UNITE VIEWPOINT
one being effectively allowed to investigate themselves as it rarely yields positive or objective results. For example if you make a complaint against the police say Lincolnshire Police for example, then the complaint would be investigated by another independent force say, Kent Police. This policy is clearly designed to prevent the mice from being tasked with investi- gating the matter of the missing cheese, pardon the metaphor.
The labelling of complainants as ‘vexatious’ or ‘unreasonably persistent’ misses the point by a country mile and is symp- tomatic of a ‘system’ that believes it is beyond reproach and is indicative of a policy created purely to protect and further those ideals.
We routinely look down upon other governments who employ tactics including censorship, prejudice and penalty(s) in order to silence dissenters and to prevent criticism.
twice for the same crime and is an important protection for individuals against the abuse of state power.
These council officers now clearly seem to believe that they are not only above the law, but even above the Judges charged to consider and implement it. Who appoints the Judges? HM the Queen! Are council officers above her too?
SILENCING TACTICS
Moving on to the second part of this article, namely tactics being employed by some councils in order to silence dissent and to prevent ‘persistent’ complaints, labelling them as vexatious or unreasonable! Let’s just take a look at that word ‘vexatious’. According to the English dictionary it means, ‘... causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry...’ Well I think that could be construed to sum up all complaints, especially if you are attempting to avoid them or find them uncomfortable with regard to their subject matter.
Time and again, I receive reports of and witness local author- ities which choose not to properly investigate perfectly reasonable complaints, in many cases backed by sound evi- dence, only to ‘stonewall’ and/or label the complainant as a ‘trouble maker’ or ‘regular correspondent’. This behaviour even extends to their treatment of locally elected representa- tives of the people (Councillors) in some areas.
Many authorities also employ the unacceptable policy of a department effectively investigating itself (i.e. the same department) when a complaint is made or received. Is it any wonder then that not only are complaints rarely upheld but also that the complainant feels the need to carry on complain- ing as their original complaint has not been dealt with or investigated in a fair, independent, transparent and open way.
I purposely used the word ‘open’ as this is all part of what’s called ‘open democracy’. I have an inherent problem with any-
DECEMBER 2020
We live (I thought) in a democratic society with core values of the right of freedom of speech and expression without government interference. Those legal rights are enshrined in law within Article 10 of the Human Rights legislation and allow us to be free to criticise the government and our public institutions without fear of prosecution or penalty.
The things that I have mentioned in this article, the right to a fair hearing, the right of freedom of speech and expression and the right to complain, all form the vital features of a democratic society.
Yet it would appear that we seem to have those who believe that these rights should be removed or restricted. I some- times wonder if we’ve entered the realms of the ‘Stasi’ (look it up) or local communism. What leads me to say that? Well, all of the foregoing within this article actually, the ‘penalty points’ system with no right of appeal, the creation of a ‘parallel’ local authority judicial system of punitive sanctions in addition to those already provided in national statute law and policies to prevent complaints that effectively amount to ‘gagging orders’!
Doesn’t all this strike at the very heart of democracy, local or otherwise???
Cue the music: ‘If You Tolerate This, Then Your Children Will Be Next’ by The Manic Street Preachers.
Drive carefully and above all, stay well...
Article supplied by: Sean Ridley Secretary Unite the Union South East Region (Cab Section)
Sean.Ridley@unitetheunion.org 79
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124
