Instructions and contact details link at top of Start Menu  

Councillor Knott asks questions of Tolley

NOTE:- These questions were drawn up by Tim Wilmot,
and given to Tolley by Councillor Knott,
as it was clear that Tim Wilmot was being given the 'run around' by the officers,
and it was thought that Tolley might respond better
to questions handed in by a Councillor.

As the reader will see,
Tolley was caught between a rock and a hard place,
and like a true lawyer, lies.

Questions, WILMOT to TOLLEY, dated 7 DEC 91
Answers, TOLLEY to WILMOT, dated 13 DEC 91

Abbreviations have been removed for clarity.


Q1.  Does Mr TOLLEY still stand by his statement
in paragraph 5 of his report dated 22 NOV 90
that "there is no evidence whatsoever [] that the Planning Officer took any action himself
in relation to the application?"

A1.  Yes, the statement is correct.

Note:- Tolley knows his answer is a blatant lie.

See how Tolley's story changes in his police witness statement

Tolley had to pretend that that the Chief Planning Officer was distanced from my application
because ANY admitted action by the Chief Planning Officer
would support Tim Wilmot's allegations,
and Caradon District Council could not possibly admit
falsification of minutes,
and internal manipulation of the planning process.

So the pretence arose of a Chief Planning Officer
claiming to know nothing about a major retail development
on seven acres of a green gap he was keen to preserve.


Q2.  The Official Minutes of the Planning Meeting 03 OCT 88 read ( in the first paragraph ):-
"Senior Planning Assistant / defer.",
but the second paragraph begins "The Planning Officer explained .. ".

Q2a.  Why did Mr TOLLEY's report dated 05 SEP 90 not confirm
that the Senior Planning Assistant DID speak
( as the Minutes record (!)?
( The Minutes were always the crux of the matter,
and Mr TOLLEY was fully aware of my interest in them ).

A2a.  I cannot confirm that the SPA did speak.

Although the Planning Committee Minutes show the Senior Planning Assistant as speaking,
Harvey did not confirm that he spoke -
confining himself to saying
"If it is in the Minutes, it must be so!"

To agree that he did speak,
would be to open up the question
of how he was supposedly informing the Planning Committee
of Tim Wilmot's wish to defer,
when it was accepted by Tolley
that neither withdrawal nor deferral was an option for Tim Wilmot.

Harvey was a junior officer well aware that redundancies were likely.

Q2bi.  Will Mr TOLLEY confirm that the title "PLANNING OFFICER"
is Mr HARTRIDGE's alone?

A2bi.  No, he was Chief Planning Officer.

Rather a pathetic Tolley wriggle here.

The question refers to the Planning Committee Minutes ( see Q2 ),
where the "Chief Planning Officer" is always referred to as the "Planning Officer".

Q2bii.  Will Mr TOLLEY confirm that in conversation in his office
on the afternoon of 17 SEP 90
( as recorded in a letter dated 21 SEP 90 )
Mr TOLLEY did agree that the clear implication of the Official Minutes
was that HARTRIDGE did speak?

A2bii.  The most I can say is that he may have spoken.

Q2c.  Is Mr TOLLEY now prepared to accept that the 22 NOV 90 statement
was a cold blooded lie?

A2c.  No, I believe the statement to be true.


Q3.  Why was no mention made in any report
of my letter dated 12 May 1989 to the then Chief Executive John COLLINS -
a letter which asked powerful questions
which 30 months later remain totally unanswered.

Nor any mention of the fact that HARTRIDGE replied ( for the first and last time! ) ?

A3.  Because I was investigating Mr WILMOT's complaints against Mr HARTRIDGE
at the time of my investigation.


Q4.  Why was Councillor PENGELLY's part
in the afternoon refreshment break conversation completely left out?

In spite of the prominence given to PENGELLY in my affidavit,
Mr TOLLEY managed to completely ignore him.


A4.  Because it was of no significance.


Q5a.  Will Mr TOLLEY confirm that on 26 April 1990 he said
"If what you say is true, Caradon will soon have a new Planning Officer?"

A5a.  Yes, or words to that effect.


Q5b.  Will Mr TOLLEY confirm that on 26 April 1990 he said
"I will produce a draft report within 14 days?"

A5b.  No, I am certain I did not say that.


Q5c.  Will Mr TOLLEY confirm
that references to these two statements
have been repeatedly made in correspondence from myself to Caradon -
and have never once been denied?

A5c.  Confirmed.


Q6.  Will Mr TOLLEY confirm that the word "if" was added by himself
to a statement by Mr HARTRIDGE
made at a meeting held at Luxstowe on 22 JUL 91,
thus qualifying a dangerous admission by Mr HARTRIDGE
that ( in spite of categorical denials over more than 2 years
that Mr HARTRIDGE took ANY part himself )
he HAD spoken,
and might have misrepresented me "by mistake".

A6.  Not confirmed.

Mr HARTRIDGE has no recollection of the conversation.


Q7.  Will Mr TOLLEY confirm that,
although formally and publicly charged with criminal offences from 1 May 1991 onwards,
he has taken no libel action to halt the charges,
even though placards accusing him of being a LIAR & PERJURER!"
have been publicly exhibited.

Why not?

A7.  Confirmed.

Too expensive for my pocket.


Q8.  Will Mr TOLLEY confirm that at 6pm on Friday 06 DEC 91,
he was at Fore Street, Liskeard,
where he twice removed a hat from my head,
each time throwing it into the main road at a time of heavy traffic,
and shortly after attempted to spray a placard reading
with an aerosol spray?

A8.  Confirmed.


Q9.  Does Mr TOLLEY consider this
to be conduct suitable for a man holding his position?

A9.  The circumstances were unprecedented.


Q10.  Is he happy to be the scapegoat for the mistakes of others?

A10.  He does not regard himself as a scapegoat.



Director of Administration

13 DEC 91

Link - Return to top of this webpage
Link - Return to Start Menu to Tolley section
Click "back" to your last webpage location

[C] 2010 - Zen asserts copyright on text, context, and design.
Go to Instructions & Contact Details at top of Start Menu for:-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. you want to use some of this site for a non-commercial purpose.
2. you want to use some of this site for a commercial purpose.
3. you want to use the design of this site for your own legal work,
    and would welcome professional assistance.
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Zen wishes to say "Thank You!" to BLOGGER