Sir Lee Pearson suspended.

[TizerorFizz]

He’s got 24 gold medals. Not retired but not selected. What’s going on?

Telegraph says Misconduct claims
going back to March 2023
he is a Sir, knighted

@TizerorFizz I really don’t want to be a pedant and don’t want to detract from the thread (which is great 🍿) but it’s Paralympics not Para Olympics.
I know it means a lot to some Paralympic athletes to have it referred to correctly.

This has gotten very weird in here, hasn't it?

I would have assumed horse welfare - just based on the recent history of the sport - but seems not.

he is a foster carer,
probably related to that, either unfairly or not

The Guardian is reporting that Pearson has not competed since March 2023 and was ineligible for the Paris Paralympics.

ParalympicsGB said that Lee publicly stated he did not seek to qualify for Paris 2024 for personal reasons.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/aug/30/sir-lee-pearson-suspended-by-british-equestrian-amid-investigation-into-conduct-paralympics

Curious indeed.

I can’t even begin to explain what hot water you’ve caused for yourself making these comments publically online. The equestrian women on this post are seriously unintelligent. The lawsuits will be flying out the door. Best you all start selling your rugs to pay your legal bills.
Wow that bit on unintelligent equestrian women is rude RiderDiva
Your style of writing resembles a teen, who hasn't quite got to grips with the subtleties of discussing and arguing, maybe back to studying would help you write a more discerning argument. Going on a low brow attack never bodes well for winning.
As an aside I always thought a dude was a cool surfer type, I had no idea it was synonymous with a Dandy....every day is a school day on mumsnet.

@Riderdiva - And when you do find out he’s innocent I bet your apology online will be nowhere to be seen!!! If this is how you treat a human being that you don’t even know, for fun & entertainment then I would hate to see your horse welfare standards. Shame on you.

What are you talking about? I have not said one negative thing about Pearson on this thread.

I'm just curious about what's happened - and I think we have the right to be. He's a public persona receiving Lottery money and public money to compete at dressage.

It might be best if you stepped away from this thread.

15 minutes googling based on small items info on this thread soon reveals a planning dispute (see High Peak planning minutes and newspaper report of a ruckus at a planning meeting) and other grievances on the FB page of a lady who apparently used to be close to Lee but isn't now. It seems they fell out over the lease of a horse, went to court, she lost the case, so turned against him, trying to kibosh the expansion of his equestrian premises, and then making allegations over his conductor towards his teenaged foster son and possibly one other. You can find her name on the planning documents and after that its an easy trip to her and a friend's FB pages, and their several very pointed remarks. She has just posted a statement saying it isn't her, even though anyone reading about her actions and FB comments from last year would certainly form that conclusion, and if its someone else then quite a coincidence they should also fall out with Lee Pearson at the exact same time. But very odd this has dragged on for 18 months. And all of what I have posted above is a matter of public record - so let's see if moderators delete this.

More info here: www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/aug/30/sir-lee-pearson-suspended-by-british-equestrian-amid-investigation-into-conduct-paralympics

You win the prize for internet research!

If that is the issue, I'm also amazed that it's dragged on for so long.

Thanks, but its hardly research. I am always amazed by the curiosity of people who engage actively in a conversation but never seem to read around the subject elsewhere. Anyone could have found this, including the newspapers who have merely copied each other's stuff and just assumed it had to be connected to equine abuse.

The planning application was passed in April 2023, and Pearson’s last completion was the previous month.

I think there was questions / objections over the property being up for sale at the time and the planning permission being more to do with enhancing the value than anything else?

www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/paralympian-lees-planning-bid-leaves-8352914?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

Yes, but the point is that the sole objector is the same person in dispute over the horse sale and who has posted other rather pointed remarks on her FB page. The actual planning issues secondary to why a previous close associate should turn against him

I don’t think she was the sole objector, but yes it seems to have evolved from a row about her leasing a horse from him and him pursuing her for the money.

She was listed as the sole objector on the planning documents. Other people might also have disapprove but if so they did not lodge an objection with the planning authority in time

The planning portal shows a joint objection from several neighbours, although not an objection from the person in question. The neighbours didn’t attend the planning committee meeting to speak though, whereas the woman involved in the horse dispute did attend.

ETA: and it was the Parish Council that objected on the basis that the application was to increase the sale value of the property.

I'm not sure why I would go to a planning portal to research what this is about, seems a little extreme unless I already had read it somewhere, like a local rag. But it's interesting that two separate posters can read that portal with such differing views. Were there two planning documents?

She was listed as the sole objector on the planning documents.
The planning portal shows a joint objection from several neighbours,

well, if you do a bit of googling like "Lee Pearson" and "disputes" it soon takes you to ample local press coverage of the planning meeting. Those are the minutes I saw. Sabrina may well be correct in stating other people lodged objections, I did not see the original portal, I saw the minutes of the meeting where it was finally decided. Either way it directs to the lady who spoke against the application at the planning meeting and its then very easy to track her FB comments on this and other related matters

Yes, local newspapers had covered the planning application, including the details on objections to traffic movement and removing the original restrictions just to increase the property value.

Which is why I took a look at the planning portal.

The planning portal shows the planning documents, including applications, supporting documents, consultations and letters of objection or support.

The planning committee minutes show that one objector attended the meeting to determine the decision and Pearson and two supporters also attended.

Google brings up the planning committee minutes, you just need to put the application ref into the planning portal to see the other information.

Link to planning portal if anyone wants to take a look:

publicaccess.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=166844

That's really interesting re the initial planning objections which are mostly in February 2023. None of them from the woman who spoke at the planning meeting.
This what she posted after that planning meeting in April 2023. It is still in place. I have redacted one name

*

There is an article circulating which includes my name & I was not going to give this any attention but as I’ve been contacted numerous times, I will now address it.
I attended a planning meeting and despite me having information available which would of made a whole different newspaper article I decided to be a grown up and restrict the information to all things planning. However the individual involved decided to not be a grown up and firstly on a live-streamed event disclosed my home address which is an offence in its own right! He then proceeded with a deluge of accusations and defamatory comments which were factually incorrect. He then decided obviously because he thinks he is beyond the law to place judgment on a court case that hasnt even yet gone to court. The comment stating that I was craving his attention is also a reflection of the high opinion he had for himself because trust me attention from this individual is so far off my radar that even GCHQ would struggle to find it. This individual has conditions that he cannot approach me so then allowed his friends and family to ambush me outside the planning meeting stopping me returning to my car at which point XXXX XXX had to intervene. I was then persued to my car by family members issuing threats (all of which were captured on the dash cam in the front of my vehicle and will be passed to the relevant authorities)
Over the past 6 months I have been called names been accused of carrying out crimes and trying to destroy someone’s life but anyone that knows what I’ve had to face and am still facing will understand what this post means and all I can say to the comments saying that common sense has prevailed is common sense is the last thing you should be concerned about.
Over the past 6 months everything that has gone wrong with this individual’s life has been directed at me, I’m the problem behind everything and not his failure to be a decent human being. Being accused of stuff I can live with because I know that I’ve not committed any crime but when it comes to personal threats that’s not acceptable. You keep saying I’m nothing, if that’s right then fight me on your own with the truth and stop telling lies. If the person I think it is wishes to screenshot this post and send it to the individual involved then go ahead but also a note to the individual, please don’t contact random people that comment on my posts to tell them about my behaviour towards yourself because I do find out and you just make yourself look very silly. This article has been set to public due to the seriousness of the accusations that were made by the individual.

That is quite a statement!

Thanks - I’m not on FB so struggle to find these things.

any chance of a summary as it won't let me read without registering - ignore that, found it

he thinks he is beyond the law

He might well be if it's the same law that someone thinks will deal with seriously unintelligent equestrian women 😅

I would not bother to read NYTimes, it was the first article on the subject with minimal info