County Court Judgements

www.tpuc.org

London Borough of Camden

Business Insight Report

Fraud Survey

http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=5366414

Councils are among public bodies being asked for information for a new survey examining the extent of fraud and corruption. As part of its first annual fraud survey, the Audit Commission is asking 500 organisations, including police, fire and rescue, and probation services, for data in a bid to chart losses caused by fraud. The commission’s Derek Elliot said: “The more data we have, the more effective we can be in stopping the undeserving from stealing taxpayers’ cash.

Crown Court hearing

A 2 day re- hearing regarding alleged harassment by me of some Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) committee members will be heard at Blackfriars Crown Court on 10 and 11 Dec 2009. Nearest tube station is Borough on the Northern Line.

All welcome to attend.

UPDATE 21 Nov 2009
At the prelimary hearing on 27 Oct 2007 the judge 'ordered' the CPS to serve the court a case summary by the 9 Nov 2009 and to send all 'evidence' they hold to my solicitor.

The CPS have failed to do as the judge 'ordered'. The court has contacted the CPS on a number of occasions about this but the CPS are still delaying.

Jersey Politican seeks asylum

Senator from Jersey accused of leaking police report wants asylum after fleeing trial

By Eileen Fairweather
Last updated at 1:34 AM on 25th October 200

A leading Jersey politician accused of leaking a police report is claiming asylum at the House of Commons because he believes he will not be given a fair trial on the island.

Senator Stuart Syvret, a former Jersey health and social security minister described by supporters as a ‘voice of the people’, fled to London shortly before he was due at a court hearing on Wednesday.

He has moved into the home of Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who is backing the senator’s case for ‘legal asylum’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222802/Senator-Jersey-accused-leaking-police-report-wants-asylum-fleeing-trial.html#ixzz0UxJjE8PP

Public Interest Disclosures

Information request to the Audit Commission

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please provide details as to how many times for each year since 2000 has an employee or elected representative of an Council for every Council in England exercised their rights under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 to bring an issue to the attention of the Audit Commission or the appointed District Auditor.

Please further identify which category under the PDA for each year by Council disclosure was made:
(a) that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed,
(b) that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject,

(c) that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,
(d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,
(e) that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged, or
(f) that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed.

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

RESPONSE

Shaun Kavanagh
Audit Commission

24 September 2009

Dear Mr Carruthers

I apologise that it has taken me a little while to respond to your request below.

Please find the requested information below. You will notice in some cases I have provided a 'x...' after the name of the council, this is to show that there was more than one public interest disclosure regarding this council within this year.

2000
1. East Lindsey District Council 2. Cumbria County Council 3. Manchester Metropolitan District Council 4. Northwick Park & St Marks NHS Trust 5. Sunderland Metropolitan District Council 6. Ealing, Hammersmith & Hounslow Councils 7. Halton Unitary Authority 8. London Borough of Islington Council 9. Surrey County Council 10. Pendle Borough Council 11. Carmarthen & District NHS Trust 12. Windsor & Maidenhead Unitary Authority

2001
1. London Borough of Hounslow Council 2. Mid Cheshire Hospital NHS Trust 3. Isle of Wight Council 4. Conwy County Council 5. North Glamorgan NHS Trust 6. Bro Morgannwg NHS trust x2 7. London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames

2002
1. Birmingham City NHS Trust 2. North Birmingham NHS Trust 3. Birmingham City Council 4. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council 5. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council 6. London Borough of Hackney Council 7. Liverpool City Council 8. Manchester Metropolitan District Council 9. Leicestershire County Council 10. Worthing Borough Council

2003
1. Copeland Borough Council 2. Ashton Primary Care Trust

2004
1. Birmingham City Council 2. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

2005
1. London Borough of Lambeth Council 2. East Hampshire Council 3. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
4. Stoke City Council 5. Nottingham City Council 6. Malvern Hills District Council 7. Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council 8. Barking & Dagenham Council 9. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council x3 10. Liverpool City Council 11. Epsom & Ewell District Council 12. West Somerset District Council 13. Bristol City Council

2006
1. London Borough of Waltham Forest Council 2. London Borough of Southwark Council 3. London Borough of Bexley Council 4. London Borough of Lambeth Council 5. London Borough of Waltham Forest Council 6. Leicester City Council 7. Forest of Dean District Council 8. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council 9. North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust 10. Manchester City Council 11. Liverpool City Council 12. Bath & North East Somerset Council 13. Bradford District Care Trust 14. West Lindsey District Council

2007
1. Birmingham City Council 2. Somerset County Council 3. West Mercia Supplies Joint Committee 4. London Borough of Brent Council 5. Leicester City Council x2 6. Ryedale District Council 7. Bedford Borough Council
8. Royal Orthopaedic Hospital 9. London Borough of Southwark Council 10. Medway Council
11. Bolton, Salford & Trafford Mental Health NHS Trust 12. South Kesteven District Council
13. Sunderland City Council 14. Wirral Council

2008
1. Blythe Valley Borough Council 2. Bradford Supporting People 3. Lincolnshire County Council 4. Calderdale Council 5. Corby Borough Council 6. Wycombe District Council
7. Rugby Borough Council 8. London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Council
9. Bolton Borough Council x3 10. London Borough of Southwark Council 11. Peterborough City Council 12. City of Westminster Council 13. Oxford City Council 14. Kingshill Parish Council
15. London Borough of Camden Council (my emphasis)
16. Blackpool Council 17. Salford District Council 18. Salisbury District Council 19. Transport for London 20. London Borough of Hackney Council 21. Waveney District Council 22. Lewisham Council 23. Amber Valley Borough Council 24. Tamar Valley Mining Heritage Project 25. Thurrock Council

2009
1. Haringey Council 2. Devon County Council 3. Wiltshire County Council 4. Salisbury District Council 5. Frampton Cotterell Parish Council
6. London Borough of Camden Council (my emphasis)
7. Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council 8. London Borough of Brent Council 9. Devon & Norfolk County Councils 10. London Borough of Newham Council 11. Humberside Fire & Rescue
12. Chester City Council 13. London Borough of Lambeth Council

Flouting the law?

Should questions be raised at the full council meeting as to the effectiveness of the procedures they have or haven't as may be the case, in relation to the lawfulness of their decisions?

I pose this question in light of a recent court ruling where the council was found to have acted unlawfully in charging 'customers' for using credit cards to make payments. One could argue that the council wilfully took the decision to flout the law.

They break the law - quite seriously and recklessly at times and suffer no consequences. Every time they do in my view it weakens the respect and trust residents of the borough have in this council. Every bad decision they make harms other people in some way or the other and they don't seem to care about that.

Is the monitoring officer (and the legal department) who appear to be conditioned (possibly have it as a term of employment) to not object when the 'executive' makes a bad decision? If this is the case then what does this say about the legitimacy of 'Camden council'. In my books it says no legitimacy.

Shouldn't a legitimate council lead by good example and not by bad? If the council routinely flouts the rules and regulations what message does this send to the public?

They 'govern' and we the 'governed' shake our heads despairing at how immature local government really is.

Well Being Powers

Local authorities 'well being' powers - Department of Communities and Local Government Guidance Nov 2008.

Legal challenges can be made against Camden councils 'innovative' use of the well-being powers and one such legal challenge was made in relation to a group of London councils to which Camden was included, over them setting up a 'mutual insurance firm' under these powers.

This was challenged and the courts recently decided that councils had overstepped their legal authority and declared their actions unlawful. The councils (including Camden) have to disband this mutual insurance firm.

Council members unrest

I stopped reading the CNJ some time ago because this paper in my view gives far to much space in the letters section to unsavoury political creatures to spin how wonderful marvellous and fantastic they think they are, and was made aware of the below letter that was printed in it concerning how the council is managed. I fully support Cllr Sedgwick on this matter.

CNJ Letter 17 Sept 2009

• AT Monday’s council meeting, elected representatives of Camden were asked by council officers to note that a decision by them was being excluded from usual democratic processes of scrutiny.

By that time I had already formally written to council officials asking to see the details of the decision, but had been refused permission.

So at Monday’s meeting I questioned the absurdity of councillors being asked to note a decision, the details of which they were not allowed to know.

In response, the elected representatives were told that they were merely being asked to note that a piece of business was being removed from democratic accountability. It was explained this was a way of affording councillors, the ability to keep tabs on council officers.

Should it interest you, the piece of business related to the council’s decision to settle a legal dispute with a litigant.

I wonder how many of Camden’s residents realise that their elected representatives are regularly refused access to information held by the council, in their name?

Ironically, the leader of the council is a Liberal Democrat, whose national party claims that they want to open up government to the people of Britain by allowing freedom of information. Another example of the Lib Dems saying one thing, but doing another.

Cllr Keith Sedgwick
Conservative, Gospel Oak ward

_________________

I will never vote for the Lib-dems again.

I did vote for them at the last council elections in 2006 only because I was fed up with how the labour lot had been running the council for 30 or so odd years. I was prepared to give the Lib-dems a chance.

Since gaining power of the council in 2006, the Lib-dems have in many ways shown themselves to be worse than the old labour lot. I'm aware that all political parties have members that behave badly, but in my experience and that of many other Camden residents, the Lib-dems in Camden are by far the most appalling in how they behave. I'm not saying that all lib-dem members behave in this way as I'm sure there are some decent ones who do the best they can given the rotten environment they work within, but many are badly behaved especially so ( in my view) senior lib-dem members.


Examples of how some Lib-dem members of the council behave:

• spread lies around about residents they are supposed to be representing,
  
• have a blacklist of residents who other lib-dem council members are informed of not to respond to if contacted by,
  
• mis-lead other council members at council meetings,
• collude with unsavoury tenant 'reps' and housing management to bully and intimidate other residents,
  
• lib-dem leader has put himself in the position of where his integrity is in question relating to the council owned/leased dwelling he was offered by the housing department,
• Look the other way when vulnerable residents are being abused by nasty tenant reps

The lib-dem national conference is taking place and lots of 'big' party member names are giving great speeches - speeches that strike a cord is many a potentional voters heart and mind. Sadly these sentiments do not seem to affect in any way how local associations in local government operates. They do as they please. The national party appears to have little in the way of control over them and in ousting the rogues amongst their membership.

Councils Annual Audit

The Audit and Corporate Governance committee was held on Tuesday 15 Sept 2009 but the reports that were given to this committee have not been put up on the councils website for the public to see.

Not putting the reports in the public domain must only mean the council has something to hide - namely the final draft report of the Councils 2008/9 accounts carried out by the Audit Commission. I have copies of the reports and they don't read good.

My questions are these:

1. What are the objections about and why is Camden council finding it so hard to resolve them?
2. Why does the council have a gaping big hole in its pension fund and why wasn't this fund separated from the general fund and put into its own account following last years annual audit as the external audit recommended that it be?
   
3. Why did the auditor mention that 11 Council members have yet to register their financial interests?
4. The councils monitoring officer (head of legal) wrote up a report some months back 'advising' council members to register their interests - why have they ignored his report?
5. The audit report also mentions weaknesses in the councils management of bank accounts - what accounts is the auditor talking about?
6. How many residents in the borough have had their emails and telephone calls 'intercepted' by the council?
   
7. Will the Audit Commission be issuing a Public Interest Report?
   

Officers Report and Audit Commission Reports

Jersey child abuse cover up

Lenny Harpers guest posting on Senator Stuart Syvrets blog

Proper copper responds to the lies published about him in the Jersey evening post (commonly known as the vile rag) owned by the Guiton Group.

Attorney General William Bailhache tried to Stop Wateridge Being Charged.

Documentary Evidence Proves Dig at HDLG was Justified.

Evidence of Mr. Harper’s Professionalism and Integrity destroys Jersey Establishment Smear-Campaign.

Police Had Intelligence of Forced, Illegal Abortions and a Still-born Baby at HDLG.

Anthropologist’s Records Showed Many Suspected Human Bone Fragments.

Police Had Intelligence of Children ‘Not Being Seen Again’.

Expert’s Theory That Solid Fuel Furnace in the West Wing Was Used to Dispose of Human Remains.

Possibility of Unexplained Child Deaths Still Unresolved.

ACPO Reports Endorsed Investigation.

The Successful Prosecutions All Work of Mr. Harper’s Team.

Many Serious Suspects Still at Large.

Gradwell and Warcup Fail To Bring them to Justice.

Political Pressure and Interference By Jersey Establishment.

Gradwell and Warcup Press-Conference Discredited.

Spin, Lies and Smear-Campaign by Jersey Establishment Proves Existence of Culture of Concealment.

Undemocratic

A few months ago a small minority of residents in Camden where consulted by our 'council' on their views on the possible new governance structures for the Council. Local parishes were one option that was not favourable to many of the consultees (according to the council) , and another structure was that of directly elected major v indirectly elected leader and cabinet structure. I don't know what residents real views on this where but the 'council' has taken the decision that the directly elected major structure is not favorably to them. Lib-dem council leader Keith Moffitt doesn't like the idea that 'any old local celebrity' could get elected by residents to be 'top dog' in the council.

Council members had been 'whipped up' to agreed with Cllr Moffitts idea that the indirectly elected leader and cabinet structure is the best option. This is where 54 members of the council get to vote and which every other resident in the borough who is registered to vote is excluded.

Having 'any old local celeb' as major wouldn't be such a bad idea would it?

Surely what this old and stale council needs is a breath of fresh air, some new blood and new ways of doing things instilled into it?

Residents are fed up with the villians the main political parties put up for elections and the over paid unruly officers who are supposed to be providing local tax payers with a decent service.

Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults

http://www3.camden.gov.uk/templates/committees/showHTML.cfm?file=28392.htm

Housing and Adult Social Care (and community safety) scrutiny committee to be held on Tuesday 8 September 2009

Two reports are worth noting because they deal with how Camden council and other authorities say they are dealing with abuse of vulnerable adults.

The reports can be found by clicking HERE
scroll down to the bottom of the page to where it says reports and click on
Item 14 - Camden Safeguarding Adults Partnership Annual Report 2008 09
Item 14 - Safeguarding Adults Annual Report 2008 09

Apparently there is a Camden Safeguarding Adults Partnership Board which needs to be as the reports states more widely publicized so that concerned residents and the abused themselves can directly make referrals to. At the moment it is hidden away and residents cannot access it.

The Executive council member in charge of Adult Social Care - Cllr Martin Davies - has taken a particular interest in promoting awareness of adult safeguarding amongst fellow councillors. He also chaired a conference on Abuse in Institutional Settings in Oct 2008. Mr Davies also works for Age Concern in the LB borough of Westminster.

The councils corporate management team hosted a recent staff forum on safeguarding adults (and children).

A note of warning: if like me you do happen to have serious concerns that elderly and vulnerable residents have been taken advantage of and are still in danger of being taken advantage of and abused, by nasty predators who have easy access to them through the largely unregulated voluntary sector, be wary if you contact anyone to do with Camden council.

In my experience they ain't interested, especially so if the predators who pose the danger happen to have political connections to Camden council. Especially so if they are 'helping' the council with a project.

You may have better luck than me in getting them off their backsides and taking your concerns seriously and I hope you do but please be warned.

Hurry up and quit

Who really cares if the whole lot of them quit - the country wouldn't come to a stand still, public services wouldn't be affected or defense be in anymore of a mess that it already is. I say hurry up and go.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6807128.ece

From The Times

August 24, 2009

MP's hijack expenses inquiry with complaints and demands for pay rise

Plans to clean up Parliament are being hijacked by MPs intent on turning the committee investigating their expenses into a vehicle for special pleading.

After a summer of scandals that have shaken faith in the political process, Sir Christopher Kelly’s Committee on Standards in Public Life invited the public and politicians to set out their views before a report that is expected to propose far-reaching reforms in October.

Recap 2

Recap - the filth some nasty Camden Association of Street Properties (CASP) committee members posted on websites about me and another Camden resident.

These are the same recycled filth and lies they use about everyone who makes a complaint about them. This is a common tactic used by these types and is done to distract away from their own appalling behaviour and the many complaints the police and Camden council have received about them.

They get away with it because they are in with certain Camden council people and are able to manipulate the police to intimidate residents who threaten to 'rock the boat'. I was extremely upset and distressed by what these nasties wrote and what was wrote was clearly intended to cause me and the other resident distress, and to blacken our names and credibility. This filth was also directly targeted at me by the fact it was also sent to my personal email account.

The other resident made an official complaint to the police but the police weren't bothered.

I didn't make an official complaint because I knew they wouldn't do anything about it. It wears you down having to fight so much to gain simple and basic justice and redress, and I didn't at that time have a great deal of strength left. This 'wearing down' is another tactic these types use.

I did however make an official complaint to Camden police about the threatening phone calls I received at my home by the CASP committee nasties one which threatened "we're out to get you bitch" . This call in particular upset me considerable. I made another official complaint to the police about the persistent anonymous silent phone calls I was receiving last year and who I believed to be behind them.

The other resident who is viciously maligned by the casp nasties says his young daughter saw the filth that was written about him and his family and was very distressed by it. I have highlighted the ' juicy' parts.

Author: John Smith (---.cable.ubr02.camd.blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 2 september 2007

XXXXX XXXXX is a well-known troublemaker, and has caused massive problems for campaigners and other activists in Camden. She has a long history of making malicious allegations against Council officers and other tenants, and causing trouble for other tenants and residents and their organisations. She is, as ugly as they come, and is sexually frustrated, as she has never had a boy friend. She is therefore extremely jeolous of all around her and is out to get anyone whom she feels that she can target or will make a good victim.

She also has a sister who is of similar ilk who lives in West Hampstead, although the exact address is unknown. She is also in cahoots with another troublemaker, XXXXX of the XXXXXX. She has also abused school pupils from Hampstead School on the other blogg and has a dislike of asylum seekers and is racist and xenophobic. A lot of people are watching the developments with XXXXXX with great interest in view of the enormous trouble that she and XXXXXX have caused in Camden.

Author: John Smith (---.cable.ubr02.camd.blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09-01-07 23:56

This blogg has been published (and will be updated daily!!!) by a group of like minded individuals who feel that there is no place in any civilized society for the likes of XXXXXXX and her associates. This blogg has also been set up as we believe it is in the interests of public safety!

PUBLIC STATEMENT

It has taken 18 months of serious ‘harassment’ and ‘bullying’ from these individuals to force a group of us to set up this site. This has been done to protect our own safety as well as others! These individuals have ‘targeted’ a number of individuals and groups. We have also been forced to set up this site as a last resort due to the atrocious behaviour of these individuals. It is something we genuinely did not want to do, but we have been left with little choice!!!!

Have you come into contact with XXXXXX or one of her associates (NAMELY XXXXXX )? Have you, or an acquaintance, been physically or verbally abused, or received anonymous material (sometimes sexually explicit!) and suspected something is just not quite right?

Have YOU been ‘harassed’ or ‘abused’ by XXXXX or her associates? Have YOU had ‘false’ e-mail addresses (often using YOUR name) brought to your attention when these items have been used to cause harm and distress to both YOU and other people?Have YOU been made aware of ‘false’ internet sites being set up in ‘false’ name(s) (usually in YOUR name!) in an attempt to try & ‘frame’ individuals and groups?

Have YOU received ‘malicious’ telephone calls from XXXXXX or her associates which have needed to be traced by the police, as they have strenuously denied making these calls?Incidentally, these calls may have also been made by individuals whom XXXXXX claims are “vulnerable” or “seriously ill”.

Have YOU been impersonated in e-mails, etc, to try and get you ‘framed’? Have YOU been approached by XXXXX and her associate where efforts have been made to ‘incite’& ‘involve’ you in illegal activities (this includes the possible use of violence against other people)? Have YOU or YOUR community group faced ‘unsubstantiated’ allegations (and some extremely malicious!) when you have dared to ‘stand up’ to these bullies? Have YOU or YOUR organization/school/estate/families/homes been affected by the actions of these individuals?

Have YOU been ‘fed’ disturbing information by these individuals about other individuals and groups (those who normally stand up and speak out against such behaviour) in order to ‘incite’ and turn others against a particular individual or group?

If so, we want to hear YOUR story! Please note all items will be checked for accuracy by the Hotmail team before being published on this site!!!!!!We will also keep the identity of each submission in the strictest of confidence (unless stated otherwise), especially if concerns are expressed around personal safety!

BEWARE OF CAMDEN STALKER XXXXXXXXXXXXXX will often seek out individuals or groups to ‘bully’ and ‘terrorise’ in the hope that her actions will get her some much needed ATTENTION. She will resort to these actions when her ‘methods’ of persuasion (bullying, threats, intimidation and basic time wasting!) have failed to secure in her own words “favours” such as being provided with a free council laptop (despite not doing anything to help anybody but herself!), assistance with a move from her current council home (which she isn’t legally entitled to do!) or attempting to get individuals involved in activities which could cause genuine harm to others!

XXXXXX actions have been described by some people as nothing less than BLACKMAIL! The Hotline has been reliably informed that these actions have seriously tried to implicate at least TWO Camden Cllrs (cases involving identity fraud) and many more have been affected! Fortunately, Cllrs have the option of and we quote, “not getting involved” (and this is understandable, especially if they feel that they have been genuinely abused!) but this is not the case for voluntary & community groups, or genuine lone participants, who have no option but to try and ‘work’ with these individuals!

REMEMBER If you have received ‘suspicious’ looking material, which is clearly being used to cause harm and distress to others, and you suspect that these individuals may be involved, please send us details, as this may well protect you from ‘false’ allegations, or efforts being made by these individuals to ‘frame’ YOU!

XXXXXX can often be seen ‘skulking’ and ‘scoffing’ sandwiches at the back of meetings in Camden Town Hall, despite openly ‘criticising’ others as being supporters of ‘waste’ at Camden Town Hall! The Hotline Team WILL publish any photo of XXXXXX scoffing sandwiches at Camden Town Hall, or any other venue where refreshments are provided - HYPOCRITE!

XXXXXX will publically criticize groups and individuals, especially those who have been critical of her behaviour, however, she will not present ALL the facts, including important documents, which clearly demonstrate that there is more to the situation than meets the eye!

XXXXXXX is also on record as being a firm believer and supporter of central government’s new RESPECT agenda, which has been drawn up and promoted to try and define ‘acceptable’ and ‘minimum’ standards of behaviour in public life, especially those standards put in place by local authorities – HYPOCRITE!A glosssary of XXXXX terms and phrases – coming soon!!!!!

XXXXXX is also good at pretending to take up worthy causes – anything to give her an excuse to target others! For example she is often writing about “vulnerable” and “sick” members of the community being targeted by other people. Unfortunately, what XXXXXX fails to mention is that the person she is defending has often been responsible for ‘TERRORISING THEIR COMMUNITY’ with various court cases being heard / threatened against them (including police cautions due to inappropriate behaviour) and that Cllrs refuse to have anything to do with them, often because they have been too ‘abusive’ and ‘anti-social’ More coming shortly………………..

XXXXXX AND TENANT PARTICIPATION IN CAMDENXXXXXX has also ‘targeted’ national renowned tenants’ leader and housing campaigner xxxxxxxx for daring not to turn up to ONE meeting. The hotline team’s advice to XXXXXXXX is to take a leaf out of Walter’s book and GET OUT OF BED BEFORE 6PM IN THE EVENING AND GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More on XXXXXXXX involvement (or rather lack of!) in TP in Camden – coming soon!!!!!!!If any person is interested in knowing more details about XXXXXXXX appearance, please scroll to the top of the page as the ‘likeness’ to XXXXXXX has been described by some as “uncanny”! XXXXXXXX is as ugly as they come and to say she was a plain Jane would be doing Plain Jane's a compliment. She has a repulsive face and there have been complaints about her personal hygiene. She has no one in her life and this explains why she takes such an intereste in other peoples' business.

XXXXX XXXXXXXX VICTIMS INCLUDE: HER NEIGHBOUR, HAMPSTEAD SCHOOL CHILDREN, ASYLUM SEEKERS AND TENANT CAMPAIGNERSBEWARE OF CAMDEN STALKER (No 2) XXXXXX (XXXXXXXX PUPPET AND CONVICTED CREDIT CARD FRAUDSTER AND GRANNY BEATER)"

Hello! It is xxxxxx xxxxxx!!!!! It is xxxxxxxx you are talking to. Hello!!!" XXXXXXX AND XXXXXX can often be found sitting together at meetings . This duo can often be heard ‘criticising’ other groups and individuals, despite neither of them ever contributing ANYTHING worth while whatsoever to society! In fact, their lives consist of very little else other than criticizing others, droning on endlessly in internet chat rooms (sad!) and deciding who and how to try and ‘stitch-up’ next! XXXXXXX , who laughingly claims to represent every organization in Camden, can often be seen parading around in ‘fake’ second hand designer cloths and imitation bling!

One astute Camden resident was recently asked to sum up XXXXXXX and the response was, “He’s as fake as his imitation attire”! XXXXXXX can also be heard trying to use a ‘fake’ French accent, despite not being able to speak a single word of the French language. As another Camden resident commented, “There’s nothing classy or tasteful about him. He’s cheap and nasty to the core”.

XXXXXXX has even been warned by his long-suffering wife to have nothing to do with his own children because she does not trust him (WHY?). Again, and by his own admission, she has even gone as far as to inform Camden Social Services about her concerns! Could this be the same XXXXXXXX who tried to gain sympathy by ‘faking’ cancer in order to attract the sympathy of a certain individual?????

XXXXXXX can often get sympathy from people, at least until you get to know the REAL person behind the mask. PEOPLE can easily believe his stories, especially when he talks about his hard life at home, but it soon becomes apparent that XXXXXXX will use any ‘trick in the book’ to get what he wants, even if that means ‘feeding’ people ‘false’ information about other individuals and groups in order to cause division and strife! This has been happening for a long time, but many people are now waking up to what has been happening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!XXXXXXX long-suffering wife has tried many times to get shot of him, but like the ‘leech’ he is, he refuses to go, and instead remains to use both her benefit payments and medication, which he admits to using on a daily basis!xxxxxxxx has now received a formal HARASSMENT WARNING from the police due to his often ‘violent’ and ‘threatening’ behaviour towards others.

Procedures at Camden Town Hall also needed to be reviewed in light of XXXXXXX threatening and aggressive behaviour towards individuals (including Cllrs), especially against those who refuse to be intimidated by this man’s actions. Many have commented that this behaviour stems from his own lack of self-worth and that this view can be supported by XXXXXXX walking into every room only to remark on how many CFTRA courses he has completed, 16 according to him!Any person who has come into contact with this man will know that his 1Q is no higher than 5!

CONTACT WITH THE HOLLYWOOD GLITTERATTI (FANTACIST!)

xxxxxxxx, who claims to be a good friend of JOHNNY DEPP & KATE MOSS, but who lives on a council estate in xxxxxxx, has also allegedly been convicted for major credit card fraud and has now been declared ‘bankrupt’ by the courts!

xxxxxxxx has also been charged with serious GBH Grevious Bodily Harm!) against his own elderly parents-in-law who set out to protect their own daughter (xxxxxx WIFE) when she attempted to flee from this animal of a man!xxxxxxx has also received NUMEROUS WRITTEN warnings from Camden Council about his ‘violent’ behaviour.

One of these incidents involved xxxxxxxx trying to attack an old adversary (by using lies and deceit) at a DMC meeting. xxxxxxx (as usual) tried to ‘cover-up’ this UNACCEPATBLE behaviour.xxxxxxx has also been BANNED from using the premises of the Camden Federation of Tenants and Residents for using ‘violent’ (verbal and physical) and aggressive behaviour towards members of staff. He has resorted to this behaviour when staff and other individuals have not responded to his threats, as he is often insistent that others must do what he wants!

xxxxxxx will also attempt to take on various ‘causes’ often giving the impression that he is ‘concerned’ and wants ‘justice’. However, closer inspection has often shown that this man will USE other people in order to get who and what he wants!xxxxxx has fully supported xxxxxxx in his activities – HYPOCRITE!

xxxxxxx has also attempted to get involved with various groups involved with Tenant Participation in Camden, but unfortunately his ‘lack of self-control’ has resulted in him being asked to leave groups, often by terrified residents!!!xxxxxxx also placed pressure on a number of individuals to try and set up an organization to take over the Camden Federation of Tenants and Residents. Attempts to do this involved xxxxxxx telling lies about CFTRA in order to get people on side and cause divisions amongst groups in order to carry out his plan.

People were soon to realize that xxxxxxx plan was to make MONEY for himself and himself alone. He also turned THREATENING and NASTY when people refused to have anything to do with his mad plans! xxxxxxx has never done anything to help the residents of Camden. He even LIED about setting up a childrens' playground on his estate. This was done by other hard-working members on his estate. Eventually xxxxxxx became so JEALOUS and MALICIOUS towards others on his estate that it became necessary to hold an EMERGENCY meeting to get rid of the MONSTER once and for all.

As many as TWENTY residents submitted written statements at this meeting about his ‘violent’ and ‘jealous’ behaviour! xxxxxxx found out about the meeting and again turned up and attempted to ‘ASSAULT’ another resident, but others intervened to help the helpless resident. It has also been reported that xxxxxxx receives regular SECRET payments through his door for work he claims to have done as a VOLUNTEER!!!!! Where does the money come from being secretly delivered through xxxxxxx letter box???? How does xxxxxxx who doesn’t work afford to pay a MORTGAGE.NO it doesn’t take an EINSTEIN to realize what xxxxxxxxx is up to!!!!!!!!

Camden council gravy train

Word is that council members have been forming a long queue to get their hands on the free Blackberry mobile phones the council administrators are handing out to them. Some members I hear opted to have brand new blackberries, as well as laptops. I wonder if these freebies are included in the members expenses that the council has yet to make public?

Instead of wasting huge amounts of tax payers money on freebies for council members and tenant associations alike, why hasn't the council 'recycled' the old computers they have? Very bad practice in my view - very un 'green'.

I also hear that a certain 'director' of a private company (cftra) that is given huge amounts of public funding by camden council and who is also a labour party member and candidate for next years council elections in the Kentish Town ward has been putting in huge expenses claims for parking.

Allegedly the sum of these parking expenses over a period of three or four months has been around £800. This would be the same 'director' who is supposed to be an unpaid director but who is alleged to have carried out paid work for the private company he allegedly directs. Is he still employed by the council as a maintenance contractor I wonder? Are the camden labour lot taking the pee or what?

This 'director' is also 'fcuking over' a member of his own party in collusion with housing officers, yet for some bizaar reason the 'party' have put him up as candidate. Can he be trusted not to stab other party members in the back to save his own skin?

DON'T VOTE FOR MERIC APAK.

I hear hes already began his canvassing of unsuspecting residents in Kentish Town - I suspect via the homes for the permanently bewildered who may be conned into believing they are being offered a day out to the sea-side.

This is the 'director' who sharon calvey who has a non-job in the councils housing department entered into an illegal contract with to the sum of £133,000 to provide services to tenants. This contract was allegedly agreed by the director of finance.

More like servicing himself and the 12 other CFTRA 'directors'?

Yes the CFTRA has 13 'directors' and all 13 are 'entitled' (in their view and the councils?) to claim outrageous expenses paid for courtesy of council tenants. No actual service that I can see is being provided to tenants by this private company.

Funny how the 'directors' of this private company are all so-called 'socialists' who hate everything private yet treat public money like its their own to do as they please. They obviously think they are entitled to do so - redistribution of wealth by thieving? And thieving from your own so-called class to boot. Shameful.

Why hasn't the Audit Commission who are doing the audit of the councils accounts picked up on what does very much look like a scam? From what I hear they have been informed of it.

CPS Blunder

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207448/Film-maker-taken-court-stealing-0-003p--cost-5-000-taxpayer.html

Film maker is taken to court for 'stealing' 0.003p - at a cost of over £5,000 to the taxpayer

This story comes as no surprise to me. It features over zealous Camden police and the CPS who share the same building with Camden Police (headquarters) in Holborn.

Isn't it about time the CPS got their act together and started practising some professionalism and common sense?

Electroral Registration

When I logged into the www.elecreg.co.uk/camden website that Camden Council uses for residents to register online I received a warning that the site was not safe. I discontinued with the registration but the two security codes I had been given by the council were inputted.

Camden council are 'urging' residents to register via this online facility to save on postage but I would advise not to use it until it is properly secured and validated as who knows who will be able to get hold of your details and commit electoral fraud.

Targetted

Camden council have sent me a letter saying they have taken out a council tax liability order against me in the magistrates court.

Apparently I owe £108 (including £85 costs bringing the total to £193).

Oddly I haven't received a summons from the court informing me that a complaint had been made against me by Camden council for outstanding council arrears and to which I should have been given the chance to dispute the claim. I haven't even received a reminder letter. Maladministration.

Apparently I must pay £193 straight away.

No mention on the liability order notice of the period for which I am supposed to owe the £108 council tax. Apparently they will set the bailiffs on me if I don't pay it in 14 days.

For the record I owe £18 for this month (Aug) which I paid today and given that we are only in the middle of Aug they (those nice folk in the council) really have no grounds other than malicious intention for what they have done - if they have done it.

I have proof of the council tax payments I have made.

I have contacted the Magistrates Court with my concerns and have been advised to send them the letter the council sent me. I will also be including proof of all the council tax payments I have made over the last two years.

What will be the councils excuse? Admin error perhaps?

Could it be that the 'council' have concocted another 'scam' to try and extort money from residents?

Is there a criminal syndicate 'trading' as Camden council inc?

When are the police going to start taking seriously the blatant crimes committed by this council?

It is pretty clear that Camden 'council' shows little regard for the law and routinely sticks two fingers up to residents and the police. They are smug with how easy is is for them to get away with breaking the law.

How does one go about getting a municipal corporation dissolved?

Click HERE for what the CAB says on Council Tax.

Camden Council in the Dock again

http://www.camdengazette.co.uk/content/camden/chronicle/news/story.aspx?brand=CAMCOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newscamc&itemid=WeED22%20Jul%202009%2014%3A37%3A53%3A133


Council charged over wall that killed boy, 2
nlnews@archant.co.uk
22 July 2009

CAMDEN Council is being charged over the death of a two-year-old boy crushed to death by a wall.

Saurav Ghai died after a 6ft 6ins brick panel fell on him as he walked down Southampton Road, Gospel Oak.

Camden Council is due to appear at City of London Magistrates' Court on September 2 charged with breaching section three of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

The fatal incident happened on January 18, 2007 - as high-speed winds ripped through the borough. Saurav was walking past the Wendling Estate with his nanny when part of its brick wall fell.

An inquest at St Pancras Coroner's Court in November 2007 raised issues about the way the collapsed panel was attached to the rest of the wall.

Saurav's city banker father Vinay, performance analyst mother Desiree, and older brother, of Parkhill Walk, Gospel Oak, were devastated after the incident. Together with friends, relatives and the Mayfair company BlueBay Asset Management, they raised £10,000 for the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead - where Saurav died.

A Camden Council spokeswoman said: "The Health and Safety Executive have commenced a prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work Act related to the tragic death of Saurav Ghai. The case has been adjourned until September because the Health and Safety Executive has not yet provided full details of the proposed action against the council. Once we have received these details we will consider them."

This is not the first time the HSE has taken Camden Council to court.

The council was also charged over the death of 24-year-old Ralph Kennedy, a scaffolder who was electrocuted when he touched a light on the council's Mayford Estate off Oakley Square, Somers Town, on September 15, 2006.

And at the Old Bailey in March, Camden was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay £16,445 in costs after pleading guilty to failing to ensure that sub-contracted staff were not exposed to risk, in contravention of the Health and Safety At Work Act.

Top earners

Did you know that in the financial year 2008/9 'Camden council' created 57 new 'top earners' posts. The year before they created 145.

I'm sure this can't be correct but its on the councils 2008/9 statement of accounts (page 29 remuneration of senior staff and members) but two chief officers earn over £200,000 per year. The top one I'm assuming is moira gibb the CEO who now earns £320,000 - £330,000!

This is an increase of over £100,000 on what she was earning the year before! This sum can't be right and must be an accounting error - surely?

Interestingly council people who have shares, bonds and property have seen their pension investments devalue somewhat since last year. Oh dear.

In the last year Camden council has invested nearly £67m with Goldman Sachs. Perhaps the council isn't aware that Goldman Sachs is held by many as being responsible for the economic crash (all their dodgy dealings?) and subsequent public money bail out - and the recent vulgar bonus's to all its staff. Talk about unethical investment not to mention risky. What dodgy scheme has GS got on the go now? Read about Goldman Sachs HERE

Annual Complaints Report

year ending March 2009 LGO Annual Complaints report to Camden Council

Annual Residents Survey carried out between 4 Jan 2009 - 2 Feb 2009

"Complaints is an area that has not improved since the last survey and the proportion who say they were dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint has increased by 4%."

Despite the council saying they have made changes to their 'corporate' complaints system little in the way of change appears to have occurred in how complaints are handled. Well done Camden 'four star' council. Wouldn't do for the council to allow to many complaints about bad services or bad behaviour by council officers to be upheld as that wouldn't look to good in the annual complaints report.

Housing Market slump?

Housing market slump - what slump? Here in Camden some flats are being sold for a very juicy profit. Certain Camden council members have profited very nicely from the 'slump' thank you very much.

Council 'leader' keith moffitt for one made a very tidy profit when he sold his leasehold flat at

39 Buckingham Mansions NW6 last year. The leasehold was bought at a knockdown price of £100,000 in 2002 and sold 6 years later for a staggering £965,000.

Cllr moffitt made a whopping £865,000 profit!

Lend us a tenner keith?

end thought
I wonder whether the council used to hold the leasehold to 39 Buckingham Mansions - as well as the leasehold to 59 Cholmely Gardens where cllr moffitt now resides?

Cllrs Intersts Part 4

Two month ago the councils monitoring officer Andrew Maughan wrote up a report which was sent to the councils Standards Committee that some council members from all four parties had not declared all of the interests they must by law register. Some have since updated the register but the below have still not done so.

Liberal Democrats
Omar Faruque Ansari – Kentish Town
Frederic Carver – Cantelowes
Linda Chung – Hampstead Town - no link to registered interests on councils website

Labour
Fazlul Chowdhury - Bloomsbury
Nurul Islam – St Pancras and Somers Town
Anna Stewart – St Pancras with Somers Town

Conservative
Andrew Mennear – Frognal and Fitzjohns
Lulu Mitchell – Gospel Oak
Don Williams – Swiss Cottage

Green
Adrian Oliver – Highgate

MEMBERS of the Standards Committee 15 April 2009

Independent (non-Councillors): Roy Griffins, Judith Lempriere, Alan Lord and Anne Sofer

Councillors: Martin Davies(C), Duncan Greenland(LD), Nancy Jirira(LD), Adrian Oliver(G), Jonathon Simpson(L), Dawn Somper(C), Brian Woodrow(L)

Councillor Substitutes: Theo Blackwell(L), Kirsty Roberts(C), Maya de Souza(G), Flick Rea (LD)

CAB funding cuts

Why has Camden council cut in half the funding of a vital service - the Citizens Advice Bureau in Kentish Town - yet given other voluntary bodies (the CFTRA to name one) continued funding at the same level. The likes of the CFTRA have been performing badly for years and are by no stretch of the imagination a vital service. Doesn't make sense to me.

On another matter - The Charity SCOPE who have a shop in Camden High Street are asking people to sign a pledge to speak out when they see disabled people being treated unfairly.

Speak out to whom I am wondering as from mine and other peoples experience of 'speaking out' to the council or the police will get you nowhere - they ain't interested and are in some cases the perpetrators of the unfairness. I wonder if SCOPE in Camden are funded by the council because if they are this 'speaking out' call will I'm sure be frowned upon by those who pull the funding strings.

Baby Rhys Biggs

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/content/camden/hamhigh/news/story.aspx?brand=northlondon24&category=newshamhigh&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newshamhigh&itemid=WeED17%20Apr%202009%2013%3A33%3A11%3A060

Jail for man who watched girlfriend torture son

editorial@hamhigh.co.uk
17 April 2009

Paul Husband

THE boyfriend of a woman who tortured her own baby after being cleared to care for him by Camden social services was sentenced for his part in the boy's neglect today.

Paul Husband, 33, a convicted child sex offender stood by as two-month-old Rhys Biggs wailed in agony because of the injuries inflicted by his mother Claire Biggs in the days leading up to his death.

At the Inner London Crown Court, Husband was sentenced to two years and three months for failing to intervene and alert medical experts during the course of his abuse

Judge Lindsay Burn QC said: "On certainly one occasion before Rhys' death you realised he was in pain from some cause and needed medical help and you did not get it.

"It does not follow that you knew why Rhys was in pain. It does not follow that you knew he was in pain on more than one occasion."

The court heard, however, that Husband tried to get medical help for Rhys on the morning he died.

His cause of death could not be ascertained by medical experts or linked to the abuse but the couple's trial heard that Rhys' short life was spent in "considerable pain and suffering".

Biggs, 24, was sentenced in March to eight years imprisonment for the campaign of abuse on Rhys which left him with 12 crushed ribs, a broken shoulder and a snapped wrist.

Camden Council's social services, which approved Rhys to stay in his mother's care, came under criticism in a case review released after the sentencing which said the council was "over-optimistic" in its assessment of the heroin addict's ability to care for her newborn son.

Husband was convicted of indecently assaulting a former lover's child in Scotland when he was 18 - but his criminal past was never checked by social services in London.

Following the case, the NSPCC called for a change in the law to allow judges to give longer sentences to those who inflict serious harm on children. The charity wants the law of familial homicide extended to include cases of serious injury.

NSPCC lawyer Barbara Esam said: "The law needs to be addressed to cover cases where a carer has inflicted serious injuries on a child - where the child does not die or where it cannot be proved that the child died from the injuries inflicted.

Child Abuse

Taken from the Camden Gazette 17 June 09 -page 9

'Council failed to protect me from abuse'

Woman in payout bid over childhood claims

A woman wept as she accused Camden Council of not doing enough to protect her against abuse she suffered as a child at the hands of her own mother and uncle.

The woman now a mother herself and in her 30's claims she was subjected to physical and sexual abuse and neglect by her mother, and sexually abused by her uncle.

She insists council officials should have taken her into care shortly after her birth, but Mrs Justice Slade was told at the High Court that the woman was only finally removed from the family home in 1989, when she was a teenager, after her mother took her to a police station and asked for her to be taken away.

The woman identified only as "S" in court, is seeking massive damages from Camden Council, claiming she was let down by social services and that will have a devastating impact on the rest of her life.

The court heard her mother admitted child neglect at Southwark Crown Court in 2005 and received a community rehabilitation order. However, allegations of sexual abuse against her and the woman's uncle only came to light last week.

"S"s barrister Elizabeth-Ann Gumbel, told the judge that her clients childhood memories are so distressing that she refers to her mother only as "Miss P" and that their relationship had once been described by a social worker as "bizarre and unhealthy".

"No reasonable local authority and no reasonably social workers would have failed to remove this woman from the care of her mother, the QC argued.

Whilst giving evidence the woman wept frequently and at one stage fled the witness box, saying she "felt sick".

She told the judge "[My mother] told everyone that I was put into care because I was naughty. I thouht to myself that the next time someone asks me why I don't talk to my mum, I am going to say 'because she was a child abuser'".

Explaining why she has only recently made her allegations, she added: "I did not want anyone to know. I felt dirty and unclean and tried to bury it I" have not even been able to speak to my solicitor about this. I wrote it in an e-mail because I thought it would be easier. It makes me feel sick to think about it". Who wants to think about a sexual relationship with their mother or their uncle?"

Under cross-examination she defended her late disclosure of the sex abuse allegations saying "The sexual scars are harder to speak about. I did not want people to know that I had to do these things, but I thought what was the point hiding it anymore?"

Camden Council denies liability in the case and argues that "S" has in any event left it too late to sue".

Claims for personal injury suffered in childhood normally have to be launched before the victim's 21st birthday, unless there are exceptional circumstances. However, "S"'s legal team insist there was good reasons for the delay".

The hearing continues.

_______________________

1994 - Children in Camden Council Care


UPDATE
Court case decision 16 July 09

This little Piggy....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1193282/Lord-Moneyjabs-How-Drayson-fattened-drug-firm-taxpayer--80m-selling-Americans.html

Lord Moneyjab: How Drayston fattened up his drug firm on the taxpayer - then made £80m selling it to Americans

By Steve Doughty

A Labour donor made a vast personal fortune on the back of a £20million handout of taxpayers' money, an inquiry has found.

Lord Drayson had threatened to pull his PowderJect company out of Britain unless it was given public cash.

In 2003 the vaccine manufacturer was offered the £20million to build a factory by a government-run regional development board.

Just two months later he sold the subsidised company to its U.S. rival Chiron, landing a profit for himself and his family estimated at £80million.

He is now a science minister and, following last week's reshuffle, also a defence minister attending Cabinet meetings. The affair raises disturbing questions over Labour's burgeoning quango network and the way it handles large sums of public money in deep secrecy.

At a time of widespread anger over MPs' misuse of their expenses, it led to calls yesterday for better scrutiny of the way taxpayers' money is spent by unaccountable bureaucrats.

The North West Regional Development Agency, which channelled money to the Drayson firm, is one of nine RDAs which between them have spent more than £15billion.

An official report on the PowderJect deal, which the North West RDA commissioned but unsurprisingly decided not to publish, finds that the takeover which made Lord Drayson's fortune was 'significantly influenced' by the handout from the quango.

It adds that the grant produced a less-than- expected return for the public.

The controversial peer's dealings with Downing Street, Whitehall and the Labour Party have been under scrutiny since when, as Dr Paul Drayson, he made donations totalling £100,000 to Labour funds during 2001 and 2002.

Shortly afterwards PowderJect was handed a £32.5million Government contract to supply smallpox vaccine.

Made a peer by Tony Blair in 2004, Lord Drayson joined the Government the following year and became Gordon Brown's science minister last October.

Read the full story HERE

Serious Crime

Did you know that one of camden councils and related third parties favourite 'pastimes' FRAUD is a serious offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007

SCHEDULE 1 Serious offences

Part 1 Serious Offences in England and Wales
7. Fraud

(1) An offence under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60)(false accounting).

(2) An offence under any of the following provisions of the Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35)—

(a) section 1 (fraud by false representation, failing to disclose information or abuse of position);

(b) section 6 (possession etc. of articles for use in frauds);

(c) section 7 (making or supplying articles for use in frauds);

(d) section 9 (participating in fraudulent business carried on by sole trader etc.);

(e) section 11 (obtaining services dishonestly).

(3) An offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud.

8. Offences in relation to public revenue

(1) An offence under section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2)(fraudulent evasion of duty etc.) so far as not falling within paragraph 1(2)(c) or 3(1)(b) above.

(2) An offence under section 72 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (c. 23)(fraudulent evasion of VAT etc.).

(3) An offence under section 144 of the Finance Act 2000 (c. 17)(fraudulent evasion of income tax).

(4) An offence under section 35 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 (c. 21)(tax credit fraud).

(5) An offence at common law of cheating in relation to the public revenue.

9 Corruption and bribery

(1) An offence under section 1 of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 (c. 69)(corruption in public office).

(2) An offence which is the first or second offence under section 1(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 (c. 34)(corrupt transactions with agents other than those of giving or using false etc. documents which intended to mislead principal).

(3) An offence at common law of bribery.

I would advise any readers who have reasonable grounds and evidence that suggests that FRAUD, CORRUPTION or BRIBERY has been committed by any council workers, council members or related third parties and feel that you have a duty to report it, pop down to your local police station and make an official report to the police (cite the offence and Act under which it is a crime and produce the evidence). Make sure you are given a crime reference number before you leave the police station.

However, don't be suprised if after reporting these serious offences the police take no interest in the crime/s and you don't hear from them again on the matter. On the whole the police do not take fraud seriously despite it now being a serious crime - particularly so when it involves camden council and related third parties.

Council Webcasts

Extremely poor quality (sound and picture) webcast of the Executive committee meeting that was held on 27 May 2009 and the full council meeting held on 15 June 09.

Could this be a deliberate act of sabotage or simply crappy software being used by the council?

Could it be that since a certain fib-dem council member was caught out on webcast in April 09 'misleading' the executive committee that the webcasts have been 'got at'?

UPDATE

Camden council issued the below statement on their webiste and have now fixed the problem. Well done to them.

"Due to technical reasons we are experiencing problems with the quality of recent webcasts. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused. We are working to resolve this issue."

Police State

The game of politics in Camden is a very dirty and sinister game indeed, and not a game to be played by the faint hearted. Not a game to be in if one has any decency and morals.

The game is fundamentally about influence. The council leader lib-dim keith moffitt became involved in local politics because he wants to influence. He states so in one of his party political propaganda interview he gave to 'the lib dem voice'. A control freak perhaps who wants to control everything around him? He also asks central government to trust him (local government) - yeah right keith about as far as one can throw you.

The game is also based on lies. The making up of them and the spreading about of them. Nasty lies that begger belief. Most people tell the odd fib every now and again and they don't cause any harm, but these creatures tell the most disgusting and harmful lies time and time again.

It is also about secrets. Dirty secrets about the behaviour and mindset of party members and council officials. Its also about the cross party consensus of covering up each others crimes.

The rot is everywhere and it is there because this is how many council members and council officers prefer it. The fascist leaning unions are also part of the rot.

It is also about council tenants who con and deceive other tenants to get their support and to vote for them. Its also about jumping on bandwagons that everyone else has jumped on or who others put pressure on you to jump on.

Its about contradictions and lack of trust.

Its about not having any real friends - only associates or 'comrades' who will stab you in the back as soon as look at you. It is about wanting something for themselves over and above the rest of us.

Its about greed and what they believe they are entitled to.

It is about pretending to care about everyone and everything, pretending to be whiter than white, holier than thou all the while thieving from public funds and prying on vulnerable residents. Its about megalomaniacs wanting power and influence over the rest of us. Its about using every means to take down ones opponents, to discredit them, to harass them to intimidate them. Its about corrupting the police and the legal system.

Its about having 'associates' in high places who will prop you up and give you awards that you don't deserve.

This is the reality of local government. It is a cesspit of evil manipulate little nobodies who want to force their (bad) will upon other people. Its about sub-humans who have no sense of right or wrong, no boundaries they will not cross.

Most disturbingly it is about corrupting the police and the legal and justice system to suit their needs, to subdue dissenters who see the thugs, crooks and thieves for what they really are.

Its about being conned into thinking you live in a fair and equal democracy when you don't. In reality Camden is a police state run by the criminals in local government. The criminals who set their poodles the police on you if you dare to challenge them.

Its about nazi Germany all over again.

Did the nazis ever go away? Some people say no they didn't they just used a different tactic - the Trojan horse tactic, the enemy from within.

Cllrs Interests Part3

A month ago the councils monitoring officer wrote up a report which was sent to the councils Standards Committee that some council members from all four parties had not declared all of the interests they must by law register. Since then the members concerned (listed below) have still not registered these interests. What is going on?

Liberal Democrats
Omar Faruque Ansari – Kentish Town
Nick Russell – Kentish Town - no link to registered interests on councils website
Libby Campbell – Camden Town with Primrose Hill
Frederic Carver – Cantelowes
Linda Chung – Hampstead Town - no link to registered interests on councils website

Labour
Fazlul Chowdhury - Bloomsbury
Nurul Islam – St Pancras and Somers Town
Anna Stewart – St Pancras with Somers Town

Conservative
Andrew Mennear – Frognal and Fitzjohns
Lulu Mitchell – Gospel Oak
Don Williams – Swiss Cottage

Green
Adrian Oliver – Highgate

MEMBERS of the Standards Committee 15 April 2009

Independent (non-Councillors): Roy Griffins, Judith Lempriere, Alan Lord and Anne Sofer

Councillors: Martin Davies(C), Duncan Greenland(LD), Nancy Jirira(LD), Adrian Oliver(G), Jonathon Simpson(L), Dawn Somper(C), Brian Woodrow(L)

Councillor Substitutes: Theo Blackwell(L), Kirsty Roberts(C), Maya de Souza(G), vacancy(LD)

Cllr flick rea has since become a member of the standards committee - 'strategic' positioning perhaps?

The next meeting of the councils Standards Committee is 3 June 09.

Will the monitoring officer be writing up another report to remind council members to register their interests?

Annual General Meeting

Camden council will be holding its Annual General Meeting this month 13 May 2009. What I don't understand is why the councils Constitution doesn't state that accounts are to be produced at this meeting?

In the pretend democracy we have here in camden, a borough with a resident population of around 200,000, every four years we are divinely granted permission to participate in the annual election of our council members. In the interim years 54 privileged council members, some unfit for public office, get to nominate one another back onto the council. This is the new and improved 'localism' that we are being conned into believing gives residents more choice and a greater say on how things are run.

Chief Legal Officers

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/plan-chief-legal-officer-splits-local-government-solicitors

Plan for chief legal officer splits local government solicitors
Friday 17 April 2009 by Deven Pamben

A proposal that every local authority be required to appoint a qualified chief legal officer has attracted split responses from 70 different organisations.

The Law Society and Solicitors in Local Government have proposed a change in the law to create the new role, replacing that of monitoring officer, who does not have to be legally qualified. Chief legal officers would be solicitors, barristers or legal executives.

The Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors and the Local Government Group, the SLG’s training arm, opposed the plans from the outset (see [2009] Gazette, 5 February, 3).

The consultation also drew criticism from England’s largest local authority. Mirza Ahmad, corporate director of governance at Birmingham City Council, described the proposal as ‘poor-quality and lacking in real understanding of issues facing monitoring officers’.

But the Institute of Legal Executives said it would ‘be in the public interest’ for councils to have a chief legal officer answerable to a professional regulatory body.

A paper on the proposal will go before the Law Society’s legal affairs and policy board in the next two months, Mark Stobbs, the Law Society’s director of legal policy, said.

Meanwhile, local authorities are being urged not to pass the cost of practising certificate fees on to their legal officers as a cash-saving measure. Guy Goodman, SLG’s chair, says he was made aware of one council considering passing on the £995 fee to its solicitors. ‘This would be a backward step and is not a move we would support.’

---------------------

Law Society Consultation paper Jan 09

Political Speak

I came across THIS on camden councils website and thought it quite strange, but apparently in political 'speak' the word black as in Operation Black Vote, refers to all ethnic groups ..... including white ethnics.

I can only conclude that these 'politicians' are taking the pee out of all ethnics groups including black ethnics who they are targeting and trying to con into becoming council members. My advice to any decent person thinking of getting involved with camden council: don't! if you are approached by 'one of them' run like the wind and don't look back because if you get sucked in sooner or later the corruption that emanates from the town hall will pollute you, it is everywhere.

I'm sure I'm not the only resident in camden who has heard the horror stories of just how 'well' camden council treats ethnics, especially those who happen to be council tenants ......

Shocking beyond words

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1173555/How-family-kept-police-killer-Harry-Roberts-bars-betrayed-called-Ministry-Justice.html

How family who kept police killer Harry Roberts behind bars were betrayed by the so-called Ministry of Justice
By Ian Gallagher
Last updated at 10:06 PM on 25th April 2009

Last week The Mail on Sunday revealed that Justice Secretary Jack Straw faced urgent questions about how Britain's most notorious police killer, Harry Roberts, was able to terrorise a family whose evidence blocked his release from jail. Roberts callously shot three policemen in 1966 and was sentenced to life in prison. James and Joan Cartwright, who gave Roberts work at their animal sanctuary for his day release, told how a series of brutal attacks on their animals coincided with a five-year campaign of intimidation. Here the Cartwrights continue their shocking story...

To read the full story click HERE

Annual Accounts

Despite the meeting being inquorate, consent was given by the councils Audit Committee at their Sept 2008 meeting for the councils 2007/8 accounts to be signed off. However, rumour has it that due to unresolved objections to these accounts Camden council has yet to sign them off.

This raises the question as to whether the audit committee were aware of the unresolved objections before giving consent? Please note that the Audit Committee has since merged with the Development Control Committee to form the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee.

Is the executive member responsible for finance aware that the accounts haven't been signed off? What does he make of it I wonder?

If Camden council can't sign off the accounts shouldn't the Audit Commission be informed? Shouldn't the police be informed? Shouldn't residents be informed?

When the director of Finance makes his annual declaration in the local press in June that the councils accounts are open to the electorate for inspection, will he include this vital information?

Complaints to Police

You know when you first read something but don't quite take in all of what it says? Then upon reading it a second time realise that you had missed some vital information?

Recently I was re-reading the response I received to a FOI request I had made to the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and I realised that there was vital information in it that I had missed when I first read it. Well, it will come as no surprise to many people to know that since 2005 Camden police have received IN EXCESS of 130 complaints relating to camden council! Unfortunately the cost to the MPS of extracting the ''excess' information is so great that it exceeds £450 and they wouldn't give it to me!

Just how big is the file the police have on camden council? Shouldn't the public be told?

Political Party Funding

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/news-and-media/news-releases/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-donations/political-partiesrsquo-latest-donations-and-borrowing-figures-published

Did you know that in 2008 6 political parties received £9,054,964 in public funding ....

What appears to be on the increase is political parties setting themselves up as 'charities', companies and 'think-tanks' and a whole number of other dubious bodies and have been allowed easy access to public money.

It also seems to be standard practice for certain political parties who have members sitting in parliament to 'loan out' public paid for staff to their local associations.

Did you know that in the last few years cllr Duncan Greenland lib-dem council member and audit committee chair has donated over £100,000 to his party? Which also includes a donation of £7,500 made on 27 April 2009.

Could it be that Cllr Greenland is a wealthy individual who one could argue has bought himself safe positions within the party and within Camden council?

Could it be that undisclosed third party donations are being made through him?

Dirty Tactics

The below news story is very relevant to what goes on in camden council and the 'tactics' some rotten tenant 'reps' and council people use to discredit others. These unwritten codes of conduct appear to be widely accepted by council officers and members. The nasties on the CASP committee do it and the Camden lib-dems who they are working in partnership with are known to spread around these disgusting smears. Is this the type of local government Camden residents want?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1169346/Browns-attack-dog-sacked-vile-sex-smear-emails-Tories.html

Brown's attack dog sacked over 'vile sex smear emails' about top Tories

By Simon Walters and Glen Owen
Last updated at 2:22 AM on 12th April 2009

REVEALED: How No10 planned to plant slurs about top Tories

Gordon Brown's spin doctor was sensationally sacked last night after he was accused of trying to launch a smear campaign against David Cameron and George Osborne.

Downing Street Press adviser Damian McBride was forced to resign after a series of emails he sent from No10 to fellow Labour spin doctor Derek Draper, a close friend of Business Secretary Peter Mandelson, were leaked.

In the emails, Mr McBride, one of the Prime Minister’s most loyal and trusted advisers, reportedly made ‘vile’ and false allegations against Mr Osborne and Mr Cameron concerning their private lives.

The emails also make unfounded allegations against a number of other Tories, including Mid Bedfordshire MP Nadine Dorries.

Cabinet Minister Tom Watson, another close ally of Mr Brown, was also under fire after claims that he, too, is involved in the email row.

The emails – sent from a high-security Downing Street account – were obtained by a political blogger known as Guido Fawkes, whose real name is Paul Staines. The slurs, none of which have any substance, include suggestions that:

• Mr Cameron should be challenged to produce his medical records, after admitting in an interview that he had visited a sexual diseases clinic when a student. There is no suggestion he had any treatment.
• Mr Osborne once posed for a photograph wearing a bra, knickers and suspenders with his face blackened.
• Ms Dorries had been the subject of sexual allegations.
• A gay MP is using his position to offer free publicity to a High Street company for which his boyfriend works.

Register of Cllrs Interests Part 2

http://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/2009/040909/news040909_20.html

Camden News - by PAUL KEILTHY
Published: 9 April 2009

Warning on council expenses

AS the scrutiny of expenses and perks in government continues to grab headlines, the Town Hall’s top lawyer has written to councillors for the third time in a year to warn that they risk straying beyond the rules.

Borough solicitor Andrew Maughan said the councillors’ register of interests, for which politicians are required to record any gift or perk over £25 as well as jobs or positions which could create conflicts of interests, was a vital legal requirement.

In a report published this week, Mr Maughan wrote: “It is suspected that it is not as up to date as it might be and that all members need to consider whether or not they should be updating it now to include any gifts or hospitality they may have received. There has been a significant increase in recent Freedom of Information inquiries and press interest generally.”
The report will be heard at a Standards Committee meeting on Wednesday.