Update: St Ann's Well tenant finally receives an apology

St Ann's Well St Ann's Well

FIRST came the damning report and now the tenant at the centre of the long-running St Ann's Well café dispute has finally received an apology.

John Redman received the declaration of regret when the board of the Malvern Hills Conservators met for a special meeting on Thursday to hear the findings of its internal inquiry into the affair.

The apology comes after the committee’s report revealed a catalogue of failings and how the Conservators pursued their campaign to remove Mr Redman despite receiving legal advice not to and having little genuine intention of running the café themselves.

It was given a heartfelt delivery by board member Roger Cousins, who said: “The board extends a formal apology to John Redman, his family, his staff, members of the general public and all those affected by these events as well as the staff of Malvern Hills Conservators past and present.”

Mr Redman, who has run the café on the slopes of the Malvern Hills for more than 20 years, said: "I am generally very, very pleased and obviously feel vindicated by the apology.

"I want to say thank you to all the people that supported me, clearly I could not have done it without massive support from the people."

He added: “We have got to move on, there’s no point throwing the baby out with the bath water.”

Carl Attwood, chairman of the inquiry committee said the apology was central to the work carried out looking into the row.

“It’s important that people acknowledge things have to be put right by apologising. There’s a genuine feeling of wanting to move forward.”

Rev Attwood added: “For me the whole premise of what we were asked to do was to work out what happened and that has been achieved. Now we will move on and do the second part.”

During the meeting at Lyttelton Well, in Church Street, the board also moved to acknowledge the report and its findings of major failure as well as recognising the need for reform.

The second stage comes with the intention of defining the necessary reforms and planning their implementation.

The recommendations, and the apology, were accepted 17 votes to one, with Chris Cheeseman the only board member to oppose the motions on the wording of the apology.

 

Comments(16)

Jabbadad says...
1:50pm Fri 21 Sep 12

I hope they are required to compensate John Redman for the terrible situation their pig pigheadedness caused.
The Conservators act as if they actually Own the Hills.

evendine1 says...
3:18pm Fri 21 Sep 12

Those responsible for this shameful debacle should be forced to refund the tax-payer and banned from public office.

Not only did they mislead the board into supporting their actions, but actively pursued a vendetta against a member of our community with public money.

Completely unacceptable!

pudniw_gib says...
5:52pm Fri 21 Sep 12

They are going to try and get away with it. I dont understand why the inquiry is so lightweight in its findings when it is obvious to most of us what has been going on. All the b/s about road trains and running a cafe themselves...
What makes it worse is the fact that the main culprits are supposed to be respectable members of the local community in positions of trust, they have lied and lied again, tried to stiffle the public at meetings. In one case a member of the public was threatened by a Conservator that if they valued their job they would shut up! Horrific behaviour. Name and shame the culprits in this paper.

Jabbadad says...
6:03pm Fri 21 Sep 12

Absolutely pudniw_gib

Scotty Moore says...
12:26am Sat 22 Sep 12

Note to self: cross Chris Cheeseman off christmas card list.

Cross Chris off!

pudniw_gib says...
7:30pm Sat 22 Sep 12

well said Scotty, the man is not on my list now either....

sarah and her chickens says...
9:42am Sun 23 Sep 12

What I found disturbing was that they said that they would not allow a small group of members to control the board again.Then a small group,the inquiry group, forced the members to add an apology to past staff of the conservators to the apology to John and his family and staff.Several members who were happy to apologise to John were not happy to apologise to past staff.But they had no option but to vote this way.HAVE THEY LEARNT ANYTHING I ASK
Only Pete Watson who did a runner half way throug the meeting clearly did not want to vote to apologise.(unless he just got lost on the way back from the toilet) Shame on an elected board member for walking out.He is the one to cross off the Christmas card list ! Mr Cheesman I think was unhappy that they did not add precept payers into the apology but put past staff in (which would of course include the director!)

Farrel49 says...
10:01am Sun 23 Sep 12

Link to the Report:
http://www.malvernhi
lls.org.uk/Content/2
0120920%20Paper%20A%
20-%20Inquiry%20Repo
rt.pdf

imustbeoldiwearacap says...
12:40pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Are the current trustees fit and proper persons to run MHC? Rather than go down the trustee indemnity route to try and recover the costs involved, should not the trustees who caused this debacle offer to recompense MCH out of their own pockets?

The Conch says...
2:10pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Sir

Of course an apology is welcome and was very definitely heart felt by some members of the board but I can not help but think that for some this has only come following a letter from the charities commission advising the board that it should take legal advice and consult the boards insurers around the issue of monies wasted during this sad affair. I do wonder if this is a case of “too little too late”. For those board members and the former director who so abused their positions, misleading the board and withholding vital information I am not convinced that an apology is enough. It should be noted that those that carry the greatest burden of guilt were not present at Thursdays meeting and have as yet, shown no remorse for the lies they told both to the public and their fellow board members.
A further point that deserves consideration is that despite that fact that the board, or at least some members of it, have been found guilty of major failures including ignorance, confusion and prejudice, it has not cost the members personally a single penny and yet the tenant who has been entirely vindicated is out of pocket by thousands of pounds.
An apology is a very small step in the right direction. A detailed examination of governance is clearly essential, however without accountability then no amount of governance will turn around this body. It may no be feasible to recover the losses directly from those responsible but it should surely be possible to ban them from office.

sarah and her chickens says...
6:38pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Perfect The Conch.

evendine1 says...
12:01am Mon 24 Sep 12

The so called 'Old Guard':

Rowat,
Ray Roberts,
Roger Hall Jones,
Wilcock,
Brian Smith
Pete Watson
Myatt.

Geep says...
3:42pm Mon 24 Sep 12

I think The Conch has summed it up perfectly.

Farrel49 says...
3:59pm Mon 24 Sep 12

The Conch wrote:
Sir

Of course an apology is welcome and was very definitely heart felt by some members of the board but I can not help but think that for some this has only come following a letter from the charities commission advising the board that it should take legal advice and consult the boards insurers around the issue of monies wasted during this sad affair. I do wonder if this is a case of “too little too late”. For those board members and the former director who so abused their positions, misleading the board and withholding vital information I am not convinced that an apology is enough. It should be noted that those that carry the greatest burden of guilt were not present at Thursdays meeting and have as yet, shown no remorse for the lies they told both to the public and their fellow board members.
A further point that deserves consideration is that despite that fact that the board, or at least some members of it, have been found guilty of major failures including ignorance, confusion and prejudice, it has not cost the members personally a single penny and yet the tenant who has been entirely vindicated is out of pocket by thousands of pounds.
An apology is a very small step in the right direction. A detailed examination of governance is clearly essential, however without accountability then no amount of governance will turn around this body. It may no be feasible to recover the losses directly from those responsible but it should surely be possible to ban them from office.
Hear, Hear!

sugarlump says...
3:26pm Tue 25 Sep 12

the conservatores are absolutely disgraceful. OUR money wassed yet again by pompous, self-opinionated people who picked on somebody that didnt fit into their world. They shoudl be made to pay for the expenses incurred.

sugarlump says...
3:26pm Tue 25 Sep 12

the conservatores are absolutely disgraceful. OUR money wassed yet again by pompous, self-opinionated people who picked on somebody that didnt fit into their world. They shoudl be made to pay for the expenses incurred.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree