STANDARDS COMMITTEE/PRESTON PARISH COUNCIL POST 4.

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.

POSTED BY KENNETH LYONS, A RESIDENT OF PRESTON.

POST 4. A CLOSER LOOK AT THE STATEMENTS AND CONCLUSION.

MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE GROUPS.

1.              Group B statements do not mention a single event identified by Group A;

2.               Likewise Group A statements do not mention any event identified by Group B;

3.               There is absolutely no ‘bleeding’ of information or connection between the two groups;

4.              The groups are therefore “Mutually Exclusive” in their contents.

Being mutually exclusive, it is not possible for both accounts to exist and refer to the same event at the same time and therefore both sets of statements are either referring to different events or one group must be non existent [false]. Both groups agree they refer to the same event so, which group gave false statements?

In my opinion it is essential in the public interest that the group of false statements is identified and the truthful witnesses are exonerated. This is needed to maintain credibility in the Parish Council and public confidence in Local Government. It is also needed in order to protect any other resident who may in my opinion be subjected to similar or even more serious behaviour should any resident disagree with members of the Parish Council at some point in the future.

There are a number of professional studies into ‘group witness behaviour’, which I have identified in detailed research when writing this post, carried out by Psychologists, police officers and legal bodies. I have studied a number of reports and their methodologies and I have done my best to apply those principles and methods to all the statements made by Preston Parish Councillors. In brief;

MATHEMATICAL BALANCE,

In the light of the above reports and methodologies, it can be argued that a simple mathematical balance exposes the weaker group;

1.Group A has five statements that between them match a majority of the events contained in the original statement of complaint. Three external witnesses to the incident independently gave statements that fully concur with the five Group A statements.

2.Group B has 4 statements that contain no events that match the original statement of complaint. No supporting statements exist from external sources [members of the public].

Therefore Group A has 8 statements and Group B has 4 statements, applying the ‘group behavioral approach’ as understood by me, the mathematical balance very clearly in my opinion indicates that Group B statements are the much weaker and therefore most likely to be false.

STATEMENT CONTENT AND GROUP BEHAVIOUR,

Statement content and group behaviour can, in accordance with my understanding of the approach, also be a strong indication as to which set of statements is false.

1.Group A statements all recall different aspects of the event using individual terminology and only the combined recollections identify the majority of events outlined in the original statement of complaint. These statements independently support each other without any indication of collaboration.

2.Group B statements appear to all identify the same 3 elements using group terminology that are not identified as part of the original statement of complaint. None of their peers [outside Group B] or external witness statement identifies any of the events listed in Group B. statements, therefore in my opinion these statements can be seen as ‘isolated’.

3.Group B statements must in my view be split into two sub-groups;

a)     Those playing a direct role in the incident, of which there are two.

b)     Those being furthest away from the incident and not playing a direct role, of which there are two.

For the two sub groups with their locations, distance between them and level of involvement to all recall the same events independently of each other, and all statements failing to identify any event in line with their peer group outside of their own witness group or the original statement of complaint, and to all recall the same ‘new’ events is in my experience unheard of. Accordingly, in my opinion this raises a big question mark over the credibility and accuracy of the statements. In my opinion this strongly indicates a cross flow of information between the two sub-groups’ members.

                 

TIME INFLUENCE AND LEVEL OF OBSERVATION.

In accordance with the ‘witness behavioural approach’, it is my understanding that the time between the incident and witness statements can have a detrimental effect on recollections if the time between is great or the observation is ‘accidental’.

The time between the event and statements here can be measured in months, not a great deal of time and as for accidental observation, new Councillors awareness at the time would surely have been heightened because as new Councillors it was their first Council meeting and they would therefore in my considered view have been likely to have taken special note of every event of the meeting.

The incident was so loud and intense, and within such a relatively small and quiet class room, that it is inconceivable in my view other than that all Councillors, especially new councillors, would have been hyper aware of what transpired. Indeed, it is most likely in my opinion that the incident, because of its intenseness, would have been strongly imprinted in their memories.

Given such circumstances it is entirely reasonable in my view to expect all Councillors to recall at least one event accurately. Equally, it would not be reasonable to expect all Councillors to recall all events of the incident accurately.

It would also be unreasonable in my view to expect an entire group of witnesses to all recall the same events as each other because individuals process the information differently. Again it would be equally unreasonable in my opinion for the same witness group to all recall the same ‘new’ events, without prior sharing of information.

Statistically, in my opinion it would be virtually impossible that two of the three main participants [Cllrs. Bell and Fortnum] are unable to recall a single actual event, it being equally impossible in my opinion, for these two witnesses to, independently of each other, recall the same ‘new’ events that didn’t actually occur during the incident.

No other witness whose evidence I have seen, whether Councillor or member of the public, mentions or recalls any of the following;

1.              Mr. Lyons being the aggressor;

2.              Cllr. Bell sitting with his back to Mr. Lyons and responding over his shoulder;

3.              Cllr. Bell being calm and displaying no aggression.

If any of the above events had taken place it would in my opinion be entirely reasonable to expect at least one other witness in Group A or a member of the public to have recalled or mentioned at least one of these events, they do not!

In my opinion, for the two main participants from Group B [Cllrs. Bell and Fortnum] to misinterpret their own actions, words and attitudes to such an extent that no other known witness [outside Group B] recognises them, is not a realistic position.

Summary:

Group A statements precisely fit with ‘witness group behaviour’ and profiles identified by studies as I understand them, they all recall different parts of the event and only when you combine those parts will you get a full and accurate picture of the original incident as described in the original statement of complaint. This indicates the statements were compiled independently of each other without a cross flow of information or influence from witness to witness.

Group B statements on the other hand do not fit any identified group behaviour patterns or profiles as I understand them, other than a “group in isolation” which indicates the group is ‘unreliable’, each witness recalling the same unsupported events, and considering this group is split into two sub groups it is in my considered view highly improbable that they would all recall the same ‘new’ events as each other, without a cross flow of information between group members.

If we add to this the fact that no events contained in the Group B statements match anything produced by their peer group and are not supported by any external account, nor have they identified any element of the original complaint in which they played such a pivotal role leaves them in my view utterly isolated.

Therefore if we take the content of the two sets of statements, it is my opinion that Group B fails on all and every count and is consequently unsustainable.

According to the Investigating Officer, Councillor Clappison seems to have felt unable to support his colleague Cllr. Bell, citing me as the reason he didn’t wish to comment Although how I affect his ability, as a long serving and experienced councillor to give a truthful statement to his governing body, the Standards Committee when requested to do so, I fail to comprehend.

CONCLUSION.

In my honest opinion it is impossible for the 2 sets of statements to be both accurate and truthful accounts whilst at the same time referring to the same incident because they are ‘Mutually Exclusive’.

Group A witness statements and statements by members of the public all independently concur with the events of the original statement of complaint. None of those witnesses appear to recall or recognise any event put forward by Group B.

Unfortunately for Group B, in my honest opinion, the changes that have been introduced are far too severe, and by crudely attempting to reverse the roles of the 2 main participants. I believe that, by creating and introducing this ‘second event’, Group B has defeated it’s own position.

Group B statements are at odds with everything I know about the incident, they are apparently unable to recall one single event of the incident. Instead, in my opinion every witness in this group appears to recall events that simply cannot have happened and every witness in this group appears to recall the same ‘new’ events as each other.

Cllrs. Bell, Fortnum, Mendham and Fenwick have to-date refused to make any comment on the validity of the content of their statements. If there is some innocent explanation, their position of silence must change and they must give that innocent explanation. If not, their silence will continue to damage confidence in Local Government, the Parish Council’s good name and cast a shadow on the reputation of their colleagues serving on the Council alongside them.  There are 9 statements from Parish Councillors relating to this incident, and in my honest opinion I believe only half of them can be truthful accounts, a shadow is cast over the integrity of all until that explanation is given.

I am aware that East Riding Council read this Blog and I would urge them to conduct a thorough and independent investigation to identify those false statements.

I also believe those Councillors who had the courage and were prepared to stand up and give their honest statements need support. At the moment the same brush is tarnishing all Councillors and it clearly tells other Councillors who might feel it righ to give honest statements regarding any incident in the future not to bother because doing so may also adversely reflect on their reputations. 

I believe Cllrs. Mendham and Fenwick being the furthest from the incident and possibly, in my honest opinion, having being influenced by other witnesses, unwittingly gave inaccurate statements to the Investigating Officer. Should that be the case I believe Cllrs. Mendham and Fenwick should withdraw their statements at the earliest opportunity and correct the error.

It is my honestly held opinion that any honest person or reasonable member of the public reading this article could hold the same opinion as me having full regard to all of the circumstances as supplied to me by the Investigating Officer for the Standards Committee.

Ken Lyons.

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.