Post Reply
Talkback Home

New Liphook Parish Council - Keith (4th Apr 2019  13:16:45) As nominations have now closed, and there were less nominations than places available, the following people are now elected to form the next Liphook Parish Council from 2nd May 2019 Simon Hugh COYTE Debbie CURNOW-FORD Peter CURNOW-FORD Susan Jane Louise GARNETT Martin Charles HALL Don JERRARD Thea JOURDAN Jeanette Sheila KIRBY Victoria MITCHELL Sumi OLSON Eddie TROTTER Emma Louise WINFIELD

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Jane (4th Apr 2019  16:58:55) Great to see some new names on the list and the return of Emma Winfield. Shame that we didn't get to vote though as not enough stood. Good luck though to all elected!

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Anon 3 (4th Apr 2019  17:53:12) Well done all you whiners and moaners, the farce willcontinue for another three years. Don Jerald may be the only one left by then!

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - jaybee (4th Apr 2019  19:42:39) Pleased to see an approve the list of new Parish Councillors, with two exceptions.

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - K.T. (4th Apr 2019  22:39:28) Such a shame that not all live in Liphook. Why would someone who lives in Greatham want to be in Liphook parish council??

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - K.T. (5th Apr 2019  08:23:35) Oh I've just seen that Jerrard has also been nominated for District Councillor in Liphook. Why didn't he apply where he lives in Greatham - can't see what he's got to bring to the party here?

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Anon2 (5th Apr 2019  09:00:10) K.T, Good question. I can only think that there must be more injustice and corruption in the Parish and the Council that needs rooting out by Don Jerrard and his side kick Eddie Trotter. Don Jerrard is also a councillor in Liss, and he did not stand in Greatham, where he lives, which is extraordinary. Perhaps he has already cleaned up Greatham or he knows he would never get voted in. Sadly, in my mind, the Council will remain tainted until Don Jerrard goes because of his previous conduct and behaviour on the Council, and the upset and distress he caused. Equally sad that there wasn’t the opportunity to vote him out.

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - John (5th Apr 2019  11:32:21) Perhaps then KT and Anon should also have stood for election.

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Jane (5th Apr 2019  12:47:59) A shame that there is no getting rid of him - god knows why he thinks we want him or what he gets out of this! he should be embarrassed and walk away quietly...but lets hope having been sent on training course he has learnt how to behave now...? petersfieldpost.co.uk/...Liphook councillor to undertake training after bullying allegation upheld Have every confidence that the new Councillors on board will soon whip him into shape as to professional behaviour,conduct etc and not have any of his shenanigans if he goes back to his old ways. Maybe the first item on agenda is to check he has been retrained?!

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Janet (5th Apr 2019  13:58:28) I'm very surprised that Mr Jerrard has chosen to remain a parish councillor, having been found guilty of: Bullying Lack of openness and transparency Failing to remain objective Failing to engage in a respectful and courteous manner or listen to the interests of all parties Failing to work together with council officers Conducting himself in an unacceptable manner That is quite a list! Training is surely going to be a monumental task, given his age and the likelihood that these behaviour traits are deeply entrenched in his personality. He may well be a very nice man to his friends and family, but is clearly not cut out for the role of parish councillor!

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Jane Ives (5th Apr 2019  15:11:21) In response to Jane, I think it would be a good question to ask the current/incoming councillors who did attend any training offered. It was recommended that all councillors attend so let's hope they did. Easiest thing to do would be to ask at the next council meeting.

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Simon Coyte (7th Apr 2019  12:37:43) What a shame more parishioners didn't feel the need for change and stand for the council I was looking forward to an election. I shall be pleased to talk to anybody and have no political leanings in any direction. I don't have any real knowledge of my fellow Councillors but have 20 years experience serving on the council in the mid eighties to mid zeros, and look forward to meeting and working with the on parish matters

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - haarry (7th Apr 2019  22:00:01) I think we are lucky to have 12 people to stand on the council with all the flack they get

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Jane Ives (8th Apr 2019  07:54:55) To be fair the only real flack I got when on the council was from other parish councillors!

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - john (8th Apr 2019  10:37:19) I think Harry meant the flack posted on here aimed only at certain councillors.

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Jane Ives (8th Apr 2019  13:34:43) It'll be great when there's an elected parish council that doesn't get flack as they are acting in the best interests of the community. But saying that the majority elected this time are good people and I suspect those individuals will do a good job....always good to see new people on the council!

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Penny Williamson (8th Apr 2019  13:59:04) John I think your post is misleading and this may be purely unintentional. My understanding from Haarry’s and Jane Ives’ posts was that the flack to which they were referring was Mr Jerrard’s unacceptable behaviour to other councillors, of which he was found guilty, not the justified criticism on this site of Mr Jerrard and his cohorts’ behaviour to fellow councillors. I am sure Jane Ives will correct me if I am wrong.

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - John (8th Apr 2019  14:03:20) From memory you were co opted yourself. I am pleased that you are so well aquainted with all the new councillors.

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Penny Williamson (8th Apr 2019  14:16:29) John Again I think your post is misdleading. I don't think Haarry was talking about the flack posted on this site about certain councillors. I think, and I have said this before, he was referring to the flack the fellow councillors received from Mr Jerrard over many, many months and not the justified criticism of Mr Jerrard and his cohorts posted on this site. I will stand corrected by Haarry if need be.

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Jane Ives (8th Apr 2019  19:32:07) Yes John I was indeed co-opted. I applied when there was a mass resignation of councillors due to the behaviour of other councillors. I then stood at the next election and was elected uncontested as there were not enough people standing for a vote, which I would have welcomed. I don't know all the new councillors but the ones I don't know, I know by reputation. But my point was really that it is good that there is a churn and the council is refreshed.

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Teresa Skelton (1st May 2019  14:31:16) I am standing as a Justice & Anti-Corruption Party candidate for Winchester City Council. The trolling of my colleague Don Jerrard on Liphook Talkback is a disgrace. It appears to be the work of vicious little cowards hiding behind anonymity. They are obviously doing this in an organised way. Their ridiculous claims against Don Jerrard are a mask. In fact they are the pro-corruption party trying to get rid of the opposition to the Bohunt Manor development, from which dodgy financial interests stands to make a lot of money. For the facts, I would urge local voters to go to the JAC Party website.

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Richard (1st May 2019  15:24:33) Interesting post Teresa Skelton. Very interesting Twitter profile too. Everything I found on your Twitter page is an attack on the police. I don't know what your issue is with them, but it hardly shows impartiality and I urge all in Winchester not to vote for you either

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - K.T. (1st May 2019  15:37:45) Hilarious posting Teresa Skelton! First of all you say they are anonymous and then you say they are a pro-corruption party trying to get rid of the opposition to the Bohunt Manor development. Do you actually have any evidence for your spurious claims? As you say you are standing in Winchester, then of course you wouldn't know that there is no development planned for Bohunt Manor. It's not in the EHDC Draft Local Plan because it can't be as they don't cover the National Park, and it's not in the SDNPA Local Plan as they have made it crystal clear it won't be developed. So maybe the people who are criticising Mr Jerrard actually just think he's a bad egg nothing more than that and from past history he's more than capable of fighting his own battles as he always seem to have a number of legal cases on the go.

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Jane (1st May 2019  20:42:55) OMG Teresa! Your post is so full of irony it's hysterical! There is no collusion, viciousness, trolling/bullying ......all which Jerrard's been found guilty of! The truth may hurt but please if you are meant to be representing a justice/anti-corruption party don't fight for this lost cause -god I feel sorry for Winchester now...

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Jane (1st May 2019  20:48:46) Dear God Google Teresa's name and you find she is maybe more corrupt than Jerrard.... is this a condition of joining the party?? casemine.com/judgement/uk/.., Her Twitter account is totally obsessed with being anti-police/law and order. How are these people allowed to stand for council.

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Jane (1st May 2019  21:06:31) This Corrupt Party just gets worse and worse... So he's found guilty by EHDC and has to have compulsory training to rectify his errors and he's still in denial.... look at the Liphook section of this www.jacparty.org.uk I just don't get how a solicitor all his life is so anti law and order?? Mind you as it still lists David Cameron as the Tory Leader on the website they are definitely out of touch.

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Jane Ives (1st May 2019  21:36:21) To be clear Jane posting above is not me as I always use my surname :) Just want to be really clear. I'm sure the editor can confirm if necessary.

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Editor (2nd May 2019  12:18:09) I can confirm that the posts above from 'Jane' are NOT from Jane Ives. Alan

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - JR (2nd May 2019  16:53:25) Well, I think if you read what the Justice and Anti Corruption Party write on their website and then proceed to vote for them then there is no help for you. Good luck to all of the sane candidates who stood for election and it was a pleasure to meet a couple of them today and to chat to them at the polling station.

Re: New Liphook Parish Council - Dawn Hoskins (6th May 2019  11:24:08) I do not know the person concerned, but do enjoy reading case law. I thought you might like to read some of the case before you jump to conclusions about people being corrupt etc. This is just a few paragraphs which explain the reasons she was struggling against the force being used to manhandle/frogmarch her out of the building. I have not edited: The Crown Court's decision 11. In the written submissions he presented in the Crown Court, Mr Matthew Farmer, for Ms Skelton, contended that P.C.S.O. Day "did not arrest, or purport to arrest Teresa Skelton", that he was "therefore technically committing an assault, which entitled her to resist his actions", that "[she] denies that she kicked him, but [it remains] an obvious possibility that she did make contact with him in her efforts to free herself from his grip" (paragraph 4), that "the seizing of Teresa Skelton was not in fact lawful", that "[in] those circumstances she was entitled to resist", and that "[the] kick, described as moderate but causing no injury, would in such circumstances plainly amount to self defence" (paragraph 7). 12. In exchanges with the judge Mr Farmer said this (at p.47D-F of the transcript of proceedings on 4 October 2016): "… If there was a kick it … could have been an accident and another possibility … if it is an unlawful arrest, which I submit it is, … then it would follow that any action [Ms Skelton] took in resisting would be self-defence, subject to the reasonability of it." The judge then asked Mr Farmer (at p.47F-G): "That has not been raised here has it? Anyway." Mr Farmer replied (at p.47G): "No, but it is an invisible defence. It has not [been] raised by Teresa Skelton directly because she said there was no kick." and later (at p.50E-F); "… [It] may not have been a kick and so I am now sliding away from the need for it to be self-defence as such because, if you are being moved, ejected and, therefore, you are scrambling, your foot might accidentally make contact, so it could be an accident in the course of what happened." 13. Giving the Crown Court's decision on the appeal, the judge said (at p.52D-G): "… So we approach it in this way. In dealing with the conviction we really start towards the end of the story rather than the beginning and we ask ourselves the first question, "Have the prosecution proved so that we are sure that there was a kick?" If they have, then the second point that we ask ourselves, "Have the prosecution proved so that we are sure that this was a deliberate kick or it was accidental?" The third matter is, if there was a kick, "Have the prosecution proved that this was an unlawful use of force?" It would be unlawful unless a justification had been raised and, if raised, it would be for the prosecution to prove that it was unlawful. So, for example, if an issue of self-defence has been raised or an issue [whereby] the force was used to resist an unlawful arrest, then it would be for the prosecution to prove that the force used was unlawful before there could be a conviction. In fact, the defence has not been raised, it is not an implicit matter for us to consider but, at the same time, that is an issue for us to look at." and (at p.53B-D): "… We also do not come to any conclusions as to whether there was a lawful basis for Miss Skelton to be frogmarched from the meeting. The [authority] that has been put before us, … [Fraser Wood v DPP [2008] EWHC 1056 (Admin)], is one that has been noted but [no one] here is purporting to exercise any power of arrest in excluding Miss Skelton from the meeting. The question here is whether the PCSO and Mrs Pinkney, who seemed to be acting on request from the Police Crime Commissioner, were using lawful or unlawful force in their individual private capacities." 16. On behalf of Ms Skelton, Mr Farmer submitted that the force used against her, both in escorting her from the hall and outside it, was "unreasonable force". The Crown Court's finding that she had kicked P.C.S.O. Day in "retaliation" – as it had asserted in its statement of reasons, though not in the judgment it gave when determining her appeal – was not open to it on the evidence. But in any event, submitted Mr Farmer, it still had to confront the issue of self-defence, and if it rejected that defence it had to explain why. It had not done so, either in its judgment or in its statement of reasons. Mr Farmer submitted that self-defence had clearly been raised as a possible defence – explicitly in the submissions he had made, effectively by the prosecution's own evidence, and, indirectly, by Ms Skelton in hers. It ought therefore to have been addressed by the court. Mr Farmer relied on the principles stated in paragraph 19-48 of Archbold (2018): "[before] the issue of self-defence is left to the jury, there must be evidence, whether from the prosecution or the defence, which, if accepted, could raise a prima facie case of self-defence", and "if there is such evidence, the issue must be left to the jury, whether it is relied on by the defence or not: see DPP (Jamaica) v Bailey [1995] 1 Cr App R 257 …". 17. In this case, Mr Farmer submitted, there was strong evidence raising a prima facie defence of self-defence before the Crown Court. In her evidence Ms Skelton had complained that P.C.S.O. Day and D.C.C. Pinkney had had no authority to act as they did in taking hold of her and manhandling her out of the hall. She had struggled to get away from them, sustaining, as Mr Farmer described them, "significant injuries" to her left wrist and arm as she did so. If she had kicked out, she had done so just once, and only to make them let go of her while they were restraining her as they removed her from the hall – not after she had been ejected. She was firmly of the belief at the time that they had had no authority to use any force against her, and that she was being assaulted by them. Mr Farmer relied here on the series of propositions relating to the use of force in excluding people from public meetings set out by Turner J. in Laporte v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2014] EWHC 3574 (QB) (at paragraph 53). He pointed, in particular, to the third proposition – that "[the] power to exclude … will and must be exercised particularly sparingly and only in the absence of a reasonably viable alternative …", and the sixth – that "[if] the police are called upon to assist in the exercise of the common law power they are acting lawfully in the use of force so long as such force is necessary and not excessive".

Post Reply
Talkback Home