Mr Palmer (Mr Buck) had overreached himself (themselves) with his (their) use of anti-hacking software to ensure that anything from ‘Mick Dawson @ theharbourview’ did not reach the MP for South Shields.

I had agreed to give my land line number in Amble to Mr Buck on condition that Mr Palmer would discuss UK Docks and their shed but on returning a call I discovered that Mr Palmer’s intentions were not honourable as one can see from the context in which the phone call was made and in the detail of the fallout from it.

The context was that I believed the only way to stop Councils using the Ombudsman to cover over the wilful lack of planning enforcement or any other misdemeanours they wish to obscure, is for Parliament to act.

This was highlighted in the email to Emma on the evening of the 13th January 2020 then by it being overwritten it with something Mr Dawson had never done or even sugessted and that was to try and persuade an MP to influence the Ombudsman. Then a suggestion that he complain further to the Ombudsman and take legal advice!

Mr Palmer correctly informed you that MPs have no influence over the Local Government Ombudsman, and he suggested that a possible course of action may be to complain further to the Local Government Ombudsman and suggested you take legal advice.

What have the pair been doing since they took over from Rebecca Heath – busy deleting correspondence from Mr Dawson to the MP’s office by the look of it. They did not have to delete the email to Emma on 13th January 2020 below as Mr Palmer (Mr Buck) made sure it never survived and neither did the attachment.

Dear Emma,

I answered a call today from a Mr Keith Palmer on 01914271240 and we spoke about UK Docks. Judging from the email address he gave me, I guess he must be your office manager in South Shields and from our conversation I gathered he did not wish to consider any further correspondence from me and suggested that because I now lived away you/he would not be able to deal with correspondence because of parliamentary rules. You and I both know this to be nonsense as the shed is on your patch.

He hinted at, expensive litigation, vexatious complaints and presenting new evidence to the LGO which shows he has been warned off helping me by an official at the Town Hall which in turn goes back to the attempt by the CLP to deselect you.

What I really needed from you was your support and Mr Palmer has indicated by our exchange over the phone that he is not prepared to give it. At the end of the day the Council are misusing the Ombudsman’s Office to hide malpractice then use their findings to deflect any enquirers after the truth. I understood from Mr Palmer that this was no longer a matter for Parliament but I think it is. Only Parliament can make it a criminal offence to lie to the Ombudsman. I have attached a copy of the letter from my Solicitor for Mr Palmer’s perusal and he would do well to read the email to Customer Advocacy 03 September 2016 at the foot of the trail below. Incidentally it was passed back to Mrs Johnson and was not dealt with by Customer Advocacy. If it still exists it is lying unattended on a file.

In future, shall I just copy Mr Palmer any correspondence about UK Docks so he can place it in the file for reference?

Kind regards

I not discover until 2023 that South Tyneside Council had had a debate about vexatious complainants a year before I was asked for my phone number by Mr Buck!
Nor did I discover until later that he had parted company from his former partner, the MP, at that time.

~~~~~ Oh what a tangled web we weave, ~~~~~
When first we practice to deceive.

This entry was posted in Corruption, Misconduct. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Black-Listed

  1. Mick Dawson says:

    After reading through the draught of this it occurred to me that I had become more of a commentator than a protester and that is the reason for the use of the third person.
    The foundations were made to a footprint larger than permitted and there was no way that anything built on them could be said to be approved. There was nothing illegal about them. The same could be said when the second frame was raised on September the 5th or 6th September 2013 but to say they were approved was probably fraudulent misrepresentation.
    I originally advised Cllr Anglin at the back end of 2013 that it was too wide but he sided with the Council and it looks like one of Emma’s staff has sided with the Council a bit over six years later.
    Plus ca change!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.