Morals and good behaviour.

I pose a question to the good people of Anston. Is it morally right that the Parish Council continues to pay two local contractors who continually, at meetings, verbally abuse the Chairman, and ignore his instructions to stop disrupting the proceedings, and blatantly laugh at the Chairman when he states he may ask them to leave. Both these contractors talk over the Chairman whilst he is trying to conduct the meeting.
For approximately the last 18 months, both Mr Kavanagh and Mr Pearson have attended Parish Council Meetings. At nearly every meeting they have tried to disrupt proceedings by verbally abusing, not only the Chairman, but verbally abusing myself when I stand to protest at their behaviour. I personally have been threatened by both these two contractors.
The two contractors make out that when they attend Parish Council Meetings, they do so as members of the public. They become verbally abusive when they are referred to as contractors.  Immediately the Parish Council meeting finishes, Mr Kavanagh proceeds to lock up the Parish Hall, and in turn Mr Pearson locks the security gates to the rear of the building. Whilst doing this, both are employed/contracted by the very same Council that they verbally abuse. After this continued abuse, the Council then pays them.
Is it morally right that the contractors are allowed to verbally abuse Parish Councillors and then hold out their hand next day for payment from the very people they abuse.
There is another moral dilemma, When the abuse occurs, most councillors just look down at the desk, others laugh along with the contractors when this abuse is given.
The Parish council cannot/ or will not take any action against these two.                                                   Why, are they scared of them ??

One contractor verbally abuses the Parish Staff, posts unsavoury comments about them on social media, undermines their confidence, and still the Council are afraid of taking any action. Why?
The question again is “Is it morally right that the parish Council continues to pay two local contractors who verbally abuse Parish Council Members and Staff?

S Thornton

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Strong words and in many ways wholly justified.

I have previously seen and heard the two people mentioned and I have to say their ignorance of procedures at parish meetings is outstanding.

The rules state clearly that a member of the public can ask a question at APC meetings and an answer is usually given. When the question is answered it is not then an excuse for a debate. If anyone has further questions or needs the answer expanding you either wait until the next meeting or write to the Clerk. It is very simple.

I suspect their behaviour is related to the fact they no longer get jobs handed to them on a plate-as ex part-time councillor Judy Dalton and Iain St.John used to do-nor are they privy to the same amount of information.

 

Comments are closed.

 

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Community News, Parish Council News and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Morals and good behaviour.

  1. S Thornton says:

    Why do I suspect that “carol” is yet again another false name. I made a very serious allegation that Mr Pearson, the Parish council contractor, threatened me outside the parish hall. I know Mr Pearson reads this blog, and indeed posts replies on here, so it is strange that he has not replied, or has he. Note the “threat” of legal action. Just the same old tactics. If anyone wants to take legal action against me, then feel free to do so, I cannot stop you. But be assured, If I were to win such a case, I will ensure its very costly.

    Like

  2. carol says:

    Think you should
    Look the meaning of the word slander Stuart

    Like

  3. S Thornton says:

    Its time for an update.
    Tonight as I walked towards the parish hall to attend a parish council meeting, I was verbally abused and threatened by the parish Council Contractor Mr Pearson. As vice chairman to the parish Council, I was due to chair tonight`s meeting. I made it known that because of the verbal abuse I get from both Mr kavanah and Mr Pearson that I would not chair the meeting in their presence. whilst I was making this known, Mr Kavanah thought it acceptable to further verbally abuse me. For those who want to see this bulling It will shortly be on the councils web page. This is all part of the plan to bully me into submission.
    During the meeting I was yet again subjected to verbal abuse by both the Contractors. After challenging Cllr Jepson to stand up and say something, he did so, He was totally ignored and Mr Kavanah carried on shouting over him. By this time the meeting was in chaos. I challenged another councillor “if you think that behaviour is not acceptable, then stand up and say something”, the councillor declined, saying that they “did not want to inflame the situation”. I then asked another councillor if they thought that their behaviour was acceptable, To my great astonishment the reply was “yes I do”. I then suggested that if it was acceptable then maybe they should rethink their position on the council. The reply to this question was to stand up to leave, he was asked to stay by others.
    My clear message to all councillors is this, If you think its acceptable for parish council contractors to repeatably disrupt council meetings, and you think its right that the chairman is totally ignored in his instructions, Then your thinking and views as a Parish Councillor are unacceptable. You should step down from the council because you are protecting these contractors.
    Now for Mr /Cllr Manship and his post on here.
    On every occasion, and including tonight, whilst these contractors have been “attacking”, verbally, Parish council members ( not only me but others) He has sat there and never raised his voice whatsoever. Its been long suspected that he supports the views of these contractors. As for the implication that the post I wrote was inflammatory, how strange, read it again I only asked a moral question, a question you have failed to deal with at the first hurdle. As for opinions, everyone is entitled to an opinion, however opinions are not the same as verbal abuse and bulling.
    Sorry but if you are going to defend the bulling and verbal abuse of councillors, you too should consider leaving the parish council.
    Labour Councillors defending the very same contractors who were given special advantages under a labour controlled Council. Tut Tut, nothing changes.
    and finally, it is now the practice of Mr Pearson to print out the posts I have placed on here and hand them to the Parish Council Clerk. Whilst Mr Kavanah is threatening to report me to the standards committee. All part of the continued bullying?. You readers make your own mind up.
    I will not be bullied into submission.
    Cllr Thornton

    Like

    • Watchman says:

      What does K.Pearson hope to gain from printing off your posts and handing them to the Clerk?
      The Clerk has no jurisdiction over a resident posting on any blog.
      The Standards Committee cannot and will not act either for the same reason.

      Like

  4. M Manship says:

    This post should not have been posted and I am very disappointed that it has been. Members of the public are entitled to their opinion because that is what it is, opinion. It is important that we listen to issues given to us by the public and given them factual straight forward answers instead of brushing it off.
    Despite it being posted as a private comment it is still inflammatory and will not help the situation in anyway.
    I would ask that it be taken down but that would be contradictory to the freedom of speech that I believe in. It is important to understand that other people are also entitled to that same right especially in situations where they feel the need to exercise their right to the democratic process.

    Like

    • Watchman says:

      People are entitled to their opinions I agree but they are not entitled to verbally abuse the author of the article or question his integrity and that is why several comments have been binned.

      Like

  5. David Caukwell says:

    It is hypocritical for posters to this blog to criticise APC/Councillors and then lose their tempers when they themselves are criticised.
    I have no particular fondness for Stuart Thornton or any other councillor but I do believe in the right for anyone to express honestly held beliefs which I have to say in this instance might be considered inflammatory but are definitely not defamatory, contrary to some of the comments on here.
    Mr.Pearson and Mr.Kavanagh publicly criticise Mr.Thornton when he attends APC meetings as a councillor, why is it different when Mr.Thornton responds as a private citizen? If you cannot bear criticism then don’t criticise other people.

    No person nor group of persons has the monopoly on truth, honesty and wisdom, perhaps everyone should bear it in mind.

    Like

  6. S Thornton says:

    Dear “Tom”
    The last time anyone mentioned the so called “missing money” it was Mr Kavanah, at a parish Council meeting. Why do I suspect Tom is an alias ?. I can state quite openly and honestly that I have never posted under an alias on this site. My honest policy is that as a councillor and as an individual, I should not hide behind false names when making statements in public, because when you get caught out, you lose all respect and look extremely stupid. Its well known that some councillors post under false names on this site, and they are “friends” of both Mr Kavanah and Person. I speak the truth, and if it hurts its not my fault.
    I wonder where “miss f sales” went to she seems awfully quite.
    It is well documented that both Mr Kavanah and Mr Person are targeting me with harassment in order to prevent me from speaking out . First they threatened me with legal action for writing the truth on this site, and then when that did not work, Mr Kavannah threatened the parish council with legal action if they did not prevent me from posting on here.
    Note that yet again my fan club has not addressed the “MORAL QUESTION”. lets just attack Thornton and bully him until he shuts up, sorry I do not bow and katow to people of this ilk.

    S Thornton

    Like

    • Watchman says:

      Threatened the parish council with legal action? His stupidity knows no bounds.

      UPDATE:
      Article 10 of The European Convention on Human Rights provides for the right to freedom of expression and information. Therefore, comments and assertions made within a political setting are acceptable but the same comments could be considered unacceptable behaviour in a non-political environment. However, within a political environment a politician would be shielded as long as any comments made by him were honestly held and not knowingly untrue.
      This protection also covers political commentators and those who write about politicians.

      Like

    • Tom says:

      I think you are totally wrong.

      Like

    • Watchman says:

      I think you are wrong and a troll.Your post has been edited.

      Like

  7. Tom says:

    Well well Stuart Thornton alias name
    So you are the insider who was elected to find the considerable amount of money that was missing, well after several years we still have no answer
    As regards to calling people names these people have thick skin, unlike some who take to violence in public meetings whilst in public office
    Can you also explain whilst calling people alias names you are insider / Stuart Thornton and watchman I this so you can control this site the way you try to control APC
    😎

    Like

    • Watchman says:

      What the hell are you taking with your tea? You need to look and edit what you’ve written before posting,it’s garbage.
      Stuart Thornton is not Insider/Watchman and your (just about legal) comments about him are childish.
      You are a First Class Plonker.

      More importantly why are you using an IP address registered in Doncaster?
      If you ever write another comment like this you will be blocked.

      Like

  8. Insider says:

    Anston’s own ‘Laurel and Hardy’ duo would be thrown out of an RMBC meeting because they most certainly do not know how to conduct themselves properly at a public meeting.
    They do not have written contracts with APC and seem to think they can carry on doing their own thing time and time again. It’s a mystery who gives them the sort of jobs which the parish workers could easily carry out and at less cost. I’ve also heard about them undermining the parish workers who are unfailingly polite and willing even though the last administration treated them with disrespect. I have it on good authority the subject of work contracts for non parish staff was never discussed by the last Labour council.

    It’s time for APC councillors to make sure every contractor completes a formal tender process-with all associated documentation-before being allowed onto parish land.
    No doubt these two miss the cosy relationship they had with certain Labour councillors……..No more secret ‘phone calls or chats about what needed doing. Nudge.Nudge.Wink.Wink.

    Like

Comments are closed.