Banner
any day today rss facebook twitter

Bonkers Blog October 2013

Index: 2009201020112012201320142015201620172018


1 October (Part 5) - Councillor Cheryl Bacon. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

I have begun to analyse councillor Cheryl Bacon’s statement following her illegal 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 to lie, lie, lie and hope, hope, hope. Being a Bexley councillor there was only one real choice and Cheryl doesn’t disappoint. Here is the first paragraph of the excuse sheet written following a meeting with Mrs. Lynn Tyler, Legal Team Manager.
Cheryl Bacon's statement
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 council 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 innoocent 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.

 

Return to the top of this page