|
On 24th Sept 2014 I received the conclusion of the IPCC appeal, and perhaps not surprisingly, that this was not to uphold the complaint.
I’ll comment on the relevant parts of the content, quotations from the IPCC will be in red: any extracts from what I provided to the appeal will be in blue:
The grounds for appeal: “Mr Belchamber has provided a quantity of documents in order to support his appeal but in short he has requested that the IPCC investigate 2 points, namely:
1. The total indifference to the apparently fraudulent Speed on Green operation and the contribution to it from Dorset Police
2. The failure, still, to answer the questions about the 4 highest claimed costs for the provision of the course, for example, “why does it need the equivalent of 10 staff on £52K to deliver a simple course to 40 people”
So we start by dodging about 90% of the issues, brilliant. Nonetheless, proper consideration of those points would indeed start to untangle this, but the IPCC have failed to do that too.
“… it concerns an officer who is no longer serving and as such the purpose of the complaint and appeal is somewhat blunted”
What a totally ridiculous attitude. Perhaps there should have been no investigation about Jimmy Saville as he was dead when the problems were discovered. There are lessons to learn, improvements to make, Dorset Police currently have shown no improvements since this time. And I complained at the time, the only reason this has gone on for so long is that Dorset Police have tried to obstruct complaint at every possible opportunity.
“… no disciplinary action can be taken against an officer who is no longer serving ..
I am also concerned that the heart of Mr Belchamber’s complaint is a “direction and control” matter….”
More absolute nonsense. I really do not think anyone has read anything I have written. These are matters of incompetence, false accounting, breach of duty of care, obtaining money by deception, corruption and fraud. Yes, the “direction and control” is shocking but this is much more serious than that. Most normal people doing these kinds of things would find themselves in jail, simple as that.
The allegations are against Martin Baker, the reasons for this and my acceptance of this have already been explained but it seems the IPCC have ignored this:
During initial discussion with Colin Smith (Head of Professional Standards, Hampshire Police), I was guided towards a process which only dealt with the then Chief, Martin Baker. Although I was uncomfortable with this as the issues were widespread in Dorset Police and other authorities, I agreed to it as:
- It was clear that that would be all I would get
- I was reassured that “misleading” would include “knowingly allowing misleading”
- I was told that the simple question I had about finances would be answered (it was not)
- I was told that the investigation would seek out poor ethical behaviour (it did not)
- I was told that the investigation would answer my allegations of fraud in Dorset Police, it did not: http://www.dorsetspeed.org.uk/2014/19Jan2013.pdf
I will now demonstrate that in any case the allegations that remained are well founded. With a proper consideration of the facts, no other conclusion is even possible.
Allegation 1: misleading the public as to the safety benefits of road cameras: The IPCC (and everyone else) has ignored the fact that I provided a link to the press release for the Speed on green camera which describes it as a casualty reduction effort. This was a lie which when discovered was changed to another lie about community concern. Suggesting that a camera is positioned to reduce casualty when this is not even possible is misstating the safety benefit of the camera. This was controversial at the time and was mentioned in my complaint to Martin Baker. He was therefore aware of it and did nothing. Martin Baker knowingly allowed the public to be misled about the safety benefit of at least this “safety” camera.
Allegation 2: misleading the public as to the improvement in safety and the costs and revenue of the Dorset DAS: The IPCC (and everyone else) has ignored the fact that the top level costs given to me by Dorset Police after a six month battle were fabricated, exaggerated, nonsense, I suspect to hide the obscene course profits. I will now reveal that I have recorded all of the meetings I have had. Colin Smith, the head investigator of the Hampshire report said at our first meeting, and I quote “I’ve seen your challenge of the figures .. I can see why you’re challenging the figures, they don’t stack up” Colin Smith then concluded without going anywhere near this point again that there was no financial misrepresentation!!!! And Mr Underhill keenly accepted that ridiculous conclusion!!!
It even came out during the review of the report that one of the costs given to me as £57K was in fact £14K. The figure I was given was wrong. When figures are wrong they mislead.
These points were also put directly to Martin Baker. He dodged them and did nothing. Martin Baker knowingly allowed the public to be misled about the course finances. But what about the absurd £522k staffing cost which incredibly remains unexplained? What about the conclusion that there was no financial misrepresentation when the explanation of the largest and most absurd cost has still been avoided at all cost????
Allegation 3: ignoring serious problems and allowing unacceptable practices to continue: The Investigation Officer, having conducted a wider examination of the use of camera enforcement in Dorset and the DAC did not identify any unacceptable practices: Then he (and everyone else) has also ignored a large number of other facts such as:
1. Dorset Police made £1million on the back of a pack of lies (obtaining money by deception, = fraud)
2. Senior staff in Dorset Road “Safe” make decisions which not only determine life and death but which will also keep them and their colleagues in work or not. This is a blatant and appalling conflict of interest which goes against fundamental principles of safety work and results in corruption.
3. Those senior DRS staff have clearly given into the temptation to optimise operations that benefit themselves more than the public. For example, they shortened the course repeat time from 3 years to 6 months, vastly increasing the course income crucial to their positions but without any proper process and making a mockery of the claimed benefit of the course. They should be investigated for corruption.
4. Operations are clearly designed to make money on the fastest roads with the lowest limits even when they INCREASE danger and absurd locations have been used including sliproads even after at least one death has resulted from Dorset Police operations and there is STILL no statement of risk management or understanding or any overall statement of a credible estimate of benefit of these operations.
I’ll leave it at that for now but there is so much more.
“it is not my role to reinvestigate matters that Mr Belchamber raises but to reflect on whether the police investigation has been appropriate and the Dorset PCC has arrived at the correct conclusions on the evidence”
You have ignored absolutely everything I have detailed that shows that the Hampshire report, and Martyn Underhill’s foolish and biased acceptance of it are a simple progression of a cover up that is starting to get seriously out of control. I find it hard to believe that the IPCC’s failure to see this is simply a matter of incompetence, I believe that the IPCC have now added themselves to the list of those extending and allowing past and current corrupt and fraudulent activities to continue with the protection of all those involved.
|