1 July (Part 2) - One crime leads to another
The more one reads the correspondence relating to the Cheryl Bacon and her meeting closure the more holes one finds in the logic of the various contributing liars.
Council
officials forced into lying by their political masters contradict each
other and of the four statements initially provided by Bexley council only one
wasn’t written by their Legal Team Manager, Lynn Tyler.
There was
Bacon’s
which is pretty much a lie from end to end, and
a councillor’s
and a doorman’s
which both disowned to varying degrees. The exception came from Committee Officer
John
Adams who wrote his own statement and it appears to be an honest attempt at
reporting facts without the wild embellishments that Bacon would have preferred.
It’ll probably do his Bexley career prospects no good at all but at least his
conscience will be clear.
If you are tempted to read John Adam’s statement you should
perhaps note that he gets into a muddle with the names of the members of the
public who he refers to by their initials. Several references are to MK (me)
doing the recording when ND (Nicholas Dowling) must have been intended and a mysterious
NK appears too. These errors were acknowledged in a later letter from Bexley council.
From council officials being
apparently forced to lie things have progressed to police officers backing their
stories and unsurprisingly their latest statements and messages
contradict earlier ones. Mick Barnbrook has ruined many a recent weekend by analysing the
correspondence exchanged with Bexley police and comparing it with Bexley council’s.
Most of the discrepancies I have come across before but something that seems
peculiar to me is that the police say they returned to Bexley council in May to persuade
the doorman to make a new statement which they have chosen not to make available.
Why would the police want another statement from Mr. Chivers the doorman in May
2014 when no criminal allegation had been made and Bexley council has had Chivers’
statement on file since last August or thereabouts? It’s true that Mr. Chivers’
original statement was both unsigned and undated, not written by him and is
nothing like the truth but why should that interest the police when no crime had
been reported to them? It’s difficult enough to get them to investigate reported
crime; can there be any reason for a formal interview in this case other than the need to conspire
with Bexley council to cover things up?
It is regrettable that Bexley council has chosen to put a doorman in this position rather than admit
that Cheryl Bacon is thoroughly dishonest. It’s not what one expects from a senior management team
with an ounce of integrity; now the doorman has had to sign a statement under
rules that carry a prison sentence if shown to be false. I doubt he wanted to be
named here either but it is the near inevitable consequence.
The police and council must feel the need to block as many avenues as possible when they
know that ten first hand witnesses, including councillors, are likely to be lined
up against them. All confirm that no disturbance took place other than one
person held a tiny audio recorder in his hand. The only contrary voice is Cheryl Bacon’s and the senior council
officials who swallowed her story for the sake of their pensions.
It’s been a long time coming but Mick Barnbrook has now finished writing his
allegation of crime relating to the protection of Bacon and co. Including the evidence it runs to nine pages
and it won’t be published in full here, not at this early stage anyway, but this is how it starts…
I believe Mr. Barnbrook may have restricted this particular allegation to those
four people because they are the only ones known to have made false statements
on their own account. Council officers such as Nick Hollier and Will Tuckley
merely donned blinkers and took those false statements at face value and defended them. However I do
not discount the possibility that a separate allegation will be made against Will Tuckley
because he is in possession of letters from councillors confirming that Cheryl Bacon’s account of
the evening in question
is entirely false but he continues to refuse an investigation.
As councillor Bacon is guilty of an offence against the Local Government Act and Tuckley
appears to be intent on hiding it, I would guess that Mick sees Tuckley’s
refusal to investigate as Perverting the Course of Justice. Presumably the only way that the
police can protect Tuckley from that one will be by refusing to accept the complaint
and that’ll be another job for the IPCC.
Maybe I have missed a trick but I have yet to see any allegation against
councillor Bacon in Mick’s letters. Surely he isn’t going to let her off the hook?