FOI research

[Crazy C]

Becaus it should be a public document, all the rest are.

http://www.nelincs.gov.uk/health-and-so ... n-huntley/

I also first asked this, and have ask many times since, in june 09.

[ABH]

George, my question 'Why ask for things which they can and no doubt will refuse to give you?' was not directed at the subject matter of your FOI request but your request for a response by return and a request for an independent internal review. None of which the council have to do. What I was trying to suggest is don't ask for something they can refuse and will no doubt refuse to do, such as replying by return.

[Crazy C]

hI

I am asking for independant internal review because the monitoring officer and deputy monitoring officer are involved in a compllaint, directly in relation to not checking paperwork untill afterwords. Secondly, they have unsucsessfully tried to remove my website, Thirdly and most importantly , they are aware of a formal complaint with the police in relation to saftey checks and information not passed to the police.

The document they are reffusing to publish, shows the recomendations in relation to the Ian Huntley review, and how they were supposd to impliment them.

Guess what legal officers were directing the council at the time of the Huntley incidence and the serious case review, the current monitoring officer and his deputy

[Ann]

independent internal review

Is there such a thing?

[Crazy C]

http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/news/Gra ... ticle.html

Grappling cuts will be council leader's priority
Councillor Andrew De Freitas
Councillor Andrew De Freitas

TODAY North East Lincolnshire's new councillors are continuing to settle into their roles.

However, it has not all been smooth sailing for NELC's leader Councillor Andrew De Freitas, who has faced criticism from independent and Tory councillors, some of which claim he had tried to secure support by offering key council posts.

As reported, this week's Annual General Meeting of NELC ended fears power would remain hung after the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives tied with 15 seats each following the last local elections. Labour – which now holds 10 seats – gave its support to the Lib Dems – securing minority control for the Lib Dems for a second term.As such, the Lib Dems still hold all cabinet posts, Labour councillors have been voted into almost half the council's key committee positions, while the Tories held on to just one committee seat.

Councillor Jon Paul Howarth (Ind), claimed: "I was offered a place on a panel with a Special Responsibility Allowance, if "they" could rely on my vote."

Councillor Keith Brookes, the leader of the local Conservative party said he felt the Lib Dems and Labour had "run roughshod over the public."
However, Mr De Freitas denied that any "deal" had been done, adding he believed the nominated Labour members were the best people available to chair the health, leisure, housing, planning and community protection scrutiny panels.

Is this legal offering positions to councilors for there vote

[Crazy C]

sorry wrong thread. was reading this thread again but ment to post to the currupt councils thread

[Ann]

Is this legal ........offering positions to councillors for their vote

I can tell you but not until you give me some money!

[Crazy C]

Hi ho Hi ho,

to the ICO we go

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c ... oing-72999

I love my council, they make it nice and obvious

absolute rubbish again.

i asked this on 7th August, when i ask this you still had the hand
written muniets, Both copys.

You just chose to throw them away before you replied. Just on there
own , this would be serious maladminmistration. Put them in context
with the information removed, its much more serious than that.

[Crazy C]

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s ... pon_the_la

Please can you inform me of any and all statuary requirement or
recommendations or corporate responsibility that the LGO officers
and staff have if during an investigation, or review, or indeed any
dealing of your office, the law is broken by either of the party. (
member of the public or council officer/employee )

Rather than just your individual office staff, I am asking this of
your whole organisation including the legal staff you employ at
your London offices.

Ie, if you see, fraud, embeslement, corruption, but am particularly
interested in falsification of documents provided to your officers,
what do you do. ? .

Yours faithfully,

George Cant

i have had them try not to explain this so manytimes that i thought it was time to ask it formaly.

Have i worded it properly ?

[Ann]

Have i worded it properly ?

Best wait for a response from the LGO to find out.

but am particularly interested in falsification of documents provided to your officers, what do you do ?

Even If they are legally obliged to do something about falsified documents they still have numerous ways of avoiding having to tell other bodies such as the Police about any falsified documents they come across.

[Crazy C]

Best wait for a response from the LGO to find out.

I have been dancing to there tune for years, time to change the music,

Even If they are legally obliged to do something about falsified documents they still have numerous ways of avoiding having to tell other bodies such as the Police about any falsified documents they come across.

mmmmmm maybe not, i am just down that line at the moment. CPS and police decide fraud, not the LGO, i think its about just getting the paperwork right

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/#a15

[Ann]

CPS and police decide fraud, not the LGO,

You are wrong George, only a court of law can determine fraud, all the CPS and Police can do is decide whether or not to investigate an alleged fraud and then attempt to prove it in a court of law.

The CPS and the Police, like the LGO, have numerous ways of ensuring a case, they don't want to get to court doesn't get to court. Every single one of them has discretion in the matter.

[Crazy C]

I dont understand what your saying anne ? Can you explain a bit further so i can see were your coming from

If your saying what i think you are i dont agree at all.

The LGO can not declare something not a fraud. Any member of the public can use the fraud act, have you read through it, Looked at the case files and examples about documentary misrepresentation.

Simply, if a council officer produces a falsified or adjusted document in the investigation, the LGO can determine if its false and then if it materially affects there decision. That only has validity in respect of there investigation. The law is the law. I think that the LGO has a duty, if documents that have been produced in there investigation can be proven to be falsified, they have to report it, they just dont have to make it affect the outcome of there investigation. They do have to report it.

On a basic level, all the solicitors ( Legal people ) do. I believe so does the LGO and deputy's. I am just in the process of asking them a formal response and I have been dealing with other outside bodys first in relation to this and the LGO.

[Ann]

The LGO can not declare something not a fraud.

George, I said that only a court of law can determine fraud, so it naturally follows that only a court of law can determine if something is not a fraud. For the avoidance of further misunderstanding, the LGO can't determine legal rights and wrongs one way or the other.

Any member of the public can use the fraud act,

Agreed. So why waste your time trying to force the Ombudsman to do something you know they don't want to do?

They do have to report it.

Report what? No fraud has been committed until a court declares it as fraud. Up to that point only an alleged infringement of the fraud act has taken place.

As I previously said the CPS, Police and the LGO, have numerous ways of ensuring a case, they don't want to get to court, doesn't get to court. Ignoring the more dubious ways, every single one of them has discretion in the matter. Discretion allows the LGO to excuse any alleged act of fraud by a council should they wish in just the same way a Policeman has with a possible infringement of the law and the CPS has when deciding not to prosecute an alleged offence.

There are many reasons why a document supplied to the LGO may be different to the one a complainant has seen but doesn't constitute an attempt to defraud. Giving the LGO all the discretionary get outs they need. I am not saying I agree with it but they are the facts of life whether we like it or not.

The problem is not the lack of evidence against the LGO for misuse of discretion, it's the lack of people in power who are willing to look at the evidence and do something about it.

[Crazy C]

George, I said that only a court of law can determine fraud, so it naturally follows that only a court of law can determine if something is not a fraud.

Dosnt the court just just determine the validity of the evidence.

You did read the fraud act i presume. Fraud by misrepresentation's or false documentation is commeted when the documents are presented.

For the avoidance of further misunderstanding, the LGO can't determine legal rights and wrongs one way or the other.

mmmmm were did that come from

Any member of the public can use the fraud act,

Agreed. So why waste your time trying to force the Ombudsman to do something you know they don't want to do?

They do have to report it.

Report what? No fraud has been committed until a court declares it as fraud. Up to that point only an alleged infringement of the fraud act has taken place.

I disagree very very strongly with this statement above, can you point me to any legislation or paperwork that you have biased this on.

As I previously said the CPS, Police and the LGO, have numerous ways of ensuring a case, they don't want to get to court, doesn't get to court. Ignoring the more dubious ways, every single one of them has discretion in the matter. Discretion allows the LGO to excuse any alleged act of fraud by a council should they wish in just the same way a Policeman has with a possible infringement of the law and the CPS has when deciding not to prosecute an alleged offence.

I disagree very very strongly with this statement above

There are many reasons why a document supplied to the LGO may be different to the one a complainant has seen but doesn't constitute an attempt to defraud. Giving the LGO all the discretionary get outs they need. I am not saying I agree with it but they are the facts of life whether we like it or not.

I disagree very very strongly with this statement above

The problem is not the lack of evidence against the LGO for misuse of discretion, it's the lack of people in power who are willing to look at the evidence and do something about it.

I disagree, i think the problem is that complaints listen to the rubbish that the LGO spit out. The problem with the LGO actions needed looking at from a different angle.

shc pointed out the important legislation , its just taken me some time to get my head around it properly.

[Ann]

Ann: No fraud has been committed until a court declares it as fraud. Up to that point only an alleged infringement of the fraud act has taken place.

George: I disagree very very strongly with this statement above,

George, Surely you are not seriously trying to suggest that fraud has taken place as soon as an allegation of fraud is made, rather than waiting until a court of law determines it as fraud? I thought one of the principles of English law was that allegations of illegality had to be proven in a court of law, by the person making the allegations, unless the allegations were accepted by the defence.

Ann: For the avoidance of further misunderstanding, the LGO can't determine legal rights and wrongs one way or the other.

George: mmmmm were did that come from

It's common knowledge that the LGO can't determine legal, human and civil rights, they do not have the statutory powers to do so. If they could you would have the right of appeal which you don't with the LGO. All they can do rely on the court to determine any legal issue in dispute.

[Crazy C]

Fraud by false representation (Section 2)
The elements of the offence

The elements of the offence are that the Defendant:

* made
* a false representation
* dishonestly
* knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
* with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.

The offence is entirely offender focused. It is complete as soon as the Defendant makes a false representation, provided that it is made with the necessary dishonest intent. It differs from the deception offences in that it is immaterial whether or not any one is cognisant of the representation, deceived or any property actually gained or lost.

Fraud by failing to disclose information (Section 3)
The elements of the offence

The elements of the offence are that the Defendant:

* failed to disclose information to another person when
* he was under a legal duty to disclose that information
* dishonestly
* intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss.

Like Section 2 (and Section 4) this offence is entirely offender focussed. It is complete as soon as the Defendant fails to disclose information provided he was under a legal duty to do so, and that it was done with the necessary dishonest intent. It differs from the deception offences in that it is immaterial whether or not any one is deceived or any property actually gained or lost.

sorry if i sounded a bit rude in my last post.

i will dig out the lgo side of the regs later.

but yes, am under the impression that as long as you can show qualifiying paperwork, that the fraud offence is commited when the council answer the LGO investigator.

[Ann]

am under the impression that as long as you can show qualifying paperwork, that the fraud offence is committed when the council answer the LGO investigator.

You suggest that as long as you can show qualifying paperwork, but who are the only people who can decide that the evidence you are showing is good enough to prove that fraud has taken place. A judge in a court of law. They are the only ones who can determine if all the elements of fraud are present, that there is sufficient proof to determine the alleged act as fraud and due process has been followed. The LGO can't do that,

Until a court has found a person guilty of fraud they are not guilty of fraud, up to that point it is only an alleged offence. It is up to a judge (and jury in some cases) and no one else to determine if the elements of fraud have taken place, that there is sufficient proof and the defendant is guilty. Up to that point the defendant is innocent. The basis of law in this country is that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and that includes fraud.

What the LGO should do (but we know they don't) is pass onto the Police any suspicions of fraud or allegations of fraud they may have. Or any other unlawful activity if it comes to that.

[Crazy C]

Part of the LGO side

(s29 of the Local Government Act 1974 (8) If any person without lawful excuse obstructs a Local Commissioner in the performance of his functions under this Part of this Act, or any officer of the Commission assisting in the performance of those functions, _or is guilty of any act or omission in relation to an investigation under this Part of this Act which, if that investigation were a proceeding in the High Court, would constitute contempt of court, the Local Commissioner may certify the offence to the High Court._

(9) Where an offence is so certified, the High Court may inquire into the matter and, after hearing any witnesses who may be produced against or on behalf of the person charged with the offence, and after hearing any statement that may be offered in defence, deal with him in any manner in which the High Court could deal with him if he had committed the like offence in relation to the High Court. )

I will dig out the rest later.

[Ann]

the Local Commissioner may certify the offence to the High Court.

Read the wording George, may is not must. May implies they have the permission to do something not they are obliged to do something.

Where an offence is so certified, the High Court may inquire into the matter and, after hearing any witnesses who may be produced against or on behalf of the person charged with the offence, and after hearing any statement that may be offered in defence, deal with him in any manner in which the High Court could deal with him if he had committed the like offence in relation to the High Court. )

Exactly what I said, only a court can deal with the matter.

Basically it's like a head boy being given such limited powers he also has to have the right, should he wish, to go running to the head teacher when anyone tells him to f**k off or lies to him.

This following information is already in the public domain as a result of an earlier FOI request about Certified Offences to the High Court by Trevor.

Pook: I can advise you that over the past five years there has been no occasion when it has been necessary for an LGO to obtain a direction from the High Court for a council or council officer to provide information requested by the LGO in connection with an investigation. The first step in the process to certify an offence to the High Court is the drafting of a witness summons. Based on the recollection of our legal adviser, this has taken place approximately three times in the last five years. In all these cases the service of the summons or threat of it has prompted the council to produce documents and witnesses. So it has not been necessary to proceed further. Whilst I am able to provide you with this numerical information, I am not able to provide you with any detail on these particular cases (eg the councils or witness names) as we would categorise this data as information obtained during the course of an investigation.

Also note the LGO only considered certifying an offence for failure to produce documents or witnesses (contempt issues) not the production of fraudulent documents.

[Ann]

The above also show how the LGO can do no more than the average person in the street when they are the victim of an illegal activity, take court action against the people concerned.

Bear in mind that this is different to the LGO observing or knowing about a possible illegal act perpetrated on another. In this case the LGO should report it to the appropriate authority. The LGO may not be the victim and as such has no right to take court action. Neither do they have the power to prosecute such an offence.

The problem stems from the LGO's failure to report potentially illegal acts to the appropriate authority or at least tell the complainant that they don't want to but the complainant should take action over what they think could be an illegal act.

[Crazy C]

Bear in mind that this is different to the LGO observing or knowing about a possible illegal act perpetrated on another. In this case the LGO should report it to the appropriate authority.

why do you think that. specificaly, whats the difference. ?

I am saying that after or during an investigation, if the council officers change, missreprisent any document significantly, and you show the LGO or deputy both copys of the document. Tht the LGOs office has a responcability to report it.

This is 100% deffinatly the case for the solicitors that work for the LGO ( and the subby solicitors ), am prity sure that its the same for the LGO and the deputy, and am just looking for the regs that govern what the investigators do and there responcability for reporting up the line.

I am a bit lost at what your arguing ann. ?

It is of my opionin that the LGOs office is required to report any illigal avtivity.
It is of my opinion that you COMMIT the act of fraud upon the production/presentation of the documents and if you can prove this on paperwork its a formaility.

IE, deffinition of the fraud act determins what fraud is, and the changes in 2007 made it a lot easyer to prove.

[Ann]

I am saying that after or during an investigation, if the council officers change, missreprisent any document significantly, and you show the LGO or deputy both copys of the document. Tht the LGOs office has a responcability to report it.

That's exactly what I said: In this case the LGO should report it to the appropriate authority.

What the LGO can't do is take legal action for, or determine a fraud issue, all they can do is ask a judge to handle contempt issues.

It is of my opinion that you COMMIT the act of fraud upon the production/presentation of the documents

It's not your opinion that counts its the decision of a judge that determines if an act of fraud has been committed. All you or I or the LGO can do is allege a fraud has taken place upon the production of documents.

and if you can prove this on paperwork its a formaility.

The formality you talk about is a court of law. You make an allegation and then you prove your case in a court of law. There is no other way of proving fraud! You or I or the LGO can't just decide it's fraud no matter how good you think the evidence may be.

[Ann]

Fraud or any other unlawful act would invoke Article 6 of the Human Rights Act

Article 6 Right to a fair trial

1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

The LGO do NOT determine such rights and are not a independent and impartial tribunal established by law meaning their decisions are excluded from Article 6 of the Human Rights Act.

The LGO do not have the right or powers to determine any illegal act. They can do no more than what the man in the street can do, either report it to the appropriate authority or if the are the victim take legal action. If they did have such powers Article 6 would be invoked and you would be able to claim your rights under Article 6 which including the right of full and proper appeal not just a judicial review.

[Crazy C]

Anne

I have no idea about what points your arguing because your not being very clear and then just arguing back about my answers. I am taking you statements a bit rude to be honest. I have just read through it again and i have no understanding what your arguing about. It not the first time i have had to ask you to be clear about what your disagreeing with me. I refiar to the page rack discussion and a few of your comments on the corrupt councils thread.

This forum used to be a good place for like minded people to discuss there opinions and maybe learn from each other. I have learned so many crucial and invaluable points from some of the contributors to this forum over the years. Some of the pointers from people have lead me in a entirely different angle when dealing with the LGO. I never would have known about the SOLACE cipfa connection, Monitoring officers conditions when it comes to legal paperwork, the legislative technicality's of the LGOs rules.

There used to be many valuable opinions offered on this board, sharp or not, they were valuable opinions, it dose not seem that way any more.

This is george and the gimp bugging out of these conversations, and wishing all the people at different stages of atack against the LGO, the best of luck

[Ann]

Same here George.

There are too many people who post on this forum expecting others to agree with them no matter how weak their case/argument is then get all uppity when someone has the temerity to disagree with them. I will leave this forum to those who just want others to agree with whatever they say, massage their egos or give them a false sense of hope with their case.

[ABH]

From an earlier post of mine viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1472&p=13144&hilit=trevor#p13134

I know of four people who stopped posting on this public forum because of unnecessary and unwarranted aggravation, Gary, Trevor, Thomas, Patrick and another, not me, who is on the verge of stopping.

I can now tell you that the 'another person' I was referring to was Ann.