Sir Ray Tindle, owner of the Dartmouth Chronicle, has always insisted that his reporters give a fair and unbiased view of any meetings they attend.

He also insisted that the editors ensured that any copy offered by so-called ‘experts’ in any particular field was checked for accuracy before being printed. I know this because I spent 10 years as both a reporter of the Chronicle for four years and then editor of the South Hams Newspapers group.

Imagine my utter shock at reading last week’s edition when the page one lead story gave the most biased and one-sided report about the devolution of assets from South Hams District Council to the town council, reporting verbatim three of the four minority councillors who are against the council taking back the assets it lost more than 40 years ago and only quoting two of the majority councillors, the mayor and myself – who said a great deal more than the reporter quoted.

The reporter, once more, insists on quoting the 64 per cent rise in the precept, which sounds a massive amount, and not explaining that this is around 70p – yes 70p! Are there really any residents in the town that would mind paying that ridiculously small amount to have the town back looking pristine again?

Then, to add insult to injury, on page 22 you print the views of one of the town council’s biggest critics.

Personally, I do not mind constructive criticism, but the offering from Paul Reach was simply a rant, his opinion, and not one true fact in sight and no opposition view to balance the article.

Take his view on Cllr Tony Fyson’s comment that it is South Hams Council that is wrong to continue charging for work that the town council will be performing.

How is that wrong? If they are not doing the work, and they won’t be, then they shouldn’t charge for it. The town council will be doing the work, so they have every right to charge for it. As the meerkat say: ‘Simples’.

Then we have the ‘secret’ working party. There is no secret working party. The council voted to set up a working party to negotiate the terms of the devolution with South Hams Council and it reported regularly to members of the council that took the trouble to attend the meetings. The finance committee has had so much information, which has been regularly repeated on the request of the four minority members, that I have heard the facts so many times I can recite them if requested!

Then, to reprint the letter from Phil Roe, another misinformed and ignorant of the true facts rant, as part of Mr Reach’s ‘Opinion’ piece, was outrageous and unethical.

Furthermore, the TIC – now named Dartmouth Visitor Centre – is not in the hands of the town council. It is run by an autonomous board of directors, of which I am one, and we have not given away its most valuable assets, the website and the Discover Dartmouth brochure. These are now produced by companies expert in their particular fields and bring a good income to the visitor centre, which has as much input as it wishes to them both.

I wish Mr Reach would explain how that is us being focussed on what is good for the TIC and not Dartmouth? Surely, anything that is good for the visitor centre is good for Dartmouth. Isn’t that what a good visitor centre aims for?

I will leave the Mayflower 400 group to make its own defence on the ill-informed comments made by Mr Reach, who at least does have the courtesy to at last say that it is his view and not fact.

So many of Mr Reach’s ‘views’ are total rubbish – and from someone who has joined the council twice and then left mid-term and then had the cheek to apply again for a third term. It is interesting that he doesn’t stand in an election. Doesn’t he think he has the support in town?

At the very least, I hope that the editor gives an equal amount of space for the town council to explain why the majority of members think that taking back the town’s assets is a very good thing for the town.

And, hopefully, the new reporter on the Chronicle, and the sub-editor that slapped his copy on the page without asking the many questions just begging to be asked, have a bit more training.

And that also goes for whoever allowed Mr Reach’s totally partisan and unjust copy to be published too.

Cllr Gina Coles

Church Street

Dartmouth