Local authority cover-ups

Something about UK local authorities – unable to grasp any notion of serving anyone’s interest but their own – that is the interests of the ‘managers’ who run them.

This is one example – but there are countless.

In this story a judge has found that Gloucester County council had erred in removing a child from his or her mother. Note the strong language used by the judge. This was not a small error.

Note then the response by the Council:

Gloucestershire council said it apologised “to the court unreservedly that in our attempts to safeguard the welfare of this child, members of our children’s social care team breached the terms of a previous court order.

Well – not just a previous Court Order but also the law. So that is a little fib for a start. Then notice the attempt to claim that they were acting in the ‘safeguarding’ interests of the child. This is called ‘putting it onto the other’. Teachers use this tactic a lot. And of course they are playing the ‘Safeguarding’ card – a well-worn get out of jail free card.

Local authority managers set new standards in cynicism and dishonesty even by the already low standards of the times.


Anyone who knows anything about Britain’s local authorities will know that they are ruled by incompetence and cover-ups.

Cover-ups flow through their blood. The policy is relatively simple. They will lie and dissemble for as long as possible. If and when, and only ever as the result of absolutely determined and assiduous work by a member of the public, they are exposed in an unsustainable lie then – nothing happens. At most “lessons will be learned” and someone will be sent for re-training. (In how to be a better liar no doubt).

The same rule applies to the Inland Revenue.

This is case in point:

Official cover-up concerning death of a black man in police custody. The referenced WikiPedia article confirms the main facts. [1]

In a “dictatorship” or a “police state” you would not be able to ask the authorities questions. You would not be able to bring a civil case against the authorities. You would not be able to take your case to an international tribunal. The fact that in the UK people can do all these things is cited as evidence that we live in a “free” society. Indeed this “freedom” is flaunted and used as an excuse to justify invading and bombing the “police states” and “dictatorships”.

But what is the point of all this if at the end of the day it makes no difference?

The political and civil “freedom” people enjoy in the West is a carefully-crafted illusion. Power in the West has just learned that it is more effective to pretend that people have freedom while covertly denying it than to deny it outright and openly. In the West you can ask a question of authority. If the answer is inconvenient for them they will cover it up. If (rarely) the cover-up breaks down some platitudes will be issued about “lessons learned” and we will all move on. Power is more developed in the West than in “dictatorships” and “police states”.