This is just a quick update (5 March 2012) My original web host received a complaint regarding the content of Peter’s Plight and I was asked to remove it. The content was the letter I hand delivered to the District in March 2011 in which I named names and called them liars. These statements I could prove but it would seem that my web host couldn’t and was, therefore, open to defamation. This was 30th  November 2011. On 1st December 2011 I asked the host to get the complainant to make direct contact with me. The host stated that direct contact is always advocated in disputes like this one. But I still had to remove the site.

With that I re-wrote everything and republished the site.  (The content was basically as below) On 13th February 2012 I was asked to remove my amended Peter’s Plight, this time, when I asked, the host gave me the email address of the complainant which is trust.corporation@scouts.org.uk.  On 15th February, I emailed trust.corporation@scouts.org asking what the issues were with the site so I could make amendments.

I received no reply.

 On 22nd February, I sent a chaser and received an auto acknowledgement followed by an email asking who I was. I responded that I was the web master, They then asked for my name, which  I gave, and surprise surprise, I am still waiting for a response to my question !

I would point out that other than the host, no-one and no-body has made direct contact to complain or to question what I had said. Obviously, whoever complained does not have the courage to contact me directly in order to check the facts quoted, I now have rewritten the facts quoting dates etc so that the complainant has the details in order to check what I have said.


Many of you are aware that I have been kicked out of Scouts, according to HQ, because I took the Scout County to court for unpaid expenses!

Over a long period I have engaged a Solicitor who asked Scout HQ many questions in order to clarify the situation I found myself in. We are still waiting for answers to many of these questions.

The letter I previously published in full was hand delivered to Northampton District. The only statement I made in the letter that has been challenged is HQ’s solicitors asking for strict proof that  the actions of these Leaders was causing me emotional harm by not looking after my welfare,  (a key principle of The Scout Association).

 No other statement I had made in that letter has been challenged.

 I am not the only person to have been treated in this way, There was a lot of media interest in the case of Shirley & Clive Hammond where their story is virtually identical to mine.

A paid member of Northamptonshire County staff was sacked and won an out of court settlement. A paid member of HQ staff had to re-apply for his job due to a “reorganisation” but failed the interview. He, too, reached an out of court settlement.

These are just some of the examples of the way Scouting treats people that I know about, but I have no doubt there are more. As far as the law is concerned, a person is innocent until proven guilty, as far as Scouting is concerned, a person is guilty until proven innocent and then he is still guilty.

The Secretary of the local camping ground committee was Phil Joyce. In the minutes of a meeting of the camping ground committee dated 2 July 2003, he recorded “It was proposed that it may be possible to obtain a solicitor’s letter if Peter continues to be difficult” The committee secretary was asked to arrange a meeting between myself and the Committee Chairman. During the exchange of emails, I asked on more than one occasion if the word “solicitor or solicitor’s” was mentioned. Eventually I received a response from the secretary dated 7th July 2003 stating “For the record – although what business the minutes of the OMC are of yours as you are not a member or District official I do not know – there is no reference to a solicitor in any part of the last OMC minutes”.

 So……… the minutes as recorded by the Secretary state one thing and the Secretary states another.

 It is recorded in the minutes of the OMC 3rd March 2004, that one of the DC’s “recommended the OMC write a letter to PM {me!} apologising to him”. I am still waiting for this letter.

It is a matter of record that at the time of my exclusion from Northampton District, the Exec membership included Rev John Simmons as DC (he was also CC and a member of the Committee of the Council) Steve Layt who was appointed by Mr Simmons to oversee the day to day running of the District after the departure of the previous DC, Dr Simon Gregory, District chairman. John Sharman (a former JP). Lee Jones (the current DC) plus others.

It is a matter of record that at the extraordinary meeting of the District Executive on 16th August 2007, a report about me was presented with a view to terminate my membership within the District, subsequently the Scout County and then Scouting as a whole.

 My letter dated 5th August 2007 to the Regional Commissioner registered a complaint about the treatment I was receiving from the County Commissioner, which in effect was causing me emotional harm and was not looking after my welfare, the extraordinary meeting of the District Exec was called on 16th August 2007 by the person I was complaining about, and the first response acknowledging my letter, from the Regional Commissioner was dated 22nd August 2007.
 

Please note the sequence of dates!
 

The next letter from the Regional commissioner was dated 30th August 2007 stated that I had not provided any evidence to support my complaint and that I had the opportunity of having his answer reviewed once. I wrote back with a series of questions in order to ensure that my interpretation of the rules of Scouting were the same as everybody else’s interpretation so that I could prepare my papers for the review I would ask for.

Eventually, the Secretary of the Association responded and in his letter dated 27th November 2007, instead of answering my questions, he wrote “……TSA {The Scout Association} now finds it necessary to write to you and insist that you do not initiate any further contact with the management of the above mentioned bodies {District & County} or TSA as a whole”.

 That was how my complaint was handled.

I accept that, on occasion, a confidential report may be necessary especially in a child protection issue, and I also accept that errors made in good faith can form part of that report. However, in the case of my report, there is no child protection issue, I have a “clean” CRB which I am prepare to renew at any time, I am not a threat to vulnerable people and the number of errors make it impossible for the author to claim “honest mistake”. If this report were to be introduced as evidence in a court of law, the author’s credibility would be under question especially as I have attempted on numerous occasions to correct the report. It could also be that the author could be charged with perjury and perverting the course of justice.

 It should also be noted that the meeting on 16th August 2007, (the kangaroo court, see POR rule 15.6) was lied to by at least two people, a statement I can unequivocally prove, and, I understand, only selected members of the Executive were present.

It is a matter of record that I applied, under the Data Protection Act, for copies of anything relating to me and that when I received a copy of the report presented to the Exec, I specifically asked for copies of the “documented facts” quoted. These so called “documented facts” have never been forthcoming therefore they can’t exist.


I was invited to open a small Scout museum above the Scout Shop and to organise a centenary display in Northampton museum. At that time, the only items I did not own that were on display were the old District trophies. It is well known that I collect Scout badges & memorabilia.

It is recorded in the report presented on 16th August 2007,  “It has been brought to the DC’s {Rev John Simmons} attention that there are artefacts within the museum that belong to another Scouting family ……… These items were loaned to other members of TSA ……and have subsequently been handed to the District via Peter, for the purposes of display.  …….. A request from the family has been formally made to have the items returned to them…..however this first request to Peter has been denied ………and has started a dispute over ownership. The family have involved the police and an investigation is ongoing”.

The family found out about the certificate due to publicity in the local paper about the museum and centenary celebrations.

I was given the certificate around 25 years ago and I have a letter stating that it was an unrestricted gift to myself.

I wrote to the family as I had not been involved in any police investigation, asking if they had, in fact, involved the police. The letter from the family dated 13 February 2011 in part reads “I can assure you that at no time during my investigations to find the certificate after my father’s death did I involve the police”.

So, the Rev Simmons says one thing and the family and I state another !

 I find it unbelievable that the District Executive membership included a Vicar (also a member of the Committee of the Council), a Doctor and a former JP all of whom should be unbiased and by profession understanding and impartial yet at no time was I asked to explain any points in the report.

 From 2005, I have been trying to discuss the situation I found myself in but no member of Scouting holding a position of authority has been prepared to reciprocate. There are many letters written both by myself and my solicitor asking questions but many remain unanswered by Scouting. I don’t think there is any point listing everything with dates etc. but should anyone who wishes to challenge what I am saying can have access.

 It is a matter of record that Messers Simmons (the CC) and Layt (the DC) both suddenly left office within a few months of each other without notice.

 It doesn’t really matter what actions I take now as due to exercising my civil rights by taking the County to court over my expenses, according to HQ , I have already brought the Association into disrepute. As only four people were involved and there was an out of court settlement, exactly who I have brought the Association into disrepute with is one of the unanswered questions. My actions were also incompatible with a position in Scouting but it should be noted that, writing inaccurate reports and holding kangaroo courts with only selected members of the voting committee being present, must, according to the actions taken in my case, be compatible to the ideals of Scouting as there would appear to be no actions taken against these persons.

 
More information. Added Jan 2012.

This is an email I sent to the Regional Commissioner complete with questions that have never been officially answered.

 

From: Peter Maryniak
Sent: 26 November 2007 09:07
To: 'byron@chatburn.org.uk'
Subject: Questions and appeal

 

Dear Mr Chatburn

Further to our correspondence, at the moment I am unable to trace having received a full reply to my letter dated 27 September acknowledged by your letter dated 10 Oct 2007. Perhaps you would be good enough to advise.

I thought it might be useful for me to consolidate the questions and these are detailed in the attachment. I would also express my concern regarding lack of information regarding the appeals procedure.

As advised in my letter dated 22 October, I applied for records under the Data Protection Act from the County. On Friday 23 November I received a request for additional information. Whilst I accept that the data controller can ask for additional information and that the statuary 40 days can start from the receipt of such information, it is also incumbent on that person or body to make such a request “promptly” and a month after my initial request is hardly “prompt”. Therefore I can only come to the conclusion that the County are trying to employ delaying tactics to prevent me from receiving the required information.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Peter Maryniak

 

Questions with letter dated 27 Sept 2007

 

Is it acceptable practice for people in authority to ignore letters that require answers to questions?

Is it the Associations policy not to give reasons for termination of membership?

Is it the Associations policy for decisions to be made about that person’s membership without the member being present?

In contrast to the normal human rights, can decisions be made without consulting the individual concerned?

The Association has an appeals procedure, is it acceptable practice for people in authority not to allow appeals against decisions concerning individuals?

As there is an appeals procedure, how does one appeal against termination of membership when reasons are not made known to the appellant?

Is it acceptable for people in authority to threaten Police action when no offence has been committed?

Is it acceptable for people in authority to manipulate words in order to obtain a completely different meaning to what was intended?

Is it acceptable for people in authority to ignore the rules of the Association?

Is it acceptable for past actions, when all involved reached agreement, to be perpetuated to the detriment of a member, by people in authority who were not involved in the original decision?

 

Letters have been sent to all GSL’s in the county which, in part, reads “.… in fairness to Mr Maryniak, I am not at liberty to provide any further information to you and cannot enter into dialogue about this decision.“   Is it fair to an individual that he has not been provided with “further information” and remains unaware of the reasons for the decision?

Letters have been sent to GSL’s in the District  which, in part, reads “I must therefore inform you that you and your team must under no circumstances assist Mr Myriniak in entering or remaining on any Scouting property in or belonging to Northampton District and anybody so doing will themselves be in breach of Scouting rules”.  Which rule in POR applies?

Is it the Association’s policy that District appointments are made only to members who hold another appointment? For example, is it policy that an ADC also holds a warrant/appointment at group level?

Questions in letter dated 27 September 2007

Is making rules that are only applied when people in authority want them to apply, rather than across the whole membership, acceptable?

I enclose a (copy) letter sent by the District Chair to the people listed. I understand that a similar letter has been sent by the County Chair. Is it normal for District and or County Chairs to distribute such a letter? I would have thought that should I apply for any position within a District, the relevant DC would be able to block an application.

I understand that your role is that of support to the CC’s and DC’s. Is that correct? I also understand that the Regional Commissioner is likely to be involved in the appointment of County Commissioners, is that correct?

In letters dated 21 August & 27 Sept 2007

I advised that my membership to Northampton & County Scouting had been terminated and requested details of the appeals procedure.

Questions in letter dated 22 October 2007

Does the Scout Association accept anecdotal statements as a basis for decisions to be made by any Committee?

As there is no evidence to support the report, is it a valid document?The Data Protection Act gives me the right to correct inaccurate data, however, the minutes of the Exec meeting clearly state that I do not have the right of appeal. As the law allows me to correct inaccurate data, how can I get the decision to terminate my membership of Northampton Scout Association reversed in order to correct the data?