
The 16th of September, at 4pm, was the deadline set for a response.
Both FOIs submitted by Scott McGready (SAR information and Satistics and ICO involvement with GlosPol regarding SAR delays) received no feedback from GlosPol. A further email was sent to nudge GlosPol to respond in a timely fashion or notify Scott McGready of delay reasons.
It was noted by GlosPol that due to COVID-19, responses to emails may experience delay but the requester would receive notice before the statutory time limit was reached. This did not happen.
One of the FOIs submitted by Scott McGready (SAR information and Satistics receives a response.
It notes that, in the last 12 months, 174 SARs were made to Gloucestershire Constabulary. Only one member of staff is allocated to deal with SARs and that the oldest outstanding SAR is from August 2019.
It should be noted that Gloucestershire Constabulary informed Scott McGready in their FOI request that 5 SARs are currently outstanding. Given that 4 previous CSCV team members have submitted SARs to Gloucestershire, all around August/September/October 2019 - it begins to look suspicious.
Despite being, as of September 11 2020, 326 days since the submission of the SAR by Scott McGready, and 295 days overdue - Gloucestershire Constabulary request a further 28 days citing COVID as a reason for delays.
A compromise of 14 days was granted to Gloucestershire to fulfil their legal obligation. The new date of delivery must be before 16:00 BST, September 25th.
The IOPC send Scott McGready notice that the complaint regarding Barabara Spooner's suspected misuse of NCA assets (namely email address, and laptop) to conduct CSCV business, and threaten or intimidate volunteers will be handled by the NCA's Professional Standards Unit.
The NCA's PCU notify Scott McGready that they are looking into the alleged complaints around Barbara Spooner. The complaint was broken down in to three points:
The NCA have requested further information, including any evidence, from Scott McGready to back up these claims.
A full year has passed since Scott McGready published his exposé, Breaking the lock on CSCV.
After repeated requests to deliver the outstanding FOI (64 days after submission, without any update), Gloucestershire Constabulary finally reply with answers on ICO Involvement with Gloucestershire Constbulary regarding SAR delays.
Despite initially getting the date wrong, and clarifying later, it details that Gloucestershire Constabulary self-referred to the ICO on the 3rd December 2019 for failure in their duty to reply in a timely manner to SARs and FOI requests.
After requesting an additional 28 days (on top of the 295 days of inaction), an additional 14 days grace was given to Gloucestershire on September 11 to fulfil their SAR obligations to Scott McGready.
No SAR was delivered by Gloucestershire on the agreed time although an offer of £1500 compensation was given however no promise of delivery of SAR was given. Further clarification of this was sought by the legal team.
The NCA, after taking ownership of a small portion of the main IOPC complaint for internal investigation, notify Barbara Spooner of their investigation. Barbara was given 2 weeks to voluntarily comment on the allegations raised however there was no legal requirement for them to do so.
It should be noted that any findings the NCA make are not final and do not supersede the main IOPC investigation nor does one influence the other.
After asking for more time and wrangling with legal representatives, Gloucestershire Constabulary refuse to hand over Scott McGready's SAR. A compensation offer of £1500 was made but it was noted that accepting the compensation would invalidate any further legal claim to said data.
After much deliberation, Scott McGready accepts Gloucestershire Constabulary's offer of compensation, relinquishing their right to seek the data in future.
It should be noted that Gloucestershire Constabulary have claimed that they were not the data controller of said data due to the individuals in question (Ian Maxted and Richard Berry) being seconded to another force. Gloucestershire Constabulary made no attempt to clarify which force.
A Twitter post by Royal Gibraltar Police shows Ian Maxted in the image and named. This is important due to Maxted's incredibly non-existent digital presence.
It is worth noting that Rob Priddy, the other individual named and pictured, who owns and operates RMP Leadership solutions (based in Gloucestershire) is ex-Gloucestershire police themselves with active links to Gloucestershire police.
Four months into the main IOPC investigation - enquiries are still ongoing. The investigation is moving slowly, but surely, in the right direction with many witnesses having given statements and evidence.
The NCA's PSU agent assigned to investigate the allegations against Barbara Spooner notify Scott McGready that all complaint material has been collated and sent to a "manager" for internal review. No timeline or further information was provided.
A basic domain and (Wix powered) website is set up for digital-safety-cic.com listing Barbara Spooner and directly referring to their involvement with CSCV.
The website is not particularly expansive on what Digital Safety CIC does, nor Barbara Spooner's movements.
The NCA received a small portion of the main IOPC complaint to investigate. This smaller complaint can be broken down into three sections, most complaints are upheld. The complaint has been broken down into 3 specific areas, listed below with the outcome of the NCA's investigation:
Redacted correspondence with the NCA regarding this complaint can be found here.
The IOPC interview Richard Berry as part of their ongoing inquiries into CSCV. Documents were promised to be delivered to IOPC by Richard Berry. What those documents may contain, however, was not discussed.
Almost a year on from the initial complaint to IOPC about the inner workings of CSCV, weekly update calls with Scott McGready, and other parties, are scheduled to resume post Christmas holidays continuing until the investigation is concluded.
Interviews with CSCV members - namely Maxted, Spooner, and Davis - and witnesses are scheduled at some point within the next few months. A large number of documents were delivered to the IOPC by Richard Berry.
Originally requesting a SAR from NCA in October 2019, Scott McGready noted numerous emails that were missing in that initial draft. As such, the NCA was requested by Scott McGready to investigate and deliver an amended SAR with the missing emails.
A full and complete Subject Access Request should be legally delivered within 30 days of the request. At this point Scott McGready had waited over a year and 3 months for a full, complete, and correct SAR.
The updated SAR revealed an email of gratitude sent to Barbara Spooner from the Metropolitan Police intended for Scott McGready and another individual. This note of thanks was never passed on to either of the individuals despite being used by Barbara Spooner as an example of good work conducted.
Despite specifically requesting it, and Barbara Spooner confirming that line managers would be informed - no such informing was done.
Digital Safety CIC, the company set up by Barbara Spooner, has several director level changes in its' organisation. Namely the resignation of Stuart Spencer and appointment of Andrew David Jarmin as well as Keith Fryer.
Despite complaining to Scott McGready directly, and noting privately to Richard Berry in emails recovered using SARs, that LinkedIn profile visits were alarming, Barbara Spooner visits Scott McGready's LinkedIn Profile.
Despite a clear interest in Scott McGready by Spooner, it seems that they blocked Scott McGready some time around this date which could account for the profile visit.
According to Companies House records, Barbara Spooner is listed as a director, along side Keith Fryer of two companies with similar names - College of Professional Development (CPD) UK LTD and College of Professional Development Ltd.
Due to the extreme length of time Gloucestershire Police took to deliver Scott McGready's SAR, a complaint was raised internally. This letter outlines the organisational, management, and other changes Gloucestershire Police intend to make to ensure that no future mistakes of this nature happen.
It should be noted that despite admitting the SAR delivery was more than unsatisfactory, Scott McGready, and others, still do not have the SAR data lawfully requested.
Confusingly, Gloucestershire Police send a further letter to Scott McGready in regards to the delayed SAR. In this letter, they note that no further action should be taken and that reasonable and proportionate action has already been undertaken. A secondary note states that organisation learning has been identified.
Documentation promised in December 2020 is finally delivered to IOPC by Richard Berry. It is unclear which format these documents are in nor is it clear what information these documents contain.
While it should be noted that this paperwork could prove to exonerate or incriminate the leadship team behind CSCV, this is also a potential tactic to drag the investigation out further by Richard Berry and others by slowing down the investigators at IOPC forcing them to cross-reference and catalog everything submitted.
A draft statement, including the Breaking the Lock on CSCV article and this timeline is sent to Scott McGready for review. The statement comprises of around 45 pages of comments and evidence to support Scott McGready's claim against CSCV.
The IOPC inform Scott McGready that the investigation timeline has been extended due to a number of factors including (but not limited to) the number of witnesses involved and the ongoing impacted working procedures due to COVID-19.
Since initial submission by Scott McGready, the IOPC have had the case against CSCV for 500 days.
After a lengthy process, the IOPC sat with Scott McGready and others to officially approve their statements.
Richard Berry's final interview with IOPC has been concluded. According to the IOPC, there is no further interviews left and they are focusing on finalising the "final report".
Scott McGready learns from the IOPC that the delivery of the final report is delayed until January 2022 due to level of complexity and staffing issues during the holiday period.
The IOPC is due to deliver its' final report to Scott McGready and other complainants in the CSCV case this month. Almost 3 years have passed since the events that led to Scott McGready initially blowing the whistle.
The IOPC's legal team ask the investigative team to correct some details on the report. Scott McGready, nor the other complainants, is not informed of what these changes, corrections, or amendments are.
The decision maker at IOPC is given the final report. Complainants, including Scott McGready, are promised that the decision "will not be long now" but no definitive timescale is given for completion.
After months of delays with the final report being "only a week or two away", Scott McGready is sent an official letter from the IOPC stating that it could take until September (with no guarantee) until completion.
The IOPC has delayed the final report numerous times and broken every promise of delivery at each stage to date. IOPC claim complexity of the investigation as the reason for the numerous delays.
Unhappy with yet another delay Scott McGready asks IOPC to categorically answer several questions - specifically if there's any legal framework to bind IOPC to this new target date.
Scott McGready pointed out that the IOPC had sat on the case for 4 months initially, delayed the MOI by 8 days, delayed multiple parts of the investigation by several months, and finally have delayed the final report for the second time - with no guarantee of delivery.
At every stage of trying to bring CSCV to the attention of relevant bodies delays, push back, and denial has happened.
In response to Scott McGready's queries, the decision maker for the case against CSCV sends a letter.
The letter makes no attempt at apologising for the continued delays and does nothing to solidify the new target date of delivery (slated for around September 2022). An update call with IOPC has been scheduled by Scott McGready to discuss the content, and tone, of the letter.
Due to continual delays Scott McGready asks the IOPC to give a meaningful update or final resolution by end of play 9th September 2022.
The IOPC calls Scott McGready informing him of yet more delays and no further updates.
Given the number of delays and extreme time the case has sat with the IOPC Scott McGready lodges a formal complaint.
The IOPC responds to Scott McGready's complaint giving no difinitive time to completion.
It should be noted this update comes just before IOPC publish their statistics report. The case is still "progressing" with no difinitive completion date.
Initially raised with the IOPC on the 14th February 2020, the IOPC have now had Scott McGready's complaint for 1000 days. Although progress is assured and a completion is continually promised, no tangible progress can be seen despite multiple requests for update.
Due to the case being well over 1000 days within the hands of the IOPC, Scott McGready sends an email to the IOPC decision maker to request a final report update. Response from the IOPC is that no definitive date will be given because the investigation is "complex".
As the case continues to drag on month after month, Scott McGready requests the IOPC investigate their own complaint timeline. Scott McGready requests a different person investigate the length of time, rather than the decision maker marking their own homework.
Scott McGready receives an official response to their complaint regarding the length of time the IOPC have taken to investigate the case. While no definitive date is given for completion, the IOPC acknowledge the abnormal length of time this case has been sitting with them.
The initial pilot of the CSCV program launched seven years prior almost to the date. Similarly, almost five years have passed since leadership changes at CSCV led to its inevitable demise and yet no further meaningful or tangible update has been made on investigating CSCV and its' leadership team.
The deadline for Gloucestershire Police to respond to the final report passes and the IOPC have not received a response. This response was due at the end of day.
The IOPC do not receive a response from Gloucestershire Police. This response was due at the end of day January 29th 2024. According to the IOPC, Gloucestershire Police have a "statutory duty" to respond to the report.
Scott McGready requests what actions the IOPC will take next. The IOPC have notified Scott McGready that, in the first instance of non-compliance, the IOPC will contact Gloucestershire Police at a senior level (in this case the head of the Professional Services Department.
Another week passes with Gloucestershire Police not replying to the IOPC's final decision. As such Scott McGready contacts the IOPC asking what legal framework is in place to force Gloucestershire Police to reply.
Scott McGready is promised a reply in the next week.
It has been 4 years to the date sinceScott McGready complained to the IOPC about the CSCV program and Gloucestershire Police's involvement. No "substantive reply", outcome, or final conclusion has been reached.
After promising a substantive update but receiving none, Scott McGready contacts the IOPC to be told no updates were available and apologising due to the frustration this has caused, and continues to cause.
As four weeks have passed since Gloucestershire Police's official deadline, and without any "substantive update" as promised by the IOPC, Scott McGready files another formal complaint with the IOPC.
At this point, Scott McGready notes that Gloucestershire Police's lack of care around the IOPC's rules, and the IOPCs continued lack of progress, is an insult to the public, the volunteers, the law, and the IOPC itself.