If nothing else, perhaps 'shouting' needs definition. Or at least thinking about. As I read this it came to me that an attendee might 'wail uncontrolably in distress'. For instance about his/her child who has died as a result of air pollution - about which I understand that some think there seems to be rather faint hope of control or reduction. Does shouting refer only to a statement containing word(s)? Does it include shrieks? Belches? Even football rattles? And if ten attendees say, for instance, 'Shame on you' simultaneously the noise might be as loud than a 'shout' by a single person. Would zero or ten individuals be removed and banned?
Only asking....
And if a 'shout' can't be / won't be defined, three more questions arise.
1. The attendees will have insufficient guidance about behaviour. Is this not unfair somehow?
2. Why not change it to a catch-all such as: 'Anyone who annoys us in any fashion whatsoever will be summarally banished.' Then they woudn't need any more rule-making, for instance against outrageous clothing, being glued to the wall, juggling, nudity, .....
The move by the WNC Conservative Group to make yet more constitutional changes, this time concerning the conduct of members of the public at council meetings is a major concern. As though the Conservatives with a 2/3rds majority of councillors don’t have enough control already. What they want they get and most of the time it results in a mess. The OFSTED/CCQ report on the SEND services is the latest example of appalling council failure in relation to the needs of the parents and children affected.
It was the actions of the WNC Tory leadership supported by senior WNC executive officers that prevented Cllr Paul Clark from speaking at April’s council meeting because they decided in advance that they didn’t like what Cllr Clark was going to say and stopped him in his tracks. Only Paul Clark would know what he was going to say on the day. As though the councillors and officers responsible are gifted with the ability to read minds. No wonder that caused an uproar in the chamber and members of the public present were angry. Cause and effect. Preventing an elected representative from speaking was unlawful and the members of the public present including some abuse victims knew this was completely out of order. Behind all this lay the conscious decision by the Conservative leadership to try and stop the story of historic domestic abuse perpetrated by its former leader come into the public domain. Like so many other matters they failed in their efforts and failed badly thanks to the media.
But rather than accept the part their own actions have played in reaching the present situation the disingenuous Tories are now indulging in pointing the finger of blame at members of the public. A couple of senior Tory councillors have claimed in the run up to these proposed changes to the constitution that they have felt threatened and intimidated at council meetings. I think they must have fertile imaginations or, rather, are inventing imaginary fears to suit what looks to be a political manoeuvre to embark down a very dangerous road of intolerance. It should be a simple matter for a council to control its own meetings and if any member of the public is unruly to have him or her removed. Not at WNC it seems.
Sounds to me the council would rather ban people’s democratic right to protest than listen to the public. The Tory council must surely know they will be voted out next year and want an easy ride
Having personally witnessed 'verbal enthusiasm' from the public gallery, I can understand both the frustration of the assembled councillors AND the public.
It appears that with the councillors religiously adhering to Party Lines, the public are rightfully frustrated at the Cartelling of policies and that the public do not get listened to, either before a council meeting via their representatives, or during it when the non democratic process is driven home by the controlling party and the publics objections are ignored.
Therefore, I believe that the council should be demonstrated with regardless of how uncomfortable the councillors may feel.
I do not believe in party politics at local level. Therefore, none of the political parties elected to WNC really represent all of the population of West Northamptonshire and Councillors should aware of this when they tried to pass these draconian laws in the suppression of free speech. They should also be aware of the consequences of their incendiary languages they used.
If nothing else, perhaps 'shouting' needs definition. Or at least thinking about. As I read this it came to me that an attendee might 'wail uncontrolably in distress'. For instance about his/her child who has died as a result of air pollution - about which I understand that some think there seems to be rather faint hope of control or reduction. Does shouting refer only to a statement containing word(s)? Does it include shrieks? Belches? Even football rattles? And if ten attendees say, for instance, 'Shame on you' simultaneously the noise might be as loud than a 'shout' by a single person. Would zero or ten individuals be removed and banned?
Only asking....
And if a 'shout' can't be / won't be defined, three more questions arise.
1. The attendees will have insufficient guidance about behaviour. Is this not unfair somehow?
2. Why not change it to a catch-all such as: 'Anyone who annoys us in any fashion whatsoever will be summarally banished.' Then they woudn't need any more rule-making, for instance against outrageous clothing, being glued to the wall, juggling, nudity, .....
3. Who was it said 'this law is a ass'?
The move by the WNC Conservative Group to make yet more constitutional changes, this time concerning the conduct of members of the public at council meetings is a major concern. As though the Conservatives with a 2/3rds majority of councillors don’t have enough control already. What they want they get and most of the time it results in a mess. The OFSTED/CCQ report on the SEND services is the latest example of appalling council failure in relation to the needs of the parents and children affected.
It was the actions of the WNC Tory leadership supported by senior WNC executive officers that prevented Cllr Paul Clark from speaking at April’s council meeting because they decided in advance that they didn’t like what Cllr Clark was going to say and stopped him in his tracks. Only Paul Clark would know what he was going to say on the day. As though the councillors and officers responsible are gifted with the ability to read minds. No wonder that caused an uproar in the chamber and members of the public present were angry. Cause and effect. Preventing an elected representative from speaking was unlawful and the members of the public present including some abuse victims knew this was completely out of order. Behind all this lay the conscious decision by the Conservative leadership to try and stop the story of historic domestic abuse perpetrated by its former leader come into the public domain. Like so many other matters they failed in their efforts and failed badly thanks to the media.
But rather than accept the part their own actions have played in reaching the present situation the disingenuous Tories are now indulging in pointing the finger of blame at members of the public. A couple of senior Tory councillors have claimed in the run up to these proposed changes to the constitution that they have felt threatened and intimidated at council meetings. I think they must have fertile imaginations or, rather, are inventing imaginary fears to suit what looks to be a political manoeuvre to embark down a very dangerous road of intolerance. It should be a simple matter for a council to control its own meetings and if any member of the public is unruly to have him or her removed. Not at WNC it seems.
Sounds to me the council would rather ban people’s democratic right to protest than listen to the public. The Tory council must surely know they will be voted out next year and want an easy ride
Having personally witnessed 'verbal enthusiasm' from the public gallery, I can understand both the frustration of the assembled councillors AND the public.
It appears that with the councillors religiously adhering to Party Lines, the public are rightfully frustrated at the Cartelling of policies and that the public do not get listened to, either before a council meeting via their representatives, or during it when the non democratic process is driven home by the controlling party and the publics objections are ignored.
Therefore, I believe that the council should be demonstrated with regardless of how uncomfortable the councillors may feel.
CARRY ON HECKLING!!
Well said! That is called democracy.
How will they identify the shouters? If you refuse to cooperate how will they know who you are.
There are too many restrictions on free speach already. If the coucilors behaved more reasonably it would set the tone for the public.
First step on a very dangerous road!
I do not believe in party politics at local level. Therefore, none of the political parties elected to WNC really represent all of the population of West Northamptonshire and Councillors should aware of this when they tried to pass these draconian laws in the suppression of free speech. They should also be aware of the consequences of their incendiary languages they used.