Tory donor's hidden history of racist banter: Unveiling Frank Hester's troubling racist mouth

In recent news, the spotlight has fallen on Conservative Party donor Frank Hester, with accusations of racism swirling around his rather bloated publicly-funded wallet. While calls intensify for the Prime Minister to return Hester’s £10 million donation, we take a peek back in time and discover that this may not be the first time in what is now termed an isolated incident. TheBigRetort...

The refusal to acknowledge the racist nature of Hester's comments until pressured to do so speaks volumes about the lack of accountability within the Tory Party where big bucks are concerned. The failure to address racism head-on further erodes public trust.

However, what truly sheds light on Hester's character are the revelations from various sources via Reddit and Glassdoor. Unearthed by TheBigRetort, these posts, some four years old, paint a damning picture of Hester's leadership at The Phoenix Partnership, depicting a toxic and bullying culture, and a man who likes to play games at the racist tip of his tongue.

The accounts we unearthed, if well-founded and not just the musings of aggrieved former employees, corroborate the allegations now made against him. They provide a disturbing glimpse into the mind-set of a racist personality.

One allegedly former employee's description of Hester's penchant for racist and sexist "jokes" were found to be “his Trumpian filter”.

The fear of reprisal for failing to laugh along with Hester’s offensive remarks underscored the oppressive atmosphere cultivated by the boss. And everyone knows when the boss tells a joke you had better laugh.

Once more it must be said “if true” it's evident that Hester's racist banter may not be confined to isolated incidents but permeates his personality and the professional and political spheres surrounding him.

The Conservative Party's acceptance of his donations sends a troubling message, condoning racist banter for the sake of financial gain. 'Tis a bitter pill to swallow.

As calls for accountability grow louder, it's important for the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party to heed them. Turning a deaf ear to racist jokey banter, and other things, whether in the form of private discussions or workplace conduct, is totally unacceptable in modern-day Britain. Turning a blind eye is a total no-no. It's time for decisive action to demonstrate a genuine commitment to combating racism within the party and society at large. £10m should not be a get out of jail free card, however expensive.

Finally, we can reveal, what that alleged former employee wrote - 4 years ago - on Reddit: “Not only does Frank often make racist or sexist “jokes,” but he revels in his Trumpian filter and expects you to laugh alongside him. Failure to comply can be seen as grounds for dismissal. Virtually none of the longstanding employees engage in non-mandatory company social events, presumably to avoid having to socialize with Frank and risk getting on his bad side, however unintentional it may be.”

So, if it walks like a duck… QED.

Lewisham Council's planning enforcement under POCA: A scandal of Post Office proportions

On January 12, 2024, we submitted a detailed Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Lewisham Council concerning its legal department and planning enforcement officers’ aggressive prosecutions of ordinary citizens. The FOI aimed to uncover the council's expenditure on criminal legal advice and prosecutions, with a focus on cases involving external legal firms like Browne Jacobson, exacerbating costs for taxpayers. The goal was to ensure transparency and accountability in the council's actions and unchecked legal spending. Little did we realise, there's more to this story than meets the eye. TheBigRetort...

Lewisham Council's response to our Freedom of Information Act request was unsurprising. Its position was to invoke Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, citing excessive costs as grounds for refusal. 

A familiar retort. However, this type of refusal from the team headed by Jeremy Chambers, Director of Law & Corporate Governance, underscores a systemic barrier to transparency and accountability within local government, leaving constituents unaware of the council's actions and expenses, and the true reasons for its escalating planning prosecutions. It also opens up the shapeshifting grifters inside the ivory tower to some scrutiny.

Exploitation of the POCA System

Lewisham Council's refusal to disclose vital information sheds light on an alarming pattern of exploitation within the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) system by local councils. This system, meant to combat actual criminal activity and seize proceeds from unlawful conduct, appears to have been manipulated by councils to target ordinary citizens for minor infractions, akin to a mugging exercise on steroids.

For instance, Kevin Bottomley, a local DIY shopkeeper in Lewisham, reported below, faces prosecution for storing sand, cement, and timber at the side of his store KJ Building Supplies. The case has now escalated to Woolwich Crown Court, and at some cost. Where the absence of a jury may conceal from the public that Lewisham Council is netting £62,600 of what it alone determines is the proceeds of crime rather than benefits of honest public servitude. Yes, you heard that right, a DIY merchant flogging building materials on which taxes and VAT have already been paid has worked for nothing. One wonders how that fits with Lewisham's anti-slavery policy.

This outrageous exploitation is compounded by the Home Office's Asset Recovery Incentivisation Scheme (ARIS), where the investigating and prosecuting authority, in this case, Lewisham Council, benefits financially from the prosecution. Raising concerns about conflicts of interest and a convenient lack of checks and balances.In other words, planning lawyers are furtively going up the ARIS of Lewisham’s constituents in order to bloat their own wages.

Implications

However, there is a preceedent in defence of such actions, Lewisham Council take note. The Court of Appeal's March 8, 2019 ruling in Wokingham Borough Council v. Scott and others upheld the cessation of prosecutions against 11 defendants, finding that the council's improper consideration of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) and failure to apply the public interest test warranted an abuse of process, highlighting the need for transparency, fairness, and adherence to legal standards in prosecuting planning matters.

Lewisham Council's refusal to disclose key information raises serious doubts about its commitment to accountability and the public interest, and fairness in the planning enforcement system. By concealing data on expenditure, recoveries, and legal proceedings, the council undermines principles of open governance and perpetuates a culture of secrecy and distrust. It also leaves the way open for its planning lawyers to make money off the backs of unintended victims. A banditry that is led by overzealous planning enforcement officers, who themselves evade scrutiny.

Conclusion

The journey to uncover Lewisham Council's dodgy legal practices underscores the challenges in holding all local authorities accountable. Despite facing rejection and evasion, it highlights the importance of transparency and scrutiny within local government. Advocating for transparency is vital to ensure that democracy and accountability prevail. The exploitation within the POCA system, with its erosion of checks and balances by in-house belligerent lawyers, is just one aspect of a broader issue demanding sustained attention and action. Not only in Lewisham but nationwide. Lest we witness a repeat of the Post Office scandal.

 THE BIG RETORT

 

The Persecution of a shopkeeper: Lewisham Council's POCA abuses

Kevin Bottomley, the former proprietor of KJ Building Supplies in Brockley, dragged out of retirement, still finds himself ensnared in an unrelenting kafkaesque legal battle with Lewisham Council. His alleged crime? Storing basic construction materials on land and in a container adjacent to his shop.

However, beneath the thin veneer of law enforcement lurks a profit-driven agenda. Lewisham Council, under the guise of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA), stands to gain a significant portion, 37.5%, of what it claims is £167,000 of the proceeds from successful prosecution. A crime indeed.

Bottomley's plight illuminates the unjust practices of a local authority operating as modern-day bounty hunters, all under the guise of democracy. This article exposes the unjust treatment of a senior citizen and the dubious tactics employed by Lewisham Council's enforcement officers who place discretion aside in the pursuit of an easily forged shilling

The prosecution

Lewisham Council's aggressive pursuit of Kevin Bottomley underscores a troubling pattern in its enforcement practices condoned by its legal department. Instead of prioritising genuine public safety concerns, Lewisham Council has targeted small businesses like Bottomley's DIY store and local residents. 

However, by weaponising POCA, a law intended to combat serious criminal activity, Lewisham Council exploits its power to prosecute law-abiding citizens, all in pursuit of financial gain. 

Bottomley, faced with a staggering £167,000 penalty for routine business activities, serves as a pawn in the council's quest for gluttonous and shameful profit.

Abuse of POCA

The abuse of POCA in Bottomley's case is glaringly apparent. Instead of focusing on combating serious criminal enterprises, Lewisham Council has set its sights on individuals merely trying to earn an honest living. 

POCA was never intended as a means for revenue generation or punishing minor infractions. Yet, Lewisham Council's enforcement practices suggest otherwise. 

By relentlessly pursuing prosecutions like Bottomley's, we can reveal that Lewisham Council stands to profit immensely, receiving nearly forty percent of the confiscated funds. This ill-gotten gain, obtained at the expense of hardworking individuals like Bottomley, is nothing short of scandalous.

Modern-day bounty hunters

In their relentless pursuit of prosecutions, Lewisham Council's enforcement authorities resemble modern-day bounty hunters and latter-day slave-traders. Call it the POCA triangle: victim, enforcement, profit. #

However, by prioritising financial gains over the welfare of their constituents, it is the elected members, the councillors, who abandon principles of fairness and proportionality by remaining silent. 

Bottomley's case serves as a stark reminder of the perils of unchecked local government power and the erosion of civil liberties via its executive. 

Enough we say. Kevin Bottomley's struggle underscores the urgent need for reform in local government enforcement practices.

Bottomley's fight transcends his own circumstances; it symbolizes the broader battle against injustice and local government overreach. 

Lewisham Council must re-evaluate its tactics and prioritise the welfare of its community over financial gain. 

The council's motto, "Salus Populi Suprema Lex," rings hollow in the face of its exploitative enforcement tactics against a retired man, however, while acknowledging the council's financial needs, it should not debase itself by resorting to predatory enforcement practices. 

This abuse of POCA by authorities like Lewisham Council simply cannot go unchallenged. It is incumbent upon us to hold our elected officials accountable and demand transparency and fairness in the administration of justice.

Hopefully a new mayor may heed the warning: Ask not for whom the bell tolls.

 

 THE BIG RETORT

 

Unravelling the value of history: The Elgin Marbles and their present-day worth

The acquisition of the Parthenon Marbles, also controversially known as the Elgin Marbles, remains an enduring saga intertwining history, cultural heritage, and the complexities of ownership. In the early 19th century, Lord Elgin's removal of these ancient sculptures from the Parthenon in Athens raised debates that still echo through time. Yet, what about their monetary value? TheBigRetort

In 1816, the British government acquired the Marbles from Lord Elgin for a paltry £35,000. However, the question of their true worth in today's terms transcends mere monetary evaluation. Adjusting for inflation over nearly two centuries reveals a stark contrast between the value paid then and the potential contemporary value.

Be that as it may. Determining the present-day value of £35,000 from 1816 involves a trawl through historical records, understanding economic shifts, and estimating inflation rates over time. The process is complex, relying on average inflation rates spanning 207 years, assuming a conservative annual inflation rate of 2.5%.

The application of such a rate over more than two centuries yields a cumulative inflation factor that, when applied to the initial amount, results in an estimated present-day value. However, precise calculations necessitate historical inflation data for each year, a detail often overlooked in generalised estimations.

Critics argue that the £35,000 transaction in 1816 was a fraction of the Marbles' true worth. The artefacts, with their symbolic and historical importance to Greece and the world, are perceived as cultural treasures transcending monetary evaluations.

The controversy surrounding the Marbles epitomises broader debates on the rightful ownership and guardianship of cultural heritage. It underscores the shifting perceptions of cultural artefacts and the ethical responsibilities surrounding their acquisition and display.

Efforts to quantify the present-day value of the Parthenon Marbles from Lord Elgin's time highlight the challenges in appraising historical transactions in today's context. While methodologies exist to estimate their worth, the value of these cultural treasures surpasses mere financial evaluations, encompassing their intrinsic historical, cultural, and emotional importance.

As discussions persist on repatriation and the ethical dimensions of retaining cultural artefacts, the value of history continues to evolve, emphasising the need for nuanced understandings beyond monetary measures in safeguarding our global heritage.

However, the story of the Parthenon Marbles isn't just about their monetary value. They represent a pivotal part of ancient Greek art and culture, embodying immense historical significance beyond quantifiable financial terms. Their removal from Greece by Lord Elgin, under circumstances still debated today, ignites discussions on cultural ownership, preservation, and restitution.

Not too long ago, we too used to play the game of marbles. Some variations of the game involve the winner keeping the marbles they knock out. Of course there were tears back then. However, while it’s recommended we don’t strike the Parthenon Marbles against each other, stubborn heads may be somewhat different.

Council in skylight spotlight: Absent prosecutor's wasted costs order brings early victory for defendants

Pictured above, Quentin Hunt with the Powells

On October 31st, a legal battle regarding wasted costs unfolded between the London Borough of Lewisham Council and a Brockley resident, Trevor Powell, and his wife. This case, which was heard at Bexley Magistrates Court recently, revealed significant issues with the Council's earlier legal representation at a previous trial. And serial unexplained absences by its prosecutor.

At an earlier hearing on October 5th, the presiding judge, D.J. Sarah Turnock, expressed visible bewilderment at the Council's handling of what initially seemed like a mundane dispute over a single additional skylight's planning enforcement. However, it swiftly transformed into a consequential wasted costs order against Lewisham Council due to the absence of its prosecutor.

The inexplicable absence of the prosecutor did not sit well with the district judge. Council prosecutor Jay Kidd-Morton had demanded that the couple themselves appear or face further prosecution, a large fine, or even imprisonment. Unfortunately, at the earlier trial in Bromley Magistrates Court, Kidd-Morton herself couldn't be found, leading to the Powells' wasted costs application.

Following an attempt at direct contact by the judge to the missing prosecutor, the council failed to produce any substantiating evidence or rationale for the non-attendance, leaving both the defendants' counsel and judge firmly in the dark regarding the skylight enforcement case. The charge was having inserted one skylight too many into their roof-space.

On the judge's further inquiry, the prosecutor's absence was later attributed to an unspecified condition.

Later, at the wasted costs trial against Lewisham Council, Mr. Quentin Hunt, a distinguished Direct Access barrister with over 22 years' experience, raised the question: "What if the defendants had behaved similarly?" He was certain they would have felt the full force of the court since the judge had placed them on unconditional bail to appear.

Defence counsel Hunt continually raised critical points about why the prosecutor should not be allowed to evade further scrutiny or censure. He also questioned why Lewisham Council had not informed the court of any inability to attend the earlier hearing. The undisclosed condition was apparently known prior to the prosecutor's employment. "What's good for the goose must also be good for the gander," Hunt argued.

Hunt's unwavering commitment to finding the reason for such behaviour left an indelible mark on proceedings. District Judge Turnock disclosed that Kidd-Morton would not be returning as prosecutor 'anytime soon,' leaving unanswered questions about whether this was due to the unnamed condition or potential sanction by the judge.

Ironically, Lewisham Council's attendant prosecutor at the wasted costs trial, Edward Arash Abedian, challenged Mr. Hunt's hourly rate, prompting an observation by the judge, who acknowledged the substantial difference in experience between Hunt and the junior prosecutor.

The focus shifted to the wasted costs application, with Mr. Hunt highlighting Mr. Abedian's failure to serve evidence properly. Having submitted it just minutes before the court convened, he deprived Hunt of the necessary review time. However, he graciously let the matter drop. Moreover, the recurrent absence of Kidd-Morton in previous unconnected sessions raised suspicions, with the judge acknowledging a sense of mystery surrounding 'similar issues' with non-appearances. "Five or six times," were noted. 

D.J. Turnock delved into the past non-attendance at other trials, revealing a lack of clarity in the reasons provided and further intensifying doubts due to the opacity and communication gaps.

The forensic probing by defence barrister Quentin Hunt, along with the diligence and humility of the Powells, must have set a powerful example. Mr. Hunt emphasised the imperative of accountability and questioned why the Council hadn't arranged an alternative lawyer, considering its substantial financial resources. In a verdict that underscored Lewisham Council's negligence and lack of transparency, the judge ruled in favour of the Powells, wasted costs of £3,360 being awarded, with a payment deadline by November 28. A substantial victory for the Powells and much embarrassment for the cash-strapped council.

Discussions also surfaced about transferring the upcoming trial to a higher court, but the Powells, released on unconditional bail once more, expressed a preference for the Magistrates Court. Consequently, a trial date of December 21, 2023, was set for Bromley Magistrates, along with pre-date submissions.

The skylight wasted costs judgment spotlights the need for greater accountability within the public sector. It serves as a reminder of the importance of contingency plans for large organisations and public bodies, especially when foreseen absences due to known recurring disabilities can and will occur. It also highlights the misuse and potential abuse of publicly funded trials.

Following the win by the Powells, this case should be long remembered.