Investigations

The tasting followed the Committee’s review of tea procurement and Jean’s request to try the proposed replacement before a continuing change was agreed. The potential annual saving is £13.80, subject to the tea being suitable and the calculation reflecting actual use.

Blind tasting results

Participants tasted samples A and B without being told which contained the current tea. Responses were collected before the contents of the pots were disclosed.

The proposed replacement received the most preferences, although it did not receive an outright majority.
Neither tea was considered undrinkable.

I selected A, describing it as having a good colour and being entirely suitable for everyday Chapel use. This response was submitted before the identities were disclosed and remains included in the table.

My earlier assessment of the replacement tea at home also stands. It is possible for both teas to be suitable.

One participant submitted comments about the Committee’s handling of the proposed change. These were supplied on a separate sheet, in accordance with the tasting instructions, and will be passed to the Committee separately. They have not been counted as a preference for either tea.

Suitability for service

Jean also assessed the replacement against the three tea options available at the Hatch.

Jean confirmed that the replacement could be made stronger, but not for the same price.

I asked whether a longer brewing time might avoid the additional bag. Jean said this could be tested, but that waiting longer would also have to be considered when assessing suitability for service at a busy Hatch. No conclusion on this was reached during the evening.

Jean asked that her assessment of “acceptable” should not be recorded as a recommendation to change all three options. This distinction is noted.

Effect on the proposed saving

The original projection assumed that the replacement would be used at the same rate as the current tea. Additional bags for Builder’s tea would reduce the saving. The amount cannot yet be confirmed because it will depend on how much Builder’s tea is served and how many additional bags are required.

I suggested that the favourable tasting result could nevertheless be recorded alongside the £13.80 projection. Stephen agreed that both could be reported, provided the figure remained clearly described as projected and subject to recalculation. No saving has yet been realised.

Next steps

The results will be submitted to the Committee. Jean will continue using the existing tea while the implications for brewing time and bag use are reviewed. No continuing change of supplier has been agreed.

The tasting established that the proposed tea was suitable for drinking. Whether it is suitable for saving £13.80 remains subject to further calculation.

Please note that £3.79 has been spent on the new teabags so far, and Jean refused to refund this from payments received during the tasting session. The committee agreed she should not work for free although the annual saving figure will have been impacted.

Geoff Thomas
Caretaker

1. Brown badge displayed in a Gold bay

Tony Whitlesay’s vehicle was observed in Bay 10, which is reserved for Gold badge holders. His brown badge was clearly displayed but he was in the wrong bay.

Tony explained that he was bringing equipment to the Computer Club and had therefore parked according to the badge he had applied for, rather than the one he had received.

I checked the allocation register. His application for Gold had been considered and a Brown badge issued. There was no outstanding decision.

Tony said the matter remained outstanding as far as he was concerned.

He was asked to move his vehicle to general parking, which he did without further comment.

2. Motorhome occupying a loading bay beyond ten minutes

Mary Jackson’s motorhome was observed in Bay 14 at 14:05 and remained there at 14:28. No loading or unloading was witnessed during that period.

Mary advised that the motorhome had been parked there since mid-2023; to which I agreed.

I explained that the committee had decided that, with the introduction of the new parking scheme, Mary's informal arrangement had now expired. I have ordered her to remove the offending motorhome within 48 hours.

3. Committee vehicle without a displayed badge

A vehicle in Bay 1 was found without a parking badge visible through the windscreen.

The vehicle was mine.

My Platinum badge had slipped beneath a folder containing the parking inspection sheets. I was able to produce it immediately once the folder was lifted.

I initially recorded this as an administrative matter, since my entitlement to Bay 1 was not in dispute. Tony, who was still hanging around, pointed out that the published requirement concerns badge display, rather than whether the driver can produce it after being challenged.

I have therefore included the incident in this investigation.

Preliminary findings

The three incidents concern different requirements:

• Parking in the category actually allocated.
• Observing the loading-bay time limit.
• Displaying a valid badge clearly.

Further action

Tony will receive a reminder concerning his allocated parking category.

Mary has been asked to find somewhere else to park her motorhome.

I referred my own badge-display incident to Glyn, who informally fined me a packet of biscuits. I have since purchased a pack of Chocolate Digestives at a cost of 79p and given them to Glyn. I intend to check policy to ensure that this fine was within the rules prescribed.

No parking bans have been issued at this stage.

Geoff Thomas
Caretaker and Committee Secretary

1. Reason for investigation

Tony Whitlesay approached me seeking clarification of who has authority to issue instructions to members of the Chapel Computer Club during its meetings.

The question arose after Geoff Thomas reminded Martin Vale to clean the kitchen at the conclusion of a meeting. Tony considered that this instruction should have been issued through him as Club Lead.

I asked Geoff to provide a statement explaining what had occurred. He supplied a transcript prepared from audio recorded by the Chapel’s CCTV system.

2. Scope and evidence

This investigation considers the respective responsibilities of the Caretaker and Club Lead, and whether the exchange demonstrates any improper interference with the running of the Computer Club.

The transcript supplied by Geoff is identified as Exhibit A. It records an exchange involving Geoff, Tony and Martin.

The transcript was prepared by a participant in the disagreement. Its origin in a recording should be distinguished from independent verification of its accuracy. This report proceeds on the account supplied; it does not certify that every word has been checked against the original audio.

Tony’s request for clarification is not treated as a complaint that Martin refused to clean the kitchen. No such refusal appears in the evidence.

3. Summary of events

Geoff asked Martin to remember to clean the kitchen at the end of the meeting. Martin agreed.

Tony then asked Geoff to speak separately and stated that instructions to Computer Club members should pass through him. Geoff maintained that ensuring the kitchen was left clean formed part of his responsibilities as Caretaker.

Tony did not dispute the need for cleaning. He subsequently confirmed that he had intended to arrange it and would probably also have asked Martin to do it.

Martin repeated that he was willing to do the work.

Tony then instructed Martin to clean the kitchen. Martin agreed again. Geoff stated that his original request remained in force, while Tony maintained that Martin would be acting on his instruction.

4. Findings

4.1 There was agreement about the work

All three participants accepted that the kitchen should be cleaned.

The disagreement concerned who was entitled to ask Martin, rather than what Martin should do. By the end of the exchange, the same task had been assigned to the same person twice.

4.2 Tony has a legitimate role in organising club activities

The Club Lead should ordinarily coordinate club business, including the allocation of duties among members.

Geoff should avoid unnecessarily disrupting meetings or making arrangements that conflict with an existing allocation.

However, no conflicting allocation was identified in this exchange. Tony’s proposed arrangement was substantially the same arrangement Geoff had already made.

4.3 Geoff has a legitimate interest in the condition of the premises

A reminder concerning the kitchen falls within the Caretaker’s ordinary responsibilities.

Addressing that reminder directly to a club member does not, by itself, amount to assuming leadership of the Computer Club.

Tony’s position would require Geoff to locate the Club Lead before asking a willing person to wipe a surface. I do not consider that a necessary arrangement.

4.4 Martin’s cooperation did not resolve the disagreement

Martin agreed promptly and expressed no objection to the task.

His willingness was repeatedly set aside while the other participants discussed which of them was entitled to obtain it. This prolonged the exchange without improving the cleaning arrangements.

4.5 Completion is not established

The transcript establishes that Martin agreed to clean the kitchen.

It does not establish that the kitchen was subsequently cleaned. Agreement, allocation and completion should remain separate entries in any record.

5. Determination

My determination is that:

1. Tony may organise Computer Club activities and allocate club duties.
2. Geoff may give reasonable instructions and reminders concerning the use and condition of Chapel premises.
3. Computer Club membership does not require all communication with a member to pass through Tony.
4. Neither role confers general authority over Martin personally.
5. Where instructions genuinely conflict, Geoff and Tony should resolve the conflict directly rather than requiring Martin to decide which office he recognises.

On the evidence supplied, Geoff’s original reminder was reasonable. Tony’s concern about club organisation was understandable, but his claim to be the sole person entitled to issue this particular instruction is not supported.

Geoff’s subsequent insistence that his request remained separately in force was also unnecessary. One satisfactory cleaning would have fulfilled both requests.

6. Recommended action

No disciplinary action is recommended.

Geoff and Tony should be given this clarification. Any continuing disagreement should be referred to the Chair outside the meeting.

Martin should be thanked for agreeing to clean the kitchen. He should not be required to provide a statement identifying whose instruction he ultimately followed.

Glyn Huffmorton
Chair of the Chapel Committee

**Annex: Exhibit A.

Exchange concerning instructions to Computer Club members

==TRANSCRIPT BEGINS==
Geoff: Martin, remember to clean up the kitchen at the end, please.

Martin: Yes, no problem.

Tony: Geoff, can you come through here a minute?

Geoff: What is it?

Tony: If you need a Computer Club member to do something during a meeting, you need to come through me.

Geoff: I asked him to wipe the kitchen down.

Tony: I heard what you asked him. That’s why I’m speaking to you.

Geoff: It is part of my responsibility to make sure the kitchen is left clean.

Tony: And it’s my responsibility to manage the members of the Computer Club. You tell me what needs doing and I allocate it.

Geoff: It has already been allocated. Martin said he would do it.

Tony: Martin shouldn’t have been put in that position.

Geoff: What position?

Tony: Being given an instruction by somebody outside the club while I’m standing here running it.

Geoff: I am the Caretaker of the building you are running it in.

Tony: I’m not disputing that. I’m asking you to respect the structure of the club.

Geoff: Does the structure of the club include cleaning the kitchen?

Tony: Yes.

Geoff: Then I don’t understand the difficulty.

Tony: You wouldn’t go into somebody’s workplace and start telling their staff what to do.

Geoff: This is my workplace, Tony.

Martin: I’m happy to do the kitchen.

Tony: That isn’t the point, Martin.

Geoff: It was the point when I started speaking.

Tony: You’ve now made it look as though I wasn’t going to arrange for it to be cleaned.

Geoff: Were you?

Tony: Yes.

Geoff: Who were you going to ask?

Tony: Probably Martin.

Geoff: Well, I’ve saved you a job.

Tony: No. You’ve undermined me. Martin, when we finish, can you clean the kitchen, please?

Martin: Yes.

Tony: Thank you. That is how it should have been handled.

Geoff: For the avoidance of doubt, my original request remains in force.

Tony: He’s doing it because I’ve asked him.

Martin: Do I need to do it twice?
==TRANSCRIPT ENDS==

1. Background

Following the discovery of damage to a pew in the middle row on the right-hand side of the Chapel, an informal investigation was undertaken.

The damage consists of the phrase: “Mary woz ere, Xmas 14” scratched into the rear backrest of the pew.

The purpose of this report is to record statements from persons connected with the Chapel and to make a recommendation as to the most likely explanation.

2. Statement: Mary Jackson

Mary stated that she had no knowledge of the inscription and denied scratching it into the pew. She further stated that she would not spell “was” as “woz” and would not refer to Christmas as “Xmas” in a formal setting.

Investigator’s note: Geoff considers Mary’s denial partly believable, particularly regarding spelling standards. However, her strong objection to the wording may also indicate close familiarity with it.

3. Statement: Tony Whitlesay

Tony denied involvement and said he had “no reason to write Mary’s name on anything.” He added that people were “too quick to point fingers” and that the Chapel should be focusing on more important matters.

Investigator’s note: Geoff considers Tony’s statement evasive. His attempt to redirect the matter toward unspecified “more important matters” is noted.

4. Statement: Jean Hutton

Jean stated that she had not seen anyone damaging the pew and was unaware of the inscription until told about it. She said Mary “would have written it neater” if responsible.

Investigator’s note: Geoff considers Jean’s statement generally believable, although her defence of Mary is based on handwriting expectations rather than evidence.

5. Statement: Margaret Albasson

Margaret stated that she had no knowledge of the damage and had not sat in the middle row on the right-hand side recently. She added that, in her view, “Xmas 14” was probably meant to suggest 2014 rather than 1914.

Investigator’s note: Geoff considers it unlikely that the inscription has remained unnoticed since Christmas 1914. Especially because this pew has one of the better views of the lectern so is very well used.

7. Statement: Simon Potts

Simon stated that he had not been inside the Chapel recently and could not remember whether the inscription was present during earlier years.

Investigator’s note: Geoff considers Simon’s statement consistent with Simon's previous memory gaps (especially when asked to update the website).

8. Statement: Gayle Spackmore

Gayle stated that she had helped clear up after a recent service and did not notice any damage to the pew at that time. She said the inscription must either be recent or in a place people do not usually look.

Investigator’s note: Geoff considers this believable and helpful.

9. Statement: Henry Spackmore

Henry stated that he had no involvement and only became aware of the matter after hearing people discussing it. He said he did not know Mary well enough to frame her.

Investigator’s note: Geoff says that last year he overheard some other members of the congregation talking about something involving him, Mary and Gayle. He assumed they were talking about a love-triangle although his suspicions were never proven.

10. Assessment

The possibility that the inscription dates from Christmas 1914 is considered unlikely. The wording, particularly “woz ere” and “Xmas 14,” appears more consistent with recent or late twentieth-century informal graffiti than with an inscription from 1914.

The possibility that Mary was framed cannot be ruled out. The use of her name may have been deliberate, particularly as the inscription is crude and conspicuous.

Mary’s direct involvement is also possible, but there is no supporting evidence beyond the use of her name, and she is not known to have any affiliation to criminals or graffiti-gangs.

11. Recommendation

On balance, the most likely explanation is that the inscription was made by another person in an attempt either to implicate Mary or to make a joke at her expense.

If is was done by a third party then Henry is considered the most likely person to have done it, probably in a love-revenge attack. This is not a formal finding of guilt, but it is recommended that he is not left alone in the Chapel until the matter has been resolved.