Trouble with Phone Calls

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 15:40:28 +0000
To: Nicola Robason
Cc: Emma Lewell-Buck MP,
Keith Palmer, Simon Buck, Customer Advocates,
Peter Cunningham, Cllr Anglin,
Cllr Angela Hamilton, Cllr David Francis,
Subject: Correspondence with the Office of Emma Lewell-Buck

Attachment : D8296/2

Dear Nicola,
Please see trail below. I’d like to emphasise that when I gave my personal details to Mr Buck I did it in good faith and said I would talk over phone to Mr Palmer about the corruption with UK Docks.
I should not have talked over the phone but the pair of them hooked me with the bait that we could talk honestly about UK Docks. If Mr Palmer’s intentions were honourable he would have told me that that Mr Buck was listening to the call as well. The Message I got from Mr Palmer was that he actually wanted to close down any dialogue about UK Docks which reminded me of one of the first written communications from Peter Cunningham, Principal Planning Officer, Fri, 20 Dec 2013:

//Mr Dawson – once again – I have measured this on site and have copied the 1996 plans across to you twice already (attached again for your use) and I have explained during our meeting that the base and height of the structure are compliant…this is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned.. Please do not email me again//

It was immediately obvious from the meeting that there were no authorised drawings available to back his point of view or we, Cllrs and Residents, would have left the meeting with them. The drawings he sent were initially the drawings given to him by UK Docks, and the one attached showed no evidence of having been anywhere near the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation and contained the same error as the ones given to to him by UK Docks. The approved height at the river end is 15.5m not 18.2m – see attached drawing
Nothing has changed in six years except that UK docks are now saying that the Council had given them permission for their shed when we all know that to be a lie.
It is not the end of the matter and the issue cannot be closed until the Council admit that the shed is nearly 3 meters taller than planned. What happens to the shed becomes UK Docks problem as rightly it should have been rebuilt 3m lower or removed in the spring of 2014.
What you do about your predecessors misleading the Ombudsman to cover up malpractice in planning/building control is beyond me but perhaps Messrs Cunningham, Palmer and Buck can help with that.
I notice that Mike Harding’s email address couldn’t be found – has he left South Tyneside Council?

Kind regards.
Michael Dawson

—– Forwarded message from —–

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 09:53:32 +0000
From: Mick Dawson
To: “BUCK, Simon”, Keith Palmer,
Cc: Cllr Angela Hamilton, Cllr David Francis, Cllr Anglin, Nicola Robason, Hayley Johnson, Alison Hoy

Subject: Fwd: Correspondence with the Office of Emma Lewell-Buck

Dear Sirs,
I can confirm that UK Docks did not submit an application for the Council for retrospective planning and the email I sent to Councillor Hamilton I have copied to a PDF file and attached it. She may be able to help you with the legal points you wish to raise.
I have a dispute with Mrs Johnson about the misinformation/
misrepresentation given to the Local Government Ombudsman. I agree with Mr Tilbury of Peter Dunn & co but she maintains that there is no evidence of any. I sent you both a copy of his advice yesterday because Mr Palmer alluded to vexatious communications.
He also suggested I sought legal advice but I had already done so. It looks to me like it was probably criminal fraud for UK Docks to convince the Council that they were building their shed to a set of approved plans when they were not and I was advised that the Police would take no action because they would say it was a Planning Matter.
UK Docks have not done themselves any favours by telling people that they have permission for their shed when they haven’t.. It looks to me like they have been breaking the law since March 2014 when they took the Port of Tyne Tug onto the slipway and the Council have been complicit in this.
It was Director of UK Docks who decided to move his business the River Drive and he only had permission for a shed 22m long and it is now 27.5m long which is probably the main reason we were told he had been given permission for it by the Council.
I’ll leave it with you for the time being.
M Dawson

—– Forwarded message from —–
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 08:52:37 +0000
Subject: Re: Correspondence with the Office of Emma Lewell-Buck
To: “BUCK, Simon” <>
Cc: Keith Palmer <>, Cllr Angela Hamilton, Cllr David Francis, Hayley Johnson, Customer

Dear Mr Buck,

As far as I remember Mr Palmer was indeed polite and I hope you thought I was as well. Whether he was accurate is another matter. It would have been courteous for Mr Palmer to have introduced himself. I assumed that when I gave you permission to pass my home phone number to him he had become Emma’s new office manager after her re-election. Please see trail below. He very obviously let me assume I was talking her new Office Manager. He did not inform me that you, her actual office manager was listening in. Please let me have any copy of the recording of what was said so that I can check it against the length of my call for any editing.
You will see from the first attachment that the Council have not been honest with either Emma, Angela or myself. You will see from the second attachment that that I have already sought legal advice and Mr Tilbury suggested that we should first ask the Council about misleading the Ombudsman and then approach the Ombudsman and this I did. The Council said they had not mislead the Ombudsman and if you remember I told Mr Palmer that any complaint against the Local Government Ombudsman was was pointless. They just say the complaint remains that of the first complaint.
When you consider the matter closed, do you mean that the Council can cover up wrongdoing by misleading the Ombudsman is OK? Do you think it OK that they can then use the Ombudsman’s findings to mislead MPs and other enquirers. Mr Palmer certainly gave me that impression he was implying that over the phone. As you can see from the third attachment the Council have been dishonest with everyone for a long time.
When you consider the matter closed you are only repeating what the Principal Planning Manager said on January 13th 2014 and in the six years the Council have consistently lied about the shed having been approved.
You will see, below, that whatever we said over the phone he mislead me into thinking he was Emma’s Office Manager but I see from your email that you are her Office Manager. So who is Mr Palmer? I’m sorry but I cannot help thinking he is dancing to the same tune as those that tried to get Emma deselected.
I have reattached the files i.e. the second and third, that were attached to the notes to Emma, posted below. The fourth is the letter sent to Michaela of Customer Advocacy which was detached from the steam. This was never considered but passed back to the villain of the piece. One of the people mentioned in my email to Emma on 20-Oct-16 and as it it is rude to talk about people behind their backs I have copied this to her and Customer Advocates.
By the way Nicola Robason has confirmed that UK Docks did not put in a retrospective planning request which beggars the question: Why did they tell Angela and Emma that they had.
Perhaps your Mr Palmer can answer the question?

Mr Dawson

Subject: Correspondence with the Office of Emma Lewell-Buck
From: BUCK, Simon
Date: 14/01/2020 (02:37:06 PM GMT)
Suject: Correspondence with the Office of Emma Lewell-Buck

Dear Mr Dawson,

Thank you for your email sent this morning following from Mr Palmer’s telephone conversation to you yesterday afternoon.
I wish to address two points you raised. I was present during the conversation between Mr Palmer and yourself. I am afraid your recollection of the conversation was not a true account. Mr Palmer was polite, informative and accurate.
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.
Finally, your suggestion that Mr Palmer, or any other staff member for that matter has been “warned off helping” Emma “by an official at the Town Hall” and then making references to the CLP trying to deselect Emma, is not only untrue but an unwarranted accusation. Your email seriously undermines Mr Palmer’s, Emma’s and the Office’s integrity and it is a very serious matter. I am very sorry that Emma is unable to help you further with this case and I consider this matter to be closed.

Simon Buck

Office Manager for the
Office of Emma Lewell-Buck MP
Member of Parliament for South Shields

19 Westoe Road
South Shields
NE33 4LS

This entry was posted in Abuse of Complaints System, Corruption, LGO, Misconduct, Misinformation/Misrepresentation. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Trouble with Phone Calls

  1. Mick Dawson says:

    At the same time as the MP for South Shields was deselected as the sitting MP and Cllr Hamilton was excluded from the Labour Group I was excluded from communicating with the MP for South Shields. Find out who proposed these events and it will point to the centre of the corruption at the Town Hall. I think that neither Simon Buck nor Keith Palmer have instigated this further corruption but they have somewhat aided its spread.

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.