Without naming names but in this hypothetical situation do you really think an independent lawyer, asked to determine if An Ex leader and current leader of a public body. Would have been chosen in order to give the right result and gave the right result (for the public body) despite the evidence showing it should have been the other way.
Even when he did find something it was ignored
Did he find stuff I his report then and say yes this is a breach?
Did he find stuff I his report then and say yes this is a breach?
Did he find stuff I his report then and say yes this is a breach?
Mr Goacher says in other authorities it wouldn’t have had to have been registered, but under Coventry’s code it should have been.
We have concluded that Coun Mutton did not fail to disclose his interests”.
http://democraticservices.coventry.... 29th-Feb-2016 10.00 Ethics Committee.pdf?T=9
Page 11 has the transcript of the radio interview. Mutton says that BA said they were a predator. He says he agrees with that. So Mutton said the words, but as a way of repeating someone. So I'd say he didn't actually say the words as his view, but he did say he held that view. Whether that breaches the Council code is debateable, but not a big deal either way in my view.
Only as much as I think that the real facts are about to come out into the public domain and I welcome that.. for a government minister to make comments like a disastrous way to run a sports club and from Members of Parliament to describe SISU as a predator with greed running through it's DNA speaks volumes.
Shane O-Conner
I don't know whether Bob Ainsworth would come out in public and say that..
John Mutton
Maybe not .. but I would because I think it is absolutely true...
But the rules at CCC were different, so he was in fact in the wrong for it. It is a petty slapped wrist issue I am sure at the most anyway.
so it is black or white isn't it?
Should he have? Yes or No
Did He? Yes Or No
there is no middle ground with that.
Yes, he found he should have declared something he didn't....
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, not at all. He didn’t even say he agreed with the description..
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.
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.
Nice to see dongles council defence is in overdrive today.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
Without naming names but in this hypothetical situation do you really think an independent lawyer, asked to determine if An Ex leader and current leader of a public body had broke some codes of ethics. Would have firstly been chosen in order to give the right result and gave the right result (for the public body) despite the evidence showing it should have been the other way. It's a big risk for him and for the council. I would assume the repercussions of breaching the codes of ethics must be very significant to take such risks.
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 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.
It probably was not intentional, it is the fact it is swept under the carpet....
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Christ, if he did it then he is guilty of it. Getting a bit desperate
But they said he didn't break the rules at all, intentionally or not....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.
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.
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?!
You break the rules then you get a panel of your peers denying you ever broke the rules...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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?