I do feel that we should be more concerned about the serious issues emerging – rather than worry about how they came to the public’s attention. Remember that if this report contains what we so far understand, there are victims who are suffering in this – please let’s not forget that.

Regarding a comment about any influence over other councillors – who knows other than possibly the panel? Perhaps more than one person is criticised in the report – or perhaps the whole council? We have no idea, as there has been no explanation given for the council’s decision and the several councillors who voted to publish, plus the ‘victim’ and any witnesses are no doubt silenced whilst the report remains ‘confidential’. Members of the public have also been told many things, to garner support for a particular position – however:

The only account anyone can – and should- rely upon is that of the independent investigation panel, who will have examined all of the evidence and have interviewed both sides and all witnesses appertaining to the complaint and defence. No-one else has been in that unique position – not even councillors.

If wrongdoing concerning a public body or public figure has been found via a process that Melbourn Parish Council elected to use, it is absolutely in the public’s interest to know the details.

The public are expressing their dismay at what is a one sided position at the moment. Names have been dragged through the mud, including most importantly the complainant, who has no defence whilst this report remains ‘confidential’, yet the subject of the complaint remains protected and in control of what can be said and about whom. Now that is hardly fair.

Let’s all forget what we may have been convinced to believe on the street corner or over a glass of wine at a party. Let’s instead work as one objective community to ensure we get public disclosure of the report and then work on the facts – even if that means potentially facing disappointment in those we trusted.

I am not the site owner either – other people are posting their opinions too!

It is important to note, that since the discussions on this website are about a ‘public body’ put in place to serve the residents of their village, ‘they’ are answerable to those residents and as such are open to public scrutiny, criticism and complaint.

George, I will not enter into any further debates with you on this subject, since you feel that making a ‘personal attack’ is the only way you are able to get your arguments over, whatever they may be. The quotes above are not mine, but from a correspondence I received with very helpful advice on dealing with public abuse on websites!

I will answer one point that you brought up in your correspondence. You said “I must admit that many in Melbourn believe this to be an official Melbourn Village site”. I’m not sure how you define an ‘official’ Melbourn Village site. Since I have produced the village website for 19 years and no other exists, surely this qualifies?

For the record, I set the website up as a conduit for the parish council and for the many clubs and groups in the village offering club information and contact details.

I have produced 28 separate web sites for local groups and I was more than happy to offer my time and the web space free of charge.

You will obviously be surprised to learn that I also produce and help maintain All Saints’ Community Hall website, which I know is very dear to you and All Saints’ Church website.

So as you see, I don’t need to advertise what I do, so long its works!

I write with reference to Peter Simmonett’s letter of Thursday 30th June, entitled “Why secrecy over council document”.
Like Mr Simmonett, I am also a resident of Melbourn, my home, a village that I love, but I was somewhat alarmed to read his letter, which suggests political irregularities relating to the Parish Council.

One would have imagined that in the last couple of weeks we would all have had more political activity on a national basis relating to the referendum and knock on effects, but Mr Simmonett’s letter puts these national events into second place when compared to the politics of Melbourn.
I totally agree with Mr Simmonett that there should be transparency in the Parish Council, but it appears to me, that Mr Simmonett already seems to have knowledge of what he claims to have been kept secret. I ask Mr Simmonett, how he has obtained the information which is kept secret by the Parish Council. Is there a “mole” on the Parish Council?
Mr Simmonett asks if the councillors who voted against the publication of the document, fully support the councillor in question. Am I jumping to conclusions, or is Mr Simmonett really asking if the councillor in question is sufficiently powerful and intimidating to coerce their decisions and actions? This is a very serious accusation, which perhaps should be investigated by higher authority.
We all know how schoolchild behaviour leads to disputes, fallings out leading to playground “scraps”, very often resulting in making up again. Is this the situation in Melbourn?

George Meliniotis
Melbourn reasident.

In the first instance you mention openness and transparency. Since my name is clearly shown at the bottom of this site, I believe I meet that criteria. My name is known in the village. As a former parish councillor my record is clearly documented in both the council minutes and in the Melbourn magazine. I have also been producing the village website since 1998.

What I don’t do is produce the parish council website. I did from 1998 to 2014 at no cost to the residents of Melbourn, until unbeknown to myself and most on the parish council the site was moved to a company that charged for their services. C’est la vie.

I am indeed the author of this website, but it is open for anybody to post their views as shown with ‘A concerned resident’ or to make a comment as you have.

You say you cannot see the justice and transparency in this situation. If you’re referring to the links between this website and the parish councils, then the question has been answered.

However, if you are referring to what is discussed on this site then I see an inconsistency in your reasoning.

There is a KNOWN document produced on behalf of the parish council by a grievance panel, made up of unimpeachable members from other parish councils and overseen by CAPLAC, the body that looks after the interests of the parish council.

This document is about serious complaints of unacceptable behaviour made against a parish councillor. But when the grievance panel upheld most of the complaints, the council tried to hide the document.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this, is that some on the parish council believe that unacceptable behaviour is in fact acceptable and as such the only people on a lose lose situation are those who make a complaint against the council.

So if you can tell us where the justice and transparency is in this situation, I and many others would be most grateful.

I couldn’t help but notice that the name at the bottom of this website is that of Mr Simmonett, who has recently written to the Crow, regarding the events outlined on this website.

Is Mr Simmonett therefore, both accuser of the Parish Council, but also the editor of what appears the website of Melbourn Parish Council?
Mr Simmonett speaks of transparency and openness , whilst being in control of both the voice of the Council by way of this website, yet has many negative comments to make regarding the Parish Council.

Surely Melbourn Parish Council is on a lose lose situation?

I cannot see the justice and transparency in this situation. Perhaps I can be enlightened.

I believe it would be in the best interest of Melbourn Parish if all councillors did the honourable thing and resigned so that a new PC could be openly and honestly elected.