Last Thursday I went to Sheffield Crown Court and watched British justice descend to a lower point than even I had thought it could possibly reach. Suffice it to say that a 'bent' council official had been working a scam - not to steal monies for himself - but to make his department and therefore himself, appear much more important.
He contracted work out to a number of businesses who obviously did his bidding as instructed and they were told to submit invoices in a particular way. They received legitimate fees for their work. They were a little puzzled on occasions that certain contracts appeared inflated but these worries were naturally eased by the fact that all surplus funds were going back into the council!
The scam merchant at the Council died suddenly. It was only then revealed exactly what he had been doing on his own.
Three businessmen were unreasonably accused of false accounting and bullied into 'taking a deal'. They have had to pay court costs of ten thousand pounds each; all received a community work order; all got a suspended prison sentence; all have been made to repay the fees they had properly earned - and had already paid tax on!
The perpetrator's two dozen work colleagues were not in the dock. No council officers were in the dock. No member of the Sheffield Finance Department was in the dock. No councillors were in the dock. No salaried employees were in the dock. The auditors who had been impressed by what the man had been doing were not in the dock BUT three outsiders were!
They had no means of knowing that a scam even existed but still had to 'take the fall'.
Were they guilty? - Oh, probably - in some arcane sense but they were warned that if they went to a two month trial, their guilt, albeit only technical, would see them receiving substantial periods of custody.
To compound this disgraceful affair, in blazed The Sheffield Star. This once worthy organ of the press has produced some of the worst hack journalism I have ever seen outside the NOTW.
It implied that the legitimate fees were a quid pro quo for dishonesty. Even the judge and prosecution had seemed rather embarrassed by what they were doing and had not suggested that.
Their wicked headline implied that this trio had been involved in scamming millions from ratepayers. Nothing could be further from the truth - but - never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?
