2ND RESPONSE TO KEITH G, HULL.

We would just like to remind readers, this blog is not run by any one person, it has a number of residents as members and we work as a team, no single member has full control on what appears. If you wish to comment on anything on this blog you should either comment through the normal channel or email us direct, If you would like to join our group please email us, thank you.

HELLO AGAIN KEITH AND THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN FOR YOUR COMMENT.

Posted by Kenneth Lyons.

For me to do what I’m doing is really very easy because I’m telling the truth and that’s never a difficult thing to do and, it’s probably why there has been no challenge to what I say, the whole Council of May 2011, know it to be the truth. I would dearly love the Council or any Councillor to write and challenge what I say and enter into a debate.

If what I say is untrue and unfounded, don’t you think there would have been absolute fury from the council? It would have been covered everywhere possible, there would probably have been notices over the whole village, in the Council Notice Board, in the local press, announcements on HU12 Online and the local Facebook groups, it would have been everywhere!

Some Councillors have already implied that I lied to the Monitoring Officer and then they ran and hid behind the barricades of the Parish Council in their Flak Jackets for protection. Smugly citing they are Councillors and therefore unable to comment on such matters….total bloody hogwash!,

None of the Councillors I refer to have ever uttered a single word in public, it has always been behind the protection of the closed doors of the Council. If their statements are honest and truthful let them say so in public and say my statement was untruthful! By doing so it will allow me to defend myself and it will also unlock the full statements held by the Standards Committee at East Riding Council.

I can tell you, the council did discuss the matter ‘In-camera’ on 14^th November 2012 and, from the minutes of that meeting, I quote…

“………The Council was also made aware that letters from three Councillors had been sent to the Monitoring Officer at East Riding Council regarding SCAC/181/Bell/Preston. The Chairman advised that although a very serious matter it was not for this council to discuss as it was something that could only be dealt with by the Monitoring Officer”.

I would like to note that the Chairman didn’t say “serious allegation’ she said “serious matter”, the underlying implication in my opinion is that she is aware of the truth relating to the incident bearing in mind her witness statement to the Standards Committee.

Minutes confirm my assertion that 3 Councillors wrote to the Monitoring officer following the Standards Committee deliberation to protest at the flawed outcome. It is also my opinion that the statement is incomplete. It is my understanding that if the monitoring officer was to refer this matter to the Standards Committee and the deliberation went against the Councillors in question it would warrant a very serious sanction indeed. Maybe to the extent that those Councillors, if found guilty, may be found to be unfit to hold public office, if that were the case it is my understanding the matter would have to be referred to the High Court for a final ruling on their possible disqualification from holding public office and an election would then need to be called to fill the resulting vacancies. That would take it out of the hands of the Monitoring Officer.

For a Council to hold a meeting ‘In-camera’ it’s a privately held meeting that excludes any members of the public or press, it is there to be legitimately used to enable the Council to discuss issues in private. There are 3 categories that would justify such a meeting under the Public Bodies (Admission to meetings) Act 1960.

Holding a private meeting to enable the Council to have secret discussions away from the press and public and on matters that are in the public interest so as to allow Councillors to express their points of view secretly and probably to intimidate those Councillors who disagree with them to avoid public criticism or legal challenge is not one of them.

In my opinion the Parish Council has grossly abused the legal provisions, which enable ‘In-camera’ meetings, for the sole purpose of protecting a small number of Councillors.

Just so we understand and there is no confusion, something that affects the Parish Council and the residents who it represents, the Council have no legal right to discuss? Doesn’t make a great deal of sense does it?

Could it possibly be that the Parish Council doesn’t want to discuss the issue in public because that would not be in the interests of certain members of the Council.

According to the published Minutes, the Council were given “various options” by their external advisors ERNLLCA, the Council collectively chose to take the option that meant the Council didn’t have to comment and could therefore keep quiet about the whole incident and blame it on the Monitoring Officer, not entirely democratic!

If as the Council insists, only the Monitoring Officer is in a position to deal with the matter, the Council as a Corporate Body should contact the Monitoring Officer and demand that the issue is thoroughly investigated and resolved in order to prevent further damage to the Councils reputation. If the Monitoring Officer still refuses to investigate the matter the Council is able to appeal to the Local Government Ombudsman that should get a result.

My understanding is that the council has a legal right to discuss the issue in a public forum with participation from members of the public. What I can tell you is that there is certainly no legal provision that prevents the council form discussing this subject in public. In fact I will go so far as to say there is a legal provision that encourages a Local Authority to discuss this very subject in public and with public participation described as ‘Council Debate’ and ‘Public Utterances’ as a defence and rebuttal to allegations a Local Authority considers libellous. This defence is listed in an earlier Defamation Act, which the 2013 Act has not repealed.

A local Authority has no other means of defending itself against libel, for the Parish Council to suggest that has somehow been taken away from them is misleading. If they have received external advice as they claim surely one of the ‘various options’ was a listed defence against Defamation, the only one available to the Council?

I suspect the Parish Council is fully aware of that because it recently attempted to take some form of action against this Blog in order to prevent further posts, they found they are powerless, the only way the Parish Council can close this Blog is by resolving this issue. 

In my opinion it would appear the council is prepared to go to great lengths to keep this issue under wraps while at the same time making every effort to ensure that I do not have the opportunity to defend myself.

Just as a matter of fact, it seems the council gets most if not all of its external advice from ERNLLCA and according to the ERNLLCA Administrations Officer, Cllr. Clappison (who had been Chairman of the Parish Council up to the point of the incident) was elected Chairman of the Holderness District of ERNLLCA on 29^th June 2010. I am certainly not suggesting that would necessarily influence any advice given by ERNLLCA but it does raise an eyebrow or two.

Surely Cllr. Clappison should list that as an interest that should be declared in certain matters, this issue in my opinion being one of them. See how the names just keep on popping up in key places? It would appear we just can’t escape coming across one of those 4 names whichever avenue we take.

In your last point you mention the damage to the council and the need for it to be resolved, I am in total agreement with you. I contacted the Council Chairman privately quite some time ago seeking to find a resolution, I was at that time prepared to accept from the Council an assurance that such behaviour will never be repeated and neither I nor any other resident would be subjected to such behaviour. There has never been any acknowledgement or response to that letter. I remain willing to discuss the matter with the Council Chairman at any time. My willingness to meet the Council Chairman to try and resolve the issue has not changed for almost 3 years.

I do hope this answers you comment Keith, my apologies if in parts I sound passionate.

If there are any residents with similar experience of the council do please contact us by comment or email. If you wish we will post on your experience without your identity being released, or not post anything if you simply want to share your experience it’s entirely up to you. We would love to hear your story, your not alone, there are a number of us, let us compare notes and grow as a group.