A LEADING Thurrock councillor has refused to apologise or retract information he gave to councillors that was demonstrably false and misleading. And at least part of the information he gave out, he knew to be false.

Portfolio holder for central services at Thurrock Council, Cllr Jack Duffin, has refused to acknowledge he misled fellow council members when outlining information on the council's amended communication strategy which, it turns out, had been solicited by the council's communications director after a deadline had passed for submission.

He gave councillors false information about when information from a leading journalist had been received and he chose to cherry pick just the positive information in it, rather than details of concerns and advice from the senior regional editor of the company that publishes the Thurrock Gazette.

And, despite being fully aware of the content of a another submission from Nub News which was critical of the strategy, Cllr Duffin ignored that and told members "there was 100 per cent positive referral from media partners that actually responded."

In short, Cllr Duffin was neither truthful nor transparent when he addressed fellow councillors. But he remains unrepentant.

The Conservative councillor for Stanford East and Corringham Town, who has represented UKIP and the Thurrock Independents before nailing his colours to the Tory mast, was speaking to members of the council about the way the new strategy, which he has previously questioned and expressed his concern about, had suddenly been rubber-stamped and approved by council leader Rob Gledhill without reference in public to other council members.

Thurrock Nub News detailed Cllr Duffin's statement to councillors at a full council meeting in November in a report which can be accessed via this link.

In the report Nub News editor Neil Speight was extremely critical of Cllr Duffin's statements and the council's actions over the implementation of the communications strategy, which the editor had personally criticised. His concerns were dismissed by Cllr Duffin as referring to 'operational matters' which were not relevant to the strategy itself, and instead he read sections from a submission from Chris Hatton, Newsquest's regional editor for the south East.

This is Cllr Duffin's address to councillors: "We wrote to editors and asked for feedback and we received in total one reply within the timeframe and that was from the editor in chief of Newsquest South East and it had very positive feedback.

"I will just read a passage: 'Clearly with such an ambitious agenda for change it was great to see a specific section on multi-platform campaigns. The strategy is refreshing as people in the heart of it, affecting behaviour change, neighbourhood pride and ensuring residents are kept informed of future investment, initiatives and strategic development.

'I think trusted local media in particular is in a great position to help drive this forward. I welcome the commitment to collaborating to build a better Thurrock, this is an exciting strategy, one which we would all embrace'.

"So it was really good to reach out, we gave them the opportunity, one replied within time, one replied just after time - some it that feedback was more about day-to-day things which isn't actually what is in the strategy but there was 100 per cent positive referral from media partners that actually responded. It was fantastic to see. I am really happy that I was able to read that."

Under questioning from Cllr Gary Byrne about the feedback and the background to his speaking to full council, Cllr Duffin said: "What I actually asked of officers is to go back, speak to the media and get the feedback and it was 100 per cent positive feedback that we received from the media.

"I did not ask for a new report, I asked for a statement and within the time we saw one person respond and it was positive. It was great to see and it's what we will continue to do, to work with our partners."

The timescale Cllr Duffin mentions has its roots in a Local Government Peer review of the council's communications strategy which took place in 2020. The review was independently led and managed by council officers and councillors from other boroughs.

As part of the review all local media operators that have interaction with the council were invited to partake in it and a date was set aside for media editors to be interviewed. Only one of several editors invited actively participated. That was Mr Speight. Reporter Claire Sawyer from BBC Essex and then BBC local democracy reporting service reporter Steve Shaw were also quizzed by the panel.

Members of the panel expressed that it was disappointing that other editors had not taken part but welcomed the input of Mr Speight – who has been covering local government in Thurrock since January 2004 and during that time has served as editor of the Thurrock Gazette, the Essex and Thurrock Enquirer and the Thurrock Independent newspaper.

Members of the council staff and councillors also took part in the review and were questioned about the media strategy.

When the outcome of the review was published in March, it was a fairly damning critique of the council's performance.

Nub News reported on the presentation of the review to the council's corporate overview and scrutiny committee. You can read that report here. It also included a comment at the time by Mr Speight, who somewhat prophetically said: "Sadly I fear that it will be glossed over with a lack of honesty that has become endemic in the council's structure."

In the wake of the LGA report it was decided by council to conduct an internal review of the communications strategy and the engagement with local media. The council's director of communications, Karen Wheeler, made a written commitment to engage with the media in the preparation of that review.

There appeared to have been no engagement with the media and on Tuesday, 7 September a draft communications strategy was presented to the council's corporate overview and scrutiny committee – just 24 hours before the same document was due to be presented to the cabinet for approval an implementation.

The draft strategy was presented and discussed by committee members on the 7th and there were some criticisms made of the strategy. The report was 'noted' by the committee chair, Conservative Cllr Sue Little and members.

Concerned that the promise of consultation with the media had not happened, and because he felt the draft strategy was flawed, Mr Speight made the decision to write to all cabinet members directly in the intervening 24 hours and briefed them of his concerns.

At the cabinet meeting members mentioned Mr Speight's message. Cllr Duffin spoke of his own concerns about the strategy, particularly that the media had not been consulted. His concerns were echoed by the council's deputy leader, Cllr Shane Hebb who had been at the O&S meeting and council leader Rob Gledhill agreed with a suggestion that approval of the report be deferred for that consultation to happen.

A report of both committee and cabinet meetings can be found via this link.

Eight days later, on 16 September Ms Wheeler sent a round-robin email to 'media colleagues' which contained a 'draft communication strategy for 2021-24'.

Ms Wheeler said: "We are seeking your views prior to taking the final version to Cabinet for approval i the next month or so." She set a deadline for the media to respond to the 17 page document of Monday, 27 September 2021 – seven working days.

Mr Speight says: "It came at a busy time for myself with no real notice other than the directive given at cabinet and unfortunately for a variety of reasons, I did not submit my response until four working days after the deadline, sending it in very late on 4 October, but it was received and read the following day by Ms Wheeler.

"Ms Wheeler acknowledged receipt of my response which was quite detailed and was in many places critical of the strategy but also offered many practical ideas and some concessions to help give the council more time to answer questions.

"I felt it was a pretty fair summary and pro-active response, giving the full benefit of my many years of experience. There is no denying there are issues between myself and the council, but I thought I was offering a conciliatory and constructive series of suggestions – though it was critical of some aspects of the draft strategy. It is not correct for anyone to say that the response I gave was 100 per cent supportive of the media strategy."

It appeared Mr Speight was the only member of the media who had responded. The next meeting of the cabinet was convened for Wednesday, 13 October.

The report of Cllr Duffin to that meeting contained the following statement:

"At Cabinet on Wednesday 8 September, the Cabinet Member for Central Services requested that the local media be given a further opportunity to feed into the strategy and specifically comment on the draft document. The local media were invited to offer feedback on the council's overall strategic approach to communications as outlined within the strategy document.

"No feedback was received from any local media outlet in response to this invitation within the deadline provided of 27 September, however, one response was received on 4 October.

"The feedback in this response is focused on operational aspects of communications including timescales, equipment and on-call arrangements. Feedback on the media briefings already included as part of the strategy will be taken into account as the approach is further developed.

"Consideration will be given to the operational issues raised in the response but they do not impact on the overall strategic approach to the council's communications and the strategy itself."

There was no mention of any other response.

Mr Speight says: "It's as straightforward as it could be. Cllr Duffin, in his report says: 'No feedback was received from any local media outlet in response to this invitation within the deadline provided of 27 September, however, one response was received on 4 October'."

Because of a blunder by the council (pointed out by Mr Speight at the beginning of the scheduled meeting), the cabinet meeting did not take place because it had been illegally convened and any decisions it had been made would not have been able to be ratified.

It was expected that the item would be placed, alongside others, on the agenda for the next meeting but, in a surprise move the council announced that Cllr Gledhill was going to exert his executive authority' and he approved the new strategy - which in its draft form before the cabinet appeared to have no input from the media – a prime requirement of the LGA peer review and a written promise made to the media by Ms Wheeler and Cllr Deb Huelin, the cabinet member with corporate responsibility for communications at the time of the LGA review.

Mr Speight asked if he could table a question as a borough council taxpayer, a resident and as a very interested professional at the meeting of the full council in November.

His request was refused. However, the subject matter was never going to go away and at the full council meeting on Wednesday, 24 November, Cllr Duffin was quizzed initially by Cllr John Kent, and then by Cllr Byrne. Cllr Duffin's response is reported in the story above – when he suddenly produced the reference to Mr Hatton's response, which he described as being received within the deadline and that it was 100 per cent supportive.

Mr Speight's response, as he dramatically left the council meeting is detailed in his report. Given time to reflect and investigate, Mr Speight has now found that what Cllr Duffin said at the meeting was not true. The response from Mr Hatton that Cllr Duffin was quoting from was actually sent to the council – after Mr Hatton had been recontacted by Ms Wheeler and asked to make a submission - on Tuesday, 12 October.

Mr Hatton has told Nub News he sent it in after a conversation with Ms Wheeler who had asked him to respond. He says he had started the draft of a response to Ms Wheeler's initial request on 24 September but he had not submitted it because he 'forgot'.

He told Nub News: "I responded to the communications strategy plan – which is similar to many others. I sent it in late, however.

"In it, I did issue a note of caution around day-to-day media coverage and the need to ensure the council takes steps to respond/reply on issues raised by the local media.

"I wrote the letter on the 24th and thought I'd sent it in. But clearly I hadn't. I was then prompted and sent it over and I did so at 11.06am on October 12."

Challenged to explain why he told councillors that Mr Hatton's response had been received within the deadline when it was not, and that he had told councillors not once but twice that all responses received were 100 per cent supportive – when they are not - Cllr Duffin told Nub News this week: "I said 100% of the responses on time were supportive. Not 'the response was 100% supportive'. I am confused how you draw your conclusions."

Nub News reported Cllr Duffin's comments to Mr Hatton and also showed him a detailed 'off the record summary' Cllr Duffin sent Nub News of how he perceived events had played out.

Mr Hatton has since reiterated that he did not send in the report inside the deadline time, that he sent it on the 12 October and that he has not suggested to the council that there was a copy of the response that he sent in earlier.

He repeated unequivocally that his only submission of a document to the council was on 12 October, repeating: "I thought I'd sent it in but clearly I hadn't."

Somewhat bizarrely, Cllr Duffin's response to that was: "I have zero reason to doubt the word of Chris Hatton." But yet he refuses to concede he misled councillors by answering a question with information that is not correct.

His recorded narrative on the council YouTube site (which is presented with this story) proves he was not reporting a correct timeline – nor was he being honest when he said that all the responses received were supportive.

COMMENT – by Neil Speight

To conclude what is a very long report and probably one that has already sent most disinterested readers to sleep, I feel I need to make the following points.

Thank you for staying with this if you have got to this point.

Many people will shrug their shoulders at this and say 'so what?'. I get that – in this day and age – and led from the very top of the national political ladder we are used to seeing deceit, abdication of personal responsibility a lack of honour.

Our politicians are probably among the most reviled people in society – though that is grossly unfair.

The majority of politicians, particularly the majority of councillors, are good people who are doing their best to serve the communities they live in and are very much a part of.

And that is as true in Thurrock as it is everywhere else. But sadly what we have in Thurrock is a minority of leading councillors who appear to spend their lives in the gutter, serving self interest and political dogma, not the best interests of the people who elected them.

The disgraceful litany of abuse of democracy and transparency perpetrated by the current administration in Thurrock is well recorded. Not just by me.

So much so that Cllr Duffin's actions are probably at the lower end of the scale.

But the key thing is that his actions are able to be disproved, and discredited by fact – which is not always the case.

Knowing about wrongdoing and being able to prove it are often two different things. In this instance that is not the case.

We know that Cllr Duffin knew that there was a critical response about the communications strategy. We know because he was sent a copy of that response and because he acknowledged in when speaking in cabinet.

We know he must have approved a report in his name which went to cabinet saying there had only been one response to the council's request for information. Mine.

And we know he knew I was angry about the situation and that I had been refused the opportunity to speak directly to council outlining my concerns.

So we know that when he spoke of '100 per cent support' he was not being truthful. With regard to Chris Hatton's response, we don't know what he knew about the correct timeline.

But he was furnished with news of Mr Hatton's response by somebody, we presume Ms Wheeler.

This response suddenly appeared out of a 'magic hat'. Surely he ought to have asked the questions that would have given him the knowledge that what he had planned to say to councillors was wrong? That's what he gets an additional portfolio allowance of £11 grand for.

We don't know why he didn't ask those questions – or if he did, why he discounted the answers.

We do know that he stood up representing the full majesty of his political office and told councillors something that was not true.

And we know that in the face of that, despite undisputable proof and the word of Chris Hatton (which he says he has absolute faith in) he will not apologise.

We know a lot. But what we don't know is the answer to this question. Should he resign and admit he got it wrong?

And what we also know with absolute certainly is that the director of communications, Ms Wheeler knew exactly what had happened. And that as the creator and lead advocate of the communications strategy she was in a position to stop Cllr Duffin telling untruths and misleading councillors.

It appears she chose not to. Whether Cllr Duffin should or should not resign is a moot point, but it is the absolute opinion of this news website and this experienced editor that there should be a full and independent investigation into what Ms Wheeler has done – and who else knew about events that have set Cllr Duffin up for this fall.

This may not seem like a big deal in its own right, but its very much the thing edge of a wedge. We all know that telling lies is part of the DNA of some politicians; they don't worry about the morality of that, they just worry about getting caught. And even when they do get caught out, more often than note they brush it off and carry on.

Residents in Thurrock appear to get brushed off more than most.

But that doesn't make it right. A lie is a lie. Sometimes it's a 'white lie' and said with the best of intentions. But it's still a lie. And sometimes it's a lie created more out of ignorance than knowledge. But it's still a lie. And sometimes it's a lie told because a person has been manipulated into making it. But it's still a lie.

And when that lie is proved, the least the public should expect is contrition and humility.

It appears Cllr Duffin does not believe he has told a lie. It appears it seems more to him like a juxtaposition of the truth, a distorted timeline that isn't that important.

Well little lies often lead to bigger lies. And lying can become a habit. And with much of what is currently going on that involves some of Thurrock Council's leading cohort of administrators and councillors it appears to be habit that is already commonplace.

The Conservative group leader, the council CEO and Ms Wheeler herself have been made aware of all the information in this article and have been asked to comment.

The silence is deafening.

Perhaps that explains why a young man like Cllr Duffin, who no doubt entered politics with the best of intentions, thinks what he has done is OK. Perhaps it is. You decide!