Our Borough Monitoring Manager tries and fails to undermine our movement by lies and deception, verging on criminality.
I was recently forwarded some very interesting correspondence from someone that we will call David for this article.
David had sent an email a while back to all of the Councillors and Environmental Team. As has become common, after a few initial responses, Ian Dudding (Borough Monitoring Manager) takes on all the responsibility for the complaint.
Although he refuses to clarify this with me, it seems that it is his job to oversee the monitoring of our streets, ensuring that waste and litter do not build up, as required by Law, along with other responsibilities.
What a responsible man, we might think. But in fact, it seems he has taken on the role of ‘Community Infuriation Officer’, trying to hoard and then quash all the complaints coming in by sending such unreasonable and, quite frankly, rude responses, that complainants quickly give up responding to him, too irritated to open his emails.
He then often doesn’t make any reference to the complaints policy or offer to escalate the complaint – or even acknowledge that he has ‘formally’ responded to the complaint, even after he has sent multiple emails!
To make this clear, he is violating the complaints policy by not offering this to complainants.
So what has he been saying?
Firstly, we have raised the question, how can Ian have overheard the conversation on the phone? Surely, if he had heard a phone call in his office, he would have only heard one side of it – that of Frazer. Unless of course the call was on speakerphone, but why would that be exactly?
Holding a phone call and listening in like this is verging on violation of privacy laws – the GDPR for example. This is walking a fine line indeed.
And Mr Wilkins assures us that he tried to get in contact with Mr Valdez during the morning, but he didn’t answer the phone. Then when he answered the phone during the afternoon, he didn’t mention that he was one of Mr Dudding’s staff, nor that he was listening. Perhaps it was no coincidence that the phone call was put off until Mr Dudding’s ‘return to office’.
And thank you again, Mr Dudding, for letting us know that Council resources are stretched. Not so stretched though, that our already-stretched manager doesn’t have anything else to do except eavesdrop on one of his officer’s conversations.
Defamation and Libel.
Now this is interesting.
Here Mr Dudding talks about the writer (Owen Ward) to the complainant, David. It is totally unprecedented that he should do this, even ‘for the sake of accuracy’. How can he discuss the details of Mr Ward’s complaint with another, when it is unresolved? How can he essentially violate his confidentiality, without even consulting him first?
He has also disclosed to another resident the whereabouts of his address, the whereabouts of his age, and seems to question whether he is a ‘local Bloomsbury resident’ at all! Rather interesting. Ian also seems to imply that this website only ‘claims’ to have witnessed littering, and claims that all the evidence is actually entirely within Kings Cross, by which I suppose he means the Ward of Kings Cross.
‘raising issues he claims to be in his immediate environs’
So Ian is suggesting that in fact, the issues that are being raised are not in the immediate area, meaning that, in our opinion, he is making a false and unsubstantiated claim that the evidence sent was actually taken from outside the area complained of, and fraudulently sent as evidence.
This is despite the evidence being sent with an annotated map detailing exactly the roads documented, and in fact, Mr Ward and Mr Dudding taking a short tour of one of the areas complained of.
It is quite a claim, one which goes against existing evidence, and one not raised with Mr Ward himself. Why is it that Mr Dudding is, in essence, ‘bitching’ about Mr Ward to another resident? This is verging on misconduct.
He also seems somewhat unaware (despite our annotated maps and explanations sent to him) that historically Kings Cross is actually within Bloomsbury. It is only a relatively recent bureaucratic move that divided Bloomsbury and Kings Cross into separate ‘wards’.
And to call our approach ‘scattergun’ – what does that mean exactly?
So rather than investigate our complaints properly, Mr Dudding has resorted to actually claiming that at least some of the claims and evidence on this site are simply false.
Fair enough – one can make any kind of claim. But the distinguishing factor is this:
Our site has done its research, and every claim that we have made has been backed up by photographic, recorded, and legislative evidence. Any time that evidence has been requested, we have supplied it.
Mr Dudding is making all sorts of claims, but refuses to actually furnish us with any evidence for these claims. Claims which we know to be false.
Making false claims about individuals which damages their reputation is illegal. It classifies as libel and can lead to prosecution and significant damages awarded – under the Defamation Act 2013.
If Mr Dudding goes much further in this way, things could end in tears.
We recommend that anybody else who has received such aggressive emails with claims you suspect to be false to forward these emails to our email address below. We now have our MP Keir Starmer QC involved in the case, the former Director of Public Prosecutions. Any evidence sent could help form a case, if necessary, to help protect our reputation and hold Mr Dudding and Camden to account.
Post Script: Nonsense Continued.
We recently published an article regarding the nonsensical statements often stated by Mr Dudding. For those of you interested, here is yet another:
As he has apparently raised with ‘our cohort’, the Council nor Veolia neither litter nor fly-tip.
A brief analysis of that statement:
Firstly, nobody had stated that anyway.
Secondly, what is the ‘cohort’?
Thirdly, in fact he has not raised that point with ourselves, up until that email.
Fourthy, in fact it is true! The Council and Veolia do indeed fly tip and litter. Take for example, all the ‘notices’ that Camden leave on all the posts for years. That is litter. And take the roadwork signs that Camden left on our streets for months. We moved that onto the Council’s property so that they could adequately dispose of it (which is not fly tipping, as it is a return of the Council’s property to the Council’s land, and is also an action in the Public Interest).
And then a few days later, they dumped it back on our streets.
This, technically, is fly tipping.
And as we have all seen many times, when Veolia come to empty our bins or collect our rubbish, they often break bin bags and leave a great deal of mess all around the place.
That is certainly littering.
So although those points did not form a part of our complaint, in fact, what Mr Dudding says is again, nonsense.