I HAVE always respected Dr Pearson for her trenchant views and investigative insight into local politics, until last week.

Then we were treated to confident assertions about what happened at a meeting at which she was not present, and about the contents of my answerphone, to which she does not have access.

In the letter, she relies completely upon the unsupported testimony of one person. She is wrong to do so. I have had no communication with Dr Pearson, and therefore I am aware that she has not attempted to verify the misleading information with which she has been supplied.

If she is to continue writing to the letters column with any semblance of credibility I respectfully suggest she attends the meetings on which she comments, and tries to verify what she has been told.

The action that took place was not the result of breaking a 'convention', but of non compliance with the law. The suggestion that a parish council should conspire to break the law is something no public body can contemplate. We cannot cherry pick the laws which we are going to obey and those that we choose to ignore.

Let's suppose that a parish council did so conspire. And then, at a later date, a councillor, or even, Heaven forbid, a clerk, made an unreasonable demand of the council, declaring 'You broke the law for him, so surely you can break the law for me'. Then you are on a very slippery path indeed.

'Durus, sed lex' is the useful legal phrase which should be the guide of everyone. It means, roughly, if you don't like a law, strive to have it changed, don't ignore it.

Another useful phrase is 'Whereof ye know nothing thereof ye should remain silent'.

I would hate to think her letter encourages other people to bring her more unreliable stories that she will then uncritically promote in the public domain.

– Dave Kent, Clerk, St Briavels Parish Council.