Members of the Public Expressing Opinions - Protest or abuse

“... the Tory county council has been fanatical about cuts, privatisation & outsourcing for some years”

This is Tony Banks. As a member of the public he registered to speak at the Budget setting Council meeting on Thursday 21st February. He had to do this two days in advance and attend the Council meeting until he was called. You can see the meeting here.  Tony can been seen making his statement here. 

At 10.50 of the first film, the Council chairman specifically states that that he wants "people to be able to make their points freely without any disruption from anyone else". But in spite of the Chairman’s request, Tony was interrupted by the Tory Leader of the Council, Cllr Matt Golby, who objected to him using the words "Zealot" and "Fantasist".  

After the meeting, Tony said “I used the word zealots for the reason that the Tory county council has been fanatical about cuts, privatisation & outsourcing for some years. Zealots are fanatical & the Tories were fanatical .They would not listen, to opponents or unions. When Osborne/Cameron announced Austerity, not only did they jump but they asked -how high can we jump? They tore up national union agreements despite warnings that a staff retention crisis would occur as a result.”

Since I started a Twitter poll on the merits or otherwise of Cllr Golby's actions, a number of Conservative Councillors have cited Tony's actions as "disruptive" and "abuse".

Here are some of the responses from other members of the public:

"Like it or not.. whatever words he uses.. he’s right on the nail.. and that’s why they’re angry.."

                                                                                                                      @RikPerry5311

"lt beats me why the sudden sensitivity. The word zealot as verbal abuse when local Tories support policies, cuts and Universal Credit while people are literally starving, homeless and being driven to suicide? If that isn't the fanaticism of zealots I don't know what is. "

                                                                                                                    @Kazimierz66

As I understand the comments were not aimed at individuals. If he had said "this government" instead of "Tory" it would have meant exactly the same, but you absolutely could not be accusing him of abuse.  Check yourselves on the words you use against those that disagree with you.

                                                                                                                   @Impossible_elf

If I were to respond to your unpleasant and unfounded accusations, de facto attack lines for austerity apologists, I would no doubt be accused of abusive and bullying behaviour - a fall-back argument also used ad nauseam

                                                                                                                  @rustywheels

Other members of public have reminded me of the recent standards spat between now ex-councillor Heather Smith, Councillors Robin Brown and Jason Smithers. Cllr Smithers used such choice phrases as 

“This sucks Cllr Robin Brown you have been asleep at the controls. Your (sic) about as much use as a condom with a hole in it. #failedleadership” 

and 

“@LeaderNCC cllr Smith why don’t you just throw in the towel just go before you cause anymore damage to the reputation of the council. You and some members of your cabinet have failed. I hope that the SFO is brought in to investigate your conduct. #failedleadership”. 

The report that the Council considered on this can be viewed here.

Cllr Jason Smithers repeatedly "denied that the comments made were offensive" as can be seen in the standards report here.

As a result of the spat, all County Councillors have been required to attend refresher training on the "Code of Conduct" for councillors. At the training it was emphasised that the conduct of councillors "are expected to maintain higher level of conduct and responsibility than private citizens". 

However, it seems that the bar for members of the public is set at a much higher level than that some Tory Councillors set for themselves. 

You maybe asking yourself why do I think this is important? Well, there have been several measures that have been taken that have had the effect of discouraging the public from commenting on business. These have included the cessation (now reinstated) of the live streaming of Council meeting and the placing of members of the public outside of the Council chamber to view the live stream. 

The participation of the public in Council meetings adds a fresh perspective to decision making and statements like Tony's are the embodiment of practicing Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, 

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

I have written before on the poor record of Northamptonshire County Council in promoting involvement in the budget consultation, only setting one meeting open to the public on the budget as an afterthought when Labour Councillors drew this to the administration's attention.

If you are on twitter and would like to vote in my Twitter poll you can find it here

Human Rights - Time to Act

The Conservative manifesto pledged to scrap the human rights act within the first 100 days.

Even in the last parliament there was the attempt to construct the infamous "Bill of Rights" which was struck unceremoniously into the long grass. With the conservative parliamentary majority there still maybe legal and political difficulties in the actual repeal of the act.

A number of groups have swung into action to campaign on this issue. Liberty, one would have thought would be a front runner in this but simply have this in the campaigning section of their website. The British Institute of Human Rights have been active on social media and have been promoting this blog post, but there is little in terms of a real plan. In some ways that understandable when so little details have been published on the actual proposals on abolition. 

Swiftly post-election Adam Wagner published this on the exciting new website rightsinfo.org. He advocates engaging with the process of reform and the construction of any bill of rights. However this is hard to do with little clear proposals. I really like Amnesty's "Do the human right thing" campaign but again it seems to be little but collecting email addresses and phone numbers. So far the most constructive thing I have seen is this petition launched yesterday and already gaining over 80,000 signatures.

Bringing Human Rights home to Northampton

Today, Northamptonshire Rights and Equality Council were supporting partners to the British Institute of Human Rights countrywide tour with an event hosted in the Cheyne Walk Club in centre of Northampton.

An audience of over forty people gave up a whole day of their time to debate, discuss and engage with the concept of human rights in twenty first century britain and aboard. The Human Rights tour has been taking place since 2011 and for the first time it had arrived in Northamptonshire.

With a wide range of information about human rights including detailed description of the background to the establishment of the human rights and the framework of rights, the sessions covered case law, the balance of absolute and non absolute rights. There was a wealth of information delivered in an approach that could only be described as extremely user friendly.

It was really positive talking with others in the break at the event at a time where human rights has been hitting the headlines with both the media and the breadth of the political classes having their say.


The trouble is that we are all too comfortable to accept human rights as an idea that should be upheld in a far off foreign land. For right here and right now, human rights doesn't have a poster boy or poster girl that we can all relate to as it is about all humans many of which we will never really share a similar experience with. Much of the time arguments of social justice promote the concept of "that could be you ... so support their cause". All too often human rights battlefields require supporters to support causes that they will never experience, so the support has to be there with the argument that "this is the right thing to do"and the human rights cause, particular in these times desparately need you and many others to do the right thing.

Talking about immigration doesn’t make you a racist. Being racist makes you a racist.

I talk about immigration much of the time. I’ve just heard a Labour PPC on the news stating the key reason Labour lost the General  election in 2010 was as a result of perceptions about immigration policy.

Labour lost that election because over a long period of time they had made a number of wrong judgement calls, had leaders that saw themselves above the jurisdiction of international law and had back bencher's and cabinet members who’s egos just couldn’t help themselves from sticking the boot in at totally inopportune moments such as the day before an election.  

It’s inconceivable that a political grouping can be in power for three terms and not make mistakes but quite frankly these aren’t the apologies that Labour needs to be making.

People in this country are more concerned about whether they have enough money to pay the bills at the end of the month than anything else. They are concerns about pay, concerned about job security, concerned about youth unemployment way above their concern about immigration. It’s only those on the level of Anders Brevik who still believe that immigration is the reason for the economic crisis and recession that we find ourselves in. The arguments people actually want to hear are the arguments which lead to solutions to economic stability.  Further tinkering with immigration simply will not deliver this. In a month that saw immigration advice providers deluged by concerned clients desperately trying to get their settlement visa applications in before a July deadline when income thresholds to bring in spouses rocket from £5,000 to £27,500. This puts the right to family life for people who choose to marry non-EU migrants well out of the reach of those on average salaries.  The Con-Dem immigration zealousness has already damaged the stability of British Universities with the restriction of foreign students, is Labour seriously wanting to head in this direction.

Have discussion about immigration but look at the human stories of the impact decision have on peoples ability to enjoy basic human rights.  Look at the impact on economic recovery and check out that a policy isn’t being implemented that will further damage a shaky, fragile economy to pander to people who just don’t like a lot of “them” here.  Look at more fundamental solutions to problems. If school leavers cannot access employment, what is being done to make them more able and more skilled? Was axing Education Maintenance Allowance and increasing University fees really that bright an idea?

Wrong, wrong, so clearly wrong

What kind of world do we live in when so whole organisations defend the indefensible, claim that they did not know, claim that is wasn’t them.
Regulation of the Press is clearly unsavoury in a democracy but when the basic human rights to privacy are not even considered essential to preserve when it comes to people who have lost their children to sexual abuse and murder, we have to accept that the balance is wrong.

But this is not just a story of good people and bad people ... young innocent girls who get killed but evil unbalanced men ... but it is also the actions of a variety of people in an organisation booth men and women who saw it as acceptable in the name of selling more newspapers,in the name of profit to commit which they knew were unlawful, immoral and potentially likely to cause additional distress to grieving parents and also potentially likely to pervert the course of justice.
In the same way as the banks , who were reckless with their risk assessment or the sub-prime mortgage market which came close to spiralling the world into complete economic disaster need better regulation, so does the media to ensure that profit and any story at any cost isn’t the doctrine that prevails and influences our world to the institutional abuse of individuals when they are at their most vulnerable.

The motivation of profit and unravelling of how various people who should have put a stop to it and did not is exactly why the Government must box clever with Rupert Murdoch’s BskyB takeover.

Millie Dowler and Soham girls murder phone hacking! Time for a public enquiry