Thursday, June 19, 2008


Phew! After a few months not posting Im back! There has just been so much going on that I haven't had time to post on this blogsite. I'll start back in January when the council went all the way to the High Court in Newcastle just to get Ex-seargent in the green Howards Jimmy Willis, to take his tent down after he camped there in protest at the council fencing the whole area off, OUT OF SPITE.

What transpired from that case was very interesting. Even though Jim was ordered to take down his tent, the judge ruled that he wasnt going to stop people from using the land. The reason? Basically he couldnt! But more importantly and this had the council and their expensive legal team frantically scurrying around, was that Jim produced a conveyance that was attached to his deeds, which clearly showed that he had access to a 'back lane' which runs behind all of the houses on High Street West. The fence is stopping Jims access to this back lane and even though they are refusing to take the fencing down out of spite, it is only a matter of time before they will have to.

After this, It was Persimmon, NOT THE COUNCIL, who decided to appeal against the High Court decision that deemed the COUNCILS planning process to be unlawful due to bias and pre-determination. No-one could really understand why Persimmon should appeal against a decision that was made against the council? The council, by not appealing, were basically admitting their own guilt. However, it leads you to ask the question that if they did not appeal because they knew that they were guilty, then why did they waste £35,000 of public money in the first place defending the Coatham Planning process when the new Labour council and the Labour MP, have both admitted in the press that they knew the process was unlawful before the planning meeting was even held? This raises even more questions. Why are the Labour group trying to heap all the blame on the old coalition when they also took part in the planning meeting knowing it was unlawful? Why did they take it to court knowing what the 'old coalition had done was unlawful? And why did Richard Frankland, the councils legal officer who dismissed all claims that the meeting was biased on the day of the meeting and made sure that it was forced through when he knew that what was happening was unlawful, not get sacked or reprimanded for bringing the council into such disrepute in the High Court?

Talking of our MP, what a disgrace she is. After organising with an MP to show Criag Hornby's film "Coatham a Common Concern" at the house of commons to an invited audience and asking him to call for an independent investigation into the actions of our council, to which he agreed because he said if he did not then and I quote "he would be neglecting his duty" she threatened him with reporting him to the speaker of the house of commons, in order to stop it being shown and retracting his call.. She told the MP from a different constituency that we had lied in the film, that our accusations weren't based in reality? How she was exposed for not telling the truth to him when the High court Judgement was returned in our favour so substantiating all ofthe things we had said in the court case and in the film. Not only that, I wrote to the speaker of the House who informed me that he had no juridiction outside the chamber to tell the MPs what to do at all. What shames her most, is she then attempted to complete the stitch up and cover up, by calling for the council to hold an internal investigation and who did she ask to head the investigation? None other than the councils finance officer Ray Richardson, a man who had already, at that stage, been featured in the rotten boroughs section of Private Eye magazine for his less than honest behaviour. This is the best case of poacher turned game keeper that I think Ive ever seen!

The next thing that you should all know is that the leader of the council and his member for economic development have both lied to the public in their March 27th Press release. They made out in the local press that the village green process had been and I quote, "kicked out" and that it was all finished and done with.
In truth, even before the press release had been put out, George Dunning the leader of the council, had been informed by Richard Frankland that the council were going to apply for an expedited rolled up hearing (speedy Judicial review) over the issue of the village green application.
Neither Mr Dunning and Mr Hannon mentioned this in their release, preferring to make out that the process was finished. Quite simply that was a lie.

The council officers, once again Mr Frankland in particular, then attempted to deceive me under the FOI act stating that they hadn't applied to go expedited, rolled up hearing at all, that he had told Mr Dunning about it but it had been a mistake. I wrote and told them, when we were given the actual date of the rolled up hearing the 16th July 2008, that lying under the FOI act was a serious issue.

They then told me that they hadn't applied to go for the rolled up hearing, but Persimmon had, on the 24th April. Unfortunately for them, I received a copy of a letter sent from the solicitors handling the case to the council dated the 26th March, clearly stating that it was the councils decision to apply for an expedited, rolled up hearing. Despite the council once again trying to twist things round and wriggle off the hook, the plain fact is that Dunning and therefore Hannon both knew before that release went out that it was the councils intention to apply for this rolled up hearing, that the issue WAS NOT over and yet, not only did they not mention it in the press, they made out that the whole process was over when it wasn't.

Do you expect this type of lying, one sided, brainwashing, propaganda to be used by a provincial local authority in 21st century England. Didn't this kind of stuff only happen in East Germany or places like that? Obviously not.

This council are an absolute disgrace. If the public cannot get the truth from its elected representatives, if its overpaid officers are lying, twisting and prevaricating under the FOI act, then how on earth can anyone trust anything that they tell us?

More than this, if they have nothing to hide, then why lie?

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?