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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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