Skip to main content

Consultancy Fees and Malicious Falsehood

Something like 18 months after Labour ex-Councillor Tony Kennedy pushed Jim Pendleton into a wall at the Prince of Wales pub in Moseley the Judge has now produced a judgement in the "Malicious Falsehood" case brought against Lib Dem Councillor Martin Mullaney for sending an email saying "Tony Kennedy is going to be Arrested."

As a sort of Small Claims version of Libel none of the outcome is particularly surprising. In this instance Martin gets costs of £60 rather than the £6000 or so he should be due for the amount of work done. Jim Pendleton also gets £50 for loss of earnings.

The case has had its surreal moments like when the Chief Executive of the Pub Chain was suppoenaed to stand as a witness - as if he was there on the night.

A key part of today's press report which has more impact than a row in a pub is the following:
[Mr Kennedy] maintained ... attempts to set up as new business as an independent consultant to developers suffered.
Mr Kennedy said a number of clients backed out of contracts because they feared he would not be able to lobby the planning committee effectively given Coun Mullaney's senior position on it.
He also alleged he began to receive calls from people asking him "to help out in a fight".
Birmingham Post 4th Feb.

What this means is that he was expecting to get "consultancy fees" from developers wanting planning permission, but when Labour lost control of the planning committee they said they would no longer pay him.

Now planning is supposed to be a "quasi judicial" process where there is no party whip and decisions are made on the merits of the case.

Why then would it matter which party controls the planning committee?

I don't think this particular aspect of the case is finished yet.


Jez said…
What this means is that he was expecting to get "consultancy fees" from developers wanting planning permission, but when Labour lost control of the planning committee they said they would no longer pay him.

Alternatively ...

What this mean is that he was expecting to get "consultancy fees" from developers wanting planning permission, but when the vice-chair of the planning committee apparently bore some kind a grudge against him, they said they would no longer pay him.

I know nothing about this case beyond what's been reported in the papers or in Martin's press releases. The only thing I am pretty sure of is that no-one is giving an uncoloured picture.
john said…
Consultancy fees are fees for advice. There is no reason why anyone would know when he had been offering advice.

Fees for lobbying are an entirely different matter.
Jez said…
Consultancy fees are fees for consultancy, surely, which covers pretty much anything and everything.

Actually, I think providing consultancy services to developers sounds suspicious enough without needing any kind of extra innuendo. Now, if it were possibly to employ someone to make life a bit harder for developers ... well, I could probably get behind that :)
john said…
Giving advice is one thing, lobbying is another.
Jez said…
Of course, it is. What I'm saying is that pretty much any activity can end up on an invoice as "consulting services".

Nuancing on precisely what Tony Kennedy meant by "consultancy fees", when his evidence was seems to have been pretty thoroughly trashed by the judge, to imply potential malpractice seems a bit of a stretch.

If there was or is corruption in the council, then I want to know about it. However, rumour and hint and nudge-nudging serves only to feed cynicism of public office. I don't want that; people should be, and should want to be, engaged with government at all levels. As someone who has devoted a great deal of time and effort in elected office, I'd assume you don't want that either.
john said…
The essence is that advice would be OK, but then it would not matter who is in control of the authority.

Paid lobbying is not OK for Planning as no lobbying should work for planning because it is quasi judicial.
Jez said…
Ah, ok, I understand the point you're making now.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…