FOURTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SANCTUARY HOUSING/TPAS MEDIATION SCAM.

Four years ago today I became the victim of a mediation Scam by TPAS to protect the criminality of the housing charity Sanctuary Housing Association, my landlord.

Although much has happened since then and much has been written, I have decided to mark this Fourth Anniversary by considering “The Law” and if it has protected me.

The first “Legal” figure to become involved was Sanctuary Group Board Member Judge Rosemary Crawley. Although she wanted to intervene and contact me directly she freely chose to allow boardroom protocol to take precedence over her legal obligations and responsibilities to uphold “The Law”, and to protect the potential victim of a crime and the potential of further criminality by Sanctuary Housing’s CEO David Bennett, fellow Group Board Members, Directors and Executives.

Within a year I was arrested by Devon & Cornwall Constabulary following a written complaint of Harassment by ex-TPAS Mediator Oonah Lacey. This in relation to Blogs I had written on my business website.

I was taken to St Austell Police Station and elected to have a solicitor present and for it to go to recorded interview. This led to an official complaint against Sargeant Carhart, PC Pomeroy and PC Wyatt. The complaint was investigated by Sargeant Cartwright of D&CC who attempted to cover-up the full extent of what went on. This then led to an official Appeal to the IPCC for it to investigate.

Fifteen months later Tina Walker, IPCC Casework Manager, ruled that all four Officers were at fault in some way but should receive “Management Action” only.

The IPCC only arrived at it’s perverse decision by applying ‘absolute discretion’ not to investigate all the evidence available to it.

The most damning piece of evidence being Sargeant Cartwright’s statement that the written Complaint was not received until 5th April 2012, when internal documents prove I was under investigation mid-March when it contacted Sanctuary Housing as part of it’s investigations.

Tina Walker also claimed Sargeant Carhart, in regard to his threat to seize my computer, did not threaten my livelihood because he was of the opinion I was “unemployed”. This despite his officers investigating reported blogs on a website called “Geoff’s Cameras”, which sold camera equipment, and which the IPCC itself acknowledged was my business website.

When offered an opportunity to resolve these serious discrepancies the IPCC would only say that there is no further right of appeal once the decision is made, other than for me to seek legal advice.

Sadly the above has only made me an even greater victim of criminality than I was in 2010.

I therefore make no apology for naming the individuals and organisations above and I urge them to take legal action against me if they feel offended and disagree with anything I have said.

I will go even further and beg any of those named above to take me to court.

Blog entered 17 October 2014.

Today’s Update.

If any one would like to order a card or maybe more, please pm us with your address and quantity required. I will send them to you with a receipt, and gratitude.

We are trying to raise awareness and funds for Ernest’s legal fees to gain access to his late wife’s care plan and medical notes in the time that he was banned from the home.

He has had to instruct a lawyer to act on his behalf as so far the home and the doctor who were looking after Maggie have failed to deliver on Ernest’s requests.

We have 500 to sell at the cost of £1.80 a card, this covers the cost of the printing, postage and packing, leaving 100% of the rest to Ernest’s legal bill as he is not entitled to legal aid.

You can pay by Pay Pal by using the donate button on this page which is now active or in a way of your choice.
please specify in your PM order…..

Thank you for your help, love and support.

(Please go to the Facebook ‘Justice for Ernest John Coles’ page and click on the ‘Justice for Ernest John Coles’ link for the donate button. I am only supporting and promoting this cause and have nothing to do with the above cards).

Blog entered 15 October 2014.

URGENT

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Dear Mr McLaughlin

Defamatory publications – Mr Geoff McLaughlin

It has been brought to our attention that you have published allegations on the website www.twitter.com which are defamatory of a named ex-employee of Cornwall Council and a named employee of a Cornwall Council associated company. These allegations are both false and extremely damaging to the individuals reputations.

1. The defamatory allegations

Published on 22, 23 and 26 September 2014 on www.twitter.com :

“Widower of long term mentally ill woman demands the @CornwallCouncil sack Social Worker Tony Grainger for his role in rigged Welfare Assessment”

“Widower of long term mentally ill woman demands @CornwallCouncil sacks Rachel Lytham for her role in rigged Welfare Priority Assessment”

“@CornwallCouncil Re : Demamatory threat for naming 2 Council employees. They abused my late wife and they must be made accountable in Court.”

Please note that the above statements are defamatory of both Cornwall Council ex-employee Tony Grainger who is now retired and Cornwall Council associated company employee Rachel Lytham and who are named in full. The clear meaning of these allegations is that the named individuals have acted contrary to their professional duties by negligently and deliberately taking part in a rigged Welfare Assessments in order to achieve a predetermined and enequitable result. Further, that they have abused a member of the public. These extremely serious and damaging allegations continue to be published online.

2. The factual inaccuracies

The defamatory allegations set out above are entirely false and without any foundation. Both of the named individuals have acted entirely in accordance with their professional duties. For the avoidance of any doubt, neither individuals have taken part in a rigged Welfare Assessment and the Welfare Assessment that you refer to was not rigged. Neither have the members of staff abused a member of the public.

The allegations that you have chosen to publish online are very serious indeed and are attached to named individuals. Our client is disappointed that you have chosen to publish these false and damaging statements about named individuals in the public domain and request that, if you have any concerns about any matters, you raise them with Cornwall Council directly. Our client accepts that you may wish to publicise your views on matters relating to the Council. However, it does not consider that there is any justification for naming and defaming individual Council and associated company employees and ex-employees who, as in this case, have not been afforded the opportunity to respond in advance to the very serious and false allegations made about them.

The purpose of this letter is to request that you :

a) Remove these defamatory and false postings from the internet immediately ;

and

b) Refrain from publishing further false and defamatory publications about the employees or ex-employees of Cornwall Council or any of it’s associated companies.

Please note that our client takes this matter very seriously and, in the meantime reserves all of it’s rights.

Yours faithfully

Legal Services

Communications and Organisational Developement

Cornwall Council

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My reply

The author of the Council’s letter was anonymous and signed himself/herself only as “Legal Services” in blue biro, and seems pretty clueless that I have brought this matter to the direct attention of Cornwall Council multiple times since 2012, and to the attention of a very perverse Local Government Ombudsman who applied absolute discretion and shoddy practices so as to avoid making any ruling of Maladministration against Cornwall Council.

I also find it somewhat of a contradiction for Legal Services to request I should have raised any concerns I have directly with Cornwall Council regarding it’s associated company, when Simon JR Mansell MBE, Principal Legal Officer – Corporate Governance Cornwall Council Legal Services, has made it perfectly clear that any issues I have with Cornwall Housing should be taken up directly with Cornwall Housing and not with Cornwall Council. Which has only reinforced my opinion that Cornwall Housing is the corrupt wing of the Council’s operations.

Specifically

This needs to go to Court because the Council has failed to prove my allegations are false and without foundation since 2012. That I have every justification to name individual employees and ex-employees until such time as the Council resolves the issues to my satisfaction once and for all, and in the interest of my late wife who would expect nothing less from me. That the Council and named individuals have been afforded more than enough opportunities to deal with my serious allegations since 2012.

If the named individuals have acted entirely in accordance with their professional duties, then I can only conclude Cornwall Council is willfuly responsible for the predetermined and unequitable results of the Welfare Assessments and the alleged abuse of my late wife and her right to an equitable result.

It also needs to go to court to establish if Cornwall Council was right to advize the Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust to close my complaint lodged with the Trust against a very uncaring, negligent and willfuly blind Community Psychiatric Nurse called (cannot be named for legal reasons) because his participation on the Welfare Assessment Panel was a collective one and that the CPN was protected by locally agreed Council Policy, which frankly I consider a load of bollocks in the eyes of the law.

My comments above only represent a brief reply to the Council’s letter of 26 September 2014.

Geoffrey R McLaughlin