By Gabriel Princewill-
Professional standards appointed a detective Sargent to rule on an investigation into a complaint as to why a depraved paedophile was bailed 3 doors away from a house where he lived with 3 young girls under the age of 10.
Detective Kirsten Chissel from the public protection team was tasked by professional standards to investigate a complaint made by the father of one of the young girls who lived with Sargent in Southend On Sea in Essex. The young girl was his step daughter, after the extreme paedophile married her mother who is now estranged with her father. Sargent, a notorious paedophile, was jailed in February 2015 , after posing as a woman who had abused his seven year old daughter to catfish other perverts into sending him other abusive images.
Sargent from Southend Essex, was jailed for 3 years after admitted possessing 139 of the most serious category A images, featuring adults raping children as young as four years of age. The highly dysfunctional pervert also admitted possession of 211 category B images involving children as young as two years of age. Sargent also took on the advisory role of directing perverts on how to use the dark web, emphasising his warped preference for girls as young as possible. However, his sentencing was insufficient for the father of one of his step daughters, after he discovered his child had been placed under child protection. He received no explanation for the decision made by social services, but alarm bells started ringing in his ears.
Subsequently, the father learnt from a facebook post made by his former lover and mother of his daughter, that Sargent was bailed just 3 doors from where his daughter lived, and was bailed there for a year! A curious question he asks is why she did not object to Sargent being bailed in such close proximity to his daughter, given the scale of his grotesque offences, and the fact he could potentially be taken pictures of his kids without their knowledge whenever they walked past his abode with their mother.
The Eye Of Media.Com took Essex police to task for the inexplicable blunder, but they cited ”risk assessments” conducted as the reason they bailed a man of Sargent’s vile disposition so close to the residence where he lived and nurtured his delinquent abnormalities. The father, whose anonymity is being preserved, has long alleged a cover up by the police into the blunder which beggars belief, but must have an explanation.Sargent Chissel told The Eye Of Media.Com: I have investigated the complaint, and been fair, transparent, and objective in my assessment. It has been sent to professional standards who will examine it and send the report to the complainant. If the complaint is upheld, the officer in charge will be spoken to and it will be decided what action would be taken. The officer or officers who handled the case could be moved to a different function, or the case may be added to an improvement of the force. If it is not upheld, the complainant will be informed of our decision”.
Chissel rejected suggestions of a conspiracy indicated to her in emails between the disgruntled complainant and herself. She told The Eye Of Media.Com: ” there is no cover up going on. Covering up for officers is bad for the image of the police, it is not something I would indulge in. I have looked at the facts and passed it up to another Sargent, who would look at it before it is sent back to professional standards. Chissel was appointed with the task in March, but said she had sent three mails to the complainant between March and April without a response. The complainant was eventually alerted to her efforts to contact him after receiving a letter in the post in which Chissell expressed her failed attempts to communicate with him about the procedure of the investigation.
”I proposed to address his complaint through a local resolution in which he agrees on how his complaint is resolved, but he declined to co-operate with it”. The disgruntled father wants the officer in charge punished or fined if his complaint is upheld. Chissel insisted that officers are not fined or punished for for cases of this nature, but urged us to wait for the final report which is in progress.