I can't help but feel that there are a lot of people missing a key point here:
There is a world of difference between lawful behaviour, and ethical behaviour.
There are set standards for the behaviour expected of local councillors, the Nolan Principles.
The judicial review did not consider whether these principles were broken, only whether the council acted unlawfully.
Similarly, the fact that £30m bailout didn't go through, does not mean in itself that those involved acted properly.
I've linked to the Nolan Principles below. Could anyone here confidently say that the council has followed these principles given the way they've acted in these matters?
I'm pretty sure I could make an argument that they've broken the lot of them!
Yes, I'd like a genuinely independent enquiry, not the Council marking it's own homework with an "ethics committee" report. If we don't scrutinise and hold our elected officials to proper standards, then I guess we get what we deserve.
As a councillor you will be required to adhere to your council’s agreed code of conduct for elected members. Each council adopts its own code, but it must be based on the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s seven principles of public life.
www.local.gov.uk