{"id":534,"date":"2015-03-29T15:32:52","date_gmt":"2015-03-29T15:32:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/saveoursandwellcanadageese.org.uk\/?p=534"},"modified":"2016-11-07T18:25:27","modified_gmt":"2016-11-07T18:25:27","slug":"sandwell-council-officers-lied-over-goose-cull-they-finally-admit-it-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/saveoursandwellcanadageese.org.uk\/?p=534","title":{"rendered":"Sandwell Council officers lied over goose cull-THEY FINALLY ADMIT IT PART 2-"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"scan0040\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"scan0041\"<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Adrian Scarrott as Head of “neighbourhoods” has replied to the “independent” stage two investigators report following my complaint about the manner in which Sandwell council officers appeared to have lied about “relocating” geese that they knew had really been culled, or were going to be. The lies and threats made by John Satchwell and lies told by other officers have been upheld.<\/strong> There are however other parts to my complaint that have not been upheld, and which I fully intend to challenge with The Local Government Ombudsman. <\/span><\/div>\n
As head of neighbourhoods, it is also the same Adrian Scarrott that co- authored the biased presentation to the Health and Neighbourhoods Scrutiny board, (he actually read some of this out at the meeting), with Steve Handley (streetscene) sitting next to him like some mute vegetable. They also penned\u00a0 the clear as mud “statement of purpose”<\/a> which the council are now supposed to be consulting on. We all know what “consultation” means with this rotten borough- they have made the decision already. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The independent investigator emailed me on February\u00a0\u00a011th\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong> confirming that she had finished her report and that it had been sent to Sandwell council for their consideration and reply. This went to Adrian Scarrott himself. I was told by Sandwell Council’s head of complaints Teresa Armstrong that this report would be sent out with the council response by 25th February<\/strong>, ironically the date of the meeting where Scarrott and Handley, as well as Satchwell\u00a0were to give evidence under scrutiny.<\/span><\/div>\n
It came as little surprise that I did not receive it before this meeting, and therefore had no knowledge of what the report contained or concluded. In fact I did not receive the response or report until March 25th<\/strong>, despite being given several false timescales. Apparently Scarrott was “very busy” and had also been on leave, though it should be noted that this excuse avoided me being able to cross examine the liars at the council over their conduct at the Health and Neighbourhoods scrutiny board meeting- a clear and deliberate attempt to do this- in my humble opinion. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Despite her claimed “independence” there are elements in the report written by the investigator that appear so\u00a0council biased that it makes it difficult to believe this. She appears to blend ESTABLISHED FACTS<\/span>, those which can be evidenced through recorded means, eg responses in Freedom Of Information Requests, with personal opinions<\/span>, both of the officers questioned and also more toxically her own. Opinions are not facts at all. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Whereas my statements in the report to her\u00a0remain “belief” and “claim”, the officers’ opinions, (whom she has identified and have admitted were lying), are believed as telling the truth and\u00a0appear to be promoted by her as established FACT. It is difficult to marry this dichotomy and perhaps she is unable to understand that if they have conspired to lie once, they had ample time to do so again before receiving her audience. All three Sandwell valley officers were interviewed by her on the same day. Their story was well rehearsed by now, or so I would claim. <\/span><\/div>\n
She also<\/span> in my interview with her expressed her own opinion of Canada geese as being “dirty”, also remarking jocularly that they may have been taken to “the crem” located off Sandwell Valley.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\"S2220013\"<\/a>

Perhaps they were<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Her “findings” are therefore<\/span> often opinions rather than established facts,<\/span> nor is it stated to what evidence she bases her findings on for clarity; indeed her findings are highly refutable, given my own investigations into this case as well as tough questioning of certain officers. Here below is what she wrote on this part of my complaint. I will then label for clarity with relevant evidence the inaccuracies which can be verified with evidence. I have chosen to redact some sections for legal reasons because I intend to contest certain portions with the Local Government Ombudsman, also noting that there are some very paranoid people who I do not intend to give the oxygen of the label “victimisation” without being able to back up their claims with direct evidence.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
It is also clear that whatever she may claim about having ALL documents concerning this issue made available she has not been given all the documents and evidence that they have, and some of this was only revealed at the Health and Neighbourhoods Scrutiny board meeting, which of course followed the completion of her report. There are still many questions which Sandwell have to answer regarding evidence that they actually do have for basing their decision on scientific evidence and process rather than kneejerk reaction to a bunch of whining elderly windbags with a grudge against non native species.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\"scan0043\"<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
POINTS 1-12\u00a0 are ESTABLISHED FACT<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
POINT 13 IS COMPLETELY INCORRECT. JOHN SATCHWELL DID NOT ADMIT ANYTHING TO MYSELF. I FOUND OUT ABOUT THE CULL ONLY THROUGH LETTERS RECEIVED ON THE SAME DAY FROM STEVE HANDLEY, THE FOI REQUEST<\/a>, AND MARIA CROMPTON<\/a>, A RESPONSE TO THE MESSAGE LEFT ON HER ANSWERPHONE, WHICH SHE CHOSE TO NOT REPLY TO IN PERSON. NEITHER OF THEM CONFIRMED JOHN SATCHWELL OR ANYONE ELSE HAD LIED, EVEN THOUGH THEY MUST HAVE KNOWN BY NOW THAT THEY HAD.<\/span><\/div>\n
POINTS 14 and\u00a015 are ESTABLISHED FACT<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\"scan0044\"<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
POINTS 16 AND 17 ESTABLISHED FACT<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
FINDINGS<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
1, It is apparent that council policy at least from 1997 was not to cull geese- this is established fact<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
2. THIS IS OPINION<\/span> OF THE OFFICERS AND WHEREAS IT IS THEIR OPINION THE INVESTIGATOR SHOULD NOT WITHOUT REQUESTING RELEVANT EVIDENCE REPRODUCE IT AS AN ESTABLISHED FACT. THE OPINIONS ARE ALL REFUTABLE.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n