The Standards Board hearing yesterday decided that Cllr Ben Duncan had breached Brighton and Hove City Council’s code of conduct when he sent via Twitter in June two “offensive” messages. They were not sent to any particular individual but just sent to those in Duncan’s twitter a/c. It is not known how many were re-tweeted. Many of the objectors learned of the messages via the report in the Argus.

One was sent in June 28th: "Armed Forces Day has certainly brought the hired killers onto the streets of #Brighton today. Hard to explain to my son!"

The other was on 16th June: “Blasphemous 7yo wants ‘Islam book’ to press flowers in (it’s big and heavy). Should I stone her to death when I get home from work?”

It was an illuminating experience to listen to the evidence collated by the council officer and the questioning by the Panel.

In the case of the “hired killers” tweet, the public did not actually hear from any of the complainants and only half of their objections were published in the documents made available to the public though there was a summary of all 60 them in the report. The other half of the objectors stated that they wanted to be anonymous. In the event, the Council officer treated all objectors as anonymous, but published those who stated they did not mind their objections being published but the officer anonymised them anyway.

The council guidance in this matter states: “In the interests of fairness and natural justice the Councillor you have complained about will normally be informed that a complaint has been made against them and by whom. If you have serious concerns about your name and the details of  your complaint being released you can ask your identity to be withheld.

Such requests will only be granted in exceptional circumstances and will be at the discretion of the Monitoring Officer. If your request for confidentiality is not granted, we will usually allow you the opportunity to withdraw your complaint.

However, it is important to understand that in exceptional circumstances where the matter is very serious we can proceed with the complaint and disclose your name even if you have expressly asked us not to.”

Whilst the offensive nature of the tweet is clear, it is not clear why the report breached its own procedures and no explanation was made. Neither the Panel or the subject councillor seemed concerned about it. It is not clear why none of the objectors were allowed to speak at the meeting.

In the case of the blasphemy tweet, the complainant was a local Muslim leader, backed up by a petition signed by 34 people. Though the petition itself was in the report, no background details were given. For example, the local Muslim leader refers to the Qur’an as the book referred to the tweet but in fact Cllr Duncan explained that it was a heavy tome about Islamic Art and Architecture which a family-friend’s 7 year old girl had been using to press flowers. It was not clear why Cllr Duncan then made a crass joke about punishing her: perhaps, it was a new book and the pages would be seriously damaged….

Neither the officer or the Panel seemed interested; the complainant was not allowed to ask questions, though he was present at the meeting.

The Panel were interested if Cllr Duncan had actually read the Code of Conduct and indeed if he had actually signed the oath of allegiance every councillor has to sign when elected. He said he could not remember but he must have done that. There was a clear whiff of evasion in the air, but it could have been the astonishment that such an irrelevant question was even asked in the first place.

The painting “When Did You Last See Your Father?” by William Frederick Yeames springs to mind….

Cllr Duncan pleaded a higher authority in his mitigation in both cases: the right of a citizen to free speech under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It was given short shrift by the Panel when it came to be the judgement-time. It is a qualified-right subject to proportionality ect.

Indeed, when it came to be the judgement-time, the Panel threw the book at him: they dredged up the past (which had not been mentioned at all), accusing him serial-offensiveness and reducing him to a lonely back-bencher with no responsibility at all.

That is contrary to its own guidance that “Neither the Standards Panel nor any other body of the council has power to suspend or disqualify a member or to withdraw their basic or special responsibility allowance.”

They did not even recommend him for appropriate training, presumably because he was incorrigible, beyond the redemption, suitable only for dunking…..

The appeal will be interesting as there seems it to be eminently appealable.

 

((Minor correction: the complainant in the case of the blasphemy tweet was present but had chosen not to speak to the Panel. In the case of the "hired killers" tweet,  one complainant was told there is no right to speak.))