1 October (Part 5) - Councillor Cheryl Bacon. Wrong, wrong, wrong!
I have begun to analyse councillor Cheryl Bacon’s statement following
her ill
considered exclusion of the public from a public meeting. Her only chance of escaping the attention of
the Local Government Ombudsman was to apologise and admit a mistake or for Bexley Council to lie,
lie, lie and hope, hope, hope. There was only one real choice and
Cheryl Bacon’s unsigned statement (did she actually have any input to it?) doesn’t
disappoint. Here is the first paragraph of the excuse sheet written following
the alleged meeting with Mrs. Lynn Tyler, Legal Team Manager.
The first letter on this subject
came from Mrs. Lynn Tyler before the documents on which it was based became available
under the Freedom of Information Act. I assumed at the time that Mrs. T. had been simply misled by a
liar but it is now apparent that things are not that simple.
John Adams, the Committee Officer, had
provided Mrs. Tyler with a statement to the
effect I was sitting on my ‘blogger’s table’ and Bacon says I was sitting with the infamous
group. You’d think a half decent legal officer would have spotted that discrepancy
and resolved it before launching into a letter designed to conceal an illegal procedure.
I have already
asked the Chief Executive to interview people better placed to
know the truth and I think the time has now come to ask if Danny Hackett would
confirm whether any of the named persons, me in particular, took any part in
Nicholas Dowling’s recording activities.
Apart from the obvious lies I am struck by the fact that the normally secretive Bexley
council is so cavalier about bandying around the names of people it doesn’t like
in these FOI disclosures. None of the names have been redacted.
Another of Bexley council’s lies
said that Danny Hackett, the Labour party member, was specially selected to attend the
reconvened meeting, he will tell you otherwise, but the point is that Bexley
council deemed him to be entirely innocent of any wrong doing. So why is his
name being blackened to some extent by being freely included in documents
available to anyone under FOI? Should someone complain to the Information Commissioner? Probably.