Search questions

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

I might have to ask elsewhere. Let us get it in context. We now know that he had expressed concerns - I think was your phrase - that the project was not on track. This is not a rogue member of the Board, this is the person who is the Chair of the Authority expressing those concerns. What specifically were the concerns that he raised?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

That came from some other source that speculation did it?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

What was the line that was put out, can you remind me?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

When Mr Lemley left, as I recall, it was suggested that it was because of ill health. Is that correct?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

You do not know whether there was any provision that might give rise to discussion on that?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 15 November 2006

I understand. Was there any payment made to Mr Lemley in relation to the termination of his position?

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 10 December 2003

I think Sir John's last point reassures me as regards the issue. I accept it in the spirit in which it is given. I hope that those responsible for distorting his words will reflect upon the damage that they have done to the Met's reputation. That is not a criticism of Sir John.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 10 December 2003

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 10 December 2003

I am grateful for the recognition of good practice. I hope that there is also a recognition that there is a legitimate public interest, given that the public are ultimately my and your paymasters, in reflecting their aspirations and priorities for a much greater level of visible reassurance policing, particularly in outer London.

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 10 December 2003