Boris Johnson, Owen Paterson “sleaze”, an exception to the rule, or rule of thumb behind UK politics?
Spend 7 years fighting for justice against those within, or connected to the establishment, and the truth quickly becomes apparent!
When defending his decision to possibly scrap the independent process which found Owen Paterson guilty, the PM declared it was indeed
“… a matter of natural justice for procedures to allow for proper appeal”[i]
However, arguably where an individual is most likely to have a personal issue with a politician is out of sight of national TV, and in local government. Could it be locally where we find the truth regarding the real level of moral standards and accountability found in UK politics?
Code of conduct
Make a code conduct complaint against a local politician and it first undergoes what is called a Pre-sift. This is a meeting undertaken in-house by the council’s lawyer (monitoring officer), chair of the conduct committee and independent officers to see if the complaint has merit.
So, what if these officers are influenced by a long-term political bias for example? Well, unfortunately, if they unjustly dismiss your complaint there exists no right of appeal, thus, end of accountability.
Wide-open for abuse.
To make the point I will refer to cases administered by my local district council. Let’s call the first the ST complaint[ii] where screenshots of the online presence of a prominent cabinet member were supplied as evidence.
Many of these were attacks on members of the public i.e., “scumbags” and “generic haters”. Further evidence showed how his victims were further insulted and repeatedly accused of lying when attempting to raise concerns .as to his behaviour.
Screenshots were also provided as to a whole series of highly offensive and unsubstantiated allegations made against opposition councillors and the local editor.
However, in his defence document[iii], he simply denied making any allegations. Instead, he demanded the evidence consisted of his “views” and “opinions”, which he claimed is his right to “free speech”.
As this is a distinction the average 13-year-old student can make I offer the following example for context, “… people believe the horrible stuff that the newspaper prints even when it is a pack of lies” (emphasis). “It is a pack of lies” is a direct allegation, not an opinion.
No evidence to substantiate his many allegations was ever provided, instead, over and over again the defendant insisted innocence solely based on his redefining of words within the English language.
Yet, as unbelievable as the defence, the complaint was dismissed on the grounds there existed no evidence an offence had been committed[iv].
Rather perplexing considering the monitoring officer was supplied evidence proving ALL the final conclusions of his defence document were based on pure and utter fiction. ALL OF THEM.[v]
So, what next?
First: Another complaint was entered regarding the dishonest dismissal of the ST complaint.
Unbelievably, this was handed to the same monitoring officer who had been supplied evidence proving the councillors defence document was full of falsehoods.
No surprise then, after she chose who should investigate this new complaint, an innocent verdict was given. However, the council was found innocent of failing to follow procedures. Yet, failure to follow procedure wasn’t the complaint, the brazen dishonesty of the decision was!
Second: A separate conduct complaint was entered regarding the councillor’s dishonest defence document. This time it was rejected by the deputy monitoring officer (who undertook the above investigation). And her reasoning? The complaint was “similar to the first complaint”.
Completely untrue, the first complaint was regarding the councillor’s online presence, the second was regarding his use of dishonesty in his attempt to pervert the outcome of an investigation. Two entirely different offences.
Third: A complaint was made to the Local Government Ombudsman. This was rejected on the grounds the complainant hadn’t endured any significant personal harm. Consequently, their restrictive budget wouldn’t allow them to investigate.
Fourth: five months of writing to the council CEO resulted in the following statement from the deputy monitoring officer
“… ultimately it is not for me or any other Fenland District Council officer or member to seek to look behind the decision that was taken.”
To which I asked
“Fully understanding the legislation offers no form of appeal for the decision made, can you please confirm both as CEO and Deputy Monitoring officer it is also “not for” either of you to look into possible dishonest conduct or decisions by your officers?”
And received this
“… the Council has exhausted all of its applicable internal processes … any future correspondence in relation to this matter will simply be acknowledged and placed on file.”
Basically, they refused to answer the above, or any future questions regarding this matter.
So, obviously, the next question that needs to be asked is who holds the CEO to account? The answer, the cabinet members, so that would be the defendant and his mates. And round and round we go.
In what way then do we reconcile Boris Johnsons demands as to how “procedures for proper appeal” for MP’s is “a matter of natural justice”?
So, what about members of the public, aggrieved by a local politician? Where is their right to this “natural justice”?
Or democracy for that matter, by denying the public the truth regarding this politicians behaviour they are surely assisting in the manipulation of our local democracy?
Is “natural justice “reserved for the few!
Only two months before the ST conduct complaint was entered, the same politician entered his own against an opposition councillor.
However, this time the same officers upheld the complaint and sent it straight to the conduct committee. The Cambs Times quoted one elected official when he declared
“The nature of the complaint … the use of a particular word, is trivial to the point that he is surprised that we are here considering it.”[vi]
So, what obscenity warranted a full committee hearing? The whole complaint was based on the single word “Threatened”.
That’s it, no calling people “scumbags” or “generic haters”, no calling victims liars, no false allegations to attack people’s reputations, no lying to exonerate himself. Nope, an opposition councillor simply commented how he’d felt threatened by something said in a town council meeting!
Therefore, in our local council at least, it appears the code of conduct system is reserved for a select few, whether they be villains or victims. As for the rest of us, “no right of appeal”
Now things can get really bad.
Between 2012 and 2019 I ran a campaign against a local community transport organisation, which the local Taxi industry alleged were illegally threatening their families’ livelihoods.
During the first four years, we supplied clear and demonstrable evidence of some very serious offences, including fraud, forgery, false accounting and even the corruption of council audits. Not to mention the misuse of nearly £1 million of state and private funding!
Yet, it was all ignored, dismissed and covered up as shamelessly as Boris Johnson’s apparent attempt to get his friend exonerated. Why, simple, the organisation’s board was full of very senior local politicians.
However, sheer stubbornness resulted in a two-year-long, £200,000 investigation. The subsequent two-hundred-page report validated the same evidence local politicians and senior officers had dismissed for years.
There is currently a three-year criminal investigation going on into the financial dealings of the management.
So, what then of all the councillors sitting on the organisation’s board, guilty of allowing all this to take place? As with Owen Paterson, shouldn’t they be subjected to a full conduct investigation? Well, one prominent councillor stood out above the others. Consequently, a comprehensive conduct complaint was entered to our district council.
Now, the legislation demands a council should deal with such complaints within three months. However, six months on and they hadn’t even untaken the initial pre-sift assessment! When approached by a local paper the council accepted the delay but refused to give an explanation.[vii]
For me the truth was clear! The complaint was simply delayed to deny the public the right to make an informed decision in the upcoming elections.
Local Government or local Mafia?
Believing the public had a right to the truth I published a letter in the local paper highlighting this councillor’s behaviour. A slightly extended version was then put online.
For my efforts I had the police banging at my door. When asked what offence I had committed, they had conveniently left the paperwork at the station.
Several days later I was informed I would have to be interviewed under caution[viii]. Only now was I shown the Representation of the Peoples Act 1983. The relevant section (106) states how “before or during an election” it is illegal
… “for any person to publish any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct, unless he or she can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing that statement to be true.”
Strange how “before or during an election” no such similar criminal offence exists for politicians!
90% of the “statements of fact” I had published came from the findings of official public reports. The other 10% were well known locally and I produced the local press articles confirming their legitimacy.
Consequently, it was not a case I “believed” what I had written to be true, it was a case of it was true. And I feel, therefore, it’s also fair to say this politician knew dam well it was all true.
Furthermore, a subject access request later revealed how both the CEO and leader[1] of the district council were connected to the police involvement. Consequently, especially when considering the “… had reasonable grounds for believing that statement to be true” aspect, both also likely knew no evidence existed to support an offence had ever been committed.
However, I believe the final confirmation as to the true motive of the police involvement was found in an email where the following comment was found
“they clearly got to Humphrey”.
Using the power of the police to intimidate innocent people is the behaviour you would rightly expect from organised crime, not senior civil servants.
No Fear
The simple truth, for years I placed evidence of fraud, forgery, false accounting and misuse of the public purse and little was done.
Yet, I print the truth, and it’s then they feel the police should be called! Sums up perfectly the point being made. Sleaze, dishonesty, abuse of power and corruption seems to be systemic within the public sector.
However, for me, it’s not that last sentence that’s scary. No, it’s what the brazenness of their behaviour reveals! That being, the apparent lack of any fear of consequence.
That they can act so immorally, even criminally, with supreme confidence the system they represent will never hold them individually to account, that’s the scary part.
[1] Although operating in different roles.
[i] [i] https://uk.news.yahoo.com/no-10-backs-standards-process-113805862.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADRxq_oqc7X4dE7-7c0iuYzp62hqXKOhPqfHU1AV3c9iwFsMkwipX6oj_QhhzOgfA90l-ElHczPdy7R5yIyaGi8ufuq-36-xLrqSuO9_dEu0a_Bx7eJFC4a8YCkKuZOFxsvIufpGp2XNqp8DEJkxkAwygeaBvd6CMLrLJ983ieE6
[ii] Full video report and evidence found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXis-fw35vs
[iii] Last page https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GFaSilGgME-TI1XPNMsW92S3sStk8MyC/view
[iv] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lzvhwocLSp7144z5fLAGF7mX-LZ6LBKn/view
[v] https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbGVQdFA0czBJTXlCc3A4UWtiRlAtTmcxRkJ5d3xBQ3Jtc0tseVFPUHBZdW11SmQ1OXlxNWhHRWNITEtUR2FCSEU5REowQm1zSE1ZNXR1NWgxTlpPSUJqOXlrSnoyNEM1ZG4ta2cwZ2d1dnJkc1JRT1NpQk9LWW95NDZtdjFfazNlLVQ3WGJiVEM3UEhXU0QtWktZRQ&q=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fview%2Fwhendemocracyfails%2Fhome
[vi] https://drive.google.com/file/d/15u1jrehYO-QR4WrboBxkrdwUkCgNhF-4/view
[vii] https://www.fenlandcitizen.co.uk/news/two-fenland-councillors-face-allegations-of-breaching-code-of-conduct-by-cambridgeshire-bus-coach-and-taxi-association-9045299/
[viii] https://www.cambstimes.co.uk/news/nothing-to-see-here-says-police-over-fenland-election-claims-4906988
