The more one reads the correspondence relating to the lying Cheryl Bacon the more holes one finds in the logic of the various contributing liars.
Council officials forced into lying by their political masters contradict each other and of the four statements initially provided by Bexley council only one wasn’t written by their Legal Team Manager, Lynn Tyler.
There was Bacon’s which is pretty much a lie from end to end, and a councillor’s and a doorman’s which both disowned to varying degrees. The exception came from Committee Officer John Adams who wrote his own statement and it appears to be an honest attempt at reporting facts without the wild embellishments that Bacon would have preferred. It’ll probably do his Bexley career prospects no good at all but at least his conscience will be clear.
If you are tempted to read John Adam’s statement you should perhaps note that he gets into a muddle with the names of the members of the public who he refers to by their initials. Several references are to MK (me) doing the recording when ND (Nicholas Dowling) must have been intended and a mysterious NK appears too. These errors were acknowledged in a later letter from Bexley council.
From council officials being apparently forced to lie things have progressed to police officers backing their stories and unsurprisingly their latest statements and messages contradict earlier ones. Mick Barnbrook has ruined many a recent weekend by analysing the correspondence exchanged with Bexley police and comparing it with Bexley council’s.
Most of the discrepancies I have come across before but something that seems peculiar to me is that the police say they returned to Bexley council in May to persuade the doorman to make a new statement which they have chosen not to make available.
Why would the police want another statement from Mr. Chivers the doorman in May 2014 when no criminal allegation had been made and Bexley council has had Chivers’ statement on file since last August or thereabouts? It’s true that Mr. Chivers’ original statement was both unsigned and undated, not written by him and is nothing like the truth but why should that interest the police when no crime had been reported to them? It’s difficult enough to get them to investigate reported crime; can there be any reason for a formal interview in this case other than the need to conspire with Bexley council to cover things up?
It is regrettable that Bexley council has chosen to put a doorman in this position rather than admit that Cheryl Bacon is thoroughly dishonest. It’s not what one expects from a senior management team with an ounce of integrity; now the doorman has had to sign a statement under rules that carry a prison sentence if shown to be false. I doubt he wanted to be named here either but it is the near inevitable cosnsequence.
The police and council must feel the need to block as many avenues as possible when they know that ten first hand witnesses, including councillors, are likely to be lined up against them. All confirm that no disturbance took place other than one person held a tiny audio recorder in his hand. The only contrary voice is Cheryl Bacon’s and the senior council officials who swallowed her story for the sake of their pensions.
It’s been a long time coming but Mick Barnbrook has now finished writing his allegation of crime relating to the protection of Bacon and co. Including the evidence it runs to nine pages and it won’t be published in full here, not at this early stage anyway, but this is how it starts…
I believe Mr. Barnbrook may have restricted this particular allegation to those four people because they are the only ones known to have made false statements on their own account. Council officers such as Nick Hollier and Will Tuckley merely donned blinkers and took those false statements at face value and defended them. However I do not discount the possibility that a separate allegation will be made against Will Tuckley because he is in possession of letters from councillors confirming that Cheryl Bacon’s account of the evening in question is entirely false but he continues to refuse an investigation.
As councillor Bacon is guilty of an offence against the Local Government Act and Tuckley appears to be intent on hiding it, I would guess that Mick sees Tuckley’s refusal to investigate as Perverting the Course of Justice. Presumably the only way that the police can protect Tuckley from that one will be by refusing to accept the complaint and that’ll be another job for the IPCC.
Maybe I have missed a trick but I have yet to see any allegation against councillor Bacon in Mick’s letters. Surely he isn’t going to let her off the hook?