Dorset Police and Crime Panel – PCC corruption – Communication lockdown!!

(and see my offer later to make a £5000 payment to local charities if I get some proper answers to some questions for Martyn Underhill which demonstrate that my concerns are unfounded)

The extent of the cover-up over misrepresented course costs, camera safety benefit and a £1million Dorset speed camera fraud has reached a new level. Following the dodging of the complaint by the Dorset Police and Crime Panel and the IPCC against Martyn Underhill, in which the proof of the fraud and corruption could not have been more clearly and simply stated, I have now received a letter from Jonathan Mair, “Acting Director for Corporate Resources” at Dorset Council. Apparently, this is a “statutory role to ensure high standards of probity and legality in respect of the county council's business.” Mr Mair, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. Your actions are helping to ensure the LOWEST standards of legality and probity, ("the quality of having strong moral principles; honesty and decency")

As you can see, I can make any email address I like and send to anyone I like any time I like. Your attempts to silence a whistle-blower from exposing now Dorset Council’s contribution to this cover-up, not to mention interfering with the simple democratic / constitutional process whereby a resident has access to councillors to express concern, is quite appalling. I hope there is some decency in some of those you have tried to censor my emails from and that they protest strongly about this, regardless of what they think about the issues I am raising. This is a truly sad and frightening indication of the way "authority" is going in this country and reinvigorates my determination to work against the laziness, arrogance and self interest that seems to be taking grip in the organisations that are meant to be working for the public.

The extent of your attempted shutdown is extreme, “I have contacted colleagues within the county council … making it clear that no-one should respond to any further communication from you on this subject. Any letters relating to this subject will be unanswered. Your email address will be blocked so that emails are not received by anyone with a DCC e-mail account. Telephone calls from you will be terminated.” This looks more the action of a department in panic, not a department just trying to ignore a “time waster”! Why should such desperate attempts be made to prevent communication with me? Is it because there is no proper communication which would not start to take the lid off what is going on? Is it because if there is any communication whatsoever, there is a risk of the truth slipping out? Did you really think that after everything that has gone before, such a feeble attempt to sweep this under the carpet would get anywhere? Did you think it would discourage me? It has done the opposite.

Yes there are jurisdictions, remits, rules, but if the Panel had been ethical and acted in the public interest it would have LOOKED AT THE FACTS and recognised that there are some serious issues that NEED ANSWERS. It would have seen that the IPCC objection to the complaint was simply an extension of an appalling and widespread cover-up, with evidence even as concrete as the Chief Hampshire Investigator writing in conflict with what he knew and actually said, and Martyn Underhill when faced with the accusation of fraud concerning the Speed on Green camera, not denying it or explaining it but saying that it was nothing to do with Dorset Police, only Poole Council, when it clearly could not have happened without the involvement of Dorset Police, and it was Dorset Police who published the lies, fought to keep the data that would expose it secret, and made all the money. It should have done some of the things mentioned here http://www.dorset.pcc.police.uk/Your-PCC/The-Police-and-Crime-Panel.aspx , such as:

-Dorset's Police and Crime Panel (PCP) has been established to examine the actions and decisions of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC).

-making the PCC (and members of their staff) attend Panel meetings to answer questions

-making reports and recommendations on any action or decision of the PCC

-The Panel will support and challenge the PCC in carrying out their functions.

At the very least it should have concluded even if it could do nothing that there were some serious and worrying open issues.

There are starting to be investigations into corruption around speed camera / driver awareness course money in other counties and countries, it would be difficult to imagine a background more indicative of it than what I have found in Dorset, anyone not familiar with it should google Dorset Speed. Although I did not expect anyone to easily roll over and say “yes, you have found something, we will start a full and independent enquiry”, one day, when this is properly dealt with as it will be, there will be nothing but astonishment, that someone presenting such a clear and well researched case has been ignored over and over and over again by the very authorities that the public are meant to have confidence in.

I must get started on my name and shame article which will also be a useful overview of what has happened in chronological order. You, Mr Mair, will feature prominently in it, alongside Martyn Underhill, Colin Smith, Martin Baker, and those who published the lies about the speed on green, Pat Garrett and Johnny Stephens, and those who obstructed, dodged and delayed my initial enquiries into course costs resulting from my perfectly reasonable question about cost of course provision, nearly 4 years ago, still not properly answered thanks to the recent extensive efforts of Martyn Underhill. It's going to be a serious piece of work.

Or perhaps you believe that it is entirely satisfactory, for example, to claim staffing costs equivalent to 10 on £52K to deliver a simple course to 40 people and refuse to provide the detail? Or to claim over 3 times the going rate for course premises, probably which were already public property? Or when one cost is confirmed as being inflated from £14,000 to £71,000 after a 3 year battle not to withdraw the conclusion that there was no financial misrepresentation? That it is quite reasonable to make £1 million by lying?

You seem to want this to stop, there is a really easy way: ANSWER MY CONCERNS. DEAL WITH THE ISSUES. Dorset Police, Hampshire Police, PCCs, Councils, IPCC, instead of hiding behind and protecting each other, passing the buck, using rules and remits to dodge the issues, how about working together to properly answer the concerns? There are no questions that are awkward, difficult, or even time consuming to answer to anyone who is competent and honest. If I am just a time waster then your answers will easily show it and as I have said before, I will publicly apologise, announce my total support for Dorset Police and councils and no one will hear from me again AND I WILL NOW DONATE £5000 of MY OWN MONEY TO DORSET CHARITIES. Why would anyone involved who has nothing to hide not want to put these concerns to bed properly, no matter how barmy they may appear to be and whatever the "rules" are?

Accordingly, I now present my updated list of questions for Mr Underhill, which I hope that all others will encourage him to answer, and which he should in any case be only too happy to answer if he believes he has acted in a way consistent with the duties of his office :

1. Why did you reluctantly agree to look at the speed on green press release and then consider that properly concluded when James Vaughan 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 suggested benefit of the camera? And that a proper consideration and response would be massive egg on face (at the least) as you would have to withdraw your keen acceptance of the Hampshire report which you knew did not properly answer the allegations?

3. Why did you ensure that you had announced your acceptance of the report before even allowing me the opportunity to see it and point out problems in it?  

4. Would this also have ruined the reputations and credibility of a large number of police and even the UK speed industry itself? Were you more concerned about this than your responsibility to the public and fundamental duty to make the police accountable to the public? And as this is about public safety, were you more concerned about saving face than saving life?

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

6. Have you, as well as Colin Smith, 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? 

7. Why did you tell me in the meeting that I did have financial disclosure when you KNEW that what I really wanted to know (for example course staffing costs) was not detailed? 

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

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

10. 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?

11. 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 and fought to keep the data that would expose it secret?

12. 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? 

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

14. Why did Dorset Police tell me they needed enough money to buy 150 laptops (£71k) just to buy a few desktops and peripherals? How did they even end up spending the reduced figure of £14K? 

15. 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? 

16. 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? Did you hear the words, from his very mouth "the costs you were given do not stack up" and "the KSI improvements COULD NOT be totally reflective of the action taken .. that hasn't been properly reflected in the communication at all these levels, and we will say that"? 

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

18. 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?

19. As Dorset Police have referred a councillor to the CPS for failing to declare an interest, why have Dorset Police 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?

20. Why do you refuse to have a proper open discussion with me?

21. Have you read through what I have presented which shows from the very start when Dorset Police tried not to provide an answer to my question by simply ignoring it in a blatant breach of FOI responsibilities, a comprehensive, detailed, consistent and complete account at every single step, of a complete justification for my concerns, and how again, at every step, those have been totally and completely ignored?