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.