What have they got to hide?
Discussion
14:52 - 12 September 2003
Officials involved in running speed cameras across the Bristol area today stood accused of deliberately keeping key information on the way the system operates secret. The Evening Post can reveal today that details of how many people have been caught speeding, how much they paid in fines and how the money is being spent may not be available for another year.
Somerset County Council, the authority responsible for making the statistics public, is only prepared to make the figures available for three weeks in any year - a period which ended on Sunday.
North Somerset councillor Mark Canniford said today the move was undemocratic.
Mr Canniford is a member of the North Somerset Council scrutiny panel that questioned Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership bosses.
Mr Canniford said: "We never heard about it. It's so secretive.
Certainly we were not told by the safety partnership they were available to see.
"We were categorically told we were not entitled to see the accounts.
"The problem we had when we met the partnership was that they did not answer anything.
"They just did not want to tell us anything about their operational costs, anything about their operational set up.
"We have to find out. The public wants to know. These things are paid for through public money, whether through fines or through our taxes which pay for the roads and signs.
"We have a right to see what's going on. This is a democracy - 'open government' I think is the saying."
Mr Canniford has obtained a copy of the partnership's business plan, which was presented to the government in a bid to win funding.
According to the plan, the partnership was expecting to catch 84,000 speeders - 21,000 every three months - raising more than £5 million in fines.
Mr Canniford said: "This is what they have quoted to the government so they can get funding. They must assume they could hit that target, if not do better. I personally would assume better."
The reason the partnership was trying to keep its workings secret was because there would be "public uproar" if the figures were made public, he said.
"These figures go to prove, in my opinion, that they are seeking to create revenue so they can continue to run their business. Without the revenue they cannot run their business."
The business plan also revealed that the partnership aimed to employ up to 15 staff, said Mr Canniford .
"We were told at the meeting they employed 80 civilian staff, yet this has not been running for long, " he said.
If the partnership needed five times as many staff are previously thought, did that mean it was catching five times as many motorists as planned, he asked.
Councillor Jack Lopresti, Bristol City Council's Tory transport spokesman, has also been critical of the secrecy surrounding the partnership.
Mr Lopresti said: "You can't make it up - this is appalling.
"I just think this is completely unacceptable. It is public money, it does not belong to them. These figures should be available." Mr Lopresti said he was not told the figures were available.
He said: "I just assumed, like everybody else, that all these things were in the public domain.
"There seems to be almost a culture of withholding information. Why are they treating this differently from other figures involving the use of public money? Why are they so embarrassed? It seems bizarre."
Dick Bowen, manager of the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership said its first annual report would be published once an external audit being carried out by the Audit Commission was completed.
Tony Vickers, spokesman for the Association of British Drivers, said all such partnerships remain secretive because they were now "unaccountable self-perpetuating bodies".
Mr Vickers said: "There are huge sums of money coming in. I have heard £76 million mentioned but I cannot prove it because nobody will give us any operational figures.
"If they cannot spend this money, it goes to the Treasury.
"Effectively there are a lot of people who have pinned their reputations, careers and livelihoods to these partnerships and the effectiveness of speed cameras.
"If the partnerships are seen to be failing they cannot then justify spending the money, they cannot justify their positions and they cannot justify speed cameras.
"There is a whole new level of bureaucracy here which is unaccountable to anybody.
"The speed camera partnerships are existing as parasites on the back of motorists who are the only ones that suffer."
Just goes to further prove the charge: Scameras dont have FCUK ALL to do with safety! Ita ALL about CASH!
Game on!
Officials involved in running speed cameras across the Bristol area today stood accused of deliberately keeping key information on the way the system operates secret. The Evening Post can reveal today that details of how many people have been caught speeding, how much they paid in fines and how the money is being spent may not be available for another year.
Somerset County Council, the authority responsible for making the statistics public, is only prepared to make the figures available for three weeks in any year - a period which ended on Sunday.
North Somerset councillor Mark Canniford said today the move was undemocratic.
Mr Canniford is a member of the North Somerset Council scrutiny panel that questioned Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership bosses.
Mr Canniford said: "We never heard about it. It's so secretive.
Certainly we were not told by the safety partnership they were available to see.
"We were categorically told we were not entitled to see the accounts.
"The problem we had when we met the partnership was that they did not answer anything.
"They just did not want to tell us anything about their operational costs, anything about their operational set up.
"We have to find out. The public wants to know. These things are paid for through public money, whether through fines or through our taxes which pay for the roads and signs.
"We have a right to see what's going on. This is a democracy - 'open government' I think is the saying."
Mr Canniford has obtained a copy of the partnership's business plan, which was presented to the government in a bid to win funding.
According to the plan, the partnership was expecting to catch 84,000 speeders - 21,000 every three months - raising more than £5 million in fines.
Mr Canniford said: "This is what they have quoted to the government so they can get funding. They must assume they could hit that target, if not do better. I personally would assume better."
The reason the partnership was trying to keep its workings secret was because there would be "public uproar" if the figures were made public, he said.
"These figures go to prove, in my opinion, that they are seeking to create revenue so they can continue to run their business. Without the revenue they cannot run their business."
The business plan also revealed that the partnership aimed to employ up to 15 staff, said Mr Canniford .
"We were told at the meeting they employed 80 civilian staff, yet this has not been running for long, " he said.
If the partnership needed five times as many staff are previously thought, did that mean it was catching five times as many motorists as planned, he asked.
Councillor Jack Lopresti, Bristol City Council's Tory transport spokesman, has also been critical of the secrecy surrounding the partnership.
Mr Lopresti said: "You can't make it up - this is appalling.
"I just think this is completely unacceptable. It is public money, it does not belong to them. These figures should be available." Mr Lopresti said he was not told the figures were available.
He said: "I just assumed, like everybody else, that all these things were in the public domain.
"There seems to be almost a culture of withholding information. Why are they treating this differently from other figures involving the use of public money? Why are they so embarrassed? It seems bizarre."
Dick Bowen, manager of the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership said its first annual report would be published once an external audit being carried out by the Audit Commission was completed.
Tony Vickers, spokesman for the Association of British Drivers, said all such partnerships remain secretive because they were now "unaccountable self-perpetuating bodies".
Mr Vickers said: "There are huge sums of money coming in. I have heard £76 million mentioned but I cannot prove it because nobody will give us any operational figures.
"If they cannot spend this money, it goes to the Treasury.
"Effectively there are a lot of people who have pinned their reputations, careers and livelihoods to these partnerships and the effectiveness of speed cameras.
"If the partnerships are seen to be failing they cannot then justify spending the money, they cannot justify their positions and they cannot justify speed cameras.
"There is a whole new level of bureaucracy here which is unaccountable to anybody.
"The speed camera partnerships are existing as parasites on the back of motorists who are the only ones that suffer."
Just goes to further prove the charge: Scameras dont have FCUK ALL to do with safety! Ita ALL about CASH!
Game on!
Incredible. As a small business (dental surgery)which sub contracts a small amount of (NHS)work from the goverment we are getting bombarded with info on what we will have to do to comply with the new changes in the freedom of information act. This is just more expense and red tape for me and the practice. It pi$$es me off when a business with a much more controversial function and dealing with such amounts of money effectivly sticks two fingers up at anybody wanting to see the information.
And to think Tony Blair wants dentists to move back from private practice back to NHS but thats another rant for another day.
And to think Tony Blair wants dentists to move back from private practice back to NHS but thats another rant for another day.
mannginger said:
Contemptable Bastards!
I guess I'll see you all on the M25 - doing about 5 mph for a few hours - if they screw us, let's see how they like the backlash.
Game on indeed!
Phil
im up for it,can we make it a tuesday?that way i can get some sleep on monday after the night shift.
do you recon we should hit it in both directions at around 6am,a couple of sets go anti-clockwise from j21 and j10 and get a couple more sets going clockwise from j16 and j28/29? and should we all 'forget' to take change to the dartford crossing and all turn up with nothing smaller than £50 notes??
A significant proportion of your Council Tax goes to the local police authority (£2.6b for the Met).
If you live in and around Bristol, perhaps a few letters to your councillors (and this local paper and local TV & radio News) along the lines of:
- If the police won't be held accountable, should they receive funding?
- Couldn't the money be transferred to road maintenance?
- Do you wish to take this up, or do you want me to vote for someone who will?
If you live in and around Bristol, perhaps a few letters to your councillors (and this local paper and local TV & radio News) along the lines of:
- If the police won't be held accountable, should they receive funding?
- Couldn't the money be transferred to road maintenance?
- Do you wish to take this up, or do you want me to vote for someone who will?
A friend of mine who's in the police in the Bristol area says the police have no control over what the scamera vans do. Apparently the scamera teams are shunned in the canteen by even the traffic officers they're working with. He says the secrecy is such that the scamera team has moved to a separate office in Bristol and won't reveal the location to anyone :-O
Martin
Martin
Have I missed something here.
Businesses are running the camera partnerships? Surely if they're in business, this would lead to the deduction that they need to make money, therefore surely some of the operating practises they use must be called into question. I (stupidly) thought any company involved would be non profit based?!
If there are share holders and or busines owners to keep sweet the companies must be running some profit. Profit that comes from us!!
So, how can the Government say this is not a revenue generation scheme when its being run by profit driven private companies. And how can they say all camera sites are fair and decided upon by whatever practice, when its in the camera partnerships operating company best interest to catch as many speeders as is possible!? It stikes me as double standards all round.
(alternatively I might have got the wrong end of the stick).
Businesses are running the camera partnerships? Surely if they're in business, this would lead to the deduction that they need to make money, therefore surely some of the operating practises they use must be called into question. I (stupidly) thought any company involved would be non profit based?!
If there are share holders and or busines owners to keep sweet the companies must be running some profit. Profit that comes from us!!
So, how can the Government say this is not a revenue generation scheme when its being run by profit driven private companies. And how can they say all camera sites are fair and decided upon by whatever practice, when its in the camera partnerships operating company best interest to catch as many speeders as is possible!? It stikes me as double standards all round.
(alternatively I might have got the wrong end of the stick).
tvrslag said:
So, how can the Government say this is not a revenue generation scheme
Shock, horror! The government are liars.
tvrslag said:
It stikes me as double standards all round.
Correct, not least from the 'outraged' councillors.
If Somerset County Council are not happy with the way the scameraship is being run, and the lack of control over it they have, there is nothing whatsoever to stop them initiating the process of leaving the scameraship partnership. Won't happen, so, as usual, lies and crocodile tears from the councillors.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff