A correspondent has asked where the local press found the word “dismissed” in their reporting of the Verita report into actions following Humphreys arrest. The word does not occur in Verita’s report.
The context of the quote comes from this paragraph:
The report concluded that a former monitoring officer became the only person to know of the police investigation when he was asked to attend a safeguarding meeting (LADO) in March 2016, but doubt was cast on this evidence when further details came out regarding a comment made in a meeting suggesting the CEO of the council might have also known. This, however, was fully investigated by Verita in a supplementary report, and dismissed, as they were unable to corroborate the statement.
Here is a bit of fact checking from Verita’s supplementary report:
New Information (from page 5)
10. In 2016 Devon County Council (DCC) held three meetings described as LADO MAS meetings. The meetings involved the DCC Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), Devon & Cornwall Police (the Police) and senior officers from DCC. The former Monitoring Officer of EDDC (referred to hereafter as the fMO) attended all those meetings.
11. The meeting on 9 March 2016 was the first in this series and was described as the “Initial Strategy Meeting: Managing Allegations Against Adults Working with Children”.
12. Under a section titled “General discussion”, the minutes of the meeting recorded that: “The Chief of East Devon District Council had been alerted to the situation.”
13. This record appeared to contradict the evidence given by the fMO and the CEO of EDDC in our investigation.
[Verita were shown a copy obtained from DCC to verify this]
Conclusions
74. We consider that the record in the minutes of the meeting on 9 March 2016 cast doubt on the evidence given by the fMO and the CEO in the course of our original investigation.
75. The statement was, however, recorded in the formal minutes of a LADO MAS meeting, and we have no evidence that it was subsequently amended. In our view it is more likely than not, on the balance of probabilities, that the comment was made in the course of that meeting.
76. Although the precise wording of the statement may be open to misinterpretation, we conclude that the reference to “The Chief” could only mean the CEO of EDDC.
77. However, because we have been unable to corroborate this statement, we conclude that it does not constitute sufficiently reliable evidence that the CEO of EDDC was aware of the Humphreys situation.
So whilst Verita concluded this did not constitute sufficiently reliable evidence that the CEO of EDDC was aware of Humphreys situation, the minute as quoted remains on the record.
That minute has not been “dismissed”. Its meaning has yet to be explained. – Owl
East Devon Watch 
Exactly so! Local press use of the word ‘dismissed’ is inaccurate here.
The press headline “Devon sex fiend remained pillar of community despite arrest” is also very misleading.
Humphreys was not a pillar of the community. He POSED as a pillar of the community.
What motive would someone of his character have to stand as a councillor?
Are there records showing who proposed him as a councillor in the first place? Silly question.
Has that person ever had the courage to publicly acknowledge that they nominated Humphreys?
Who was duping who?
Pillar of the community?
What did he do for the community?
What many members of the community witnessed was this.
He never acknowledged public concerns. In meetings, he regularly used his bullish demeanour to intimidate others, thus ensuring that “influential ” friends and developers got their way and residents and local businesses were ignored.
Lets stop using that phrase where Humphreys is concerned.
LikeLike
It looks like the use of the word starts in the Exmouth Journal, and is used by the same journalist in the Devon Live article.
The Journal has form already in this case. It failed to print news of both Humphreys’ initial court appearance and conviction until complaints were made. On both occasions this led to disproportionally small pieces buried deep in the paper. Eventually leading to apologies from Archant’s then new Chief Executive, for editorial misjudgement on the second occasion, but nothing regarding the separate misjudgement, by a different editor, on the previous occasion.
When there was a significant abuse case prosecuted locally in 2009 – 11, in the years between the two police referrals by the gentleman we know most about, the police investigated as expected, with proactive seeking out of witnesses and potential victims, the Journal led with extensive coverage. It has been reported that in that case 100 potential witnesses were interviewed, and one or both organisations informed national press in advance of what became a highly publicised exhumation, which did not provide any further evidence.
One of the clear points made in the main Verita report is the highly unusual secrecy applied by the police when investigating and bringing forward this case. But the press for the most part were also responsible for unusual behaviour which was not in the interests of the public or the victims, and the Journal paid significantly less attention than the other outlets.
In the past the Journal also played a significant role in creating the image of Humphreys as a pillar of the community, particularly during his mayoral term, which he bravely, it seemed at the time, used to advance the case for acceptance of equal rights for the gay community.
This article for example, linked into the Devon County Council independent investigation, yet presumably not read by their investigator or the police.
http://www.exmouthjournal.co.uk/news/20331021.mayors-big-day-truly-momentous-one/
Yet it contains some huge red flags.
What would motivate this monstrous predator to travel to Romania on an aid convoy only one year after apparent police and social services failures kept him off the hook for picking a 12 year old up from outside a public convenience and subjecting him to three brutal rapes?
Were orphanages involved?
Perhaps the Journal could republish or make available the contemporary reports mentioned in this article.
Does the reference to students being supportive in the article imply access to children? It is certainly written as a comment on the situation current in 2014, during the mayoral period, when the local work experience victim had a further breakdown, reported his abuse again, was harassed and threatened by police, and where referrals were made to the NSPCC, referenced in the DCC and Verita reports, and to the IOPC, as came out in the Verita report but was not mentioned by the Deputy Chief Constable in his letter read by Cllr Arnott to the council.
I understand that some within the local gay community have expressed concern that mention of his crimes might feed particular tropes amongst backward and bigoted sections of the community. This is understandable, but it is not a reason sufficient to justify the continued protection of those organisations and individuals whose decisions and failures permitted him to continue offending from the 80s until the early 2000s, at least.
Of course as we have seen, the Labour group have misread the referenced aspect of the Verita supplementary report in the opposite manner, and sought to clarify the meaning at last week’s extraordinary meeting. Which led Mr Scott to clarify fully the meaning of their words in respect of the reference “to the chief”. So we have to give the journalist the same benefit of the doubt, that this may have been an innocent or inattentive mistake.
Which makes it imperative that she or the newspaper clarify. Was this an innocent mistake which will be acknowledged and corrected, or was it a deliberately misleading choice, fed to her by others? I have asked her directly and await her response.
However I also asked for correction of matters in the CEO’s report to council on 22/09/22, but received nothing but evasions from the fMO.
Let’s wait and see.
LikeLike