[Brighton] Two Brighton & Hove Labour Cllrs Expelled!

[Eeyore]

Still, I would be okay with a council by- election here in Queen's Park.I love a good election me.

 

[A mex eyecan]

I love the way Ivan comes in, all guns blazing, with complete lack of awareness, shoots himself in both feet, shoots the OP in both feet who is, ironically, trying to find issues with the same opposition. With complete incompetence and idiocy on that level, I suspect he believes he will make the cabinet

sounds like the berk is ideally suited for a position

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

This is the ‘minor child’, Bognor Seagull, apparently that Steve Foster/Ivan uses because his ‘child’ needs ‘oversight’ and ‘protection‘ when posting on NSC (presumably because NSC is ‘infiltrated with left-wing militants’

I had never heard of This IS Me but a quick search shows him to be a ’username’ whose posts consisted largely of anti- left rants and predicting Brighton would lose matches - real peachy.








FYI - That code is applicable only to Councillors going about their business as councillors. If the behaviour you are upset about stems from them in their personal capacity, there is no redress. You could live next door to a Councillor who is racist, xenophobic bully but unless his behaviour was offensive in the course of carrying out work in his capacity as a Councillor you will have no redress to the Council.

You could at least congratulate him on becoming a Grandad!

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

This section you have quoted is, I believe, in the paragraph about meetings declaration of interests.

"The requirements outlined in this Code regarding the Declaration of Interests at Meetings apply to formal meetings of the Council, its Committees and Sub-Committees and its joint Committees and Sub-Committees. Members are however encouraged to voluntarily declare at all meetings, both formal and informal, any facts which they consider may be relevant to the perception of their decision-making, this although they are not required to do so. The Code does not apply when Members are acting or appearing in the perception of a reasonable person to be acting in a purely private capacity."

Does this sentence therefore only apply to declarations of interest when appearing in a meeting in a private role? My take is that it does.

I think that's a formatting issue more than anything else, in that the text refering to meetings up to that point makes complete sense and the sentence referring to the "The Code" doesn't seem to relate to it particularly but does make complete sense as a stand alone sentence.

The "Application of the Code of Conduct" section states:
"This Code of Conduct applies to you when you are acting in your capacity as a Councillor. It may include when:

• you misuse your position as a Councillor, or
• your actions may or could give the impression to a reasonable member of the public with knowledge of all the facts that you are acting as a Councillor, or are such as to create the risk that such an impression could be generated."

In stating that the code applies when you could give the impression to a reasonable member of the public that you're acting as a Councillor, I would reasonably infer that it doesn't apply when you're not giving that impression.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I think that's a formatting issue more than anything else, in that the text refering to meetings up to that point makes complete sense and the sentence referring to the "The Code" doesn't seem to relate to it particularly but does make complete sense as a stand alone sentence.

The "Application of the Code of Conduct" section states:
"This Code of Conduct applies to you when you are acting in your capacity as a Councillor. It may include when:

• you misuse your position as a Councillor, or
• your actions may or could give the impression to a reasonable member of the public with knowledge of all the facts that you are acting as a Councillor, or are such as to create the risk that such an impression could be generated."

In stating that the code applies when you could give the impression to a reasonable member of the public that you're acting as a Councillor, I would reasonably infer that it doesn't apply when you're not giving that impression.

I had to edit this post about three times after posting because it was so littered with typos or sentences that didn't make sense, so apologies to anybody who saw the original version.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I think that's a formatting issue more than anything else, in that the text refering to meetings up to that point makes complete sense and the sentence referring to the "The Code" doesn't seem to relate to it particularly but does make complete sense as a stand alone sentence.

The "Application of the Code of Conduct" section states:
"This Code of Conduct applies to you when you are acting in your capacity as a Councillor. It may include when:

• you misuse your position as a Councillor, or
• your actions may or could give the impression to a reasonable member of the public with knowledge of all the facts that you are acting as a Councillor, or are such as to create the risk that such an impression could be generated."

In stating that the code applies when you could give the impression to a reasonable member of the public that you're acting as a Councillor, I would reasonably infer that it doesn't apply when you're not giving that impression.

As pointed out in earleir posts, there are areas it explicitely states the opposite. It's not super clear. And as posted, there have been cases where councillors have been held to account for acts in their private life. I guess @Steve Foster does not help himself though, given he throws the 'as a councillor' line around freely and frequently.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I had to edit this post about three times after posting because it was so littered with typos or sentences that didn't make sense, so apologies to anybody who saw the original version.

Maybe you could get a job writing legal documents for the council?

 

[Chicken Run]

Not that I'm aware of. Although racist remarks, whenever made, do question his suitabilty for the Equalities Committee.

Whilst I totally agree he hasn’t then broken any rules although if I was in his situation clearly massaging my ego in this role I’d get off social media altogether, and whilst he represents some of the more wealthier people I’m certain blagging all over the internet that your off to Greece isn’t particularly a good look!

Why people can’t conduct themselves following practices of understated excellence is beyond me, we seem to live in a society where people from all walks of life seem to take please in telling the world what they’re upto and look at me , quite literally ffs

 

[Audax]

Yes, it was her own Facebook account. See post below from the local Tory pary. This incident shows that the 'code of conduct' does cover private life as well as when acting in the role as a councillor.

View attachment 170460

It's entirely possible the Code was incorrectly applied in this instance. Also potentially possible that the way she was using her "own Facebook page" brought it within scope (ie, that a "reasonable" person viewing her Facebook might interpret it as being made in her capacity as a Cllr).

This is one of the reasons why I mostly don't comment about my work (I have very rarely in very specific circumstances, and used to do so in the past until it became clear how risky it can be), or matters closely related to my work, on my personal social media accounts. It's partly because keeping that separation is so important - in the event that something goes seriously wrong where I work, I do not want any investigating authorities to be in a position to have a right to search my personal devices / social accounts. So I have a separate work devices (phone, laptop), and do not do anything work related on personal devices / accounts.

 

[Chicken Run]

Still, I would be okay with a council by- election here in Queen's Park.I love a good election me.

I think you’ll get one…. along with Kemptown & South Portslade, thankfully the Labour council have a large enough majority to protect them from at least two extra Green Cllrs

 

[Zeberdi]

Surely, the reality is that any councillor would be ousted if their behaviour in their personal life was truly inappropriate.

Like this UKIP bloome in Redditch https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/28/ukip-councillor-sacked-newly-elected

Or this Haverfordwest Tory https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2023...raws-from-party-after-alleged-racist-comments


Or this Worthing "White Genocide" whackjob https://www.theguardian.com/politic...g-suspended-over-alleged-support-of-far-right

All of these were social media cases where, except in the case of one Councillor posting under a fake/alternative name which was later attributed to them as a councillor ) were posts made where it was clear the person’s role of Councillor was linked to the account.

i don’t have the full facts obviously nor do any of us but I can assure you that the Code of Conduct only applies to elected Councillors and only is related to any work/social media posts relating to their position as a councillor. it also covers any media posts that lead to the public believing they are related to how the work of that councillor is carried out even if they are in fact not made during the course of carrying out such work.

Councilor are also not inoculated against the laws of discrimination or abuse which would give grounds for the Party to expel them ( which is what happened in SF‘s case - Councillors are subject to disqualification criteria BY LAW so will lose their seat criteria cease to be fulfilled

LGA releases briefing on changes to disqualification criteria for councillors

www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Yes, it was her own Facebook account. See post below from the local Tory pary. This incident shows that the 'code of conduct' does cover private life as well as when acting in the role as a councillor.

View attachment 170460

It doesn’t- Her ‘own Facebook page’ means either as a Councillor or a private page - which is it?

- the local Council also has a Facebook page - if her ‘own’ account (as distinct from the Council FB account for example) account was ‘Councillor Rosemary etc’ then it clearly falls with the purview of the CoC.

You still haven’t provided a link to the Facebook account nor answered my or question whether her account was in the name of Councillor Rosemary.

Steve Foster was not in breach of the CoC when he posted racist jokes on his FB account - the CoC was not yet applicable because he was not yet elected to the Council.

EDIT I work with half a dozen Councillors - I will get their comments added to this thread on what the Legislation applies to but clearly there are people not reading the links I have posted that clearly state the CoC does not apply to what Councillors do in their private lives - they are not immune from the same laws of discrimination or working with vulnerable people as anyone else and that is enough to get them removed from a political party if the party membership deems it appropriate (which is what happened in ‘Steve Foster’/Ivan Lyon’s case - nothing to do with applying the Code of Conduct

 

[Silverhatch]

I have a horrible feeling, labour might have some deeper issues that might be brought to the fore by the media just prior to any election and they may implode.
Anyways both parties are pretty shite to be honest.

I’d take a pretty shite Labour over this utterly reprehensible shower of lunatic Tory bastards currently (desperately) clinging onto power.

 

[chickens]

I wonder if (given that he has identified himself as a Councillor here, and having started at least one post with “As a councillor…” ) this councillor brings his use of NSC into the domain of being subject to political scrutiny?

I wonder if maintaining several different accounts on the same platform and trying to pass them off as different people is seen as behaviour becoming of an elected official?

I would argue that there appears to be a deliberate attempt to deceive and make certain viewpoints/posts seem more popular than they actually are.

This individual’s actions don’t sit well with me, but the councillor in question thankfully isn’t representing me. I do feel that the people of Britain deserve better.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Do we know if the Cllr posted these racist jokes whilst serving as a Cllr @Herr Tubthumper

These jokes were posted before he became a councillor and the local conservative party thought they were bad enough that he had to stand down as a prospective councillor as a result. I'm guessing that the local party then thought, a couple of years later, that it would be long forgotten and let him stand again.

And they would probably have been correct had the silly twat not spent the interim period making a complete arse of himself on here

 

[Zeberdi]

t's entirely possible the Code was incorrectly applied in this instance. Also potentially possible that the way she was using her "own Facebook page" brought it within scope (ie, that a "reasonable" person viewing her Facebook might interpret it as being made in her capacity as a Cllr).

Unfortunately unless @Herr Tubthumper provides us with a link to the FB account in question , to show that the account was a private account that did not name her as ‘Councilor‘ in the account name, or that led people to believe the comments made by her were related to her work as a councilor, it is covered by the CoC.

I

This section you have quoted is, I believe, in the paragraph about meetings declaration of interests.

"The requirements outlined in this Code regarding the Declaration of Interests at Meetings apply to formal meetings of the Council, its Committees and Sub-Committees and its joint Committees and Sub-Committees. Members are however encouraged to voluntarily declare at all meetings, both formal and informal, any facts which they consider may be relevant to the perception of their decision-making, this although they are not required to do so. The Code does not apply when Members are acting or appearing in the perception of a reasonable person to be acting in a purely private capacity."

Does this sentence therefore only apply to declarations of interest when appearing in a meeting in a private role? My take is that it does.

It applies to all occasions where the activity under question has been carried out as a Councilor or led people to believe they were carried as a Councilor.

I don’t know why you find the legislation so difficult to understand - perhaps because you keep taking paragraphs out of context or just maybe you can’t accept you are wrong on this.

 

[Bodian]

If anyone fancies reading a load of legalese https://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uplo...ation-Panel-for-England-Admin-19-Oct-2006.pdf This is the High Court judgment re Ken Livingstone. Basically - Code of Conduct only applies when the person is 'performing their functions'. Livingston here made offensive comments on his way out of a building in which he had been attending a meeting as Mayor. High Court found that on the way out, he was no longer performing his function as Mayor and was acting in his 'private capacity', or 'off-duty'.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

As pointed out in earleir posts, there are areas it explicitely states the opposite. It's not super clear. And as posted, there have been cases where councillors have been held to account for acts in their private life. I guess @Steve Foster does not help himself though, given he throws the 'as a councillor' line around freely and frequently.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the Code is contradictory on this.
The section I've seen you quote previously saying "on all occasions" is in the section about Councillor conduct, in other words it means on all occasions while in the role of Councillor.
The following section that I quoted is about when the code is applicable, so in affect when somebody can be said to be acting in the role of Councillor.
I might add, that if I was clearer on what exactly you're proposing to complain about, I may well agree with you that it applies.

 

[Zeberdi]

Erm...are you actually trying to deny this story?

Hove Tory candidate quits over ‘Islamophobic’ jokes

A Conservative candidate standing in May's city council elections has resigned from the party after a series of offensive jokes

www.brightonandhovenews.org

It includes the following quote:

"Brighton and Hove Conservatives agree that many of the jokes are of an offensive nature"

He is in part but not in others.

He is apparently telling the truth that he has not posted any racist jokes since becoming Councillor so the Code of Conduct that is being discussed will not have been breached on those grounds.

However, it is ludicrous to suggest that no one is offended by the offensive jokes and racist comments he made before becoming a Councilor

 

[Goldstone1976]

Unfortunately unless @Herr Tubthumper provides us with a link to the FB account in question , to show that the account was a private account that did not name her as ‘Councilor‘ in the account name, or that led people to believe the comments made by her were related to her work as a councilor, it is covered by the CoC.

I

It applies to all occasions where the activity under question has been carried out as a Councilor or led people to believe they were carried as a Councilor.

I don’t know why you find the legislation so difficult to understand - perhaps because you keep taking paragraphs out of context or just maybe you can’t accept you are wrong on this.

There is, I would respectfully suggest, another interpretation of @Herr Tubthumper ’s posts on this matter.

But in order for you to see it, you may need to take a step back and reflect.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I might add, that if I was clearer on what exactly you're proposing to complain about, I may well agree with you that it applies.

I'm not proposing to complain about anything. The question was raised regarding holding councillors to account; nothing neccesarily to do with @Steve Foster directly. I posted some general information, and then the discussion got bogged down in whether it applies to public and private life. This is all.