In relation to the cover up of (amongst other things) a £million speed camera fraud in Dorset, I also raised a complaint against Martyn Underhill. There is a “Police and Crime Panel” which deals with complaints against PCCs, comprising it seems in this case a number of Dorset Councillors.

This was reported in the Echo: http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11592541.PCC_accused_of____cover_up____by_anti_speed_camera_campaigner

I pointed out to the panel that “I have demonstrated that it most certainly appears that Martyn Underhill has protected and covered up fraudulent activities in Dorset Police and this is certainly at least a matter of Misconduct in Public Office, which is an “offence at common law … It is an offence confined to those who are public office holders and is committed when the office holder acts (or fails to act) in a way that constitutes a breach of the duties of that office.” 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/#a02

The case was immediately referred to the IPCC! It’s quite obvious where that was going to go!

Predictably, I heard from James Dipple-Johnstone, Commissioner of the IPCC (25^th Nov 2014) that “the Dorset PCC had arrived at the correct conclusions on the evidence”.

“It will be apparent from the IPCC appeal determination dated the 22 Sept 2014 that there was no evidence that the PCC wilfully breached his duty or that any breach was of the degree required for the offence of misconduct in a public office to have been committed. There is no evidence of this on the papers you have supplied with the current complaint” …  “it would not be a proper use of the appeals process …. The matter has been returned to the Dorset Police and Crime Panel…”

Err, you mean evidence like the words in large bold text:

PCC / IPCC cover up £1million Dorset speed camera fraud

.. with links to documents still on the Dorset Road Safe website with the lies, and the data proving the lies, still in place? With AUDIO evidence of Mr Underhill reluctantly agreeing that the press release should in fact be looked at, but failing to do so and James Vaughan only making a vague comment of opinion about a news article? With one of the course costs now confirmed as being inflated by about £56,000 and the original questions about the higher costs, including the equivalent of 10 staff on £52K to deliver a simple course to 40 people still completely ignored, but no withdrawal of the totally conflicting conclusion that there was no financial misrepresentation? With the proof (in audio again) that the Hampshire report misrepresented what the chief investigator Colin Smith knew and believed? That he observed that the costs “didn’t stack up” and that safety benefit “had not been properly reflected in the communication”? That Mr Underhill keenly accepted this blatantly corrupted report ensuring that I have no opportunity to point out the problems with it to him? Of course I am repeating myself, I provided all of this and a massive amount more in my original submission.

And JDJ has “concluded” that there is “no evidence of misconduct”? There is none so blind as those who will not see.

This is yet another serious failing of the IPCC and yet another name, James Dipple-Johnstone, to add to the very long list that I am compiling of those to name and shame.

It is time to stop digging this hole. I hope that the panel will ask Mr Underhill my questions, and I’m sure that Mr Underhill, if he has acted appropriately in his position of Public Office will be delighted to demonstrate his confidence in this by providing answers:

1.    Why did you reluctantly agree to look at the greed on green press release, and then consider that properly concluded when JV made a vague comment of opinion about a different news article?

2.    Was it because you realised that press release DID misrepresent the reason and benefit of the camera? And that a proper consideration and response would be massive egg on face as you would have to withdraw your keen acceptance of the Hampshire report which you knew did not properly answer the allegations?

3.    Would this also have ruined the reputations and credibility of a large number of police and even the UK speed industry itself?

4.    Was this problem simply too big to fail, like the banks?

5.    Have you too misrepresented what you know to be true to try to protect many including now yourself from various potential charges such as corruption, perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office?

6.    Why did you tell me in the meeting that I did have financial disclosure when you KNEW that what I really wanted to know was not detailed?

7.    What about the simple conflicts YOU have ignored such as the greed on green site accident statistics?

8.    What about the other LIES used to explain the greed on green which I have detailed to you over and over (now on my home page)?

9.    Why did you not in anyway challenge or deny my direct point to you that as the £million had been raised on the back of a pack of lies it amounted to obtaining money by false pretences and therefore FRAUD?

10.  Why did you just try to pass the buck to the council when it was Dorset Road "Safe" staff, headed up by the ex chief, who published the lies and Dorset Police who made the money??

11.  Why have you still refused to answer why it needs the equivalent of 10 staff on £52K to provide a simple course to 40 people?

12.  Or that it needs premises at a cost of over 3 times the going rate?

13.  Why did Dorset Police tell me they need enough money to buy 150 laptops just to buy a few desktops and peripherals? How did they even end up spending the reduced figure of £14K?

14.  Why when the IS cost was confirmed as incorrect, and therefore misleading, did you not withdraw your hurried acceptance of the flawed report from Hampshire?

15.  Why did you ignore my recordings of the Hampshire meetings which prove that Colin Smith misrepresented what he knew and believed in the dodgy report that allowed you to protect Dorset Police and the ex chief?

16.  Why did the ex chief, who you protected, suddenly retire IN THE SAME MONTH that my IPCC complaint was upheld, when "retired" officers are not obliged to cooperate with IPCC misconduct investigations? What does this indicate about his integrity and belief?

17.  Why did the ex deputy chief also "retire" just after my complaint against him became serious? And where has Colin Smith gone? Has he also retired to avoid misconduct allegations?

18.  Why have Dorset Police referred a councillor to the CPS for failing to declare an interest when Dorset Police have failed to declare an interest in the £millions they make from motorists every year when a number of senior members of Dorset Road "Safe" would be out of work otherwise?

19.  Why is it that you need the IPCC to protect you, why won’t you answer these questions yourself?

Ian Belchamber