council’s excuse for
illegally closing Bridleway 250 is that it is a crime
prevention measure. Such an excuse cannot be legally valid but is it even based
on anything truthful?
Mick Barnbrook, as always, asked the police for details of any crimes committed along the bridleway. He was refused on the grounds that knowing if there had been any crime or not might reveal personal information. How was not explained but after repeated requests he discovered that crime levels had been low and that Bexley council claimed the closure had been recommended by Sergeant Alison Bateman.
Whether she had done so or Bexley council put words in her mouth as they may have done with the police officers who responded to the liar Bacon’s call is still unknown. When asked for her recollection of the meeting she had none, or more accurately, she had destroyed her notes.
The information Mick was really after was when the crimes took place, during gate closing times or not. This the police absolutely refused to give so the Information Commissioner had to be dragged into the argument. He has ruled in Mick Barnbrook’s favour.
During the five years preceding Bexley’s decision to approve an illegal gate there were four reported crimes in and around Mascal Stables. Three involved petty pilfering of horsey items, two from cars, one not, and all taking place while the stables were fully open for business. Additionally there was a ‘non-dwelling’ burglary in March 2008 at an indeterminate time spanning both gate open and gate closed times. Assuming that the latter is most likely the bridleway closure was justified on the basis of one burglary in five years. Every time you poke it another Bexley council lie or illegal act is exposed.
I think I understand why Bexley police were so reluctant to admit the truth on this one. How much money did they waste trying to hide it?