Council Hearing Match Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Even when he did find something it was ignored
Did he find stuff I his report then and say yes this is a breach?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Yes he did and then the committee ignored it!
Nick
Administrator
Yes, he found he should have declared something he didn't....
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
I get confused on here who supports who now could we not have a little flag to show either council or Sisu
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Read it now, so Mutton didn't describe SISU as a predator but seems to have misunderstood Ainsworths statement and thought that is what he said under parliamentary privilege .. this is what is in the transcript, it is nothing bad really, storm in a teacup.
The interview continues
Last edited:
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Right and they have ignored it because of what other councils do.
Then they should either change the codes to match other councils. Or if they are keeping then the sane then yes slap on the wrist.
Sounds like a reasonable explanation.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
You couldn't get something much more black and white than that. He was supposed to declare something, he didn't. It was highlighted in the independent report. Then the committee, made up largely of Labour councillors, conclude he didn't fail to register his interests.
For me once you see that you can't have any faith in any of their other conclusions.
Even if you say he made a mistake, or the system in Coventry is different or something similar and just give him a slap on the wrist you have to at least admit the wrongdoing. The fact that they denied any wrongdoing took place just shows the whole thing was a waste of time where there was only ever going to be one conclusion.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
You need to keep reading as the next lines are:
O'Connor: I don't know whether Bob Ainsworth would come out in public and say that
Mutton: Maybe not but I would because it is absolutely true
Nick
Administrator
No, they just said he did nothing wrong..
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
No they didn't. They concluded he hadn't failed to register his interests. They didn't say we'll let him off as other councils work differently, they claimed it never happened.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Common sense really take your council SISU ACL wasps whatever hat off.
Do you want to live in a society where a councillor can express an opinion such as he thinks a person or company are driven by greed.
Or
Do you want every answer you ever hear from A councillor to be bland and boring and leave you thinking what does he or she really think?
Secondly is it really an outrageous comment?
Personally I don't think it is me putting up a council defence but more a comment sense one. I have been on here today defending Mr Anderson. In the past I have defended Tim Fisher and Joy Seppalla especially when they have the balls to meet people face to face to explain their stance. (Even if you disagree with it)
Last edited:
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Bod Ainsworth didn't actually make any accusation, he just said SISU needed to prove they weren’t predators with greed running through their DNA, if that is what Mutton intended he was prepared to assert in public what is wrong with that, nothing absolutely nothing.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Who claimed it never happened?
He admitted it and explained why?
Mr Goacher says his answer is reasonable as that what other councils accept but Coventry rules are different.
Are they saying he broke the rule but unintentionally and the rule is different in different councils so he hasn't broke the codes of ethics?
I don't really get it?
Nick
Administrator
The ethics committee found he did not fail to disclose anything.
Goacher said in other councils it would be ok, but in CCC you need to disclose it. So he failed to disclose it, because is in CCC.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Do you actually understand the process they've been through? Not having a go BTW! SISU made the complaint and Goacher came in to do an independent report. That report then went to a council committee, of which I think all but one member was Labour, and based on that report they delivered their response to the complaint.
The report states that CCC code of conduct requires his interest to be declared. Mutton stated he believed it didn't have to be declared, which along with declaring it after it was highlighted shows that he was in the wrong.
The committee then gave a verdict that "We have concluded that Coun Mutton did not fail to disclose his interests”.
Its bonkers. it couldn't possibly be clearer that he failed to disclose his interest! Now if they said he had done wrong but there were mitigating circumstances such as he received no benefit or other councils work different and therefore there would be no further action then fair enough but they are outright saying it didn't happen when everyone else, including Mutton, accepts that it did.
From there how can you have any faith in any of their other conclusions?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Even Mutton accepted that he failed to disclose it, and once he was aware it was disclosed! The only people who are saying it didn't happen are the council committee!
I'm not quite sure what you're going on about as I was explaining how Nick could choose his independent person. It is actually very difficult to appoint someone truly independent, as they will inevitably have lifetime experiences and personal preferences that will shape their decision making processes (whether consciously or unconsciously).
That the government had to appoint three different independent chairs to it's child abuse inquiry because of disputes about their impartiality demonstrates the how difficult it can be to appoint someone independent.
Of course, most people who have had involvement in the preparation of an externally led investigative report in the public sector will tell you the appointment of the person to lead the investigation and write the report is key to shaping the outcome.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I find that bizzare .
I could understand if they said he did fail to declare but it was unintentional so it's not a breach of the code.
Or he failed to declare because he misunderstood the rules and was not intentionally holding anything back. So it is ok.
But if they are saying he didn't actually not declare (whatever the reason)
That doesn't really make sense.
Again it doesn't seem that important when you hear the explanation, but the conclusion should be different.
Nick
Administrator
It probably was not intentional, it is the fact it is swept under the carpet....
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Yep can see your issue and Dave's with that. It just seems to be badly concluded. I wouldn't Jump from that to then saying you can't trust the whole process?
I couldn't even see him getting a slap on the wrist for that.
They should have said he hasn't intentionally not declared. It was human error and so is not s breach of the code of ethics.
We will bring our code of ethics in line with the other councils.
Nick
Administrator
But if they are saying he is innocent of something he has even admitted, then it kind of sets the tone doesn't it? As soon as you say a panel of Councillors are "judging" it, you know the outcome.
It also makes you wonder what else is covered up.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
He is innocent really. For something like that surely it would have to be intentional?
You can see why they are flippant about it because Mr Goacher has called it a 'technical' breach. He goes on to say elsewhere it wouldn't be an issue.
They should have addressed though in the findings saying we conclude he hasn't breached the coast of ethics in these circumstances. We accept his explanation and need to review that particular code and bring it in line with other councils.
It's a bit much to question the integrity of the whole process based on a misunderstanding surely?
Nick
Administrator
Yes, elsewhere it wouldn't be an issue. A different place to my workplace may have different rules, it doesn't mean I can just use that if I do something wrong....
If they are saying he is innocent of something he has said he is guilty of, and the report said he was guilty of (no matter how big or small) then what does that say?
It's black or white, he either has to or he doesn't, he did or didn't.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
What if he did it but isn't guilty of it.
Like picking up a packet of crisps because there is a free sign over it.
However if you read it properly the free sign was for a different pack. You walk out without paying. You break the rules but not intentionally therefore you are not guilty.
You can't have black or white only, surely intent and circumstances must be taken into consideration?
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
Christ, if he did it then he is guilty of it. Getting a bit desperate
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I think you are to be fair.
loads of people do things that break the rules unintentionally all the time and are therefore not guilty of it.
You would never make it as Judge Judy or Rinder.
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
Why are people so intent on aleviating the council of any wrongdoing? He didn't declare his interests in line with the code. Guilty. He quoted/reaffirmed BA's comments. Is this professional or respectful? No. Again, guilty. I worked in the civil service for 5 years and we were not allowed to display or speak of political persuasion. We were not allowed to give our opinion on Government matters even though we were still tax payers. Now if a normal civil servant has to be careful what they say and do in public. Why on earth doesn't the council leader have to?!
Nick
Administrator
But they said he didn't break the rules at all, intentionally or not....
That's the point...
SkyBlueZack
Well-Known Member
And Dongo. I think we all preferred it when you didn't post. You're entitled to make and have an opinion but you ignore facts and make it up as you go along.
olderskyblue
Well-Known Member
This place would be very quiet if nobody did that......
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Well that's it then welcome to the world according to Zack,
where we will never get hear a Council Leaders opinion on something.
Dont ever unintentionally break the rules. There are no grey areas. You break You break those rules whatever the circumstances = guilty
Nick
Administrator
You break the rules then you get a panel of your peers denying you ever broke the rules...
Christ, get a sat nav to arrive at the point.