Even if we believe it possible to eat lunch and drive the
125 miles from Magor to Pembroke Dock (via Haverfordwest) in
the 52 minutes between 1.08 pm and 2.00 pm (125 mph excluding
munch time - 178 mph allowing 15 minutes to eat) we still have
to give him a black mark for punctuality because, as the minutes
record (see below), the SWITCH meeting kicked off just as he
was leaving Pembroke Dock some 60 miles away.
Indeed, on any realistic time scale, his fellow Switchers were
already half an hour into the meeting the first time he (allegedly)
drove past Penllergaer, en route from Magor to Pembroke Dock.
Minutes of SWITCH meeting held on 1 Feb 2001
Now, it is always possible that Cllr Hall made a mistake when
he entered his alleged time of departure from Pembroke Dock.
However, what is not in doubt is that he claimed 130 miles at
49.5p for this supposed journey.
The next accurate fix on Cllr Hall's space-time coordinates is
at 3.45 pm in Neath Port Talbot's offices when he is signing
out at the end of the SWITCH meeting (see extract from visitors'
book below).
Mr R G (Rhodri) Jones of Ceredigion County Council, who was also
at the meeting (see minutes above), signed out at the same time.
Extract from visitors' book of Neath Port Talbot County Borough
Council offices where the SWITCH meeting was held
What this shows is that Cllr Hall arrived at Penllergaer at
3.45 pm at the very latest.
That was when he was at the reception desk on his way out of
the building but, as we know, he actually attended the meeting
so he must have arrived some time before 3.45 pm.
The time lapse between 1.08 pm,
when Cllr Hall paid for his "Daily spec", and 3.45
pm, when he left Neath/Port Talbot's offices, is 2hrs 37 mins
(2.62 hrs).
So, even assuming he threw his lunch into the nearest bin; jumped
straight in the car; drove from Magor to Penllergaer (via Haverfordwest
and Pembroke Dock); and arrived at the council offices just in
time to sign out, he would have had to average 75 mph.
On the more reasonable assumption that he bought lunch with the
intention of eating it; took 15 minutes to do so, and then spent
at least 15 minutes at the SWITCH meeting (we know from the minutes
that he was present) the average speed shoots up to 90
mph.
Presumably he went to Haverfordwest and Pembroke Dock for some
(time-consuming) purpose and any time he spent in those two places
would result in a corresponding increase in the average velocity
required.
You may think that the most obvious explanation is that Cllr
Hall called in at Penllergaer on his way back from London and
then claimed (and was paid) for 130 miles at 49.5p to which he
was not entitled.
Old Grumpy has already floated that theory several times in this
column, but the weight of authority is against it.
One apparently unimpeachable authority being churchwarden, Magistrate
and former Chairman of the County Council, Cllr Rosemary Hayes
who, in response to questions put by Labour Leader Joyce Watson
told the council on 13 December 2001: "The relevant facts
are that Councillor Hall undertook approved duties and can establish
that he actually made the journeys for which he claimed travelling
allowances."
When Cllr Watson protested that this statement didn't answer
her questions, Cllr Hayes countered that my allegations were
"...based on a series of assumptions about the speed with
which Cllr Hall undertook a number of journeys on a particular
day."
Actually, the only assumption involved is that which forms the
basis of the speeding fines handed down by Cllr Hayes and her
fellow magistrates on a daily basis: that miles travelled, divided
by hours taken, equals average speed in miles per hour.
If you find Cllr Hayes less than convincing, what about the Monitoring
Officer who, in a letter dated 14 December 2001, in response
to questions from Cllr Tom Sinclair, wrote: "The relevant
facts are that Councillor Hall undertook approved duties and
can establish that he actually made the journeys for which he
claimed travelling allowances."
At least they were both singing from the same hymn sheet, though
it is noticeable that neither of them offered any suggestions
as to the advances in mathematical theory - the solution to Fermat's
Last Theorem, perhaps - that allowed them to state with such
certainty that Cllr Hall could "establish" that he
"actually made the journeys for which he claimed ..."
Then there was the letter the Director of Finance, Mark Lewis,
wrote on 3 January 2002 in which he said: "For the record,
Cllr Hall's attendance at the Fire Safety Seminar in London on
31 January 2001 was an approved duty. Accordingly, Cllr Brian
Hall was able to recover the costs associated with travelling
to and from this meeting (home to London and return), in accordance
with statutory mileage rates, if such duties were performed and
expenditure directly incurred. The same would apply to the SWITCH
meeting held later that day."
I instructed my solicitors to write to Mr Lewis pointing out
that the SWITCH meeting was at the same time that day, not "later",
as he claimed, so, unless Cllr Hall was driving his car along
the M4/A40 while sitting in Board Room in Penllergaer, there
was no "expenditure directly incurred"
I must say, I was disappointed that the Director of Finance,
who controls the Council's £350 million budget, was unimpressed
by my feeble attempt at logic.
Despite these denials of any wrongdoing by those in high places,
Old Grumpy still clings to the notion that Cllr Hall diddled
the Council out of £63.00.
Having done hard sums at university, I am supremely confidence
that my calculations, and the "assumptions" on which
they are based, are sufficiently robust to prove that there was
insufficient time available for Cllr Hall to have made all the
journeys for which he claimed expenses.
But the real clincher is that, in spite of my repeating these
allegations over the past three years, I have not heard a peep
out of his solicitors.
For someone who rarely misses a chance to send m'learned friends
into battle, this shows remarkable self-restraint.
Perhaps he and his minders realise that the standards of truth
demanded in the High Court are rather more exacting than those
in day to day use in County Hall.
An account of the part the police played in this cover up can
be found by clicking on The untouchables
Having studied Cllr Hall's expense claim, the the more alert
among you will be wondering how he came to spend £58.18
on "meals"
Well, we have already seen the receipt for £7.18 for the
"Large fizz and Daily Spec" at the service station.
As for the other 51 quid, that was blown away in the Mandarin
Kitchen (see below) where, on the night of 31 January 2001, Cllr
Hall was calling for drinks all round on the taxpayer.
It seems that all this free booze made Cllr Hall rather talkative
because when he returned to the hotel he made two phone calls
at our expense.
The first timed at 11.13 pm cost a mere £1, but he must
have had something extremely important to tell the recipient
of the second late night call because that set us back a fiver.
Only average
I have emphasised the word "average" in the above
article because there is some interesting arithmetic involved
in the concept of average speed.
Suppose you set off on the 30 mile journey from Haverfordwest
to Carmarthen with the intention of averaging 60 mph.
As often happens, you are delayed by traffic lights at the bottom
of Arnolds Hill and, to make matters worse, you then get stuck
behind a tractor on the long pull up to Robeston Wathen.
The result is that when you reach the halfway point of your journey
you have only managed to average 30 mph.
What speed do you need to achieve over the second part of the
journey to get your average back up to 60 mph.
Before you jump to hasty conclusions, you might consider that,
if you were making the 60 mile trip to Swansea in the same circumstances,
you would have to average 90 mph over the remaining three-quarters
of the journey to get your overall speed up to 60 mph.
Or put another way, in order to average 60 mph you have to compensate
for every mile driven at 30 mph with three at 90.
Rights and wrongs
Thanks to the wonders of the Internet you can now keep up
to date with what goes on in the sleepy little community of Manorbier,
which, for those of you not familiar with the geography of South
Pembrokeshire, lies about 3 miles south west of Tenby.
Apparently, Manorbier suffers from the same democratic deficit
that afflicts the rest of the county - a lack of candidates who
are prepared to put their names forward for election to the Community
Council.
The strange thing is that, once the election is safely out of
the way, there is no shortage of people who are prepared to seek
cooption into any vacant seats.
In Milford. for instance, there were five unfilled seats following
June's elections, but when the opportunity for cooption came
along there were no fewer than 13 applicants in the queue.
The traditional method of filling these positions is for the
sitting councillors - most of whom have recently been elected
unopposed - to conduct a secret ballot to decide who will be
elevated.
In Manorbier, only seven candidates put their names forward for
election to the 10 seats which left the seven elected (unopposed)
councillors to decide which of nine applicants for cooption should
be selected to fill the three vacancies.
Cllr Malcolm Calver suggested that, to avoid allegations of cronyism,
the names should be drawn out of a hat.
This suggestion was opposed on the grounds that it might lead
to the election of the wrong type of people.
Understandably, this slur has gone down like a lead balloon with
some of the unsuccessful candidates.
A mole tells me that Manorbier Community Council is due to meet
tonight and things could get very lively indeed..
For the full story log on to Manorbier.com
email: oldgrumpy.mike@virgin.net
Back to home page
