Banner
any day today rss facebook twitter

Bonkers Blog April 2018

Index: 2009201020112012201320142015201620172018

7 April - The Rumour Mill. Or is it?

Not too much credence can be given to stories that land in the Bonkers’ Inbox without any evidence but when they come from known good sources they cannot be so easily dismissed.


TweetOne such fairly recent story concerns the Conservative decision made three years ago to abandon monitoring of the CCTV system. £225,000 staffing costs were saved but maintenance, which costs almost three times as much, has continued. It seems a bit crazy whichever way you look at it and a major part of the Labour Group’s May 2018 manifesto is the promise to restore the CCTV service.

From deep inside the organisation that ran it comes a suggestion, a pretty firm one, that the Business Improvement District(s) offered to fund the staffing costs but Bexley’s Tories turned the offer down.

Could that be true? Does anybody know and would it have been town centres only, maybe for restricted hours?

Other stories should probably be treated with more caution but they are not anonymous and name names. One is an allegation of historical child sex abuse and it being dropped by Bexley Police because the ‘offender’ is now a Conservative Councillor. Sounds plausible, there is a reluctance to prosecute Councillors as Kent Police appears to be intent on demonstrating right now. On the other hand my journalist daughter has looked into several such high profile allegations and concluded long before the infamous Nick was discredited that too many people make allegations in the hope of a fast buck.

Another tale suggests that a large sum of money flowed from Bexley Council to a local business the owner of which just happens to be a good friend of a very well known Councillor. All the names are given together with supporting web links and I am asked to investigate further. Far too complicated for me, Bexley Council would most certainly block a Freedom of Information Request and a major problem is that the whistleblower would be exposed and endangered.

 

Return to the top of this page