www.DorsetSpeed.org.uk   please contribute: info@dorsetspeed.org.uk

Exposing incompetence, greed, waste, danger and corruption in the speed enforcement industry
Skip Navigation Links
Home
Old home page
PCC / IPCC
Name and shame



Dorset Speed facebook group was shut down!!
Here is the link to the new group







UK Road Sense, Dorset Way / A3049 50 limit






Here is some audio and commentary on the meetings I had with Colin Smith and Sally French. The first 7 clips are from the first meeting, 8 and 9 are from the second. I took these recordings purely for my protection and reference but never thought I would have to use them. The cover up that I have seen now means it is in the public interest that I release all the evidence I have. These are just clips but I am happy to release the whole recordings to anyone who wants them.

The purpose of the first meeting was to agree the terms. My original complaint was widespread but the terms I was presented with were very narrow, against the (ex) Chief Constable, Martin Baker, only. However, as you will see, I was given the impression that the investigation would deal with my concerns.

But these greatly narrowed terms were then used to the letter to try to protect Martin Baker, most noticeably by Martyn Underhill when he delivered the report to me.

Clip 1: "very keen to establish what the complaint is and where you want us to focus the enquiry ... very keen to understand the issues and problems from your perspective" You may have understood them but why did you ignore them?

Clip 2:  "whole ethos in the service now is to identify problems and put them right speedily ... " I don't think so!

Clip 3:  "So, bringing back to what we should be doing, ... what you would like is a proper, honest breakdown of costing in relation to the course ... I've seen your email correspondence and your challenge of the figures and I can see why you're challenging the figures, they don't stack up" That is the last I heard from you or anyone else about those absurd figures. Why did you conclude that there was no misrepresentation without explaining them, a conclusion which clearly cannot even be reached until they are explained??

Clip 4:  "we're looking for people who have done things wrong, conduct hasn't met standards of professional behaviour ... camera safety partnership ultimately headed up by the Chief .." "I don't see how they can do their job properly unless they do" "I would agree"

Clip 5:  "to me it seems eminently sensible that there's a complete review of everything you've said in Dorset and possibly wider ... what we are doing is, in accordance with your wishes and direction, looking at where standards of behaviour have been breached, duty of care, .. not complying with FOI, not being open and transparent, we could look at some of those things, but I'm not sure it will get to the bottom of what you're asking" Ok. But you didn't even look at the things you said you would.

Clip 6:  Example of misrepresentation of Dorset Road Safe claimed safety benefit explained to Colin Smith.

Clip 7:  I gave CS a copy of my note describing fraud in Dorset Police  which I had emailed previously. "That was helpful, that was all very clear to me, very helpful to me, I'm fairly confident we can deliver on that ... " "(me)I can't see how that can't look like fraud in Dorset Police" (CS back pedals a bit) "we'll come back to you and we'll have a debate" Not another word was heard about this and at the review meeting later in the year it was as though he had never even seen it.

Clip 8:  This is from the second meeting: Misrepresentation of safety performance: "it would be reasonable in our report to raise the points that you've made ... 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" Ok, so the safety benefit WAS misrepresented. But you DID NOT state it in the report and you concluded that there was NO misrepresentation of safety benefit.

Clip 9:  This is from the second meeting: The absurd costs and conclusion of fraud are explained again. "lying and inflating is within our ballgame" Colin Smith is very quiet. Misrepresentation of safety benefit explained again. "You're right, that is stuff we can comment on" - YOU DID NOT "We will look at the staff costs (£522,000).. and the premises costs ..should be able to get that quite quickly" - YOU NEVER GOT IT AT ALL "We will seek that breakdown" YOU DIDN'T FIND IT, WHY?? "We will have a look on those points you've raised" - YOU DID NOT "All comes down to integrity .. transparency is what we should be doing" "(me) If all I get is a proper breakdown ... or the 4 main costs" "I think we should be able to obtain that and include it within out report" YOU DID NOT EVEN MENTION IT IN THE REPORT.