Not only has the website transformed their own fortunes – they received an offer from ITV last week that valued the company at as much as £170m – it has captured the imaginations of 12 million users. “He let it be no secret at all that Det Con Rowland was the best officer he had ever managed and he supported him unquestionably … And it described Det Sgt Nicholls, who has now retired from the force, as “unreliable, disingenuous, ill-informed” and apparently lacking “objective judgement”.”Det Sgt Nicholls set himself against Mrs Yarham from the outset,” added the ruling. But in its ruling the tribunal described Mrs Yarham as a “witness of extraordinary quality”. “We are frankly appalled at some of what we have seen,” said the ruling “Her complaint was not only handled badly. It was handled in contravention of the force’s own policy and should have been dealt with much better.”Mrs Yarham told the tribunal how problems developed after she voiced concerns about Detective Constable Steve Rowland, whom she suspected of falsifying evidence to pay sources for information.Her supervisor, Detective Sergeant Stan Nicholls, had questioned her mental stability and suggested that she may have been suffering from paranoia, the tribunal heard.

Mrs Yarham, a constable based at Ipswich, said the treatment she received left her with no option other than to leave after 25 years’ service.
In its ruling the tribunal said Mrs Yarham, who left Suffolk Police in 2004, was “constructively and unfairly dismissed”. Vivienne Yarham, 44, told the tribunal in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, in July that she was moved from a specialist job with Suffolk police and ignored by other officers after complaining about a fellow detective she suspected of falsifying evidence. A police force unfairly dismissed a detective after she voiced suspicions about another officer, an employment tribunal ruled yesterday. A 28-year-old man and 29-year-old woman were arrested after they went voluntarily to Leatherhead police station but were later released and eliminated from the inquiry.. Surrey Police’s massive manhunt for Abigail Witchalls’ attacker turned up two suspects within two days of the crime.

“This confirms that you have the card in your hand.”While the banks swallow the cost of fraud, he adds, we all end up paying for it through higher bank charges, rates and fees.One in eight people leave themselves open to fraud by failing to log out after shopping online, Apacs found.. Customers fell victim to a range of scams, including phishing (use of a fake email to gain bank account security details).Mike Naylor from the consumer body Which? argues that the financial industry should be doing more to protect the public.”Retailers should, for example, always ask for the security number on the back of your card every time a transaction is made over the phone or online,” he says. Indeed, the new technology helped cut overall losses from card fraud by 13 per cent – to £252.6m – in the six months to the end of June, compared with the same period in 2004, according to the Association for Payment Clearing Services (Apacs).
On the other hand, chip and pin has forced card fraudsters to turn their attention elsewhere – and increasingly their targets are those people who shop and bank online.Card-not-present fraud – where a card is used to make purchases over the internet, phone or by mail order – soared by 29 per cent to £90.6m in the period quoted above. Internet fraud accounted for nearly two thirds of this.”Most internet fraud involves a criminal obtaining genuine card details in the real world that are then used to shop online,” says Sandra Quinn of Apacs.And as losses from online shopping fraud have increased, so have those for customers of online banks. In the six months to the end of June this year, internet banking fraud nudged £14.5m – more than treble the £4m in the same period last year. On one hand, the new payment method that demands consumers type in their four-digit Personal Identification Number when making a purchase with a credit or debit card is reducing card crime on the high street.

The launch of chip and pin is turning into a tale of two halves. He then gave the kind of ‘propaganda’ speech which was loudly cheered by the bussed-in party faithful.” Another extract records his view that the Chinese army is “heavily involved in pretty corrupt business practices”.. A spokesman for the Prince, however, denied that the heir to the throne had boycotted last week’s state banquet in honour of the visiting Chinese premier.In the journal the Prince records a ceremony he attended with the then leader, Jiang Zemin: “After my speech the President detached himself from the group of appalling old waxworks who accompanied him … The publication of extracts in The Mail on Sunday will cause dismay among ministers and the Royal Family. The Queen and Tony Blair last week hosted an official visit by the Chinese president, Hu Jintao.
Clarence House did not dispute the authenticity of the extracts from the 3,000-word journal, entitled The Handover of Hong Kong – or, the Great Chinese Takeaway. Remarks attributed to the Prince of Wales, in which he called senior Chinese diplomats “appalling old waxworks”, were last night threatening to cause a row with China within days of a visit by China’s leader. Prince Charles’s comment was allegedly made in a written journal recording his impressions of the handover of Hong Kong in 1997 and distributed among a handful of friends.