Council Lies - Click the blue links to see the Proof!

(A lie is an untruthful statement made to someone else with the intention to deceive. Source- the Wikipedia free encyclopedia.)

(There follows the full version including links to all the evidence - there is a summary available here.)

Listed below are six points raised in a complaint I made to the North Devon District Council about  lies contained in a memorandum originating from the Planning Managers office.  This memorandum formed the basis of evidence supplied to the Local Government Ombudsman by the Council regarding a complaint I made to the Ombudsman about a disgraceful planning decision.  Not one of these points was answered by Mrs. S Harrison, (stage one) or by Anne Cowley (stage two). Ms. Cowley then stated that I had "exhausted the complaints process" and closed the matter – this is undemocratic, arrogant and is no more than a cover-up!  I subsequently uncovered several other instances of lies by Council employees in respect of this same planning decision – these follow on at the end of the notes to the complaint.

Note: All the claims of lying by council employees are fully supported by evidence from the Council's own documentation!  To see at a glance who the guilty employees and Councillors are click here.

You can read the objectives behind this campaign here.

The Complaint

5th April 2006.

Mrs Angela Webb supplied misleading information to the Local Government Ombudsman in connection with my complaint regarding planning consent No.40770 at Hares Green, South Molton which adversely affected the investigation. Your ref: SH:15:14:596.

1. Mrs Webb stated that "it demonstrates that consideration has been given to using Hares Green as a point of access".

The fact is that the Planning Manager justifies using Moorland Rise as a point of access (planning application No.35910) and recommends approval.

2. Mrs Webb stated that the proposal was "not considered to result in any overlooking"

The fact is that is that the row of bungalows opposite the new development is overlooked both front and back by bedroom windows.

3. Mrs Webb stated that "Access from Moorland Rise has, therefore, been carefully considered but has not been acceptable to the council"

The fact is that the Planning Manager justifies using Moorland Rise as a point of access and recommends approval (planning application No.35910).  (Note that when the Moorland Rise planning application 30527 was approved by the Council this included the proposed access point into the adjoining site).

4. Mrs Webb stated that "The hedgerow at the turning head in Moorland Rise, whilst adjoining the site, contains three trees which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders"

The fact is there are not three trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders in the way of the access from Moorland Rise as indicated by the Tree Preservation Order – Land Rear of Underhill dated 18th Dec. 2002 (see also the answer  to Nick Harvey MP's first question below).

5. Mrs Webb states that "The design of the access had been provided to minimise any impact on the protected trees within the site".

The fact is that the entrance drive to the new development passes directly over the root spread of an Oak tree which is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order in contravention of item 8 of the planning conditions (Application No.40770).

6. Mrs Webb stated that "There are many locations within towns where sheltered and family housing sit side by side".

Whilst this statement is true it is misleading as the Hares Green/Widgery Drive development is a sheltered retirement bungalow estate with a minimum age requirement of 55 years. It is unique in South Molton!

Notes to the Complaint

Point 1. When Moorland Rise was built there was a short piece of road shown on the plans leading up to the boundary of the new site ready to provide access. The planners approved this and its suitability was confirmed by the Planning Managers recommendation for approval of application No35910.

Point 2. See the photographs on the link.

Point 3. See point 1.

Point 4. Note that the short piece of road intended as a point of access has now become a "turning head".

Point 5. See the photographs on the link.

Point 6. When Hares Green was built the amenity of the residents was protected by a set of conditions. For instance minimum age 55; none of the conditions apply to the new property so Hares Green has been turned into a mixed housing estate 16 or so years after the properties were sold on the basis of being sheltered retirement bungalows. In business terms this would be breach of contract!

Now read about the rest of the lies from the planners:

  1. In the memorandum mentioned above the impression is given on page 4 that the two applications for access to the site from Moorland Rise were turned down on account of this access being unsuitable. This is not true as 34686 was dismissed at appeal for the reason that the financial arrangements were unsatisfactory. The other, 35910 was turned down because of a tree, the subject of a preservation order  (see also the answer  to Nick Harvey MP's first question below).  However the alternative access mentioned (from Hares Green) takes the entrance road over the root spread of a tree covered by a preservation order and infringes the councils own planning conditions.
  2. Another reason given for turning down application 34686 is shown on the council’s website as loss of trees worthy of tree preservation orders. These trees, had they been worthy of protection, would have been included on the council’s Tree Preservation Order dated 18th December 2002. They were not.
  3. Planning approval for application 40770 contains the following: (5) Reason: In order to minimise the impact of development on trees protected by a tree preservation order. But: The council allowed the access road to cross the root spread of such a tree as noted above. (6) Reason: In order to minimise the impact of development on trees protected by a tree preservation order But: There is no such tree in the way of the entrance from Moorland Rise. (8) Condition: The soil levels within the root spread of trees/hedgerows to be retained shall not be raised or lowered. But: As noted above the road passes over the root spread of a tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
  4. The Proposal for planning application 37263 states that "the position of the access drive would not appear to affect any remaining trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order." It clearly does as shown on the plans for the new site – the planners ignored this as the photograph shows.
  5. In a letter signed by Ms J Watkins there is a statement concerning the above tree: "I regret that the first I was aware of this specific concern…"  The memorandum from Andrew Tucker to Jean Watkins clearly shows that she had been told and would have been fully conversant with the problem with the access from Hares Green.  It is also clearly indicated on the plans for the site.

The Case Officer for the Planning Applications 34686, 37263, 35910 and 40770 was Ms J Watkins. The former Planning Manager (Mr. M J Easton) in a letter to me claims that the decision to use the Hares Green access to the new development was made for "sound planning reasons". However he has been unable to name any at all. How can he say that the status of my home has not changed when the estate has been changed from sheltered retirement bungalows to mixed housing? This letter is a pathetic attempt to justify a disgraceful planning decision - it fails completely!

One further point - the unused piece of ground set aside for access to the site rear of Underhill and fenced off by steel mesh panels could remain a permanent eyesore in Moorland Rise - thanks for this sound bit of planning Mr. Easton!  See the photo below:

The result of sound planning by M. J. Easton DipTP., MRTPI Planning Manager!

Was the access from Hares Green used simply to benefit the Council to the tune of £25,000? This is the fee charged so that the drive could cross the narrow strip of grass in Hares Green shown in the photographs. Could there be any other logical reason for this disgraceful episode? What do you think?

An e-mail has been sent to the Leader of the Council Malcolm Prowse with copies to our local representatives Cllrs. Sue Sewell and John Moore.  We await results. 

A reply from Malcolm Prowse has been received and is copied onto the above e-mail link.

A follow up e-mail has been sent asking Councillor Prowse when he is going to deal with the lying employees.  Councillor Prowse has neither acknowledged receipt nor replied to the e-mail!

A further e-mail with a request for help to deal with the dishonesty within the North Devon District Council has been made to our two local Councillors John Moore and Susan Sewell.  Councillor Moore has agreed to assist and put the following question at the Council Meeting on 21st February 2007.

Cllr. Sewell, surprisingly,  has declined to help and continues to refuse to assist, continually coming up with ridiculous excuses.  She evidently has her own agenda and looking after the electors is not part of it!  Does she deserve our support in the next election?  

This is the question Cllr. Moore has agreed to put:

"Why has Cllr. Prowse not dealt with the North Devon District Council employees who have lied nor the cover-up as detailed in my e-mail to him of 5th of October 2006 and on my website at www.northdevonlink.co.uk/council-lies.htm as he promised to do in his e-mail to me of 13th October 2006?"

A truly remarkable letter has been received from Cllr. Malcolm Prowse - read it here.

So the above question has therefore been cancelled and a more appropriate one is being prepared!

This is it - to be asked at the next Council meeting on 21st February 2007: -

"Why is Cllr. Prowse attempting to cover up lies told to the Ombusman and to the public by employees in the Planning Office which are fully exposed in the South Molton section of my website The North Devon Link?"

Cllr. Moore has forwarded an e-mail to me from Don Pratt, an assistant chief executive suggesting that the above question could be disqualified as being defamatory.  The definition of defamation given by the Wikipedia online encyclopedia is:

"The communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual."

As none of the claims I have made are false and are fully supported by evidence from the Council's own documentation I have requested that the question be put to Cllr. Prowse unchanged.  Let's call a spade a spade and a lie a lie!

Well - Monitoring Officer Don Pratt has watered down the question as he believes it could lead to a breach of the rules.  So this is the version he has come up with:  (Note that he cleverly avoids any mention of lies and puts the emphasis onto the complaint "relating to a planning decision"!)

"Can the Leader explain why he did not investigate allegations made regarding information given to the Ombudsman undertaking an investigation into a complaint relating to a planning decision"

Cllr. Moore reports that at the council meeting the Leader of the Council Cllr. Malcolm Prowse said that the allegations on this website were "a pack of lies".   Curious that Cllr. Moore was not allowed to put the question as I wanted as it could be considered defamatory but the Leader can slander me and in effect call me a liar.  This leaves him open to a complaint to the Standards Board - which will duly follow!  It is noted that the Monitoring Officer Don Pratt had advised there was no reason for a review.  One more Council employee involved in the cover up!  What a pathetic bunch they all are.

I have e-mailed Cllr. Sewell asking her to confirm the words "pack of lies" were used - I wonder if she will be prepared to do the job she was elected to do and look after her constituents?  No - she will not confirm that these words were used although I am legally entitled to this information under the Members Code of Conduct.

You can read the objectives behind this campaign here.

The complaint has been sent to the Standards Board - let's see if they will side with me or with a lying, arrogant, dishonest Council.  There will be updates plus a full report published here on the North Devon Link.

One big question now presents itself - why does Cllr. Prowse find it necessary to risk damaging his own position by covering up for the lying council employees?  What exactly has been going on within the North Devon District Council?  And why does Cllr. Sewell not wish to get involved?

The Standards Board has decided against investigating the complaint against Cllr. Prowse but the decision was based on invalid reasons - this has been pointed out to them so we will wait and see if they will reverse their decision and investigate our leader who is guilty of covering up lies told by council employees.  Or will the Standards Board be party to a cover up?

Yes, the Standards Board for England with it's slogan "Confidence in Local Democracy" has associated itself with the lying and the cover up by Cllr. Prowse.  The chief executive David Prince has decided not to investigate my complaint and has said he will not engage in further correspondence on the matter.  Why do we taxpayers have to put up with these people who are more concerned with avoiding their responsibilities than with doing their job?  The next step will be a complaint to my MP Nick Harvey - Cllr. Prowse is not off the hook yet!

I have booked an appointment with Nick Harvey MP. on the 25th May 2007 to discuss the issue of a cover up by Cllr. Prowse and the refusal by Cllr. Sewell  to take action on my behalf.  What will our MP. have to say about the actions of these councillors who are both supported by his party the Lib-Dems?

At the meeting mentioned above Nick Harvey MP., having heard the complaint and having been given all the evidence on this website on a CD, is going to look into the matter and get back to me.

Nick Harvey MP has studied the material on this website and has formulated three questions. These have been put to the chief executive of the Council who may have some difficulty in answering without confirming all the claims on these pages!  Well done Mr. Harvey!  The questions are:-

Well now - we have a response from planning manager Easton.  It contains a letter from the man himself plus a great deal of documentation.  This letter and the report in which he is forced to confirm the lies are reproduced together with my observations from this link.

So there we are - thanks Mr Easton for confirming that the claims made on these pages are fully justified.  Thanks also to Nick Harvey MP's intervention which, in effect, forced the Council to own up to the lies and dishonesty!

A few years ago the arrogant dismissal of my complaint by Anne Cowley without answering any of the points raised and the refusal to communicate further would have meant that I would have found it difficult to pursue the matter.  However now, with the Internet, neither council employees nor councillors are able to hide their dishonest actions - this is a new departure and will in the future make our representatives and employees more accountable as there will be no hiding place!

A copy of these pages on a CD will now be passed to our new District Councillor David Worden with a request to take up this complaint on my behalf. (Sat. 28th July 2007.)

Councillor Worden has kindly agreed to look into the way the complaint about Council employees lying to the Ombudsman was handled by Anne Cowley.  The reason given by Ms Cowley for not dealing with the six points raised in the complaint was that they were "issues that the Ombudsman would consider as part of their thorough investigation."  As the Ombudsman was not involved in this new complaint this is, as previously stated, nothing more than a way of avoiding dealing with the lies and therefore a cover up.

No news yet from Cllr. Worden but a recent assessment by the Audit Commission does not take into account the lying and dishonesty by employees and Councillors.  The verdict of this commission was that the performance of the North Devon District Council was "Fair".  The question here is "how can a dishonest Council be rated "Fair"?  Surely the only possible rating would be "Dishonest"!

Cllr Worden reports that the Planners are reluctant to communicate about the council lies - no surprise there.  They obviously think that if they ignore it then the problem will go away - it will not!

Cllr Worden has informed me that he has not yet had time to deal with the issue of dishonesty within the North Devon District Council.  I have replied by e-mail  The page that will open when you click the link includes copies of e-mails leading up to this one..

There is a thread of dishonesty running through the North Devon District Council at present.  In order to expose the employees and Councillors who have acted dishonestly we have introduced THE WEDGE.  This will drive deep into the council to expose these people - those who have lied and those who have tried to cover up those lies. THE WEDGE is available here.

In order to encourage some kind of action from the Council copies of these pages on CDs will be sent to three Councillors (posted 11.01.08) with a request for their advice and help on how to achieve the objectives.  The Councillors are:

  • Cllr. Michael Harrison.  (Leader of Executive.)

  • Cllr Mair Manuel.  (Chairman of Council)

  • Cllr. Jasmine Chesters (Chairman of the Planning Committee.)

Copies of the CD will also be sent to the media - responses will be published on the North Devon Link.

A reply has been received from the Chairman of the Council - you can read it together with my reply here.  No reply yet from the other two Councillors!  They should both be aware they run the same risk of being reported to the Standards Board as Cllr. Manuel. (See the reply from the Chairman of Council).  They will of course be included in the list of "acted dishonestly" on THE WEDGE page.  Still no response from the other two so a letter has been sent to the Council Leader Cllr. Harrison (14th February 2008) - read it here.

This campaign is going to be included on the Rotten Borough website run by Ian Johnston (see his Local Links page).  It seems our own Council is not the only one that is arrogant and dishonest.  We are also included on the links page of the anti-corruption site name-n-shame

After a delay of five weeks the Leader of the Executive, Cllr. M. Harrison has replied.  His letter is included on his dedicated page - here  When the Ombudsman was told a pack of lies by the council in order to try to justify a disgraceful planning decision they started busily digging a hole for themselves - since then several employees and councillors have taken up the shovel.  The latest to jump into the pit is the Leader of the Executive, Cllr. M. Harrison.  More will surely follow!

Before the Internet and the Freedom of Information Act the council would have been able to close ranks and shut me out - now however there is no hiding place for dishonest employees and councillors.  The penny does not appear to have dropped yet.  I shall be using the Freedom of Information Act to force the Leader to prove that my complaint was "found not to be justified".   (See Cllr Harrisons page) This is in spite of all the claims being backed up by the council's own documentation.  So why is Cllr. Harrison, like Cllr. Prowse, risking his career in local politics by condoning dishonesty and protecting lying employees?

Some time ago the Standards Board decided they would not investigate a complaint about Cllr. Prowse.  Their decision was based on invalid reasons and, true to form, they refused to communicate further - in other words we are right and you can get lost!  I have arranged a meeting with our MP Nick Harvey and will ask him to investigate the arrogance and incompetence of the Standards Board.  The  Chief Executive of the Standards Board and the person responsible for this decision is David Prince.

A rather pathetic letter has been received from the Chairman of the Council Mair Manuel.  Read it together with my response here.  I have also e-mailed our Leader, Cllr. Harrison, to ensure that he realises that he is in a similar position with regard to the responsibility of the elected Councillors to weed out dishonest employees.

A comment from an e-mail sent to me by someone who is experiencing dishonesty in his own local Council  "how appalling you had to go through such a ‘struggle’ when simple honesty & fair play could & should have resolved the matter for you".  I couldn't agree more....

Our MP Nick Harvey has looked at the response from the Standards Board and has kindly agreed to write and ask for an explanation about their decision which implies that a Councillor can choose to ignore dishonesty within the Council.  So much for the Standards Board slogan "Confidence in Local Democracy", who are they kidding!

A response has been received from the Council's legal department referring to the letter from the Executive Leader of the Council, Cllr M. Harrison. Readers are invited to judge whether the employee Pratt is dishonest, incompetent or both. And to decide why Cllrs. Harrison, Manuel and Chesters are content to hide behind this continuing pretence that the Ombudsman has dealt with the matter of council lies when the complaint to the Ombudsman was about a planning matter not council lies.   How they can consider that the Council has dealt with the complaint about lies when Anne Cowley acted arrogantly and dishonestly by closing the complaints procedure without referring to a single point raised as described above.

Read the full text together with my response to the Leader of the Executive Cllr. M. Harrison here

How do the three Councillors named above feel about this - are they safeguarding the interests the electorate when they obediently fall in line behind dishonest employees and protect them when all three have been provided with proof of the dishonesty which is supported by the Council's own documentation?

Our MP. Nick Harvey, having looked at the evidence, has written to the Standards Board and the Ombudsman asking for information about both their decisions.  This could be a breakthrough in this campaign. 

To the Standards Board "the present situation appears to absolve councilors of responsibility and just invite them to turn a blind eye"

The letter from the Standards Board with it's slogan "Confidence in Local Democracy" in which David Prince sanctions the dishonesty within the North Devon District Council is available here.  A reply from David Prince has been has been forwarded to me by Nick Harvey MP.  It appears that no matter what hard evidence of lies and a cover up such as that submitted with my complaint against Cllr Prowse the Standards Board can throw out a complaint with the only reason being that a Cllr. is not obliged to take any action.  This position not only sanctions dishonesty but encourages it!  I shall ask our MP if the Minister responsible for the Standards Board could look into this.  The answer is yes - and the Minister has been requested to do this by Nick Harvey.  The response will be published on this website!

And to the Ombudsman "what can be done after the Ombudsman has ruled and it is discovered that lies have been told to him".

A reply from the Ombudsman, Jerry White,  has been forwarded by Nick Harvey - it is clear that  White is not interested in the fact that lies have been told to his agency but is more interested in coming up with excuses for supporting the dishonest North Devon District Council.  If this pathetic fellow leans much further in their direction he will be horizontal - I shall not bother to publish his letter.

An unexpected result of this campaign has been to attract e-mails from others who have been let down by our Council.  Two recent e-mails contain information from an informed source that are quite literally dynamite.  They tell of sex, intimidation, victimisation, theft and a host of other dodgy dealings by employees and councillors.  All the names are there.  If the allegations contained in these e-mails were followed up there would be, in my view, criminal proceedings and a lot of red faces in the NDDC.  As the information does not refer directly to this campaign it will not be published within these pages.  However both e-mails will be sent to an honest member of the North Devon District Council to request his advice about what action should be taken.

The complaint to the Standards Board against Cllr Harrison has been drafted and a copy sent to Cllr Worden with a request for a letter of support to be sent with the complaint.  As soon as he makes his decision the complaint it will be sent off.

Referring to the Standards Board's David Prince condoning and even encouraging dishonesty in Local Government the MP. for North Devon Nick Harvey has written to the Minister responsible, John Healey MP, Minister of Local Government, Department for Communities and Local Government to ask him to look into this department's activities.

The complaint to the Standards Board against Cllr. Harrison has been sent off together with a supporting statement from Cllr. Worden.  You can read the complaint here

The Standards Board have informed me that they no longer accept complaints direct from members of the public.  The procedure now is to have the matter dealt with by the local council's standards board..  So the complaint will shortly be sent off to the North Devon District Council's monitoring officer.

A reply from from Parmjit Dhanda MP on behalf of Denis Healey, the Minister for Communities and Local Government has been forwarded by Nick Harvey MP.  In a nutshell Dhanda states that "Local authorities are autonomous bodies and Ministers have no right to intervene".  In other words the North Devon District Council can do what it likes and employees can lie and cover up lying assisted by councillors as recorded on this website.  What a carry on - and we, the taxpayers, are footing the bill for all these parasitic agencies and departments!

Here is an e-mail received from someone who also suffers from a corrupt and dishonest council - their site shows just what councils are capable of:

"Have read your ongoing story of council corruption with great interest as ours is identical with the cover ups and lies despite overwhelming evidence. We would be grateful if you would consider a link to our site at: www.councilanddeveloper.net and we would be happy to do likewise. 

Many thanks and good luck in your ongoing battle."

This e-mail clearly shows that, as stated previously on these pages, with the Internet and the Freedom of Information Act there is now no hiding place for dishonest councillors and council employees!

The complaint originally submitted to the Standards Board has now been sent to the North Devon District Council.  The Standards Boards have given the name of Don Pratt as having responsibility for dealing with this.  A letter is enclosed with the complaint addressed to the dishonest Monitoring Officer Pratt that can be read here.  I have no confidence in Pratt dealing with this in an honest way - but, we will see as he must surely be coming to realise that his devious game is up!

Earlier on this page there is an item about two e-mails sent to me that contained information that was recorded as  "dynamite".  While these e-mails are in no way connected to this particular campaign I have decided to publish extracts simply to show what goes on in the North Devon District Council.  The names of  some of those involved have been removed, however, they will know who they are.  They will also know that I know who they are, they will also know that Cllr. Worden knows who they are as he has been sent a copy of the e-mails with the names included.  I will be asking Cllr. Worden to investigate these very serious allegations.  Click here to read all about your "trusted representatives"!  One day all the names will be made public.

Yet another e-mail received which reveals the extent of the corruption within the North Devon District Council:

"I have read your web site, not with amazement, but with full knowledge that what you have been experiencing is just one part of a very familiar picture.  Corruption, lies, we know them all, and so many of the names you mention are extremely well known to us.  We too are well down the line with Messrs Easton, Prowse, Pratt, Harrison, etc.  As for the complaints department….!"

The complaint against Cllr. Harrison mentioned above will be considered by the Local Assessment Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee on Wednesday 23rd July 2008.  Mr. K. Miles, Monitoring Officer from the Torridge District Council, will advise the Sub-Committee.  The Sub-Committee will be:  Independant Member Mr P. Loft, North Devon District Councillor Malcolm Wilkinson (Lib Dem) and Parish/Town Councillors Crockett (Berrynarbor Parish Council) and Windsor (Barnstaple Yeo Valley).  

Each Sub-Committee member has been sent a CD copy of these web pages similar to that sent to Cllr. Harrison together with a letter which you read here together with the Wedge page and a copy of the complaint  They will all now have the evidence to vote to send Cllr. Harrison to the Standards Committee - unless of course they have received instructions to dismiss the complaint from those dishonest and frightened people we thought we could trust.  We shall see.

No surprises - the Sub-Committee of the Standards Committee of the North Devon District Council (minus Cllr. Crockett) voted that no further action be taken in response to my complaint.  This decision was made at a secret meeting with no agenda and no minutes.  The reasons given for the decision were:

  1. He (Harrison) acted correctly in responding to the complaint
  2. He did not condone dishonesty, he merely responded to the complainant
  3. There was nothing incorrect in his response submitted to the complainant
  4. Dishonesty amongst employees is a matter for the Council's internal complaints procedure or the Local Government Ombudsman.

Let us look at the facts.  Harrison was provided with all the information on these pages which record the lies and the cover up backed up by hard evidence from the Council's own documentation.  The three members of the Sub-Committee were also provided with this same information. Reasons 1, 2 and 3 make no reference to and totally ignore the lies and cover up condoned by Harrison and are therefore invalid.  Reason 4 is ridiculous as it was stated within the complaint against Harrison that the cover up was initiated by the Council's own complaints procedure.  This is democracy North Devon District Council style which ensures that employees and councillors will not be held accountable for their dishonest actions!

Readers of these pages will know that the wimpish Harrison, aided by the thoroughly dishonest Pratt, is guilty of abusing his position of trust by condoning lying and the covering up of those lies by employees and councillors.  Every response by this Council only serves to deepen the hole they are in - they have no idea how to deal with this problem other than to keep on trying to avoid the issue and hoping it will go away. Before the Internet and the Freedom of Information Act they would have been able to sweep all the dirt under the carpet.  Now they have no hiding place and they have not yet come to terms with this new situation.   An appeal will be made against the decision of the Sub-Committee - no doubt Pratt will dismiss it....

A complaint has been made against the Monitoring Officer Pratt (1st August 2008) as follows:

"The Monitoring Officer Don Pratt misled Cllr. Harrison with reference to my complaint about council lies and a cover up by providing wrong information. Ref: Freedom of Information request 365.

Don Pratt told Cllr Harrison that the Local Government Ombudsman had dealt with the lies and the cover up. The enclosed letter from the Ombudsman shows clearly that he was dealing with a planning matter – lies and cover up are not mentioned in the letter.

Don Pratt said the Council’s complaint procedure had dealt with lies and the cover up. This is not true as Ann Cowley closed the complaint about lies being told to the Ombudsman without answering a single allegation thus initiating the cover up. Copy of complaint and letters referring to the complaint enclosed."

This is the Council's response to above complaint from the "soon to be retired"  chief executive John Sunderland.  Comments will follow later.

It should be noted that the North Devon District Council, neither employees nor Councillors have been able to refute a single allegation as recorded on this website!

A letter has been sent to the chief executive Sunderland asking for proof of his claims that the Ombudsman has already dealt with the complaint against Don Pratt - Sunderland's letter shows him to be arrogant, disdainful and dishonest.  Read it here. His name has been added to the wedge page.  It is suggested in the Journal today that this fellow's salary is around £90,000 to 100,000.  I believe he is soon to retire - all I can say is Good Riddance!

What is evident since this campaign commenced is the arrogance and dishonesty shown by employees of the North Devon District Council.  Equally dishonest is the way the councillors have allowed  employees to get away with lying and attempts to cover up the lies. What is perhaps most reprehensible is the total disregard  by both employees and councillors of hard evidence from the council's own documentation.

An appeal against the Standards Sub-Committee decision to take no further action against Cllr. Harrison has been made on the following grounds:

1. The first three reasons given leading to the decision to take no further action do not relate to the subject of the complaint against Cllr. Harrison and are therefore invalid.

2. The fourth reason is inappropriate as a complaint has already been made using the Council's complaint procedure.

3. The evidence supplied to Cllr. Harrison and to the three members of the Sub-Committee was ignored.

The response to the letter sent to Sunderland has arrived - it shows clearly that he is totally unable to provide any evidence to support his claim that the Ombudsman has dealt with the lies told by the planners.  A complaint to the Ombudsman will now follow shortly.

The complaint to the Ombudsman has been prepared and is ready to be sent off.  I have e-mailed Nick Harvey MP. asking if he will provide a letter to support the complaint.  Awaiting a response....

Nick Harvey MP. has kindly written a letter to the Local Government Ombudsman Jerry White supporting this campaign to expose the dishonesty by employees and councillors within the North Devon District Council - will Mr. White make his decision based on the evidence from the council's own documentation?

The following complaint is on its way today 15th September 2008.

"The Monitoring Officer Don Pratt misled Cllr. Harrison with reference to my complaint about council lies and a cover up by providing wrong information. Ref: Freedom of Information request 365.

Don Pratt told Cllr Harrison that the Local Government Ombudsman had dealt with the lies and the cover up. The enclosed letter from the Ombudsman shows clearly that he was dealing with a planning matter – lies and cover up are not mentioned in the letter.

Don Pratt said the Council’s complaint procedure had dealt with lies and the cover up. This is not true as Ann Cowley closed the complaint about lies being told to the Ombudsman without answering a single allegation thus initiating the cover up. Copy of complaint and letters referring to the complaint enclosed."

I have also asked the prospective conservative candidate Philip Milton for his help in exposing the dishonesty within the council - including that of the conservative leader Michael Harrison!

The result of the appeal against the Standards Committee decision mentioned above has been received - for the record those participating were: Mrs Arnold (Independent Member - Chairman), Mr Condron  (Independent Member), Cllr. Evans (Parish Council Member), Cllr. Mrs Haywood (North Devon Council Member substitute for Cllr. Edgell), K. Miles (Monitoring Officer Torridge District Council) and Mrs J. Grigg (Democratic Services Coordinator)  The decision was to take no further action.  The committee considered that Cllr. Harrison had not breached the code of conduct for the following reasons:

1.  There was no evidence to suggest that he had abused his position of trust.
2.  There was no evidence to suggest that he had condoned dishonesty within the North Devon District Council, he had merely replied to a letter based on the advice given.
3.  Cllr. Harrison (in his capacity as a North Devon Councillor) is not an employer therefore he was not using invalid excuses to avoid his responsibility.
4.  As Cllr. Harrison was not an employer he did not misuse his position to deal with dishonesty among employees.

My reply to this is the same as my reply to the original decision.  Readers must of course draw their own conclusions about whether Harrison, while being in possession of all the evidence contained on these web pages, could behave in the way he did and whether the Standards Committee's decision was democratic and honest.  The original complaint against Harrison can be seen here  The assertion that Harrison is not an employer representing the electorate is curious - I have e-mailed Mrs Grigg asking "who is the employer?"

An investigator has been appointed by Jerry White, the Local Government Ombudsman, to investigate the complaint made against Pratt.  She is Mrs. Patricia Coopey - will she make her decision based on the evidence from the Council's own documentation reproduced on these web pages of which she has a copy on a CD?  We shall see....

An e-mail from Mrs Grigg has arrived stating that:  "Having sought advice I can now advise you that the employer is the Council as a whole and not one individual Councillor, even if they are the Leader."  So now we have the strange situation where Harrison, as a councillor and therefore part of the council, is both an employer and not an employer at the same time!  This position could surely only exist in a dishonest, dysfunctional council such as the one with which we are saddled.  I have asked Mrs Grigg who supplied this advice.

Mrs Grigg has e-mailed to say that "the person who gave me the advice was Don Pratt, Monitoring Officer of North Devon Council which was confirmed by Ken Miles, the Monitoring Officer of Torridge District Council.".  More to come on this....

I have sent a query to Mrs Grigg regarding the appeal decision of the Standards Committee.

This is it:

"Dear Mrs Grigg, referring to the reasons for the Standards Committee appeal decision the last two are: 

Councillor Harrison (in his capacity as a North Devon Councillor) is not an employer therefore he was not using invalid excuses to avoid his responsibility.

As Councillor Harrison was not an employer he did not misuse his position to deal with dishonesty among employees. 

Please tell me how these reasons can be valid when the NDDC Constitution requires that all Councillors participate in the governance and management of the Council. 

This presumably means participating as employers and includes Councillor Harrison - leader or not. 

Regards, Gordon Bray." 

We await a response......

As the recent Standards Committee was advised by Ken Miles a Freedom of Information request has been sent regarding anomalies raised by his involvement.  This is it:

"Dear Mr Miles, referring to the e-mails from the North Devon District Council copied below, please provide documentary evidence to support your claim that the Council as a whole is the employer bearing in mind that the North Devon District councillors have an obligation to "participate in the governance and management of the Council".  If this is not as employers then what would be their status?
 
Referring to the decision of the NDDC Standards Committee (Ref NDC/04.08) the chairman decided that:
 
Councillor Harrison (in his capacity as a North Devon Councillor) is not an employer therefore he was not using invalid excuses to avoid his responsibility.
As Councillor Harrison was not an employer he did not misuse his position to deal with dishonesty among employees.
 
Please state if this was a decision made by the chairman or if you advised her that Harrison was not an employer and explain how, if you did advise her, Harrison was not an employer, so then, ipso facto, no other councillor could be an employer, so how could a council with no employers be an employer "as a whole".

Please note Mr Miles that this is a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
 
Gordon Bray."

His response is eagerly awaited!  What would we poor suffering taxpayers do without the Freedom of Information Act?

 Read the response  from Mr Miles below

Dear Mr Bray,
 
The basis of my advice is that individual Councillors are not employers as the employer is the Council.  This is because the Council is a separate corporate legal entity.  It can sue and be sued in its own name and so whilst it is made up of Members and Officers, it is the Council as a whole that is the employer.  This means that whilst each Councillor has responsibilities to ensure that the Council acts correctly as an employer, as an example, if an employee felt that they had been dismissed unfairly, it would be the Council that action would be taken against, not an individual Councillor.
 
In answer to your last question, I can assure you that the decision was the decision of the Sub-Committee collectively, not of the Chair and certainly not of me.  My role was to provide advice.  I am happy to confirm that my advice was as set out above.
 
I hope that this assists.

Ken Miles
Solicitor and Monitoring Officer
01237 428763

In view of this response by Miles an e-mail has been sent to our local Councillor David Worden:

Dear David, Miles states  that: "each Councillor has responsibilities to ensure that the Council acts correctly as an employer."
 
So, Pratts advice backed up by Miles is incorrect.  This must go to the the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and I request you to do this for me. 
 
Regards, Gordon. 

After this little flurry of e-mails it is time to sum up.  Don Pratt, the Monitoring Officer of the Council stated that individual councillors are not employers - meanwhile the adviser to the Standards Committee, Ken Miles, stated that each councillor has responsibilities to ensure that the Council acts correctly as an employer.  The Councils Constitution requires that all councillors participate in the governance and management of the Council.  So now we have, as noted earlier, the strange situation where Harrison, as a councillor and therefore part of the council is, at the same time, both an employer and not an employer!  However it cannot be denied that he is a councillor and, while having all the evidence on these pages, chose to hide behind the Standards Committee and condone the dishonesty within the North Devon District Council.

Ken Miles has confirmed that the Standards Committee chaired by Mrs Arnold was shown the CD copy of these pages which includes proof of lying and the cover up from the Council's own documentation.  The Committee however decided that there was no evidence to show that Harrison had condoned dishonesty within the Council although he had been given a copy of the same CD.  More facts have emerged about the Standards Committee decision - it was made after looking at the information about lies and the subsequent cover up on a CD.  This would have been the CD sent to Harrison or a similar one.  According to Miles (the adviser) the CD was viewed on a single monitor screen by the four members of the Committee for about one hour.  Considering that the information on the CD extended to the equivalent of about 50 A4 pages of text, some of it quite small, and a dozen or more pictures, it is remarkable that all the information could be studied, absorbed and considered in the space of one hour!  I wonder how the chairman Mrs Arnold would respond to a Freedom of Information request to explain this feat?

A remarkable letter has been received from the Ombudsman's investigator Mrs Patricia Coopey.  You can view it together with my replies here .  What is apparent is that she is looking at the issue as a planning matter that has already been dealt with by the Ombudsman and totally ignoring the complaint itself which is about council dishonesty - telling lies and covering up those lies.  Another letter from Mrs Coopey informing me of her decision - which is that she is prepared to sanction dishonesty within the North Devon District Council and let the liars and those who covered up the lies get off scot free.  Her letter together with my reply is available on the above link.  I have e-mailed Nick Harvey MP. with a request to take the matter up on my behalf.  Nick has written to say that there is no Minister for the Ombudsman so he can get away with what ever he likes and there is no way to stop him!  I don't agree so I have replied to our MP with a request to challenge several points upon which the dishonest Ombudsman's investigator, Patricia Coopey, based her decision.  You can read Nick Harvey's letter together with my response here. I have also asked him, as there is no named Minister responsible, if he is willing to take this matter up with the Prime Minister Gordon Brown - he being the Minister responsible for all Government dealings and ultimately answerable to all of us as taxpayers and electors for dishonesty within Government Departments!  Nick has agreed to put some questions (see them on the above link) to the Ombudsman, Jerry White, we shall see how he decides to respond...   

Read the Ombudsman's reply using the above link - White has lied to Nick Harvey MP!

I have also made a Freedom of Information request to Jerry White asking him for a copy of his job description, the brief under which his office operates and to whom his office is responsible.  No response from White's office within the specified time of 20 working days.  An e-mail has been sent requesting that a reason be provided - will they try to blame the snow?  No - it appears that the London office of the Local Government Ombudsman is dealing with the Freedom of Information request rather than the Coventry office where White is employed and my letter "went astray" between the two offices...  Well I never!

The Freedom of Information reveals that White is "appointed by the Government (in fact, by the Queen on the recommendation of the Secretary of State)."  The department is funded through the Department for Communities and Local Government.  Which means of course paid for by us taxpayers.

If you think the Ombudsman is fair and impartial take a look at this article on the Rotten Borough website - click here.

A recent quote from dishonest Michael Harrison regarding the proposal for a unitary authority:

"I really fear for the interests of our unique community."

With you in charge Michael so do I!

Latest news in this campaign to expose dishonesty within the North Devon District Council is that Cllr. David Worden has referred the matter to the chairman of the "Overview and Scrutiny Committee".  The chairman of this committee is Councillor Philip Daniel of Braunton (East) Ward.  We await his decision with little hope that he will have the courage to stand up against those named on the The Wedge page.  A reply has been received - apparently the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will not look at the matter as the Ombudsman has been involved.  They all hide one behind the other!

I have an e-mailed copy of the decision from the chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Cllr Daniel.  He says that "on the subject of mr bray, as he has already involved the ombudsman in his complaints i feel it is not a matter for o/s unless the ombudsman asks us to investigate".  I have e-mailed Cllr Worden to ask about this decision saying "I believe that what he feels is not the way to decide whether to investigate a complaint or not.  Surely there is a remit or procedure for this - can you please let me have the document or rules under which the O and S committee operates?"  What a way to run a Council!  A further e-mail has been sent to Cllr. Daniel (19th March 2009) which can be read on his dedicated page here together with his reply - if it ever arrives....  A reply has been received - read it by clicking the link above.

Referring to the complaint made to the Ombudsman concerning Don Pratt lying to Cllr. Harrison which was investigated by Mrs Patricia Coopey.  This lady has, on behalf of Jerry White, condoned lies and the covering up of lies by the North Devon District Council - a complaint against this dishonest employee is on it's way (11th March 2009).  It can be read here.  The complaint is being dealt with by Sharon Chappell, Assistant Ombudsman.

A response to the complaint against Mrs Patricia Coopey has been received from Jerry White himself.  You can read it together with my response here  It comes as no surprise that White is trying to wriggle out of his responsibility to the taxpayer.  He has, in the course of this complaint, lied to Nick Harvey MP., condoned lies by his investigator Mrs Patricia Coopey and, in consequence, condoned dishonesty within the North Devon District Council.  Further action will be taken in due course against this dishonest public employee..... 

A letter has been sent to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Rt. Hon. Hazel Blears MP.to see if her department is able to deal with the dishonest Jerry White. (17th April 2009.)

As mentioned above Jerry White, Local Government Ombudsman, has lied to Nick Harvey MP.  White talks about "lies and cover up" being a part of the complaint about a planning decision some time ago.  This is not true as no person was accused of telling lies and there was no mention of a cover up in any of the correspondence that passed between myself and the Ombudsman's office.  The letter from White where he comments on his investigator's decision and closes the complaint procedure back in 2006 is published here.  You can see that all of his comments concern a planning decision which was disputed in my complaint. The wording of the complaint is also shown with White's letter.  The paragraph in which White lies to Nick Harvey is also included.  The first time "lies and cover up" is mentioned in correspondence with the Ombudsman's office is in the recent complaint of 15th September 2008.  I have e-mailed Nick Harvey MP. informing him of the lie and asking him if he intends to take any action or remain silent and condone White's lie - you can read my e-mail, sent 9th March 2009, on his dedicated page here  

No reply from our MP!  I have sent the following e-mail Nick Harvey with a copy to the Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg - the original e-mail mentioned is available on our MP's dedicated page (link above).

"Dear Nick, eight weeks ago I sent you an email, copied below, for which I received a read receipt the same day.  Your lack of response leads me to conclude that you are prepared to condone dishonesty by the Local Government Ombudsman Jerry White.  This is not the kind of behaviour I expect from you as my MP. and you should be aware that I am disgusted with your lack of interest in what I consider to be a most serious matter."

Note:  Taxpayers will be happy to know that we are paying a £30 a month expense claim from our MP Nick Harvey so that he can pass his spare time watching Sky TV.  Perhaps it would be a better use of his time to answer my e-mail sent to him nine weeks ago...  Read all about Nick Harvey's fraudulent claim here.  Our "honest" MP is reported in a local newspaper as having commented "the system has encouraged an appalling level of inappropriate claims".  So, Mr. Harvey, are you going to repay to the taxpayer the "inappropriate claim" of £360 a year subscription to Sky TV?

A complaint to the the chief whip of the Lib-Dem party, Paul Burstow MP, has been sent today, 20th May 2009, detailing Nick Harvey's lack of response to the e-mail sent to him ten weeks ago and his condoning, by default, dishonesty within a government department.  We await his response.

At last a response has come from Hazel Blears Department for Communities and Local Government.  It appears that  "Ministers have no remit to intervene in or to comment on the way in which the Ombudsman conducts an investigation" and "it is not appropriate for Government to become involved in investigations or complaints about the Ombudsman".  So what this appears to indicate is that at the moment Ombudsman Jerry White can lie and condone lying by his investigator to protect of our dishonest North Devon District Council and nothing can be done about it - we shall see....

It appears that the dishonest creep Jerry White is soon to retire - at age 60?.  As with the former Council employee Sunderland - Good Riddance!  However, the harm that both these individuals did still remains and will continue to be recorded on these pages.  Were do these arrogant dishonest people come from?  Depending on the choice of the new Ombudsman it may be possible to get the complaint against the dishonest North Devon District council employee Pratt re-opened!

An e-mail has been sent to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP, asking if her department could deal with the dishonesty of Jerry White.  (1st Jan. 2009).

It's all change with Alan Johnson taking over from Jacqui Smith.  I suppose he will deal with my e-mail - eventually.....

Regarding the pending complaint against Jerry White, Local Government Ombudsman, the following e-mail has been received (9th June 2009) from the Home Secretaries Office:

"The Ombudsmen are Crown appointments and our sponsor department is the
CLG
It is the CLG's practice to ask the Chairman of the Commission to give
preliminary consideration to a complaint of misconduct by an Ombudsman.
The Chairman, Tony Redmond is currently out of the Country but I will
draw the matter to his attention on his return next week
Nigel Karney
Deputy Chief Executive and Secretary
The Commission for Local Administration in England (the Local Government
Ombudsman)"

So, will Chairman Tony Redmond condone Whites dishonesty?  Read all about it on these pages - when the said Mr. Redmond gets around to it....

After a delay of six weeks there is a reply from Paul Burstow MP. the chief whip of the Lib Dems.  He tells me that he is not responsible for dealing with an case of an MP not answering an e-mail from a constituent.  He conveniently ignores the fact that part of the complaint was that Harvey has condoned dishonesty by the Local Government Ombudsman.  I have e-mailed him asking if this is would come within his area of  responsibility (7th July 2009).

At last a reply from Nick Harvey MP to my e-mail of 9th March 2009.  Four months delay actually - you can read it together with my reply on his dedicated page  here

A reply from Tony Redmond regarding the lie told to Nick Harvey by Jerry White has been received.  It is clear that Redmond is not interested in dealing with White but has tried to get out of his responsibility as Chairman of the Commission for Local Administration in England.   You can read his e-mail together with my reply here.  I have replied to Tony Redmond detailing the evidence against the totally dishonest Jerry White - this is on Redmond's page, the same link as above.   A reply from Redmond has been received also on the above link - this will be answered in due course.  A copy of Redmond's e-mail has been forwarded to Nick Harvey.  You can now read my reply to Redmond by clicking the above link to his dedicated page.  Redmond's final e-mail shows that he is prepared to condone Jerry White's dishonesty - read it on the above link.

This is being followed up with a complaint to the Home Secretary, Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP., against both Redmond and White (28th Sept. 2009).  You can read the letter of complaint here  I wonder what excuses he will come up with to avoid dealing with White and Redmond.

No surprise to receive a letter from Johnson's department to say that the complaint has been forwarded to John Denham MP. at the Department of Communities and Local Government.  How will Denham get out of dealing with the dishonesty of White and Redmond....

A reply has been received from John Denham's department written by Mark Coram.  You can read it here  It is clear that Coram, on behalf of his MP boss, is prepared to condone lying to Nick Harvey by Jerry White and the condoning of that lie by Tony Redmond.  Coram regards the complaint as being about a decision by White - it is not, it is about dishonesty by White and Redmond who are both paid by, and are responsible to, the taxpayer.  A follow up letter has been sent to Mark Coram - it can be read by following the link above.  Further correspondence with Denham's staff, Vanita Patel and Stephen McAllister shows that a Government Department is prepared to cover up dishonesty within the Ombudsman Service.  This gives White, Redmond and their successors the green light to cheat and lie and Denham's department will cover up their dishonesty.  Read all the letters and e-mails and see how we are cheated by our "trusted representatives" by following the above link.

Following the disgraceful sanctioning of dishonesty by John Denham's department a complaint will be sent to the Parliamentary Ombudsman Ann Abraham.  This has to be done by an MP. so Nick Harvey has been asked to do this for me.  E-mail request sent on 15th January 2010......

It appears that Stephen McAllister has not kept John Denham informed about the complaint, finally admitting this in an e-mail.  I have decided to e-mail John Denham to see if he is willing to review McAllister's action - all is on the above link....

It may be of interest to those wishing to challenge a Government Department, such as that presided over by John Denham, to know that his defence consists of a complaints procedure of no less than three stages!  You can read all about it here.  This beats the North Devon District Council which has only two stages.  A complaint has been initiated as the complaints procedure has to be "exhausted" before the complaint can go to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.  What a performance!  Only politicians could devise this system of delays and ways to put a complainant off - and all at the expense of us taxpayers.

One more website exposing the cheating and lying that is carried on by the kind of arrogant people listed on these pages:  www.rotten-boroughs.com  Take a look.

One thing has become very clear in the course of this campaign - and that is that all the cheats and liars named on these pages have carefully avoided dealing with the evidence.  That appears to be their system.  Avoid, delay, hide behind someone else, misunderstand and lie but never deal with the evidence!

A request to the parliamentary ombudsman's office for information on how to proceed with my complaint was answered with this e-mail from an employee named Jennifer Needham.  Read it here together with my reply........

A stage 1 complaint has been made against Stephen McAllister for sanctioning dishonesty within the Ombudsman Service.  (3rd Feb. 2010).  We await a response....

Which has arrived.  McAllister appears to be saying that the Government's policy regarding an Ombudsman's investigation includes the sanctioning of dishonesty.

Follow the course of the complaint here.  I am advised that the complaint should go to the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman - is this just passing the buck?  We shall see....

Following John Denham's staff at the department for Communities and Local Government sanctioning the Ombudsmen White's and Redmond's dishonesty a complaint has been sent today 4th March 2010 to the Parliamentary Ombudsman Ann Abraham.  Will this result in another cover up?

A reply has been received from the Customer Service Officer of Abraham's department, Jennifer Needham, read it on her dedicated page here.

Here we go again - another remarkable response from an employee within Ann Abraham's department.  This employee is Stuart Poole and the full record of this puppet's "investigation" is available here  which is copied to Nick Harvey MP.  The lengths to which some of these ridiculous people will go to avoid doing their job, paid for by us taxpayers, is unbelievable.

Note that those who do the job of protecting dishonest government departments and employees rather than looking after the interests of the taxpayer  will in future be referred to as puppets.

The complaint against puppet Poole warrants another page - access it here together with a reply from Laura Lansiquot-Piper who tells me that the complaint will be dealt with by Carole Auchterlonie.  I imagine this lady will continue to protect the cheats and liars exposed on these pages.  If this is the case the complaint will be escalated.... 

No surprises, Ms. Auchterlonie has agreed with puppet Poole's decision confirming that  an Ombudsman  can lie and cheat the taxpayer if it is in the course of an investigation.  Unbelievable!  Read her letter on the above link.

An e-mail has been sent to Nick Harvey MP (3rd December 2010) detailing the dishonesty by the Local Government Ombudsman, the department for Communities and Local Government and the Pariamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.  Nick Harvey has been provided with all the evidence and has been charged with the task of dealing with those who have acted dishonestly.  This e-mail can be read on Nick Harvey's dedicated page here together with his response and progress reports as they arrive.

An acknowledgement has arrived from Nick Harvey's office:  "Thank you for your e-mail to the office of Nick Harvey MP. Please note that we receive a huge volume of e-mails and we process them in arrival order alongside written correspondence."  Is this another attempt to delay a reply hoping that the problem will go away?  We will keep a record of the passing weeks.

27 weeks and still no response from our useless MP...

An e-mail has been sent to Nick Harvey asking him if he is prepared to condone dishonesty in government - read it on his dedicated page..  After all this time and not even a response from Nick Harvey it must be assumed that he is prepared to condone dishonesty within three government departments although he has been given all the evidence he needs to deal with the cheats.  Nick Harvey should resign!  

Note: Two-Faced Nick Harvey MP. hypocritically states on his website "Please don't hesitate to use the contact details to get in touch with questions, comments, opinions and offers of help."  Thanks a bunch Nick!

It should be noted that Nick Harvey voted to attack the sovereign nation of Libya and supported the lie that it was on humanitarian grounds.  It's not!  It's about oil and profit - right Nick?  What a miserable little puppet he is!  Meanwhile, a recent report states that  "Russia has accused the United States and NATO of large-scale violations of human rights during the military operation in Libya, including the deliberate murder of its leader Muammar Gaddafi and the killing of hundreds of civilians." You can access the report here.  Has our MP got blood on his hands?  Please read this more recent report which appears to show has our MP has sanctioned attacks on civilians.  A further report states that "Estimates of those killed so far vary, but 50,000 seems to be a low estimate".  Well done Nick Harvey!

Nick Harvey MP Nick Harvey MP

The following e-mail was sent to Nick Harvey on13th June 2011:

"Dear Nick Harvey,  the e-mail copied below was sent to you last December and acknowledged as having been received the same day.
 
My e-mail provides evidence of dishonesty within three government departments.  As you have not responded it must be assumed that you are willing to support and condone this dishonesty.
 
If you continue to ignore this issue you will have associated yourself with this dishonesty.  This is not acceptable.  Either do the job you are paid to do or resign.
 
Yours sincerely, Gordon Bray."

 The copied e-mail is available on Harvey's dedicated page here.

Read Harvey's arrogant reply in which he confirms he is trying to cover up dishonesty within three government departments.  Who does he think he is?

The chairman of the the North Devon Liberal Democrats, Cllr. Joe Tucker, has been informed of Nick Harvey's dishonesty.  We await a response....  You can follow this correspondence on Cllr. Tucker's dedicated page here.

To be continued..............

Pages and Images on the North Devon Link are copyright Gordon Bray 2000/2009

South Molton Snippets    South Molton Home Page  Guest Book for your comments!