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: 08 November 2006

Everybody agrees that it is desirable to have uniform presence of whatever form but, of course, the Mayor told us that the decision to go for 375 PCSOs as opposed to a different configuration, for example warranted officers, came on advice from yourself as Commissioner. What I am saying is, would it in retrospect have not been better to have employed fully warranted officers so that they would have the flexibility to work right the way through the night, particularly as I accept sometimes reassurance and good work that PCSOs do in communities - getting to know local people and...