"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Wednesday, 14 April 2010

From A Silenced Voice

Make of it what you will:

To: John Mothersole, Chief Executive Officer, Sheffield City Council
From: xxxxx xxxxx, 
Subject: Council Leader Paul Scriven
Reason for Complaint: Bringing the Council into Disrepute
Action behind Complaint: Telling untruths at Full Council, 7 April 2010


Summary


John Mothersole, Chief Executive Officer, directed that Council Leader Paul Scriven respond to questions asked by Martin Brighton, a citizen.
The second question concerned the organisation Common Purpose.


At Full Council on 4 February 2009, Paul Scriven asked the elected members if they knew who are what this organisation was. There was a majority response of ‘No’.
The contemporaneous record of the time, in document Q's4FC040209+.doc, is attached.


It was asked on 7 April 2010, whether it was Honest that NO ONE admitted, at Full Council in February 2009, to having heard of Common Purpose. The Leader of the Council, Paul Scriven, replied that he remembered the incident ‘very clearly’.


Paul Scriven DENIED that he had asked members whether or not they had heard of Common Purpose.
He did remember that he asked for Common Purpose to be identified.


As has been seen on several occasions in Full Council with Council Leader Paul Scriven, there is no possible reconciliation between what he says and what the records show, and what was witnessed by ALL attending members.


If Council Leader remembers ‘very clearly’, then the only explanation for this material inconsistency is wilfulness. Once again, by his actions, the Leader of the Council has brought the Chamber into disrepute.


Elected members are also still awaiting the long overdue CRB report from Common Purpose graduate Sonia Sharpe, as promised at FC in January.
There are some similarities with previous complaints that must be considered:
1 The complaint involves Common Purpose and its continued failing ( recorded over eighteen months ) to demonstrate, with evidence, that all those who have delivered ‘services’ provided by Common Purpose such as activities involving children have been subjected to CRB checks.
2. In each case the incident was witnessed by ALL attending elected members, council executives, the press and the public.
3. Those involved with either procuring, sabotaging, processing or presenting ‘the case’ included those associated with Common Purpose, but without declaring an interest.


John Mothersole, you were one of the witnesses that heard Paul Scriven at Full Council on 4 February 2009. Therefore, you cannot honestly deny that the reply of Paul Scriven on 7 April 2010 was untruthful.


In the same way, you cannot deny that Paul Scriven was also untruthful to you personally when he copied you into an email falsely denying what he said at Full Council on 5 November 2008 ( when he falsely accused this citizen of making allegations of child abuse )


As with the previous complaints, denial of having brought the Council into disrepute is not an honest option.


Any attempt to ‘beat the rap’ with this complaint shall constitute further evidence of the institutionalised corruption that is rife throughout this council.
It is irrational and perverse that elected members who each personally witnessed what Paul Scriven said and did could have been persuaded to say the opposite when called upon to be honest and uphold the Code of Conduct and the Constitution.


John Mothersole, it would now be timely to remind you of your own words, when the Leader of the Green Party showed that a document submitted to Full Council from the Liberal Democrats contained a falsehood:
“If a statement is found to be untrue it cannot be allowed to stand.”


I am sure that you would agree, if asked, that there have been times when the expected accuracy of recording events at Full Council was not of the standard reasonably expected.
Processing this Complaint


Because of the history and associations involved with the current complaint and the links to previous complaints, it is expected that:
-      All officers involved with the management or processing of this complaint, if associated with Common Purpose in any way, shall declare their interest and recuse themselves.
-      All previous elected members who have been involved with the deliberations of the previous complaints, having each witnessed not only the current event for which this complaint is raised, but also having personally witnessed the events of previous complaints, and then denied what they saw, have automatically excluded themselves.
-      The document Q's4FC040209+.doc, which is attached, provides the requisite background information.

Because it would require collusion and corruption to engineer a denial of this complaint, it has been decided that this and all associated material shall be placed in the public domain. As with the previous complaints, and on a national basis, all citizens of the country will see the current complaint process develop in real time.


Here is the question asked on 7 April 2010:
2. At Full Council of February 2009, the current council leader asked all members if there was anyone who had heard of the ‘third party’, which was identified as Common Purpose. NOT ONE admitted so. This was NOT Honest. Since then, there have been false denials, obfuscation, and just ignoring questions. However, in the run-up to the elections, how does this council intend to react, when the names of members associated with Common Purpose are to be published?

To be fair to those elected members who are associated with Common Purpose, the fact of their association need not be published in their Wards or prospective Constituency until 17 April, which is plenty of time for each to explain to their respective electorate what their association is with Common Purpose and why they denied having heard of Common Purpose when asked on 4 February 2009.

Yours sincerely,
xxxxx xxxxx
12 April 2010

4 comments:

  1. With the general election campaign underway, here are some ideas for questions to ask candidates about Common Purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks SCP - you're already in my sidebar. The only problem is that not many voters know about Common Purpose - just as no-one concerned themselves with the Fabian Society. People are people and just want to get on with their own lives, they don't want to question those they vote to represent them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm aware of CP and its insidious agenda. Everyone standing for public office, and all public/civil servants should be barred from membership in this group, and from attending any of their, so called, "seminars".

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're right, Scunnert, but who's going to do that? Brown, Cameron, Clegg? Not a chance. We're f/cked. I wish I could emigrate out of the EU. They've broken England without anyone raising a finger - we're finished as a nation and as a people.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts with Thumbnails