Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Peter R (1st Oct 2012 - 17:30:01) I read in the Liphook Herald last week, as I am sure many people did, that after a year of protracted fact-finding, one 'in house' investigation and two independent ones, the parish clerk, Tony Groves has finally been dismissed. I am wondering when the electors of Liphook who have financed this proceedure which according to the article in The Herald has cost tens of thousands of pounds, are to be told of the reasons for his dismissal. In the past the representatives for the parish council have waved the words "sub judice" whenever this question has been asked, but surely now that the matter is a "fait accompli," we, the electors of Liphook, are entitled to know the facts.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jane G (1st Oct 2012 - 21:40:49) I had a quick look on the PC website and it looks like a question was asked at the F&P committee meeting held on 10th September. The following excerpt from the minutes doesn\'t tell us the outcome, but it looks like a fairly serious issue... \"Public Questions not on the Agenda A question was asked about any further developments on the clerk’s suspension since the Council Meeting. Cllr Jerrard explained that in respect of motion 2, Councillors will be meeting a senior police officer next week.\"

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Dewy (2nd Oct 2012 - 06:16:04) OK, and if the person is found to be guilty, will the tax payers still toe the bill (procedural expenses? theft?) or will we be compensated?

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Iam Toshie (5th Oct 2012 - 18:12:23) I have been away for a few weeks. Upon my return I see the clerk, Mr Tony Groves, has finally been dismissed ”. I remember reading that he was a retired Colonel who served with the army intelligence corps. I assume therefore the evidence against him was compelling. As I remember he was accused of being a liar, cheat, thief, stalker, tyrant and he led a gang of corrupt Parish Councillors some of whom were ousted some time ago. Some, I understand, are still in office and they must have known what Groves was up to. Perhaps when the police investigate the matter Mouland, James & Tough may have some tough (sic) questions to answer. What I find staggering is the lack of response from Liphook residents. How much has it cost to get rid of this man? How much to get rid of any ruthless tyrant who knows the rules and plays the game? Groves can now appeal and if or when that is dismissed he can apply to an unfair dismissal tribunal which would be held in public. I will book my seat first row. Hats off to the courage and tenacity of the Finance and Policy Committee’s working party who have brought this man to book and in particular to Mr Don Gerrard who’s honesty and judgement were sorely criticised in this forum by Grove’s and the council’s “bandits”.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - simon (5th Oct 2012 - 23:19:15) It is about time the clerk was sacked and a big thank you for all the hard work that has been done by Mr Gerrard and his team in uncovering his scam!

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jean (6th Oct 2012 - 10:32:58) Referring to the last posting by Simon. He seems to know why the clerk has been dismissed and is happy to dole out congratulations to Cllr Jerrard and his team for "uncovering the scam". What scam? What has the clerk done or not done as the case may be? Could he enlighten the rest of us please? I am sure I am not the only one in Liphook who would like to know, particularly as though it appears the electors are paying for the whole procedure.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - H (6th Oct 2012 - 12:46:33) You still believe everything you read in the Herald?

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - simon (6th Oct 2012 - 15:25:16) Jean congratulation & thank you are two different words with different meanings! It has not only cost the electors but all tax payers in the parish a lot of money shame on the clerk.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jean (6th Oct 2012 - 16:07:42) H, I don't know if your posting is in direct answer to mine, but if it is, I really don't understand it. My posting has nothing to do with what I have read in The Herald. Simon in his posting was congratulating Cllr Jerrard and company for engineering the dismissal of the clerk and referrred to "a scam". As Simon seemed to know what the clerk has done or not done I was asking him if he could enlighten the rest of us. That is all. If however you were answering Mr Toshie's posting then that is another matter. Mr Toshie assumes that the evidence againts the clerk was compelling but as is "power for the course" in this debacle, he does not state of what the clerk was culpable. I assume, therefore that he does not have any details in which case he should be very careful about casting aspersions as he has done in his posting, not only about the clerk, but about other councillors, calling them corrupt. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything, but in this country one is innocent until proved guilty. Of what is the clerk guilty? No one actually gives the electors any details, so that we can review the situation. Peter R who started this Thread asked for answers on more or less the same lines but no one has yet volunteered any information. Same old, same old! Transparency is not a word that springs to mind. Would someone put an end to all this suspense now that the clerk has been dismissed and let us know WHY? Not too difficult or is it?

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - simon (6th Oct 2012 - 18:23:19) Jean states Mr Gerrard engineered the dismissal of groves the now ex clerk .Jean your not one of the Bandits are you ?

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jean (7th Oct 2012 - 09:04:10) No Simon I am most definitely not one of the bandits and it is very sad that you try to deflect my questions with stupid questions? All I, and I am sure many others also, want to know is - WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR THE CLERK'S DISMISSA?. In other words transparency. I cannot be any clearer than that. I have no axe to grind and have never sat or had anything to do with Liphook & Bramshott Parish Council. As to my statement that Cllr Jerrard and his team engineered the dismissal of the clerk, how would you describe it? If you do reply to this posting please answer my questions rather than asking irrelevant ones.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jane G (7th Oct 2012 - 10:58:43) Jean, I think sometimes we have to accept that we cannot expect to know everything. This may well come out in time, but perhaps to protect the individual concerned (as I assume he lives locally) some things have to be kept confidential. I know nothing about the clerk or the parish council, other than what I read here and on the PC website, but he is also a human being and if he has got dirty linen to air it doesn't necessarily have to be done in the public eye. My view is that we have to respect the fact that the PC have routed out a problem, dealt with it in the way they saw fit, and now it is time to move on. We voted them in and that means we have given them the necessary powers to do what they believe is the right thing.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - H (7th Oct 2012 - 11:31:12) Jean I was answering Peter Rs assertions, which are all based on what he has read in the Herald. What is quoted in the Herald is not necessarily true? Mr Groves I think was quoted in the Paper as no longer working for the Parish Council. I am sure that if he had wanted to elaborate the matter he would have done that himself?

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jean (8th Oct 2012 - 12:55:29) H, Your posting is based on an assumption that Peter R\'s posting was based ONLY on what he has read in The Herald. Yes, he does quote The Herald but you do not know whether he has other sources of information which verify his statements. Assumptions are dangerous things. Mr Groves did indeed state in The Herald that he was no longer working for the Parish Council. I have it on good authority that he was taken to task by the council for even saying that, so how you can have expect him to elaborate further I really do not know. Jane, I refer to your posting commencing \"I think sometimes we have to accept that we cannot expect to know everything. This may well come out in time, but perhaps to protect the inividual concerned some things have to be kept confidential\" . In my opinion these two sentences are naive say the least. During this whole procedure, the protection of the parish clerk has never featured on the agenda of those determined to get rid of him. It is a bit late to worry about the clerk\'s reputation now. I accept that the public cannot know everything about everything and that we voted for the present councillors, but the dismissal of the clerk is not a matter of national security and our democractically elected councillors are accountable to the electorate just as Members of Parliament are accountable to the Nation. The electors are entitled to know the bare facts ie what were the reasons for the clerk\'s dismissal - no embellishment - just facts. Doubly so as they are the ones paying the bills. I understand that the cost so far of the solicitors employed by the council is in excess of £20,000 and that is not taking in account all the other expenses, such as employing a locum clerk etc etc. I am not on anyone\'s side over this, I just want transparency which acccording the Cllr Jerrard\'s election address, he wants too, in all walks of life. The exception to this seems to be when Cllr Jerrard himself is involved.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - john morris (9th Oct 2012 - 08:55:29) I think that Don Jerrard is the bully. Talk about the lunatics taking over the asylum !!!

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jane G (9th Oct 2012 - 18:14:46) Jean I think you are contradicting yourself! You start by commenting that "the protection of the parish clerk has never featured on the agenda of those determined to get rid of him" and then go on to say "but the dismissal of the clerk is not a matter of national security and our democractically elected councillors are accountable to the electorate just as Members of Parliament are accountable to the Nation". So in other words you start by saying that the Clerk wasn't protected but imply that he should have been, and then say that we are entitled to know the facts. I personally don't think we are entitled to know the facts. If I had done something in my job that let's say I regretted, then is it right that my company should go public on it? I don't believe so and I think individuals are entltled to some privacy. That said, from everything I have read the clerk does not deserve his position and has caused so much upset and expense that I am glad he has gone, but he is also a human being and has basic human rights.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Finchie (11th Oct 2012 - 00:29:10) Still wetting myself in anticipation to hear exactly what value the PC have added to our community in the last 12 months. Bullet point summaries acceptable as I'm not trawling though a bunch of antiquated minutes. Happy weekend ! Cheers, Finchie

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - john morris (11th Oct 2012 - 10:16:54) What happens if Tony Groves is exonerated by the Police investigation (or if the decline to investigate altogether) What will those in the parish council responsible for the matter do. Will they resign, as after all this has cost us a lot of money Will they be held accountable in any way, not least bad judgement, or will they slither out of it.......... There are a number of documents worth reading on the BLPC website which refer to the issue of the clerk. I'll collect together a few and add them here over the next few hours. AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF THE FINANCE & POLICY COMMITTEE TOOK PLACE AT 8.00PM IN THE MILLENNIUM HALL, LIPHOOK, ON MONDAY 11JULY 2011. Public Report of the Accounts & Annual Return Working Party 28 November 2011

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - john morris (11th Oct 2012 - 10:54:40) Has anyone seen the Herald front page. Four of our best, and longest serving parish councillors have resigned over this debacle, including Anna James who was abused in the most appalling and disgusting way by Don Jerrard on this very forum shortly after her husband, Sam, sadly died. Finchie is right (as always) to ask what exactly has the parish council done for the village in the last year. People in Liphook will vey shortly wake up to realise that the parish council has been hijacked by lunatics. Time will soon be up for the Jerrard cabal - Jusice and Anti-Corruption Party indeed !!!!!!!!!

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jean (11th Oct 2012 - 11:09:59) Jane G, I was not contradicting myself by stating that the protection of the parish clerk has never featured on the agenda nor was I implying that it should have been. I would be really interested if you could point out anywhere in my posting that I was doing either of these things. I was making the point that it is a bit late to start worrying about the reputation of the clerk now, as to date and throughout this whole debacle, no one has been the slightest bit concerned about his reputation or feelings as human being, but now when the taxpayers of Liphook are wanting to know the facts, you seem to be saying that the protection of his reputation should be taken into consideration. Please remember that you are speaking for yourself and not me. My personal feelings are private. I do not take sides. I just would like the reasons for his dimissal to be revealed. Your posting sounds like another smokescreen to prevent the electorate, who have paid the bill for all the legal proceedings and other expenses, from being told the reasons for his dismissal. Of course people are entitled to privacy, but when one is in a public office, paid for by the taxpayer and whose actions affect the public, then the public are entitled to know the bare facts. You are quoting quite a different scenario by saying that if you had done something untoward in your job would it be right for your company to go public. No probably not, and in any case no one outside your company would be interested. You also use the word "regret". Are you implying that the clerk regrets his actions? If so, you know more than I do. I would also be interested to know what you have read and where that motivates you to state that "the clerk does not deserve his position and has caused so much upset and expense, etc etc." Was it in The Herald or do you have access to other documents? See the documents listed above

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jane G (11th Oct 2012 - 12:38:50) THanks Editor for posting these links again....let's hope the critics of the current PC read them this time!

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - jean (11th Oct 2012 - 15:04:08) Jane G, You have not responded to my posting yet, but placed another one saying that you hope people will read "The Editors Link." I have skimmed this and will look at it more carefully in due course. However from what I have "scanned" so far it seems that far from being a bully, the clerk has been bullied by Cllrs Jerrard, Croucher and Trodden and his life at the parish office made intolerable and unworkable. I see from another posting that 4 councillors have resigned from the parish council and as a result feel deeply troubled. The good councillors are leaving a sinking ship. If there are elections more expense will be incurred by the taxpayer. Exactly the same thing happened in Greatham except in that case the 4 councillors concerned were persuaded to stay on until the May election to avoid incurring any expense and just not stand for re-election which is exactly what happened. The reason they did not stand again was because they couldn't tolerate the behaviour of Cllr Jerrard. and they were good councillors, hardworking and had the best interests of Greatham at heart. So Cllr Jerrard has got his way yet again. I think the phrase in a previous posting "the lunatics have taken over the asylum" is very appropriate and actually what have the parish council done over the past 12 months?

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - L Davis (11th Oct 2012 - 16:17:29) All of the Councillors who have resigned have been quoted as saying they wanted to serve their community, indeed were proud and pleased to support their community. If there was a grain of truth in these sentiments they should have remained on the parish council until the next election, rather than costing the tax payers even more money by resigning because one particular decision didn't go their way. It smacks of playground politics at the taxpayers expense. However, now that the 4 have resigned perhaps we can show our support for the current PC who once and for all have tackled the issue of the Parish Clerk, which, let's not forget, was an unresolved issue of the last Parish Council. For any that feel the current PC is not well representing the needs of the village, you now the have the opportunity to stand for election and bring about change from within, rather than taking cheap pot shots at them on this Talk back.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Michael (11th Oct 2012 - 16:47:33) Editor, Many thanks for posting the links to BPLC documents, my problem is they were both written and read out by D Jerrard, so not independent reports, just the thoughts of a current council member. I am sure other councillors have other thoughts Maybe this has somthing to do with these 4 council members resigning.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - michael (11th Oct 2012 - 16:49:07) just got The Herald, and from what Eve Hope has said, it certainly does seem that Don Jerrard is a bully. Eve is not someone to exaggerate or mislead either. What shameful way to treat Eve our elder statesman, especially considering all the great work that Barry did over the years. I am frankly appalled.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Peter Kember (11th Oct 2012 - 17:35:34) jean/Mr Morris - just take a step back and consider that you are new members of the Parish Council. You are obstructed in getting on with parish matters because of the actions of the Clark, who incidentally has a filing cabinet's worth of grievances taken out by him against various Councillors - stretching back years. Consider how much time and money has been used to deal with these matters. You also have to deal with derogatory comments on this very website from one of your fellow Councillors , who gets a work colleague to make these posts from an office in London, causing said Councillor to rightfully resign. All very petty, but nether the less obstructive. Then you have to deal with the critics on this forum, and a one-sided Liphook Herald, reporting anything but a true account of the PC meetings. Then log onto Liphook.co.uk and consider facts rather than hearsay and skim-reading minutes before you lay into the PC. Trouble with Liphook.co.uk is that is all becomes very personal not at all factual, which unfortunately diverts attention away from the main issues in hand. Why not use your energy in getting behind the PC instead of listening to half truths, stirring up gossip and give them a chance to progress. If you have time to skim-read minutes and previous posts, then you can read about the positive things they've done and help bring some positive energy to the forum.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - jean (11th Oct 2012 - 17:42:38) I have now read the front page of The Liphook Herald. Wow! My answer to L Davis's posting would be - has he ever attended a meeting at which Cllr Jerrard has been present on the committee?. If he had he would not have said what he did. One would have to have the stamina of a ox and the hide of a rhinocerous to endure the barrage of rhetoric and llengthy meetings. The 4 Greatham councillors did stick it out to avoid causing a by election, but it was only for another 3 months until the May election. Incidentally the then Greatham Parish clerk also resigned as a result of rudeness and agression which she had to put up with and she was a good clerk as well. The next local elections are 2015 so I do not think these 4 councillors should be blamed for now resigning. Why should they have to endure bullying, irrational behaviour and accusations for the next 3 years. Having read the article in The Herald it is obvious it is not just the "one decision that didn't go their way" that caused them to resign. It is the treatment they have had to endure and that will not go away. Toe the line or get crushed! That is what bullies do. Michael, you have hit the nail on the head when you say that the BPLC documents "were both written and read out by D Jerrard, so not independent reports, just the thoughts of a current council member." It is all about control and that has been achieved. Heaven help Liphook & Bramshott. It will be interesting to see that now their "mission" has been accomplished ie dismissal of the clerk, whether the remaining councillors will actually become a cohesive parish council and do something positive for Liphook & Bramshott such as finding the money for St. Mary's annual maintenance grant of £2,000 a paltry sum, when one considers what has already been spent.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jane G (11th Oct 2012 - 18:02:50) The report that the editor posted are not 'thoughts' by Don Jerrard. They are a report from the working party set up to investigate this issue. It is not a culmination of one person's viewpoint. I have just read through again the second document the editor posted and it was two of the Councillors who have now resigned, Anna James and John Tough, who were named in that report as having ignored a whistle blowing document that was delivered to them I think in 2009 which they ignored. I am no legal expert, but my understanding is that their actions may be unlawful. The report is well worth a read for anyone who doubts that the Clerk should have been dismissed, and maybe, Jean, rather than just scanning the document you should read it in it's entirety before making assumptions. The report also states that because the whistle blowing disclosure was ignored, there could be a claim against past members of the F & P committee (including James and Tough). Possibly a reason to now resign?? Just one other point of note, the second payment to the clerk of £8,500 was deemed to be illegal as proper practise did not take place. I am really looking forward to seeing an end to this, and well done to our current parish council members for their tenacity in seeing through this very difficult issue.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - L Davis (11th Oct 2012 - 18:56:03) Jean I'm a she not a he - another example of assumption perhaps?! I shouldn't rise and reply to your post, but I just feel very strongly that in your vitriol against Mr Jerrard, you dismiss the contribution of the rest of the PC in one brushstroke. Let's not forget the members of the PC are volunteers who stood for election because they wanted to serve the community. In my opinion they have been hampered by having to sort out the issue of the Parish Clerk, a situation which was inherited by the current PC. It's not that long ago many people on this website were outraged and apalled at the ad hoc payments that clerk and cronies had received. Once again, let's support the PC and move on.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - jean (12th Oct 2012 - 10:00:56) I read what both Jane G and L Davis have posted. They are of course entitled to their opinions as I am to mine. So let us move on and see what the parish council do now for the good of Bramshott & Liphook.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - jaybee (13th Oct 2012 - 19:30:51) I would like to hear offically whether Mr Groves resigned or was dismissed. Either way I would like to hear the reason or reasons. If he resigned, did he do this voluntarly or was he pushed?If he was pushed does he claim constructive dismissal or does he have some other complaint? If he was sacked, why? Did he receive verbal and written warnings? Was he involved in illegal activity? Are criminal proceedings pending? There have been so many rumours floating about that one does not know who are the "goodies" and who are the "baddies" Will someone please enlighten us.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Ally (13th Oct 2012 - 23:23:39) jaybee, my thoughts precisely. Will someone please explain what has been going on . We do seem to have \"two tribes go to war here\". You do all seem to know a lot about each other,so please enlighten us instead of playing these silly games with each other on Liphook Talkback. Why pick on the Liphook Herald , again have each and all of you have an agenda.Some of you seem very derogatory to a particular writer. If you insist on airing this on here then please let the rest of us know what is going on in the murky world of Liphook politics.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Don Jerrard (14th Oct 2012 - 16:23:01) I have, until now, not responded to any of the email threads on the question of the investigations concerning the conduct of the Clerk since I was elected as a Councillor in May 2011. That is because I believe in the principle of \"cabinet reponsibilty\" for those who have had to deal with these difficult issues, and we all agreed to make no comment other than as agreed as part of the process. It was the Clerk who requested the wording of the statement which was issued at the end of the disciplinary hearings and the Council respected his wishes while other matters are still outstanding or subject to appeal. However I do not think it is helpful when people make uninformed comments on this website, especially if they are unwilling to identify themselves. So may I invite Jean, in particular, and John Morris to meet with me to ask their questions as to what occurred dirctly. My telephone number and email address are on the Parish Council records and freely available, and I am happy to meet you in the Parish Council office or wherever you may choose. I made no secret of my concern about certain matters when I stood for election, as did others, and can assure you that we have all done our best to sort things out. Frankly the position was much worse than most of us could have imagined. But it is certainly not fair to say that the Councillors have done nothing in the last 18 months other than to deal with the problems of the Clerk. I am proud to be associated with a group of councillors who have worked really hard in so many areas. Finally I must repeat that the investigations into the financial irregularities have been at absolutely no cost to the Council, and that will continue to be the case. The investigation of other very serious allegations had to be carried out by independent solicitors and HR consultants because certain councillors would not accept that they needed investigating at all. Parishioners can be assured that it is the Council\'s intention to seek to recover those costs from those who were resposible, but without incurring any further costs which cannot be avoided. The fact is that if Mr Groves chooses to make a claim against the Council it will have to be defended, and I am sure that it will be, and successfully. Last of all I again repeat my offer to meet with Jean, John or whoever wants to duiscuss what really has been happening. Or please come to a Council meeting and ask questions there, but please don\'t hide behind anonymity. Don Jerrard

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - jean (15th Oct 2012 - 10:08:17) Cllr Jerrard I have read your posting with interest. Why do you want a meeting? All many people want to know including myself are the following facts, we do not need to meet you for a discussion. Did the clerk have the mandatory verbal and written warnings? Did the clerk resign or was he dismissed? If he was dismissed for wrongdoing why? No embillishments, just facts, bullet points if you like from 1 to however many reasons were found to justify his dismissal. I think Michael, Jaybee, Ally and John Morris would also like to know as would many other people Liphook. Just answers Cllr Jerrard. We do not want to have to trawl through rambling and convoluted minutes which really do not explain anything at all. You say, I and others hide behind anonymity as do many people who contribute to Liphook Talkback. I would counter that statement by saying that you are hiding behind a smokescreen, so please dispel this notion and give us, the people of Liphook the facts.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Frances (15th Oct 2012 - 11:27:18) This site should surely not broadcast for all - personal details of an employee of the Council. Councillor Jerrard has offered to meet with you and anybody else with concerns - what is your reluctance?

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - L Davis (15th Oct 2012 - 21:07:13) I'm all for constructive challenge and opposition. However Jean, you have had a reply, you have had an invitation to meet. If you don't want to meet and challenge Mr Jerrard on a one to one basis, you could attend a council meeting. Why do you insist on using this forum to try and create momentum for what appears to be something akin to a vendetta? Also, I really believe the collective of the PC need to be given the support to do a decent job for the village. All the time they are asked to come onto this website and defend themselves, they are not spending time working on something more constructive. Remember the brilliant men's fours olympic team . . .when Pete Reed was interviewed about how they had acheived such a fantastic result, he said "to get to where we need to be, we've focused totally on only spending time on what makes the boat go faster. If it doesn't make the boat go faster we don't do it." So when we're asking members of the PC to come onto to Talkback to justify what they have been doing, why they have made a particular decision can we remember they are volunteers, with limited man hours. If they have to come onto talkback, it's time they could spending on something else for the village. And perhaps we could use the channels already available to challenge, question and understand the actions of the PC ie. the minutes and pc meetings.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Michael (16th Oct 2012 - 07:26:26) I DO go to council meetings, i have also been to the Parish office and asked the question "why is Mr Groves no longer my parish clerk" and have been told "that they are not allowed to tell me, it will come out one day" what will?

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jane G (16th Oct 2012 - 07:54:08) Well said L Davis...I couldn't have put it better myself! Michael, you may have tried in the past but now now the investigation is complete Cllr Jerrard is clearly inviting you to ask questions so it would be rather churlish not to accept his invitation.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Eneida Nelson (16th Oct 2012 - 09:11:09) This saga involving the Parish Clerk has been going on for a very long time and appears to have cost us, the taxpayers of Liphook, a great deal of money to resolve. I see no reason why the PC, elected as our representatives, can't issue a simple and clear explanation of the events leading up to the Clerk's dismissal/resignation...no need to go into 'lurid' details...indeed, I think it's their duty to do so!!

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jean (16th Oct 2012 - 10:41:33) Well said Eneida Nelson and Michael. At least there are some people with common sense. I do not mind where the answers come from. Perhaps a special meeting could be called inviting members of the public to come and listen to the reasons why the clerk was dismissed. I am sure the clerk himself would welcome this. If necessary they could be allowed to ask questions at this meeting and the whole procedure could be properly recorded and minuted. I would be happy to attend such a meeting and if necessary ask questions but with all the councillors present. Although Cllr Jerrard along with Cllr Croucher were the prime movers in getting the clerk dismissed Cllr Jerrard should not be allowed to run the “show” and be the only one to answer questions or have “discussions” on a “one to one” basis. All the councillors should be present at such a time – the PC is not a dictatorship, at least not yet. With regard to expense Cllr Jerrard stated in his latest posting that: “ Finally I must repeat that the investigations into the financial irregularities have been at absolutely no cost to the Council, and that will continue to be the case. The investigation of other very serious allegations had to be carried out by independent solicitors and HR consultants because certain councillors would not accept that they needed investigating at all. Parishioners can be assured that it is the Council\'s intention to seek to recover those costs from those who were resposible, but without incurring any further costs which cannot be avoided. “ An admirable claim, but a) will it actually happen and b) will more expense be incurred in trying to make it happen? Finally as I have said before, yes, in spite of all the distasteful wrangling, public slanging matches and bad feeling I do think Liphook and Bramshott should now support their PC and hope that the present councillors and the possible new ones work together for the good of the parish. However this can only be done when there is transparency about the reasons for the clerk’s dismissal.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Michael (16th Oct 2012 - 13:56:19) Jane G, Please it was last week i went to council office to post my question well after so called investigation had finished. So can you tell me then as your obviously in the know why only Mr Gerrard can answere questions, is it because hes made all the answers up? Only a question!

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jane G (16th Oct 2012 - 17:46:31) Michael I am not in the know and have nothing to do with the Parish Council other than being very interested in the place where I live and therefore I read the local paper and look at the parish council website ona regular basis to read the minutes of what is happening. I then make up my own mind based on the information I have been given. You have therefore clearly made assumptions about me, and reading what you wrote above, you are clearly making assumptions about Don Jerrard (who I wouldn't know if I met him in the street). It strikes me that some people who responded to this thread are very willing to dig the knife in on a public forum, but are not actually prepared to follow it up with any action....why not going along and meet Mr Jerrard, what have you got to lose? I have added below the contents of a press release from the Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council 16th October 2012. PRESS RELEASE Following a number of inaccurate articles in the Liphook Herald recently the Parish Council wishes to place on record the following points. From May 2011 onwards, Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council (BPLC) received information and disclosures from various sources that made it necessary for a full investigation to take place into the conduct of the Parish Clerk, Mr Anthony Groves. Had BPLC failed to investigate, a liability may have arisen towards the employees, contractors and members of the public who had made these Disclosures. These people requested that the information they gave, should remain confidential and BPLC intends to do all that it can to maintain their anonymity and to protect the confidential nature of their disclosures. In early 2011, a Mrs Pauline Lucas took on the role of reviewing BLPC‘s Policies and Staffing arrangements. The intention was that she would work a few hours per week; she was not taken on to conduct an investigation and was unable to give BLPC the level of support required, when it became apparent that a full, independent investigation was required. Therefore, the Parish Council used its Employment Solicitor to guide them in following a fair and reasonable procedure (ACAS) throughout the investigation. The Independent Investigation Independent professionals were put forward by the Employment Solicitor and interviewed by BLPC because BLPC did not believe it was appropriate or sufficiently independent for any councillor to undertake this investigation on their behalf. Mrs Karen Hill took on the role of Investigator and produced an Investigation Report. Great care was taken to ensure that best practice (ACAS) was followed and direction was taken from the Parish Council’s Employment Solicitor to ensure this was the case. No council member took part in any decision making throughout the investigation. As a result of the investigation, a separate matter came to light which has been handed over to the police. That matter is no longer in the hands of BLPC, however BLPC will release further details as and when appropriate. The Disciplinary Hearing Pursuant to the investigation, a Disciplinary Hearing took place. Independent professionals were again put forward by the Employment Solicitor to the Council and interviewed by members of the Finance and Policy Committee. Ms Julia Homan took the role of Chairperson of the Disciplinary Hearing. No council member took part in any decision making throughout the disciplinary process. Costs A fine line between Public Administrative Law and Employment Law has been trodden throughout. The complex nature of the situation has made it necessary to obtain legal advice and employ professional people, the costs of which BLPC will be taking every possible step to recover. BLPC is aware that this is a matter of public interest and issues have been made as transparent as possible throughout – with public versions of reports issued on a regular basis and available on the PC’s website. All voting pertaining to this issue has been by [either] Full Council or the Finance and Policy Committee. Correct procedures were followed throughout with Agendas, Minutes and Resolutions recorded. At no time has any BLP Councillor been permitted to act alone. All decisions in these matters were made by independent professionals and not by councillors.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - jaybee (17th Oct 2012 - 16:24:14) I would still like to hear offically whether Mr Groves resigned or was dismissed. Either way I would like to hear the reason or reasons. If he resigned, did he do this voluntarly or was he pushed?If he was pushed does he claim constructive dismissal or does he have some other complaint? If he was sacked, why? Did he receive verbal and written warnings? Was he involved in illegal activity? Are criminal proceedings pending? There have been so many rumours floating about that one does not know who are the "goodies" and who are the "baddies" Will someone please enlighten us.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Mr Iam Toshie (18th Oct 2012 - 09:07:17) Thank you Editor for adding the above press release. It is most informative. There is nothing to stop anyone attending a Parish Council Meeting now and asking their questions from the floor. The days when Liphook residents did so and were then ignored, bullied or intimidated by some councillors and in particular the crooked clerk, are gone.. Jean, you really ought to meet up or shut up.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Cllr Jock Trodden (18th Oct 2012 - 10:07:30) Dear Jean or whoever you may be. You rant on about Cllr Jerrard like a person obsessed. It appears to me at least you go out of your way to defame this man using all the uninformed rhetoric you can muster. I sit on the Greatham Parish Council and serve on the planning committee of which Cllr Jerrard is chair. I have never served on any committee with a more honest and dedicated public servant. He sometimes comes across as blunt as he is guileless but in my experience he is thorough and dedicated to serving the community to the best of his considerable ability. At all meetings I have attended over the years, Greatham or Liphook, he patiently allows everyone to have their say. I do not agree with all his views or decisions but I respect them and he respects other opposing views. We Councillors, Liphook or Greatham, give our time and experience freely. We must be seen to act fairly, honestly and courteously at all times. The attacks on Councillors I have read recently on this forum have frankly been disgraceful and the people making these accusations, based on innuendo and gossip, do not have to justify their ranting rhetoric. Perhaps I suggest they take the democratic route, attend meetings, give their name and ask their questions from the floor.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - nick (18th Oct 2012 - 18:08:29) re press release if what is said is true about the reports printed by the Herald are incorrect can someone out rhere please tell us where this information came from,.if not from the Parish Council, I suggest this should be on the Parish Council agenda at thier next meeting and try and sought out the inaccurate reports we have been takig as the truth(seems not now after reading the press release on this thread)

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Kevin (18th Oct 2012 - 19:11:08) Good for your Jaybee. The Press Release tells us very little of what the clerk has been found guilty. Information please from the PC. When I read Ian Toshie's posting I smelt the whiff of hypocrisy. He refers to councillors ignoring, bullying and intimidating Liphook residents in the past. Where is his evidence? He uses intemperate and unpleasant language about the clerk, but does not say anything to justify it. Again where is his evidence? Finally he tries to bully Jean into suggesting she eiher meets with (he doesn't say with whom) or shuts up. What right has he to dictate to people. He appears to be the bully - "pot and kettle" spring to mind.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - rita (18th Oct 2012 - 22:55:14) i do not know what has happened in the past with the parish clerk so i have nothing against him personally, i also do not know the other members of the parish council so am getting very annoyed with some of the posts. people are entitiled to there opinion without others being a bit aggesive to one another. i would just like to know the reasons why he was given pay while being dismissed, and will we see any of the money being given back to the village that has been paid to him. in my opinion it all seems a bit cloak and dagger. perhaps someone can enlighten me without a sarcastic comment. i feel like many people that we are entitled to know. i have lived in liphook all of my 38 years and this lovely village is being spoilt my nasty comments and back biting.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Peter R (19th Oct 2012 - 12:46:43) Councillor Trodden,I do so agree with you. The attacks on Councillors past and present on this forum are disgraceful as they have been on the clerk, Tony Groves. He has been described recently as a “crook” among other things. Unfortunately a sitting councillor has also been guilty of disgraceful attacks in the past on this forum see a post by Councillor Don Jerrard in December. His vitriol had to be read to be believed - obsession and rhetoric are not new to Liphook Talkback . So please Councillor Trodden don’t just highlight what has been happening recently, dig back and you will see that this sort of innuendo has been going on a for long time. It is always a mistake to be selective when dishing out criticism.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - jaybee (23rd Oct 2012 - 17:03:52) If you have unanswered question,why not attend the next meeting of Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council which will be held at The Peak Centre Midhurst Road LIPHOOK at 8pm on Monday 29 October 2012

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Kevin (24th Oct 2012 - 10:17:39) I see Mr Trodden has gone to extreme lengths to post the same post on two different subjects!! One feels a little bit of protection is once again being used!!! And furthermore a bit of bullying will no doubt start up again!! Don't forget to cuddle xx

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Peter R (27th Oct 2012 - 16:30:25) I will take a leaf out of Cllr Trodden's book and leave the same posting on 2 Threads which seem to be connected. After all if this is OK for a sitting councillor to do, then it is also OK for a member of the public. Unfortunately I am on holiday from today so will not be able to be present at the Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council meeting to be held at The Parish Office in The Peak Centre, Midhurst Road on Monday 29 October at 8 pm. I draw your attention to item 6 on the Agenda. 6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SESSION Adjournment of the meeting for public Public Questions (a) To allow members of the public to address the Council with respect to items not on the agenda. (b) To Allow members of the public to address the Council about business on the agenda at the discretion of the Chairman. This is the item when questions can be asked regarding the reasons for the Clerk's dismissal. The questions to ask: Was he dismissed or did he resign? If he was dismissed were the mandatory verbal and written warnings given to him? What were the reasons for his dismissal? Several people have asked these questions on Liphook Talkback so now is the time to get answers. Cllr Jerrard has offered to meet anyone to discuss the matter in his Thread dated 14 October and I quote "Last of all I again repeat my offer to meet with Jean, John or whoever wants to discuss what really has been happening. Or please come to a Council meeting and ask questions there" Now is the time to ask!

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Val (29th Oct 2012 - 14:14:10) Just to remind everyone who wants answers on the subject of the dismissal of the parish clerk, do go to the meeting tonight held at the Parish Office starting at 8 pm. Item 6 on the agenda allows members of the public to ask questions about items not on the Agenda. Perhaps this contentious issue can then be "put to bed."

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Marion (31st Oct 2012 - 11:16:57) Away & not able to go to Parish meetings. Will somebody post whether any questions were asked at the 29 October meeting on this subject Thankyou

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - A. Ryan (31st Oct 2012 - 19:01:32) I too wasn't able to be there, any relevant information?

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Me (1st Nov 2012 - 09:14:01) I was there and yes the question was asked about the Clerk leaving. REPLY Sorry the information is sub-judaci. so no information given. so much for come and meet me and I will talk to you!!

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - A. Ryan (1st Nov 2012 - 10:42:12) Clear as mud then !!

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Kevin (2nd Nov 2012 - 11:46:53) Well, so much for transparency. According to Me's posting yesterday, 1 November, the question was asked about the Clerk's dismissal and the reply, surprise, surprise, was "Sorry the information is sub-judice." So we are no nearer learning the reasons the Tony Groves's dismissal in spite the fact that Cllr Jerrard in is his posting dated 14 October said, and I quote "Last of all I again repeat my offer to meet Jean, John or whoever wants to discuss what really has been happening. Or please come to a council meeting and ask questions there, but please don't hide behind anonymity." Well, the question was asked at the meeting on Monday and presumably whoever asked it had to declare his or her name so no anonymity there. If Cllr Jerrard can discuss the reasons in private with a member of the public, the reasons cannot be subjudice and therefore answers could have been given at the meeting - Cllr Jerrard requested that those wishing for answers should attend a council meeting and ask. When they do they still get fobbed off - it just doesn't make sense or does it make a sort of frightening sense. Cllr Jerrard would not recognise transparency if it jumped up and did a clog dance right in front of him.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Peter R (2nd Nov 2012 - 12:28:57) I was not surprised when I read Me's posting stating that the question about the clerk leaving was asked, only to get the response that "sorry the information was sub-judice". I think I would have more surprised if the question had been answered. What is happening to Bramshott and Liphook Parish Council is extremely concerning. One moment we are being invited to come to a council meeting and not be anonymous and ask questions about the clerk's dismissal, only to find that when we do, we are still not given the answers. Why make the invitation in the first place? Far from becoming an open parish council, the reverse seems to be happening and exempt meetings and secrecy seem to be the path that the PC are following. How sad.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Dawn Hoskins (2nd Nov 2012 - 13:00:11) I will put the record straight here. The same [approximately 6 – 8] people turned up to the council meeting as usually do. Although I do remember perhaps one new face? The question re: The Clerk was the raised first to get it out of the way and the answer was not a fob off but a re-statement of the facts given thus far. The Council are in a difficult place as it would suit all of us to release everything we have – however – the law says we cannot. If we break these laws we will be on the receiving end of a law suit and we all feel that that is beyond doubt. We are not prepared to break the laws of this land and it is as simple as that. We all realise that this is a question of public interest, and it is therefore possible that [after the three month period has passed] that we could seek a barrister’s opinion as to the administrative and public law side of this. That would cost money and we would have to vote on whether that is a wise way to use funds out of an already diminished pot. None-the-less twelve councillors will vote upon it either prior or post Christmas. I expect we will be met with criticism which ever way that vote goes! In the mean time, the person you could get answers from is Mr Groves himself. I believe he has already given a story to the press, which we of course were not able to do. Should he choose to inform you himself then that is entirely up to him. I would point out that Councillor Jerrard was exceedingly agitated at not being able to speak. As we all are. However, the facts remain unchanged and personal opinions will not change that. I would like to thank the very many people who have given us messages of their support at this difficult time and for all the regular faces that appear at our meetings to ‘nod us’ their approval of what we have done and the manner in which we have conducted ourselves.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Val (3rd Nov 2012 - 16:12:21) I have read the recent postings with interest and particularly the posting by Dawn Hoskins. If what she says is true, and I quote "The Council are in a difficult place as it would suit all of us to release everything we have – however – the law says we cannot. If we break these laws we will be on the receiving end of a law suit and we all feel that that is beyond doubt. We are not prepared to break the laws of this land and it is as simple as that", why did Cllr Jerrard invite people to a private discussion with him or alternatively to attend a council meeting to ask questions which he knew would not, and apparently, could not, be answered. The whole thing is a nonsense and I think that the public have more intelligence that this PC gives them credit for. I would go on to say that what has struck me very forcibly about the whole sorry saga of the clerk's dismissal is the way that Cllr Jerrard seems to be running the "show". What right does he have to invite members of the public to meet him privately to discuss "what has been really been going on"? This does not seem to me to be democratic. Accountability, openess and transparency - what a joke and what a waste of time. Dawn Hoskins also mentions "an already diminished pot" . Could the reason for this possibly be the huge amount of money that has already been spent in achieving the clerk's dismissal? However if you read and believe the following quote from Cllr Jerrard's posting of 14 October when he says: "Parishioners can be assured that it is the Council's intention to seek to recover those costs from those who were responsible", this diminished pot will be replenished. Sorted?? but don't hold your breath! Cllr Jerrard also alludes to "financial irregularities" but then goes on to say that these, whatever they are "have been at absolutely no cost to the Council and that will continue to be the case." Are they the same costs or something quite separate, and if so, what are they? As A Ryan said in his/her posting the situation is "As clear as mud". The whole thing is farcical. In conclusion, Dawn, as to your remark about getting answers from Mr Groves himself, isn't enough that he has been hounded out of office? Surely now he is entitled to some privacy.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - jaybee (3rd Nov 2012 - 18:54:40) This fiasco has gone on long enough. A number of rate payers want answers now, not from Mr Groves but our elected councillors. We would still like to hear offically whether Mr Groves resigned or was dismissed. Either way we would like to hear the reason or reasons. If he resigned, did he do this voluntarly or was he pushed?If he was pushed does he claim constructive dismissal or does he have some other complaint? If he was sacked, why? Did he receive verbal and written warnings? Was he involved in illegal activity? Are criminal proceedings pending? There have been so many rumours floating about that one does not know who are the "goodies" and who are the "baddies" Will someone please enlighten us. If these questions are not answered witih seven days. A application under the Freedom of Information Act will be made, and I quote Under the Freedom of Information Act (“the Act”) it is the duty of every public authority to adopt and maintain a publication scheme. Publication schemes facilitate the proactive release of information and play a crucial role in supporting and providing greater openness and transparency across the public sector

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - D Adcocate (4th Nov 2012 - 01:08:45) Ye Gods!! It has been plain for ages that the matter of public disclosure as to why the parish clerk was suspended and finally dismissed cannot be discussed in open forum because of pending matters involving police and who-ever. Those with a genuine query on the subject should surely be contented that matters are in process. All rants on this thread questioning the motives of the council must surely be personally biased for whatever reason Time will out.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jean (4th Nov 2012 - 14:28:40) Well said Jaybee and I agree with you, an application under the Freedom of Information Act is the best and only way forward. Interestingly the people who are ranting on Liphook Talkback in connection with this Thread are not the people asking questions about the clerk's dismissal. These postings are measured, intelligent and well balanced. The ranting posts are the ones that start with immotive, childish and unhelpful sentences such as "Ye Gods" as D Adcocate's does. Incidentally I wonder if she/he meant Advocate. The posts asking questions about the clerk's dismissal are not taking sides and it is a sad refelection on D Adcocate that he/she has to imply that those wanting information "must surely be personally biased for whatever reason." This shows the mindset of people who are trying to "muddy the waters" and as such weakens their arguments. Another interesting point is that Cllr Jerrard does not accuse anyone who is not asking questions about the clerk's dismissal of "hiding behind anonymity" as he did to Jean, John Morris etc. At least I have put a proper name (I am female incidentally), and not an androgynous one, thereby encouraging people to post small-minded remarks accusing other contribitors of "making assumptions" when they reply to these androgynous named posts, as "he" instead of "he/she". Very petty! The subject of clerk's dismissal is far too important to be trivialised by cheap jibes. The procedures and the reasons surrounding the clerk's, dismissal are very far from clear and let me be quite clear, I am not saying he should or should not have been dismissed I just want to know whether he resigned or was dismissed. If he was dismissed from office were the correct procedures followed and what were the reasons for his dismissal? The clerk to the parish council is a public office and paid for with public money. The public therefore have a right to know. Perhaps the matter will be clarified when Jaybee puts forward his application under The Freedom of Information Act.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Lucas Conwitt (4th Nov 2012 - 16:39:10) This whole incident involves a councillor with a nasty gash after trouble with a council office door. The door has decided that although it does have some damage it would be better to let the matter lie as it realises pursuing the person would be expensive and not it the interests of the people who live in Liphook and the money would be better spent elsewhere.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Dawn Hoskins (5th Nov 2012 - 10:43:22) Dear Jean, The procedures followed throughout both the investigation and the disciplinary hearings were prescribed by law and the ACAS rules. An independent investigator was brought in, who followed strict ACAS guidelines. An independent Disciplinary Officer was brought in who followed strict ACAS guidelines. Generally, a council would follow the procedure without bringing in outside professionals, however it was not possible in this instance. If we had done this ourselves as a council – it would have been much cheaper [free in fact] and quicker - however it was felt that this approach would have been met with claims of bias and that was not a risk the council were prepared to take. No councillor had any decision making role in any of these processes. That is why it is ridiculous to state the Cllr Jerrard is responsible or has orchestrated the outcome. These were professionals in their field, who we did not know before the event, who live outside the area, and who were put forward by our solicitor. The council do understand that this is a matter of public interest, as such there will be a motion to seek additional [Administrative Law] advice when the time limitation period has elapsed. Many of the queries raised in this thread have already been addressed in public documents – so - I would urge the public to read the documentation that is available to avoid the same points being raised over and again that have already been answered.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Val (5th Nov 2012 - 17:57:23) I refer to Dawn's latest posting. I have read all the documents I can find available and but I cannot find any reference or dates appertaining to verbal or written warnings being given to the clerk. Nor have I been able to find any reasons given for his dismissal. I would be most grateful if you could point me in the right direction to find this information.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Kevin (6th Nov 2012 - 18:08:10) Having read the posting by Lucas Conwitt 4.11.12 I do not know what he is talking about. I read the posting several times and understand the basics in that he is alluding to an incident in which a councillor sustained a gash from a council office door. He obviously knows what he is talking about, I don't and I suspect that I am not the only one. What point is he trying to make and how does it involve the dismissal of the clerk. I assume it does otherwise he would not have replied to this Thread. Extraordinary! But on a much more serious note I hope that Jaybee does apply under The Freedom of Information Act to try and get some clarity,if only to find out if verbal and written warnings were given even if we have to wait for the reasons for the clerk's dismissal. In any event the PC will be required under The Freedom of Information Act to give very explicit reasons why they cannot divulge details and not just the "woolly" reasons that have been fed to us so far.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Finchie (6th Nov 2012 - 22:32:05) Kevin, I interpreted it as... A specfic councellor has a probem and "the door = mr groves" not wanting to pursue matters to save more expense. I could be wrong though as I was always rubbish at Shakespeare (sp.) and literature interpretations. It's like watching a horrible car crash in slow motion, not being able to do anything about it and then waiting for emergency services to turn up and clear up the mess. I think we are at the stage where we know there are casualties, emergency services have just turned up, but we'll have to wait until investigative report is released. The only guarantee is all our insurance premiums will increase ! Or we'll get less value for what we pay ! Nowhere near the weekend, but I had a day off, Finchie

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Steve Wilson (10th Nov 2012 - 20:08:36) There are lots more the council have done!! I believe it’s a lot to do with the masons I quoted for 2/3 large jobs & was the cheapest by far but the jobs went via people in the masons!! I think they want a closed shop & Mr. Groves was in the way & i believe he was on to them!!! i have dealt with Mr. groves via work for Liphook council, he was trustworthy & a good business man for the council !!! We had to account for every penny spent & i was impressed the way he handled the council’s money!! I wish Mr groves all the best in the future & the people that have made up things feel the pain they have caused !!!

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - kev (11th Nov 2012 - 09:48:12) I see there is another Kevin using this site for postings ie his posting 24/10 so I will place the name Kev on my postings to differentiate. If it is true that the correct procedures have been followed throughout for both the investigation and the disciplinary hearings (as stated in Dawn Hoskins' posting on 5 November) then there is nothing to fear from an application being made under The Freedom of Informaton Act, is there? A great deal of taxpayers money has been spent and they have a right to know exactly how much, on what and for what reason. On the question of Cllr Jerrard "running the show", if he is not, why does he invite people to a "one to one" discussion with him? Also I thought, but correct me if I am wrong, that originally the PC did try to have an internal investigation, but this did not work out so they had to bring in independent investigators. This was one of the reaons why the investigation took so long, a year in fact, as so much time had been wasted in the beginning.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - H (11th Nov 2012 - 16:11:19) I think that the person who is calling to abolish/disband the Parish Council has not considered that all the staff are employed directly by the Parish Council and would lose their jobs as a result? Also as we have all heard, employment experts have been employed to ensure that correct procedures were followed, including solicitors. I believe that councillors have to now state on their register of interests if they belong to the Masons. The consequence of not having a Parish Office would be that the County Council would let you ring an 0845 number in Winchester if you had a problem/query!

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jean (11th Nov 2012 - 20:01:15) I am replying to the question of the possibility of disbanding the parish council under two Threads as Mrs K asked the question under "Interested in becoming a Parish Councillor" albeit with tongue in cheek, and H has replied under "Dismissal of the Parish Clerk." I think H took the Mrs K's posting seriously and it appeared to me that she was being sarcastic ending the posting with "I think not". However, such a procedure as disbanding a parish council should not be taken lightly and I would advise caution. Let us see what happens when Jaybee files an application under The Freedom of Information Act, then if still the very simple questions such as "did the clerk receive the verbal and mandatory written warnings and reasons for his dismissal" are not answered, the next step to obtaining clarity and transparency can be taken.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - john (12th Nov 2012 - 20:42:03) It could be the clerk is to ashamed of his self to release the facts why hes been sacked?

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jaybee (28th Dec 2012 - 12:40:21) This thread started on 1st October when the Parish Council claimed that matters surrounding Mr Anthony Groves dismissal was "sub judice". Three months later and after an "Freedom of Information Request" they state and I Quote "Unfortunately the Council is not at present able to provide you with the information you requested other than to confirm that there are on-going civil proceedings as well as a criminal investigation into some of the matters you have raised." Magistrate, Crown & County Court listings are in the public domain, but I have been unable to see any matters relevent to the Councils statement. I now learn that a new Parish Clerk has been appointed, did I miss the post being advertised, list of applicants and a selection process?

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jane Ives (28th Dec 2012 - 18:08:34) Jaybee Yes I think you did miss the post being advertised. If memory serves me right it was posted on the door of the parish office and also advertised in The Herald (and I assume therefore in the local free newspapers). From the thread that has also been posted on Talkback it was also advertised elsewhere. There is a press release about the new clerk's appointment on the news page of the Parish Council website. Use the link to the left of this page titled Parish Council.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Peter R (7th Jan 2013 - 16:03:55) I am sure we will get answers eventually. However it is as well to keep this subject in the forefront of people's minds beause answers we must have if the transparency and accountability that Cllr Jerrard constantly talks about is to be demonstrated. Interestingly Greatham Parish Council are also advertising for a new parish clerk and there is one councillor who sits on both parish councils. Coincidence or what?

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Ann Hart (17th Jan 2013 - 23:01:01) Response to Peter - from Greatham Parish Clerk (ex). I note your comments with interest and slight bemusement. Interestingly Greatham Parish Council are also advertising for a new parish clerk and there is one councillor who sits on both parish councils. Coincidence or what? Actually to put the record straight - it is a coincidence! I have been clerk to Greatham Parish Council for the last 18 months. 4 months ago I secured another part time job in my local community (which I had been training for) and since then I have been attempting to do both jobs as I very much enjoyed the Clerk job. ALL the councillors were always courteous, respectful, and grateful for the work I did, and supportive of it. They also understand my personal reasons for leaving, and we parted on good terms. I should be grateful if you wouldn't try to start any rumours concerning my departure. Mrs A Hart. p.s. and no - no body has put a metaphorical gun to my head to force me to type this response.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Kevin Jackson (24th Jan 2013 - 18:21:25) Let's drag this old chestnut to the top again. Still no answers from the powers that be to the questions as to why the ex parish clerk, Tony Groves was dismissed. Surprise, surprise! I now refer to the two latest postings by Peter R and Ann Hart. Ann Hart seemed to be accusing Peter R of "starting a rumour". The dictionary definition of the word rumour is "general talk or current statement of doubtful accuracy." The Google definition is "Rumour is often a mixture of truth and untruth passed around verbally." Peter R stated that a certain councillor, and I assume he was referring to Don Jerrard, sits on both Liphook & Bramshott Parish Council and Greatham Parish Council. Cllr Jerrard does - truthful fact not rumour. He then went on to say that both these parish councils are currently looking to appoint new clerks. They are - truthful fact not rumour. He then drew readers attention to the word coincidence. Ann Hart seems to have taken offence at this - did Peter R's posting touch somebody's nerve? She then concludes in her posting that while she wrote it no one was holding a metaphorical gun to her head. What a strange thing to say. I do not think that thought would have occurred to anyone, now it has been put into our heads.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - D Advocate (25th Jan 2013 - 00:21:35) Ms Hart's posting on this subject ought to have made anyone with a anti-Don Jerrard agenda slink back and await formal outcomes. Mr Jackson, presumebly well refreshed, decides to contribute an addled resume of how he sees things otherwise. Lordy, Lordy

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Janet (25th Jan 2013 - 01:33:17) Ann's comment seemed entirely reasonable to me.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Ann Hart (28th Jan 2013 - 14:12:44) Oh Dear Kevin I will say this one last time and then no longer dip into this forum as I am already bored. You still seem trying to read something between the lines which isn't there. I left the post of Clerk to GET A LIFE. I suggest getting a life is a good thing for ANYONE to do and if you wish to read between the lines of that comment - feel free. Please don't worry yourself, no offence has been taken since your opinion is of no significance to me. Feel free to pick over my comments as much as you like, consult a dictionary if you like, waste your own time.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jaybee (13th Mar 2013 - 17:37:28) Has anyone got any information about the circumstances surrounding the dismissal/resignation of Mr Tony Groves. As the result of a "Freedom of Information" request I was told that no information was available as, I quote "Unfortunately the Council is not at present able to provide you with the information you requested other than to confirm that there are on-going civil proceedings as well as a criminal investigation into some of the matters you have raised." Since then I have checked Magistrates, Crown and County Court list and have not found any proceedings listed. Can anyone enlighten me?

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Kevin Jackson (23rd Mar 2013 - 18:55:25) For those interested, all will be revealed at the Annual Parish Meeting of Bramshott & Liphook Parish Council to be held at the Peak Centre, Midhurst Road at 7.30 pm on Monday 25 March.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - David (24th Mar 2013 - 16:50:39) Surely the Annual Meeting should be held somewhere other than the Peak Centre so that those wishing to attend can sit in some degree of comfort. Or perhaps the Council prefer to limit the size of the "audience"!

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Dawn Hoskins (25th Mar 2013 - 17:53:55) Luckily for the Millennium Hall profit and loss sheets - the Hall gets booked up more and more in the evenings. The money we receive from booking the MH far outweighs the cost of hiring the Peak Centre. WE always use the MH out of choice, but not if it has been pre-booked. Don't worry - I am sure you will all fit in. It will great to see more people than the usual 10 or so faces - the more the merrier in my opinion.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jaybee (25th Jun 2013 - 20:24:12) Has any one out there got any further information regarding the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of Tony Groves?

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Peter Richardson (28th Jun 2013 - 17:44:33) The instigators of the dismissal of the Parish Clerk will never, ever reveal the true reasons why Tony Groves was dismissed. So that is a lost cause. I do however think they should be accountable and transparent about the £81,000 of ratepapers money they spent in doing so. Cllr Croucher who is now Chairman of L&BPC said at the APM this year that there was a working party being set up in order to try to recover £31,000 from insurance. I wonder how that is proceeding. It all seems to have gone rather quiet.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Jaybee (21st Nov 2013 - 12:59:47) From the report in todays Herald it would appear that Mr Groves had no case to answer. Perhaps we might have aswers to some of the issues I raised on this site on 17 October 2012. Copy below I would still like to hear offically whether Mr Groves resigned or was dismissed. Either way I would like to hear the reason or reasons. If he resigned, did he do this voluntarly or was he pushed?If he was pushed does he claim constructive dismissal or does he have some other complaint? If he was sacked, why? Did he receive verbal and written warnings? Was he involved in illegal activity? Are criminal proceedings pending? There have been so many rumours floating about that one does not know who are the "goodies" and who are the "baddies" Will someone please enlighten us. Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Mr Iam Toshie (18th Oct 2012 09:07:17)

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Peter R (23rd Nov 2013 - 17:34:57) As I began this post and having read the article in the Herald I feel that I must support Mr Toshie’s request for clarity. As it is now apparent that Mr Groves was not guilty of any wrongdoing ie fraud, physical assaults, etc surely the councillors who perpetrated these accusations must answer to Mr Groves and their electors. Mr Groves' character has been maligned and besmirched, he was hounded out of office and it was the taxpapayers'money that was spent in engineering his dismissal, the cost of which seems to vacillate between £81,000 and £120,000. There is also the matter of all the anxiety and stress that Mr Grove's family have had to endure. It is a pretty horrible thing for a member of one's family to be accused of fraud and physical assault. So what are those councillors (both active councillors on B&LPC), namely Cllr Jerrard and Cllr Croucher) going to do about it? There should at least be a public retraction and an apology to Mr Groves and his family and clarity with regard to on what this money was spent and when it will be returned to the council ie the taxpayers. There was some talk of an insurance claim, but that seems to have gone very quiet. I for one would not blame Mr Groves if he does take legal action. So often when people wrongly accuse their victims, the accusers go unpunished, because most people do not have the money to pursue them through the legal processes and therefore they get away with it. Cllr Jerrard and his JACS party say they stands for justice, transparency and accountability so let us just see if these principles are upheld in this case. Where is the justice in pursuing a man who we now know was innocent, where is the transparency about how and where the money was spent on this “witch-hunt” and where is the accountability now the police have dropped the case against Mr Groves because there was no evidence of wrongdoing – and please don’t anyone come back with the old chesnut “Do you believe everything printed in The Herald”. I really do not believe that The Herald in this case Gabrielle Pike as the author of the article, would print such an article without being very sure of her facts.

Re: Dismissal of the Parish Clerk - Iam Toshie (24th Nov 2013 - 13:39:48) I understand the police investigation is now complete and they do not wish to take the matter further. This does not mean Mr Groves was innocent, it merely means the police have insufficient evidence or they “can’t be bothered”. The best thing the B&LPC can do now is to publish their report on the matter which for so long has been sub-judice. I would appear Mr Groves stand accused of being a bit of a tyrant. The police often drop criminal cases which succeed in the civil courts as we all know. Let us now see the report and we can make our own minds up. Gabielle Pike’s reporting abilities leave much to be desired. Tony Groves was not “cleared” as she stated on the front page, the police have merely considered there is insufficient evidence to take the matter to the CPS. It doesn’t mean he didn’t do it! Let us now see the full report. Mr Iam Toshie

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home