Tom Wells - The Politician

I sent Tom the following e-mail message on 7 September 2008:

From: Craig Walsh
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:15:03 +0100
To: Tom Wells <talwells@btinternet.com>
Cc: Marjorie Walsh
Conversation: Meeting
Subject: Meeting

Dear Tom ---

You are our County and District councillor.

I last met with you on a walk through Lord’s Wood when I discussed our proposal for a green burial ground. Our subsequent planning application was declined by the MHDC, using delegated powers. We have worked diligently to remove all of the obstacles quoted by the MHDC in the reasons for declination. We will be submitting a fresh application in the next few months --- but that’s not why I am contacting you today. (Information about our green burial plans are on our forum at http://www.greenburial.eu.)

Lucies Farm Ltd. has operated a small, luxurious dog resort since late 2004. The farm employs a staff of six --- to care for a maximum of 11 dogs, a guest-to-staff ratio of better than 2:1. Our colleagues are part of the beleaguered agriculture sector. The majority of our customers come from within the M25, and when they bring their furkids to sunny Worcestershire I’m sure they also spend money in the local community: restaurants, pubs, hotels, etc.

Our dog resort has been featured in many national newspapers ad magazines --- from GQ to the Telegraph ---and on many radio and television programmes --- most recently in Personal Services Required on Channel 4. A sampling is in our online photo gallery at: http://www.bark.ch/thumbnails.php?album=59&page=1

I am now totally disabled --- the result of a fractured back in 2006. The dog resort and Kobe beef businesses are our “retirement” enterprises, and --- other than my disability payments --- are our sole source of support. As my wife and I are not quite 60, we are not yet able to draw pensions.

Up until the summer of 1996, my wife and I owned a large financial services business, Transax PLC. We started Transax from scratch in 1986, and sold it to Equifax (a NYSE-listed multinational) ten years later. At the time of the sale, Transax had 515 employees in five countries.

I mention this because during the decade we owned and ran Transax, we never ran into any problems with Trading Standards or with any other governmental agency (and Transax operated nationwide). We are honest business people, and we pride ourselves on the excellent service we provide to our customers and on our fair dealings with our colleagues, vendors, members of the community, and other parties.

We have lived at Whitecroft since March 1989. We own the track leading to our property, which means we own up virtually to our neighbour’s front door. This track is also a public foot-path. We have improved the footpath by installing, at our expense, a “kissing gate” at the northern end, and this has increased the usage of the footpath by the members of the local community.

Our neighbour has been upset by the increased usage of the track --- not only by members of the community, but by our customers. She has shouted at me on numerous occasions, her husband has threatened a member of our staff with a garden fork, and she has waged a one person battle against us. She has raised many unfounded complaints with the Malvern Hills District Council, and this has resulted in numerous inspection visits to our property. When the MHDC did not do what she wanted --- close down the dog hotel --- she even complained to the Local Government Ombudsman.

This culminated in a raid by 12 government officials on our small farm in January. Our solicitor and counsel believe that major aspects of that raid were illegal, and our legal insurance company has agreed to fund an action for trespass (among other things) against both the MHDC and the County Council, and possibly the 12 officials as well. During the raid --- when my wife and I were not at home --- Council officials entered our home, we believe illegally. They took a copy of the hard drive of my personal computer, looked through the personal papers on my desk, and even looked in our bedrooms and our loft.

The folks at Trading Standards used this data --- which was protected by not one, but two passwords --- to write to the majority of our customers. It felt to us that in the absence of evidence of wrongdoing, the Council decided to scare our customers away by sending out an ominous letter headed, “Trade Descriptions Act.”

We have just been advised by Trading Standards that despite their “detailed enquiries” they were ending their investigation. They wrote to our customers to say, “we will be taking no further action with regard to this matter and therefore, for those that were concerned, there is absolutely no reason why you should not continue to use the facilities of Lucies Farm.”

This matter has caused my wife, Marjorie, and I tremendous distress --- not because we were doing anything wrong (we weren’t) but because we have never been the subject of a government investigation before. There is nothing on my computer hard drive that I wouldn’t show my daughter, but that doesn’t mean that I want folks at Trading Standards, or their unidentified external computer forensic “experts,” looking at information relating to our personal finances, my medical condition, or other confidential information. The heavy-handed bureaucrats even looked at my sister-in-law’s laptop: she’s a home economics teacher in Australia, and was visiting us during the holidays.

We have been overwhelmed by the outpouring of support from our customers. Many have written or even called Trading Standards, and I have posted a small percentage of the comments in my online blog --- http://www.doggie-blog.com. Not a single customer contacted us to express any concerns about the services we have provided to their furkids.

We have also kept in touch with our customers via e-mail messages: a copy of one such message is online at:

http://community.icontact.com/p/lucies_farm_ltd/newsletters/lucies_farm_ltd/posts/lucies-farm-ltd-and-worcester-trading-standards

As our elected representative, on both the District and County Council levels, my wife and I would like to meet with you to discuss our views on this entire, unpleasant experience. We are happy for you to come to Whitecroft, or to meet you in the Council offices. We are also happy to meet you at your convenience, but would like to do so sooner rather than later.

As an American (but one who votes in this country by virtue of my dual Irish citizenship) I view elected officials as “public servants.” Not servants in the sense of my ringing a little silver bell and you’ll come running with tea --- to be facetious --- but a “public servant” in that you have been elected to be the advocate for your constituents, all of your constituents.

Our relative prominence in the press and on television has not come about by accident, but rather through cultivation of press contacts over the past twenty years. My wife and I are both holders of press cards (Marjorie’s through BECTU, and mine through the NUJ). We also have a couple of excellent PR consultants who are good friends, and they have offered to assist us in publicising the events of the past eight months since the misguided raid. The tagline? The folks who raided our property are to be called the “Malvern 12,” and the press releases will highlight the fact that a dozen people descended upon our small dog hotel --- more enforcement officials than dogs-in-residence.

I’m sure you read the national press, and you have no doubt been as irritated about stories of local government excesses as I’ve been. Tales of valiant veterans, now in their 90’s, running afoul of the “Trash Police” by putting a single can in their wheelie bin. Or Stasi-like government officials encouraging children to turn in their neighbours and even members of their own family. I think that the heavy-handed actions of local government officials nationwide are seriously alienating the public from their County or Town Hall. Against this backdrop, I think the story of the “Malvern 12” will hopefully attract a lot of ink.

I look forward to hearing from you. My contact details are shown below --- the best way to reach me is usually via e-mail.

Kind regards,

Craig

No reply from Our Main At The Councils, Mr. Wells.

So I called him on 10 September we and had a brief conversation. Tom said he hadn't received the message --- must have been an errant spam filter. So I re-sent the message, via e-mail and via fax:

From: Craig Walsh
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:02:42 -0400
To: Tom Wells <talwells@btinternet.com>
Cc: Marjorie Walsh
Subject: RE: Meeting (Copy of Message Sent 7 September)

Dear Tom ---

Nice speaking with you briefly this afternoon.

Copied, below, is the message I sent to you on 7 September at 18:15. Yes, I understand that these messages can sometimes be caught by an over-energetic filter --- so hopefully it will get through this time. I will also fax it to you to be sure --- please excuse any duplication.

After you’ve had a chance to digest the message, please contact me (e-mail is usually best) so we can set up a mutually convenient time to discuss these matters with you. My wife, Marjorie, and I have been incredibly distressed by the actions of both the District and County Councils over the past eight or nine months --- starting with a raid by 12 people on our small dog resort/farm on 10 January 2008.

As our elected representative to both Councils we look to you to at least hear our grievances.

In February 2005 you wrote (I believe in a parish newsletter): “As always, don’t hesitate to get in touch if I can be of any assistance. Local residents, who have a particular issue they wish to raise, can now come along to my regular monthly advice surgery in Upton. These private and confidential interviews take place on the first Friday of the month at 10.00 am in the Tourist Information Centre. Whatever the problem, I will do my best to find a solution. [emphasis added]”

Can we please set up an interview as a matter of some urgency?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Craig

Still no reply. Not even a brief message to say, "Got your e-mail. Busy with the LibDem conference. Be back in touch in two weeks." Or even "Get lost." Nothing.

So I sent Tom my final message on the afternoon of 11 September:

From: Craig Walsh
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:43:55 -0400
To: Tom Wells <talwells@btinternet.com>
Cc: Marjorie Walsh
Subject: RE: Meeting (Copy of Message Sent 7 September)

Hi, Tom ---

I hope you have now received the second copy of my e-mail message of 7 September. I also faxed this to you and I received the customary fax confirmation that it had been sent successfully.

This matter just gets worse and worse, with the use of external consultants --- not registered to handle data --- taking wholesale copies of my personal hard drive.

Marjorie and I understand that you are an extremely busy man, but this matter has caused us considerable distress.

When are you able to meet with us, please?

If, for some inexplicable reason, you are unwilling to meet with two of your constituents perhaps you could enlighten me as to the reasons for your refusal.

I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Craig Walsh


It's now the 15th. Over a week since my first message to Tom. I have sent him a total of three messages directly, and have copied him on other messages I've sent to the Worcestershire County Council. I've even called him, and have sent him a copy of my original message via fax.

It is pretty obvious that Tom doesn't feel that he represents Marjorie and me. I won't copy him on further messages, and won't bother him again.

Since Tom apparently doesn't represent us, Marjorie and I will do everything we can do (legitimately) to elect someone more responsive next summer.

If you read this, Tom, please reply to my messages. You can do so here --- it's easy to register and post messages --- or can contact me directly.