5 September (Part 1) - Bexley council. Twinned with Rotherham
The news from Yorkshire has shown that Bexley is not the only place where the police exists primarily to protect a criminal council.
We’ve
seen Bexley police admit to political interference after
an obscene blog was
traced to councillor Peter Craske’s phone line. They bowed to pressure from
leader Teresa O’Neill when she complained to them that I was
“criticising
councillors on a personal level”. Councillor Melvin Seymour told the police that
blogger John Kerlen had encouraged people
to put dog faeces through his letter
box when he had neither mentioned dogs, councillor Seymour or his address.
Bexley police obediently prosecuted John Kerlen.
When three year old Rhys Lawrie was ignored by Bexley council’s social services and died from
39 injuries after a lifetime of abuse, the police dismissed the hospital
report and said it was a natural death, apparently in an attempt to absolve
Bexley council of blame.
Bridleway 250 was illegally closed
and the police came to Bexley council’s aid by untruthfully claiming it had been
a crime hot spot. More recently, last year’s mayor Sharon Massey was involved in an unlicensed strip show at the
deputy mayor’s pub and the matter was brushed under the carpet at a meeting held on
13th June. Those present were Diane Kraus, Bexley Trading Services, Clive Cain,
Head of Public Protection and Chief Inspector Ian Broadbridge from Bexley
council’s outpost in Arnsberg Way.
If that last name is familiar to you it is because he is the police officer that
Mick Barnbrook thought was an honest copper.
Mick was so sure of Broadbridge’s good intentions
in the case of Cheryl Bacon’s ‘Closed Session’ that he asked me to
soften
the tone of a blog in which my own view that there is no such thing as an honest
copper (when judged by their willingness to shop an obviously bent one), had come
to the fore. Mick thought I was wrong in this case but he knows better now.
It is a while since the complaints about the repercussions of
councillor Cheryl
Bacon’s lies were last mentioned here, so please excuse a quick resumé of the relevant part.
On 19th June 2013 Nicholas Dowling attempted to record a council meeting. Six
other members of the public were present who sat and watched. Cheryl Bacon was
advised to take the public meeting into closed session (her words not mine) which would be an illegal
act unless all seven members of the public were causing a serious disturbance.
They were not, so Bexley council had to lie in order to get Bacon off the hook.
It would have been so much simpler to have said, sorry we got it wrong.
Ten people, including four councillors, have made written statements to the effect
that no one other than Nicholas did anything untoward at that meeting. A typical
councillor comment being “at no time was there any general disturbance created by any
member of the pubic, all of whom remained polite and orderly at all times”. An
internal council memo says much the same thing. Five councillors have written that
they are unable to support councillor Cheryl Bacon’s statement that various
people were shouting and waving papers.
The police at the time said no offences had been committed
by any member of the public, all of which tends to drop
Bexley council into the mire of its own making.
Notwithstanding
all the evidence to the contrary, police constables Kelly and Arthurs who attended the incident were
persuaded to write statements to the effect that they were present when a
council official asked all six members of the public still remaining in the
council chamber to leave. The statements are said to be that all six refused and had to be forcibly ejected.
You may wonder why the police told the press that no
offences were committed and how, after being so badly treated, I described them as
two jovial bobbies. The police officers didn’t even speak to Nicholas Dowling
who had attempted to make the audio recording. Neither did they ask for anyone’s
name. Let’s not beat about the bush; if those statements are as described by CI Broadbridge
in more than one email, they are outrageous lies designed to back the claims of a lying council.
As you might expect, Bexley police refused to provide a copy of the statements.
Mr. Barnbrook informed CI Broadbridge of his intention to make criminal allegations against
PCs Peter Arthurs and Sean Kelly and Chief Superintendent Peter Ayling for the roles they
had played in this perversion of justice. Chief Inspector Broadbridge pretended
to be helpful by anticipating Mick’s allegation and reporting the matter to the
Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards. The DPS is not as secretive as
Bexley police and decided to released CI Ian Broadbridge’s statement. It was not helpful at all.
It does not reflect Mick Barnbrook’s intentions and delivers falsehoods as if they were facts.
Firstly it said Mick was going to make a complaint when he planned a criminal
allegation. Secondly it made no mention of CS Peter Ayling, and finally,
Broadbridge’s summary of the situation emphasises the council’s fabricated case
in defence of Cheryl Bacon. The effect is that the DPS recorded the report as a minor misdemeanour
and that Bexley should investigate themselves and Mick’s criminal allegation is to be ignored.
Here is the relevant extract from CI Broadbridge’s report.
The full report to the Directorate of Professional Standards
may be seen here.
A correction…
On 20th August I reported that Mick Barnbrook’s criminal allegations against
Will Tuckley, Lynn Tyler and Mal Chivers had been referred back to Bexley police
for investigation. Mick has asked me to say that this may not be correct. His
allegation went directly to Commissioner Bernard Howe who passed it on to his
Directorate of Professional Standards. The DPS told Mick that they only
investigate allegations against police officers which is true - but it was Hogan-Howe
who sent it to that department, not Mick.
The allegation is now in no man’s land but Mick is arguing that the council and the police were engaged in a
conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and as such the investigation should
not be split across two investigations.
The consequences of one woman’s lies continue to amaze me.