6th June 2025
As recently highlighted by the BBC’s morning broadcast with Danny Pike — and confirmed in writing — Councillor Keith Glazier was aware he was breaching the Code of Conduct, yet no meaningful sanction was applied.
I had already served a habeas corpus request under formal reference, due to serious safeguarding concerns — namely, that my daughter had gone missing, and that the Local Authority was knowingly placing the council in financial deficit by continuing to claim alleged care costs.
The most recent LGSCO publication is the Annual Report and Accounts 2023–24, which was laid before Parliament on December 16, 2024. This report provides an overview of the Ombudsman’s activities and performance for the period from April 2023 to March 2024.
Despite this, no transparent review or disciplinary process was initiated. This represents a breach of both statutory duty and the Nolan Principles of public life.

I refer to the following relevant Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) case references already in existence:
- RADIO: Keith Glazier references, in addition to those provided: 19695605, 19890574, IC-255415-V5N6, IC-256137-B8Q5, and IC-340906-C7G6.
- This concerns Martin Newbold’s numerous communications regarding East Sussex County Council’s handling and funding of children’s care, including legal breaches and ongoing safeguarding issues related to his daughter, Emily.
- Martin Newbold has also filed multiple formal applications and writs with various authorities, such as the European Court of Human Rights and the High Court, addressing these serious matters.
These matters demand immediate review by the relevant oversight authorities, and reinforce the urgent national need for binding standards enforcement — including the ability to suspend or disqualify elected officials who act in clear conflict with their public responsibilities.”
While ordinary citizens are held to strict codes of behaviour and face real consequences for misconduct, the same does not apply to many local councillors.
When a councillor breaches the Code of Conduct — through rudeness, bias, abuse of position, or failure to act with integrity — residents expect these matters to be taken seriously. But in reality:
- Local standards committees can issue a slap on the wrist — such as a “recommendation” for training or an apology — but have no power to suspend or disqualify councillors.
- The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) often cannot investigate these complaints directly. In many cases, they lack the remit, legal authority, or funding to act, even when a resident has suffered injustice.
- Meanwhile, councillors remain in office, often unaffected, while those who raise concerns are left powerless and unheard.
❗ This is a system that protects the powerful — not the public.
This is why current government proposals to allow short-term suspension and even disqualification in the most serious cases are so crucial.
These reforms, long overdue, would:
- Give councils the teeth to enforce the codes they already have,
- Allow residents to see justice done,
- And restore faith in local democracy — where public service must mean accountability, not immunity.
✉️ Real Case Example:
“I took my complaint to the LGSCO — only to be told they couldn’t investigate, and lacked the funding or authority to act. This is not accountability. This is a dead end. Without reform, public trust will continue to erode.”
Cite:
Danny Pike – 05/06/2025 – BBC Sounds
https://www.lgo.org.uk/information-centre/news/2025/may/ombudsman-complaints-data-issued-today
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) released a report on May 21, 2025, detailing the annual complaints data for the 2024–25 period. This data includes information on the volume of complaints handled, the number upheld, satisfactory remedies provided, and compliance with Ombudsman recommendations. Notably, the LGSCO has shifted its reporting emphasis from percentages to absolute numbers to provide clearer context for councils and the public.
- Details on Child Abduction Warning Notices and Legal Implications
- How Leese Family Connected Epstein to the Bullingdon Club
- The Death they burrowed
- The Leeses: Gateway to the British Establishment and Epstein.
- “Formal Complaint: Suspected Fraudulent Use of Money Claim / Court Process and £7,500 Costs Demand Following £2,000 Claim”





Leave a comment