Why did Fenland conduct committee chairman ignore opinions of members who didn’t have voting rights?

I was interested to read your article headed “Councillors’ ‘warning off’ complaint is upheld” (April 4).

I am surprised by the omission from your report that Fenland District Council’s conduct committee actually has six members and the original poll of opinions resulted in 4:2 rejecting the claim.

Unfortunately two of the members were non-voting which resulted in a 2:2 split. Cllr Yeulett then exercised his casting vote but ignored the opinion of the majority of the committee by voting to uphold the charge.

Surely an odd decision and one that should result in Cllr Yeulett reporting himself to his own committee?

A great (fictional) detective uses the test ‘who benefits’ to help to decide guilt.

You may also want to watch:

If that logic had been applied here, then Councillor Steve Emery would have been clearly seen as innocent having had no means whatsoever to benefit from decisions of Manea Parish Council during his entire 30 years of service to Manea as a councillor.

Finally, the photograph you used of Cllr Emery was taken at the opening of the long-awaited improved Manea rail service in January.

Most Read

As ever, the press builds ‘em up, then knocks ‘em down.


High Street


Via e-mail

Become a Supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years. Our industry faces testing times, which is why we're asking for your support. Every contribution will help us continue to produce local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Become a Supporter