stconservativecomplaint.yolasite.com€¦ · Web viewWhilst making references to his official capacity and thereby giving the impression he is acting as a representative of his

Response to Complaint made by Cllr Alan Lay and Cllr Paul Clappfrom Cllr. Steve Tierney April 2017

Initial Issues:

(1) The complaint is unclear. The complaint itself lacks a concise point, choosing instead to “free range” over years of material and make wide-ranging accusations without providing links as to where these accusations are shown in the evidence. Such links as are provided do not support the accusations made – as will be shown.

(2) The complaint is politically-motivated. Although the complaint makes reference to years of material, the complainants have waited until the month preceding the County Council elections to make it. An election in which one of them is my direct electoral opponent and the party political colleague of the other. I would suggest that the purpose of this complaint is to create media interest for their benefit.

(3) The complaint is partially a repeat of an older complaint. Alan Lay has previously put in a complaint which covered my blog posts in a similar wide-ranging way, but withdrew it after I demonstrated the case was not valid.

(4) The complaint misunderstands the purpose of the Conduct Procedure. It appears that the complainants believe that the Conduct Committee is a censor, who can prevent legal free speech, the discussion and debate of political process and ideas and the expression of other local Councillors with whom they disagree.

(5) The complaint is potentially libellous. The complainants make accusations which are not only incorrect; but offensive, unreasonable and risk falsely damaging my professional reputation. A risk that was increased by their immediate release of details of the complaint to local press and political activists, as evidenced in social media. They did not follow through the conduct procedure but helped “put the word out” of their complaint. It was being talked about by Cllr David Patrick and newspaper editor John Elworthy before I was informed of it myself through the proper channels. I would suggest this is evidence of an attempt to abuse the conduct committee procedure. At the very least it is highly improper.

(6) The complaint and the “evidence” provided do not form a breach of the Councillor’s Code Of Conduct. I will show that the claims made by the complainants are invalid because the evidence provided does not prove their accusations in any way.

My apologies to the staff at Fenland District Council and the members of the Conduct Committee. This came to me as a rambling 60+ page document and unfortunately, to properly defend myself from these unpleasant and false accusations it will be necessary for me to systematically show that not a shred of what they have sent backs up their litigious claims. This is going to mean a big document and a lot of reading. Sorry. I could not see another way to clearly show this for the nonsense that it is.

The Initial Complaint Letter.

The Initial Complaint Letter.

This is the complaint as sent by Cllrs Lay and Clapp:

We would like to make an official complaint to the Fenland District Council conduct committee against the behaviour of Councillor Steven Tierney. The complaint consists of the following allegations.

Under “general obligations” of the council’s code of conduct we feel Cllr Tierney has been guilty of an “attempt to intimidate” a “person who is or is likely to be- (i) a complainant, (ii) a witness, or (iii) involved in the administration of any investigation or proceedings, In relation to an allegation that a member (including yourself) has failed to comply with his or her authority’s code of conduct;” (Please see Appendix 1)

Whilst making references to his official capacity and thereby giving the impression he is acting as a representative of his authority Cllr Tierney has treated other councillors and members of the public with disrespect and through the use of insults, offensive comments, false allegations, ridicule and a barrage of criticism subjected them to a campaign of bullying over several years. In doing so it’s believed he has conducted himself in a manner which “could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office and/or authority into disrepute.” (Please see Appendix 3)

Whilst making references to his official capacity and thereby giving the impression he is acting as a representative of his authority Cllr Tierney has made insulting and false allegations towards members of the public for challenging his behaviour as contained in appendixes 2,3 & 6. In doing so it’s believed he has conducted himself in a manner which “could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office and/or authority into disrepute.” (Please see Appendix 4)

Whilst making references to his official capacity and thereby giving the impression he is acting as a representative of his authority evidence exists to support an allegation that Councillor Tierney has acted to manipulate events, conspired with others and/or invented evidence to distort the perception of the public and officials. It’s alleged this has possibly been conducted with the motive to support the false allegations made against members of the public in item (3) above. By doing so its felt Cllr Tierney has potentially conducted himself in a manner which “could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office and/or authority into disrepute.” (Please see Appendix 5) Although it is not expected for each member of the committee to read every blog post in full (73 in total) for the sake of transparency it has been felt necessary for the material to be provided so individuals can cross check any of the specific quotations published in this report.

I feel the need to deal with the different parts of this complaint letter piece by piece. Please see the extracts I am referring to in bold and my response as standard text for your clarity.

Complainants Say:“Whilst making references to his official capacity and thereby giving the impression he is acting as a representative of his authority Cllr Tierney has treated other councillors and members of the public with disrespect and through the use of insults, offensive comments, false allegations, ridicule and a barrage of criticism subjected them to a campaign of bullying over several years. In doing so it’s believed he has conducted himself in a manner which “could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office and/or authority into disrepute.”

The complainants make reference to “insults”, “offensive comments”, “false allegations”, “ridicule” and “criticism.” “Insults”, “offensive comments” and “ridicule” are all subject to personal opinion. I accept that very strong language may breach the Code of Conduct, however I do not believe the evidence will show that I have used any of that. When I analyse the “appendices” to which this complaint refers to I will show that these claims are false. In regards to “criticism” the Code Of Conduct does not preclude this in any way. If it did then Opposition members at Council Meetings might struggle to do their job. In regards to “false allegations”, I will show that I have not made any of these.

Whilst making references to his official capacity and thereby giving the impression he is acting as a representative of his authority Cllr Tierney has made insulting and false allegations towards members of the public for challenging his behaviour as contained in appendixes 2,3 & 6. In doing so it’s believed he has conducted himself in a manner which “could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office and/or authority into disrepute.” (Please see Appendix 4)

Since I intend to show that these accusations are completely false, I do not see what “capacity” I am acting in as relevant. I think all Councillors know they are expected to act professionally and courteously, and I do. Equally, we retain the right to voice our opinions, to challenge other Councillors actions and statements, and to make observations about the political and local environment. I will show in this document that this is precisely what I have always done.

Whilst making references to his official capacity and thereby giving the impression he is acting as a representative of his authority evidence exists to support an allegation that Councillor Tierney has acted to manipulate events, conspired with others and/or invented evidence to distort the perception of the public and officials. It’s alleged this has possibly been conducted with the motive to support the false allegations made against members of the public in item (3) above. By doing so its felt Cllr Tierney has potentially conducted himself in a manner which “could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office and/or authority into disrepute.”

This paragraph is potentially the most insulting and litigious of them all. Although I am unclear what is meant by “manipulating events”, the accusation that evidence has been “invented” or “distorted” is a disgusting, insulting and offensive claim, which I utterly refute. None of the “evidence” presented, and I use the term loosely, shows this in any way. Nor could it – because it is a nasty and unpleasant lie.

Appendix 1Response

Appendix 1 Response:

This is the contents of “Appendix 1”

Attempt to intimidate

As reported in the Wisbech Standard on the 3rd February 2017 (Document WS1) Cllr Tierney made a complaint to the conduct committee against Cllr Alan Lay over claims he had been threatened by the current Mayor of Wisbech, Garry Tibbs. However, within this article Cllr Tierney publically declared Cllr Lay’s “strong and false language risks bringing the Council and office of mayor into disrepute” (Emphasis) also stating “Cllr Lay should apologise and withdraw the remark” he classes Cllr Lays comments as “downright awful” before reinforcing his demands by declaring Cllr lay should “amend his words. It would have been simple and honourable to do so”

Cllr Tierney was acting in his official capacity when making this complaint to the conduct committee. He then publically accuses Cllr Lay of making false allegations and awful remarks, publically asked him to apologise and withdraw his comments then implied Cllr Lay would be acting “dishonourably” by refusing.

In light of the pending hearing it is felt that Cllr Tierney’s public retort could reasonably be regarded as an “attempt to intimidate” a witness of an investigation to withdraw his position “In relation to an allegation that a member has failed to comply with his or her authority’s code of conduct.” It must also be considered the complaint initiated by Cllr Tierney was subsequently dismissed!

I feel the need to deal with the different parts of this Appendix piece by piece. Please see the extracts I am referring to in bold and my response as standard text for your clarity.

As reported in the Wisbech Standard on the 3rd February 2017 (Document WS1) Cllr Tierney made a complaint to the conduct committee against Cllr Alan Lay over claims he had been threatened by the current Mayor of Wisbech, Garry Tibbs. However, within this article Cllr Tierney publically declared Cllr Lay’s “strong and false language risks bringing the Council and office of mayor into disrepute” (Emphasis) also stating “Cllr Lay should apologise and withdraw the remark” he classes Cllr Lays comments as “downright awful” before reinforcing his demands by declaring Cllr lay should “amend his words. It would have been simple and honourable to do so”

Yes, this is correct. It is precisely how I felt and it is the reason I lodged the complaint. I did feel that Councillor Lay’s claim to have been “threatened” by the Mayor of Wisbech was strong and false and I did feel that the comment was “downright awful” and I did also ask that he amend his words. As can be seen from Cllr Lay’s complaint text, I did this all in a professional and polite way. The Conduct Committee decided that a certain amount of strong and direct language was acceptable in the Council Chamber and did not support my complaint. I fully accepted the Conduct Committee’s decision and did so publicly – my acceptance was printed in the Wisbech Standard. I lodged my complaint in the proper way, I gave several reasonable opportunities for Cllr Lay to resolve the complaint in the proper way via Council Officers and when the complaint was decided I accepted the decision immediately. This is all precisely the correct way to behave in regards to Conduct Complaints. None of this is a breach of the Code Of Conduct.

Cllr Tierney was acting in his official capacity when making this complaint to the conduct committee. He then publically accuses Cllr Lay of making false allegations and awful remarks, publically asked him to apologise and withdraw his comments then implied Cllr Lay would be acting “dishonourably” by refusing.

This is broadly correct. None of this is a breach of the Code Of Conduct.

In light of the pending hearing it is felt that Cllr Tierney’s public retort could reasonably be regarded as an “attempt to intimidate” a witness of an investigation to withdraw his position “In relation to an allegation that a member has failed to comply with his or her authority’s code of conduct.” It must also be considered the complaint initiated by Cllr Tierney was subsequently dismissed!

When somebody makes a remark you think is false and unfair in the Council chamber the correct action is to politely ask them to reconsider and revise the remark – which is exactly what I did. When Alan Lay refused to do so I lodged a complaint, correctly, acting to defend the reputation of the Mayor to whom I am Deputy. Before the pre-sift I explained, politely, why I was making a complaint. During discussions with the appropriate FDC Officer as intermediate I twice attempted to resolve our difference in a reasonable way and was rejected by Alan Lay. As he has done with this complaint, Alan Lay did not wait for the Council mediation process to complete but took the matter straight to Social Media and the local press. Once it was in the public domain I did indeed explain myself, much as he was doing. None of this is a breach of the Code Of Conduct.

In light of the pending hearing it is felt that Cllr Tierney’s public retort could reasonably be regarded as an “attempt to intimidate” a witness of an investigation to withdraw his position “In relation to an allegation that a member has failed to comply with his or her authority’s code of conduct.”

If Alan Lay had wished for the matter to remain private then he should not have taken it straight to the press. Once it was in the public domain and people were talking about it, I did indeed make comment as is my right. Given that the entire complaint centered around asking Alan Lay to revise a comment he made which I felt was false and unfair, saying that I would like him to revise that comment that I felt was false and unfair was pretty plain common sense. Asking somebody to revise a comment you think is wrong is the proper way to deal with that situation. I made my argument clearly and fairly and explained why I was unhappy about the situation. Alan Lay did the same. None of this is a breach of the Code Of Conduct.

It must also be considered the complaint initiated by Cllr Tierney was subsequently dismissed!

The Committee took the view that a certain amount of to-and-fro is to be expected between Councillors at Council Meetings. Once the complaint was dismissed I accepted the ruling publicly and honourably – immediately. I am therefore unsure what the fact the complaint was dismissed has to do with it. Alan Lay’s previous complaint about my blog did not even get as far as the conduct committee. Does that make this complaint immediately invalid? None of this is a breach of the Code Of Conduct.

Conclusion In Regards to Appendix 1:

The specific accusation made by the complainants concerns: “insults”, “offensive comments”and “false allegations.” I do not believe the evidence in this appendix shows any of these.

I would respectfully point out that if the contents of a Conduct Complaint are considered “insults” or those of a dismissed complaint considered “false allegations” then that makes the Conduct Complaint procedure impossible. It would also mean that this complaint is guilty of the same things and immediately dismisses itself. Of course, that is ridiculous. The purpose of the Conduct Procedure is to resolve differences like the one described – not to shame or deride the person who made the complaint after the fact. The attempt to do this endangers the very process. It would make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to use the Conduct Complaints procedure and would discourage people from doing so. The very opposite of what we should want to achieve.

Appendix 2Response

I’m sorry. There is too much of Appendix 2 for me to reprint it all here. Instead I will go straight to the analysis of its content. I feel the need to deal with the different parts of this complaint letter piece by piece. Please see the extracts I am referring to in bold and my response as standard text for your clarity.

Below we have given a few examples of how Cllr Tierney appears to repeatedly make false and misleading statements, twists the facts and even invent concepts to then make unsubstantiated allegations against fellow councillors and members of the public. We have intentionally selected several cases that are easy to evidence and/or explain. Though we propose that most of Cllr Tierney’s attacks within his blog are conducted in the same way, due to the length, complexity and their relentless nature (See Appendix 3 & 6) it would be too time consuming to present a breakdown of each one. That being said ALL relevant articles have been supplied and at least some of the negativity found in each post has been highlighted.

“Negativity” was not one of the things the complainants said they were complaining about in their initial letter. Therefore I am unsure why they seek to show evidence of “negativity” which did not form part of the complaint and is nevertheless not a breach of the Code Of Conduct. I will,however,seek to show that each example is also individually not a breach of the Code Of Conduct in and of themselves.

As will be demonstrated in Appendix 3 & 6 the Editor of the Wisbech Standard (John Elworthy) has for several years been repeatedly accused of being bias and telling “outright lies” and being “no friend of the truth”

I am well-known for thinking that there exists a certain bias in local media. The Appendix then goes on to give examples of where I express my view as to bias in local media and in regards to the Wisbech Standard. I am perfectly entitled to hold a view and to express it. This is not a breach of the Code of Conduct.

As will be demonstrated Cllr Tierney’s unsubstantiated allegations are not restricted to his blog.

What the complainants refer to as “unsubstantiated allegations” are in fact my opinions. I am entitled to hold opinions, even if they are different ones to Cllrs Lay and Clapp and I am entitled to express them. This is not a breach of the Code of Conduct.

The following comment was made on face book (Supplied by Cllr V Bucknor, please see ST1). The thread appears to have been, or developed into, how much of the news in the Wisbech Standard is about March rather than Wisbech. “It doesn’t ‘always’ concentrate on March. It has the obligatory pictures of Virginia and Michael Bucknor in most issues and they live in Wisbech”

In discussion on social media I am entitled to express my views. In this case, when other people suggested that the Wisbech Standard has a lot of news about March and rather less about Wisbech I pointed out that Mr and Mrs Bucknor seem to have pictures quite often. Alan Lay and Paul Clapp are entitled to hold different views about that and express them, or argue points of fact or opinion against those that I hold and express. He could even make his arguments on a Facebook page or on a personal blog, as per our right to free speech and free expression of opinion, if he so chose. But that doesn’t give them to right to censor or complain about my opinions in regards to the local media. In any case this is not a breach of the Code of Conduct.

A quote from my blog: “Very TellingBack in December, my colleague and friend Aigars Balsevics was arrested after an incident at The Angel pub in Wisbech. Aigars has maintained from the outset that he did nothing wrong and that he was simply trying to calm the situation. Our local newspaper, against press guidance, legal guidance, and Police guidance, decided to publish his name before he had been charged with anything.”

John Elworthy confirms no such guidance exists for such claims to be made by Cllr Tierney.

The fact that “John Elworthy” confirms something does not make it true. I am not sure what my views about the behaviour of the press has to do with the complainants but once again, I am entitled to hold my own views and to express my own opinion. Doing so is in no way is a breach of the Code of Conduct.

The above are four of literally dozens of examples that are found throughout the posts included in this report. These completely false and invented statements are then used to support his allegations against a few select individuals and used to attack their reputations and credibility.

If these are the best four “examples” the complainants could find, then I respectfully suggest they have got nothing at all. My opinion on the behaviour of the local press is not a secret and I make no apology for my personal views, which I am entitled to both hold and express. Alan Lay and Paul Clapp may not like what I say, they may not agree with what I say, but I have not used foul language, I have not broken any laws and I have argued my case clearly and fairly. This is not a breach of the Code of Conduct.

“Face book 31st March 2017 Cllr Tierney again publically accuses John Elworthy with “It is testament to the Editor's personal biases”. When a member of the public challenges him Cllr Tierney responds with “We each have to make our own choices. I tend to try and challenge falsity with truth. I don't claim to or want to be dignified, I prefer to be honest. “

As will be demonstrated his relentless self promoting and self certification to his own honesty is regarded as one of the biggest “falsities” made by Cllr Tierney.

The first part is a quote from my blog which is in no way a breach of the Code of Conduct,and is really nothing to do with Alan Lay and Paul Clapp either. I can only wonder if the repeated mentions of John Elworthy and the Wisbech Standard are supposed to encourage more media coverage,which I believe is the purpose of this “complaint.” The final paragraph is really just a series of petty insults. Isn’t that, rather hypocritically, what they are accusing me of?

Cllr Lay was contacted by one of his constituents who informed him of the potentially dangerous conditions of the Leverington Road. As all Councillors will be aware the budgets do not exist to instantly fund the repairs of all damaged roads. Cllr Lay visited the site to assess the situation and due to the severity felt, along with his duties as a councillor to address the situation, it would also be prudent to make the situation public to enforce a sense of urgency. (His Letter published in Wisbech Standard is copied in Cllr Tierney’s post “Words (Almost) Fail Me” (Dec 2016)

As would be expected Cllr Lay also reported the issue to the relevant officer Steve Nicholson who has since informed Councillor Lay that the most serious cracks have now been repaired and the Sea Dyke Bank will be fully resurfaced when budgets allow.

In his post Cllr Tierney uses Cllr Lay’s printed letter to make an unprovoked attack. Firstly Cllr Tierney informs everyone how Cllr Lay is responsible for “Highway Issues” at the CCC. Then, clearly with no attempt to “check his facts” before attacking the competence of a fellow Councillor, he publically suggest Cllr Lay should “Take note of his own displeasure with his performance”. Not satisfied with his unsubstantiated suggestion of Cllr Lay’s incompetence he finds it necessity to end this short post with “It’d be funny if it wasn’t so ridiculous”

Cllr Lay was informed of an issue by his constituent and had the pending danger resolved, Cllr Tierney then spins this to “displeasure with his performance” and the situation being “ridiculous”?

Clearly this particular memory is part of the normal to-and-fro between Councillors. Alan Lay’s complaint did not state where to find this in its full context but I can happily relay that it can be found in the evidence folder under the title ”Words almost fail me.docx”. Alan Lay wrote a letter to the newspaper complaining about poor road surfaces in Leverington. I was bemused since the right person to write to would be the County Councillor, since Highways is a County Council function,and the County Councillor who covers Leverington is Alan Lay himself. I did indeed have some fun with this and it was all completely true. To frame it as an “attack” is just plain silly. This is not a breach of the Code of Conduct.

In December 2015 another of Cllr Lay’s letters was twisted to create what is regarded as a completely fictional event and used to project an extremely insulting allegation onto Cllr Lay. Cllr Tierney’s blog post “Wisbech Standard is fun this week” opens with the arguably disrespectful statement;

“Another letter from Cllr. Alan Lay where he gets half his facts wrong and moans that he isn’t Chairman of something. Again.”

Within this post Cllr Tierney not only twists Cllr Lay’s motives to accuse him of “ageism” but then leaves no doubt over his motives to make unwarranted and disingenuous attacks on fellow councillors by how he “spins” Cllr Lay’s use of the words “daughter”...“her” and “she” into

.”...”Here’s the rub – people seldom vote for the man that just called them corrupt*, or made sexist remarks about their colleagues. Who knew, huh?”

After his completely unfounded allegations of Cllr Lay making “sexiest remarks” Cllr Tierney concludes the piece with the rather disrespectful taunt

“Or just continue in the same vein, whining about how you are entitled to this and entitled to that and how everybody who doesn’t think so must be corrupt* or practicing nepotism. How’s that working out so far?”

(*Even the use of the phrase “people seldom vote for the man that just called them corrupt” maybe regarded as misleading as Cllr Lay questioned the integrity of the process after the “vote” had been made. Please see ST2 for Cllr Lay’s letter and Cllr Tierney’s post)

I invite those who are reading this response to look at the blog post in question which can be found in the “evidence” folder entitled “Wisbech standard is fun this week.docx”. The blog post is a mixture of personal opinion and facts, and is very clear about which is which. It makes a series of arguments showing the logic by which they are made. In fact, I would argue that Alan Lay’s letter which prompted the blog post was in breach of the Code of Conduct and he is lucky that nobody saw fit to make a complaint about it. I think you could refer to this blog post as an “attack” when using the word to mean criticism of behaviour, in the same way that Alan Lay’s letter which prompted it was an “attack” on other Councillors. This is all part of the way Councils and opposition interact. Alan Lay may seek to avoid scrutiny and challenge by making complaints when people state a view on his behaviour as a Councillor, but it is not the purpose of the Conduct procedure to regulate political disagreements between Councillors.

I would point out that I did not use the word “sexiest” – that would be weird – but sexist. I invite you to read Alan Lay’s letter which prompted my blog post which can be found in the “evidence” pack as the file “ST2 a (Letter).pdf” and having done so make your own decision, in the light of the comments made about Cllr Ms Oliver, as to whether I had a fair point about his sounding both ageist and sexist. Either way, it was clearly my personal opinion, to which I am entitled and not in any way a breach of the Code of Conduct.

In his posts Cllr Tierney attacks the Wisbech Standard articles or Councillors letters by breaking the piece down and questions its contents (unfortunately as demonstrated above with highly questionable motives). In this example we would like the same opportunity.

There follows some extensive stuff about a blog post and facebook post I once wrote called “how to spot a scumbag.” (see above) I will not waste time with this since it is clearly not any sort of breach of the Code of Conduct. At no point did I ever name any individual or group in relation to that piece. It uses no bad language, names nobody. It therefore cannot possibly be a breach of the Code of Conduct. Please do read it (above) and this is quickly confirmed. Since then various activists have tried to make it more than it was, but you can clearly see the post in Alan Lay’s complaint (above) and so you can plainly see that there is no breach here. The fact that some people have chosen to “self-identify” and believe this piece was directed at them has no bearing on what I wrote. I am not responsible for other people’s crises of conscience.

http://www.stevetierney.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Screen-Shot-2015-08-28-at-19.14.57.p

As already demonstrated above Cllr Tierney has repeatedly made false statements as to the bias shown by John Elworthy towards the “the usual suspects (and, as everybody knows, I include the local Editor as one of that group). The section “Obligatory Pictures” demonstrated a comment implying such bias is in favour of Cllr’s Michael and Virginia Bucknor. This is not an isolated event, another example being the post “Actually”…”The local Editor of the Bucknor Standard Wisbech Standard”. But of particular upset for Cllr Virginia Bucknor was how she was called a “Media Whore” on the Wisbech Discussion Forum.

The complainants state that they have “demonstrated” “false statements”. I believe that I have shown this is not correct. What they call “false statements” are simply opinions with which they disagree.

They then go into a lengthy discussion about the use of the term “media whore” in reference to a female Councillor who I shall not name (it seems odd that they do chose to name her, given they think the reference offensive.) This comment was made by an individual on a Facebook forum on which I am a moderator – it is NOT a comment I made. Therefore, I am unclear why it is part of their complaint. Do they think I am responsible for everything that everybody says?

The complainants go on to make various comments about my blog post concerning this, all of which are in relation to my expression of personal opinion. There are no “insults” aimed at individuals, there is no bad language and there is nothing “false.” They are not able to give even a single example of a personal insult or anything “false”, which is why their examples keep trying to target personal opinions and non-specific comment. This is not a breach of the Code of Conduct.

In a single post called “Jobs You Want Doing? who you gonna Call?”After once again attacking John Elworthy with “Naturally, John Elworthy was out in support of them as ever. No longer making even the slightest effort to appear unbiased, it seems. So be it.” He then makes 23 allegations against the Bucknors the majority of which were either completely false and/or deliberately misleading. Below are just a few examples of Cllr Tierney’s allegations (Blue) and Cllr Bucknor’s response (Black) (goes on to give part of a blog post)

In the next section, focusing on“A Single Post”,which you can find in the file “Jobs you want doing.docx” the complainants complain about various things. The blog post refers to an election period where different parties and candidates were having the usual electoral to-and-fro. The blog post, like the others before it, is a clearly-argued and stated personal view on the political landscape of the time. What is interesting about the complaint is that they presume the central section is in reference to Cllrs Mr and Mrs Bucknor. They even go on to give the Bucknor’s responses to the points made. This is strange for two reasons. (1) Because the piece did not name the Bucknors as the target of those remarks. And (2) because this complaint is purported to be from Cllr Lay and Cllr Clapp, but seems to have received a fair bit of input from other “unnamed authors.” Either way, since the part they object to features advice to my friend and colleague Rob McLaren and names nobody else, I don’t believe there is anything to complain about and this is not a breach of the Code of Conduct. They make objections about comments that do not name them as the subjects of the piece. It’s just another instance of the complainants trying to find insult and breaches where they do not actually exist.



The complainants may not agree with my views about the local press. But that does not mean my opinions are “false”. Something is not true just because Alan Lay and Paul Clapp say it is.

The complainants may not agree with my personal opinions, or my factual arguments,as presented in my blog, but that does not mean that those arguments are wrong, nor that they have a right to prevent me expressing them.

None of the pieces quoted feature any personal insults and nothing is false. Once again, the complainants attempt to present personal opinions as “false” simply because they do not agree with them. Disagreement, debate and argument are part and parcel of political discourse.

There is no evidence in this appendix of any sort of breach of the Councillors Code Of Conduct.

Appendix 3Response


As is well known Cllr Tierney has published an online blog called “Steve Tierney’s blog” for a number of years. Our complaint is that Cllr Tierney has used this blog as a vehicle to undertake what are regard as sustained campaign of bullying against a number of councillors and members of the public. We believe it will be demonstrated in this report that these attacks have been relentlessly run over several years and the recipients have been exposed to criticism, intimidation, insults, ridicule, belittlement and numerous unsubstantiated allegations against their moral character and reputations. Cllr Tierney has, through the use of unfounded and dishonest acts and allegations disrespected the recipients of these attacks as individuals, professionally and/or through their public positions.

The complainants claim they their complaint relates to a “campaign of bullying.” I refer you to the original text of the complaint which gave an entirely different text in regards to what it was about. Is this complaint evolving as it progresses? What Alan Lay and Paul Clapp seem to consider a “campaign of bullying” is simply an ongoing personal blog regarding my opinions on local politics and other issues. As I have shown and will continue to show throughout this response, no part of my blog is in any way a breach of the Code of Conduct. This complaint appears to simply be an attempt to prevent legitimate scrutiny, and the expression of personal opinion with which the complainants happen not to agree. Once again the complainants refer to “criticism” which is not against the Code of Conduct. No evidence of the litigious claims of “intimidation” exist. “Ridicule”, “belittlement” and “insults” are all subject to personal opinion and I would point out that there is a fair bit of all of those things, directed at me, in this complaint. I will continue to show that there is no evidence presented which reflects any sort of breach in the Code of Conduct.

Whilst Cllr Tierney has published a disclaimer to convince his audience “All remarks are my own personal view only” unfortunately this declaration is repeatedly invalidated due to Cllr Tierney continuously referring to himself as a councillor, describing his views as a councillor and his website repeatedly advertising itself as a “Councillors Blog”. The following screen shot clearly indentifies his declaration as to “All remarks are personal views” which then sits above awards from other bloggers for being a “Councillors Blog”?

I don’t understand what part of a complaint this forms? What disclaimers I chose to publish are my own business. What position that bears in relation to the awards my blog has won over the years and when and how I refer to myself as a Councillor are no sort of breach of the Code of Conduct. I don’t know why this was included in the complaint. If Cllrs Clapp and Lay think I am breaking some sort of law, they should call the Police or their lawyers. I don’t think I am.

How can Cllr Tierney advertise the site is a “Councillor’s blog” then attempts to avoid scrutiny by denouncing his councillor status? Furthermore in his latest two months he makes the following statements

I don’t believe I have ever tried to avoid scrutiny. I would suggest that is what Cllrs Lay and Clapp are trying to do with this complaint. Either way,this is no sort of breach of the Code of Conduct. They go on to talk about what capacity I am speaking in for quite some time. None of the things they seem to have such a problem with break any sort of rules in any way. I can put up any disclaimer I like and I can present myself as a Councillor, as an individual, or a Conservative party supporter, or in any other way that I want to. I do not need their permission and I am not breaking any rules when doing so.

In light of the above we allege Cllr Tierney comments cannot be regarded as distinct from his official positions. As such his comments, made on a “Councillor’s Blog” which contain unsubstantiated allegations, insulting remarks, ridicule and attacks other councillors and members of the public are being made whilst making “references” to his official capacity and thereby giving “the impression” he is “acting as a representative of his authority. By doing so its felt Cllr Tierney has conducted himself in a manner which “could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office and/or authority into disrepute.”

I could not give a hoot what the complainants “allege” in regards to whether my blog posts are “distinct” from something or other. What “impression” the complainants take is their own interpretation, not fact. There are no rules against Councillors having blogs, nor about what disclaimers they put onto their blog, nor indeed about how the blog chooses to focus. My “disclaimer” is simply there following some advice I received a few years ago from a legal colleague and really is none of their business. None of this has any bearing on the Code of Conduct and therefore has no validity in a complaint.

Cllr Tierney relentlessly claims to be the victim

With all due respect, isn’t this 60+ page complaint a giant example of the complainants “relentlessly claiming to be victims.” What I write on my personal blog, and whether it is or is not any sort of claim to victimhood, is not any sort of breach of the Code of Conduct.

Some brief examples of pieces of blog posts are then given, none of which contain any breaches of the Code of Conduct. There is a quote of me referring to a letter written by Alan Lay as “abject silliness.” I don’t believe this really qualifies as some terrible insult either.

In Total 73 Posts where indentified and included in the file, these were then graded as to whether the post was negative, natural or positive. Some articles were examined more thoroughly than others but at least one example has been highlighted in every post. (Green for “Friends” and yellow for the “Usual suspects”)

There is a whole section here where the complainants talk about how many blog posts I have written with different headers. They even go as far as to try and group the headers and show them numerically. I am not sure what this is supposed to prove? I can write about whatever I like, use whatever headers and tags I like. The Code of Conduct is silent on such things, as an sensible person would expect.

If we refer back to Cllr Tierney’s false allegation relating to John Elworthy’s “ever-more-blatant bias”. 7.5% of the “voice of the fens” posts related to the “United opposition” whereas in Cllr Tierney’s last 27 monthly blogs the “usual suspects” featured in 89%, of which 93% of these could be regarded as negative, some unacceptably so, and many containing disrespectful insults, allegations and ridicule based on falsities and invention!

Again I would point out that a personal opinion is not “false” just because Alan Lay and Paul Clapp say it is. Their continued references to things being “false” are simply my personal opinions with which they happen to disagree. I think it important to keep pointing this distinction out.

What percentage of this or that is in my blog, or in the Wisbech Standard, or anywhere else for that matter – as measured and judged by the complainants – has no bearing on the complaint. Statistics as measured by the complainants are not a breach of the Code of Conduct on my part.

They make reference to “insults”,”falsities” and “invention” but, as I have shown thus far, have been unable to produce any evidence of this. Their entire complaint to this point has been them finding their they disagree with my personal opinion. They are entitled to do so, and to express their disagreement. I am entitled to hold my own views and to express them. This is not a breach of the Code of Conduct.

The Complainants’ Conclusion

ACAS “Bullying and Harassment at work”

“Examples of bullying/harassing behaviour include:

• spreading malicious rumours, or insulting someone by word or behaviour (copying memos that are critical about someone to others who do not need to know, ridiculing or demeaning someone...”

• exclusion or victimisation

• making threats or comments about job security without foundation

• “deliberately undermining a competent worker by”...”constant criticism”

“Bullying and harassment are not necessarily face to face. They may also occur in written communications, email,”...

Summary of the Law

Harassment The Equality Act 2010 uses a single definition of harassment to cover the relevant protected characteristics. Employees can complain of behaviour that they find offensive even if it is not directed at them. Harassment is “unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, which has the purpose or effect of violating an individual’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that individual”

The “conclusion” given by the complainants to this Appendix makes claim to bullying and harassment. These things have not been shown in any way by this evidence.

They also make reference to:

“making threats or comments about job security” – no evidence provided of this. Whose “job security?”

“deliberately undermining a competent worker by constant criticism” – no evidence provided of this. To what “worker” are they referring?

“exclusion or victimisation” – no evidence provided of this. Who was excluded and in what way?

They then provide a summary of employment law. I would remind them that neither I, nor they,are “employees” of the Council. We are elected Councillors. Nor is John Elworthy, whom they refer to continually, a “fellow employee” or mine in any way. However, if they feel that employment law has been broken by my expression of personal views on my blog, they should call ACAS, or their solicitor for advice. I do not believe they are correct.



None of the pieces quoted feature any personal insults and nothing is false. Once again, the complainants attempt to present personal opinions as “false” simply because they do not agree with them. Disagreement, debate and argument are part and parcel of political discourse.


Appendix 4Response

Appendix 4:

This is Appendix as sent by Cllrs Lay and Clapp:

Accuses members of the Public of lyingAs reported in the Wisbech Standard 3rd March 2017 (Please see WS3) members of the public and those who have been in the firing line of Cllr Tierney’s attacks for several years (Please see Appendix 3) felt the “frivolous” complaint recently brought against Cllr Lay was the final straw and enough was enough. On the 27th February they organised a demonstration and raised concerns over Cllr Tierney’s conduct at the Wisbech Town council meeting and called for his resignation. Bob Doughty stated “In your handbook it states general obligations”...”You must treat others with respect – you don’t. You must not bully any persons – deputy mayor you do. You must not conduct yourself in a manner that others might reasonably think brings you office or authority into disrepute. You do Mr deputy mayor on social media – especially Facebook – which the whole world can see. I ask you deputy mayor to do the honourable thing and resign from the council” Sharon Horne, another member of what Cllr Tierney refers to as “the usual suspects” stated“We are a cross section of people with different views and outlooks but what we all agree on is that we expect our representatives to act appropriately. In our opinion, the deputy mayor has offended and insulted people over a considerable period clearly going against the council’s code of conduct and certainly unbecoming of a councillor. We expect our councillors not to bully others and conduct themselves appropriately yet you have elected a deputy mayor who has consistently behaved in a totally unacceptable manner. If people say nothing you will presumably elect him as our mayor and the chief representative of Wisbech. You are our representatives. How can this mayor-elect honourably represent us whilst continuing to behave in this appalling manner.”

We ask the committee to thoroughly examine the evidence submitted in appendixes (1) to (6) and in light of that evidence judge if the above could be reasonably regarded as a proportional response to what we consider as sustained and targeted campaign of bullying by Cllr Tierney based largely on unsubstantiated allegations. We would then ask the Committee to read Cllr Tierney’s article “completely coincidental” published on his blog the same evening as the Council meeting where, as in line with the other examples given in Appendix 2, he again twists the motive of the event and complains

“They had prepared banners saying unpleasant things about me.”...”Although they were members of a political activist group, they posed as “members of the public”.

It was clear from the statements above that the complaint was of Cllr Tierney’s conduct (This verbal complaint was recorded) However, once again with nothing but his own self certification, he now decides for himself

“The primary argument they made was that the Council was “too political” A completely false statement, he continues “while they stood there with their political group, alongside their convenient politically active Editor, and carried out a sustained and particularly nasty attack on me.”

The truth is these people did nothing but challenge Cllr Tierney’s behaviour

“Bile” January 2015 “They really don’t like being challenged, these people. Their arguments fail pretty quickly when members of the public take them on, and so they seem to prefer to try and avoid scrutiny altogether through any means available.”Letters from mars; particularly useful if you are terrified of scrutiny and debate and seek to stifle

those who disagree with you by calling them names and playing the victim.” Which is exactly what he again does. Now he has twisted the motive away from a “ challenge” to his conduct, these people are called liars and haters, their motives are questioned and they get accused of a character assassination, bullying, attacking him and saying unpleasant things.All this from a man who has called people Scumbags, hypocrites, Dark Queen of propaganda; media puppet etc accused Councillors of Lying, being lazy, taking credit for other people’s work, being manipulative etc. Others get accused of “outright lies” “deliberately misleading” “spewing bile” “attacking the disabled” etc. He has even invented allegations against fellow councillors, professionals and now once again members of the public to which whose actions he now declares “I really don’t know if I want to continue putting up with these lies, this spin, and this media campaign led by the Editor of the leading local newspaper” when all then did is complain about his conduct!“AWOL” June 2016

“Doesn’t it all seem a bit hypocritical?”...”What gets my goat is the usual double standards from the usual people.”

The people have a right to protest and did so legally and orderly. It’s believed that by publically and falsely accusing members of the public of lying, insulting them and once again attacking people’s professional and political integrity and reputations, whilst excusing himself of any responsibility for his past behaviour, could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office and/or authority into disrepute.

I feel the need to deal with the different parts of this complaint letter piece by piece. Please see the extracts I am referring to in bold and my response as standard text for your clarity.

As reported in the Wisbech Standard 3rd March 2017 (Please see WS3) members of the public and those who have been in the firing line of Cllr Tierney’s attacks for several years (Please see Appendix 3) felt the “frivolous” complaint recently brought against Cllr Lay was the final straw and enough was enough. On the 27th February they organised a demonstration and raised concerns over Cllr Tierney’s conduct (goes on to relate the complainants personal view of activities within local politics).

Since we have already dealt with “appendix 3” readers will know that no such “attacks” were in evidence.

I will not get into the complainants retelling of recent activities in the local political arena from their personal viewpoints. I do not know what they think it brings to this complaint but allegations that may or may not have been made outside of the Conduct Committee are not part of the Conduct Committee’s remit.

If an individual wishes to make a complaint the correct way to do so is through the Conduct procedure, providing clear claims and evidence. Heresay and unfounded claims should not be regurgitated into a complaint, since they were not and are not a complaint at this time. If they should become one, then I will be happy to answer any accusations and evidence when and if a complaint is made.

The complainants name and reference individuals who are their supporters, or who are known political activists. I would respectfully suggest that anybody can do that. It does not represent any sort of breach of the Code of Conduct on my part that the complainants choose to presume to state the views of some people who have not made a complaint. I could do that too.

We ask the committee to thoroughly examine the evidence submitted in appendixes (1) to (6) and in light of that evidence judge if the above could be reasonably regarded as a proportional response to what we consider as sustained and targeted campaign of bullying by Cllr Tierney based largely on unsubstantiated allegations. We would then ask the Committee to read Cllr Tierney’s article “completely coincidental” published on his blog the same evening as the Council meeting where, as in line with the other examples given in Appendix 2, he again twists the motive of the event and complains

Thus far, as I have shown, none of the evidence has revealed any “unsubstantiated allegations.” I also would welcome anybody to read my blog post “completely coincidentally.” As with other “evidence” they complainants have presented, there is nothing false in that blog post and nobody is personally insulted. It is a post which accurately shows my personal views and feelings about a specific event, views which are shared by many of my colleagues. That doesn’t make us right, of course. Alan Lay and Paul Clapp are entitled to their view (even though Paul Clapp was not actually there at the time) of the event. But I am also entitled to my views and my expression of them.

We have already examined “Appendix 2” where I have demonstrated that the things the complainants allege are untrue.

The truth is these people did nothing but challenge Cllr Tierney’s behaviour

“Bile” January 2015 “They really don’t like being challenged, these people. Their arguments fail pretty quickly when members of the public take them on, and so they seem to prefer to try and avoid scrutiny altogether through any means available.”

This is an interesting quote from one of my blog posts, included by the complainants in this appendix. I would suggest that this entire complaint is evidence of the point I am quoted as making (above). But again, that’s just my opinion. Which I am entitled to hold and express, just the same as Cllrs Clapp and Lay are entitled to hold and express theirs. This is not a breach of the Code of Conduct.

All this from a man who has called people Scumbags, hypocrites, Dark Queen of propaganda; media puppet etc accused Councillors of Lying, being lazy, taking credit for other people’s work, being manipulative etc. Others get accused of “outright lies” “deliberately misleading” “spewing bile” “attacking the disabled” etc. He has even invented allegations against fellow councillors, professionals and now once again members of the public to which whose actions he now declares “I really don’t know if I want to continue putting up with these lies, this spin, and this media campaign led by the Editor of the leading local newspaper” when all then did is complain about his conduct!

I have already demonstrated earlier in this response that I did not call anybody a “scumbag.” No examples of the terms “hypocrite”, “Dark Queen Of Propaganda” or “Media Puppets” have been given in these appendices – yet the complainants pluck these things out of thin air without presenting the evidence to support them. The word “hypocrite” is a general term in public discourse and not a breach of the Code of Conduct. As for “Media Puppets” and/or “Dark Queen of Propaganda” I suspect if evidence had been shown I would have then demonstrated that these had not been targeted at any individual and were therefore not breaches of the Code of Conduct. But since no evidence has been shown I will simply ignore these claims.

As for “inventing allegations against fellow councillors” – I can see no clue as to what this is referring to so I am unable to respond to it.

The people have a right to protest and did so legally and orderly. It’s believed that by publically and falsely accusing members of the public of lying, insulting them and once again attacking people’s professional and political integrity and reputations, whilst excusing himself of any responsibility for his past behaviour, could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office and/or authority into disrepute.

This appendix begins and ends with the claim of “accusing the public of lying.” I cannot see any evidence, anywhere in the appendix, of any place where I have “accused the public of lying.” However, even if there was such evidence, this is not a breach of the Code of Conduct. People do sometimes lie. Other people are allowed to show this. If there is a specific case where I said that somebody lied, and the complainants can prove this is not the case, they should show this in the evidence so that I can respond accordingly.. They do not do so. Therefore, I believe I can ignore this claim.


In this appendix the complainants make their overall strategy a little clearer.

They say:We ask the committee to thoroughly examine the evidence submitted in appendixes (1) to (6) and in light of that evidence judge if the above could be reasonably regarded as a proportional response to what we consider as sustained and targeted campaign of bullying by Cllr Tierney based largely on unsubstantiated allegations.

It seems that what they want of the Conduct Procedure is for people to examine several years of blogs and online comment, in small pieces, taken out of context and framed based on the opinion of the complainants rather than on what those pieces actually say – and then make a broad brush conclusion that there is something vague “wrong” with it.

I would simply point out that I have written my blog for the better part of a decade other than these two has ever made a complaint about it. And then, only a couple of weeks before I am competing with one of them in a major election. I would suggest that the reason for this is that nothing in my blog or elsewhere represents any sort of breach of the Code of Conduct. That is why they have waited until the eleventh hour to cobble together this long, rambling and inaccurate complaint. There’s no evidence presented of any of the things they are claiming. This is simply the normal sort of political/personal blog that lots of people write up and down the country and the complainants real problem with it is that they don’t agree with the views expressed. That’s as may be, but its not a breach of the Code of Conduct.


Appendix 5Response

I am very uncomfortable about this appendix, since it names a large number of members of the public and makes allegations which may be offensive to some.

The appendix seems to revolve around the complainants trying to say that people who had written responses to my piece entitled: “Completely coincidental” were fictitious.

I honestly don’t care what they think. If they doubt that these comments were made then they should go ahead and contact the individuals who use their real names (a large majority of them) and check.

I could not care less what Cllr Lay and Cllr Clapp are “suspicious” about.

They present statistics of how many comments I have had on other threads as though this means anything. It doesn’t. I am rarely involved in something as direct and upsetting as the events described in that blog post – which did indeed elicit a large number of responses from friends, relations and readers of my Facebook and blog posts. But what has that go to do with Cllr Clapp and Cllr Lay? And why does that make it okay to feature members of the public and name them in a complaint?

If Cllr Lay or Cllr Clapp think those comments are false (they are not) and that some law has been broken (it has not) then they should get on an call the Police.

What part the Conduct Committee has in what members of the public choose to comment and where I have no idea. But it certainly does not represent any breach of the Code of Conduct on my part and is not any sort of valid complaint.


This appendix is irrelevant and inappropriate in equal measures.


Appendix 6Response


Cllr Tierney has recently accused people of “cherry picking” pieces of his blog which he then claims have been used “out of context”. It would be interesting for Cllr Tierney to explain how a statement like “People believe the horrible stuff that the newspaper prints even when it is a pack of lies” could be taken out of context?

Not sure what his has to do with the complaint? My opinion on what people sometimes believe when they read it in the paper does not represent any sort of breach of the Code of Conduct. I am under no obligation to “explain” what a statement means and I’m not sure why Alan Lay and Paul Clapp think they have the right to demand I do.

Amusingly, the complainants then go on to cherry pick and use quotes out of context, and even admit they are doing so.

The complainants then go on to show extracts of the blog posts “Actually…”, “…and So It Begins…”, “AWOL” and “Bile” (which they used in an earlier appendix.) Also the post “Brenda Lay” and the post “Birds of a Feather.”

There is nothing in any of those examples given which is false. There is no bad language used and there are no personal insults. There is nothing in any of the examples which in any way is a breach of the Code of Conduct.

It seems to simply be more of the complainants disagreeing with my personal opinion on different matters. The difference being that my views are clearly expressed with supporting argument,whereas theirs are a series of vague accusations in this complaint for which there is no evidence to support. I invite the complainants to be clearer. Show where these personal insults and lies are. Instead of just printing blocks of text and expecting me to guess what the problem is,please show where I have lied or insulted somebody. I do not believe any of the examples show this. This simply show disagreeing viewpoints, fairly stated. There is nothing in any of the examples which in any way is a breath of the Code of Conduct.

Christmas Month “and it’s hilarious watching the local Haters desperately trying to concoct stories in the absence of anything to actually rage about.”

There are a few extracts like this. I would point out to the complainants that nobody is named in reference to the term “local haters.” I often make references using terms like “Usual Suspects” and “local Haters” and you will notice that nobody is named when I reference these groups. Now I cannot help if the complainants chose to self-identify with something I write. That is their own opinion, not one that I expressed. If I use a term and name nobody then I am afraid it is their own perception who I may or may not mean. Not mine. This is not a breach of the Code of Conduct.

Where I do name people in my blog it will always be factual – or clearly stated as personal opinion. The complainants give a good example of this as follows:

Diary – 24th January 2015This week has just flown by. Monday I was at Overview and Scrutiny, where I was the only committee member to vote for a Council Tax freeze at Fenland District Council. I noticed both Mrs. Bucknor voted quickly enough with her Independent allies to whack the sum up by 1.9%. Yikes. How come it is me left making the case for easing the burdens on hard-working tax-payers, while the Members for Waterlees happily vote for a hike that will surely be felt as hard in Waterlees as anywhere?

This is an accurate depiction of what happened. Furthermore, I then won the wider argument too and the Council Tax was frozen for that year. This is not a breach of the Code of Conduct.

And another one:

Lost Job TrackA friend who lives in Waterlees sent me an email quoting some sections of the Bucknors’ website which she thought were interesting.”...” From the list it would appear that between February and July 2015, the Bucknors “completed” 23 “jobs.” That’s about one a week. They usually seem to suggest they are busier than that, but it may just be that many jobs were too “small” to put onto the Job Track and that it only features the really big tasks, like 336 “Serious weeds from garden.”

Also an accurate depiction. Although why Paul Clapp and Alan Lay think they need to defend the Bucknors from comments I made about their “job track” is a mystery to me. If there’s some breach of the Code of Conduct here then I have no clue what it is.

This One Is Difficult For MeI have been reading Page 29 of this week’s Bucknor Wisbech Standard. They make an impassioned plea for help. Here it is. I am drawn to support this cause. I have always believed in free speech and the freedom of the press. Except that I cannot think of a worse local newspaper to be calling for help than this one. The local newspaper which is, in my personal opinion, intrinsically biased, often deliberately misleading, and no friend of the truth.

Where is the breach in the Code of Conduct in this example? My views about the local press are my own and I am entitled to hold and express them.

Time OutI’m going to take some time off of my blog. When a newspaper Editor like John Elworthy decides to attack you relentlessly there’s really nothing you can do about it. You are powerless to do anything but watch the character assassination take place. People believe the horrible stuff that the newspaper prints even when it is a pack of lies.

Where is the breach in the Code of Conduct in this example? My views about the local press are my own and I am entitled to hold and express them.

White NoiseAh, Election Time in Wisbech. That wonderful period where the Opposition call people lots of names and say mean things about them and then complain about name-calling and mean things being said, while the local newspaper editor laments at the “bile” he perceives and ignores the “bile” from his mates. Nothing changes.

“Some folks think that only their experience and input is of value and that anything anybody else says must fall before the power of their experience. Even if they are as immensely clever as they think they are, this still displays a profound arrogance.”

Where is the breach in the Code of Conduct in this example? My views about the local opposition and the local press are my own and I am entitled to hold and express them.

Who Is Afraid Of The Purple People Eater?Over on Twitter, the Bucknors have flown into “full defensive mode” after I pointed out (on this blog) how keen they seemed to be for a significant council tax rise. Now, to be fair, I did make a mistake on the original post. Michael Bucknor isn’t on the Overview & Scrutiny committee. I think I get so used to thinking of them like a single entity that I forget where one ends and the next begins

Where is the breach in the Code of Conduct in this example? The facts are all accurate, except for one minor mistake which I immediately clarified and apologised for. Isn’t that a responsible way to deal with a slight error?


There are a lot of “examples” in this appendix which serve only to prove that the complaint is invalid. There is no evidence of a breach of the Code of Conduct. No personal insults. No lies. And no bad language. In fact, I respectfully suggest that the examples given in this appendix prove the whole complaint invalid by their systematic inability to prove any of the allegations they purport to be evidence of.


Appendix 7Response

(you will be pleased to know this is the last one)

In this appendix the complainaints feature some screenshots of things I have said on Social Media.

Here’s the first one:

I am not sure what the complainants think is a breach of the Code of Conduct in this. Cllr Dave Patrick was found to have behaved awfully to an individual suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome. This Conduct Committee found against him after a report from an Independent investigator. The fact that I do not think he is worthy of respect is my opinion and one I am entitled to hold. He holds similar views about me, I expect, but that’s not a breach of the Code of Conduct either.

Dave Patrick and I are not on good terms with one another. But my relationship with Dave Patrick is not the subject of this complaint.

The Code of Conduct does not expect all Councillors to love one another. I believe honesty is a good tenet and I was honest in what I said above. Nothing I said above breaches the Code of Conduct.

Cllr Bucknor, whose personal and unnamed contribution to this complaint is once again in evidence here, may not like the term “under a cloud”. But It’s not some horrendous insult and its not a lie. It’s a viewpoint as expressed to me by others. I am entitled to use the term, she is entitled to challenge it. Thus are debates had. But its not a breach of the Code of Conduct.

Councillor Bucknor challenges me. I respond. Where is the breach in the Code of Conduct?

This screenshot features a tiny piece of discussion including Jayne Abrams, another political activist with the group “Wisbech Voices” who are standing candidates in the forthcoming elections (her Brother is one of those candidates) and with whom the Bucknors and Alan Lay are working. Where is the breach in the Code of Conduct? Is the word “shenanigans” some terrible insult? Otherwise, what does this exchange between political activists on different sides prove?

This seems to be a fair comment and a fair exchange. Where is the breach in the Code of Conduct?

This is a robust exchange between another Councillor and I who, as previously stated, have a long history of not getting on incredibly well. The Councillor in question is the one who this Conduct Committee found against in regards to his treatment of a vulnerable adult. These comments, although strong, do not feature any personal insults or bad language or lies. So where is the breach in the Code of Conduct? I could easily present screenshots of the many comments Cllr Patrick has made in the same way, but I don’t see our arguments as matters for a “conduct committee” to resolve.


As with Appendix 6, there are a lot of “examples” in this appendix which serve only to prove that the complaint is invalid. There is no evidence of a breach of the Code of Conduct. No personal insults. No lies. And no bad language. In fact, I respectfully suggest that the examples given in this appendix prove the whole complaint invalid by their systematic inability to prove any of the allegations they purport to be evidence of.


My ResponseConclusion

I have spent the last forty-one pages demonstrating that the complaint against me is demonstrably false.

I believe there is a real and clear threat to my personal and professional reputation in regards to these nasty allegations. I reserve the right to take legal advice.

The complainants make reference to “insults”, “offensive comments”and “false allegations.”

I do not believe that any of the evidence presented in their appendices prove that the Code Of Conduct has been broken in respect of these allegations.

What they refer to as “false allegations” are simply personal opinions with which they disagree and are clearly shown as such.

“Offensive comments” are a matter of personal opinion. However, I believe that I am experienced writer and know where to “draw the line”. I avoid naming individuals if I am using strong terms so that individuals cannot take offence. I argue clearly and give evidence, making it apparently when I am speaking from my personal viewpoint. It is not the job or intention of the Conduct Procedure to silence debate, prevent scrutiny or act as a guardian of the expressed personal opinion of Councillors.

The worst “insult” I would find in the evidence was “silly” and “shenanigans.” If this is the epitome of bad behaviour then I am guilty. But I would respectfully suggest that I have in no way breached the Code of Conduct and have clearly proved this with my analysis of the evidence herein.

None of these things in and of themselves are a breach of the Code of Conduct. The Complainants attempt to suggest that they collectively “bring the Council into disrepute.” I would ask how the robust and honest exchange of views, scrutiny andchallenge can possibly bring any Council into disrepute? Surely, this is precisely what Councillors should be doing. Rather, I propose that attempting to prevent these things is more likely to be disreputable. Didn’t the Conduct Committee recently make exactly this point in its judgement in favour of Alan Lay when is said robust exchanges were to be expected?

I believe this complaint to be politically-motivated both as a tactical move during the election period and as “tit-for-tat” following the complaint against Cllr Alan Lay earlier this year. Both of these are against the word and spirit of the conduct procedure.

I do not believe there is any substance to the complaint and I think its existence sets a bad precedent. It will simply lead to even more false and vague claims supported by reams of old comments and writings, from all sides.

Given the complete lack of even a shred of evidence which backs up the claims made, I believe this response document proves without a doubt that the complaint is groundless.

Regards,

Cllr. Steve Tierney

stconservativecomplaint.yolasite.com€¦ · Web viewWhilst making references to his official capacity and thereby giving the impression he is acting as a representative of his

Documents