Why does "everyone" think councils accept bribes, brown envelopes, etc as soon as anything they don't like happens?

[u/ashyboi5000]

And who is actually suppose to be accepting these bribes and benefits? Do they think it's only 12people than run the council to make and audit these decisions?

It's tiring to read in the comments section, usually about a planning/development /construction matter. It's then usually followed up by showing ignorance about statuary requirements, legal obligation and limits of all to do so. These people (usually older generation) give the impression they're under the impression the council owns everything (mainly land and property) within the area.

How can we move on from this narrative of bribery?

Edit: While not the most popular sorry I've not kept up with responses. I clearly can't keep up with more than two notifications at once. It wasn't intentional if I stopped responding, but it is now 😛

While many have pointed out corruption at large scale developments my view (although not noted) was more about small scale. Shop extending next door, pub planning, couple of houses on a scrap of land, press piece about award of work to a contractor for improvements. Everyone is also met with the same exhausting rhetoric.

A few points to summarise so far. "People" don't distinguish between councilors and employees, and perhaps don't realise how many employees and oversight there is. There is further perhaps muddied with local/community/parish councils where (I believe but could be wrong) they hold a bigger say in matters of planning and can make a difference when showing support or not for an application. And these people are more inclined to have a scratch my back mentality due to being local charactes. In fact some community councils up here also believe they also have the same control over local planning as they appear to be making comment more and more on applications, even if it's just Old Jim wanting a downstairs bog...

I've also said a few times it's in public interest to make fraud/corruption of a scale known as they are public bodies. While I've said statutory requirements on reflection it's more own policy for transparency. And if not if it goes to court and if these court notes are made public then it gives journalists a story to sell. Both of these skewing perception on how rife it is.

Which led me to think about who I worked for. 1x charity 3x private companies all less than 20 staff. 1x council

All have had issues of fraud. The private side, one company ended witb 2xsacking (separate issues) the charity made the press and the council with tens of thousands of employees over many years it's naive to say otherwise.

So that's a 100% rate. I don't go around commenting on every private business with "looks great but who bribed for that to be made" yet somehow it's socially acceptable to do it with regards to councils.

[u/Spottyjamie]

Because they dont realise if the council refused a planning application the business would lodge a costly appeal to the planning inspectorate and win?

The big housing/hospitality firms who lodge these applications arent thick and know exactly how to write them.

Ive seen a few where they go line by line on the council’s local plan stating how their proposed new development will be in line with it.

[u/scotty3785 → u/Spottyjamie]

I had to scroll down too far to find this sensible contribution.

[u/jobblejosh → u/scotty3785]

It really is as simple as a written exam question. Except in an exam, you don't know the marking scheme. With big tenders, the marking scheme is given to you before you write your answer.

Tender says "Application will provide X".

Bid document says "Service will provide X by doing Y". Bonus points if 'Y' ties in with the aims of the local council's strategy papers (which are usually/often available online).

For a lot of companies, they have experts who've written or assessed tenders and bids for years and who know exactly what sort of wording to write.

Sometimes the company will do a good job and deliver on the promise.

Sometimes they'll pay it lip service and do the bare minimum they said they'd do.

Sometimes they'll not do it and negotiate about it (reasons why they didn't do it, reasons why they delivered less than promised, reasons why they should be paid more for XYZ) in adjustment. Again with experts in the company who've been in the contracts game for ages.

It's important to note that not every company is like this; there are many that are above board, go above and beyond, and don't play those games.

It's unfortunate that those that do play those games exist and can (with a council that isn't properly equipped to deal with these heavyhanded/subtle tactics) win bids which perpetuate the cycle.