A few things before I close:-
- please see my latest explanation of how the overbuild was calculated in 2013 from the doctored drawings given to the Principal Planning Officer on September 6, 2013 by UK Docks and passed to the local residents the same day. It was not until the end of January that I saw the full copy of 8296/2 which was approved and shows the height of the landward end of the shed as 12.7m.
- Cllr Anglin and the Chair of the TGA and arranged the meeting of November 25, 2013 which backed the concept of ‘legal’ to mean having approval which lead to a Senior Planning Officer giving misinformation to the Ombudsman. That resulted in a Council Solicitor repeating three of his, I was assuming it was a him, main misrepresentations in her defence of Cllr Anglin. Not only has the letter of the 19-Apr-19, see Page 3, remained on file and been ignored but so has the reminder of 19-Jun-19 to the Monitoring Officer/Head of Legal Services.
- Both the letter to the Monitoring Officer, Mr Harding, 19-Apr-19 and the reminder 19-Jun-19 lie within the period 18-Apr-18 to 29-Apr-21 when I was Sectioned for the second time by Ms Abbott. Mr Swales had resigned in September 2020 and Mr Tew was not appointed until September 2021 so who instructed the second imposition of the Section so that the fraudulent misrepresentation that the shed had been built to the approved height need not be investigated.
- In a similar vein the estranged husband of the MP for South Shields wrote on February 26th 2020:-
Dear Mr Dawson,
Thank you for your recent emails. However, I must draw your attention to your continued vexatious, slanderous and personal attacks on a valued member of staff working from the Office of Emma Lewell-Buck MP. Staff employed by Members of Parliament are protected under the Parliamentary Behaviour Code which is put in place to ensure a safe working environment and to safeguard them from bullying and harassment. It is now my belief that your continued emails denigrating Mr Palmer have breached that code.
Continued emails of this nature will be forwarded to the relevant Parliamentary Counsel for advice and direction.
Yours sincerely
Simon Buck
Office Manager for the Office of Emma Lewell-Buck MP
Member of Parliament for South Shields
Mr Buck’s misuse of Parliamentary Behaviour Code is so reminiscent of Ms Abbot’s misuse of Complaints Policy 2019v1.5 in 2021 and Mrs Johnson’s misuse of Section F of an earlier Code in 2016 one can only conclude that Mr Buck has been given a lesson in corruption by South Tyneside Council.
One phone call is not a continuous set of events and one complaint to the Ombudsman that a Council has been giving misinformation/misrepresentation is likewise the truth and not an allegation when the approved drawings are taken onto consideration.
- When I had completed the draft letter to Mr Tilbury it occurred to me that it could be sent directly to the Chief Executive and I did just that on July 8, 2016 and as his Corporate Lead had proved her value to him in falsely accusing the good citizens and I of making allegations about the height of the shed to you a year earlier she was just the person to be asked to misapply Section F.
- Whoever was running South Tyneside Council after Mr Swales departure wished to continue to hide the truth about the shed and instructed Ms Abbott with Ms Hoy’s help to reintroduce my being Sectioned in April 2021.
Mr Tew who was appointed as as Chief Executive in September 2021 had the choice of doing something about the corruption endemic throughout South Tyneside Council but chose to do nothing. It appears that Ms Abbott refused to be drawn into the fray again but Ms Hoy stepped in to shut me up.
I recently rang the Houses of Parliament on a free phone service and was pleasantly surprised how quick my call was answered and they were able to confirm that Mr Palmer’s palmerk@parliament.uk address was the responsibility of the office for the MP in South Shields rather than the Houses of Parliament. Mr Palmer was the supposed valued member of staff to whom I had been subjecting numerous vexatious, slanderous and personal attacks and it looks like the single phone call to her office in South Shields took place without Emma’s knowledge while she was away in Parliament.
It is quite possible that a Mr Keith Palmer does not really exist. Perhaps he was a fiction and I was actually speaking to Mr Buck when I made the return call to the Office in South Shields, 0191 427 1240, on January 13, 2020. I do not think he had done himself any favours, as a day later, he was accusing Emma and myself of colluding to sway the first Inspector for the Ombudsman’s Decision.
More than that, he was implying that I was an impolite liar but it was common knowledge that the Local Labour Party were trying to get Emma deselected and that they had excluded Councillor Hamilton from normal council business. Emma was saved by the shenanigans of the ‘Get Brexit Done’ campaign though Cllr Hamilton was not so lucky.
Mr Buck removed my email of the 13th January 2020 from Emma’s inbox, shades of Mr Cunningham removing my email from Planning Enquiries six years earlier both of which were probably criminal offences though if they are not, I think they should be made so. No matter, I’ll copy this to Emma and hope that the question of the shed’s height can be settled once and for all.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Dawson* (first WP page) it looks like I was the only one who had taken the complaint about the shed being nearly 3m taller than planned as far as the Ombudsman. If anyone else had, the Council never let on but one can be fairly certain they would have been told something similar by any Inspector for the Ombudsman:-
Summary: This complaint is not upheld. In 2013 a developer resumed building a boat shed for which he had planning permission and had started building in 2001. Local residents complained but the Council found the developer could still build the shed. However, the developer built it almost a metre wider than he should have done. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with the breach of planning control and its decision not to take enforcement action. It kept residents informed throughout the process. The complainant says the shed is also 3 metres higher than it should be. The Council says it is not. There is no fault in how the Council decided the shed is the permitted height.