Banner
underlay

plinth

m a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 any day today rss facebook twitter clear clear
Sainsbury's sell melted ice-cream

Bonkers Blog September 2014

Index: 2011201220132014201520162017

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

Sidcup Place

11 September - Something to hide? Almost certainly

Press ReleaseAfter Bexley council reported that only one person created any sort of disturbance on the evening of 19th June 2013 and the police said no one had committed any offence it was necessary to cobble together some sort of story to protect the lying councillor Cheryl Bacon. Part of that story was that half a dozen members of the public created a massive disturbance making her ‘Closed Session’ the only way forward - and conveniently legal. Nevermind that nine councillors present that night have written to me about it without a single word offered in Cheryl Bacon’s defence. The reason for that is obvious. Barely a word of what she said was truthful.

For Bexley council’s story to have any chance of standing up they had to get that bunch of nine bob notes down at Arnsberg Way on side. That was pretty much a formality, Bexley police have a long track record of allowing Bexley council to interfere with justice and covering for their crimes.

It seemed likely that there would be some correspondence between the conspirators and Mick Barnbrook decided to FOI it.


Please provide copies of all correspondence between Bexley Council’s Legal Department and Bexleyheath Police, relating to an incident that occurred on 19th June 2013, at the Bexley Civic Centre, to which Police Constables Shaun Kelly and Peter Arthurs attended, as a result of which Bexley Council’s Legal Department contacted the police.


In it togetherThe answer to that FOI might well be extremely embarrassing to a corrupt council but the last legal date for a response came and went on 24th July 2014. A good indication that the correspondence exists and that it incriminates Bexley council.

Presumably Bexley council’s best criminal minds will have been working overtime on which of their long list of get out of jail free cards to play. Personal Information. Not in the Public Interest. There are any number reasons that can be given for protecting secrets.

On 1st September the brains came up with an answer. They simply aren’t going to answer the FOI because they don’t like what Mick Barnbrook is doing. According to Will Tuckley he has made seven Freedom of Information requests relating to the lies that have been told about the incident in question and that is one too many.

The fact that each FOI was designed to delve just a little deeper into the corruption that infests the higher echelons of Bexley council and the fact that what answers are given merely expose another level of corruption is apparently beside the point. Actually asking for the correspondence that would expose their dishonesty is a step too far. Particularly so when it might add to the evidence already with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe and the allegation that Will Tuckley and several of his cronies are guilty of Perverting the Course of Justice and Misconduct in Public Office. Maybe that influenced Tuckley’s decision. Whether it did or did not it is yet another development that suggests that Bexley council is rotten to its core.

The decision not to answer the FOI will inevitably be referred to the Information Commission. Meanwhile any reader is free to submit a similar Freedom of Information request. Mick may have used up his allotted ration of FOIs but most of you will not have done.

Index to related blogs and documents.

 

Home page Site mapMenu mapContact us
Join Bonkers on TwitterCookie policyReturn to the top of this page