20 June (Part 3) - Public Realm report : Round 2
The morning did not go according to plan. I should have known better than to expect anything else
but there is more you should know about last night. For a start, what the heck is the Bexley Action Group?
I was never a member of John Watson’s Bexley Council Monitoring Group but from what I can gather John is no longer able to commit
time to it and has not put in an appearance at its meetings for three or four
months. John, the group’s founder, was always a bit proprietorial about its
name, hence the new title for the remaining members. As it implies, they intend
to ratchet things up a bit having grown tired of mere monitoring. I would not be
surprised to see them all put themselves up for election next May.
Following
last evening’s fiasco in the council chamber it seemed appropriate for the group
to hold its inaugural meeting there. See picture.
I’m tempted to join the new group, in fact I have already made a donation to its fighting fund.
Nick Dowling is pleased with the way things went last night and is hoping to be banned
from attending future meetings as that will make his story even more attractive
to the press than it is already.
Among those
350 people who have sent
emails of support and encouragement are some who I consider ‘regulars’ who have built up a reputation for good
information and among them is a legal eagle who posts from his chambers or scruffy office and likes
to help when he can. I’ve not had time to check this out yet but this morning’s contribution reads as follows…
There is no general power to hold a meeting in private. Under S.O.74, meetings must be held in public unless
business of a confidential nature is to be discussed within the meaning of
Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, but in that case a motion must be
passed making specific reference to that Act (S.O.74(3)).
Under Standing Order 75(6), "In the event of a general disturbance which in the
opinion of the Chairman renders the due and orderly despatch of business
impossible, he may, in addition to any other power vested in him/her, adjourn
the meeting for such period as he/she shall consider expedient." However, there
is no power then to resume the meeting in private, if the business to be
conducted has not been specified as confidential.
It would appear that your council is in breach of the Local Government Act 1972.
I can see Mick Barnbrook reaching for his green inked complaint pen even now.
No doubt you are expecting the link to the audio file to come up next but my
inclination has always been not to indulge in such things. You have to be a bit strange to attend council
meetings in the first place, you’d need to be totally mad to want to listen to
it afterwards.
As a bit of an audio snob myself I asked Nick after the meeting how he hoped to
get a decent recording in a room where it is never easy to hear anything. In my
opinion you’d need nothing less than a £600 condenser mic on a boom, not some
tuppenny ha’penny apology for a microphone in a matchbox. Nick agreed there was
no chance of making a decent recording as he didn’t own a suitable machine and
the best he had managed was to borrow one from a friend, which had been dropped
and didn’t work any more. He’d not even bothered to put a battery in it. I once
thought Nick was some stuffy accountant sort of fellow but he is just a big
joker after all.
So now it seems you can get a meeting stopped just by clutching a silver box and
quoting Eric Pickles. It might be fun next time for all attendees to secret a silver
box around their person and after the police had asked the first box owner to leave and
the fuzz had gone away, the next person would produce his box and start the cycle all over again.
Any volunteers?
So what if anything is Bexley council going to charge Nick with now? It can’t be
attempting to break their ban on recording. Is it a crime to indulge in
make-believe and engage a floundering chairman in debate?