Further written evidence submitted by Roger Stone [JRR 06]

I act for the above named. I write to express my concern about one matter in particular at this stage.

At the hearing before the committee Mr. Stone gave evidence. Mr. Danczuk told him in questioning that at a previous hearing, the then C.O. Of Rotherham M.B.C, Mr. Martin Kimber had referred in evidence to Mr. Stone being a "bully" and that word, as I understand it, was specifically used.

This was a shocking allegation as Mr Stone had had a five year and strong working relationship with Mr Kimber built on trust and no issue had ever been raised. Having reviewed the testimony of Mr Kimber to the committee in light of this astonishing accusation, it is clear that he neither uses the word “bully” nor makes any negative comment regarding Mr Stone. Reference to other people exerting influence was made but this was not Mr Stone nor can it be assumed to be from the comments.

This has had a damaging effect as it set up a false premise for the whole meeting. It made Mr Stone appear to be as Mr Danczuk alleged in a “parallel universe” where those closest to him could make these allegations without him being aware. I emphasise that this is not the case.

What we do know is that these matters are of course, very serious and have a national impact which places upon those playing a part in the hearing an onerous burden to ensure fair play and that the greatest care be taken to ensure that any "cross examination" be conducted on the basis of truth

and fairness. Everyone connected with these proceedings knows how this attitude must, in the interests of justice, not only be done but be seen to be done.

Most regrettably this does not appear to be the case here. There was no Judge to supervise the hearing but there was a Chairman whose duty was to ensure that anomalies do not occur. It is a heavy and some would say unenviable duty because of the very real damage that can be inflicted on a person concerned who stands alone without representation. As we know of certain elements of the press, a subject stands to be vilified from the resultant publication of such information particularly if it is incorrect.

It is my respectful view that two problems emanate from this cross examination. The first is the damage that has already been sustained by the now commonly held public belief that Mr. Stone was indeed a bully something of course which he has firmly denied and no tangible evidence has been called and been tested as to its veracity. Secondly the impact that this will have upon the committee and its recommendations/findings. I would not accept it is a small matter of little consequence or that there has been acceptable non hearsay evidence to support.

I would like to know how this can be resolved but so far as the committee's decision is concerned, the very least I would expect with respect, is that it should be taken very firmly into account and should not influence their findings against him.

All in all this is, in my view,  a most unsatisfactory state of affairs which fuels the fire of unfairness and discontent and leads to considering what the real purpose of this was.

I hope you will consider these points in the spirit in which they are made.

March 2015