30 June 2012

Somerton - Scam Central




Have a look at this link.

Yes, you have read this right. Tony Canvin delivered the Etsome Terrace site into the hands of his business associates, Edgar Homes, who paid the princely sum of the Tin Dunny and £129,000.

Today, the current owner (Edgar Homes?) is taking the site to the market and asking a cool £1,400,000.00p. The ad trumpets that the site has been "fully remediated" (paid for by Somerton's taxayers) and there is "no social housing" (which isn't a surpise). Does that mean that there is only anti-social housing?
muckandbrass muck and brass Etsome Terrace Somerton For Sale TA11 6LY

Recently, the architect of the deal, Tony Canvin, placed an ad in the Western Gazette where he apologised for saving someone £700,000.00p. Everyone thought that he was referring to Somerton's taxpayers.

Nice one Tony.


PS For a little light entertainment, here's Jessie J


28 June 2012

Other investigations are public and published......


The response of South Somerset District Council to my own request for information about the complaints lodged against Cllr Fraser-Hopewell caused me to have a look at complaints against councillors and how they are handled in other councils. Here is a complaint investigation report published by Brent Council and it is quite clear about who was making the complaint, against whom, on what basis and the outcome. Fylde Borough Council also publish their reports and you can download the .pdf documents here. Scarborough Council publish similar documents like this one. Oxford City Council publish investigation reports like this one.

I am quite sure that SSDC have some reason to deny public access to malicious complaints like the raft of complaints against Cllr Fraser-Hopewell and I will be interested to hear what that reason is. Thus far, SSDC's position is that it fears that Muck&Brass will ridicule the complainants. At the same time, SSDC seem completely unconcerned about the damage done to the reputation of the individual in question when subjected to what looks to me to be a co-ordinated and malicious campaign by members of Somerton's 'Old Guard' and their supporters.

Much has been made of the possible benefits of the abolition of 'Standards for England' and the handing back of responsibility for assessing complaints  to local 'standards committees'. How SSDC handle the complaints coming from Somerton's 'Old Guard' will be something of a bell-weather for the future of 'standards' at SSDC. Maybe SSDC are more concerned about the reputation of ex-Councillors and ex-District Councillors than they are about what might be termed 'natural justice'. Time will tell.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

PS I have now heard from SSDC who have disclosed that 12 individuals have complained about Cllr Fraser-Hopewell and SSDC have received 4 telephone 'complaints' from unknown individuals. It will be interesting to see how SSDC deal with what looks to be yet another co-ordinated and malicious abuse of the complaints procedure from Somerton's Old Guard.

PPS Train and 'Drive by'.




23 June 2012

Not quite so helpful.........

In my experience, South Somerset District Council has always been very helpful when it came to Freedom of Information requests. Or, at least it used to be very helpful until I started to make enquiries about the serial complainers who were targeting the ex-Chair of Somerton Town Council, Cllr Fraser-Hopewell. The Somerton rumour mill suggested that some of these complaints implicated myself and that was confirmed when SSDC's investigator contacted me seeking my voluntary co-operation in the investigation. We met in mid March and our conversation gave me a fair idea of the identity of some of the complainers and also an idea of the levels of paranoia that they clearly experience.

As a consequence of that meeting I decided to present an FoI to SSDC seeking copies of any and all documents which relate to myself or Muck & Brass, held or being processed by SSDC. And that was when SSDC became a little less co-operative. In response to a previous FoI, SSDC stated that they did not wish to disclose the requested information because they feared that those involved (ie the complainers) might be subject to 'ridicule' by myself, here on Muck & Brass. I am tempted to clarify the situation and say that 'ridicule' is a certainty, and why not?

In helping SSDC with their investigation, I gained the clear impression that the raft of complaints, numbering at least 7, are entirely malicious in intent. The focus being to do as much damage as possible to the reputation of one individual. That being the case, should those complainers not be subject to ridicule? Should they not have their paranoid delusions paraded in public?

In April I made another FoI of SSDC on a more specific subject and the consideration period expired in mid May when I found that SSDC had made their own interpretation of the enquiry and answered a question that I had not asked. This resulted in the presentation of a clarification which I understand SSDC treated as a new FoI. The consideration period for this new FoI expired last week but I allowed some leeway to allow for the Jubilee celebrations and sought a status update early this week. Silence. A second request for an update was also met with silence so, regrettably, I contacted the Office of the Information Commissioner and lodged a complaint against SSDC.

I do wonder why SSDC have become so unhelpful and it may well be that they would like the whole thing to go away. Other complaints coming from Somerton's Old Guard have already been described in the press as an 'abuse of the complaints procedure' and it may well be that SSDC see the raft of complaints against Cllr Fraser-Hopewell as being more of the same. But whilst SSDC do have a duty to investigate legitimate complaints, they also have a duty of care to protect those complained about if complaints are just paranoid delusions or malicious in intent. Protecting these complainers will only encourage them to carry on their abuses.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

PS. Try this - The Band Perry and 'If I die young'

19 June 2012

How far does the rot spread.........


The behaviour of members of Somerton's Old Guard has always rather mystified me. There are some significant figures who are associated with the Keenan/Canvin regime and I am quite certain that they would describe themselves as god-fearing and law-abiding citizens. Yet, when it comes to supporting the actions of the Keenan/Canvin regime, those self-same people throw away the rule book and side with the law-breakers (with regard to 'abuse of public funds' and 'unlawful expenditure' amongst other things).

The most obvious of these individuals is Mr Pat Mountain and his statements, in public and in writing, present a picture of someone seriously conflicted. On the one hand, Mr Mountain sought the benediction of Parliament when he presented himself as a candidate for election at Local level. He did the same thing again when he sought election at District level. In both cases, it was the benediction of Parliament that gave him the power and influence which he attained when elected. It was the self-same Parliament that sanctified Mr Mountain's actions as both a local and district councillor and, in Mr Mountain's earliest communication with me (late 2009), he recognises the dominance of Parliament.

But, more recently, he has done a 'U' turn and denies the dominance of Parliament and, in particular, Parliament's legislation, when he contradicts the External Auditor and suggests that the Keenan/Canvin administration did nothing wrong. What Mr Mountain and the rest of the Old Guard seem to say, in their support of Keenan/Canvin, is that Parliament's rule does not apply in Somerton. Parliament's benediction is welcome but Parliament's sanction is not.

Now clearly, in this rather distorted view of reality, Mr Mountain is not alone because Mr Canvin has been loudly protesting his innocence, an innocence which, thus far, he has been unwilling or unable to document (contrary to his public protestations). Clearly, most of the Keenan/Canvin administration believe that Parliament's rule does not apply to them and I begin to wonder how far up the chain of local government this curious view spreads.

Mountain was a District Councillor, as were Canvin and Beale and I wonder how many other District Councillors share the Old Guard view that the rules do not apply to them. There is no reason to think, and I certainly don't think, that the Keenan/Canvin regime in Somerton was unique. I don't see any reason to think that the Old Guard view of the world is not shared by other Local and District Councillors and, for that matter, by County Councillors. With regard to County Councillors, consider the support that Canvin enjoyed from then County Councillor Pauline Clarke.

And this consideration might explain the warm support that both the Edgar Etsome Terrace application and Canvin's belated Badgers Cross application received from the members of South Somerset District Council's Area North Committee. Mountain's view of the world may be distorted but it may also be commonplace at SSDC. I wonder what would happen if I wrote to all of SSDC's elected members and asked them to share their belief systems with me. I suspect that the response would be much the same as I received from members of the Keenan/Canvin regime when I asked them the same question. Silence.

But maybe I should, at least, ask the question.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly
PS I have written to Mr Mountain to seek clarification of his views and, if and when I receive such clarification, I will publish it here, on M&B


PPS Demi Lovato

16 June 2012

A little less monitoring, a little more action please


See Elvis here

and the Black Eyed Peas

12 June 2012

Fear of the phone.....




Something is really bugging me - Tony Canvin won't take my calls anymore. Everyone knows that he put his ad in the Western, an ad that was dripping with what he claimed was sarcasm. But it would also seem that the ad was dripping with disingenuousness.

Tony and his Old Guard chums have claimed that the External Auditor's Report was variously flawed, inaccurate and generally a misrepresentation of the facts and Tony has claimed that he can prove it. Tony has gone further and has claimed that he has documentary evidence to support his contention that he did nothing wrong.

So I decided to call his bluff and invite him to share both his views and his 'evidence' with me in order that I might publish such 'evidence' as he claims to possess here, in the pages of M&B. I've written to him putting my invitation in writing and I've called him a few times to arrange a meeting.

I called him again today and there was no doubt in my own mind that, immediately I introduced myself, he slammed the phone down. I hung on the line and he picked the phone up and slammed it down 4 more times before I accepted that he just doesn't want to talk to me. I wonder why not? Sure, even I'd admit that we've never quite seen eye-to-eye but he has the prefect opportunity to show everyone where the External Auditor went wrong. So why won't he take the opportunity? Is he shy? I doubt it. Maybe the reason is that he's full of it. Maybe the sad fact is that he doesn't have anything to share with us. Maybe the sad fact is that he doesn't have any documentation to prove anything. Maybe he just can't face the fact that the External Auditor got it right with the 'abuse of public funds' and 'unlawful expenditure'.

But I'm a reasonable guy. I'm willing to give Tony every chance. So, if you are reading this, Tony, take my call. Lets get together and you can present the documents and make your explanations. I'm willing to give you that chance.

So, till next time, I'm still hangin' on the telephone.

10 June 2012

Loyal, but to whom...........




Since the publication of the External Auditor's Report in the Public Interest, I have been surprised by the manner in which the Report was received by Somerton's 'Old Guard' and, in particular, by the most vocal and coherent member of the 'Old Guard', Mr Pat Mountain. The general thrust of the 'Old Guard's' defence of Keenan/Canvin has been that, contrary to the findings of the External Auditor, Keenan/Canvin did nothing wrong and, if anything, they cut a few corners to get things done.


In truth, I have found this position quite hard to square with the damning contents of the External Auditor's Report and with my own knowledge of what went on within Somerton Town Council up till 27th October 2009. But the Old Guard have been vocal and aggressive in their pursuit of their rather curious view and it has made me wonder just why they seem quite so blind to what was wrong with what went on.

Its also true to say that, until the appearance on the scene of Mr Mountain, I had always seen Keenan & Canvin as the prime instigators of all that went on within Somerton Town Council during their tenure. And then I started to wonder about the resignation of a previous Chair of Somerton Town Council, Mr Geoff Bryant. The following is quoted from his resignation statement of 28th October 2003:

"Differences and dissent are indicators of a healthy Council. Furtive Meetings in backrooms are not. I understand that most of what was said concerned matters that were actually the responsibility of another Cttee Chairman, one with whom I have almost daily contact. The debate which was allowed to take place was, by normal Council standards, quite improper.

The unfortunate situation which has arisen, has been caused, I believe, by 1 or 2 Cllrs involved in the hard work of successfully harvesting the fruits of the foundation work of our predecessors becoming over-zealous in the protection of their empires and ignoring the wider responsibilities of the Council to all parties. This is understandable, but it is wrong.

My predecessors, as Chairman, ensured that the perception amongst some, that a political cabal unduly influenced the Council had ended. I have twice had to remind some Cllrs that a different clique cannot be allowed to appear to dominate the Council."

Mr Bryant has remained quite circumspect in his comments about events of that time but it can be inferred from his resignation statement that private and exclusive meetings and discussions were taking place within Somerton Town Council well before the advent of the Keenan/Canvin leadership. 

Now, I am no historian and I am sure that others can provide the details but a cursory glance at the Minutes shows that Mountain stepped down as Chair of STC in May of 2000 but continued as a Cllr with the Chair being taken by Cllr Geoff Boxall. Cllr Boxall stepped down in May of 2002 to be replaced by Cllr Bryant with Cllr Mountain as Vice-Chair. Then, a year later and with Cllr Bryant's resignation, the baton was handed neatly to Keenan/Canvin who, I would suggest, resumed 'business as normal' or business the 'Mountain Way'.

So, rather than being unique, Keenan/Canvin may well have been part of a continuum which stretched, who knows how far back? Certainly back into the 1990s and possibly well before Mr Mountain's time. But it is still difficult to explain the Old Guard's vehement rejection of the findings of the External Auditor unless you consider the parallel involvement of Mr Paul Audemars.

Mr Audemars came on the Old Guard team relatively recently but was the original owner of the web domain www.somerton.co.uk (with its strong links to the Somerton Business & Trade Association) and also, more recently, the Secretary of one of Langport's three Masonic Lodges. Whilst I have tried to avoid any consideration of Masonic involvement, Audemars' link with the Masonic brotherhood is the first documented evidence of any such connection with Somerton's Old Guard and, by extension, with the Keenan/Canvin administration. And the moment that you consider Masonic involvement you start to wonder about the Old Guard's denial of the findings of the External Auditor. Consider this extract:

“You must conceal all crimes of your brother Masons...and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason be always sure to shield him...It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but you're keeping your obligations” - from Edmond Ronayne's 'Handbook of Masonry', written in the mid 1880s.

Now I am sure that Mr Audemars will seek to debunk this quotation but Jack Straw made some rather more contemporary comments in 1997 when he said:

"Membership of secret societies such as freemasonry can raise suspicions of a lack of impartiality or objectivity. It is therefore important the public know the facts. I think it is the case that the freemasons said they are not a secret society but a society with secrets. I think it is widely accepted that one secret they should not be keeping is who their members are in the criminal justice system."

So, given that a Freemason has an obligation to support his brethren, that might offer an explanation of why the Old Guard's rejection of the External Auditor's Report has been quite so vicious and vehement. Its also possible that, if the idea of a 'Mountain Way' of doing business was generally accepted practice, the Keenan/Canvin administration and their Old Guard supporters may have thought that ignoring the rules was acceptable behaviour. Either way,  I'd be very happy to receive a response to either possibility, as long as the writer puts their name to it, and I'll publish it here, on Muck & Brass.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly




8 June 2012

Why are we waiting.....

Clearing my desk today, I came across a piece from the Western Gazette dated 26th April 2012. This covered the Muck and Brass challenge to ex-Somerton Town Councillors to provide the evidence which, they claimed, proved that they had done nothing wrong. The 'wrong-doing' that they challenge is the findings of the External Auditor in the Report in the Public Interest.

As a follow-up to the M&B challenge, I wrote to both Tony Canvin and Chris Edgar and offered them the chance to provide their explanations and the evidence to support their explanations, which contradict the findings of the External Auditor. I also offered them the opportunity to have the explanations and documents published here, on M&B.

Since publishing the advert in the Western, I have also phoned Tony Canvin on two occasions to see if he was able to meet with me in order to give his explanation of what went on and also to provide the documents which he has claimed are in his possession and which explain everything.

At the time of writing, I have heard nothing from either party and I wonder how long I should give it before I accept that Tony Canvin can't dispute the findings of the External Auditor.

Its also interesting to see that the gutless 'Old Guard' keep up their barrage of anonymous bullshit. Some weeks ago they contrived to deliver to me (but they delivered it to a neighbours house because they are so craven) a copy of another 2 page document which fully explained how much taxpayer's money they had spent. What they fail to explain is how they spent it lawfully and why they didn't bother to consult the residents of Somerton before they did so.

So, come on you gutless jerks, show your faces. Do something decent for a change and encourage Tony Canvin to meet with me and bring the documents he claims explain everything. I'll publish it here on Muck and Brass, even if it is a load of old tosh.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly