25 July 2012

A quiet evening at the Dunny


I attended last evening's meeting of Somerton Town Council, in the main to listen to what Cllr Fraser-Hopewell would say about the tsunami of unfounded allegations made about him to South Somerset District Council. (Last week, after an extensive investigation, SSDC announced that the allegations had been found to be completely without foundation. As a consequence, SSDC announced that Cllr Fraser-Hopewell had not breached the Town Council's code of conduct as had been alleged by the Soggies.)

I was surprised to find that what awaited me was not a statement read out by Cllr Fraser-Hopewell but a 4 page statement from Cllr Fraser-Hopewell lying on each seat in the hall.

Given the extraordinary pressure that he has been put under by the sad bunch of bottom-dwellers who lodged these complaints, his statement is informative, measured and gracious to a fault. Certainly more gracious than those scum deserve.

The statement is reproduced below (click on the images to see an enlarged version) and I advise you to read it to see the convoluted process that finally resulted in the allegations being seen for what they are - a co-ordinated, malicious and vindictive effort to sully the reputation of an individual who stepped up and put Somerton first when the craven Keenan/Canvin rabble ran away.


Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

23 July 2012

A mountain of hypocrisy


Pat Mountain, a vocal supporter of the discredited Keenan/Canvin regime, is a regular contributor to the letters pages in The Telegraph. Here is his observation from August 2011.

Campaigners who criticise rioters' sentencing should consider the wrong done to the victims - Human rights and the punishment of crime.
SIR – Those who argue that, if no actual riots resulted, then persons guilty of incitement should not be so severely punished, are illogical in their thinking. 
There is no difference in the crime whether or not it leads to further criminal offences. The intention to cause mayhem, which could have led to the deaths of innocent people, is a heinous crime and should be punished accordingly. 
The law and natural justice – today often tenuously related – demand that the justice behind sentencing should go by three principles: restitution, retribution and rehabilitation. 
That the first two of these seem to have been abandoned in recent years is a root the problems that now beset us all. 
Patrick Mountain
Somerton, Somerset

Obviously Mr Mountain suspends his belief in the 'the law' when it comes to his friends. Equally, when it comes to his friends, he loses interest in 'restitution and retribution'.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly 

20 July 2012


South Somerset District Council were kind enough to send me a copy of the notice which appeared in yesterday's Western Gazette. The Western also carried a short piece of editorial. I can't say I'm surprised at the outcome and Cllr Fraser-Hopewell has conducted himself with an astonishing degree of grace throughout a period of great and groundless provocation. It will be interesting to attend the upcoming meeting and hear what he says on the matter. Equally, it will be interesting to see what the complainers have to say. More conspiracies no doubt.

16 July 2012

Morgan's rum..........


Freemasonry is a subject that I have stayed well away from with regard to the activities of the Keenan/Canvin administration in Somerton. Its always better to base commentary upon documented fact and, whilst there are always rumours about the freemasons involvement in many walks of life, there was little to document a connection in Somerton. Until, that is, the appearance of Mr Paul Audemars.

Mr Audemars first came onto my radar when he started asking questions relating to the police investigation into the Etsome Terrace/Tin Dunny asset swap and what he seemed to believe was my part in it. From memory, that would have been in November of last year, 2011. To say that I didn't know anything about Mr Audemars would have been something of an understatement but some casual digging revealed that, at the time, Mr Audemars was the secretary to Portcullis Lodge No.2038 which meets in the Hanging Chapel in Langport. (Mr Audemars has since been replaced as secretary by an ex-SCC staffer, a Mr Helliar.)

This connection, however vague caused me to look slightly closer at local Freemasonry and I was surprised to find that 3 lodges meet in Langport with, I believe, 7 meeting in Yeovil and 11 in Taunton. So, its fair to observe that there are a lot of masonic lodges within easy reach of Somerton and, by extension, fair to observe that there are probably a lot of freemasons in the general locality.

When I did a little more research, into actual memberships, I met something of a brick-wall. It is very difficult to find out anything about masonic membership other than by attending a lodge meeting and that, as you might expect, is unlikely to happen, certainly not in my case. It is also noticeable that such published photographs of freemasons tend to show older members rather than younger and I have wondered why that might be. Could it be that people still active in commercial and public life might not want their identities to be disclosed? 

This possibility is, in some ways, supported by masonic documentation advising lodges on how they should and should not use the internet. There is specific advice with regard to websites and their content, where lodges are advised that photo galleries should not be public and, if photos are to be placed on a website, written permission is obtained from all individuals shown in the photos. This advice is interesting because it indicates that some masons may not want their identities made public and the rather indistinct image below might offer an explanation of why.


An enquiry of South Somerset District Council earlier this year provided the information that, since it was a requirement to do so, no council employee or elected member (and I assume that this includes town and parish as well as district councillors) had ever declared membership of a masonic organisation. Yet ex-Cllr Kevin Morgan was clearly a member of Portcullis Lodge in July of 2009, some three months before he joined in the 'great resigning'.

Whilst it can't be used as a basis for generalisation, this single instance does indicate that masons, who are elected representatives, cannot be relied upon to declare their membership and this begs the question, "How many other masons operate within SSDC at local and district level without declaring their membership?".

The problem with freemasonry is that, whether it is a 'secret society' or a 'society with secrets' until those in public office are required to declare membership (with real penalties for failure to so do), there will always be suspicions that instances like that of Kevin Morgan might, just might be the norm. There will also be suspicions that decisions made by town, district and county councils may be subject to influence as a consequence of such undeclared allegiances. 

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

10 July 2012

Pass the plate......


Back in December 2008, I attended a Town Council meeting and witnessed Chair Keenan muzzle Cllr Raybould (see M&B, 'Shut up Brian', 17th December 2008) when Raybould was about to embark on a statement about the leasing of the Parish Rooms to St Michael's Church.

At the time, this didn't seem terribly interesting other than it seemed hugely co-incidental that St Michael's would want to pay £155k for a lease on the Parish Rooms at the same time as the Council was looking to spend £155k on refurbishing the Tin Dunny. Probably a complete co-incidence, especially as Tony Canvin went on to spend twice that sum before he threw his toys out of the pram and resigned.

In the final analysis, the leasing of the Parish Rooms never became an issue because, as I remember it, the Town Council put it about that the Charity Commission had blocked the arrangement and I always wondered why. Recently I did an FoI enquiry of the Charity Commission to find out what exactly went on and it makes for interesting reading.

In December of 2005, Roger Calderwood writes to the Charity Commission enquiring (about the Parish Rooms) "Is it possible to sell the property, with the proceeds being used in connection with the new community hall, thereby continuing the charitable nature of the Lady Smith Memorial, but in a modern building?" Calderwood goes on to say that the Parish Rooms have ".......operated effectively as a church hall for many years...............and it is likely that the church would wish to purchase the hall."

At this point it is important to explain the status of the Parish Rooms which are controlled by the Lady Smith Memorial, registered charity no.304629

The charity was established in 1896 and provided a site for the construction of a building, to be known as the Lady Smith Memorial, to be used as a permanent reading room "for the intellectual, social and moral benefit of the inhabitants of Somerton." In 1953, possibly because the then trustees were not performing their function, the Minister of Education issued an order removing the then trustees and making Somerton Town Council (ie the Councillors) trustees. This did not transfer the 'ownership' of the building which remained within the Lady Smith Memorial.

So, in December 2005, Calderwood (on behalf of the trustees?) wants to know if the trustees can dispose of the Lady Smith Memorial Parish Rooms and the Charity Commission write back that, contrary to the story put about by the then Town Council, they can dispose of the property. But, for the Town Council, the devil is in the details where, in January 2006, the Charity Commission state:

"The Commission takes the view that the trustees can sell the land provided they purchase property which is to be used for the same purpose...." The Commission goes on to say, "This would of course mean that any new hall would have to be held on trust for the purposes of "a Reading room and otherwise for such purposes tending to the intellectual social and moral benefit of the inhabitants of the parish of Somerton."" What this meant, in practice, is that the proceeds of any sale would have to be held within the Lady Smith Memorial and invested in a project under the control of the Lady Smith Memorial and subject to Charity Commission regulation. Given the allergic response of the Keenan/Canvin administration to any sort of accountability, this proviso was clearly an impediment.

All then went silent until December 2008 when Chubb Bullied, acting for either the Lady Smith Memorial or Somerton Town Council (as trustees), enter the fray, clearly instructed to find a mechanism whereby the trustees of the Lady Smith Memorial (ie Somerton's town councillors) could sell the hall (ie the Parish Rooms) and give the funds to the Town Council.  Another letter from Chubb Bullied dated 6th February 2009 details their consideration of the issues and discloses, "that £155,000 be invested in erecting another facility by the Parish Council to be used for broadly similar objects. A deal has already been done in principle with the Church and they anxiously await a lease."  Chubb Bullied also intimate that they may seek Counsel's opinion on the matter, a disclosure which may speak more about the Town Council's desperate need for cash than it does for any desire to obtain a balanced opinion.

This effort causes the Charity Commission to write in April 2009, "As we explained in our first letter, we note the use of the building by the Town Council for its statutory duties that may constitute a breach of trust." (Similarly, I wonder if having SSDC based there was also a breach.) More significantly, the Charity Commission go on to examine options such as a shared use, with the church, of the Parish Rooms, or an outright sale. In all of these options, the Charity Commission refer to conflicts where trustees may be members of the church and/or councillors and the Charity Commission suggest the appointment of independent trustees (not with Keenan/Canvin in charge). Most importantly, the Charity Commission state, quite clearly, that any rent or funds raised by a sale or lease must not go into Council funds for general community purposes.

The April 2009 letter from the Charity Commission seems to have been the final nail in the coffin and Chubb Bullied write to them in May of 2009 saying that "matters will rest just as they are."

And I wouldn't have written this piece unless there had been another aspect to the story and that is provided by the involvement of The Somerton Church Lands (reg no.244670) which was set up to gather property and rents to support St Michael's Church in Somerton. Somerton Church Lands would have been the source of the funds to buy the lease on the Parish Rooms and, in 2008, the Chairman of the trustees was none other than erstwhile Keenan/Canvin supporter and apologist, Pat Mountain.

In all the to-ing and fro-ing about the Parish Rooms, I simply couldn't see what benefit would accrue to the church by taking a lease on the property. Much was made in the various correspondence about how the use of the Parish Rooms would not change so why would the church pay £155,000 for a lease? The answer to that question still escapes me. From where I sit, the deal was simply a mechanism whereby £155,000 could be obtained by Somerton Town Council, from church funds, to be spent on the refurbishment of the Tin Dunny.

The Charity Commission referred to conflicts regarding the position of trustees to the Lady Smith Memorial being either councillors or church members or both. The same conflicts could apply to Mr Mountain as Chairman of the Trustees of Somerton Church Lands and as a supporter of the Keenan/Canvin regime and of their activities.

Thankfully, the Charity Commission were on the ball and made sure that Lady Smith Memorial funds didn't end up being sunk into the Dunny. Equally, they also ensured that Somerton Church Lands funds stayed where they were. But the potential conflicts remain where Somerton councillors are trustees to the Lady Smith Memorial and, with the departure of Pat Mountain from Somerton Church Lands, Somerton Town Council's Clerk, Roger Calderwood, now enjoys a position in all three organisations.

Stay frosty.

7 July 2012

Greed is good?

vince cable muckandbrass muck and brass bankers bullshit



And here, Brian Cox explains just how much money the taxpayer has hosed into the banks. Which raises the question, "What have we got for the money?". Cox is drawing attention to the fact that it would be more productive to pump money into science because at least we would get a return on the investment. We have thrown money at the banks, not because they did anything well and we wanted them to do more of it, but because they did everything badly and they ruined our economy. 

6 July 2012

Their culture of bullshit


I find the onging parade of organisational scandals profoundly depressing. This morning on BBC R4, I listened to the latest story about Glaxo Smith Klein.  Evidently GSK aren't the only pharmaceutical company to act in this way and it is simply a reflection of the culture of greed and avarice that dominates contemporary society and contemporary culture. Whilst he wasn't talking about pharmaceutical companies, David Cameron's comments, quoted here in September of 2010, raise a wry smile:

"For too long, those in power made decisions behind closed doors, released information behind a veil of jargon and denied people the power to hold them to account. This coalition is driving a wrecking ball through that culture - and it's called transparency." 

Around the same time, Sir David Kelly, chairman of the committee for standards in public life, said:

"In all of this what's really required is changes in behaviour, it requires a culture in which the principles of public life, selflessness, integrity and so on, are embedded in the behaviour of those who hold public office."

I won't belabour the point but it seems to me that as long as a culture of excess, where money and obtaining it, dominates the focus of the upper strata of public and private life, we will be entertained by this horror-show. We will also be entertained by hypocritical public and political figures who always blame the 'rogue trader' or the 'rogue journalist' or the 'rogue executive' for the latest scandal.

The truth is that, as we have seen in Somerton, when organisations loose touch with wider society and see their power or actions as essentially self-serving, then their actions become self-interested. Vince Cable recognised the inability of the regulators to regulate. By extension, he suggested that the executive is incapable of self-regulation, incapable of acting in a socially or morally responsible manner. And when he suggests that it will only be pressure from beneath, from shareholders, that will cause change, he also suggests that it will only be pressure from beneath, from wider society, which will cause our 'leaders' to rein in the excesses of their venality.

Our 'leaders', and I use the term in its widest sense, have become so used to having their snouts so deep in the trough of excess that they cannot conceive of anything other than their own access to excess.  And this is why our leaders and their cronies fear 'direct action' and condemn anything approaching it as the equivalent of 'terrorism'. And, thus far, it would seem that those who are paying for the excesses of the wider leadership, the common people, are willing to go along with this bullshit.

But Paul Krugman, writing in his excellent book 'End This Depression Now' (ISBN 978-0-393-08877-9) retains a positive view. In the face of such an embedded culture where decency and service are entirely absent, Krugman entreats us, "Don't give up.".



Somerton Somerset

4 July 2012

All very Hush Hush..........


A month or so back I made an FoI enquiry of SSDC with regard to the number of complaints that they have received against elected representatives and officers. Earlier this week the following in formation arrived:

Complaints about Councillors
2009 - 3 complaints about SSDC Cllrs, 7 complaints about parish/town Cllrs
2010 0 complaints about SSDC Cllrs, 14 complaints about parish/town Cllrs
2011 - 5 complaints about SSDC Cllrs, 17 complaints about parish/town Cllrs
2012 - 6 complaints about SSDC Cllrs, 7 complaints about parish/town Cllrs

Complaints in the Staff Handling Category
2009 - 34
2010 - 62
2011 - 38
2012 (Jan - Mar) - 7

I don't know if these figures represent any sort of national average but it would seem that, very roughly, complaints against officers and District Councillors run at between 4.5% and 10% where complaints against town/parish councillors are somewhere  between 0.58% and 1.4%. Without any national data, these figures are not terribly informative.

But what I do find interesting is that when you have a look at SSDC's website, you can find very little documentary evidence about any of the complaints or the consideration/investigation of the complaints or the outcomes. Under a 'Quarterly return of complaints' dated November 2008, the following information was disclosed:

muckandbrass muck+and+brass complaints SSDC

Strangely, if you do a search for any of the documents noted in this table, you don't find anything. Clearly SSDC like to keep 'complaints' out of the public eye, unless, that is, the complaints come from members of Somerton's 'Old Guard'. When the 'Old Guard' start their paranoid ramblings, SSDC cranks up the PR machine and puts notices in the press (maybe I missed all the others?) and everyone knows about it.

And then, almost as an afterthought, these two extracts turned up, the first from 2011 and the second from 2012. I wonder if these references relate to a complaint against Canvin? Time, and the Freedom of Information Act, will tell.

July 2011

May 2012

1 July 2012

Somerton and accountability


Listening to the news about the LIBOR rate manipulation made me consider the widespread lack of accountability in public and private (commercial) life. RBS Chairman, Bob Diamond, isn't going to resign because either he knew what was going on and did nothing, making him complicit, or he didn't know about it and was incompetent. Either way, he should be accountable yet he simply decides that he isn't and goes about his business as if nothing has happened.


Compare that to Somerton and the External Auditor's Report. Taken as a whole, the Report is a damning indictment of that Council and the Clerk, yet no-one is held to account. Even worse, influential, not to say vicious members of Somerton's community stand up and support the law-breakers and, at the same time, denigrate the External Auditor. And South Somerset District Council isn't innocent in this process.

In order to shift attention from their own misdeeds, Somerton's 'Old Guard' instigated a vicious and malicious raft of complaints against Cllr Fraser-Hopewell and SSDC, quite properly, launched an investigation into those complaints. As yet, the outcome of that investigation is unknown but SSDC are going to extra-ordinary lengths to protect the identities of those involved in the serial complaining. Somerton has already seen how the 'Old Guard' seek anonymity with anonymous websites, anonymous leaflets and now SSDC encourages their behaviour by offering them anonymity in their malicious and probably groundless complaints.

Compare that position to the manner in which SSDC have sought to bury a long-standing complaint against Tony Canvin, a complaint which sat with Standards for England during both the police and the External Auditor's investigations. With the abolition of Standards for England, that complaint is now back with SSDC who are sitting on it, possibly in the hope that it will go away. Maybe SSDC's 'standards committee' fear that they might have to consider that complaint in the light of the External Auditor's comprehensive and factual assessment of Canvin's actions whilst Vice-Chair of Somerton and whilst a District Councillor.

Vince Cable has made a statement about the banks where he states that the only way to stamp out corruption in our banks is for shareholders to take control. In this he is admitting that the regulators are powerless or unwilling to act. Apply the same approach to our elected representatives and the clear message is that direct action on the part of the electorate is the only way that the electorate can hold their elected representatives to account.

How would our parliamentarians react to our own 'British Spring'?

Till next shock horror scandal, I'm still Niall Connolly