As I said previously it is difficult to make this one up and I won’t do it again. Nevertheless, I will maintain the panto-theme if only for continuity and levity purposes.

I had assumed that the reason for the Agenda restrictions was that the complainants had been publicaly identified - but I was so wrong. It turns out that there been a ruckus at the first aborted hearing where words had been uttered between rival supporters and indeed things nearly began to get out of hand. Order was sufficiently restored to announce that the leading player could not make it (she was at the bottom of the stairs waiting for an ambulance) and the hearing could not thus take place. The audience disperse, fractiously, taking their banners and badges away with them.

Unbeknownst to many waiting for the next hearing, the theatre owners decided to avoid crowd trouble and the next panto would be performed behind closed doors. No spectators will be allowed to see the free-flow cut-and-thrust debate: it was argued that the decision-making thought-processes of the Panel and advisors would be so sufficiently distracted by possible civil war heckling, cat-calls, and other interferences that wrong decisions, be it by linesmen or referees in the course of play, could be made by the Panel at the end of the day.

Of course, this joke metaphor can wear thin after a while, so let‘s get real: The public have a right to see justice performed transparently. No doubt, sufficient order will have been maintained to start the meeting this December 19th in public and, as soon as a chair has been appointed, the procedural matter ( Item 2(c) ) of the exclusion or otherwise of the press and public from the meeting will then be considered.

 

So, do not be late even for a minute after 10 am if you want to see if you can keep your seat. Everyone must be on their best behaviour throughout .

 

At this point of the Agenda, the “interested parties” (Dawn Barnett, the Complainants and Investigating Officer ) could make their views known. It has been said that there is a potential for security issues to arise during the re-convened Panel hearing , and for these reasons the Panel are likely to decide that the public interest is better served by excluding the press and public.

 

Excuse me, but assuming that the press and public have so far behaved properly, there seems to be absolutely no good reason to exclude them and ask them to leave.  And the very reason for having security staff in the first place is precisely to maintain order. There may well be individuals itching for a fight, but that is no good reason for excluding all, being it press or public. Proper chairing and appropriate conduct by security staff is all that is needed. Even if the Police are called in to remove individuals, the meeting can still be continued in public.

 

It is possible that one or more of the Complainants will insist it be held in private. And, indeed, may refuse to participate. It remains to see how that position sits with the stated reason for maintaining a private hearing at the start of the hearing. If the complainants behave themselves and the public do so too, then all well and good.

It has been said that after the publication of the papers in November there was a complaint in relation to nature of the material that had been published and thus the agenda was withdrawn from the public realm. That in itself is not sufficient to justify a fully private hearing, since the public could be excluded for just that element of the evidence. Reading the statements already published it is not clear what could be so confidential as to warrant private hearing anyway.

It will be interesting to see what the Panel decide: usher the press and public out or allow them to keep their seats. . . .

 

here is the original agenda

http://brightonbygolly.wordpress.com/