The Trouble-maker's Cache of emails

What exactly is the email issue?

160/200 emails sent to the Errant Councillor (the EC) by the then-Chairman over a 3 year period from 2018.
They were stored away by EC; but for what purpose?
Some were deemed, 3 years after they were sent, “unacceptable” (quote the EC).
During this period, there was no request from him to desist. No reproach/rebuttal to the then-chairman, the other members of SPC or clerk. He didn’t express objection to the emails, else they would have stopped at that point.
What did he do? He simply continued the conversation.
Indeed Mr Bond, the EC, must have been a willing and contributing correspondent in these exchanges.
The disclosure is one side of what was in fact a dialogue over nearly three years. The EC was either unable or unwilling - despite several formal requests - to supply emails setting the context.
All were sent to the EC, either as an individual or as a member of a carbon copy list of SPC. The number copied to SPC is less than 5% of the total. The carbon copy included the clerk on even fewer occasions. Until Bond decided to make an issue of the emails SPC had not seen the vast majority of them; and the clerk even fewer.
None was sent to the public by the then-Chairman … yet some were deliberately distributed by Bond thereby exposing email addresses. Surely this exposure breaches the data protection reulations.

Data Protection applies to email addresses and home addresses.

According to the Information Commissioner's Office:

"Email addresses of Council members may be subject to GDPR. Data protection law applies to personal data, which is any information that identifies someone personally and provides information such as their name, where they work, or their home address. For example, the work email address ‘johnsmith@workplace.com’ would constitute personal data because it includes John Smith’s name. This means that it would be subject to UK GDPR." Anyone involved in publication/distribution of defamatory comments may also be held liable under GDPR. So , if you receive an email that might be defamatory be careful what you do with it!

So the Errant Councillor and his accomplices are in breach of the law.

Are these emails evidence of criminal activity, in particular hate crime?

The EC has misled people as to the content and number of the "unacceptable" emails. Their meaning and significance has been exaggerated. Exaggeration is a characteristic of his approach to making a point; this has been apparent throughout his continuing campaign against SPC.
His claim that they evidence some sort of extreme right-wing undercurrent in SPC is manifestly untrue; there is no supporting evidence.

His accusaton that there is some sort of on-going campaign of hate crime is equally false.
Hate crime is defined as when someone commits a crime against a person because of their disability, gender, identity, race, sexual orientation, religion, or any other perceived difference. It requires a victim – there are none here. The hate crime description is unfounded. Warwickshire police came to the same conclusion after considering the so-called evidence.

Just for the record: any mention by the EC of obvious racism - homophobia - sexism - anti semitism - and hate incidents - crimes against over 70 local villagers is to deliberately mislead by exaggeration.
This has been his modus operandi throughout. The fact is that no one likely to be offended by the emails was in the address list. They were shown to them by EC so it is he that should be questioned over hate crime and breaching GDPR.

There is a clear distinction between an honestly held but unpopular opinion or a one-off throw-away remark and outright hatred.

So, what do the emails represent?

The emails some of which were made public on August 2nd 2021 are, in the main, exaggerated expressions by the then-Chairman of disappointment or exasperation – either with the way people behave or how fairness seems to be abused. This includes both local matters and wider issues. These range from the then-Chairman's reaction to a description of the fate of PC Blakelock during the Broadwater Farm riots in the UK (as related by the EC), through to expropriation of land on the West Bank.
As for "abuse of residents", the emails were expressions of disappointment at people's behaviour at that time. And that is where it ends - a reaction expressed as a one-off "rant" or heat of the moment remark.

These opinions and questions are private – expressed only to friends. This included Mr Bond which is how he came to be in receipt of these. There is no hate crime. SPC would not offend or disrespect anyone in communication with them. The Parish Council at that time had no complaints – directly or indirectly – about official communications over a lengthy period of service; not one. During this time there were exchanges with residents, councillors, MPs and numerous representatives of public bodies and local authorities. In private emails one may pose questions and make observations which may offend some – and for this reason the communication is not made with them. This is not hypocrisy it is politeness, respect and above all appropriate inter-personal behaviour.