March 28 2023
Dear Sir,
I wish to lodge a complaint against Councillor Richard Bingley.
With reference to the 7 Principles of Public Life, or Nolan Principles, I firstly contest Mr Bingley’s integrity.
I have been subject to bullying and harassment from Plymouth City Council employees, as described in this article:
This is but the tip of the iceberg. Under Mr Bingley’s mandate, every time the dog wardens approached people whose dogs crossed a white line around a sports pitch, they were asked for their name, address, date of birth and email address. They were also told that if they did not comply, the wardens would call the police.
Both in response to Plymouth Herald’s question as to how the council reacted to this article and also from a Freedom of Information Act disclosure, we know that the council deliberately trains the wardens in this way, and thus this council executive is wholly accountable for these actions.
Specifically, Mr Bingley had no authority to threaten members of the public with the police in this context. He knew the threat was bogus. The police explained to us at the end of our incident on February 7 23 that they are not concerned by disputes of this nature. Yet his wardens put us under duress for two hours, threatening us with bringing in the police. They have similarly stalked and goaded a lady neighbour walking alone at Dean Cross fields for half an hour in December 2022. This practice shows a complete lack of integrity and judicious leadership. It is manifest that Mr Bingham showed little concern for honesty, democracy and accountability.
Council records show that over 400 fines were given between 2020 and 2022 for dogs crossing white lines. These encounters with dog wardens leave citizens shaken, traumatised and often with medical after-effects, as is the case for myself and my walking partner and others I have spoken with. I cannot overstate the harm that is being done to individuals by these arbitrary encounters. No signage or inadequate signage, no information to explain the changes to the law at the start of the PSPO. Even today, years into the order being in place, dog owners have no idea about it. People are fined without any idea why! Older women in tears vowing never to return to their community fields. The council is systematically intimidating dog owners. All this under Mr Richard Bingley’s watch.
This all goes in counter to the integrity, honesty, lawfulness, fairness and respect that the Nolan principles set out.
The Local Government Association document ‘Public Spaces Protection Orders, Guidance for Councils’ has many pieces of advice for councils wishing to set up and maintain a PSPO. Under Mr Bingley’s leadership, we note a completely opposite practice to that advised by Westminster. For example, on page 6:
When assessing what is ‘unreasonable’ activity, councils will need to balance the rights of the community to enjoy public spaces without ASB, with the civil liberties of individuals and groups who may be affected by any restrictions imposed. Further, some of those affected by possible restrictions may be vulnerable and councils need to look carefully at what impact the proposals might have on certain groups or individuals (see assessing potential impact and the Equality Act, below).
Appropriate restrictions
As set out above, the restrictions imposed by an Order must be reasonable, and either prevent or reduce the detrimental effect of the problem behaviour, or reduce the risk of that detrimental effect continuing, occurring or recurring.
Ensuring that the prohibitions or requirement in a PSPO are solid, easily understood and can withstand scrutiny is key.
Mr Bingley was not impartial in serving the interests of the local community. The sports clubs benefit from the backing of the council to the detriment of those of us, dog owners, who use the public land more than any other group. Organised sport represents relatively few participants. The majority users, dog walkers and owners need to use the fields in vast numbers every day of the year. We are turned away from our public land en masse as council policy now restricts our using these fields which have always been in use by the public. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 section 9 requires dog owners to exercise their animals and no PSPO should limit this obligation, according to Westminster guidelines.
If we look at the council website, we find hundreds of pages of policy and analysis concerning sports, and particularly football. Projections on the number of future players, the need for more grounds, better facilities. All very positive. However, if we look at the council website and search for ‘dog’, there are zero pages concerning welfare, physical health and wellbeing of owners and their animals, actually no evidence of any positive thoughts towards dogs and their people at all. Instead, we find ‘Dog Control’, ‘FPNs’ and the PSPO devoted to removing 16 fields from those of us who need to exercise our dogs. All very negative.
The principle of respect was undermined every day in this area of dog control as PCC policy under Mr Bingley was to harass and bully dog owners. Members of the public were lied to and not given any chance to protest fines. A neighbour who was stalked for thirty minutes by Mr Bingley’s employees was told to give her details then contest the fine afterwards. When her husband called to contest it, he was told there was no redress.
In the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, General Conduct, 7. Respect, we read: ‘Respect means politeness and courtesy in behaviour, speech and in the written word.’ Just the opposite of what the public is seeing.
In the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, General Conduct, 8 Bullying, harassment and discrimination, we read: ‘As a councillor, I do not bully or harass’. This is precisely what Mr Bingley instructed his employees to do, systematically.
Section 11 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct talks of bringing the local authority into disrepute. Mr Bingley’s leadership in this area is disgraceful and is based on authoritarian, anti-democratic tenets with no accountability to the public. The recent nationwide scandal of felling trees in the dead of night is yet another example of underhandedness.
Concerning the Seven Principles of Public Life, Mr Bingley falls foul of almost every section: integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership, as outlined above.
What to do about all this?
Clearly, Mr Bingley should step down from public office at any level as his conduct is not in alignment with any of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.
Sincerely,
Judy Latimer