Response to "my name my business"

Response to "my name, my business"

Sorry! I gave a short answer to a short comment I should maybe have answered more fully, I just felt it was plain rude and didn’t really deserve my time but, others may have the question in mind and be interested in a response.

I suppose it’s a difficult one to answer even though I have considered it a few times since starting this blog, even if the answer was “yes, I’d walk away”, I don’t really see what they can do about it so the question has a kind of non-entity air about it and I guess I have never really felt the need to answer it. I accept my main personal issue is the honesty one because that suggested that I was being dishonest and if that wasn’t there I would probably not be doing this blog, the obvious question to me would have been “could I be wrong and the councillors innocent?”

The other questions about how the council operate and use our money are questions that affect all residents and if everybody else is happy for the council to act and operate the way it does, who am I to argue? I would say “ok there’s no point in my taking issue with things so let them get on with it”. By taking that stance I wouldn’t have the inconvenience of feeling the need to have taken this step, there are plenty of other things I can be doing!

I have looked at this honesty issue and approached it from the point that I’m mistaken and it didn’t happen the way I remember and the 3 currently sitting councillors have done nothing wrong at all. I have then broken the incident down into it’s individual elements and tried to make them fit into the ‘presumption of innocence’, everything falls apart from the moment I try to make those elements fit that assumption.

If I had made a mistake and not recalled the incident correctly 7 other councillors who were sat around the table must have also made the same mistakes as me when recalling the incident independently of me and of each other for the innocence theory to have any credibility. I have done a correlation analysis, and the only strong correlation is that the two sets of statements point to two different incidents, that’s obviously not the case. The only conclusion must be that one set of statements are correct and the other set of statements are wrong, it isn’t possible for them both to be right, the final question is which statements are which.

It’s no co-incidence that the 2 sets of statements are also divided into two distinct sets of councillors, old and new. The old councillors who put in false statements must have gathered round to protect a long standing colleague who they had worked with for many years and because they very clearly had an axe to grind with me. The rights and wrongs of their actions were very clearly not of any concern to them. New councillors on the other hand have put forward statements as they actually remember the incident and clearly cover the incident as described in my complaint, new councillors didn’t at the time have any axe to grind with me or have a long standing colleague to protect.

The false statements were so precisely similar in wording and event recollection, the only way they could have been any closer would have been to compile one letter, make a few copies and then sign one each.

The statements that I know to be wrong have me as the aggressor who abused a councillor sat immediately in front of me (I was stood up commenting on a statement by the Chairman of the Council) my behaviour was allegedly threatening, abusive and aggressive. The councillor on the other hand sat impassively calm and answered my abuse in a calm soft voice without turning to face me and paying no heed to the threat I apparently posed to the back of his head. That scenario is simply not worthy of comment as it’s far too implausible and fanciful!!

What actually happened was, while I was responding to the chairman a councillor spun around in his chair immediately in front of me and attacked me verbally in an extremely loud and aggressive manner. He was greatly agitated and there was a threat that it may well turn into a physical assault on my person, the councillors face was reddened puffed up with his jugular veins being extended by anger and threateningly pointing his finger and leaning towards me.

I immediately responded to the threat by challenging the councillor’s version of events and being as aggressive as he was in order to defend myself.

A councillor who made a statement that he showed no aggression at all either verbally or in his body language and that she was able to categorically state that the councillor did not turn to face me. This is the same councillor who had to take the aggressive councillor by the arm (she was sat next to him and paid very close attention to the whole incident) and turn him back towards the table telling him it wasn’t worth it in order to calm him down. This councillor was absolutely dishonest (as were all three of them) and she is looking after the financial affairs of the Parish and making decisions on our behalf, and we wonder why the parish finances are in such a mess!!

These three councillors have never extended any “generosity of spirit” towards me and therefore have no moral right to expect any in return.

My opinion is that the people who gave false statements do not care about the reputation of the council and have no regard for the views of any residents and have no respect for Preston so long as they remain in a position to influence the affairs of Preston, for what reason I really don’t know.