Bonkers was not always primarily a daily blog. Whilst blogs
were published almost daily from 2011 the website was formatted more like a
newspaper with an occasionally updated Front Page and Editorial,
the blog itself was buried within the site.
This is an example of an Editorial page written long before Smart Phones were a
consideration. Many of them will be difficult to read on a mobile phone and links may no longer work
and references to site banners will be invalid.
It remains here for historical purposes only.
Councillor
Cheryl Bacon is a liar. I know she is because I saw what happened after Nicholas
Dowling asked her if he could audio record the Public Realm
Scrutiny Committee meeting on 19th June 2013 and I have compared those events with
Bacon’s written
account which describes widespread disorder in the public gallery.
I also know that Bexley council has been unable to produce any witnesses to support
Bacon’s description of the public disorder. The council
managed to find four people who were said to support Bacon but an analysis of
their words show they have done no such thing.
One has since said that he was not aware he had made a statement and another has written
that the words attributed to him were a product of the council’s legal
department. Perhaps most importantly, several councillors who were present at
Cheryl Bacon’s meeting provided written confirmation that her account of it is totally
false in almost every detail.
The attempt to audio record the meeting was spurred by the Secretary for Communities and Local
Government, Eric Pickles, who had decreed just a few days earlier that residents should be free
to report on and record council meetings but Bexley council had set its face against it. Its
(former) deputy leader Colin Campbell has been on BBC 1 television proclaiming that anyone can make
a recording so long as permission is sought beforehand but Bexley council has admitted that
permission has never been granted. (†)
On the evening of the 19th June 2013, Cheryl Bacon’s mistake was not
her decision to hold a public meeting in ‘Closed Session’ (her words) - which
was unlawful - but to decide that her get out of jail free card was to lie about
and libel five members of the public by asserting that they
were disrupting her meeting in a variety of ways.
The fateful meeting was attended by six members of the public, Michael
Barnbrook, Elwyn Bryant, Nicholas Dowling, Peter Gussman, Danny Hackett and
Malcolm Knight. All of them regular attendees at council meetings and Danny
since May 2014 a Labour councillor in Bexley’s Lesnes Abbey ward.
Nicholas Dowling’s request to audio record the meeting was immediately refused by chairman
Cheryl Bacon. Her husband councillor Gareth Bacon, the cabinet member (at the
time) who Mrs. Bacon
was paid £8,802 a year to scrutinise, called out that if Nicholas attempted to record the
meeting he would be ejected.
Nicholas resumed his seat in the public gallery clutching his recorder in one
hand and Eric Pickles’ guidance in the other. Believing Nicholas was recording
the meeting, councillor Cheryl Bacon adjourned the meeting. It is a pity that
no recording was being made, its existence may have persuaded Bacon that
embarking on the course she chose was unwise.
The first 20 minutes of the meeting was a quiet stand off. Cheryl Bacon repeated
her position several times, on one occasion approaching Nicholas to make it more
forcibly and Nicholas quoted from the government guidance paper. No member of
the public joined in, nor - apart from husband Gareth - did any councillor say anything of note.
At about 19:50 the doorman asked Nicholas Dowling to leave and when he didn’t
he was asked to call the police to eject him. After doing so he reported back
that it could be up to an hour before they showed up. Cheryl Bacon adjourned the
meeting until 20:15 and when the situation had not been resolved by then
announced that the meeting was to be taken into Closed Session in another
room. Despite requests from the public present, none were allowed in. This is an
offence against the Local Government Act 1972.
About
ten minutes later two police officers arrived to find five members of the
public still sitting in the public chamber both amused and a little bemused.
The police asked what the five planned to do - Danny Hackett had left the chamber a
minute or two earlier - and Malcolm Knight said everyone was going to go home;
Mr. Barnbrook made a similar comment and that is what happened. The police
were very friendly and later confirmed to the press that no offence had been committed.
No councillor or council officer accompanied the police into the chamber. One
female council officer had remained in the chamber clearing papers etc. for a few
minutes after the Closed Session began but she left before the police arrived.
Excluding members of the public from a public council meeting is nearly always against the law.
Arguably councillor Cheryl Bacon might have been able to exclude Nicholas
Dowling but not those who had merely watched the events unfold.
Messrs. Bryant, Barnbrook and Gussman put in complaints over the following days. Malcolm Knight
did so only after discovering that the council was accusing him of misbehaviour in
the council chamber and Mr. Hackett wrote directly to the council’s Head of
Legal, Mr. Alabi. Nearly six months later none of those complaints had been
properly investigated provoking only a torrent of lies from Bexley council.
According to councillor Cheryl Bacon, or more pedantically the note written by
Bexley’s Legal Department after interviewing Bacon, Malcolm Knight was sitting with a
group alongside Mr. Dowling, Mr. Barnbrook, Mr. Bryant and another person.
This is untrue. Malcolm Knight was sitting alone at a table away from the
others. The council officer John Adams
confirmed it in his statement.
“Several members of the public were shouting out” according to Bacon. This is
another of her lies, no other witness whether from the council or the public
confirms Bacon’s assertion. “There was a lot of commotion” is totally untrue as
is “Mr. Dowling, Mr. Barnbrook, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Knight and another person
continued to call out and waving (sic) papers”.
Councillor Bacon goes on to say that she addressed the entire group which is an
essential part of her defence against illegally excluding the public from her
meeting. She did no such thing. She spoke to Mr. Dowling who was seeking
permission to record the meeting but to no one else. Once again, no witness has
come forward to confirm Bacon’s version of events. “The group was not prepared
to sit quietly”, is another of Bacon’s lies when in reality at least four
members of the public present (out of six) said absolutely nothing at all.
After a 30 minute adjournment “there was more shouting from the gallery. The
group were (sic) not going to stop calling out”. All untrue and not supported by
any witness.
Mr. Barnbrook is singled out for special attention. He “shouted to Cheryl
Bacon”. He did not. He calmly and politely asked to be allowed into the
reconvened meeting. Bacon on her own admission ignored him.
Six months after councillor Cheryl Bacon’s illegal closure of her meeting
no one’s complaint had reached a conclusion and and Malcolm Knight decided to
precipitate a reaction by asking every councillor present (apart from the
two Bacon’s) if they could comment on what took place. Five of those who replied
felt unable to either support or condemn councillor Cheryl Bacon but four very
positive statements were obtained. In essence they all labelled their colleague
Cheryl Bacon a liar by confirming that no general disturbance took place, everything
was polite and civilised and most people present said and did nothing at all.
Mr. Barnbrook sent this additional evidence to Chief Executive Will Tuckley who
nearly three month later said that the word of his own councillors counted for
nothing. It “did not add to the sum of knowledge”. Will Tuckley is of course torn
between an intelligent response and his excessive salary. He is happy to be a
proven believer in injustice and that loyalty to liars can be bought. It is not
particularly surprising given his track record.
If councillor Cheryl Bacon had simply admitted an error of
judgment, an over-reaction on the night, there would be little cause for
complaint, certainly nothing much could have been done about it.
Instead Bacon decided to lie her way out of the situation aided and abetted
by an assortment of council officers who have nothing to go on but a lying
statement by councillor Cheryl Bacon which wasn’t even written by her. Now she
is facing an allegation of Misconduct in Public Office for conspiring with others, notably
Mrs. Lynn Tyler and Mr. Will Tuckley who are accused of attempting to pervert the course of
justice. viz. they refused requests to carry out a proper investigation. On top
of that two police constables, their chief superintendent and the council’s
doorman are all accused of Misconduct in Public Office for making false
statements in support of Cheryl Bacon.
Councillor Cheryl Bacon showed herself to be a liar interested only in preserving her own skin. With
such credentials it came as no great surprise that she was appointed chairman of Bexley council’s Code
of Conduct Committee.
A year after the event a formal allegation of Misconduct in Public Office was
made to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Because
Bexley police are known to turn a blind eye to the crimes of Bexley council the
case was referred to Greenwich police. In early November 2014 their CID began to
interview witnesses and collect evidence.
By March 2015 a total of eight witnesses had been interviewed in person and
another by telephone. A Conservative councillor who feared retribution if an
interview led to a court appearance.
The police referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service by the Summer of
2015 and in September 2015 the victims of Bexley council’s crime were advised
that the seriousness of the crime and its complexity warranted the police
referring it to their Serious Case Lawyer.
Index to other references to this shameful episode.
† This policy was relaxed on 6th November 2013.
This is an archived copy of the Site’s Editorial page originally posted on 4th October 2015.