AELFRIC is right to say that anonymity has its uses - it also has its abuses; his latest contribution to your letters column falls into to the latter category. Why? Because he repeats an untrue statement, makes an inaccurate inference and makes a serious, but totally unverifiable, accusation.

He is able, however, to avoid all responsibility for this. First the untrue statement. Aelfric repeats the allegation that two manual workers were disciplined for taking a shower. In fact, there was a hearing and the councillors who heard the appeal decided that no disciplinary action should be taken.

Secondly, the inaccurate inference. Aelfric affects to be unaware of my criticisms of the information given to councillors about Crinkley Bottom - inviting the inference they had been somewhat muted. In fact, I have been frank in my criticisms in both council and committee. These were fully reported in the issue of the Citizen dated April 23, so I am surprised that Aelfric, who seems to follow the minutiae of the affair, missed them.

Or perhaps this was an occasion when selective memory helps his argument? Thirdly, the unsubstantiated allegations. I have no knowledge of the events Aelfric refers to, and his account is so unspecific that it gives no one the chance to check or do anything about them if true. The slur however remains - which is no doubt what Aelfric intended.

Nor will I duck the specific question. I do think the District Auditor, who is independent of councillors and officers, is the best person both to investigate and to make judgements that could potentially affect both. He is looking into the objections to the accounts; there is little point trying to anticipate his recommendations but they will have to be taken seriously and acted on when they are made. This is precisely the point Councillor Henig was making and I agree with him.

Cllr Ian Barker

Deputy leader

City Council

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.