I have received notice from Richard Bradley, Scarborough Borough Council (SBC), Commercial Director that my “action falls within the definition of unacceptable behaviour under the Council’s Persistent and Unreasonably Persistent Complainants Policy” for publishing the recording in “PETRA JACKSON – Evasive or what?” once.

Richard stated “It has been bought to my attention that you recorded the telephone conversation with Miss Jackson and published it on your website without her knowledge or consent.  This action falls within the definition of unacceptable behaviour under the Council’s Persistent and Unreasonably Persistent Complainants Policy and I would ask that you refrain from such activities in the future.  Failure to do so will result in consideration being given to designating you under the Council’s unreasonably persistent and unreasonable complainant behaviour policy.”

As persistent must by definition be more than once I am at a loss how I could have breached the SBC Unreasonably persistent and persistent complaints behaviour (click on the link to read). To assist Richard achieving the required “persistent” I have published the recording above for a second time.

Before Richard takes “action” he needs to be aware of Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers (click on the link to read) – He will note “It was of the highest importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism.” My publishing of the recording, in the public interest, is uninhibited public criticism. The case takes precedence over the SBC Unreasonably persistent and persistent complaints behaviour

Expired – Persistent and Unreasonably Persistent Complainants Policy

Since the current SBC Unreasonably persistent and persistent complaints behaviour expired on 17 September 2019 (!), it cannot be used regardless of the Derbyshire CC v Times Newspapers case. It follows that those members of the public on the SBC naughty step must now be informed that they are no longer black-listed – due to yet further incompetence by SBC.

Is it so difficult for SBC to undertake a simple review?