Skip to content

WARNING: Councillors’ ERYC Emails ARE Routinely Intercepted And Read By Officers.

We all expect our dealings with our doctors, solicitors and MP to be confidential. They handle sensitive and private information. The same goes for our Councillors. Most people would be horrified if council officers had access to our private correspondence with our elected representatives, but that is exactly what is happening in the East Riding Council.

We wrote some time ago that our emails to East Riding councillors appeared to be intercepted. We were assured by Mr Buckley, the Council’s Monitoring Officer that this was not the case. (See link)

It would now appear that this assurance was false. The Council has recently amended its website to remove all of our councillors’ private email addresses from their contact information, and replaced them with a generic address.

In most councils the official email addresses are confidential, with only the Councillor having access. Not so here; the East Riding councillors do not have any direct access, their accounts are not private password-protected, instead Officers read all the emails and pass on what they feel is relevant to the Councillor. This breach of our trust and confidentiality is astonishing in itself, but it is far worse than that.

A recent email from the head Conservative Party Board’s Disciplinary Committee to a senior party official who is also an ERYC councillor was sent using their ERYC address. The email was not passed on to the councillor, but instead, intercepted by an officer and given to the Council Leader. It detailed a complaint from a Conservative councillor relating to alleged impropriety by the Leader – he promptly used the message as an example of disloyalty and intervened to have the whistle-blower deselected. This is clear evidence of extraordinary and inappropriate political collusion between officers and the Conservative leadership.

In another astonishing example, an officer intercepted a councillor’s email and replied to the sender on their behalf. The councillor only knew about the intervention when they received a copy of the reply.

We have heard of several repeats of our own experience of residents emailing all councillors only to find their communication is not being passed on to the addressee. Councillors have reported not receiving emails that they know have been sent to them, and have even experienced their communications being redirected to senior colleagues.

So it would seem that Mr Buckley has misled J4B and that the monitoring and intervention of emails is a standard council practice and not a filter glitch as he stated. This is disgusting disrespect of the councillors and the electorate.

The councillors were not informed of the change and many were unaware of it until we asked them why their information had been changed. The web site does not inform the public that their correspondence is not private.

What is more disconcerting is that few councillors have seen fit to challenge either the unauthorised change of their preferred contact details or the monitoring and interception of their communications. Those that have were informed the change was for ‘audit’ reasons, whatever they are. Even if there was a new rule, this can not explain why councillors were not informed, or more crucially why they do not have secure access to their email accounts whilst officers do.

Perhaps if our councillors are prepared to betray our trust and the confidentiality of our correspondence with them, we need new representatives who understand it is not acceptable for officers to read their communications with their residents.

ERYC’s perversion of democracy has reached a whole new disturbing level.

WE ISSUE THIS WARNING: do not use the email address unless you don’t mind your email being read by officers, intercepted, and possibly used for party political purposes. We suggest you telephone your Councillor instead or ask them for a private, secure email address.


Taxpayer Funds ERYC Consevative Group Political Vendetta

Bridlington Councillor Richard Burton has added his name to a bizarre escalation of his Leader’s vendetta against the Police and Crime Commissioner . Cllr Burton is one of the Conservative Group Officers who have now jointly signed an accusation against the Conservative Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner, and have started a media campaign against him. Details of the latest manoeuvres are too pathetic for comment, other than to show that the councillors involved to have completely lost the plot and should, before seeking re-election in May, consider whether they represent the people of the East Riding or just their own little private club. We include the correspondence and press coverage below for any readers interested. Who and what are the Group Officers? They have no status and simply administer the party political group within the Council. They have no authority to act independently of rest of the councillors in their Group, and can only speak on their behalf of, and as agreed by, them. If, as we are informed, the rest of the Conservative Councillors within the Group did not agree this action, then they have acted without authority and misrepresent the Ruling Group, and by implication, the Council. They do so to attack the public office of one of the Council’s partner organisations, for what are purely personal political reasons. This is a very disturbing indeed. How on earth can our Police and Council work together to keep our homes and family safe when senior councillors act like this? If misrepresentation and the damage to confidence in the Council’s support of local policing are not bad enough, these Group Officers are paid by the taxpayer. From our Council Tax they receive ‘special responsibility allowances’ for these official positions. The Group Officer jobs are therefore public (not Party) offices but are openly used to pursue personal feuds. Their actions are unworthy: more typical of a primary school playground, and set an unacceptable standard for elected councillors. They may think that the standards of the public office do not apply when acting in their Group capacity, but as we are paying for them to undertake political roles they are mistaken – they are accountable to us: the public. Excluding the Leader and Deputy’s payments (which are genuine council functions) the Conservative Group Officers have pocketed almost £75,000 of our cash since the last election. Councillors are usually limited to receiving a single responsibility allowance, but this rule does not apply to political payments. Instead Cllr Parnaby is free to distribute the ‘group allowance’ amongst his favoured few as he sees fit. The Group Officers, who signed their ill-judged letter, get the political allowance ON TOP of all their other allowances. Group Secretary, Cllr Felicity Temple, who is at the centre of the row, has recently had her political allowance increased to £11,697 keeping her total pay-out  equivalent to that of a Cabinet member. Only one other Council in the whole of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire, fund such activity, they pay £2316 These allowances are nothing more than ‘back door’ public payment to a political party, but ERYC officials justify it as being to serve the function of the council. This in itself is highly dubious, and a recent report by commissioned by the Taxpayers Alliance shows that most councils in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire make no such payments to political parties. We doubt any member of the public would consider this a good use of their money. What we have is a publicly-funded self-styled political elite passing itself off as the voice of a large political group. They use their public office to carry out personal vendettas against an elected official and his appointed deputy and to unseat and disadvantage other associated councillors. It is time the activity of these individuals was stopped and any public monies paid to them for political purposes returned to the taxpayer. When councils are cutting services, how can they justify handing over huge sums of cash for political activity, especially when that activity involves personal political vendettas and manipulation of the candidate selection process. J4B will be writing to. Mr Peter Jordan, a Bridlington resident who Chairman of the Members’ Allowances Panel asking him for an immediate suspension of and review of all political responsibility payments.


1 of 5 HDM 06,12,14 (1)


2 of 5 HDM 06,12,14 (2)



3 of 5 DPCC Letter to Cllr Temple



4 of 5 Group Officer's Accusation



5 of 5 HDM Report on Accusation (1)



ERYC’s ‘Secret Scrutiny’ Contrary To Recording Rules.

Responding to our campaign with the TaxPayers’ Alliance, Eric Pickles opened up council meetings for the public to record. This includes scrutiny meetings, where councillors publicly question decision-makers, holding them, the Council, and other publics services to account.

Well that’s the theory .. but regular readers of this blog will not be surprised to hear that the East Riding Council holds all its ‘Scrutiny Reviews’ behind closed doors. We, the public, and all but a few hand-picked councillors, are not allowed to attend, let alone to exercise our right to record the meeting.

All councillors have a legal right to scrutinise anything that is the function of the Cabinet and anything which is not a function of the Cabinet. That means that they should be able to scrutinise any function or decision made by the Council.

Apparently the ERYC leadership doesn’t want our elected representatives to do their job of standing up for their residents, so the Council’s Constitution actually prohibits them from scrutinising ‘operational matters’ – that includes any decision made by Officers (according to some sources around 78% of council decisions).

Decisions made by Cabinet can be publicly scrutinised. In addition, councillors can use a process known as call-in to ask for an individual decision to be reconsidered or referred to the Full Council. All this is done in full view of the public and all members, and the whole thing can be recorded.

In stark contrast, actions and decisions made by officers can not be challenged or called-in. The only possible scrutiny is the manipulated and highly controlled, secretive, ‘behind-closed-doors’ Review. So much for openness and accountability in the East Riding.

But is this against the law?

It certainly is against the intent and spirit of the law, but ERYC choose to exploit the legislation by ‘scrutinising’ officers’ functions and decisions only within their secretive Scrutiny Review Panels where the reports are written by officers and are vetted by the senior management before being published. This dubious process is legitimised by the reports being ‘received’ by the regular scrutiny committee but not a single word can be changed by that stage.

East Riding Council conduct only a few reviews each year and have recently concentrated on scrutinising the activity of partners such as the Police and NHS. They have effectively neutered our councillors and removed the delegated officer decision-making from democratic accountability.

There is no legitimate need for excluding the public and members. ERYC’s 2007 Flood Review met in public to hear evidence, but heard sensitive evidence and deliberated in private. A recommendation that all future reviews follow that format was quietly quashed.

The ERYC – dubbed by the Taxpayers’ Alliance as the most secretive Council in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire – chose instead to continue to deliberately pervert their democratic checks and balances.

Why is this important to Bridlington?

The Police and Crime Commissioner and his Chief Constable refused to attend such a behind-closed-doors Scrutiny Review meeting to discuss increasing police numbers in Bridlington and Goole, so ERYC councillors then voted to refer them to the Parliamentary Committee On Standards In Public Life. The meeting with hand-picked councillors would almost certainly breach the law on public access and recording. The Commissioner and Chief Constable were entirely right to refuse, and had proposed an open meeting with all our elected members at Full Council, but this suggestion was inexplicably turned down by the Leader Parnaby and his Chief Executive.

Apart from our rights as residents and voters, if the Police have no confidence in the Council’s Review process and consider the secrecy unacceptable, what confidence can we residents have in it?

We will shortly be hearing the results of the Review into regeneration.
Justice for Brid called for this review and praised councillors for securing it.
How misplaced our praise was, as early indications are that any attempt to scrutinise what has gone wrong in Bridlington have been suppressed. We cannot even observe the whitewash to tell if the councillors are silenced or complicit.

No openness, no accountability, no democracy and officer-led. We hear those charges against ERYC over and over again. The review process demonstrates that those charges are well founded,
ERYC seem to have little regard for the law or democracy, but the rules on filming make their perversion of it unsustainable.
If ERYC don’t change and open their Scrutiny Review process to public and members, they are likely find themselves forced to do so, just as they were with recording.
Justice for Brid and other democracy campaign groups will see to that.

Brid Councilors Against Making Bridlington Streets Safer.

The ongoing civil war within the East Riding Conservative Party is now spilling over and damaging the safety of Bridlington residents.

The hostilities began when a minority of Conservatives councillors opposed the £364k discretionary taxpayer-funded pay-out that allowed director Sue Lockwood to retire early on full pension shortly after being given a pay hike to retain her services.

Four years ago, we saw virtually the entire Leadership of the Conservative Group deselected as unfit to represent the Conservative Party, only to be reinstated due to a technicality. Their revenge on their opponents resulted in ‘rebel’ councillors being forced out of the Conservative Group and the Council, and there are ongoing rule-shattering manipulations to deselect those who remain, along with any new councillors close to them.
This should all remain the misfortune of the political party concerned, but the vitriol and hatred is so embedded in the Council Leader that it is now affecting his judgement and that of the whole Council.
Humberside Police and Crime Commissioner Matthew Grove, who, as a councillor, led the opposition to the payout, has proposed placing more officers in the top crime spots of Bridlington and Goole. Police are currently concentrated in Beverley, which has very little crime.

The former Police Authority actually allowed our officers to be moved away from the town.

You would have thought the Bridlington Councillors would be delighted and support the move.

Not a bit – whilst the other councils in the Humberside Police area have been extremely supportive, even asking why this was not done years ago, ERYC are trying to block making our streets safer. The Conservative Group, including all our local councillors, voted instead to make a formal complaint against Commissioner Grove and Chief Constable Curran, to the Parliamentary Committee for Standards in Public Life.

Their ‘crime’, is not consulting the Council, despite Leader Parnaby and Chief Executive Pearson refusing their offer to attend Full Council to set out the proposals and answer any questions from any councillor. They both rightly refused to attend a behind closed doors review meeting with selected councillors (but instead send the Divisional Commander).

Councillors then snubbed a conference at Bishop Burton, set up especially for them, with eleven senior offices including the Chief Constable.  Only nine of the 64 ERYC councillors attended, and two of those left soon after signing in. Not one of our Bridlington councillors bothered to attend.

Cllr Chad Chadwick ( Bridlington South Ward) did at least attend the Commissioner’s public meeting held at Bridlington School, but astonished those attending speak against improved policing for our town. The only person there to do so.

I am sure few Bridlington or Goole residents care about political parties tearing themselves apart. They do care about the safety of their families and community. For elected Councillors who are supposed to work on our behalf, to instead, play pathetic personal politics at our expense and the expense of the effective policing of their own wards is beyond contempt.  It is they who have found a new low in standards in public life and they who should seriously consider whether they wish to represent their residents, or pander to the personal grievances of their Group puppet-masters.

The Force has issued a formal rebuttal to the Council and comments of the Council’s review.

See links below

police letter

Review Comment

Central and OldTown Candidates respond to Our questions.

1, What are your reasons for standing?

John Copsey , Conservative: NO RESPONSE

Liam Dealtry, Independent, my reason for standing is to be a voice in the east riding council and to help the people that need helping .broken street lamp .pot holes etc

Terry Dixon, Independent NO RESPONSE

Malcolm Milns, UKIP: ERYC has been Conservative controlled for all of its 18years. Here in Bridlington out of 8 councillors ,6 are Conservative. One of these is the Old Towns only remaining E.R. councillor. My wife Thelma is now a BTC for Old Town ward, and is receiving a lot of calls for help. Besides being a BTC myself for the past four years, I was also a member of the EYBC for 5 years. It really is time for a change in our town , I hope to do just that.

Neil Tate, Independent; The following is my rational for standing for Ward Council. I have worked for this Council for many years prior to taking early retirement, and through-out those years, I have had first-hand experiences that have led me to question the Councils integrity, and the way it was being managed both by the management and the cabinet. I want justice, transparency and fairness for local people and I believe this latter statement may answers several of your other questions.

2, Do you use social media or have a blog site? ( please provide details and links so our members can follow you)

John Copsey , Conservative: NO RESPONSE

Liam Dealtry, Independent, i use face book and twitter .personal account but if anyone wants to find me just type in Liam Dealtry on either site .

Terry Dixon, Independent NO RESPONSE

Malcolm Milns, UKIP: Just go to Malcolm Milns on facebook

Neil Tate, Independent; I do not use Blog’s and I am on Facebook, and have considered many times leaving it. I somehow think it’s not for me and not the way I wish to proceed. If elected I aim to create my own website.

3, Do you accept our invitation to engage with J4B?

John Copsey , Conservative: NO RESPONSE

Liam Dealtry, Independent, yes i accept your invite to engage with yourselfs.

Terry Dixon, Independent NO RESPONSE

Malcolm Milns, UKIP: Certainly.

Neil Tate, Independent; I have limited knowledge of J4B, but having said that, an organisation that seeks justice for Bridlington must I feel be important and should not be ignored.

4, Do you share our members’ concern at the failure of the AAP?

John Copsey , Conservative: NO RESPONSE

Liam Dealtry, Independent, yes .the aap was supposed to be the crown jewel that would have regenarated my home town.

Terry Dixon, Independent NO RESPONSE

Malcolm Milns, UKIP: Very much so, as a member of BTC I attended meetings with relevant officers of ERC and the Harbour Commissioners as well as being there for the Government Inspectors final report at the Spa

Neil Tate, Independent; With regard to the Area Action Plan ( AAP ), I too am concerned and not happy regarding the slow progress of the AAP, and what I believe you are calling failure.

5, Do you think the AAP can still be delivered or does it need to be amended or revised and why?

John Copsey , Conservative: NO RESPONSE

Liam Dealtry, Independent, i believe the aap can still be delivered but dies need amending and making smaller and more realistic propasition.

Terry Dixon, Independent NO RESPONSE

Malcolm Milns, UKIP: Only ERC know for sure whether the AAP can, or will still be delivered.There are some good ideas there but also some that are way off target. I don’t think that paying consultants that do not know our local area too well is a good idea Change is definitely required

6, Do you agree that there should be a thorough, independent investigation into what went wrong?

John Copsey , Conservative: NO RESPONSE

Liam Dealtry, Independent, if any wrong doing of any form has taken place this should be investigated from top to bottom.

Terry Dixon, Independent NO RESPONSE

Malcolm Milns, UKIP: YES – but not at the expense of local residents

Neil Tate, Independent; I would welcome any investigation that may bring about a positive result in improving the situation. If mistakes by Councillors, Officers and Consultants are proved, then they should be held accountable for their mistakes.

7, Do you agree that there can be little confidence in ERYC and it’s revised regeneration plans until any Cllrs, Officers, Consultants responsible are held to account?

John Copsey , Conservative: NO RESPONSE

Liam Dealtry, Independent, as above .IF there is a individual or group that have messed up they do need to be held to account

Terry Dixon, Independent NO RESPONSE

Malcolm Milns, UKIP: YES

8, Would you sign the J4b pledge to ensure regeneration in Bridlington is properly and publicly scrutinised by the Council ?

John Copsey , Conservative: NO RESPONSE

Liam Dealtry, Independent, YES

Terry Dixon, Independent NO RESPONSE

Malcolm Milns, UKIP: Yes , but should the ERYC be scrutinising itself?

9, Are you satisfied by the Council’s response to the failure of the AAP and do you feel this is adequate / appropriate to regenerate the town’s economy.

John Copsey , Conservative: NO RESPONSE

Liam Dealtry, Independent, i believe that there may be many hidden agendas and some people should still come out and appolsgise to the town

Terry Dixon, Independent NO RESPONSE

Malcolm Milns, UKIP: 9What response, in the main we are just side -tracked

10, Do you agree that the Council should itself record and broadcast all it’s public meetings?

John Copsey , Conservative: NO RESPONSE

Liam Dealtry, Independent, .I have no probs with any meeting been recorded .I would like to see a live web feed in ALL meetings.

Terry Dixon, Independent NO RESPONSE

Malcolm Milns, UKIP: Yes , the Town Council do

Neil Tate, Independent; We are now in the year 2014 where modern technology is all around us. People seem to want to record everything these days. Council meetings of any kind, should never be held behind closed doors and if some-one wishes to record meetings or ballots of any kind, I would have no objection to them being recorded and I do not see why any-one else should.

11, Do you agree scrutiny chairmen and members should be selected by secret ballot of ‘back bench’ Cllrs?

John Copsey , Conservative: NO RESPONSE

Liam Dealtry, Independent, .i do not believe in any secret ballots back or front bench .

Terry Dixon, Independent NO RESPONSE

Malcolm Milns, UKIP: No , again I say the ERYC is Conservative controlled and of course the ” cabinet” is entirely conservative. Do we see the advantage.!

Neil Tate, Independent; Secret Ballots are for people that want to hide things. Any-one acting in the interest of the public, and on any public matters, should not be allowed to hide anything. Secret ballots are definitely not on my wish list.

12, Do you agree with tax payer funded allowances for Cllrs for political group roles?

John Copsey , Conservative: NO RESPONSE

Liam Dealtry, Independent, .i have for the last 7 years held the position if bridlington town councillor including one year as mayor .All this is done free of charge because i see representing your town as a honour and if it was up to me ni councilor would be paid or receive large expenses .I believe claimed £637 or something like that for my term as deputy and mayor and that was for proved expensise with receipts.

Terry Dixon, Independent NO RESPONSE

Malcolm Milns, UKIP: . Definitely not

Neil Tate, Independent; I personally have not asked or had any allowance to assist me in putting my name forward for Council , so I do not see why any-one should ask for political allowances. It is my view that public monies is precious.

13, Do you prefer Cabinet / Director decision making or Executive Committee?

John Copsey , Conservative: NO RESPONSE

Liam Dealtry, Independent, this one i am unsure how to answer but i beleive more heads making the decision id better than 3 or 4 ????

Terry Dixon, Independent NO RESPONSE

Malcolm Milns, UKIP: None really, certainly not Director, what is the difference between Cabinet and Executive committee! Neither one represents a free vote.

Neil Tate, Independent; Decision making should always be made democratically by genuine independent people who are allowed to apply their own vote and not be pressured by any outside influence

14, What do you intend to do to make a difference?

John Copsey , Conservative: NO RESPONSE

Liam Dealtry, Independent, .i am going to try my best for the area .I am not a quiet person and like to be heard .so i will be the voice of the people to the best of my ability.

Terry Dixon, Independent NO RESPONSE

Malcolm Milns, UKIP: .UKIP local councillors are able to make their own mind up and vote for the good of the local community. Having in the past , as a member of another party, being told at full council how to vote. I know what it’s like . I would not , and will not do it. I resigned from that party the same evening. I feel very strongly that a local councillor, is simply a local person with a job to do for the people he or she represents.


East Riding Council Openly Disregards New Law on Filming

Eric Pickles has now signed the order making it illegal for Councils to stop members of the public filming or recording public meetings.
The law was changed following a TPA report supporting our campaign. ERYC then being highlighted as the most secretive council in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.
They later defiantly refused to change until forced to by legislation.
Yesterday they were, that legislation was in place yet the Council still read out it’s (now illegal) recording ban preamble at the Planning Meeting.

When challenged by a Councillor the ERYC Officer in charge confirmed the Council was aware the law was in force but that Council rules could not be changed until the next full council meeting, – This is not until 8th October. Apparently ERYC rules outweigh the law of the land and ERYC Members and Officers are not subject to legislation like the rest of us.

The law change which is part of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 was given Royal Assent on 30th January but Mr. Pickles delayed signing the order brining it into effect until now to allow Councils the time needed to change their rules. Councillors knew the order was to be signed this week, Eric Pickles even personally confirmed it at a Conservative Party meeting in the East Riding three weeks ago (reported by j4b). More than enough time to deal with it at the Full Council meeting held last week on on 30th July.
What is even more astonishing is that Councillors did not vote on the
ban declaration which was introduced into meetings by Officers as a procedural change. Why then is a vote of all Members is needed to scrap it?

So ERYC is your failure to respond deliberate or utter incompetence? We will be asking a few questions to find out.

Cllr Parnaby is now out of time. Like it or not his out of touch Conservative Group can no longer limit public scrutiny of your meetings to the few who can attend.
If he is intent on the Council breaking the law for the next two months- he should think again.

yorkshire Post

Leading East Riding Conservatives Found Guilty Of Selection Rigging.

It is bizarre for a non-partisan community group to be dragged into the internal wrangling of a political party. When ERYC Council Leader Parnaby and his Group Officers effectively made association or support for Justice for Brid a breach of Conservative Party rules, so serious that sitting councillors were deselected even for a perceived involvement, we were damaged by their processes.

As reported in both  The Yorkshire Post and The Hull Daily Mail the first stage of the Conservative Party’s investigation into the Council Leader’s attempted de-selection coup against councillors thought to have association with Justice for Brid, and not toeing the Parnaby line, has concluded.


– that inappropriate influence was applied by the Group Officers contrary to the rules of their Party,

– that the same Group Officers  broke their own rules in effectively throwing the councillors, who suspended their Group membership, out of the Group, and

 – that MP David Davis’s Association Chairman acted wrongly, breaching rules by voting twice in an election to ensure they were deselected.

The investigation, which attempts to close down the entire  matter, but has yet to consider any of the false accusations and potentially libellous statements, including those made against Justice for Brid, concludes that they should all now ‘kiss and make up’.

The Conservative Party pride itself that its elections are run to the standards of Electoral Law. Despite this, the only action taken is against the injured parties, if the mistreated councillors do not rejoin the Group ‘for the sake if the Party’, they have been threatened with summary de-selection by Conservative Party Headquarters not signing-off their nomination papers. This is even if they are selected as the official candidates, and despite there being no Party rule requiring councillors to join their council group.

This threat is akin to a court finding domestic abuse, but instead of sentencing the abuser, ordering the victim to go back to their convicted partner to be a good spouse in the future.
It is a ludicrous and derisible response to the ‘guilty as charged’ verdict.

The Conservative Party is quick to define UKIP by the inappropriate actions of its members. It makes political capital over Labour’s selection-rigging in Falkirk, but faced with the same serious issues and abuses in the East Riding, the instinct is to cover-up and pretend there is nothing wrong. The kind of appalling double standard that so undermines politics today.

The Conservative cover-up has been going on for years in the North of England, with even the highest levels aware of what is going on.  A Party that seeks an overall parliamentary majority in 2015 cannot afford to continue such pretence

It sends a message to the electorate that this is a Party willing to accept electoral malpractice, one willing to mislead the public and discard its own rules and principals to win elections at all cost.

If the Conservative Party prefer to support and endorse their elected representatives, officials and senior members who abuse positions to subvert democracy and abuse others, then, by the standards it applies to the opposition, that becomes what the Conservative Party stands for.

It is time for the moral cowards who so readily seek positions of power and influence within the Party to stop chasing honours and personal advancement and do their jobs properly. They need to start serving the membership and supporters whom they have tainted by their inactions, and must follow UKIP’s example of censuring and removing those who do wrong . Without doing so voters can have no confidence in the Conservative political brand or their candidates. The positions of the guilty East Riding Council Councillors and H&H Association officers should now be untenable.

The offenders can only survive if the National Conservative Party choose them over honest, decent Party members.

We will be watching and will report on the outcome.


The Conservative Group Officers found guilty are

Leader; Steven Parnaby, Beverley Rural Ward

Deputy Leader; Jonathan Owen, East Wolds and Coastal Ward

Secretary; Felicity Temple, Driffield and Rural Ward

Chief Whip; Bryan Pearson Beverley St Mary’s Ward

Jane Evison, East Wolds and Coastal Ward

Richard Burton, Bridlington Old Town Ward

Brian Skow,  Mid-Holderness Ward


David Wincup, Haltemprice and Howden Association Chairman

%d bloggers like this: