Banner
any day today rss facebook twitter

Bonkers Blog September 2014

Index: 2009201020112012201320142015201620172018


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.

CraskeWe’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.

StrippersIf 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.


RecorderOn 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.


Public in council chamberNotwithstanding 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.
DPS Notification
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.

 

Return to the top of this page