Friday, 26 May 2017

Reported for summons


Later post, 17th June; Police summons

Further to matters outlined here, and subsequent to a formal interview on the 16th March, two police officers called at my home yesterday (25th) to tell me that they have made a decision to prosecute and I am being reported for summons.
I understand that I will receive a summons in the post to attend a magistrates court in due course.
This is ridiculous, on every level.

11 comments:

Ken Haylock said...

Can anybody explain how this can possibly be in the public interest?

Verity said...

Words fail me. I just hope that if this gets as far as a Magistrates' hearing then they will have the good sense to throw it out and treat this ludicrous farce as the travesty of justice that it so obviously is. If anyone is being harassed, it's you by him.

caebrwyn said...

Thanks for all the comments. I hope readers will understand that given the situation, there are a few which I cannot publish at the moment.

Anonymous said...

Making a complaint is one thing - the matter proceeding to court is quite another.

Mr James will now be in a position where he has to attend court and explain in public why he beleives he has been harassed. You obviously will be able to put your case and cross examine him.

Local media will be all over it - I just can't see why he would want that.

Best of luck.

Mr Reasonable said...

With police resources so stretched I cannot understand how this is either in the public interest or a constructive use of police time. Shocking.

Mrs Angry said...

Just staggering, and at a time when public expenditure is under such pressure, impossible to understand. Carmarthenshire policing must be remarkably well resourced and managed, and crime levels at an all time low, if priority is being given to proceedings of this nature.

Ken Haylock said...

I do note that the moment he gets a compliant police commissioner in post who doesn't think he's a mafia Don & doesn't refer allegations to outside forces for investigation, he's making allegations...

Martin Milan said...

I share Ken Laycock’s reaction – how the hell can this be in the public interest? You criticise, and only when you have cause, the Chief Executive of the Local Authority – occasionally. As the Chief Executive of a local authority, it should be expected that he have a slightly thicker skin that this, and respond to criticism in a more accountable, considered fashion that simply trying to unleash the rozzers on his critics. I am reminded of his petulant response to my initial queries surrounding #DaftArrest, in which he seemed to me to avoid making any substantive points in preference to issuing a rant about you.

I used the word occasionally there, and I used it because your blog does not solely consider matters concerning the Chief Executive himself – you actually study the wider activities of the County Council itself. The fact that the Chief Executive seems to find himself embroiled in every decision, and that his presence dominates the chamber that he is supposedly a mere servant of, would perhaps lead a more considered gentleman to consider whether his own conduct perhaps had a role in how often his deeds come to public notice.

The fact is, the Chief Executive is supposed to be a functionary, to ensure that the decisions taken by the Council are implemented, and implemented in a timely, cost effective manner. His role is very much analogous with that of Sir Humphrey Appelby in the delightful and respected comedy “Yes Minister”. Unfortunately, like just like Sir Humphrey, he seems more interested in furthering his own influence and interest than merely setting about getting the job done.

He appears to me to be pursuing a campaign of harassment against you. Let’s review shall we?

* His initial response to my queries, supposedly authorised by the Councillors, but I have seen no evidence of either an Executive Committee minute or a vote in the chamber to substantiate this.
* His decision to sue you in response to your original action, undertaken with a highly questionable funding arrangement that the WAO stated was illegal.
* Not so much his decision to pursue the sale of your home, but the manner in which he went about it – the totally unwarranted level of legal support he engaged, and whose cost he tried to force on to you. Let’s not forget that even the judge recognised the Chief’s excessive representation, and ordered that the costs be reduced!
* Calling you out as a liar in the national press, with his assertion (demonstrably false, and demonstrated as such…) that you had not made any proposal toward paying the money he is owed.
* His harassment action itself – taken despite the fact you have only contacted him legitimately with reference to the monies owed.

Martin Milan said...

Those five examples are from the top of my head as I sit here writing this – without actual research. I’m sure I could find a lot more if I went back through history looking…

I know he’ll claim that he is being harassed because of your continued criticism of his actions in your blog. That’s bullshit, and I believe he knows it. You have every right to speak out about the actions of your local authority – you have rights enshrined in law to that effect. Indeed, given the depth of your research into the matters of feature on the blog, an argument can easily be made that your blog is in the public interest. We have the Derbyshire agreement – or what little remains since CCC drove a coach and horses through it. You have the open support of a respectable local newspaper, and indeed a former member of the Council during the period many of your posts have been made.

Something else we need to keep in mind is that your publication is a blog, and one that supports comments. It is interesting, is it not, that Mr. James who apparently feels so aggrieved that he believes he is being harassed has somehow failed to simply reply with a comment repudiating your claims? EVER? If your claims are incorrect, given the breadth of your readership, does he not actually have a public duty to respond to any allegations that he considers to be false so as to prevent the public from being misinformed? Has he ever done so? No. Have you ever rejected a comment from him? I suspect not.

Mr James’ proper redress in law lies with another liable action in the High Court – and not being an idiot he knows this. Of course, such an action would be extremely expensive – especially since he can’t rely on an indemnity for his costs any more given the WAO’s ruling… No – I suspect he has decided it far cheaper to use his friends in the local police to abuse the Protection From Harassment Act to achieve his aims. Both he and the police won’t like me using the word “friends” there, but tough… At the time of the police investigation into Mr. James, your local force saw the need to recuse themselves from the matter and handover to Gloucestershire instead given their close relationship with the man. Odd then that they feel it to be appropriate that they should undertake an investigation into his harassment allegation themselves this time… I believe that they have been questioned about this, and no substantive response was forthcoming…

Let me know when the hearing at the Magistrates Court is, because I would like to attend if possible. I’m also willing to be a witness to events in the past I have been directly involved in should you, or to be fair Mr. James, wish it.

Anonymous said...

Dyfed Powys Police stretched?.When I pass the LLangunnor Hilton I see more cars in the car parks than in a Tesco car park on Christmas
Eve.

Jennifer Brown said...

Your comment Martin Milan has hit the nail on the head. How can the Police and the CPS come to this decision. Jacqui's blog should be protected under Freedom of Speech and of Expression. He's the one who is doing the harassing and the libeling. Jacqui's blog is giving the Carmarthenshire citizens a service and keeping us informed about CCC's goings on is in the Public Interest. Only wrongdoing Councils would find the need to act against honest reporting as transparency openness and accountability is the last thing they need. This CEO seems very practised in persuading most of our representatives to follow his lead. Surely the CPS can see destroying Jacqui and her ability to keep us informed is against the Public Interest. Well done Martin your comment says it all.