Anyone familiar with the workings of the City of London council will recognise that an “independent” review of its members’ behaviour is following a familiar trajectory. A serious issue is first addressed in a “light touch” review by a friendly reviewer, who produces an inadequate report that downplays the seriousness of the issue. The reviewer has, though, not downplayed it quite enough for the ruling clique, who are the source of the issue, so mention in the report of masonic influence and a few negative comments need to be filtered out through a series of meetings by members who know that drawing attention to the twin elephants in the room (masonic influence and bullying, particularly of women) will result in their being trampled by those same elephants. By the time the matter reaches the full council for approval, it will have been reduced to a set of anodyne recommendations about things like training and induction. At some stage, the original report may be quietly published, or maybe its publication will be quietly forgotten about – the latter being preferable, in case the media picks up on the little in it that hints at something serious. That bureaucratic series of card tricks works, as long as the audience doesn’t know how the tricks are done. Problems for the ruling clique are that this website explains how they’re done, and it has an increasing readership among those interested in the City council. Another problem is that in this case a journalist got access to the report and published all the newsworthy bits which the clique wanted to filter out, and which are pointers to the much bigger reality that is documented in many posts on this website.