Yet another letter has come to light which illustrates how Will Tuckley tried
very hard last year to get me arrested for repeating what first appeared on another
blog. The other blogger was not warned. More proof that dishonest Bexley council’s
real intention is to stifle criticism, through perjury and false statements if necessary.
And the police go along with it.
The text above is an extract from the Harassment Letter issued to me almost a year ago. As you can see, a policeman - the letter was signed by DI Keith Marshall - decided that it was a crime to criticise Bexley council and the threat of arrest contained in that letter has never been rescinded. The case is currently with the Independent Police Complaints Commission because DI Marshall failed to follow any of the stipulations made in Police Standard Operating Procedures and CI Gowen, the head of Bexleyheath’s Professional Standards Unit did not notice that simple fact when he was asked to investigate before the IPCC became involved. However by far the most interesting question was; who at Bexley council decided that my reporting of their activities in too much detail was getting too hot to handle.
Eventually the Information Commissioner came to the rescue by insisting they reveal ‘who dunnit?’ It turned out to be our over-paid chief executive Will Tuckley. For a second time it appeared that Tuckley was intent on having me arrested.
Another issue that required the intervention of the Information Commissioner (IC) was finding out if Tuckley actually did report the matter of the obscene blog to the police. He had told me he did on 9th June 2011 but he later denied there had been any investigation. No responsible person would report an issue that serious to the police and then not follow it up. Something smelled. Something was being covered up again.
When Bexley council eventually succumbed to the IC’s pressure it could be seen that Tuckley tried his hand at getting me arrested for reporting the crime that his people had committed. Committing a hate crime against myself is a difficult contortion to make but evidently the ever more desperate CEO must have thought it worth a try.
The final question was aimed at finding out what in particular Tuckley had got upset about. This one proved especially elusive and the Information Commissioner had to come down quite heavily on Bexley council. He has referred Bexley council to his “special enforcement team” for persistently flouting the law of the land. When Bexley council grudgingly released two heavily redacted emails they revealed that someone - it looks suspiciously like council leader Teresa O’Neill to me - asked Will Tuckley to get me on a charge of inciting violence. The famous phrase used in evidence is the now notorious “flaming torches and pitchforks”. Take a look for yourself.
I had, according to fat cat Tuckley, “plumbed new depths”… for quoting another blog’s metaphor and agreeing with it.
If Tuckley and his scheming cohorts had been genuinely concerned about the use of metaphorical pitchforks should he have not included “Arthur Pewty’ in the accusation of incitement? For it was him who was the source of the comment; but perhaps reporting the neighbourhood watch coordinator to the police did not serve Tuckley’s devious purpose.
If, after I failed to support the use of petrol bombs, he was seriously concerned, why did he not ask the police to question me about who said it? The fact is that the two sources of those comments were not the owners of this website and pursuing them would not help Bexley council have a source of criticism closed down. So Tuckley’s priorities lay elsewhere and it was necessary to distort the truth to concoct a suitable story to bamboozle a compliant police force. The dishonesty of people like Will Tuckley and Teresa O’Neill knows no bounds.
I am considering whether a complaint to that toothless wonder the Local Government Ombudsman might be worthwhile. A council that spends its time distorting stories to try to get me arrested ought not to be allowed to get away with its crimes scot-free.
Click on any of the extracts above to see the full versions of those letters and emails. The blurring of CS Stringer’s address is mine, not Bexley council’s. The comment at Arthur Pewty now includes the word ‘metaphorical’. The original which is shown above did not. The author felt it necessary to add the word for the benefit of the none too bright leader of Bexley council.