The "support facade": a lizard enigma?

Leaks over Lewisham

In today's digital age, seeking assistance from companies and local authorities following complaints or issues has become a tedious endeavour. What was once a straightforward process has now evolved into a maze of automated responses, elusive chatbots, and dead-end "helplines".  Has the era of genuine customer support been replaced by the "Support Facade" enigma? TheBigRetort...

Have you ever found yourself trapped in a cycle of endless automated messages, nonsensical music, playing over and over ad infinitum, leading absolutely nowhere? 

Or perhaps you've experienced the frustration of being redirected from one department to another, only to end up back where you started? 

These are tell-tale signs of Support Facade in action. 

Support Facade, as we've named it, is the deceptive practice employed by Lewisham Council and those companies and individuals who feign assistance while secretly aiming to undermine your concern or claim. (See attached photo of the endless leaks above one Lewisham Council ceiling and note the deafening response from the council.) 

It's the illusion of support, crafted by crafty people to give the appearance of helpfulness without any genuine intention of resolving the issue at hand. Hopefully, wishfully, you will soon go away.

However, as we delve deeper into this modern phenomenon, we couldn't help notice the lack of direct communication channels for complaints or feedback. For gone are the days of easily accessible email addresses or direct phone numbers. Instead we have illusive assistance. 

In the case of Lewisham Council there is the obligatory 20-day response time to emails.  

Instead of resolution, we're met with generic holding responses and elusive and deceptive tactics by kicking the ball  - and with it the complainant - into the very long distance. 

Indeed, even AI now seems to have been trained in deflecting queries more than providing solutions. It is though still absolutely trumped by petty bureaucrats employing allusive assistance.

What can we do in the face of this facade? Awareness is the first step, surely. By recognising the signs of Support Facade, we can empower ourselves. By demanding genuine assistance from companies and ne’er-do-well councils using these sly tactics, we can prevail. Additionally, we can hold businesses and civil servants  accountable by sharing our experiences and shining a light on their deceptive lizard-like practices. (That's an appalling analogy. Lizards have rights too.)

To probe further light on this issue, we have created a potential list of snappy terms to describe mock support, please vote for your favourite:

• "Support Facade"
• "Deceptive Assistance"
• "Ostensible Aid"
• "Phantom Resolution"
• "Masked Support"
• "Illusive Assistance"
• "Pseudo Help"
• "Mock Support"
• "Sham Resolution"
• "Cloaked Assistance"

Have you encountered pseudo help in your interactions with companies, councils, or individuals? If so, which term resonates with you the most and why? 

Join the mock support conversation. Let's unveil the illusion together. After all, genuine support should never be just a facade for sham resolution by lizards.

 

 

Tory donor's hidden history of racist banter: Unveiling Frank Hester's troubling racist mouth

In recent news, the spotlight has fallen on Conservative Party donor Frank Hester, with accusations of racism swirling around his rather bloated publicly-funded wallet. While calls intensify for the Prime Minister to return Hester’s £10 million donation, we take a peek back in time and discover that this may not be the first time in what is now termed an isolated incident. TheBigRetort...

The refusal to acknowledge the racist nature of Hester's comments until pressured to do so speaks volumes about the lack of accountability within the Tory Party where big bucks are concerned. The failure to address racism head-on further erodes public trust.

However, what truly sheds light on Hester's character are the revelations from various sources via Reddit and Glassdoor. Unearthed by TheBigRetort, these posts, some four years old, paint a damning picture of Hester's leadership at The Phoenix Partnership, depicting a toxic and bullying culture, and a man who likes to play games at the racist tip of his tongue.

The accounts we unearthed, if well-founded and not just the musings of aggrieved former employees, corroborate the allegations now made against him. They provide a disturbing glimpse into the mind-set of a racist personality.

One allegedly former employee's description of Hester's penchant for racist and sexist "jokes" were found to be “his Trumpian filter”.

The fear of reprisal for failing to laugh along with Hester’s offensive remarks underscored the oppressive atmosphere cultivated by the boss. And everyone knows when the boss tells a joke you had better laugh.

Once more it must be said “if true” it's evident that Hester's racist banter may not be confined to isolated incidents but permeates his personality and the professional and political spheres surrounding him.

The Conservative Party's acceptance of his donations sends a troubling message, condoning racist banter for the sake of financial gain. 'Tis a bitter pill to swallow.

As calls for accountability grow louder, it's important for the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party to heed them. Turning a deaf ear to racist jokey banter, and other things, whether in the form of private discussions or workplace conduct, is totally unacceptable in modern-day Britain. Turning a blind eye is a total no-no. It's time for decisive action to demonstrate a genuine commitment to combating racism within the party and society at large. £10m should not be a get out of jail free card, however expensive.

Finally, we can reveal, what that alleged former employee wrote - 4 years ago - on Reddit: “Not only does Frank often make racist or sexist “jokes,” but he revels in his Trumpian filter and expects you to laugh alongside him. Failure to comply can be seen as grounds for dismissal. Virtually none of the longstanding employees engage in non-mandatory company social events, presumably to avoid having to socialize with Frank and risk getting on his bad side, however unintentional it may be.”

So, if it walks like a duck… QED.

Lewisham Council's planning enforcement under POCA: A scandal of Post Office proportions

On January 12, 2024, we submitted a detailed Freedom of Information (FOI) request to Lewisham Council concerning its legal department and planning enforcement officers’ aggressive prosecutions of ordinary citizens. The FOI aimed to uncover the council's expenditure on criminal legal advice and prosecutions, with a focus on cases involving external legal firms like Browne Jacobson, exacerbating costs for taxpayers. The goal was to ensure transparency and accountability in the council's actions and unchecked legal spending. Little did we realise, there's more to this story than meets the eye. TheBigRetort...

Lewisham Council's response to our Freedom of Information Act request was unsurprising. Its position was to invoke Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, citing excessive costs as grounds for refusal. 

A familiar retort. However, this type of refusal from the team headed by Jeremy Chambers, Director of Law & Corporate Governance, underscores a systemic barrier to transparency and accountability within local government, leaving constituents unaware of the council's actions and expenses, and the true reasons for its escalating planning prosecutions. It also opens up the shapeshifting grifters inside the ivory tower to some scrutiny.

Exploitation of the POCA System

Lewisham Council's refusal to disclose vital information sheds light on an alarming pattern of exploitation within the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) system by local councils. This system, meant to combat actual criminal activity and seize proceeds from unlawful conduct, appears to have been manipulated by councils to target ordinary citizens for minor infractions, akin to a mugging exercise on steroids.

For instance, Kevin Bottomley, a local DIY shopkeeper in Lewisham, reported below, faces prosecution for storing sand, cement, and timber at the side of his store KJ Building Supplies. The case has now escalated to Woolwich Crown Court, and at some cost. Where the absence of a jury may conceal from the public that Lewisham Council is netting £62,600 of what it alone determines is the proceeds of crime rather than benefits of honest public servitude. Yes, you heard that right, a DIY merchant flogging building materials on which taxes and VAT have already been paid has worked for nothing. One wonders how that fits with Lewisham's anti-slavery policy.

This outrageous exploitation is compounded by the Home Office's Asset Recovery Incentivisation Scheme (ARIS), where the investigating and prosecuting authority, in this case, Lewisham Council, benefits financially from the prosecution. Raising concerns about conflicts of interest and a convenient lack of checks and balances.In other words, planning lawyers are furtively going up the ARIS of Lewisham’s constituents in order to bloat their own wages.

Implications

However, there is a preceedent in defence of such actions, Lewisham Council take note. The Court of Appeal's March 8, 2019 ruling in Wokingham Borough Council v. Scott and others upheld the cessation of prosecutions against 11 defendants, finding that the council's improper consideration of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) and failure to apply the public interest test warranted an abuse of process, highlighting the need for transparency, fairness, and adherence to legal standards in prosecuting planning matters.

Lewisham Council's refusal to disclose key information raises serious doubts about its commitment to accountability and the public interest, and fairness in the planning enforcement system. By concealing data on expenditure, recoveries, and legal proceedings, the council undermines principles of open governance and perpetuates a culture of secrecy and distrust. It also leaves the way open for its planning lawyers to make money off the backs of unintended victims. A banditry that is led by overzealous planning enforcement officers, who themselves evade scrutiny.

Conclusion

The journey to uncover Lewisham Council's dodgy legal practices underscores the challenges in holding all local authorities accountable. Despite facing rejection and evasion, it highlights the importance of transparency and scrutiny within local government. Advocating for transparency is vital to ensure that democracy and accountability prevail. The exploitation within the POCA system, with its erosion of checks and balances by in-house belligerent lawyers, is just one aspect of a broader issue demanding sustained attention and action. Not only in Lewisham but nationwide. Lest we witness a repeat of the Post Office scandal.

 THE BIG RETORT