Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Jun 26, 2019 15:16

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 14:32 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 22:35
Posts: 643
Location: South Wales
It seems to have changed (from the 2 o clock bulleten I listened to).

BR, are you able to host your copy somewhere, or email it?

Cheers

Paul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 14:57 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 05:51
Posts: 55
Location: East Anglia
Given what's been happening I would very much like to hear it too!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 15:15 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
Just sent the following to the ACC of Cumbria constabulary:

For the attention of Ms. Christine Twigg, Acting Chief Constable.

Dear Ms. Twigg,

As someone who is passionately concerned with road safety I contribute to the SafeSpeed forum.
You may be aware that Mr. S. Callaghan of the 'Cumbria Speed Camera Partnership' objected to some of the criticism and responses to his personal postings on that forum, considering that one or more other contributors had in some way libelled him thereon.
He then wrote to the person responsible for the content of material, Mr.Paul Smith, to complain, doing this for and on behalf of you and your Constabulary.
Surely, alleged libel is a civil matter and I am surprised that you should authorise your Constabulary to write to an individual in such a threatening tone on a civil matter. It is, one might believe, the responsibility of an individual to take whatever legal action he/she sees fit to obtain redress, not to enlist the services of a publicly funded Police Service in this way.
In addition, it is believed that a contact was also made, claimin to be from yourself, with the ISP hosting the SafeSpeed web site as a result of which the site was closed down for a couple of hours. If this is true then it should be in the public domain that you and your officers have attempted to stifle free speech in this way.
The letter to Mr. Smith from Callaghan can be seen on the SafeSpeed web site and you will note that it does appear to be an official police letter. Indeed, the signing of such a headed letter does confirm that the signee has signed 'for and on behalf' of the organisation.
It is, I'm sure you will agree, deplorable that Cumbria Constabulary have become involved in this matter in this way, especially as Mr. Callaghan posted on the Safe Speed forum of his own free will, knowing that the failure of his Speed Camera Partnership to cut road deaths in Cumbria has been well documented in the public domain. Did he really expect not to be criticised for this failure and his subsequent obfuscation when questioned.
Perhaps you could confirm whether this letter was authorised by a senior officer within your force, or, indeed, by yourself, as Callaghan is not an employee of Cumbria Constabulary.
This is a matter for public concern if non-emplotyees can pass themselves off as authorised signatories to Cumbria Constabulary and sign documents on behalf of your organisation and in your name.
Disciplinary procedures should be put into action to correct this apparent abuse of position and many would like to know, specifically, what actions you propose to take in this matter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 16:18 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 22:35
Posts: 643
Location: South Wales
Thank you Cooperman, you've put into words very well why I think Steve has shot himself in the foot with this whole thing.

Cheers

Paul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 17:41 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Burning Rubber wrote:
Quote:
Can someone give me the gist of what the bulletin is about - access to radio stations is blocked here due to bandwidth issue


The row started over the conflicting interpretation of statistics at camera sites and Mr. C said that some coments on the site were defamatory ands wanted the posts removed. The US hosting co. closed it for a few hours, effectively a warning. The shutdown has started its own comments.

That is basically what was said, I cannot type fast enough, so it is a "gist" and not totally accurate.


Thanks for that gist, BR, which I am sure is more accurate than any other jist would have been... :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 18:37 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Burning Rubber, are you in North or South Cumbria?

Do you know how to access the info. regarding your "local" camera site?
There is a document in the Library section of the CSCP site, which has maps of the camera locations, and the figures for the KSI's used to justify the site.
The two KSI's which led to the cameras at Ings, were not the result of speed. Mr Gaskell ended upside down in a ditch having had a heart attack at the wheel. He was NOT speeding at the time.

Those are the accidents which will NOT be prevented by placing SPEED cameras! When the Westmorland Gazette applied for this data under the Freedom of Information Act, they were denied the information.
This of course is essential to preserve the illusion that speed cameras make a difference to accident statistics (at least in the manner they would like to make!!). This has led to my use of a word, which although I am cautious about using again in deferance to my host, the forum administrator, is fast becoming an accepted term to describe the manager of the local camera partnership responsible for enacting this policy which is Government sponsored.
They cannot stop you from THINKING it, or finding out the truth for yourself, but here in Cumbria, they are expending a good deal of effort to try and succeed in the latter!!
The Eastern Daily Press were more successful in their FOI application, and were able to tell their readers the truth behind their local partnerships smoke screen!!

I am glad you like the smileys we have on this forum - unfortunately, the thought police have seen fit to try and prevent even the use of an emoticon, because the code writers saw fit to include an alt.text description of the code which they felt offered a slight to their leader.
However, you might wish to visit another site to see a similar icon WITHOUT the mouseover effect - I hope the thought police dont object to that. Up poop-a-scoop!!

Best Wishes BR!! :)

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 19:09 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
Its an absolute disgrace.

Do his employers even know that he is partaking in internet chat during work hours?

Or if its out of work then the letter is completely innappropriate.

I think I may be putting pen to paper.

It is a blatant abuse of position.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 21:18 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 16:34
Posts: 923
Location: UK
Burning Rubber wrote:
...Mr. C said that some coments on the site were defamatory ands wanted the posts removed...

*Allegedly* defamatory, for all I/we know they could be the truth.

Regarding the comments about letterheaded paper - even if he was paid by the council (I don't know if he is or not), I suspect he is authorised to act on behalf of the constabulary and it would depend on their opinions as to whether it is is appropriate for the matter to be dealt with under their name.

This would of course raise the issue of whether the postings under the various names were:

a) Posted in office hours, and
b) Authorised activities...

This doesn't affect the *alleged* defamatory remarks but it will have to be considered.

edit: Amusingly, the story at the end of the Cumbria news stream now has a story about Blunkett using HoC stationery to make a planning objection!

Gareth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:04 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:45
Posts: 4
Location: Cumbria
Quote:
Burning Rubber, are you in North or South Cumbria?

Sorry, I don't want to say, I need to be paranoid, I have more government funded directors after my blood than I care to mention.

I am not speaking about Mr C, but I am amazed at the calibre of people put in charge of important "projects" in these organisations. At least your Mr C actually communicates with you.

_________________
Eyes off the road and watch the speedo.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:54 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 18:58
Posts: 306
Location: LanCA$Hire ex Kendal
From memory, Mr Callaghan confirmed on the defunct CSCP forum that he IS employed by Cumbria Constabulary.

Kevin Tea is apparently employed by Cumbria County Council. JJ is employed by - who knows... :o

It appears CSCP employs no one - it's a total non-entity really - unaccountable, unelected, unecessary, unloved, unwelcome and above all, failing :roll: :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:18 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
g_attrill wrote:
Burning Rubber wrote:
...Mr. C said that some coments on the site were defamatory ands wanted the posts removed...

*Allegedly* defamatory, for all I/we know they could be the truth.

Regarding the comments about letterheaded paper - even if he was paid by the council (I don't know if he is or not), I suspect he is authorised to act on behalf of the constabulary and it would depend on their opinions as to whether it is is appropriate for the matter to be dealt with under their name.

This would of course raise the issue of whether the postings under the various names were:

a) Posted in office hours, and
b) Authorised activities...

This doesn't affect the *alleged* defamatory remarks but it will have to be considered.

edit: Amusingly, the story at the end of the Cumbria news stream now has a story about Blunkett using HoC stationery to make a planning objection!

Gareth


Is it likely that a non-employee would be an authorised signatory for the Cumbria Constabulary? It seems unlikely to me, as if it is the case, then anyone who works with, not for, the police could claim that authority. If he has that authority in matters relating to the issue of speed camera NiP's and FPN's, does that extend to personal and civil legal matters relating to him as an individual and activities not directly related to the duties of his employment?
If he is so authorised, then think where this leads. It means that a Police service employee who has a dispute with his neighbour and doesn't like the comments made to him can write on Police headed notepaper to threaten legal action (in the civil courts?). Imagine a police officer who has a warranty dispute with a retailer writing on police headed paper threatening legal action if the matter is not immediately resolved to the satisfaction of the buyer. That's where this could be going.
Is the ability to be allowed to write personally related letters on Police letterhead a 'perk' of the job? Maybe it's a taxable benefit-in-kind' :lol:
Remember, the CSCP is NOT a division or section of Cumbria Constabulary, any more than it's a part of the Magistratres Court Service. I seem to remember that we have already been told by the CSCP that they are a 'stand-alone' organisation with their own management structure.
This entire matter just stinks and it will be interesting to see whether the Cumbria Old Bill back him or distance themselves from him. If they back him it will lead to more averse publicity and suggestions of wrongful use of police resources not funded from 'camera cash'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 15:27 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
He has no basis to write the letter on Police paper.

Any alleged defamation is a personal matter. Its as simple as that.

He has abused his position.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 16:05 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
civil engineer wrote:
He has abused his position.


No surprise there, then!
Are you going to write a complaint to the CC of Cumbria?

A thought: If I did some work in conjunction with, or as an associate of the police, for example, perhaps I put together an IT team to improve the computer network at a County Police H.Q., could I then use a Police letterhead to deal with someone who called me a liar because I had been economical with the truth when dealing with them in my private life or out of work activities and wanted to frighten them? If that happened I would think my contract of association with the Police Service would be terminated and I would run a significant risk of prosecution for what would be a serious offence.
In all the posts I can't recall the Cumbria Constabulary being, or potentially being, libelled, so why the letter from them? We all know why, don't we. It was probably done without their knowledge or authorisation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 17:11 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Cooperman wrote:
A thought: If I did some work in conjunction with, or as an associate of the police, for example, perhaps I put together an IT team to improve the computer network at a County Police H.Q., could I then use a Police letterhead to deal with someone who called me a liar because I had been economical with the truth when dealing with them in my private life or out of work activities and wanted to frighten them?

Ahh, but Cooperman, for somebody to call you a liar, you would first have to tell lies, and for them to have evidence of this, and you would have to be guilty of misrepresenting facts. :nono:
Of course if it were something you had posted in a forum, you could always wait for it to "time out" and delete itself!! :lol: :lol:

Up poop-a-scoop!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 18:09 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
Yes


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 19:30 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
I think this incident is actually a godsend as its showing them to be what we have always said them to be!

They get a wrong result and they alter it, they get someone they dont like questioning them they try to get them shutdown.

I found the part about " not wishing to stifle free speech" (or words the effect of) to be evidence of a mind in turmoil.
Dosent want to stifle "free speech", just wants to "shut you up"..........what a muppet!
(law suit winging its way to me for defaming Kermit no doubt...)

As a final nyah nyah to Clanger and Co, id just like to say (and im sure everyone would agree) that youve proven us right, you are the biggest shower of incompetent ne'er do well's that the modern, western world has ever had imposed upon its population, and the sooner you all get washed away in a flood(<------on topic and relevant...water and subs etc), the better for the families of those youve helped to kill by that incompetence!

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 22:20 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Steady on gentlemen. This is a time when we need to be whiter than white. There's a war on and we need to play to win the big objectives.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 22:22 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
Hey DG, I knew you'd find a kind word to say in defence of our friend(s) :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 22:27 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Cooperman wrote:
Hey DG, I knew you'd find a kind word to say in defence of our friend(s) :lol:

Council Workmen eh? You just can't get the staff nowadays! :lol:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 01:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
SafeSpeed wrote:
Steady on gentlemen. This is a time when we need to be whiter than white. There's a war on and we need to play to win the big objectives.


Good point Paul! Ultimately improved road safety is the aim. Steve Callaghan's paranoia is merely a distraction.

However, as I said months ago, he really is one of our biggest allies in the goal of exposing the camera partnerships as being pointless quangos.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.280s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]