- Stay Connected
Socialize
Abraham Lincoln
If given the truth, the people can be depended upon to meet any national crisis...
Guildford news...
for Guildford people, brought to you by Guildford reporters - Guildford's own news service
Correction: Police Confirm One Complaint Against The Juneja Investigation Has Been Made
Published on: 21 Aug, 2014
Updated on: 25 Aug, 2014
On Tuesday (August 19) The Guildford Dragon NEWS published a story in which it was stated that Surrey Police and the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) informed us that they had no records of any complaint relating to the police investigation of Cllr Monika Juneja, contrary to a statement by Cllr Stephen Mansbridge.
Surrey Police have now informed us that it was meant that no complaints relating to the police investigation had been referred to the IPCC. Further checks have revealed that one complaint has been received which still being considered and processed.
A spokesperson for Surrey Police said yesterday: “Surrey Police can confirm it has received a complaint in relation to the Monika Juneja investigation. The complaint has been recorded and will be investigated.
“Surrey Police has not referred any complaints in relation to this matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
“Surrey Police can confirm they have received additional correspondence in relation to the Monika Juneja investigation. This correspondence is being reviewed to see if the content requires any formal complaints to be recorded.”
The IPCC have also, this morning (August 21), responded further. A spokesman wrote: “I’ve been able to track… correspondence and can confirm that we received a direct complaint via email regarding Surrey Police’s investigation into a Guildford councillor.
“In line with regulations covering the police complaints system the complaint has been forwarded to Surrey Police who will consider the complaint, including whether it needs to be referred to the IPCC.”
It is understood that the complaint referred to by the IPCC is the same as that recorded by Surrey Police. The IPCC cannot accept a complaint directly: a complainant must go through the relevant police force.
The Guildford Dragon NEWS apologises for the unintentional error in our initial report. It was published in good faith, based on information received at the time.
Speaking about the future handling of the Local Plan in an interview with 96.4 Eagle Radio (August 19), the council leader said that : “…the borough’s Local Plan will carry on as normal.”
Having assumed the lead councillor for planning role himself, following Cllr Juneja’s departure, he told Eagle radio: “I begin this by understanding a great deal about the plan and where it’s going.
“I set the trajectory for it, and the trajectory has not and will not change.
“I think it’s worth saying that if we want to protect Guildford, if we want to keep Guildford as it is today we have to embrace a degree of change to allow that to happen. Not to do that will be in the end quite disruptive.”
Mr Mansbridge added that, despite the problems, GBC were now ahead of some other councils: “I think that we actually began behind many other councils in this process originally but because of the nature of our journey and the nature of other councils journeys we have ended up seemingly as a front runner.”
Share This Post
Responses to Correction: Police Confirm One Complaint Against The Juneja Investigation Has Been Made
Leave a Comment Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear. Full names, or at least initial and surname, must be given.
See: Tumbling Bay Footbridge: National Trust Says It Is ‘Committed to Finding a Resolution’
>
Adrian Atkinson
August 19, 2014 at 5:45 pm
Why did Cllr Mansbridge say, at the final vote on the draft local plan [for consultation], that the release of what many agreed was an incomplete document could not be delayed at all. The delay was requested, amongst other reasons, so that a new SHMA could be incorporated giving an actual housing number to consult on taking into account new data from the ONS.
If the plan is “ahead of the game” surely the document could have been delayed by a couple of months to get the document right?
However, his most recent statement should worry people of Guildford who feel that the current round of consultation is going to make a difference. “I set the trajectory for it, and the trajectory has not and will not change”. Doesn’t sound like there’s going to be much change following the second consultation period if he is to believed? Seems like it’s his his plan and not the borough’s plan?
Why do we need to be “first” if that’s what he meant by “began behind” and “we have ended up seemingly as a front runner”? Front runner for who and what? I think there are a few developers cheering us on and holding the finishing tape.
We seem to be rushing our exam rather than reading the question properly and checking for silly mistakes. Given the number of responses, technical points made but ignored in the first round of consultation plus comments from the ONS [Office of National Statistics] and Edge Analytics, we clearly have failed our mocks. I dare say we will fail the real exam especially when it’s not self-marked but re-marked by the examiner (i.e. the planning inspector).
A final point. I agree, the only constant in life is change. However, no matter how many times people say to councillors we accept growth but not excessive growth that the borough can’t cope with, the councillors, especially Cllr Mansbridge, continue to misrepresent the the people of Guildford and say we don’t want any growth/change. My guess is that if anyone checked how many were advocating no change or no growth through all the representations made in the council chamber by the public and/or councillors over the last nine months, it’s none.
It’s one thing to have one’s own views but another to misrepresent the views of others to suit your own “trajectory”.
This is a classic example of the difference between listening and hearing: I heard you but I wasn’t listening. Now who’s fault is that?
Jules Cranwell
August 19, 2014 at 7:22 pm
I would be very happy to meet the councillor to discuss the best ways of protecting the borough, since this now appears to be his priority.
Hands off the green belt would be a good start.
C Stevens
August 21, 2014 at 2:32 pm
If I’ve got this right, someone complained directly to the IPCC about the conduct of the investigation of Cllr Juneja by Surrey Police. The IPCC referred the complaint to Surrey Police, who are considering it together with “additional correspondence” to see if that constitutes a complaint also.
If the complainant or complainants are anyone other than Cllr Juneja, surely what they have to say should be disregarded in accordance with the wise precept of leader Mansbridge: why complain unless you are a victim?
Adrian Atkinson
August 23, 2014 at 1:17 pm
I think we should let the process run its course. For one I’m totally confused from public statements from various parties. It seems there is only one complaint to Surrey Police and not yet to the IPCC.
However, a press release from the GBC PR team “on behalf of the leader of the Conservative group” states “a number” of complaints. Cllr Mansbridge wrote: “the conduct of Surrey Police in terms of this investigation and its relationship with the complainants is the subject of a number of complaints to the IPCC.”
Which is it? Time will tell.
Martin Giles
August 24, 2014 at 10:38 am
The situation, according to the latest reports from the police and the IPCC, is as reported in the article above i.e. one complaint is currently being processed by Surrey Police and other correspondence is being reviewed to see if it constitutes a complaint. No complaint has yet been referred to the IPCC.
I should also point out that the press release was disseminated by the GBC PR team but there is no suggestion that they were responsible for its content. Ed.