A preview of Shed and Corruption – Part 5
List of Unanswered Emails kindly provided by South Tyneside Council:
29th April-2021.
N
| Date | To | Issue | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15/01/20 | Buck CC: Palmer 2 Cllrs Johnson Customer Advocates |
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. | |
| Nil Response | |||
| 16/01/20 | S Buck & K Palmer CC: 3 Cllrs and N Robason H Johnson A Hoy |
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. | |
| Nil Response | |||
| 17/01/20 | Ms Todd: CC: S Buck K Palmer N Robason |
Remember trying to revive the Tyne Gateway because the Council would not speak to us and the MP’s Office appeared to be unwilling to help. The Council, still, will not talk to us because they cannot admit that we were correct when we complained that the shed was too high and they then misinformed the Ombudsman to cover up the misuse of their own complaints procedure. | |
| Information only | |||
| 23/01/20 | K Palmer: CC: MP S Buck 3 Cllrs Cunningham Johnson |
You seem to have done some homework before our phone call on Monday the 13th but if you had paid attention to the facts rather than opinions based on fraudulent misrepresentations you would have come to the conclusion that UK Dock’s shed is 3 meters taller than planned. This can be confirmed by examination of the authorised drawing 8296/2 | |
| Ignored – Cunningham was copied because he told us the shed was compliant and Johnson because she said were were making allegations about it to get Mr Cunningham off the hook. |
|||
| 31/01/20 | N RobasonCC: MP Cllrs CA Cunningham |
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: |
|
| A warning that both Nicola and I were dealing with an extremely dishonest/devious person. | |||
| 20/02/20 | Palmer CC: MP Cllrs Watson(TGA) Cunningham Robason Wright |
You appear to be new to your post and so I given you some background to the Council’s early responses to our complaint that the shed was taller and wider than permitted. Please see ‘Destroying Evidence’ which I have attached. It should more properly be labelled ‘Hiding Evidence’ or ‘Sweeping stuff under the Carpet’ but we cannot know that our emails have not been deleted nor our letters put in the bin. | |
| Nil Response | |||
| 24/02/20 | S Buck | I wrote to you on the 24th January thanking you for removing the block from mick dawson at theharbourview.co.uk so that my copy to Emma did not bounce from her mailbox at parliament.uk. I notice that it has been reinstated, 20-Jan-20 and it is likely she will not have seen the email nor the two attachments, ‘Destroying Evidence’ and ‘Dishonesty at the Town Hall’. I have not attached them to this email to you as Mr Parker will be able to forward a copy of my email and attachments to both you and Emma when he returns to work today the 24th. |
|
| ‘Destroying Evidence’ and ‘Dishonesty at the Town Hall’. They do not appear to have been passed to Emma | |||
| 26/02/2020 07:35 |
N Robason | The question remains why did they tell Councillor Hamilton and the MP for South Shields some time in March or April 2019 that they had permission for their shed. If you look at the background. . . . sentence not completed | |
| and very obviously sent in error. Response sent at 09:00 – I note the emails sent to me and copied to me dated 31 January and 24 February. I confirm that Mr. Harding has now retired from the Council, which is why his email won’t be active. My email dated 19 December 2019 set out my position on this matter. It remains the case that all complaints procedures relating to this matter have been exhausted both internally within the Council and externally. | |||
| 26/02/2020 10:35 |
N Robason CC S Buck |
Thank you both for your emails this morning before you go any further I suggest you both read what I said to the Monitoring Officer (Mr Harding) and what lead (to it). Note that he, Mr Harding I believe at that time, never even acknowledged the receipt of it. I shall be responding to you both in due course and until Mr Palmer removes me from the blacklist that he has created I keep on repeating to all that his actions remind me more of coercive control than anything else. |
|
| Nicola Robason’s response 09:57 was a repeat: “My email dated 19 December 2019 set out my position on this matter. It remains the case that all complaints procedures relating to this matter have been exhausted both internally within the Council and externally” Mr Buck’s 10:06 was offensive and reminiscent of Corporate Lead misuse of Section F, 4yrs before and would have had more credence if he had not written a month earlier: I am very sorry that Emma is unable to help you further with this case and I consider this matter to be closed. When one compares it with my last exhange with Emma : Good afternoon Mick, I am aware Angela and David are dealing with this, please can you let me know if there is anything needed from me. The refusal of the MP’s so called Office Manager to help 14th January contrasted completely with her view and matters slid downhill from there. newpage with his response |
|||