If you defame people in a way that will not only have an adverse impact on them but also on their family and friends it's kind of obvious that they're going to be seriously pissed off about it.
What I would like you to explain is how and why, in a period of 24 hours, the first draft minutes of the extraordinary general meeting were subject to 6 (SIX) revisions, and expanded by 30% (from 538 to 700 words). The defamatory material was deliberately added, and I can think of no other reason why that was done other than with the intention of embarrassing me and my family, and with the objective of applying pressure on me to revive my earlier stated intention to resign. All documents are online and accessible from the links at the end of this email.
Joanne said last night, and has said elsewhere, that her draft minutes are simply a tidied up transcription of what she has written by hand in her minute book. On this basis one could fairly assume that give or take the odd typo or error in grammar the Version 1 minutes were substantially correct. If, by some accident, a damn great chunk of text had been missed out, one revision not six would have been sufficient to put it right. FYI the revision count for this document is way out of line with the average count for other minutes and agendas.
The defamatory changes were made in the knowledge that
- you would be denying me the opportunity to formally comment on them at the next meeting where they would be signed off
- if your position about my resignation was confirmed the complaint would not and could not be pursued, so I would have no chance to defend myself
- if you are wrong about my resignation (which you are) that the hearing about any complaint will be held in camera, and similarly I will have no chance to defend myself publicly.
In short you, Joanne, and anyone else who was in the loop of minute manipulation knew full well that you could publish this defamatory garbage and I would have little if any possibility of getting it removed from the public record with taking legal action. Well guess what ... read my statement.
Your sentence "You will recall that at the meeting on 16th April Mr Robertson specifically asked you to stay to discuss the situation that had arisen since January 2009." is disingenuous rubbish. I said that I had nothing to hide and I would only discuss the subject of complaints about ME, David Hopson, if it was done in public. You, Bob Hutton, insisted it should be done in secret.
Without prejudice: Despite the fact that you flatly refused to remove the defamatory material from the website, I've given you qua the Parish Council one final chance to come to the table over all this. I appreciate that in the emotion of the moment you have turned that offer down, but nonetheless it remains open until Friday.
David
PS. I'm not going to do your homework for you, but the form of Minutes and Agendas that are now being put on the website fail to meet the required standards. In brief though, there should be access to the original source texts of whatever is signed off - with a note about any changes that are made at the confirming meeting. You may think this is bureaucratic (or democratic as I call it) - but there's a growing view that all public records should be subject to proper version control, and/or be accessible in image format. I would certainly welcome version control given how geeky you otherwise have to be to trace a file's history.
This email has been posted to http://wwpcmailstore.blogspot.com/
2009/6/2 JOANNE BROWN <wwpc@redhouse100.freeserve.co.uk>
FROM BOB HUTTON, CHAIRMAN - WEST WITTERING PARISH COUNCIL
Dear David,
I was shocked and dismayed by your behaviour at the Parish Council meeting last night and feel that any possibility of a negotiated settlement between us has been jeopardised by your outburst.- Quote truncated
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment