Objectivity vs. Subjectivity

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Hopson <nunnington@gmail.com>
Date: 2009/6/7
Subject: Objectivity vs. Subjectivity
To: bob hutton <bob.hutton@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>
Cc: bill buckland <bill.buckland@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>, Bill Buckland <william.buckland@mypostoffice.co.uk>, dermot wright <dermot.wright@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>, jim robertson <jim.robertson@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>, keith martin <keith.martin@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>, richard shrubb <richard.shrubb@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>, steve colwell <steve.colwell@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>, Trevor Tupper <trevor.tupper@westwitteringparishcouncil.gov.uk>, JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

Hi Bob

The minutes of West Wittering Parish Council have been manipulated, cooked, re-worked - choose any adjective you like that is equivalent, more or less, of fabricated.

THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT OUR MINUTES REPRESENT A SUBJECTIVE ACCOUNT, rather than an accurate one, is in the attached documents; which are also available at the links below.

The evidence almost speaks for itself. Joanne's first draft has quite clearly been revised and saved, six times, and the substantive changes and insertions are unequivocally designed to be to the detriment of my political position and personal status.

Which of the following points are true?

1. The minutes are not a simple and objective transcription of Joanne's hand-written notes in her minutes book.
2. The first draft minutes include a series of cock-ups and errors in the objective transcription from the hand-written minutes book, which Joanne spontaneously and on her own initiative put right in the day following their release - without waiting for the 48 hour period given for responses from Councillors to elapse.
3. The changes apparent in the second version of the minutes were made by Joanne under the direction of ... well one can only speculate. The Chairman, his deputy, Member(s)?

• Point 1 is certainly true.
• If Point 2 is true, then I am entitled to complain at such sloppiness in a matter that, by definition (an 'Extraordinary' meeting) required particular diligence and sensitivity in record-keeping.
• If Point 3 is true, then I am entitled to ask who exactly directed Joanne to change the minutes (and why); and why Joanne did not, as an impartial and neutral record-keeper, stand her ground and defend the objectivity of her original "transcription (was she threatened, intimidated or bullied)?"

Whatever else is true, as things stand no Member and, far more importantly, no member of the public can have the slightest confidence in the manner in which our records are maintained until some satisfactory explanations have been provided, and the procedures and responsibilities have been tightened up and clarified.

You can bluster all you want about subjectivity, but when it comes to objectivity the case has to be answered; it will not go away; and my deadline for the removal of the defamatory material, and an apology is the date of our next meeting - after which I will be seeking a legal remedy.

My offer of a meeting before then remains open.

David

Minutes Comparison

List of Changes

Properties Analysis

A copy of this email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/ 

2009/6/3 JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>

SENT ON BEHALF OF BOB HUTTON

 

Dear David

 

Further to your latest e mail, it is the view of the Parish Council that you have promulgated sufficient exposure of yourself and the Parish Council by posting e mails and other information on your blog.

 

I am sorry but I deem it inappropriate to commit any further Parish Council time in responding to your increasingly subjective e mails.

 

 Any further correspondence that you send relating to this matter will not receive a response from the Council.

 

As stated in my e mail yesterday, I cannot now agree to any meeting between us following your behaviour at the Parish Council meeting on 1^st June.

 

Bob