Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 19 2013, 11:21 PM

While some people vent their spleen about obnoxious events like a repeat story or poor grammar in the 75p Newbury Weekly News, I was staggered by a story in the paper about a man that was being pursued for a disputed £35.00 tax bill. A call was even made to the hospital he was in, while in a coma! The council had been previously contacted by a representatives of the dying man explaining his condition, but the council would have none of it. This from a council who knowingly fine people for trivial parking 'offences' http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/demand-made-for-investigation-into-councils-parking-restriction-signs.

Do you think West Berkshire Council's spokes man, Public Relations Manager Mr Keith 'in the interests of confidentiality, we will not discuss individual cases' Ulyatt, was in anyway contrite about the issue? Of course not.

Put it this way, I don't want a council to act in such an abominable way on my behalf!


Story on page 7, column 1. Thursday, 19 September 2013.

Posted by: motormad Sep 20 2013, 12:02 AM

If this is true as reported, what an ACTUAL ****.
There is just no
Common sense
DECENCY
or RESPECT left in this country

Keith Ulyatt, you should be ashamed to even be associated with such people.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 20 2013, 10:34 AM

I agree, I find the story so disturbing I'd like to think that we are not being told the whole story, but that doesn't forgive not showing any sense of contrition.

Posted by: Claude Sep 20 2013, 11:03 AM

There are two sides to every story, it's a shame we only have one, which may have been 'sensationalised' for the press.

Posted by: greenandgrey Sep 20 2013, 11:53 AM

Do not belive all that you read in the NWN - as Claude says, there are 2 sides to every story and one side is not fronted by a freelance reporter selling a sensationalist story. I doubt that what really happened is as reported

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 20 2013, 02:11 PM

But that doesn't excuse an apparent lack of contrition, unless you are saying that the NWN censored that too?

Posted by: motormad Sep 20 2013, 03:22 PM

Well the minor details may be missed but I think calling up the hospital where someone is admitted to chasing for money is pretty low.

Posted by: greenandgrey Sep 20 2013, 05:31 PM

Do you seriously believe that the Council would phone a hospital to chase a patient for money -- I don't think so ! . We only have one side of the story and ,yes, the Council refuse to comment but as far as I can recall, they never seem to comment on individual cases and rightly so - we all value our privacy and do not want personal information put out for all and sundry to see . The other side of the story may be far far different from what you read in Mr Radford's tale - i wonder how much he got paid to sensationalise it ?

Posted by: motormad Sep 20 2013, 05:50 PM

As I said, the minor details - But yes, if the Government are like any other organization chasing money, yes they would.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 20 2013, 06:41 PM

But the 'victim' went to the press, they didn't seem bothered telling Newbury about a disputed debt! I also often see organisations, when compromised, hide behind the 'confidentiality' excuse.


It doesn't stop WBC's spokes man at least making a statement along the lines of: "we apologise for an distress we might have caused", or some such line, either that, or deny making the call in the way portrayed.

If you are right; however, then the NWN might have some apologising to do themselves.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 20 2013, 10:16 PM

The Council's behaviour sounds to have been high-handed and arrogant.

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 23 2013, 04:19 PM

As someone who was at Mr Smith's bedside at least every other day during his 16 day stay in hospital, the person who holds all the e-mails that have been quoted, the person who spoke to the nurse who took the call and who spoke to the mother immediately after her son died - I can assure you that everything reported is completely accurate and I think G&G should be very careful about making suggestions that this is false - I only thank heavens that the family are not on the internet to see this - you really ought to remove your comments - they are hurtful and frankly libellous!

You might also like to know that these same story went into the Mail on Sunday and that every fact of that story and this was checked by a senior reporter at the Mail who spoke directly to the family himself - so is G&G really saying the Mail reporter (who was not freelance) is a sensational money grabbing liar also?

In regard to the story there is another side to it, (other than the one the Council don't want to give, perhaps because it is too damning for them) and that is that the Council refused to provide Mr Smith with any information on
a) the money they claimed that he owed them,
the reasons they would not grant him the same protection as any person claiming sickness benefits – particularly considering he was critically ill, nor
c) the reasons that they had made direct deductions from his financial support of something over a thousand pounds, some £20 of which they had accidentally admitted having taken in error before they noticed the other £1000.
I am about as highly qualified in personal financial matters as it is possible to be and have on more than one occasion provided expert evidence to courts on such matters and from what I could see the Council’s only reason for not giving Mr Smith this information was because he did not really owe them money, they should have protected him and they probably did owed him money and lots more than he had ever owed them. The fact is that if the Council had financially disadvantaged Mr Smith in this way then, to quote a local Councillor, ‘how many other residents have also had money wrongly taken from them?’

My guess is that there is a much bigger controversy underlying the treatment of Mr Smith. A controversy that explains why the Council would not give him his own information, will not give it to his estate nor to his duly authorised representative and would instead try to chase a man in a coma whom they had been warned was extremely fragile?

By the way – this was the second time that the Council insisted upon chasing Mr Smith directly over this matter, against his specific instructions and against my warnings about the impact on his health. The first time was only a matter of days before they took him to court over the money they claimed he owed them (a case they withdrew at the court doors when faced with having to explain themselves under my cross examination) and a matter of a few weeks before he went into hospital never to return alive.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 23 2013, 06:00 PM

I find this all quite shocking and wonder why this wasn't front page news!

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 23 2013, 06:34 PM

A very fair point and one I have asked myself. Supposedly the NWN could not afford to run two stories side by side in the previous weeks edition both criticising the council and they gave the parking issues a higher profile (in my view it is nothing like the same level let alone higher). They then claimed that this story was two weeks old and hence did not deserve higher ranking than page seven this week.

Also note the fact that they have not picked up on the bigger issue which is apparent misappropriation of Mr Smith's money without justification and the fact that the Council waited for him to die - as some sort of excuse for trying to bury that issue with him.

Mr Smith was a truly lovely man who was in my view collateral damage in an issue involving his landlord and the Council. The landlord have been just as unhelpful as the Council. Mr Smith died of a respiratory condition which caused heart failure and the Landlord have admitted that the ceiling in his home which had been crumbling and according to Mr Smith 'the dust had been causing him breathing problems', contained (you guessed it) asbestos. The landlord had moved him out of the flat months after the problem occurred only because the Health and Safety executive deemed it unfit for human habitation, less than two months before he died. This said the landlord knew there was asbestos in the flats from 2009 and had failed to take appropriate safety measures. The landlord promised him a compensation package, which they never paid and now he has died, the landlord claim that he is not entitled to it any longer. The result is that his 84 year old, disabled mother has had to foot the bill for his funeral. As I have pretty much all of this in writing you might have thought the NWN would want to include that in their story but I guess it is not as important as a parking issue, even though the same block of flats still has over 30 other people still living in it. At least the landlord has decided to pull the flats down but that is little compensation to Mr Smith or his family.

Posted by: Rowley Birkin Sep 23 2013, 06:57 PM

some of it made up do you think

Posted by: The Hatter Sep 23 2013, 07:03 PM

Why hasn't this made BBC News?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 23 2013, 07:06 PM

It is all quite depressing in this day and age that this can happen. We know people make mistakes, but to carry on as they allegedly have is inexcusable. Perhaps things like this are the 'true' cost of austerity Britain under the Conservatives (not that any other local party would be any different). I have heard allegations of the Liberal Democrat controlled town council being less then candid too.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 23 2013, 07:27 PM

Presumably WBCs Environmental Health people will be heavily involved as the asbestos issue must affect more than just one flat? As ihowgate says the landlord was well aware of the problem he's laid himself open to prosecution? He still has to pay the estate any compensation and given ihowgate's expertise, I'm sure he'll help them with that.

As the matter had been going on for a fair while and was a serious dispute, can we take it that the ward councillor was involved? They are supposed to be 'our' representatives! In fact, Mr U should be redundant, the Councillors should be the sole source of news should they not?


Rather a lot to this story.

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 23 2013, 07:56 PM

To be honest on this point, the Lib Dems did take some action to try to help in the beginning but fell short of actually managing to do anything genuinely helpful and have tended to be too concerned about their special relationship with the Conservatives in central government - 'coalition is a matter of compromise'. This said I do believe that Lib Dem Councillors are being blocked on information disclosure by their own Council so how I could have hoped that they would manage to get the information for Mr Smith was rather naive of me in hind sight.

The Labour party have no power in this town and whilst I kept them informed you only have to look at how the NWN have buried Mr Garvie's investigation into deaths and misconduct (in particular drug dealing) at Two Saints Hostel - that only made page 7 also and should have been front page – and was cut of all the potent material (subsequent updates including threats by the CEO against Mr Garvie have also been shelved as has the fact that the Greenham murder derived from the Two Saints Hostel and that they were warned in advance about the danger posed by this resident) to realise where the real power lies in town.

The fact is that any good democratic system should have a second line of representation so that where the Council fails to live up to requirements the public can obtain justice via another route without needing the money to go to court. Without this the poor never get justice, particularly now legal aid has all but gone. The alternative route to justice ought to be our MP but sadly Richard Benyon repeatedly fails to represent his public in claims against this council. Mr Smith is a classic example but I have so many that I could go on all night.

Sadly corruption is a side effect of party politics and in today’s world of austerity (as you say) where ironically we can spend millions on a public funeral and £170,000 a year on the CEO of the Council’s salary in the same year that the council cut £100,000 of support for disabled children and all crisis loans for the poorest in society at their most vulnerable moments, it takes someone with millions behind them to be as cold hearted as to do nothing for the poor and needy like Mr Smith.

NB Richard Benyon was given access to the full portfolio on the Mr Smith affair on 22nd August with a request for urgent attention and so far we have heard nothing helpful at all out of his office.
Conversely when we put a homeless soldier in front of him - Mr Smith died homeless and had even had his possessions confiscated from him by his landlord and held for supposed non-payment of rent – Mr Benyon managed to instantly muster up a nice new home for the soldier from a social housing landlord sidestepping teh official housing register and thereby jumping the queue that over 4000 other residents were waiting patiently on. Not surprisingly it feels to me like one rule for the poor and another for Mr Benyon's old army mates!

Why hasn't this made BBC news you ask - well with this many important people wanting the story covered up is it really a bigger surprise it actually made page 7 of the NWN.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 23 2013, 08:20 PM

Against the facts presented, Mr Smith's case seems to be one of maladministration. This is the province of the Local Government Ombudsman, are you referring this case to him?

From what you are implying, that all political opposition has been neutered in Newbury. That has to suggest other forces are at work. For instance, this hasn't made 'rotten boroughs' in Private Eye. So what or who are you suggesting?

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 23 2013, 08:32 PM

I have to say I am thrilled that you all are taking such a genuine interest in this - I am afraid that I am so used to the level of corruption we are talking about here that I have become rather immune to it all.

Somehow the Environment Health (which are after all a part of the council) have gone extremely quiet.

The landlord is a very large organisation – almost certainly the same organisation who housed Mr Benyon’s soldier friend and they have now refused to speak with me any further having stated firmly that Mr Smith nor his estate is due any compensation. I witnessed the agreement to pay compensation and that ought to be enough to ensure the estate gets its due but without the money to pay for a funeral there is never going to be money to pay for a legal case against a massive organisation who even Mr Smith’s MP will not challenge.

From what I can see the Council and the landlord have broken about 50% of Mr Smith’s human rights but ironically whilst he was alive he would have qualified for legal aid to get justice but now he is dead it is a much more difficult process and the landlord and the Council know this and are using it as best they can.

I also have to point out that Mr U was not the person who gave the order to fire. The email I have is from a Mr Lowe who was Scrutiny and Partnerships Manager, the other person at the council who had the information and did not abide by M Smith’s wishes was Bill Blackett Revenues and Benefits Manager. It now appears that the department who refused to explain why they had taken some thousand pounds away from Mr Smith is headed by a Mr Wheldon, though to be fair on him his staff always told me that they were under instructions from Mr Lowe and that was why Mr Smith wasn’t allowed the information. Mr U’s comment to the press is pretty much the same one that Mr Lowe’s department gave me when they declined my Freedom of Information Act request and Data Protection Act request for Mr Smith’s details for the aid of his estate – my guess is that this is therefore where the comment came from, though my guess is it is not the place where the person who will take the fall for this will come from.

Local Government Ombudsman is a good suggestion – however they are only able to deal with matter of a personal nature – meaning that the person who makes the application to them needs to be the person who has suffered or would benefit from any rectification that they put in place. Of course neatly in this instance the complainant is dead and hence cannot make a complaint for his own benefit. Even if I could make the application for him – you can only go to the LGO after going through the council’s corrupt complaints process – which takes a minimum of three months and which is governed by the same Mr Lowe mentioned above.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 23 2013, 09:30 PM

Thanks for explaining, the penny has dropped and I can now quite see why the sad demise of Mr Smith has frustrated justice. In practical terms, I suppose the best the family could hope for is that someone could find them a good public spirited pro bono solicitor; ideally outside the Newbury circuit. Equally, do any of us have a means to get this on a national agenda?

Posted by: mush Sep 23 2013, 09:32 PM

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 23 2013, 09:34 PM

This is very similar to the way the NHS works: protectionist.

Posted by: mush Sep 23 2013, 09:54 PM

In the original post on this topic, it was said as a matter of fact that the Council rang the hospital about his debts. I'm not clear how anyone knows this was the reason for the phone call. In order to get more clarity on this - because if it was true that the Council would do what is alleged then that is clearly unacceptable - Lib Dem (Opposition) Leader Cllr Jeff Brooks asked a direct Question of the Council's Conservative Leader Cllr Gordon Lundie last Thursday, in a public meeting at which the NWN's reporter was present.
Let's wait and see what Cllr Lundie said. If you don't trust your weekly newspaper, the Q&As at Council meetings are recorded and published on the Council website in due course.
I'm not saying the Council comes up smelling of roses on this but we should at least hear "the other side of the story", within the bounds of confidentiality.
The "national agenda" in all this is the appalling shortage of affordable housing that the past Labour and Tory governments have allowed in this country: not enough new homes meant rocketing rents. It got to the stage that by 2010 about 60% of the Government's housing budget was being spent on subsidising landlords (through housing benefit) instead of bricks and mortar. Tragedies like Mr Smith's saga come from having to spend far too much of our earnings and our tax money on propping up a totally dysfunctional housing and planning system.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 23 2013, 09:54 PM

So it seems. Must admit thought your post about austerity was a bit OTT - then I though further. Sadly you are right.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 23 2013, 11:07 PM

Well this story broke at the beginning of the month with our Richard Benyon MP promising to investigate. Well that was over 20 days ago, so what did he find? I think it is also quite unacceptable of our local paper not to have made this story more prominent too! I get a sense of sweeping under the carpet !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408142/Tax-collector-harassed-dying-man-coma-35-bill.html

Posted by: motormad Sep 23 2013, 11:37 PM

Is it because NWN and Newbury Today, under instruction from the Council (of which they seem awfully chummy with) are "kindly requested" not to post anything of seriousness (because Parking Fines don't really matter ultimately) which would be defamatory towards the council and certain employees?

After all, there's only so much bandwidth for the important stories - Primary School plays, men stealing Shaving Cream, and minor traffic jams on the A4 - all of which certainly require a full, front-web facing story and huge, poorly written and often mis-spelt write ups in the paper, when this, which I think is probably the biggest shocker to come out of Newbury Council all year, goes unreported.

Honestly, reporters at Newbury Today.........

STOP COVERING THE CRAP THAT COMES OUT OF THIS PATHETIC COUNCIL AND THIS PATHETIC TOWN.
YOU HAVE THE NEWS
****ING REPORT IT.

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 24 2013, 07:33 AM

You make a fair point about reason for the call. What I can say is that I have an email dated almost exactly teh same date as the call from David Lowe at the council responding to my request that due to Mr Smiths state in a coma that they now decist from chasing him directly for this money and accept the letter of authority and verbal authority that he had given them no less than three times - weeks before he went into hospital and which they had declined to accept - totally illegally I might add. In that e-mail David Lowe says that the Council is taking steps to deal with Mr Smith directly on this matter and that my involvement is not required. I go back to him immediately pointing out the lucirous nature of what he has said - I can supply the emails if you want to see them the Mail has already scrutinised them all however and they were content to publish - and cautioning him again against bothering Mr Smith. They then made a call teh same day - whether this was to collect money or not it is appauling considering that Mr Smith had made it abundantly clear that he did not want to have to talk to them himself and wanted and needed the support of someone like me - he was a disabled, critically ill man with learning difficulties and he had asked the council to let him speak through the only person whom he could afford - me.

I also spoke to the nurse who took the call and she said they were quite instistant that they needed a call back and could they please get teh next of kin to call them back - but only after they had discovered that Mr Smith was in a coma. Whatever teh reason for the call - this is unacceptible in anyone's book.

However the council were confronted with what they had done by email on more than one occasion immediately after Mr Smith's death and given morethan adequate time to come back with a simple denial or explanation for doing what they did and they have not done so. Under no law would it be a breach of confidentiality or data protection to say 'actually we didn't do that' 'it wasn't about his council tax'? But really what else could their reason be??? And if they had a legitimate reason which was not about the council tax they alleged he owed which actually I coudl fine no reason why he should owe in teh first place then why did they not come back to me and tell me at the time - instead of taking action to disturb a critically ill man and his diabled 84 year old mother in a way that looks like them bullying vulnerable people to get money out of them without giving them a right to know why they are meant to owe it?

Personally I think they have had more than enough time to explain themselves and they are refusing - the council exec will only come back wth more fudge and word play.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 24 2013, 08:11 AM

Be that as it may; good manners cost nothing!

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 24 2013, 03:17 PM

Just thought that you might want to know that on 21st August I wrote to Brian Bedwell - teh Conservative Chair of the Council's Oversight, Scrutiny and Monitoring Commission about Mr Smith - explaining about his being chased in Hospital and including the following comment:

'I was heartened to think that the Chairman of the Scrutiny committee would no doubt be on hand to pick up this matter and would know who best in the council should be there to correct the problems. I am correct that it is the role of the scrutiny committee to ensure that mistakes like these do not happen or at least do not happen more than once?

So I am bringing this matter to your attention and rest confident that in your public duty you will see that these horrific errors are corrected and never allowed to happen again. It is of course urgent that this information is released promptly to prevent any further hurt and distress and make sure that Mr Smith's good name is expunged as quickly as possible.'

He responded the next day with "As chairman of OSMC I do not have any additional powers than any other me,mber, I can ask the Commission to investigate issues but that has to be done during normal meetings."

As yet we have heard nothing back from Mr Bedwell nor his commission - so it is not only Mr Benyon who is proving less than prompt and useful in protecting his constituents in line with their elected duty.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 24 2013, 03:34 PM

Sorry if you've said already Ian, but who is Mr Smith's ward councillor, and what has been their involvement to date. Also, who is the councillor with responsibility for the department that collects the council tax, and what has been their involvement so far?

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 24 2013, 03:39 PM

Interesting - did you realise that my involvement in this was called for because Sovereign Housing were seeking to evict Mr Smith from the very flat that the H&S directorate had deemed unfit for human habitation?

And the reason for eviction was the arrears that had built up against Mr Smith.

These arrears were due to deductions made by WBC before paying the Housing benefit Mr Smith was entitled to.

When we went to enquire why they had been making deductions – pointing to the latest one only two weeks earlier - the Council staff told us that they did not have a clue why the money had been deducted – that it was probably a ghost in the machine.

We then pointed out the enormous number of previous deductions and asked about these – they promised to investigate and come back to me by the end of the day but then Mr Lowe stepped in and the shutters came down and the ‘direct’ bullying started.

Perhaps you are right - this was a central government agenda designed to reduce the amount of spending on Housing Benefit? Maybe this is why the Council and Richard Benyon both seem intent upon not letting the information on these deductions see the light of day?

I had a similar experience with the Council and Richard Benyon over a miscalculation of the Local Housing Allowance – which would definitely fit with an intention to artificially bring rental rates down in the area by not giving people on HB enough money to pay their rents. NWN wouldn't print my letter or report on this issue even though it adversely affected landlords and benefit claimants and property prices across Newbury.

I really think you might be on to something here – I will go and look at what else I can tie up with this awesome observation of yours. ‘Well done - take a pound out of the till’ – as my old dad would have said.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 24 2013, 03:45 PM

It is this sort of thing that makes one feel that perhaps some people are 'members of the same club'. What we need to realise is that today it is Mr Smith, tomorrow it would be someone else.

I suspect at the bottom of this lies 'bean counters' and 'lawyers'. I'd be surprised if this was all the work of councillors.


ihowgate, have you looked to raise the profile of this on Facebook, etc?

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 24 2013, 08:23 PM

Actually it appears that the next person has already been picked and it is me. The Council have made some allegations that I have done something wrong - which supposedly makes me unsafe to work with a man and his family - but having disclosed this to the police they refuse to tell me what I am supposed to have done. They have now decided that I am not allowed to be treated like other residents and am not allowed access to my own information and advice from council staff on my personal dealings with the council - other than through - you guessed it David Lowe. It is all starting to feel like we are living in a police state.

What is worse the council have also made up some allegations about the man - whose family I was trying to help. They claimed that he had been sent to prison for attempted murder - which is entirely untrue (today we received a document admitting that the police have confirmed that it is untrue). But this hasn't stopped our council pursuing a case against this man to try to hand his children to his alcoholic wife based solely on her testimony and this completely misrepresented incident which even they will claim occurred more than ten years ago and hence can hardly be relevant today.

Am I going crazy or is this all completely surreal?

I used to be a director of compliance from a FTSE100 financial institution, if someone in that firm behaved like David Lowe has behaved then the first thing that would happen is that he would be suspended and an investigation would take place to prove whether he was safe to carry on his role or not before someone else got hurt. But at WBC we have something completely different, the person who has their rights suspended is the person who was representing the injured man (seemingly because the Council can reek their revenge no further on that injured man – because he is dead) and the culprit of the misconduct is not only allowed to continue in his role but is allowed full rein to influence the potential investigators (if any are actually appointed) from his significant position of influence and power and as scrutiny manager has probably chosen no one less than himself to do the investigating. It all sounds completely Machiavellian to me – like something out of 1960s Russia or the Spanish inquisition.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 24 2013, 08:46 PM

It sounds as though the Council have invoked their Vexatious Complainant policy - all of your communicatins get channelled through one officer. Curiously enough, one of the triggers for declaring you to be a Vexatious Complainant is that you attempt to take up your complaint with your ward councillor - they may have changed their policy, but it looked like that last time I looked. Taking the issue to the press is almost certainly also a trigger.

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 24 2013, 10:25 PM

Sounds like you have been there also Simon. If so are you still in that category and do you know how long it lasts?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2013, 10:54 AM

I find the Council even having a vexatious complainant policy, where they take it on themselves to act as judge and jury, offensive in the extreme. This is wholly against our British constitution (and yes we do have one) and our common law. Have we really gone back to the worst excesses of the Court of Star Chamber? Does anyone at West Berkshire Council really understand what the Civil War was all about - quite popular round here at one time. Frankly, whoever came up with the idea of this policy isn't fit for a career in public service.

This is very dangerous indeed, we are sleepwalking into a totalitarian state.

Posted by: JeffG Sep 25 2013, 11:56 AM

We do? I've been misinformed, then. (Or are we talking about the 1215 one?)

(I agree with everything else you said.)

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 25 2013, 12:32 PM

I doubt it is a policy, more vultures lawyers' advice.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2013, 01:02 PM

There is a publicised vexatious complaints procedure. There're has even been a 'right to know' question about it. A procedure cannot exist without a policy.

Trouble is the administration have been taking over the executive function. That's because over the years our Councillors have abdicated their real responsibility so are little more than unpaid social workers these days. No use to man or beast.

Wether they like it or not, the Councillors are responsible for policy. Again, you can't have a procedure without a policy - if you try, as the saying goes, it doesn't compute.

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 25 2013, 01:14 PM

On the Edge is correct - there is common law which states that no man should be called in judgement upon themselves. I have put this law to the Council and they just ignore it - I think David Lowe believes he is God - he certainly seemed to think he was in regard to Mr Smith and his family.

The other piece of useful law on this is the Human Rights Act 1998 which has many sections relating to a person's right to a fair trial, to be told what they are accused of, for there to be no punishment outside of the law and of course this is the law of the land not the law of the Lowe that the Act is talking about.

If we could show that this was a decision made by one solicitor or another – then a complaint could be taken about them to the Law Society or Solicitor’s Regulation Authority both of which would no doubt be keen to hear about their own member’s encouraging large corporations to breach the Human Rights Act. One would not actually need a name but simply knowledge that it was reasonable to expect that the council had referred matters to the legal department (as when confronted with a threat of legal action) before making some decision of this type and then a complaint could be put against the head of legal at the Council.

It is an interesting idea – I will look into it – this is not being vexatious I hope you all understand I am just looking to the only means of obtaining my rights and that of Mr Smith and others like him.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 25 2013, 04:17 PM

Rights mean nothing without the power or will to prosecute.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 25 2013, 04:19 PM

Do you know where it can be viewed?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 25 2013, 06:34 PM

[PDF] Persistent and Prolific Complaints Procedure - West Berkshire Council
www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28473&p=0‎

Web address as above, I simply Googled 'vexatious complainant west berkshire'. There are some interesting ones and this does seem to be far more common than I'd anticipated.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 25 2013, 07:17 PM

This is too true.

It's not so much the phoning the dying man in hospital that I find unacceptable (it would be heavy-handed, but I can just about imagine that the council might legitimately want to assure themselves that the man really was in hospital), what most gets my goat is that it would appear that the council wouldn't allow Ian Howgate to advocate for the man despite the man's explicit wish, and it seems to me that the council didn't want to deal with an empowered and articulate advocate and wanted instead to deal with someone who couldn't express himself well, didn't understand his rights, and was intimidated by authority. I would like to see what the Council have to say for themselves about this because as a public authority there shouldn't really be a need for rights-advocates like Ian Howgate because the public authority should already be taking the greatest of care that our rights and dignity are respected, and I can't see any legitimate reason why they wouldn't gladly work through an advocate. WBC need to give a good account of themselves, because at the moment it sounds quite appalling.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 09:49 AM

Immediately I see errors..

1. Purpose

1.1. To identify complainants who are unreasonable or unreasonably persistent and/or prolific in pursuit of their complaint and manage their complaints appropriately.

How can that be right. Surely it should say 'manage their complaints inappropriately'?

I note the following too. So it is worth being judicious with your correspondence.

4. Defining Unreasonable Complainant Behaviour

4.3 Similarly, the fact that a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of a complaint and seeks to challenge it once, or more than once,should not necessarily cause him or her to be labeled unreasonably persistent. Responding to reasonable expressions of dissatisfaction and requests for information should not cause staff particular problems.

The following I find unacceptable. Many of us are timid and are not familiar with dealing with authority figures. Some people could just being clumsy, so to label them as vexatious is discriminatory, in my view.

4.4.5 Making apparently groundless complaints again staff dealing with the complaint and/or asking that they be replaced, or escalating a complaint to a more senior officer after receipt of a response with which they disagree.


The biggest problem, however, is the word reasonable. Not really easy to define in the context of a complaints procedure.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 10:13 AM

Uh Oh, it's admin ... quick, scarper!

Posted by: motormad Sep 26 2013, 10:15 AM

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 10:15 AM

I understand that the council's policy on these matters details that this should happen.

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 26 2013, 10:39 AM

This section looks new – and it has a mistake in it also – these just demonstrate the incompetence of the staff – ‘again’ and ‘again’ and ‘again’ or should it be ‘against’?

I did have a very thorough viewing of the complaints procedures - once I managed to get a copy of them (the council were reticent to release them – even to a person trying to lodge a complaint) back in 2011. This was because I had seen a large number of complaints disappear. There was and as far as I can see still is wide spread suppression of complaints. The simple fact that people are not given the complaints procedures when they express dissatisfaction is a clear indicator of a complaints unfriendly culture. However I even have senior staff on record telling me that an expression of an indication of dissatisfaction is not a complaint, when their web page on complaints used pretty much those very words. The whole system is broken and the Council big guns are trying their best to keep it that way and keep it covered up.

At that time (not knowing how corrupt the system was) I offered the Council to drop my usual £1,000 per day fee and straighten the process out for them for free. It may sound arrogant that I was offering this help but highly regulated firms all over England had been asking me to help them with their complaints and customer remediation processes for the past 20 years and by this time Courts across Europe had started to ask me to help them understand good process also.

You won’t be surprised to hear that the council turned me down – free consultancy work – saving the taxpayer money and improving the service to the taxpayer and our council didn’t want it!

Posted by: motormad Sep 26 2013, 11:30 AM

So the council are basically pushing complaints under the carpet then - and letting the cheap labour cleaners throw them away?
People complain when they aren't happy with whatever.
To be deemed

Vexatious - solely to harass or subdue an adversary

Surely if there is a complaint, not backing down immediately.. ahhh, this council.


Our council are idiots!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 11:46 AM

Again, this is the same culture that exists in the NHS. They bank on people giving up. The latest government are seeking to make it harder for the 'little' man to seek redress too. There are vexatious complainants, but that adjective should not be used as a piece of armour to shield wrong doing and it seems clear to me that our 'local' councillors are complicit in this. Has anyone in 'authority' Spoken up for Mr Smith? I read 'mealy words' from Mr Benyon MP, but that's it.

Perhaps there was something about Mr Smith that meant he didn't deserve his 'human rights', or even simple 'common courtesy' ⸮

One other thing ihowgate, it might be worth reviewing the use of individual's names at the council (unless it is an accusation already officially in the public domain). Regardless of merit, it could increase the likelihood of this thread closing, let-alone being labeled vexatious.

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 26 2013, 12:07 PM

You know the facts are that if someone is not happy with a complaint they are supposed to be able to take the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman but the LGO won't take it unless it has been through the Council's processes. So by refusing to accept a complaint and process it the Council are able to avoid their mishandling coming to light and completely avert the complaint in the process.

I have a case at the moment where a man lodged a complaint (in person as the Council again refused to let him have support or representation) on 8th July. He received a holding response saying he should get a full response by the 19th July, he has been chasing ever since and can’t get an answer (not even a – we need more time) – that is two months overdue. The complaint is about the fact that the Council have deemed that he was found guilty of trying to murder his wife in 2002 and that he was sentenced to prison in the process. The Council have used this to justify placing his children on the Child protection register and to allow his alcoholic wife to get legal aid – so as to win custody of the four children she abandoned and to take over the family home. So I ask you to judge whether this is an urgent matter. Interestingly a recent meeting with social services and the police in this case revealed the police refuting the basis of this claim by Council staff completely. So why is there any issue – why has an apology and corrective action not been issued? Because the whole system in WBC is corrupt!

What is someone supposed to do when they can’t get an answer or when the person responding to the complaint is clearly compromised? Especially when the current rules allow the Council to deem that person ‘vexatious’

I issued a personal complaint about parking signs – interestingly enough – around a year ago. It was sent to the complaint email address. It started ‘this is a formal complaint’. The Complaints handler ‘Sue Broughton’ tried to bury it – then almost ten days later after I had chased up the lack of a response she wrote back saying she did not think it was a complaint. So I pointed out the fact that someone who had written the complaints procedures and who was handling the complaints for this organisation should not be making such huge mistakes. I was then forced to explain that this too was a complaint. David Lowe decided in investigating the complaint into his own staff’s handling of the complaint stated that he saw no fault nor any need for retraining! I was then told I was not allowed to question his suitability to review this complaint! This is a police state, David Lowe is the sheriff of dodgy town and Nick Carter is his puppet major. I am today awaiting a letter which was supposedly sent to me by Nick Carter in December last year which is supposed to be telling me why I have no right to receive equal treatment by our council on a personal basis. It is convenient that this is probably the only document I have not received by email and when Mr Lowe tried to send it through earlier in the week it arrived in an encrypted file that was impossible to read and hence I have to wait longer for a printed copy.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 12:16 PM

Taking your comments in good faith, these officers are clearly in breach of their own complaints procedure. My first comment is what tools do you have at your disposal to escalate the complaints? Just sending letters ad nauseum is getting no where it seems.

Posted by: Rowley Birkin Sep 26 2013, 12:22 PM

just read the follow up story on page 7 todays nwn where the council leader says this isnt true and they never call anyone in hospital

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 01:00 PM

Yes, the council are repudiating the allegation that the council phoned the hospital. They also said categorically that they have never pursued anyone in hospital. It is a shame they couldn't have said so last week, 19 days after the story first broke in the national press. They also refused to disclose whether they rejected a request to deal with a representative authorised to act on Mr Smith's behalf, based on a potential breach of confidentiality; however, it looks like the NWN and we, owe the council an apology.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 26 2013, 02:02 PM

Shall we wait until we hear what ihowgate has to say?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 02:30 PM

Obviously, yes, but he has already said what he wants to say, it's now a matter of 'putting up or shutting up' as it were! To make any inroads, proof of the call needs to be made. A call log for example. Testimony isn't proof, and I would doubt a council would make such a statement without having confidence of its authenticity. I person phoning the hospital might claim to be the council, but it might be an impostor, or a stunt.

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 26 2013, 03:12 PM

I think you will find that testimony is evidence - if not then the Council's testimonial claim that they never did this is not evidence either and we stand on the evidence of the e-mails. The facts are that we have the e-mail trail to prove that they not only refused to allow Mr Smith his representative whilst he was in a coma but they stated that they were going to deal with him directly. The telephone number of the Council should still be in the medical notes on Mr Smith’s file - that is the number the council left for Mrs Smith to call back on. But if we are saying that testimony is not evidence then I guess the word of the nurse who wrote it down is not evidence either and hence that is of no value either.

As I said before 'the Council will just come up with fudge and word play' and they have. Do you really believe that a lie is beyond the Council? They would say anything they have confidence that can't be revealed - as said before if they didn't do this why not just say so when asked. In today's world the police caution reads 'it it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on'. The Council have compromised their own defence by failing to mention this defence when questioned - a criminal would not get away with inventing a defence after they had bought themselves time to cover up the truth by saying nothing and the public should not simply accept that the Council are allowed to do the same just because they are a Council.

They know that the only non-testimonial evidence that there is of this action is in the Council's own telephone logs and they are never going to let us see those - they wouldn't even let Mr Smith see his own Council Tax and Housing Benefit records, what is more the call was probably made from a mobile and won't appear on logs.

The Council threatened to do it, someone (a nurse) with no vested interest said they did do it and if by some fluke they did not do it (and the only person who knew they had threatened it was me and I certainly did not ring the hospital pretending to be the Council) then it does not change the fact that they threatened it in writing and deprived a dying man in writing of his right to representation and to defend himself from their claims that he owed them money.

I guess the best way that we can get some proof is for me to throw down the gauntlet. If what I have been saying is untrue then it is libel – but only if it is untrue. So here is a challenge please, if a shred of what I have said is untrue, then would the Council please sue me. That way an independent court will get to decide what is true and what is not. If they don’t sue me then it is an admission that they know I am telling the truth.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 03:41 PM

I'm sorry ihowgate, but I'd like to think I am only being fair and applying critical thinking and treating everything I don't have intimate knowledge of with equal scepticism. I presume also that you know the difference between testimony, evidence, and proof. In this instance, the call might have been made, but not necessarily endorsed by the council.

What I'm thinking is that if the council did make the call, it would be better, easier, and cheaper to say: 'yes, sorry, we shouldn't have done that and the parties responsible will be sent for re-training'. To say categorically that they have never phoned a hospital is a bold statement to make and possibly easier to prove false. I presume the hospital, or service provider, have logs.

I realise the council can be far from candid, and I have had personal experience of dealing with the council and the obfuscating they seem to enjoy, but to say let them sue me if I am wrong is never going to work. It is cheaper and easier for them just to ignore you. I assume you have some kind of grounding in law, if so, then you know that it is incumbent on the claimant or the prosecuting authority to present the evidence. The strength of the evidence will count for little if it cannot be corroborated with proof. A nurse and a mother's testimony is not proof the council did anything. Their testimony backed up with call logs, while not perfect, would likely be classed as proof. Other people coming forward with similar tells would also be damning. It is also true to say that the council saying they have never phoned anyone in hospital, isn't proof they did not.

Get the hospital phone log that shows a call was made by a number owned by the council, or made by an agent working for the council, and you probably have your proof. Until then, it is 'he said, she said'.

Posted by: Strafin Sep 26 2013, 03:43 PM

Should it?

Posted by: Weavers Walk Sep 26 2013, 03:44 PM

Just so we know, are you the same interfering busy body called I Howgate that our M.P. knocked back a little while ago?

I would be aggrieved if any of West Berks' money went into funding a case against you. Your track record suggests all they have to do is wait and sooner or later you'll find another bandwagon to jump on.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 03:58 PM

I think yes, unless you can show me where I'm wrong?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 03:59 PM

What has he done to be called that? I think Mr Benyon MP was far from impressive with his response.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/charity-worker-slams-mp-for-cutting-off-communication

Posted by: Strafin Sep 26 2013, 04:07 PM

You think the council should publish that they deal with complaints inappropriatley?

Posted by: Strafin Sep 26 2013, 04:09 PM

Thats a bit strong, especially given that Mr Howgate is working with several groups in the area and isnt just a stand alone complainent.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 05:02 PM

I think you are misreading/understanding the passage.

It says:

1. Purpose

1.1. To identify complainants who are unreasonable or unreasonably persistent and/or prolific in pursuit of their complaint and manage their complaints appropriately.

In other words it is saying the purpose of the document is to identify people who manage their complaints appropriately. It should say the purpose of the document is to identify people who manage their complaints inappropriately.

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 26 2013, 05:39 PM

I would think that the document reads as follows.
To identify complainants who are.... and TO manage their complaints appropriately.

I also think that councils and officers can act badly and throw up a smokescreen to fudge their way out of a corner.
Ignoring FOI and their own procedures seems to be a tactic that ensures the victim will never give up.

I have not had a personal beef yet, but older bro was ostracised for a parking complaint.
He was summonsed to a personal meeting, the result of which was an e-mail around his local council from
the traffic councillor along the lines of no contact is to be carried out with MrE save through this office.
The xxxkwit left Bro's name on the header as a cc. PS F+++ was his phrase not mine!

Whilst attempting to not mess up the thread
He did win out in the end and the LibDems lost their 22 year hold on Richmond. S.London.
ce
(Edit.. Should have said Strafin was right)

Posted by: JeffG Sep 26 2013, 05:53 PM

I agree with Strafin's interpretation, although it could have been worded less ambiguously.

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 26 2013, 05:57 PM

On the subject of ban-wagons, the story and Mr Benyon's involvement was briefly mentioned on David Icke's forum..
amongst the meaning of lizards and other such useful topics. Don't ask how I found that

Posted by: Weavers Walk Sep 26 2013, 06:00 PM

Um, no he ain't. No local groups have contacted him or asked for his help. He HAS however 'muscled' in on several areas of concern and tries to take over. Thus suddenly only the name of Howgate comes to the fore.

He was a trouble maker at Uni and remains so now. He is only interested in one thing. Ian Howgate.

He preys on the vulnerable, often when they are at their lowest ebb, and tries to get involved. Although as yet he has not one success to his name. This nonsense about a letter from the ill patient being ignored fails to take into account that the only people WBC could possibly liaise with were the next of kin. And this they did. WBC cannot get involved with the veracity or otherwise of letters allegedly written by terminally ill people that get the bearer to act for them. But no. Instead of allowing the family to come to terms with their loss and grief, he immediately pops up and starts to ****-stir.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 26 2013, 06:26 PM

No, that simply can't happen.

There's simply nothing you can do, no depravity so vile and no savagery so wicked that it denies you your rights - they are rights, you don't earn them, they are the fundamental and inalienable minimum standard of dignity and respect that a civilised society grants to everyone. None of that gets in the way of the state performing its legitimate function, though it can get in the way of the state is doing something that it shouldn't, though unless you have a powerful special interest group looking after you there's very little you can do if an oppressive and tyrannical state chooses to violate your rights.

As for common courtesy, any customer service organisation needs to understand that people can at times be unreasonable, and mostly it's because they've been treated poorly.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 26 2013, 06:31 PM

I think it needs a comma and an infinitive: "To identify complainants who are unreasonable or unreasonably persistent and/or prolific in pursuit of their complaint, and to manage their complaints appropriately.

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 26 2013, 06:34 PM

If you are talking about my interfering in Mr Benyon's (sadly successful) attempts to run out of town a 61 year old, homeless disabled man with autistic spectrum disorder and bipolar disorder who had spent 10 years in care just because he went to Mr Benyon for help and support; then you are correct I am that 'busy body'

But perhaps you are talking about some other social reengineering scheme of Mr Benyon’s that you think I was or am interfering in? If you would be a little more specific in casting your insults I might be able to help you out with working out whether I am ‘the interfering busy body’ you refer to.

However I think you would not be alone and most residents would be aggrieved if WBC used taxpayer’s money on trying to sue me. I say this for two reasons a) they will lose they will be wasting a lot of taxpayers money that they know they have no prospect of getting back.

Your argument is wrong because if they were successful in suing me then that would effectively stop me being able to find another good cause to support, you are clearly only saying this so as to try to give them an excuse for not taking up my challenge.

However you do not need to worry because they will never try to sue me over this as if they did they would be forced to go through a thorough disclosure process which will out all of the information that they have been so desperately trying to hide from their public. Once the genie was out of the bottle they would never get it back in – so they will simply – as Andy Capp has pointed out ignore my challenge and hope we all forget about the way they treated this dying man (whom no doubt you think I was being an interfering busy body by trying to save from eviction and wrongful prosecution courtesy of our Council).

Nevertheless if it is wasting your money you are worried about and I am worried about it also - you might like to think about how much money the council spend each year on running a legal department to allow them to keep us all in the dark and allow them to squash our human rights of protest and hide the way they treat the poorest in society? You might also like to ask about the social media PR management effort that is being applied and how much that costs – we have seen a number of people hiding behind false names who are surprisingly pro-Council in these exchanges so far and you are the latest – there are many firms out there – I have a friend who runs one – that manage PR on social media for large corporations by creating false Ids and logging pro-corporation opinions – however that costs money, either in staff salary time or external consultancy fees – so how much are we paying for this?

At least I am not afraid to use my own name and thereby face the legal consequences of what I say when I stand up for other people (for free I might point out). There is nothing like hiding behind a false name and throwing insults at people – that takes real courage and faith in your convictions doesn’t it!

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 26 2013, 06:49 PM

Dear Sir/Madam,

You are getting extremely personal here. I think you need to start telling everyone who you are.

You do not know the facts of this story at all. Mr Smith engaged my support months before he died or even went into hospital - if you read the trail you would know that. The letter of authority was witnessed by two senior staff at Sovereign Housing who were able to confirm that he understood what it said and meant and that he gave the authority freely. It was also witnessed as being freely handed over and the meaning confirmed by three members of counter staff at WBC. The legal position is that until Mr Smith died the next of kin had no right of authority on his affairs - the hospital understood this - that is why they engaged with me at every stage in supporting Mr Smith and trying to get him better. The fact that I was at his bedside when he died that I had taken his acceptance that Christ was his saviour the day before and I was there to comfort the family when they arrived, sort and arrange the funeral service and try to get them the money he deserved to pay for the funeral is just part of what I do to help people out of the goodness of my heart - but you can call it ****stirring if you like though I don’t think most people would.

Your comments about my university past are not only wrong they are insulting and I challenge you to justify some part of it with a fact or incident.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 06:54 PM

I hope you saw my irony mark! At the end of the day human rights are granted by default (being human), but there is no higher power to make sure they are observed, so rights in themselves have now power.


Or they don't fully understand what they could expect; resources are not limitless and what there are, are managed by humans too.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 06:58 PM

Yes that works; however, I believe that it deserves to be a separate clause in that case. Either way, the sentence as a policy clause is ambiguous and therefore poorly written.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 26 2013, 07:06 PM

Beware of trolling. There will be people only too happy to see threads like this get closed and that would be a shame. In other words, don't take the bait. That includes you name dropping.

What I would like to ask is: was the subject matter put in touch with you, or were you put in touch with them.?

What it looks like from here is that while you might have people's interests at heart, rightly or wrongly, being that you are now classified as vexatious, you are not so helpful as a 'liaison officer', and so perhaps you need to shape your efforts towards advice-like services. Either that, or you need to find something that sticks, a smoking gun I think it is called. Having the power to take to task is another; the power to prosecute.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 26 2013, 07:40 PM

You're just being vexatious.

Seriously though, I agree. The policy is expected to be read by Joe Public and it really should be clear.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Sep 26 2013, 07:42 PM

Yes, I whinced at the response. You were good enough to warn him, I just fetched the marsh mallows.

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 26 2013, 08:45 PM

The subject of this case was put in touch with me by volunteers at the local soup kitchen charity - Loose Ends. I was then asked by the administrator and two of the deacons at the KCC church, another local charity, to support him and one of the congregation whilst he was in hospital. Following on from this I received calls from a third charity - Eight Bells - asking if I would help this same congregation member and him obviously with it.

With regard to the family - I met all of them at the hospital on separate occasions and firstly his elder brother asked me to help and then later when I met the mother and sisters I was asked to help by them at the time. No one in particular put me in touch with them but it was them who asked me to help. This is bourn out by the statement from the mother in the original story that I was handling everything for her because she could not cope.

I do agree with your suggestions regarding approach to future service and indeed that is how matters have shaped themselves since Mr Smith's death. I think the smoking gun is just round the corner. I haven't thanked you yet for opening up this subject it is a good thing you have done. Thank you for all concerned.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 27 2013, 07:54 AM

When all said and done you are an effective advocate for a severely disadvantaged group in our society. That such a role is so badly needed is a sad and sorry testament to the sanctimonious self serving attitudes of those who claim to be our public servants. You are earning your reward albeit perhaps not in this life. It certainly gives me some comfort to know that if I or anyone else I know hits rock bottom, for any reason, there are still a few who will put a hand out to help.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 07:59 AM

Meanwhile, our local MP and his councils see those people as an 'inconvenience'. And it also seems they can behave as they like because many have demonised those ihowgate tries to support. A group of people that will only grow in size. Their 'crime' often being born into the 'wrong' family.

It seems obvious to me the reason Mr Benyon MP et al. will only deal with those he and they can 'manage'.

Posted by: motormad Sep 27 2013, 08:08 AM

Such is the way with people in a position of power.

Either you fit in the "box" or you are someone who they cannot deal with.
The council should be ashamed.

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 27 2013, 09:04 AM

Over recent months I am ashamed to say that I had come to the opinion that people in Newbury simply didn't care about their poorer brothers in society. However you guys have shown me, over the preceding pages, that this isn't true - thank you all so much for restoring my faith in humanity.

Posted by: motormad Sep 27 2013, 09:41 AM

Don't say that just yet!

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Sep 27 2013, 11:31 AM

How patronising. No mention of 'sisters' either.

Didn't some of the local charities put out statements to the effect that although he describes himself as a 'charity worker' he actually has nothing to do with or is paid by any of them?

Interesting that Ian tries to confuse issues. According to him, to stand against his ham-fisted and vexatious interfering is to somehow be against justice for the poor, vulnerable and elderly. It isn't Ian. Do not confuse the two. We've seen people come and go on the cult of personality and it's getting tiresome. Not even Garvie has gone that low.

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Sep 27 2013, 11:31 AM

Double post. Oops. (Bit ham fisted myself)

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 11:57 AM

How does that matter?


Yes, that is true except I fail to see that it is tiresome as I can only think of one or two, but how do you know ihowgate is ham-fisted and is truly vexatious? And, while trying to decipher your character assassination attempt, what does 'Garvie has gone that low' (sic) mean?

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 27 2013, 01:16 PM

Whilst I find your whole comment confusing - I think you have mixed up the meaning of 'patronising' - perhaps you mean to be a patron to someone - ie to support them?? – that I am guilty of.

I do however apologise for the fact that you have mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that I was talking to you and hence patronising you when I said to the previous correspondents that they had revived ‘my faith in humanity’. Obviously I didn’t mean you – so please don’t think I was patronising you – any person reading this will be able to judge that you most certainly don’t fall into the same category as the caring folk who conversed earlier.

Did some local charities disown me? I haven't heard as such – they certainly haven’t written to me in those terms. Perhaps you would enlighten me as to which ones and when?

Regardless even if all of the groups you feel are charities in the UK disclaimed association with me then you would still be wrong about me not being a charity worker. No doubt you will be surprised to hear that, contrary to what you state, most people doing charity work don't get paid for doing it. Being paid by a charity does not make you a charity worker - quite the opposite actually.

Unlike those who are frustrating my and other people's efforts to help our poorer brothers (in that I include sisters - like Mrs Smith for instance) I am not paid for what I do and in fact that makes me a charity worker. The fact that most of my effort goes through a charity is irrelevant to the fact that in this country, legally someone who does work for other people's good without pay is operating as a charity and is hence a charity worker. It does not need to be formalised or registered it is immediately a charity. However I don't suppose you were really interested in whether your allegations were legally correct or not, I guess you just wanted to have a snipe at someone whilst hiding behind a rusty bullet. Best of fortune to you with that but perhaps next time you would bother to check your law before you go into print it would save us all unnecessary bother in having to correct you.

Posted by: motormad Sep 27 2013, 01:30 PM

It's ok, RB is a troll

Posted by: Squelchy Sep 27 2013, 01:52 PM

Oh for heavens sake give it a bloody rest. I was Mike's neighbour for a while, I knew Mike, and I recently met his mum. You claim, in the Mail article, to have been his 'friend'. You never heard of him till he got ill. You'd never seen hide nor hair of Mike until you turned up with your 'lets get some compo' scheme.

Stop pretending you're anything other than a charity 'hanger-on'. You let people believe that you're a full blown 'charity worker' and then, as we've see, when challenged, back away from it.

You're worse than some parasitic vulture latching onto the ill, weak, and emotionally vulnerable. Just to make a name for yourself. So far, going public about the M.P mugging you off and poor bloody Mike has done what exactly? Nothing. That's what. Unless you call making yourself look like a sticky-beak a result.

Posted by: Cognosco Sep 27 2013, 01:52 PM

Now whether this sorry saga is true or not my problem is that whenever a story appears that makes a criticism of our local authorities it would appear we never get a definitive answer as to have they acted wrongly, illegally, or whatever? It would seem that they either cannot or will not give out information one way or the other. They just obfuscate until the problem disappears quietly over the horizon. Any one who persists in querying any replies the local authorities give, which happens on rather rare occasions, are declared vexatious. I fail to understand why no explanations are ever given. It would be much appreciated if for once our local elected representatives actually represented the electorate and give details of the facts regarding this serious complaint!

Posted by: On the edge Sep 27 2013, 02:05 PM

There are far far easier ways of making a name for yourself. So can we ask what you did to help?

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 27 2013, 02:05 PM

Well said - and by the way the previous person is just plain wrong again - I had known Mike for two years before he got ill. I first met him with a friend from a church in the Soup Kitchen - he was lovely then and remained so until he died - in fact in line with his name he managed to sort out a bike for my wife over a year ago.

I guess it must be tough work being a full time troll.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 02:17 PM

On the contrary, and despite your bile, I'd say he has at least raised the profile of those less fortunate than us.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 02:18 PM

Again, on the contrary, evidently it is quite easy for some.

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Sep 27 2013, 03:03 PM

You know, you're right. It's not all about you is it Ian? You work selflessly away in the background.

Funny how only those pursuing their own agenda use their real names on here though isn't it, ihowgate? I wonder why that would be?

Posted by: motormad Sep 27 2013, 03:09 PM

OHHHH IT'S GETTING PERSONAL.

_{i've met people face to face and some even know my name!}

Posted by: Squelchy Sep 27 2013, 05:36 PM

So. Mr Howgate, have you ever been asked to leave a Church group because of your antics? Truthful answer please.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 06:09 PM

What antics?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 27 2013, 06:10 PM

He'll be in good company then; Charles Wesley, William Booth to name a couple and of course Doctor Barnardo wasn't exactly popular with the powers that be.

What are you seeking to establish - that Mr H is a man who sticks to his principles?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 06:14 PM

And even if he was, what does that prove, and what is it you hope to achieve by this announcement? As OTE has already suggested with other examples, I would imagine there was a time when people who spoke out against slavery were accused of just being self-serving busy bodies.

If you think he has done something wrong I would ask you spit it out, instead of your spiteful innuendo. It's not making your position any more agreeable. Unless you are just out to spoil someone's reputation.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 27 2013, 06:29 PM

I have been following the thread since it was first opened and had also seen the article in the various newspapers. At first, I was a little shocked and outraged at what had taken place according to the reporter Brian Radford. As time and the posts on here expressed their cumulative outrage, I began to think “is this for real?” and wondered what lay behind the story. Did WBC really know that he was close to end of life or were they chasing a potential scrounger to determine if in fact he really was in hospital. Just search through the hordes of people who have blatantly ripped off councils by claiming benefit and I have to believe that I should thank, as a person who always pays his dues, WBC for investigating. Was this a storm in a teacup and remember, we should never let a good story get in the way of the truth.
As soon as I Read the first post by I Howgate I was even more convinced that something wasn’t right. The claims seemed not quite right.
a) the money they claimed that he owed them, the reasons they would not grant him the same protection as any person claiming sickness benefits – particularly considering he was critically ill, nor
c) the reasons that they had made direct deductions from his financial support of something over a thousand pounds, some £20 of which they had accidentally admitted having taken in error before they noticed the other £1000.
I am about as highly qualified in personal financial matters as it is possible to be and have on more than one occasion provided expert evidence to courts on such matters

IH went on to say
The first time was only a matter of days before they took him to court over the money they claimed he owed them (a case they withdrew at the court doors when faced with having to explain themselves under my cross examination) and a matter of a few weeks before he went into hospital never to return alive.
Anyway, the next post compounded my belief that here we had someone who was interested in getting his name into the public domain and almost every other post is “I said”, “I did”, I’m a wonderful charity worker”.
Now, as a man of God Mr Howgate, was the hospital telephone call just a question as to confirmation that Mr Smith really was in hospital or did the caller specifically discuss with the nurse that the patient owed, was in arrears or had failed to pay council tax.
Apart from the rambling nature of the various posts, there are I noticed a few inconsistences. For example…
- did you realise that my involvement in this was called for because Sovereign Housing were seeking to evict Mr Smith from the very flat that the H&S directorate had deemed unfit for human habitation?
And the reason for eviction was the arrears that had built up against Mr Smith.
And then…

Landlord have admitted that the ceiling in his home which had been crumbling and according to Mr Smith 'the dust had been causing him breathing problems', contained (you guessed it) asbestos. The landlord had moved him out of the flat months after the problem occurred only because the Health and Safety executive deemed it unfit for human habitation, less than two months before he died.
So, despite the arrears, did Sovereign move him into a new home.
[i]Mr Smith died homeless and had even had his possessions confiscated from him by his landlord and held for supposed non-payment of rent
As a highly qualified financial expert I would be interested to hear what your qualifications actually are.
I used to be a director of compliance from a FTSE100 financial institution
Really, why did you give that one up and are you for real.
At that time (not knowing how corrupt the system was) I offered the Council to drop my usual £1,000 per day fee and straighten the process out for them for free. It may sound arrogant that I was offering this help but highly regulated firms all over England had been asking me to help them with their complaints and customer remediation processes for the past 20 years and by this time Courts across Europe had started to ask me to help them understand good process also.
Can you be a bit more specific about this one..
If you are talking about my interfering in Mr Benyon's (sadly successful) attempts to run out of town a 61 year old, homeless disabled man with autistic spectrum disorder and bipolar disorder who had spent 10 years in care just because he went to Mr Benyon for help and support; then you are correct I am that 'busy body'
Nice that you were there to save Mr Smith's soul though
The fact that I was at his bedside when he died that I had taken his acceptance that Christ was his saviour the day before and I was there to comfort the family when they arrived, sort and arrange the funeral service and try to get them the money he deserved to pay for the funeral is just part of what I do to help people out of the goodness of my heart -
Squelchy seems to have you summed up however.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 27 2013, 07:13 PM

Busy day in the staff canteen today lads?

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 07:35 PM

So we have an attention seeking charity worker? And for that he deserves all this vitriol? I think these posts speak more about you and others, than it does about the main protagonist.

What we have here is the council making a very belated announcement of denial. We have also people that insist that the events did happen. Now unless either party can prove anything, we have a stale mate. Whether 'Garvie II' is the second coming is rather irrelevant in the proceedings.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 08:22 PM

It looks a bit like that dunnit! The general secretary has been a bit quiet on this I notice! They're probably all at home on Twitter sucking up to the bossman!

Posted by: spartacus Sep 27 2013, 08:42 PM

ferk me...! Some people have WAY too much time on their hands.......

Ian, there's some charity working that needs a-doing, yet you're sat on here tapping away rambling posts.... Get out there and evangelise someone for goodness sake!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 08:44 PM

Is that the best you can do, at least Exhausted put some effort in to his?

Posted by: spartacus Sep 27 2013, 08:56 PM

It's Friday night... I've had a beer... and my head hurts from reading just HALF of that rambling crap.... I didn't go full throttle for a terrific repost and appreciate I must try harder..... but can't be ar$ed....

However if the letters of complaint Mr Howgate has submitted to the Council are anything like what has been dumped on this forum then it's no wonder he's been treated as vexatious and time-consuming complainant... It would drive a sane man to Loose Ends having letters from Mr H plopping into the 'In Tray' every other day.

Posted by: On the edge Sep 27 2013, 09:25 PM

Umm. It's all down to communication. Surely you realise that people express themselves in different ways. Just go and observe a public meeting. Yes, I'd doubtless find dealing with Mr H difficult but even I can see several productive ways of working with him. Are you saying we don't have professionals at WBC who could deal with Mr H in a positive way? Regrettably, the staff see themselves as 'authority' rather than 'servant'. Needs a step change.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 27 2013, 09:51 PM

While a number of people might give cause for the council to label people vexatious or monopolise council time, I still have no confidence that the status of vexatious is applied fairly. I know from my own dealings with the council that they can be downright obtuse 'beggars' and evasive.

The reaction some have given this person seems to be wholly unreasonable; kids in the playground stuff, and it tends to make me wonder how impartial some people are who have posted. It is also certainly true that I would be very disappointed if the hospital phone call was a set-up, just as much as if I found out that the council's announcement was false.

At the end of the day we have anecdotal evidence that councillors don't always know what is going on and do table less than accurate or candid statements. West Berks CCTV for example.

Posted by: motormad Sep 28 2013, 12:06 AM

As Andy says we all know vaxatious labelling within the council is not applied fairly.

As for Exhausted posts.
Firstly props for raising some interesting points.
Secondly get a life - wife - hobby - model train set - pogo stick - anything. I'm quite sad but not to that level
Thirdly (and unrelated to Exhausted's posts but more an in-general statement) we are all (supposedly) adults here
So if people know the guy or are aware of his "antics" why not share your information rather than post innuendo as has been said? What is more childish where a game involving drinking water and listening to innuendo and then spitting it over the other people playing.

Imagine a child with divorced parents
And one parent says to the kid "there were some bad things your <other parent> used to do"
Kid asks what naturally, parent says "I don't want to tell you it's for your own good"

IF IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD DON'T BLOODY SAY ANYTHING AT ALL.

So yeah spill antics please

P.s anyone who gets "thrown out of the church" is probably an alright guy. no-one likes wearing those tight-necked jumpers anyway.
Reminds me of a youth club I used to go to. I am not religious at all (I hate it and think it's pointless but hey-ho) and in order to be allowed sweets I'd have to listen to verses from the bible as part of the youth club.
Failure to do so would result in flogging a lack of access to the tuck shop where you could buy sweeties and more importantly drinks... talk about subconcious mind control. FEED THEM SWEETS FOR LISTENING TO POINTLESS RAMBLINGS OF A MAN WEARING A DRESS.
That'll get them hooked.

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 28 2013, 07:43 AM

Well there really is a funny thing in there - in all my years working, both 'selflessly' and 'paid' only Richard Benyon and his office has ever accused me of having my 'own agenda' - exactly those words in fact. I didn't understand it then and I don't understand it now - what is this supposed 'agenda' of mine? Honestly I would really like to hear it – at least then unlike Mr Smith – who this is all about – I would get to defend myself.

And please stop calling me 'Ian'. Only my friends call me 'Ian' and I know the names of all my friends - so I am sure you are not one of them - it makes it very personal and is in my view rather condescending.

However this is meant to be about Mr Smith and the terrible way the Council and Mr Benyon and Sovereign housing treated him and you seem intent upon making this a personal issue about me so if you prefer I will stop being open (using my own name) and I can be closed like the Council and Sovereign and you (who now smell a lot like a Benyon Stooge to me) and log out, coming back into the debate under a synonym - perhaps a whole series of them just to keep you off the sent of whom I really am? Would you prefer that and could we then get on with talking about the absolutely appalling way Mike was treated?

But really, really do tell me about this personal agenda of mine first - I would love to know!

Posted by: ihowgate Sep 28 2013, 08:16 AM

Truth - you want the truth - you can't take the truth!

But here goes you asked for it!

There are three 'church groups whom I have left on unfriendly terms these are:

Newbury Baptist Church, the Newbury and Thatcham Foodbank and of late the Loose Ends soup kitchen.

My departure from the Baptist church (of which i am still a member and in fact received a very pleasant call from their minister yesterday about renewing active participation in the church) was because the Secretary of the church at a time when the church had a minister wrote to me (and I have the email) telling me that if I spoke to either the Charities Commission or the Inland Revenue about the tax fraud and breach of trust that I had spotted the Church was involved in that they would bring me in front of the membership and have me drummed out of the church. I decided that rather than blow the whistle on the church that I would try my best (whilst protecting myself and my family from the bad company and the potential implication that I might be seen as complicit in the tax fraud) to follow the parable of the fig tree in the vineyard. And God was good to his word, by the time that little over a year had passed most of the people who had been involved in the tax fraud and breach of trust had been 'cut back' - they had lost their jobs or their position in the church and hence why now is a good time to think about seeing whether the church will accept correction and I might then return. However I stopped participating of my own accord and was not 'asked to leave'.

The Foodbank invited me to a steering meeting and then told me that they were not going to put any mention of Christ in their trust - but that they were going to run the charity as a 'Christian charity' I pointed out that this was dishonest, a breach of trust as well as Charities Commission rules and that they had already received funds which were earmarked for Christian charities and therefore that money had to be spent on Christian purposes. I was told that the reason was that if they admitted openly that they were Christian that ‘big funders’ like Greenham Common Trust would not support them. From a Christian point of view I believe that we should have faith in God and not in worldly organisations and if these organisations do not want to spend their money on Christian activities then that is their right and we as Christians should not con or trick them into doing so - that was fraud. My point was that they could not have both Christian funding and secular funding by pretending to both that they were not doing the other type of charitable work. The foodbank here locally did not like that but they did put Christ in their trust deed - becoming the first openly Christian Foodbank in the 330 of the time in the UK. However they decided that they would hide God under a bushel and would tell staff not to evangelise. My stance on this was that if you were Christian you needed to comply with the great commission of Christ – ‘to preach the gospel to all nations’ That was the last thing that Christ asked us to do and it was the most important thing he did. Had I not done that with Mr Smith then he would have died not knowing God and that in my view would have been a terrible loss. Hence I stepped down from the Foodbank as in my view it was not entirely of God and not entirely honest. I was not asked to leave and indeed I have apology letters from the two senior trustees of the foodbank. The Chairman of CTNA supported my position throughout indeed claiming that he and his wife were crying Halleluiah through out my first correspondence with the committee. He also went personally to the trustees and told them that they owed me an apology and the way they had behaved was not acceptable.

Loose Ends decided that they were going to ask me to allow a personal who had been arrested by the police for a serious assault that I witnessed free use of the soup kitchen – in spite that meaning that if I attended at the same time I would be breaching that person’s undertaking not to interfere with a police witness. They then told the whole volunteer group that we were not allowed to engage with Loose ends client’s outside of session – which meant to me that I would be forced to stop trying to help Mr smith and his ex-wife whilst he was in hospital and considering that it was Loose Ends Staff who first asked me to help him and I felt – as my wife did that feeding people and not helping them was only delaying the inevitable – we both resigned. Again I was not asked to leave

Is that enough truth for you? If not just ask and I will add to this.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 28 2013, 08:28 AM

"Vent their spleen"?
Come on Andy, it's just a discussion!
Surely we can have some fun debating those less serious issues as well??
Vent their spleen indeed!!!
(Oh sorry, have I diverted the thread..................anyway, back to the vitriol!)

Posted by: motormad Sep 28 2013, 08:33 AM

Better than venting their bladder which would probably be more messy.
Or their colon.

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 28 2013, 09:02 AM

You didn't notice I was being flippant; exaggerating for effect?

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 28 2013, 09:07 AM

No, sorry!
Anyway, must go and vent my colon!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 28 2013, 09:12 AM

Yes, the gist of what I was saying was that you have stories like the one that inspired this thread, yet people seem more interested in careless mistakes in the editing.

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 28 2013, 09:19 AM

I don't think that's true.
Some threads have a heavy serious theme such as this one and others are on a more lighter note, the spelling / edition one being an example.
I think all deserve an inclusion.
It would be not much fun if all were as heavy as this one say.
Variety is the spice of life as the saying goes.
Personally (and this may anger many) I think this one has been blown out of proportion.
My father died recently and HMRC were sending letters after his money within a couple of days!
It seems that, when chasing taxes, compassion goes out of the window!

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 28 2013, 09:27 AM

Actually it's bloody evident! You really are, not only being bloody off topic, but bloody pedantic too. Despite your comment, my point still stands. Some people, in my view, get up-set over the silliest thing while other items go ignored. This doesn't mean that we should only concentrate on the major stories, it was only an observation and introduction to my post. Unfortunately, perhaps I'm not the only one that takes things too seriously and fail to see the irony in others! If what you highlighted was all that I said, I could see your point, but is was simply an introduction to my main point.

...nuff said.


(editor's note: I will occasionally insert colourful language to illustrate points and some words should be treated with a pinch of salt ... a bit like most of my posts actually)

Posted by: Biker1 Sep 28 2013, 10:34 AM

Maybe to you

You made the original point in the op.
The remainder of my post was on topic.


Look who's talking!


Agreed!

Posted by: Rowley Birkin Sep 28 2013, 11:14 AM

looks like his antics have annoyed the police sovereign housing the council the local mp three church groups and some who know him on here

Posted by: Andy Capp Sep 28 2013, 11:43 AM

Now in English?

Posted by: On the edge Sep 28 2013, 11:54 AM

Gosh, rather like Mrs Thatcher when she first started then!



Just an aside. There is a very famous picture by Holman Hunt in the crypt at St.Paul's. It depicts Christ knocking at a door, illustrating a text from the book of Revelation. Most people think it's an allegory, Christ knocking at man's heart asking to come in. Actually it isn't, the text from Revelation reveals it's Christ knocking a church door....

Posted by: Nothing Much Sep 28 2013, 12:44 PM

Like Martin 'Lex' Luther then. Things fell apart after his knock.
ce

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 28 2013, 06:36 PM

A bit like Jesus kicking over the tables in the temple........
Not sure what figs and vines have to do with anything.
By the way, if you have knowledge of a criminal act and you fail to report it you become an accessory.

Posted by: The Hatter Sep 28 2013, 06:57 PM

Unlike you, I can't claim to be an expert but I'm not sure the bit about being an accessory is correct; if it were half of Newbury would be behind bars!

Posted by: DJE Sep 28 2013, 07:41 PM

Hmmm... so performing (supposedly Christian) acts, doing your God's work, is not sufficient, it has to be used for an evangelising opportunity too? And it is somehow 'honest' to enjoy the benefits of charitable status to envangelise, but 'dishonest' to simply do good deeds without forcing religion down people's throat?

I think the Charitable status of religious groups should be rescinded. Charitable status for charitable work, not for evangelism.

And is this whole thread becoming just another publicity opportunity you are taking for the over-hyped brand of God & Son Ltd?

Posted by: The Hatter Sep 28 2013, 07:56 PM

Would be far better to eliminate the whole charitable status thing anyway. All it does is cause arguments and diverts money into a quango just red tape. At the end of the day, this bloke is there for theses people if they don't like what he says or does they can tell him to bog off and not be put on a blacklist.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 28 2013, 08:36 PM

Posted by: motormad Sep 28 2013, 08:53 PM

You don't half talk some rubbish sometimes.

When you study the slightest bit of law you'll know that's not the case.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 28 2013, 10:06 PM

Definition of accessory after the fact...

To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection,

Posted by: The Hatter Sep 29 2013, 06:50 AM

I can copy out off Wikipedia but this still doesn't work for your comment, you aren't a real solicitor then?

Posted by: newres Sep 29 2013, 11:41 AM

Proves conclusively that you were talking out of your rear orifice.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 29 2013, 01:12 PM

And I guess you don't make hats.
Tell me where the problem with the comment, as you see it, is incorrect. Copying from Wiki seeing as you also use that reference, saves copying from a legal precedents volume I guess.



I can play "God save the Queen" however, and you ??

Posted by: The Hatter Sep 29 2013, 01:30 PM

No, I don't so I don't give hat making advice. If you can't see what the problem is with the comment, then you really do need a solicitor I can but you in touch with one for a small consideration.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 29 2013, 02:28 PM

I have my own team thank you, but in your own words, what is incorrect. If you could spell it out for me, I would be obliged.

Posted by: The Hatter Sep 29 2013, 03:52 PM

Ask them then; I'd have to charge.

Posted by: NWNREADER Sep 29 2013, 08:05 PM

I may be wrong (it happens) but I do not believe 'Accessory after the fact' is an offence on the Statute Book......

Posted by: motormad Sep 29 2013, 08:59 PM

Oh, he has a team?

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 29 2013, 10:32 PM

Motormad attempting to interest people in the fit of his VW Golf wings.

Posted by: motormad Sep 30 2013, 07:53 AM

Any other poor attempts at an insult that you can throw my way?

Posted by: massifheed Sep 30 2013, 08:04 AM

He just threw your poor attempt at an insult back at you.

Posted by: motormad Sep 30 2013, 08:09 AM

Mine wasn't an insult though.

Posted by: Jay Sands Sep 30 2013, 12:46 PM

ASSISTANCE AFTER THE CRIME
It is only assistance before or during a crime that can render a person liable as an accomplice. However, a person can become criminally liable for assisting an offender after the commission of an offence. Section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides:
Where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him to be guilty of the offence or of some other arrestable offence, does without lawful authority or reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence.

http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/lecture-notes/participation-lecture.php

Reading this I think you have to have done a bit more than just knowing about a crime and not reporting it to be classed as an accessory.

Posted by: JeffG Sep 30 2013, 01:35 PM

Surely not reporting it is "impeding his apprehension or prosecution"?

Posted by: Jay Sands Sep 30 2013, 02:07 PM

I don't think it's impeding it, just not helping it, which is somewhat different.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 30 2013, 04:44 PM

Sorry if you were offended by my return of the insult. I thought your post was quite amusing, obviously you're not as thick skinned as I am.

Posted by: Exhausted Sep 30 2013, 04:57 PM

I know this was a bit low key, fiddling the church funds isn't exactly the great train robbery but think on this....

I find out that a couple of blokes that I work with have done a robbery, injured a couple of staff, one of them a woman and got away with a stash of money. The investigation has stalled and they may get away with it.
At some point in time, the bill find out that I knew about it but didn't do anything. Can I say that they might be a little more than irritated.

Above is hypothetical of course just in case you want to test the assistance after a crime theory.

Posted by: motormad Sep 30 2013, 05:26 PM

I'm thicker skinned than pretty much anyone on here.
Do carry on

Posted by: Jay Sands Sep 30 2013, 05:58 PM

Whilst there is no legal requirement to report a crime, there is a moral duty on everyone of us to report to the police any crime or anything we suspect may be a crime.

https://www.askthe.police.uk/Content/Q514.htm

Rice V Connoly 1966. Judgement states individuals have Common law right to remain silent, nor to answer or go with anyone who may claim to be in authority , short of being arrested.

Posted by: Strafin Oct 1 2013, 06:55 AM

It would have to be very serious for me to want to get involved with the police.

Posted by: motormad Oct 1 2013, 07:57 AM

I'm not a snitch, why would I report anything my friends did?
The lecture from me and the loss of my friendship is punishment enough.

And if it were a public thing, depends on the severity really. EG If I saw someone's car being stolen I'd report that. Or a murder? But shoplifting from Sainsburys, welllll... not my business really.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 1 2013, 11:08 AM

Have you had a bad experience?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 1 2013, 11:48 AM

I take it we're done with the allegation that the council were unreasonably pursuing people for alleged debt.

Posted by: Exhausted Oct 1 2013, 04:56 PM

It all went a bit pear shaped after squelchy gave us an insight into his knowledge of Mr Howgate and his relationship with Mr Smith

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 1 2013, 05:18 PM

Corrected for accuracy. I also believe that ihowgate has refuted much if not all of what Squelchy accused him of.

Posted by: Squelchy Oct 1 2013, 10:20 PM

Well, one has tried to offer an alternative view, but it seems that more is needed.

My advice is for people to screen capture this as it may not last too long on the thread, but it is written after checking with Mike's mum and brother.

Mike had lived on the streets since the age of 14, he suffered from T.B and pneumonia and smoked like a trooper. He was taken to hospital suffering from pneumonia and it is that he succumbed to.

He had been taken to court for arrears on many occasions and still owes the water board nigh on £2000. He was, as they say, 'known to the police' as a result of his liking for others people's property, (especially bicycles). None of us felt safe when he was around.

Some years ago we were all told that the flats were coming down and we'd be entitled to some sort of relocation grant. Mike died before he got his. He wasn't relocated. Our landlords don't owe him any money therefore.

He was living in our 'guest room' when he as taken to hospital and been there for months.

When his mother and the court probate officer turned up she expressly forbade Howgate to attend.

As Mike was dying in hospital Howgate turned up and tried to get him to sign a form declaring that Howgate was acting for Mike. Until this time Mike had never seen or heard of Howgate. I cannot speak for the landlords or council but since there were still next of kin about there would be no way they could do that. Indeed, I understand Mikes mum actually said to ignore it. No public body would dare to suddenly start talking to Howgate about private matters under those circumstances. Howgate has since been back to try and rally support from us and was sent away sharpish with a flea in his ear.

Howgate is happy to be called a 'charity worker' yet when pushed he admits to not actually working for any charity, only that he works for free. Big difference.

He has been asked to leave at least one church group. In fairness to him it would be unfair to publicly say why. But he knows the truth.

Our MP has mugged him off, our landlords won't discuss anything with him and WBC ignore him. The NWN in an article called him a 'charity worker' and photographed him standing outside the Loose Ends building. The implication was clear. Loose Ends immediately set about telling everyone he was not on their payroll and just 'helps out from time to time'.

If you read one of Howgates first posts it's actually all about him. He tells us he's as about as highly qualified in personal finance as it's possible to get. Of course he fails to tell us what professional qualifications he's got (so we can check) and what the top qualifications are. He also seem to think that it not a small world. It is. And I remember him and his antics from our student union days. (I'll draw a veil over that as it not relevant here) suffice to say he's got previous.

The guy is just another incompetent do-gooder who is only interested in the cult of his own personality. He's using the death of another to advance his cause.

A period of quiet dignity would surely be in order?

Posted by: spartacus Oct 1 2013, 10:38 PM

Well after that bit of back-story I'd be surprised if we hear from Mr H on here for a while....

It seems that the Daily Mail 'investigative reporters' were taken for mugs.


And having read Squelchy's version of events I'm inclined to think that it's not only the Daily Mail reporters that were suckered by Mr H, with some of this site's regulars taking the bait hook, line and sinker and putting up a strenuous defence of someone they'd never met....

Posted by: motormad Oct 1 2013, 11:14 PM

Well THAT'S interesting.

And certainly turns things around.
I can't see why it would be removed - Nothing blatantly defamatory about what's written, obviously some insider information going on here.

Truth be told however I'm still confused.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 2 2013, 12:00 AM

You and Squelchy are two people I have never knowingly met either, so why should I give you two any more credence than he?

We comment in good faith, and where possible I have inserted 'allegedly' where appropriate. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I still maintain that you and others just spat bile without putting anything of real value in this until it was rather too late (just like the council).

In truth, and taking the comments of one or two 'new' posters into account, I was strongly suspicious of some people's impartiality and motives.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 2 2013, 06:17 AM

This seems key - we appear to have rather a lot of these, and if this is any illustration, the whole system / approach we are taking with these people is broke. As you said, the problems with the individual concerned have been manifest since his youth, clearly nothing, nothing at all has worked. On the wider issue, we certainly need a national debate; the underlying problem exists and not just in Newbury. This becomes difficult when the first casualty becomes the truth.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 2 2013, 06:24 AM

I think that's right; this is a serious public issue, in fact a very big one and the danger starts when information, for whatever reason, its withheld. You are not alone in your confusion!

Posted by: motormad Oct 2 2013, 08:48 AM

So is this Eye How Gate a genuine bloke or not?

Or is the story real? It's certainly plausible.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 2 2013, 04:54 PM

If you can be bothered to trawl through this thread (and I wouldn't blame you if you couldn't be ar$ed tbh ) you'll see that I've hardly commented at all, never mind 'spat bile'....

I'm hurt.... truly hurt.....

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 2 2013, 06:04 PM

Having had a quick scoot through this thread, I can confirm that the council knew the patient was dying. I'm not going to get involved in this thread or go into any detail, other than confirm that I did ask David Lowe what was going on well before the story made print and he lost the plot with me. That's all I'm saying.

Posted by: Exhausted Oct 2 2013, 06:25 PM

Whatever does that gem translate to.?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 2 2013, 06:50 PM

I think you're right - I think that's it for Howgate-gate.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 2 2013, 08:32 PM

I appreciate you didn't so I take that back.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 2 2013, 08:38 PM

Fired a few f**ks into him, I suspect.

Personally I don't know who to believe. It is all hearsay, except to say that both sides have 'form', but the council could have done themselves a lot of favours just buy refuting the calms in a more timely manner. Unless, of course, they needed time to 'research', but then why not say so? Any way you look at this, they don't come out of this with any 'glory'.

Public relations must do better, and they need a more effective way of dealing with complaints, whether vexatious, or otherwise. Mind you, I suspect vexatious is applied too readily.

Eh-up, a soon as Richard Garvie pipes up, we get user23!

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 3 2013, 03:36 PM

The problem is the way many have been treated by WBC, including myself, there is not much you would not believe they would be capable of!

Yes when Garvie arrives on the Forum red lights and bells flash at headquarters and User is ordered to counter attack immediately - usually without a lot of thought too!

Posted by: Nothing Much Oct 3 2013, 04:28 PM

I am not keen on being charitable to my fellow man or woman, especially when displaying a cross and armed with a staffie.
But I can certainly imagine a council extracting a pound of flesh from a static target as well.

One thing that continues to puzzle is the written authority ignored by the council. After a brief period in hospital
I was told by doctors that a Lasting Power of Attorney would be a good idea to have in place.
It would make it easier for a 3rd party to act on my behalf should I become stroke damaged or beset by other troubles.
It isn't exactly cheap, but the basic online paperwork + a registration with the Office of the Public Guardian is about £130.00.
If you have nothing, well you're stuffed anyway. Not knowing the legality of any authorisation signed by Mr Smith, I can see that an authority such as WBC could not accept a non-relation acting on his behalf. What would be WBCs worst sanction?

Whatever happened to #161. Felix and University capers in 1987 seems a long time ago.
ce.

Posted by: HJD Oct 3 2013, 05:31 PM

Am I the only one that finds it strange why after 9 pages there has been a complete absence of the usual defenders of the council from this thread .

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 3 2013, 06:11 PM

I said that a few pages ago, although I think they or others might have manifested themselves with other identities.

What I don't get is why did it take the council a month to say: 'we have never pursued anyone in hospital', or even say: 'we have launched an internal investigation and will report back in two weeks', or whatever. That makes me suspicious.

Posted by: Gazzadp Oct 3 2013, 07:34 PM

So who has deleted post161 and if so what was the grounds (politely out of interest)!

Been following this thread with interest and I am pleased to say that I am happily sat on the fence, even if my backside is getting sore from being impartial!

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 3 2013, 08:10 PM

I suspect the OP, maybe under 'advice'. It refuted the claims made by ihowgate using people's names who were close to the deceased. I too am undecided about who to believe.

Posted by: Lolly Oct 4 2013, 01:23 PM

I have also been watching this thread with interest, and the post that has now been removed contained rather more than a rebuttal of ihowgate's claims - it was a complete character assassination.The poster expected it to be 'taken down' but it remained there for a couple of days - sufficient to cast doubt on ihowgate's motives and distract from some fairly serious issues regarding the alleged conduct of West Berkshire Council and Sovereign Housing.

It would be good if 'admin' could confirm the reason for removal.

Posted by: motormad Oct 5 2013, 10:17 PM

It's OK, I doubt the admins will respond.
Outside of banning decent forum members in silence.

Posted by: Rowley Birkin Oct 6 2013, 10:59 AM

daily mail reporters dont seem to be any good with stories about the dead or dying

Posted by: On the edge Oct 6 2013, 12:56 PM

Squelchy's report is Real Ministry of Truth stuff - it's been deleted so it says what he wants it to say! Who are the suckers? Taps side of nose...I love big brother.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 6 2013, 01:34 PM

I am actually in the process of reading the book. It's been on my "must read" list for ages.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 6 2013, 02:30 PM

Let us know how you found it, would be good to have an up to date perspective.

Posted by: Squelchy Oct 8 2013, 04:53 PM

You were advised to get a screen-grab. Hardly my fault if you didn't.

Turns out all my figures are indeed correct, so the post is back up again. Unaltered. Unedited.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 8 2013, 05:07 PM

I'm pleased to see you've had second thoughts and restored the post; not sure why you or even Admin would have wanted to delete it in the first place. I'm sure you'll appreciate given the story so far, actually suggesting that the post was likely to be deleted had connotations. Suggesting a screen grab simply adds to the subterfuge.

The figures aren't particularly relevant and you could have said they were an estimate or approximate. You have offered no explanation for the deletion until now; yet you must have seen the responses.

Posted by: Squelchy Oct 8 2013, 05:50 PM

Well pardon me for not being at your beck and call.

I'll post when I can (thank you).

Posted by: On the edge Oct 8 2013, 05:55 PM

And yet you expect to be taken seriously......

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 8 2013, 06:38 PM

To be fair, I don't think we need to know the intimate details, only that the family are not as close to Mr Howgate as he suggests. While it might be that Mr Howgate 'had issues' it does not help when the council behave like they did. They took a month to refute the claims of pursuing anyone in hospital. I know they have a policy of not discussing individuals, but they could have offered a broad statement that they do not contact people ill in hospital. They could have at least said they were investigating (like Mr Benyon said he would) and would make a statement refuting the claims if the claim was unfounded.

Posted by: Exhausted Oct 8 2013, 06:42 PM

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Given the style of the Howgate posts, which are clearly those of a self centered individual, I believe that Squelchy has it 100% correct.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 8 2013, 07:47 PM

I feel sorry for Ian, he has been completely right about a number of things, including Two Saints and it will be very interesting to see what comes out in the next few weeks on that score. With regards to the subject of this thread, lots of people keen to stick the knife in, but do they know the facts? Be careful what conclusions you jump to.

Posted by: Lolly Oct 8 2013, 09:57 PM

We still haven't had an explanation of who took the post down and why. The Council have also not denied that they refused to let Mr Howgate represent the deceased. I doubt the NWN would have printed the claims without checking the evidence, although they might have covered themselves with "he said". The article hasn't appeared online, so I can't refer back.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 8 2013, 10:12 PM

I don't agree, and it was not until Squelchy eventually put some details forward did that become more apparent. We post in good faith and there is little that has been posted where anyone could claim the right to be believed. It seems to me that you and Squelchy have 'insider knowledge'. Also, it has not been explained why the council took so long to make a statement.

Posted by: Squelchy Oct 9 2013, 09:02 AM

Couple of things here. (Just add to the mix)

The Council and landlords were dealing with the next of kin, that's all they can deal with. They didn't so much refuse Howgate as ignore him.

Everyone from here always gets taken to Swindon hospital.

So, work through this shall we? Does anyone really think that WBC have a hospital admissions monitoring section, a team sat around ringing hospitals on the off-chance that one of their community charge payers gets admitted? Does anyone think that hospitals have departments that ring round all local authorities to give them the names of the recently admitted? West Berks deny making a money chasing phone call.
Mr Howgate is adamant that one was made.
Columbo coats on lads.
Mike, wasn't taken to Swindon he was taken to North Hants. This is incredibly unusual.
Mr Howgate is adamant he knows a call was made to this hospital. Can anyone begin to sleuth why this should be?
What scenario covers both stories? What scenario would allow WBC to deny a call and Howgate to confirm one? Certainly Howgate has a axe to grind, certainly he has run-ins with WBC, certainly he would want them to appear bad, and certainly he went to the press, (as a charity worker).
So, how about this? Howgate is adamant North Hants got a call because he made it. He pretended or implied that he was or was connected with the Revenues and Incomes department of WBC. That would account for the call, account for it going to the right hospital, and account for his insistence that the hospital received one. It would also account for WBC's denial. Wouldn't it?

Covers all the bases. Makes perfect sense.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 9 2013, 09:27 AM

West Berks making the call and then denying it makes sense too. Not saying so at the time of the allegation doesn't make sense, even if only to say they didn't and don't as policy pursue people in hospital.

At the end of the day this is all speculation, even yours. Such is the strength of your protest, it makes me wonder why the extraordinary interest in this person or case. I therefore also question the impartiality of your position too.

Posted by: Squelchy Oct 9 2013, 09:39 AM

Don't get me wrong, I have sod-all time for WBC and it's fvck-witted minions, BUT, in this case, one I know a little bit about, I'm trying to be fair. This is far more about Ian Howgate than anything or anyone else. If I can do anything to help nail that self-publicising shroud-waver to the floor, then I will. (within the bounds of legal decent and honest).

Posted by: Strafin Oct 9 2013, 09:41 AM

I totally believe that WBC would pursue anyone through any means for 5p if they could, having dealt with the department there numerous times, I struggle to imagine a worse set of human beings.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 9 2013, 11:05 AM

I'm sceptical about ihowgate's motivation, but that's as much because of what ihowgate said than what Squelchy posted, though it does rather confirm the impression. It wouldn't surprise me that WBC had also managed the situation poorly, but it doesn't now look like an outrage, and they may actually have managed a difficult situation well.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 9 2013, 12:38 PM

I think the biggest loser in all this is NWN's readership and the paper's apparent lack of good journalism. WBC could have been quicker to deny the allegations too, but public relations has never been one of their stronger features.

Posted by: Lolly Oct 9 2013, 02:07 PM

Sorry Squelchy but do you actually know this, or is it just your opinion? West Berkshire Council and Sovereign (the landlords?) are separate organisations and presumably wouldn't discuss a tenant's/resident's personal affairs with another resident. And how do you know they both ignored Ian Howgate rather than refusing to deal with him? Have you seen the emails he claims to have?

Also where is 'here'? Are you still living in the buildings that Ian Howgate says are due to be demolished, and if so aren't you worried about the alleged flaking asbestos?

Posted by: Gazzadp Oct 9 2013, 06:58 PM

I think people will find that with the NHS being what it is nowadays, people from Newbury can and are taken to a variety of different hospitals. It depends on the illness, immediate condition of the patient and also how busy the other hospitals are at that point in time.

Certainly when I was I was unwell some years ago, I was taken by ambulance to RBH Reading. I am pretty sure that the NHS has never operated such a system where people from place "a" are taken to a specific hospital.

Apart from my above query and hence this reply, I do have to say that I find it most interesting that IH has no seen reason to respond to this thread for a while. I accept that some have the impression that he has been the victim of a qoute "character assination" but then this being a public forum and the interwebby, this kind of thread is par for the course.

Who is right and who is wrong, well I am not sure either! I could hazzard a guess but it does strike me as the guy seems to have an uncanny knack of rubbing people up the wrong way. Sadly that does him and more importantly the people he professes to "help & stand up for!" But hey that is just my opinion ain't it!

Posted by: Gazzadp Oct 9 2013, 07:08 PM

Now that I do agree with, 100%!

People only need to recall the glorious poll tax! and how councils hounded and persectuted people for that.

Would any local authority chase a sick or dying person for money "believed" to be owed?

Yes, there are many such cases documented!

Would our beloved and sacred WBC stoop to such levels?

YES, of course they would. MONEY IS MONEY!

The fact is as Andy Capp has rightly pointed out this whole fiasco has been badly managed by that so called council spokesperson... On the day this matter was reported the same councils spokesperson also failed to answer peoples councerns about empty residential units at Park Way!

What he knows about PR, can obviously be written on the back of postage stamp and bleeding minature stamp at that!

All the spokesperson needed to say is "we are investigating" and perhaps a general "if the call was made we apologise".... As it is the council spokesperson is a waste of Newbury's money!

Posted by: Exhausted Oct 9 2013, 07:23 PM

If and I say if, WBC wanted to determine if a person who owed money was in hospital, they are not stooping to a low level, what they are doing, is ensuring as best they can that they are supporting those persons that do pay their dues.
It might be a bit different if they asked the dying person to come to the phone to answer their questions but this, as far as I can tell, did not happen.


The council are duty bound to recover money and to take steps that ensure that if money is owed it is collected and that persons who are grant aided are not milking the system. It does happen.

I pay my taxes and I'm sure most of us do. I seriously object to having to finance those that don't for whatever reason.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 9 2013, 07:36 PM

I doubt the council did phone the hospital, however, the hospital is I presume, land ike WBC, under no obligation to accept the call or advise who is in the hospital as a matter of confidentiality too.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 9 2013, 07:43 PM

I feel exactly the same. I can see circumstances in which it would be reasonable for the Council to make potentially indelicate enquiries which would be perfectly reasonable and prudent.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 9 2013, 07:45 PM

So do I pay my taxes, but I don't seriously object having to finance those that don't for whatever reason.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 9 2013, 08:01 PM

What like WBC opening graves to ensure the deceased who owed some council tax had really died?

Posted by: Exhausted Oct 10 2013, 04:28 PM

I don't if the recipient has a genuine case for whatever concession they are given But I object strongly to scroungers who abuse the system.



A rather inane post but just to go along with the theme, WBC or anybody else wouldn't need to, they can view thedeath certificate.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 05:38 PM

I knew what you meant, but I was just being pedantic!

Posted by: newres Oct 10 2013, 06:33 PM

Really? Personally, I am perfectly happy to subsidise those less fortunate. Hopefully no misfortune will never knock at your door or those of your loved ones.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 06:43 PM

I know what you mean and I agree, but I think Exhausted didn't mean it that way. One way I look at it, is that I am paying a fee to keep people unemployed and to help stop them taking my job!

Posted by: blackdog Oct 10 2013, 06:43 PM

I can't say as I know a huge number of people who have been taken to hospital - but those I do know were all taken to Reading or Basingstoke, apart from one who went to Oxford - I don't know anyone who was taken to Swindon.

It isn't incredibly unusual to go to Basingstoke, it's commonplace.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 06:49 PM

Basingstoke has a heliport, Reading, and I think Swindon, don't.

Posted by: newres Oct 10 2013, 07:03 PM

It depends what is wrong with you. The heart excellence centre for Newbury is Royal Berks. If you are having a heart attack, that is where you go.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 10 2013, 07:11 PM

Exhausted was not complaining about being taxed to support those less fortunate than himself, he was complaining about those who evaded their tax liability. If you're not earning very much then you don't pay very much tax and if you're living in a relatively small home then you don't pay much council tax either, and that seems perfectly fair, but I do expect everyone to pay the tax they owe, and this was Exhausted's perfectly valid point.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 10 2013, 08:18 PM

Swindon certainly does have a spot for the chopper to land.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 10 2013, 09:15 PM

If it doesn't there are plenty of sites round about that could be usefully levelled...

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 10 2013, 09:37 PM

That wasn't the case a few years ago when I know someone who was airlifted to Basingstoke despite being much closer to Swindon.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 10 2013, 11:06 PM

Trust me - you can ride the chopper all the way to Swindon & the nice newish hopsital.

Posted by: Gazzadp Dec 4 2013, 03:03 PM

I see that mr howgate was on BBC South regional news today!

Posted by: Lolly Dec 4 2013, 03:13 PM

About the subject of this thread, or something else?

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Dec 4 2013, 07:51 PM

No, about something else.

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 4 2013, 08:27 PM

......and?

Posted by: Lolly Dec 4 2013, 09:31 PM

Caught it on the evening edition. The feature was about a local Council (allegedly) reneging on a promise that no-one would have to sleep rough in West Berks this winter. I remember seeing an article about this a few weeks ago in the NWN. I'll see if I can find a link. Presumably the NWN will be doing a follow up. Ian Howgate was featured as working for a charity for the homeless.

Posted by: Lolly Dec 4 2013, 09:36 PM

Here it is:

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/two-saints-promise-refuge-for-winter-homeless

Posted by: Gazzadp Dec 4 2013, 09:37 PM

I am sure that they made reference to the fact that he was a "charity worker" and those that saw the report will have seen "proverbs 31" appear on screen at that time.

Try entering proverbs 31 on the Charities Commission website and you get not hits, likewise if you search "proverbs 31 charity" on google, all you get is bible quotes. But search for just proverbs 31 and the first hit is christian ministry based in the US!

Posted by: Lolly Dec 4 2013, 10:09 PM

Point taken - must admit I couldn't read the caption ( must get eyes tested!) but I also found this on the charity web site:

Charities that don't have to register
Some charities don't have to register with us because they are regulated by a different organisation (they are ‘exempt’). These exempt charities include:

most universities in England
many national museums and galleries
some school governing bodies
Some charities of certain types can’t register with us if their income is below a particular threshold (currently £100,000 a year). These are called ‘excepted’ charities. The main types of excepted charities are:

churches and chapels of some Christian denominations (and funds connected with them)
charitable funds of the armed forces
Scout and Guide groups
If you think this might apply to you, find out more about exempt and excepted charities:

- See more at: http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/start-up-a-charity/registering-your-charity/when-to-register/#sthash.kzLdHWJm.dpuf

Posted by: Rowley Birkin Dec 4 2013, 10:35 PM

back in this thread it says he likes to pretend hes a charity worker

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Dec 5 2013, 10:19 AM

I believe it's his own charity. So he can now be factually correct. Although I suspect he won't tell anyone it's his own.

Posted by: Nothing Much Dec 5 2013, 01:35 PM

"P:31 is an exciting all night event JUST FOR TEEN GIRLS!
P:31 is an amazing night of fun and teaching from God's Word on topics relevant to teen girls.
Activities:
all-you-can-eat pizza, pop, candy & popcorn
hair salon
manicures
movies
crafts
giant inflatable obstacle course."

From a Canadian site. Can't add much except Donate Now!.
ce

Posted by: On the edge Dec 5 2013, 04:30 PM

Suspect Mr H means verses 8 and 9, but he's going to have trouble round here.

Posted by: Gazzadp Dec 5 2013, 04:31 PM

Still in shock!

As he was not mentioned in the page 2 article in this weeks NWN!