Thursday, 24 September 2009

Brian Coleman Verdict : The full report

So here it is, the full verdict of Barnet's standards sub committee. It may surprise you to learn that Barnet Council didn't let me see this before they published it. I had emailed the Borough's chief legal representative to raise several points regarding comments Mr Coleman and his legal representative made during the hearing which I was unable to challenge, shortly after the hearing. I felt these may have had a bearing on the decision to impose no further sanction. Having read the report, it is crystal clear to me that my fears were justified.

http://www.barnet.gov.uk/complaints-councillors-decisions

Mr Coleman and his legal representative repeatedly stated that a) I'd abused Mr Coleman's mother in this blog and b) That I'd made anti semitic comments in this blog. It is a matter of public record that I've never said anything derogatory about Mrs Coleman. Vanessa Feltz accepted this once she read my comments, following her rather hostile conversation on her phone in. She later admitted, several times, that my comments were quite the opposite. Mr Coleman made that charge to the whole of London 35 minutes before appearing before the panel. Vanessa Feltz showed it to be untrue, but it was not challenged in the hearing.

This is the blog which Coleman refers to regarding his mother. Read it - it in no way says anything about Mrs Coleman other than mentioning she had the same name as my own dear mum. I posted this the day it was announced that Coleman would become mayor and his mother would be his consort.


http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2009/06/gladys-my-heart-to-see-you.html

I was not allowed to speak or make my case. As to me being an anti semite. This is the blog Coleman refers to. It is the second blog I posted on Blogspot. As anyone will see, it is quite the opposite. I berate Barnet Council for their incompetence in allowing such sentiments to appear on their website.

http://barneteye.blogspot.com/2008/10/barnet-councils-incompetance-puts-nazi.html

Just consider for a second the make up of the panel. One of the three members was Rabbi Dr Jeremy Collick. How would he view comments made by an anti semite who abused the elderly mother of the Mayor. I'd expect him to find the "reprehensible and provocative". I'd expect him to have every sympathy with Councillor Coleman. The mere fact that Councillor Coleman mislead the committee by saying these things cannot be disputed. Here is what the committee had to say in there report.

----------
2. Whilst the Sub-Committee did not accept that Councillor Coleman’s actions were justified, it recognised that he had been subjected to a sustained level of reprehensible and provocative personal attacks and abuse by Mr Tichborne in his blogs over a period of several months and that, whilst higher standards are expected of Members in their dealings with the public, the Sub-Committee also recognised, but did not condone, that Councillor Coleman’s e-mail to Mr Tichborne was a response in kind to what had been said about him in the blogs.
-----------

I ask you this, what would they have said, had I been able to tell them that Mr Coleman had mislead them. The blog is there for all to see. He never even mentioned the imaginary insults to his mother in his witness statement. As to the accusation of anti semitism, this was made, but I refuted this by referring the investigator to the statement Mr Coleman made and how he had misrepresented completely what I said in the blog listed above.

I raised a complaint against a leading Barnet Councillor. The system has allowed me no opportunity to defend myself. I've had no opportunity to correct things which are demonstrably untrue. I was given no sight of the report, before any one else.

My blog has been described as containing "reprehensible and provocative personal attacks". They are all here. Judge for yourself. I consider telling porkies to the committee about me being an anti semite and abusing Mrs Coleman to be a "reprehensible and provocative personal attack". I emailed the Council to say this shortly after the case finished. They said "We can't comment until the report has been issued".

I've emailed the Council to tell them all this. I asked them to withdraw the report until the borough's legal department had been able to discuss this with me. They emailed me at 16:50, presumably so I'd have no opportunity to get back to them before knocking off time.

That is why I've posted this. I don't give a stuff about Barnet Council's process. It is unfair and biased towards those with power. It offends natural justice to deny the complainant the right to make their case. It allows people who break the rules to get off scott free whilst besmirching those who have the nerve to try and hold them to account.

I find the whole thing shameful. I've posted this so that anyone who is interested can get a bit of balance. I'm not perfect, I've said nasty things about Brian Coleman, I admit it. They are all related to his performance as a Councillor or as a response to his public utterings (and those of the people he put in power such as Mike Freer). None of it is personal. I've never criticised his private life or what he says or does outside of his public office. I won't, even though people have sent me stacks of stuff.

I had never considered getting involved with politics, beyond writing this blog, which is meant to be a satirical commentary for people interested in Barnet. I'm afraid to say that having seen how rotten the whole system is has made me reconsider this. They can reap the whirlwind.

P.S Sorry the links aren't working. Blogger is doing something rather strange today.

1 comment:

Don't Call Me Dave said...

To call your blog “reprehensible” is highly subjective and, arguably, defamatory when you consider that the investigating officer specifically stated that the content of your blog was not a factor to be taken into account when determining whether Brian Coleman breached the code of conduct or not.

The Standards Committee would appear to have exceeded their remit by making such comments and it suggests that their primary concern was to protect one of their own. Committee members now receive an annual allowance (albeit modest) which makes any suggestion that they are ‘independent’ risible.