To return from any entry to the top of this page, click any date on the left
To place a bookmark/anchor in the URL bar (for links), click the blog title
To read blogs from other years and months use the menu above
To change the text size click ‘AAA’ or Mobile icon on the menu above
To permanently change the text size click ‘Configure’ on the menu above
was a little slow to analyse Mrs. Tyler’s most recent
excuse sheet for councillor Cheryl Bacon’s unlawful exclusion of members of the
the Public Realm meeting on 19th June. The fact is I read her
conclusion, noted that Bacon was found not guilty by the failed lawyer employed
by Bexley council and assumed the same old lies had been trotted out. How wrong I was.
Bexley council’s standard practice with complaints is to summarise the complaint at the start of their reply. The summary provided to me clearly showed that Mrs. Tyler had muddled me up with someone else. Someone prepared to say “The member of the public allegedly at the centre of the “debacle” was not preventing the meeting from occurring… [he was] sitting quietly reading the guidance about attending public meetings issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government”. That statement is clearly about Nicholas Dowling and looks likely to have come from a councillor. If so I know which one it it is but I hope you will understand that the name has to remain secret - at least until the file goes to the police.
So from right inside the bear pit you have confirmation that Nicholas Dowling did nothing to disrupt the meeting other than clutch a non-functioning match box sized recorder. The other members of the public present did even less, certainly none of the shouting waving, remonstrating decribed by the deluded, law breaking, caught like a rabbit in the headlights, Cheryl Bacon.
Whilst Bexley council can take six weeks to fail to answer my complaint, they allow only three to respond to their nonsense; so I have had to get a move on. My request for a review went in this morning. The general drift was…
Mrs Tyler's reasoning is puzzling. She finds councillor Bacon was not in error when she decided against a vote before moving into Closed Session. This is irrelevant, I did not mention or complain about voting.
Mrs. Tyler has said that councillor Bacon was not in breach of any Standing Order. Once again irrelevant as I made no such complaint.
Mrs. Tyler makes reference to a "debacle" and a "member of the public reading the guidance about attending public meetings issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government". My complaint did not include the word debacle or the phrase about the DCLG nor did I make any reference to "councillor Bacon prevented the meeting from continuing". Not a word of Mrs. Tyler's summary is true, a fact easily confirmed by reading my complaint again. Mrs. Tyler would appear to be creating fictional complaints to suit her lame excuses.
The whole thing may be read here. The main Index to the Cheryl Bacon lying saga has been revamped to hopefully make it easier to read. I shall attempt to locate the missing documents in due course.