A councillor has questioned how objectively Brighton and Hove City Council deals with complaints.
Conservative councillor Anne Meadows spoke out at the council’s the Audit, Standards and General Purposes Committee meeting at Hove Town Hall yesterday (Tuesday 21 April).
The long-serving councillor said that she had less confidence in the complaint-handling process in recent years.
She was also concerned that in the coming year, leading up to the May 2027 local elections, more complaints would be made about councillors – often by other councillors or people with party political motivation.
Councillor Meadows said: “I used to have confidence in the process that it was dealt with fairly and competently but I have been finding recently that genuine complaints don’t go through the process if they’re against the administration.
“Any petty ones against other councillors are carried through with great gusto.”
She said that councillors concerned about the handling of their complaints could take their case to the Local Government Ombudsman.
Green councillor Pete West, who chairs the committee, asked Councillor Meadows to provide examples to substantiate her “serious allegations” – and she offered to do so outside the meeting.
Labour councillor Josh Guilmant said: “It’s going down the route of conspiracy a bit. If there’s an evidence base, then bring it.”
The council’s legal chief Elizabeth Culbert also asked for more details about specific complaints of concern.
She said: “All the complaints received in relation to members do follow the same process – that is our code of conduct as set out in our constitution.
“They are completed at different points in the process as is proportionate to do so. It depends on the nature of the complaint as to whether it reaches a final standards hearing. All complaints received follow the exact same process.”
She said that the Local Government Ombudsman had not found against the council in relation to any standards complaints since she became monitoring officer.
A summary of the complaints made about councillors is published before each meeting of the Audit, Standards and General Purposes Committee although members are not identified.
There are currently three complaints made last October which have carried over to this year, with a formal investigation under way into allegations of inappropriate conduct.
The other two complaints relate to conduct during a councillor’s speech and the content of a newsletter and are not yet concluded.
So far this year, the council has received 10 complaints about members, with five closed and the rest still under investigation.
The open complaints made this year relate to conduct during a council meeting, a social media post, “inaccurate” information provided about council services, a response to a public question and the position taken by two councillors on a planning application.
Councillor Meadows seems to have overlooked the elephant in the room. The wholly unacceptable conflict of interests in having the Head of Legal Services also acting as Council Monitoring Officer. How can any complaint be fairly and properly dealt with under these circumstances? Councillor Meadows would be well advised to report the Head of Legal Services to the LGA for misconduct in public office and seek her resignation accordingly. She could also put in a complaint to the SRA – Solicitors Regulation Authority – for professional misconduct.
This is a recognised sticking point for the many (most?) local authorities who have the same model as BHCC. Reporting Liz Culbert to the LGA for misconduct simply because she carries both roles will do nothing as I imagine the LGA will simply reinforce that this is normal practice. The structure assumes that the Monitoring Officer’s statutory independence overrides any internal conflict.
In practice, councils like this rely on:
* Deputies and governance structures
* Escalation routes (e.g. Audit & Standards Committee)
* External legal advice when needed
So it would seem that the stronger argument can be made if these 3 factors are proven to be inadequate. Certainly the A&S committee appears weak in this regard. As a member of this committee Cllr Meadows brought a valid complaint that was instantly undermined by the apparent absence of evidence which gave other members legitimate grounds to dismiss it. As a seasoned councillor I would have expected Cllr Meadows to have presented a more substantiated argument.
Why does the Audit and Standards Committee only meet twice a year since the Cabinet council was formed? It should be meeting more often, not less often. It is disturbing that such a low priority is now being given to Audit and Standards, particularly with such an active and largely inexperienced council who can easily get things wrong without proper oversight and checks and balances in place. As if two meetings a year were not bad enough, the Audit and Standards committee has been further diluted with ‘General Purposes’ added. This does not bode well and exposes the council to high risk of Judicial Review when there is no proper oversight and insufficient time given to the business of proper oversight and review.
Doesn’t take a litigation criminal lawyer to know this is how you work.
Advised the parent to go to court and then you can wash your hands of the complaint. And without the means to afford legal representation not much hope or justice.
Your Stage One complaint
Thank you for your e-mails which was received by the Customer Feedback Team.
Having read your recent complaint correspondence, and shared it with Childrens services , I have been advised that your case has now entered into Private Law Proceedings.
This is an important point, because Regulation 8[1] states that a local authority cannot accept a complaint when a “concurrent consideration” is ongoing, such as Court action.
As such, I cannot continue to accept your complaint at this time. However, once the Private Law Proceedings have ended, you would be entitled to contact this team once more.
If you are unhappy my decision and you wish to pursue the matter you should contact the Local Government Ombudsman who may investigate further. Their website is: http://www.lgo.org.uk
Yours sincerely
Yours sincerely
Alison
Customer Feedback Officer
It’s one of the reasons why it’s advised not to go into legal proceedings about things like repairs, because the council have to freeze everything, and can’t deal with it until it is resolved, and even simple cases can take over a year, AND then it costs the resident money to pay the legal fee.
Benjamin, this is exactly how misinformation spreads — confidently stated, legally wrong, and genuinely harmful.
You’re presenting a blanket claim as if it’s settled law when it isn’t. The idea that councils “have to freeze everything” the moment legal proceedings begin is a gross oversimplification of how complaints and litigation interact. Regulation 8 is not a universal shutdown switch — it’s a narrowly applied rule, and authorities still retain discretion depending on the nature of the complaint.
More importantly, telling people to avoid legal proceedings because it’s “advised” is reckless. In many cases, going to court is the only route to enforce rights — particularly where a council is failing to act. Suggesting otherwise doesn’t just lack nuance, it actively risks deterring people from pursuing legitimate remedies.
You’re also conflating two entirely different issues:
internal complaints handling, and
access to legal redress.
They are not interchangeable, and presenting them as such shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the system.
This isn’t just opinion — it’s bad advice. And when people are dealing with serious issues like housing, safeguarding, or access to services, bad advice isn’t harmless. It can cost them time, money, and any realistic chance of justice.
If you’re not legally trained, don’t present assumptions as guidance. Because this kind of “common sense” take is exactly what leaves people worse off.
Using GPT for legal advice without checking what nonsense it is producing is how misinformation spreads, actually. And yet ANOTHER example of why you shouldn’t rely on it, especially if you don’t understand what the information means.
Because this is exactly how a legal claim is handled in practice. The repair is put on hold until the legal claim is dealt with, usually at far greater expense to the taxpayer. In repair litigation contexts, continuing repairs would typically prejudice the court case, JUST as it says in regulation 8. Therefore, it will almost always take longer and be more expensive for both parties to go down a legal route, and has burnt a lot of people already.
Before accusing others, perhaps you’d better reflect on your own ignorance, confidently copying and pasting from GPT.
Benjamin. You hold no qualifications accept knowledge of wheelie bins.
,doubling down doesn’t make it more accurate — it just makes it more misleading.
You’re still presenting a **situational practice** as if it’s a universal legal rule. Yes, in *some* repair disputes, works may be paused to avoid prejudicing evidence — that’s a tactical decision, not a blanket legal requirement. It depends on the facts, the risk, and the stage of proceedings. There is no automatic “everything stops” rule baked into law.
And invoking “prejudice to the court case” as if it justifies shutting down complaints across the board shows the same problem: you’re stretching a narrow legal principle far beyond its actual scope. Regulation 8 is about **concurrent consideration**, not a convenient excuse to halt scrutiny or service delivery wherever it’s inconvenient.
You’re also still conflating cost with correctness. Yes, litigation can be slower and more expensive — nobody disputes that. But that doesn’t mean it’s the wrong route. Sometimes it’s the only mechanism that forces action when internal processes have failed or been exhausted.
The real issue here is that you’re speaking in absolutes about a system that is entirely fact-sensitive. That’s how people end up misinformed — not because they’ve “used GPT”, but because someone confidently tells them “this is how it works” when it plainly isn’t that simple.
If you want to say “in some cases this happens,” fine — that’s accurate. But presenting it as standard practice people should rely on is exactly the kind of overreach that causes problems.
More LLM-generated garbage. The one sentence you managed to, incorrectly, write yourself, and it’s just a basic insult. Sigh.
It is standard practice to halt work when someone chooses a legal route; it does cost more money to you by your own admission, and to the taxpayers via the council to process a repair that now takes even longer than if it remains in-house, which is ultimately what these end up being about.
No-one made an argument of “correctness” or absolution; that has been an ongoing hallucination of GPT. THAT is how people end up misinformed, because GPT confidently tells them an answer, and when it does not know, it makes things up based on prediction.
I totally agree with Cllr Meadows here. Interesting the Legal Top Dog Liz commented. She is likely the one gatekeeping them…
We have our own community ombudsman complaints in and FOIs which her department are gatekeeping.
Labour Out!
Nothing to do with the party in power. The institution itself is highly politicised. To coin a phrase: the swamp needs draining.
Council is in flagrant breach of it’s own equalities and anti racism policies and didn’t even address the complaint about policy breach – simply ignored it. Drain the BHCC swamp.
Whatever politics, or the LGA allows, as a member of the Law Society regulated by the SRA, BHCC Head of Legal, Ms Culbert is not allowed to act where there is a conflict of interests. She can therefore only wear one hat, not two!
“She [Monitoring Officer/Head of Legal] said that the Local Government Ombudsman had not found against the council in relation to any standards complaints since she became monitoring officer”.
I’m aware through Jewish friends and parents of children with serious safeguarding concerns of 4 x Standards Complaints and 1 x Corporate Complaint from recent months that the Monitoring Officer and ‘Independent Person’ (IP) simply rejected “at preliminary assessment stage” having “applied the tests in paragraph 5.5 of the Council’s Procedure”. The MO uses this clause to survey the complaint and conclude (with the IP) that there is “insufficient evidence of a breach” (of the councillor code). This step allows the MO to make her decision “not to take any action” (in relation to the complaint) meaning that it will not be referred for formal investigation.
With no appeal process, complainants have the opportunity to go to the Ombudsman. However, unless ‘maladministration’ can be shown, the Ombudsman will simply note that the MO observed correct process (it can come as a shock to residents that the Ombudsman will point out in its rejection letter “The Ombudsman does not provide an appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decisions” alongside sentences such as “the MOs decision was in line with the Council’s arrangements for dealing with code of conduct complaints”).
But here’s the thing: if the Audit & Standards Committee were bold (they’re not) they’d look at the sheer number of Standards Complaints (and Corporate Complaints) being kicked into the long grass in this way AND they’d zoom out and notice the various moments that residents attempt other ways to achieve scrutiny and get told to submit a Standards Complaint i.e. they’d notice that our council has the system rigged. With Bella Sankey cynically answering resident questions at Full Council with reference to rejected complaints as if that proved the matter closed OR by suggesting a resident make a complain, we can see an accountability gap – ‘the loop’ – that shields the council elite from the issues it does not want to talk about. Hence ALL Ombudsman submissions need to point out how this Accountability Gap represents maladministration – because showing maladministration is the only way to get the Ombudsman to act.
From the papers that went to the Audit Committee there were 10 complaints about Councillors reported at the January meeting, and a further 10 ar this latest meeting.
Only one has been progressed to formal investigation. For 13 out of the 20 there was a decision to not take any action after the preliminary assessment stage and six are not yet concluded. Only one complaint has been referred for further investigation.
We talked about this at length before, didn’t we Adrian? An interesting conversation.
The lady in question was to keep to her script, but she did not, and it become inflammatory. In that sense, it was right that she was advised to keep to her written words; an exchange that took less than five seconds. In that, there’s clearly no maladministration; those actions are very specifically worded as a power.
Should she have been allowed to say those extra words? That’s up for debate. Was a council meeting the appropriate time, also debatable. Outside of the content, procedurally, it was in order.
We did talk about it and you wrong then too. Somehow I couldn’t get it into your head that she absolutely kept to her script. She tried to read the Jewish residents Deputation that she’d submitted having declined Ms Culberts “suggested” edit (an attempt to censor about half of her words). This was unprecedented. For Ms Culbert to then refuse to even accept (let alone review) a complaint from this woman is matter now with the Ombudsman. Trying to silence a Jewish voice at a meeting that foregrounded a Green Party motion accusing Israel of “genocide” multiple times and which required this woman to pass through an angry anti Israel rally in order to take up her invitation to speak breached our council’s public sector equality duty. And yes, the treatment of this elderly resident who had never spoken in the chamber before was shameful and, Benjaminthe deployment of the accountability loop to shutdown scrutiny is maladministration.
So, again, by your own admission here, she tried to speak a different version. The reasons for the edit, that removed inflammatory language was also made clear to her, according to what was said at that meeting.
As I recall I also pointed to you the verbatim wording in policy that allows a chair to stop a wording when it is likely to cause tensions. You don’t need explaining to why accusations of genocide, regardless of it’s accuracy, fits in that criteria, especially if there was an equally charged opposition rally outside?
Doesn’t matter who they are, or how many times they speak. Everyone would have been treated the same way, that is equality defined.
You may disagree with the process, clearly you do, but that’s an argument of wanting reform to the process, not one of maladministration. That’s an important and fundamental flaw in a number of your arguments, Adrian.
This isn’t a complaints system — it’s a disposal system.
The structure allows the same legal machinery that protects the council to decide which complaints live or die. That is not oversight; it is controlled suppression. When complaints are routinely killed off at “preliminary assessment” for “insufficient evidence” — without independent review — the outcome is predetermined.
The council then hides behind process. “We followed procedure” becomes the shield, while the substance of the complaint is never tested. And when complainants are pushed to the Ombudsman, they hit another dead end — because the Ombudsman won’t re-examine the merits, only whether the box-ticking was done correctly.
That creates a perfect loop:
complaints are buried → process is cited → scrutiny is avoided.
This is not incompetence. It is design.
The real function here is risk control: protect the institution, shut down escalation, and exhaust the complainant. Whistleblowers are not heard — they are managed, filtered, and ultimately discarded.
A system that cannot be independently challenged at the point of dismissal is not accountability. It is institutional self-protection dressed up as governance.
Exactly. A few months ago a summary of the Accountability Loop was presented to Cllr West chair of Audits and Standards who then meekly sought advice from the MO. Another summary was presented to Cllr O’Quinn chair of People Oversight and Scrutiny who to her credit recognised the problem immediately (but then resigned from Labour and is now an independent and no longer the chair). Sad to say, the 7 independent councillors, perfectly placed to challenge this, are not going to do anything.
Yes, Elizabeth Culbert and Bella Sankey have created a system of fake scrutiny, where challenges vapourise on contact. We can all see it. MPs have been made aware. Looking forward to a robust legal challenge.
Once again, not making much sense. If the independant Obudsman has determined that there’s no case to answer, then the complaint doesn’t have feet, simple. Claiming conspiracy without evidence is not helpful in the slightest, especially when the thoughts aren’t even yours.
You’re not really following this are you Benjamin. James is way ahead of you on this. Its not a conspiracy, its the corruption of democratic accountability hiding in plain sight. I have evidence, many others do, but of course you are free to look the other way and pop out one of your glib know-it-all comments. And the whole point (that you’ve missed) is well put by James: the exasperated resident goes to the Ombudsman only to find the remit (unless ‘maladministration’ can be clearly shown) is not to investigate anything more than whether our Monitoring Officer has followed the ‘process’. Its a technocrats dream (Starmer would salivate over this delightfully foolproof system for sweeping criticism under the carpet; accept people can see it for what it is).
Unfortunately, James/Rupert/Taylor suffers from an addiction to AI to attempt to form coherent arguments, without realising, or ignoring, considering I’ve advised him several times, so he falls into the common pitfalls of LLM logic. He’s also going through a hard time at the moment with the Ockenden Review due out in the next couple of months, so I imagine things like complaints hit close to home right now. His actual thoughts generally shine through in the form of basic kindergarten-level insults, unfortunately.
What you’re describing to me just sounds like someone didn’t like how they were spoken to, so they complained. Fair. Didn’t like the outcome of the complaint, so when to the ombudsman, also fair. Now, you’re claiming that the ombudsman who is now two steps removed is colluding because they deemed there wasn’t an issue to answer?
You’re a reasonable ex-candidate, Adrian. You can see why I would think that is a conspiracy when you say you and many others have evidence, yet, in this one case we’ve discussed before, there have been multiple opportunities to present this evidence.
You are far too sure of yourself Benjamin. The case of the Jewish resident treated with utter contempt at Full Council became the subject of a corporate complaint and 4 x standards complaints that I’m aware of (maybe more). All of these are either with the Ombudsman or soon to be submitted. The corporate complaint can be publicised and Brighton & Hove News are aware of the details (I hope they write something). Several other complaints concern the schools safeguarding scandal and the refusal of our council to recognise it (two cases are with the High Court). The ‘story’ here is the closed loop accountability gap – its a story of council ‘maladministration’ and finally a matter the Ombudsman will find it difficult to ignore. So, Benjamin, the evidence is presented. Why would you imagine that it hasn’t been?
I am indeed confident that I ground my thoughts in logic and evidence. I’m always happy and welcome a logical rebuttal; I’ve never shied away from that. I can’t imagine that B&HN would post libel – at least I would anticipate waiting until the ombudsman decides; they are too professional for that.
You’ve unfortunately not provided any evidence to support your claim. If the ombudsman agrees with the complaint, I’d be happy to change my viewpoint. Until then, I am not persuaded by an ipse dixit; that’s fallacious reasoning. On that note, though, what are you aiming to achieve? Change in process? Someone to be fired? Embarrass the council?
You’re well known for your position on the schools; I remember that being your election platform, wasn’t it? Let’s not go into that particular aspect today, at least until some High Court rulings are made, then we can have another good chat about it, okay?
What is your evidence for deciding there is no case to answer here and all is rosy in the far-too-cosy garden of Culbert/Sankey and their interpretation of democracy?
I can conclude that the ombudsman stated there was no case to answer by reading the article, where it states that the ombudsman stated there was no case to answer! Not agreeing with that process is something else, of course, and if the suggestion is a reform, such as lowering the bar for investigation, I’d support that as an argument.
Claiming conspiracy, though, just feels performatively lazy.
Benjamin, every time you reply to someone, I swear I’m trapped in **Groundhog Day**. It’s the same routine: someone comments, you vanish for a moment, Google breaks into a panic from the sudden spike in searches, and then you reappear acting like you’ve just delivered an original revelation from the depths of your soul. Except we’ve all seen this episode before—many, many times.
Your responses have that déjà vu flavor, like you copy-pasted the same “newfound wisdom” from yesterday’s Googling session and just swapped out a couple adjectives to keep things spicy. It’s honestly impressive how you manage to reinvent the exact same comment over and over, as if Bill Murray himself possessed your keyboard.
You’re not just replying—you’re rebooting. Every. Single. Time.
At this point, Benjamin, you’re basically a human refresh button: predictable, efficient, and powered almost entirely by search results you discovered 12 seconds earlier.
The irony of accusing someone of using Google, by using ChatGPT to generate an insult, which uses Google to search… 🙃🙃🙃
I think you should of gone to spec savers lol
Benjamin’s scepticism and demand for evidence of an accountability loop (including a ‘disposal system’ for complaints as James accurately puts it) warrants some more from me. These will bounce off Benjamin but offer detail for other readers.
#1 I don’t think anyone is alleging a conspiracy. The concern is about how the structure of the complaints process operates in practice.
In Brighton & Hove, the Monitoring Officer and Independent Person act as gatekeepers at the initial assessment stage. If a complaint is not taken forward at that point, it does not proceed to investigation — and crucially, the Ombudsman will generally not revisit that decision because it falls within officer discretion.
That creates a situation where: complaints can be closed as “handled correctly”
without the underlying issues ever being examined.
That’s not unusual in local government, but it does raise a legitimate question:
what happens when the process itself prevents scrutiny of the substance?
That’s the issue being raised here.
Adrian, let’s keep this focused. You’ve stood as a candidate, so you understand how important it is to be accurate. You’re expecting people to accept claims without seeing the evidence. That’s ipse dixit reasoning – and conspiratorial by its very nature.
Now you’re changing the goalposts, because you haven’t been arguing for a review of the complaints process; you’ve been constantly claiming “maladministration” in an attempt to bypass the MO and the IP, and were further rebuffed by the ombudsman. Rejected: three for three. Three separate individuals, unlinked to each other, all came to the same conclusion. No case to answer.
You not liking that, which is the underlying issue here, is immaterial. If you’re really after a change, stop confusing disagreement with misconduct.
Benjamin — no goalposts are being moved.
The point is precisely that when the same small number of gatekeepers determine whether a complaint ever reaches investigation (leading to repeated “no further action” outcomes that avoid scrutiny of the substance) it gives us a clear insight in how the process is structured.
That’s why the question of process robustness matters. It’s also why there was support, including from senior councillors, for a cross-party review of the complaints system. A system that can’t be independently tested will always conclude there’s “no case to answer” — that’s exactly the concern. Yes – it’s called ‘maladministration’, something all the more vivid when calls for a review of this broken complaints process are accepted by the chair of POSC only to be refused by Leader Sankey.
#2 It’s worth noting that concerns about the process aren’t coming from one direction.
At the April Audit & Standards Committee, the data presented in Appendix 1 shows a high proportion of complaints not progressing beyond initial assessment. On its own that proves nothing — but it does highlight how much weight sits at that early gatekeeping stage.
More importantly, there has been recognition within the council itself – namely from Jackie O’Quinn, Chair of People Overview and Scrutiny Committee (POSC) – that the system is not working as intended (I would use the word ‘rigged’). There was support for a cross-party constitutional review of the complaints process, although that proposal did not ultimately proceed (I will post Cllr O’Quinn’s letter below).
That doesn’t prove wrongdoing (not yet) — but it does show that questions about effectiveness and accountability are not fringe concerns.
I sent a detailed briefing note to all scrutiny chairs and members. Cllr O’Quinn replied on Feb 5th:
“Many thanks for your email and for outlining your concerns so clearly. I do recognise that you weren’t making a complaint about a member, so the complaints system is not helpful for you regarding the matters you raise. I will speak to others and see if a case can be made for the reconstitution of the Cross-Party Constitution Working group. This was a highly effective group when it was operational and in light of the forthcoming moves to devolution and Local Government Re-organisation it would appear that there is a strong requirement for such a group to operate again. We’ve recently, in 2024, had a change to the Cabinet system and it can be argued that this would also benefit from a Cross-Party working group on the constitution.
Thank you for raising these issues and I will keep you informed about progress on the matter of a working group being set up”.
In early March Jackie O’Quinn updated me. She told me that unfortunately leaders didn’t agree about setting up a Cross-Party Working group on Constitutional matters although there was support from the other parties. Cllr O’Quinn then resigned from the Labour Party and sits as an Independent.
Again, I think there’s a conflation between disagreement with a process and evidence of misconduct. One doesn’t prove the other. Not liking how a system works doesn’t make it rigged, to use your words. That’s a high bar to meet, and so far, there’s not been a single successful Ombudsman ruling or judicial finding.
And again, not liking a decision does not equal maladministration. The Ombudsman, a completely independent entity, decided that there is no case to answer. Which means, in every case presented so far, the process was fair, the decisions were reasonable, and there was no bias or procedural failure. It held up to external scrutiny.
Not accepting to set up a CPWG also does not equal maladministration either. Again, I would gently reiterate it’s a common pattern in your arguments, which, whilst articulated well, does tend to contain this flaw. Were you given a reason for the refusal? Whilst I would agree with the concept of the CPWG, in light of devolution, it would probably serve more effectively at a regional level. Without knowing the reason, it could very well be that the refusal to form one was because it would duplicate the work of the mayorality, for example.
Benjamin — there are a couple of misunderstandings in what you’ve set out.
First, the threshold at this stage isn’t “prove misconduct.” It’s whether a complaint meets the bar for independent investigation. Residents are not expected to present a fully evidenced case at the outset — that’s what an investigation is for.
Second, on the Ombudsman: a refusal to investigate doesn’t mean the substance has been examined and found sound. In most cases like this, the Ombudsman is simply recognising that the Monitoring Officer acted within their discretionary powers, so it won’t revisit the decision. That’s about jurisdiction, not endorsement.
So the point isn’t “we don’t like the outcome.”
It’s that the current structure means the substance never gets tested externally.
That’s a process issue — and a legitimate one to question.
Hmm. That’s not what you are arguing before, again, changing the goalposts.
First, you need basic evidence to start a complaints process, otherwise it is baseless and conspiracy, I’ve been specific about this. Calming ipse dixit is still not an answer.
Secondly, you’ve changed your argument regarding the MO to one of jurisdiction, despite claiming it was within the MOs remit when you stated it was. “Maladministration” was the term you used. Are you now changing your argument?
I get you don’t like the high bar at the initial stage of complaints; it’s arguable that is an important protection from vexatious complaints. We have a clear example of that with Lloyd Russell-Moyle.
Like I said, a review could make sense, but not with incomplete information.
Benjamin — no, that doesn’t follow.
You’re treating ‘the Monitoring Officer reviewed it’ as if that equals independent scrutiny of the underlying issue. It doesn’t. It means the same internal gatekeeping stage was applied and the complaint was stopped before any investigation.
That’s the distinction you keep missing.
At preliminary assessment, the question is simply whether there is enough to justify investigation — not whether the case is already proven. When multiple complaints raising different matters are all terminated at that same threshold, with no external testing of the substance, pointing to those refusals as “evidence the system works” is circular.
That’s the accountability gap being described.
It’s not conspiracy — it’s a structural feature:
• internal assessment
• no investigation
• no external scrutiny
• refusal cited as proof nothing is wrong
If you want evidence, that pattern is the evidence.
And on ipse dixit — respectfully, just asserting that repeated refusals prove the system is sound… is rather the definition of it (although if you stopped being a total dixit we’d miss you).
Of course, the Monitoring Officer reviews complaints, that’s the first step in the process. You’ve been claiming “gatekeeping”, but so far, there’s been no evidence presented to show that’s happening, only your repeated claim that it is. That’s not enough to prove maladministration. It’s ipse dixit reasoning.
A pattern of complaints not progressing doesn’t mean the system is broken, it simply suggests that it is filtering out those that don’t meet the threshold.
And likewise, you claim that there is no external scrutiny, but also remind us that the Ombudsman has, to date, found no fault in how complaints are handled, which rather contradicts your own words. I’m repeating myself, but I think it’s an important point. You can disagree with their conclusions, but that doesn’t mean scrutiny is absent.
A fairer debate, I think, is whether the threshold for investigation should be lower. That’s a reasonable question, one that balances proper accountability against the risk of politically motivated or vexatious complaints.
I’d be keen to have that conversation with you. But let’s base it on evidence, not conspiracy.
#3 Where this becomes more than theoretical is in how the process operates for complainants.
A recurring pattern reported by several individuals is:
being offered informal engagement (e.g. a call with the Independent Person)
followed by no meaningful follow-up or closure explanation
and then a formal decision that the complaint will not proceed
Again, any single case could be explained away.
But when similar experiences are reported independently, it raises a reasonable question about consistency and transparency in process.
The point isn’t that every complaint should succeed.
It’s that there should be visible, testable scrutiny of the issues raised — which is what people feel is missing.
That’s another changing of the goalposts, because you said the MO reviewed the process, which would have included those aspects you mentioned, that doesn’t raise a question, it suggests the process is working well.
#4 (last from me – but useful for anyone still kidding themselves that the accusation of a council ‘disposal system’ is a conspiracy theory and public attempts to seek scrutiny are mere assertion based on unproven claims)
The three Standards Complaints that I know the precise details of are listed in Appendix 1 of the April Audit & Standards report submitted by the MO. All are very strong complaints relating to the way a Jewish residents Deputation was disgracefully interfered with on and before a Full Council meeting on October 13th last year (we’ll see how the Ombudsman responds before other external remedy is sought). A fourth ‘corporate’ complaint about events that day (directed at the MO herself) is with the Ombudsman who will be faced with an unprecedented MO decision to reject criticism of herself without even letting the complaint be submitted at all.
Below is a summary of my own (thus far failed) attempt at seeking scrutiny on a different matter:
On 23 January 2025, at a Cabinet meeting of Brighton & Hove City Council, Cabinet Member Cllr Tim Rowkins used long since debunked statistics to suggest very high suicide attempt rates among trans identifying young people. He made his contribution to a ‘debate’ which preceded adoption of council recommended schools guidance (in short, the inference was made that pupils are at risk of suicide unless the guidance is available to schools).
Because suicide prevention organisations flag up the need for extreme caution on published discussion on suicide (in this instance via webcast) – i.e the known dangers of propagating suicide-myths – I sought clarification on why these false claims were made through the council’s complaints system. The disposal system kicked-in with the MO deciding my standards complaint did not merit investigation. A referral to the Ombudsman was declined on the basis that the Monitoring Officer had followed ‘correct procedure’.
And so here’s the accountability gap in plain sight: when I raised the matter again at Full Council on 29th January this year, asking what safeguards exist to ensure statistical claims in public decision-making are accurate, Bella Sankey’s response simply referred me those earlier complaints procedure outcomes. We all love Bella’s smile but it was extra gleeful that day as she looked directly at me and spoke her reply.
This is the important point: At no point across all my attempts to achieve scrutiny was the underlying issue addressed: whether the statistics cited were accurate, or whether they should have been corrected once concerns were raised. As my comments in this thread referencing POSC Chair Jackie O’Quinn testify, the substance DID come close to scrutiny when Jackie accepted that my question to Bella Sankey on the dangerous propagation of the suicide myth was NOT a re-run of a standards complaint about Cllr Rowkins but rather an extremely serious question about false stats accepted by Cabinet that (if anyone for the love of god actually INVESTIGATED) need to be struck from the record alongside a public statement of apology.
So there you have it: Standards procedures assess conduct thresholds, and the Ombudsman assesses process compliance. Neither appears designed to examine whether contested evidence used in safeguarding debates is actually true. It’s almost as if no-one cares. One year on I ask my question at Full Council and Bella revels in referring me back to the procedural outcomes of the complaints system.
The result is a system in which process can be deemed correct, while the substance of the concern is never tested and therefore never exposed as travesty. Or at least not yet.
Meanwhile, the council elite are laughing at us.
Some dangerously libellous declarations here from Adrian Hart.
A 2025 meta-analysis of 2457 global studies found that approximately 1 in 2 transgender youth experience suicidal ideation or non-suicidal self-injury, and 1 in 4 have attempted suicide. The research is EXTREMELY comprehensive. You are completely wrong on this, and honestly, you should apologise for this abhorrent remark, especially for someone who aspired to be a Ward Councillor.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245268
Benjamin — your comment is deranged. Nothing I’ve said is libellous, you just hope to intimidate.
The concern I raise does not deny distress or risk. It is about the councils use of two specific soundbyte stats, propagated by activist groups, and which were debunked years ago. Because Cabinet embraced the misinformation ahead of adopting schools guidance it amounted to a safeguarding breach and therefore a complaint was both valid and vital. And because complaints then went down the accountability plughole it exemplifies my point perfectly.
For your information the stats cited at Cabinet originate from PACE and Stonewall studies (reported in the Guardian in 2014) relentlessly propagated by the activist charity Mermaids.
The paper you link to aggregates self-reported survey data, largely from non-random samples, and reports rates of ideation, self-harm, and lifetime attempts. It does not establish causation, and it does not support the policy claim often attached to it — namely that particular interventions prevent suicide. It’s an important distinction that also applies to the stats the Cabinet member cited, especially in pupil safeguarding contexts.
More importantly, my complaint was never about winning an argument over statistics (it’s already won). It was about a straightforward governance question:
what happens when contested or potentially misleading figures are presented in public decision-making?
As the case I set out shows, that question was never examined by the MO or IP on its merits — it was redirected through process and closed procedurally. Cllr O’Quinn could see that clearly.
That’s the issue being discussed.
No, I’m going to focus on your libel.
“Cabinet Member Cllr Tim Rowkins used long since debunked statistics to suggest very high suicide attempt rates among trans identifying young people.”
This is a libellous comment, because you’ve clearly researched this topic and therefore cannot claim ignorance, and the topic shows an overwhelming evidence base, 2400+ research articles, that suggest, in fact, there are very high suicide attempt rates among trans identifying young people, claiming that a Ward Councillor is using “debunked” data.
You’re entitled to disagree with the over two thousand research papers, of course. But that’s not the same, “it’s been debunked”, is it? And beyond that, you’re denying the experiences of those who actually live that experience, because, once again, you don’t like the facts? Ironically, that same denial is the thing you’re arguing for in defence of the lady who spoke at the council.
So, what’s the difference?
Benjamin — calling that “libel” is simply wrong (and I think you know it).
Challenging Cabinet’s deployment of debunked statistics to reinforce adoption of policy is legitimate debate, not defamation. The stats quoted have been debunked (see Transgender Trend analysis
of PACE and Stonewall studies)
The issue is whether contested statistics were presented responsibly (they were not), and how the council ensured a legitimate call for proper scrutiny was kicked into the long grass.
Suicide Facts and Myths – Transgender Trend https://share.google/bCSLgigBbn0aZaVzN
Your personal Drive is nowhere near the level of confidence as a meta-analysis of 2,457 published global studies across various academic journals worldwide, that suggest, in fact, there are very high suicide attempt rates among trans identifying young people, so claiming that a Ward Councillor is using “debunked” data, especially since you’ve demonstrated you have done research into this question, can only be considered libellious, because you must know it to be false.
So, again, I am going to ask you directly, why are you lying?
Good that Adrian Hart is not councillor! everyone would complain about him … because he never stops talking… and its all nonsense he made up… or read on the internet! we want councillor who are not ranting about nonsense!
A footnote to my #4 comment above:
The lead researcher of the very study often cited (the PACE/Youth Chances study) has herself criticised the use of her data for activist purposes, noting it was never meant to establish a general suicide rate. When official reviews like the 2024 Cass Review and the Appleby Report warn against the ‘politicisation’ of such sensitive data, it is entirely accurate and in the public interest to highlight when a local official relies on outdated or misinterpreted figures to drive policy.
Such as when an ex-candidate politicises selective usage of data to push a dangerous misrepresentation, and writes libellous things about a Ward Councillor, both potentially putting transgender youth at risk?
I agree.
Benjamin – Utter nonsense. You don’t understand safeguarding at all do you?
I probably understand to a far greater detail than you do, I’d wager, Adrian.
I find it deeply concerning when former candidates selectively cite outdated data to discredit well-established evidence on transgender youth suicide risk, especially while making unsubstantiated claims about a sitting councillor’s conduct.
You undermine inclusive safeguarding practices in schools and services, and that may deter vulnerable young people from seeking help. It could very well constitute a safeguarding concern. So to flip your own words against you, you don’t understand safeguarding at all, do you, Adrian?
The Benjamin voice of reason robot in full attack mode now…’Libel, Libel, Libel’.
Lest we forget, this is the same Benjamin who, under an earlier article on the council’s stifling of resident questions, said:
“What does land though is that Scrutiny says it is not within remit, Standards says no misconduct is alleged, Audit will not accept the issue, and Full Council cannot interrogate officer decisions. That creates a closed loop where governance concerns are acknowledged but examined nowhere”. Benjamin Feb 4th
I can see why that makes sense to you. You have a rare talent for speaking at length without distrubing the facts. And the important thing you are mispresenting, yet again, is that I have repeatedly been in favour of reviewing process, especially with devolution.
What I’m against is your multiple libellous allegations of maladministration, censoring, whilst spouting misinformation that endangers transgender youth, and making unsubstantiated claims about a sitting councillor’s conduct.
What I’m also against is your personal grievances being used as a “I didn’t like the outcome, so I’m claiming foul” argument, which, every time I’ve challenged you on it, you come up with the same “Trust me, I have evidence” reasoning. Not an argument of any merit.
In the course of this discussion, I’ve lost a lot of respect for you, Adrian. Standing up for difficult topics in the past was admirable, but you’ve really done poorly here. Should you choose to stand for candidacy again, people are going to see someone who is more interested in dishonestly airing out their grievances than making an honest argument.
Benjamin — I’m going to leave it there after this, because we’re now going in circles.
You say you support a review of process. That’s exactly what I’ve been evidencing: a pattern where concerns about evidence, safeguarding, or conduct are repeatedly redirected into routes that cannot test the substance (Standards → MO discretion → Ombudsman jurisdiction). That’s not “not liking an outcome”; it’s identifying a structural gap.
On “libel”: pointing out that widely criticised or misapplied statistics were presented in a public meeting, and asking what safeguards exist to ensure accuracy, is not defamatory—it’s a legitimate question of governance. I’ve been careful to frame this around process and accountability, not personal motive.
Where we fundamentally differ is this:
You treat the absence of investigation as proof everything is sound.
I’m pointing out that the system often prevents investigation in the first place.
That’s not ipse dixit—it’s observable from the way multiple cases have been handled.
In any event, readers can make their own minds up.
Your “last” was two days ago, so you’re misrepresenting even that. The facts are clear. The Ombudsman has reviewed multiple cases and found no maladministration. The complaints system, while imperfect, has withstood external scrutiny. Disagreeing with outcomes isn’t the same as proving a cover-up.
What’s been troubling is that a former candidate dismisses a meta-analysis of over 2,400 global studies as ‘debunked’, attacks a sitting councillor with lies and slander, while citing activist blogs and selectively interpreted reviews, they aren’t contributing to debate; they are endangering and demeaning vulnerable young people who already face disproportionate mental health risks. Another misrepresentation, another lie, another libel.
People deserve better than your personal vendetta; this hasn’t been a circle; it’s been an enclosure. Every one of your claims was rebuked for being faulty at every conjecture. Readers will indeed make their own mind up.
I’m chipping in here because I wholeheartedly agree with Adrian and have my own complaint about the MO and maladministration awaiting the Ombudsman which absolutely demonstrates how the door quickly slams on unwelcome scrutiny.
Benjamin, I think your animosity is leading you away from the actual issue (perhaps that’s your intention?).
But on the research point you keep returning to … large meta-analyses showing elevated distress or suicidal ideation in gender-distressed young people are not in dispute. What is in dispute — and what bodies like the Cass Review and review conducted by Professor Appleby have explicitly addressed — is the causal claim often attached to those stats: i.e. that lack of affirmation or medical transition is what drives suicide risk. That leap is not supported by robust evidence, and repeating it uncritically is precisely what has been challenged in recent clinical and policy reviews.
On the process point: you’ve previously described the same “closed loop” problem yourself—where resident attempts at scrutiny, Standards Complaints, Audit, and Full Council are each deemed to fall outside any remit for examining certain issues.
That’s the concern being raised by Adrian here. Everywhere in our institutions its as if process has replaced scrutiny and fair judgement. Good luck to Adrian and all the challenges coming forward from the Jewish residents.
And it’s not about disliking outcomes Benjamin; it’s about whether there is any effective route for testing decisions when they are contested.
Finally, your tone is unnecessarily hostile. Disagreement is fine, but repeatedly accusing Adrian of “libel” and his safeguarding concerns as “endangering” children (the irony!) – and all for his crime of raising questions that are now being examined nationally (and, I might add, via the current NHS investigation into the Hove WellBN clinic) doesn’t really engage with the substance. It just shuts down discussion.
If we agree the process could benefit from review, that seems like the obvious place to focus.
I wanted to gently pick up on something you mentioned, specifically, that suicidal ideation in gender-distressed young people is not in dispute. Adrian has repeatedly claimed in our discussions above that this is not true, and claimed that a councillor who also said the same thing as you did, claiming they are “debunked statistics to suggest very high suicide attempt rates”.
By that logic, he would also claim our statement is also false. Perhaps you can see the problem I see with that? I’m stricter with Adrian, because he wants to stand for council himself, so he needs to be clear when he attacks people with a weak, libellous argument.
But putting that to one side, since between him and me, we’ve written a novel, a review is more than fair, I completely agree!