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.

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.

PRESTON PARISH COUNCIL/STANDARDS COMMITTEE POST 2.

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.

POST 2. GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL ASSOCIATIONS

It would be appropriate to outline group and individual associations for the purposes of clarity.

Complainant,

Kenneth Lyons, Resident.

I have opposed Preston Parish Council since mid 2010, when it became apparent to me from carefully considering the available evidence that the council operated in the best interests of those other than residents and wasted large sums of public funds.

Although I personally know a number of Parish Councillors, we cannot be described as friends and as time moves on with my persistence in trying to get to the truth, I become more and more ostracized by some members of the Parish Council and residents associated with the Parish Council, which fortunately in my view is a very small and insignificant percentage of our population.

By not posting the truth I firmly believe that I would be exposing other residents to very real risk of the same abuse, and possibly by the same person should any resident wish to disagree with the Parish Council in the future, I refuse to expose my fellow residents to the risk of any such abuse.

I have separated Council witnesses into the groups I shall be referring to later in this post.

Council witnesses.

Group A  Cllrs.                                   Date joined Council

Janet Weatherill                                  May 2011

Adrian Bullock                                    May 2011

Mandy Masters                                   May 2011

Keith Gilby                                           March 2012

Elizabeth Whatling 2010 ?

Group B Cllrs.                                      Date joined Council

Julian Clappison                                   < May 1999

Geoff Bell                                                < May 1999

Pam Fortnum                                        < May 1999

Barbara Mendham                                  May 2003

Mike Fenwick                                       < April 2007

In my honest opinion the make up of the two groups gives an insight into why there is such a serious discrepancy between the witness statements. All the inaccuracies that in my opinion exist are confined to Group B, the group containing longer serving members of the Council who have been colleagues for many years.

At the time of the incident Cllr. Julian Clappison was Council Chairman and Cllr. Geoff Bell was Vice Chairman. I believe that it is very telling that Cllr. Clappison chose not to comment. Cllr. Clappison and I have opposed each other for more than 3 years and I honestly believe Cllr. Clappison would not overlook any opportunity to take advantage of this issue if I was in the wrong or being dishonest in any way.

I honestly believe Cllr. Clappison was not foolish enough to submit an untruthful statement but couldn’t tell the truth, as that would have condemned his long-standing colleague and friend.

Non Commenter’s.

There are a few members of the Parish Council who chose not to give witness statements, according to the Investigating Officer for the Standards Committee, Those were:

Councillor                                           Date joined Council

Martin Acey                                         May 2011

Helen Harrison                                   May 2011

Lyn Carmichael                                   May 2011

Nora Hughes                                        Not Known

New Councillors where elected in May 2011 in the hope that change for the better would result and our Parish Council would become more open, honest and accountable to the people who they represent. In my honest opinion all Councillors have a duty to uphold the Code of Conduct, which they swear to abide by on taking office. In my considered opinion all Councillors have a duty to respond when their governing body requests them to give a witness statement in connection to any incident that occurred during a Council meeting, to not do so is in my opinion failing the reasonable expectations of all residents who elected them.

I firmly believe that it is possible this matter could have been fully resolved some time ago if the above Councillors had given statements at the time.

POST 3

WITNESS STATEMENTS, 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.

STANDARDS COMMITTEE/PRESTON PARISH COUNCIL POST1.

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.

POSTED BY KENNETH LYONS, A RESIDENT OF PRESTON.

POST 1.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS POST, THE INCIDENT AND MAIN ELEMENTS OF MY COMPLAINT TO THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE.

I have headed this post with my name because I shall be putting names to councillors of Preston Parish Council who in my honest opinion gave false statements to the Standards Committee during an investigation into an incident that occurred during the May 2011 Preston Parish Council Meeting, following the local elections of the same year.

The investigation related to a complaint regarding Cllr. Geoff Bell of Preston Parish Council and is identified on the East Riding of Yorkshire Web-site as “SCASC/181/Bell/Preston”.

I publish this post firmly believing the publication of its contents to be in the public interest, and specifically in the interests of promoting fair and open Local Government and ensuring that the best possible practices, involving full honesty, integrity and transparency are adopted by Local Authorities at all levels.

I am posting this article that was first published in July 2012 and has been published since, having being delivered to all members of the Parish Council and also the Parish Clerk [a member of the public].

I have split the post into 4 sections, the posts will appear between Tuesday 4^th February and Monday 10^th February 2014.

Post 1.   Responsibility for this post, why it is being published, the incident and the main elements of my                                            statement of complaint.

Post 2.   Group and individual associations.

Post 3.    Witness statements.

Post 4.     A closer look at witness statements and conclusion.

Responsibility for this post.

The responsibility for this post is entirely mine [Kenneth Lyons], I am the author, editor and publisher of the article without the involvement or assistance of any other person or persons.

Why this post is being published.

The present posted article has no material differences to the first and subsequent publications. This post centre’s around four Preston Parish Councillors who in my honest opinion gave false statements to the Standards Committee during an official investigation into the above case.

Despite requests from the publisher [Kenneth Lyons] to the Councillors involved, to account for or explain the apparent discrepancies referred to more fully below, there has been no response from them in the forgoing 16 months. No Councillor has challenged, denied or objected to the opinion of the publisher.

As the publisher of this post, I believe it to represent my honest opinion based upon extracts of statements given by witnesses to the Investigating Officer for the Standards Committee.

The overriding objective of this post is to facilitate a resolution of this matter, and in the process to clear my name, as well as to put right any potential adverse impact that this matter may bring to the Parish Council and those Councillors who have supported my position during the above Standards Committee Investigation.

My opinion consists of two parts:

1.An opinion of fact that refers to the differences between witness statements provided to me as part of the above investigation by the Investigating Officer, which consist of two very different accounts given by two very different groups which in my considered view cannot both refer to the same incident and at the same time be both accurate and truthful accounts.

2. A statement of opinion that a particular group of statements is both inaccurate and untruthful. It is my honestly                   held opinion because being a main participant in the event I have first hand knowledge of what truly happened                   and therefore I am clearly able to recognise those statements that are untruthful.

Any extracts of statements listed in this post are reproduced from extracts of statements supplied to me by the Standards Committee Investigating Officer, with the exception of one statement given to me by a primary witness which I am assured by him that it was submitted to the appropriate officer of the Standards Committee. I have written confirmation from East Riding Council that such statements do in fact exist.

I further believe the publication of this post to be in the public interest because Parish Councillors, who have been elected to represent the interests of members of the public, submitted the statements that in my honest opinion I believe to be false. In order to maintain public confidence in our elected officials and democratic institutions of Local Government it is essential that those members of the public have absolute faith and trust that those elected officials will act on the public’s behalf and in its best interests in an honest and unimpeachable manner.

Not least of all there is the fact that Parish Councillors are entrusted by members of the public to spend public funds that every household in the parish contributes to, it is therefore essential that members of those households have absolute trust in the honesty of those who represent them.

It is therefore essential that the discrepancy in witness statements be resolved and truthful witnesses exonerated.

The Incident.

On the 11^th May 2011, I attended the inaugural Parish Council meeting for the new term following the local elections. Following a comment by the then Council Chairman Julian Clappison, I was in the course of responding when Vice Chairman Cllr. Geoff Bell suddenly spun round in his seat and very loudly and aggressively attacked me verbally, without any provocation.

I responded to the attack in order to defend myself and had by necessity to be as loud and aggressive as Councillor Bell. Cllr.  Bell was leaning forward and was directly in front of my face and adopted what I found to be an extremely aggressive attitude, both I and other members of the public to whom I have since spoken were of the opinion that Cllr. Bell was about to follow through with a physical assault because I refused to be subdued by his actions.

Cllr. Pam Fortnum was sat next to Cllr. Bell and I observed her to spin around in her seat at the same time as Cllr. Bell did so.  I noticed that she paid very close attention to the incident. It was very clear to me that Cllr. Bell was losing the argument and also his self-control. With Cllr. Bell’s face only inches from my face I had to be prepared to respond to a physical assault by him.

At this point the situation was so serious that Cllr. Pam Fortnum took hold of Cllr. Bells arm and directed him to turn back to the table, saying to him “its not worth it Geoff!” The incident then calmed down and the meeting continued.

In my complaint to the Standards Committee all the above elements were included. Because of Cllr. Pam Fortnum’s proximity and the close attention that I noticed her pay to the incident, I listed her as the main witness.

The main elements of my statement;

1.                  Cllr. Bell swung around in his seat to directly face me;

2.                  Cllr Bell verbally attacked me in an extremely aggressive and threatening manner;

3.                  The attack was entirely unprovoked;

4.                  As the situation had become so serious Cllr. Fortnum took Cllr. Bell by the arm and directed him to turn back                       to the table;

5.                  In so directing him back Cllr. Fortnum said “it’s not worth it Geoff”.

Because I absolutely know my statement of complaint to be a true and accurate description of the incident, without exaggerations or embellishments I have used it as a ‘benchmark’, which witness statements would or would not agree with dependant upon their individual level of recollections.

Placing my faith in the honesty of elected officials, I fully expected and was ready to accept witnesses to place a different interpretation on the detail of my statement dependant upon their own personal recollections.

I expected some differences in detail as a tactic of litigation to lessen the impact of any sanction that may or may not have been applied, should any decision go against the respondent.

I did not at any time expect a whole witness group to describe an incident that in my honest opinion is so diametrically opposed to the basic facts of what actually transpired and which, in effect and in my honest opinion, creates a new incident that neither I or any other witness appears to have experienced.

POST 2.

GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL ASSOCIATIONS, will be posted within 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.

Naming of Preston Parish Councillors

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.

NAMING OF PRESTON PARISH COUNCILLORS.

Preston Parish Council Problems [PPCP] is to publish an article by a Preston resident naming Preston Parish Councillors who in the opinion of the publisher believes gave false statements to an official investigation by the Standards Committee of East Riding County Council into an incident that occurred at the Parish Council Meeting held on 11^th May 2011.

We are aware of the Defamation [Operators of Websites] Regulations 2013, the Regulations are in accordance with section 5[9] of the Defamation Act 2013.

Following legal advice, this site intends to fully comply with the provisions in the 2013 Regulations. In line with that advice the ‘publisher’ will identify himself at the start of the post.

Preston Parish Council has been informed of the upcoming post, the Parish Council has been given full contact details of the publisher should the Parish Council, any Councillor or their representatives wish to contact the publisher directly.

Any person named who does not have that information must submit a valid ‘Notice of Complaint’ under Regulation 2, direct to prestonparishcouncilproblems@gmail.com and we shall endeavour to assist in identifying the publisher fully for the purposes of direct contact.

The post is scheduled to appear in the afternoon of Tuesday 4^th February 2014, the post is to be posted in 4 parts and the final post is due to be published no later than Monday 10^th February 2014.

Preston Parish Council Problems.

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.

Government Website e-petition

GOVERNMENT WEBSITE E-PETITION.

The e-petition posted on the Government Website closed today, 2^nd February 2014 @ 09:51am.

We would like to thank those who took the time, interest and effort to sign the petition, thank you.

During the course of the 6 months it has been available it attracted 15 signatures of support. Neither we nor Kenneth Lyons who created the petition are disappointed with that result, we accept it would have been nice to have a few more, but that doesn’t distract from the 15 people who took the time and effort to sign the petition and show some interest in our local Parish Council.

So what does it tell us? The petition was mentioned on Facebook, this blog and HU12 Online, this is by no means an extensive promotional campaign but it did get an airing. The petition could have been posted for 12 months instead of 6, but it was felt that after 6 months the main interest and activity would be rapidly diminishing in any case, so the second 6 months would have had limited value, that view we believe is still valid.

Some might say, only fifteen people signed it so what was the point? The point was to give Preston residents the opportunity to sign if they so wished, they have now had that opportunity, clearly not many people chose to take advantage of that, but that remains a reflection on residents and on the level of interest in local government and our Parish Council, and how relevant it is to their lives.

Many local Councils, particularly Preston have been detached from its residents for many years and have not been seen to be working in the best interests of its residents. Many people would understandably think, “What’s the point, why waste our time?”.

Had we wished to, we could have had many more signatures by asking family and friends to support us and sign the petition. However this we feel would have been dishonest and unrepresentative of Preston residents.

It only remains for us to add that unless we show interest in what our local representatives are doing on our behalf, we will never get the representation we as residents deserve, and therefore we deserve what we get.

Thank you to Kenneth Lyons who had the courage to create the petition and stand by it’s result.