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.
