Dear Mr. Tuckley,
Mr. Barnbrook asked me to decode
the file that Mrs. Lynn Tyler sent him on 23
August as his laptop was unable to read it. As such I am aware that the council
is accusing everyone present at the Public Realm meeting on 19th June 2013 of
being guilty of disruptive behaviour at that meeting. Mrs. Tyler refers to the
disruption and shouting as being continuous. This is a complete fabrication.
I understand that Mrs. Tyler is the council’s Principal Legal Officer and, I
would assume, bound by certain professional ethics so perhaps it is reasonable
to assume she is merely relaying the information she was fed and I should not
blame her directly for the fabrication.
The letter reveals that the writer interviewed only two councillors, one from
each party. No member of the public was interviewed. They should have been and
when it suits the council, they have been.
Mrs. Tyler constantly refers to those responsible for, if I may quote two other
council documents in my possession, “some disruption” in the plural. This is at odds with
the
guidance issued by the council, I assume by Mr. Moore, immediately
after the meeting which specifically refers to disruption by an individual.
The untruthful use of the plural is obviously the key to the set of excuses
relayed by Mrs. Tyler but the claim is totally untrue as Mr. Moore’s guidance
note confirms. No one but Mr. Dowling said anything at all during the meeting; I
believe one may have done so during an Adjournment but those people will no
doubt speak for themselves.
I object most strongly to being accused of disruptive behaviour while I sat
alone and in total silence throughout the proceedings. I was closer to the
nearest councillor than I was to any member of the public. However despite my
totally impassive demeanour I was excluded from the reconvened meeting.
Councillor Bacon announced to everyone present that she was taking her meeting
into “Closed Session”.
The use of the term Closed Session has a totally unambiguous meaning. No one
disputes that Councillor Bacon said it and I took her instruction at face value.
Why would anyone expect me to do otherwise?
Those who asked her to admit them were rebuffed. Everyone present was refused
admission to the reconvened meeting.
Mrs. Tyler has been hoodwinked into writing a totally false account and if she
is to be believed, two councillors gave her the false report on which her letter
is based. Who were they? Presumably Councillor Bacon has to be one of them.
What Mrs. Tyler has overlooked is that I and others do speak to councillors
occasionally. I did so on the evening in question and I have subsequently, as
have other members of the public who were excluded. As such we know that Mrs.
Tyler’s two councillors’ account of the evening in question is not confirmed by
others. It doesn’t require any great knowledge of procedures to realise that
Councillor Bacon stepped outside the law when she declared a Closed Session to
every member of the public present - including the Labour Party Candidate for
Lesnes ward who was also unjustifiably excluded.
I can fully understand the temptation for the council to attempt to lie its way
out of another illegal act, it always does, but I object to being used as an
excuse for its law breaking. No councillor can truthfully say I have spoken out
at any meeting and certainly not on 19th June.
I must ask you to widen your enquiries so as to confirm my account; several
councillors were able to look straight at me and did. They will not be hard to
find. I want to know who it was who labelled me disruptive either personally or
by a broad-brush statement.
This email should also be considered to be a formal complaint against Councillor
Cheryl Bacon for telling me her meeting was to be held in Closed Session,
thereby unreasonably and unlawfully depriving me of my right to attend it.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm Knight
6th September 2013