On Saturday 25 October, Dorset Natural Heritage Initiative (DNHI) volunteers set up a small information table in Beaminster town square. It was a simple and friendly community event. Our aim was to talk to residents about the proposed development at Parnham House, where a private housing estate of 83 homes is planned for the deer park and the meadows beside the River Brit.
We were in the square with the full permission of Beaminster Town Council. When we sought permission for the stall in the square, we held a pleasant and friendly conversation with council staff and asked whether they needed any further information about us. None was requested or sought.
So from 10am until about 12:30pm, half a dozen volunteers talked with passers-by, handed out information and answered questions. The reaction from everyone we spoke to was warm and positive. More than a hundred people signed up to stay informed as the planning application moves forward. Not a single person raised a concern about our presence.
Which is why what happened next came as such a shock.
On 28 October, a post appeared on the Beaminster Town Council Facebook page. It claimed that, while DNHI had been given permission to hold a promotional event, we had not disclosed the nature of it. It then added a statement about the Council not tolerating hate or the promotion of hate towards any individual, business or organisation, and that the Council could not be held responsible for the accuracy of information promoted by groups using the town’s facilities.
To say our volunteers were stunned is an understatement. Nothing about our presence or behaviour that day could possibly be described as hateful. The suggestion that we might have been promoting hate was not only upsetting, it was untrue and potentially damaging. At no point did anyone from the Council speak with any member of our group to raise concerns. No one contacted us before publishing the post. No one even asked what had taken place.
The situation became even more troubling when we realised this type of post had never appeared on the Council’s page before. It was also publicly “liked” by Councillor Daniel Biggs, giving it the clear appearance of approval. Shortly afterwards, an administrator of the Council’s Facebook page reposted the same message across several local Facebook groups, including the largest one in the area, Beaminster Banter & Ranter. That repost was “liked” by both the Chairman of the Town Council, Richard Gunning, and again by Councillor Biggs.
The following day, on 29 October, a DNHI volunteer wrote to the Town Clerk, copying in the Chairman. The letter expressed our serious concerns about the implication that we had been promoting hate and requested a meeting, a public retraction and an explanation of how the post had been written and authorised. None of these requests were granted. The post was not removed. No meeting was offered.
It was not until 6 November that a reply arrived, in the form of a letter dated 3 November from the Town Clerk.
This letter did not offer a meeting or a clear explanation. Instead, it suggested that DNHI had chosen to infer that the post referred to our conduct, even though the wording plainly invited that interpretation. The letter did acknowledge that the post could have been “better constructed”, and apologised for that, but the post itself remained in place. It was not corrected or removed.
DNHI responded with a further letter, delivered by hand to Council staff, on 11 November. We explained that the wording of the post would naturally lead any ordinary reader to think that our event might have breached the Council’s guidelines or involved behaviour that could be described as hateful. We made clear that if the Council had intended only to remind the public of its general guidelines, it could easily have stated that our group had behaved entirely properly. The fact that this clarification was not included left the strong impression that something about our event was of concern.
We suggested a very simple way forward. Remove the posts from all pages. Confirm publicly that DNHI had behaved appropriately. Issue an apology so that any misunderstanding could be put to rest.
More than two weeks have passed since that letter. We have received no reply. The original post is still live on the Council’s Facebook page and the reposts remain on multiple community groups. The post is still liked by the Chairman and at least one Councillor, which suggests the Council continues to stand by a message it has already admitted was poorly constructed.
We take no pleasure in raising this publicly, but fairness matters. We acted transparently, with permission and in good faith. A damaging and inaccurate message was then published about us without warning, shared widely and left uncorrected.
All we ask is for the Council to put things right. Beaminster deserves a Council that communicates clearly, behaves impartially and treats local volunteers with respect. Our hope is that by bringing this into the open, we can finally move toward a fair and simple resolution.