Was South Yorkshire Chief Constable David Crompton sacked unlawfully? Another opinion

After viewing a large amount of legal paperwork re the above I am, like Sir Thomas Winsor, Her Majesty’s Chief of Inspector of Constabulary, under no doubt whatsoever that South Yorkshire Chief Constable David Crompton was sacked unlawfully by Dr.Alan Billings, Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire.

Having contacted a Police Crime Panel member it would be reasonable to assume that the attached letter from Dr Alan Billings has not been seen by the PCP and therefore no Independent legal advice would have been received regarding their responsibilities.

The make up of the PCP is:-

UKIP            ~                  1

Labour          ~                  8

Lib Dem        ~                  1

Independent  ~                  2

Of the twelve members SEVEN voted to recommend dismissal of Chief Constable David Crompton;-

Labour         –  6

Independent – 1

Although 5 did not vote it was declared a “UNANIMOUS” decision of the Panel to sack Chief Constable David Crompton.



Why was the meeting held in PRIVATE.?

Why no documents available for the meeting?

The unlawfulness of the dismissal is established by the irrational and disproportionate nature of the police and crime commissioner’s decision.

In administrative law, irrationality and disproportionality (both legal concepts, developed by the courts) are aspects of illegality.


A further update in response to Caven Vines and S.Thornton:

3 Sheffield members attended the Scrutiny Hearing.

2  Barnsley               ”             ”               ”

1  Rotherham            ”             ”               ”

Mr Alan Carter also attended  –  Independent Co- opted Member – does his vote make it NON POLITICAL?

There was also a Member who attended the morning briefing barred from the afternoon hearing – does this mean,as Dr Billings says, the “UNANIMOUS” vote not valid.


Further image below.





25 thoughts on “Was South Yorkshire Chief Constable David Crompton sacked unlawfully? Another opinion

  1. Would it be possible to post the actual voting record – minutes of the meeting – and also show ( through absence of referred attachments to agendas and minutes ) that thePCP did not receive due notice for consideration.


  2. I understand that the courts, through judicial review proceedings, will determine whether the sacking was lawful or not.

    Of course, you might believe the sacking was unjustified. I think it was clearly justified.

    Crompton’s statement was just insensitive and incompetent. That view is apparently shared by all MPs (of all parties) who have commented on the issue.

    It is very clear that Winsor has his own agenda. Further, he is totally embarrassed by the failure of his own Inspectorate to uncover Crompton’s significant leadership failings that were subsequently revealed by the reviews commissioned by Billings and the (former) Acting Chief Constable.

    I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but I suggest you read them.


      • pleasant – my comment was not about your posting (although I’m always pleased to be offered some respect!), it was about Rothpol’s assertion that ‘Crompton was sacked unlawfully’.

        Until and unless the court determines otherwise, I’ve placed it in the same category as “Jane Collins and Caven Vines have never defamed anyone, OK”.


        • I did not assert that ‘Crompton was sacked unlawfully’, I published Termites opinion, publication does not imply my endorsement, please do not twist facts. Termite is entitled to their opinion as are you.


        • Rothpol/Termite

          I apologise my error.

          At the heading of this article, it states “posted by Rothpol” so I had assumed that that was the author.

          You have now drawn my attention to the word “Termite”, which I had presumed to be the result of a Tourette’s Tic, or similar.

          Perhaps it might help if the header was changed to “Written by Termite, posted by Rothpol”?


        • Janet, I would love to comply with your request but that part is automatically generated. Each part is signed by Termite, sorry for your confusion but I don’t suffer from Tourettes.


  3. It has been admitted that Crompton made a mess of policing South Yorkshire they are having to return to neighbourhood policing, having said that Billings let him do it. Billings should go he is useless.
    Dave Smith


  4. http://moderngov.rotherham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=937&MId=13875&Ver=4

    “Private Scrutiny Hearing, Police and Crime Panel
    Friday, 16th September, 2016 1.00 p.m.

    No documents are available for this meeting
    Proposed venue: Town Hall, Moorgate Street, Rotherham. S60 2TH

    Contact: James McLaughlin, Democratic Services Manager

    Note: This was a private scrutiny hearing in accordance with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 to consider the Police and Crime Commissioner’s proposal to force the resignation or retirement of the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police. Further information in respect of the Section 38 process can be found on the Police and Crime Commissioner’s website – http://www.southyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/Transparency/Section-38-of-the-Police-Reform-and-Social-Responsibility-Act-2011.aspx

    Although all members of the Panel were expected, we do not know who did attend.

    This meeting took place a month after the letter was sent to James McLaughlin, Democratic Services Manager, and Panel Secretary.

    The Panel reported their decision here:

    As far as I can see that is all we know until the 5 documents referred to in the August 15 document above are published.
    ***Termites are truly fascinating insects – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termite ***


  5. Why is the PCC who works for SYP, and the panel, who are discussing SYP matters, meeting in the town hall. This whole issue is purely a Policing matter, and therefore I do hope that UKIP will be checking that Mr Billings is paying for the meeting to take place at Rotherham, and if not why not. It wont be the first time Labour party members have abused facilities .


  6. The police and crime panel is administered by RMBC and I beleive they get paid for doing so
    I am led to understand that opposition members were excluded from this meeting but do not know the reasons why
    But as you can see from the make up of the panel it would not have made a difference to the outcome it never does
    Labour majority Labour Police Commissoner same old same old control freaks


  7. Thanks for that Caven. If opposition Members were excluded, then it becomes a Political decision. Was the exclusion legal ?. Further, if the courts were to find in favour of the Police Officer, then any compensation pay outs would be either the responsability of those present or the person who excluded certain members from the democratic process.


    • I think there’s some misrepresentation going on here…as its starts with C Vines, I cannot claim to be surprised.

      I’ve asked some questions about this ‘exclusion’ issue.

      I’m told that each of the individuals who were prevented from participating had been told very clearly IN ADVANCE that if they had reached a conclusion about the issue (Crompton ‘should’ or ‘should not’ resign or be sacked) – and especially if they made that view public – before hearing the evidence and the arguments, then they had clearly pre-judged the issue and, therefore, could not participate in the PCP meeting.

      [It’s rather like being excluded from a jury because you’ve decided that the defendant is guilty or not guilty before you’ve heard all the evidence.]

      If having pre-judged the matter, they had participated, it is clear that any legal proceedings to have the Panel’s decision set aside would automatically succeed.

      So, far from this being a political discrimination issue, this is about particular members of the Police and Crime Panel deliberately and irresponsibly deciding to have both pre-judged the issues and made their decisions public, rather than properly undertaking the duties that they were appointed for.


  8. Pingback: The Week That Was – Last Weeks Top Ten 11th February 2017 | Rotherham Politics

  9. This Janet Green who is really not Janet Green but a person very very close to the MPs and Labour controlling council that is why they seam to know things only they would know
    Their was no misrepresentation I said they were excluded which is true and I said I did not know the reason why


    • If you stop telling lies about me, I’ll think about stopping telling the truth about you.

      Given the circumstances, I’m sure other readers will also be astonished by your claim that you did not know the reason for the exclusions.

      As for your assertion that I am ‘a person who is very very close to the MPs and the Labour controlling council’, I am happy to confirm that I am not, and that I have had no communications or meetings of any sort with any of the MPs, councillors, or even RMBC council officers about this issue. [In fact I have had no contact with any of them about any issue since a public meeting I attended last year.]

      You aren’t very good about making truthful assertions are you?

      The information given above, about the reason for the exclusions, came because I asked a friend (who knows these things) why Liberal Democrat Councillor Otten had been excluded.


    • Nowhere near any of my nerves, raw or otherwise, so I have to presume you are referring to hitting your own raw nerve. Clearly self-inflicted.


Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.