Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Parish Clerk - Dawn Hoskins (6th Nov 2009 - 17:17:12) www.liphookherald.com In instances of this nature, there is no correlation between a crime not being reported and the innocence / guilt of the person accused. There are many reasons that female victims of crime choose not to go through the lengthy reporting procedures required to eliminate such problems. There are very high percentage rates amongst female victims who are too afraid of repercussions to press charges. Many just want to forget the whole episode and put it behind them. Some even feel guilt – that perhaps they have brought it upon themselves. It is not uncommon for them to retract an entire police statement and refuse to press charges after raising one initially. It does not mean that nothing happened / that the harassment was a ‘made up’ story – just that they don’t have the strength of character to fight their ‘harasser’ through the correct legal processes. It is impossible for speculation about this matter to result in questions being answered or problems being resolved. The entire parish council are sworn to secrecy - so are unable to answer back and comments made here are likely to amount to pathetic mud slinging from friends or cronies of those directly concerned. I look forward to a thorough and INDEPENDENT investigation to get to the bottom of this. I think that as parishioners we should expect no less. I realise that it is in the public interest to know what a public servant has been up to. We, as tax payers, pay his wages after all. The best way for this to happen is for all evidence to be put before a tribunal. They are impartial. It is up to them to decide if constructive dismissal has occurred or whether a person has simply jumped ship before they were pushed. At tribunal, documents all become public – so I urge the Parish Council to take this option so we can all rest happily knowing that no more secrets are being swept under the carpet and hidden from us. Better for this to happen and get it all out in the open – then parishioners can start to trust in their councillors again. In addition, costs usually follow the event – meaning that only if misconduct [on either side] is established will they have costs awarded against them. This ‘bombshell’ of course has done nothing but further alienate the parish council from it’s parishioners. How many more times do we have to read in local and national press what a debacle our council has become? It is therefore very sad that this story has been ‘leaked’ to the press in this way – when none of the individual’s concerned can retaliate. Someone privy to confidential council information must have a guilty conscience – well if they have one they should!!

Re: Parish Clerk - David Jackson (6th Nov 2009 - 18:03:31) I agree partially, people are often afraid of the consequences from their assailant, let's be frank here, if the individual was harrased and stalked while serving as a Cllr, what's to prevent any further "stalking" while this matter is being investigated if the individual was to talk openly about their  "ordeal". On the other hand, as the previous thread mentioned, the individual may wish to just get on with their life and put the whole "issue, ordeal or experience" however it is descibed, behind them, what good could come of accusations becoming true only to leave the individual with the threat of further harrassment..... some times it is best to leave things alone to prevent any futher embarrasment on the councils part and stress and concern on the "victim" in all this, namely the Cllr!!!!!

Re: Parish Clerk - graham (6th Nov 2009 - 23:10:02) Dawn you seem to know a lot about this,have you been up to your old tricks I trust you have not been putting pressure on Nicky along with those devisive councillors shame on you to think I voted for you I will have to think twice next time (I assume there will be spaces soon)

Re: Parish Clerk - reg (7th Nov 2009 - 15:24:22) I have lived here in Liphook for 30 years, I’m there for well versed in the Liphook rumour mill, the story I’ve been told for this sorry little tale is that you dawn Hoskins are deeply implicated, is this true.

Re: Parish Clerk - Dawn Hoskins (7th Nov 2009 - 16:34:22) Hi Graham and Reg, Graham If you would like to tell me what tricks you have seen me performing – I’ll see if I can still achieve them. As far as I know it was about 30 years ago and involved a cheap set of cup holders and a Tommy Cooper hat! There is a very fine line between advice not being accepted when genuinely offered – and pressure. I am not free to comment on the behaviour of other councillors, but can categorically state that I have never put any pressure on Nikki to do anything. I have given advice only when asked for it. There are divisive councillors, it is true, but I am not one of them. Those who are not divisive may very well get so fed up with the state of play that they throw their towels in – but that is yet to be seen. If a thorough investigative procedure is carried out, then divisive or not – the councillors will have to abide by it – and I’m sure they will (especially now the press have got hold of it!). If you think that I deserve shame, I would appreciate you telling me why that is. Apart from living close to Nikki and being one of her most vociferous supporters I can’t imagine what you think I might have done that is incorrect? Reg I have assisted a councillor who was having legal problems. I gave true and accurate advice when asked for it. Unfortunately the old ‘rumour mill’ as you call it is going to be grinding away with both sides slinging insults at each other until this is resolved – but I am not on the council, I am not party to those private meetings and therefore am not implicated with anything that has occurred there. The only way that parishioners will get to know what exactly has gone on is for it to become public knowledge. That will end all speculation. The problem is, as always, these things go on behind closed doors. I have made no bones, from the moment I stood for election that all this stupidity had to stop. I was prepared to go in and start kicking up some dust – but it didn’t turn out that way. No dust got kicked – it just settled over the same old problems. My stance put a lot of noses out of joint in the parish office and I am not popular there as a result with many of the councillors. That was not my intention, but that is none the less the result. I would not say that I am ‘deeply implicated’ at all Reg, I have taken an active interest in council matters as many other parishioners do, so am aware of all the ‘undercurrents’ swirling around. If more people turned up to meetings and read minutes of meetings (which you can do on-line) then more people would also see ‘what is what’. There are always two sides to every disagreement Reg. It is not my disagreement, but try to listen to both sides before you make any decisions as to who has done right and who has done wrong. Better still; hold your judgement until the facts come to light. Those haven’t been seen yet. All the best to you both. Dawn

Re: Parish Clerk - Karen (8th Nov 2009 - 19:37:50) Mud slinging eh Dawn? Feels a bit like you have picked up the first pile and thrown it into the ring. If you are involved (even in an advisory capacity) should you be making public comment? As you say, those involved are sworn to secrecy so can hardly come on here and defend themselves. I for one, don't believe a word of it. The man in question is an honest and decent man and a friend of mine. So until people can defend themselves, don't you think it would be better to stay silent on the subject.....?

Re: Parish Clerk - claire (8th Nov 2009 - 23:20:38) Is something missing from this thread as I cannot make head nor tail of it!!

Re: Parish Clerk - Sumi Olson (9th Nov 2009 - 09:12:34) I have to say i'm deeply uncomfortable that this is being written on a public site whilst legal proceedings are being discussed. Could we perhaps curb our fondness for plain speaking and saying it how it is until the situation is a little clearer...?

Re: Parish Clerk - reg (9th Nov 2009 - 12:25:05) Dawn my dear has it not occurred that you have been used as a puppet; you are obviously a very ambitious women. Maybe this drive has blinded you judgement on this sorry tale. You’ve backed the wrong horse, and no amount of sweet talking P.R with get you out off this hole.

Re: Parish Clerk - Dawn Hoskins (9th Nov 2009 - 12:36:10) Karen, where have I slung mud? I posted specifically to curb peoples desire to write salacious or abusive statements aimed at anyone – and to support a friend. I have not said anything that is not public knowledge and have specifically appealed for people to reserve judgement and not jump to conclusions. I just don’t understand how that can be mud slinging Karen – all I wanted to do was prevent mud slinging and judging from the lack of insulting posts which I was expecting - I think that outcome was achieved.

Re: Parish Clerk - Dawn Hoskins (9th Nov 2009 - 13:41:50) reg Ditto

Re: Parish Clerk - Eneida (9th Nov 2009 - 15:14:25) Like Claire, who posted earlier, I'm utterly and totally bemused by this thread...are the Parish Clerk and the Freedom of Information situations linked in any ?? The whole thing sounds like a plot from Midsomer Murders...I never understand those either....

Re: Parish Clerk - Barry Hope (9th Nov 2009 - 16:56:45) Just to clear up one small point, the Freedom of Information case has nothing to do to with this current situation. It is a totally separate issue, more of which will be posted on that thread I am sure. As far as this thread is concerned please do not be to ready to make any verdicts, without knowing the background that would be unfair. The only thing I would say is that there has to be something substantial in a situation for the council to have taken the action they did. I would just wait a while to see what transpires before jumping to conclusions. The council are working behind the scenes to ensure the right thing is done, especially for the ex councillor, the public and other councillors who have a desire to get this concluded correctly, both morally and legally Barry Hope

Re: Parish Clerk - reg (9th Nov 2009 - 21:58:50) Dawn Ditto, ditto, ditto….?. From what I’ve heard today, you are a ‘Star Witness’ in this sad tale, despite your denials on here; you are ‘deeply implicated’. For you just to reply with ‘ditto’ is I’m sorry, just not good enough. You opened this thread purporting to know nothing when really you are at the heart of it. This is not a joke; you and your gang are playing dangerous games with peoples lives. I hope you’re all sleeping well. Reg (p****d off taxpayer)…

Re: Parish Clerk - graeme (10th Nov 2009 - 07:49:58) Barry Behind the scene is right with half you lot another meeting at The Rising Sun no doubt, for some more plotting,roll on the elections they can't be far away

Re: Parish Clerk - barbara easton (10th Nov 2009 - 11:36:51) dear reg, or say Bill Mouland on a fishing trip? you have obviously been given paperwork on this matter and as this is possibly sub judice dont you think you ought to keep quiet?

Re: Parish Clerk - graeme (10th Nov 2009 - 12:03:48) Barbara, You've been quiet of late,keeping your head down,dont blame you as I hear you have been shopping recently.you should stick to sainsbury.

Re: Parish Clerk - Dawn Hoskins (10th Nov 2009 - 12:10:16) Hello Reg (who ever you are – don’t you have a surname?) I have NEVER said that I know nothing about what is going on at the Parish Council. I know a lot – just like most of the blinking parish could if they followed events. I have also NEVER said that I know nothing about the current situation with the clerk. So don’t start making things up please. This whole ‘Your Gang vs. My Gang’ rubbish just has to stop. It is childish beyond belief and certainly no way to run a parish council. If I have spoken to one councillor it does not follow that I must therefore dislike another. Absolute rubbish. I have NEVER been to the Rising Sun; I am NOT ‘playing a game’; I was NOT and never have been a member of the Parish Council; I could neither have prevented or caused the behaviour which has arisen between the personalities involved; I did NOT leak this story to the press, a MYSTERY person close to Bill Mouland did; I have NOT slung mud; I am NOT a puppet - I voice my own opinions and have never danced to anothers’ tune; I am NOT ‘in a hole’; I am NOT a PR spokesperson and I am NOT a member of a ‘gang’. You can cast aspersions all you like Reg but you cannot make me into something I am not just by saying the words. As I have said before, I have assisted a councillor who was having legal problems. I gave true and accurate advice when asked for it and would never consider doing otherwise. That matter (which is closed) is a confidential one and I will not be drawn into discussing it. You have obviously decided that you don’t like me – despite the fact that you don’t know me. I find this unjustified. It’s a bit like my children when they state before a meal that they don’t like XYZ even though they have never tried it before in their lives! I have nothing against you personally and will not resort to ad hominem argument. I am always open to new information and just because I have assisted a councillor in the past does not mean that I am not prepared to listen to the facts. We have not had the facts yet – so lets wait for them - and try to keep things civil please.

Re: Parish Clerk - barbara easton (10th Nov 2009 - 13:55:30) I have just been telephoned by Bill Mouland, who assures me he is not Reg. I have to accept his word on this, and am just wondering where all the information is coming from then?

Re: Parish Clerk - Barry Hope (10th Nov 2009 - 18:33:58) 1. I drink very little these days 2. I have been to the Rising Sun three times in the last two years, once with my family for a Sunday Lunch and twice with other friends and this was not to plot and scheme as you would suggest (just where do you get your spurious information from I wonder, do you carry binocs and a camera? ) 3. I will speak out for what I think is right even if this upsets others who may disagree. Unless you are in receipt of other info I would suggest you avail yourself of the facts and truth first before trying to pull people down, could you give us a clue as to why you are trying very hard to do this.

Re: Parish Clerk - reg (12th Nov 2009 - 17:10:00) Dawn.... I hope that huge hole you’ve dug yourself into isn’t filling up to quickly with water, it’s a horrible night.

Re: Parish Clerk - barbara easton (13th Nov 2009 - 00:37:20) Dear Reg, your post to Dawn is a bit cryptic, you surely dont believe everything you hear, and everything you read in the newspapers do you? Have you never heard of spin?

Re: Parish Clerk - Paul Robinson (13th Nov 2009 - 07:19:40) With all the leaks and counter leaks, plus the Liphook Herald putting in its inaccurate two pennorth ( aproximately twice the value of this rag!) it is clear that there is 'something rotten in the state of Denmark' a.k.a. the Parish Office. I think the time has come for all parties involved in these sorry carry ons to be independantly investigated and charges made on the basis of evidence not hearsay. I am sure that in the end taxpayer's money will be used, either to pay for legal proceedings or for damages, both of which could be substantial. Paul Robinson

Re: Parish Clerk - reg (13th Nov 2009 - 09:52:01) Barbara…… Please enlighten us on the true facts of this story. If you’re saying the good people of Liphook are being misled by rumour and the media, please feel free to put the record straight

Re: Parish Clerk - liz (13th Nov 2009 - 11:38:31) Paul Less Shakespeare more Brian Rix methinks...

Re: Parish Clerk - Paul Robinson (13th Nov 2009 - 11:53:57) Liz: Au contraire, where my rates are concerned this whole debacle is more of a tragedy than a farce as I think will be seen when all is revealed. Paul Robinson

Re: Parish Clerk - Dawn Hoskins (13th Nov 2009 - 12:52:00) Hi Councillor Reg!! No holes filling up here, but thanks for your kind concern. On that note, how are your leaks -still seeping out? I do hope for your sake that the constant trickle will soon dry up! All the very best Dawn

Re: Parish Clerk - barbara easton (13th Nov 2009 - 16:36:16) I have suspected you were a councillor all along Reg. Please reel in your fishing line! I am willing to give information to an independent enquiry, in a court of law, or if required to by police or EHDC but the chances of us getting an independent enquiry are neglible. As can be seen from the last set of Parish Council minutes, I always question why certain councillors are not part of any discussions, or voting, or kept informed about what is going on? The latest public meeting of the Finance and Policy Commitee has been hidden away next Tuesday Evening in the Society Room at the Millenium Hall. There is nothing on the agenda except one exempt item. This discussion and any voting will probably not be reported back to Full council at the end of the month. See my question right at the end of the last Full council meeting.

Re: Parish Clerk - Steve Read (13th Nov 2009 - 23:29:00) Rarely vist anymore, but nothing changes. I see after catching up this week that yet again Liphook pushes the self destruct button in this present debacle involving the Parish Council. How pathetic this whole saga appears, this council continues to operate under the disillusionment of grandeur, a misplaced sense of self importance and the fact that some members have their heads wedged firmly up where the sun don't shine just to get Cllr in front of their names. It is not the MI5 or the CIA, you collect a bit of money, you dish it out, turn down the odd planning application, usually get rail roaded into passing more, keep the odd footpath open and sit around at meetings spending most of the evening discussing the minutes from the last meeting. Come clean about all of this mess, someone have the balls to stand up and tell us what the hell is going on. Either put up, shut up or get out. Get people in who can sort out the facilities up the Rec for the kiddies,have a bit more backbone when it comes to the continuing development in Liphook, get working alongside the business community to encourage more people to visit and use Liphook and attempt to resolve the continuing traffic problems attributed to the local schools. I am sure there are genuine individuals who became elected to hopefully better or attempt to better this village, but with this recent comical display of ineptitude, allegations and inuendo these individuals will have become fully immersed into this alleged scandal. Sort it out, come clean, get out or get on with what you were elected to do in the first place. Simple!

Re: Parish Clerk - barbara easton (14th Nov 2009 - 19:32:09) I agree,Steve, but it is not that easy to achieve, once one is on the council. It is interesting that neither "Reg" nor "Graeme" have posted since "ambitious girl! " Dawn Hoskins, has investigated the IP addresses! I do hope for an "independent" investigation , perhaps even real names will be used!

Re: Parish Clerk - Helen Millard (14th Nov 2009 - 20:55:52) On a purely selfish note i hope this how debacle doesn't affect the play park getting refurbished! Myself and Bonnie have put A LOT of effort into getting the initial petition followed by the survey. It would really disappoint me if the problems with the Parish clerk meant that this gets put on the back burner! Thank you Steve for the supportive note 'Get people in who can sort out the facilities up the Rec for the kiddies'! I will keep you informed.... helen x

Re: Parish Clerk - sue dawes (17th Nov 2009 - 17:37:49) i have read the article in the herald last week with interest also i have just been reading the liphook blog question one who is it who leeks information to the press??????? there seems to be a nasty habit of this happening this poor women who it claims has been stalked must be having a miserable time second question why does the blog turn into a free for all slanging match between certain people in liphook dawns response was interesting then as you go down the page it then becomes boring as certain residents are using the blog to slag each other off

Re: Parish Clerk - Dawn Hoskins (17th Nov 2009 - 21:29:23) Hi Sue Q1) it is a mystery informant who is either very close to a councillor or very close to the clerk. It is someone who has confidential information and who should know better. It is someone with links to the press – as we have seen only one sided – non-investigory reporting, which is full of one sided spin and factually as incorrect as you could be. Q2) the slanging match has been at the hand of a couple of ‘ringers’ ( in my humble opinion, most likely one of them is the answer to Q1). I have tried to be polite and answer any questions directed at me without resorting to personal attack. This is a genuine story of interest to the people of Liphook and it has been a shame that these ‘ringers’ have scared people off who may have contributed but are too afraid of getting a drubbing on a public forum Nice to see another contributor!! Regards

Re: Parish Clerk - Paul Robinson (4th Dec 2009 - 21:32:17) Taking the pantomime analogy adopted by the Herald, courtesy of yet another contributor to this site, I am tempted to remark as Alice did, "Curiouser and curiouser". Not only is the Herald making up its own stories and accounts of Parish Council exchanges and proceedures but now this site is taking it upon itself to remove a seemingly innocuous yet relevant posting from Robert Douglas after publishing it earlier today. Might we be told why this should be and at whose request was it removed? Paul Robinson

Re: Parish Clerk - Editor (5th Dec 2009 - 17:09:13) Hi Paul I was called by the Chairman of the Parish Council and asked to remove the identity of the person who received the £2,500 payment. This was in the post headed 'free money', because the information was not supposed to be in the public domain. For legal reasons I can not edit the content of posts which might cause court action. I can only delete the entire post, I'm afraid. As it was after work hours on Friday I have been unable to contact the original poster yet to ask him to re-post without the direct reference to a member of council staff. Alan

Re: Parish Clerk - Paul Robinson (5th Dec 2009 - 17:37:41) I was assured by Barry Hope in a reply to one of my postings on this site (see Freedom of Information) that the name of the member of staff was known and had been given to Ms Pike the reporter for The Herald who had chosen not to report it. Does this not mean that the information is in the public domain? Paul Robinson

Re: Parish Clerk - Barry Hope (6th Dec 2009 - 12:28:27) Paul Can I just fine tune your statement? I did say I knew the name of the member of staff but that I had no intention of disclosing it to anybody. The fact that someone else may know the name is another issue and is up to them and their conscience to use the information. The fact that a handful of people know the identity does not mean that it is in the public domain. As far as I am concerned that is still confidential information and should remain so. As I have said so many times, I have got the information I wanted which reveals that the decision was made, how much for and when. I would like to see the current Chairman of the council carry out a review of what happened and report back to council giving an account of time scales, the decision makers and full councils involvement at the time the decision was made (did they have the final say in the payment being made.

Re: Parish Clerk - liz (7th Dec 2009 - 11:36:13) Can anyone tell me what public body, if any, is responsible for overseeing the actions of Parish Councils?

Re: Parish Clerk - barbara (7th Dec 2009 - 11:43:15) I agree Barry - the article in the Herald is totally innaccurate -all councillors did not know this payment was happening. It is true that delegated powers were given to do an inquiry into a matter- before I became a councillor, and that Chairman of a small sub committee perhaps 2 or three other councillors, made the decision. This decision was not ratified by a vote in the full council. This underhand way of doing things still persists today. Staff matters are now all dealt with by the Finance and policy sub comittee who then "appoint" only certain councillors to "investigate" certain things considered important. I have voted against doing things this way, as oly 4 or 5 councillors are on this commitee. I myself have been summoned to an "interview" which was to report on a conversation I had with another councillor, after I left the Parish office, outside of a meeting. It was totally humiliating and I was interrogated by another councillor as if I was a suspect in a serious police criminal enquiry. I realised that the outcome had already been pre-determined by certain people anyway and the whole thing was totally unneccesary, as most of the matter has now been deemed to be allowed to become public information. Will I get an apology for the humiliation, I don't think so!

Re: Parish Clerk - Frank Conroy (17th Dec 2009 - 20:25:11) I know very almost nothing about the affair concerning the parish clerk, What I read in the papers is promptly denied by someone who claims to have been present when the allegation was made. When the parish clerk might return to his post nobody seems to know. However when I pass the closed parish office I wonder why we have a parish clerk at all. The village seems to run as if nothing is happening, the P.C. seems to fight, fall out and row, great distress and grief has been caused to all involved.I feel the post should be down graded, and a simple admin clerk installed. Up until the Haskel Centre was built a lady clerk managed all on her own in a portacabin outside Bohunt school. There was never any fuss, scandal or reports of ill repute published in the local press. Why do we have them now ? I feel the P.C. must draw this sorry saga to an end, what is happening brings shame on the village

Re: Parish Clerk - barbara (18th Dec 2009 - 12:29:11) There is a full PC meeting on this coming monday evening at 8pm. I have been asking for a locum clerk to be appointed. Things of this nature are decided by the Finance and Policy commitee. I try ringing the Chairman, as he would be the person nominally in charge, but he operates on a mobile phone only and I do not get my calls returned. I agree that it is a poor state of affairs, but if I as a councillor do not get answers then who can? The previous posters have asked if there is a body who oversees the Parish council, unfortunately not- EHDC have a monitoring legal officer who trys to ensure that all motions passed are lawful, and that the standing orders are lawful, other than that it is not monitored. Complaints have to be taken out against individual councillors and these are looked at by the same Standards board. In a previous post, I was asked what was inaccurate about the Herald reporting, well, if Councillor Evans and the Clerk had a conversation after the meeting in a corner which was not overhead, why blow that up into a major story? I myself had Bill Mouland on the telephone threatening to sue me, the Herald Editor has threatened to sue over my complaining about the press coverage, it appears to be the defence against any verbal or website statements. SUE for libel and slander, how sad is that that the truth is not reported?

Re: Parish Clerk - Dawn Hoskins (21st Dec 2009 - 13:07:27) Mmmm… I was going to go to the council meeting tonight to ask why there has been no investigation into this matter whatsoever. However, the forecast is for sub-zero temperatures and I am a little concerned about ‘ice-rink’ conditions! To my knowledge, apart from angry internal bickering as to whether the question put to the clerk by Cllr Evans was allowed or not, no actual investigation has been carried out into the REAL issue. The real issue is not whether one councillor had the courage to address an issue that the majority of them knew about, the real issue is the behaviour of the clerk and that cannot be addressed without an investigation into the matter. This will give closure to the matter and everyone can put the matter behind them and move forward. The time limit has passed for a tribunal claim for constructive dismissal, so I am assuming that this ‘laundry’ is not going to be aired in public after all? Shame. The problem is, if it is not going to a tribunal, is that it has to be dealt with by the Chairman, who AS YET has not made any announcement of any inquiry. Meanwhile we are still paying wages (substantial) to an absent public servant. ££££££££££ going up in smoke. P.S. Isn’t it quiet around here now that identical IP addresses (bar one or two digits as happens in networked computers) have been brought to light???? It seems I may have been arguing with nonentities!

Re: Parish Clerk - Andrew (28th Dec 2009 - 22:52:07) Hi Dawn, I am severly worried by certain phrases used in many of your postings on here, I am uncertain whether you have any legal duty to remain impartial in these proceedings however I would note that your original posts first paragraph was devoted entirely to pointing out that many female victims choose not to report any "incidents" - a choice which implies that the reason why these claims have NOT been made by Nikki is not to do with the fact that they did not happen but because she was too scared too report them. Perhaps you could try offering an unbiased post on the subject for those people who wish to find out about this episode of, to be brutally honest, imature and frankly shocking behaviour on the part of either party (depending on where the blame lies), instead of something that reads like a PR announcment from the prosecution. Many thanks Andrew

Re: Parish Clerk - Dawn Hoskins (29th Dec 2009 - 13:20:47) Hi Andrew, I am in fact getting to the point where I am going to explode soon if the 'correct' thing is not done! So - I will do my best to explain what has happened without treading on anybody's toes. I have no legal duty here, only a moral one. I gave advice/assistance/shoulder to cry on etc to Nikki prior to her resignation. Despite being witness to local events in Lynchborough Road I gave my assurance to Nikki that what she told me would remain in confidence. However, it was the behaviour of certain members of the council at this time which pushed me to stand as a candidate for the PC myself. It was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak! If you remember - my flyer was very heavy on criticism of the PC and my promise was to get in there and kick some childish behaviour in to touch! That is why a number of councillors see me as 'enemy number one!' Details of events became general knowledge within the Parish Council and Cllr Evans decided that he was duty bound to raise the issue. My advice was again sought by Cllr Evans who was threatened with legal proceedings for raising the issue - again my silence is by moral duty rather than legal. Despite my witness statement being issued to the Chairman - no investigation has been commenced. I have not been contacted re:any question/answer session. The Cllr's are also sworn to secrecy due to the archaic 'confidentially' clauses that they are held to regarding the inner workings of the Parish Meetings - so if they comment they will be sacked. Many of them are so desperate for events to be brought to light that they are frustrated to the point of exploding! So far (it would seem) this entire debacle has turned on who is 'friends' with whom rather than getting to the bottom of a very serious issue. I respect Nikki's stance. She prefers to deny rather than face the problem - even though she confided in many people at the time. This is very common. I will endeavor to contact Cllr Newman (Chairman) to discuss things as quite frankly if the truth doesn't come out soon I am actually going to explode with righteous anger. I truly hope that this 'episode' of shameful omissions (which has done nothing but reduce faith in the ability of our Parish Council 'be seen' to be acting correctly - to almost nil) will soon be drawn to a close. There is still time for an investigation - there HAS to be one in order for the public to be assured that the correct action has been taken. I am sure that the Chairman will not continue to shirk this responsibility however difficult it may be. All Councillors must act for the best interests of the public which they represent - they must face the truth in order to do this.

Re: Parish Clerk - Alan (29th Dec 2009 - 17:30:37) As councillors are unpaid, isn't it possible for one of them to publicly resign, let us have all the details and end this stupid situation ? Alan

Re: Parish Clerk - Robert Douglas (29th Dec 2009 - 20:03:34) I don't get what Mrs Hoskins's role is in this. She is asked to keep a confidence; but then, despite the apparent wishes of the person to whom that confidence was asserted, makes a "witness statement" and keeps raising the issue with the Parish Council on this website and elsewhere. Is she representing the allegedly aggrieved party in keeping on about this issue? If so, shouldn't that be made clear? Or is she doing it of her own initiative, despite the wishes of the allegedly aggrieved party? In which case, why? And how is any of this helping to resolve the issue? Robert

Re: Parish Clerk - barbara (30th Dec 2009 - 12:56:38) Unfortunately even although the previous poster wishes for councillors to resign and then go public, it does not work that way in Bramshott and Liphook. The confidentiality clause is not ceased when one resigns, it carries on. We are required to sign that before becoming councillors. I thought things would be open above board and honest but that has not been proved to be the case, and sadly whenever I try and raise issues I am threatened with court action, all paid for by the taxpayer of course, and without the sanction of full council members. There is never any proper voting on these matters. Unfortunately too there is no unbiased press reporting on this. Several councillors wrote to the editor of the Herald to complain, lo and behold, a letter in reply to the complaint threatening legal action.

Re: Parish Clerk - Eneida (30th Dec 2009 - 15:07:07) Like many people in Liphook (I imagine) I've absolutely no idea what has/hasn't being going on recently regarding the Parish Council/Parish Clerk/quarrels about money paid to unknown persons etc. etc. etc....so make no comments about any of these debacles. But on the general point, that Barbara makes, about Councillors not being able to voice their concerns regarding Parish matters without being threatened with court action..... I find this quite alarming and totally undemocratic!!! Surely this isn't right and there must be a higher authority that could/should investigate these sorts of situations??? Eneida

Re: Parish Clerk - Joanna P (31st Dec 2009 - 12:28:41) It will be interesting to see Dawn Hoskins' answers to Robert Douglas's good questions. Her arrogance and self-righteousness are quite amazing particularly as she does not have the slightest idea of what she is talking about. For her to say that Cllr Evans was 'duty bound' to make an unfounded accusation against the Parish Clerk suggests that Cllr Evans has some understanding of the word 'duty' which is clearly not the case. Is it his 'duty' to come to Parish council meetings reeking of alcohol? Sadly Dawn Hoskins is just a meddling busybody who has already made herself look stupid and continues digging. Perhaps she and Barbara will now have the decency to shut up, for her own sake as well as everybody else's. Here's hoping.

Re: Parish Clerk - barbara (31st Dec 2009 - 14:25:28) Hi Joanna, I do not know who you are and I do not think that you were at the PC meeting , so unless you were there I do not think you should cast aspertions on people. I sadly think that the spin machine has done its job here again. Unless one is present at the time to watch events unfold, I do not think you should categorically state something did or did not happen, it is only hearsay. Even the newspapers have not been truthful in this regard so do not believe everything you read.

Re: Parish Clerk - Dawn Hoskins (31st Dec 2009 - 14:32:48) Hello Robert, Without blowing the lid on the whole episode – it is very difficult to give you the full details. I do not really want to blow the lid off as I feel it is proper that the Chairman of the Parish Council deal with the matter. Many people are scrutinising the acts and omissions of the council in this matter – I am only one of them. There are a number of ‘incidents’ being rolled into one– and that is causing confusion. I will do my best to enlighten you… Cllr Young confided in me as a friend and neighbour, it appears she also confided in a number of other people too, as to what was going on prior to her resignation. I also personally witnessed things that she had spoken of. Due to the number of people in receipt of that information it became common knowledge within the Parish Council – the Councillors kept the issue to themselves – but it was discussed among them (as far as I know). Separately, but consequently, another councillor was threatened with legal action (sadly, this seems to be a common occurrence). Due to the nature of the charge made against him, he was required to attend the police station. He requested my company. The police had been given incorrect information about the matter & it was dropped immediately. They retained my witness statement. Although these two things revolve around the same events, they are in fact separate issues. One concerns a friend in need going through some unpleasant times and one was an issue of freedom of speech being stamped on in an attempt to stop difficult questions being asked. My position is that I am the only non-Councillor in receipt of this damaging information. Whereas they are frothing at the mouth and desperate to ‘spill the beans’ but unable to due to constitutional restraints - I am not. So I speak only as a member of this parish about things that I have seen with my own eyes. These incidents should never have happened. The fact that they were allowed to is an indictment against the running of our Parish Council, the fact that nothing is being done about it is another matter entirely. Administrative law dictates that councillors behave in accordance with their duties. Fairness, unbiased decision making, not fettering your discretion etc..etc.. are corner stones of our administrative system and they must be adhered to. If you are related to someone for example, you are prohibited from being the decision maker in ANY MATTER that concerns your relation. If this is not strictly adhered to then decisions will not be viewed by the public as being unbiased. That is the law – not actual bias – but the risk of bias. Such decisions are strictly prohibited and will be overturned if attention is brought to them by a higher authority. The issue of fettering ones discretion is where ‘as an office holder’ you are DUTY BOUND to look at the information – all of it - and take the correct things into consideration. If you do not act when you should do – based on the information in front of you – then you have fettered your discretion and that decision will be overturned if taken to a higher judicial authority. That procedure is relatively simple it is called Judicial Review. The reason this is getting brought up again and again is because despite all the information being readily available, no investigation has taken place, no written account seems to have transpired and we are STILL paying for an absent member of staff. Meanwhile, the other staff member who is very well liked and does a brilliant job in the face of adversity has handed in her notice. We will soon either have an empty parish office or the clerk will be returned to his position without a formal investigation after having an extended Christmas holiday on full pay thank you very much! It would seem that I am the only member of the public who knows what has gone on and I feel completely hamstrung! I am not prepared to let it drop and I will take whatever measures necessary to ensure these very serious issues are addressed in a constitutionally acceptable manner. No one is above the law. No one.

Re: Parish Clerk - Dawn Hoskins (31st Dec 2009 - 15:03:53) Dear Joanna P, Sadly I do have a very good idea of what I am talking about. Having information and being determined that it is listened to by those in a position to do something about it does not make me arrogant or self-righteous. I have held my tongue for a long time. I could have gone to the press about it – like councillors have done in the past, I have chosen not to do so because I feel it will do Liphook more harm than good. I have not seen you at any council meetings Joanna? Remember, there are a lot of people trying to discredit others and unless you see something with your own eyes you should probably question the motives behind statements such as drunkenness. I can confirm that Cllr Evans has not been the worse for drink at any meeting I have attended. Joanna, an unfounded allegation is one that has no basis in truth. You are therefore wrong on two counts. Firstly asking a question is not making an allegation and can never be construed as such (No one in the room actually heard the question being asked; only the commotion that arose after the question was asked). Secondly, I am a witness. You cannot witness something that ‘doesn’t happen’ Joanna. I do realise that being one of the few people able to speak about this openly makes me a target. The councillors will come down on one side of the fence or the other depending on who they are friends with and that makes for a very difficult situation. However, I am prepared to stand up and be counted. I have broad shoulders and can cope, even if people like you, who are not in possession of the full facts, think I am meddling with things I shouldn’t. I also think that Councillor Barbara Easton has a lot of courage to stand up and say what is happening when she has been threatened with legal action for doing just that. I am not related to Cllr Easton or in any sort of ‘club’ but if more people would stand up and be counted and blow the consequences perhaps you, the public, would be able to finally put this matter to bed! The only other person I have heard do so is the town crier, Mr Terry Burns, who made a number of comments at the last council meeting. For some strange reason these comments were completely erased from the minutes….fancy that!! Oh and that is not forgetting the number of comments made on the village survey….they were also erased…..go figure!! When you tell me to shut up ‘for my own sake’ what do you mean?

Re: Parish Clerk - Paul Robinson (3rd Jan 2010 - 11:00:55) Let us examine the facts. Comments elicited by the Village Survey conducted by the Parish Council relating to the workings of the Parish Office were excised from the final results of the survey. When a member of the public stood up at the November meeting and made a statement regarding the workings of the Parish Office this was excised from the minutes. The Liphook Herald, whose reporter was present at the November Parish Council meeting did not report the statement made by the member of the public. Parish Councillors who wish to comment publicly on the current situation at the Parish Office are gagged by the Parish Council's so called confidentiality clause. The Freedom of Information Act had to be invoked by the late Barry Hope in order to establish the questionable dealings of a sub committee of the Parish Council with regard to an extraordinary ex gratia payment of a large sum of money to a salaried member of staff. Meanwhile, since the resignation of the assistant to the Parish Clerk and the Clerk's absence on 'gardening leave' the Parish Office is unmanned. This impasse must be addressed sooner rather than later. The Parish Council have demonstrated they are unable or unwilling to sort it out so an independant enquiry made by the Standards Committee should be conducted in an open and honest way if the Parish Council is to retain any dignity and authority. This year sees a Parish Council election. This matter must be sorted out before then. Paul Robinson

Re: Parish Clerk - Sumi Olson (3rd Jan 2010 - 14:07:26) About us: Key facts about the Ombudsmen There are three Local Government Ombudsmen in England. We make our decisions independently of all government departments, councils and politicians. We examine complaints without taking sides. We are not consumer champions. We are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. We have the same powers as the High Court to obtain information and documents. Our decisions are final and cannot be appealed. However, you can challenge them in the High Court if you think our reasoning has a legal flaw. We do not have to investigate every complaint received, even if we have the power to do so. If we think you have been very little affected, we may decide not to consider your complaint. We are committed to providing a fair service and spending public money effectively. We do not charge for using our service. When we find that a council has done something wrong, we will recommend how it should put it right. Although we cannot make councils do what we recommend, they are almost always willing to act on what we say. Standards Board Until the Local Government Act 2000 was passed, the conduct of council members (councillors) and staff was subject to the National Code of Local Government Conduct. The Local Government Ombudsman could investigate complaints about breaches of this code. The Local Government Act 2000 introduced a new regime: a new model code of conduct for members; each council to adopt its own code (the model code as it stands, or with additions); and the Standards Board for England would consider complaints about breaches of the code. The model code was approved by Parliament on 27 November 2001. http://www.lgo.org.uk/about-us/links-with-other-bodies/#stds_brd Making a complaint If you have a complaint, the first thing to do is complain to the council. You can find out how to complain from the council, or you can ask a councillor to help. In most cases, the council must have a chance to sort out the complaint before we can consider it. Councils often have more than one stage in their complaints procedure. You will usually need to complete all stages before we will look at your complaint. See our 'top tips' for making a complaint. Throughout this section we refer to ‘councils’ and sometimes ‘councillors’, but these terms apply to all authorities that we can investigate and their members. If you need any help – call the LGO Advice Team on 0300 061 0614 or 0845 602 1983. It is open from 8.30am to 5pm, Monday to Friday. (Calls to 03 numbers will cost no more than calls to national geographic numbers (starting 01or 02) from both mobiles and landlines, and will be included as part of any inclusive call minutes or discount schemes in the same way as geographic calls. Please note that calls may be recorded for training and quality purposes.) www.lgo.org.uk/...

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home