The standards board hearing at which Cllr Dawn Barnett is being held to account for her comments to a local reporter about a place mat showing a golly, seems to be a bit OTT. 

But at least the hearing, scheduled for Thursday, November 28, is transparent and is the least the BME and the wider community deserve.

Full details are on the council website: 20-page agenda and 45 pages of appendices. The investigation officer undertook a forensic analysis of an article in the Argus (including the on-line comments) which was the subject of the complaint by three residents and a council employees forum, all named in the documents.

The programme will probably follow as previous hearings in having acts and finale (the law has changed a bit) viz: Submissions by: the complainants and the complainant’s witnesses and questions; the subject member and the subject member’s witnesses and questions; summaries and then deliberations in private by the three member panel and then the public findings and decisions.

It will be a long performance with much tea and cake in the intervals.

The panel will consist of Cllr Lizzie Deane (Green, St Peter’s Ward) , Cllr Ann Norman Con, Withdean) and Cllr Christina Summers (Ind, Hollingdean).

Cllr Ann Norman is an old-stager. Cllr Christina Summers will bring an interesting dimension to the proceedings as she had been drummed-out from her own party for being too outspoken about gay marriage.

Given that a significant element of this hearing is the degree of free speech allowed to councillors when speaking to the press, the outcome will be interesting.

Unfortunately , the panel will always deliver unanimous consensus verdicts on the three charges, even though there could be great divisions between the three members. Unlike many tribunals, standards boards do not allow for any dissenting opinion via having a minority decision.

I hesitate to have used the panto metaphor for a matter of great concern but I have retained it , if only for continuity purposes and to add a degree of levity.

Trawling through the Google-hits using the word golly@? ++ (censored at the request of a pal after we chatted on the matter) I came across surprisingly (to me) very strong views on the use on this word.

The best analysis (for me) was in the article on the Guardian in 2009: I have abridged it and its comments about a tennis player: “The meaning of words and objects shifts - what is interesting is whom we allow to say what and where . . . The use of language is a constantly changing phenomenom and sometimes some people seem to be behind the curve. . . the urge to police conversation is nearly as retrograde and unsophisticated as an willfully obtuse remark. . . . To focus on careless chat diminishes the problems stemming from racism in Britain and the colonial legacy in Africa.. . . If people such as [Dawn Barnett] can't grow up, then surely they can be left behind. . . . No one in their right mind would deny the unpleasant racist connotations of the word golly@? ++ . (and Dawn Barnett never actually called anyone that word). But there are degrees of racism. Inappropriate or embarrassing language in a local newspaper should not be equated with genocide. The sanctions to which [Dawn Barnett] could be subjected – not to mention the public vilification – seem excessive in relation to her offense. ”

Nevertheless , as Oona King said: “When casualised racism is allowed to flourish, you create a culture where more virulent strains of racism can thrive. It's not whether someone intends to be racist, it's whether we allow a culture of casual racism. I'm certain [dawn barnett] didn't mean it as a racist remark, but it is.”

It is not clear why the reporter himself was not interviewed: presumably , the article stands as first-hand evidence. He knew Dawn was always good for a quote when ward councillors for that shop in question were not available. But nuanced head-lines and sequences of questionings can create completely different scenarios. Cllr Dawn Barnett will only have herself to blame when she breathes the oxygen of publicity and it suffocates her.

The pantomime turns nasty, there may be tears before tea-time and the farce becomes tragedy .

Curtain falls. . . .