Rutland UKIP Councillors, statement was sent for publication in the Rutland times, they edited certain parts out

Rutland UKIP Councillors Published:

The following statement was sent for publication in the Rutland times.  Sadly they edited certain parts out, I now reproduce the statement below with only paragraphs published highlighted in bold italic, we hardly think this is fair representation on such an important issue.

STATEMENT TO PRESS

The on-going dispute between Rutland County Council and the three Rutland UKIP Councillors started shortly after the new Council was formed in May 2011. At that time there was already a very large development that had received planning approval under delegated powers being questioned. The approval had ignored the strong reasons of Committee refusals and Planning Inspectorate dismissals for a less intrusive proposal on the site. Cllrs. Gale and Wainwright met with the ###########, asking for an investigation how this delegated approval had been allowed. The request was refused.

In the eyes of the three UKIP Councillors there were further irregularities emerging, so they asked questions and to see various documents. When these were refused, concerns started to turn into suspicion that something was wrong. Procedures were not being followed.

Over the last two years we have continued to request for greater openness and transparency, asking questions and seeking information in order to make informed decisions. There is no good reason why we have been treated so appallingly when only acting as responsible and enquiring Councillors.

The simplest way to end this dispute without increasing the wasteful spending that has already occurred is for the Chief Executive to ensure our questions already asked are adequately answered and the information previously withheld is now made available. We have seen instances where officers have made mistakes costing large amounts of public money, reducing the already small budget.

Our enquiring conduct has always been sensible and reasonable when you examine the whole matter being questioned but we believe that too often backbenchers and the public are only given selective information.

The only way to ensure a marked change in our enquiring ways is if in future we have proper full and detailed Reports to make decisions from the outset and we have full access to minutes of meetings with outside bodies; etc.

A formal allegation of criminal harassment made against the group leader did not succeed and it now appears that we have to be stopped in our pursuit for those answers and better information by being taken to court for defamation, costing £150K. Is this just a distraction from answering our questions?

Rutland UKIP Councillors, Fight Back, Letter to, Bevan Brittan LLP, Bristol

Our ref:

Your ref: JRNI/JRN1/94586\3

5 August 2013

Bevan Brittan LLP Kings Orchard

1 Queen Street

Bristol

BS2 01-IQ

Dear Sirs,

Your Client:  Rutland County Council

Matter:         Alleged Defamation of Council Officers

I write in relation to your client's allegations of libel, and refer to your letters dated 1 and 15 July 2013.

For the avoidance of doubt, I reject any suggestion that your client has a cause of action in the tort of defamation.

Your client will therefore be well advised to immediately withdraw its instructions to you. Should your client continue its ill-conceived pursuit of me in any form, including action under the Pre-Action Protocol, it will be an abuse of its power. Should your client instigate proceedings, I shall, at the appropriate time, apply to strike out on the basis that your client has no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and/or it is an abuse of the process.

In addition, should your client continue to pursue the matter, I will consider this to be harassment as defined by Sections 1 and 2 of the Harasment Act 1997, and will take appropriate action,

I understand that your client has to date, expended approximately £42,000.00 in the matter. I consider that this is a misuse of public funds and those officers that have sanctioned the expenditure are culpable. Public funds have been used far payment for what I consider to be a private civil action.

Notwithstanding that your client has no cause of action, is abusing its powers, is acting ultra virus and is misusing public funds, I briefly comment on the contents of your letter dated 1 July 2013 in relation to the alleged defamatory remarks.

Your letter dated 1 July 2013

You have stated that your client has instructed you on behalf of "the senior officers of the Council including the ############################# .  You are requested to disclose all of the senior officers' names that your client purports to act on its behalf.  You are also requested to disclose your instructions. Failure to disclose either one of these requests will result in me making an application under the Freedom of Information Act and / or under Part 31.16 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

It is quite improper for your client, which will not be a party in any defamation proceedings, to withhold the names of individuals that are the complainants.

Ignoring the fact that the remarks quoted are incapable of being reconciled against any person, proper or otherwise, you have failed to:

a) Identify the actual words complained of;

b) Identify the precise factual inaccuracies or unsupportable comment within the words complained of insofar that each Claimant gives a sufficient explanation to enable me to appreciate why the words arc inaccurate or unsupportable;

c) Detail all the facts and / or matters which make each Claimant identifiable from the words complained of; and

d) Provide details of any special facts relevant to the interpretation of the words complained of and / or any particular damage caused by the words complained of.

Should any individual complainant proceed with the matter of defamation and issue a Letter of Claim, it will be mandatory for each Claimant to provide the information as set out above and detailed at paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of the Pre-Action Protocol. Indeed, to be successful a claimant must prove on balance:

a) that the publication carries a defamatory meaning;

b) that the publication does refer to the claimant; and

c) that the defendant is responsible for the publication.

In order to bring a claim for defamation therefore, each Claimant must prove that I published a defamatory statement to a third party which refers to the particular Claimant, of which the statement made other people think worse of the particular Claimant. From case law, there is no doubt that the Council officers that your client purports to act on behalf of, will be unable to adduce the requisite level of evidence to show that the alleged defamatory statement actually referred to the particular Claimant.

For the avoidance of doubt, the statement as quoted in your letter is not defamatory, nor does it identify any person or class of person, and thus it is impossible for any individual of the Council to have been defamed in a way that would lower him or her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society at large. The combined statement is nothing but public criticism of Rutland County Council, made in the context of an honest comment.

It is clear to me that your letter is fundamentally deficient in substance and cause. Your letter is no more than a thinly disguised attempt to bring illegitimate pressure onto me in order to restrain my freedom of speech which is contrary to section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I look forward to receiving the information requested.

Yours faithfully,

http://www.4rutland.com/dave/letter-to-bevan-brittan-%E2%80%93-alleged-defamation-of-council-officers