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
Update 2017
Coverup, protection
Original articles
Name and shame

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

The recording of the meeting

The meeting was meant to be recorded, however I was told nearly a month after the meeting and after many reminders, that the recording device had not worked. I would have thought that if this was a genuine mistake I would have been informed sooner rather than later, the impression given is that after some considerable difficulty the decision was reached that it would be less damaging if there was a suspicion that they could have erased the recording and claimed a technical error, than the contents of the recording becoming public. I believe the analysis below will demonstrate this to be the case. I pushed hard for the recording to be released, simply because I wanted to find out how hard MU and JV would resist releasing it. No one but them will ever know, but this does seem to fit very well with the dishonesty, avoidance and secrecy we have seen for years from Dorset Police. Time and time again, information in the report was a valid part of the case until I came to question it, then it was "nothing to do with Martin Baker" or it "was not relevant to the terms of the case" or we "had to move on"

Fortunately for my own reference and protection I was recording the meeting too.

I have been unable yet to upload the full recording due to the size of the file but will try to do this soon. Here are the most relevant clips with my comments, the most significant points being in bold and the top few in bold red

"This is a complaint against the force" I don't think MU meant to say that, later he will repeatedly use a strict interpretation of the terms to deflect anything which is not directly relevant only to Martin Baker. In any case, Martin Baker is responsible for these failings in his force as: the issues were put to him in the earlier complaint and he dodged them, so he was aware of them, and "misleading" includes "knowingly allowing misleading" as Colin Smith confirmed. MU said in his press release that the complaint was in relation to Dorset Police. So MU freely moves the target between DP and MB as it suites him, but at the same time uses it to deflect anything he doesn't like.

"I'm taping what we're saying"

"I've read your website"

".. meet monthly to discuss specific sites and their effectiveness" The only thing that can be determined about a site, month to month, is numbers caught speeding, not impact on road safety. This seems to confirm the cameras will end up where the detection counts are the highest, with no regard to casualty reduction potential, if any

"funding has reduced staggeringly" - another indication of the motivation for money making operations

"I know you've been fighting for years to get the finances disclosed, you have got financial disclosure in this document" Yes, more top level figures for more years, but NOT what I was asking for, a proper breakdown of the original costs I was given, such as £522,000 for course staffing.

"Community concern": inconsistency, no criteria, no threshold

Holes Bay: KSI statistics misleading. "KSI for Speed on Green site is zero" "We'll deal with that in the supplementary" YOU DIDN'T, well dodged

Seems to confirm the KSI figures mentioned in the report relate to the faster dual carriageway part of the road, not the speed on green site.

Reasons for Speed on Green challenged. I wish it had been a video recording, not just audio, I remember the 3 of them looking like rabbits frozen in headlights. The best MU could say is "I didn't write this, I'm going by what someone else has told me". Mr Underhill, you are meant to be considering the views of both sides and reaching a balanced and logical decision. He starts blaming it on the "Borough of Poole" before JV comes to his rescue. "this report doesn't deal with Holes Bay". WHY ON EARTH NOT, HOLES BAY WAS A £1MILLION FRAUD. "The supplementary report ... yes let's wait for the supplementary" - but the supplementary doesn't deal with it, well dodged

"some of the data is missing and I have no control over that" But you do have control over what you conclude about it. You claim later that I had not provided evidence of misleading statements by Martin Baker. Why is it that in any doubt, Dorset Police gets the benefit? 
I explained that I made enquiries at the time through FOI (which will therefore be recorded)
"I am not in control of the data" Yes but you ARE in control of this complaint process which is meant to expose weaknesses and strengths on BOTH sides and reach a BALANCED decision without giving favour to either side and here you go yet again dismissing a weakness with Dorset Police's position as "not your problem"

Again we'll deal with Holes Bay, it was community concern" NO IT WAS NOT, and are your therefore agreeing with me that the original reason given in the press release, casualty reduction, was a lie?

"we'll come to the supplementary in a minute" (which doesn't deal with it).

"the process was in line with the requirements of the national programs" "I disagree strongly with that conclusion" "I appreciate that"

misinterpretation of reasons for KSI reductions

misinterpretation of reasons for KSI reductions again. Strict interpretation of terms used to deflect challenge
"statements like that should not be a part of a professional report" "I didn't write the report, that's the problem ... I'm not a road safety expert ... I can't answer what you just said, I'm not the author" That's why, Mr Underhill, you should have allowed a balanced outcome by allowing me to point out to you the weaknesses in the report BEFORE you reached and announced your conclusion. "the partnership achieved 30% reduction in KSIs" "that is fiction" "I'm going to stop you there, that is not a part of this complaint - deflected by terms again - so it's a part of the complaint when Hampshire write nonsense about it, and not a part of the complaint when I challenge the nonsense!!!

KSIs down by 1/3 at camera sites - challenged - "I'm not having this debate" "because I proved that wrong" "no you given some information that nationally the police don't agree with" JV demonstrates his poor grasp of road safety understanding, challenged, "I'm going to move us on" "nothing to do with the complaint against MB" - but it's in the report! The report is nonsense!! This time, uses the protection of the terms as against Mr Baker to deflect Speed on Green. "You have to prove that he has specifically, personally mislead" No. email received from Colin Smith, 11th July 2013: "Our investigation is focussed on the conduct of Mr Baker. As Chief Constable responsibility for all actions of the force rests would rest with him, we are examining whether Mr Baker personally misled the public, but this would include whether he knowingly allowed communications from Dorset Police to mislead the public."

MU - "That didn't end up in the paperwork I signed off" - this is basic integrity and responsibility, Mr Underhill.

Press release misleading - "we'll look at it - if it's a Dorset wide statement I'm quite happy with it" It was not. It was a statement about a specific operation contributing to a KSI reduction when NONE had occurred at that site. 

misenterpreting results again 

"interpretation of figures is never going to be agreed between you and the partnership" - then why will you not remove the need for interpretation by properly explaining the figures?? "One figure clearly questionable - £522,000 for course staffing" "we'll get to that" NO YOU WON'T

operating costs "we want to see is costs at the time the original numbers were released" "I think that's covered in the next page" NO IT ISN'T

At least one of the costs I was given WAS incorrect, misleading. "One of 2 things has happened, either the force has given you inaccurate information, or you've misinterpreted the data the force gave you" IT IS THE FORMER. INACCURATE INFORMATION MISLEADS but this is nothing compared to the other absurd claimed costs WHICH STILL HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED.

MU agrees this needs explaining

MU ploughs on with his predetermined conclusion regardless of the fact that there are fundamental problems with both of the primary terms of the complaint.

Conclusion, continued

(remaining clips relate to supplementary investigation)

Senior members of Dorset Road Safe, whose jobs depended on course income as other partnerships were being closed down, without any proper process or any recorded reasoning, massively increased course throughput, by allowing repeat courses every 6 months instead of every 3 years. This is absolutely disgraceful. How can those staff now not be investigated for misuse of the law for personal gain, job security, i.e corruption. How could MU have allowed this to pass without any comment??

Speed on Green - "not saying it's ok" - challenged - "nothing to do with Martin Baker - you need to be asking BOP" (the LIES came were published by Johnny Stephens and Pat Garrett, and the MONEY (£1million+) went to Dorset Police) , lies, lies, lies "just trying to manage time" "THAT IS FRAUD" "you have to make that allegation to Poole Council" "nothing to do with Martin Baker" You have a dispute with the Borough of Poole - I'm going to move you on"  SHOCKING avoidance of Dorset Police's involvement in a £1million fraud.

"Don't forget the basics, those people broke the law" "you cannot announce it's there to save life when it's there to make money - that's FRAUD - "no evidence" "yes there is - the press release" "we're running out of time" - "I'm just trying to shut this down" - That is not what you are meant to be doing Mr Underhill, you are meant to be consideraing the case properly and impartially and reaching the right conclusions

"If you can find a press release that is misleading I will reconsider it". I gave the link, it's here: http://dorsetroadsafe.org.uk/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=297&itemid=84

It is headed "Casualty Prevention Through Speed Enforcement at Traffic Light Junctions". When I eventually got the site data, this showed a ZERO KSI history: http://dorsetroadsafe.org.uk/images/Documents/SiteStats2012-13/RedLightCams/RL%20A350%20Holes%20Bay%20RdPoole%20jw%20Sterte%20Road%201023%20Sbd.pdf

Casualty reduction at this enforcement site was therefore not possible. How on earth was the press release therefore not misleading?

The response to this re-evaluation came later from JV. This spectacularly avoided dealing with this point by referring not to the press release but a newspaper article and giving only his "opinion" in defiance of the simple facts and logic above.

This demonstrates perfectly how this complaint has been mishandled with the aim of protecting individuals and organisations from appalling behaviour in conflict with public expectations and interest, honesty and integrity.

Even if by protection by rigid interpretation of the rules, all concerns were deflected, how on earth could a proper investigation, given all the issues I have highlighted, have failed to find a single failure in the conduct of Martin Baker or any of his staff?

The mishandling of this complaint in itself amounts to serious misconduct.