When Cllr "Red" Yvonne Davies became Leader of bent Labour Sandwell Council (having bought a home in Herefordshire far away from the sh*thole Borough and the riff raff who live there) we had a meeting to discuss some ongoing legal issues. I pleaded with her to defenestrate two senior employees in the light of what, in my honest opinion, I consider to be their appalling conduct - Head of "Legal" Surjit Tour (the most dangerous man in Sandwell Council) and Solicitor (and, astonishingly, now Deputy Monitoring Officer) Maria Price (more on her to come soon.)
(To be fair to Red Yvonne, she has flushed the biggest turd of all out of the Sadders cess pit, "Chief Executive", Jan Britton.)
The other major player from the paid service in this shaming episode is the pathetic groveller Darren Carter - Sadwell's very well paid Finance boss (pictured right rear) - who is currently suspended from his post for reasons unknown. Hopefully these long-awaited public revelations about his astonishing actions in this debacle will see him get a boot up his jacksie in double quick time and it is important that, like the Big Fat Parkie (Britton), he leaves with NO TAXPAYER PAY-OFF!
This is a Skidder Special and I need to begin by winding back the clock to late 2017 when this blog exposed that the (then) tyrannical "leader" of the bent Labour Council, Steve "Squealing" Eling and his "right-hand man", Cllr Richard "Tricky Dicky" Marshall, consorted with me and fed me large amounts of material with the intention of helping them bring down then Cllr Mahboob Hussain and Cllr Ian Jones (and they later wished me to widen their attacks to include other people, notably the then Assistant Chief Executive, Melanie Dudley.) Of course, Messrs Hussain and Jones were also Labour councillors, so this was a "blue on blue" (or perhaps "red on red") attack on his own Party by the aggressive and spiteful Squealer.
Eling is a pathetically paranoid individual with what many SMBC employees have said is a "volcanic temper". The Squealer knew my revelations (and other matters arising at that time) holed him below the waterline. Incredibly, a large contingent of the scum that made up the Labour Group at that time circled the wagons and tried to save him as did his MP chums, Watson, Spellar and Gill. He had his laughable private police force the "Environmental Protection Officers" - aka The Barmy Army - spy on me, harass me and ring the Oldbury Council House with barriers and "security" staff before meetings - all paid for by us taxpayers (and supported by other Labour councillors despite the enormous cost.)
Of course, the initial election of Eling (also known as "The Milkman") has highly controversial and was disputed (the Labour figure who oversaw this event was John Stolliday - now a prominent figure in Milko's own union, Unison.) The Squealer moved quickly to neutralise his perceived enemies whilst promoting people of little or no ability from the "opposition" to his laughable "cabinet" including "Inane" Elaine Costigan and Sandwell super-troll and excrement-obsessive Cllr (now ex-Cllr) Dave Hosell. Alongside the feeding of information to me to denigrate his enemies Squealer and his rimmer-in-chief Jan Britton made sure standards complaints proceeded against Hussain and Ian Jones. With apologies to the Georgian "man of steel" these turned into Stalinist show trials of a truly sickening nature.
Hussain refused to turn up for the witch-burning and was duly pronounced "guilty as charged". With three London barristers including a QC involved the taxpayer-funded costs of this THREE DAY farce were eye-watering. The hearing took place before the Standards Sub-Committee of Cllr Lewis (now dead), Sue Crumpton (a complete non-entity) and two Eling (metaphorical) c*ck-suckers of the first order, Steve "Luvvie" Trow and Ann "Shakkers" Shackleton.
Just two weeks later the same Fab Four were due to re-convene to do a number on Jonesy.
It will be recalled from earlier posts that the aforementioned Melanie Dudley had also been acting as the bent paid service's statutory Monitoring Officer but was forced out by Eling at absoluely massive cost to the taxpayer (more on this coming soon.) Eling and Marshall told me via WhtsApp that they were seeking "a bastard" to replace her. They ended up with Sandwell Council retread Surjit Tour who came back to the rotten Borough after a highly controversial time on the Wirral. With the comrades roaring their sickening support, he set about rigging the standards process - in the later cases of Eling and Marshall themselves simply by binning my complaints even though I was the chief and, in many respects, the ONLY witness! He has not yet been disciplined for this in any way.
The Jones show trial was set up for 24th January, 2018 (with just two taxpayer-funded London barristers in attendance this time.) There was never a scintilla of doubt about the outcome given the way the "evidence" was to be presented (and key evidence "for" Jones was simply excluded) but even then the corrupt regime was not going to take any chances. On the day before the hearing Surjit Tour had a secret meeting with the four Committee members to "brief" them on what to expect. Remember that this was just two weeks after they had spent THREE DAYS in just such a hearing and should have been very well aware of the "practice and procedure". In crude terms sleazbag Tour was "the prosecutor" in this case and decided, off his own bat or with others, to go and have a "chat" pre-trial with "the jury". Nice! And it is also very noteworthy that Tour did NOT invite the so-called "independent member" who sits in on the actual hearings to his private pow wow. (Although in twisted Sandwell one of the recent "independent" members was directly involved in the notorious bent deal surrounding the destruction of The Public. You couldn't make it up!)
But in true Sandwell-style things went wrong.... And thanks to my Freedom of Information (FOI) request and a day and a half in Court I can tell you a lot more of the story - though, as we shall see, not all.
Ian Jones was represented in the standards process by Unite the Union. Over the last few years I have been inundated with complaints about the unions at Sandwell Council - the GMB especially - but it has to be said that Unite played a blinder here (even if the members they helped failed to reciprocate and assist colleagues who may also potentially suffer at the hands of the brutally anti-worker Labour dictatorship - see below.)
Tour was having his secret conflab on 23rd January, 2018 with Lewis, Crumpton, Luvvie Trow and Shakkers when he was seen by a Unite rep, believed to be Matt Law, who duly reported back to his Regional Organiser (RO) - the person who was actually representing Jonesy. The RO duly emailed Tour asking, not unnaturally, what the f*ck he was playing at? Whilst Tour, a qualified solicitor (!), tried to bullsh*t, the cat was out of the bag and in true Sandwell Labour fashion the sh*tbag "socialists" sought instant retribution.
The RO did not state the source of the information and Labour immediately, and fatally, jumped to the (wrong) conclusion that one or more employees had told Unite about the secret meeting. A person unknown fingered the secretaries of the Cabinet members as they had access to the relevant diary system. What happened next was truly incredible for ANY employer let alone a Labour local authority. Whilst Tour was improbably claiming to Unite that the meeting had not been "secret", someone high-up ordered a significant lockdown of the Council's computer system to trawl for evidence "lol"! Despite not finding anything incriminating the secretaries were suspended by Carter for allegedly leaking details of a "non-secret" meeting!!!! He HAS to go for this - at BEST - breathtaking incompetence.
As ever with Jan Britton's bent paid service the documentation which has been disclosed is patchy (and heavily redacted) and the fingerprints of the man himself are rarely evident (Britton used an encrypted Blackberry phone for communications in addition to his Council one and claimed that he knew nothing of the fraud and corruption that went on during his disastrous time at the helm. As I pointed out ad nauseum in this blog before he was finally kicked out, this feeble and disgraceful admission of ignorance of matters HE should have been well aware of constituted grounds for summary dismissal in any event!)
It is claimed that Britton was out of the office on 23rd January, 2018 - perhaps at one of his service station meetings - and it is not known where Eling was. But the decision that employees with access to the diaries were to blame was made quickly since by 8.09 am the following morning The Parkie was writing to employees Wilcox, Knowles, Taylor and Tour with the email headed "Access to Cabinet Members diaries and emails":
A fundemental error was seemingly made on the basis of paranoid suspicion alone and the lemmings were now hurtling towards the edge of the cliff. Britton emailed a minion demanding that a lowly rimmer, Stuart Taylor, be sent to the headmaster's office. (Taylor left SMBC and I believe he went to work at the equally disastrous Sandwell Children's Trust.)
At 9.46 am on the 24th our man - Darren Carter, the Chief Finance Officer - now appears in the email chain with Wilcox, Knowles, Taylor and Tour again. Once again you have to ask why Tour is involved in this when he set up the initial bent meeting and then claimed that it wasn't secret! Is this really "proper procedure".
Seasoned Sandwell-watchers will know that Carter is another groveller par excellence (think rotund Uriah Heep) which may explain his rapid rise from nowhere to a top directorship. Some Councillors express surprise at his promotion since they didn't think much of his ability in lower positions. You only have to see him at Council meetings where he is dripping with obsequiousness to fear for his ability to question orders from above (although, as we shall see, this disaster may have occurred simply because Carter is a c*nt.) This Britton bootlicker was also described as being "great mates" with the much-hated Head of Human Resources [sic] Richard Luckman who left the bent paid service very suddenly just a few weeks ago - again in mysterious circumstances.
There was a flurry of emails and meetings. Brian Wilcox was "off site" but picking up emails according to Knowles. At this point there is another mystery since there were a number of contemporaneous reports - including to Unite - that an unidentifeid male Councillor was apoplectic about the disclosure of the, er, "non-secret" meeting and was heard shouting "I want the f*ckers (ie the secretaries) out and I don't want the f*ckers back." Squealing Eling denies that he was the guilty party...... It remains unclear who would feel they had sufficent power to shout such foul statements around the Council offices!
(In the newspaper article referred to later, Red Yvonne hinted that she thought The Squealer WAS involved and, given his weird control freakery it is again very surprising if he wasn't BUT CARTER SAYS IN WRITING - ON BRITTON'S ORDERS - THAT HE WAS NOT. "Red" said this: "I would be absolutely blown away if a decision could be made to suspend the secretaries without discussing it with the leader. It would be extraordinary and UNBELIEVABLE if the leader was not informed of the impending actions."
Everyone knows that it is very unusual indeed for any Sandwell employee to make a decision whether or not to wipe their bottom without political interference from Labour. In the FOI process the craven Carter denies that he was "just obeying orders" and claims full responsibility for the disastrous decision to suspend the women. Hence the "c*nt" reference especially as he seems to have lost his balls and to have actually sub-contracted the actual suspensions to the lowly Taylor rather than face his victims himself. A question arises ie why an experienced Director like Carter did NOT consult the anally-obsessive Squealer and claims to have acted alone? Again Carter is either lying to protect Eling or he is just a thick tw*t who bullied the women out without a shred of evidence. Either way - bye bye moron!
Someone called Louise Lawrence was "tasked" with providing Taylor with suspension letters and seems to have found this amusing since she wrote to him bizarrely referring to them as his "starter for 10"! It is important for later to note that Ms Lawrence's suspension letters did NOT say that the secretaries faced possible CRIMINAL proceedings and nor were they (or Unite) informed of this.
At some time on the 24th the absurd decision to suspend was made. In Court David Stevens, the current Chief Executive (who was appointed without contest and who refuses to declare whether he has ever been in business with Stuart Lackenby) admitted that Britton's sh*t shower had not followed SMBC's "own processes or procedure" and that this was "indefensible". (This is damning noting the very high salaries and gold-plated pensions Carter and Co receive and surely this requires some sort of diciplinary action?)
Stevens stated that a further investigation was under way in respect of the conduct of those who made this decision ie Carter and others (allegedly off their own bat.) Quite how long it takes Stevens to carry out an investigation is anyone's guess as he claimed to have an "independent report" (yes folks, one of THOSE!) into this debacle as long ago as October last year.... Pathetic.
Staying with Wednesday 24th January, 2018, Britton and Eling were definitely now involved although there was no record kept of a meeting when "Jan" briefed the Leader [sic] and the Cabinet about the drastic action. None was disclosed by Stevens or Maria Price in the Court process. We only know about it because a later email from "Luvvie" Trow refers to it (he and fellow Cabinet member Shakkers had been unable to attend because of the Jones Standards hearing,)
The email is copied into Eling, Paul Moore, Costigan, Khatun, Hackett "lol", Carmichael and ex-Cllr and troll Dave Hosell although it is not known how many of them attended. They have refused to say. Interestingly Trow sent the email to Carter not Britton and was asking HIM what the f*ck had happened - more proof of "Darren's" lead role in the brutish affair.
The hapless Carter is claiming he alone made the decision "based on HR advice" (of which there was no evidence at all produced in the court proceedings so that HR - if they were involved - did everything off the record. More disciplinary proceedings Mr Stevens?) We are now asked to believe that a special (unminuted) cabinet meeting was convened to simply be told of a decision that Carter had already made! Why couldn't that have been done by email if it was true? And what were these scum told? Were they told that there had been a total and "indefensible" failure to follow process and procedure but then didn't give a f*ck about women who actually worked personally for THEM! Or were they just too thick to ask questions - admittedly a distinct possibility with this lot (especially Hosell.) Or were they so scared of "Steve" and his temper they just went along with it - again a distinct possibility noting how they backed all his other shocking and illegitimate behaviour? The fact is they just sat back and watched while women with over 100 years loyalty to the Council were shafted and marched out of OCH.
Here the whole thing gets even more absurd as Unite say they informed the "Investigating Officer" (possibly Oliver Knight but unconfirmed) on the 24th that it was their own rep who had actually witnessed Tour's little circus although, unfortunately, there was no written proof of this. If what the Union says is correct this was clearly ignored by Carter and the others - by now baying for blood to satiate Eling and Britton's paranoia. Why the f*ck would Carter or anyone else ignore this before suspending the women? The one possibility is that Eling and Britton thought - again wrongly and on no evidence - that the secretaries were regular leakers (see further below.) There is evidence for this notion as Jan Britton wrote to the bent paid services top team [ROFLMAO] at 09.24 on 25th January, 2018 stating (and note my emphasis):
"I am writing to let you know that yesterday WE took action to suspend employees in the Cabinet secretariat team, pending INVESTIGATION OF A NUMBER OF RECENT DATA AND INFORMATION BREACHES".
This is not what Carter, Tour and Co were telling the women or Unite. And no evidence was adduced by Stevens at Court of any other alleged breaches at this point in time.
There is no evidence of Tour, Carter or anyone else simply asking Unite's RO how he came by the information and Unite says they did not simply ask! The RO was actually physically present in OCH all morning on 24th January in spitting distance on Tour himself - I know as I was in the building too! These clowns are supposed to be "professionals" and are paid considerably more that £100k per annum but couldn't run a whelk stall.
In any event, and as above, Britton's bent paid service simply failed to record matters so that there was no "paper trail." (Remember Britton's own "in-depth investigation" into a councillor's taxi interests - so thorough from a local government "Chief Executive" that not a single sheet of paper or documentation was produced!) But this alone should be grounds for instant disciplinary action. In this case SMBC went to an expensive court hearing arguing that no disclosure of documents should be made since the investigation could also have led to dismissal and possible litigation arising therefrom. But in Sandwell the unions entered into a Faustian pact with Labour so that the comrades can sack most workers at will on the basis that each fired drone gets a pay off (and is subjected to a gagging agreement to keep them quiet.) How the unions think this is good for their members is a mystery but then, as so many SMBC employees have told the Skidder, they believe the unions to be firmly "in the pocket" of the Council. Suspension is a neutral act but ACAS say it should only be used as "a last resort". Here Eling, Britton and Carter were, according to Ms Price, not only contemplating dismissal but civil AND CRIMINAL action against the women. Even if a "normal" employer were to contemplate such an absurd strategy for a leak about a meeting which Tour laughably claimed was all above board they would need to have very detailed documentation of the investigative process. I had to go to Court to see this and guess what - NOTHING existed! SMBC were forced to admit "no formal report was prepared by the investigator." Clearly this should also mean disciplinary action against the "investigator" for gross misconduct. The identity of the person is not known but Oliver Knight's name crops up and there is documentary proof of his involvement in the form of an email to Unite. How could Labour Sandwell contemplate civil let alone criminal proceedings without written records?
Another job for Stevens - sorting this mystery tosser out!
And, of course, the question arises as how the grovelling Carter (with the very best HR advice "lol") could come to such a catastrophic decision? It is known there WAS no evidence (because the women were wholly innocent) and now we know there was no proper investigation made either but this w*nker still kicked the women out - something which was immediately known to everyone in Oldbury Council House.
(A "note" - which I have not been allowed to see - was written AFTER the event and forms a "chronology of events". Stevens admitted at Court that it did not justify Carter's "indefensible" conduct and it was clearly produced as an arse-covering exercise once the sh*t had already hit the fan.)
The 24th was supposed to be a day of triumph for Squealing Eling as Jonesy was indeed potted by the Fab Four (he rightly walked out of the hearing part of the way through when it was abundantly clear he would not get a fair hearing and key evidence was being deliberately supressed.*) But the 25th saw The Milkman's crumbling edifice disintegrate further. In a rare display of union backbone at SMBC Unite immediately took up the cudgels for (most of) the secretaries who were their members. There is a suggestion another union did absolutely nothing despite the obvious trampling on the women's rights. Unite confirmed straight away in writing that the women were innocent and that the original info of Tour's "non-secret" huddle had come from their own rep. On the same day James Morris stood up in Parliament and informed the whole nation of the fraud, cronyism and incompetence at Labour Sandwell Council causing another mega Milko meltdown!
But, for reasons unknown, the unfortunate women were not immediately reinstated. Unite say that Eling would not believe that the employees were innocent and that he and his rimmers had all cocked things up so royally. Accordingly he wanted to take the opportunity of their absence to have another trawl through their computer systems to try and dig up some dirt on them. This fits perfectly with Jan Britton's email (above) alleging a more widespread mole-hunt. But the writing was on the wall and on 27th January the wretched Carter had to confirm that the secreatries had been wronged and would be reinstated. As ever, Britton's useless staff even f*cked that up since they failed to tell Carter's mate Luckman who merrily continued arranging interviews for replacements!
On Sunday 28th Britton ordered jelly baby minion Darren to prepare a "note" about what Carter is now proudly claiming was his and HR's mega f*ck-up, warning that it was "likely to be leaked in seconds" and that it needed to "be one of those less is more notes". So much for openness and transparency from the disgraceful paid service!
As an aside, the walking - or waddling - pus-filled scrotum who ran the Council was a groveller himself with his tongue metaphorically lodged perpetually in the Squealer's rectum. Such people often "dish it out" to their minions. The Court papers show that Carter sent Britton a "first draft" and must have been devastated when the Parkie responded with a curt and dismissive "Looks like a first draft to me." Horrible!
What follows shows the greaser Carter in his true colours and is worthy of dismissal in its own right. The groveller had been told to absolve the elected members from any involvement in the sordid scandal (despite their cabinet meeting referred to above) and did a piece for the Council blog proclaiming that social media comment of "members involvement" in HR decisions was wrong and that it was managers "such as myself who make the decisions based on the best HR advice available"! This is an outright lie given the obvious political involvement in many sackings not least Eling and Marshall's persecution of Melanie Dudley. Far from admitting culpability this objectionable twat praised (yes, praised) a recent Investors in People assessment and asked employees to "believe in our core values of Trust, Unity and Progress." He alleged that employees could trust "the process that is followed" and the "integrity" of the Managers making those decisions". This was FOUR days after his own appalling misconduct. F*ck off Carter for this vile sh*te ALONE!
It was left to Taylor to announce the women were returning to work of the 31st of January. Those represented by Unite received small compensation payments paid for, of course, by us taxpayers and not deducted from the Cabinet members' allowances or Carter's pay! Yes folks, Labour shafted the people of Sandwell yet again!
But the monstrous story goes on.... My FOI went in and was initially dealt with by, er, Stuart Taylor. It is not the only example of Sandwell staff being directly involved in the substantive matters and then being allowed to attempt to exonerate themselves or colleagues during the FOI process. At the Tribunal I cross-examined Stevens on this and he accepted that this procedure was wrong and would be stopped. We are watching!
Enter the fray Maria Price although she was directly involved in the persecution/prosecution of Ian Jones. She informed the office of the Information Commissioner that the Council had actually been contemplating taking CRIMINAL proceedings against the women notwithstanding that neither they (nor Unite) had been informed of this, or cautioned, at any time. It may be yet another of those infamous Sandwell Labour "coincidences" again but Eling was trying to criminalise me throughout this period and he is nasty and vindicative by nature. Or, once again, maybe an employee just dreamt this bizarre strategy up on their own a la Carter. Either way the message was clear - step out of line and Eling and the comrades will not just fire you but try to bring criminal proceedings as well. (Of course it is actually illegal to intimidate legitimate whistleblowers.) In the circumstances a main plank of the defence against disclosure of any documentation at all was that such disclosure would hamper Eling's and Britton's regime taking criminal action against the Council's own employees. Once again you have to ask why the Sandwell unions think this is OK? What do people pay there dues for when their union are letting management behave in this way? Mugs!
The actual hearing lasted one and a half days. Shortly before the hearing Sandwell finally coughed up a tranche of documents. They instructed an "expert" barrister from a particularly expensive set of London chambers. It was only well into the second day of the hearing that he dropped Labour's ludicrous and malicious argument based on criminal action against their own staff.
Accordingly I technically won the hearing but it was a pyrrhic victory. The fact of the hearing forced the bent Labour Council to produce a tranche of documents a mere 631 days (yes!) after my FOI request. The hearing related to a small cache of documents and in the end I was not allowed to see these. If you can't sleep you can read the case report via the link below but the real essence of the argument boiled down to the question of the data protection rights of the secretaries and whether release of further documents about them would be in the public interest. Here the Leader, Red Yvonne Davies, and CE David Stevens played a blinder and persuaded the women to help stop me getting any further disclosure on the hapless management.
nformationrights.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//DBFiles/Decision/i2642/Saunders,%20Julian%20EA2019%20-%200179%20(30.04.20)%20Decision-Amended.pdf
Despite all her b*llocks about transparency Red Yvonne did not want any sort of precedent set at the hearing which might force the corrupt Council in future cases to disclose stuff they would rather not. Thus Davies and Stevens offered the women a deal. They would make them a full public apology if the women would agree that only the Council could publish this. The women had never given any consent to the release of their "personal data" - in particular their identities - but now agreed in the "deal" to help out the very management and polictical party that had shafted them and now specifically withdrew any "consent" to further disclosure. I have to say that this was extremely disappointing since I had worked hard to help these women in the face of obvious injustice and also this was putting two fingers up to Sandwell work colleagues who might be misreated in the future. Unfortunately, they decided to take a less than comradely "I'm alright Jack/Jill attitude".
In the legal proceedings I pointed out that I was never after "personal data" of the women but documentation into the "indefensible" conduct of the management. In any event it was a bit rich SMBC now making such a big deal of keeping their identities "confidential" when Carter had had them frogmarched out of OCH! I pointed out that the matter was of significant public interest to the extent that even the Wolvo C-S*ckers (aka The Express and Star) had covered it!
Nevertheless, Red Yvonne and Stevens cleverly torpedoed any arguments on the balance of the public interest in further disclosure by revealing in writing and in oral evidence at Court that far from consenting to further disclosure the secretaries had expressed the view that Davies and Stevens should resist it since they wanted "to put everything behind them" and that they would be "distressed and upset" if the Council disclosed further information. The Court placed great weight on their stated views.
I cannot afford to appeal the decision and clearly these women and other Sandwell staff are not worth fighting for. But the exercise has been very useful educationally for me and I am now much wiser and better equipped for further battles ahead (which I can now pursue with vigour as the GMB have destroyed me financially and provided the opportunity for me to scrutinise the corrupt comrades like never before.) But there are some features that arise from the beggar my neighbour attitude of the wronged women that give cause for concern.
I should mention here that at the time of "Carter's Catastrophe" all the information was that there were seven secretaries suspended and this was stated in some of the paper records and yet somewhere along the line the seven became six......
1 It is of concern that with a court date imminent Davies and Stevens could "do a deal" with the women with this also being totally secret. It was underhand here but one can certainly imagine other far worse cases where this stunt will be repeated - particularly as some of the union reps in Sandwell have traditionally been willing tools of the management and Labour. Indeed it is noteworthy here that Unite tell me (1) they were never informed of the Davies/Stevens plan by them; (2) they were not invited to any meeting and (3) they say they were completely unaware of what the women had agreed to. A very worrying precedent here from Red Yvonne and the supposedly "pro-worker" Labour Party!
2 Red Yvonne and Stevens were very happy to disclose details of their deal with the women whilst arguing (sucessfully) that other journalists such as myself should not be allowed information which would "further" identify the women. This seems a cynical attempt to gag the press save when the news is controlled by Sandwell Council itself.
Stevens says that his apology went to several thousand staff and he was aware that the blog was likely to be seen outside the Council. He named the women as Jane, Karen, Maxine, Viv, Karen and Amy. The women might not thank me for it but they only got this apology thanks to my Court case. What was particularly galling is that the women agreed to the story appearing in the Express and Star just six days before the hearing date (the hearing commenced at the end of October but went part-heard to this February.) Thus they agreed to the following E&S publicity at the same time as telling the Court - via Stevens - that they wanted no publicity to stop me in my tracks! Cynical!
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/politics/2019/10/24/sandwell-council-apologises-after-six-cabinet-secretaries-wrongly-suspended/
3 Sandwell Council have - incredibly - reported me to their bent pals at West Midlands Police in the past for contacting members of staff (actually something I have done VERY sparingly and only (a) where, journalistically, there has been VERY SIGNIFICANT public interest in doing so or (b) where I have been tricked by the Council itself and/or local trade union reps into contacting individual employees - as I was with Mr Jimmy Clift. I did not make this clear to the Court and ended up being criticised by Judge Holmes for NOT contacting the secretaries in this case!!!! (I now put Sandwell Council - and the Bent Blues - on specific notice that I shall now contact members of staff - even junior ones - for proper journalistic endeavours as a matter of routine!)
4 In a number of FOI matters Sandwell Council - and Ms Price in particular - made comments to the Information Commissioner which are grossly defamatory (and do, in fact, form part of an ongoing legal dispute.) In the six FOI cases which have ended up in the court process (three have settled, this one has been heard and two are outstanding) some of these allegations were blithely repeated by SMBC's barrister, Robin Hopkins of 11KBW chambers in London. When push came to shove at the hearing Hopkins withdrew these gross, personal, smears (para 67 of the case report: "Mr Hopkins...made it clear that these [derogatory allegations] were not pursued as grounds of resistance to the appeal".) The question remains how a solicitor for a democratically-elected local council, Maria Price (and others), is allowed to get away with this sort of vile conduct? And when is Stevens going to stop this abuse? (And now everyone is also on notice I shall not hesitate to make a complaint of professional misconduct to the Law Society if this continues!)
I started by saying that I was unaware why Carter was suspended from work at present but in a recent post I pointed out that - astonishingly - a number of Labour Councillors were supporting him. Incredible! Of course, this is mostly a ruse by the rebel army in Sandwell Labour's ongoing civil war to attack Red Yvonne but I can only imagine that some of this moronic pack are either blissfully unaware of what this Tw*t did or just don't care if he abuses women with over 100 years loyalty to their own Council! I am today writing to them asking them to petition Red Yvonne for Carter's instant dismissal without any compensation above his legal contractual entitlement. Here is the list of councillors who seemingly hate the secretaries and forgive the (at best) gaffe-prone Carter his sins:
Just take a look at some of the names and also cross-reference with the Cabinet members who were direct parties to this vicious bullying stated above (at least they were invited to the Cabinet meeting and THEY have hitherto refused to say whether they attended.) It is curious that even this shameless scum have seemingly tried to distance themselves from the disaster by hiding their attendance on 24th January, 2018 and yet support the principal author of it! They are, of course, Carmichael, Hackett, Khatun, Moore and, inevitably, Costigan.
We have seen above that Trow was NOT present at the infamous meeting but we have proof now that he specifically communicated with Carter after the balloon went up. So Luvvie himself is fully aware that Carter suspended the women without a shred of evidence but is NOW supporting him keeping his job! Once again we know this guy is a joke but what the f*ck is he doing?
Another interesting name is Cllr "lol" Sanders who was struck down with serious illness in December. The Legendary Non-Lothario was an obsessive, nay fanatical, user of Twitter but has not used his account since 19th December, 2019 and yet he has mysteriously risen from his sick-bed to man the barricades on behalf of Carter! All very odd - perhaps someone holds his poxy (sorry "proxy") vote lol!
Addendum: 24/05/20 - we appear to have an answer - Sandars can't manage his email either.....
Some will be surprised to see (a) "left-wingers/whingers" Piper and Edwards and (b) a number of women supporting a man who acted so disgracefully towards these female employees but I couldn't possibly comment.... :-)
Bye, bye Carter. It wasn't nice knowing you.....
THANKS:
To all who have helped with this story and special mention to Lorraine Binsley for moral support (and coffee) at the Court hearing.
* Regular readers will know that I tendered evidence and a legal opinion to this show trial which was suppressed. I also provided a written statement and so was forced to sit in an upstairs room under guard whilst the hearing commenced downstairs in case I was called. When Jonesy walked out I spoke to Tour and asked him what would happen about my statement and he told me to my face that he never intended for one minute that the statement would be used. It has now occurred to me that on that basis my sojourn under guard amounts to false imprisonment and I am writing to Stevens accordingly.
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - COMMUNITY NEWS - READ THE SKIDDER, KIDDER!
**** Phone No: 07470 624207 ****
Email: thesandwellskidder@gmail.com
Facebook: Julian Saunders
Facebook Group: The Sandwell Skidder - Speaking Truth To Power!
Twitter: @SandwellSkidder
Post: Jules Saunders, 11 Chelworth Road, Birmingham B38 0BG
PROUD TO HAVE BEEN TROLLED BY DICKHEAD DARREN COOPER DECEASED!
LEGAL NOTICE (Version 2 from 15th February, 2020)
I cannot list every previous mention of individuals referred to in the entirety of this blog. Where I refer to a specific story please follow the supplied hyperlink since this forms legal justification for later comments. Similarly references to “posts passim” and to earlier posts mean any individuals concerned about purported defamatory material should read later posts in the context of earlier posts. Full information can also be supplied within a reasonable time upon application via email to thesandwellskidder@gmail.com
Every now and again we make a genuine honest error and get something wrong. If an error in the blog affects you please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com and we shall
use our best endeavours to make appropriate corrections forthwith.
If you consider that anything written is libellous please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com or telephone 07470 624207 forthwith. If your complaint has merit we shall endeavour to make immediate amends.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.