22 August 2012

Blood from a stone


Recently I made an FoI enquiry of South Somerset District Council with regard to a complaint(s) against ex-Local and District Cllr Tony Canvin. SSDC seem to be very reluctant to discuss this matter but, after experiencing more of SSDC's stonewalling, the Authority was kind enough to send me a decision notice dating back more than 2 years.


As you can see, the Notice is dated 26th February 2010, and the summary of the complaint makes interesting reading, especially when read against the findings of the External Auditor's Report in the Public Interest. If, like me, you believe that the External Auditor's Report is a qualified and accurate document, then I would say that significant elements of the complaint are substantiated.

So, what exactly is SSDC doing with this complaint? In simple terms, SSDC is doing its very best to kick it into the long grass. The Authority has had since the publication of the External Auditor's Report in February of this year and, thus far, has done nothing. As I understand it, the Authority was represented at the Public Meeting on 29th February where the Report was discussed so I assume that the Authority is not in ignorance of the Report and its contents.

Interestingly, in July of 2011, the following comment was included in the Authority's Draft Minutes:


Then in May of 2012, the following comment was included in the Authority's Draft Minutes:

And what exactly is the status of this complaint today? No-one seems to know and it is my own certain view, based upon its behaviour thus far, that the Authority doesn't want to deal with this complaint against one of its 'chosen sons'.

This reminded me of what I thought at the time was a throw-away comment by then Cllr Tony Canvin at a Somerton Town Council meeting on 16th December 2008. Whilst discussing a Section 106 agreement relating to Midas Homes, Cllr Canvin told the meeting, with some relish, that he "gave Ian Clarke an education last week". I wondered, at the time, what Cllr Canvin meant by the comment because it seemed to indicate to me that he held some sway with, or authority over, Mr Ian Clarke who is the Authority's Solicitor and, I assume, its senior law officer. I am sure that this is not the case but I do wonder why the complaint against Canvin is given so little consideration today, in comparison to, say, the raft of complaints lodged by Canvin and others against Cllr Fraser-Hopewell.

After a lengthy, painful and expensive investigation, SSDC established that that raft of complaints was completely without foundation. Compare that to the 'abuse of public funds', 'unlawful expenditure' and 'acting without authority' detailed in the External Auditor's Report and it does raise questions as to why the Authority seeks to do nothing. The Authority's secretive response to any enquiries just adds to the impression that the Authority seeks, in Canvin's case, to do nothing.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly


13 August 2012

The theatre of the absurd........


The curtain has come down of the Olympic Games 2012 and the organisers should be very satisfied with the event. As a casual observer, nothing significant seemed to go wrong, at least not that the public knew about. Apart from the Korean flag incident at the start, the organisation looked to be pretty seamless and the BBC's broadcasting was nothing if not comprehensive. Yes, some of the commentators were a little too enthusiastic and rather too partial to the home team but that aside, the coverage was excellent.

All in all, it looked very much like the £9.5Bn that we are told it cost to stage, although some observers put the figure rather higher. No matter, the taxpayer has deep pockets in circumstances like these and a large chunk of the money will find its way back into the wider economy so it can be seen as another facet of 'quantitive easing'.

And now, after the bunting is swept away and the 'Zil lanes' erased, we will slowly return to reality, a reality where the economic woes remain unresolved. But there is a lesson in the staging of the Olympic Games and that is that government can improve the mood of the nation by both talking and acting positively. Compare the politicians doom-laden pronouncements about the economy with their effusive responses to the Olympics and to the home team's success.

Maybe Paul Krugman, writing in 'End This Depression Now', gets it right. Austerity is depressing and negative. If politicians pumped money into constructive projects, like Olympic stadia or schools, rather than handing the cash to the banks and the bankers, maybe we'd be in better shape. Alternatively, if the government held the bankers to account, in the way that they make taxpayers responsible for the bankers errors, then maybe we'd believe the 'we're all in this together' tosh.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly


10 August 2012

Unconfirmed


M&B has been unable to confirm a report that Capt/Sqdn Ldr (retd) Richardson is no longer a sitting JP. Anyone receiving a speeding ticket in the administrative area of ex-JP Richardson's bench can breath a sigh of relief as they won't face the black cap.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

4 August 2012

Do as I say.........


The publication of the list of Old Guard whiners contained no real surprises. Pat Mountain, ex-cllr and incorrigible letter writer to The Telegraph, was in there but another name caught my eye, that of a 'Sqdn Ldr Peter Richardson'. I can't claim to know anything about this person but some research suggests that this individual is also referred to as 'Capt Peter Richardson JP' and it was the use of the abbreviation 'JP' that took my attention. I assumed that the abbreviation 'JP' stood for 'Justice of the Peace' or 'Magistrate' and some research at the High Court in the Strand and at the Magistrates Association has confirmed that, indeed, Sqdn Ldr or Capt Peter Richardson is a sitting Magistrate or JP.

Now what exactly does this say about the belief system of this particular magistrate? The External Auditor's Report was quite explicit in its description of 'unlawful expenditure', 'abuse of public funds' and 'acting without authority' yet, as far as I know, Richardson JP hasn't made any comment about the activities of the Keenan/Canvin administration. Like his whining colleague, Mountain, he seems happy to take unfounded pot-shots at Cllr Fraser-Hopewell but suffers from 'selective inattention' when it comes to his friends in the 'Old Guard'.

And this brings me to a subject which has troubled me over the last few months. What message does this sort of behaviour send to the wider community? Mountain writes to the Telegraph that  retribution and restitution have been forgotten when considering sentencing. Yet Mountain says nothing about the wrong-doing of his chums as described in the External Auditor's Report. Now, it seems, we have a sitting magistrate willing involving themselves in an unfounded attack on a local Cllr whilst, at the same time, being unwilling to similarly attack his friends who were so comprehensively condemned by the External Auditor's Report.

It is very worrying to consider what might happen were, for example, I to end up in front of Richardson's magistrates bench. Would I get a fair hearing from that particular magistrate? I very much doubt it, but what would happen were, say, Tony Canvin to end up appearing in the same place? What sort of treatment would one of Richardson's acquaintances get?

This sort of inconsistent behaviour is exactly the reason that the younger generation grows up confused. Everyone needs boundaries and the clearer the boundaries, the better. But Somerton has one particular and vocal group who take it upon themselves to decide which parts of the law apply and, importantly, they also decide to whom those parts do and don't apply.

Is that the sort of example that we need to set for the younger generation? 'Do as I say, not do as I do' isn't a recipe for a lawful society and I would have thought that a Magistrate would know that.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly