The postal services are getting back to normal after Bexley councils
failure to grit the snowbound roads and my delivery today included the
response of the Standards Board to whom I referred councillor Craskes unwarranted
personal comments to someone who questioned him about the councils contract with
transport consultants, Parsons Brinckerhoff. A question which was derailed by Craske saying
there was no £4m. contract.
to judge whether that is a deliberate and calculated lie or not.
I wrote to the Mayor to ask about that and why she had permitted Craske to deliberately attempt to belittle a member of the public. The Mayor replied on 30th November to tell me that Craske had done nothing wrong and that she was Gods gift to chairmanship. She couldnt bring herself to mention Craskes false statement about the £4m. contract presumably because even she might not want to deny in writing an obvious attempt to deceive.
The Mayor may believe she is an expert chairman but anyone who goes to a council meeting can see first hand that she deludes herself. However the fact that the Mayor is as talentless as most councillors appear to be is not the issue here, it is that she told me Craske was innocent of breaking the code of practice the day before the Standards Board was due to meet.
The people who warned me that Bexleys Standards Board is rigged and corrupted by that rigging were right. How did councillor Val Clark, the Mayor, know their verdict in advance?
The Standards Board does not deny Craske said what he said but their report proclaims him innocent. The summary is in paragraph 2.3. The board, made up of a majority of councillors, believes that making a totally misleading statement about a contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff and then immediately and without any reason telling the assembled members of the public that the questioner once came bottom of the poll in a council election is not an attempt to belittle him. It is so ridiculous it doesnt really require further comment from me. What possible alternative explanation can there be? It was a totally irrelevant comment made with only one thing in mind. Malice. Paragraph 2.3 claims that Craske sees a correlation between a question which he answered dishonestly and his decision to bring up the result of an old election; as if that excuses digging up the past. I may well seek a further explanation and ask if my interpretation is correct.
Meanwhile we have confirmation that councillors Cheryl Bacon and Nigel Betts are willing to stand behind Craskes deception and bad behaviour. I was wrong about Bacon, I thought she was totally selfish and had little interest beyond grabbing her slice of the near £100k. expenses flowing into her household. Now we know she has an affinity with more direct forms of dishonesty too. Betts we already know is in cahoots with the whistleblower sacker so his integrity rating couldnt go much lower anyway.