First posted: 6 April 2006. Last revised: Sunday 23 April 2023.
Currently hosted by: ITNetUK, Carnforth (16 December 2014).
Previously hosted by: virgin.net (6 April 2006); zymichost.com (28 July 2010).
NOTE Virgin.net was my ISP from November 2004 until
July 2010. A previous version of this
web page continued to be accessible on their server long after July 2010 (when
I no longer had access to it). I first
noticed that it was no longer available on their server on 10 January
2013.
—————————————————————————
Visitors to this web page would best begin with In a Nutshell, and then scroll down the epitomes (which are also section headings) in the left frame, before referring to as much or as little of the detail as required. (Note that, on the web page, the epitomes are word-wrapped and not truncated, so this is the best option for such scrolling.)
For ease of navigation, I would have preferred the section headings (epitomes) in the left frame to be collapsible. But, without much additional time and effort, I cannot achieve this. As readily achievable alternatives in this particular respect, I have uploaded two additional files, as follows. But each has at least one disadvantage.
(a) A docx file, best opened in Word, and viewed
in Web Layout, which includes the content in the right frame of this web
page, plus the content at the head of the left frame. You can navigate it using the Navigation
Pane (Word's automatic left frame with collapsible headings),
or equivalent.
You can access it <here>, for downloading, and open it accordingly.
This is along the lines of the result I want, except that the section headings (epitomes) - which are relatively long, because they are intentionally informative - are not word-wrapped, and may be truncated, so that not all section headings can be read in full by scrolling down the Navigation Pane.
This file can also be opened in LibreOffice Writer, viewed as Web, and similarly navigated using the Navigator pane. But you will need to work harder than in Word.
(b) A pdf version of the docx file. You can navigate it using the Bookmarks pane (Adobe Reader). You can access it <here>.
Again, this is along the lines of the result I want. The section headings (epitomes) are word-wrapped; but they may be truncated, so that not all section headings can be read in full by scrolling down the Navigation Pane. Also, the layout of the document (the right frame content) is not entirely satisfactory.
—————————————————————————
Below - in Summary Account - is a self-contained chronological account of my pursuit of two complaints concerning Warton Parish Council:
(a) 11 June 2001, about Roy Wilson;
(b) 18 May 2002, about Colin Peacock.
When appropriate I have commented in brackets [thus, with a brief opinion or observation], or in a NOTE (with a longer remark).
NOTE Such comment is sometimes based on knowledge
gained after the event(s). This is
because the parish council meeting on 3 July 2001 was the second ever such
meeting I have attended. It initiated a
learning process in which I discovered information that I could have put to
better use had I known it sooner.
I have preceded the summary account with In a Nutshell, which is a very brief outline of the essence of the matter. I have also incorporated suitable headings, many of which are epitomes outlining the content of that part of the account. These headings / epitomes are reproduced in the left frame.
Lord
Emsworth breathed a sigh of relief.
"Exactly,
Baxter. Precisely. You have put the thing in a nutshell. Really, my dear fellow, you are
invaluable."
Wodehouse, Something Fresh
(1915) [1979:199].
On 11 June 2001 I made a written complaint to Warton Parish Council about the dishonesty of Cllr Roy Wilson. The chairman, Colin Peacock, refused to address the matter. I wrote to Geraldine Smith, MP, and Mr Peacock misrepresented my complaint to her. Ms Smith referred the matter to the Minister for Local Government. On 18 May 2002 I made a written complaint to Mr Peacock about his deceit. After some pressing, he sought advice from the National Association of Local Councils. At the parish council meeting on 4 February 2003 Mr Peacock led a biased and ill-informed discussion on that advice. In writing, and in person at the next meeting, I objected to the draft minutes of the meeting on the 4th as muddled and incorrect. My objections were disregarded and Mr Peacock signed the minutes as a true record. I made two formal complaints (9 March 2003) to John Ball, the parish clerk, which were ignored. I also complained to the Standards Board for England, who declined to proceed. I discovered from the Minister for Local Government that I had the right to raise the matter at the annual parish meeting. Mr Peacock was insistent that both my original complaints (11 June 2001, 18 May 2002) had been dealt with according to the Code of Practice of the National Association of Local Councils. I made suitable enquiries for records essential to his case: no records, no case. (The necessary records do not exist because my first complaint was refused, and the second was ignored.) Fully prepared to make my exposition at the annual parish meeting on 25 May 2004, I distributed (on the 22nd) to all eight members of Warton Parish Council, and to Mr Ball, advance copies of the main points. The item was immediately ruled out of order: it would not to be considered. I made a new complaint to the standards board in respect of the annual parish meeting. It was dismissed. I wrote to the parliamentary ombudsman that the board's decision was preposterous. I got nowhere. Several times I have invited Mr Peacock and Mr Ball to produce the necessary evidence to support their claim that my "complaint has been dealt with in accordance with the Code of Practice laid down by the National Association of Local Councils". That neither of them can produce the necessary evidence indicates the truth of the matter: see (1) Mr P Let off Hook at Parish Council Meeting; and (2) Deciding Own Goal by Mr P. Mr Peacock is guilty of serial and repeated dishonesty, cover-up, and the stifling of legitimate protest.
In spring 2001, Orange submitted a planning application for a telecommunications installation adjacent to the Millhead football pitch. The land is owned by Millhead Community Association, whose then chairman Roy Wilson also sat on Warton Parish Council. I visited Mr Wilson on Monday 4 June 2001 to try to get some facts. Among other things, he told me that he had written to Lancaster City Council to oppose the planning application. But on about 10 June 2001 it emerged that he had done no such thing.
I wrote to Colin Peacock, chairman of the parish council, to complain about Mr Wilson's dishonesty.
Dear Mr Peacock
Planning
application no 01/00351/FUL
I was most interested in
the parish council's discussion of the above planning application on Tuesday
5 June, and the resolution to oppose it.
In preparation for that
meeting I visited Roy Wilson, one of the Millhead representatives on the parish
council, on Monday 4 June to try to get some facts and a broader
perspective. Among other things,
Mr Wilson told me that he had written a letter of objection in response to
the city council's circular dated 1 May 2001: ie he, too, had written against
the application - almost his very words, as I recall. (I believe I am not alone in having been told
by Mr Wilson that he had written such a letter.)
However, on about
10 June it emerged that he had done no such thing. I find this unsatisfactory and I would
appreciate your bringing it to the attention of the parish council at the next
meeting.
Furthermore - but I am not
so certain about this - in the discussion at the meeting on 5 June, I have
the impression [supported in a footnote by AN Other] that Mr Wilson
may have told the council the same as he told me: that he had written to the
city council against the application.
I delivered my handwritten letter to Mr Peacock's house the same evening, and gave it to his wife.
I attended the parish council meeting on 3 July 2001 and sat through the whole of it, increasingly puzzled as to when my letter would be mentioned, until the chairman was about to close proceedings. I then asked why he had not mentioned my letter. He said he had not received it. [I doubted this slightly at the time; more so subsequently.] After the meeting Mr Peacock enquired what the letter was about. I said he should read it; I would phone in a week to check whether he had found it, otherwise I would supply a copy (reconstituted from the rough draft I had retained).
I telephoned Mr Peacock on 12 July 2001 and he admitted that he had my letter. At first he wanted to suggest that my complaint was personal and not a matter for the parish council; then he said he might try to deal with it between meetings. I pressed the point that it was not a personal matter and that it should be addressed in public at a parish council meeting. [Because Mr Wilson had lied about having written a letter of objection, what else might he have lied about? I had a right to expect accurate and reliable information from a man in his position.]
The next meeting was 4 September 2001. I attended, and said I had come for a response to my letter dated 11 June 2001. "It's not a matter for the parish council, you need to raise the matter with the individual concerned." [This bald assertion - no reason was given - is not correct. See the applicable principles (b) and (e) below.]
The next day I began a sequence of enquiries: to discover which public authority was immediately superior to Warton Parish Council; or, to find a competent third party. On 25 September 2001 I wrote to Geraldine Smith, MP, asking if she could help. She replied (11 October 2001) to say she had written to Mrs Brzezinka, the parish clerk.
I attended the parish council meeting on 6 November 2001. I said I had come to follow developments concerning Ms Smith's letter (11 October 2001). Mr Peacock: "I'm going to write to Geraldine Smith to say it's not a matter for the parish council." "So you are not going to discuss it in public now?" "No. It's my decision as chairman that it's not a matter for the parish council." "Will you give your reasons (which you have not given to me)?" "Yes." I left.
Mr Peacock wrote to Ms Smith (cc to me) on 8 November 2001 and misrepresented my initial complaint [he lied]; partly, in order to pass it off as "so trivial that I put it into my parish council file and forgot to deal with it." Although Ms Smith had written to the parish clerk, Mr Peacock noted: "As it really is about decisions of mine it has been left to me to reply." He also revealed that he had held a private meeting of the parish council on 6 November 2001: "after the [parish council] meeting was over and the public [including me] had left, I informally informed the councillors what was going on. They agreed that they couldn't see what his grievance was and that anyhow, it was not a matter for the council."
NOTE 1 According to Clayden, The Parish
Councillor's Guide [2003:54, 55], on the basis of a court case: "A
parish council may arrange to discharge any of its functions through a committee
... of the council ... but an executive committee of one is illegal." "It follows that the chairman can
exercise no executive action on behalf of the council."
NOTE 2 According to Clayden, The Parish
Councillor's Guide [2003:125, 126], on the basis of the Public Bodies
(Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, §1:
Every meeting [of the
parish council] is to be open to the public except where the council formally
resolve to exclude the public ... on the grounds that publicity would be
prejudicial to the public interest ... .
The resolution ... must be carefully worded and reported verbatim in the
minutes.
The public cannot be excluded
simply on the chairman's ruling. The
decision must be taken by the council.
It is unwise to exclude the public or Press unless it is considered
absolutely necessary since this can give rise to bad feeling and allegations of
secrecy.
Not having heard from Ms Smith, I wrote to her on 2 December 2001, commenting on Mr Peacock's letter (8 November 2001) as follows.
Most of the first page is
irrelevant padding. On the second page,
in the first sentence, Mr Peacock's version of the substance of my letter
dated 11 June to him (as chairman of Warton Parish Council) is entirely
inaccurate ... .
If, in a letter to you
which he has copied to me, he can so misrepresent what I wrote to him, what
degree of misrepresentation took place when Mr Peacock "informally
informed the councillors what was going on" at his own private meeting of
the parish council on Tuesday 6 November?
Such a meeting of a public body is surely reprehensible.
I maintain what I wrote in
my letter dated 11 June to Mr Peacock. And in consideration of the principles
[below: (b), (d), (e)] listed in my letter dated 25 October to you it is
clear that Messrs Wilson and Peacock should be called to account.
On 17 December 2001 Ms Smith wrote to me: "I have written to Nick Raynsford, the Minister for Local Government, and asked him whether there is any organisation you can complain to regarding Warton Parish Council." The reply came back (dated 21 January 2002, received by me on 11 February 2002) from Alan Whitehead, MP, parliamentary under secretary of state at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions: "There is little in the present framework that is tailored specifically to deal with allegations of councillor misconduct ... such as the events described in Mr Edge's correspondence." "However, I would like to reassure you that this Government believes that the conduct of everyone in local government ... needs to be of the highest standards. To achieve this we have established ... a new mandatory ethical framework for local government"; it is to be adopted by 5 May 2002 but "because the framework cannot be applied retrospectively, this will not help in the circumstances your constituent describes".
On 12 February 2002 I wrote to John Ball, the new parish clerk, for a copy of the upcoming code of conduct (received 18 May 2002).
My sequence of enquiries, begun 5 September 2001, revealed that parish councils (and they alone) were not then subject to regulatory authority; and my search for a competent third party came to a fruitless end on 26 March 2002. But I had discovered something: viz, according to the CANS [Citizens Advice Notes Service] Digest of Social Legislation there were several principles that should govern the official conduct of local government members (including parish councillors). These principles were listed in §13 Local Government and Public Health, under the heading "14 General principles as to conduct of members". Relevant extracts are as follows.
(b) Honesty and Integrity: ... not place
themselves in situations where their honesty and integrity may be questioned
... . [A subsequent comment states that this paragraph also applies to
activities of members undertaken other than in an official capacity.]
(d) Accountability: ... accountable to the public
for their actions and the manner in which they carry out their
responsibilities, and should cooperate fully and honestly with any scrutiny
appropriate to their particular office.
(e) Openness: ... as open as possible about their
actions ... and should be prepared to give reasons for those actions.
Initially, these principles were advisory; then, they became mandatory. [Crucially, they show that my original complaint (11 June 2001) was valid.] The principles were applicable prior to the government's introduction (with effect from 5 May 2002) of a mandatory code of conduct for parish councils, and they continued to apply.
Concerning their applicability, significant differences between the version I first saw on 22 October 2001, and the version seen 7 June 2003, were as follows.
(a) It had become explicit (pp 1303, 1304B) that the principles "are to govern the conduct of members" of parish councils. [Previously, their applicability to parish councillors was implicit.]
(b) On p 1304B, under the heading "15 Model Code of Local Government Conduct":
The Code [issued by the
Secretary of State under §50 of the Local Government Act 2000] must be
consistent with the principles specified in s.49 of the 2000 Act (see 14 General principles as to conduct of
members, above).
The provisions of the
codes, which are mandatory, elaborate on the general principles described in 14 General principles as to conduct of
members, above ... .
On 18 May 2002 I wrote to Mr Peacock "to continue to pursue my unresolved complaint: it began against Cllr Wilson, and it now includes you also." I noted that "you refused to bring the matter publicly before the parish council; and you have provided no good reason for that refusal: the only reasons I am aware of - in your letter dated 8 November 2001 to Geraldine Smith, MP - depend upon a deceitful misrepresentation of what I wrote on 11 June. If you dispute this then produce for comparison the original handwritten letter, it should be in the parish council file." I drew attention to the principles mentioned above, and so: "As things stand, therefore, it is clear that you and Mr Wilson are in breach of your responsibilities as parish councillors." [This complaint has been ignored.]
On 21 May 2002, as I was leaving the annual parish meeting, Mr Peacock said to me "it's possible I'm mistaken in my ruling as chairman so I'm sending the correspondence to the compliance officer." [In time, I pressed him for further information, but I never got any.]
Having had no reply from Mr Peacock to letters dated 18 May 2002 and 9 June 2002, and having good reason not to trust him to provide "the compliance officer" with fair and balanced information, I wrote to Roger Muckle, a designated monitoring officer on behalf of the Standards Board for England, at Lancaster City Council on 11 August 2002, believing him to be the man to whom complaints about Warton Parish Council could now be addressed (according to information received from Mr Ball).
In the absence of Mr Muckle, the deputy monitoring officer, Sarah Taylor, replied (14 August 2002). She noted that the principles mentioned above "were introduced by Statutory Instrument in April 2001, under the provisions of Section 49 of the Local Government Act 2000 ... . Under Section 50 of the Act, any model Code of Conduct issued by the Secretary of State must be consistent with any principles that have been specified under Section 49. The purpose of the principles therefore is to provide the foundation for the Model Code of Conduct; the principles are not in themselves directly enforceable." "The Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer have no power to deal with complaints about parish councils which arose [on 11 June 2001] before the new regime was in place [by 5 May 2002]." "The Monitoring Officer is not therefore able to take any action in respect of your complaint." But Mrs Taylor went on: "I can only suggest that you consider whether you have any evidence that, since the adoption of the Code, the conduct of any parish councillors in relation to your complaint has been in breach of the Code of Conduct. If you believe that you have such evidence ... then you should refer the matter to the Standards Board for England, at ... ". [Mark well these last two sentences.]
NOTE Mrs Taylor's observations on the
necessary consistency between any code of conduct and the principles I have
quoted above, accord with what I found in the CANS Digest of Social
Legislation: viz, "The Code must be consistent with the principles".
The next development - after a second reminder (1 September 2002) - was a letter dated 2 September 2002 [sic] from Mr Peacock to me, hand-delivered on 20 September 2002. He did not respond to my request for information about "the compliance officer", and it was clear he had not sent him / her the correspondence as he had said he would (21 May 2002). Instead, he asserted that my "complaint had no validity" [false], and that "the code exists to assure members of the public that councillors are not getting any personal benefit from their decisions"; so "I did not bother to reply to you, hoping that you would either forget it or I would see you at the next meeting." "I will raise the matter with the Parish Council at the next meeting [1 October 2002] - but as it concerns a named person, that will have to be in a restricted session. I hope that Cllr Wilson takes a charitable attitude to your accusation of dishonesty but I do not wish to aggravate that potential libel by airing it in public." [Note the prejudice of "charitable attitude"; and my letter dated 11 June 2001, previously "so trivial that I ... forgot to deal with it", has mutated into "potential libel".]
I replied to Mr Peacock on 26 September 2002 (the same day that I received from Mr Ball - at my request - a photocopy of the handwritten letter dated 11 June 2001 from me to Mr Peacock, of which I had retained only a rough draft). I reaffirmed the validity of my complaints against both Mr Wilson and Mr Peacock himself, and: "Concerning my complaints about you, the situation is clear enough, and well documented. Concerning my complaint about Roy Wilson, if the letter dated 11 June 2001 from me to you (footnote by ... [AN Other]) is not sufficient for Mr Wilson to openly acknowledge his transgression(s), let me know in good time and I will seek additional testimony from others who had a contemporary interest in the matter." And I contested Mr Peacock's suggestion of "a restricted session": "The matter should indeed be addressed in public; the parish council is a democratically accountable body whose published minutes should record points at issue, together with the outcome. Nothing at all has appeared in the minutes hitherto. The 'restricted session' which you are proposing will be equivalent to a re-run of your private meeting of the parish council on 6 November 2001 - about which I am nearly certain of two things: that I was misrepresented; and that no one then present was familiar with (or even aware of?) the applicable principles which preceded the government's introduction of a mandatory code of conduct for parish councils."
Having had no reply to this letter (26 September 2002), I telephoned Mr Ball on 17 December 2002 to ask whether Mr Peacock would be in the chair at the parish council meeting that evening: yes. I attended the meeting, but Mr Peacock did not; Jean Dent, vice-chairman, took charge. When I said I had written to Mr Peacock on 26 September 2002 and had had no reply, Mr Ball said the correspondence had been referred up the hierarchy of parish council officials: the matter was in hand and he would write to me.
On 29 January 2003 Mr Ball wrote: "the Council will discuss the latest information and advice concerning your complaint at their meeting ... [on] 4 February 2003".
I attended the meeting to listen to the discussion: I had no idea what to expect. I had no other information to hand than the mere announcement from Mr Ball; parish councillors had each been provided with a copy of a letter dated 8 January 2003 from Ian Mark, senior legal executive at the National Association of Local Councils, to Rebecca Bailey, assistant to the secretary of the Lancashire Association of Parish and Town Councils. It was advice in that letter that was to be discussed. [Mr Mark's advice concerned only my initial complaint (11 June 2001).] Whether councillors got their copies in advance of the meeting I do not know; I did not get a copy until I asked for one after the discussion. Mr Peacock drew attention - more than once - to Mr Mark's advice that the parish council was under no compulsion to consider my complaint(s); he made little or no mention of Mr Mark's advice that "It may be politic to carry out an internal investigation". The decision was reached to (continue to) decline to consider my complaint(s).
On 14 February 2003 I received a single-sentence letter dated 12 February 2003 from Mr Ball, which states, in its entirety:
Councillors have instructed
me to notify you that they feel your complaint has been dealt with in
accordance with the Code of Practice laid down by the National Association of
Local Councils and now consider the matter to be closed.
NOTE This is not an accurate reflection of the comment
and / or discussion at the parish council meeting on 4 February 2003 (at
least, not while I was present). And it
is quite false to claim that the Code of Practice - enclosed with
Mr Mark's letter (8 January 2003) - was followed.
On 27 February 2003 I first saw the (newly-posted) draft minutes of the parish council meeting on 4 February 2003. In reaction to those minutes, and in response to Mr Ball's letter (12 February 2003), I wrote to Mr Ball on 2 March 2003 - and delivered the letter to him, and a copy to Mr Peacock, the following morning (3 March 2003). I provided an accurate account of relevant events at the parish council meeting on 4 February 2003, and I objected both to the draft minutes and to Mr Ball's letter.
I attended the parish council meeting on 4 March 2003. My well-founded objections to the draft minutes of the previous meeting (4 February 2003) were disregarded, and Mr Peacock signed the minutes as a true record. [A deliberate lie.]
I wrote to Mr Ball on 9 March 2003 to make two formal complaints: (1) that the minutes of the parish council meeting on 4 February 2003 and his letter dated 12 February 2003 were misrepresentative; (2) that Mr Peacock had made "'private' observations directed at me" on 4 March 2003 which were not justified (nor justifiable) and "I was denied the opportunity of answering" him. [These complaints have been ignored.]
I attended the parish council meeting on 1 April 2003. And on 3 April 2003 I provided the Standards Board for England with an account of that meeting, making it clear that Mr Peacock could not withstand my pressing
the main point ... that
neither of my complaints - initially concerning Roy Wilson (11 June 2001),
subsequently including Mr Peacock (18 May 2002) - had ever been
brought before the parish council, and the minutes for the meeting on
4 February [and Mr Ball's letter dated 12 February] are
therefore wrong. ... Mr Peacock said that I had complained
about all and sundry, and so the council had reached the point of refusal. I repeated that I had made two complaints,
and neither had ever been brought before the parish council "in accordance
with the Code of Practice laid down by the National Association of Local
Councils" (as claimed in Mr Ball's letter dated 12 February, and
as suggested / implied in the minutes for the meeting on 4 February). He insisted that my complaints had been
brought before the council. I asked for
one example. He made a show of searching
through the minutes of past meetings, and failed to substantiate his
claim. Mr Wilson reminded him of
the (private) meeting of the parish council [6 November 2001] at which
they had decided that the complaint against Mr Wilson (11 June 2001)
would not be countenanced, and so Mr Peacock now took the line that my
original complaint had no validity.
"I can't get that into your head", he bleated.
I concluded my letter to the standards board (3 April 2003): "an intelligent and impartial child who had been present at the meeting on 1 April might have realised - merely from Mr Peacock's inconsistency - which party was telling the truth." But the people actually present (who are not always the same group) were incapable of examining the matter rationally and impartially; or they refused to do so. Mr Peacock was let off the hook.
NOTE Sigmund Freud was acquainted with somewhat
similar behaviour [The Question of Lay Analysis, 1947:29, 31]. "The learned audience applauded the
speaker, instead of being ashamed for him.
His logical inanity can only be accounted for by his triumphant security
in the consciousness that everyone was as prejudiced as he." "Always sentiment in place of
argument! It happens every day in
political affairs."
At some point during his various remarks at the parish council meeting on 1 April 2003, Mr Peacock also said that parish councils are not obliged to answer letters. [He is a wretched correspondent.]
On 30 April 2003 I received a reply from the standards board (29 April 2003): my complaints about Messrs Wilson and Peacock would not be referred "to an Ethical Standards Officer (ESO) for investigation"; there would be no "further action".
NOTE The
reply included a paragraph that did not correspond to my stated complaint about
Mr Wilson (11 June 2001); neither did the reason for the board's
decision accurately relate to my complaint (that Mr Wilson lied). Concerning my complaint(s) about
Mr Peacock (18 May 2002, and subsequent developments), the board's
reply completely failed to address the major concern (dishonesty).
I pressed the matter with the board, including the enquiry (19 May 2003): "Is it the decision of the board that false representation (lying) is acceptable behaviour for a parish councillor?" To which the reply was (3 June 2003): "the information you provided did not support the view that the members named had acted to deceive or misrepresent." [Rub your eyes and read this paragraph again.]
I wrote to Ms Smith on 2 July 2003, continuing to keep her informed. And I asked her to share my experiences with the Minister for Local Government:
... [who] ought to be told
of the disparity between principles and practice concerning the conduct of
parish councillors: there is no small gap between the intentions set out in
§§49, 50 of the Local Government Act 2000 (and the reassurances of
Mr Whitehead in his letter dated 21 January 2002), and their
actualisation.
I would appreciate your
sharing my experiences with the person most nearly responsible, and I shall be
interested in their reaction; but I hardly expect progress in this particular
case from that quarter.
Between 5 May 2003 and 10 November 2003 I wrote to the Standards Board for England five times to put my cogent case for a review. I did so because in their information leaflet "Councillors behaving badly?", a copy of which I received from the board on 1 March 2003, it states: "If you disagree with our decision not to investigate, you have the right to ask us to review our decision." Likewise William Tandoh, policy advisor, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, had written to me (8 October 2003): "You may however want to consider bringing your concerns about the SBE to the attention of their Chief Executive, who will decide whether or not there are grounds to justify a review."
Five times I wrote. Each time indicating that the reasons given by the board for not taking further action did not correspond to my complaints. Eventually (5 December 2003), came an apology, and the admission that "The right to a review was withdrawn" in autumn 2002. [Actually, there was a hiatus in the review process: a temporary withdrawal of any review of the board's decisions between autumn 2002 and November 2003.] There was also acknowledgement of one error. I replied on 11 January 2004:
... Mr Bailey agrees
with what I noted in my letter dated 5 May 2003, that concerning
Mr Wilson "I have made no allegation about 'personal interest'." But then he gets into a muddle by seeking to
justify the non-investigation of that particular complaint.
My complaint against
Mr Wilson never has been, of itself, within the jurisdiction of the board. As noted in
my letter dated 5 May 2003: "it is clear that he is at fault ... [for
being dishonest]" but "as his transgression was pre-code I was
surprised that the standards board allocated that complaint a separate
reference number". The point about
the complaint against Mr Wilson is: (1) that it has to be a valid
complaint in the context of his being a parish councillor; (2) it is the
repeated dishonesty of Colin Peacock, chairman of Warton Parish Council, in
handling that valid complaint that falls within the jurisdiction of the board.
I continued: "the board having at last acknowledged one error in one of the two letters dated 29 April 2003 ... , I invite you to recognise and acknowledge another error, in both letters: viz, the complete failure to address my central concern, dishonesty. And then to take remedial action by referring my complaint(s) for investigation."
The reply (5 February 2004) from John Edwards, interim chief executive, was well-meant, and somewhat apologetic, but unsatisfactory. (This reply included the information that I "may be able to complain to the Parliamentary Ombudsman" about the standards board.) On 12 February I made one last attempt "to press the standards board further - because it is only by pressing, it seems, that I elicit information (which should not be so hard-won)." I continued:
It is not entirely clear
from your letter which of the following two lines of defence (against my call
for remedial action) you are adopting.
(1) Nothing can be done because - you now reveal
- there was a hiatus in the review process ... . So: I must accept that no remedial action -
to counter the two erroneous letters dated 29 April 2003 from Bryan Pay to
me - is possible; all errors must be allowed to stand. ...
(2) While you "agree that lying ... is not
proper conduct for councillors", nonetheless, "even if it were proved
that the alleged behaviour had occurred ... it would not be serious enough to
have warranted the expense and effort involved in an investigation."
This line of defence does
not remotely accord with what is recorded in the two letters dated
29 April 2003, which contain the board's original ruling. (It is only Tim Bailey, in his letter dated
5 December 2003, and you who take this line.) I am as much concerned about the record as
I am about the board's failure to address my complaint(s) as stated; as
noted in my last letter (11 January, p 10):
If the board continues to
decline to investigate, then you must amend the record: withdraw the two
erroneous letters dated 29 April 2003 from Mr Pay; and indicate
explicitly why dishonesty, and covering up dishonesty, are acceptable. (Though it seems odd that if dishonesty is
acceptable, anyone should wish to cover it up.)
Simply put, your second
line of defence is that there is a Standards-Board-for-England-scale-of-lying,
with a point of demarcation between acceptable lies and unacceptable lies. If this is true, the board should publish the
scale, with illustrative examples. And
include an explanation of why, as noted in my last letter (11 January,
p 9):
there is no small gap
between the intentions set out in §§49, 50 of the Local Government Act 2000
(and the reassurances of Mr Whitehead in his letter dated 21 January
2002), and their actualisation.
And I concluded as follows:
... if I had access to the
board's scale of acceptable lies and unacceptable lies I would know whether
falsification of minutes was one or the other.
In my unenlightened state, I consider dishonesty, and efforts to keep
it from public view, unacceptable in a democratically accountable body.
As noted in my last letter
(11 January, pp 9, 10):
The board is the
responsible regulatory authority. So
far, in declining to investigate, the board is open to charges of turning a
blind eye to dishonesty and colluding in the cover-up (including the stifling
of legitimate protest).
But I got nowhere: it was the end of the line with the Standards Board for England. I would have to pursue other avenues.
On 5 August 2003, Ms Smith had passed to Mr Raynsford the letter dated 2 July 2003 from me to her. The reply came back (date stamped 28 August 2003 and 3 September 2003, received by me on 16 September 2003) from Phil Hope, MP, parliamentary under secretary of state, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, with the information that: I had "the right to raise any matter affecting parish business at the annual parish meeting ... [and thereby] to raise any concerns ... [about] the conduct of the parish ... council."
So I decided to investigate the possibility of further pursuit of my complaints directly with Warton Parish Council at the next annual parish meeting ("May 2004, I expect"). Even though, as noted in my reply to Mr Hope (22 September 2003): "It would be far preferable for some competent third party to adjudicate this matter. Warton Parish Council are incapable of examining it rationally and impartially. And I cannot share your confidence in justice being reached via the agency of the annual assembly parish meeting."
I also began to seek the names of journals or magazines relating to matters of local government which might consider an article from me. (My attempts to interest the local press - Lancaster Guardian, Westmorland Gazette, Carnforth and District Journal - had, or would, come to nothing.)
I enquired with Mr Ball on 22 September 2003: "What is the date of the next annual assembly parish meeting, please?" And: "Shall I be permitted to raise my complaint(s) at that meeting?". I sent him a reminder (26 October 2003, cc to Mr Peacock) which elicited an e-mail dated 27 October 2003 from Mr Peacock, with the following non-specific response to my second question: "Every parishioner is allowed to attend and raise any matter concerning the parish." I pressed the matter with Mr Peacock (11 November 2003), as follows.
I have already described
(letter dated 9 March from me to Mr Ball (cc to you)) how the ... illegitimate proscription [in the
letter dated 12 February 2003 from Mr Ball to me] was invoked to
prevent my objecting to its illegitimacy at the parish council meeting on
4 March - and that was despite your insisting earlier at the same
meeting that my objections (letter dated 2 March from me to Mr Ball
(cc to you)) would be discussed. My
present concern is to obviate the same sort of possibility at the next annual
assembly parish meeting - where, Mr Hope leads me to believe ... , I
have "the right to raise any matter affecting parish business ... [and
thereby] to raise any concerns ... [about] the conduct of the parish ...
council."
Hence my question: Shall I
be permitted to raise my complaint(s) at that meeting?
To which you reply:
"Every parishioner is allowed to attend and raise any matter concerning
the parish."
But - given my experiences
hitherto, which have sometimes caused me to wonder whether you make up the
rules as you go along - I find this reply not entirely reassuring.
Surely there are documented
procedures relating to the conduct of parish council meetings in general, and
the conduct of the annual assembly parish meeting in particular. Where can I find them? If there are no such procedures at all
- which seems hardly possible - what specific guarantee can you provide,
on behalf of the parish council, that I shall be permitted to put my
complaint(s) before the annual assembly parish meeting?
Having had no reply from Mr Peacock, I wrote again (29 January 2004) with "a further reminder of one very specific query." "Shall I be permitted to raise my complaint(s) at the next annual assembly parish meeting?" - "despite the illegitimate interdict in the single-sentence letter dated 12 February [12 February 2003] from Mr Ball to me." "Do you mean - categorically, ie without qualification - 'yes', in direct and specific answer to my question?"
I got no reply.
Also on 29 January 2004 I wrote to Mr Muckle to enquire after procedures for the conduct of parish council meetings, and the conduct of the annual parish meeting. (He replied on 2 April 2004.)
Having had no reply from Mr Peacock, nor from Mr Muckle, on 17 February 2004 I visited the chairman of another parish council, to solicit advice and support, and to enquire after procedures. On 19 February 2004, having consulted the clerk, that parish council chairman told me of Clayden, The Parish Councillor's Guide, 18th edition, 2003. This "standard reference work for both members and officers in parishes throughout the country" was available at public libraries for reference only. I bought my own copy on 17 March 2004.
I wrote to Mr Ball (cc to Mr Peacock, Mr Wilson) on 1 April 2004, and began by quoting in full the letter dated 12 February 2003 from him to me (above). I continued:
Also, at the parish council
meeting on 1 April 2003, Colin Peacock insisted that both my above
complaints had been brought before the council.
I dispute the substance of
your letter dated 12 February 2003: viz, it is false to claim that the
"Code of Practice" was followed for either of my complaints. And I similarly dispute the minutes of the
meeting on 4 February 2003. (Those
minutes are both muddled and incorrect.)
I also dispute Mr Peacock's claim that both my above complaints
have been brought before the parish council.
(My complaints have been refused (11 June 2001) or ignored
(18 May 2002).)
I expect that you, as
clerk, have custody of suitable records which are necessary to substantiate:
(1) the statement in your letter (12 February 2003); (2) the minutes of
the meeting on 4 February 2003; and (3) the claim of Mr Peacock (1 April
2003). Such records are essential:
without their existence, there is no validity in your letter, nor in the
minutes, nor in Mr Peacock's claim.
(Crucially, a necessary concomitant for "the Code of Practice laid
down by the National Association of Local Councils" is a paper trail.)
I asserted "my right of access to the records", and concluded: "Either, please provide me with a suitable appointment to access the appropriate records; or, if such records do not exist, please put that fact in writing."
Also on 1 April 2004, I wrote to Mr Peacock (cc to Mr Ball, Mr Wilson):
... to anticipate somewhat
the consequences of the letter dated 1 April from me to John Ball (cc to
you). I have maintained for some time
that my complaint about Roy Wilson (11 June 2001) has been refused, and my
complaint about you (18 May 2002) has been ignored. The nil return from looking for essential
documentary evidence to the contrary - as indicated in my letter to
Mr Ball (1 April) - will support, even prove, what I contend. (It is not always so difficult to prove a
negative as is often glibly stated.)
Consequent upon a nil
return, I shall wish to bring two topics before the parish meeting:
(1) dishonesty of Roy Wilson;
(2) dishonesty of Colin Peacock.
I am hereby serving notice
for the inclusion of these items in the agenda to be published in advance of
the meeting.
I also gave notice that I would "attend the beginning of the next meeting of the parish council [6 April 2004]"; and, as forewarned in the letter dated 26 September 2002 from me to Mr Peacock:
... before I quit that
meeting, I shall expect to have had some indication from Mr Wilson whether
he intends to openly acknowledge his dishonesty. (This, regardless of his attendance at that
meeting: I can be readily contacted beforehand by post, e-mail, or
telephone.) If Mr Wilson does not
so intend, or if I have heard nothing from him, then on quitting the meeting
... I shall begin immediately to seek additional testimony from others who had
a contemporary interest in the matter.
I attended the parish council meeting on 6 April 2004. During exchanges with Mr Ball about "my right of access to the records", and a suitable appointment, Mr Peacock remarked: "But you won't find what you are looking for. You will remember it was my ruling that your complaint [11 June 2001] was invalid ... ."
I called on Mr Peacock at his house on 8 April 2004; he was expecting me concerning the date of the annual parish meeting (which had been decided at the parish council meeting on 6 April 2004, after I had left). I asked him - as he was standing in his doorway and I stood outside below - whether Warton Parish Council had a complaints procedure. He gave an indefinite response, saying they tended to follow the Code of Practice of the National Association of Local Councils. Me: "But that's not mandatory." Him: "No, but we tend to use it." Me: "You did not use it for my two complaints [11 June 2001, 18 May 2002]." Him: "We did."
I continued: "When you said to me, the night before last, 'you won't find what you are looking for', what did you mean?" Him: "Well I ruled that your original complaint [11 June 2001] was invalid." Me: "But the Code of Practice of the National Association of Local Councils requires there to be a paper trail." Him: "There is a paper trail." Me: "Where is it?" Him: "So you want to see copies of your letters?" Me: "I want to see the paper trail for the Code of Practice of the National Association of Local Councils." Him: "Well you see there's a difficulty - I ruled your original complaint [11 June 2001] invalid." Me: "If there is no paper trail for the Code of Practice of the National Association of Local Councils then it was not followed."
At this point, either the penny finally dropped or Mr Peacock realised I was not going to give up this particular line. Him: "Look, I'm a volunteer ... you've never been to see Roy Wilson, you won't cooperate ... you've got your own private agenda [with his forefinger performing a circling motion in the region of his temple]." Me (my only interjection): "I'm pursuing two legitimate complaints." Him (continuing his sotto voce rant): " ... I'm absolutely fed up of you." He retreated and closed the door.
I telephoned Mr Ball later the same day, Thursday 8 April 2004. He suggested we meet at Carnforth public library on 16 April 2004. I said he should consult with Mr Peacock, or check the parish council file first, for the paper trail for the Code of Practice of the National Association of Local Councils - because that paper trail almost certainly does not exist. He said he would phone me over the weekend.
I called on Mr Ball at his house on Thursday 15 April 2004. Me: "You were going to phone me last weekend." Him: "There's a letter in the post." He went on to indicate what was in the letter and I said it was not what I was looking for. He said the parish council file contains my letters, letters from the Standards Board for England, and minutes of meetings - nothing else. And he revealed that Mr Peacock had contacted the Lancashire Association of Parish and Town Councils [which immediately made me suspect an attempt to stop me bringing my complaints before the annual parish meeting].
I received the two-sentence letter dated 14 April 2004 from Mr Ball to me - postmark the 15th - on the 16th. There was one enclosure: viz, part of the minutes (p 280) of the parish council meeting on 4 February 2003 (which minutes are muddled and incorrect); but nothing to substantiate the claim (12 February 2003) that the parish council followed "the Code of Practice laid down by the National Association of Local Councils" for my complaints.
On 28 April 2004 I e-mailed Mr Muckle: "The annual parish meeting will be on 25 May, and I have served notice (1 April, cc to you) that I intend to exercise my right to speak. I do not know, but I very strongly suspect, that the chairman, Colin Peacock, is endeavouring to prevent my speaking. I would very much appreciate the opportunity of meeting with you and / or Mrs Taylor well in advance of the annual parish meeting. If that is not possible, or not permitted, just say so."
On 2 May 2004 - "prompted by the need to respond to the draft minutes of the parish council meeting on 6 April, first seen (newly-posted) on Friday 30 April" - I wrote to Mr Ball. I noted that "The paragraph in the draft minutes which relates to me - under FORUM (a) ii - is inaccurate. In particular, it is not true that 'Mr Edge requested that appropriate arrangements be made for him to inspect the minutes of parish council meetings'." What I actually requested was "an appointment to see the records which are necessary to substantiate the claim that the parish council followed 'the Code of Practice laid down by the National Association of Local Councils' for my complaints". [The minutes were not subsequently corrected; they were signed (incorrectly) as a correct record.] And I reminded Mr Ball - and Mr Peacock - "I am ... still waiting for you to 'please provide me with a suitable appointment to access the appropriate records; or, if such records do not exist, please put that fact in writing.'"
Between 9 April 2004 and 9 May 2004 I spoke with, or wrote to, 13 people in pursuit of additional testimony concerning my original complaint about Mr Wilson (11 June 2001). I drew a blank, except that AN Other stood by his footnote to the letter dated 11 June 2001 from me to Mr Peacock: he recalled the incident well, and gave good reason for doing so.
On 13 May 2004 I met with Mr Muckle and Mrs Taylor at Lancaster Town Hall. They were willing to listen, took my points, and seemed sympathetic, but they could do nothing effective. I reported that on 9 May 2004 I had seen, newly posted, the agenda for the annual parish meeting. It seemed not to include the two items of which I had served notice on 1 April 2004. So I did not then know whether Mr Peacock was seeking to prevent my speaking, or whether he had buried my items anonymously in the last catch-all item. Mr Muckle said that my being denied the opportunity to speak would be grounds for a further complaint to the Standards Board for England.
Also on 13 May 2004 I called on Mr Peacock at his house. "Why does the agenda for the annual parish meeting appear not to include my items?" Him: "I don't know - I haven't seen the agenda - it should do ... you'd better see Christine Foxcroft [the newly-elected chairman]." So I called on Mrs Foxcroft ... : "You'd better see Mr Ball." And so I telephoned Mr Ball, to be told that my items were included under the last heading "Any other items introduced to the meeting". I queried this, having given due notice, and he replied that it was standard procedure. [Which I very much doubt.] But, Mr Ball continued, I may not be allowed to raise the matter(s) because Mr Peacock had not yet received the advice he has been seeking. [!]
On 22 May 2004 I distributed to all eight members of Warton Parish Council, and to Mr Ball, advance copies of an exposition of the main points which I intended to broach at the annual parish meeting on the 25th.
On 24 May 2004 I received a letter dated the 23rd from Mr Ball, as follows (in full).
I am in receipt of the
paper you intend to distribute and I assume speak to at the parish meeting to
be held on 25 May 2004.
Having read the contents I
have to advise you that nothing contained in the paper adds to information
already received, considered and acted upon by the Parish Council.
As advised in my letter of
21 May 2004 please be informed that the Chairman of the parish meeting
[Mrs Foxcroft] will rule the item as out of order and it will therefore
not be considered [because, "in her opinion [it] contains no new
information to that already considered and acted upon"].
On 25 May 2004 I wrote to Mr Muckle, concluding as follows.
At our meeting
(13 May) you said that my being denied the opportunity to speak at the
annual parish meeting would be grounds for a further complaint to the Standards
Board for England. Would you be willing
and able to express support for such a complaint from me? Or is that entirely out of the question, in
any shape or form, given your responsibilities as a designated monitoring
officer? (Please give the matter your
best consideration. If your response is
necessarily negative, would you or Mrs Taylor nonetheless be willing to
advise me - by way of critical comment on a draft copy - on such a further
complaint from me to the standards board?
I need to optimise my chances of the complaint being referred for
investigation.)
Also, I am currently
updating a summary account of the course of my complaints hitherto. I intend to use this account in all necessary
ways ... until I have succeeded either in bringing Roy Wilson and Colin Peacock
to book through the statutory process, or in exposing them publicly by other
means. I want the account to be accurate
and relatively comprehensive. I am not sure
whether our meeting on 13 May was off the record and confidential, or whether
I can include a brief note in the account.
Please advise.
So, I am seeking two
answers - quite swiftly, please: (1) can you assist me at all with a further
complaint to the standards board? (2) was our meeting on 13 May off the
record and confidential?
I would like to make my
further complaint to the standards board as soon as possible. There has been no delay in my actions in a
long chain of events since 11 June 2001; all delays have been due to
others - some quite understandable, some deliberately obstructive. Even as I wrote in my first letter to you
(11 August 2002):
It is disgraceful that a
complaint which I delivered to Mr Peacock's house in the evening of
11 June 2001 has not yet been candidly addressed. The chairman's lack of candour, which clearly
demonstrates that Warton Parish Council cannot be trusted to resolve complaints
against itself, necessitates the attention of a competent third party.
The situation has not
changed.
Mr Muckle replied (26 May 2004) to say that our meeting on 13 May 2004 had been "open and not confidential". Also: "If your request for an item to be included on the agenda for the annual meeting was refused and you were not permitted to speak I believe that this is grounds for a further complaint." And: neither he nor Mrs Taylor "could provide advice to you for this complaint, the reason being that if the matter progresses to investigation, it could be referred back to us to carry out the investigation."
I made my further complaint to the Standards Board for England on 31 May 2004, the essence of which is as follows.
Mrs Foxcroft is surely
herself out of order: she is assisting the previous chairman, Mr Peacock,
to continue his serial and repeated dishonesty and to keep that dishonesty
hidden from public view. Mr Ball,
as parish clerk, is also well aware that the pretext put forward by
Mrs Foxcroft is without foundation and he is therefore colluding in the
cover-up. Additionally, as I circulated
all members of Warton Parish Council, they are guilty by association (at
least). Certainly, Mr Wilson is
well aware that my valid complaint about him (11 June 2001) has never been
brought properly before the parish council; and Jean Dent, the newly-elected
vice-chairman, has more reason than most to have some interest in and knowledge
of that complaint.
In respect of this
complaint to you today (31 May), I nominate (the actions of) the following
members of Warton Parish Council for investigation: Christine Foxcroft, Colin
Peacock, Roy Wilson. I also nominate
(the actions of) John Ball, clerk to the council. Whether you deem it proper to refer for
investigation any of (the actions of) the other five members of the parish
council to whom I delivered my intended exposition on 22 May, I leave to
you.
At the same time (31 May 2004), I wrote to Mr Muckle:
I have no great hope of
bringing anyone to account by this route: my experience of the standards board
suggests that a prime aim is not to investigate.
I see also from the guide
to making a complaint (dated November 2003) which you enclosed with your letter
dated 2 April, that the standards board cannot investigate
"complaints about the way in which the authority conducts and records its
meetings" (p 4). This is a
substantial - colossal? - loophole for such chairmen as Colin Peacock: more
than once (at least twice, off the top of my head) I have sought to have the
minutes corrected before they were signed, and I have failed (because of the
pusillanimity - or something of that sort - of the rest of the parish council).
What happened next is described in the letter dated 23 September 2004 from me to Ms Smith. This letter began with "a reminder of some facts in advance of my commenting on Mr Harmer's adjudication" on behalf of the parliamentary ombudsman, which had come to me via Ms Smith. Item (12) in the list of facts was my "new complaint to the standards board in respect of the annual parish meeting":
This complaint was
dismissed (1 July 2004) because "the alleged conduct ... [was no]
failure to comply with the authority's Code of Conduct."
(13) On 4 July 2004 I wrote to David Prince,
chief executive of the standards board, for a review. He replied (8 July 2004) to say he
supported the decision (1 July 2004).
(14) On 12 July 2004 I wrote to Ann Abraham,
parliamentary ombudsman. I indicated
that the board's decision (1 July 2004) was preposterous. And: "In continuing to disregard the
fact that Mrs Foxcroft's reason / pretext was without foundation - ie,
that she was lying - Mr Prince's conclusion is perverse. His elevation of form over substance is
farcical."
And now Mr Harmer
reprises the farce to say (10 September) that, because the standards board
went through the appropriate motions, he "can find no evidence of
maladministration in the Board's decision-making process" and so the
parliamentary ombudsman could not "properly question the Board's use of
their discretion."
There is something badly
wrong here. What can you do about
it? Here are some suggestions.
(1) I read in the minutes of a Warton Parish
Council meeting (at the beginning of this year, I think) that you were due to
attend a parish council meeting this autumn: possibly in October or November
[2 November 2004]. Perhaps you
might pursue the matter directly with Mr Peacock et al. You may also care to ask Jean Dent for her
recollections of Mr Wilson's original dishonesty (which Mr Peacock
suggests he denies), and her own direct knowledge of it. Mrs Dent was (apparently) indignant at
the time, and (definitely) vocal about it; subsequently she has kept quiet - in
public, at least (as far as I know).
(2) Equally, you might point out to
Mr Raynsford that the system for policing parish councils is inadequate
and that he should do something about it.
I would be astonished if
Mr Raynsford has no knowledge of other complaints procedures. Either way, for what it is worth, I would be
willing to provide more detail on my own very limited good and bad experiences,
which in brief are as follows.
(2.1) Good: abebooks.com; WaterVoice; Professional
Computing Association; eBay.
The common feature of these
experiences (during 2002 and 2004) was that the administrators checked the
evidence promptly and very quickly, and so I carried my complaints on merit,
according to the facts.
(2.2) Bad: legal services ombudsman.
Coincidentally, at that
time (2001-02), the legal services ombudsman was Ann Abraham. I was badly disappointed by her partiality,
and by her several errors of fact and interpretation which were copied to
others without subsequent correction.
So much for what you might
do (no doubt you will also have your own ideas). Now for me.
Hitherto, I have accessed
the internet on a grand scale at the public library. (Entirely free, for which I am profoundly
grateful; and for which I believe the present Labour government is due some of
the credit.) Shortly, I shall have my
own personal internet access, and associated web space. I shall post on one of my websites an account
of: the dishonesty of Christine Foxcroft, Colin Peacock, Roy Wilson, and John
Ball; and of the entirely unsatisfactory behaviour of the Standards Board for
England ("Confidence in local democracy" my foot!) in turning a blind
eye to dishonesty and, in so doing, colluding in the cover-up of that
dishonesty, including the stifling of legitimate protest. At that time I shall also write to the press
and radio, and to local government publications, with an invitation to
publicise the address of my website.
And finally, because my
complaint to the standards board about Mr Ball was mis-directed (I knew no
better), I shall immediately enquire as to which organisation I ought to have
made that complaint, and then proceed accordingly.
I followed this letter to Ms Smith with an e-mail dated 4 October 2004.
Thank you for acknowledging
receipt of my letter dated 23 September.
Four days after receiving
your acknowledgement I received (1 October) a Labour party circular
("From Rt Hon Tony Blair MP") in which the prime minister claims
"we are on the side of men and women who play by the rules and expect
others to do the same."
In that very respect, I
indicated in my letter (p 4) "you might point out to Mr Raynsford
that the system for policing parish councils is inadequate and that he should
do something about it."
Would you please let me know
what you have done, or are intending to do.
(I included "some suggestions" in my letter, pp 4,
5. And I expected that "no doubt
you will also have your own ideas".)
I got no reply.
I enquired in several places about making a complaint against the clerk, but got no definitive information. So, on 6 October 2004 I enquired with Mr Prince: "To which regulatory body should I address my complaint(s) about the clerk? (Specifically not Warton PC itself.)" The reply came back (7 October 2004): "there is presently no national code of conduct for officers." Therefore:
If you wish to make a
complaint against an officer of a local council you would need to address your
complaint to the parish council in question, as an officer's conduct is subject
to the processes and procedures enforced by their particular council with
reference, as required, to the monitoring officer of the higher tier council.
If your complaint is against the clerk, you could address the issue to the
chair.
[Amazing.
And well suited to a situation where the chairman is dishonest and
supported in his dishonesty by the clerk.]
NOTE A major problem in this matter might be that
the other parish councillors were, or at least appeared to be, ciphers. (Cf 6 November
2001, 8 November 2001, 1 April
2003, 6 April 2004, 31 May 2004 (twice).) They, and the clerk, permitted
Mr Peacock too much licence. They
rubber-stamped his decisions.
My only remaining option (as prefigured in the letter dated 25 May 2004 from me to Mr Muckle; and as promised in the letter dated 23 September 2004 from me to Ms Smith [cc to: all members of Warton Parish Council; John Ball, the clerk; Standards Board for England]) was to post this account on the web.
NOTE I have had personal internet access since
3 November 2004, but I have also had more pressing matters to attend
to. Necessarily, I put the account aside
until March 2006, when I brought it up to date and then prepared this version
for the web (first posted 6 April 2006).
On
23 April 2006 I e-mailed Ms Smith to say that I had posted my "promised account on the web". I copied my message (by e-mail or hardcopy)
to several parties, including all
known members of Warton Parish Council, and to John Ball, the clerk.
The agenda for the next parish council meeting (2 May 2006) included, under correspondence, "Mr D Edge - website". The subsequent minutes (seen 4 June 2006, newly posted) made passing mention of D Edge's "complaint" and "his website", but without any detail, nor mention of any action.
In
due course, I received an e-mail dated 8 May 2006 from Virgin's "Internet Security Team" which
included the following.
The
acceptable use policy team are in receipt of a report that indicates that web
space supplied as part of your Virgin.net Internet account has been used to
host material that has caused annoyance.
We
would like to draw your attention to the Terms and Conditions you agreed to
when the account was created, in particular sections:
E.
You will not:
9.
use the Service to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to
subscribers or others;
The
text that was reported was as follows:
From:
In a nutshell
"Mr Peacock
is guilty of repeated dishonesty, cover-up,"
From:
Summary account:
"I
wrote to Colin Peacock, chairman of the parish council, to complain about
Mr Wilson's dishonesty."
"Mr Peacock
wrote to Ms Smith (cc to me) on 8 November 2001 and misrepresented my
initial complaint [he lied]"
We
would appreciate it if you would remove the text in question from your webspace
within 7 days of receiving this notification. If the text is not removed our department may
have to act to remove the content of your webspace to prevent the text from
being made available on the Internet.
I replied on 11 May 2006, as follows.
Thank you for the e-mail
message dated 8 May, first seen on the 9th. Thank you also for the equivalent letter
dated 8 May, postmark the 9th, received today (the 11th).
If you check carefully the
content of the web page in question ... you will find that I have good cause,
and well documented reason, for exposing to public view the behaviour of some
parish councillors.
These people are supposed
to be "accountable to the public for their actions and the manner in which
they carry out their responsibilities, and should cooperate fully and honestly
with any scrutiny appropriate to their particular office."
When I tried to bring two
complaints openly and properly before Warton Parish Council I met with
dishonesty, cover-up, and the stifling of legitimate protest. The regulatory authorities were useless in
the matter, and so "My only remaining option ... is to post this account
on the web." (I advised all the
parties concerned on Sunday 23 April 2006, having forewarned them much
earlier. As usual, I acted with total
propriety.)
I have named no private
individual in the account other than myself.
If any named person objects to my web page, their proper course of
action is to produce the necessary evidence to support the parish council's
(spurious) claim that my "complaint has been dealt with in accordance with
the Code of Practice laid down by the National Association of Local
Councils". That evidence would
defeat my case, and I would at once remove the page from my website.
Colin Peacock's
insurmountable difficulty is that this necessary evidence does not exist. (Which indicates the truth of the matter, and
testifies eloquently to his repeated dishonesty.) This explains his latest attempt - through
you - to continue to stifle my protest, which at present consists of an
"accurate and relatively comprehensive" account on the web.
In brief: Mr Peacock
is asking Virgin to support his cover-up.
Geraldine Smith, MP,
recognised well enough that Mr Peacock tried to mislead her, else she
would not have referred the matter to the Minister for Local Government. Neither would she have subsequently brought
the matter to the attention of the parliamentary ombudsman.
I have caused no one
"needless anxiety". Quite the
opposite: any anxiety is well merited.
Similarly, if any named (publicly accountable) person is experiencing
annoyance or inconvenience because of my web page, the fault lies entirely with
them.
I would appreciate your
careful attention to this matter.
Because I rarely check my
virgin.net e-mail, would you please direct your response to
David_A_Edge@hotmail.com, or at least send a cc to that address. Otherwise there is likely to be a delay in my
reply.
I heard nothing more. And the web page remained on Virgin's server until long after July 2010, when I changed my ISP.
On 22 March 2007 I e-mailed Ms Smith as follows.
One could easily despair of Warton Parish Council.
Any moderately intelligent person reading my account
[on the web] ... would recognise that the parish council has been badly at
fault (several times).
One might therefore expect the councillors and the
clerk to come clean (ie, admit their transgressions and apologise for them),
endeavour to learn from past mistakes, and seek to do better in future. But what do they do? They try to maintain the cover-up.
I have updated my account accordingly (see Deciding
Own Goal by Mr P).
Surely the degree of the misdemeanours of Warton
Parish Council is now sufficient for the Standards Board for England to take an
active interest in this matter?
My next step, if the councillors and clerk choose to
remain incorrigible, will be to deliver a leaflet to every household in Warton
parish. Based on my experience hitherto,
I am expecting to do this very soon after the next parish council meeting
(which will probably be on Tuesday 3 April).
I copied this message (by e-mail or hardcopy)
to several parties, including the principal culprits.
Having
received neither apology, cognovit, nor any other response from Warton Parish Council, I delivered the
promised leaflet, dated Sunday
22 April 2007,
to every household in the
parish
(with minimal exceptions: viz, if there was no letter box, or if the house was hidden
away somewhere) in two and a half days, 22-24 April 2007.
This
leaflet was an invitation to visit my "accurate and relatively
comprehensive account of dishonesty (and cover-up) at Warton Parish Council"
on the web, followed by "a
brief outline of the matter" (which consisted of almost all the content of In
a Nutshell).
As
I worked my way along Main Street, Warton, I was confronted by
Mr Peacock. "Are you libelling
me again?" This (in common
parlance, at least) being a silly and groundless proposition, and therefore no
basis for rational dialogue, I declined to engage with him. He told me to stop delivering the leaflet and
when I declined he called on his wife as a witness. Amongst other bits of bombast and bluster:
"I'll get you for all you've got!
Mate!" Moments later his
wife snatched their intended copy from my hand and ripped it to pieces. "Don't tear it up", he
protested. "That's my
evidence." I gave him another copy.
Now
that the serial and repeated dishonesty by Warton Parish
Council, and the councillors' determined attempts at cover-up, including the
stifling of legitimate protest, have all been clearly exposited above, the
significant facts are not difficult for a third party to verify.
But
will anyone take notice of mere facts?
(a) There is an entertaining and perceptive
little book by Vilhjalmur Stefansson, The Standardization of Error (1927), the material of which has
been published in various forms and revisions, culminating in Adventures
in Error
[1936:3-66].
Beginning
as a provocative and amusing treatment of "a little knowledge is a
dangerous thing", in a style that is tongue-in-cheek and facetious for the
most part, but with occasional hints of contempt, Stefansson's conclusion is
one of ridicule: "politicians will arrange that the histories shall
continue to be reticent ... [and they will be supported by] the sound morality
and the good taste of the community, taking care that mere facts shall
not lead us too far astray."
(b) Compare Stefansson's remark about "mere
facts" with
Mr P Let off Hook at Parish Council
Meeting. And note Sigmund Freud's observations on the
type of behaviour at that meeting.
(c) In addition, there is Hans Christian
Andersen, The Emperor's New Clothes (an adaptation of a moral tale dating from
at least the 13th century).
Those
new clothes were pretended to be made by "two swindlers" (so the
reader is told) who went through the motions of weaving cloth that
"possessed the marvellous quality of being invisible to anyone who was
either unpardonably stupid, extraordinarily simple in character, or unfit for
the office he held."
For
quite some time no one dares to speak honestly.
Eventually,
an innocent little child tells the truth: "But the Emperor has nothing on
at all!"
"And
what the child had said was whispered from one to another, till, at last, all
the people shouted, 'But he has
nothing on at all!'" "This
perplexed the Emperor ... but he thought to himself, 'I must go through with
the procession since I have begun it.'
And the lords of the bedchamber walked still more stiffly, and took
greater pains than ever to hold up the train which, in reality, had no
existence at all."
On Monday
25 June 2012 I e-mailed David Morris, MP, as follows (in part).
It seems that you intend to visit Warton
this coming Saturday, 30 June 2012.
Here is some food for thought - concerning
truth, justice and reconciliation; or, impunity and contempt (and public
exposure via the web, etc):
Dishonesty (and Cover-Up) at Warton
Parish Council.
I have included in my account
Cllr Peacock's "I'll get you for all you've got! Mate!"
And I draw your attention especially to the section Deciding Own Goal by
Mr P.
I copied this
message to all (eight) members of Warton Parish Council with publicly available
e-mail addresses, and to John Ball, the clerk.
Also to other responsible
parties, including The Westmorland Gazette and Lancaster
Guardian: because, supposedly, a
free press in a democracy holds power to account.
I got no
reply. From anyone.
On Sunday
27 January 2013 I e-mailed Mr Morris as follows (in part).
I have updated my account of
Dishonesty (and Cover-Up)
at Warton Parish Council.
I have included your lack of response to my
previous message (25 June 2012).
I have also included the (continuing) lack
of response from the parish council: evidently, they are minded to maintain
their cover-up.
Do you condone this sort of behaviour by
parish councillors and parish clerks?
And I
copied it to others as previously.
Mr Morris
responded (the only one to do so) on Thursday 7 February 2013, to no effect, as will be seen from my reply on Sunday 10 February 2013, as follows (in part).
I find it grotesque that a parish
councillor (Colin Peacock) who is clearly culpable of serial and repeated dishonesty
can be supported in his transgressions, and in the cover-up, by his fellow
councillors and the parish clerk (John Ball).
The Standards Board for England used to
have jurisdiction for this sort of thing, beginning 5 May 2002. I directed the matter to their
attention. They were useless. Hence my resort to public exposure via the
web, beginning 6 April 2006:
Dishonesty (and Cover-Up)
at Warton Parish Council.
The standards board was defunct by
31 March 2012, and the current statutory provisions came into effect
1 July 2012. My specific complaints
relate to a prior time, and so I cannot follow your directions (7 February
2013) concerning these provisions.
(Incidentally, the provisions are toothless: "With regard to parish
councillors, the Standards Committee may make a recommendation to the parish
council on action to be taken in respect of the councillor. Parish councils will be under no obligation
to accept any such recommendation."
How will this, in your words, "ensure Councillors behave in the
correct manner"?)
Warton Parish Council will not come clean
without more encouragement. (From people
with a more lively sense of responsibility and democracy.)
Are you willing to lend a hand?
Again, I
copied this message to others as previously.
I got no
reply. From anyone.
When he's
an ostrich (one of the herd): Stefansson, Adventures in Error [1936:9-11, 14].