Case Papers (2)

I have managed to find a way of reducing the file sizes of the appendices to the complaint, first part of which is here. This was posted yesterday, 11th, but updated this morning as I had had a request to include a summary of the complaint, which I have tried to do.

The appendices are provided here, split up to manageable file sizes:








Two things strike me about the above appendices. The first is that the complaint must have been some time in the making and the second is the cost in officer time to compile it all.

As soon as I had a copy of the complaint, I read it and submitted an initial response on 1 June 15 to the Standards Commissioner’s office. At that date, the earlier complaint submitted by Walsh, E Morton and Scoullar had not been concluded so I made the point that this new complaint had its roots in the earlier complaint.

I stated that : This complaint will have been produced with the full knowledge and agreement of Cllr Walsh, council leader. He may well have instigated this but, as a minimum, it is inconceivable that this complaint would have been made without his full agreement. 

I told them about the very close relationships between certain elected members and some of the new complainants and I urged him to reject the new complaint. He didn’t.

Tomorrow I will provide details of the defence I submitted.



  1. Many thanks again Michael.The sad observation that everyone can see is that no one in the public has ever made a written complaint against you ever, this complaint was manufactured by Kilmoryoply Council. An obvious vendetta waged for representing the electorate against a bonkers council with very dark secrets to hide.

  2. The problem for the standards commissionaire is that if they find in the complainants’ favour every councillor will now live in fear of being reported by an officer for asking challenging questions. This is exactly what Sneddon and Hendry hope to achieve.
    And the combined salaries of these public servant complainants is?

Leave a comment