Abuse in or of public office.

Our prejudices, if we have any, in my opinion fester or develop as a result of our life’s experiences. We may, like me, endeavour, in principle, to avoid any prejudice in any quarters but sometimes, not only do we harbour prejudice but we may even be proud to exhibit it in even a manner of evangelism – trying to convert those who may not carry our prejudices to acquire them maybe.

What am I thinking of?

Particularly, I am thinking of those in public office who one sees as being there for their own enrichment. That does not have to be just straightforwardly, financial – it can be to gain influence. That can mean for example that the ‘corruption’ for it often is effectively corruption in public office although it may never attract that formal or legalistic-sounding ‘handle’ it can sometimes result in personal financial gain (ultimately but maybe not obviously) and could be through indirect ‘routes’. Let me give an example:

A Planning Committee is made up of human beings, not robots, nor the entity, The BBC (who’s charter obliges it to be impartial in its reporting). So, as long as people are involved, they are open to influence. They have ‘chums’ that they like and people that they don’t like – just like the rest of us ...  ... Outside of Councillor working hours, say down the pub, in a quiet corner away from the eyes and ears of the general public, they’ll have a laugh and a joke and they will gain allegiances through social and other means. Thus, you can see that having as it were ‘the right friends, in the right places’ (with the right engagement and/or influence) could affect for example a planning application if a key voter was one’s 'friend'.

There could even develop (regardless of the ‘stats’ on how rare or frequent these situations occur) scenarios as follows (that might engender influence):

• Belonging to the same lodge. (Freemasonry.)

• Belonging to the same golf club (common interests).

• Drinking in the same establishments.

• Being part of the same, if extended, family. (Nepotism.)

• Sharing the same political affinities (e.g. both being in the same political party or group).

• Sharing the same corporate interests (e.g. both being shareholders in a company).

• Both standing to gain, directly or indirectly from an enterprise or development. An example could be the granting of planning permission for a new by-pass that results in significantly improved value of some land or property that someone has an interest in.

The (above limited) list is really only limited by one’s, well, not imagination, but awareness for potential money-making opportunities.

In my experience, I have to say, that much as I try to recall instances of people in public office doing selfless acts of good (and I mean from MPs to Councillors to even Chair-persons of ‘quangos’ and even extending (or sometimes especially extending to) so-called “not for profit” organisations – even official charities, I doubt I can think of any. However, I can think of numerous examples of the converse situation where those ‘officials’ have clearly been in it for personal gain.

Ask yourself this:

Why is it that so many Councillors have business interests – or put another way – why do so many business people also become Councillors? How difficult would it be, if we gave some thought to it, to establish a link between the two ‘offices’ that could, or might, or do offer some gain?

Let me list some of my own personal experiences in life (and necessarily) I will of course not name names as I do not want to invite trouble as no-one is going to just, not react, when people point fingers and imply or state what amounts really to corruption. Corruption, we Brits tend to think of, as a major problem in overseas areas like The Middle East, Nigeria and so on. In my view there may be as much in The UK – its just that it is often well below ‘the radar’ – namely it does not get discovered as the participants are clever enough to ‘bury’ their activities or we are stupid enough as to not bother to discover them.

My list - see below (and assume that the sex of the person could either be male or female but in each case for simplicity I will use the female gender [which as one might guess is in fact the reverse of what it is really likely to be statistically – e.g. there are a lot more male prisoners in prison that female]):

• A Councillor that openly and unselfconsciously states that she is too busy to attend to an issue that I raised owing to her need to attend to her harvesting. Well we all know that harvesting is time-sensitive, but Councillors, one would have thought, were there to represent their local people at all times and that their personal activities should take a back seat rather than a front seat.

• Councillors that undertake paid contractual work for their own Council and for many years never put local work out to tender and bearing in mind that even though now it may go out to tender those same Councillors may well have access to the prices quoted by competitors so are in a good position to undercut and gain the contract themselves.

• More than one example of MPs that do not answer correspondence and that their ‘underlings’ have stock responses to fob-off those that are seeking MP input but are not getting it (usually, in my experience, because that MP is too busy with career-advancing activities rather than constituent representation).

• A stated as “not for profit” organisations that probably genuinely appears to achieve that attractive position by paying the owners (directors/whatever) just the right amount of remuneration to wipe-out any profit. Very often these so-called not-for-profit organisations run rather like one could imagine that some of the large corporates – here's a random but often quoted selection being ... the Amazons, the Starbucks, The Costas, The Googles of the world (bang goes my Google blog now) that may operate in a manner whereby it appears that their UK operations are virtually profit-less and one could imagine or even work out how this situation could be ‘engineered’ by shunting revenue/funds to another part of the world where there is no tax liability etc. I myself worked for a while within a very large corporate that did just that by the use of a tax-free zone (that at that time some decades ago) was Shannon in Eire as it was then often referred to (i.e. Southern Ireland). So the UK part of the company made no money as their inbound price structure was engineered to be very high and unprofitable but the money was made in a tax-free location from those artificially high prices, as it were.

The trouble is – we, yes us – you and me – we allow this to go on by not challenging it. We say “not our business” or we are too lazy, too idle, too intimidated maybe to flag-up what some may say are ‘fiddles’.

The stuff I put on my blog – my friends are always saying “whoa – that’s dangerous – I wouldn’t put that out there – someone will take offence.” That’s often the trouble with the truth – people don’t like it. It is also true that the vast majority of people are gutless and prefer a quiet life (so most would not do what I tend to do).

I well remember a situation with someone I loved (still do) who had to face a determined effort from a bully to oust by torturous means that loved-one from that person’s employment despite that person’s good record. That resulted in a negotiated settlement – with a confidentiality agreement - that last (ubiquitous and recently rather maligned and less fashionable) ‘vehicle’ that tyrants and bullies and corporate and government agencies use to ‘gag’ people so they do not reveal the horrors that they were put through before they were bought-off. During that 18-month ordeal many of that loved-one’s colleagues said nothing and they as older, long-term, usually better paid (if better qualified) employees slipped-away without so much as a murmur – exactly what the unscrupulous ‘head honcho’ wanted. Gutless, as I said, and the worst thing of all, of course, is that that weak behaviour encourages more bad behaviour from those in control as they see it as a good working strategy. – The end justifies the means – one might say.

If you are in cloud-cuckoo-land and really think I am making a fuss about nothing - would you like to see a real example (not my example but a report by The BBC) about a real Councillor that at the same time as being a supposed person helping the community she was also found guilty of conspiracy to supply drugs (what some people refer to as being a drug dealer)? I am sure that she didn't do anything else wrong though. Here's the link to the story.

Or maybe this example of  A former police officer who made "unwanted" approaches to vulnerable women has admitted six charges of misconduct in a public office.

We all make mistakes, including me. None of us are guilt-free but some of us try hard to live decent lives whereas some are working hard to enrich or indulge themselves - usually at the expense, not just financial, sometimes, psychological, of others.