Thursday, 15 July 2010

Durkin's Black Swan?

Now that the Holyhead & Anglesey Mail has published the names of the protagonists in the Barrie Durkin "Tape-gate" controversy which I  wrote about last week (without naming names), I see no further need to hold back from identifying those concerned.

In essence Cllr Durkin claims to have have met with Cllr Bob Parry, leader of the Plaid Cymru group in Anglesey County Council and senior member of the new Alliance, in a car park in Llanerch-y-medd; during this meeting Durkin alleges that Parry encouraged him to investigate the the planning irregularities of Legal Services Director and Monitoring Officer, Lynn Ball, who lives near to Parry's ward of Bryngwran. Durkin further claims that he tape-recorded this conversation with Parry's knowledge. According to the Holyhead & Anglesey Mail Parry does not deny having met with Durkin in Llanerch-y-medd, but he says: "that was years ago and there certainly weren't any tape recorders about". Curiously the Mail does not press Parry to confirm or deny whether he did discuss Lynn Ball's planning irregularities with Durkin or not -- accordingly we are simply left with a big discussion regarding whether a tape of the conversation exists or not, rather than what was actually discussed at a meeting neither of them deny.

Anyway, does the tape exist or not? Durkin says it does but will not produce it "until I feel it's necessary and in my interest". Does Durkin's refusal to produce it prove that it doesn't exist? I hate to be get all philosophical about it, but here's what Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the celebrated author of "The Black Swan", has to say about 'negative empiricism':

"Seeing white swans does not confirm the nonexistence of black swans ... If I see a black swan I can certify that all swans are not white! If I see someone kill, then I can be practically certain that he is a criminal. If I don't see him kill, I cannot be certain that he is innocent. The same applies to cancer detection: the finding of a single malignant tumour proves that you have cancer, but the absence of such a finding cannot allow you to say with certainty that you are cancer-free."

I wonder if Clive McGregor and the members of Recovery Board are quite as philosophical about the whole affair? Anyway, I'll leave the last word to Cllr Peter Rogers who is completely accurate:

"It's quite appalling, if its true then Clive McGregor has no choice but to sack Bob, especially after Goronwy Parry was sacked for supporting him (Durkin). I don't know how much longer this can carry on before we get shut down".


Anonymous said...

Perplexing and increasingly irritating story.
Allegations -v- Denials.But Proof ?
If BD`s allegation is true, and he proves it to the world, beyond reasonable doubt, he has it within his power to get BP sacked from the Exec. ...and thus bring down the Alliance. Why does he not ?
Anyway, last rites and all that !

Anonymous said...

Surely it isn't the absence of otherwise of a tape recording that is important but when the meeting took place. It BP is correct that it was 'years ago' then it makes no difference to the current arrangements. If it took place recently, however, and especially since BD was thrown out of the group, then BP has to go.

Anyone heard what happened in Plaid's meeting last Friday night? They were supoosed to be discussing the new arrangements and whether they were going to stay within the board. One councillor from Llangefni was not at all hapy about the arrangements. Did she get her own way on this?

Anonymous said...

While BD refuses (suspiciously)to disclose the evidence of a tape,notwithstanding that the meeting actually did take place, his allegation carries little or no evidential weight, whatever the truth, whatever the Anglesey public think of BP`s integrity.
So BD should put up, or Sh.t up ?

Anonymous said...

Pertinent questions to CMcG and other members of the Alliance Exec.

1. What do "you" believe of the BD/BP tape story and BD`s allegation of a conspiracy, instigated by BP (and others no doubt), to "get" LB for her planning issue ?
2. Do you really trust the devious BP...or is it the case that trusting him suits your present agenda, and your individual interests ?
Answers would be good, but we are not holding our breath ?

Anonymous said...

I suggest they were not motivated to be rid of LB just for her rather minor planning issue, old boy....that was just a convenient tool to try to get rid of her for standing up to them, for being professional, and for pursuing them as Monitoring Officer, for their own misdemeanours !

Anonymous said...

All very interesting but you are all missing the point it was all about bring dishonest officers to book, no more than that.

Anonymous said...

We don't care what the allegations are, all we care about is the crappy political system we have here!
No decent self respecting man would carry on, an honourable man would resign, they should all look at this option, and when I mean all, I mean ALL, you see, the whole tainted smell of this corrupt, inept and pathetic excuse for a local Government has spilled into the streets of all the towns and villages of Anglesey, and who do you think will be doing the mopping up?

Let me see,
The English Solicitors, that's one, they'll be mopping up to protect the reputation of a gang of halfwits and inbreds who have ruined this Communuity.

Then there's the other half wit, who reckons he will be leaving here with his reputation intact, Bowles, you will not!, we blame you for allowing these Plaid Cymru joskins, to control this Council, when they can't control themselves!

Yes, indeed there are black swans, they were difficult to shoot at night, but I poached them and I shot a couple, so you see, they are NOT protected at all.

I say this, kick the rotten door in, and the whole lot will collapse, BP was the door frame that Mc Gregor leaned upon, that Bowles pissed upon, and the door frame that we will kick down, and watch the whole lot collapse!

Tape recordings aren't worth anything, when the English Solicitors hear of it, they will appeal for years and years NOT to have it included as evidence, a typical dirty English Trick!

Watch your back Barry Durkin, keep safe, don't let the joskins think they can get away with MORE lies!

Anonymous said...

One thing that has come out of all this, is the exposure of planning scams, Grant frauds, unlawful councillors allowances and cover ups at the very top of local government. What more do you want from Cllr Durkin. You either want rid of the wrong doing or you don't?

Anonymous said...

It would seem that exposing and investigating grants and planning abuses in IACC should be a full time job for more than one person ?

Anonymous said...

Exactly, it would stop the likes of Bowles and McGregor and the others pissing on the Human Rights Act..

Pale Rider said...

Returning to the tape if I may:

What is on the tape that Cllr Durkin does not want to be aired in public, unless it is in his interest to do so. I can't imagine it is to defend Bob Parry, but maybe it is.

But also maybe they discuss something none of us know about which implicates Cllr Durkin somehow.

Luckily this is not a police investigation withholding information and all that, and if the above assumption is correct neither would we expect Cllr Durkin to incriminate himself either.

Full disclosure as they say is the only answer, unless he claims the fifth so to speak.

Anonymous said...

"What more do you want from Cllr Durkin ?"

To do his duty and report it to the appropriate authorities being the Ombudsman for Wales.

Anonymous said...

The biggest joke is the Ombudsman , my old grandmother had more teeth than him, he's a waste of a stamp!
The only way forward is to get the Police in, suspend and investigate, but NO police from North Wales, get an outside force in.

Anonymous said...

Its all in hand.

Anonymous said...

Totally agree with Anon 20.30

G. Pierce

Fillan said...

On the subject of Cllr Durkin, I think as did the Scrutiny Committee when sanctioning him for breaches of the Code of Conduct when he was a Community Councillor his actions may be well-intentioned, but it does not give him license to make vexatious allegations.

However neither does it give a license to others to make vexatious allegations against Cllr Durkin. He is after all a democratically elected member of the Council.

Cllr Durkin wants to clear his name, but this won't be achieved by press releases accusing others of wrongdoing if he is not willing to produce the evidence.

This is not an attempt to shut Cllr Durkin up, his duty is clear any evidence of wrongdoing he has should be reported to the appropriate authority.

But please can we have something more substantive than minor planning infringements and allegations of fraud in the grant system based on information provided by someone WAG has called a serial complainer.

If he has allegations of a serious nature I will support him in reporting them to the Ombudsman for Wales.

Lastly the issue of the tape will not go away, I will make sure of that. There are serious implications to his actions, he needs to be clear that what he alleges stands up to scrutiny.

The Great Councillini said...

"Lastly the issue of the tape will not go away, I will make sure of that. There are serious implications to his actions, he needs to be clear that what he alleges stands up to scrutiny."

The tape, or other definitive proof of the allegations does now have to be demonstrated. Cllr. Durkin is just that - a councillor with the very responsible position of representing the people. It is unconscionable for him to go to the papers with anything remotely like these allegations without also showing the people he represents that there is truth in what he says.

I am no screaming loony, and have supported Cllr. Durkin in his claimed general aim to expose wrongdoing wherever it may exist. I cannot, I'm afraid, support him much longer unless the evidence comes forward. It very much now is in Cllr. Durkin's interest - and the people of Anglesey's - that the truth be told. There is also, of course, an important obligation now towards Bob Parry, no matter what opinion we may or may not have of him.

Say a week to produce the evidence, Cllr. Durkin? If not, we'll all have to come to some rather regrettable conclusions about these allegations.

Anonymous said...

The Great. 03:53

Are you saying, no mater what it is, evidence to show that such a meeting took place and that Bob Parry new exactly what the meeting was about?

The Great Councillini said...

09:04 (anonymous, of course):

I think what I have written is clear enough. There are allegations. We want to see evidence that supports those allegations. Anything else that is 'said' is said by others, not me, and you'd have to get up much earlier in the morning than even 03:53 during a mini-hurricane to lure me into any other discussion!

Anonymous said...

It is alledged Mr Durkin screwed up the council in Crewe, no heads fell.

These pages are full of allegations by Mr Durkin about all sorts of wrongdoings in Anglesey but we never see the evidence.

Mr. Durkin claims to have a tape of a hard working, long standing Anglesey County Councillor Mr Bob Parry. But we will hear as much of the tape as we see of the evidence, sweet nothing.

With regards doing the right thing,
what about the Penrhyn Point, Traeth Bychan debacle? Why has the Planning Guru not been heard on this despite blog after blog? All he does in response is attack the person he assumes wrote the blogs, totally incorrectlyas it happens.

What about the SFP complaint forms sent under postal proof, have they been filled in and sent to the SFO, if they have what is the Postal Docket Number please? nevermind stupid comments about cameras in Post Offices or was it Tape Recorders? it is MI5 or My Five Grand from HTV?

Anonymous said...

As a Councillor in 2007, I, as with every other Members received a letter from Mr Durkin. He had not been elected at that time.

It explained his meeting with Bob Parry and starts off by saying.

Dear Councillor.

Having had discussions with Cllr Robert Parry OBE. and received his express permission to raise this issue, please find below a summary of those discussions.

Shortly after exposing the unconstitutional way Lynn Balls planning application was approved....

This letter was sent on 6th July 2007. and yet nothing was done about Lynn Ball's failings until Cllr Durkin forced the issue with the Planning Authorities in October 2009, and that's that.

Anonymous said...

I think we are now in the realms of trail by media with out any substance, a total waste of time

As a resident of Benllech I couldn't wish for a better Councillor than Barrie Durkin, that's my opinion and everyone else's I have spoken to.

So if he tell's me that he had a meting with Bob Parry that's good enough for me. I would certainly not insult him by saying, I don't believe you, show me the proof.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it funny how Lynn Balls had to sort her planning affairs out after being exposed, a normal Welsh lad would have had to watch his development law for them one law for us, the worse thing is she is supposed to be head of Legal Services..what a joke..some standard she is setting in public office!

But there again, the planning issue unraveled because she let down her guard, and made the simple mistake of telling the truth, or revealing the truth, that she had no planning..

Anonymous said...

Good on you, Barrie Durkin, it must be hard for you, trying to expose the truth, when the fools all believe the mad Plaid Cymru Mullah, they all adore him don't they, let's see what his contribution has been...

I'm lost for words, the best place for that tape recorder would had been behind closed doors, the offices where they take take the law into their own hands. Where the decisions are made to look after each other, the adhoc planning meetings, the meetings that destroy people and businesses, through jealousy and vendettas.

These are their little details, no openness, no questions, no stone unturned to destroy and humiliate the people of Anglesey.

The knockers are those who are trying to hide the gains they have had, since they have been sat behind closrd doors and have had their little secrets agreed and passed with no refusals. It will be your turn next time was their cry, just approve this and I'll aprove your next time!

This is how it worked, this is what you are trying your best to stop, thank you, Barrie Durkin.

Fillan said...

To Anon 10:18 And that's that..

The problem you see that is not it. Currently we have a situation where it is the word of one councillor against the other.

Cllr Durkin claims he has a tape recording of the meeting which he has refused to release for reason better known to himself.

So we can only speculate, so how about this as a possibility:

Cllr Parry had been told the Mr Durkin (as he was maybe then) was making serious allegations about him in relation to a planning application.

Cllr Parry arranged to meet Mr Durkin to sort things out. At the meeting Mr Durkin denied making any allegations against the Councillor.

Nothing but pure speculation on my behalf based on mere comments on a blog, but somewhere near to the truth, who knows.

As the Great Councillini has said Cllr Durkin is a Councillor and needs to adhere to high standards, I hope for his sake he has.

This time Cllr Durkin needs to explain and justify what he has been saying, allowing an independent observer to listen to the tape (again I suggest Elgan Hearn) would be a start.

The Great Councillini said...

"I would certainly not insult him by saying, I don't believe you, show me the proof."

No, nobody is saying that we don't believe Cllr. Durkin. What we are saying is that, in light of being so public with the serious allegations, the natural way of things is to now show the evidence. We do have to remember that, in the extreme case, some of those with allegations against them could start to take a dim - and legal - view of the as-yet unproven assertions. It is not right for anyone - no matter what we think of them - to have allegations appear in public without good reason and evidence. This is the view of the courts, and it's also my view.

If Councillor Durkin were not a councillor, then he could get away with not showing us the proof. But he is a councillor, and so he has an obligation to the people of Anglesey to show that what he says about others is true. There can be no blind support, and there should not be any allegations without proof that they are true (well, not if you want to avoid a libel case, anyhow).

Anonymous said...

10.40 The said councillor has claimed for months that all to whom complaints were voiced, then proceeded to have them swept under the carpet or they set about to "shoot the messenger" .

It was suggested the complaints go to a third party.

Contact was made with the SFO who made a set of complaint forms available.

The SFO COMPLAINT FORMS were sent to the said councillor by Post with an evidencing Barcode Tracking Number AG698817897GB. The forms were delivered the following day 7th May. It seems that despite all the words those forms have not been completed and returned with all the alleged EVIDENCE, perhaps it is time to send a cassette holder for the tapes to go the same way...into obscurity

Anonymous said...

The Great Councillini 10.52 I used to go and stay with friends who lived alonside Manchester Airport. Every time a jet went over I would look up, my friends did not even notice them.

Recently I stayed with friends who live alongside a motorway, I found the continual sound of lorries a bar to sleeping, my friends no longer notice them.

I make my points thinking that given time annoying noises, even close by, seem to diminish into the
background. Now Aber is a goodly distance away so here's hoping!

Anonymous said...

To Fillan,

Persistent Complainant - thats interesting from the WAG who have just forked out £47,378 of public money for totally unacceptable work. Then tell me its my fault because I signed a claim form. I know nothing about building work and would not recognise one contravention of the Building Regs let alone the 24 discovered.

£47,378 was 80% of the contract value. The work has just been re-measured at £45K however they have overcharged on items and failed to consider the lighter weight slates and the cheaper code of lead used throughout. Massive savings
Total in my estimation - £25,000 exc VAT (£29,375 inc VAT) plus Agent Fees I paid £6,300 = £35,375 NOT £59,223
This can be shown by the only authentic TIG invoice issued by the builder which was attached to the correct certificate of interim progress payment and the Agents Fee invoice.
There was no other builders TIG invoice and the remaining two certificates show the Empty Homes contract value and refers to work that clearly was not carried out.

I will keep complaining until the WAG managers stop rejecting their own investigators significant recommendations.

Until Builders and Agents are monitored by the Authority.

Until "work must be executed to the satisfaction of the Authority" to mean the quality, so that public funding is not wasted in future.

And, there are measures in place to protect the public and the public purse.

I will take up your offer to help me report what I believe is fraud and corruption to the Ombudsman.

I will meet you if you wish, my e.mail is or phone 01407 769555.

I have shown my evidence to my accountant. He spent two years trying to convince the WAG officials and others that my allegations are substantiated.

I took my file to Cllr Durkin, he was gobsmacked at what I showed him.

I recently met with the Shadow Minister for Justice, a true gentleman who had the decency to meet me to actually see what I was complaining about. He forwarded me an e.mail he sent to the Welsh Audit Office. One line reads "I was also able to inspect some of the documentation involved, which raised very serious concerns"

If your wondering what documents, raised serious concerns for my accountant, Cllr Durkin and the Shadow Minister for Justice then contact me.

Maybe the Druid would like to comment. I did send him some material.

G. Pierce

G. Pierce

Anonymous said...

11.18 Your case has always looked very strong and well supported with docs. was there a reason this went to the 'Shadow Minister' rather than the one in power?

Another insider. said...

You talk about Cllr Durkin making allegations against Cllr Bob Parry! Cllr Parry has been doing nothing else against Cllr Durkin for the last four months. Where his proof.

In fact Cllr Bob Parry's allegations are so outrageous and criminal that there's a top level investigation it to them, which also involves Cllr, Clive McGregor and when it's over there'll be more than their two heads rolling.

This is why Daid Bowles and Clive McGregor have set up a spear campaign against Cllr Durkin thinking it will shut him up?

I suspect that why Cllr Durkin's not showing his hand.

Fillan said...

Dear Mr Pierce,

You it seems, have been ripped off by maybe your agents, and maybe your builder.

You raise an important point about grants, but it's quite clear whilst we all should be concerned about how grants are administered, the system as it stands is clear (even if flawed) it was your responsibility to ensure that the works where carried to a suitable standard.

That you where unfortunate in the choice of agents and or builders clearly it is not the fault of the Council.

You claim there are other people similarly affected, which implies the system needs to be changed. The Council should be honest and ask a independent person to look into the whole system of how grants are administered.

In your case, I'm afraid you took on too much, relied on allegedly poor advice from grant agents and employed allegedly a poor builder. Sadly that's life, it's full of risks otherwise we would not have a thing called insurance.

Finally my views are my personal opinion only, you may be right in what you say, but please do not feel it necessary to inform us once again of the details.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 11.30

I had no joy from the minister of justice. I contacted the shadow minister after seeing his ad in the post.

Can someone explain to me the meaning of 37.4.a of the following Act of Parliament. "eligible works executed"

Surely it means "quality" as it must be a measure to ensure that public money is not spent on sub-standard work as has materialised in my case.

If it is a Construction Act why does it not apply to the TIG ?

It does apply to the HRG but the IOACC say it means "they only check to ensure the grant is spent on the works it was claimed for" despite a letter from the Assistant TPO stating that his checks are to "ensure work is carried out to a satisfactory standard and to monitor overall standards" which is common sense and is only one aspect I want sorting out or changing so future grant applicants dont end up like me.

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

37 Payment of grants: conditions as to carrying out of the works
(1) It is a condition of payment of every grant that the eligible works are carried out within twelve months from—

(a) the date of approval of the application concerned, or

(b) where section 36 applies (delayed payment of mandatory grant), the date specified in the notification of the authority’s decision,

or, in either case, such further period as the local housing authority may allow.

(2) The authority may, in particular, allow further time where they are satisfied that the eligible works cannot be, or could not have been, carried out without carrying out other works which could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time the application was made.

(3) In approving an application for a grant a local housing authority may require as a condition of payment of the grant that the eligible works are carried out in accordance with such specifications as they determine.

(4) The payment of a grant, or part of a grant, is conditional upon—

(a) the eligible works or the corresponding part of the works being executed to the satisfaction of the authority, and

(b) the authority being provided with an acceptable invoice, demand or receipt for payment for the works and any preliminary or ancillary services or charges in respect of which the grant or part of the grant is to be paid.

For this purpose an invoice, demand or receipt is acceptable if it satisfies the authority and is not given by the applicant or a member of his family

Anonymous said...

Fillan - Not according to the Construction Act.

Anyway, the documents which raised serious concerns were not all about standards of work.

If you cant help or dont want to thats fine.

Thank you for you comments. But I will fight on until I see positive changes in the administration of the grants. I want those who waste public money to be held accountable.

And, not blame the applicant for a classic Council ruse when they have paid out on sub-standard work.

G. Pierce

Legalistic said...

"Surely it means "quality" as it must be a measure to ensure that public money is not spent on sub-standard work as has materialised in my case."

Indeed it does. The potential problem, of course, lies in 4(a) - 'to the satisfaction of the authority'. This is open to abuse if someone becomes too 'pally' with a builder, or just approves work without actually inspecting it, or has a low standard or 'satisfaction'.

My experience, although now about 15 years ago, was that once a builder had been appointed to grant work, nobody cared what work was done so long as the benficiary didn't complain. Things may or may not be better now.

If you are claiming the work is/was not up to standard, then you'd have to show why, of course. That may well be easy - as it was in my case with the utterly incompetent fool who was appointed to undertake the grant work.

Anonymous said...

To 13.59

You are correct and I have always said that this has gone on for over a decade. Could involve millions of wasted public funds.

Like I said before, only a fatal accident will wake someone up to the facts. We are not talking about a shoddy skirting board or a wonky cupboard door. We are talking about breaches of the Health & Safety and failing to meet Welsh Housing Quality Standard despite the Council telling me that the WHQS do not apply to the HRG.

G. Pierce

Fillan said...

Anyhow returning to the tape

We shall not be diverted from the truth.

I shall keep on mentioning the tape until we know the truth.

Fillan said...

Mr Pierce do you mean this section:

39 Payment of grant to contractor

(1) The local housing authority may pay a grant or part of a grant—

(a) by payment direct to the contractor, or

(b) by delivering to the applicant an instrument of payment in a form made payable to the contractor.

They shall not do so unless the applicant was informed before the grant application was approved that this would or might be the method of payment.

(2) Where an amount of grant is payable, but the works in question have not been executed to the satisfaction of the applicant, the local housing authority may at the applicant’s request and if they consider it appropriate to do so withhold payment from the contractor.

If they do so, they may make the payment to the applicant instead.

The applicant as in you

Anonymous said...

G. Pierce....There seem to be double standards.

A grant awarded by IOACC for a company sign resulted in it being inspected, photographs taken by the authority to ensure the work had been done, that the sign was as per application and that it actually existed, hence the photographs.

A grant awarded for the provision of equipment resulted in the equipment being inspected on site, serial numbers taken from serial number plates, photographs taken to show the equipment actually existed.

How different from your experience...same authority too!

Anonymous said...

Sorry rather fed up with this now..

Who wanted the grant Mr Pierce

Who appointed the grant agent Mr Pierce

Who appointed the builder Mr Pierce

Who was responsible for ensuring the works where to standard Mr Pierce

Who wants to have a grant without any risk for himself Mr Pierce

All sympathy lost sorry - real world where bad people bite - Mr Pierce lost - move on and learn from it.

Anonymous said...

Totally correct, had I known about the failings I would not have parted with a penny of the TIG funding.

The HRG was however paid direct to the builder, with my consent before the work started. Had I been asked whether I was happy with the HRG works, I would have said "No" because of the uneven floors. I requested the Council not to pay any monies to the builder.
I did complain about the floors but the builder said the Council had passed them, I complained to my agent, he said the Council had passed them. I called a meeting with the TPO, SPO, Agent and builder. I was advised to put two layers of underlay on one side and the work was of the highest standards.
Then IOACC paid the builder £8,450.08 after relaying the floor as a result of the surveyors report despite me asking them not to.

I did request the remaining HRG funding, but IOACC said it had to be paid direct to the builder.

G. Pierce

Anonymous said...

From Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996

or HRG

39 Payment of grant to contractor

(1) The local housing authority may pay a grant or part of a grant—

(a) by payment direct to the contractor, or

(b) by delivering to the applicant an instrument of payment in a form made payable to the contractor.

They shall not do so unless the applicant was informed before the grant application was approved that this would or might be the method of payment.

(2) Where an amount of grant is payable, but the works in question have not been executed to the satisfaction of the applicant, the local housing authority may at the applicant’s request and if they consider it appropriate to do so withhold payment from the contractor.

Anonymous said...

To 15.47

Had I known the work had not been satisfactorily executed I would have asked the Council not to pay the builder sooner, I had no idea you see because I am not a builder, neither was my friends elderly mother, or Housebound who frequently writes on here.

When I discovered the failings that the council deemed satisfactory I did request that no further payment be made to the builder. But as I said they paid the builder £8,450.07 after he relaid the floor that had already been paid for.

Coincidentally the (£7,191.55 exc VAT)£8,450.07 (08 for tax purposes)
did draw down the grant to exactly half. Leaving £18,750 left for a snag list instead of £27,200.

The builder previously used round figures £25,000, £15,000, strange why he issued an invoice for £7,191.55.

G. Pierce

Anonymous said...

Were you born bombastic or is it something you learned since you became an employer of Anglesey County Council.

You are the one diverting from the truth. The tape is of no relevance, its whether the meeting took place. the reason it took place and why

Bob Parry has admitted the meeting took place Cllr Durkin has said why. So what's your problem?
Get a grip woman.

Anonymous said...

In essence what you are saying is that the current system is flawed, and I agree with you.

What is required is a inquiry as to the best means of providing grants for housing improvements and or Town Improvement Grants.

Maybe what you are saying is that all responsibility for the grant works should be passed to the Council. Of course the additional cost associated with this would need to be deducted from the overall grant.

Fillan said...

Anon 15:55 Brilliant - I am now a woman without me having to spend any money (I'm a man before you ask).

And I apparently work for the Council and I'm the one diverting the truth.

The tape mate, what about the tape!!

You really cannot say you have a tape and when challenged not produce it. It's called a lie just in case you forgotten.

Fillan said...

Ok, lets take a different tack a letter from Cllr Durkin solicitor about the tape and it's content would suffice.

They have a copy according to the Councillor.

Anonymous said...

To 15.57

I am saying that its only right for the applicant to also be satisfied with the work.

But the Authority, must monitor overall standards and carry out checks to ensure that the work is actually being carried out to the required standards. At the minute its down to the applicant who knows nothing about building work.

Its much needed public funding meant to improve housing stock on Anglesey that they are wasting.

My surveyor MRICS, FCIOB with 50 yrs experience quoted
" I am also concerned that the County Councils Grant Department failed to highlight the lack of supervision by (agent) or to bring the poor standard of workmanship to the notice of Mr Pierce, the building owner, despite their having made a number of inspections of the work in progress. In my experience the grant inspectors normally withold payments until they are satisfied that the works are reasonably satisfactory in all respects and this does not appear to have happened in this case"

G. Pierce

Anonymous said...

Mr Pierce

The grant money as you say should be administered by a private company with sufficient experience to do the work.

I suggest that the applicant should have no input other than agreeing the specification of the works.

The applicant should also match the grant provided - it should be 50:50 in other words.

Fillan said...

Let me remind you of the tape that Cllr Durkin is refusing to allow a independent observer to hear.

What has he to hide, a simple question, and the tape - well that was first mentioned by Cllr Durkin

Not letting go......

Anonymous said...

Give us a break Filla, It's just not going to happen.

Durkin will let the buggers put the noose a bit further round their necks and then pull the pin. You might get to hear the tape then.

Anonymous said...

Change the TAPE Fillan, your making a twit of yourself.

Fillan said...

The more the abusive comments are made about a simple request - Produce the evidence - the more we can conclude there was not tape in the first place.

Not letting go.....

Fillan said...

Sorry for the grama above but

Let me remind you of the tape that Cllr Durkin is refusing to allow a independent observer to hear.

What has he to hide, a simple question, and the tape - well that was first mentioned by Cllr Durkin

Not letting go......

Anonymous said...

Only an employee of IOACC legal department come come up with that sort of logic.

Fillan said...

And the tape - produce the tape

Fillan said...

Still not letting go.....

Anonymous said...

19.03 He`s to busy exposing corruption that has brought this Council such shame.

Anonymous said...

Expose and let the whole lot implode ...especially about the scam with the planning in Cemaes..this is a real belter..I wouldn't sleep at night because this is a nightmare..oh dear, planning for the boys again.

Fillan said...

Let me remind you of the tape that Cllr Durkin is refusing to allow a independent observer to hear.

What has he to hide, a simple question, and the tape - well that was first mentioned by Cllr Durkin

Not letting go......

The Druid of Anglesey said...

Several posts deleted for naming names and making allegations. tut tut.

Anonymous said...

Your always doing this DRUID there's me thinking we could write here without censorship, where's your sense of chwarae teg?
You know when you did your manifesto did you get any feedback from the media? or is that a secret!

Anonymous said...

ok, what I'm getting at has the media asked questions about certain bloggers?

Anonymous said...

17.37 Not Letting Go

Copy of a b;og from 30th June.....
Anonymous said...
I was at McGregor's Propaganda Road Show in Benllech tonight, he spent the first ten minuets attacking councillors who have the temerity to see things different from him and those who are not frightened to expose dishonesty within the council by calling them all trouble makers.

He even attacked the press and saying you should not believe everything you read in the press tantamount to saying they tell lies.

Well we certainly don't believe much of what McGregor tell us after tonight's crap.

I don't know what McGregor thought he would gain by getting his business partner to go along and ask loaded questions? But he was caught out not telling the truth on a number of occasions. "IT'S JUST AS WELL A COUPLE OF THOSE THERE HAD TAPE RECORDERS"

He attacked and named GWR again. Easy done by the gutless when the persons not there to answer back.

When it came to answering questions about how much it was costing the Council in external legal advice to help attack who he deems to be trouble makers, he was unable to do so, even though he had his portfolio holder for finance with him!

There was a very damaging comment made about the portfolio Holder for Planning Cllr John Chorlton (who didn't turn up)) which certainly needs investigation.

On the whole, from a residents point of view we were able to see for ourselves who the real trouble makers are and why.

All in all. More public money down the drain to prop up a failed council by a failed autocrat leader.

30 June 2010 23:00

Councillor Durkin Was There!!

Fillan said...

Sorry Anon...22:04

The tape.....Let me remind you of the tape that Cllr Durkin is refusing to allow a independent observer to hear.

What has he to hide, a simple question, and the tape - well that was first mentioned by Cllr Durkin

Not letting go......

Housebound said...

I stand with Mr Pierce.

My own experiences are disturbingly familar to his. My own councillor has supported me in my efforts to remedy the situation. I know of two other cases where the people have exactly the same problems.

The national auditor inspected my property and examined my documentation and agreed that the work was 'not fit for purpose'

My efforts to secure a remedy continue.

Anonymous said...

One of the main reasons why Anglesey County Council is still in such a mess, is because there are to many people out there who know what's going on, but when someone stands up to do something about it, all the most of you can do is moan, gripe and abuse. You'll only get what you deserve and that's exactly what you've got.

The peoples Manifesto is good but who will see it through? Its all well and good speaking anon. but if you had to put you name, number and pat drill to it, all we would see is dust. Or is it more like, over the top boy's, I'm right behind you?

Bailleul said...

Blimey, the Council work late, don't they?

"Or is it more like, over the top boy's, I'm right behind you?"

Ha ha! You've no idea about the people involved, and the robustness of character they have. You are not looking at petty little people throwing mud pies at each other here.

Like all good teams, we go forth together, all in a line.

Anonymous said...

Together, we can beat them, all we have to do is kick the rotten door in, and the whole lot will fall down, my favourite scribe, and true, there are more than enough of us here, to take them on, the fools think that we are afraid of them all they do is fan the flames that will make them extinct.

Not many of them will put up a fight, they have had their day!

The Druid of Anglesey said...

22:00 & 22:02 - We have heard not a sausage from the media.

Anonymous said...

Maybe they are too busy? laughing at the mess we are in, or waiting for someting drastic to happen..

Anonymous said...

13: 10
It's all most here. Isn't it Clive?

Anonymous said...

something drastic to happen...

as in Cllr Durkin allowing an independent observer listen to the tape........

He likes tapes does Cllr Durkin....more soon........

Anonymous said...

Can I take a stab in the dark so to speak...

The anon 13:26 is Mr Durkin

Isn't it Barrie or is that Barry ?

And me an anon also, anyway I'm not Mr Durkin, I have checked in the mirror.....

but the tape.........

Anonymous said...

Why do you say Mr Pierce is a 'serial complainer'?

I can't recall that bit of information being posted on the blog.

I may be wrong, so please point me in the right direction.

Fillan said...

I think it was mentioned by Mr Pierce (WAG refusing to speak to him) I may be wrong and if so I apologies.

Anonymous said...

From Mr Pierce,

I complained to the Ombudsman three times and he mentioned what happens to Serial Complainers. I took it as a veiled threat.

The Ombudsman had a surveyor friend (MRICS with 40 yrs experience) from Cardiff look at photograph of my property. The advice given was that the defects discovered were not something that a grant inspector would pick up on.

I complained again.

I want to know how many other properties his learned friend had surveyed by looking at photographs.

G. Pierce

Anonymous said...

The problem with the cheerleeder for the mentally ill. she's such a serial complainer herself she thinks every one else is the same.

G. It on its way under escort as we blog.
The one from Greece.

Anonymous said...

Is it posible to know what is the name of the surveyor (the ombudsmans friend)? (if it doesn't breach the Druid's code)

Anonymous said...

27 January 2009

E.mail from Accountant to TPO

Dear Mr (TPO)

Thank you for your response. I have taken the time to look at your computation and to be honest Mr (TPO) it is unacceptable. You have combined the contract values, payments and invoices in one computation. I should be grateful if you would kindly break down your computation into HRG and TIG and should include the associated Sales Invoices and payments based on which invoices you believe to be authentic.

I refer to your e.mail and your quote :

"Would you not agree therefore, that if my estimated contract final account is accepted by the contractor that Mr Pierce has not overpaid the builder at all and that in fact he owes him £18,861.66"

This clearly indicates that you are advising thew builder on how much to invoice my client. I understand that you are trying to help, but you have clearly overstepped the mark. Your remit is to compile a final cost analysis based on invoices and payments supplied to you not provided by you. This explains how you can accurately report anomalous computations based on falsified, missing and inaccurate documents.

What is notable is that you are avoiding the main issue of the false invoices, which is crucial bearing in mind there is no contractual agreement in place.

To be honest Mr (TPO), I had a feeling the builder would produce Sales Invoices for the purpose of making a false audit trail, and by doing so played into my hands. END

Response extract from the TPO 27 January 2009

"As I have said I am avoiding the issue of the Invoices because they are nothing to do with me. You quite clearly imply in your e.mails that I have destroyed your clients business by keeping photocopies of invoices in our office. Can you expand on this and clarify exactly what you mean please as I sense a very serious allegation here which I flatly refute. If you are in any way insinuating that I am involved in the alleged falsifying of invoices then I can tell you that you are totally barking up the wrong tree and I will take the matter further with our solicitor" END

Discovered in November 2009 -E.mail 21 October 2008 from TPO to Builders Secretary (Redacted on the Council list of documents but leaked by accident)translated from Welsh to English. Hence the five late appearing false invoices.

"Hia (Secretarys first name)"

"Would you please send me a copy of the invoices that we discussed last week on the phone"

If you remember there was an invoice that was not belonging to this job, I need som sort of explanation from you that a mistake has been made in order to silence Mr Pierc`s accountant. I also need invoices for the £29,375 (12.4.07) £17,625 (5.5.07) £10,299 (2.7.07) £10,299.92 (2.7.07) £8,450.07 (6.12.07) As you know the numbers of the invoices are all ways and therefore it is neccesary to sort this outby putting the correct number in () after the original number.

I also need a copy of the test certificates for the electrician if you please.

Also I need your confirmation that the snagging work has been finished, all of it, that includes everything that was on the list that you have had since the start of the year.

Cheerio for now


Make your own minds up.

G. Pierce

Anonymous said...

"Make your own minds up"

I have Mr Pierce, sadly not in your favour.

It was your responsibility, and if the works are not to standard, can the public have it's money back ?.

From you that is, you where responsible after all, you authorised payment - ignorance of the law does not excuse you from not complining with it.

Life is all about risk, otherwise we would not have insurance firms.

Anonymous said...

Make your own minds up was regarding the "falsifying of invoices"

The fact is, I complained about the standard of work to all but was shot down in flames by the TPO, the SPO and the agent. "Its an old building" they said, "cant be helped" they said. "TPO and SPO were not unhappy with the work or materials" says the document.

Sorry that I am not qualified to recognise twenty four contraventions of the building regs

I dont authorise payments. I am not the authority.

I signed two TIG claim forms before I knew of the failings. The third, I signed was to "control payments" according to the SPO.

I agreed at the begining of the contract to allow the Council to pay the builder direct. I signed no document saying I was happy with the HRG work, I was not asked. In fact, I did not even know the builder had been paid by the Council until months later after I complained.

G. Pierce

Anonymous said...

A Certificate of Completion should be signed by the grant Inspector certifying that "the work has been carried out in a proper and workman like manner in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Council"

The Director of Housing and Social Services certifies the sums that may be released for payment.

The Councils Directorate is accountable for any payments made from the public purse and these are audited by the Councils Internal Audit Section.

Anonymous said...

Theft Act 1968 Section 17 . False accounting

(1) Where a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with
intent to cause loss to another,-
(a) destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account or any record or
document made or required for any accounting purpose; or
(b) in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such record or document as aforesaid, which to his knowledge is
or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular;
he shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
seven years.
(2) For purposes of this section a person who makes or concurs in making in an account or other document an entry which is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, or who omits or concurs in omitting a material particular from an
account or other document, is to be treated as falsifying the account or document.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, you have not got a clue what your talking about.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 19:49

Explain why, and with evidence.

Anon to Anon so to speak...

Anonymous said...

Mr Pierce.
This council have been doing it for years. It's not because their to clever and keep getting away with it. It's because there are so many involved with their grubby snouts in the trough, that it would be more than their life's worth to snitch on one another.

But if you strip away that, the slime will pore out like sticky treacle.

You don't know how much you and your accountant are doing to help the people of Anglesey. Its not going unnoticed by a long chalk.

Good luck.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Anon.
If you don't know why, then there isn't any point in me telling you.

Anonymous said...

Hello it's Mr Pierce versus

The Council
Welsh Assembly Government
Audit Commission
Ombudsman for Wales a person who employed a accountant who when drunk (as admitted by himself) attacked the Holyhead Police Station.....

Life is a risk, otherwise we would not have insurance firms....

Anonymous said...

To anon 20.03

Thank you very much for you`r kind words. I am determined that no more grant applicants will face lengthy court battles against builders and agent because the Council recommend payments for poor quality, defective work in breach of Building Regulation Standards and the Welsh Housing Quality Standards.

A forensic expert would find that only the same builders and agents get away with the above.

They have destroyed peoples lives, I know because I have met with them.

G. Pierce

Anonymous said...

"because the Council recommend payments for poor quality..."

..sorry it was your responsibility..

Not the council's fault you employed alledgly dodgy agents and or builders.....

Life is a risk otherwise we would not have insurance firms....

Anonymous said...

Sorry its Mr Pierce and several others. And, I am not versus anyone

Had IOACC Internal Auditors captured vital and relevant financial data instead of leaving the files under investigation with those being investigated and reported their findings to the proper authorities. There would not have been 120 days of investigations by Internal Audit and only one report not four.

G. Pierce

Fillan said...

......Anyhow returning to the tape

We shall not be diverted from the truth.

I shall keep on mentioning the tape until we know the truth.

...not letting go.....

Anonymous said...

And Mr Pierce

No matter what you say - It was your responsibility.

Answer - Cancel all grants - problem solved.

County Councillor Barrie Durkin said...

To all those who think they have suffered breaches of their Human Rights at the hands of Anglesey County Council can you make contact with County Councillor Barrie Durkin.

Anonymous said...


Fillan said...

What me again...ok sorry....

and the tape......

There is not tape is there, or otherwise what have you to hide by not producing it, and or at least getting your solicitor to write a letter to confirm the tape exists.

So here is a statement for you...

You do NOT HAVE A TAPE of a meeting between you and Cllr Parry at Llanerchymedd and as stated by you in your email of 8 July 2010.

An accusation you can disprove by allowing an independent person to listen to the tape you claim you have.

....still not letting go......

Anonymous said...

Hello "Not Letting Go" The big fat sponge wants information but never answers questions. The big fat sponge accuses everyone of everything but never shows the hand in writing. The big fat sponge is sh.. scared of being sued not a word is printed and signed....perhaps it is all taped up.

But why did Mr Durking let the Penrhyn Point Planning go through unhindered?

Not letting go number two....number two, now that reminds me of someone

Alan Llanbedrgoch said...

That's the way Bar.
The people of Anglesey are not behind you, we are at your side.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 20.28

Recommendations made by the TPO

"In accordance with the approved drawings and specifications and my inspection of the works on the 25.10.07 I can confirm that all the eligible works is complete. I can also confirm that the materials & workmanship met with my approval. I can thus recommend the final payment be processed as soon as possible"

Materials were found to be missing or the work was not carried out

Why there are no Certificates of Completion or work inspection sheets for my property for the HRG I dont know. I know copies of Housing Grants Certificate of Completion exist as I have copies

G. Pierce

Anonymous said...

Sorry, above should be Reccomendations made by the SPO NOT the TPO.

G. Pierce

Anonymous said...

It may be of interest to you, If Cllr Durkin were to release any part of the "Tape" as it contains a conversation with another person, not having the express permission of that person to do so. Cllr Durkin could find himself in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

On the other hand, if that other person states on oath, signed and witnessed, that no such tape exists, then if Cllr Durkin made the tape public, then that other person wouldn't have a leg to stand on, in more ways than one.

Nooka the vexed said...

17.44 If you were to look at the regulations you will find that you have mispoke. The agents were introduced into the system as a third party to ensure that collusion between builders and applicants could not occur. The agent takes on the responsibilities of the applicant in terms of managing the contract and ensuring that works are up to standard. The agent then provides completion certificates. The Grant's inspector then inspects the work to make sure that it has been done to a satisfactory standard, and the applicant is also happy with it. Then the Council pays the subsequent invoice from the builder. What happens when the building work does not reach a satisfactory standard is a problem. Mr Pierce acted perfectly normally and properly. He took professional advice - from the Agent and from the Grants department at the council (or does this not count as professional advice?)He trusted these professionals to have his best interests at heart - that was, after all, what he was employing them for. (the agent at rather more expense than is usual)
17.44 You seem to be suggesting that Mr Pierce should not have trusted these professional men. A society where trust cannot be assumed shows a very sorry state indeed.

Mr Pierce's case is not an isolated one. There are many grateful grant recipients who trusted the professionals they were employing, and also the council officials they who were advising them. Anyone who persists in questioning things that have gone wrong get labelled vexatious just because they are indeed vexed.
Mr Pierce and others fight on because they know that there are people who are less able than themselves.
It should also be realised that this public money is intended to bring the generally poor state of much Welsh housing stock up to an acceptable standard, thus benefiting the entire community. The people who are eligible are often elderly and often vulnerable and always unable to finance the project by themselves (these grants are means tested). These people need assistance in ensuring that public monies provide fit for purpose and value for money improvements.

This sadly seems to be frequently not the case.

Btw Fillan, Persoanlly I don't give a monkey's brain about the tape.

Anonymous said...

To Nooka

You have a good point to make, however the choice of agent made by Mr Pierce unless recommended to him by the Council, can hardly therefore be said to be the fault of the Council.

However, Mr Pierce is an example for us all about such grants, me personally I would scrap all grants for such ventures.

Anonymous said...

Out of the sixty three thousand people resident on Anglesey which I am but one. I see just one fanatic calling to hear the tape! other than that, Monkeys brain is just about right.

As an insider the smear campaign lead by Councillor's Clive McGregor, David Bowles, and Bob Parry, with the help of some officers from the Legal Department against Councillor Durkin and Elwyn Schofield is the biggest open secret the council has ever endured, the staff are sick of it, and it will surely bring those involved down.

Anonymous said...

RE: The Tape !
Word is there was a 3rd person in the car, in the layby, in Llanerchymedd !
Why would they meet in Llanerchymedd ???
Llanerchymedd...thats the clue !

Anonymous said...

Housing Renovation Grant Fraud Audit Guide(1998)This should be read in conjunction with this module.

3.5 Several methods of over-claiming can be used, including:

employing sub-contractors to do work at a lower cost than allowed for in the accepted tender

the applicant or agent not using the sub-contractors approved in the original tender, but instead doing the work themselves

the use of sub-standard materials

not carrying out all or part of the specified work.

Case Study 6

An applicant complained to the council about the poor quality of renovation work performed on his property, claiming also that the building contractor had failed to follow the council’s schedule of works by fitting hardwood instead of UPVC doors and windows. He was subsequently visited by the contractor, accompanied by the head of grants section, and placed under pressure to drop his complaint. Instead the applicant pursued his complaint with his Councillor who in turn passed it to the external auditor. An independent quantity surveyor was asked to assess the value of work carried out by the contractor at a claimed cost of £26,000, for which payment had been authorised by the head of grants section. The payment was stopped when the independent quantity surveyor assessed the value of the works at £3,400.

Anonymous said...


4.Systems control checklist

Control objective: Entitlement to grant assistance is established promptly and in accordance with statutory requirements

1.Procedures are in place to prevent any unauthorised entries in the grant waiting list
2.Policies and procedures for allocating grant resources are clearly defined and documented
3.Procedures are in place for dealing with complaints and allegations in relation to grant issues

4.The validity of certificates of title has been verified
5.The occupation of the property in the year after the grant is finalised has been confirmed

Control objective: The level of grant is correctly and accurately calculated in accordance with statutory requirements.

6.A check of the accuracy of the applicant’s declaration of assets (relating to the means test) has been undertaken with other systems within the council e.g. housing benefits system

7.Initial inspections are sufficiently detailed to enable the bulk of additional works required to be identified at an early stage

8.The council requires valid reasons when the contractor doing the work is not the one providing the approved estimate

9.The council requires valid reasons when any sub-contractor involved in the work is not the one providing the approved estimate
10.The council monitors the contractors invited to tender by individual agents

11.Apparent links between particular agents and contractors are followed up

12.The council calculates its own estimates of costs of work to guard against collusion between builders in the provision of estimates

13.Any Schedule of Rates used by the council is kept confidential
14.Systems are in place to ensure that, where the council has paid for work carried out in advance of the grant’s approval, there are valid reasons for doing so

Control objective: Grant aided works are completed satisfactorily to the required standard and in accordance with statutory requirements.

15.There is adequate separation of duties amongst grant officers and adequate supervision and checking of work by managers

16.The council undertakes random inspections as a further check to ensure that work is actually being performed to the required standard
17.Suitable controls exist in relation to the approval of additional works (additional works should only be approved if the works are necessary to bring the property up to the fitness standard.)

18.The council requires applicants to submit a form stating their satisfaction (or otherwise) with the works carried out

Control objective: Payment of grant is properly authorised and made in accordance with statutory requirements.

19.Payment is only released if an invoice has been provided and the work has been inspected q
20.The council ensures that invoices submitted relate to genuine builders (Vetting procedures could include reference to an approved list, the checking of VAT numbers, etc.)

21.Procedures are in place to ensure that the spend on individual grants is monitored and to ensure that the ceiling on grant payments is not exceeded

Control objective: Grant is repaid in the event of non-compliance with statutory grant conditions

22.The council carries out checks to ensure that grant conditions are being complied with, e.g. checks with other systems, postal surveys or physical inspections

The Great Councillini said...

"Why do you say Mr Pierce is a 'serial complainer'?"

If nobody listens to you, you have no option but to keep at it. If you've something to hide, you label people 'serial complainers'. If you don't, well you should be able to issue an acceptable response from the start.

Sadly, there is such contempt for the public amongst many at IoACC that they believe they have no right to question them.

Anonymous said...

I was told that I was serial complainer and that I was being vexatious. My complaints were rejected by IOACC.

And then ... following the damning auditor general's report, WAG sent in the recovery board for exactly the same internal practices that I had complained about.

Councillini, you are correct.
Never underestimate the power of self-deception and self-denial.

Fillan said...

"Btw Fillan, Persoanlly I don't give a monkey's brain about the tape."

That's personally...

Anyhow.. so you do not care if a Councillor is allowed to get away with making vexatious allegations...or one councillor in particular at least....

Or course it's not the first time Cllr Durkin has used colorful language (when Community Council).

If you stand on a platform demanding good governance, then you should set those standards yourself.

So the tape.....not letting go...

Anonymous said...

And the 3rd person in that car...who was he, what was his mission, and why have we not heard about him...he holds the key ????

Anonymous said...

Cllr Durkin likes tapes and listening to extract from Audit Committee
Minutes of the meeting held on 16 April, 2009.....

The Acting Managing Director confirmed that Councillor Barrie Durkin had made a formal request to access the recording of the meeting which he had granted yesterday, 15 April, 2009.

...but not allowing others listen to his tapes apparently.....

Anonymous said...

What are you talking about, Apparently? You either know or you don't. Or are you just another gossip monger with nothing better to do?

Time to be like Cllr Durkin. Do your work right, Get the facts, do what needs doing and not until.

Fillan said...


Cllr Durkin says there's a tape
Cllr Parry says there isn't

Neither can be correct, but which one...well until this is confirmed by an independent person...

Sorry whilst it's ok for him to press for answers from other people, we cannot demand the same of him ?

And the Data Protection Act does not cover individuals, unless of course Cllr Durkin is acting for the Council in his capacity as Councillor. Now, that is, not then if the commentor 'insider' is to believed he wasn't a County Councillor when the tape was made.

You see if the tape doesn't have evidence of Cllr Parry agreeing to the conversation being recorded then Cllr Durkin will not be allowed to use it later at any tribunal. So we might as well know now. And if it does well Cllr Parry should go also.

....not letting go...

Anonymous said...

We see Filla is a lawyer now. What next?

County Councillor Barrie Durkin said...

18th July 2010, at 11:15.
"Word is there was a 3rd Person in the car"!

So there can be NO misunderstanding and to ensure some peoples imaginations don't get the better of them. There was Cllr Bob Parry and I at the meeting and no one else. Any other suggestion is nothing more than untrue gossip and tittle tattle.

If you wish to email me on this or any other subject, please do.

Fillan said...

To Anon 21:05

Thats Fillan with an 'n' as if it mattered for a Anon.

No I'm not a lawyer but neither am I an expert in swimming pools, road safety, planning, human rights and or the data protection act.

But I wonder who claims he does, without never to my understanding having worked in any of these fields ?

and...not letting go...

Anonymous said...

When can we expect a letter or even and email to the Druid from Cllr Durkin solicitor, confirming they have the tape.

Anonymous said...

I suggest we give them to the end of the week.

Anonymous said...

Of course it have to be an email nobody knows the Druid's address.

Anonymous said...

What is important is that his Solicitor confirms they have the tape, as alleged in his email by Cllr Durkin.

Anonymous said...

Yes, his solicitor could have no problems with confirming that simple fact could they - that they have the tape.

Anonymous said...

Cllr Parry should tells us what the meeting he admits to having With Barrie Durkin in July 2007 was about and tell us what he has done with his copy of the tape.

Fillan said...

Cllr Parry says there is no tape, and according to Anon 20:22, interestingly, the meeting took place in July 2007, who else knew that date I wonder, there was only two at the meeting.

More later......not letting go.....

Anonymous said...

This is what happens when people like you go off hell for leather on you biggoted high horse without knowing what your talking about.

In July 2007 every elected member which I was one, received a letter from Mr Durkin explaining about the meeting.
There was also several letters to the MD and back to Mr Durkin about the meeting and Lynn Ball's house.

GET IT RIGHT Fillan, then have another go.

Fillan said...

I was merely asking Mr Councillor, you seem to be getting rather upset over something. I wonder over what that is ?

My simple request a confirmation from Cllr Durkin solicitor that they have the famous tape - so what's the problem?

...not letting go....

Anonymous said...

Just merely telling you who else new the date.
More a matter of, who didn't know.
You presumably.

Fillan said...

So a number of Councillors where aware of the date , and the meeting.

So whats the big secret, there's no problem for an independent person to here what's on the tape after all.

Thanks for reminding me, however my request is still simple:

a confirmation from Cllr Durkin solicitor that they have the famous tape...

...not letting go...

Fillan said...

Sorry I cant spell - for here read hear what's on the tape

Anonymous said...

...not letting go..

Anonymous said...

Cllr Durkin seem to have sprung the trap. David Bowles have fell hook line and sinker. The only people that will get to hear the tape now, is those involved in any complaints hearing.