Brian Parker, of Cross-parks, Dartmouth, writes: Dave Cawley departs Dartmouth Council in much the same manner as over the years, with controversy and sloppy thinking. He claims that the posters on display for a short period on election day 'ruined his chances of winning back his seat on the council'. This is a very dubious claim. The posters urged those who loved the tourist information centre not to vote for him. But why should Mr Cawley regard this to be solely to his disadvantage? Does he consider the electorate to be a flock of unthinking sheep to be persuaded how to vote by a scruffy poster with some mysterious reference to the TIC? This would be insulting indeed. Voters would have long made up their minds about Cllr Cawley; there has been opportunity enough with many reports in this paper featuring him over the years. While it could be suggested that one or two last-minute undecided voters might have been tipped against him by the poster, the converse is also true. Mr Cawley's concerns about the TIC, the details of which were not generally known until revealed in the Chronicle, could well have been shared by others and they could arguably have been reminded by the posters that, notwithstanding the tone of the message, Mr Cawley was the man to vote for. Common sense suggests that the posters would likely have had no overall effect at all. Furthermore, Mr Cawley's request that the ballot box votes for 7am-9am be compared with later boxes is foolish nonsense. It would serve no useful purpose; the poor statistics of low numbers would confound the result and, what's more, the make-up of early voters is not the same as those who come later and could be responsible for underlying differences. Mr Cawley is once again chasing will-o'-the-wisps and clutching at straws. Perhaps he would find better reason for his rejection in his being referred to around town as Dave 'Do you know who I am?' Cawley, or Dave 'You'll be hearing from my solicitor' Cawley. A sampling of opinion suggests that many think he achieved more votes than he deserved. In the unlikely event of the election being re-run, it would be in the absence of illegal posters, but taking note of the discussion surrounding Mr Cawley's ­complaint that his chances were ruined, so we could have a full and fair decision about his rightful position in the results – last of the 12?