The Council “neither confirms nor Denies” the Allegations of sexual harassment/misconduct leading to Settlement Agreements.
Back in Sept 2017 we brought you the post about Jeremy Chambers (pictured) being dismissed for Gross Misconduct. The allegations were that Jeremy was placed on gardening leave recently, due to sexual harassment allegations made against him by a female members of staff. It is understood that there was more than one allegation over a period of three years.
It is known that senior corporate directors were aware of these allegations made during that three year window, but on each occasion Jeremy was given the benefit of there doubt. And as such his exhibitionism was allowed to continue unchallenged.
Jeremy received a £43,000 pay off at the end of Sept 2017, and a settlement agreement which included a gagging order, before leaving for Enfield Council. How can it be that women who raised the issues of being “flashed” by Chambers leave the building with nothing, and Chambers leaves with £43,000? Why did the Council including senior officers such as Dr Susan Priest (pictured left), Alistair Stewart, Amandeep Khroud and others, cover up or downplay his serious indecent sexual acts against women?
Anyway our public face put in an FoI to Folkestone & Hythe District Council. It asked:
How many allegations of sexual harassment/misconduct – which led to “settlement agreements” were made against the former Corporate Director of Strategic Operations, between 1 Jan 2013 – to present. Please could you set out the number of allegations per year and the amount for any settlement agreement” paid for each year.
The Council have now responded using section 17(4) of the FoIA 2000,
“the council neither confirms nor denies whether it holds the information you have requested.“
If your text is correct, there was, or was not, any allegation of misconduct. How can this Council deny these facts?. Furthermore, why would they pay out 43 Grand against any lack of allegation?
In essense s17(4) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is
“A public authority is not obliged to make a statement under subsection (1)(c) or (3) if, or to the extent that, the statement would involve the disclosure of information which would itself be exempt information.”
To me this appears that SDC are withholding information because of s17 (3.b) in that:
“….the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information”
Which leads me to think that the actions by SDC means that they are more scared of the public knowing about an alleged “SDC cover-up” than the public knowing about the circumstances that caused the alleged cover-up.
Seems Mr chambers has left Enfield already . His wife is divorcing him and he’s run off with one of his love birds. House sold or being sold.
Was Enfield far enough?