IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


Allegations and proven guilty, as was Tory Porter, are two different

things.


http://society.guardian.co.uk/charit...847516,00.html

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/arch...-print-18.html
"Second, centralising power, authority and funding in the Minister and
his department has failed to deliver what government wants. Command and
control does not work. The micro-management of targets from Whitehall
has become a farce. Scandals of NHS procurement, of IT investment
vitiated by corruption, of financial blunders leading to mountainous
local debts, of corporate governance arrangements that permit conflicts
of interest to arise and continue, have provided unceasing noises off
for two decades and no doubt more. Along the line, responsibility for
the mess has become blurred in a nightmare forest of organisations that
alter shape overnight, and in a quick-change army of foresters who
regulate and inspect. And alongside it all, the democratic deficit that
is Bevan's inheritance has resulted in a sham local accountability
unable to add value because it has no real control over things on the
ground. Again, one wonders whether a service devolved to local
government to run, as Morrison wanted, could have brought about less
effective control than this?"

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr261/foot.htm



http://www.yorkshireposttoday.co.uk/...ionID=55&Artic
leID=812722

"A FORMER council official and three builders were yesterday given
suspended jail sentences at a court case which brought the final curtain
down on the Donnygate corruption scandal.
Bill Stones, a former Doncaster Council officer, was initially given a
one-year prison term by Judge Simon Jack for accepting "sweeteners" from
the builders."

To name but a few.


Hardly in the Tory Porter league, and she was only the one of them being
caught.


There were far larger scandals exposed in labour councils in the 70's. I
can't actually find any references to them tho. before Internet.

However we were not having a willy waving contest on which particular
council is the most corrupt, merely falsifying your naive assumption
that the planning laws are not subject to being bent and broken by
liberal applications of kickbacks. Its been proved that in *at least one
case, in a court of law*, it was.

That is all that is needed to prove you wrong.

The fact that the majority of material I came up with was councils
internal policy documents trying to demonstrate how corruption free they
are, is also highly suggestive. 'Methinks they doth protest too much'.