Bevan
Brittan Solicitors have advised Rutland County Council that it
can sue three of its members for defamation following an
investigation. It has also advised the three members could counter
sue and that who ever wins is only likely to recover only 70% of
their costs and if he or she has little funds then the losses
could be great. The estimated costs for Rutland County Council if
they seek this action is likely to be over £90,000. They fail to
mention the councils additional cost incurred by using Kim Sawyer of
Peterborough City Councils Legal Services, This cost saving move of
contracting out services costs around £170 an hour.
My
name and blog is mentioned in paragraph four of the report Report
No. 13/2013 Appendix A.
Bevan Britton say they advised Rutland County Council regarding
by blog posts back in May 2010.
They
also say Rutland County Council has so far not taken any action
against me, Are they forgetting the disgraceful attempt to shut
me up when Tory Councillor Plews and 7 others connected to local
governance went to Leicestershire Police and claimed I stalked and
harassed them all. The filthy letters that have been sent to me
and the Laughing Stocks Blog.
I have written to the Solicitors pointing out how the Council treats me.
You only have to look at Standards reports on their web site, they redact all other councillors names but leave mine on full public view, why?
I have written to the Solicitors pointing out how the Council treats me.
You only have to look at Standards reports on their web site, they redact all other councillors names but leave mine on full public view, why?
Bevan
Brittan go on to say I have repeated allegations made by the
Rutland Anti Corruption Party on more recent posts.
They
fail to mention Private Eye, The Rutland Times, Rutland and Stamford
Mercury and even the councils own Agenda and Minutes, where I gleaned
most of the information from.
Tory
Council Leader Roger Begy spent a long time reading all the
allegation from
the
agenda at a recent meeting. Is now unlawful to publish what is said
at council meetings?
They
also fail to mention the forth member of the group, Cllr Montgomery,
who has supported the groups allegations for a long period of time,
he left the group and appears to have been taken back into the fold
at RCC.
The
date of the report is also very interesting 3 days after the full
council gave the
go
ahead. It appears the investigation and preparation of the report may
have been started before authorisation was given by the full council
or do we have a very efficient firm of solicitors acting for RCC?
Councillors
will consider whether to take action against Rutland Anti-Corruption
Group founders Richard Gale, David Richardson and Nick Wainwright at
a special meeting on Thursday 10th January 2013
The
council agreed to take legal advice on the group’s actions
following a meeting in October and public services law firm Bevan
Brittan was instructed to carry out an very costly investigation.
The
law firm has advised the council that allegations made by the three
councillors have damaged the authority’s reputation. It also said
the name of the group implies there is corruption within the council.
A
report by council chief executive Helen Briggs to Thursday’s
meeting alleges the three councillors have made “reckless and
serious allegations” which were “unsubstantiated by evidence,
made with the potential to harm the reputation of officers, members
and the council itself”.
The
council’s Solicitors said in their report that e-mails sent by the
group to Mrs Briggs were “very likely to amount to harrassment”.
And this can be dealt with by the police. It will be interesting to
see if the police take action as to date Leicestershire
Police
have failed to take any action against anyone who has breached the
communications act by sending me the most foul homophobic disgusting
communications, I expect the good relationship the council appear to
enjoy with our local police may lead to the arrest of the three
councillors.
Concerns
have also been raised by the council about the three councillors’
alleged “failure to comply with council processes which impeded the
efficient operation of the council”.
Mrs
Briggs’ report says her primary concerns, raised at a meeting with
the head of legal services and deputy monitoring officer on October
9, were:
- The continued aggressive e-mail correspondence from members of the group to officers
Anyone
who follows my blog would have seen many emails I have received form
her they can not be described as friendly often very rude and
written as if she is the supreme leader.
- Continual accusations of corruption made against officers and members, both internally and to external third parties
Tory
Councillor Edward Baines stood up at the meeting and accused two of
the Anti Councillors of being corrupt.
- Volume of e-mail traffic to individual officers impacting upon workload
-
Refusal to use scrutiny panels and attend meetings with the chief
executive.
The
council would be the first local authority in the country to pursue a
defamation claim. This has only been possible since last year when
the Localism Act gave councils the same rights as individuals.
Other
options to be outlined during the meeting include financially
supporting the chief executive or other officers to pursue legal
action; reporting the group to the police alleging criminal
harassment and malicious e-mails; ensuring the group only contacts
the council through one person; considering mediation; conducting a
wider independent review; or taking no further action.
Bevan
Brittan said in its report: “Our initial view is that there is
particular merit in considering action by the council for defamation
of the council, as this would go to the root of the issue, and for an
injunction against further harassment of officers, as this would be
effective but require a relatively low standard of proof.” In other
words the issue will not be dealt with and there is clearly an
serious issue with our council
a
council that its own Standards Board permits Tory Member to call
anyone it does not like an idiot.
Bevan
Brittan said Rutland Anti-Corruption Group would most likely defend a
defamation claim by saying it was acting in the public interest and
without malice.
The
council has already spent £8,000 on legal fees. That is the lot of
money. I read that they suggest they could just write a letter to
each of the three councillors and this is likely to cost over £3,000
+ Vat per letter. That is more than a job seeker receives
in
benefit in a year and to think a lot of Tories think that is to much.
A
statement issued to the Mercury by Rutland Anti-Corruption Group
said: “We hope that this will now enable full openness and
transparency that we have strived for in line with central
Government’s thinking.”
Councillor
Gale, Councillor Richardson and Councillor Wainwright say they will
attend the meeting. They will be entitled to vote on any motions put
forward.
The
council meeting will take place in the council chamber at the offices
in Catmose, Oakham, at 7pm on Thursday 10th May 2010
Members of the public can attend.
Any
questions and deputations must be handed to the Council before 4.30pm
on Monday 7th January 2012
There
is also a meeting on that evening when the council will decide its
budget and attempt to resolve the issues surrounding new council tax
rules, that will effect us all.
Let
us not forget Helen Briggs description of her council “we are lean
and mean”
We
must not forget that one of her staff was driven to suicide.
It is
rumoured his widow has been paid the sum of £125,000.
It
still shocks me, that the council will not conduct an investigation
to learn from
any
possible mistakes that might be learnt from such an investigation. No
one is suggesting the Chief Executive put the rope around his neck.
Something went wrong, and the council has a duty of care towards all
its employees and you would hope that they would not want a repeat of
such a tragic event.
They
appear to be happy to spend thousands on gagging critics like the
Anti Corruption Party and myself and put little value on life.
I am
sure the public would not object to the council spending money
investigating the death of one of its staff.
Does
Iron Boots have something to hide? That is a question Mrs Briggs not
an allegation.
I also think you are lovely and receiving my refund after waiting five years shows how wonderful and efficiently your council deals with issues. You are worth every penny
of your £130.000 pay packet.
I was most grateful for your rude conduct towards me at the election count.
And your public outburst when you asked me not to go near an area of the chamber, because your handbag was left their unattended, I wonder what you were suggesting?