• The Morning Bugler publicly presents the evidence of fraud of the Public Purse by CC .D.O’Toole(Conservative Whip) to enable the Lancashire Taxpayers and his peers to judge for themselves;

• An Open letter to Lancashire’s Chief Constable presenting some of the evidence and publicly calling for a robust and publicly transparent criminal re-investigation of the fraudulent activities of CC.D.O’Toole covering all his expenses activities including those has claimed at the LFRS ;

• Awaiting once more a response/acknowledgement from the Lancashire Crime & Police Commissioner of this letter to the Chief Constable including his failure to answer repeated requests for an interview with him to hear the views of disabled Fire Service Veterans;

• The LCC Allowance Scheme Rules.

• The Tapes – Evidence goes ‘Missing’ again? The recording of Detective Sergeant Pearson Lancashire Police at Preston Police Station at a joint meeting with two disabled Fire Service Veterans in which he stated that CC O’Toole had admitted under Caution to him that he knew that the mileage he was claiming was not the actual shortest physical distance…

This particular scandal arose during the pension dispute when one of the disabled FSV~JSH MIFireE, who was ploughing his own furrow, was repeatedly rebuffed whilst trying to obtain a copy of his own Personal Record Files.

Disabled FSV~JSH MIFireE expressed his own thoughts on the whole issue. Go Here.

FSV~JSH’s objectives in part coincided with those of the Bugler using broadly the same lawful approaches which were also repeatedly stonewalled in an increasingly obnoxious tone and attitude in which CC O’Toole and his ‘colleagues’ CFO Holland et al attempted to smear the integrity and good names of not only FSV~JSH but other disabled FSVs and their Widows who were participating in this dispute.

This was a classical case where O’Toole and Holland, none of whom have ever put their necks on the line for anyone other than themselves, scandalously ran a man in endless nudge, wink , and smirk amoral circles. A disabled FSV who it has to be said was suffering from PTSD and is still suffering today.

Go Here.

O’Toole and Holland et al wantonly and publicly stated that the disabled FSVs and their Widows had obtained DWP benefits fraudulently which was of course a defensive strategy born of ‘attack’ desperation to cover up their own gross maladministration of disabled FSVs pensions.

As a consequence a group of the FSVs decided to examine O’Toole’s and Holland’s expenses on the … ‘good for the gander’ principle…once more they were stonewalled but eventually 80 pages of LCC records of O’Toole’s expenses claims were released; studied; and a Police complaint made.Go Here.

Then what purported to be a criminal ‘investigation’ ensued by the Lancashire Police but was in reality a complete cover up and whitewash. Go Here.

It is noteworthy that O’Toole and Holland have blatantly and persistently defied the law(FOIA) by refusing to release their expenses claims generated at the LFRS. What can they have to hide from Public scrutiny?

It is after all Public/Taxpayers monies they received.

In January 2013 the Bugler made the first Complaint to Lancashire’s Chief Constable Mr.S.Finnegan MA(Cantab)QPMQPM CBE he had neither the common courtesy to acknowledge or reply to the correspondence.

Go Here.

This was followed immediately in January 2013 by a formal Complaint to the Police and Crime Commissioner Mr.C.Grunshaw he had neither the common courtesy to acknowledge or reply to the correspondence either.

However, as the Public have noted lately in a growing and welcome trend these post holders are not above the law themselves, or of being called to account. Currently, nationally, there are 5 Chief Constables under investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission(IPCC), perhaps it is best if we do not make the tally 7 ?

It seems that it falls to the Morning Bugler to remind both of these gentlemen that they have well paid posts, which includes administrative support, to reply to the ‘commoners’ and Complainants. Please do so.

Indeed, the Home Secretary Rt Hon Mrs Theresa May PC, M.P. their direct boss, recently made a pointed remark after the recent departure on one PCC that … “It is right that where people failed in their duty they should take responsibility”.

Let us hope that their will be no further failure of duty or courtesies such that we will not have to use this remark publicly again when once more we call on the Lancashire Police Commissioner and Chief Constable to properly and thoroughly re-investigate CC O’Toole’s fraudulent criminality.

If they are incapable of carrying out their duty then they must hand this investigation over to the IPCC and step aside themselves.

Overtaken by other litigious matters following this initial Complaint, this case as the DPP is wont to say, was allowed to ‘lie on file’ by the Bugler because as we all know there is no Statute of limitations for criminal activity and it could wait for another day.

That day came when disabled FSV~JSH and the Bugler took issue with this covered up, white washed, Police ‘investigation’ under the command of Asst Chief Constable A. Rhodes, now Deputy Chief Constable.

Surely it was time to lay the evidence before the Public and call on all those involved in this criminal ‘investigation’ of fraud by CC.D.O’Toole to do it all again, at more waste of Public money, but to do it properly and present the conclusions openly and transparently to the Citizens of Lancashire who can judge for themselves. Go Here.

Currently-An acknowledgement from the CC, but nothing from the PCC.

The noteworthy paragraphs in LCC Appendix ‘I’ to be complied with by CC.O’Toole are, 10.3; 11.0; 11.2.1; 11.3; 11.4; and 11.7. for the full Rules. Go Here.

It is also significant that the Bugler operated within the provisions of this Scheme for over 2 decades and it is probable that the Chief Constable currently does so. The Public can be certain that his Officers currently operate to these terms because DS Pearson confirmed that he was a current member of this Scheme and fully aware of its provisions which he illustrated and confirmed, using himself as an example, during his recorded interview with the Complainants.

Here is an example of CC O’Toole’s claims for the financial year 2011-2012 generated with the Lancashire CC and the LFRS set against other councillor claimants. Go Here.

In the interim FSV Hinton took his Complaint to the ICO that the LFRS were, and are continuing to refuse to release CC O’Toole and ex-CFO Holland’s expenses claims. One continues, in the light of Police proceedings, to wonder why that should be so?

It seems difficult to reconcile the fact that while the LCC and the LFRS publish CC. O.Toole’s annual gross claims there seems to be a stonewalling resistance by the LFRS to release the actual individual expenses claims themselves for examination and comparison between CC.O’Toole’s activities at his two working bases namely County Hall and Fire Service HQ whilst the LCC has unhesitatingly done so.

This failure to comply with the FOI Act leads to unfounded speculation which has the tendency to cast a shadow over honest Councillors who adhere by the Rules, or in fact claim not a single penny from the Public purse, in these difficult financial times.

It seems extraordinary that whilst certain councillors claim nothing, or take the minimum reimbursement to cover their own personal circumstances, others like CC. O’ Toole, regard public service not as an honour but as a means to a personal end in the form of a second income.

It cannot be acceptable for pensioners of any description counting their pennies and acting decently and honourably to observe councillors like CC.O’Toole with their snouts in the trough in hard times not only voting to pay themselves expenses to serve the selfish interest of their own Political Parties(who put this greedy and scandalous idea to the Electorate?) but not content with this to then engage, self evidently, in self serving fraud, is simply an abomination.

Then when these fraudulent activities are discovered and CC O’Toole is called to account he abuses his political power by insisting that the LFRS do not release his actual expenses claims forms in case it would be further discovered that not only was he acting fraudulently at the LCC but, at the same time, he was knowingly acting similarly at the LFRS.

As far as the Bugler knows no one can yet be at a meeting at County Hall and several miles away at Fire Service HQ at one and the same time?

A follow up meeting to discuss the ‘investigation’ was convened at Preston Police Divisional HQ Lancaster Road North Preston PR1 on the 28^th May at 10:30hrs.

Present were:

            Detective Sergeant 1620 Martin Pearson(DSP) – Lancashire Constabulary;

            Mr .Paul P. Burns GIFireE- disabled Fire Service Veteran-First Complainant;

             FSV~JSH MIFE – disabled Fire Service  Veteran-Second Complainant.

Although an informal, non-judicial meeting, the disabled FSVs indicated their intention to take contemporaneous notes and to record the proceedings with two devices one of which was carried personally. DSP complemented this intention by activating the in-suite recording equipment and identifying those present for the tape record, thus 3 devices and 4 tapes recorded this meeting.

When this meeting was concluded DSP was asked for a copy of one of the two  tapes(Court Procedures and Rules require duplicate taping in all interviews) from the recorder within the interview suite. DSP declined to provide one which he knows is the usual procedure in such matters saying that the tapes ‘would need editing’ and to date this tape has yet to be supplied to the Complainants though of course the Complainants will publish their own unedited tape courtesy of the Bugler.

In the period that followed two matters arose.

The first was the statement allegedly used by DS Pearson to CC. O’Toole which was challenges by FSV Burns to which he, DS Pearson, never replied. The second was the repeated requests in writing which were  made by FSV~JSH to DS Pearson for a copy of the tape, once more, to date without success.

This is a record of these two matters and the correspondence originating from it. Go Here.

Firstly, one wonders why it was necessary to ‘edit’ any tape from an official interview suite?

Secondly, one can only conclude that during the ‘editing’ which DSP referred at the commencement of this curious affair this evidential tape will be either ‘lost’ or destroyed…

Thirdly, perhaps because of the pressure of his work DSP is unable to find the time to pass the tape to FSV~JSH and this is the innocent explanation for this long delay?

However, if this is not the case and DSP is deliberately failing to supply this official tape to members of the Public who are Complainants in this matter then he is unwittingly exposing himself professionally to potential criminal charges of obstructing justice; perverting the course of justice; and/or misconduct in public office.

To hear the tape.Go Here.

In order to aid an understanding of key quotes on this tape the following transcribed elements are provided:

Pearson – “In an interview he himself said (O’T) it’s not the shortest distance…

Pearson – in his interview”…

Pearson – “Seriously now I can assure you I did set off with every good intention of    I’m going to ‘nail this guy’ (O’T) because on the face of it looked like he was having us all”…

 Pearson – “Quite clear his (O’T) record keeping was very poor”…

But of course to err is human and that is why all expenses claims are checked for common mathematical errors.

The final judgement which remains in this case involving CC D. O’Toole expenses are the inescapable questions of his veracity and honesty  and whether or not the man in the street, or on the Lancashire omnibus, is convinced that CC.O’Toole is an innocent man hoisted on the petard of his own bumbling incompetence?

As one might expect there is case law for just this very issue.

This is produced in full for the Morning Bugler Readers(Courtesy of legal researcher FSV-M.T.) so that they and the Public at large may apply the same standards and values of Justice and fair play which CC.O’Toole has signally failed to demonstrate to the disabled Fire Service Veterans of Lancashire to whom, as an elected Member, he has a particular duty of pastoral care…

In dismissing Dr Ghosh’s appeal against his conviction for dishonesty the Court of Appeal found that his conviction for dishonesty  was well founded because the original direction did not lead to an unsafe or unsound conviction.

However, the Court reformulated the test for dishonesty. It held that in future :

“…a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest…If it was dishonest…then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest.”

Hence the test for dishonesty must be both subjective and objective.  As a result there is the ‘Ghosh test’, which a jury must consider before reaching a verdict on dishonesty:

1.Was the act one that an ordinary decent person (normally considered to be the ubiquitous ‘man on the clapham omnibus’ would consider to be dishonest (the objective test)? If so :

2. Must the accused have realised that what he was doing was, by those standards, dishonest (the subjective test)?

Finally, under this judgement and case law, it is not essential for CC. O’Toole to admit that he had acted in a way that he knew to be dishonest.

It is enough that he knew as a responsible person in elected public office that others including his own electorate would think his behaviour was dishonest, or that he thought, knew, and kept secret, the fact that what he was doing was simply ‘wrong’.