This Chapter at a Glance:

• LCFA- Response to Disabled FSV-FG – IDRP;

• LCFA sets itself above the Statute law;

• Simple Questions;

• Dissimulation – Corruption – Fraud – Misconduct in Public Office;

• Methodology of Dissimulation.

• Disabled FSV-FG Anti Corruption Options;

♦ Reporting deliberate failure of Statutory duty;

♦ Personal lobbying of elected LCFA Members;

♦ Request for ‘subject data' under 1998 DPAct;

♦ Misuse and Abuse of Chairman’s delegated powers, or implying so;

♦ Solicitors-Solicitors Regulatory Authority-Professional Misconduct;

♦ Seek a Judicial Review;

♦ Publicly impeach CC F.D.Molfetta for corrupt Misconduct in Public Office;

♦ Seek a Home Office Ministerial Inquiry;

► Citing rampant corruption within the LCFA;

► Citing complete failure of Statutory duties by LCFA Elected Members.

• Hanging together…

• Impeachment(Pending)-Lancashire County Councillor F.DeMolfetta;

• Disabled FSV-FG – For the Record – For a Ministerial Inquiry;

• Impeachment – A Definition.

On 6^th July 2016 disabled FSV-FG received the second, and it seems, the final communication from the Chairman of the LCFA, CC F.DeMolfetta in respect of his IDRP Statutory Stage II Application to the Fire Authority on the 16^th June 2016. Go Here.

So, as far as disabled FSV-FG should have been concerned that was it.

Because of the perpetual cloud of fraud and lack of credibility which hangs over the LFRS and its machinations no one would wisely take any LFRS statements at its face value.

But as we well know disabled FSV-FG is not to be deterred from “being curious”, or  pursuing the Truth, and at this point as the storm clouds of corruption grow once more over the LFRS he has a range of options both inexpensive and expensive in LFRS terms which he can choose to implement.

Unfortunately for DeMolfetta the Statute Law position remains unequivocal :

The Statute Law:

• To provide legislative clarity there are no ‘local’ Fire Authority variations or customs and practices (which he has asserted) permitted within the applicable Statute pension law which is the overarching Statutory compliance framework;

• Nor is it permitted as part of the implementation of FSC 1/2009(National Agreement) which the Fire Authority has constitutionally approved and incorporated in its own Policies;

• DeMolfetta  has, it seems acting in ultra vires, made the activation of the LCFA Statutory duty conditional on what disabled FSV-FG may, or may not, choose to do.

• This is an unlawful attempt by DeMofetta to construct a ‘rule’, his rule, outside the Statutory framework of the LCFA's  inescapable duty.

CC F.DeMolfetta states on behalf of the Fire Authority, confirming in this second letter, for a second time, that the decision of the LCFA Full Committee at its AGM on the 20^th

June 2016 in respect of disabled FSV-FG’s Statutory Stage II Application remains unchanged.

Or, at least that is what he carefully implies, in an economy of words, in what is yet another example of calculated dissimulation.

One is led to assume, from these two sets of statements, that DeMolfetta did in fact fulfil his duty to the Full Committee as its Chairman by placing this time limited Statutory Application as an ‘Urgent  Business’ Agenda Item before the LCFA on the 20^th June 2016.

This is when, he implies, that the decision was taken by the Full Committee, and furthermore, to ensure we reach the correct conclusion, his ‘conclusion’, the first letter was actually written on the day of the LCFA AGM on the 20^th June 2016.

What other conclusion could disabled FSV-FG possibly be expected to draw?

It seems with his second letter Chairman DeMolfetta(re-elected at the AGM) then proceeds to remove any confusion which might still remain in disabled FSV-FG’s mind that in fact his Statutory Application, was placed for adjudication in secret conclave before the Full Committee.

Disabled FSV-FG is encouraged by DeMolfetta to presume that this will have been within Part 2(Press & Public legally excluded) operating, presumably, under the LCFA Constitutional Rules, during which the Application will have been entered into the Agenda, debated, and then by a show of hands a decision endorsed by the Full Committee.

All of which will have finally been recorded in the Minutes as required by law.

But of course under this system of secrecy disabled FSV-FG will be unable to verify all this, or so it is erroneously thought by DeMolfetta, having forgotten the small matter of disabled FSV-FG ‘subject data’ and the overarching primacy of the 1998 Data Protection Act.

Let us Dear Reader assume that we have bought all this dissimulation. So let us look at what we have ‘bought’ and what we are meant to believe.

What we are meant to believe is that in an inconceivable turn of events the Full Committee, consisting of 25 Councillors, in spite, one assumes, of being legally advised to the contrary by their Clerk Mr. Nolan their solicitor, has chosen to ignore the implementation of their Statutory duty, and have thus knowingly, and by conscious choice, because it will have required a show of individual hands in the vote, placed themselves, both individually and severally, above the law.

We are also required to believe that not only is the Fire Authority desirous of placing itself in direct conflict with its Statutory duty and thus the law, but in the casual off-hand manner and lack of legal detail with which it dismissively delivered in its first and second responses, that they have collectively chosen to ignore the Statutory Instrument which requires them, in legal detail, to support their decision with the ‘legal authority’ for their extraordinary conclusions.

Thus   to   be   clear   in   summary,  we   are   expected   to 

believe that, regardless of any other concerns, the Fire Authority have decided to consciously  ignore a series of clearly defined Statutory duties clearly spelled out in the Statutory Instrument and FSC1/2009 and place themselves above the law.

Firstly, it has chosen to fail to respond to a Statutory Stage II Application placed before it within a 2 month time frame which the law requires it to make a determination on in the discharge of its legal function.

Secondly, it has chosen to fail to respond in legal detail as the Statutory Instrument requires, quoting the legal authorities for its decision again deliberately ignoring the discharge of its legal function.

Or, if we choose not to believe all this tripe, that the Chairman of the Lancashire Combined Fire Authority CC F.De.Molfetta authorised the execution, by his officials, of the issue of a deliberately misleading pack of lies – dissimulation – to both disabled FSV-FG(twice) and the elected Members of the Fire Authority under his leadership.

A superficial glance at DeMolfetta’s deliberately ambiguous correspondence in which he implies much, but states little, raises innumerable simple questions which challenge this blatant dissimulation, the most basic of which are…

• On the 16^th June 2016 prior to this AGM DeMolfetta received this Statutory Application and in the 2 working days before the AGM(16^th-17^th) he had ample opportunity to seek legal advice from his Clerk Mr.Nolan the CFA solicitor, and/or in his absence, Mr.Harold the LFRS solicitor, who would surely have advised him, as ‘officers of the Court’, that his proposed course of action, which was to ignore this Statutory Application, was unlawful.

Why did DeMofetta ignore the legal advice that ought to have been provided to him by his solicitors and then just carry on regardless?

• As solicitors and thus ‘officers of the Court’ these two solicitors both had two duties. To comply with the law, and to ensure that the LCFA remained in compliance with the law.

But instead they both stood idly by as DeMolfette knowingly acted contrary to their advice, if they had proffered it, and contrary to the Standing Instructions of both the LCFA and the LCC(DeMofette is an LCC Councillor) and the law.

Why did these ‘officers of the Court’, especially the Clerk to the Fire Authority,  fail in their duties to the Court which was, of their own volition, to firstly legally advise the Chairman on his proposed course of action, and secondly inform the elected Members at the AGM on the 20^th June 2016 what had subsequently transpired and its personal implications for the Elected Members?

• In addition DeMolfetta, in serving his own purposes, had the opportunity to use his delegated powers in the two working days(16^th-17^th) prior to the AGM, to make an ‘Urgent’ a decision on behalf of the LCFA, but after having received and ignored legal advice chose instead to ignore his Statutory duties which culminated in him writing deliberately misleadingly to disabled FSV-FG on the 20^th June 2016 knowing full well the Statutory Application had not been placed before his Committee but implying so.

Why did he choose to do that?

• But having done so for reasons that remain unclear the Constitutional Rules still require DeMolfetta, that as soon as it was possible, he was required to report the exercise of those powers in whatever form to the LCFA, to have his decision debated and endorsed, or not.  

The suitable time for doing this would of course have been on the 20^th June 2016 at the Full Committee AGM yet the public record shows he did not do so. Go Here.

Why not?        

• DeMolfetta knew full well, advised by Nolan(solicitor) and Harold(solicitor) that this Statutory Application was time limited and thus urgent and that it required Clerk Nolan to provide legal advice to the Full Committee in order for the Fire Authority to discharge  its Statutory function.

Did DeMolfetta provide this information to the Full Committee, or failing this, did he instruct Clerk Nolan to do so on his behalf and if not, why not?

• Acting under  DeMolfetta’s  leadership and instructions, did Clerk Nolan actually present an outline of disabled FSV-FG’s specific Pension dispute/Application to the Full Committee of the Fire Authority for its information on the 20^th June at its AGM during his  provision of an ‘Update’ under the Standing Agenda Item of ‘Urgent Business-Injury Pension Update’, and if not, why not?

• Failing this did DeMolfetta procedurally raise a motion of further ‘Urgent Business’ i.e., disabled FSV-FG’s Statutory Application, and place this before the Full Committee for its decision, and if not, why not?

• If DeMolfetta did not do so where did he get the endorsements from the Full Committee(twice) which authorised and empowered him to write to disabled FSV-FG on the same day(20^th June 2016) of the AGM stating…

“On behalf of the Fire Authority…”;

And again on the 6^th July 2016…

“I have been asked by the Combined Fire Authority…”

…in which he informs disabled FSV-FG that the LCFA after hearing all the facts collectively, and by individual raising of hands on a Minuted vote, had decided to ignore, or “not to enact”, the Statue law and thus place themselves individually, collectively, and knowingly in contravention of the law?

• CC F.D.Molfetta has a primary duty to provide leadership and to publicly demonstrate transparent ethical standards whilst acting as Chairman to the Fire Authority.

Duties which require him to act impartially, regardless of the facts of a particular case, especially where the common and Statute law are concerned, and most especially in ensuring that under his leadership the Combined Fire Authority acts at all times within the law and in compliance of the law.

This was such an occasion.

Why did DeMolfetta  impugn every standard he is signed to uphold when he became a Councillor? Go Here.

What, or whose purpose, did it serve for him to engage in dissimulation which damaged the reputation of the Combined Fire Authority under his 'Leadership'?

Of course this type and manner of response by the Fire Authority is not a precedent because the Bugler’s Statutory Stage II Application to the Fire Authority in September 2013 was treated in exactly the same dismissive manner also culminating in a four line curt second letter which is almost a facsimile of the letter sent to disabled FSV-FG. Go Here.

This once more raises the question of the use of dissimulation which the Bugler will look at in detail in a following Chapter citing an example based on his experience with clerk Warren in a mirror image of disabled FSV-FG current ‘experience’ which culminated on the record with clerk Warren blatantly and successfully lying to the Pensions Ombudsman.

What seems to have been overlooked , though one doubts it, is that disabled FSV-FG can at this point take his dispute directly to the Pensions Ombudsman.

Who although he has a policy(which is not the law) that he usually only considers pension disputes when the IDRP has been  completely  exhausted,  nevertheless  has  the

Statutory powers to consider any pensions dispute brought before him at any time regardless of whether or not the IDRP has been exhausted.

But disabled FSV-FG wants and is entitled to answers for this most inconceivable state of affairs in which his Pension Scheme Manager is clearly deeply enmeshed because, in actuality, he it was who was authorised by  CC F. DeMolfetta the Chair of the LCFA to sign all the letters to disabled FSV-FG on his behalf.

Such bizarre misconduct by a Pension Scheme Manager can hardly inspire any confidence in Scheme Members in those who have a Statutory duty to manage their pensions, does it?

Nevertheless disabled FSV-FG would be wise to allow the IDRP Statutory Stage II time frame to expire before proceeding in case there is a 'change of heart' by the LCFA before 17^th August 2016.

Or, is this just another invitation by the Bugler to lie again?

On the 6^th of July 2016 DeMolfetta, CFO Kenny, Nolan, Warren, Harold et al finally fell into their own mantrap; a web and tissue of lies and deceit of their own making.

They should remember in their collective corrupt mendacity that they have been lucky all the time, whilst the FSVs in this dispute have only to be lucky once and getting too clever once too often is not a smart idea.

Every so often their clever arrogance and disdainful attitude to the law gets them in serious trouble and none more so than on this occasion where they have set out, as anticipated yet again, to transparently mislead the Applicant and the Full Committee of the Fire Authority such is their scornful contempt for all those around them.

But for once they have stepped into the abyss.

This time their collective mendacious actions will inevitably lead to the impeachment of their corrupt illustrious ‘leader’ CC F.DeMolfetta, with its consequential political spill over onto their future employment prospects.

The times have changed. There is a new Prime Minister whose last action as the Home Secretary was to set up an investigation into racism and corruption in the Fire Service.

The confirmation of their self-entrapment came in the form of clerk Warren’s two replies 'on behalf' of CC F.DeMofetta in response to disabled FSV-FG Statutory Stage II Application following disabled FSV-FG two last letters. Go Here.

All of those involved including the LCC ‘Your Pension Service’ staff of Lister and Wisdom are, as the Bugler published and presented evidence regularly confirms, more than capable of repeated and highly accomplished dissimulation and hypocrisy. That is how they ensure their survival in their employment.

How it works in practice is very simple and well-practiced and the Bugler will present more evidence by looking in detail at an actual full scale evidentially supported example in the next Chapter of The Journey of Truth.

Until this moment on the 20^th June 2016 every opportunity and encouragement has been placed repeatedly before these LFRS/LCC employees and their elected Members to comply with the Statutory Pension law, the common law, and finally the general criminal law but as ever they collectively seem to be a law unto themselves answerable to no one.

It was anticipated that when disabled FSV-FG Pension Complaint was placed before them that they would once more, headed this time by CC DeMolfetta Chair of the LCFA no less, collectively use ‘Dissimulation’ to calculatingly deceive the Applicant and the remaining elected Members of the Fire Authority, not that that would take an over exertion of their imagination to do so.

‘Dissimulation’ is an over exercised black art which civil servants both national and local including these LFRS/LCC employees are accomplished in the use of and which during this pension dispute they have successfully used too many times before, but this time in complicity with DeMolfetta the Chair of the Lancashire Combined Fire Authority.

But DeMolfetta is a self-surviving unreliable fool.

However it pays not to be too clever once too often especially when your opponents know exactly what your modus operandii is likely to be and the Bugler can and has with assistance both political and FSVs on occasions set up classical ambushes which have provided yet more and accumulating wrongdoing and misconduct in public office for the final reckoning.

So what is dissimulation?

We can do no better than to quote the following dictionary definition which is that the word is a noun with the following synonyms…

pretence, dissembling, misrepresentation, deceit, dishonesty, duplicity, lying, guile, subterfuge, feigning, falsification, shamming, faking, bluff, bluffing, counterfeiting, posturing, hypocrisy, double-dealing; concealment, concealing, masking, disguising, hiding, veiling, shrouding, spinning.

Sometimes colloquially known as, codology, or kidology.

These are of course just the tools or mechanics of the application of corruption.

So how does it work?

All government departments and Local Authorities(LCC/LFRS) are required by law to operate within the law and to that end are required to adopt and exercise a Constitution which governs both individual and corporate behaviour during the conduct of their daily ‘business’…

All Constitutions should, or ought to be, evolutionary.

In other words as flaws and loop holes are exposed following this or that debacle, or use by a wide boy politician, then the Constitution is amended.

But if unscrupulous civil servants/dissimulators are aware of these flaws and do not point out them out then they can habitually exploit them for their own corrupt nefarious purposes, and regularly do so.

Clerk Warren is particularly adept at this art form and as we have reported before Warren has to be lucky all the time the Bugler has only to be lucky once.

Dissimulation is also a ‘tool’ which can be regularly misused to bring unhealthy unelected political influence and manipulation to bear on a Member, or Members, or to mislead Committees particularly those whose Members without the intellectual capacity to grasp what the hidden agenda is which in practice is to  coerce, manipulate, or cajole elected Members into doing something which anyone in their right and attentive mind would not conceive of doing.

Taking the example of disabled FSV-FG’s Pension Complaint this is how it is normally made to work, or ought to have, bearing in mind that this dissimulation should be prefaced with the obvious question.

What purpose, or whose protection, is served by dissimulation and why is it necessary to engage in such a high risk strategy in it the first place?

To set up a dissimulating system to be regularly exercised by a manipulator requires that those who are to be the subject of dissimulation require patient conditioning, or as it is described these days, ‘grooming’.

Take clerk Warren for example. He ruthlessly ‘conditions’ elected Members by playing on their vanity, natural laziness, lack of motivation, and gullibility because he is aware that the vast majority of these local politicians are only interested in their expenses at the end of the day and are disinclined to engage in any long winded weary task like a pension dispute which takes them away from their precious expenses form filling.

This from clerk Warren’s standpoint is the power and control  game to end all power games. He convinces himself that he is loyally serving his Masters and indeed he is but it is not these Councillors nor the Tax paying Public.

Councillor Britcliffe is a prime example of another lazy fool who is grist to clerk Warren’s mill.

A ‘politician’ who happens to be a Conservative but he could just as well be from the Monster Raving Loony Party from all the difference that anyone would notice, a former teacher, and now a café owner.

Such is his ‘ideal’ lack of motivation(from clerk Warren’s standpoint of conditioning) that he could not even be troubled to take Recorded Delivery of legal service of disabled FSV-FG Statutory Application and after the valiant Post Office gave up trying to make its delivery it was returned to the sender.

Britcliffe, and his ilk on the LCFA, are ideal exploitative material for the likes of Warren. As he sees them in his contempt they have no brains and even less motivation, though who could be as clever as he?

Warren makes himself particularly indispensible to these types of idle Councillors.

The ‘Leave  it to good ole Bob’ syndrome.

The Britcliffes are trained and groomed to send any old tiresome document to clerk Warren and he of course will know exactly what to do with it and no more will be heard of it...

It would never cross their minds to read it, investigate it, or comment upon it.Such is the clerk's accomplished mastery.

‘Good ole Bob’ knows his Councillors and they know him and no troublesome follow up reports will arrive from him to them  because of course it all ends up back on clerk Warren’s commodious desk top just in case it might backfire, and after a safe period of forgetfulness, it is binned.

Clerk Warren is the master of his demesne, or so he thinks.

He rules his staff with a rod of threatening iron, as we have seen in his emails published in the Bugler. Staff who operate under the constant yoke of the sack should they not report to him any matter, even the most  insignificant when they receive contact from the ‘awkward squad’ of FSVs.

He insists regularly that the Bugler and other dissenters write only to him, “You know I am the only point of contact because I have told you repeatedly before…”.  

When they fail to oblige because by now they know his modus operandii of controlling everything he is visibly annoyed because he loses control over any incoming challenges and his personal job security is breached and threatened because others know what is actually going on and their reactions are out of his control.

For example, the CFO might find out and both he and the CFO clearly have no wish that he finds out because that would mean public accountability when the time comes for the CFO.

Nevertheless the CFO regularly finds out undoubtedly much to both their dismay because the disabled FSVs only ever write to, or email him.

Institutionalised deniability is another tool of dissimulation but when the Truth regularly punches through deniability over a period of time the pallor of deceit spreads over the individuals concerned.

But there is no challenging the public evidence of the Truth on the Bugler as it steadily accumulates for the day of final reckoning.

Returning to Blighty Britcliffe and the LCFA Committee a regular and common trick is to present an Item as a last Agenda Item carefully timed to exploit the time of the day thus paying lip service to an inconsequential legal hurdle by presenting the Item as a late boring last Agenda Item in such a hasty way that the Committee is always expected to be concentrating on their lunch, going home, or filling in their expenses forms at a time when scant, if any attention, would be paid to a verbal report which unfortunately due to the pressure of the preparation of the Agenda papers never includes a detailed and supporting written report.

It is critical in the use of dissimulation that no traceable hard copy records are kept of how or when an ‘Urgent Business’ is placed before a Committee, nor the written specifics of that business, the required debate, the required vote, or even the result, and thus regularly ‘Urgent Business’ vox presentations are regularly made to the Committee and its sub committees under a broad outline but unsupported with any quotable written documentation which is usually anodyne and very brief in content, if actually produced.

This is the control and power game of dissimulation at work…

It really must be all rather smirking fun for clerk Warren and a special massage his ego when dealing with the ‘calibre’ of the intelligence of the Councillors that he has to regularly deal with.

It is all quite easy when one sits back to think about such confidence trickery or how  dissimulation operates because in a short time having learned to sell the mundane to lazy inattentive ‘groomed’ Councillors selling the sensitive ‘tricky territory’ as clerk Warren describes it, comes naturally.

Unfortunately understanding how the LFRS regularly uses dissimulation and how the technique is applied has its uses to its opponents and one should never educate one’s opponents.

Whilst the LFRS are bound to get away with a new manoeuvre once, trying the same stunt twice, brings its exponential risks of exposure with it.

This Statutory IDRP Pension Application(which continues to stand on its own merits) was deliberately staged managed ‘Just in Time’ in delivery to encourage the use of dissimulation by CC DeMolfetta et al, simply because they had ‘form’ in these matters and would naturally follow the route that they had had success with in the past. They are not very imaginative.

Had this Application been conveniently lodged equally between two LCFA Full Committee Meetings then under delegated power CC DeMolfetta could have attempted to deal with it, but still the Statute Law demands that  Stage II has to be placed before the Full Committee and having ‘got away’ with it with the Applicant  DeMolfetta would still have been required to place it before the Full Committee with the hope the Applicant and the Committee would not particularlly notice.

Having 'got away with it' in 2013 once before with the Bugler’s Pension Complaint the risks in doing so again would have been, as we have said and will see, exponentially higher. But long runs the fox…

Unfortunately as it happened for DeMolfetta and Warren this next Pension Complaint arrived at a propitious stage managed ‘just in time’ point, but not for them. Whereby, all things being equal, it could be expected that it would be presented to the Full Committee under the generic title of “Urgent Business”, and additionally under the title of “Injury Pension Update” but they had not the slightest intention of allowing that to happen and to their chagrin this nearly late Application presented somewhat of a 'tricky territory' dilemma.

The problem on this occasion was that unfortunately the timing for thoughtful dissimulation was much too limited so DeMolfetta et al simply ‘had to wing it’ for they rapidly knew that they would have no other recourse than to break the Statute law and deceive the Applicant and the Fire Authority by stating or heavily implying that the Fire Authority had had the Application and/or DeMolfetta’s ‘recommendation’ presented to them and that the Full Committee had instructed DeMolfetta after due process to respond on their behalf – twice – in the manner he had.

When we knew for a fact nothing of the kind had occurred.

DeMofetta et al decided in the limited time available that this could be achieved without stumbling but unfortunately they stumbled and fell in a jangling lying heap because before the ink had dried on their two letters disabled FSV-FG knew for a fact that his Statutory Application had not been presented to the Full Committee on the 20^th June 2016.

There remains just one serious problem for DeMolfetta, clerk Warren, and all those involved, culpability.

Clerk Warren signed both fraudulent letters and he will claim that he was authorised, nay instructed to do so, by DeMolfetta.

DeMolfetta will continue to claim against the known facts that these letters were endorsed by the Full Committee.

When we know for a fact they were not.

Next DeMolfetta will claim that he left the matter with ‘Good ole Bob’ and DeMolfetta will have to convince himself that clerk Warren will not sacrifice his Queen.

But he most certainly will as others have found out to their career cost.

Unfortunately as they are all about to find out, once more, clerk Warren will sacrifice anyone in his 'useable' vicinity when he manages to get himself in the oppositions cross hairs…

Having considered the position in which DeMolfetta has now placed him disabled FSV-FG has several anti-corruption options available to him and to those who support him:

• He can personally lobby every elected Member of the Fire Authority, which he has commenced doing, with a simple question:

“Was my Statutory Stage II Application placed before you in council on the 20^th June 2016?”.

Early responses from elected Members and those present on the day, acting in honesty and transparency, indicate that it was not.

Interestingly, lest there is doubt on their part, if this Statutory Application was not placed before them in Parts1 & 2 (Press and Public excluded), or at all, there can be no breach of confidentiality, or the law, LGA 1972 S12a, by them answering this simple question.

• To ensure further confirmation that this is an actual fact disabled FSV-FG has also  exercised his Statutory rights under Section 7 of the 1998 Data Protection Act requiring the release of his relevant ‘subject data’ including the Minutes of the Part 1 &  2 meeting in which it was implied by DeMolfetta that this Statutory Application was debated on the 20^th June 2016. Go Here.

• Report both Solicitors(again-the Clerk to the CFA is already under 6 months scrutiny by the SRA) to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority for professional misconduct.

• Seek a Judicial Review based on the complaint that the Lancashire Combined Fire Authority has failed compliance of its Statutory duty and its own Policies by reason of being misled by its Chairman and his advising LFRS staff.

Readers will recall a Judicial Review does not per se decide the right and wrongs of a particular case it determines whether or not the applicable laws have been correctly implemented and followed in this case by the LCFA.

• Raise a formal complaint of impeachment against CC DeMolfetta for knowingly making false public statements in that he has calculatingly implied to disabled FSV-FG that his Statutory Application was debated, voted on, and endorsed by the LCFA whilst knowing full well that his written statements were based on falsehood and thus untrue and that he was by his mendacious actions deliberately misleading the Fire Authority.

• Seek a Home Office Ministerial Inquiry into rampant corruption in the LFRS underpinned with a failure of collective Statutory duty by the elected Committee of the Combined Fire Authority due to the Members failure to keep themselves at an impartial inquisitorial ‘arms length’ from the LCFA & LFRS ‘officers’ serving them.

All coupled with the LCFA elected Members demonstrable lack of individual fitness for purpose in elected office.

One wonders what, as yet unrevealed secrets, are so much at stake that DeMolfetta and his cronies are so prepared to gamble all in total dissimulation, including the loss of their personal freedom, in defence of what is after all just a simple issue.

Disabled FSV pursuing a simple pension dispute in which he asks a reasonable question…

“Why have you been underpaying me the wrong pension for the last two decades?".

Gentlemen, and the Bugler uses the word very loosely, you have much collusion and dissimulation to be about if only to preserve your selfish corrupt skins but as ever the best advice is when in a mantrap stop digging.

The disabled Firefighters, their Widows, and their families want to see you all travel down the ‘Hardship Route’ which clerk Warren will instantly recognise because he was the author of it …

Of course you will all throw your hands in the air as criminals normally do when they are found 'bang to rights' and you will start to intrigue against one another because each of you criminals will have your price . You always do as the Bugler found out when serving on H.M. Parole Board.

But meantime the tumbril on the Hardship Route will creak and groan its way to the Scaffold as each of you individuals decide whether 'tis better to hang together or hang alone…

But hang  you surely will…

In his final letter to the Chairman of the Lancashire Combined Fire Authority County Councillor F.DeMolfetta, disabled FSV-FG places the facts and his thoughts ‘on the record’ for the future use of Governmental Inquiries which will be commissioned into the endemic and all pervasive corruption which afflicts those who have unfortunately been placed in political control over the Lancashire Combined Fire Authority and in the senior management of the Lancashire Fire & Rescue Service whether  uniformed, or non-uniformed.

Such miscreants selfishly never hesitate to consider the impact that their rampant and so obviously blatant corruption has on the respectable majority of those unfortunate enough to have to serve under their ‘management’.

What decent persons could respect such creatures?

Indeed, one does not need to surmise the state of morale in serving personnel and non-uniformed staff nor to listen to the ever eager 'moles' reporting the non-existence of morale.

It is self-evident and though DeMolfetta with his ‘minders’ regularly visits the ‘troops’ the presence of his ‘minders’ is guaranteed to present career anesthetised speakers to make up the small talk of these charades as DeMolfetta, an eager puppet who is fully aware of his role in this farce, later heads off into his self-satisfied sunset knowing he is paying off his masters who actually put him there and the Bugler does not mean the Labour Leaders at the LCC.

In this simple matter of a pension dispute DeMolfetta has demonstrably and foolishly by his own Misconduct in Public Office allowed himself to be manipulatively placed in the unenviable position whereby his political future, indeed his personal freedom, rests in the whimsical hands of  those who are meant to serve him!

Narcissistic creatures like Warren and his cronies of this world.

But the DeMolfettas of this world know the political games and debts and one should not assume for one moment that he is innocent nor that he does not realise where he has put himself, he does.

He simply thinks he can get away with it.

They always do, driven less by his love of the Fire & Rescue Service he politically heads and rather more by the £27,000.0pa we all pay him to do his job with transparent honesty and accountable probity.

Shortly the Bugler, and those he has been asked to represent, will set about impeaching DeMolfetta and his cronies presenting the accumulated evidence, including this latest fine example of flagrant mendacity.

Dear Reader, look though you may, you will not find any of this Public Interest material in the local press for example in the Lancashire Evening Press. It seems that a free press only favours those who are 'more equal than others'…

Meantime let disabled FSV-FG speak for his ‘experience’ under the mendacious and cavalier hands of DeMolfetta and his puppet master clerk Warren…

17^th August 2016.

County Councillor Mr.F.DeMolfetta

Chairman-Lancashire Combined Fire Authority

Lancashire Fire & Rescue Service HQ

Fulwood, Preston, Lancs.

PR2 3LH

IDRP – Stage II Application.

For the Record

Dear Chairman,

Little purpose is served by a wasteful continuance of this correspondence now that the Statutory legal time frame has expired today. However, I feel that in this third and final letter I should place certain matters ‘On the Record’ for future Inquiry purposes.

1.00.  IDRP Implementation to Date.

1.01.  I initiated Statutory Stage I, IDRP on 15^th December 2015. The Chief Fire Officer and my Pension Scheme Manager Mr Warren were required to complete Stage I within two calendar months, which they failed to do resulting in a Statutory breach, only completing the process on the 19^th February 2016.

1.02. Under Statutory IDRP no further, or future input is permitted by the CFO or by my Pension Scheme Manager, beyond Statutory Stage I.

1.03.Should a Statutory Stage II procedure be initiated, then this Stage II Statutory duty is specifically designated in law as the responsibility of the elected Members of the Fire Authority, including you.

1.04. I disagreed with your CFO’s Stage I decision.

1.05. Legal Service – I served my Statutory Stage II Application on you by hand and on individual elected Members of the Fire Authority electronically on the 16^th June 2016 at 14:59hrs(2 from 25 potential acknowledgements), whence the time frame of two calendar months commenced to run, which has expired today.

Legal service was further confirmed with individual service on elected Members with hard copies via Recorded Delivery on Tuesday 28^th June 2016 at 17:23hrs.

One County Councillor, Britcliffe(Conservative), refused service(What an appalling example of pure laziness).

1.06. The Statutory Instrument(1996 No:1270) and FSC1/2009(National Agreement) permits the Fire Authority and its elected Members two calendar months within which to reach a detailed legal determination(citing legal authority) on my Stage II Application(which contained two interlinked principal elements) which should have been communicated to me within the timeframe of completion by the 16^th August 2016; that time has now expired.

1.07. I continued throughout my Application and these communication to commend to you and your elected Members the use of impartial independent legal advice particularly in respect of the technical pension element when dealing with the intricacies of this technically challenging pension dispute.

1.08. You replied with a decision, you stated, on behalf of the Fire Authority on Monday 20^th June 2016.

1.09. On Saturday 25th June 2016 I responded seeking clarification for the ‘legal authority’ which you and the Fire Authority had used as the legal basis for your collective determination.

1.10. On Wednesday the 6^th of July 2016 you responded reaffirming, you stated, the CFA’s original decision but avoiding supplying me with either the supporting legal detail(a Statutory requirement) or the ‘legal authority’ which was the legal basis for the Fire Authority’s determination.

1.11. In spite of presenting you, and the Fire Authority, with two opportunities to reconsider your decision and comply fully with your Statutory duty you have failed to do so and are thus, at this moment in time, in breach of the applicable Statute Pension law and in breach of the LCFA’s Statutory duty to comply with the law.

2.00. A Simple Procedural Matter.

2.01. This, essentially, was a simple matter of procedure.

2.02. I exercised my Statutory right to implement the Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure(IDRP) which is underpinned in law by section 50 of the Pensions Act 1995 (c.26); Statutory Instrument(1996 No:1270); By virtue of section 273 of the Pensions Act 2004, S50,50A, & 50B; finally The Occupational Pension Schemes (Internal Dispute Resolution Procedures Consequential and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2008 which is a provision of the 1995 Pensions Act(as amended-2004).

2.03. This final Statutory Instrument was, at the request of Fire Authorities, subsequently clarified by the then CLG(now Home Office) in Fire Service Circular 1/2009 culminating in a National Agreement by the CLG’s Firefighters Pension Committee, on which your Fire Authority is represented.

The procedural contents of which have been fully adopted as Fire Authority Policy illustrated in the ‘template’ format of the IDRP documentation supplied to me.

2.04. In exercising my Statutory rights, within this legal framework, you have unequivocal duties to me which includes your duty as an Elected Councillor of Lancashire County Council(LCC); as an assigned LCC Councillor on the Fire Authority; and as the elected Chairman of the Fire Authority, with its 24 other Elected Members in a Combined Fire Authority whose collective legal duties are clear and unambiguous.

2.05. You and the Fire Authority also have a clear specific duty to me under the 1995 Pensions Act(as amended), its Statutory Instruments and provisions, as a Member of the Lancashire Firefighters Pension Scheme for which you, individually and severally, are legally politically accountable and liable.

2.06. You had a clear and unambiguous Statutory duty to place my Statutory Stage II Application, unabridged, before the full Committee of the Fire Authority so that it could reach a detailed legal conclusion on my pension dispute(first element) and my pension maladministration concerns(second element).

2.07.The intrinsic second element of my Stage II Application required, in your collective duty to me and in the Public interest, that you and the Fire Authority transparently investigate and report on my pension maladministration concerns incorporated within my Application.

2.08. Regardless of the second element the first element must be fully completed within the 2 months time frame in order to remain in compliance with the Act and its Statutory Instrument and you have failed to do this.

3.00.Statute Law;

3.01. The Statute Law:

• To provide legislative clarity there are no ‘local’ Fire Authority variations or customs and practices (which you have asserted) permitted within the applicable Statute pension law which is the overarching Statutory compliance framework;

• Nor is it permitted as part of the implementation of FSC 1/2009(National Agreement) which the Fire Authority has constitutionally approved and incorporated in its own Policies;

• You have, it seems acting in ultra vires, made the activation of your Statutory duty conditional on what I may, or may not, choose to do.

• This is an unlawful attempt by you to construct a ‘rule’, your rule, outside the Statutory framework, which is your inescapable legal duty.

4.00. Chain of Public Accountability, Scrutiny, Conduct, and Discipline.

4.01.  In the chain of elected Public responsibility and accountability your  first and foremost duty to the electorate is as a duly elected Lancashire County Councillor.

4.02. On the day of your appointment as a Lancashire County Councillor you are required to sign formal LCC Constitutional documents of Attestation, public records, that you will in your appointment conduct yourself, both in private and those public duties allocated to you, in keeping with these published Codes of Conduct and LCC standards.

4.03.  In the duties which follow any Lancashire County Councillor may be assigned  by his or her Party Leader to various LCC Committees, or to represent the LCC’s interests on a particular external independent body, and though that body may, or may not, have its own Code of Conduct behavioural standards (which cannot be less than those imposed on Lancashire Councillors) and which may, or may  not require your second personal Attestation, the primacy for personal accountability remains with the LCC and its Code of Conduct in compliance with the legal obligation of  your personal Attestation.

5.00. Fire Authority Constitution & Policies; ‘Assurance’; and Delegated Powers.

5.01. The Fire Authority Constitution sets out the basic rules governing the legal ambiance within which its assigned elected Members must conduct themselves in the procedural curia as it transacts its business.

5.02. This Constitution implicitly recognises that those Councillors assigned to it from various local authorities will already have given an Attestation of Good Conduct to the Local Authority they have been elected to and which has assigned them to the Combined Fire Authority and thus the primacy of accountability still remains in the first instance with that Local Authority.

5.03. It is also implicit within these Constitutions that the Fire Authority, for example, individually and severally, has a Statutory duty of compliance with the Statute law, the common law, and its own approved Policies.

5.04. The Fire Authority has further constitutionally bound its public conduct of transparency and honesty, by the incorporation, as a Policy in December 2015 of ‘The Statement of Assurance’ to the Citizens of Lancashire.

This is proffered as evidence that the Fire Authority and its constituent parts and those politically assigned to it will deliver essential accountability and transparency during the discharge of all its Statutory duties, policies, and functions.

5.05. I remind you and the elected Members of the Fire Authority, as individuals and severally, that the Fire Authority has further bound itself Constitutionally that elected Members who have already made an Attestation(of primacy) with their own Local Authority will additionally comport themselves with transparency, honesty, and probity within this additional approved framework of Fire Authority’s own ‘Members’ Code of Conduct’.

5.06. As Chairman of the Fire Authority you have delegated powers under the Constitution Rules to authorise that, for example, exceptional ‘Urgent Business’ be conducted on behalf of the Fire Authority in the absence of the Full Committee.

You bear full personal liability for the exercise of these powers until you have sought and received retrospective approval, but only after the full implementation of Constitutional Rule 6.5 which requires Full Committee approval to place the Item on the Agenda followed by scrutiny, debate, and vote by show of hands, all of which shall be Minuted.

5.07. In order to ensure that any powers you exercise are lawful e.g., under ‘Urgent Business’ you have immediately available to you the Clerk to the LFCA, a solicitor Mr. Nolan; and the in-house LFRS solicitor Mr. Harold.

Your solicitors are ‘officers of the Court’. Their primary duty to the Court is to ensure that their advice to you is in compliance with the law and their secondary duty of care is to ensure that the Fire Authority and its pension contractors the LCC are not placed in conflict with, or contravention of, the law.

Should they fail in these remits then they become liable to the law themselves and subject to professional scrutiny watch by the Solicitors Regulation Authority which the Clerk to the Fire Authority is currently under.

5.08. Mr Warren is unqualified in both law and pensions administration and is thus incapable of advising you in legal matters affecting my pensions.

6.00. Elected Members Statutory Duties.

6.01. The Statute law in respect of my Statutory Stage II Application, which sets the precedence and takes primacy in law, was an unambiguous requirement placed on all Fire Authority elected Members.

6.02. Under Statutory Stage II procedures elected Members were required by law to study my Stage II Application and, if necessary, obtain independent legal advice(which was repeatedly advised) and within the time frame permitted in law(two calendar months) to reach a legally detailed conclusion citing ‘legal authority’ and communicate their collective determination to me before midnight on Tuesday the 16^th August 2016; which you and they have failed to do.

6.03. To assist you, and them, in completing their individual and collective Statutory duty, I legally served my Statutory Stage II Application notice on each elected Member to ensure that great care would be taken, jointly and severally, by each Member to properly consider my Application, rather than ‘rubber stamp’ an ‘officer’s’ recommendation which may, otherwise, render them as unwitting participants in criminal proceedings.

6.04. My legal service was also confirmation of my Stage II Application and confirmation of their Statutory duty and, if need be, their legal accountability, both individually and severally, in respect of the criminal law and the public duties laid directly upon each individually elected Member, failing which, the Fire Authority publicly risks acquiring  a reputation for individual and corporate corruption.

6.05. Because the Full Committee of the Fire Authority has not lawfully considered my Application within the time permitted, or at all, or reached a lawful conclusion there is now a general and answerable criminal liability, both jointly and severally, for ‘misconduct in public office’ by elected Members, yourself, and your LFRS employees, in addition to any other self-evident Statutory breach.

7.00. Chairman’s Decisions.

7.01. In your letter of acknowledgement and response of the 20^th June 2016 to my Statutory Stage II Application you asserted that I sought to ‘impose restrictions’ and ‘processes’ on the IDRP yet you made no such assertions on my Stage I Application. The substance of my Stage II Application with its pension dispute technical element and its intrinsic element of pension maladministration concerns were essentially unchanged in my Stage II Application.

7.02. Your assertions are without substance or merit, and thus without foundation. They are simply wrong in law and disingenuous because you will know, or ought to have been advised in law by your solicitors, that there was no ‘flexibility’ for either you, the Fire Authority, or me, to do other than to follow the laid down lawful Statutory procedure.

To do otherwise is to act in ultra vires which I have already pointed out to you.

7.03. You decided, presumably acting against this legal advice, unilaterally without any form of investigation, or consultation with other elected Members of the Fire Authority, paradoxically supporting my allegations of the misbehaviour of certain individuals, including my Pension Scheme Manager Mr.Warren, to the effect that my second element, pension maladministration, bore such substance that you advised me to immediately place them before the Chief Constable(CC).

7.04. I had grave misgivings about following your advice because it runs contrary to the legal advice I received and acts contrary to the process of natural and Judicial justice and once more I can only conclude that you have been deliberately or improperly advised from a legal standpoint, or are acting disingenuously for your own purposes.

7.05. I feel sure your advice to me was well intended but for the wrong reasons because prior to submitting my Stage II Application to you I specifically considered this second pension maladministration element of my pension dispute and unusually sought independent legal advice before I lodged my Statutory Stage II Application.

7.06.  It seems, judging by your response, that I have not made my position on this pension maladministration clear.

7.07. I was advised that in the pursuit of natural justice it would be appropriate, proportionate, and fair that my pension maladministration concerns, which are an intrinsic part my Pension dispute, but were at that point publicly untested and unsupported allegations should be placed before you with the expectation, as part of your dealing with my Statutory Application, that my allegations would be put to the test.

In other words during your investigation it was my expectation that I would be invited to submit hard evidence supporting my allegations which I can but in the event was not invited to do so.

7.08. This approach was to anticipate and prevent the reasonable recriminations that you and the Fire Authority might raise that I had been too hasty in approaching the Chief Constable which could have resulted in ‘muddying the waters’ and impeding the Fire Authority’s opportunity to put my allegations to the test using a fresh collective investigative mind.

7.09. This thoughtful, and considerate approach, would guard the rights of those under potential investigation, including my Pension Scheme Manager Mr. Warren and others, and provide you and the Fire Authority an opportunity to address my pension maladministration concerns; reject them; correct them if necessary; and if my presented hard evidence was substantiated, then and only then, in conjunction with the Fire Authority to jointly place prima facie evidence before the Chief Constable(CC) for his criminal investigations.

7.10. Mr.Warren made the valuable point that should I be precipitous in approaching the CC he and others may well be under arrest, caution, and one assumes, suspension from their posts, which would indeed frustrate and inhibit the best of intentions of the Fire Authority to impartially investigate my entire Application in all its aspects.

7.11. Unfortunately Mr.Warren goes on to draw the wrong conclusion where he and others are concerned in respect of such an investigation because as the Statutory Instrument makes clear at the conclusion of Stage I, the CFO, Mr.Warren and others involvement has ceased in Statute law, they having no further role to play in the IDRP.

7.12. Thus, access to them would be untrammelled by any legal restrictions and thus they would be fully available to you and the Fire Authority to consider Mr Warren, and others, conduct in the maladministration of my pensions.

Therefore each of the elected Members could legally approach my Statutory Application ‘with a clear mind’, free of the influence of those, including the CFO, Mr.Warren and others, whose conduct would, and should, be under transparent review.

7.13. However, acting on your imprudent unlawful ‘pre-condition’ which advised pre-emptive involvement of the CC, you have now in the interim informed me twice that you decided to ‘postpone’ your, and the Fire Authority’s compliance with its Statutory duty, by stating that you will not ‘enact’ the IDRP until I have complied with your ‘ rule’.

7.14. I should inform you that you and the Fire Authority’s decision is unlawful, acting as it does, in ultra vires.

7.15. To reiterate there is no ‘flexibility’ or provision within the Statutory Instrument which empowers or permits you, or I, to introduce or implement a new ‘rule’ or ‘rules’ what would be in effect a calculated and deliberate ‘conditional’ delay. Nor does the Statute facilitate you in law to act with such unlawful intent, quite the reverse in fact.

I was surprised that you had been so advised by your solicitors and advisors.

7.16. You, and they, have ignored and avoided responding to my repeated requests that you provide me with the ‘legal authority’ for acting so. I can only conclude that this is a conscious unlawful personal act by you and them intended to knowingly breach the Statutory duty of the Fire Authority and thus place it in a direct and embarrassing conflict and breach of the Statue law and its legal obligations.

7.17. Why you have done so should be a matter for Public speculation but it is unquestionably a matter for the Fire Authority to urgently question your decisions and satisfy itself, both individually and severally, why as a result of your decisions you have knowingly, under your leadership, placed the Authority; its individual elected Members; and LFRS staff, in breach of the Statute law(s)?

7.18. I can only conclude at this point, as evidenced by you malfeasant decisions that you were determined to pervert the course of justice whilst being fully aware of your public duties and legal obligations though why you should do so is a matter for the Full Committee of the Fire Authority, and failing them other interested Agencies to ask why?

7.19. Your decision will also have its intended consequences for me, which also brings further legal liability consequences for you and the Fire Authority, namely, that my Stage II will be knowingly and calculatingly delayed for an indeterminate period whilst intending, once more, to punitively expose me and my family to that which is colloquially known as the ‘Hardship Route’.

The authorship of which was Mr.Warren but approved by both CC D.O’Toole and you as an another tool of harassment in the avoidance of Public interest scrutiny of your actions and those of your ‘associates’.

8.00. Fire Authority Annual General Public Meeting Timeline.

8.01. On Monday 20^th June 2016 at 10:00 hours the Annual General Public meeting was scheduled to take place in the Main Hall, Washington Hall Training Centre, Euxton Lancashire.

You attended that meeting and were re-elected as the Labour Party Chairman of the Fire Authority for the term of office which will conclude with County Council elections next May 2017.

8.02. Prior to this Fire Authority Meeting on Thursday 16^th June 2016 my Statutory Stage II Application was delivered to you by hand.

The covering letter asked that I be informed when the Stage II Full Committee was to be convened; the names of elected membership of the Committee who would decide Stage II; and subsequently a record of the duration, the vote taken, and by whom.

8.03. Regrettably in the event you did not inform me that the scheduled AGM was due the following Monday 20^th June 2016 even though, I fact, I was fully aware that it was taking place.

8.04. The Fire Authority published Agenda did not include any item under Part 1 ‘Item 20 – Urgent Business’ though there were 2 working days prior to the meeting to bring forward my Statutory Stage II Application which was an ‘Urgent’ item because the process was time limited to two calendar months expiring on the 16^th August 2016 and because the next Full Committee Fire Authority Meeting was not scheduled until 19^th September 2016 by which time my Application would be time expired which would place the Fire Authority and me in contravention of the pension Statute law leading me to have to start the whole IDRP process again by reason of your deliberate dissimulation.

8.05. The Minutes of this meeting were subsequently published recording that under Part 2(Exclusion of Press and Public) the only ‘Urgent Business’ brought forward was Injury Pension Update which is a Standing Item in which Members are regularly updated on the Pension Dispute involving dissenting Lancashire disabled Fire Service Veterans.

The report was noted but not endorsed.

8.06. No other ‘Urgent Business’ was recorded or took place, and anecdotal evidence from those present supports that position.

8.07. If my Statutory Stage II Application was, as you have inferred twice, presented at this point to the Full Committee, as it ought to have been, as  Statutory time limited ‘Urgent Business’ which required their urgent collective Statutory decision then to do so required the full implementation of the Fire Authority Constitutional Rule 6.5(d) regarding ‘Urgent Business’,

“An item of business may only be considered under this heading where, by reason of special circumstances to be recorded in the Minutes, the Chairman of the meeting is of the opinion that the item should be considered as a matter of urgency.”.

Furthermore such a proposed ‘Urgent’ item must be placed before the Full Committee before being approved for admission to the Agenda and if this motion is carried then the Item is debated, voted on by a show of hands, and fully recorded in the Minutes regardless of whether or not it was carried out in Part 2(Press & Public Excluded).

8.08. In your correspondence you have twice given the unequivocal impression that your decision not to proceed with the Fire Authority’s Statutory duty in respect of my Statutory Stage II Application was heard by, approved, and endorsed, by the Full Committee of the Fire Authority.

• On the 20^th June 2016(the day of the AGM)… “On behalf of the Fire Authority,”;

•  On the 6^th July 2016… “I have been asked by the Combined Fire Authority.”.

8.09. In this Part 2 meeting I assume that you advised the Full Committee that the advice you had received from Mr.Nolan(Clerk-Solicitor) and Mr.Harold(LFRS-Solicitor), supported by CFO Kenny, was that if the CFA was determined to knowingly follow this course of action, they would in doing so place the Fire Authority, and themselves individually, in direct conflict with the Statute law leading to a direct contravention of their Statutory duty?

8.10. Given these inconceivable circumstances, and because I had gravest doubts about the veracity of your statements, and given that previously I have indicated to you that my Statutory Stage II Application is my ‘subject data’ under the provisions of the 1998 Data Protection Act, I felt I needed to act to determine the facts of what actually took place in Part 2 of the AGM.

8.11. In the circumstances which appear to have arisen in these proceedings I gave you formal notice on the 5^th August 2016 delivered by hand under 1998 Data Protection Act which requires you to supply me with any and all documents arising from or prior to and during the submission and processing of my Application. I have yet to receive a receipt or acknowledgement.

9.00. Impeachment.

9.01. It is my fundamental belief that you and those who advise and serve under your leadership and Chairmanship, including your law ‘officers’ within the LFRS and the LCC, have treated my Statutory Stage II Application with dissimulation in a deliberately successful attempt to mislead and misinform the Fire Authority, of the true legal position in which you have embarrassingly placed them all both  severally, and individually.

9.02. When my subject data is released to me after the Fire Authority have discharged its Statutory duty under the provisions of the 1998 Data Protection Act, should my suspicions of your criminal dissimulation prove to be true then it will be my intention to impeach you and those Councillors under your jurisdiction who have knowingly aided and abetted you in perverting the course of Justice.

9.03. Accordingly I, and others, will be duty bound to report such personal criminality to the LCC in the first instance, and failing it, the Home Secretary as the Minister of State responsible for the Fire and Rescue Service, and to other relevant authorities, for example, the House of Commons Select Committee for Work and Pensions; the Pensions Regulator; and the Pensions and Local Government Ombudsmen; the Chief Constable; this list is not exhaustive.

10.00. Payment of the Correct Pension.

10.01.  All I continue to seek is the proper payment of my rightful pension entitlement as prescribed by law, rather than accepting a convenient layman's misinterpretation in aid of cost cutting by means of which those injured in service with the LFRS have been retired without any Statutory compensation.

10.02. I was compulsorily retired on grounds of ill health/injury and awarded a Rule B3 ill-health pension and Rule B4 Injury Award and in closing I reiterate the questions:

Why am I being paid the sum of the Rule B1 Ordinary pension I would have been entitled to had I been retiring by voluntary choice, instead of a Rule B3 ill-health pension and Rule B4 Injury Award provided for within the 1992 Statutory Instrument No.129 which was to compensate me for my lost career, the pay and emoluments due to higher rank I may have achieved, and pension falling due on my full service(aged 60), all lost to me by way of forced early retirement, due to injury in service for which the LCFA is Statutorily liable in no lesser sums in compensation for my injury and loss than a Court would award by way of ordinary and special damages – and in such a case as this – aggravated damage should a Judge take the view that the LCFA, its servants or agents, deserve censure for the illegal and fraudulent denial of payment due and particularly so where the Chairman of the LCFA’s conduct was in clear and deliberate avoidance of State Guidance on how to interpret and apply the law – thus perverting the course of Justice for gain?

Yours Sincerely,

F. M. G. MIFireE.

Asst Divisional Fire Officer(Rtd).

This procedure has, over time, become rarely used and those with opinions in such matters such as 'Halsbury's Laws of England' consider it to be, in all probability, obsolete.

The principles of "responsible government" require that the Prime Minister and other executive officers including those in local authorities should answer to Parliament, rather than to the Sovereign. Thus the House of Commons can remove such an 'officer' through a motion of no confidence without a long, drawn-out impeachment.

However, it is rightly argued by some that the remedy of impeachment remains as part of British constitutional law, and that legislation would be required to abolish it.

Furthermore, impeachment as a means of punishment for wrongdoing, as distinct from being a means of removing a Minister of the Crown, remains a valid reason for accepting that it continues to be available, at least in theory.

The Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1967 recommended "that the right to impeach, which has long been in disuse, be now formally abandoned". 

In 1997 their recommendation not having been implemented in the meantime, the Select Committee on Privileges in 1977 reversed itself and declared it "to be of continuing validity" and again urged that it be re-adopted for use and indeed it was. 

In April 1977, the Young Liberals' annual conference unanimously passed a motion calling on Liberal Party leader David Steel to move for the impeachment of Ronald King Murray QC, the Lord Advocate, over his handling of the Patrick Meehan miscarriage of justice affair.

Steel did not move any such motion but Murray (now Lord Murray, a former Senator of the College of Justice of Scotland) agreed that the power still existed.

In 1999 The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege noted the previous recommendations to formally abandon the power impeachment, and stated that "The circumstances in which impeachment has taken place are now so remote from the present that the procedure may be considered obsolete".

Notwithstanding, on 25th August 2004, Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price announced his intention to move for the impeachment of Tony Blair for his role in involving Britain in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He asked the Leader of the House of Commons Peter Hain M.P. whether he would confirm that the power to impeach was still available?

Reminding Hain that as President of the Young Liberals he had supported the attempted impeachment of Murray.

Hain responded by quoting the 1999 Joint Committee's report, and the advice of the Clerk of the House of Commons that impeachment "effectively died with the advent of full responsible Parliamentary government".

However in spite of these ‘opinions’ the law of impeachment still remains on the Statute Book and thus part of Constitutional Law and until legislation is enacted to abolish it, there it remains.

For pragmatic purposes in recognising the word ‘impeachment’, for the time being, as just a generic description there are numerous other channels available to the Bugler and those he represents to achieve the same objective because, quite rightly, Justice is today firmly biased against Misconduct in Public Office by the likes of DeMolfetta and his cronies…

N.B.Grateful for disabled FSV-MT sharing his research on this definition.