29 January (Part 3) - We’re saying nothing and we don’t like residents nosing into Council business
If I counted correctly Michael Barnbrook submitted twelve Freedom of Information requests relating to
Councillor Fothergill’s ‘Misconduct’
and a question from Mr. Bryant was
converted to a
Freedom of Information request so that the Council can say the question is not an appropriate one for an FOI.
Bexley Council knows all the best FOI avoidance tricks.
It was always likely that the FOIs would produce nothing of any use but that was
not the object of the exercise, that was to see by how much Bexley Council was
prepared to exploit or bend the rules to suppress the truth.
At least eight of Michael’s FOIs have been rejected out of hand over the past 48 hours.
There was another response which was said to be an answer but wasn’t (the
Independent Person’s appointment) and another admitted there was no evidence that the complainant
had asked for anonymity but the Council is taking the precaution of acting as though he or she did.
They don’t want us to trace him/her. That would be disastrous.
The only real fact that came from the FOIs is that the lady I didn’t recognise
in the 2nd January
photograph is Lynn Tyler, the Legal Team Manager, the Team Manager
Greenwich Police investigated for Misconduct in Public Office following
the
Cheryl Bacon affair. The case is still with the CPS.
My summary of the FOI responses is not as detailed as I would like because there is
no time to be spent analysing every reason for rejection but the
overall situation does not require it. It is enough to simply report that Bexley
Council is not going to say anything that might lead to details of what might be a crime
or a stitch-up
getting into the public domain. At present the only indication that there has
been criminal activity is that Bexley Council is in total lockdown mode because
the facts known to me are inconclusive.
I asked a Councillor while attending a recent meeting if Councillors are allowed
to know the detail of complaints against their colleagues and the reply was “yes
normally, but in this case all requests are being refused”. Read into that what you like.
As I see it, to make real progress towards the truth, the old lady’s name and address and the
identity of the complainant must be found and on that score there has been a
significant breakthrough this morning which should make Part 4 interesting reading
and induce consternation in Watling Street. At least I hope it does.