[Brighton] Two Brighton & Hove Labour Cllrs Expelled!

[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.

 

[Zeberdi]

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.

I’m responding to his original assertion that he stated simply that I was ‘wrong’ to say that the Code of Conduct only applies to Councillors acting in their capacity as Councillors or where people are led to believe they are.

No amount of arguing changes the wording of Localism Act or the jurisdiction of the Council when it comes to applying the Code of Conduct.

It is simply a false statement to suggest the Code applies to private matters unrelated to a Councillor’s work/or unless believed by the public to be so. False information on this gives residents concerned the impression that they have greater recourse under this Code if Conduct than they actually do.

 

[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.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

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.

My interpretation of 'her own Facebook account' means personal and not the account of any role she may have. But, I see you point. This discussion has been interesting, but I think I'll leave it here for the foresseable.

 

[e77]

I do see why people would prefer local politicians to be independent but a lot of the rate payer Councillors were really Conservative. Once one party is involved and offering money to campaign it would mean individuals having to raise their own money to get elected to contest them and that is before building a team to leaflet and door knock.

My guess is you would end up with a lot of the same Councillors anyway as there isn't an infinite amount of people who want to do it.

 

[Zeberdi]

I'm not proposing to complain about anything. The question was raised regarding holding councillors to account. I posted some general information, and then the discussion got bogged down in whether it applies to public and private life. This is all.

And when I said it only applied to them in the course of them carrying out their role as Councilor or if that is not clear, whether the public were led to believe they were ( not even originally quoting you) - you quoted me and just said I was wrong. Then pushed back on all the legislation and wording I provided to clarify how it is used.

But I am happy to bow out of this.

I just think when people are posting comments on line it is better to try and post facts - there’s enough fake information out there to keep us all confused without adding to it..

EDIT and you did raise a very interesting issue around social media which is what a lot of these cases are concerning - those cases need first to be adjudicated as to whether the code applies as a first step to seeing if there was a breach as it is not always clear.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

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.

Ah sound, sorry about that.
It's livened up the work call that I had to sit through but not contribute at all to at least.

 

[Zeberdi]

Ah sound, sorry about that.
It's livened up the work call that I had to sit through but not contribute at all to at least.

Liven up my morning at work too plotting endless data onto QGIS

All we need to do now is be alert to Mr Foster posting unsavoury comments on NSC because as I indicated in an earlier post, he is walking a very fine line as all his posts go out the way to highlight that he is in fact a Councillor - including posting his diary/schedule/comments about other Members etc - it would be very difficult for him to argue that his posts on NSC fall outside the jurisdiction of the CoC.

We are watching you ‘Steve’

 

[Albion my Albion]

I don’t think that’s going to raise the level of debate somehow - there isn’t much more to say at the moment about an ‘investigation‘ that we don’t know any details about - and this thread has provided another great opportunity for NSCers to highlight the particular credentials that the local Tory Party must think make Ivan Lyons such a fine example of what the public want to see in a Tory Councillor .

My thoughts & prayers are with Chicken Run, too.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Jumping back to the original point of the thread - both Labour councillors now kicked out of the Labour Party. If only the Tories were as quick to kick out racists.

 

[Bodian]

Jumping back to the original point of the thread - both Labour councillors now kicked out of the Labour Party. If only the Tories were as quick to kick out racists.

Worth clarifying that they weren't kicked out for being racist were they?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Worth clarifying that they weren't kicked out for being racist were they?

Fair point - no, they weren't. The racist part was a flippant comment regards an NSC Tory councillor.

 

[carlzeiss]

Jumping back to the original point of the thread - both Labour councillors now kicked out of the Labour Party. If only the Tories were as quick to kick out racists.

So what have they done then to justify such harsh action ?

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Just come out:

Labour Expels Brighton Councillors For Actually Living In Leicester

Labour has now expelled two councillors in Brighton because they actually live in Leicester. Bharti Gajjar and Chandni Mistry, who are aunt and niece,

order-order.com

They should resign immediately IMO. Taking their voters and the Brighton taxpayer for fools.

So what have they done then to justify such harsh action ?

Labour has now expelled two councillors in Brighton because they actually live in Leicester. Bharti Gajjar and Chandni Mistry, who are aunt and niece, have been kicked out after a 7-day internal investigation which proved they don’t live in Brighton at all – they’ve been commuting in occasionally from Leicester.

Giving civil servants a run for their money when it comes to working from home…

Local Labour officials have called for them to “do the right thing” and stand down. There’s been friction in local Labour associations in the South after regional officers took over selection processes because too many councillors had quit or were kicked out over antisemitism allegations.

Local members are saying HQ’s got their comeuppance…

 

[WATFORD zero]

Just come out:

Labour Expels Brighton Councillors For Actually Living In Leicester

Labour has now expelled two councillors in Brighton because they actually live in Leicester. Bharti Gajjar and Chandni Mistry, who are aunt and niece,

order-order.com

They should resign immediately IMO. Taking their voters and the Brighton taxpayer for fools.


Labour has now expelled two councillors in Brighton because they actually live in Leicester. Bharti Gajjar and Chandni Mistry, who are aunt and niece, have been kicked out after a 7-day internal investigation which proved they don’t live in Brighton at all – they’ve been commuting in occasionally from Leicester.

Giving civil servants a run for their money when it comes to working from home…

Local Labour officials have called for them to “do the right thing” and stand down. There’s been friction in local Labour associations in the South after regional officers took over selection processes because too many councillors had quit or were kicked out over antisemitism allegations.

Local members are saying HQ’s got their comeuppance…

I'm really pleased, good riddance. It's about time we had a bit of honesty and integrity in politics at all levels.

I wonder if Brighton and Hove conservative party will do similar

 

[timbha]

I'm really pleased, good riddance. It's about time we had a bit of honesty and integrity in politics at all levels.

I wonder if Brighton and Hove conservative party will do similar

Why just the Tory party? What about the Greens and further actions by the Labour Party, or indeed any party? Isn’t that what the Standards Comms are for?

Certainly agree with your first point.

 

[jcdenton08]

Why just the Tory party? What about the Greens and further actions by the Labour Party, or indeed any party? Isn’t that what the Standards Comms are for?

Certainly agree with your first point.

I was going to say this, surely “ethics” are universal as a concept. Don’t care what party they are.

In this case, good riddance. That’s absolutely taking the piss.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Why just the Tory party? What about the Greens and further actions by the Labour Party, or indeed any party? Isn’t that what the Standards Comms are for?

Certainly agree with your first point.

You're absolutely right, I allowed myself to get focused on a single anti-disabled islamophobe, and it should be the same regardless of party