DISINFORMATION AND DISHONESTY OF THE PARISH COUNCIL.

We would 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.

DISINFORMATION AND DISHONESTY OF THE PARISH COUNCIL.

Residents must be able to trust and have faith in the information the Parish Council gives them, when information is given out by the Council that is obviously wrong it injures the trust residents have in the Council and questions inevitably follow. We are not referring to a one off error, which we are all capable of making, our concern is consistently misleading information received from the Parish Council which any reasonable person might ask, ‘do the Council know this information is misleading, if not the Council should at the very least explain what’s gone wrong and give an assurance that measures have been taken to mininmise the error occurring in the future. If the Council simply state “the matter is closed”, this inevitably leads to a damage in trust, questions remain unanswered and any future information from the Council is brought into question.

Although there are a number of items of information from the Council that are in our view ‘highly questionable’, we will confine our comments to just 3 items, covering historical and more recent events.

FIRSTLY THE MOST RECENT ITEM,

A request for information was submitted to the Parish Council on 19^th February 2014, the text of the request is reproduced below,

Dear Council

Re: Freedom of Information Request.

I would appreciate it if you would forward the following information,

1.              A list of all ‘In camera’ meetings held since May 2011.

2.              Minutes relating to those meetings.

Thank you for your assistance.

 A very curtly worded reply was received the following day (20/02/2014), reproduced here,

Mr. *********,

In camera meetings were held on 17^th April 2012 and 9^th May 2012.

The minutes for the meetings are available to view on the Council web site www.prestonparishcouncil.org and are titled April 17^th 2012 and May 2012.

 The Council

Once again it transpired this information was inaccurate and visiting the Council Web site was not helpful. The resident making the request was aware of 4 ‘In camera’ meetings since May 2011 but unsure whether that was the total number or not. The resident responded and explained why he considered the information given was inaccurate, the Council replied with a much friendlier response and released the information that should have been given in the first reply.

The resident responded and thanked the Council for its speedy reply. If the resident had not had a prior knowledge of the ‘In camera’ meetings he would almost certainly have been mislead by the Councils reply.

Residents should not have to push the Council for information they are entitled to as electors and precept payers. The Council should not respond in a manner that implies the resident has put the Council to a lot of trouble and that the Council would rather not be giving the information out.

THE SECOND ITEM IS A MORE HISTORICAL ONE BUT DOES ILLUSTRATE THE POINT WE’RE TRYING TO MAKE VERY EFFECTIVELY IN OUR VIEW.

A group of residents attended a Council Meeting in late 2010 with information that a Planning Application for the erection of a new community hall with all associated costs was about £10,000, The Chairman agreed that is was “near enough” and some Councillors expressed shock.

A resident then contacted the Council to enquire as to the actual cost with all associated costs included.

The answer came back as,

Frank Hill & Son.

To Sketch Plans.                £2000   (19/07/06)

Planning Application Fees.  £1860   (09/11/06)

Building regs.                     £  378   (31/01/07)

Architects Fees                  £3000   (31/01/07)

Total Cost                   £7,238.00

More recently, on 19^th September 2013 another resident requested the same information using the same wording as the earlier request, i.e. the cost of the Planning Application with all associated costs included. Straight forward you would think, the reply was received on 20^th September 2013, which was,

“….I attach all the minutes covering that period for your information including

the approval of payments by the Council.

The payment to Frank Hill was made in two stages and included the cost of

planning, building regulations and architect fees. The total cost being

£3903.08p inc. vat.”

Total cost                  £3,903.08.

That is vastly different to the first reply from the Council that put the total cost including all other associated costs at £7,238, that’s a discrepancy of £3334.92 and the later one includes VAT presumably at the standard Rate. It should we believe be possible to accurately take these figures from Council accounts that were finalised at least 4 years previously, there should be no discrepancy between the amounts. It does raise the question, is the Council attempting to lessen the impact relating to the wasting of public funds by purposefully issuing false and misleading information on financial matters?

We need to look at the appropriate minutes and try to match payments against those figures,

Minutes for the Council Meeting on 14^th June 2006.  “(05-66) Village Hall Project.  The Chairman informed the Council that a quote of £6000 for producing plans for the proposed new village hall had been received from Frank Hill”.  That quote was approved and accepted by Council, in June 2006 there is no mention of any additional costs associated with a Planning Application as that wouldn’t be entered into for another 5 months or so.

The actual amounts (in 3 stages not 2) paid to Frank Hill for the Village Hall Project in 2006/7 are,

Minutes for September 2006.                                                      £ 2,350.00

Minutes for February 2007.                                                      £ 2,728.08

Minutes for April 2007.                                                                        £1,175.00

Total                                    £6,263.08

If we add to this the cost of the Planning Application of £1,860 and Building Regs £375, it gives us another figure of,

Total                                    £8,503.08.

So we now have at least 4 different costs for that Planning Application, which one if any is correct?

The whole of the Councils response is confusing and misleading and possibly to the point of being dishonest, we have various amounts whichever response you wish to take. That should not be the case, Information given out by the Council should be consistently accurate and relevant to the request.

There has between 2010 and now been an accusation leveled at the Council that because they have simply left that expensive Planning Approval without any attempt to progress it from the date it was approved, those public funds were spend needlessly with no benefit to the community of Preston. That in our opinion breached the Councils Fiduciary Duty of Care owed to residents when spending public funds.

We understand the Audit Commission, following an Audit in early 2011, criticized the Council and suggested it should take greater care when using public funds.

As ever with the Parish Council when it gives information more than once there is always a discrepancy each time the information is given. We still after many attempts do not know the cost of the 2006 Planning Application. Whether this is deliberate or not we are unable to say but it does demonstrate a fault in the process that is in desperate need of rectification.

Structural Engineers Report on the Village Hall.

In 2010 a group of residents were opposing the Council’s intention to demolish the Village Hall and build a new Community Hall. At that time we were in possession of a Structural Engineers Report on the Village Hall commissioned by the Parish Council, stating the current hall was structurally sound and was merely in need of superficial refurbishment to put it back into full use. This was contrary to the advice we were being given by the Council who wanted to demolish the Hall and were telling residents the Hall was beyond repair and therefore it wasn’t a financially viable proposition.

On 22^nd October 2010 we requested a copy of that Engineers report as follows

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

Dear Council

I am trying to locate a copy of a survey on the village hall that was apparently done some time ago. Can you please confirm there is a survey report and may I have a copy.

If that could be sent by E-mail I would appreciate it.

Regards 

On the 22^nd October the reply came back from the Council,

“I can’t recall a survey being carried out. Who would have carried it out and what would the survey relate to?”

After some exchanges the Council eventually agreed there was a report done by Alan Wood and Partners in 2003, but it was done on behalf of the Church and it was nothing to do with the Council, we were also assured the Parish Council didn’t pay for it. A copy was not forwarded as the Council maintained it was not their concern and therefore had no copy to forward. This sort of denial is beginning to sound familiar isn’t it?

For the Council to ask residents who would have carried out such a report and what it would have related to is not acceptable behaviour from our Parish Council or Councillors. The Council commissioned the report, it was delivered to the Council and the Council was holding the report on file and because the Council commissioned the report we can only assume the council covered the cost.

It is our belief that the Parish Council has a culture of misleading residents and deliberately giving out false information to residents in the hope that the activities of the Council can remain hidden from the view of the public. Only when pressed and evidence of what is being requested is produced will the Council half-heartedly give information. That culture we believe is being maintained by a number of Councillors who do not have the best interests of the residents of Preston as their main priority.

In this modern age there can be no place for such inexcusable behaviour from our local elected officials. This behaviour by the Parish Council and its members clearly demonstrates an established culture of dishonesty and secrecy when dealing with members of the public who it is there to represent, in our opinion it is essential for the Council to take whatever actions are required to correct the faults.

We are aware there is much friction within the Council because one faction wants there to be change to a more open and inclusive culture while an opposing faction disagrees and wishes to maintain the status quo. This position is not good for the Parish or residents and once again it reflects on the level or service given to residents by the warring Council.

There is a question of ‘Institutional Dishonesty’ by the Parish Council that must be resolved.

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.

PARISH COUNCIL MEETING 03/03/2014.

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.

PARISH COUNCIL MEETING 03/03/2014.

Posted by Kenneth Lyons.

I attended the Council Meeting tonight (03/03/2014), it confirmed and reinforced the reason why I haven’t been to one of these meetings for a while. I get totally frustrated with how they work and what they talk about, which I have to say is nothing or at least its anything as long as it isn’t relevant to the issue being considered.

Tonight as I understand it, was to consider the “soundness and legality” of East Riding’s “Proposed Submissions Documents”. I had the very distinct impression that not a single councillor had taken the time or trouble to read any document on the protocol for reaching this point in a legal and sound manner.

We had talk of Preston not being a ‘Village’ or ‘Primary Village” its a ‘Hamlet”, people who lived in some houses or other that had now become flats, big red fire engines that are bigger than the ones we currently have, traffic blockages, a bypass and that would be down to a builder to build, where the by-pass would be and how it wouldn’t improve the traffic in Preston, drains in Bilton and how many houses could be connected to it, how in 1999 East Riding said they wouldn’t build in Preston until the traffic problems had been adequately addressed and a host of other subjects that were totally irrelevant to the purpose of the Council Meeting, all this took up at least 95% of this section of the meeting, yes I was watching the time.

We had a resident who has spent a lot of time and hard work collecting signatures for a petition to East Riding on the traffic issues in Preston, who was told by a Ward Councillor that she was wasting her time and it would make absolutely no difference at all, terrific, who’s side are the council on?

At the end of this section of the meeting and before the Council went on to consider Planning Applications the Council Chairman gave a little speech about how the Council never seemed to get any residents at Council Meetings. The Chairman said, “maybe the Council isn’t relevant to the lives of residents and that the Council didn’t know if that was the Council’s fault”. The Chairman went on to say the Council was having its meeting next Monday in the café in the Co-op Supermarket, every body had a good laugh, including Council members, at that point I could take no more…I had to leave!

I worked for an International Broker and I can only go by the meetings I attended and in many cases arranged and Chaired with an agenda of items. Every attendee had to be up to speed on the subject earmarked for discussion. My time was accounted for during every day in the coming year and what I never had time for, was some one going off at a tangent and getting off track. There had to be a conclusion drawn, a plan for moving that subject forward and responsibilities assigned, that was the end of the meeting.

Maybe I’ve got the wrong end of the stick and Council meetings operate in a very different way to what I’m used to but I have to say, I have great difficulty in coming to terms with wasting my time at meetings that appear to cover very little, go nowhere and avoid the subject in question. I have only ever been to Preston Parish Council meetings in a public forum and they are very different from business meetings I am more accustomed to, so if I am being overly harsh I can only apologise, I can only put it down to my lack of experience.

The Ward Councillor who attended explained that the current process has been going for the last 8 years. I know that the council has received all the documents relating to that process over that time but cannot prove that many of them were never even opened, I know that from a Council source.

Should the Council have shown a little leadership and drawn those documents and plans to the attention of residents some years ago? Wouldn’t this be a very good subject for Parish Meetings to consider the implications and gather the views and opinions of residents?

Obviously none of the above, it seems to have been the domain of 13 Councillors to let this slip through because the decision seems to have been theirs alone, is the Council relevant to residents lives, I’ll leave you to figure that one out.

Allow me to give the Council a clue, the Council is there to manage the Parish and its affairs and representing the views of residents. In 2010 more than 500 residents sent letters to East Riding objecting to a housing development of 20 dwellings, last year almost 600 residents objected to housing developments in the village, currently there are about 700 residents who have signed a petition objecting to the current Submissions Document. I make that in the order of 1800 residents, not withstanding duplications that are against development due to traffic issues in Preston. Those figures are pretty well exclusive to Preston North, does the Council happen to know how many residents live in Preston North?

The current Council has been sitting for the last 3 years and certainly since that first development in 2010, the Council can argue this blunder was down to the previous administration, which I would agree with, but can the Council explain to residents why it has not in the last 3 years taken up this cause on behalf of residents instead of leaving it till 7 days before the whole process reaches its conclusion?

If the Council want to know if it’s relevant to the lives of residents and why no residents (to speak of) attend Council Meetings I suggest the answer is no, thats why nobody attends Council Meetings!

I have been asked by a number of residents if I will submit a note of interest in the current vacancy on the Council. I told them I would consider it, after tonight I’ve considered it and my answer is “if you pee into the wind you normally get wet”, I prefer to stay dry thank you!

We intend to publish a post on housing allocations in the near future, you might find it interesting.

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.

STANDARDS COMMITTEE/PRESTON PARISH COUNCIL POST 3.

We would 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.

POSTED BY KENNETH LYONS, A RESIDENT OF PRESTON

POST 3. WITNESS STATEMENTS.

Some councillors gave witness statements including Councillor’s Elizabeth Whatling, Janet Weatherill, Adrian Bullock, Mandy Masters and Keith Gilby. I will later refer to these as Group A Statements.

The statements included;

Cllr. Elizabeth Whatling,

“A recollection that Councillor Bell and Mr. Lyons were both angry and had a heated exchange.”

Statements from the Council Chairman Janet Weatherill and Vice Chairman [at the time] Adrian Bullock included;

“A recollection of Councillor Bell behaving in an aggressive manner towards a member of the public which went beyond the normal boundaries of behaviour one would expect in a meeting and of a councillor.”

And;

“One recollection that councillor Bell reacted in a sarcastic manner towards the complainant”.

Councillor Keith Gilby, who was sat directly next to both Cllrs. Bell and Fortnum and myself but a member of the public at the time, witnessed the whole incident from approximately 1m away. Cllr. Gilby was kind enough to give me a copy of his statement provided by him to Mr. Buckley, Monitoring Officer, East Riding County Council.

I must point out that Cllr. Gilby gave me the copy of his statement for my personal records and not for publishing, I, Kenneth Lyons am solely responsible for it being published here, he wrote,

“Mr. Lyons was directing his comments in a measured way quite properly to the Chair of Preston Parish Council. I cannot remember the detail of what he was talking about but I do remember that without provocation Councillor Bell turned to face Mr. Ken Lyons. His demeanor was very angry, aggressive and red faced and he commenced an abusive and threatening personal attack on Mr. Lyons accusing him of being a liar and the cause of the Clerk’s stroke.

Mr. Lyons quite understandably responded to defend himself and the exchange continued for a short while. I recall Councillor Pam Fortnum placing a restraining arm on councillor Geoff Bell and saying something to the effect ‘its not worth it Geoff’. Having vented his anger, councillor Bell eventually sat down and more normal behaviour was observed. I believe that people who witnessed this were quite shocked and unbelieving that a councillor would behave in such a way.

In my view this completely unprovoked attack by an elected representative on a member of the public is unacceptable. Such behaviour must be addressed and dealt with such that the public can have confidence that when they challenge the council, they will not be met with such aggression and abuse.”

Group A witness statements [Weatherill, Bullock, Whatling, Gilby and Masters] conclude;

1.              Councillor Bell turned in his seat to face me;

2.              Councillor Bell behaved in an aggressive manner towards a member of the public;

3.              Cllr Bell’s attack was entirely unprovoked;

4.              Cllr. Bell was red faced, aggressive and threatening;

5.              There was a heated and angry discussion between councillor Bell and Mr. Lyons;

6.              Cllr. Fortnum eventually calmed Cllr. Bell down and said to him “Its not worth it Geoff”.

This is I believe a question of councillor honesty, and therefore no statements by members of the public are represented here. Where such statements exist [two other than my own that I am aware of] and, according to the Investigating officer, they all fully confirm the details as included in my original statement of complaint.

Following the Standards Committee’s findings I understand that at least three councillors [Mandy Masters, Adrian Bullock and Keith Gilby] submitted letters to Mr. Mathew Buckley [Monitoring Officer for East Riding Council] protesting at the flawed outcome. I am not in possession of the statements given by Councillor’s Bullock or Masters but both parties assure me their statements were submitted and that they confirmed the version of events contained in my original account of the incident.

AN ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNT.

We do have a different version of events submitted by Cllrs. Bell, Fortnum, Mendham and Fenwick.

East Riding identified one other statement from Councillor Julian Clappison who indicated that he “did not wish to comment”.

East Riding Council identified Pam Fortnum as being ‘the main witness referred to by Mr. Lyons and sitting next to Cllr. Bell.”

In Cllr Fortnum’s statement she wrote;

“Councillor Bell comes across as a forceful character but not his true nature, Mr. Lyons made a statement and Mr. Bell replied but no impression of aggression and no indication of this from his body language, he did not turn to face Mr. Lyons and spoke to him over his shoulder”.

With regard to calming Cllr. Bell down Pam Fortnum wrote;

“At no time did Mr. Bell in his body language show any aggression, he was sat with his back to Mr. Lyons and spoke over his shoulder, he did not turn round fully to face Mr. Lyons.”

In Cllr. Bell’s witness statement he wrote;

“I did not threaten Mr. Lyons and did not turn around to face him at all.”

Cllrs. Barbara Mendham and Mike Fenwick also submitted witness statements on almost identical lines as Bell and Fortnum. Their statements included;

“A recollection of Cllr. Bell responding to aggressive comments from Mr. Lyons, no indication of Cllr. Bell threatening any sort of violence, either in the form of physical or verbal threat.”

And;

“A recollection that Councillor Bell had his back to Mr. Lyons and Mr. Lyons made a derogatory comment.”

My initial reaction was to give these two councillors the benefit of the doubt because they were furthest away from the incident and could have misinterpreted what they saw and heard. Looking at the statements later I realised they had exactly the same incorrect events in their statements as Cllrs. Bell and Fortnum, I find that difficult to accept as mere co-incidence given their positions and level of involvement at the time of the incident.

Group B witness statements, [Bell, Fortnum, Mendham and Fenwick] conclude;

1.              Mr. Lyons was the aggressor;

2.              Mr. Lyons made aggressive/derogatory remarks to Cllr. Bell;

3.              Cllr. Bell displayed no aggression at all;

4.              Cllr. Bell had his back to Mr. Lyons and didn’t turn to face him at all;

5.              Cllr. Fortnum specifically denies calming Cllr Bell.

It is in my carefully formed opinion that in effect, Group B statements have crudely swopped roles between Cllr. Bell and Mr. Lyons. It is entirely accurate to say no other known witness recalls any of the events included in any of the Group B statements.

According to the Investigating Officer there are no statements from members of the public which support any element contained in any of the Group B statements.

Conclusion.

It is agreed by both groups that an incident took place at the Council meeting identified. It is also agreed that the main two participants were Cllr. Geoff Bell and Mr. Lyons and closely followed by Cllr. Pam Fortnum who I identified in my original complaint as being in my view the main witness to the incident.

It is in my opinion impossible for both groups of statements to be accurate and truthful because they are mutually exclusive.

POST 4.

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE STATEMENTS AND CONCLUSION, will be posted in the next couple of days.

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.

1. Our response to Preston Parish Council.

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 please comment through the normal channel or email us direct, If you would like to join our group please email us we would be pleased to hear from you, thank you.

1. Our response to Preston Parish Council.

We have now received detailed information on what transpired during the council meeting held on Friday 16^th August 2013. This response is now complete so we will post it in full, however there are a few points to cover so we are posting it in sections, they are,

1.     Our response to Preston Parish Council.

2.     Non-Response of Preston Parish Council to this blog.

3.     Proposed Council Poster.

4.     Petition Proposed by Preston Parish Council.

5.     The 'Proper Channels'.

6.     Council Rage and Fury at This Blog.

7.     Our Offer To The Parish Council to Remove This Blog

Let us just reflect for a moment to gather our senses because there is no sense at all in the council’s actions over this blog, at least not if their objective is to make us go away. As part of their meeting on 16^th August the council was to consider a response to “Anonymous Allegations” on this blog. It turned out to be a bit of a damp squid but at least it’s from the council so we now have something to get our teeth into.

They’re agreed response was to not respond to us at all. The council is instead trying to exorcise us just as a priest would a house but someone appears to have advised them they can do it without visiting the house or using a holy man, holy water or bible! Who on earth is giving such appallingly bad advice to the parish council, the council blindly follow advice that damages their own position and supports our cause and increases our members and readers. For us to achieve that it would cost us a lot of money, thankfully we’re not paying for it the parish council are paying, sorry! residents are paying for it! Looks like another waste of public funds to us! Is there someone on the council who is closely connected to their external advisors?....we suspect so!

If the council makes such appallingly poor judgements over such a simple task as responding to a blog how are we expected to have faith in their judgment when it comes to looking after our money? Or taking any decision on our behalf for that matter, as a village we’re doomed to stumbling from cock-up to cock-up while the council is run by these so called  “community Leaders”, we are inclined to call the whole episode a joke, unfortunately the sheer incompetence of this council has cost residents far too much money for it to be a laughing matter!!

So what have they done? Well, at first they did their usual party trick by ignoring us for 6 or 7 months pretending we didn’t exist probably because they couldn’t figure out what to do about the blog, anyway we may have gone away under our own steam, that would save the council from having to make any decisions.

Eventually after 6 months or so of inaction the council reach the conclusion they must do something after all and set out to ‘respond’ to the blog. We don’t quite know what that phrase means to others but to us it means you will reply or interact in some way with your adversary, not to the council. They apparently want to interact with anyone except their adversary, this blog?

Next post:   Non-Response of Preston Parish Council to this blog.

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 been 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.

Response to Anonymous.

Response to Anonymous.

Hi Anonymous

Your quite right the accusations and tone are “appalling” the actions by the council which brought this blog about are also “appalling” none of this would be taking place if the council had not treated residents including myself with such an appallingly dismissive attitude, attacked a resident during a council meeting then got together to lie about the incident, making the resident out to be the liar, or waste so much of our money, I could go on but that might be seem as “ranting”, heaven forbid!!  

I see we’re back on the old “vendetta” treadmill, a favorite with the council when trying to discredit me and deflect attention from themselves. It saves them having to answer any questions, all the accusations are a matter of record so before you tell me I’m wrong to fight an injustice go and ask the council why they did those things in the first place!

Again your right, this whole thing tarnishes the entire council, brings the council into disrepute puts the village in a poor light, I accept all of that is unfair and unjust and probably uncalled for, I have tried to distinguish between what I see as new councillors and the old guard who are the problem and always have been. Let the few councillors who engineered this mayhem show some honour and consideration for their colleagues who are being tarnished with their wrongdoings, let them stand and show some willingness to put this in the past and accept they have not being perfect examples to the village!

A few councillors brought the council into disrepute when they gave false statements to the Standards Committee, that's about as appalling as you can get, I didn’t do that! Nor have I said its proven, my position has always been for an independent investigation to establish the truth, read the e-petition on the Government website.

You suggest I should resolve my differences with the council in a private manner. I have requested to meet with the council probably a dozen times over the last 3 years to resolve our differences, I was happy to get a simple assurance that such an attack by a councillor during a council meeting would not be repeated. This whole thing could have been put to bed over 2 years ago with 4 simple words from the council “that won’t happen again” instead they voted not to speak to me and brushed me aside as though I am some worthless idiot who is not worth the time of day, my trying to resolve issues directly with the council have ended I no longer have contact with the council.

The relationship between myself and the Parish Council has unfortunately always been an acrimonious one, there are faults on both sides so neither of us can claim any moral high ground and it will never be resolved until the parties decide to talk and settle their differences. For my part I have tried to settle any differences many times while the council have been intransigent in their position of dismissing me out of hand, that’s hardly my fault I don’t control the council! I have also been to ERYC and complained about councillors submitting false statement’s, they simply refused to look at it.

I find it strange that while I am willing to accept fault on my part as well as the council being at fault, your opinion would seem to be that everything is down to me and I’m just having a go at a wonderfully efficient, caring council that takes care of residents every need and are a wonderful asset to the village. Nothing in my opinion could be further from the truth, you have a very one sided argument which in itself discredits it.

Thank you for reading and for your comment.

Contacting this blog.

Contacting the blog - For Carol and anyone struggling to get in touch or comment

To all of our followers who are now talking about this page across the internet we thank you. Whether it be in a Facebook group, through twitter or just simply by reading this blog as and when you get the chance.

The main aim of the blog was to always get more people talking about Preston and how it is governed. We seem to have achieved that objective.

Some people have felt frustrated that there is no way to direct message the blog and I would like to take the time to inform you how you can do this

Firstly I’m afraid Blogger doesn’t have a direct messaging system, If it did I would welcome it an add it to the page as soon as such a gadget was available.

Secondly my direct email address has been available for anyone to contact me since day 1 of the blog. It can be found both on the header of the blog and on the side bar. I will answer all direct messages in full as long as they are decent and for the good of discussion whether the opinion agree or disagree with myself.

For the record if you are struggling to find it is prestonparishcouncilproblems@gmail.com

As regards tweets on the site this was set up to show that we do have a twitter account should anyone wish to follow the blog. Twitter strikes me as a more mature forum to discuss such issues of importance as Facebook can too often end up like a knife fight on the Jeremy Kyle show. Plus I would not want to invade your social goings on.

If you would like to read the blog it is here any time and as promised all comments will be posted both for and against.

Once again if you follow me I will follow back this will then enable you to direct message us on Twitter. This can be done if you click on the name PrestonHU12 and then click the envelope icon.

Some people have not found it easy to access the comments which are posted on each article. To access these scroll to the end of each article and it will state how many comments there has been on the article. If you click that text it will open up the comments and here you can leave a comment and I will get back to you in full. You do not have to use your real name or you can simply be anonymous.

Once again thank you for discussing our blog over all platforms and we are please that you are doing so. This opens the door for more honest and open discussion about the village and will hopefully in the long run be good for the village as a whole.

Mr. Anonymous