Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Clerk - Diana (5th May 2011 - 10:43:30) After having read all the posts on this site it appears to me that the main cause of all the trouble in the council is the clerk. Perhaps he should resign for the good of the Parish and offer to pay back all the monies he has obtained from the council tax payers in a spirit of goodwill

Re: Clerk - Don Jerrard (5th May 2011 - 12:06:06) Quite so. That is why it is so important that parishioners vote today for the candidates who want to sort this out. They are Eve Hope, Barbara Easton, Eddie Trotter, Rob Evans, Jacqui Poole, Michael Croucher., Peter Williamson, Paul Robinson and myself There will bo no peace on the Council until someone bites this particular bullet, and only then can the Council move forward. Don Jerrard

Re: Clerk - Mr Rowlans (6th May 2011 - 15:38:18) In this time of cutbacks, it is rather shocking that the Parish Clerk spends a major part of his time intimidating and bullying anyone that gets to near the true goings on. Apparently, he has written about a dozen or more grievances and compliants about members of the public and a number of councillors. If this was not bad enough , the time and resources which are being used for these processes are being paid for by us the tax payer!! Furthermore, the solicitors involved in threatening the public and councillors, is also being paid for by us!! Then another major activity is creating good news "stories". Ensuring his cousin Cllr A James, Newman and clique, always look good, whilst anyone who tries to uncover the truth, is punished with false "stories" about them. Best till last. All this Value for Money for an estimated 40K per annm salary.plus additional paid leave and significant payouts!!! Not too bad. I think this represents real Value for Money!! Well , for the Parish Clerk it does!

Re: Clerk - Richard.B (6th May 2011 - 16:22:08) The clerk and his family have had a terrible and upsetting time no thanks to certain people, he was wrongly accused of awful things and now's he's got his justice your still picking on him! Its not right and you should be ashamed of yourselfs. I just hope it never happens to any of you, actually I do then maybe you'll understand just how he feels and how cruel your being!!!

Re: Clerk - Mrs Williams (6th May 2011 - 17:53:14) What is cruel is the unnecessary and inappropriate use of public money and expect the taxpayers to foot the bill for these type of activities ! How on Earth are solicitors bills justified?? Why are the public expected to pay to threaten and bully other local people, in essence why are we paying to "Gag" locals??

Re: Clerk - rmorgan (6th May 2011 - 18:17:37) It is the Clerk's Victims that are having an "awful" time of it! His latest victim being Councillor Phil Jordan, who was doing a great job for the community, but had to"throw the towel in" with all the bullying and silliness the clerk set up for him.

Re: Clerk - Diana (6th May 2011 - 18:37:50) I am sorry the clerk and his family have had a terrible time but why should he expect the council taxes to sort his problems out . Most people use the courts if they have greivences against other people. I read that the person who made allegations withdrew them so surely that was end of matter.I do hope I am not going to end up with council solicitors letter

Re: Clerk - Tom (6th May 2011 - 19:02:19) What allegations are you referring to Diana?

Re: Clerk - Liz (6th May 2011 - 19:47:51) The Clerk doesn't have a say in who pays money to him for a councillor actions of falsely accusing him of things that never existed. It is actually the legal system that decides these things, and this is what the legal system decided was the correct action to take. I'm sure if he had a choice in the matter it would be the councillor himslef that brought the council into disrepute by falsely accusing him that would pay the money not the public. Maybe the councillor involved Mr Rob Evans who was struck off the council for his actions towards the clerk should have had the publics money in mind before doing what he did!! The clerk has no say in the matter at all it is the Law that decides these things and you just can't argue with the law. To quote a famous Clash song. Mr Evans "fought the law and the law won!!"

Re: Clerk - Nick (6th May 2011 - 20:50:00) The clerk is subject like councillors to a code of conduct, i am suprised that the STANDARDS BOARD hasnt been involved pehaps our new council can look into what has been happening and if necessary pass findings to the standards board for their comments /Once they are involved the situation can be delt with and we can move on Clerks are also subject to investigation if need be There is a magazine the council get (I think its called the Clerks Maga )and some of the stories of what council members and clerks do or try to to do would make you wonder what they do in meetings its comedy at its best (or poss a tragedy that people in public office think they are the bees knees and do what they like (they cant and they know it retribution is always round the corner

Re: Clerk - Tom (6th May 2011 - 22:41:37) I understand number locals have had theatening solicitor letter send to them in an endeavour to stop them exposing the truth Is this not correct then? How do we know one particular allegation was false? Is it really correct that the clerk's cousin is councillor A James? If this allowed? Is it true that coucillor A James happens to be on the standards board . Determining " what is right and wrong"? Is this " The Law" someone spoke about earlier? Can someone perhaps nane all the councillor and locals that have already been threatened and bullied? Obvious we are aware of cllr Phil Jordan already.

Re: Clerk - Sue (7th May 2011 - 10:31:49) As far as I can tell from the years of postings and published details here and the press, stems from the first (or what may not be the first) illegal payment made to the Clerk by the select panel in closed session of the B&LDC. The late Barry Hope fought hard to have this decision made public, and eventually it was deemed that is was not data protection, as it did not name which employee received this payment. Barry’s reasons were that it was an Employment issue, and should have been treated as one, with an Employment tribunal – which is not (as I understand) the parish office but EHDC and an independent panel. What we have seen from then on is just the fallout, with a lot of Red Herrings, huff and puffing, Cllr resignations and worst of all Solicitors letters to members of the community, basically gagging orders, one of those was to someone who has spoken out as they knew the conversations they had with a Councillor who resigned a few years ago, and gave a witness statement to the Police. It would be interesting to know what investigation the council took, when they suspended cllr Evans for an after council session conversation, which was between two people and no one heard the exact details? Why did the council take it on in the first place? – The police (the upholders of the Law) had already interviewed him and found no case. Someone must have brought it to their attention.

Re: Clerk - helen (7th May 2011 - 11:21:36) It is my understanding that the payments were proposed by a councillor and voted on by other councillors. The voting system is such that if there is a split vote the chairman which would be John Tough, Nigel Newman or Jeremy Austen Olsen, has a deciding vote. Judging from the list of names of councillors it is eay to guess those who supported the clerk and those who did not. It appears from earlier posts that the person making the allegation was not brave enough to withstand pressure from outside and also the burden of proof required in court is very stringent when accusing someone of that kind of behaviour, so the accusation itself does seem to have been the reason for the payment. I do not think law comes into it much at all, the incident was surely a matter which no one can prove. What happens afterward ? It appears to have been that one or two of the councillors went to the police to report councillor evans for a criminal offence "which was speaking to the clerk about his supposed behaviour" and then the result was that Councillor John Tough and I believe Anna James decided to pursue Councillor evans to the standards board, this is on a report publishes by the standards board,which can be read about, and the suspension of councillor evans, and the vote to give money to the Clerk. It was not really a matter of law was it? ps By Monday Morning all this will probably be withdrawn! Always worth reading this EHDC document - STANDARDS COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION AND HEARING SUB-COMMITTEE meeting held on Friday 18th June 2010 - interestingly the original copy seems to have disappeared from their web site

Re: Clerk - Jock Trodden (7th May 2011 - 14:29:49) Thank you Editor for providing the link to “STANDARDS COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION AND HEARING SUB-COMMITTEE” Having read it all I can now see Don Jerrard’s posting on the thread “Reply to Nigel Newman’s Herald Statement” was a summary of this Committee’s findings and how they reached them. Don wrote “the truth needs to be told about what happened re Rob Evans. Three people gave witness statements saying that the Clerk had harassed one of the lady councillors, as widely reported in the Liphook Herald. Rob Evans then raised this with the Clerk after a Council meeting. That caused three Councillors to make a complaint against Rob Evans. They were Anna James (the Clerk's second cousin), Nigel Newman and John Tough. At the hearing these were the only people allowed to give evidence, plus Katie Hunt, who did not reveal that she was Nigel Newman's girlfriend. The three witnesses to the alleged harassment, two of them Councillors, were not interviewed at all. That is how Rob Evans was stitched up. And by the way the Investigator had been a close colleague of Will Godfrey, the previous Chief Executive of EHDC. So much for independence! You might also like to know that there was at the same time a very serious complaint by two Liphook parishioners against Nigel Newman. The complaint was that Nigel Newman had threatened these parishioners with violence, made abusive comments to them, and was present and laughed when death threats were made to their son outside the Court in Aldershot. The only person who officially knew about that investigation was the Clerk. The Investigator (also not independent) ruled that there was no breach of the Code of Conduct because whatever Nigel Newman had done was in a personal capacity, and not as a Councillor. So perhaps Rob Evans may have been treated rather unfairly, don't you think?” You have now chosen your new councillors to be announced on Monday. Let’s hope the new team instigate a retrospective enquiry about this whole shameful episode of bullying, intimidation and falsities put out by by Groves, Newman, James and Tough. They ought to be ashamed of themselves, the lot of them. Jock Trodden Justice and Anti Corruption Party.

Re: Clerk - Pete White (7th May 2011 - 15:35:14) My understanding of events, which I was informed about 2 years ago now is:- Cllr Phil Jordan was being "setup " on an alleged gievance of bullying of the Clerk etc, by the Clerk. The Clerk was simply trying to influence the result of the grievance report findings which was being written up by former Cllr N Young.. At that time Cllr Young informed a number of Councillors and other locals about the intimidation and bullying she was under by the Clerk. This was in an endeavour to change the outcome of the grievance report. The Clerk's intimidation eventually caused Cllr Young to leave the Council. This is a similar set of circumstances that resulted in Cllr Jordan last month not standing again.for council! The sudden change of former Cllr Young story in the newspapers was due to another dose of fear and intimidation by the Clerk and Cronies. Former Cllr Young probably believed she would get sued for telling the truth?

Re: Clerk - Andy (7th May 2011 - 16:22:47) Come on jock if your into openness and honesty how about answering the questions I asked you or have you got something to hide? Or Is the truth being corrupted for an ulterior motive?

Re: Clerk - Sue (7th May 2011 - 18:26:04) Would be useful if the report Cllr Young did could be published - that is unless the tactics used to persuade her findings be favourable and not the truth! The word stalking can have a number of definations, in this instance it was one of observation, intimidation and control.

Re: Clerk - robin (7th May 2011 - 19:49:01) I think that is the issue that councillor Young was giving a true and accurate account/ report of events and that is why she was fearful.

Re: Clerk - Sue (8th May 2011 - 14:06:40) Before I get letters of legal slander etc - I did accidently put ' it was', and not IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE in the sentence about definations of Stalking etc. Apologies to anyone who may take this as a direct accusation.

Re: Clerk - Les (8th May 2011 - 20:44:18) I was under the impression that the Clerk to the Council was formerly a senior army officer. If he can be so easily "bullied" by a couple of councillors how did he ever survive in the military - or was he just another desk bound "pay clerk".

Re: Clerk - helen (9th May 2011 - 09:50:03) I am not certain but I have heard that he was based in Whitehall, in an office towards the end of his time in the army responsible for information which was put out in press releases/public knowledge/spin information.

Re: Clerk - Bernard (15th Sep 2011 - 09:38:15) I note the headline in the Petersfield Post 14th September "Parish Clerk Groves is suspended for alleged impropriety" This apparently took place on Tuesday A statement issued yesterday is quoted as saying "The parish council is sorry to have to report that serious allegations have been reported to the council concerning the conduct of the clerk to the council. In the circumstances Mr Groves has been suspended from his post to allow for the council to conduct a full and fair investigation of the allegations as quickly as possible" I wonder if it will be quoted in the Liphook Herald tomorrow,

Re: Clerk - Dee (15th Sep 2011 - 11:13:01) Not wishing to stir up a hornets nest, but does this mean he will pay back the monies paid to him, if found guilty! I only asked OK.

Re: Clerk - Andrew (16th Sep 2011 - 11:03:34) Hi Dee (and others) I apologise in advance but from my point of view stirring things up is all that several people seem to do in regards to this issue! None of us know all the facts, the majority of the claims made on this site seem to be idle speculation which will severly impact any investigation into this matter, an investigation which needs to be performed by an impartial party in my opinion, i.e. not a group of councillors at the heart of the matter. I believe the best thing to do under the present circumstances would be to cease and prevent any further discussion of the issue on this site as any threads on the topic seem to devolve into a one-way slinging match on the part of several repeat offenders Many Thanks Andrew

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home