Two month ago the councils monitoring officer Andrew Maughan wrote up a report which was sent to the councils Standards Committee that some council members from all four parties had not declared all of the interests they must by law register. Some have since updated the register but the below have still not done so.
Liberal Democrats Omar Faruque Ansari – Kentish Town Frederic Carver – Cantelowes Linda Chung – Hampstead Town - no link to registered interests on councils website
Labour Fazlul Chowdhury - Bloomsbury Nurul Islam – St Pancras and Somers Town Anna Stewart – St Pancras with Somers Town Conservative Andrew Mennear – Frognal and Fitzjohns Lulu Mitchell – Gospel Oak Don Williams – Swiss Cottage
Green Adrian Oliver – Highgate
MEMBERS of the Standards Committee 15 April 2009
Independent (non-Councillors): Roy Griffins, Judith Lempriere, Alan Lord and Anne Sofer
Councillors: Martin Davies(C), Duncan Greenland(LD), Nancy Jirira(LD), Adrian Oliver(G), Jonathon Simpson(L), Dawn Somper(C), Brian Woodrow(L)
Councillor Substitutes:Theo Blackwell(L), Kirsty Roberts(C), Maya de Souza(G), Flick Rea (LD)
Why has camden council cut in half the funding of a vital service - the Citizens Advice Bureau in Kentish Town - yet given other voluntary bodies (the CFTRA to name one) continued funding at the same level. The likes of the CFTRA have been performing badly for years and are by no stretch of the imagination a vital service. Doesn't make sense to me.
On another matter - The Charity SCOPE who have a shop in Camden High Street are asking people to sign a pledge to speak out when they see disabled people being treated unfairly. Speak out to whom I am wondering as from mine and other peoples experience of 'speaking out' to the council or the police will get you nowhere - they ain't interested and are in some cases the perpetrators of the unfairness. I wonder if SCOPE in Camden are funded by the council because if they are this 'speaking out' call will I'm sure be frowned upon by those who pull the funding strings.
Camden Council will be opening up their accounts for public inspection starting from Monday 29 June 09 - Friday 24 July. Hilary Holmes is the person to contact to request to see whatever accounts you wish to see. Be aware that you might have to fight a bit to get what you want and that if you do see evidence of fraud or any other dodgy business and report it you will not get anywhere. They will cover it up. Every agency will cover it up.
That terribly nice copper jim cross alleged detective from Holborn police station is trying to stitch me up again by claiming that the CPS have informed him that I am suspected of being in breach of my court bail conditions. Something about third parties writing the names of the casp nasties on my blog. News to me. I am assuming that dc cross will produce the evidence to back up the alleged breach I am supposed to have committed.
I am also assuming that the CPS is conducting a night and day 'vigil' of my blog because they have nothing better to do?
I am a woman who lives alone who is being harassed and intimidated by a male police officer who I have already made an official complaint against for burgling my home and he is still carrying on with his campaign against me.
UPDATE 25 June 09 The CPS did not 'press the issue' of the alleged breach of bail in court. Theres a lot more to this than I will say for now but I will be writting up in full the whole sorry saga at the end of Aug 09.
Lib dem council member Ben Rawlings, who may be one of only a few council members with a mind of their own and a degree of integrity has spilled the beans on his colleagues two-facedness in relation to voting in the new leadership model of 'dictator with absolute power' - unelected (by the people) council leader. The webcast of the full council meeting that was held on 15 June 2009 where the poodles (our so-called representatives) of the corporation meekly went along with the labour governments plan (and the carrots being dangled) to bring in the fascist regime has been sabotaged so any interested parties cannot watch it. So much for transparency. Click HERE to read what cllr Rawlings says.
We will now see the dominant 'bucks' in the three major parties clashing horns in a fight for the leadership of the council ..... personally I think the elected major governance structure would at least give all local electors a say in who they wanted as leader of the council.
THE boyfriend of a woman who tortured her own baby after being cleared to care for him by Camden social services was sentenced for his part in the boy's neglect today.
Paul Husband, 33, a convicted child sex offender stood by as two-month-old Rhys Biggs wailed in agony because of the injuries inflicted by his mother Claire Biggs in the days leading up to his death.
At the Inner London Crown Court, Husband was sentenced to two years and three months for failing to intervene and alert medical experts during the course of his abuse
Judge Lindsay Burn QC said: "On certainly one occasion before Rhys' death you realised he was in pain from some cause and needed medical help and you did not get it.
"It does not follow that you knew why Rhys was in pain. It does not follow that you knew he was in pain on more than one occasion."
The court heard, however, that Husband tried to get medical help for Rhys on the morning he died.
His cause of death could not be ascertained by medical experts or linked to the abuse but the couple's trial heard that Rhys' short life was spent in "considerable pain and suffering".
Biggs, 24, was sentenced in March to eight years imprisonment for the campaign of abuse on Rhys which left him with 12 crushed ribs, a broken shoulder and a snapped wrist.
Camden Council's social services, which approved Rhys to stay in his mother's care, came under criticism in a case review released after the sentencing which said the council was "over-optimistic" in its assessment of the heroin addict's ability to care for her newborn son.
Husband was convicted of indecently assaulting a former lover's child in Scotland when he was 18 - but his criminal past was never checked by social services in London.
Following the case, the NSPCC called for a change in the law to allow judges to give longer sentences to those who inflict serious harm on children. The charity wants the law of familial homicide extended to include cases of serious injury.
NSPCC lawyer Barbara Esam said: "The law needs to be addressed to cover cases where a carer has inflicted serious injuries on a child - where the child does not die or where it cannot be proved that the child died from the injuries inflicted.
A woman wept as she accused Camden Council of not doing enough to protect her against abuse she suffered as a child at the hands of her own mother and uncle.
The woman now a mother herself and in her 30's claims she was subjected to physical and sexual abuse and neglect by her mother, and sexually abused by her uncle.
She insists council officials should have taken her into care shortly after her birth, but Mrs Justice Slade was told at the High Court that the woman was only finally removed from the family home in 1989, when she was a teenager, after her mother took her to a police station and asked for her to be taken away.
The woman identified only as "S" in court, is seeking massive damages from Camden Council, claiming she was let down by social services and that will have a devastating impact on the rest of her life.
The court heard her mother admitted child neglect at Southwark Crown Court in 2005 and received a community rehabilitation order. However, allegations of sexual abuse against her and the woman's uncle only came to light last week.
"S"s barrister Elizabeth-Ann Gumbel, told the judge that her clients childhood memories are so distressing that she refers to her mother only as "Miss P" and that their relationship had once been described by a social worker as "bizarre and unhealthy".
"No reasonable local authority and no reasonably social workers would have failed to remove this woman from the care of her mother, the QC argued.
Whilst giving evidence the woman wept frequently and at one stage fled the witness box, saying she "felt sick".
She told the judge "[My mother] told everyone that I was put into care because I was naughty. I thouht to myself that the next time someone asks me why I don't talk to my mum, I am going to say 'because she was a child abuser'".
Explaining why she has only recently made her allegations, she added: "I did not want anyone to know. I felt dirty and unclean and tried to bury it I" have not even been able to speak to my solicitor about this. I wrote it in an e-mail because I thought it would be easier. It makes me feel sick to think about it". Who wants to think about a sexual relationship with their mother or their uncle?"
Under cross-examination she defended her late disclosure of the sex abuse allegations saying "The sexual scars are harder to speak about. I did not want people to know that I had to do these things, but I thought what was the point hiding it anymore?"
Camden Council denies liability in the case and argues that "S" has in any event left it too late to sue".
Claims for personal injury suffered in childhood normally have to be launched before the victim's 21st birthday, unless there are exceptional circumstances. However, "S"'s legal team insist there was good reasons for the delay". The hearing continues.
A Labour donor made a vast personal fortune on the back of a £20million handout of taxpayers' money, an inquiry has found.
Lord Drayson had threatened to pull his PowderJect company out of Britain unless it was given public cash.
In 2003 the vaccine manufacturer was offered the £20million to build a factory by a government-run regional development board.
Just two months later he sold the subsidised company to its U.S. rival Chiron, landing a profit for himself and his family estimated at £80million.
He is now a science minister and, following last week's reshuffle, also a defence minister attending Cabinet meetings. The affair raises disturbing questions over Labour's burgeoning quango network and the way it handles large sums of public money in deep secrecy.
At a time of widespread anger over MPs' misuse of their expenses, it led to calls yesterday for better scrutiny of the way taxpayers' money is spent by unaccountable bureaucrats.
The North West Regional Development Agency, which channelled money to the Drayson firm, is one of nine RDAs which between them have spent more than £15billion.
An official report on the PowderJect deal, which the North West RDA commissioned but unsurprisingly decided not to publish, finds that the takeover which made Lord Drayson's fortune was 'significantly influenced' by the handout from the quango.
It adds that the grant produced a less-than- expected return for the public.
The controversial peer's dealings with Downing Street, Whitehall and the Labour Party have been under scrutiny since when, as Dr Paul Drayson, he made donations totalling £100,000 to Labour funds during 2001 and 2002.
Shortly afterwards PowderJect was handed a £32.5million Government contract to supply smallpox vaccine.
Made a peer by Tony Blair in 2004, Lord Drayson joined the Government the following year and became Gordon Brown's science minister last October.
PRACTICE— Vexatious litigant— Inherent jurisdiction of court— Extended civil restraint order— Application to restrain person subject to order from engaging in any form of mere communication with person for whose benefit order made— Whether power to make order— CPR r 3.11, Practice Direction 3C supplementing Pt 3
SupperstonevHurst and another
[2009] EWHC 1271 (Ch); [2009] WLR (D) 176
Ch D: Bernard Livesey QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge: 9 June 2009
The court did not have jurisdiction to make an extended civil restraint order which prevented the person subject to the order from engaging in any form of mere communication with the person for whose benefit the order was made.
Bernard Livesey QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division, so held when granting an application by Antony Peter Supperstone, the trustee in bankruptcy of the first respondent, Robert Hurst, made pursuant to CPR r 3.11, the accompanying practice direction and the court’s inherent jurisdiction, for an extended civil restraint order against both the first respondent and his wife, Ann Hurst, the second respondent.
BERNARD LIVESEY QC said that the Prevention of Harassment Act 1997 was designed to provide protection to individuals against some forms of pure harassment. His Lordship did not suggest that it would be an appropriate source of relief in the present case but the existence of a specific provision like the 1997 Act led him to doubt whether it would be appropriate to stretch the inherent jurisdiction of the court beyond the bounds set by existing case law.
Appearances:Richard Fisher (instructed by Taylor WessingLLP) for the applicant; the first respondent in person; the second respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Did you know that one of camden councils and related third parties favourite 'pastimes' FRAUD is a serious offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007
SCHEDULE 1 Serious offences
Part 1 Serious Offences in England and Wales 7. Fraud
(1) An offence under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60)(false accounting).
(2) An offence under any of the following provisions of the Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35)—
(a) section 1 (fraud by false representation, failing to disclose information or abuse of position);
(b) section 6 (possession etc. of articles for use in frauds);
(c) section 7 (making or supplying articles for use in frauds);
(d) section 9 (participating in fraudulent business carried on by sole trader etc.);
(e) section 11 (obtaining services dishonestly).
(3) An offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud.
8. Offences in relation to public revenue
(1) An offence under section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2)(fraudulent evasion of duty etc.) so far as not falling within paragraph 1(2)(c) or 3(1)(b) above.
(2) An offence under section 72 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (c. 23)(fraudulent evasion of VAT etc.).
(3) An offence under section 144 of the Finance Act 2000 (c. 17)(fraudulent evasion of income tax).
(4) An offence under section 35 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 (c. 21)(tax credit fraud).
(5) An offence at common law of cheating in relation to the public revenue.
9 Corruption and bribery
(1) An offence under section 1 of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 (c. 69)(corruption in public office).
(2) An offence which is the first or second offence under section 1(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 (c. 34)(corrupt transactions with agents other than those of giving or using false etc. documents which intended to mislead principal).
(3) An offence at common law of bribery.
I would advise any readers who have reasonable grounds and evidence that suggests that FRAUD, CORRUPTION or BRIBERY has been committed by any council workers, council members or related third parties and feel that you have a duty to report it, pop down to your local police station and make an official report to the police (cite the offence and Act under which it is a crime and produce the evidence). Make sure you are given a crime reference number before you leave the police station.
However, don't be suprised if after reporting these serious offences the police take no interest in the crime/s and you don't hear from them again on the matter. On the whole the police do not take fraud seriously despite it now being a serious crime - particularly so when it involves camden council and related third parties.
A one day trial has been set for 25 Aug 09 at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court - Court 3 for the trial that promises to be rather juicy. Funny date thought 25 Aug when many people including those the solicitor will subpoena as witnesses could possibly be wanting to go on holiday and will have to cancel. Trial of century you bet! All welcome to attend.
Extremely poor quality (sound and picture) webcast of the Executive committee meeting that was held on 27 May 2009 and the full council meeting held on 15 June 09.
Could this be a deliberate act of sabotage or simply crappy software being used by the council?
Could it be that since a certain fib-dem council member was caught out on webcast in April 09 'misleading' the executive committee that the webcasts have been 'got at'?
UPDATE
Camden council issued the below statement on their webiste and have now fixed the problem. Well done to them.
"Due to technical reasons we are experiencing problems with the quality of recent webcasts. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused. We are working to resolve this issue."
What does one make of political parties who serve on the council who run property management businesses from their parties headquarters - such as Thirty Eton Avenue Ltd?
Now that Parliament has been exposed as a free for all for some not so honest MP's and 'lords' and is having a 'clean out' the spotlight should I believe be turned onto local government ....
I have been researching the procedures the police follow when dealing with harassment claims and case law relating to harassment. The below linked case is interesting in that it informs that the defendant was served with a 'allegation of harassment' form by the police. This form states what the allegations are, what form the harassment takes etc. It is a 'first step' in the ladder sort of thing.
I have never been served with any formal warning or caution by the police regarding any harassment claims.
Reading the above case and considering what the defendant (or appellant) is alleged to have done that constituted harassment before he was given a formal warning one does have to wonder why I was treated so excessively?
Interesting bits about police procedures CJS Online
If you report a crime the police will give you the number of the officer or crime desk responsible for your case, and a crime reference number. Under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, which came into force on 3 April 2006, the police have a legal obligation to:
Tell you if there is not going to be an investigation into the crime within 5 days of you reporting the crime,
Keep you updated on a monthly basis until the case is close
Tell you if there is a possibility that the case may be reviewed at a later date and ask you if you want to be informed of any reviews.
What the police can do once they reasonably suspect that a person has committed an offence depends on whether the offence carries a power of arrest.
Some less serious offences do not have the power of arrest. In such cases the suspect may volunteer to go to the police station for questioning, but the police cannot force them.
If you believe a police officer has made a decision that is unlawful/unreasonable/excessive you can apply to the courts for a judicial review of the decision, within 3 months from the date the decision was taken.
The Police and Justice Act 2006 gives the police the legal (though not necessarily the lawful) authority to hold any person without charge for 36 instead of the previous 24 hours and under ANY arrestable offence this was changed from any SERIOUS arrestable offence.
The game of politics in Camden is a very dirty and sinister game indeed, and not a game to be played by the faint hearted. Not a game to be in if one has any decency and morals.
The game is fundamentally about influence. The council leader lib-dim keith moffitt became involved in local politics because he wants to influence. He states so in one of his party political propaganda interview he gave to 'the lib dem voice'. A control freak perhaps who wants to control everything around him? He also asks central government to trust him (local government) - yeah right keith about as far as one can throw you.
The game is also based on lies. The making up of them and the spreading about of them. Nasty lies that begger belief. Most people tell the odd fib every now and again and they don't cause any harm, but these creatures tell the most disgusting and harmful lies time and time again.
It is also about secrets. Dirty secrets about the behaviour and mindset of party members and council officials. Its also about the cross party consensus of covering up each others crimes.
The rot is everywhere and it is there because this is how many council members and council officers prefer it. The fascist leaning unions are also part of the rot.
It is also about council tenants who con and deceive other tenants to get their support and to vote for them. Its also about jumping on bandwagons that everyone else has jumped on or who others put pressure on you to jump on.
Its about contradictions and lack of trust.
Its about not having any real friends - only associates or 'comrades' who will stab you in the back as soon as look at you. It is about wanting something for themselves over and above the rest of us.
Its about greed and what they believe they are entitled to.
It is about pretending to care about everyone and everything, pretending to be whiter than white, holier than thou all the while thieving from public funds and prying on vulnerable residents. Its about megalomaniacs wanting power and influence over the rest of us. Its about using every means to take down ones opponents, to discredit them, to harass them to intimidate them. Its about corrupting the police and the legal system.
Its about having 'associates' in high places who will prop you up and give you awards that you don't deserve.
This is the reality of local government. It is a cesspit of evil manipulate little nobodies who want to force their (bad) will upon other people. Its about sub-humans who have no sense of right or wrong, no boundaries they will not cross.
Most disturbingly it is about corrupting the police and the legal and justice system to suit their needs, to subdue dissenters who see the thugs, crooks and thieves for what they really are.
Its about being conned into thinking you live in a fair and equal democracy when you don't. In reality Camden is a police state run by the criminals in local government. The criminals who set their poodles the police on you if you dare to challenge them.
Its about nazi Germany all over again.
Did the nazis ever go away? Some people say no they didn't they just used a different tactic - the Trojan horse tactic, the enemy from within.
All interested journalists and every one else in Camden and beyond are cordially invited to attend Highbury Corner Magistrates Court on Tuesday 9 June 2009 9.30am. Not sure what court room but you won't miss me because I will be the funny looking woman with a string vest on me head - a symbol and tribute to the case.
Perjury and Perverting the Course of Justice Considered By Susan S. M. Edwards Professor of Law and Social Theory, Buckingham Law School
Summary: This article examines the prosecution and sentencing of offences of perjury and perverting the course of justice.
Crimes of perjury and perverting the course of justice are offences against justice which in the public mind are at present marked, for example, by the case against Maxine Carr, currently charged with perverting the course of justice in connection with the disappearance and murder of 10-year-olds Holly Chapman and Jessica Wells.
Academic interest in this much under researched area is the product of a number of broader criminal justice concerns. In this respect the integrity of the criminal justice system is of considerable import as both offences undermine and destabilise that probity. There is also the “knock on” effect of case attrition in those criminal cases where perjury and perverting the course of justice thwart due process of prosecution and conviction. For example, “Over 30,000 cases were abandoned in 2001 because witnesses and victims refused to give evidence in court or failed to turn up.
The substantive law The modern construction of perjury is found in the Perjury Act 1911. Section 1 creates the principal offence of lying on oath.
Perverting the course of justice, an offence at common law, is triable on indictment only, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. However, no sentence above 10 years has been passed in the last century for this offence.
Three separate types of conduct are embraced by this offence including, fabrication or disposal of evidence or inducing others to do so. Intention is the mental element required for both perjury and perverting the course of justice.
In 2000, 9,763 offences of perverting the course of justice were recorded. In the same year 5,107 cases of perverting the course of justice were proceeded with in the magistrates’ courts, of which 2,312 were dealt with in the Crown Court.
____________________
Consider this scenario: In early Jan 09 alleged detective constable says he has printed off pages from a website that scrutinises a local council. However, there is no mention of any complaints received.
Taking into consideration that most people cannot get the police to investigate crimes they report, why is this detective conducting what loosely looks like an 'investigation'? Perhaps alleged detective is having his strings pulled by another body - perhaps the body that is being scrutinised on websites?
In the course of his 'investigation' alleged detective constable claims to have read the 'offending' website that is causing the alleged harassment of three alleged complainants - Yet doesn't even consider to question the alleged complainants on the allegations made against them on website. Doesn't consider them at all.
Alleged detective does however consider that the appropriate course of action he will take to try to shut the 'whistleblower' up is to unlawfully arrest said whistleblower, hold them against their will, behind their back enter their home, search home and seize property - without a warrant.
In the course of interviewing the accused, alleged detective doesn't even request the accused to stop alleged harassment. The alleged detective is not interested in the allegations made on the website about the complainants.
The accused knows that a 'stitch up' is taking place and that the police officer is trying to intimidate them into shutting up about the three complainants and camden council.
The accused is not charged with any offence and is released from custody to return to another police station in 6 weeks.
Because the accused refuses to be intimidated by alleged detective the accused writes up on website the sorry fiasco of her arrest and detention, and the unlawfully entry of her home and of her property being stolen. This enrages the alleged detective. The accused continues to write about the three alleged complainants and camden council. This also enrages the alleged detective, the three alleged complainants and camden council.
It also enrages dc that the accused has made an official complaint about his behaviour.
When accused returns to police station the alleged detective has already decided to 'teach the bitch a lesson' and accused is arrested again and this time is charged.
Perhaps the DC who rather unwisely put his job on the line and who has dragged other police officers into it to cover up for him is hoping that by being dragged through the courts on trumped up charges the 'whistleblower' will shut up?
Perhaps the DC was one of the two police officers involved in going to the home of a elderly disabled very poorly man and harassing and intimidating him back in 2005?
A month ago the councils monitoring officer wrote up a report which was sent to the councils Standards Committee that some council members from all four parties had not declared all of the interests they must by law register. Since then the members concerned (listed below) have still not registered these interests. What is going on?
Liberal Democrats Omar Faruque Ansari – Kentish Town Nick Russell – Kentish Town - no link to registered interests on councils website Libby Campbell – Camden Town with Primrose Hill Frederic Carver – Cantelowes Linda Chung – Hampstead Town - no link to registered interests on councils website
Labour Fazlul Chowdhury - Bloomsbury Nurul Islam – St Pancras and Somers Town Anna Stewart – St Pancras with Somers Town Conservative Andrew Mennear – Frognal and Fitzjohns Lulu Mitchell – Gospel Oak Don Williams – Swiss Cottage
Green Adrian Oliver – Highgate
MEMBERS of the Standards Committee 15 April 2009
Independent (non-Councillors): Roy Griffins, Judith Lempriere, Alan Lord and Anne Sofer
Councillors: Martin Davies(C), Duncan Greenland(LD), Nancy Jirira(LD), Adrian Oliver(G), Jonathon Simpson(L), Dawn Somper(C), Brian Woodrow(L)
Councillor Substitutes:Theo Blackwell(L), Kirsty Roberts(C), Maya de Souza(G), vacancy(LD)
Cllr flick rea has since become a member of the standards committee - 'strategic' positioning perhaps?
The next meeting of the councils Standards Committee is 3 June 09.
Will the monitoring officer be writing up another report to remind council members to register their interests?
The European Parliamentary Elections will be upon us next month 4 June 09 - something to bare in mind if you even bother to vote - for 14 years running the EU have failed to have their accounts signed off by the European Court of Auditors! The EU has an annual budget of around £75b. This means that something is very much amiss with how taxpayers money has/is being spent by these far away politicians and bureaucrats who the average person on the street doesn't even know the names off let alone what they actually do.
The only two goods things I can think of to come out of this union is the European Court and the Human Rights Act ....
Its interesting to read what the Crown Prosecution Service has to say about crimes against elderly people. Shame camden council and camden police aren't so bothered when it comes to bringing to justice nasty people who abuse the elderly.
Ponder this: when camden police decide they want to victimise you because you won't shut up about the disgusting behaviour of camden council and related third parties and then they manipulate the CPS (who they literally share offices with) to make charges against you - would this not cause you great concern?
What if they decide that they are going to target a relative or friend?
What if you make an official complaint about the conduct of a police officer and following your complaint he manipulates the CPS into charging you?
Is it acceptable to the many decent residents we have here in camden for our police to behave in this way?
Camden council will be holding its Annual General Meeting this month 13 May 2009. What I don't understand is why the councils Constitution doesn't state that accounts are to be produced at this meeting?
In the pretend democracy we have here in camden, a borough with a resident population of around 200,000, every four years we are divinely granted permission to participate in the annual election of our council members. In the interim years 54 privileged council members, some unfit for public office, get to nominate one another back onto the council. This is the new and improved 'localism' that we are being conned into believing gives residents more choice and a greater say on how things are run.
Plan for chief legal officer splits local government solicitors
Friday 17 April 2009 by Deven Pamben
A proposal that every local authority be required to appoint a qualified chief legal officer has attracted split responses from 70 different organisations.
The Law Society and Solicitors in Local Government have proposed a change in the law to create the new role, replacing that of monitoring officer, who does not have to be legally qualified. Chief legal officers would be solicitors, barristers or legal executives.
The Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors and the Local Government Group, the SLG’s training arm, opposed the plans from the outset (see [2009] Gazette, 5 February, 3).
The consultation also drew criticism from England’s largest local authority. Mirza Ahmad, corporate director of governance at Birmingham City Council, described the proposal as ‘poor-quality and lacking in real understanding of issues facing monitoring officers’.
But the Institute of Legal Executives said it would ‘be in the public interest’ for councils to have a chief legal officer answerable to a professional regulatory body.
A paper on the proposal will go before the Law Society’s legal affairs and policy board in the next two months, Mark Stobbs, the Law Society’s director of legal policy, said.
Meanwhile, local authorities are being urged not to pass the cost of practising certificate fees on to their legal officers as a cash-saving measure. Guy Goodman, SLG’s chair, says he was made aware of one council considering passing on the £995 fee to its solicitors. ‘This would be a backward step and is not a move we would support.’
This post is a continuation of the nail biting saga of me being stitched up by the Mcnasties rodgers, dando and cookson-taylor and others in the council. Well according to a camden based copper, who did appear quite chummy with the delightful copper who unlawfully arrested me and stole my property, the police are 'allowed' to tamper with evidence.
This is the police force or 'service' as it is now called that the tax paying public pay for and rely on to uphold the law, protect the innocent, catch and bring to justice the baddies .....
Could it be that some camden police officers are confused about what their job actually is?
I came across THIS on camden councils website and thought it quite strange, but apparently in political 'speak' the word black as in Operation Black Vote, refers to all ethnic groups ..... including white ethnics.
I can only conclude that these 'politicians' are taking the pee out of all ethnics groups including black ethnics who they are targeting and trying to con into becoming council members. My advice to any decent person thinking of getting involved with camden council: don't! if you are approached by 'one of them' run like the wind and don't look back because if you get sucked in sooner or later the corruption that emanates from the town hall will pollute you, it is everywhere.
I'm sure I'm not the only resident in camden who has heard the horror stories of just how 'well' camden council treats ethnics, especially those who happen to be council tenants ......
How family who kept police killer Harry Roberts behind bars were betrayed by the so-called Ministry of Justice
By Ian Gallagher Last updated at 10:06 PM on 25th April 2009
Last week The Mail on Sunday revealed that Justice Secretary Jack Straw faced urgent questions about how Britain's most notorious police killer, Harry Roberts, was able to terrorise a family whose evidence blocked his release from jail. Roberts callously shot three policemen in 1966 and was sentenced to life in prison. James and Joan Cartwright, who gave Roberts work at their animal sanctuary for his day release, told how a series of brutal attacks on their animals coincided with a five-year campaign of intimidation. Here the Cartwrights continue their shocking story...
Despite the meeting being inquorate, consent was given by the councils ownAudit Committee at their Sept 2008 meeting for the councils 2007/8 accounts to be signed off. However, rumour has it that due to unresolved objections to these accounts camden council has yet to sign them off.
This raises the question as to whether the audit committee were aware of the unresolved objections before giving consent? Please note that the Audit Committee has since merged with the Development Control Committee to form the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee.
Is the executive member responsible for finance aware that the accounts haven't been signed off? What does he make of it I wonder?
If camden council can't sign off the accounts shouldn't the Audit Commission be informed? Shouldn't the police be informed? Shouldn't residents be informed?
When the director of Finance makes his annual declaration in the local press in June that the councils accounts are open to the electorate for inspection, will he include this vital information?
You know when you first read something but don't quite take in all of what it says? Then upon reading it a second time realise that you had missed some vital information?
Recently I was re-reading the response I received to a FOI request I had made to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and I realised that there was vital information in it that I had missed when I first read it. Well, it will come as no surprise to many people to know that since 2005 Camden police have received IN EXCESS of 130 complaints relating to camden council! Unfortunately the cost to the MPS of extracting the ''excess' information is so great that it exceeds £450 and they wouldn't give it to me!
Just how big is the file the police have on camden council? Shouldn't the public be told?
What appears to be on the increase is political parties setting themselves up as 'charities', companies and 'think-tanks' and a whole number of other dubious bodies and have been allowed easy access to public money.
It also seems to be standard practice for certain political parties who have members sitting in parliament to 'loan out' public paid for staff to their local associations.
Did you know that in the last few years cllr duncan greenland lib-dem council member and audit committee chair has donated over £100,000 to his party? Which also includes a donation of £7,500 made on 27 April 2009.
Could it be that Cllr greenland is a wealthy individual who one could argue has bought himself safe positions within the party and within camden council?
Could it be that undisclosed third party donations are being made through him?
The below news story is very relevant to what goes on in camden council and the 'tactics' some rotten tenant 'reps' and council people use to discredit others. These unwritten codes of conduct appear to be widely accepted by council officers and members. Petra dando casp committee member does it and the Camden lib-dems who dando is working in partnership with are known to spread dando's disgusting smears. Is this the type of local government Camden residents want?
REVEALED: How No10 planned to plant slurs about top Tories
Gordon Brown's spin doctor was sensationally sacked last night after he was accused of trying to launch a smear campaign against David Cameron and George Osborne.
Downing Street Press adviser Damian McBride was forced to resign after a series of emails he sent from No10 to fellow Labour spin doctor Derek Draper, a close friend of Business Secretary Peter Mandelson, were leaked.
In the emails, Mr McBride, one of the Prime Minister’s most loyal and trusted advisers, reportedly made ‘vile’ and false allegations against Mr Osborne and Mr Cameron concerning their private lives.
The emails also make unfounded allegations against a number of other Tories, including Mid Bedfordshire MP Nadine Dorries.
Cabinet Minister Tom Watson, another close ally of Mr Brown, was also under fire after claims that he, too, is involved in the email row.
The emails – sent from a high-security Downing Street account – were obtained by a political blogger known as Guido Fawkes, whose real name is Paul Staines. The slurs, none of which have any substance, include suggestions that:
Mr Cameron should be challenged to produce his medical records, after admitting in an interview that he had visited a sexual diseases clinic when a student. There is no suggestion he had any treatment.
Mr Osborne once posed for a photograph wearing a bra, knickers and suspenders with his face blackened.
Ms Dorries had been the subject of sexual allegations.
A gay MP is using his position to offer free publicity to a High Street company for which his boyfriend works.
Camden News - by PAUL KEILTHY Published: 9 April 2009
Warning on council expenses
AS the scrutiny of expenses and perks in government continues to grab headlines, the Town Hall’s top lawyer has written to councillors for the third time in a year to warn that they risk straying beyond the rules.
Borough solicitor Andrew Maughan said the councillors’ register of interests, for which politicians are required to record any gift or perk over £25 as well as jobs or positions which could create conflicts of interests, was a vital legal requirement.
In a report published this week, Mr Maughan wrote: “It is suspected that it is not as up to date as it might be and that all members need to consider whether or not they should be updating it now to include any gifts or hospitality they may have received. There has been a significant increase in recent Freedom of Information inquiries and press interest generally.” The report will be heard at a Standards Committee meeting on Wednesday. ________________________
I may pop down to the evil temple of satan (the town hall) if I can stomach it and have a look at the Hospitality register. I may have to bring some holy water with me and an exorcist. Anyway I suspect CNJ journalists have been reading my blog because I exposed the above lack of adherence to the members code of conduct in Nov 2008.
Good job Mr Maughan (monitoring officer) in bringing this matter to the attention of the Standards Committee. Any chance of a kindly cnj journalist reporting on any of the other scandals I have exposed? How about the casp nasties reign of terror and the recent unlawful arrest of my person and having my property stolen from my home by alleged detective jim cross?
The UK auditing industry enjoys a statutory monopoly of the external audit function. More than 600,000 companies and numerous other organisations are required by law to submit to an audit by an accountant belonging to one of the UK’s accountancy trade associations. This has enabled accountancy firms to earn millions of pounds in fees.
Despite enjoying a statutory monopoly, auditors do not owe a ‘duty of care’ to any individual shareholder, creditor, employee, bank depositor, pension scheme member or any other stakeholder. Anyone buying mundane things, such as a packet of sweets or potato crisps, acquires statutory rights, suppliers are required to owe a ‘duty of care’ to current and potential consumers. But none of this applies to auditing. Seemingly, the consumer rights revolution has completely passed auditing by.
Failures of the auditing industry continue to make regular headlines.
Episodes such as BCCI, Maxwell, Polly Peck, Queens Moat Houses, Wickes, Atlantic Computers, Barings and others have resulted in loss of jobs, bank deposits, pensions, savings and investments for many. The only long-term defence against negligence lawsuits is to improve the ‘quality’ of audits. But the auditing industry has shown little inclination to reflect upon its internal practices. Audits continue to be used as loss-leaders to secure consultancy work. Research shows that much of the audit fieldwork is also falsified.
Rather than going all out to improve ‘quality’, the auditing industry and accountancy trade associations are campaigning to secure further liability concessions. It claims to be an unfair victim of lawsuits though it has failed to provide any systematic evidence of actual legal settlements.
Based upon the figures provided by the industry, we estimate that the auditor’s liability costs are around 2.67% of the total revenue, considerably less than the annual PR expenses of the major firms. Most of the major lawsuits are by one accountancy firm (in its capacity as a receiver, administrator or liquidator) against another (in its capacity as an auditor), the main beneficiaries being the accountancy firms themselves.
Have camden council officers and members, camden borough police and casp nasties been Perverting the Course of Justice. Have they been willfully engaging in PERVERTED actions many many many many times over? ...... Is Camden Council full of Fraudsters, dimwits, and Narcissistic Liars who neglect their duties and abuse their positions and lots lots more? Does the council collude with known criminals?
Does Camden Borough Police have imposter's as Detectives, do they collude with known criminals, harass and intimidate innocent people, and generally Neglect their official Duties and Abuse their positions of Office? Do they lie and steal?
Are the CASP Nasties Fraudsters, Thieves, dangerous Predators who prey upon the elderly and vulnerable, Liars, Dimwits, Narcissistic, and do they make the same old tired and false 'i'm being harassed' allegations to the Police, and lots lots more?
General sentencing brackets summarised in Archbold as follows:-
threatening or interfering with witnesses 4 months to 24 months.
concealing evidence 4 months to 18 months, possibly longer if serious crime.
false allegation of crime resulting in arrest of innocent person 4 to 12 months.
AG's Ref (No 1 of 1990) 12 Cr.App.R.(S.) 245 Sentence should normally be consecutive to substantive offence.
False allegations of rape.
R v Merritt [2006] 1 Cr.App.R.(S.) reviewed authorities. Victim (husband) accused and held in custody for 9 hours; sentence reduced to 4 months imprisonment.
R v Fletcher [2006] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) false allegation led to victim being in police custody for 17 hours and waiting 3 months before being told that no further action would be taken; 2 years imprisonment upheld.
False mitigation.
R v Bailey [2006] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.). Elaborate false mitigation resulted in a community rehabilitation order for 3 offences of indecent assault on a child. 2 years imprisonment upheld.
Recent Decisions reported in CSP reported at B 8-2.3 divided into:
interference with prosecution witness; threatening or intimidating witness; making false allegation of crime; concealing evidence; interfering with jurors; false information in mitigation.
That the council tax we are forced to pay to 'camden council' is really paid to a subsidiary - an unlimited trading business. The address on your council tax bill will be Town Hall (extension) Argyle Street, which is listed as a profit making unlimited business. Camden council has around 25 such trading businesses.
Trading is I believe defined as 'the willingexchange of goods and services'. Council tax is a property tax, and as we are forced to pay such taxes against our will, how can camden council be conducting lawful trading? I have requested from camden council that they provide me with proof that I am lawfully liable for the council tax they have demanded from me.
Camden council takes around £100m a year in council tax from residents. This makes up around 10% of their annual income of nearly a £1b. Camden council doesn't actually say what this money is spent on, not even in the booklet that comes with the recent council tax bill residents would have received. Have a read of it - it doesn't actually make clear where council tax is spent - it is lumped in with other expenditure.
Local councils via the Local Government Association, are campaigning to the government for greater powers to be able to collect up to 3/4 of their annual income from local charges and taxes. This is the part of the 'double devolution' deal that local residents/tax payers are being conned into thinking will benefit them - it won't - it will be double taxation and charging and as 'CAMDEN COUNCIL' has so many profit making trading businesses, that have untold directors, partners and associated members, they can and do reward themselves handsomely from the profits. Big bonus's and pensions for bleeding residents dry, how cool is that?
David rodgers and petra dando to be arrested and charged with making malicious and false allegations to the police about an elderly resident they had 'befriended'.
David rodgers and petra dando to be arrested and charged with telling these lies in order to corrupt police officers into harassing and intimidating said elderly resident.
David rodgers and petra dando to be thrown off the casp committee for abusing their positions as 'advocates' and never to be given public funding again or be allowed to sit on any residents group.
For council street property residents to be given proper representation by an accountable, accessible and honest group of residents, and without negative interference from camden council officers or party members.
DC jim cross to be sacked.
For the following cllrs to have their membership of camden council terminated - keith moffitt, flick rea and james king.
Holborn Police station, headquarters of camden police. Fastly becoming renowned for its dim coppers, who collude with not-so-honest and rather unpleasant tenant 'reps' and camden council 'people' to stitch up and intimidate residents of the borough who speak out about wrong-doings on blogs.
Lets take what happened yesterday, 19 March 2009.
Based on alleged complaints received from that awfully nice petra dando, her charismatic and awfully honest boyfriend david rodgers and their lib-dim crony mike cookson-taylor, DC JIM CROSSP228483 (hello jim) arrested me - on trumped up 'charges' of harassment. Apparently one is not allowed to comment on the character of thoroughly dishonest people. Free speech is not allowed, speaking out about the acts of thuggish criminals is not allowed. Intimidation is the name of the game.... so much for us living n a democracy where the police catch the bad guys and protect the innocent - we don't - we live in a police state where innocent people are arrested for speaking out about the wrong doings of others.
I have not been harassing anyone and I informed this copper of this. I also informed him that I thought the whole affair was a stitch up and he did shuffle about a bit and look uncomfortable when I said this.
I attended Holborn Police Station voluntarily. I waited around for a while then alleged dective jim cross ushered me into a side room and arrested me - on what I believe to be trumped up 'charges' of harassment. There was no need to arrest me I was quite willing to answer any questions, that is why I came down to the station. My alleged 'crime' was obviously so henious that he felt it ok to wait weeks from his initial contact with me to when I voluntarily attended the Police station.
What I was really arrested for is being a critic of camden council and related third parties on blogs. Alleged detective jim cross gave the whole game away just before I was interviewed.
It gets better.
Without my knowledge he takes my door keys out of the sealed evidence bag of my belongings comes to my home, enters and then sets about stealing me laptop and old pc tower!!!! Whoa I hope me neighbours didn't suspect burglars and call the police. Can you believe it? Whats he hoping to find I wonder - not a lot unless he plants it (caught any real criminals lately jim?)
When I collected my belongings, they had already been taken out of the sealed bag. I did not see who opened the bag as I was distracted by what was going on around me.Is it standard police practice to tamper with evidence Jim?
I also suspect that my mobile phone was tampered with as it wasn't switched on when I went into the station, but was on when I took it back off them as the phone bleeped because the batteries had run down. Didn't find any 'evidence' on my phone did ya jim - nah didn't think you did.
PS
I asked you whether you had a warrant to break into my home and steal my property, and you said you didn't need one and that your sarg had authorised your actions. The copy of the authorisation you said you had received from your Sargent to enter my home and steal my property, wasn't signed. Doesn't that mean that you weren't authorised? oops thats right you the police are now unaccountable and can do what you like. You going to plant 'evidence' on my laptop and old pc tower jim?
His credibility as a copper is gone for ever I reckon - how can he ever be trusted to stand up in court to give reliable 'evident' against an alleged criminal?
Will he be investigating rodgers and dando for telling malicious lies to the police about an elderly resident they had 'befriended' who was then intimidated in his own home by two coppers from Holborn? - No of course he won't be. How many other people have these two told malicious lies about to the police in order to intimidate and cause distress?
Unlike rodgers, dando and cookson-taylor I am now genuinely in fear of what this dc cross will do.
PS
I only have dc JIM CROSSs word for this and so far his word and his integrity doesn't mean much, but allegedly david rodgers hasn't been involved with heroin and doesn't have a string of offences as long as your arm. Sorry jim I don't believe you but I will bare it in mind. `
I ain't going away, in fact I'm more determined than ever, I'll see him in court if that's the way he wants to play it.
____________________________
NB I would like to make it known that I have never been contacted by rodgers, dando or cookson-taylor to request that I take down any 'offending' material, i've not even had the pleasure of receiving one of terence ewings infamous 'letters before claim' - sent out on rodgers and dandos behalf. Is the convicted fraudster still on the casp committee?
Never mind that I and others are constantly being offended and distressed by the four above mentioned being funded by camden council and being paraded by the same council as genuine, trustworthy 'advocates' to street property residents. This I find grossly offensive and distressing.
UPDATE APRIL 2009
My complaint about the conduct of alleged detective constable jim cross has been acknowledged by the Met Police Directorate of Police Standards and a reference number given.
............. on what lead me to set up this and other blogs
Sept 2005 David Rodgers and Petra Dando who receive public funding as 'advocates' to thousands of camden council street property residents, used the Police to harass, intimidate and distress an elderly, disabled very poorly resident, who lives alone and has no family living near him.
These two unpleasants had 'befriended' him a few months earlier and enlisted him onto the CASP committee. He ticked all the right boxes - elderly, disabled, of Indian origin.
He at first trusted them because he had no reason not to.
Later on when he disagreed with them on a matter, (he wasn't the dribbling ga ga old person they have hoped he was and does actually have a mind of his own) these two nasties intentionally and maliciously told lies to the police about them being harassed and distressed by this elderly man. They claimed they were in fear, had no social life etc etc etc. This elderly man can barely walk 10 yards without falling down.
Two dim coppers from Holborn then went to this elderly mans home and intimidated him into being silent. They didn't want to hear his side of the story - they warned him off. He was very distressed and extremely frightened by the police involvement as anyone would be.
I was so disgusted by what these two unpleasants had done that I made a complaint to camden council - and camden council choose to ignore my complaint.
I made a complaint to the police - they choose to ignore it.
The elderly man made a complaint to his local 'representation' who is a council member, and she choose to look the other way. Other members of her Lib-Dem party also looked the other way.
It was the disgusting behaviour of rodgers and dando, and those in 'authority' who had the 'authority' to bring rodgers and dando to task over what they did, and stop funding them as 'advocates, but who choose to ignore it and carry on funding these two very dangerous criminals that started all this. I could not look the other way.
These two villians are a danger to the very residents they are given public funding to 'advocate' on behalf of. Camden council knows this, the police know this yet they are being protected.
All three main party's on the council know what these two casp crooks are like yet not one single member will speak out about them, not even the one who firstly informed me of rodgers alleged heroin offences.
How many other vulnerable people have these two disgusting 'advocates' targeted? Where is the duty of care? There is none. They don't care.
I am disgusted beyond words by the behaviour of rodgers and dando and at the deliberate negligent behaviour of council and police officers, and of course them ever so respectable council members we the electorate stupidly vote for. THEY ALL LOOKED THE OTHER WAY. They aided and abetted these two thugs.
Lets hope that a vulnerable relative or friend of theirs is never taken advantage of and abused in this way, and that every one who could help simply looks the other way - for they will surely be the first to make a big noise about it!
Police officers are honest, act with integrity and do not compromise or abuse their position.
Authority, Respect and Courtesy
Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy.
Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of all individuals.
Equality and Diversity
Police officers act with fairness and impartiality. They do not discriminate unlawfully or unfairly.
Use of Force
Police officers only use force to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances.
Orders and Instructions
Police officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions.
Police officers abide by police regulations, force policies and lawful orders.
Duties and Responsibilities
Police officers are diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities.
Confidentiality
Police officers treat information with respect and access or disclose it only in the proper course of police duties.
Fitness for Duty
Police officers when on duty or presenting themselves for duty are fit to carry out their duties and responsibilities.
Discreditable Conduct
Police officers behave in a manner which does not discredit the police service or undermine public confidence, whether on or off duty.
Police officers report any action taken against them for a criminal offence, conditions imposed by a court or the receipt of any penalty notice.
Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct
Police officers report, challenge or take action against the conduct of colleagues which has fallen below the standards of professional behaviour expected.
________________________________________
Okay you can stop laughing now, but the above is how police officers are supposed to conduct themselves. Not looking good jim.
25th October 2002 High Court of Justice, Queens Division
FACTS:-
The Claimant was born on the 18th July 1965. She was taken into care by the Defendant in January 1968 and returned to her mother in 1974. In 1977 her mother was committed to hospital and so she was again taken into care. Between the years of 1971 to 1975 and 1977 to 1982 she suffered physical and sexual abuse at two children’s homes for which the Defendant was responsible.
She brought an action against the Defendant. Her particulars of claim were served on the 9th July 2001 and an order was made on the 24th September 2002 for a split trial on the issue of limitation. The only issue to be tried at that hearing was under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. It was admitted in the pleadings that the primary period of limitation under section 11 of the Limitation Act 1980 and the secondary period under section 14 (three years from the date of knowledge) had expired.
There was no issue taken (for the purposes of the trial on limitation) on whether the Claimant had suffered abuse or that such abuse contributed materially to her mental state. Nonetheless the Defendant reserved its right to question the Claimant on those issues at any eventual trial on liability.
_________________________
Camden Council has never to my knowledge had a scrutiny committee that even remotely deals with children in care issues. The forgotten children I call them, because no-one gives a damn about them - out of sight out of mind.
No surprise here that camden council has again been given top ratings by the discredited laughing stock of an organisation called the Audit Commission, headed by former camden council CEO steve bundred and staffed by an abundance of ex-council people. Camden council always needing to be propped up by others, never able to achieve based on merit.
Funny thing is that according to a recent audit report (abet a rather confusing report in that it keeps referring to year 2007/8 instead of 2008/9 ) the audit commission hasn't actually carried out any inspections of camden council (year unknown because report is confusing) and relied on other outside bodies 'inspections' to award camden council a four star rating. Whats the betting that this report is a recycled one and has no bearing whatsover on the council 2008/9 performance? Shock horror not more scandal!
Going backing to OFSTED, can the public trust their assessments in light of the tragic baby P case, where Haringey council was awarded top ratings for its children's services by an ofsted inspector - who just happened to be a ex-council chum of haringey council?
Camden Council continues to be one of the best councils in the country, according to figures published today (Thursday 5 March) by the independent Audit Commission.
The Council received the top four star rating, and continues to be ‘improving strongly’.
Inspectors said: ‘Camden Council is improving strongly. The Council continues to deliver strong improvement in key areas such as children and young people, environment and housing benefit.’
In their assessment, the inspectors highlighted: * Crime in the borough has reduced significantly * Engagement with residents and hard to reach groups is strong * The Council provides excellent value for money, and the Better and Cheaper programme has made the Council more efficient * There are plans for further improvement in housing and planning * Resident satisfaction continues to be high * Investments are being made in key priority areas such as housing and leisure centres
The Council was also assessed as providing ‘excellent value for money’, receiving the top possible rating for managing resources.
Cllr Keith Moffitt, Leader of Camden Council said:
“This result shows we are continuing to provide the best services we can at very good value for residents. This is even more important as we enter a recession, and the Council will be making £9.5m worth of savings over the next two years. We do however underline our commitment to invest in essential services including schools, roads, council housing and homes for older people.”
Cllr Andrew Marshall, Deputy Leader added:
“This is great news for Camden residents, who are continuing to see improvements in the borough’s services whilst receiving a 0% increase in council tax this year. We want to help out residents as much as we can during the recession. This will include measures including our job shops and the £6m ‘Camden Recovery Fund’, to provide advice and practical support to residents and businesses.”
Moira Gibb, Chief Executive added:
“This result is a reflection of all the hard work our staff carry out for the benefit of everyone working in, living in and visiting the borough. I would like to say thank you to all the people working for the Council who contributed to this great result.”
Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 I have the right to pursue a course of conduct for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime.
This website sets out to prevent and detect crime. Problem is the criminals don't like being detected and prevented and like to cry 'harassment' everytime someone challenges them or writes a 'bad' word about them. Devious, manipulative things these criminals are.
Any person who is mentioned on this blog, and who feels that I have been unfair or untrue in what I have written about them or any organisation is within their rights to contact me via commentabout@yahoo.co.uk to discuss the matter. I am a reasonable person and will consider taking down any material that is deemed offensive, if a good reason exists for me to do so. Better still and in the public interest I invite persons/organisations mentioned to reply to the allegations made against them.
I do have the right in law to express my opinions and without interference from public office holders who prefer to use other public office holders such as the police to intimidate me into being silent.
Worryingly some dubious characters will mis-apply the Protection from Harassment Act to intimidate others who speak out about wrong-doing, into being silent.
If you have a story about bad practices by camden council employees or public funded groups and would like to publish it on this site or place a link please contact me at commentabout@yahoo.co.uk
