I have.  And I agree:  the opposite of Democratic. I wanted to launch a petition. I was told the subject was not suitable for a petition.  I pointed out that I had already made a formal complaint in respect of the matter which had not been dealt with and my petition was to ask for it to be dealt with.  The officer to whom I was speaking was very helpful.  He was due to take early retirement a month later, demob happy and in a position to be indiscreet (= honest).  He tried to locate the Formal Complaint but could not find it anywhere on the system.   When I pursued the issue, it suddenly reappeared!   It has still not been dealt with. Which brings me to Helen Harris, Director of Legal  and Democratic Sevices -"unfair Helen who launched a thousand slips”. (Apologies for mangling the famous quotation from  Christopher Marlowe).  I have had numerous encounters with her and have yet to discover in what her expertise lies.   Matters with which she deals have to be dealt with by other officers: for planning matters by an officer versed in planning law, for litigation she has Mr Yisroel Greenberg to prepare papers for her. Does she take over when the matter gets to court?   That would be a comedy worth witnessing.  Ms Harris’s “get out” when asked to consider a complaint against a close colleague was that it had already been dealt with (the formula for corruption I alluded to in an earlier post).  Imagine that in court.  The judge would raise an eyebrow and point out that her job was to make a reasoned case, not make a claim of that kind, especially when she failed to substantiate it. My complaint has still not been dealt with. There is one of her functions that could not be dealt with in that way: overseeing elections. My worry there is: there is a formal complaint against her outstanding.  If it is not dealt with, it will undermine confidence in the coming election. What is the complaint?. These are the allegations against Ms Harris. “Ms Harris took on the job of responding to complaints against Ms Reynolds. She refused to deal with them on the ground that they had already been dealt with.   We asked where, when and by whom they had been dealt with.  She failed to demonstrate the truth of her assertion.  She failed to escalate our complaint to stage two in defiance of the Council’s complaints protocol and further disgraced herself by colluding with Ms Reynolds.  She allowed Ms Reynolds herself to decide whether the formal complaint against her (Ms Reynolds) should go ahead.” I am sharing this with you in strict confidence.  I am confident no one else will see it. Let’s face it, no one reads submissions on the forum that are more than two sentences long, certainly not Ms Arbuthnot who was effectively seen off by Mr Wrigley.  He was a little harsh, I thought.  Poor Trish. She read something that upset her and got into an emotional tizzy so all she could write was abuse.  Not very nice, true, but it sent my mind back to those old black and white comedies such as “I married Joan” which ridiculed feather-brained housewives.  The species is evidently still with us.  And I am laughing. I notice that Mr Southwell, who also used abuse as a prelude to his simple-hearted generalisations about the decency of politicians, has failed to confound, or deal at all with my demonstration that we do not have one of those in Mason.  Mr Mason is sitting on the complaint against Ms Harris.

Entire Thread

Topic	Date Posted	Posted By
Mason to be questioned	19/10/21 10:27:00	Andrew Farmer
Re:Mason to be questioned	19/10/21 12:42:00	Tricia Arbuthnot
Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	19/10/21 14:13:00	Andrew Farmer
Re:Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	19/10/21 14:16:00	N V Brooks
Reply	19/10/21 14:41:00	Gordon Southwell
Re:Reply	19/10/21 16:23:00	Andrew Farmer
Re:Re:Reply	19/10/21 18:34:00	Rosco White
Re:Re:Re:Reply	19/10/21 20:29:00	Peter Yale
Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply	19/10/21 20:36:00	Keith Iddon
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply	19/10/21 20:58:00	Rosco White
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply	19/10/21 22:42:00	Keith Iddon
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply	19/10/21 22:46:00	Rosco White
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Reply	10/11/21 08:04:00	P Taylor
Re:Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	21/10/21 17:55:00	Simon Wycombe
Re:Re:Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	21/10/21 18:00:00	Rosco White
Re:Re:Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	10/11/21 08:19:00	P Taylor
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	10/11/21 15:55:00	Rosco White
Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	10/11/21 08:17:00	P Taylor
Re:Mason to be questioned	20/10/21 11:10:00	Paul Scullion
Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	20/10/21 13:58:00	Andrew Farmer
Re:Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	20/10/21 14:05:00	vincent paul wrigley
Re:Re:Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	20/10/21 15:04:00	Rosco White
Re:Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	20/10/21 15:36:00	Paul Scullion
Re:Re:Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	20/10/21 16:21:00	Andrew Farmer
Reply	20/10/21 16:59:00	Gordon Southwell
Re:Reply	20/10/21 17:13:00	Rosco White
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	20/10/21 17:04:00	Rosco White
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	21/10/21 10:38:00	Paul Scullion
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	21/10/21 11:11:00	Andrew Farmer
Re:Mason to be questioned	21/10/21 09:42:00	Andrew Farmer
Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	21/10/21 12:17:00	Rosco White
Re:Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	21/10/21 13:30:00	Andrew Farmer
Re:Re:Re:Re:Mason to be questioned	21/10/21 15:16:00	Rosco White
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Mason to belsee questioned	22/10/21 15:39:00	Andrew Farmer
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Mason to belsee questioned	24/10/21 17:19:00	vincent paul wrigley
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Mason to belsee questioned	25/10/21 08:47:00	Andrew Farmer
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Mason to belsee questioned	25/10/21 09:12:00	Raymond Havelock
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Mason to belsee questioned	25/10/21 11:14:00	Rosco White
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Mason to belsee questioned	25/10/21 11:54:00	Andrew Farmer

Forum Home