Bevan Brittan Solicitors have advised Rutland County Council that it can sue three of its members for defamation

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?

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 10^th 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 10^th May 2010 Members of the public can attend.

Any questions and deputations must be handed to the Council before 4.30pm on Monday 7^th 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?