CRFR Blog: Transition, transition, successful transition: Wha...

Nurseries, schools, colleges and universities go to a lot of effort to make sure that learners have ‘successful transitions’. Similarly, families do their utmost to support children to have successful transitions. But what does ‘successful transition’ mean and from whose perspective? What does transition mean for that matter? These words are used without unpacking their meaning.

From our research it is clear that there is a lack of shared understanding about the concept of transitions. This can be illustrated by the different conceptualisation of transitions even within the same school or across the school cluster.

For example, two primary school head teachers consider transition to be:

‘A seamless move from primary to secondary with a clear focus on teaching and learning’

‘Any move between stages or establishment or settings or even classes’

More - 

CRFR Blog: Transition, transition, successful transition: Wha...:

IICSA Cambridge House, Knowl View and Rochdale investigations Public Hea...

Its A Re-Ron - Gil Scott Heron.

Full Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dispatch Scanner Audio Mass shooting ...

Gil Scott-Heron - B-Movie

Deregulated & Unaccountable: For-Profit Nursing Homes in Florida Face Sc...

voiceforchildren: Former Police Chief Statement to Wiltshire Constab...

To cut a long story short, Senator Le Marquand realised how un-sound/toxic the original suspension was, and decided to suspend the Chief Police Officer, not just once, but twice more. And, as they say, for the purposes of this posting, the rest is history.

In this posting we want to explain the truth behind the much misrepresented report by the Wiltshire Constabulary known as "Operation Haven 1." There is a myth commonly repeated by ill-informed onlookers/protectors of "The Jersey Way"/those with something to hide/people to protect that Haven 1 is an "independent" report and shows that; "the end justifies the means" in that despite the apparent lies told by Deputy Lewis for his "reasons" for suspending the chief Police Officer, Haven 1 shows it was the right decision.

More -
voiceforchildren: Former Police Chief Statement to Wiltshire Constab...:

Lewisham Council Failing Children. #Autism

From Community Care.

A council has been criticised for reducing the care and support packages of two brothers without telling their mother the reason for the decision.

The brothers, aged 10 and 11, both have autism and were receiving care packages from Lewisham council’s children’s services, which each included seven hours a week in short break payments, and 24 nights a year in respite accommodation.

The Local Government Ombudsman found that a social worker had reviewed the boys’ care without giving the mother a chance to comment, and had taken the report straight  to the council’s care package panel, which decided to reduce their care.

The panel decided that the younger boy did not need respite accommodation, and also cut his direct payments from seven hours a week to four. It also reduced the older boy’s respite stays from 24 nights to 12, the investigation found.

The ombudsman criticised the council for failing to give the mother a copy of the assessment, or the reasons for the changes to her sons’ care, and for its delay in taking her complaint through the statutory children’s complaint procedure.

He told the council to pay the woman £550 in recognition of the distress caused to her and said it should make the panel decision-making process more transparent.

The council has accepted the ombudsman’s recommendations.

‘No explanation’

The ombudsman’s investigation found that in early 2015, the council wrote to the mother to confirm the original care package for the younger boy.

However, a few months later, it contacted her again to say that the respite provider could not say when the boy would get this provision because of its waiting list.

In January 2016, a social worker from the council’s children with complex needs team undertook the review of both boys’ care. At the end of that month, she took the assessment to the care package panel, which is made up of managers from the service.

The ombudmsan investigation found that the social worker had failed to involve the mother in the assessment, or provide her with a copy to check. The social worker also gave “no explanation or reasons” for the panel’s decision to reduce the boys’ care.

“The failure to give reasons meant she [the mother] had no understanding of why the council wanted to change her sons’ care package,” the ombudsman’s report said.

“This caused frustration and a loss of confidence in the council.”

‘Incorrect procedure’

The mother complained to the council in February 2016.

The ombudsman found the council at fault for responding under its corporate complaints procedure, when it should have used the statutory children’s complaints procedure.

When the ombudsman challenged this, the council was slow to arrange for the complaint to go through the correct procedure, the report said, and it also failed to keep the mother updated on what was happening with her complaint.

The ombudsman also criticised the council for missing the statutory timescale for dealing with the complaint. The ombudsman found that it took eight months, from the council accepting it had used the wrong procedure in August 2016, for completing stage 2 of the process (the investigation). This should normally take 25 days working days (or up to 65, in exceptional circumstances).

The ombudsman’s report recommended that the council conduct a review of the operation of its procedures for identifying and dealing with complaints involving children and young people, to ensure it meet its statutory duties in the future.

It also said that the council should make the care package panel decision-making process more transparent, by sharing assessments with all parties before the panel meets, and ensuring that the panel gives written reasons for its decisions.

‘No input in review’

Michael King, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “In this case, the children’s situation had not changed, but Lewisham council reduced the level of care it provided. The mother has been left upset about not knowing why their support was reduced, or having any kind of input in its review.”

He added that councils “should know by now” how to identify a children’s services complaint and use the correct process, which has been in place for over 10 years.

A Lewisham council spokesperson said: “We accept the ombudsman’s findings and we are acting on the recommendations and have apologised.

“We have already reviewed our processes and procedures that are in place to ensure this situation doesn’t happen again.”

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2017/09/08/council-criticised-cutting-care-packages-two-brothers-explanation/

Liverpool Council accused of snooping after "intercepting" emails between resident and councillor.

From the Liverpool Echo.

Liverpool council has been accused of “intercepting” emails between a resident and an elected councillor.

Liberal Democrat councillor Andrew Makinson received an email from community campaigner and former councillor Josie Mullen, but not before it has been seen and added to by a council officer.
Cllr Makinson has described the move as “extremely disturbing” and said everyone should be entitled to confidential discussions with their elected representatives without “council snoopers” looking over their shoulder.

But the city council said it has been forced to treat Ms Mullen’s contact with the authority in a specific way because of her “scattergun” approach to raising concerns.

Ms Mullen – a former Liberal Democrat councillor who has also campaigned for the Green Party – had contacted Cllr Makinson with emails that raised concerns about developments in the city – including the failed New Chinatown project – as well as questioning the actions of the council’s building control teams.

But this email did not go directly to Cllr Makinson – instead being diverted to the council’s customer feedback team manager, Andrea McGuire, who works in the chief executive’s office.

Read More

• Rotherham grooming report NOT given information on Ged Fitzgerald probe by Liverpool chiefs

This was then forwarded to Cllr Makinson with additional comments from Ms McGuire, who attempted to address the concerns raised.

The email explains: “Please find attached correspondence, which has been sent to you by Josie Mullen.

“Ms Mullen’s contacts with the council are being dealt with under the Managing Unreasonable Behaviour Policy and her emails are on a divert to my team.”

Josie Mullen from Childwall, protesting against the sale of Sefton Park Meadows. (Image: Liverpool Echo)

The email ends by stating: “In line with Ms Mullen’s vexatious status with the Council, we would not expect you to respond to Ms Mullen, although ultimately that is a matter for you to decide.”

Cllr Makinson was outraged at the interception of an email sent directly to him.

He said: “It’s extremely disturbing that the council are now preventing councillors from receiving information from potential whistleblowers.

“Everyone should have a right to confidential discussions with their elected representatives without council snoopers looking over their shoulder.”

He added: “We’re constantly told by Labour that the council has no money to provide basic services, but they can waste money employing a team to intercept messages and then tell councillors what to think about them. No wonder people worry about the state of democracy in Liverpool.”

Read More

• Liverpool council boss criticised for failures during Rotherham grooming scandal

Responding, a spokesman for Liverpool City Council said: “Liverpool City Council is committed to dealing with all customers fairly and impartially. We do not normally limit the contact customers have with us, however in a small number of cases, customers pursue their concerns in a way that is unacceptable or unreasonable, which is when we apply the Managing Unreasonable Behaviour policy.

“Under the policy – which is never used lightly – we do not stop anyone from contacting the Council or from accessing services, although we may apply restrictions to the way in which they do this.”

He added: “In Ms Mullen’s case, she was advised to use a single point of contact.

“Ms Mullen ignored this advice and adopted what we consider to be a ‘scattergun approach’ where she raised the same concerns via multiple routes.

“In light of this, the council took a decision to divert all emails from Ms Mullen to the single point of contact mailbox.”

Ms Mullen – who said she is considering legal action over her treatment by the council – denies that her complaints have been vexatious or repetitive.

Read More

• Special meeting called to decide fate of arrested council chief Ged Fitzgerald

She said: “If you look at my Freedom of Information requests – every single one is different.

“I have sent countless emails to Ged Fitzgerald and the council about the failure to respond to these requests.

“None of these messages are abusive or obsessive and I will be taking my case to a solicitor.”

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-council-accused-snooping-after-13587923

Gwynedd - Why Does Nothing Work ?

It is well documented that there has been a problem with abuse in North Wales...for decades.

More here on the more infamous - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Wales_child_abuse_scandal

Too many reports highlighted systemic failings within Clywd and Gwynedd Councils and the North Wales Police.
 
Shedloads of apologies were given and guarantees of change by the heads of every organisation.

Ssshh dont tell...
Though if memory serves me the only person sacked was the whistleblower social worker, Alison Taylor, by Gwynedd council. #Shameful

Then came the arrest and jailing of the North Wales Police Superintendent, Gordon Anglesea.

from wikipedia - 
On 4 November 2016, former police superintendent Gordon Anglesea was sentenced to 12 years in prison for the sexual abuse of a 14 and 15-year-old boy, with one of the victims being a resident of the Bryn Estyn care home.^[66] Anglesea had faced media allegations of involvement in sexual abuse at the home since the early 1990s, and had successfully sued four media organisations for libel in 1994, winning £375,000.^[67] Anglesea died on 15 December 2016, while serving his sentence at HM Prison Rye Hill.^[68]

More apologies were shovelled into the 'mea culpa' bag.

Then I was reminded of a complaint of abuse being made in 2014 to the police but it was not treated properly and the person was basically patted on the head and told to go away and have a think...

It was not csa but it was still the reporting of abuse to the authorities and ignored.

Then I hear of someone who has just raised an issue of abuse and within 36 hours the police phone the abuser to inform them !!!!!

#WTF

Rotherham grooming report NOT given information on Ged Fitzgerald probe by Liverpool chiefs.

First reported on the Liverpool Echo.

Liverpool council failed to provide to Rotherham investigators any findings of an ‘investigation’ it said it had held into chief executive Ged Fitzgerald’s involvement in the town’s child sex exploitation scandal.
The report published today by lawyers acting for the South Yorkshire authority said that “it had not been provided with any details of the evidence considered or conclusions reached” by Liverpool’s probe.
Despite this comment – Liverpool Council insists it did communicate with the author’s of today’s Rotherham report.

While the Rotherham report authors said they did not want to “make comment as to the adequacy or robustness of those processes or their findings”, the ECHO can reveal that the ‘investigation’ carried out by Liverpool council was in fact a meeting Mr Fitzgerald was invited to attend on a voluntary basis, which took no evidence from anyone other than him.

Mr Fitzgerald was chief executive of Rotherham Council between 2001-2003 and today’s report criticised him for “missing opportunities” to deal with grooming in the town, although did not suggest disciplinary action against him.
In a Freedom of Information (FOI) response to questions from the ECHO, the council stated that the “chief executive responded openly and fully to all issues as part of a clear and transparent process”.

Read More

• Liverpool council boss criticised for failures during Rotherham grooming scandal

No-one but Mr Fitzgerald was asked to give any evidence.

Opposition leaders today questioned whether that process could legitimately be called an investigation at all, and the council’s response to the ECHO’s FOI request about the meeting makes no reference to it being an “investigation”.

The Liverpool Council meeting was called in 2014 after Professor Alexis Jay’s explosive report revealed that 1400 children had been the victims of abuse and grooming in the town between 1997 and 2013.

A response by Liverpool council to a Freedom of Information request from the ECHO stated that on September 17 2014, arrangements were made for the chief executive to meet with Mayor Joe Anderson and opposition group leaders to answer any questions they may have had.

Ged Fitzgerald

The meeting then took place on November 5 2014 and was entered into “voluntarily” by Mr Fitzgerald.
As well as the Mayor and group leaders at the time, there was an independent chair present in Sir Howard Newby, who was vice chancellor of the University of Liverpool at the time.
The council confirmed that aside from Sir Howard, there was no external body involved in the process.

Read More

• Special meeting called to decide fate of arrested council chief Ged Fitzgerald

The response stated: “The Chief Executive answered all questions which were put to him by those present at the meeting and also those questions put forward by other councillors who had availed themselves of the opportunity to do so.”
The council response states that Mayor Anderson reported back to the city council meeting on November 12 and stated that “the Chief executive responded openly and fully to all issues as part of a clear and transparent process.”

But Liverpool Lib Dem leader Richard Kemp – who refused to attend the 2014 meeting, criticised the council and Mayor Anderson for the manner of the investigation.

He said: “Instead of trying to deal authoritatively with the evidence he (Mayor Anderson) invited the Group Leaders to attend a private meeting with Mr Fitzgerald at which questions could be asked. This discussion appears to have been later referred to as an ‘investigation.’”

“The council has shown no indication it is remotely interested in holding the chief executive to account.”
He added: “The Council needs to address the issues of the Rotherham report.”

Read More

• How much will Liverpool council chief Ged Fitzgerald have earned by his next bail date?

A spokesman for Liverpool City Council said: “Following publication of Professor Alexis Jay’s 2014 report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, Mayor Anderson established an independent process chaired by the then Vice Chancellor of Liverpool University, Sir Howard Newby, where group leaders were invited to discuss the issues arising from the reports directly with Ged Fitzgerald.
“In addition, all other members of the council were invited to ask questions of Mr. Fitzgerald.”

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/rotherham-grooming-report-not-given-13583192

‘No culprits’ over Rotherham child abuse files stolen from council office.

First reported by the Yorkshire Post.

Files relating to a Home Office researcher’s attempts to investigate street grooming of children in the town by gangs of paedophiles were stolen from a locked council office – but no culprits can be identified, investigators have concluded.

An investigation was ordered into the theft of files after evidence about the incident was given to MPs by the researcher in 2014 in which she said an unknown individual had gained access to her office in the Risky Business youth project and removed all the data relating to her work with the Home Office in 2002.

Her computer records were also “impaired” in the incident.

The report found: “There is a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence to support an assertion that an incident occurred involving the removal of files and/or impairment of computer records belonging to the former researcher.

“On the basis of our investigation and taking into account the circumstantial evidence available, our conclusion is that on the balance of probability it is likely files were removed from the Risky Business Office and computer records impaired.”

But the report added: “We have no information about who might have been the culprit(s), if files were removed and/or computer records impaired. We have found no evidence that would suggest any council officers referred to in this report were involved in the alleged incident.

“The work of Risky Business was gaining profile in 2002 and with what is known now about the exploitation of children, there might well have been strong motivation for individuals to prevent the information held in Risky Business files from being reported to statutory agencies.”

The report said the allegation had been first raised in 2002 as part of a grievance procedure but the grievance was withdrawn and the allegation not followed up.

Council officers interviewed as part of the new investigation “denied any knowledge of the alleged incident”.

The report added: “The council missed an opportunity to confirm at the time whether any removal of documents and/or impairment of computer files had occurred or not. In view of the significance of the matter, the council’s procedures should have led the council to look at the matter outside of the grievance.

Not least, there should have been recognition of the potential loss of data, reportable under the Data Protection Act.”

 http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/no-culprits-over-rotherham-child-abuse-files-stolen-from-council-office-1-8740898

What do you want from life? (The Tubes)

Council accused of failing children with autism #Sheffield #Autism

---

Image copyright BBC/sparkle sheffield

Image caption Sparkle Sheffield's campaign includes a video called Stop the Abuse

A council accused of failing disabled children in order to save money has admitted it has made mistakes. 

Campaigners said children with autism and other special educational needs (SEN) are suffering from a lack of support in the classroom. 

Children's charity Sparkle said Sheffield City Council is obstructing parents' efforts to find suitable schools for their children. 

The council said it "truly regrets" its mistakes.

SEN reforms in 2014 saw the introduction of education, health and care (EHC) plans which are legally-binding agreements local authorities must abide by, but which cost them money.

Sparkle, which supports children with autism and their families, said by delaying EHC plans, children are are not being allocated schools in time or are sent to educational settings which do not meet their needs.

The group, which has been running a campaign called "Stop The Abuse", said this causes stress and anxiety, sometimes leads to self-harm and is in effect "abuse". 

Liesje Dusauzay from Sparkle said: "Our children are being left to suffer extreme distress in unsuitable environments without the support they desperately need. 

"This is destroying children's lives and their families lives." 

Sheffield City Council said in a statement: "We are continuing to work hard to bring about improvements in assessing, supporting and implementing the right provision for children. 

"We recognise we have not got this right in the past, and despite improvements we still do not always get it right currently. We truly regret this." 

But solicitor Hayley Mason, who advises parents taking legal action against local authorities, claimed councils around the country are withholding information from parents in order to save money.

She added: "They can save their sorries for themselves quite frankly, because it does parents no good." 

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-south-yorkshire-41098051

The worrying trend of social care tactics to target SEND ‘problem parents’.

Recently on SNJ's Facebook page, someone accused us of being too hard on local authorities who were 'trying their best'. Actually, I know first hand that many, many people working in LAs really are working diligently and with very large caseloads. I would encourage parents who have had a good experience to tell us about it, so we can herald good practice.

However - there's always a however, unfortunately - too often parents are still being told the wrong information or LAs are not playing by the rules (i.e, the law). Too many in SEND and in social care departments are still behaving as if the Children and Families Act was just a bad dream, best ignored. This is very perplexing to me as the law is clear to read and to follow, so what's happening to make compliance a bonus rather than the minimum expected?

Recently, I heard about something happening to a number of families regarding attempts to get social care help, that needs to be highlighted. Hopefully those who ARE doing good work in LAs can make sure it doesn't happen in their departments.

Nathan Davies of solicitors HCB, has written to explain what, in his experience, has been happening.

Threatened with care proceedings after asking for support...

It is common, in my experience, for parents of children with autism to feel that concerns expressed to local authority professionals are often discarded, or that there is a distinct lack of understanding of the condition itself. This leads to disputes and disagreements between the parties. These issues tend to arise once parents have realised that they cannot continue without extra support or an alternative placement be sourced for their son or daughter. The request being made is often the trigger point for intervention in some form by the authority; usually via its social services department.
The prevalence of social services intervention has steadily risen in recent times. In practice, the possibility of it being initiated by the authority remains on the increase, despite this being a highly controversial, and often inappropriate, tactic.

Your word against theirs

The problem parents in this position face is that it is often their word against that of school staff or local authority professionals and  that is never a good starting position. The root issue however, is the aforementioned lack of understanding of the condition itself.  Those on the high-functioning end of spectrum often present very differently across a variety of settings. The fact that a child presents as very shy and reserved in school and then explodes into one exhibiting challenging behaviour at home, is very hard for some professionals to fathom and can lead to them questioning parenting ability.
Parents struggling to cope and requiring additional support in the family home, are often deterred by the threat of intense scrutiny and criticism by social services. The possibility of raising child protection issues or launching even care proceedings (in extreme cases) are tools local authorities are increasingly using, especially during these times of austerity and public sector cuts. But cuts can in no way be an excuse for such unnecessarily heavy-handed approaches being employed.

Nathan Davies

Professional guidelines

The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) has guidelines relating to standards of conduct, performance and ethics each registrant must uphold (this includes social workers). One of the pillars of practice is for the professional to ‘work within the limits of their knowledge and skills’. Given this, it is fundamental to ensure that each professional is appropriately trained and/or knowledgeable to a reasonable degree in autism to discharge their duties to the child and family appropriately.
If this is not done, one cannot expect a proper assessment of their social care needs to be undertaken; thereby polluting the entire process. Without such understanding of the condition, the HCPC guidelines specify that the matter should be referred to another practitioner if what the chid needs would be beyond the scope of their practice but this is rarely, if ever, done. It cannot be emphasised enough how important this is, especially when it is a requirement for each HCPC registrant to ‘promote and protect the interests of service users and carers’.
Below are some anonymised case examples which show how these strategies are being used by local authorities throughout the UK:

Case Study 1:

This concerned parents in England of a child with high-functioning ASD. Given her high-achievements at school, the child had attended mainstream school well into her teenage life (without an EHCP). Even when concerns were raised over challenging behaviour in the home as a result of her inability to cope at school, these were immediately treated as the parents over-exaggerating the child’s difficulties, even after they had secured a diagnosis for her from a multi-disciplinary team in the private sector.
The local authority, when requested to assess her additional learning needs, took action; they proceeded with social services intervention, a flawed and malicious assessment and subsequently placed the child on the Child Protection Register.  After seeking legal advice, the family challenged the authority, ultimately leading to a retraction. The child has now been issued with an EHCP with the SEN Tribunal agreeing that a specialist ASD placement be named.

Case Study 2:

This related to a family in South Wales, who again experienced great difficulties with their local authority.  The child had a diagnosis of Pathological Demand Avoidance but the parents had been unsuccessful in securing a specialist placement for their son via the Tribunal process, with the assistance of an advocate.
Given the extreme levels of aggressive behaviour in the home environment (and his inability access a school at all), it was imperative for the authority to accommodate the child, pursuant to section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The authority did so, but thereafter sought to target the family with a variety of unfounded allegations, unlawful s.47 investigations and blame for the child’s behaviour was attributed to perceived ‘bad parenting’, a manifestly unreasonable position to hold.
These issues were appropriately resolved in the parents' favour, who were issued with a comprehensive and unreserved apology from the director of social services. The child now attends a suitable local provision and is thriving.

We need to be aware...

Unfortunately, scenarios such as the above are becoming more common and intimidation of parents who are simply trying to get help for their child is often difficult for many to comprehend. Parents being penalised or vilified for seeking support for their disabled child is not right in any society, yet it appears that in 21^st century Britain this is perfectly acceptable in some LAs. Awareness of this issue being made known to the public can only help parents in similar situations.

Nathan Davies, Education Law Solicitor





More on Gwynedd Council here - https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/


 https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/social-care-tactics-send-problem-parents/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork

Gwynedd Council Report Anoma-Lies.

I have just come across this report authored by Marian Parry Hughes and dated the 18th July, 2017.

It is the annual report on the handling of complaints by the Children and Family Support Department of Gwynedd Council for 2016/17.

https://democracy.cyngor.gwynedd.gov.uk/documents/s13016/Item%206%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20Report%20on%20the%20Councils%20Complaints%20and%20Service.pdf

Unlike the report last year authored by Margaret Kenealy Jones, this report has not been used to revise history nor used as a vehicle to whitewash unprofessional behaviour and systemic failings within the children's department of Cyngor Gwynedd and this is to be welcomed.

Saying that the report does appear to have some glaring ommissions and anoma-lies -

"Over the years, the Customer Care Officer have successfully managed to establish close working links with the teams, managers and the legal section as a means of discussing and resolving issues. This is reflected in the low number of complaints reaching Stage 2 of the Complaints Procedure.

It is fair to say that there has been a clear trend over the past 3 years, that theChildren and Family Support Department have not had a complaint escalate toStage 2. This is down to the professionalism the Team Managers and SeniorManagers show when dealing with complainants; they understand theimportance of a local resolution and by discussing directly with the complainant they are able to address matters as soon as possible..."


Er...but Mrs Hughes there is a stage 2 complaint ongoing against Children and Family Support Department raised on the 25th May and due for completion any day now. Why has the complaint not been included in your report figures ?
I notice the Adult services acknowledge there is an ongoing stage 2 investigation and though not completed is included in their figures.

Marian Parry Hughes also crows that the department have had no complaint escalate to stage 2 over the past three years.

But that is down to one senior manager, Aled Gibbard, closing a complaint - without informing the complainant and your department refusing to escalate another complaint to the second stage, hence the intervention of the Ombudsman.

And knowing that to then go on and write -

"In comparison with other Local Authorities in North Wales, it is understood that Gwynedd have been successful in managing complaints at Stage 1 whereas other Local Authorities have a higher proportion of complaints progress to Stage 2".

and diss the conduct of other LA's in Wales is...distasteful to say the least.

More info on Gwynedd Council here -  https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/

Mr James and Cardiff Bay - the Western Mail reports.

Mark James' property dealings down in Cardiff Bay seem to have reached the ears of the Western Mail today, with an interesting article about residents' concerns over the management of their flats.

WalesOnline 14th August 2017

Blogger Jac o'the North recently went into a lot more detail in two posts, Baywatch 1 & 2, both of which I linked to here and urge you to read.

Mr James is a director of various Right To Manage (RTM) companies for Century Wharf flats and is also a director of a private company Building and Estate Solutions Today Ltd (BEST) set up in March 2017 with two business associates. All this information is freely available on Companies House website.

Aside from his burgeoning management empire, Mr James' property portfolio includes at least one flat in Century Wharf and two in another complex in Cardiff Bay, and he is also a registered landlord. (He also has a £250 per month hold over Caebrwyn's humble abode for his damages from his illegally funded counterclaim).

Amongst the issues some residents have with Mr James and the management of the Century Wharf complex is that flats are let for overnight stays, Airbnb, etc which is contrary to the terms of the leaseholds, as well as disturbing for the long term residents. I am also told that Mr James and his business associates seems to have 'taken over' the RTM Board and there is some speculation that the new company, BEST, may be seeking to contract maintenance and management work for themselves, and expand their interests elsewhere, not just Century Wharf.

The other issue is the appointment as a manager in the complex of a young lady, a former tenant of one of Mr James' flats, who, according to sources, has little or no experience in the field of property management and was introduced to the post by Mr James himself...

Then there is the manner in which Mr James has dealt with criticism, and I am told that he runs things in the Bay in an extraordinarily similar fashion to the way he runs the council. Needless to say, this is not a good thing. There are claims to legal advice which are never disclosed, claims to ministerial 'contacts', and veiled legal threats to those who question his actions.
Having been involved in litigation with Mr James myself for a number of years I have absolutely no reason to doubt any of the claims and allegations I have heard, and I've heard quite a few.

His responses to residents, as reported in the Western Mail article are quite revealing. He dismisses their concerns over the short stay lets as having no evidential basis; stag parties and hen-dos are no more disturbing that long term lets..says he, from the comfort, and quiet, of his home in Carmarthen...

He then goes on to claim that there is not only a 'cancer' in the complex (presumably this is a charming reference to dissatisfied residents) but the young lady's appointment was all above board; having a personal knowledge of the 'candidate' was an advantage, apparently, and avoided all the fuss of advertising for the post...

I'm sure readers are getting the drift by now, and that Mr James has quite a time consuming 'hands-on' approach to his affairs in the Bay...

With that in mind, and let's not forget the many months spent chasing myself through the civil and criminal court, let alone his extensive involvement with the Swansea City Deal, isn't it time he was asked how he squeezes in his £170,000 a year role as chief executive of Carmarthenshire Council? And, for the avoidance of doubt, has anyone asked about any potential conflicts of interest yet?

And a final point, if Mr James is content to take public money to pursue his legal affairs, and use council facilities as if they were his own, who's to say he hasn't furthered his own business (or other) interests in exactly the same manner, and with exactly the same arrogance?

 http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/mr-james-and-cardiff-bay-western-mail.html

Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more: Freedom of Information - the difference a Review can make...

 Freedom of Information responses from Carmarthenshire Council can be a mixed bag.

Sometimes they try to baffle you with b******t, (appointment of
Monitoring Officer, Linda Rees Jones) and sometimes there are bizarre
refusals (top secret transfer of public toilets to community councils).



Occasionally, a few interesting beans are spilled, (the, er, 'car park
deal', released whilst the chief executive happened to be confined to
his potting shed courtesy of Gloucestershire police) whilst sometimes
they're met with hellfire, brimstone, and raging defensiveness (asking
for correspondence between County Hall and an evangelical church).



My latest FOI request concerned the Wellness Village thingy at Delta
Lakes, Llanelli. More specifically, how much the council has spent on
the project so far.



My request was clear and asked for information from 2013 to date. I also
asked for the cost of any 'works' to be detailed in the response.



The response duly arrived, scant in detail (a hallmark of the whole
project so far) but, aside from the match funding from other partners,
the figure for the council itself was £32,597.50.



Unfortunately the information only went back to 2016, not 2013 as I'd
requested, and didn't include any of the 'works' such as preparing and
raising the site so the whole thing doesn't get washed away. It's not
called Delta Lakes for nothing.



Given the omissions I asked the council to review their response, the
outcome of which arrived yesterday with a new figure, slightly erm,
higher than the first at £564,427.72...



At some point soon the council might even get round to submitting the planning application, which in itself has cost £34,000...



The full thread of the FOI request, and responses, can be seen here. There
will be more on the Wellness venture in due course, and I've also asked
Welsh Government for some figures, but this is an illustration of how,
when a council doesn't routinely publish spending details, and has a
culture of defensiveness; scrutiny and monitoring can be problematic.



Whilst I'm on the subject, the Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill
is slowly wending its way through parliament and, as the title suggests,
hopes to extend the reach of the FOI Act. The Statement of Purpose (in
full here) sums up the aims;



'The Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill will seek to make housing associations, local
safeguarding children boards, Electoral Registration Officers, Returning Officers and the Housing
Ombudsman public authorities for the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, whilst
making information held by persons contracting with public authorities subject to the Freedom of
Information Act 2000...'



All very welcome and interestingly it includes Returning Officers. A
request I made some years ago concerning fees paid to our Returning
Officer/chief executive was considered by Mr James to be an outrageous
invasion of his personal space...I might as well have been asking for
his bank details and PIN number.



(all previous FOI requests mentioned in this post can be found by searching this blog, they're there somewhere!)



Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more: Freedom of Information - the difference a Review can make...

Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more: News round-up - budgets, selling the silver, and a new Director..

Yesterday's Executive board meeting included the first glimpse of the
next budget, which will not be determined until next February. The last
budget was passed earlier this year, just as the campaigns for the local
elections were underway. There is no such 'pressure' to please anyone
this time.



The figures take us up to 2021 and include various unknowns, for
example, the effects of Brexit, and how much will come from Welsh
Government (a 2% funding reduction is assumed). All in all £36m is
likely to be cut over the next three years and by far the largest
casualty, nearly half of the 'savings', is yet again the schools budget
at £15m.



After tinkering with the council's debt repayment plans (council debt
now stands at £388m) last year's planned cut to schools was reduced to a
'cash neutral' position, which sounded better than the £2.4m which was
actually cut. Next year this figure is £5m.



One of the great 'unknowns' within the budget report is the future
expenditure on interest payments to cover the unknown loans, from
government, for the City Deal projects, including the Wellness Village
at Delta Lakes, Llanelli. This project, as I have mentioned several
times on this blog is led by the council and includes assorted partners
such as the health board, universities, the Welsh Government, the ARCH
project, the City Deal people and unknown private investors.



So far it has been high on spin and low on facts, a problem likely to
continue as monitoring such a development, with so many interested
parties will be a difficult one to unravel.

The budget report repeats the vague promise from Government that the
cost to the authority in interest payments for the project will be
offset by allowing the council to keep half of any future business rates
which (may or may not, given the likely incentives to attract the
private sector) become payable.



To allay anyone's fears that the council and health boards are funding a
luxury private health spa on the Llanelli Riviera they've come up with a
novel way of presenting the spin in a set of FAQs.



By far the most misleading and manipulative question, and answer, is;



'Will I have to pay for my health care if I am referred by the NHS to be seen in the Wellness Village?'



..and the answer?



'No. The Local Health Board is a partner on the project and is
working closely with the council to identify services that could provide
better outcomes for patients if they are delivered in the community
rather than in a hospital environment, for example, some nursing and
therapies assessment and treatment. This will enable space in the
hospital to be freed up for patients who need to be seen in hospital.'



Also on the agenda, albeit briefly, was the 'Agile Working Investment
Plan'. This seems to be a plan to make the workforce more 'agile' in
terms of reducing office space and the use of tech, although even by
Carmarthenshire's standards this is a particularly awful report.



As the council scratches around to fund the 'plan' it not only plunders
most of the 'Development Fund' (waiving aside the 25% limit) for new
enterprises, but proposes the sale of Ammanford Town Hall, the council's
main customer service centre in the east of the county. Rumours are
also rife that the recently refurbished Llandeilo offices are shutting
up shop, leaving no customer services in the entire eastern area.



In the event the Item was deferred, hopefully to have a rethink. Not
least of all because these proposals, which included the sale of public
buildings, were for an Exec Board decision only, with no reference to
full council at all.

The Executive Board...and the chief executive, just catching up with Cneifiwr's blog ;-)

You will recall, at the last council meeting, that the chief executive
was very, erm, persuasive about requiring a new Director, mainly to
oversee all these 'exciting projects' and his assorted 'visions'. The
post of Assistant Chief Executive (Regeneration and Policy) was to be
made redundant to make way for the new Directorship of White Elephants.



An amendment was put forward by Labour to cap the new salary (and that
for a new Director of Education) to £112k per year from the proposed
£123k pa.

The chief executive, Mr James, became even more 'persuasive' and the vote was lost.



No time was lost and the advert went out immediately (all posts over
£100k must be advertised nationally) only to strangely disappear a few
days later. Even more mysterious was an urgent convening of 'Appointment
Committee A', which met today.



According to several reliable sources I was spot on with my earlier prediction as to who strolled, permanently, into the new Directorship post
with an extra £20k per year. Apparently there were a few other
enquiring applicants (who must have been remarkably quick off the mark)
but they were rapidly deemed unsuitable..leaving a shortlist of one and a
recommendation from the chief executive.

It's amazing how quickly the wheels of Carmarthenshire local government
can turn when a new directorship is on the cards... to the casual
observer it might appear that the whole exercise was pre-planned. Oddly,
there's no rush to appoint the new Director of Education and that
process will take place later in the year, maybe there's no one in the
pipleline for that one...

For what it's worth I also understand that the vote was not entirely unanimous.

But back to the vote at the last meeting of full council over directors'
pay. To most observers, aside from political activists and point
scorers this was a rare opportunity for councillors to reflect the views
of most residents and make a small stand against the eye-watering
salary levels of our little rural county's top brass. As I said, it was
lost by 32 votes to 18, with 14 abstentions.



Here are the 32 councillors who voted against tackling fat cat pay;



Plaid Cymru;



Glynog Davies, Quarter bach

Handel Davies, Llandovery

Emlyn Dole, Llannon

Hazel Evans, Cenarth

Tyssul Evans, Llangynderyn

Ken Howell, Llangeler

Peter Hughes Griffiths, Carmarthen Town North

David Jenkins, Glanamman

Alun Lenny, Carmarthen Town West

Dorian Phillips, Llanboidy

Susan Phillips, Hengoed

Emlyn Schiavone, Carmarthen Town West

Dai Thomas, Pen-y-Groes

Gareth Thomas, Hendy

Gwyneth Thomas, Llangennech

Elwyn Williams, Llangunnor

Dorian Williams, Abergwili

Eirwyn Williams, Cynwal Gaeo



Independent Group;



Sue Allen, Whitland

Arwel Davies, Cilycwm

Anthony Davies, Llandybie

Ieuan Davies, Llandybydder

Joseph Davies, Manordeilo and Salem

Rob Evans, Dafen

Phillip Hughes, St Clears

Andrew James, Llangadog

Giles Morgan, Swiss Valley

Hugh Shepardson, Pembrey

Mair Stephens, St Ishmael

Jane Tremlett, Laugharne

Edward Thomas, Llandeilo



The abstentions included several Plaid Cymru councillors, and one
independent voted with Labour. The full list will appear in the Minutes.



Update 2nd August;

Also on Monday's Exec Board agenda was an exempt item about the
Guildhall in Carmarthen town centre. This was bought by the council last
year for £225,000 from the Crown Court service after the court closed.
The Carmarthen Journal reports that an heritage funding bid of £100k to repair and maintain the listed building has now failed.

What is worse is that the £225,000 came out of the social care budget. It was an Exec Board decision with no reference to full council.

Whether the county council will step in and cough up the necessary cash,
given the current drive to flog off public buildings, remains to be
seen, but, as I reported last year when they bought it, the warnings signs were already there.

Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more: News round-up - budgets, selling the silver, and a new Director..

Cyngor Gwynedd Council - Fail After Fail After Fail.

I notice Cyngor Gwynedd appear not to have updated their website and still make no mention that one of the cases that they reference has been ongoing for years.

Earlier post here – https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/gwynedd-council-services-scrutiny-needs.html

First contact with the Gwynedd Children and Supporting Families Team was in 2007/8 and was appalling.

The family had to endure missed appointments, staff that were untrained and abusive comments from those involved in the child’s care.

MSBP and poor parenting were all thrown at the family.

One so called professional, Dawn Wimpory, failed to diagnose the child and so many years have been wasted because of it.

Perhaps you should have tried engaging him with music therapy, Dawn ?

That would have taken longer than the 20 minute consultation you gave the child. 

A comment from one of the service managers in a review meeting “If he was my child…..” led to the manager going off sick when the Independent Investigators tried to interview him for an explanation.

An illness that lasted for months and so the report was published without him being interviewed.

The report does mention Llyr Ap Rhisiart’s absence and the fact that when he does finally return from illness he would not be in the same job.

But the question remains, Mr Ap Rhisiart.

What would you have done with the child who has Autism, PDA and other complex issues if he was yours ?

Someone even suggested clearing the child’s bedroom and locking them in.
The child was 7 years old.

The Investigators found 16 points of complaint and bad practise – including lost correspondence and files – all upheld.

That was in 2010 and nothing has changed. In fact, the situation is far worse.

So I say again to Cyngor Gwynedd raising a complaint does not make people unreasonable – it simply means that unprofessional standards and bad behaviour should always be challenged.

Carmarthen - Planning Benefits....who.: Intimidation becomes worse.

Planning Benefits....who.: June 05 .................... Intimidation becomes ...:



 June 05 .................... Intimidation becomes more threatening.......

 

The intimidation was getting worse and
taking on a physical side. We were now constantly being waylaid as we
went out and came back home.  Friends visiting were also subjected to
the Thomases unwelcome presence as they had to stop to open the gate. 
Karen Thomas was spending a lot of time in the right of way area and was
now constantly either filming us or taking pictures over our gate. She
was also videoing anyone arriving to visit as they drove down the right
of way.   Our local farmer had been threatened.  He had been told not to
cut our fields and three of his tyres on his land rover had been cut.

Due to the local police not giving us any
support we had turned to the media.  We had also made contact with an
ex police officer for guidance and advice.

July 05



Our friendly farmer had come again to turn
the hay.  He stayed and had a cup of tea with me, and  asked if I would
open the gate the Thomases had erected at the top of our right of way
as the lane  was now too narrow for him to get out of his tractor.  I
had gone ahead of him and opened the gate.  As he drove out Karen Thomas
was waiting for him in order to take pictures of him.

I began walking back down the right of way
when I was aware Karen Thomas was following down behind me.  I then
felt a huge push into my shoulder which knocked me into the metal crash
barriers.  As I recovered she was standing in front of me blocking my
way.  Her very threatening body language, hands on hips, was shocking. 
She refused to move out of my way. When I asked her to move out of my
way and never to do that to me again her response was "what are you
going to do about it".  I naturally felt very threatened and scared by
her as there was no-one else around  - I was totally alone again, and I
knew the police would say there were no witnesses.  I was awaiting a hip
operation at the time and this was appalling behaviour to be assaulted
in this way, and clearly the nature of the intimidation had taken on a
different tone.  She warned me to stay out of her business, then stepped
aside and allowed me to walk down to my gate.  I reported this to the
police but as I expected I was told 'it's your word against hers'.  
Again, if the police had asked to view her CCTV cameras they would have
seen exactly what had occurred, but they declined my suggestion.



Eddie was constantly being confronted in
the right of way as he left for work, as he stopped to open the top gate
- a gate which had been installed to make life difficult for us.  One
particular morning as Eddie was walking back to his car after opening
the gate to drive out, the neighbour was as usual in the right of way
and deliberately barged into him knocking him into his car.  This
behaviour was completely alien to us.  As we didn't have any security,
but did have a camcorder, I took to filming Eddie driving out each
morning.  In the evening, he would stop and telephone me when he was
close to home, and again I would film him driving back in. What had our
lives become?   This camera was thus far our only witness, but would
hopefully deter the neighbours from these physical threats in our right
of way.  We had no other way out of our property and this couldn't go
on.

Wherever
we were on our property the neighbours would make their presence felt. 
Whether we were working in our garden - tending to our horse - mucking
out stables  - playing with our four dogs etc. we would be whistled at
or called out to.  Karen Thomas would frequently be leaning over our
gate, watching us over the boundary hedges, or sitting on the bank
behind their newly erected shed.  We were followed around wherever we
went.  I was feeling a prisoner in my own home as I was becoming more
nervous and anxious whenever I had to go outside.  I wasn't enjoying the
garden any more nor was I wanting to go down to the stables. Our lives
were no longer pleasurable.

Beer bottles and beer cans were now
appearing on our fields along with old knuckle bones.  Sheep skulls were
hung on branches of trees around our boundary.  We felt impotent and at
our neighbours mercy. I had begun to believe there was some other
reason the police were not giving us any support.  Having made contact
with a barrister and a race relations director in Cardiff they both
confirmed the police should have been doing more to help us, especially
as there was a history of aggressive and threatening behaviour towards
others before us.   We were becoming desperate for help.

Andrew
Thomas had taken to tailgating us as we drove out, and on this day drove
his HGV within feet of our small car.  I was terrified.  We felt
compelled to drive faster and faster to get away from him.  It was the
wrong thing to do but when feeling under such threat knowing we had no
support from anyone, flight instinct takes over.  The first chance we
had, we swerved off the road, at speed, and let him drive past us.   His
conduct was menacing, and of course again, we reported it to the
police.  The police said they were logging these incidents but no action
as yet could be taken because it was our word against theirs.  This was
the theme.  When we spoke to our kindly ex police officer over these
matters he was adamant that this was wrong.  He said the police do not
require witnesses when there is a clear pattern of behaviour and should
have been at the very least warning the neighbours.   I had always
believed the police protected people against this kind of dangerous
behaviour, but in our case they weren't.  The feeling of isolation just
kept growing.

Our lives were a total misery and we were suffering
in the same way as the two families before us had suffered.  Not only
were we now abused on a regular basis but we were still having to
contend with the noise from industrial machinery, maintenance on HGVs,
horrendous noise from the constant quarrying and the many other
disturbances to our quality of life.  It was obvious that Blaenpant was
being developed for an ever expanding industrial business - with zero
planning permissions and we were suffering the consequences of it.  

We had by now logged a long list of
incidents with the police but still no intervention nor help from them,
even though they were aware of the nature of the neighbours and their
intimidation and threats to others.   Carmarthen Council were continuing
to deny the existence of the obvious haulage business and the many
other industrial operations from a site within meters of our home, even
though there was an abundance of evidence to warrant enforcement and
most certainly applications for change of use to industrial.  It
appeared that the neighbours had the support of all local authorities
and we had none.  It certainly felt that way and was a very lonely place
to be in.   Our plans had to be put on hold and our future was
exceedingly bleak. We had no chance of getting away from this nightmare
situation.



July 05
 

It was a Sunday and I had driven to the
post box which was about a quarter of a mile away to post letters.  As I
was returning the neighbours drove past me in the opposite direction.
Karen Thomas gesticulated at me from the passenger seat, but I was
relieved at least I didn't have to contend with name calling as I
entered my home.  I had no longer opened the gate at the top of our
right of way, than the neighbours were driving back down towards me. 
They had followed me back home.  I was taunted and then assaulted for a
second time.  Statements were taken and eventually I was the one
arrested and charged with assault.  Yet again the police chose not to
view the Thomases CCTV which would have shown the entire incident and
shown Karen Thomas assaulting me.  This was seriously wrong, and only
added to my belief that the police were acting against us and were for
some reason reluctant to take any form of action against our
neighbours.  This became the scariest time of my life.   Carmarthen
Council were doubtlessly responsible for the nightmare that was now our
life. Due to their unwillingness to follow correct planning procedures
which was allowing an industrial business to flourish unimpeded, and
their denial to everyone who asked questions, that there was no such
business operating, they were encouraging aggressive and threatening
behaviour towards anyone who was aggrieved by it.  The violent nature of
the neighbours towards us should have caused concern to the Chief
Executive of this authority.  The TV documentary alone should have seen
the end of our nightmare as the truth was shown.   The question still
remains today - what was - and still is, the relationship between
someone employed by Carmarthen Council and these people, that has caused
so many people to have suffered at their hands.

It was
imperative now that we install some sort of camera at the top of our
driveway as witness to the shocking behaviour of the Thomases, ignored
by both the local police and Carmarthen Council. 

Due to my
continued complaints to Carmarthen Council about the disturbance to our
lives caused by this industrial site I was advised to write to the
Ombudsman. I wrote to the Ombudsman but it is no easy task to put
together a complaint to the PSOW.  I believed it was enough to simply
outline a general complaint.  It is not, and due to my naivety in not
putting together enough information, my complaint wasn't investigated. 
This is somewhat different to a complaint being investigated and not
upheld.  However it is usual it seems that Carmarthen Council play on
the fact that a complaint not being investigated somehow exonerates them
from any wrongdoing and use it as a weapon against you for ever more
when putting in further complaints to them.  The Ombudsman has recently
said "the fact a complaint has not been investigated does not mean
you didn't have a justified complaint, it just means it didn't warrant
resources being spent".  Carmarthen Council need to understand that.

The
neighbours had by now received a letter from the council advising them
to remove the huge blue lorry away from our cottage, but a few weeks
later after the Thomases had refused to move it, the Council took the
view this was an agricultural storage unit for a few bales of hay.  It
seemed irrelevant that they had just built a huge shed which now towered
over us, for the storage of hay.

End of July......We
were awoken this sunny morning to the noise from a JCB within inches of
our bedroom window.  Our small cottage vibrated from this industrial
monster of a machine.  It was removing all of the grass around the area
we looked out onto.  We were fearful of what was coming next!   Metal
fencing panels arrived a few days later together with an old container
and another smaller structure that appeared to be the rear of a small
pick-up.  We were left with a sinking sickening feeling.  The neighbours
had more plans for us.  Something was going to arrive - but what?   How
do you describe the worry and the feeling of being constantly under
threat with no-one to help or care?   Bullying of any kind should not be
acceptable to either the police nor the local authority, but when it is
directly related to the council's negligence, it becomes somewhat
sinister.

 

August 05

 

Another week went by and still nothing had
appeared under our windows.  We had been shopping, and as always we had
a feeling of foreboding upon our return, as we never knew what we were
going to be facing.  We were now to discover what the removal of grass -
the metal fencing panels - the rusty old container was for.  We were
now sleeping within feet of a couple of piglets.  I was also soon to
discover the names Karen Thomas had chosen for them....

Carmarthenshire - 'Cadno and the rule of law' - This week's Carmarthenshire Herald

See below for this week's Cadno opinion piece from the Carmarthenshire
Herald. An interesting article, self-explanatory, and well worth a read;



Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more: 'Cadno and the rule of law' - This week's Carmarthenshire Herald

Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more: CPS decision - Y Cneifiwr's analysis. And a complaint to the Wales Audit Office.

Y Cneifiwr; CPS drops prosecution of Jacqui Thompson 

* * *

Further to ''Evidence' accessed from council computer - the Carmarthenshire Herald' I
have now asked the Wales Audit Office to look into the matter. The
email below was sent this morning and also copied to Adam Price AM and
council leader Emlyn Dole.

I have had an acknowledgement from the WAO, so when, or if, there is a substantive response, I will post it on this blog.

To; Wales Audit Office 

Dear Sirs, 

I wish to make a formal complaint concerning the chief executive of
Carmarthenshire County Council, Mr Mark James, relating to the use of
public resources to support a private legal case. 

Mr James made a complaint against me for criminal harassment to Dyfed
Powys Police in April 2016. This related solely to a blog of which I am
the author [http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.co.uk/], and was in a
private capacity, a position confirmed by the Council press office
itself on 12th July 2017 to BBC Wales
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-40583933]. 

I am in possession of police reports (attached) which state that the
police visited County Hall, Carmarthen on the 18th April 2016 to take Mr
James' initial formal complaint. The same day there was an extensive
search of my blog from a council IP address. At the time, as this was a
very unusual search, I saved the log. I have attached a printed version
for your information. 

I believe that the contents of my blog was either saved or printed, by
persons unknown on a council computer to support Mr James' private legal
action and to supply information to the police for their criminal
investigation. 

On the 20/21st June 2016 there was another similar unusual search of my
blog from a council IP address, this was a few days prior to the police
again attending County Hall to take Mr James' full statement on the 27th
June. This date is corroborated in another police report. Again I
believe this search was undertaken to provide support for this private
criminal complaint. I attach to this email the saved log from this
search, as a file.

Searches similar to these have been carried out before that date and
since, most notably around the time a renewed complaint of harassment
made by Mr James on the 15th December 2016 and a day or two prior to a
County Court hearing held on 23rd March 2017 where Mr James was
enforcing damages personally awarded to him from an earlier court case.
My blog was again used in evidence at that hearing.

I did not save the logs relating to these two instances but I understand
that this information could be retrieved from the council, by
yourselves, if you decide to investigate the matter. 

The criminal charge of harassment against me was dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service on the 10th July 2017. 

I would be very grateful if you could investigate this matter. It is
highly inappropriate for the highest ranking officer in a public
authority to instruct another officer to provide information, via the
council IT infrastructure, for a private legal case, not only is it
unethical but it is also an improper use of council time and resources. 

In addition, it is of paramount importance for the administration of
justice, and the right to a fair trial, that the parties are on an equal
footing in terms of representation and resources. For the chief
executive to have access, and to use, public resources in this way is a
breach of both the conduct expected of him as well as the basic tenet of
our justice system, placing myself at a distinct disadvantage. 

With respect, I look forward to your confirmation that you will be
investigating this matter, and I would also be grateful for a brief
acknowledgement of this correspondence and the attached evidence. 

If you require any further information please contact me via this email address, or by post. 

Yours sincerely

Mrs Jacqui Thompson 

10 Attachments;

Blog stats for the 18th April 2016 (6 pages)

Blog stats for 20/21st June 2016 (one file)

Police crime report for 18th April 2016

Police report (following my complaints to Dyfed Powys Police); Relevant dates confirmed on Page 5

Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more: CPS decision - Y Cneifiwr's analysis. And a complaint to the Wales Audit Office.

Militant Labour | British Labour Party | TV Eye | 1981

Abuse Of An OAP In Carmarthen ?

Planning Benefits....who.: One year and one month on............................: One year and one month on........................ . April - a further addition I had purposely avoided any confrontation with the...

The Breckman Affair

PMQs 12th july 17

Marian Parry Hughes Responds To The AM - Finally.

The Assembly Member for Arfon, Sian Gwenllian, emailed me on the 5th July and sent me a copy of the long overdue response from Marian Parry Hughes, Head of Children and Families at Gwynedd Council.

See my post of the 4th July for more detail -

 https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/arfon-am-ignored-by-gwynedd-head-of.html 

Mrs Hughes begins by apologising for not responding to the AM and states  -

"It certainly wasn't deliberate on my part."

So what was the reason for ignoring the AM for three months then ?

Mrs Hughes goes on to explain that Sharron Carter, Senior Operational Manager, had responded to the solicitor by letter and answered all relevant questions - in March.

The solicitor - after searching their files - state they have not received a letter from Sharron Williams Carter, from the date in question.

And if they had I would not have asked the AM - in April - for help in getting a response now - would I ?

I include a link to my post where Cyngor Gwynedd lost another important letter - one that had been placed in their secure letterbox in the Caernarfon office addressed to Aled Gibbard.

https://gwyneddsfailingcouncil.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/gwynedd-councils-secure-letterbox-not.html

How many letters do Gwynedd Council lose every year ? 
 

Sian, I am very grateful for your help in eliciting a response, finally, from the Department Head.

I am also very concerned that you were ignored by a council employee for three months.

pmqs 5 july 17

Gwynedd Council Personal Information Breach.

Preparing  paperwork for the meeting with the independent invesigators dealing with my stage 2 complaint against Gwynedd council, I was astonished by the council's use of a black marker to censor comments made by managers to other agencies involved with the family.

The investigators were more shocked than I and told me there was no need or reason for council staff to censor and it should not have happened.

Then I discovered Gwynedd council had also sent me the personal information of another person.

Oh dear.

voiceforchildren: Statement of Former Deputy Chief Police Officer Le...

voiceforchildren: Statement of Former Deputy Chief Police Officer Le...: Former DCO Lenny Harper. "With the report of the Committee of Inquiry being delivered on 3rd July I have over the past few we...