16 June (Part 2) - What a tangled web these liars weave
Councillor Cheryl Bacon’s decision to put a public meeting, in her own words,
into Closed Session was ill advised; it was also illegal, not that most people
would be overly concerned by such a transgression. Later realising what she had done she should perhaps have apologised.
If she had it would be long forgotten. Instead she decided to rewrite history by inventing a story to cover her mistake.
On
the evening in question Cheryl’s husband Gareth Bacon told Nicholas Dowling he would
be ejected if he attempted to record a council meeting and Cheryl Bacon spoke only to Nicholas, no one else.
The next day the Bexley Times reported Nicholas Dowling’s recording attempt and Bexley council’s
threat to eject him. In the early days no one realised that Bacon would decide to lie for Britain
rather than do nothing or say sorry and the significance of accusing only
Nicholas of creating a disturbance was overlooked.
The report in the Bexley Times (see extract above) only mentioned one resident.
The council issued
official advice to all councillors on how to react to
any repeat of 19th June’s events. It specifically referred to “some disruption
by an individual seeking to record”.
On
24th June
the News Shopper reported that “a member of the public was asked to
leave the meeting on June 19”.
On 7th July 2014 former deputy council leader
Colin Campbell went on TV
to lie about Nicholas shoving a microphone within six inches of Bacon’s nose.
The News Shopper reported
that Campbell referred several times to Nicholas Dowling and (singular) “a member of the public”.
At some unspecified date councillor
Cheryl Bacon made a statement which she failed to sign to the effect that
half a dozen members of the public were creating a disturbance in the council
chamber. This she had to do because it is the only legal excuse for her decision. Several councillors subsequently confirmed
in writing that Cheryl Bacon’s statement was a tissue of lies.
Councillor
Stefano Borella confirmed in a statement that only Mr. Dowling was
threatened with ejection. Councillor Borella subsequently stated that the version
of his statement which Bexley council produced did not reflect what he said.
He has since confirmed that the references to a group of people
making a nuisance of themselves was not true. Nearly everyone present sat and
said nothing throughout the procedings.
A
statement attributed to the doorkeeper Mal Chivers was produced much later
than the other statements after it became clear that Bacon’s lies were going to
require a lot more support. It contradicted the earlier statements because of
that need to implicate everyone present at the meeting in a disturbance,
a disturbance which several councillors have confirmed did not extend beyond
Nicholas Dowling seeking permission to record the meeting in a manner said to be “not aggressive’.
The statement attributed to Mr. Chivers was so far removed from the truth that
Mr. Barnbrook and I asked him face to face what he asked the police to do. He
said it was “to eject Nick Dowling of course". When he was shown ‘his’ statement
he at first denied any knowledge of it, then became rather evasive. Mick
Barnbrook tried to settle the matter by asking the police for a copy of their
Computer Aided Despatch, but they refused to let him see it, not in the public interest
apparently. You can guess why that might be.
Since the two police officers who attended seemed to be perfectly decent
individuals; I referred to them next day as jovial Bonkers readers, not as
ruffians who had ejected us from the council meeting as I most certainly would
have if there was any suggestion of unnecessary officiousness, Mr. Barnbrook asked
if they could provide a statement of what they were required to do. It has taken
a very long time to get it.
Chief Inspector Ian Broadbridge of Bexley police wrote to Mick last week as follows…
I can confirm I have statements with declaration in accordance with the Criminal
Procedures Rules, Criminal Justice Act and Magistrates Courts Act signed by PC
Kelly, Arthurs and Mal Chivers on the 22nd March, 2nd April and 13th May 2014
respectively. All statements support the attendance note of Mal Chivers (A copy
of which you have in your possession), of the incident in the Council chamber on
the 19th June 2014 (sic).
The Chief Inspector specifically says that the two PCs were asked to eject five
or six males from the council chamber. This statement is designed to protect the
lying Cheryl Bacon. It does not make sense in the light of newspaper reports at
the time, the council's own document written the day after the incident, the
police’s own statement to the press, several
statements by honest councillors and the blogs published here within hours of the
incident. Mr. Barnbrook is right now constructing his allegation of Misconduct
in Public Office which he will send to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. At
a public meeting I heard CI Broadbridge say that he was within two years of
retirement and was hoping for an uneventful exit. He isn’t going to get one now is he?
For reasons that have not been covered today, Chief Superintendent Peter Ayling will
be similarly accused of Misconduct. He joins his predecessors Stringer and Olisa.
Just for the record, Chief Executive Will Tuckley has not yet responded to
the letter dated 17th April which informs him of the willingness of
several councillors to speak the truth. i.e. that Cheryl Bacon’s account of what
happened in the council chamber on 19th June 2013 was nothing like the truth.
Councillor Cheryl Bacon lied. Does anyone believe otherwise?
Index to related blogs and documents.