tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371203489316363738.post1572872097496870312..comments2024-01-30T07:41:20.885+00:00Comments on Broken Barnet: Daft arrest: the last word? Caebrwyn returns to the High CourtMrs Angryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00586223909475832791noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371203489316363738.post-53073412716510100302013-12-21T09:39:21.250+00:002013-12-21T09:39:21.250+00:00My local authority had some investments in an Icel...My local authority had some investments in an Icelandic bank too (although from memory has got back at least 95% of their investments).<br /><br />Wirral Council runs the local government pension scheme called Merseyside Pension Fund (which covers the local authorities on Merseyside, various private sector organisations that have contracts with local government and some other bodies such as schools and colleges).<br /><br />I think it was in their capacity as adminstering authority for the pension fund that the investments in Icelandic banks were made.John Bracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15068175156565343146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371203489316363738.post-22852324890881692492013-12-18T23:39:53.674+00:002013-12-18T23:39:53.674+00:00Hmm, John ... I refer you to the Icelandic banking...Hmm, John ... I refer you to the Icelandic banking fiasco, still reverberating today. Funny old game here in Barnet: senior officers have it their way most of the time, on the quiet, but when anything goes wrong, through their fault or not, they are expendable, and know they will carry the can. The Tory councillors, on the other hand, survive anything, rather like cockroaches. During the lifetime of the administration, that is, and usually by the time of the next election the knee jerk Tory voters have forgotten all the scandals ... until this current lot, who have excelled themselves in alienating their own natural supporters.<br /><br />DCMD, I rather think Uncle Eric dreams of moving closer to Mrs Angry, shyly and slowly westwards along the North Circular ... Mrs Angryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00586223909475832791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371203489316363738.post-60040658970422306352013-12-18T23:14:58.674+00:002013-12-18T23:14:58.674+00:00I moved to be closer to Uncle Eric!I moved to be closer to Uncle Eric!Don't Call Me Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602899129846028170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371203489316363738.post-73707901756655799662013-12-18T20:14:53.877+00:002013-12-18T20:14:53.877+00:00On the public interest report issue, there was one...On the public interest report issue, there was one published not so long ago about the local Council I write about Wirral Council.<br /><br />If I remember correctly a number of versions went back and forth between the Audit Commission (I presume the Wales Audit Office is the Welsh equivalent) before the final version was published.<br /><br />Months later the Audit Commission published the final version. If a public interest report is published there has to be a full Council meeting within a month, somebody managed to publish the wrong version for that meeting and publushed on the Council's website an earlier version of the public interest report.<br /><br />The issue led to four senior officers being suspended including the then Director of Law and Director of Finance. There was however once the "independent person" investigated "no case to answer", the four suspended individuals left (costing about £1 million in things like legal costs and compensation), plus the costs of temporary replacements until permanent people were found for the roles.<br /><br />Basically only the sort of fiasco that happens when politicians start using the blame game to deflect attention away from their own involvement and make senior officers into scapegoats with the taxpayer footing the bill for public interest reports and payoffs. <br /><br />Would anything like the above ever happen in Barnet?John Bracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15068175156565343146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371203489316363738.post-18769992792405998742013-12-18T18:57:44.233+00:002013-12-18T18:57:44.233+00:00John, very good points. I find it puzzling that ha...John, very good points. I find it puzzling that having found the indemnity payment was unlawful, the Audit Office has still not published the long awaited public interest report. One might think that in the public interest, transparency and clarity over this issue should be paramount. <br /><br />DCMD: why the f*ck are you living in Chigwell? Is this move in homage to the Chigwell Skinhead, Norman Tebbit? Mrs Angry is not sure you will be comfortable beig surrounded by working class Tories, Lord Snooty: the sort of people who eat peas with their knives: oh, the horror ...Mrs Angryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00586223909475832791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371203489316363738.post-82371652992167327032013-12-18T12:32:06.733+00:002013-12-18T12:32:06.733+00:00Indeed, Mrs Angry, the absence of opposition and l...Indeed, Mrs Angry, the absence of opposition and local press is precisely the reason why DCMD set up The Chigwell Times (www.chigwelltimes.co.uk) against your advice. He has already identified £60K of tax raised in questionable circumstances. Keep reading to find the details.Don't Call Me Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602899129846028170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371203489316363738.post-42621868820922380502013-12-18T12:05:47.911+00:002013-12-18T12:05:47.911+00:00Thanks for giving us an update on this case, initi...Thanks for giving us an update on this case, initially I thought from your tweet it was all over, but you point out there's still the "slush fund" matter to be resolved. <br /><br />I realise you probably know all this already Mrs Angry, but it's worth stating it all the same in relation to the law on libel and blogging. <br /><br />Reporting on meetings of local authorities is covered by qualified privilege under libel law <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/31/contents" rel="nofollow">see the Defamation Act 1996 for the details</a> and court cases attract absolute privilege. <br /><br />What that means basically is that bloggers can't be sued for fair and accurate reports about legal proceedings published around the time they happen. Reports on local authority meetings again can't be the subject of libel proceedings, as long as they are a "fair and accurate" report. <br /><br />The threshold for suing for libel in relation to reporting on a local authority meeting is that "the publication has to be shown to be made with malice" and the publisher has to have refused a previous request to change things. <br /><br />So far so good, but the problem lies with writing about local authorities and those who work for them outside the areas of formal meetings and court cases. <br /><br />Mark James' counterclaim against Jacqui Thompson was funded by Carmarthernshire County Council. <br /><br />Carmarthenshire County Council were in this case the second defendant (and I have no problem with them funding their own legal costs if they are sued by someone). <br /><br />However Mark James was sued as an individual (the first defendant) and his counterclaim funded by Carmarthenshire County Council (and I doubt the award of damages awarded against Jacqui Thomson would be so high if this counterclaim hadn't been brought). <br /><br />"What will happen in the matter of the libel indemnity and pension payments to Mr James should the Audit Office find that they were indeed unlawful is unclear: will he have to repay the money? We do not know."<br /><br />According to this <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-24273705" rel="nofollow">BBC article</a> the Wales Audit Office have already determined that they view that Carmarthernshire County Council paying Mark James' legal costs was unlawful (the amount has been quoted as £23,217). <br /><br />The public interest report (if the Wales Audit Office get around to finally publishing it) will of course make interesting reading.<br /><br />However it would seem desperately unfair if the award of damages made against Jacqui Thomson at the earlier hearing is higher, because Mark James was allowed to bring a counter claim funded by a decision that auditors claim is unlawful?<br /><br />I'm sure those more well versed in libel law and case law will be able to cite either a law or previous cases which state a local authority can't initiate libel proceedings. <br /><br />The area of whether it's lawful for a local authority to fund the legal costs of one of its employees not just to defend a libel case brought against them, but to countersue a claimant (and seemingly skirt round the requirement that under normal circumstances they couldn't do this) is one that the auditors are under the opinion that it isn't lawful. <br /><br />I'm sure the public would also think that a person on a Chief Executive's salary (which in my neck of the woods attracts about £135k) if they want to launch a counterclaim for libel should either fund it themselves or request that their legal costs funded by whatever trade union or professional body they're in.<br /><br />It's the unfairness of having higher damages awarded against her that stem from a payment to one of the defendants that the auditor deems unlawful that is the aspect of this case that gives the impression that justice hasn't happened (or at least hasn't happened yet). John Bracehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15068175156565343146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371203489316363738.post-29772162455956410772013-12-18T01:28:49.239+00:002013-12-18T01:28:49.239+00:00Very interesting question, DCMD. As for the counci...Very interesting question, DCMD. As for the councillors: watching the live webcasts one can only marvel at the way in which elected members are spoken to by officers. Here in Barnet at least our senior management team goes through the charade of pretending the councillors are in charge, even if they are not. One thing that both councils have in common is a democratic deficit that has built up in the absence of an effective opposition, and with the support of an indifferent local press, too scared to challenge and investigate serious issues of public interest. Hence the expansion of the blogosphere, in both areas, and the consequent attempts by both authorities to silence it.Mrs Angryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00586223909475832791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371203489316363738.post-47160764463837852392013-12-17T23:47:52.425+00:002013-12-17T23:47:52.425+00:00I think one of the most worrying aspects about thi...I think one of the most worrying aspects about this whole matter has been the conduct of the councillors. As we have seen in Barnet over the years, Carmarthenshire county councillors seem to be unable or unwilling to stand up for residents against the might of the executive and chief officers. DCMD is not familiar with the details of this libel case, but if the taxpayer is picking up the tab, the council could and should have insisted that the matter be resolved without recourse to the courts. <br /><br />Any council officer should have the right to defend himself against what he considers to be false allegations, but there is something quite Orwellian about the full weight of council machinery bearing down on an individual resident, with limited resources, who dared to speak her mind. Would the council have allowed this matter to proceed to court if the defendant had been Rupert Murdoch instead of Mrs Thompson?Don't Call Me Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602899129846028170noreply@blogger.com