Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Dec 09, 2019 00:27

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 16:43 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
civil engineer wrote:
Of couse in the event of a fudge you would be entitled to refer the matter to the IPCC.

Afterall you would have given the CC the opportunity to answer the complaint first. Fudge would be prima face evidence of collusion between the SCP and Police.

NEVER!! :o
I am sure that none of the partners in the Cumbria Safety [SPEED] Camera Partnership would collude over something like turning SafeSpeed's website off - after all it's not like their less than honest claims are being exposed here or anything..... :roll:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 13:14 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
They have completed their deliberations and the overall result is that Callaghan has been almost exonerated. I don't know whether I should post the entire reply, but the upshot is that he is deemed a Police Service Employee and his actions are judged as acceptable. Apparently the Legal Department cleared the contents of his letters before they were sent.
A further complaint/appeal to the IPPC is now being considered.
Am I alone in being unimpressed with this result?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 13:42 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:44
Posts: 485
Location: Glos, UK
Cooperman wrote:
Am I alone in being unimpressed with this result?

No, I'm extremely unimpressed, but also completely unsurprised. I would be interested to see the result of any IPCC investigation.

_________________
Carl Prescott


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 15:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
Something tells me we will never see him post in here ever again. Oh, hang on - latterly he never did post here now, did he...?! It was Jan all along....

Still doesn't change my opinion of the deceptive and deceitful toerag.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 16:13 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
When you have read and digested the full response I am sure you will make a reply but for starters:

- Who is doing the "deeming" in respect of a SCP employee being a Police Service employee.
- Who exactly "judged it acceptable"? These are public servants being paid out of public funds.
- What does it say on his payslip? SCP, Council, courts or police?
- It doesn't alter the fact that he appears to have misused official equipment to pursue a personal claim. Internal disciplinary minimum.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 17:49 
Offline
Member
Member

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

The man abused his position. He used police resources in a personal matter!!

This has to go further.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 17:52 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
The whole thing is a mess; I can't imagine this being the end of it.

They have claimed that Mr Callaghan was authorised to send the letter on Police headed paper, and that the content was approved by the Police's legal department. So I guess that clears Mr Callaghan personally, but it doesn't mean that everything is magically ok. It just means that is is now the policies of Cumbria Police which need to be investigated.

They also claim that no threats, approaches, or demands were made to the hosts (they claim the only thing sent was a copy of what was sent to Paul, to Easily and EasyNet), which is a blatant lie, as there was a memo from Kevin Tea just after the outage which started something along the lines of "we wouldn't want to have to approach your American hosts again, but if such and such isn't removed..."

Anyway, at least they're clear: the top people at Cumbria police did authorise whatever took place, which is exactly what I wanted to know, and I don't really see why they couldn't have just told me that four months ago: I asked a straightforward enough question.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 19:16 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Quote:
which is a blatant lie, as there was a memo from Kevin Tea just after the outage which started something along the lines of "we wouldn't want to have to approach your American hosts again, but if such and such isn't removed..."

I think it refered to this......> :liar: which apparently as you run your cursor over it displays the text : liar: :roll:

So the big question is, can we take the fact that claims to be reducing accidents at Ings, which were NOT caused by speeding, with a SPEED CAMERA, is not at the very least bending the truth? And why were the Westmorland Gazette's FOI requests to see the causes of accidents at Ings denied?
Just what are they afraid of - that the public at large, some of who contribute to the £1.6 million raised by the CSCP will realise that the figures used to justify speed cameras (which fit DofT criteria based on statistical data gathered) have nothing to DO with speeding? :o

Hmm. I wonder if joe public cares enough about being sold "worthless nostrums" that he would be shocked at such tactics?

More from me later when I get home to my broadband connection!!!

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 23:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 20:19
Posts: 306
Location: Crewe
I think the reason that Mr Callaghan is 'deemed' to be a Police Service employee is explained by the Parliamentary Answer by Mr Ladyman, Minister for Roads in the Department of Transport to a question in the House of Commons. In this he states that Safety Camera Partnerships have no legal status. There is a post by Paul on this subject somewhere with the exact wording.

The Parliamentary Answer opens up a complete can of worms but the Government seem very happy as it means SCPs cannot be sued, and nobody is responsible for them;they are completely unaccountable; a politician's dream, I would think.

Paul of Safespeed -can you advise ?

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 23:43 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
r11co wrote:
Something tells me we will never see him post in here ever again. Oh, hang on - latterly he never did post here now, did he...?! It was Jan all along....

Still doesn't change my opinion of the deceptive and deceitful toerag.


Pity, I wanted him to explain why we were told that there were no accidents along the A74 caused by vehicles pulling out of the lay bys!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 00:43 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
Mole wrote:
r11co wrote:
Something tells me we will never see him post in here ever again. Oh, hang on - latterly he never did post here now, did he...?! It was Jan all along....

Still doesn't change my opinion of the deceptive and deceitful toerag.


Pity, I wanted him to explain why we were told that there were no accidents along the A74 caused by vehicles pulling out of the lay bys!


I think 75% of local population share these views :wink:

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 01:39 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
It is worth considering that Cumbria Police are NOT the sole members of the Partnership Steve Callaghan represents.
The Courts System, Highways Authority, and Cumbria County Council are all in the same bed.
HERE is a post I made today regarding one of those partners actions, but I believe we should point out the manner in which the partnership is conducting itself, and the manner in which it is perceived to ALL the partners involved.

I have received a response to my complaint, and all I can say is the manner in which it is presented is too inept to be a coverup! :o

There are glaringly obvious oversights. e.g. I provided anecdotal evidence that Steve Callaghan made threats to report me to police for LED's on my vehicle, and to Railtrack for trespassing on a railway, which he directed towards me but failed to carry out.
The response is: "Mr Callaghan denies reporting you in relation to either lights on your vehicle or trespassing on railway property."

err... I think I said that!! :roll:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 01:43 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Mole wrote:
r11co wrote:
Something tells me we will never see him post in here ever again. Oh, hang on - latterly he never did post here now, did he...?! It was Jan all along....

Still doesn't change my opinion of the deceptive and deceitful toerag.


Pity, I wanted him to explain why we were told that there were no accidents along the A74 caused by vehicles pulling out of the lay bys!


Is that not in the unanswered questions thread already? :roll:
You know you never get a straight answer to a perfectly natural question... even in the light of recent revelations over these laybys!

I suspect it's just a trick to reduce the fun had by Liberal MP's! :lol:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 02:53 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Ernest Marsh wrote:
It is worth considering that Cumbria Police are NOT the sole members of the Partnership Steve Callaghan represents.
The Courts System, Highways Authority, and Cumbria County Council are all in the same bed.
HERE is a post I made today regarding one of those partners actions, but I believe we should point out the manner in which the partnership is conducting itself, and the manner in which it is perceived to ALL the partners involved.

I have received a response to my complaint, and all I can say is the manner in which it is presented is too inept to be a coverup! :o

There are glaringly obvious oversights. e.g. I provided anecdotal evidence that Steve Callaghan made threats to report me to police for LED's on my vehicle, and to Railtrack for trespassing on a railway, which he directed towards me but failed to carry out.
The response is: "Mr Callaghan denies reporting you in relation to either lights on your vehicle or trespassing on railway property."

err... I think I said that!! :roll:


Guy's unreal... I read what he posted on here.... :roll: His response to my proud Papa chest puffing over Rachael's safe arrival and Wildy's good health was not very nice reading at the time.


However ...


In fairness - via PH - he did give me and Wildy a useful contact regarding ridiculous cycle lane sops to some obscure target.. though realistically - it could have been Kevin or Jan using the account at the time... :wink: As "admin" on the defunct CSPC site - Willi and Joachim had a very pleasant reply and a even pm advising of decent watering holes in our neck of Cumbria. Was pity this normal human side of these CSPC characters never appeared fully in public domain... :roll:

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:55 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Here is another:
In his complaint to the acting Cheif Constable, Ernest wrote:
He has also lied on the now defunct CSCP forum, and in claiming to have made a press release regarding the doubling up of cameras at sites, in order to double the penalty. In fact he only made the release AFTER the press had contacted HIM, as I tipped off the BBC reporter of his casual disclosure on his forum. The BBC have confirmed this to me.

But in response:
the Deputy Chief Constable wrote:
I am satisfied that Mr Callaghan has not lied in relation to the statistics which underpin the operation of the Cumbria safety Camera Scheme and, therefore, your complaint is not upheld.

That's the only mention of him having lied - and calling him a liar was one of the reasons he threw his toys out of the pram!

the Deputy Chief Constable wrote:
Investigation Findings

Mr Callaghan is the manager of the Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership and is responsible for the operation of the Cumbria Safety Camera Scheme. The siting of camera vans are governed by Department of Transport criteria based upon statistical data gathered. Once a potential site is identified from accident data, analysis takes place in conjunction with Cumbria County Highways Department before being measured against the DoT criteria. They are then considered by the Steering Group of the Cumbria Safety Camera Scheme and submitted to the Department of Transport for approval.

In relation to both the previous mobile site and the subsequent fixed site at Ings, it has been confirmed that the statistical data Mr Callaghan mentioned was all sourced from the Cumbria Constabulary Traffic Management Officer and is both verifiable and valid.

Mr Callaghan has defended the operation of mobile camera vans at Ings. The issue of visibility is one that the camera van operator is primarily responsible for. Issues relating to grass cutting in the vicinity are raised by the operator via our administration for maintenance to take place at regular intervals.


Hmm. Nothing about the arrogant manner in which he dismissed a concern over visibility from a member of the public, and stated categorically that he [the member of the public] was wrong, and that the vans could all be clearly seen. He further stated that all the sites were surveyrd for visibility, and could not possibly be hidden!
When I provided a photograph of the site at Ings, Steve's response was "You must have taken the picture when the van was not there", not "The issue of visibility is one that the camera van operator is primarily responsible for."
However
Quote:
However, having reviewed the various Internet communications by Mr Callaghan and his contributions to web sites, I do not find these useful in terms of the aims and operations of the Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership and these contributions have ceased.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:11 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
Quote:
However, having reviewed the various Internet communications by Mr Callaghan and his contributions to web sites, I do not find these useful in terms of the aims and operations of the Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership and these contributions have ceased.


Told you we'd never see him again. Someone, somewhere inside has rapped the toerag's knuckles for being the indiscreet moron he is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 13:07 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
I know what I am going to do now. I'm going to get a civilian job deemed to be police employment. Then, if anyone personally annoys me, I can write to their bosses etc. on police notepaper and frighten the hell out of them. That'll teach them. Perk of the job. I'll start with my neighbour who parks outside my house ...

:)

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 23:13 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Mole wrote:
r11co wrote:
Something tells me we will never see him post in here ever again. Oh, hang on - latterly he never did post here now, did he...?! It was Jan all along....

Still doesn't change my opinion of the deceptive and deceitful toerag.


Pity, I wanted him to explain why we were told that there were no accidents along the A74 caused by vehicles pulling out of the lay bys!


Is that not in the unanswered questions thread already? :roll:
You know you never get a straight answer to a perfectly natural question... even in the light of recent revelations over these laybys!

I suspect it's just a trick to reduce the fun had by Liberal MP's! :lol:



I don't know but it shouldn't be - it WASN'T an unanswered question! he DID answer it (or one of his minions did at any rate!)

Is there an (ahem!) "inaccurately answered questions" thread?

:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 02:33 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 16:34
Posts: 923
Location: UK
Ernest Marsh wrote:
There are glaringly obvious oversights. e.g. I provided anecdotal evidence that Steve Callaghan made threats to report me to police for LED's on my vehicle, and to Railtrack for trespassing on a railway, which he directed towards me but failed to carry out.
The response is: "Mr Callaghan denies reporting you in relation to either lights on your vehicle or trespassing on railway property."

err... I think I said that!! :roll:


Clearly that was deliberately missing the point, they are hoping that you will have got tired of it in the meantime to bother following it up. I was reading the Ryanair -v- Channel 4 correspondence on Ryanair's site (about the recent Dispatches programme) and the C4 producers used the same tactics when replying to Ryanair's rebuttals.

Gareth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 16:39 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
These people are beyond belief!

He used Police resources for a personal matter and in doing so abused his poition. I belive this may be called misafeasment in public office.

In relation to the denial of a threat to th web hoster....if you recieved a letter on police headed paper wouldn't you take it as a threat and not merely infomation??

referring back to the first point you have to ask yourself if no threat was intended...why go the the bother of using police headed paper for a personal matter.

If the letter was indeed approved at senior level within the police. I think we need to demand a summary of the decision, the reasons as to why it was an appropriate use of police time and resource and who the authorising officers were.

there is a loose thread here and it needs to be pulled. Why did the senior officers collude with Callaghan to misuse police resources?

I think that by implicating themselves there is no option but to refer this to an independent investigatory body. Infact maybe the IPCC may wish to conider this alongside 'operation Cheater' as part of wider collusion andpolice/SCP malice.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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 : 1.116s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]