Threat by Buck/Palmer 26-Feb-20

Please note that Mr Buck was misapplying the Parliamentary Behaviour Code. It concerns MPs and their staff, and besides that, if I had not returned Mr Palmer’s call there would not be even one instance of so called vexatious, slanderous or personal attack on Mr Palmer let alone a continuity of them.
I had returned a call made to me by Mr Palmer because I wanted to make clear that I had established contact with Emma’s office after we met at a Labout Party meeting and agreed that South Tyneside Council were being evasive by avoiding requests made under the Fredom of Information Act and I was aware that they were giving misinformation to the Local Government Ombudsman to cover over that fact that they had been lying to Enquirers from  day one, 6-Sept-2013.

If Mr Buck had taken the trouble to acknowledge my response and answer the questions raised in my email of 15-Jan-20 things may have turned out a bit better for him. All he has done is to prove he was complicit with Mr Palmer in setting me up. I wrote:

  1. 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?
  2. 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?

Earlier he had suggested, and at the same time exposed the pair of them to ridicule, that the MP and I were complicit in trying to influence the Ombudsman. When he considered the matter closed he was repeating what the Case Officer said in January 2014. In the six years in between the Council have consistently lied about the shed having been approved.