Why all the secrecy?

 Why? Because it's the name of the game for a council beset by allegations of wrongdoing

The so-called 'most transparent council' project announced by Cllr Peter Jackson on 25 May 2017 is officially dead. 

It's been replaced by a council beset by allegations of wrongdoing coming from political opponents and non-political bodies, companies and individuals. Labour have long highlighted the decisions taken and the questions they raise to a deafening silence from the administration.

Local MP's have asked for independent investigations into decisions that are currently costing the council taxpayer millions of pounds. Individual staff members have been forced to go to employment tribunals to highlight the very serious management bullying and intimidation that are seemingly routine within Northumberland County Council. How many more allegations of bullying is this council going to turn a blind eye to before they have a fully independent investigation by an independent professional organisation like NEREO? 

The planning process is in disarray and the council is facing allegations of bullying, intimidation and corruption with a number of other private companies looking at the Lugano legal action which will be heard in the High Court as a marker for further legal actions.  
A cursory look at the decisions taken by this council since 5 May 2017 shows that Clickermin development may fall into a similar category as DGV with Banks Developments as does the Mitford Hall estates development which also has a link to potential dodgy decisions in Arch as well as the removal of the core strategy. 

You might remember that Cllr Richard Wearmouth who also campaigned actively against the Mitford Hall development prior to becoming Chairman in Arch, announced to great fanfare in June 2017 'that Arch will not be investing outside Northumberland' while stopping the Mitford investment. Some people said 'good decision' and others said 'politics over good business sense'. That's a bit of an indictment for a man with over 40 directorships with a good few 'winding ups'. And Mr Wearmouth also announced that Arch would not be involved 'in risky investments or retail offers' somehow implying that Manor Walks investment, securing over 2,000 jobs was a bad investment. 
What have been his Arch announcements to date? Pipers Place in Bedlington (retail) and the forthcoming investment announcement in Hexham at the Old Market which interestingly Arch looked at 4 years ago and deemed it too risky. 

His greatest contributions have come in the arena of, what some people call, the Arch witchunt. He's regularly colluded with others to damage the reputation of the company he is Chair of. He's traduced the company along with his fellow director Jackson on the slimmest of tittle tattle, all the while, damaging the assets of Northumberland residents. 

You can make your own mind up if these men are hypocrites. 

Maybe Mr Wearmouth, the chair, may be able to shed some light on the decision to sell off some of the most profitable assets of the company in South Tyneside, Durham and Sunderland? After all, it's not like these areas are in China is it?    

Maybe that's the problem with this administration - they just don't treat taxpayers money the same as their own. 

With over 50 company directorships between them, it's a little disturbing that the only time they attack a company they're directors of is when its owned by the Northumberland taxpayer. Maybe it's their addiction to playing politics with taxpayers cash?  

As Chair of Arch maybe Mr Wearmouth would like to shed some light on the 'International Development' projects the company CEO Alison Joynson and the company director Peter Jackson and the company shareholder Mrs Daljit Lally are involved in? 

After all, remember 'no Arch investments outside Northumberland in the North East' but it seems Arch is investing in North East Chinese Hospitals? Who knew the announcement meant just the NE but everywhere else in the world is in the game. 

So what is CEO Alison Joynson who is also council Director for International Projects and Systems Development really doing with Arch apart from running it as the political wing of the council for the Conservative party? 

This is the very same Alison Joynson who was the very public figurehead who ran the conservative campaign against the change to Post 16 travel four years ago. 

We know she picks up £171,000 from the council but since Mr Wearmouth continues to hide the accounts of Arch for his first full year which have been available for over 3 months, what are we able to do but speculate about why this publicity hungry and righteous Chair of the company, Arch is being so quiet about the financial facts of his first year. 

Like so much of the council and Arch, secrecy is the order of the day. Whether it be covering up bullying allegations on an industrial scale, or hiding what Arch is doing with Northumberland's assets and future, or playing politics with taxpayer monies, this Tory led administration and its place persons on committee's like Audit Committee refuse to be transparent unless it involves a receipt for a bottle of wine at a conference for jobs.  

They're hiding information which would allow residents to see what is happening with their own money. 

There's a whiff of scandal and corruption which is getting stronger by the day. The only way to apply fresh air to this is for the Tories to agree to a transparent and independent investigation into the numerous allegations which are now swirling around the council creating the stink of scandal and corruption. 

In short, make Northumberland County Council legal again. 

As Arch is marched secretly to its demise it feels like a crime is being committed

Why can't the Tories answer simple questions and why are they wedded to double      standards especially when it comes to wasting taxpayers cash? 

As the crisis hit leader of Northumberland County Council, Peter Jackson and his silent sidekick, Cllr Richard Wearmouth prepare for one of the biggest political 'heists' in the County history by bringing down the curtain on Arch, we think there are some things residents need to know. The irony is that this is possibly the biggest waste of taxpayers cash and in the same scale as the decision to remove the core strategy. 

This information is in plain sight and it's part of a jigsaw which Tories on the council don't want residents to see. 

The sad thing is they are aided and abetted by professional officers who have spectacularly failed in their role as impartial guardians of the interests of residents across Northumberland. 

The Tory approach to Arch is a case to point. 
Their whole approach is to distract journalists and residents alike. They've spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of your money to create an illusion.

Their illusion leads to confusion and it also involves collusion. 

Their illusion is that Arch was a criminal enterprise. The reality was in its last year under the Labour administration, it passed £9.4m back to the council to offset Tory cuts which are so apparent this year.  

The confusion is that official reports generated by the authority which are withheld from scrutiny and deliberately 'spun' neatly leads to collusion between senior officers, chairs of committee's and Tories on the executive like Cllr Nick Oliver, Arch Chair Richard Wearmouth, Cllr Hill, the former recruitment consultant and Cllr Wayne Daley, a director on Arch and the Cabinet member for Education who so visibly screwed up the 2 tier plan in the west. 
So when Cllr Hill Audit committee says Arch paid no dividend ever back to the council what was the £9.4m in the company accounts? That was an example of an official council report to 'spin', a political talking point Cllr Hill created. That's unlawful by the way.  
They've presented a view of Arch which is criminally skewed using taxpayers cash to do it. They've used taxpayers cash to create a political story. This is where we hear the cry 'where's the evidence?'
This is a company which complied with the Companies Act 2006, with relevant tax legislation, was signed off by numerous auditors on its accounts each year, was signed off by the council's auditors and accurately assessed its risks each month until 'year zero' when Cllr Jackson put the 'heist' into operation. So why wasn't this picked up before 'year zero'? By the same auditors who are in place now? All very good questions which haven't been answered? 

Arch complied with law year after year until Jackson's 'year zero' apparently. Funny that isn't it? Its accounts and its actions were overseen by directors. These directors include Cllr Peter Jackson, the Tory leader of the council. Jackson never raised a single concern as a board member preferring to make unsubstantiated allegations to serve his political ends. 

You may say that's what politicians do but he was a company director who should comply with company law shouldn't they? After all Cllr Jackson is a director in over a dozen other companies.
It's noticeable that Jackson has never acted this way towards Greenshields Agri PLC, or Agricultural Management (Haddington) Ltd, or PA Jackson Ltd, or Grainco Ltd, or Meldon Village Storage and Drying Ltd, or Alan Jackson (Westcotes) Ltd, or Tynegrain Agriculture Ltd. It begs the question that Cllr Jackson should know what he can and can't do as a director yet he just doesn't care. It's like the current discussion over Borderlands which he's parachuted into. We think its a great idea and definitely something Northumberland should be at the forefront of. Yet once again, there is no declaration of interests given he owns over 5,000 acres according to his own biography on both sides of the Scottish Borders. Not declaring his interests is unlawful by the way.   
So why do the Tories hate Arch so much and why was Jackson mounting an attack on a company he was a director of? If he was so dead set against it, why didn't he resign before he inherited a council owned company? 

Since May 2017, they've mounted a campaign to undermine the company which has reduced the value of the company and has resulted in a secret firesale which has seen taxpayer assets sold at a loss, without any scrutiny and no risk assessed to the taxpayer. 

When they took over Arch was worth circa £320m and now they are selling off companies the council already owns through its single share. The company was worth circa £320m and you're getting a dividend of £4.2m? Compare that with the last dividend of the company to the taxpayer of £9.4m and you're entitled to ask, where's the money going? The company will pay no further dividends to the shareholder i.e. you, the resident. The company will borrow £275m over the next four years despite Jackson and Wearmouth attacking the previous administration over lending money to Arch at a profit. Why the U-turn? Where will the companies profits go in the future if it makes any?

None of this has been discussed, debated or scrutinised by anyone other than Tory placemen (we say placemen because there is no women on the board of Arch) which would also presumably include Lib Dem Jeff Reid who has always claimed an affinity to the company since it was he who set it up. It's an irony that the lack of transparency is seeing the taxpayer sold short. 

Why don't the Tories and senior council officers like the CEO, under pressure, Daljit Lally answer questions about Arch and its decisions since May 2017? Why were they so keen to create a single party board on Arch using trumped up 'allegations' which have disappeared like a puff of smoke after their intended negative publicity? Why haven't the Tories investigated prejudicial interests when they have been brought to their attention? Why haven't senior officers and internal audit investigated serious allegations against the company? Why is the sell off of Arch assets not transparent? 

Why is there no scrutiny of this process which is the single biggest exercise undertaken by the Tory administration and why does Audit Committee not investigate the myriad of allegations which will be set out in the 'Notes to the Editor' section after this introduction? 

We're not saying every allegation or question is true or right but there are reasonable questions that arise out of the actions of Arch, its non-actions, and the actions of the council and Tory politicians.

They should be investigated independently.  

Before any decision is taken what to do with Arch, we think residents deserve answers to the questions and they deserve them transparently and without the usual desecration of the facts by a Tory administration which is now the definition of the 'swamp'. 

Notes To Editors 

Actions that require actions before the decision to scrap Arch is decided by a party which doesn't even have an overall majority on the council.  

1.     The decision to set up Arch was taken by Full Council. Why is the decision to scrap Arch being taken by a small cabal of Tory politicians on the executive? 

2.     An anonymous letter 'whistleblowing' about potentially unlawful acts by the council especially about the removal of the core strategy was sent in Dec 2017. This has been investigated by Internal Audit and the report is being withheld by the CEO Ms Lally. The letter also included the following passage which has not been investigated "Arch CPJ (Cllr Peter Jackson) considered ARCH to be too successful with the benefits that the company clearly accrued to NCC being identified with the competence of the previous regimes leadership and management and not his. CPJ set up a scheme to report members to the police on trumped up accusations made to politically sympathetic individuals on the constabulary. It is not what we should do to our fellow councillors". Why has this serious allegation not been investigated when other allegations in the anonymous letter have been investigated especially when the CEO and senior management of Arch have been made aware of evidence which corroborates elements of the accusations? We think this should be investigated by Northumbria Police and if it's not why not? 

3.     The Tories started their 'strategic review of Arch' on 9 May 2017 despite not taking control of the company officially at the AGM on 21 June 2017. During this time they halted all decisions and work even though they did not have a legal right to do so. For example, they halted the move from County Hall which then halted the Galliford Try contract for Portland Park worth £32.5m. They halted the Piper's Place development in Bedlington on the same day. To do this, they and senior officers such as Ms Lally ignored a letter sent on 15 May 2017 from a majority of directors of Arch to halt any review or decisions until they assumed authority on 21st June. They entered into a negotiation and made decisions to change the Portland Park contract by paying Galliford Try a sum of at least £7.5m. Was this lawful? We think they had no legal right to do this either under the Companies Act 2006 or the companies Articles of Memorandums which were adopted in Feb 2014. This is a matter for the external auditor EY and given he has already expressed value for money concerns over decisions like this, we urge the Tories to have this allegation investigated again by Northumbria Police. £7.5m or more taxpayers money has been unlawfully spent without proper authorisation and against the instructions of the then directors and there is a question why this has not been properly investigated? 

4.     Prior to the Arch AGM on 21st June 2017, why did an Arch director send a congratulatory email to the former Chair of Arch admitting 'politics can be brutal' but congratulating the former chair for his commitment and work? After this email, the company went on to make false claims about the former chair of Arch and dragged his name through the gutter on the basis of conjecture and spin. We've noted that the Director who sent this email has kept his distance from the unlawful actions but we're reminding him that silence is complicity. 

5.     We've been regularly reminded how bad the governance at Arch under the previous administration. In fact, that is the key allegations against the company under the previous administration. That is despite adopting rules put forward by Deloitte in 2014 and that's despite not a squeak from Cllr Jackson who sat on the board, receiving confidential papers from the company week in, week out. There is no record of Cllr Jackson raising any concerns at a board meeting or as chair of Arch audit which he also undertook. We've been told since July 2017, the Tories have new governance rules but where are they? They've not been discussed at Arch Board meetings (the minutes of these meetings are being FOI'd because transparent Arch don't publish them), they're not available on the website and they've not been circulated to elected members nor seemingly Audit committee of the council which has regularly stressed how important governance is. So where are the governance rules? How have the Tories been winding this company up, selling off Arch assets, making decisions etc?

6.     Cllr Jackson and Wearmouth, the Chair have many potential conflicts of interests. They are directors of over 50 companies combined. Where is the transparent register of interests? For example, Cllr Wearmouth authorised an investigation into a local company which he decided had a link to MP Ian Lavery. The solar panel company which lost over 20 jobs because of Wearmouth's investigation into 'procurement concerns' is in the same business as dozens of Wearmouth's own companies. Has he declared an interest?

7.     Cllr Jackson is a director of 15 businesses according to Companies House. A proportion of them listed are Arch linked but those that aren't (they were listed previously in this article) have the same accountant and tax advisor (even the Isle of Man listed Greenshields Agri) GWA based in Berwick. A great local company which happens to rent office space in a purpose built building in Walkergate in Berwick. Cllr Jackson has never once declared that interest even though it is financial and it benefits him. So why hasn't he declared that interest despite Cllr Wearmouth spending taxpayers money on standards complaints against other directors? This information was in the records of Arch so why hasn't the Tory investigation or witchunt unearthed this information? Or the information like a report from Arch Housing about an event in Dec 2016 attended by a Tory donor in Northumberland where he stated 'Arch would be scrapped because it was stopping the private sector from growing'? Or the board meeting of 14 Feb 2017 where a decision was taken on the basis of the Tory manifesto (which is a political document published by Cllr Peter Jackson a director of Arch) to decide whether Jackson was acting in breach of the Companies Act 2006 and the Standards Code of Conduct in the council? Why has none of this information been 'unearthed' by the Tory appointed private sector consultant? 

8.     We think the Tory witchunt has cost taxpayers cold hard cash. Not just appointing consultants, never ending audits or expensive 'show trials' in the press and through council committee's but by playing politics with a company that's whole rationale was to make a profit to invest in public services. Here's the first exhibit from the redacted part of the Arch Board minutes 25 May 2018 point 10.4.5 (this is the bit you weren't supposed to see)  "The Development Director stated that the partner had become increasingly frustrated at the headlines about Arch’s level of senior management governance, it’s desire to only invest in projects within Northumberland area and not to take forward executive homes.  The Hodgson’s expressed concern at the potential negative impact on their brand and reputation, and in addition to the above particularly citing the suspension of the previous FD, a named Director within the JV Co, and discovering this via reports in the media as opposed to formally from Arch Development Projects.  They formally wrote to Arch to outline their issues and that they did not wish to proceed with the project in its current structure, citing reasons outlined above". In their desperation to smear, they didn't even let their partner know about 'serious governance issues'. This is followed by exhibit 2 which is from a Business Forum in Northumberland representing hundreds of businesses. They state  "Arch. The negative press, inuendo and lack of detail emanating from the transition to Advance Northumberland has clearly had an effect on the consultation. The apparent quoted ‘49 lines of police investigations’ for over a year with no news or updates have clearly impacted the interest in engaging with the consultation. As such, many believe the withdrawal of the Core Strategy to be political. This combined with the fact that Northumberland has had no ‘Strategy Plan’ since local government reorganisation has clearly had a negative impact wrt engagement".  The consultation referred to is the core strategy or the new Local Plan as Cllr Jackson calls it.

9.     Another point to consider prior to the dissolution of Arch is which members of the Cabinet possess 'conflicts of interest' and should not be allowed to vote on the Arch issue? In the Tory manifesto they state "4. Investing in all our county" - "We don't think the council's highly centralised 'arms length' development body Arch is not working. That is why we will scrap it". Apart from the manifesto commitment actually saying Arch is working, we're convinced that's not what they really meant and was a slip of Cllr Jackson's pen. This is a serious legal issue. How can a director of a company threaten to scrap a company without breaching the Companies Act? So directors have a duty to act within their powers (section 171 of 2006 Act), they have a duty to promote the success of the company (section 172), a duty to exercise independent judgement (section 173), a duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence (section 174), a duty to avoid conflicts of interests, (section 175) which focuses on 'relationships and positions' rather than transactions and arrangements, for example as a client of GWA and a Director of Arch when the company, Arch negotiated a prolonged partnership with GWA for the Walkergate Offices. There is a duty not to accept benefits from third parties (section 176) and the duty in the 2006 Act to 'declare interest in proposed transaction or arrangement' (Section 177). Cllr Jackson's interests were prejudicial according to the opinion of the previous company legal secretary who has been replaced by Ward Hadaway. Why did Cllr Jackson not answer the correspondence sent by the former Chair of Arch (who has been praised by a current director and Tory cabinet member) on 16 Feb 2017?  

10.                        The prejudicial interests that are currently being displayed are 'political'. As a director stated on 21 June 'all politics aside' and they lead directly to the advice tabled on the Board Meeting 14 Feb 2017. There is a contention that the current board are breaching Section 172 of the 2006 Act along with Section 173 as they are not demonstrably exercising independent judgement in the various investigations and decisions which are being undertaken. The decision and action to sell off assets like the Jarrow Network Centre, the Durham Workspace at Pity Me and Seaham Workshops to name but a few have serious value for money implications. We have significant concerns about these sales and the sales that have already happened because they are neither transparent and the external auditor has expressed his own concern over the 'value for money' requirement that must be established under law. 

11.                        We also have concerns over the recruitment process in Arch, the tender process for services, the use of contractors without tender such as Crosland Consulting who are being used across the council. So far, Crosland Consulting have cost the taxpayer over £80,000. Another example is the extended use of EY as a contractor and as the company External Auditor. EY is also being used to give the company tax advice which the Arch board agreed to pay an initial payment of £250,000 with an understanding that it would be significantly more. There are huge tax issues attendant with the scrapping of Arch yet they are described away in the Cabinet report for Tuesday 23 Oct in single sentences. We're seeing words not figures and we would like to see what the tax liability is for the Tory decision to scrap Arch. Why can't we see the tax liability? The recruitment process is not transparent. Yet another example is the appointment of Ward Hadaway. No procurement process undertaken? Why get rid of Eversheds? There's no reference to this in Board minutes so where was the decision taken? During the Tory witchunt, the Tories picked out a couple of individuals yet they have employed Alison Joynson on the least transparent appointment process we've seen. It has been dubbed by others as the FOL process and it's in operation across the authority. Joynson was also a director in a business with her husband involved in selling equipment for industrial estates which is an area where Arch is dominant in Northumberland. Another consultant brought in by Arch was Ken Dunbar who was Cllr Jackson's CEO at Castle Morpeth. Mr Dunbar also set up a company to do a piece of work for Active Northumberland which was used as way for Cllr Homer (a future leader maybe?) to get in on the act to smear the previous administration. That cost the taxpayer £26,600 and that figure had to be prised from the steely grip of the information czars in Arch and the council. Talk about a secret council. Going back to EY, they've also picked up hundreds of thousands of pounds (rumoured to be £360,000 or more) for carrying out 'additional audits' to identify so called illegal spending. Given there is no criminal police investigation after one year then that looks like an extravagant decision doesn't it? Where was the evidence to launch these 'fishing expeditions'? Simply not liking people isn't enough we think you'd all agree but that's what seems to be the reasoning behind the witchunt. 

12.                        The company accounts were signed off by Cllr Richard Wearmouth last year. They were Labour's accounts and they identified a £5.5m profit, the company made a charitable donation to Active Northumberland of £1m, increased the shareholders funds by £6.6m to £60.1m (remember that Shareholder is you), saw turnover double, with gross profit more than doubling, created over 400 jobs and paid the council £9.4m which was then available to support council services and jobs. We can see why Labour is proud of that record. But now Cllr Wearmouth refuses to release this years accounts for the first full year under his 'ownership' which would allow residents and the opposition to hold him accountable for his actions. Why won't he release the new accounts before they scrap Arch? What have they got to hide? Will they massage the figures with the proceeds of their secret firesale? 

What the Tories are doing is 'risky' but its risky without any oversight apart from a politically prejudiced executive and a CEO who put her own mate into Arch to oversee the destruction and industrial waste of taxpayers money. 

The Tories have no visible risk assessment process which has been independently audited apart from a non-transparent process that we think must exist as EY have identified a 'significant value for money risk' during the winding up of Arch. That clearly requires transparency now and public scrutiny which would be afforded by the release of the company accounts to some degree. The accounts have been signed off since May yet it is nearly 6 months that they have been withheld. In this article we've asked around 40 reasonable questions which have arisen from actions under taken by Arch and its political and council management. That's about £8m per question and we think it's reasonable that these questions are answered because continued stonewalling and obstruction will cost the taxpayer millions. 

There is no transparency over the process to dismantle Arch from the Tory manifesto commitment which created a 'Red Risk' to the company in Jan 2017 to Oct 2018. 

This is the tip of a very large iceberg to accompany the 'core strategy legal action' iceberg and the Tories led by Cllr Jackson and Wearmouth are sailing the good ship Northumberland Taxpayer towards them because they have no concept of decency or public interest. They have a warped view of politics and local government. This article intention is to remind them that this is not their plaything. The council needs a new direction away from 'icebergs' and towards land.  

To take the metaphor of the iceberg and Titanic further, the Cabinet will make a decision on 23 Oct to sink Arch and our advice to them is 'be careful', this is a legal and far reaching decision, you haven't answered the '40 questions' and you don't want to end up like the band on the Titanic do you?    

Breaking News...Breaking News... Tories in disarray as report to close Arch must be discussed at Full Council on 6 Nov.... Tories must release Arch Accounts and secret reports to allow Full Council to make a lawful decision... don't withhold information.. you know the problems the Tories have created by doing that with the removal of the Core Strategy. 

Who is WITNESS A and what is BDBLD?

A window into the Murky world of anonymous social media in Northumberland politics

In this very short preamble, we'll leave our readers and the politicians of Northumberland with a few questions they may wish to answer about what is needed to create a more positive discourse to allow politics to function to the benefit of residents and politicians alike.

This is an extract from an official letter and it lifts the lid on the perpetrators of anonymous social media sites which are purely designed to harass and intimidate. They proliferate and have been covered in the local media here

https://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/how-are-local-politics-playing-out-online-and-on-social-media-1-9369546 

Some are the main offenders are Berwick Deserves Better Than The Liberal Democrats and the Northumberland Murky blogspot. 

This site may be anonymous but we try to present facts not conjecture, smear or intimidation. Our motto is the truth will out and we're simply a site to publicise the tough issues that the council and their political lackey's want to keep from your eyes. WE BELIEVE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST and we don't like to be bullied. If there's anything factually wrong in our content please feel free to challenge it and if you're right we'll correct. That hasn't happened once since we started by the way and the corrections policy applies to the county council too. 

The statement below beggars the question - who is Witness A? 

"On 13th May 2017 Witness A attended Berwick Police Station to be questioned about your allegations. In interview she answered all questions put to her and confirmed she had made and published all 19 comments referred to in your statement. She denied harassment and stalking offences. Her responses formed part of the file of evidence. She confirmed she was the administrator for the BDBLD site". 

She's clearly been interviewed as part of an investigation into harassment and stalking offences and was clearly interviewed in Berwick. We've taken the decision not to reveal who she is because it would be better coming from the elected member themselves. I'm sure she will want to answer why she has hidden her identity for so long, regularly accusing others of being involved in anonymous smearing online. 

Now what is BDBLD? It is an anonymous site. 

Witness A has confirmed that she is the administrator of the site. It was set up to smear Liberal Democrats and has pushed some very nasty and illegal smears which have been subject to official complaints. The most notable is the claim that Liberal Democrat activists had stolen bundles of votes from the 2017 local government count at Hexham. It was a clear smear and would have been a  serious breach of election law if it was true. 

Witness A pushed that 'fake news' which was discounted completely by the council legal team and Northumbria Police who neither had received an official complaint. The Berwick Deserves Better Than The Liberal Democrat site alleged a crime had taken place when it hadn't and there was also a general election where this kind of serious smear could have influenced people's intention to vote for party. A very similar modus operandi is operated on the Northumberland Murky site which loves to push a story that illegal acts took place at Arch yet there's been no evidence of any illegal acts. 

Now we know BDBLD is run by and she is responsible for the content of a nasty, smear site we think it's time she answered the call to reveal herself as Witness A. 

After all, she's one of the most prodigious 'keyboard warriors' who has a penchant for murky dealings along with being a champion for transparency. 

Step forward Witness A and reveal yourself. 

Tell us why you should be believed if you can lie about bundles of votes being stolen by your opposition, what else are you hiding?    

As the pieces of the jigsaw come together, the picture is scandalous The so-called Arch witchunt is another Tory smear campaign funded by the taxpayer and built on a mountain of lies

To set the scene on another Tory scandal, aided by an incompetent council CEO who is facing multiple bullying allegations and Director's of Arch who are literally playing politics with council tax payers cash, we will give readers an insight into the inner workings of 'Advance Northumberland', or as it was known ARCH.

Arch was maligned by the Tories from the get go, years out from the 2017 local elections. The attacks were part of a political plan to undermine the council's assets. In the case of Cllr Peter Jackson, that was illegal. It breached the Companies Act and it breached his own council's code of conduct. He was a director of a company worth £300m + and he still is although the value is fast diminishing with every political decision. 

Even the council's external auditor has expressed a 'significant concern that value for money will not be achieved' over the coming years. 

Three Tory councillors are playing politics with taxpayers money on a scale never known in Northumberland with no visible scrutiny or risk assessment.  

They've spent over £400,000 on additional audits and private sector investigators. One of the investigators is Crosland Consulting which Arch will absolutely not let anyone see the work they commissioned from this company. 

They spent at least £80,000 of taxpayers money on an investigation that uncovered that Arch bought former CEO house and made money for the taxpayer totally legally, that Ashington Football Club was supported by the town's largest employer Arch and that it benefitted from a spectacularly good bit of business when it sold the original football club site to Asda, that Arch attended events to generate more jobs and business for Northumberland and once bought a £58 bottle of wine in Cannes at an event where a bottle of house wine cost £58 because the town is expensive. They've investigated contractors they don't like politically and at least two come to mind, regularly smearing them through their political contacts in the Times newspaper and in their online blogs. 

So now the case to be presented that Arch is political smear operation today totally funded by the taxpayer of Northumberland and orchestrated by 4 Tory politicians and allowed to happen by a CEO at Arch transferred in from the NHS to do another CEO transferred from the NHS.

It is a smear operation because it seems to have halted its projects. Portland Park - stopped, Pipers Place, Bedlington - stopped, Blyth town investment plan - stopped, Cramlington Manor Walks investment - stopped, Prudhoe town investment - stopped, Hexham town investment stopped and a botched development in Berwick along with silence over the Ramparts EZ. 
Now for some evidence. 
Firstly, what would you say, with your open mind on evidence, if a director of the company had sent an email to someone admitting on 21st June that what was happening in Arch was 'just politics'? 21st June was first day of the official Tory witchunt in the first board meeting, the AGM. 

In isolation maybe that email is not compelling enough for you. 
But what if there was a story in a newspaper which demonstrated that Cllr Jackson was up to no good as a Director of Arch? This is the story in question

https://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/call-for-investigation-over-arch-breach-1-9196821

If you read the quotes in the story from everybody but Cllr Jackson who does regularly subscribe to the Mafia code of 'omerta'. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to detect a rather partisan flavour from Cllr Nick Oliver and Cllr Georgina Hill who are both central in the Arch witchunt. They are generally at pains to stress how 'independent' Crosland's investigation is but their comments are anything but independent. 

The inference drawn from the Tory reaction to this story is two fold once you pass their obvious discomfort - a) They won't investigate breaches of company law and b) they ascribe Cllr Jackson's actions as a director as something akin to 'whistleblowing'. He wasn't. He sat on the side lines picking up confidential information and never declaring an interest. He stood up at fundraising dinners attended by property developers and businesses and told the audience what they wanted to hear. That Peter Jackson would scrap Arch.   

The fact is that the only 'whistle' blown by Director Jackson is a dog whistle which was heard loudly by those who would benefit from one less competitor like Arch.

Cllr Jackson never raised a complaint about any action by Arch within the Board. Not a single one apart from an email sent to a director of Arch asking whether Labour councillors had been given Arch houses. Next week a story was posted on their smear sites which repeated the fake allegation. He regularly got sensitive papers as a board member, some of which were leaked, and they were commercially advantageous to businesses and individuals who Cllr Jackson did business with. He never raised a prejudicial interest. 

So why wasn't Jackson investigated because his actions were logged and they were brought to the attention of the company secretary? We'd love to see the Crosland report and if it was independent why keep it secret?

From the first day of the Tory administration on 5 May to 21 June 2017, Arch was operating in a highly irregular way. The Tories were gung ho especially Richard Wearmouth who remember, wasn't even a councillor until 25 May. He wandered around Arch, stopping at workers desks according to staff members. He was described as a 'lurker' over the coming days. The company started ignoring directors instructions and had commenced a 'review of its business' which you may presume was at the 'lurker's' instructions. Given Lurcio (you may remember Frankie Howard) close proximity to the scene and while he didn't become a director officially until 21 June at the AGM, could he and others have been making unlawful decisions? It is a distinct possibility and I wonder what Crosland Consulting would say about that period of time? Is this why the external auditor has issued a serious value for money judgement against Arch? These questions would have been answered if Arch had published their accounts? It's the first full year of Arch under Wearmouth and his board and the accounts have been signed off for over three months yet no tabling of accounts at Wearmouth's favourite committee, Audit Committee? What are they hiding?   

Much has been made of a 'police investigation' at the instigation of Northumberland County Council which is nearly one year old now. The police have categorically said on at least three occasions that 'there is no criminal investigation' despite claims by Tory politicians like Cllr Oliver that there is.

They both can't be right can they? 

Cllr Hills took to the floor in a recent council meeting to berate the new Chief Constable implying that there was a cover up and that was rebuffed by the Chief Constable. There may be unlawful behaviour happening in Arch but it is a reasonable point to highlight that the Northumberland Gazette story demonstrates that Crosland may not be looking in the right area. Why won't Arch act on these serious 'governance issues' since Lurcio is seemingly obsessed by governance during the last administration? Political smears by the Tories? 

Maybe he should be looking at events around 14 Feb 2017 when Arch took the unprecedented step of taking legal advice from the company secretary about the actions of Cllr Jackson? This episode took place right in the period Crosland was looking at so why no reference in his investigation? It is a serious breach by Jackson and could have resulted in his expulsion from Arch if he had responded to a letter sent by the Chair of the company on 16 Feb 2017. Jackson didn't respond and the issue was covered up after the election. But what happened to his prejudicial interests?  

So to the next segment of this expensive tale of political skulduggery. 

What would you say if Arch acted unlawfully when it pulled out of the contract with Galliford Try for Portland Park? 

There is credible evidence to suggest just that. We've already referred to the importance of 21 June 2017 when the new administration picked its directors of the company and the new chair, the secretive and duplicitous Cllr Richard Wearmouth (he was a councillor at this stage). It lodged the new directors at Companies House on 20 June. From 21st June, they could make legitimate decisions but all we've gotten is crude political smears.  

But why do we mention Galliford Try contract? 

The evidence shows that the contract was altered at a cost to the taxpayer of at least £7m but the true figure is being hidden by this branch of the secret council. This all happened prior to Cllr Wearmouth as a director who did not become a director and chair until 21 June. The announcement of the deal with Galliford Try hit the press on 18 June. 

There's no risk assessments given the huge financial hit on the company from such a settlement.

Arch posted a £5.5m profit in its accounts yet it lost more than that extricating itself from the Portland Park contract. How many more 'expensive decisions' by Cllr Wearmouth will be revealed in his first set of accounts?

There's nothing reported to Board meetings and this would be an extreme example of a governance breakdown of epic proportions. Can you imagine if the previous board had done this? 

It's clear that Arch is now being used as a political arm of the Conservative party which is a disgrace and hypocrisy of the highest order. It has been corrupted and it has been used to lodge baseless accusations against Labour politicians without evidence or real foundation. It is a taxpayer funded political smear operation.

  The real scandal isn't a £58 bottle of wine - it's the systematic abuse of power by a small cohort of individuals who have co-opted over £10m of tax payers cash to pursue a vendetta against a company that was set up to generate cash to offset their government's pointless, cruel and totally ideological austerity campaign. 

If they're so concerned about transparency and governance why don't they publish the Crosland Report and why don't they agree to an independent investigation into the matters listed above? 

Another strand of evidence from a third party source, a credible business representative body who stated in an email commenting on the other Tory scandal, the withdrawal of the core strategy

"The negative press, innuendo and lack of detail emanating from the transition to Advance Northumberland has clearly had an effect on the consultation. The apparent quoted ‘49 lines of police investigations’ for over a year with no news or updates have clearly impacted the interest in engaging with the consultation. As such, many believe the withdrawal of the Core Strategy to be political".

This person is not party political and they are drawing similar conclusions to this article. 

If you then consider Board minutes of Arch released under Freedom of Information with sections heavily redacted.

In the Board meeting of 25th May 2018, attended by Chairman Wearmouth, they reported that Hodgson's who were in a high value joint venture with Arch were pulling out of a project in Jesmond because of the negative publicity generated by the Arch witchunt 

This shows that the actions of the directors were costing the taxpayer cold hard cash.  

Hodgson's pulled out because of reputational damage to their company so what about the reputational damage of the Tory witchunt into Arch? So far, the public has been fed a story which is highly 'spun'. It is shocking that senior officers in the council have failed to protect the council from this concerted attack on the previous administration. Remember officers like the CEO were key witnesses to the actions as she was deputy CEO so we're looking forward to hear about what she did when the council was so 'badly run'. Officers have not let the public see any evidence of wrongdoing even though each point raised here has been documented and raised and they consistently lie about the role of Cllr Jackson as a director in Arch? 

So let's have a transparent investigation by an independent credible body. We promise that we will participate fully and I'm sure Arch and the council will do that too.

Or will they?  

Labour Cash Saving Motion Closed Off By Northumberland County Council

The very secretive administration at Northumberland County Hall who have halved the number of Council meetings, halted the open working groups, reduced the number of open scrutiny panels and fill in the time at Full Council meetings with questions and motions to themselves, have through their arrogance got the Council into a serious law-suit that could bankrupt the Council.

The law suit surrounds the removal from inspection by Government of the main planning document for Northumberland, the Local Plan and Core Strategy, every Council must have one to control housing numbers and be in a position to take advantage of well structured opportunities to improve the economy and jobs within the Counties boundaries whilst not damaging those same opportunities for neighbours.

On 5^th July 2017 a motion was put to the Council to withdraw the Core Strategy from inspection. The Council had taken legal advice but not shared it with all members of the Council. An amendment was put forward by Labour to defer the motion until all members had the opportunity to see the advice, as members should only make decisions on behalf of the public in the full knowledge of all advice and take all advice from officers. Officers gave NO firm advice to the Council on that day.

The amendment was defeated and the administration won the vote to remove the strategy from inspection. Therefore a decision was taken by Councillors without them having full knowledge of the implications of their decision making.

The decision has been catastrophic for Northumberland with developers winning appeal after appeal including the disastrous New Hartley planning appeal where an estate is to be built that will double the size of the village without the infrastructure improvements needed to support such a massive increase in population.

Developers who already had applications in train have also been hit by the removal of the strategy and of course are fighting back in legal terms and the Council is faced with a £200M law suit.

On July 2^nd in order to save the Council massive costs and avert a potential huge law suit Labour put forward a motion to reinstate its accepted and consulted upon core strategy. At the meeting ‘legal advice’ was produced that councillors were not allowed to pre-read or take advice of their own on and Labour had to remove the motion on that day. They still haven’t been issued with that advice as the papers were collected in at the meeting, the secrets are never to be revealed from the administration its rather like free masonry.

Twice since Labour have attempted to submit and have heard their motion only to have that route to safety for the Counties taxpayers cut off. The Council is only to be asked to hear three motions at each meeting and there is no opportunity for it to hear an emergency motion in the administrations altered Constitution. They filled the meeting with silly motions in September and have filled the agenda with similar motions for November blocking off the opportunity to reverse the decision of July 2017 or even letting the public hear the story of the mess their Council is in by making that uninformed decision

    

The three Amigos who will be debarred from puplic office first

The case against Leader Jackson, part time CEO Lally and Cabinet member, Riddle (The Defendants) 

The following article is a condensed version of court papers, correspondence to Northumberland County Council (NCC) and its Conservative political leadership over a period of five months. There has been an active conspiracy to cover up unlawful actions. This is why an outside body should mount a FULL, INDEPENDENT INQUIRY preferably a police force. In this article, we have tried to make the information accessible for all but we have faced many hurdles put in place to protect senior officers and the highest politicians in the council namely deliberate withholding of information and downright lies.

We make no apologies for the language in this article. It is meant to be understood.  The claim is lodged by Lugano Developments Estates (LDE) against Cllr Peter Jackson, Cllr John Riddle, and Ms Daljit Lally, an officer and part time CEO. It is alleged that each has caused harm to LDE and unless prevented from doing so threatens to cause further harm to LDE through committing acts amounting to the tort of misfeasance in public office. NCC is vicariously liable for the said torts committed by the defendants. This case means the taxpayer is being held responsible for the actions of Jackson, Lally and Riddle.

 The unlawful acts _________________________________________ In December 2016 LDE submitted a “bespoke” planning application to NCC seeking (a) outline planning permission with all matters reserved for an exemplar Garden Village comprising up to 2,000 dwellings, and space/facilities for employment, commercial, agricultural and leisure uses, and associated infrastructure; and (b) full planning permission for strategic flood alleviation measures and the demolition of a small number of buildings. The planning application was supported by NCC in partnership with LDE with the encouragement of Dept. of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)

The Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) of NCC resolved by 7 votes to 2 that it was “minded to approve” the application subject to the conditions as outlined in the Reports. Authority was delegated to the Head of Planning Services, Mr Mark Ketley, to issue full planning permission (in consultation with the Chair of the SPC) once the conditions had been satisfied, subject only to the application being referred to the National Planning Casework Unit for a determination on whether the Secretary of State wishes to call-in the application. Thus, up until the local elections on 4th May 2017, NCC had been wholly supportive of the DGV and was a visible partner.  However, in those elections Cllr Peter Jackson was elected as the Leader of NCC, as head of a minority Conservative Council. Cllr Jackson, whose family farm is near the DGV site, had at all material times expressed vehement opposition to the DGV Scheme. 

Since becoming leader of NCC Cllr Jackson, acting by himself and through others, has orchestrated a series of actions designed to stop the DGV development. Many of those actions have gone well beyond that which is lawful and give rise to the allegations of misfeasance in public office that will be brought against defendants. 

Shortly after becoming leader of NCC, Cllr Jackson sacked NCC’s Chief Executive, Steven Mason. Mr Mason had been a supporter of the DGV development. Ms Lally was appointed as interim Chief Executive at NCC in place of Mr Mason acting from 4th May. Steve Mason was bundled out of NCC with a payment of £417,000 plus benefits on 25th May 2017 on the day that Cllr Jackson officially formed his administration with the help of independent councillors and two Liberal Democrats. On 5th July 2017 NCC took the unusual step of withdrawing its Core Strategy despite the fact that it had already been submitted to the DCLG. This was not part of the Conservative manifesto. That decision to withdraw the Core Strategy was made at a meeting of the Full Council on 5th July 2017 and was engineered by Cllr Jackson who wilfully misled the meeting by stating that the delay that would be caused by withdrawing the Core Strategy and substituting it with an alternative plan would only be ‘2-3 months’. However, the Head of Planning Services, Mr Mark Ketley had clearly advised Cllr Jackson in terms prior to the meeting that the delay would be at least 18 months to 2 years because of the need for a Regulation 18 consultation. Cllr Jackson’s own briefing notes for the meeting (obtained in December 2017 by an FOI request) clearly indicated that he had been advised that the delay would be two years.

 In Dec 2017, a series of anonymous letters were sent to the council alleging bullying and corrupt practices. More about the council conclusions in another briefing in this series.  On 15th August 2017 Cllr Riddle, the portfolio holder for Planning at NCC, emailed Mr Ketley concerning Mr Ketley’s report dated 14th August 2017 about the alternative Core Strategy required following the aforementioned withdrawal decision, instructing Mr Ketley to “remove the need for any garden village” from the report. At a meeting between Cllr Jackson and Mr Ketley on 4th October 2017, Mr Ketley explained to Cllr Jackson that in his opinion and in the opinion of the other professional officers involved, the planning balance had not changed, and the development would continue to be recommended for approval. Cllr Jackson looked Mr Ketley in the eye and said, “You might want to reconsider that!”. After this Cllr Jackson operated through Cllr Riddle and Ms Lally to bring unlawful pressure to bear upon Mr Ketley in an effort to induce him to alter the planning officers’ advice. As time went on Mr Ketley felt increasingly pressurised, bullied, and threatened by the actions and behaviour of the defendants.

 At a meeting on 1st November 2017, Cllr Riddle told Mr Ketley that Mr Jackson had heard that the DGV development may still be recommended for approval when it was presented back to the SPC, and that whilst he was not going to put the instruction in an email, Mr Ketley needed to find a way to recommend refusal. Mr Ketley was left in no doubt from what Cllr Riddle told him, that Cllr Riddle was making that demand at Cllr Jackson’s insistence. It was apparent that Cllr Riddle knew full well that it was entirely improper. Ms Lally became CEO of NCC on 1st November officially.  At a meeting on 2nd November 2017, between Ms Lally and Mr Ketley, Ms Lally pressurised Mr Ketley by saying that preventing the DGV development from happening was a clear priority of the Leader (i.e. Cllr. Jackson) and that, accordingly, Mr. Ketley needed “to do what (he) needed to do”.

On 20th November 2017 Cllr. Riddle came to see Mr Ketley in his office and again said that he “must find a way to recommend refusal of DGV”. On 21st November 2017, Cllr. Riddle again came to see Mr. Ketley and informed him that Cllr. Jackson was “adamant” that DGV must be recommended for refusal. Cllr Riddle mentioned that Cllr. Jackson had told him (i.e. Cllr. Riddle) to “stay strong”. Cllr Riddle made clear to Mr Ketley that his instructions to press Mr Ketley to change his recommendation about DGV came from Cllr Jackson and also from Ms Lally. On 27th November 2017 Mr Ketley received leading counsel’s opinion to the effect inter alia that the impact of the withdrawal of the Core Strategy was insufficient to adversely affect the overall planning balance currently in favour of recommending approval of the DGV development. 

On Friday 1st December 2017 during the course of a conversation between Cllr Jackson and Stephen Rankin, the brother of Allan Rankin who owns the shares in LDE, Cllr Jackson said to Stephen Rankin, “Your brother won’t like what I am about to do next week”. On Monday 4th December 2017 Cllr Riddle visited Mr Ketley’s office and informed him that on the previous Friday (i.e. 1st December 2017) Cllr Jackson and Ms Lally had discussed arrangements to terminate Mr Ketley’s employment. In the event however, on 7th December 2017 Mr Ketley was removed from any further involvement in meetings or discussions concerning the DGV development. Mr Paul Johnston, who some years previously had worked closely with Cllr Jackson at Castle Morpeth Council, was then appointed to a rapidly created position above Mr Ketley. This has cost the taxpayer at least £95,000. Add this to Steven Mason’s payoff of £417,000, the waste of money spent on the original core strategy of £1.2m and the estimated cost of Jackson’s new ‘Local Plan of £500,000 and over £2m has been wasted on Jackson’s ‘folly’.  Early in the New Year Mr Johnston contacted Mr Ketley to advise him that he was going to undertake a restructuring of the planning department that “might affect” Mr Ketley’s position. Mr Johnston went on to propose that Mr Ketley should leave NCC, and Mr Ketley welcomed the opportunity to do so in the New Year on confidential agreed terms since his position had been made impossible at NCC. This has cost the taxpayer a five-figure sum and has contributed towards the lack of transparency and allegations of a ‘cover up’.

In light of the matters stated above, the defendants are guilty of acting in bad faith and flagrantly abusing their powers and authority as public officers.