“Assinine”. Abuse from Mr Southwell, who then goes on to preach civility in public life and accuses me of abusing Mason. The words I used when I tried to submit my question to the Zoom event were censorious but not words normally considered abuse and they were supported by the facts of the matter as I set them out, facts Mr Southwell has to ignore in order to defend Mason.The FACTS in this matter are indisputable. FACT ONE: He wrote “Do email me on peter.mason@ealing.gov.uk to raise specific issues about the Borough”. Do you deny that, Mr SouthwelI?FACT TWO: I put my “issue” to him (the institutionalised corruption in the Council’s Complaints “service” see below for the details). Do you deny that, Mr Southwell? FURTHER FACTS: Despite three reminders, he failed to respond to me. Do you deny that, Mr Southwell? Can you demonstrate that any of this is untrue? If not, join me and agree that Mason is not a man of his word, a hypocrite and moral fraud. You say there will be lots of people in the borough who will take Mason at his word and ask genuinely difficult questions. I took Mason at his word and my question was so difficult that he chose to ignore it. You write: “I don't recall Andrew Farmer ever showing that he had any insight into the deficiencies of Ealing Council”. That is because you are ignorant of the FACTS or have a failing memory. My expose of Mason is an example of insight into his character. More significantly, when I and my neighbours took a complaint about the Council, which I wrote, to the Local Government Ombudsman, it was insightful enough for the LGO to find the Council guilty of maladministration. Will that do?As to your generalised defence of politicians, it is true of some, not all. Not of Claudia Webbe, found guilty of harassing a love rival by threatening to throw acid in her face. The character witness in the case was Corbyn, whose name reminds us of the antisemitic scandal in the Labour Party. Did you think we had forgotten that?And not Mason, for the reason given. Mr Mason is an example of the career politician. Let us face it: his meagre academic qualifications would have taken him no further than a junior post in the Council’s planning team. The zoom event was going to explore his “vision”. Mason’s vision is the advancement of Peter Mason. My message to you , Mr Southerwell, is this: cut out the abusive language, bridle your tongue and face the FACTS.We are then left with a Mason, a man who has shown himself to be untrustworthy and is happy to turn a blind eye to evidence of the misconduct of senior officers in the Complaints “service”. This what I put to him: “Mr Mason,You have promised us Transparency in the Council’s relationship with residents of the Borough. I hope you also require accountability, impartiality and honesty on the part of council officers.These qualities are lacking in the operation of the Council’s Complaints Service.A formula by which senior officers avoid dealing with complaints against fellow senior officers has become INSTITUTIONALISED in council practice. It is a corrupt practice.Officers (i) claim complaints had already been dealt with, (ii) fail to produce evidence of where, when and by whom when asked to demonstrate that this was other than a convenient falsehood, (iii) fail to escalate the complaint (which is a complainant’s right), and (iv) attempt prematurely to terminate the complaints procedure contrary to due process. The problem is complaints against senior officers are dealt with by senior colleagues who in all likelihood know them personally and with whom they may have social or other relationships. Though their obligation as public servants is to deal with complaints with IMPARTIALITY, they act as “counsel for the defence” for their friends, in contravention of the Council’s Code for Employees and the Seven Principles of Public Life. They bring the Council into disrepute.The most recent in a long line of “offenders” are Ms (redacted), Ms (redacted) and Mr (redacted) -the three officers who, between them, control the complaints procedure.The question arises: how, when they control the complaints procedure, can a complaint against any of them be heard with any expectation of honest treatment.”I then summarised the allegations against the three and continued:“A new procedure in respect of complaints against senior officers is needed. The published protocol is fine. The senior officers who run it are not. They corrupt it to avoid investigating complaints against their close colleagues.A new arrangement is needed for when a complaint against a senior officer is made. It is best achieved if the compaint is handled not by a fellow officer, but someone outside the Council – and IN PUBLIC. Imagine the difference that would make. How would Ms (redacted) look then? When she was asked in private correspondence to provide evidence that the complaint with which she was dealing had already been dealt with, she was able to ignore the correspondence. She would not be able to ignore the question in person and in public. And if, when asked why she failed to escalate the complaint and why she accused a member of the public of being a persistent complainant without observing the requisite formalities, instead of responding she just SAT DUMB and gave no answer She would appear all she is accused of. The allegation is that she is a public liar who has brought the Council into disrepute and deserves to be summarily dismissed. We need an open, transparent system. At present, we have a situation of a kind excoriated in Parliament, in a speech by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 21.1.18; we have the “Gosport” syndrome. That is a situation that arises when members of an organisation collude in cover-up to protect one another and betray the public interest in favour of their own.What system do you intend to put in place so that complaints against senior officers can be heard honestly, impartially –and with transparency?Yours sincerely,Andrew Farmer”I find nothing abusive in what I wrote here. It is, I believe, sensibly argued and would have received attention from a responsible and honest Leader of the Council. Unfortunately, it was addressed to Peter Mason.
Andrew Farmer ● 1421d