LPUK – when the nutters take over…

It has long been said that LPUK attracts the nutters, something that I have tried to dismiss over the years but now… well with all the turmoil, the coup and the agitator in chief Malcolm Saunders calling the shots I have to think again.

Investigate, Investigate, Investigate says Malcolm Saunders. He is not happy that due process has taken place, he is not happy with those in authority over such matters such as the Electoral Commission and the LPUK NCC have followed their processes and found no wrongdoing or case to answer.

Investigate he continues to scream. OK, so lets do that. I wonder if Mr Saunders was calling for the same detailed level of investigation into his own background in 2002.

The Liverpool Echo takes up the story…

MERSEYSIDE fire chief Malcolm Saunders is at the centre of an investigation into sado-masochistic pornography posted on the Internet, the ECHO can reveal.

Oh my.

The fire authority has received complaints over sordid material written under the pseudonym “Solomon Gurney – poet and philosopher”.

The author had used e-mail accounts which also appear to have been used for the posting of legitimate messages by Mr Saunders.

Some of the material posted includes scenes of sexual violence and sado-masochism.

No, surely some mistake..

A police spokesman said: “Merseyside police carried out an investigation into matters referred to it by Merseyside Fire Authority relating to the publication of material on an internet site written under the pseudonym Solomon Gurney.

“No substantive criminal issues have been revealed and the matter will now be returned to the fire authority for any action they may deem appropriate.”

So, it seems there was something after all.. but how deep did they dig, how far did they investigate?

It is understood that the police did not go on to investigate if Mr Saunders wrote the material, having satisfied themselves that it was not criminal in its content.

(source: Liverpool Echo)

So, due process completed Mr Saunders would have heaved a huge sigh of relief… but was it enough? should they have continued to investigate, investigate, investigate or should we all consider that the proper authorities had done their job and that was the end of the matter.

Mr Saunders will no doubt be the first to tell you that there was nothing in the allegations, but should we be calling for further and more detailed investigation of this most serious of allegations.

Oh, and just in case you think I was joking when I called him a nutter, here’s his picture.. borrowed from his own website. Is this the man to investigate LPUK?

For the purpose of clarity, his own LinkedIn profile confirms that he was indeed Chief Fire Officer with the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service.

n.b. All information in this post is public domain.

EDIT:

and following on from his dealings with internet porn, it seems this champion of the people got a massive payoff from the public purse… ripping off the taxpayers to the tune of £200,000 ….this from the Daily Mail….

A FIRE chief who said it was ‘morally repugnant’ for officers to accept big pay-outs for retiring due to ill-health has been condemned as a hypocrite after doing exactly that.

Malcolm Saunders, who had been off sick from his post as Chief Fire Officer of Merseyside since the start of the year with a nervous illness, was awarded an estimated pound sterling200,000 lump sum and an annual pension of about pound sterling40,000.

Last year, towards the end of a stormy four-year tenure, Mr Saunders strongly criticised the system by which officers can take more on retirement than they had paid into the service’s pension fund.

Strange is it not that the 2 most vocal accusers of LPUK and its officers are ex government employees and both have received massive payouts for the same problem. Susanne Nundy’s payout was £250,000.

and I also discover that our Malcolm Saunders is a Common Purpose graduate.

Advertisements

About IanPJ

Ian Parker-Joseph, former Leader of the Libertarian Party UK, who currently heads PDPS Internet Hosting and the Personal Deed Poll Services company, has been an IT industry professional for over 20 years, providing Business Consulting, Programme and Project Management, specialising in the recovery of Projects that have failed in a process driven world. Ian’s experience is not limited to the UK, and he has successfully delivered projects in the Middle East, Africa, US, Russia, Poland, France and Germany. Working within different cultures, Ian has occupied high profile roles within multi-nationals such as Nortel and Cable & Wireless. These experiences have given Ian an excellent insight into world events, and the way that they can shape our own national future. His extensive overseas experiences have made him all too aware of how the UK interacts with its near neighbours, its place in the Commonwealth, and how our nation fits into the wider world. He is determined to rebuild many of the friendships and commercial relationships with other nations that have been sadly neglected over the years, and would like to see greater energy and food security in these countries, for the benefit of all. Ian is a vocal advocate of small government, individual freedom, low taxation and a minimum of regulation. Ian believes deeply and passionately in freedom and independence in all areas of life, and is now bringing his professional experiences to bear in the world of politics.
This entry was posted in Libertarian Party, Main Page and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to LPUK – when the nutters take over…

  1. malpoet says:

    Yes the photo is a good representation. I took it myself.

    I am happy for people to make their own judgement about whether I am a nutter.

    I have annoyed a lot of people at one time or another, but I am happy to say that my actions have usually been thought to be worthwhile by those whose opinion I respect.

    • IanPJ says:

      Well I certainly don’t think your Libertarian credentials stand up to scrutiny.

      Actions such as this are as Libertarian as Tony Blair and his communitarian authoritarians.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1333910/Green-Goddesses-at-fire-fighting-front.html

      • malpoet says:

        Absolutely sound. I reduced waste and overspending in a public sector service.

        I would have achieved a lot more without the wrecking activities of a vicious union and gutless empire builders in local and national government.

        • IanPJ says:

          Yes, we have all seen how Labour decimated the Fire Brigades turning them into the most politically correct service in the UK. The entire policy of enforced inclusion is about as anti Libertarian as you get. This was not about saving money, this was a policy which you appear to have taken on with some relish.
          No doubt you were selected for Common Purpose training as well. I am already aware that Merseyside Fire Authority had a huge CP budget.

          EDIT: Just checked, Malcolm Saunders, Common Purpose graduate, Merseyside.

          • malpoet says:

            You clearly know nothing about the Fire Service Ian. Far from being decimated it is a hugely bloated money drain, riddled with restrictive practices and under the total stranglehold of the FBU.

            I did go on a 2 day Common Purpose thing. Waste of time and money, but nothing more really.

          • IanPJ says:

            I did go on a 2 day Common Purpose thing. Waste of time and money, but nothing more really.

            Of course, that’s why we find you on their graduates list.

            Game over as far as I am concerned.

  2. malpoet says:

    What game is that Ian?

  3. Nic Coome says:

    Was this the same Malcolm Saunders who, after allegedly stating that it was ‘morally repugnant’ for officers to accept big pay-outs for retiring due to ill-health, was condemned as a hypocrite after doing exactly that?

    Apparently, that Malcolm Saunders, who had been off sick from his post as Chief Fire Officer of Merseyside for some months in 2002, was said to have been awarded an estimated £200,000 lump sum and an annual pension of around £40,000.

    Nice work if you can get it.

  4. Andrew Withers says:

    I have been feeling slightly ‘ nervous’ recently where do I apply ? Stupid me- I do not work for the State.

    Looks like you have to be a very special public servant to get this pay off, IED’s , seeing your mates killed and maimed does not count.

    http://www.ptsdforum.org/c/threads/mentally-ill-troops-denied-pay-out-by-the-armys-approved-insurers.2178/

    Is PTSD a recognised mental illness ?

  5. malpoet says:

    Yes I retired on ill health. Nothing hypocritical about it. The sneering by AW about mental illness fits in nicely with his sneering about vast donations.

    Why have you stopped approving my comments Ian?

    • IanPJ says:

      I don’t disapprove comments unless they are litigious…. but I have found one of yours in the spam tray.

    • Andrew Withers says:

      No sneering from me about mental illness ever, but why do soldiers, rescue workers and firemen never get the payouts you guys seem to accrue. They lay their lives on the line. They get barely a tenth of what you got if they are lucky, and their families have to pick up the pieces for the rest of their lives.

      They don’t retire to write poetry on a state sinecure.

      • malpoet says:

        I would probably be writing more poetry If I had never come across you Andrew. Maybe material for the future.

        How is it that “firemen never get the payouts”, but this ex-fireman is on a state sinecure? An odd contradiction.

        • Andrew Withers says:

          I have to say I did laugh at your default antagonism with the very word ‘Andrew’, mixing me up with Andrew Janes. Its just a knee jerk reaction with you everytime.

          Please do not include me in any of your ‘poetry’ in the future, very bizarre output. Its amazing how many people from the FBU and Echo remember your case with absolute clarity. You made quite an impression ! The words ‘mysterious circumstances ‘kept on coming up quite a bit.

  6. IPJ,

    if you think Malcolm is the only one in the party who wants this investigated, you are wrong. Contrary to what some of the people on this thread might think, the party isn’t the private property of the officers, but belongs to the members, and the members want the truth to be told. Is that so much to ask, before we dip our hands in our pockets?

    • IanPJ says:

      TT,

      and thats a reasonable request, and a reasonable way to ask for it. It is something that the NCC report covered and I am sure would have been dealt with in due course, if the course had been left to run.
      However, acting like a screaming banshee, taking up 90% of the blog space, bullying, hounding the elected party officers out of office so that an unelected clique can take over is not reasonable.

      My view has not changed, I don’t recognise the current NCC and will petition for the party to be wound up.

      • Nic Coome says:

        Trooper

        Sadly, Ian’s description of events is very near the mark and I chucked the towel in because I was sick of the constant attacks on my integrity from people, some of whom would appear to have been living in glass houses.

        He is absolutely correct to point out that the report DID address the financial aspects which were raised after the report was commissioned i.e. the state of the accounts. This is what it had to say:-

        “It is the case that responsibility for all the financial activities are only now in the final stage of being handed over to the new Treasurer, four months after he should have taken up his duties. Whilst there have been some valid reasons for the delay, this is clearly far from ideal and must not be allowed to happen again. However, the implication in the blog is clearly that ‘put them in order’ should be construed as ‘cook them’.

        That is a serious charge. The NCC may take the view that as the Electoral Commission has given the accounts submitted to them a clean bill of health (A1 in Andrew’s words), there is no more to be said and we should consider the matter closed. Conversely, it may believe that the only way to draw a line under the past is to carry out an audit of the accounts from one or more previous years. This could be carried by someone within the Party, or be entrusted to an external auditor, which will undoubtedly be quicker, but very costly. That last point is very important as it has excited a few people over the last week. The NCC must act in an open and transparent manner but what cannot be denied is that the Party is not in good financial shape and commissioning an external audit might not be something we can commit to in the short term.

        Whatever the NCC chooses to do with regard to the accounts themselves, it is clear that the Party’s financial control is not all it should be. The new Treasurer is proposing a clear set of rules for the way the Party should conduct its financial affairs going forward; future financial standing orders must be implemented forthwith, based on these.”

        In addition, two of the recommendations of the report backed that up by stating that the NCC must convene swiftly to consider

        “Whether further action should be taken in verifying the accounts from previous years and, if so, what that should be”

        and

        “The implementation of clear financial standing orders to restore confidence in the administration of the Party’s finances”.

        Unfortunately, that was totally and utterly ignored by a small clique of embittered members, mainly from the NW branch who set about abusing those with whom they disagreed. In that abuse, they were aided and abetted by several, mainly anonymous contributors to the LPUK website.

        It was that abuse that ended my involvement with the party. I note that I am still being accused of maladministration by various people, despite no-one offering any evidence to support their wild claims, which appear to have the support of the new (temporary) treasurer. Little of what has happened since I left has been in the slightest bit libertarian which is why I am supportive of Ian’s view that there is little alternative but to wrap it up and start again.

        • You are free to start again, but I fail to see why everyone else should dissolve the party over a dispute amongst a handful of (now ex-) members.

        • malpoet says:

          I haven’t accused you of maladministration Nic. I have said that there was maladministration by the Party leadership and that is acknowledged in your report when you say that the accounts had not been fully handed over four months after appointment of the Treasurer.

          You have not had any abuse from me Nic, but I have from you when you thought that it was an attack on your integrity to ask questions.

          People can argue about whether the Party should be wound up or not. None of that alters the need for the people who have contributed to the Party since it was formed to be told what has happened to their money.

          • Nic Coome says:

            Actually, Malcolm, I didn’t accuse you specifically of anything, in fact I didn’t even mention your name in that post. However:-

            “IPJ, AW and NC seem to be enjoying trying to transfer attention from LPUK funds and maladministration under the past leadership”.

            Remember that? You should as you posted it on the LPUK site at 7.17pm on 24 May. You’re accusing me of covering up maladministration under the past leadership of which I was a member, thus accusing me of maladministration.

            As for abuse, I suggest you go back and read some of the emails you sent me, along with many of your postings.

            I’m glad to see that you don’t argue with the main point of my post, namely that the report most certainly did not ignore the issue over the integrity or otherwise of the previous years’ accounts and that is quite simply that you can’t. Everything that was done was above board and every NCC member who was present agreed to it.

  7. IPJ,

    “I don’t recognise the current NCC and will petition for the party to be wound up”

    Why? You’d prefer it to be wound up than have it continue with others in charge of it? How do you explain such a strange notion?

    • IanPJ says:

      Simple, and as one of the founding members I feel physically sick by this public debacle, but this is just one car crash too many. I honestly don’t think a viable political force can ever be recovered out of this mess in its present form.

      It needs closing, de-registering and starting again.

  8. IPJ,

    you seem to view the party like Frankenstein saw the monster – you gave it life and can take it away. I don’t see it quite the same. I didn’t join IPJ’s Monster Party.

    • IanPJ says:

      TT,
      As a member I have as much say as the next man, no more.

      I am entitled to my view as you are, and will petition using the processes in the constitution in the normal way. it is not a demand, I shall not rant but I will petition.

Comments are closed.