Criminal Cover Up


The Environment Agency - a criminal conspiracy?


Is This Acceptable Behaviour From Civil Servants? 


There are various legal rules (and laws!) about self incrimination. We really don't know where this fits in - but surely ... it fits in somewhere in somebody's warped interpretation of how a public servant should behave and what rules / laws / moral code they should adhere to in their professional life.  That an official can refuse to provide information as outlined in the Environment Agency document  shown here cannot realistically we believe be covered by self incrimination.


14 months ago (Dec 2011) we made considered and serious allegations about what we believed to be criminal misconduct, administrative misconduct and improper performance of official duties by a number of Environment Agency officials - directly to Dr. Paul Leinster the Chief Executive of The Environment Agency. An internal investigation was conducted and we were verbally informed by very senior  Environment Agency officials (David Jordan) that our allegations were substantially true apart from no evidence was found of money changing hands ( although one significant EA player (John Aldrick) was not interviewed as part of the investigation since he had morphed from an employee to a "contractor" ).   


Anyway ... a report was written and submitted and we were treated to what would appear to be an entirely self serving and highly selective summary. To date, we have no evidence that the allegations have been formally addressed. We have asked on a number of occasions for sight of the report and that has been repeatedly refused. In one instance  Permitting Manager at the National Water Permitting Centre, John Sweeney refused us - citing in part that the grounds for refusal being that information in the report could be used to bring criminal action against officials - and one has to assume that "we won't allow that" is inferred :-). This may well be a biased misreading of the tortured legal appendix to Mr Sweeney's letter on our part.......


We have been patient and we have refrained from public statements and public allegations of wrongdoing in the belief that this could all be sorted out in a reasonably professional manner, allowing the Environment Agency to retain some dignity. Our patience and willing engagement with the process has been abused by people at The Environment Agency to the point where we see no reason to use the degree of restraint employed over the last three and a half years.  We also see the fate of those who could  not  challenge the abuse they were subjected to by the delinquent officials operating within the Water Permitting department of The Environment Agency. 


We know what we think of John Sweeney's communication, and we think that the course of action for any official aware of criminal activity is clear and protected by law and that to conceal criminal wrongdoing is a crime in itself...   There are are very serious questions to be answered - as those of you at the Environment Agency  well know - other enforcement agencies are now asking those questions. Isn't it about time that you came clean?


Anyway - here's Mr Sweeney's communication to us:


The Baxendale Report (as received) download


The Baxendale Report (with Environment Agency legal "opinion" highlighted - vs. the actual law)


The PDFs will open in Google's Viewer


We think it's worth commenting that whoever authored the legal appendix to Mr. Sweeney's missive seems to consider themselves authoritative on matters of criminal law which fall well outside what might be expected to be the Environment Agency's areas of competence and expertise and they also seem to presume to be dictating what should be investigated and by whom. We wonder if external legal opinion was sought or if it's simply another example of the institutionalised hubris that we are now so familiar with?


Comments