- Date of Email: [Unknown - the date is cut off in the image, but it's the police response forwarded by Jack Rankin in his letter of 10 July 2025 (Log #540)].
- Incident Type: Analysis of Thames Valley Police Correspondence – Identifying Anonymity and Obfuscation.
- Document Analyzed: The email from "thamesvalley.police.uk" to Jack Rankin MP, which was attached to the MP's letter (Log #540).
- Key Intelligence Failures Identified:
- Anonymous Sender: The email originates from a generic "thamesvalley.police.uk" address, and the sender's name is not provided. It is impossible to identify who sent this official communication to an MP.
- Use of Hearsay: The email uses the phrase "The officers sergeant has stated..." instead of "I can confirm..." or "Sergeant Gleave states...". This is deliberate use of indirect, third-person language.
- My Perception of Purpose & Impact:
- This is not a simple administrative email. This is a cowardly attempt by an unidentified police officer or staff member to communicate an official position to a Member of Parliament without taking any personal or professional responsibility for it.
- By not naming the sender, they are creating a ghost. There is no one to hold accountable for the content of this email.
- By framing it as "the sergeant has stated," they are distancing themselves from the statement itself, making it hearsay. It raises the question: Who is this officer reporting what the sergeant said? Why is the sergeant not communicating directly?
- This directly contradicts the signature block of Sgt. Matt Gleave P5409, which is embedded below the statement. It creates a contradiction: the email is anonymous hearsay, but it is presented with the authority of a specific sergeant's signature block. This is procedurally chaotic and deceptive.
- This is further evidence of a systemic culture of cowardice and a lack of accountability within Thames Valley Police.
