|
To: Ann Graves
Date: 21 May 2004
Dear Ms Graves
I was present at Chichester on 19th May to witness what can only be described a surprising response to public consultation. I attended what the Sussex Police Authority website had announced as public consultation to "have your say".
To find it then described after arrival as a "crime and disorder" meeting, in such a way as to suggest that discussion of what must be your largest single investment towards better management of crime and disorder (Airwave) was not relevant, was suspiciously over-defensive. I had intended to ask about the cost to Council Tax payers of achieving a fully operational system, performing to your expected specification, including full coverage beyond the core contract, of achieving connectivity for data to the national police computer system, and the costs of replacement of equipment subject to interference from TETRA equipment. That, I felt, would indeed be relevant to all present, since your resources from our payments are already so stretched.
This would have been an excellent occasion to have had an Airwave stall, displaying the old and new equipment side by side, posters of its capabilities, linking to police computers for instant data transfer at the scene of crime etc. Having received £7 million already towards its implementation, it was conspicuous by its absence.
I did not submit my question after the meeting for a written answer, because I have already written to the Authority and received no answer. Moreover, the manner in which you first heard and then suppressed a question from the floor, left me in no doubt that you have no intention of being open and trustworthy on matters concerning Airwave.
Incidentally, the question posed by Hugh Coster of Bognor Civic Society was entirely reasonable. Bognor has overwhelming evidence of adverse health reactions to TETRA transmissions that deserve full and open investigation. If the police are deserving of long-term monitoring since they are obliged to use this untested equipment, then so are the communities you are there to care for. You had absolutely no reason, having heard this question, to refuse a reasonable answer. No-one in that hall would have minded waiting another ten minutes to hear your response.
That aside, I hope that you feel comfortable that monitoring your employees as users of this new equipment appears acceptable, whereas were the same equipment to be supplied in order to measure its long-term effects, that would be clearly unethical and quite unacceptable. I do not feel so comfortable. If my employer were to place me in a similar situation, Health and Safety and Occupational Health would be jumping up and down on my behalf.
Above all, I feel you did yourself and the Authority a great and public disservice on Wednesday evening.
yours
Andy Davidson
| 
