Hangleton councillor brought council into disrepute says council hearing

The Argus: Hangleton councillor brought council into disrepute says council hearing Hangleton councillor brought council into disrepute says council hearing

A councillor has been found guilty of bringing the council into disrepute over her comments defending the use of golliwogs.

Brighton and Hove city councillor Dawn Barnett was cleared of two more charges by a panel of three fellow councillors at a closed hearing held yesterday.

The Conservative councillor, who will now undergo diversity training, said after the meeting that she did not feel the issue should have progressed so far and was a waste of taxpayers’ money.

The panel also recommended that all councillors should undergo diversity training in the future.

In August the 72-year-old Hangleton and Knoll councillor told The Argus said she thought golliwogs were “nostalgic, not racist” and complaints against Bert’s Homestore selling golliwog placemats were “political correctness gone too far”.

The comments provoked four “separate but similar” complaints from three people and the council’s Black and Minority Ethnic Workers’ Forum.

One complainant asked for an apology from Coun Barnett while another said they wished to see her expelled from the council.

The hearing was originally scheduled for November 28 but was dramatically postponed after Coun Barnett fell down a flight of stairs en route to the meeting and was carried to hospital wearing a neck brace and on a spinal board.

Yesterday’s hearing, lasting more than five-and-a-half hours, involved four councillors including Coun Barnett herself and was also attended by a number of senior council staff including a monitoring officer, head of complaints and head of democratic services.

A council report on the proceedings will not be made available to the public until early next week.

Coun Barnett, who was cleared of failing to treat others with respect and breaching the Equalities Act, said: “They threw out the two most serious charges but said I was guilty of breaching the code of conduct.

“I am pleased they have let me off on the other two serious charges but very disappointed that they have judged I broke the code of conduct.

“I don’t think it should have got this far, it was a waste of taxpayers’ money and officers’ time.

“I apologised to anyone who was upset by my comments and that should have been the end of it.

“I understand the reasons why they had it behind closed doors but there were a lot of upset people outside the meeting that were angry it wasn’t held in public.”

A Brighton and Hove City Council spokeswoman said it highlighted the “need for training and awareness raising among all councillors on equalities issues” which would in future be part of member development.

Comments (116)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:28am Fri 20 Dec 13

twonk says...

The world has gone mad. I had a gollywog as a kid and it did me no harm. If the dolls were a different colour would that be ok?
The world has gone mad. I had a gollywog as a kid and it did me no harm. If the dolls were a different colour would that be ok? twonk

6:42am Fri 20 Dec 13

kopite_rob says...

What brings council into disrepute is the money & time spent on this Mcarthy era witch hunt and the fact the hearing was closed to public scrutiny.
What scares me more is the council has a monitoring officer, head of complaints and head of democratic services and they all deemed it important enough to use their time to attend for 5 1/2 hours. A sum total of more than 50 hours were spent at the hearing alone, let alone getting to this point.
What the hell is democratic services? And if it has a "head of" that means there's a load of them!
What brings council into disrepute is the money & time spent on this Mcarthy era witch hunt and the fact the hearing was closed to public scrutiny. What scares me more is the council has a monitoring officer, head of complaints and head of democratic services and they all deemed it important enough to use their time to attend for 5 1/2 hours. A sum total of more than 50 hours were spent at the hearing alone, let alone getting to this point. What the hell is democratic services? And if it has a "head of" that means there's a load of them! kopite_rob

6:55am Fri 20 Dec 13

Maxwell's Ghost says...

What about the same training for the Green councillor who Tweeted that a faith school was a cult.
What about the same training for the Green councillor who Tweeted that a faith school was a cult. Maxwell's Ghost

7:00am Fri 20 Dec 13

Jagmanmc says...

So three people complained? How many people thought that her comments were not offensive then?
Oh we don't count those do we.
This woman has spent many years of dedication and hard work to the local community, she has done nothing wrong in this instance and she should be applauded for her efforts not berated in this way.
Shrug it all off Dawn and continue your good work, many of us can see through this unnecessary episode of political correctness gone wrong.
Here's to you!
So three people complained? How many people thought that her comments were not offensive then? Oh we don't count those do we. This woman has spent many years of dedication and hard work to the local community, she has done nothing wrong in this instance and she should be applauded for her efforts not berated in this way. Shrug it all off Dawn and continue your good work, many of us can see through this unnecessary episode of political correctness gone wrong. Here's to you! Jagmanmc

7:34am Fri 20 Dec 13

esh lad says...

Greens = Brown Shirts
Greens = Brown Shirts esh lad

7:37am Fri 20 Dec 13

pithound says...

Dawn is a good woman and she will top the poll in Hangleton & Knoll by a large margin in May 2015.
Dawn is a good woman and she will top the poll in Hangleton & Knoll by a large margin in May 2015. pithound

8:02am Fri 20 Dec 13

Eugenius says...

This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago.
This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago. Eugenius

8:13am Fri 20 Dec 13

Plantpot says...

Community = small minority

Inclusiveness = the vast majority bending over for the tiny minority

There is a whole industry of people out there who are devoted to equality, but it seems that in reality they need to see divisions, splits and prejudice everywhere to justify their jobs. The worst thing that could happen to this equality industry is that quality is actually achieved. Their cosy little industry would fold.
Community = small minority Inclusiveness = the vast majority bending over for the tiny minority There is a whole industry of people out there who are devoted to equality, but it seems that in reality they need to see divisions, splits and prejudice everywhere to justify their jobs. The worst thing that could happen to this equality industry is that quality is actually achieved. Their cosy little industry would fold. Plantpot

8:21am Fri 20 Dec 13

Quiterie says...

I want to know what on earth did they find to discuss for 5 and a half hours?!?
I want to know what on earth did they find to discuss for 5 and a half hours?!? Quiterie

8:22am Fri 20 Dec 13

Fight_Back says...

Eugenius wrote:
This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago.
You lot are in charge - change it.

As for the costs of this farce - the Argus should put in an FOI request to see how much this has cost. Then people should remember this when the Greens put up the council tax AGAIN in 2014 and 2015. They should also remember this when they vote in 2015.

The two council officers who complained - Read and Hermitage - should also face action for wasting so much taxpayers money on their petty little vendetta.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago.[/p][/quote]You lot are in charge - change it. As for the costs of this farce - the Argus should put in an FOI request to see how much this has cost. Then people should remember this when the Greens put up the council tax AGAIN in 2014 and 2015. They should also remember this when they vote in 2015. The two council officers who complained - Read and Hermitage - should also face action for wasting so much taxpayers money on their petty little vendetta. Fight_Back

8:38am Fri 20 Dec 13

Cyril Bolleaux says...

Eugenius wrote:
This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago.
Can you not do something about it? Many people find it quite sinister that not only do trivial issues end up before formal hearings but also Councillors are subject to "re-education". It is positively Maoist.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago.[/p][/quote]Can you not do something about it? Many people find it quite sinister that not only do trivial issues end up before formal hearings but also Councillors are subject to "re-education". It is positively Maoist. Cyril Bolleaux

8:48am Fri 20 Dec 13

Seagull in Malta says...

What is sad is that "The comments provoked four “separate but similar” complaints from three people and the council’s Black and Minority Ethnic Workers’ Forum. " How pathetic these people are to be offended by this. The use of the word in an offensive way is cause for concern but not in this case. World has gone mad.
On another point, how is it there is a dedicated black music awards which isn't racist but if there was one restricted to white music it would be? (Just asking :))
What is sad is that "The comments provoked four “separate but similar” complaints from three people and the council’s Black and Minority Ethnic Workers’ Forum. " How pathetic these people are to be offended by this. The use of the word in an offensive way is cause for concern but not in this case. World has gone mad. On another point, how is it there is a dedicated black music awards which isn't racist but if there was one restricted to white music it would be? (Just asking :)) Seagull in Malta

8:58am Fri 20 Dec 13

raymondo999 says...

Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.
Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society. raymondo999

9:00am Fri 20 Dec 13

Fight_Back says...

raymondo999 wrote:
Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.
Don't happen to work for the council do you ? Maybe you are Tim or Dan !
[quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.[/p][/quote]Don't happen to work for the council do you ? Maybe you are Tim or Dan ! Fight_Back

9:29am Fri 20 Dec 13

Fight_Back says...

Smartbloke wrote:
Abou ttime that awful, disgusting racist woman - a known liar and hypocrite - was brought down a peg or two. She is an embarrassment to the city, and every time she speaks she insults her constituents.
As one of her constituents and one that she has assisted, you couldn't be further from the truth. So she upsets council officers sometimes - most need bringing to heal.
[quote][p][bold]Smartbloke[/bold] wrote: Abou ttime that awful, disgusting racist woman - a known liar and hypocrite - was brought down a peg or two. She is an embarrassment to the city, and every time she speaks she insults her constituents.[/p][/quote]As one of her constituents and one that she has assisted, you couldn't be further from the truth. So she upsets council officers sometimes - most need bringing to heal. Fight_Back

9:31am Fri 20 Dec 13

raymondo999 says...

Fight_Back wrote:
raymondo999 wrote:
Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.
Don't happen to work for the council do you ? Maybe you are Tim or Dan !
No but I've been on a long walk to freedom, have you?
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.[/p][/quote]Don't happen to work for the council do you ? Maybe you are Tim or Dan ![/p][/quote]No but I've been on a long walk to freedom, have you? raymondo999

9:32am Fri 20 Dec 13

Fight_Back says...

Smartbloke wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago.
You lot are in charge - change it.

As for the costs of this farce - the Argus should put in an FOI request to see how much this has cost. Then people should remember this when the Greens put up the council tax AGAIN in 2014 and 2015. They should also remember this when they vote in 2015.

The two council officers who complained - Read and Hermitage - should also face action for wasting so much taxpayers money on their petty little vendetta.
Well, you've fallen for the Argus proopaganda hook, line and sinker. How embarrassing for you.

The council tax rise will be voted for by ALL parties - thanks for a policy set out by the TORY-led government.

As for the line 'it's a waste of council taxpayers' money' - it would have been part of the individuals' job. NO extra money was required. You're merely trotting out the dumb remit of Cllr Barnett (notorious liar). Again you should feel embarrassed to fall for being so gullible.

Good to see the true airheads of the Argus Comment Section out in force with their mock outrage. The rest of Brighton laughs at you lot for being so stupid.
I'm assuming you haven't read the diatribe of a complaint then ? Yes, those officers are indeed already paid for but they should have been carrying out worthwhile work instead of running this kangaroo court. I've had meetings with one of the council officers who complained and with Cllr Barnett and I can assure you the lair isn't Cllr Barnett.
[quote][p][bold]Smartbloke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago.[/p][/quote]You lot are in charge - change it. As for the costs of this farce - the Argus should put in an FOI request to see how much this has cost. Then people should remember this when the Greens put up the council tax AGAIN in 2014 and 2015. They should also remember this when they vote in 2015. The two council officers who complained - Read and Hermitage - should also face action for wasting so much taxpayers money on their petty little vendetta.[/p][/quote]Well, you've fallen for the Argus proopaganda hook, line and sinker. How embarrassing for you. The council tax rise will be voted for by ALL parties - thanks for a policy set out by the TORY-led government. As for the line 'it's a waste of council taxpayers' money' - it would have been part of the individuals' job. NO extra money was required. You're merely trotting out the dumb remit of Cllr Barnett (notorious liar). Again you should feel embarrassed to fall for being so gullible. Good to see the true airheads of the Argus Comment Section out in force with their mock outrage. The rest of Brighton laughs at you lot for being so stupid.[/p][/quote]I'm assuming you haven't read the diatribe of a complaint then ? Yes, those officers are indeed already paid for but they should have been carrying out worthwhile work instead of running this kangaroo court. I've had meetings with one of the council officers who complained and with Cllr Barnett and I can assure you the lair isn't Cllr Barnett. Fight_Back

9:34am Fri 20 Dec 13

Valerie Paynter says...

raymondo999 wrote:
Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.
Please at least check your facts before posting mindless PC abuse of this kind.

Is the swastika also that? No. It is a Hindu and Buddhist symbol hijacked by Austro-Germanic fascists calling themselves Nazis. Would you dare tell Hindus and Buddhists it has no place in a civilised society?

Is the English flag of St. George a symbol of racist supremacy? It was when it was hijacked by the National Front and BNP for their own racist use! But it got grabbed back by England football supporters - BIGTIME - back in the 1990's and it now enjoys a place of normality in this country again as a civilised geographical & territorial identifier.

You have either never set eyes on Two Dutch Dolls & a Golliwogg, let alone read it, or you are wilfully abusive. You can read it online as an e-book if you care to undertake some equalities and diversity training of your own.

Do black and minority ethnic council employees (and councillors) ALSO get offered equalities and diversity training so they can understand non-black and minority ethnic culture and how to behave so that is respected too? Why do I think this 'training' is one-sided?

I'm sick to the back teeth of this post-colonial revenge thing that sees giving the former oppressors (and the days of Empire WERE that) a kicking in perpetuity as some kind of justified right. Time to move on. There will be no equality or dignity until this happens.

The complaint made by the BHCC Black and Minority Ethnic Forum was grubby IMHO. How did what they did (and the other two council employees being described as mere residents, along with the council tenant) improve race relations? How civilised was it for these people to commandeer a vast amount of scarce BHCC financial and human resources (that cost time and money needed on council business) to pursue this charge?

And isn't it the truth that a golliwog is in itself a wonderful 1895 rag doll in a children's book who met some peg dolls he then joined for escapades and jollity? One so successful that another 14 books were written. One so successful Robertson's jam adopted it until 2001. And sadly also one abused by racists as the Hindu and Buddhist svastika was.

Time to reclaim the entirely benign and beautiful golliwog. It is not the golly that is racist or love of them. It is individual and groups of human beings who behave badly that is racist and maybe the complainants have no conscience about this or were just blindly pushing PC buttons.

Think on!
[quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.[/p][/quote]Please at least check your facts before posting mindless PC abuse of this kind. Is the swastika also that? No. It is a Hindu and Buddhist symbol hijacked by Austro-Germanic fascists calling themselves Nazis. Would you dare tell Hindus and Buddhists it has no place in a civilised society? Is the English flag of St. George a symbol of racist supremacy? It was when it was hijacked by the National Front and BNP for their own racist use! But it got grabbed back by England football supporters - BIGTIME - back in the 1990's and it now enjoys a place of normality in this country again as a civilised geographical & territorial identifier. You have either never set eyes on Two Dutch Dolls & a Golliwogg, let alone read it, or you are wilfully abusive. You can read it online as an e-book if you care to undertake some equalities and diversity training of your own. Do black and minority ethnic council employees (and councillors) ALSO get offered equalities and diversity training so they can understand non-black and minority ethnic culture and how to behave so that is respected too? Why do I think this 'training' is one-sided? I'm sick to the back teeth of this post-colonial revenge thing that sees giving the former oppressors (and the days of Empire WERE that) a kicking in perpetuity as some kind of justified right. Time to move on. There will be no equality or dignity until this happens. The complaint made by the BHCC Black and Minority Ethnic Forum was grubby IMHO. How did what they did (and the other two council employees being described as mere residents, along with the council tenant) improve race relations? How civilised was it for these people to commandeer a vast amount of scarce BHCC financial and human resources (that cost time and money needed on council business) to pursue this charge? And isn't it the truth that a golliwog is in itself a wonderful 1895 rag doll in a children's book who met some peg dolls he then joined for escapades and jollity? One so successful that another 14 books were written. One so successful Robertson's jam adopted it until 2001. And sadly also one abused by racists as the Hindu and Buddhist svastika was. Time to reclaim the entirely benign and beautiful golliwog. It is not the golly that is racist or love of them. It is individual and groups of human beings who behave badly that is racist and maybe the complainants have no conscience about this or were just blindly pushing PC buttons. Think on! Valerie Paynter

9:44am Fri 20 Dec 13

Valerie Paynter says...

raymondo999 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
raymondo999 wrote:
Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.
Don't happen to work for the council do you ? Maybe you are Tim or Dan !
No but I've been on a long walk to freedom, have you?
I'm not sure you understand what 'freedom' means. Free yourself from bitterness, resentment, hatred and bigotry, from reflex defensiveness and paranoia. Stop looking for racist intent in every nook and cranny and making your life about THAT and just get on with building your life and gaining PERSONAL respect you deserve....if you deserve it....with personal value and accomplishment. Go on. You CAN do it!
[quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.[/p][/quote]Don't happen to work for the council do you ? Maybe you are Tim or Dan ![/p][/quote]No but I've been on a long walk to freedom, have you?[/p][/quote]I'm not sure you understand what 'freedom' means. Free yourself from bitterness, resentment, hatred and bigotry, from reflex defensiveness and paranoia. Stop looking for racist intent in every nook and cranny and making your life about THAT and just get on with building your life and gaining PERSONAL respect you deserve....if you deserve it....with personal value and accomplishment. Go on. You CAN do it! Valerie Paynter

10:01am Fri 20 Dec 13

pithound says...

One of my friends at school was a white boy with tight black curly hair called Julian but everyone, including our mutual black friend, Danny, called him by the nickname Golly. Nobody meant any offence and nobody in my multiracial school took offence. If I was an elected Councillor and related this bit of social history during a Council meeting no doubt it would be kangaroo court time for me a few months down the line. I am a gay mixed race man by the way.
One of my friends at school was a white boy with tight black curly hair called Julian but everyone, including our mutual black friend, Danny, called him by the nickname Golly. Nobody meant any offence and nobody in my multiracial school took offence. If I was an elected Councillor and related this bit of social history during a Council meeting no doubt it would be kangaroo court time for me a few months down the line. I am a gay mixed race man by the way. pithound

10:16am Fri 20 Dec 13

Can this be says...

Is this the work of our green Greens again?
Is this the work of our green Greens again? Can this be

11:22am Fri 20 Dec 13

Heathen Earth says...

I’ve been appalled by this whole saga, on many levels, including what I consider to be the sensationalist & racist articles by so called journalists. The offence comes from the word w-g, if the defenders of Cllr Bennett simply called the rag-doll a ‘Golly’, as some posters above have done, I very much doubt there would have been an issue. Similarly, if I had a rag-doll dressed as an Orthodox Jew and called it something with the word y-d in it, that would also be offensive, so I’d think of another name.
I’ve been appalled by this whole saga, on many levels, including what I consider to be the sensationalist & racist articles by so called journalists. The offence comes from the word w-g, if the defenders of Cllr Bennett simply called the rag-doll a ‘Golly’, as some posters above have done, I very much doubt there would have been an issue. Similarly, if I had a rag-doll dressed as an Orthodox Jew and called it something with the word y-d in it, that would also be offensive, so I’d think of another name. Heathen Earth

11:33am Fri 20 Dec 13

raymondo999 says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
raymondo999 wrote:
Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.
Please at least check your facts before posting mindless PC abuse of this kind.

Is the swastika also that? No. It is a Hindu and Buddhist symbol hijacked by Austro-Germanic fascists calling themselves Nazis. Would you dare tell Hindus and Buddhists it has no place in a civilised society?

Is the English flag of St. George a symbol of racist supremacy? It was when it was hijacked by the National Front and BNP for their own racist use! But it got grabbed back by England football supporters - BIGTIME - back in the 1990's and it now enjoys a place of normality in this country again as a civilised geographical & territorial identifier.

You have either never set eyes on Two Dutch Dolls & a Golliwogg, let alone read it, or you are wilfully abusive. You can read it online as an e-book if you care to undertake some equalities and diversity training of your own.

Do black and minority ethnic council employees (and councillors) ALSO get offered equalities and diversity training so they can understand non-black and minority ethnic culture and how to behave so that is respected too? Why do I think this 'training' is one-sided?

I'm sick to the back teeth of this post-colonial revenge thing that sees giving the former oppressors (and the days of Empire WERE that) a kicking in perpetuity as some kind of justified right. Time to move on. There will be no equality or dignity until this happens.

The complaint made by the BHCC Black and Minority Ethnic Forum was grubby IMHO. How did what they did (and the other two council employees being described as mere residents, along with the council tenant) improve race relations? How civilised was it for these people to commandeer a vast amount of scarce BHCC financial and human resources (that cost time and money needed on council business) to pursue this charge?

And isn't it the truth that a golliwog is in itself a wonderful 1895 rag doll in a children's book who met some peg dolls he then joined for escapades and jollity? One so successful that another 14 books were written. One so successful Robertson's jam adopted it until 2001. And sadly also one abused by racists as the Hindu and Buddhist svastika was.

Time to reclaim the entirely benign and beautiful golliwog. It is not the golly that is racist or love of them. It is individual and groups of human beings who behave badly that is racist and maybe the complainants have no conscience about this or were just blindly pushing PC buttons.

Think on!
Goodness me what a tirade. I had no idea that you would interprete my opinions on racism as mindless PC abuse. I know nothing of PC or the council, but I know a lot about racism and have encountered it throughout my life. My only response to you, Madame, is that you fail to take account of the social context of words and symbols. But as you speak of being sick to the back teeth of post colonial revenge, I don't think the chances of a rational argument are very high, so I will leave you
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.[/p][/quote]Please at least check your facts before posting mindless PC abuse of this kind. Is the swastika also that? No. It is a Hindu and Buddhist symbol hijacked by Austro-Germanic fascists calling themselves Nazis. Would you dare tell Hindus and Buddhists it has no place in a civilised society? Is the English flag of St. George a symbol of racist supremacy? It was when it was hijacked by the National Front and BNP for their own racist use! But it got grabbed back by England football supporters - BIGTIME - back in the 1990's and it now enjoys a place of normality in this country again as a civilised geographical & territorial identifier. You have either never set eyes on Two Dutch Dolls & a Golliwogg, let alone read it, or you are wilfully abusive. You can read it online as an e-book if you care to undertake some equalities and diversity training of your own. Do black and minority ethnic council employees (and councillors) ALSO get offered equalities and diversity training so they can understand non-black and minority ethnic culture and how to behave so that is respected too? Why do I think this 'training' is one-sided? I'm sick to the back teeth of this post-colonial revenge thing that sees giving the former oppressors (and the days of Empire WERE that) a kicking in perpetuity as some kind of justified right. Time to move on. There will be no equality or dignity until this happens. The complaint made by the BHCC Black and Minority Ethnic Forum was grubby IMHO. How did what they did (and the other two council employees being described as mere residents, along with the council tenant) improve race relations? How civilised was it for these people to commandeer a vast amount of scarce BHCC financial and human resources (that cost time and money needed on council business) to pursue this charge? And isn't it the truth that a golliwog is in itself a wonderful 1895 rag doll in a children's book who met some peg dolls he then joined for escapades and jollity? One so successful that another 14 books were written. One so successful Robertson's jam adopted it until 2001. And sadly also one abused by racists as the Hindu and Buddhist svastika was. Time to reclaim the entirely benign and beautiful golliwog. It is not the golly that is racist or love of them. It is individual and groups of human beings who behave badly that is racist and maybe the complainants have no conscience about this or were just blindly pushing PC buttons. Think on![/p][/quote]Goodness me what a tirade. I had no idea that you would interprete my opinions on racism as mindless PC abuse. I know nothing of PC or the council, but I know a lot about racism and have encountered it throughout my life. My only response to you, Madame, is that you fail to take account of the social context of words and symbols. But as you speak of being sick to the back teeth of post colonial revenge, I don't think the chances of a rational argument are very high, so I will leave you raymondo999

11:34am Fri 20 Dec 13

Quiterie says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
raymondo999 wrote:
Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.
Please at least check your facts before posting mindless PC abuse of this kind.

Is the swastika also that? No. It is a Hindu and Buddhist symbol hijacked by Austro-Germanic fascists calling themselves Nazis. Would you dare tell Hindus and Buddhists it has no place in a civilised society?

Is the English flag of St. George a symbol of racist supremacy? It was when it was hijacked by the National Front and BNP for their own racist use! But it got grabbed back by England football supporters - BIGTIME - back in the 1990's and it now enjoys a place of normality in this country again as a civilised geographical & territorial identifier.

You have either never set eyes on Two Dutch Dolls & a Golliwogg, let alone read it, or you are wilfully abusive. You can read it online as an e-book if you care to undertake some equalities and diversity training of your own.

Do black and minority ethnic council employees (and councillors) ALSO get offered equalities and diversity training so they can understand non-black and minority ethnic culture and how to behave so that is respected too? Why do I think this 'training' is one-sided?

I'm sick to the back teeth of this post-colonial revenge thing that sees giving the former oppressors (and the days of Empire WERE that) a kicking in perpetuity as some kind of justified right. Time to move on. There will be no equality or dignity until this happens.

The complaint made by the BHCC Black and Minority Ethnic Forum was grubby IMHO. How did what they did (and the other two council employees being described as mere residents, along with the council tenant) improve race relations? How civilised was it for these people to commandeer a vast amount of scarce BHCC financial and human resources (that cost time and money needed on council business) to pursue this charge?

And isn't it the truth that a golliwog is in itself a wonderful 1895 rag doll in a children's book who met some peg dolls he then joined for escapades and jollity? One so successful that another 14 books were written. One so successful Robertson's jam adopted it until 2001. And sadly also one abused by racists as the Hindu and Buddhist svastika was.

Time to reclaim the entirely benign and beautiful golliwog. It is not the golly that is racist or love of them. It is individual and groups of human beings who behave badly that is racist and maybe the complainants have no conscience about this or were just blindly pushing PC buttons.

Think on!
Calm down dear......
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.[/p][/quote]Please at least check your facts before posting mindless PC abuse of this kind. Is the swastika also that? No. It is a Hindu and Buddhist symbol hijacked by Austro-Germanic fascists calling themselves Nazis. Would you dare tell Hindus and Buddhists it has no place in a civilised society? Is the English flag of St. George a symbol of racist supremacy? It was when it was hijacked by the National Front and BNP for their own racist use! But it got grabbed back by England football supporters - BIGTIME - back in the 1990's and it now enjoys a place of normality in this country again as a civilised geographical & territorial identifier. You have either never set eyes on Two Dutch Dolls & a Golliwogg, let alone read it, or you are wilfully abusive. You can read it online as an e-book if you care to undertake some equalities and diversity training of your own. Do black and minority ethnic council employees (and councillors) ALSO get offered equalities and diversity training so they can understand non-black and minority ethnic culture and how to behave so that is respected too? Why do I think this 'training' is one-sided? I'm sick to the back teeth of this post-colonial revenge thing that sees giving the former oppressors (and the days of Empire WERE that) a kicking in perpetuity as some kind of justified right. Time to move on. There will be no equality or dignity until this happens. The complaint made by the BHCC Black and Minority Ethnic Forum was grubby IMHO. How did what they did (and the other two council employees being described as mere residents, along with the council tenant) improve race relations? How civilised was it for these people to commandeer a vast amount of scarce BHCC financial and human resources (that cost time and money needed on council business) to pursue this charge? And isn't it the truth that a golliwog is in itself a wonderful 1895 rag doll in a children's book who met some peg dolls he then joined for escapades and jollity? One so successful that another 14 books were written. One so successful Robertson's jam adopted it until 2001. And sadly also one abused by racists as the Hindu and Buddhist svastika was. Time to reclaim the entirely benign and beautiful golliwog. It is not the golly that is racist or love of them. It is individual and groups of human beings who behave badly that is racist and maybe the complainants have no conscience about this or were just blindly pushing PC buttons. Think on![/p][/quote]Calm down dear...... Quiterie

12:02pm Fri 20 Dec 13

rayellerton says...

WTF is diversity training....isn't Councillor Barnett a bit old for street dancing?

as an outsider observing this PC farce it would be funny if it were Harry Enfield and Chums, but no...the professional hand wringers are out in force on this, and costing us, the public a lot of money. When will common sense return to local government?
WTF is diversity training....isn't Councillor Barnett a bit old for street dancing? as an outsider observing this PC farce it would be funny if it were Harry Enfield and Chums, but no...the professional hand wringers are out in force on this, and costing us, the public a lot of money. When will common sense return to local government? rayellerton

12:16pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Kawasaki998 says...

The sooner the "GREENS" are history the better. I had a "golliwog" and a black doll and I loved them.
The sooner the "GREENS" are history the better. I had a "golliwog" and a black doll and I loved them. Kawasaki998

12:31pm Fri 20 Dec 13

fredflintstone1 says...

What about Kitcat's Polish wife's deliberate racism, calling us native Brightonians inbred? I found that highly offensive. Yet nothing has been done about that. Please note - hers wasn't a general comment about a toy.....and it was broadcast too.

Strange that in this case with Cllr Barnett, during all this detailed investigation, no-one apparently spoke with the reporter who wrote the article?

Can we expect you & your Green friends now to institute an investigation as to why Council complainants were pursuing this complaint in Council time, and not in their own time? Should they not be disciplined/sacked - and has anyone invested whether this was a conspiracy? Looking forward to your reply!
What about Kitcat's Polish wife's deliberate racism, calling us native Brightonians inbred? I found that highly offensive. Yet nothing has been done about that. Please note - hers wasn't a general comment about a toy.....and it was broadcast too. Strange that in this case with Cllr Barnett, during all this detailed investigation, no-one apparently spoke with the reporter who wrote the article? Can we expect you & your Green friends now to institute an investigation as to why Council complainants were pursuing this complaint in Council time, and not in their own time? Should they not be disciplined/sacked - and has anyone invested whether this was a conspiracy? Looking forward to your reply! fredflintstone1

12:33pm Fri 20 Dec 13

fredflintstone1 says...

Eugenius wrote:
This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago.
What about Kitcat's Polish wife's deliberate racism, calling us native Brightonians inbred? I found that highly offensive. Yet nothing has been done about that. Why not? Please note - hers wasn't a general comment about a toy.....and it was broadcast too.

Strange that in this case with Cllr Barnett, during all this detailed investigation, no-one apparently spoke with the reporter who wrote the article?

Can we expect you & your Green friends now to institute an investigation as to why Council complainants were pursuing this complaint in Council time, and not in their own time? Should they not be disciplined/sacked - and has anyone investigated whether this was a conspiracy? Looking forward to your reply!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago.[/p][/quote]What about Kitcat's Polish wife's deliberate racism, calling us native Brightonians inbred? I found that highly offensive. Yet nothing has been done about that. Why not? Please note - hers wasn't a general comment about a toy.....and it was broadcast too. Strange that in this case with Cllr Barnett, during all this detailed investigation, no-one apparently spoke with the reporter who wrote the article? Can we expect you & your Green friends now to institute an investigation as to why Council complainants were pursuing this complaint in Council time, and not in their own time? Should they not be disciplined/sacked - and has anyone investigated whether this was a conspiracy? Looking forward to your reply! fredflintstone1

12:41pm Fri 20 Dec 13

thevoiceoftruth says...

raymondo999 wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
raymondo999 wrote:
Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.
Please at least check your facts before posting mindless PC abuse of this kind.

Is the swastika also that? No. It is a Hindu and Buddhist symbol hijacked by Austro-Germanic fascists calling themselves Nazis. Would you dare tell Hindus and Buddhists it has no place in a civilised society?

Is the English flag of St. George a symbol of racist supremacy? It was when it was hijacked by the National Front and BNP for their own racist use! But it got grabbed back by England football supporters - BIGTIME - back in the 1990's and it now enjoys a place of normality in this country again as a civilised geographical & territorial identifier.

You have either never set eyes on Two Dutch Dolls & a Golliwogg, let alone read it, or you are wilfully abusive. You can read it online as an e-book if you care to undertake some equalities and diversity training of your own.

Do black and minority ethnic council employees (and councillors) ALSO get offered equalities and diversity training so they can understand non-black and minority ethnic culture and how to behave so that is respected too? Why do I think this 'training' is one-sided?

I'm sick to the back teeth of this post-colonial revenge thing that sees giving the former oppressors (and the days of Empire WERE that) a kicking in perpetuity as some kind of justified right. Time to move on. There will be no equality or dignity until this happens.

The complaint made by the BHCC Black and Minority Ethnic Forum was grubby IMHO. How did what they did (and the other two council employees being described as mere residents, along with the council tenant) improve race relations? How civilised was it for these people to commandeer a vast amount of scarce BHCC financial and human resources (that cost time and money needed on council business) to pursue this charge?

And isn't it the truth that a golliwog is in itself a wonderful 1895 rag doll in a children's book who met some peg dolls he then joined for escapades and jollity? One so successful that another 14 books were written. One so successful Robertson's jam adopted it until 2001. And sadly also one abused by racists as the Hindu and Buddhist svastika was.

Time to reclaim the entirely benign and beautiful golliwog. It is not the golly that is racist or love of them. It is individual and groups of human beings who behave badly that is racist and maybe the complainants have no conscience about this or were just blindly pushing PC buttons.

Think on!
Goodness me what a tirade. I had no idea that you would interprete my opinions on racism as mindless PC abuse. I know nothing of PC or the council, but I know a lot about racism and have encountered it throughout my life. My only response to you, Madame, is that you fail to take account of the social context of words and symbols. But as you speak of being sick to the back teeth of post colonial revenge, I don't think the chances of a rational argument are very high, so I will leave you
The headline is wrong. The council have brought themselves into disrepute by persuing this personal vendetta right to the bitter end. Pretty much all the complaints were made by workers at the council. The other complaint (15 pages) was far more racist than the original comment!

What a waste of time and money, only to come to the conclusion that diversity training (costing more money) is needed. Keeps someone in a job, I guess.
[quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.[/p][/quote]Please at least check your facts before posting mindless PC abuse of this kind. Is the swastika also that? No. It is a Hindu and Buddhist symbol hijacked by Austro-Germanic fascists calling themselves Nazis. Would you dare tell Hindus and Buddhists it has no place in a civilised society? Is the English flag of St. George a symbol of racist supremacy? It was when it was hijacked by the National Front and BNP for their own racist use! But it got grabbed back by England football supporters - BIGTIME - back in the 1990's and it now enjoys a place of normality in this country again as a civilised geographical & territorial identifier. You have either never set eyes on Two Dutch Dolls & a Golliwogg, let alone read it, or you are wilfully abusive. You can read it online as an e-book if you care to undertake some equalities and diversity training of your own. Do black and minority ethnic council employees (and councillors) ALSO get offered equalities and diversity training so they can understand non-black and minority ethnic culture and how to behave so that is respected too? Why do I think this 'training' is one-sided? I'm sick to the back teeth of this post-colonial revenge thing that sees giving the former oppressors (and the days of Empire WERE that) a kicking in perpetuity as some kind of justified right. Time to move on. There will be no equality or dignity until this happens. The complaint made by the BHCC Black and Minority Ethnic Forum was grubby IMHO. How did what they did (and the other two council employees being described as mere residents, along with the council tenant) improve race relations? How civilised was it for these people to commandeer a vast amount of scarce BHCC financial and human resources (that cost time and money needed on council business) to pursue this charge? And isn't it the truth that a golliwog is in itself a wonderful 1895 rag doll in a children's book who met some peg dolls he then joined for escapades and jollity? One so successful that another 14 books were written. One so successful Robertson's jam adopted it until 2001. And sadly also one abused by racists as the Hindu and Buddhist svastika was. Time to reclaim the entirely benign and beautiful golliwog. It is not the golly that is racist or love of them. It is individual and groups of human beings who behave badly that is racist and maybe the complainants have no conscience about this or were just blindly pushing PC buttons. Think on![/p][/quote]Goodness me what a tirade. I had no idea that you would interprete my opinions on racism as mindless PC abuse. I know nothing of PC or the council, but I know a lot about racism and have encountered it throughout my life. My only response to you, Madame, is that you fail to take account of the social context of words and symbols. But as you speak of being sick to the back teeth of post colonial revenge, I don't think the chances of a rational argument are very high, so I will leave you[/p][/quote]The headline is wrong. The council have brought themselves into disrepute by persuing this personal vendetta right to the bitter end. Pretty much all the complaints were made by workers at the council. The other complaint (15 pages) was far more racist than the original comment! What a waste of time and money, only to come to the conclusion that diversity training (costing more money) is needed. Keeps someone in a job, I guess. thevoiceoftruth

12:59pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ambo Guy says...

This is the link to the YouTue clip where Ania Kitkat makes her Britonian inbreeding comment.

The comment is at around 1 minute in. Kason who's sat behind her clearly finds it very funny too. I don't really find it all that funny.

http://m.youtube.com
/watch?v=zH18Y60rNOc
&desktop_uri=%2Fwatc
h%3Fv%3DzH18Y60rNOc
This is the link to the YouTue clip where Ania Kitkat makes her Britonian inbreeding comment. The comment is at around 1 minute in. Kason who's sat behind her clearly finds it very funny too. I don't really find it all that funny. http://m.youtube.com /watch?v=zH18Y60rNOc &desktop_uri=%2Fwatc h%3Fv%3DzH18Y60rNOc Ambo Guy

1:11pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Tippy Toes says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
This is the link to the YouTue clip where Ania Kitkat makes her Britonian inbreeding comment.

The comment is at around 1 minute in. Kason who's sat behind her clearly finds it very funny too. I don't really find it all that funny.

http://m.youtube.com

/watch?v=zH18Y60rNOc

&desktop_uri=%2F
watc
h%3Fv%3DzH18Y60rNOc
Just watched the clip - stupid woman, and very insulting!
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: This is the link to the YouTue clip where Ania Kitkat makes her Britonian inbreeding comment. The comment is at around 1 minute in. Kason who's sat behind her clearly finds it very funny too. I don't really find it all that funny. http://m.youtube.com /watch?v=zH18Y60rNOc &desktop_uri=%2F watc h%3Fv%3DzH18Y60rNOc[/p][/quote]Just watched the clip - stupid woman, and very insulting! Tippy Toes

1:13pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Man of steel says...

Diversity training, isn't that another phrase used instead of brain washing?
I too now wish to make a complaint of the strongest nature about Kitkat's wife calling us Brightonians "inbred".
It was, as she comes from Poland, racist in the extreme, it was highly offensive, it was said regardless of our feelings, it was not said about an individual, but about all people living in the town, it was broadcast for all to hear, not just said person to person.
To use an arguement used by Mr Madhar, it also reminds me too strongly of the experiments done in the USA in the 1930s and of the "culling" and resettlement of people in the USSR, purely because lived in a particular town, or they were different, or had learning difficulties, therefore causing upset and distress to Brightonians.
Diversity training, isn't that another phrase used instead of brain washing? I too now wish to make a complaint of the strongest nature about Kitkat's wife calling us Brightonians "inbred". It was, as she comes from Poland, racist in the extreme, it was highly offensive, it was said regardless of our feelings, it was not said about an individual, but about all people living in the town, it was broadcast for all to hear, not just said person to person. To use an arguement used by Mr Madhar, it also reminds me too strongly of the experiments done in the USA in the 1930s and of the "culling" and resettlement of people in the USSR, purely because lived in a particular town, or they were different, or had learning difficulties, therefore causing upset and distress to Brightonians. Man of steel

1:15pm Fri 20 Dec 13

beano mcbean says...

Is it gratifying that the council could find the funding for this farce? No wonder services are having to be cut!
Is it gratifying that the council could find the funding for this farce? No wonder services are having to be cut! beano mcbean

1:16pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Tippy Toes says...

Man of steel wrote:
Diversity training, isn't that another phrase used instead of brain washing?
I too now wish to make a complaint of the strongest nature about Kitkat's wife calling us Brightonians "inbred".
It was, as she comes from Poland, racist in the extreme, it was highly offensive, it was said regardless of our feelings, it was not said about an individual, but about all people living in the town, it was broadcast for all to hear, not just said person to person.
To use an arguement used by Mr Madhar, it also reminds me too strongly of the experiments done in the USA in the 1930s and of the "culling" and resettlement of people in the USSR, purely because lived in a particular town, or they were different, or had learning difficulties, therefore causing upset and distress to Brightonians.
Maybe we should all raise complaints!
[quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: Diversity training, isn't that another phrase used instead of brain washing? I too now wish to make a complaint of the strongest nature about Kitkat's wife calling us Brightonians "inbred". It was, as she comes from Poland, racist in the extreme, it was highly offensive, it was said regardless of our feelings, it was not said about an individual, but about all people living in the town, it was broadcast for all to hear, not just said person to person. To use an arguement used by Mr Madhar, it also reminds me too strongly of the experiments done in the USA in the 1930s and of the "culling" and resettlement of people in the USSR, purely because lived in a particular town, or they were different, or had learning difficulties, therefore causing upset and distress to Brightonians.[/p][/quote]Maybe we should all raise complaints! Tippy Toes

1:25pm Fri 20 Dec 13

jonem1 says...

Whoa! This wasn't a Green witch hunt though I'm sure they and Labour colleagues relished every moment of it. This was driven by the complainant with the enthusiastic co-operation of the BMEWF.

Does Diversity Training have any value? Global HPO Ltd were commissioned last year (at a cost of £5000) to undertake a study of Race Equality in Employment in Brighton & Hove City Council and one of the most interesting comments in their final Report was of Council staff asking "What is Diversity? When we ask there is nobody who can give us a clear definition of it." Yet there is a whole team within the Council, at who knows what cost, dedicated to Diversity.

Perhaps Diversity is the difference between the Council's commitment to 'open-ness and accountability' and the holding of kangaroo courts behind closed doors?

What has happened to Cllr Barnett, a highly respected Councillor and a warm generous individual, is the standard bullying reaction by this Council to anyone who asks too many questions or challenges bad practises.
Whoa! This wasn't a Green witch hunt though I'm sure they and Labour colleagues relished every moment of it. This was driven by the complainant with the enthusiastic co-operation of the BMEWF. Does Diversity Training have any value? Global HPO Ltd were commissioned last year (at a cost of £5000) to undertake a study of Race Equality in Employment in Brighton & Hove City Council and one of the most interesting comments in their final Report was of Council staff asking "What is Diversity? When we ask there is nobody who can give us a clear definition of it." Yet there is a whole team within the Council, at who knows what cost, dedicated to Diversity. Perhaps Diversity is the difference between the Council's commitment to 'open-ness and accountability' and the holding of kangaroo courts behind closed doors? What has happened to Cllr Barnett, a highly respected Councillor and a warm generous individual, is the standard bullying reaction by this Council to anyone who asks too many questions or challenges bad practises. jonem1

1:41pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Bubs says...

But she didn't actually say that Brighton locals were inbred... she said that having people come to Brighton from other places prevents inbreeding. Different thing.
But she didn't actually say that Brighton locals were inbred... she said that having people come to Brighton from other places prevents inbreeding. Different thing. Bubs

1:42pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Roundbill says...

It just goes to show you can't be too careful!
It just goes to show you can't be too careful! Roundbill

1:43pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Man of steel says...

This has just had an airing on South East news, they are asking for people to get in touch if they feel that it is a waste of tax payers money, or if they agree with it.
This has just had an airing on South East news, they are asking for people to get in touch if they feel that it is a waste of tax payers money, or if they agree with it. Man of steel

1:45pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Fight_Back says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
This is the link to the YouTue clip where Ania Kitkat makes her Britonian inbreeding comment.

The comment is at around 1 minute in. Kason who's sat behind her clearly finds it very funny too. I don't really find it all that funny.

http://m.youtube.com

/watch?v=zH18Y60rNOc

&desktop_uri=%2F
watc
h%3Fv%3DzH18Y60rNOc
The stupid dumb blonde should stick to taking her clothes off ! Oh, sorry, was that offensive Ania ? If you do find it offensive then I'd suggest you use your passport to return to whence you came. That video clearly shows double standards on behalf of the council - did she say it while the Greens were in power ? Of course she did ..... hmmmmmm.

Still shows a witch hunt by two council employees against Cllr Barnett.
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: This is the link to the YouTue clip where Ania Kitkat makes her Britonian inbreeding comment. The comment is at around 1 minute in. Kason who's sat behind her clearly finds it very funny too. I don't really find it all that funny. http://m.youtube.com /watch?v=zH18Y60rNOc &desktop_uri=%2F watc h%3Fv%3DzH18Y60rNOc[/p][/quote]The stupid dumb blonde should stick to taking her clothes off ! Oh, sorry, was that offensive Ania ? If you do find it offensive then I'd suggest you use your passport to return to whence you came. That video clearly shows double standards on behalf of the council - did she say it while the Greens were in power ? Of course she did ..... hmmmmmm. Still shows a witch hunt by two council employees against Cllr Barnett. Fight_Back

1:45pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Tippy Toes says...

Bubs wrote:
But she didn't actually say that Brighton locals were inbred... she said that having people come to Brighton from other places prevents inbreeding. Different thing.
But by the look on her face that was clearly what she meant!
[quote][p][bold]Bubs[/bold] wrote: But she didn't actually say that Brighton locals were inbred... she said that having people come to Brighton from other places prevents inbreeding. Different thing.[/p][/quote]But by the look on her face that was clearly what she meant! Tippy Toes

1:46pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ricayboy says...

I hate Brighton sometimes and I hate the Green Party for this kind of nonsense.
I hate Brighton sometimes and I hate the Green Party for this kind of nonsense. Ricayboy

1:46pm Fri 20 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

What is even more telling is that this hearing was held behind closed doors on nothing more then the quoting of the mechanism for doing so ... no reason given for invoking the mechanism.

I cannot but wonder whether this Hearing can be considered as a valid hearing as members of the public have not been made privy to the reasons behind the finding despite there being no valid reason given for the exclusion.
What is even more telling is that this hearing was held behind closed doors on nothing more then the quoting of the mechanism for doing so ... no reason given for invoking the mechanism. I cannot but wonder whether this Hearing can be considered as a valid hearing as members of the public have not been made privy to the reasons behind the finding despite there being no valid reason given for the exclusion. mimseycal

1:50pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Man of steel says...

Bubs wrote:
But she didn't actually say that Brighton locals were inbred... she said that having people come to Brighton from other places prevents inbreeding. Different thing.
No, you are wrong.
She said that she welcomed travellers to prevent inbreeding, this infers that without them Brightonians would be inbred, therefore she is saying that at the moment Brightonians are inbred, but with outside help, this could be changed.
[quote][p][bold]Bubs[/bold] wrote: But she didn't actually say that Brighton locals were inbred... she said that having people come to Brighton from other places prevents inbreeding. Different thing.[/p][/quote]No, you are wrong. She said that she welcomed travellers to prevent inbreeding, this infers that without them Brightonians would be inbred, therefore she is saying that at the moment Brightonians are inbred, but with outside help, this could be changed. Man of steel

1:54pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Hove Actually says...

Kitcat must be working for the UKIP party if she thinks calling Brightonians "inbred" is the way forward.
Polish Car washes, Polish Callgirls. Polish Builders and now Polish Racists
Brighton really does have them all
Kitcat must be working for the UKIP party if she thinks calling Brightonians "inbred" is the way forward. Polish Car washes, Polish Callgirls. Polish Builders and now Polish Racists Brighton really does have them all Hove Actually

1:56pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ricayboy says...

Time to realise that we live in a very twisted society where anybody who has an opinion other than the one prescribed by the state is ruthlessly oppressed and silenced. Free speech? It's being eroded every day. Political correctness is an instrument of oppression and it will only get worse unless we start to oppose it in numbers.
Time to realise that we live in a very twisted society where anybody who has an opinion other than the one prescribed by the state is ruthlessly oppressed and silenced. Free speech? It's being eroded every day. Political correctness is an instrument of oppression and it will only get worse unless we start to oppose it in numbers. Ricayboy

2:06pm Fri 20 Dec 13

bikerjimbo says...

Thanks BHCC for wasting our money on this trivial complaint. What Dawn said seems to me to be a statement of fact from her. I can see nothing wrong at all, she isn't being racist and I would think just putting her point of view to show the gollies as toys, which most of my generation grew up with and I am not racist, and if I was my golliwog would not have caused it. I think the people who need the diversity training are the complainants so that they can put this into perspective. In a way this will backfire because I anticipate Dawn having a landslide vote come 2015. I sincerely hope so and I also hope she views these posts so that she knows the support she has from us normal Brightonians.
Thanks BHCC for wasting our money on this trivial complaint. What Dawn said seems to me to be a statement of fact from her. I can see nothing wrong at all, she isn't being racist and I would think just putting her point of view to show the gollies as toys, which most of my generation grew up with and I am not racist, and if I was my golliwog would not have caused it. I think the people who need the diversity training are the complainants so that they can put this into perspective. In a way this will backfire because I anticipate Dawn having a landslide vote come 2015. I sincerely hope so and I also hope she views these posts so that she knows the support she has from us normal Brightonians. bikerjimbo

3:04pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Vox populi 2 says...

If it took five hours to adjudicate on this this pathetic charge then I bet the three wise councillors adjudicating must have also discussed and decided
"Good Golly Miss Molly" can't be played any more at the council Christmas bash - and Robertsons marmalade must be taken off the canteen menu.
If it took five hours to adjudicate on this this pathetic charge then I bet the three wise councillors adjudicating must have also discussed and decided "Good Golly Miss Molly" can't be played any more at the council Christmas bash - and Robertsons marmalade must be taken off the canteen menu. Vox populi 2

3:05pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Fight_Back says...

bikerjimbo wrote:
Thanks BHCC for wasting our money on this trivial complaint. What Dawn said seems to me to be a statement of fact from her. I can see nothing wrong at all, she isn't being racist and I would think just putting her point of view to show the gollies as toys, which most of my generation grew up with and I am not racist, and if I was my golliwog would not have caused it. I think the people who need the diversity training are the complainants so that they can put this into perspective. In a way this will backfire because I anticipate Dawn having a landslide vote come 2015. I sincerely hope so and I also hope she views these posts so that she knows the support she has from us normal Brightonians.
This whole thing has guaranteed her my vote come 2015 - assuming she stands.
[quote][p][bold]bikerjimbo[/bold] wrote: Thanks BHCC for wasting our money on this trivial complaint. What Dawn said seems to me to be a statement of fact from her. I can see nothing wrong at all, she isn't being racist and I would think just putting her point of view to show the gollies as toys, which most of my generation grew up with and I am not racist, and if I was my golliwog would not have caused it. I think the people who need the diversity training are the complainants so that they can put this into perspective. In a way this will backfire because I anticipate Dawn having a landslide vote come 2015. I sincerely hope so and I also hope she views these posts so that she knows the support she has from us normal Brightonians.[/p][/quote]This whole thing has guaranteed her my vote come 2015 - assuming she stands. Fight_Back

3:06pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Man of steel says...

A previous poster said:-
The stupid dumb blonde should stick to taking her clothes off ! Oh, sorry, was that offensive Ania ?
I think you will find that she still does, see the following link.
http://www.starnow.c
o.uk/aniakitcat
A previous poster said:- The stupid dumb blonde should stick to taking her clothes off ! Oh, sorry, was that offensive Ania ? I think you will find that she still does, see the following link. http://www.starnow.c o.uk/aniakitcat Man of steel

3:39pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Motorcyclist says...

The claim that Golliwogs are racist is supported by literary depictions by writers such as Enid Blyton. Unlike Florence Upton's, Blyton's Golliwogs were often rude, mischievous, elfin villains. In Blyton's book, "Here Comes Noddy Again", a Golliwog asks the hero for help, then steals his car. Blyton, one of the most prolific European writers, included the Golliwogs in many stories, but she only wrote three books primarily about Golliwogs: The Three Golliwogs (1944), The Proud Golliwog (1951), and The Golliwog Grumbled (1953). Her depictions of Golliwogs are, by contemporary standards, racially insensitive. An excerpt from The Three Golliwogs is illustrative:

Once the three bold Golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and ****, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn't quite ready so Woggie and **** said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woggie and ****, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song - which, as you may guess, was Ten Little **** Boys.

Offensive? Yes!
The claim that Golliwogs are racist is supported by literary depictions by writers such as Enid Blyton. Unlike Florence Upton's, Blyton's Golliwogs were often rude, mischievous, elfin villains. In Blyton's book, "Here Comes Noddy Again", a Golliwog asks the hero for help, then steals his car. Blyton, one of the most prolific European writers, included the Golliwogs in many stories, but she only wrote three books primarily about Golliwogs: The Three Golliwogs (1944), The Proud Golliwog (1951), and The Golliwog Grumbled (1953). Her depictions of Golliwogs are, by contemporary standards, racially insensitive. An excerpt from The Three Golliwogs is illustrative: Once the three bold Golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and ****, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn't quite ready so Woggie and **** said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woggie and ****, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song - which, as you may guess, was Ten Little **** Boys. Offensive? Yes! Motorcyclist

3:44pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Motorcyclist says...

Motorcyclist wrote:
The claim that Golliwogs are racist is supported by literary depictions by writers such as Enid Blyton. Unlike Florence Upton's, Blyton's Golliwogs were often rude, mischievous, elfin villains. In Blyton's book, "Here Comes Noddy Again", a Golliwog asks the hero for help, then steals his car. Blyton, one of the most prolific European writers, included the Golliwogs in many stories, but she only wrote three books primarily about Golliwogs: The Three Golliwogs (1944), The Proud Golliwog (1951), and The Golliwog Grumbled (1953). Her depictions of Golliwogs are, by contemporary standards, racially insensitive. An excerpt from The Three Golliwogs is illustrative:

Once the three bold Golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and ****, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn't quite ready so Woggie and **** said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woggie and ****, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song - which, as you may guess, was Ten Little **** Boys.

Offensive? Yes!
The blocked word starts with "n", ends in "r" and has six letters.
[quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: The claim that Golliwogs are racist is supported by literary depictions by writers such as Enid Blyton. Unlike Florence Upton's, Blyton's Golliwogs were often rude, mischievous, elfin villains. In Blyton's book, "Here Comes Noddy Again", a Golliwog asks the hero for help, then steals his car. Blyton, one of the most prolific European writers, included the Golliwogs in many stories, but she only wrote three books primarily about Golliwogs: The Three Golliwogs (1944), The Proud Golliwog (1951), and The Golliwog Grumbled (1953). Her depictions of Golliwogs are, by contemporary standards, racially insensitive. An excerpt from The Three Golliwogs is illustrative: Once the three bold Golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and ****, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn't quite ready so Woggie and **** said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woggie and ****, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song - which, as you may guess, was Ten Little **** Boys. Offensive? Yes![/p][/quote]The blocked word starts with "n", ends in "r" and has six letters. Motorcyclist

3:49pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ivan66 says...

How could it be possible that a citizen of a free country, who presumably has a right to free thought and speech, is NOT ALLOWED to simply HOLD and STATE a different OPINION as to whether a certain food mat sold at a local gift store is racist or not?
How could it be possible that a citizen of a free country, who presumably has a right to free thought and speech, is NOT ALLOWED to simply HOLD and STATE a different OPINION as to whether a certain food mat sold at a local gift store is racist or not? Ivan66

4:26pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Valerie Paynter says...

Man of steel wrote:
This has just had an airing on South East news, they are asking for people to get in touch if they feel that it is a waste of tax payers money, or if they agree with it.
Go to @saveHOVE for a retweet that gives the reporter's email address. If not on twitter google saveHOVE and get to it that way.
[quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: This has just had an airing on South East news, they are asking for people to get in touch if they feel that it is a waste of tax payers money, or if they agree with it.[/p][/quote]Go to @saveHOVE for a retweet that gives the reporter's email address. If not on twitter google saveHOVE and get to it that way. Valerie Paynter

4:33pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Valerie Paynter says...

Motorcyclist wrote:
Motorcyclist wrote:
The claim that Golliwogs are racist is supported by literary depictions by writers such as Enid Blyton. Unlike Florence Upton's, Blyton's Golliwogs were often rude, mischievous, elfin villains. In Blyton's book, "Here Comes Noddy Again", a Golliwog asks the hero for help, then steals his car. Blyton, one of the most prolific European writers, included the Golliwogs in many stories, but she only wrote three books primarily about Golliwogs: The Three Golliwogs (1944), The Proud Golliwog (1951), and The Golliwog Grumbled (1953). Her depictions of Golliwogs are, by contemporary standards, racially insensitive. An excerpt from The Three Golliwogs is illustrative:

Once the three bold Golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and ****, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn't quite ready so Woggie and **** said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woggie and ****, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song - which, as you may guess, was Ten Little **** Boys.

Offensive? Yes!
The blocked word starts with "n", ends in "r" and has six letters.
....and Hitler 'borrowed' the Hindu/Buddhist svastika for his Nazis to use for a flag...do you reward that by perpetuating the blight he put on a respectable religious symbol? Or do you grab it back from him?

I think there is a desperate wish to hang onto golliwogs as racist for fear of running out of epithets and racist accusations frankly! Give it back I say! Upton's invention is not racist. And neither is the Robertson's jam version. And how can something that is loved be so resented and persecuted and called racist? It is illogical nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: The claim that Golliwogs are racist is supported by literary depictions by writers such as Enid Blyton. Unlike Florence Upton's, Blyton's Golliwogs were often rude, mischievous, elfin villains. In Blyton's book, "Here Comes Noddy Again", a Golliwog asks the hero for help, then steals his car. Blyton, one of the most prolific European writers, included the Golliwogs in many stories, but she only wrote three books primarily about Golliwogs: The Three Golliwogs (1944), The Proud Golliwog (1951), and The Golliwog Grumbled (1953). Her depictions of Golliwogs are, by contemporary standards, racially insensitive. An excerpt from The Three Golliwogs is illustrative: Once the three bold Golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and ****, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn't quite ready so Woggie and **** said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woggie and ****, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song - which, as you may guess, was Ten Little **** Boys. Offensive? Yes![/p][/quote]The blocked word starts with "n", ends in "r" and has six letters.[/p][/quote]....and Hitler 'borrowed' the Hindu/Buddhist svastika for his Nazis to use for a flag...do you reward that by perpetuating the blight he put on a respectable religious symbol? Or do you grab it back from him? I think there is a desperate wish to hang onto golliwogs as racist for fear of running out of epithets and racist accusations frankly! Give it back I say! Upton's invention is not racist. And neither is the Robertson's jam version. And how can something that is loved be so resented and persecuted and called racist? It is illogical nonsense. Valerie Paynter

4:33pm Fri 20 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

The question rather should be can something as subjective and personal as 'taking offence' be legislated against or regulated for.

Call me a Yid ... call me a Yid even with every intention to offend and all it shows me is a powerless nincompoop without the nous to come up with an intelligent and original insult. Refer to my hook nose, my tendency to hoard every penny and my preference to chopped liver over pickled onions and all it will cause me to do, if I can be bothered to do anything, is wondering about the paucity of your education, your rather limited reading material and your sad lack of creativity.

Surely, the option to be offended is a matter for personal choice that every well balanced, emotionally and intellectually mature individual is assumed to have.

This absurdity to call people to book for using a word, or viewing an image as personally nostalgic means that we are patronising the BME community. We are in effect saying, we know you are not able to exercise your option to be offended. We need to therefore protect you like the tender, immature and emotionally unstable minority community we prefer you to be.
The question rather should be can something as subjective and personal as 'taking offence' be legislated against or regulated for. Call me a Yid ... call me a Yid even with every intention to offend and all it shows me is a powerless nincompoop without the nous to come up with an intelligent and original insult. Refer to my hook nose, my tendency to hoard every penny and my preference to chopped liver over pickled onions and all it will cause me to do, if I can be bothered to do anything, is wondering about the paucity of your education, your rather limited reading material and your sad lack of creativity. Surely, the option to be offended is a matter for personal choice that every well balanced, emotionally and intellectually mature individual is assumed to have. This absurdity to call people to book for using a word, or viewing an image as personally nostalgic means that we are patronising the BME community. We are in effect saying, we know you are not able to exercise your option to be offended. We need to therefore protect you like the tender, immature and emotionally unstable minority community we prefer you to be. mimseycal

4:56pm Fri 20 Dec 13

JHunty says...

Motorcyclist wrote:
Motorcyclist wrote:
The claim that Golliwogs are racist is supported by literary depictions by writers such as Enid Blyton. Unlike Florence Upton's, Blyton's Golliwogs were often rude, mischievous, elfin villains. In Blyton's book, "Here Comes Noddy Again", a Golliwog asks the hero for help, then steals his car. Blyton, one of the most prolific European writers, included the Golliwogs in many stories, but she only wrote three books primarily about Golliwogs: The Three Golliwogs (1944), The Proud Golliwog (1951), and The Golliwog Grumbled (1953). Her depictions of Golliwogs are, by contemporary standards, racially insensitive. An excerpt from The Three Golliwogs is illustrative:

Once the three bold Golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and ****, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn't quite ready so Woggie and **** said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woggie and ****, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song - which, as you may guess, was Ten Little **** Boys.

Offensive? Yes!
The blocked word starts with "n", ends in "r" and has six letters.
That would make Enid Blyton racist then not the gollywogs.
She was found guilty of bringing the council into disrepute. Which would mean that Brighton Council would have to have a repute that could be dissed in the first place.
Its clear that some of the complainants had an axe to grind and it is also clear that diversity in this instance means that no one is allowed to have an opinion that differs from that of a small unelected pressure group.
The irony of this happening on the same day that Radio 4 gave Anjem Choudray a platform to continue to spout his particular brand of hateful ideology is not lost on me. His comments were offensive to thousands yet he has freedom of speech but Dawn does not.
[quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: The claim that Golliwogs are racist is supported by literary depictions by writers such as Enid Blyton. Unlike Florence Upton's, Blyton's Golliwogs were often rude, mischievous, elfin villains. In Blyton's book, "Here Comes Noddy Again", a Golliwog asks the hero for help, then steals his car. Blyton, one of the most prolific European writers, included the Golliwogs in many stories, but she only wrote three books primarily about Golliwogs: The Three Golliwogs (1944), The Proud Golliwog (1951), and The Golliwog Grumbled (1953). Her depictions of Golliwogs are, by contemporary standards, racially insensitive. An excerpt from The Three Golliwogs is illustrative: Once the three bold Golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and ****, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn't quite ready so Woggie and **** said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woggie and ****, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song - which, as you may guess, was Ten Little **** Boys. Offensive? Yes![/p][/quote]The blocked word starts with "n", ends in "r" and has six letters.[/p][/quote]That would make Enid Blyton racist then not the gollywogs. She was found guilty of bringing the council into disrepute. Which would mean that Brighton Council would have to have a repute that could be dissed in the first place. Its clear that some of the complainants had an axe to grind and it is also clear that diversity in this instance means that no one is allowed to have an opinion that differs from that of a small unelected pressure group. The irony of this happening on the same day that Radio 4 gave Anjem Choudray a platform to continue to spout his particular brand of hateful ideology is not lost on me. His comments were offensive to thousands yet he has freedom of speech but Dawn does not. JHunty

5:42pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Plantpot says...

There is no such thing as freedom of sppech in the UK, and nor has there been for a very long time.
There is no such thing as freedom of sppech in the UK, and nor has there been for a very long time. Plantpot

5:45pm Fri 20 Dec 13

sussexram40 says...

I'm the last person anyone would call racist yet I had a golliwog when I was a kid and I used to collect the tokens off the jam to order the badges.I loved my golliwog.

It's ridiculous. Surely it's more racist to ban a toy with a black face than to own one and love it.
I'm the last person anyone would call racist yet I had a golliwog when I was a kid and I used to collect the tokens off the jam to order the badges.I loved my golliwog. It's ridiculous. Surely it's more racist to ban a toy with a black face than to own one and love it. sussexram40

5:45pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Valerie Paynter says...

mimseycal wrote:
The question rather should be can something as subjective and personal as 'taking offence' be legislated against or regulated for.

Call me a Yid ... call me a Yid even with every intention to offend and all it shows me is a powerless nincompoop without the nous to come up with an intelligent and original insult. Refer to my hook nose, my tendency to hoard every penny and my preference to chopped liver over pickled onions and all it will cause me to do, if I can be bothered to do anything, is wondering about the paucity of your education, your rather limited reading material and your sad lack of creativity.

Surely, the option to be offended is a matter for personal choice that every well balanced, emotionally and intellectually mature individual is assumed to have.

This absurdity to call people to book for using a word, or viewing an image as personally nostalgic means that we are patronising the BME community. We are in effect saying, we know you are not able to exercise your option to be offended. We need to therefore protect you like the tender, immature and emotionally unstable minority community we prefer you to be.
Quite so.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: The question rather should be can something as subjective and personal as 'taking offence' be legislated against or regulated for. Call me a Yid ... call me a Yid even with every intention to offend and all it shows me is a powerless nincompoop without the nous to come up with an intelligent and original insult. Refer to my hook nose, my tendency to hoard every penny and my preference to chopped liver over pickled onions and all it will cause me to do, if I can be bothered to do anything, is wondering about the paucity of your education, your rather limited reading material and your sad lack of creativity. Surely, the option to be offended is a matter for personal choice that every well balanced, emotionally and intellectually mature individual is assumed to have. This absurdity to call people to book for using a word, or viewing an image as personally nostalgic means that we are patronising the BME community. We are in effect saying, we know you are not able to exercise your option to be offended. We need to therefore protect you like the tender, immature and emotionally unstable minority community we prefer you to be.[/p][/quote]Quite so. Valerie Paynter

6:27pm Fri 20 Dec 13

fredflintstone1 says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago.
What about Kitcat's Polish wife's deliberate racism, calling us native Brightonians inbred? I found that highly offensive. Yet nothing has been done about that. Why not? Please note - hers wasn't a general comment about a toy.....and it was broadcast too.

Strange that in this case with Cllr Barnett, during all this detailed investigation, no-one apparently spoke with the reporter who wrote the article?

Can we expect you & your Green friends now to institute an investigation as to why Council complainants were pursuing this complaint in Council time, and not in their own time? Should they not be disciplined/sacked - and has anyone investigated whether this was a conspiracy? Looking forward to your reply!
So Eugenius - you could only be a Green spokesperson, posting under such a self-delusionary moniker! (BTW, Birch himself contributed a lasting legancy to Brighton. He didn't wreck it like your lot .....)

Please answer these points, on behalf of your party.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago.[/p][/quote]What about Kitcat's Polish wife's deliberate racism, calling us native Brightonians inbred? I found that highly offensive. Yet nothing has been done about that. Why not? Please note - hers wasn't a general comment about a toy.....and it was broadcast too. Strange that in this case with Cllr Barnett, during all this detailed investigation, no-one apparently spoke with the reporter who wrote the article? Can we expect you & your Green friends now to institute an investigation as to why Council complainants were pursuing this complaint in Council time, and not in their own time? Should they not be disciplined/sacked - and has anyone investigated whether this was a conspiracy? Looking forward to your reply![/p][/quote]So Eugenius - you could only be a Green spokesperson, posting under such a self-delusionary moniker! (BTW, Birch himself contributed a lasting legancy to Brighton. He didn't wreck it like your lot .....) Please answer these points, on behalf of your party. fredflintstone1

7:43pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Roy Pennington says...

the sanction is just about the lowest sanction possible; the more important issue is the restricted nature of the hearing. The ban on the public and Press attendance should be subject to an enquiry and indeed a question in Parliament.

http://www.theargus.
co.uk/opinion/opinio
n/10887816.By_Golly_
__Extras_and_deletio
ns/

http://www.theargus.
co.uk/opinion/opinio
n/10890709.By_Golly_
_Panel_find_Cllr_Bar
nett__guilty___behin
d_closed_doors/
the sanction is just about the lowest sanction possible; the more important issue is the restricted nature of the hearing. The ban on the public and Press attendance should be subject to an enquiry and indeed a question in Parliament. http://www.theargus. co.uk/opinion/opinio n/10887816.By_Golly_ __Extras_and_deletio ns/ http://www.theargus. co.uk/opinion/opinio n/10890709.By_Golly_ _Panel_find_Cllr_Bar nett__guilty___behin d_closed_doors/ Roy Pennington

8:27pm Fri 20 Dec 13

nuff said says...

Cllr Barnett seems like a typical elderly Tory councillor - out of date and out of touch with the world as it is now, as opposed to what is was like when she was born in the 1940s.
Cllr Barnett seems like a typical elderly Tory councillor - out of date and out of touch with the world as it is now, as opposed to what is was like when she was born in the 1940s. nuff said

8:40pm Fri 20 Dec 13

fredflintstone1 says...

nuff said wrote:
Cllr Barnett seems like a typical elderly Tory councillor - out of date and out of touch with the world as it is now, as opposed to what is was like when she was born in the 1940s.
Full of ageist bigots like you, you mean?
[quote][p][bold]nuff said[/bold] wrote: Cllr Barnett seems like a typical elderly Tory councillor - out of date and out of touch with the world as it is now, as opposed to what is was like when she was born in the 1940s.[/p][/quote]Full of ageist bigots like you, you mean? fredflintstone1

11:06pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Ozimandias says...

twonk wrote:
The world has gone mad. I had a gollywog as a kid and it did me no harm. If the dolls were a different colour would that be ok?
I was a child in the 1950s and I remember words and phrases used then(even on TV and radio) which would be unthinkable today. Nobody thought in the 1950s that a childrens' cartoon character would cause offence but today we realise that racists could use the description of the character in a very bad way. In the 1950s smoking was almost universal, now it is not allowed in public places. It is a restriction of liberty based on the health benefits of clean air, The lady councillor was probably not as aware of the current climate of "political correctness" as she should have been - but her reported words were not as bad as the ones used recently by UKIP MEP Mr Bloom!
[quote][p][bold]twonk[/bold] wrote: The world has gone mad. I had a gollywog as a kid and it did me no harm. If the dolls were a different colour would that be ok?[/p][/quote]I was a child in the 1950s and I remember words and phrases used then(even on TV and radio) which would be unthinkable today. Nobody thought in the 1950s that a childrens' cartoon character would cause offence but today we realise that racists could use the description of the character in a very bad way. In the 1950s smoking was almost universal, now it is not allowed in public places. It is a restriction of liberty based on the health benefits of clean air, The lady councillor was probably not as aware of the current climate of "political correctness" as she should have been - but her reported words were not as bad as the ones used recently by UKIP MEP Mr Bloom! Ozimandias

11:54pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Vigilia says...

Brighton councillor rapped over golliwog comment

BBC News online.
Councillor Dawn Barnett
Councillor Dawn Barnett said she apologised if she had upset or insulted anyone
A Brighton councillor who told a newspaper reporter that golliwogs were not racist has been disciplined.

Councillor Dawn Barnett was found to have broken the council conduct code.

But Ms Barnett, who had commented about a shop selling golliwog drinks mats, said a disciplinary panel should not have happened and defended her remarks.

Brighton council said she inadvertently broke the code, which says members should not bring their office or the authority into disrepute.

The city's black history group said Ms Barnett's comments were offensive.

'Trivial thing'
Ms Barnett said she was asked for an opinion by the Argus about a shop that was selling the mats

"I said I can see no harm in them. They are nostalgic, I'm 72 years old. My generation grew up with them."

She added: "Racist was never even talked about when I was a child. Racist was not a word we even knew."

Ms Barnett said of the council's action: "I don't believe it should have ever got this far.

"The expense to the council taxpayers and the time, the hours and hours of officers' work, for basically nothing, for a trivial thing."

The councillor for Hangleton and Knoll said: "If I upset anybody, or I've insulted anybody, I apologise."

'Racist term'
Bert Williams, from Brighton and Hove Black History Group, said the word "golliwog" was historically used to tease black people.

"I had personal experience in the 1960s," he said.

He said people used to tear golliwog labels off Robertson's jam jars and stick them on people's backs.

"You were walking around with it all day not knowing you've had this golliwog on your back.

"It was used to tease us and it was used as a racist term."

A decision notice issued by the council's standards panel said it accepted Ms Barnett had not intended to cause offence and that she had agreed to undertake equalities training.

We are the laughing stock of the nation because a politically inspired cabal of Council employees sought to bring this absurd issue to a hearing. The Chief Executive should very seriously consider her position in the light of this appalling display of lack of leadership.
Brighton councillor rapped over golliwog comment BBC News online. Councillor Dawn Barnett Councillor Dawn Barnett said she apologised if she had upset or insulted anyone A Brighton councillor who told a newspaper reporter that golliwogs were not racist has been disciplined. Councillor Dawn Barnett was found to have broken the council conduct code. But Ms Barnett, who had commented about a shop selling golliwog drinks mats, said a disciplinary panel should not have happened and defended her remarks. Brighton council said she inadvertently broke the code, which says members should not bring their office or the authority into disrepute. The city's black history group said Ms Barnett's comments were offensive. 'Trivial thing' Ms Barnett said she was asked for an opinion by the Argus about a shop that was selling the mats "I said I can see no harm in them. They are nostalgic, I'm 72 years old. My generation grew up with them." She added: "Racist was never even talked about when I was a child. Racist was not a word we even knew." Ms Barnett said of the council's action: "I don't believe it should have ever got this far. "The expense to the council taxpayers and the time, the hours and hours of officers' work, for basically nothing, for a trivial thing." The councillor for Hangleton and Knoll said: "If I upset anybody, or I've insulted anybody, I apologise." 'Racist term' Bert Williams, from Brighton and Hove Black History Group, said the word "golliwog" was historically used to tease black people. "I had personal experience in the 1960s," he said. He said people used to tear golliwog labels off Robertson's jam jars and stick them on people's backs. "You were walking around with it all day not knowing you've had this golliwog on your back. "It was used to tease us and it was used as a racist term." A decision notice issued by the council's standards panel said it accepted Ms Barnett had not intended to cause offence and that she had agreed to undertake equalities training. We are the laughing stock of the nation because a politically inspired cabal of Council employees sought to bring this absurd issue to a hearing. The Chief Executive should very seriously consider her position in the light of this appalling display of lack of leadership. Vigilia

7:11am Sat 21 Dec 13

menton says...

I grew up collecting golliwog labels from Robertson's jam and I still love golliwogs. I am also gay and proud of it. Am I diverse enough, I wonder, or should the council re-train me?

Boll**ks to the council.
I grew up collecting golliwog labels from Robertson's jam and I still love golliwogs. I am also gay and proud of it. Am I diverse enough, I wonder, or should the council re-train me? Boll**ks to the council. menton

8:03am Sat 21 Dec 13

menton says...

Another thought....... We pay for all these "monitoring officers" and "heads of democratic services", whatever they may be. What a load of old crap it all is. I pay my council tax out of my pension and in return I get this rubbish. Just brilliant, isn't it????

Roll on the 2015 elections. LONG LIVE POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS.
Another thought....... We pay for all these "monitoring officers" and "heads of democratic services", whatever they may be. What a load of old crap it all is. I pay my council tax out of my pension and in return I get this rubbish. Just brilliant, isn't it???? Roll on the 2015 elections. LONG LIVE POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS. menton

8:20am Sat 21 Dec 13

Balmy zephyrs says...

Cyril Bolleaux wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago.
Can you not do something about it? Many people find it quite sinister that not only do trivial issues end up before formal hearings but also Councillors are subject to "re-education". It is positively Maoist.
A sad reflection of our prissy society .... Natural selection will remove these bigots in 2015
[quote][p][bold]Cyril Bolleaux[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago.[/p][/quote]Can you not do something about it? Many people find it quite sinister that not only do trivial issues end up before formal hearings but also Councillors are subject to "re-education". It is positively Maoist.[/p][/quote]A sad reflection of our prissy society .... Natural selection will remove these bigots in 2015 Balmy zephyrs

8:32am Sat 21 Dec 13

Phani Tikkala says...

I'd like to know who were the 3 councillors who were on the panel…..
I'd like to know who were the 3 councillors who were on the panel….. Phani Tikkala

9:20am Sat 21 Dec 13

Vigilia says...

Phani Tikkala wrote:
I'd like to know who were the 3 councillors who were on the panel…..
They were Councillors Deane , Ann Norman and Summers . The Independent Advisor was a Dr Lel Meleyal, Lecturer in Social Work and Social Care.
[quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: I'd like to know who were the 3 councillors who were on the panel…..[/p][/quote]They were Councillors Deane [Green], Ann Norman [Conservative] and Summers [Independent]. The Independent Advisor was a Dr Lel Meleyal, Lecturer in Social Work and Social Care. Vigilia

9:27am Sat 21 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

Phani Tikkala wrote:
I'd like to know who were the 3 councillors who were on the panel…..
Lizzie Deane (Green), Anne Norman (Conservative) and Christine Summers (Green, till she got drummed out by the Green party for not playing 'follow the leader' nicely and currently an Independent) ... Dr Lel Meleyal was the co-opted member
[quote][p][bold]Phani Tikkala[/bold] wrote: I'd like to know who were the 3 councillors who were on the panel…..[/p][/quote]Lizzie Deane (Green), Anne Norman (Conservative) and Christine Summers (Green, till she got drummed out by the Green party for not playing 'follow the leader' nicely and currently an Independent) ... Dr Lel Meleyal was the co-opted member mimseycal

9:35am Sat 21 Dec 13

raymondo999 says...

Yo Bro!
Yo Bro! raymondo999

9:47am Sat 21 Dec 13

Valerie Paynter says...

Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session.

So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother.

We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it.

It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued.
Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session. So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother. We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it. It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued. Valerie Paynter

9:47am Sat 21 Dec 13

GRANDAD says...

Some people will see badness in every act,however humanitarian or charitable it may be.
Diversity , inclusiveness, call it what you will it is still telling others what to think or say.
If those who practise these instructional messages would like complete formats as to how to control the population and make them bend to their will there are historical formats available from Russia and China, now slowly being questioned or discarded but for an up to date format i would point these diversity instructionalists towards North Kores.
Who was it who said those who can't, teach
Some people will see badness in every act,however humanitarian or charitable it may be. Diversity , inclusiveness, call it what you will it is still telling others what to think or say. If those who practise these instructional messages would like complete formats as to how to control the population and make them bend to their will there are historical formats available from Russia and China, now slowly being questioned or discarded but for an up to date format i would point these diversity instructionalists towards North Kores. Who was it who said those who can't, teach GRANDAD

10:25am Sat 21 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session.

So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother.

We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it.

It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued.
True ... no vote but plenty of persuasion. Look at the credentials for crying out loud ... a Lecturer in Social Work and Social Care.

I personally would have a lot more faith in an independent advisor who was either a lecturer in Law ... at least they are trained to think objectively ... or, better still ... some average jo\e nabbed from the local supermarket queue who would have given some idea of who really is bringing the Council into disrepute!
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session. So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother. We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it. It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued.[/p][/quote]True ... no vote but plenty of persuasion. Look at the credentials for crying out loud ... a Lecturer in Social Work and Social Care. I personally would have a lot more faith in an independent advisor who was either a lecturer in Law ... at least they are trained to think objectively ... or, better still ... some average jo\e nabbed from the local supermarket queue who would have given some idea of who really is bringing the Council into disrepute! mimseycal

10:48am Sat 21 Dec 13

ibidi03 says...

mimseycal wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session.

So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother.

We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it.

It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued.
True ... no vote but plenty of persuasion. Look at the credentials for crying out loud ... a Lecturer in Social Work and Social Care.

I personally would have a lot more faith in an independent advisor who was either a lecturer in Law ... at least they are trained to think objectively ... or, better still ... some average jo\e nabbed from the local supermarket queue who would have given some idea of who really is bringing the Council into disrepute!
Hi Mimseycal, I think that your contributions to this debate have been interesting and thought-provoking, but I do take issue with this comment...it is based on your pre-formed ideas about about what someone with this woman's job title will think and say, but is not based on any true knowledge about what went on in that hearing. It is stoking a fire based on insinuation rather than fact, and this is the last thing that is needed here. With the dearth of information provided we are in one sense free to speculate, but that does not mean that this is healthy or helpful and it may actually be doing some people an injustice, which is what all posters on here are objecting to in one way or another.
Best wishes to you
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session. So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother. We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it. It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued.[/p][/quote]True ... no vote but plenty of persuasion. Look at the credentials for crying out loud ... a Lecturer in Social Work and Social Care. I personally would have a lot more faith in an independent advisor who was either a lecturer in Law ... at least they are trained to think objectively ... or, better still ... some average jo\e nabbed from the local supermarket queue who would have given some idea of who really is bringing the Council into disrepute![/p][/quote]Hi Mimseycal, I think that your contributions to this debate have been interesting and thought-provoking, but I do take issue with this comment...it is based on your pre-formed ideas about about what someone with this woman's job title will think and say, but is not based on any true knowledge about what went on in that hearing. It is stoking a fire based on insinuation rather than fact, and this is the last thing that is needed here. With the dearth of information provided we are in one sense free to speculate, but that does not mean that this is healthy or helpful and it may actually be doing some people an injustice, which is what all posters on here are objecting to in one way or another. Best wishes to you ibidi03

10:57am Sat 21 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

Fair point. Sadly, no one has any idea of what went on in that hearing as the public and the press were excluded.

As for pre-formed ideas ... true again. All I can go on is my experience of the profession and the professionals; of fairly long standing sadly as one of those (un)fortunate individuals who is considered 'vulnerable' due to a severe disability. I have also experienced the breed in a number of other environments ... as the grandmother of mixed race children, the mother of a fosterling and a single parent of fairly long standing who brought up her children on a 'deprived' council estate.
Fair point. Sadly, no one has any idea of what went on in that hearing as the public and the press were excluded. As for pre-formed ideas ... true again. All I can go on is my experience of the profession and the professionals; of fairly long standing sadly as one of those (un)fortunate individuals who is considered 'vulnerable' due to a severe disability. I have also experienced the breed in a number of other environments ... as the grandmother of mixed race children, the mother of a fosterling and a single parent of fairly long standing who brought up her children on a 'deprived' council estate. mimseycal

11:00am Sat 21 Dec 13

deanaprior says...

I bet Dawn Barrett was the first person The Argus phoned.
She could just say no comment and let everybody get on with more important stuff but instead she has to stand up against the politically correct and the anti-gollywog campaigners.
I think everyone in the council on all parties just let out a big sigh when they realised they're going to go through all this nonsense just because The Argus needs some filler.
I bet Dawn Barrett was the first person The Argus phoned. She could just say no comment and let everybody get on with more important stuff but instead she has to stand up against the politically correct and the anti-gollywog campaigners. I think everyone in the council on all parties just let out a big sigh when they realised they're going to go through all this nonsense just because The Argus needs some filler. deanaprior

11:00am Sat 21 Dec 13

raymondo999 says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session.

So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother.

We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it.

It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued.
Yesterday you subjected me to a history lesson on golliwogs and a tirade of abuse for suggesting that I personally found them racist. Now I read that you seem to be quite closely involved in this case and say that "we" demanded to have her statement. Would you care to let everyone know who you are and what organisation you represent? Before you ask I am just an interested bystander with no political or organisational affiliations.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session. So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother. We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it. It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued.[/p][/quote]Yesterday you subjected me to a history lesson on golliwogs and a tirade of abuse for suggesting that I personally found them racist. Now I read that you seem to be quite closely involved in this case and say that "we" demanded to have her statement. Would you care to let everyone know who you are and what organisation you represent? Before you ask I am just an interested bystander with no political or organisational affiliations. raymondo999

11:09am Sat 21 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

raymondo999 wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session.

So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother.

We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it.

It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued.
Yesterday you subjected me to a history lesson on golliwogs and a tirade of abuse for suggesting that I personally found them racist. Now I read that you seem to be quite closely involved in this case and say that "we" demanded to have her statement. Would you care to let everyone know who you are and what organisation you represent? Before you ask I am just an interested bystander with no political or organisational affiliations.
Valerie Paynter was one of the members of the public who attended the hearing. As was I and a few other concerned individuals ...
[quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session. So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother. We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it. It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued.[/p][/quote]Yesterday you subjected me to a history lesson on golliwogs and a tirade of abuse for suggesting that I personally found them racist. Now I read that you seem to be quite closely involved in this case and say that "we" demanded to have her statement. Would you care to let everyone know who you are and what organisation you represent? Before you ask I am just an interested bystander with no political or organisational affiliations.[/p][/quote]Valerie Paynter was one of the members of the public who attended the hearing. As was I and a few other concerned individuals ... mimseycal

11:40am Sat 21 Dec 13

Can this be says...

mimseycal wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session.

So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother.

We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it.

It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued.
True ... no vote but plenty of persuasion. Look at the credentials for crying out loud ... a Lecturer in Social Work and Social Care.

I personally would have a lot more faith in an independent advisor who was either a lecturer in Law ... at least they are trained to think objectively ... or, better still ... some average jo\e nabbed from the local supermarket queue who would have given some idea of who really is bringing the Council into disrepute!
Yes, a normal person with bags of common sense would have been a good choice.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session. So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother. We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it. It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued.[/p][/quote]True ... no vote but plenty of persuasion. Look at the credentials for crying out loud ... a Lecturer in Social Work and Social Care. I personally would have a lot more faith in an independent advisor who was either a lecturer in Law ... at least they are trained to think objectively ... or, better still ... some average jo\e nabbed from the local supermarket queue who would have given some idea of who really is bringing the Council into disrepute![/p][/quote]Yes, a normal person with bags of common sense would have been a good choice. Can this be

11:45am Sat 21 Dec 13

raymondo999 says...

mimseycal wrote:
raymondo999 wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session.

So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother.

We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it.

It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued.
Yesterday you subjected me to a history lesson on golliwogs and a tirade of abuse for suggesting that I personally found them racist. Now I read that you seem to be quite closely involved in this case and say that "we" demanded to have her statement. Would you care to let everyone know who you are and what organisation you represent? Before you ask I am just an interested bystander with no political or organisational affiliations.
Valerie Paynter was one of the members of the public who attended the hearing. As was I and a few other concerned individuals ...
Thank you but that's not quite the whole story is it? Since my last posting I have discovered the "Save Hove" web site which describes itself as a planning and environmental action group. I would not have described golliwogs as a planning issue, but Valerie Paynter appears to have used this site to publicise her research on them and her own strongly held views about this case.. She has used much of this material in her contributions on this thread.. Are you and the other concerned members of the public members of this group?
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session. So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother. We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it. It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued.[/p][/quote]Yesterday you subjected me to a history lesson on golliwogs and a tirade of abuse for suggesting that I personally found them racist. Now I read that you seem to be quite closely involved in this case and say that "we" demanded to have her statement. Would you care to let everyone know who you are and what organisation you represent? Before you ask I am just an interested bystander with no political or organisational affiliations.[/p][/quote]Valerie Paynter was one of the members of the public who attended the hearing. As was I and a few other concerned individuals ...[/p][/quote]Thank you but that's not quite the whole story is it? Since my last posting I have discovered the "Save Hove" web site which describes itself as a planning and environmental action group. I would not have described golliwogs as a planning issue, but Valerie Paynter appears to have used this site to publicise her research on them and her own strongly held views about this case.. She has used much of this material in her contributions on this thread.. Are you and the other concerned members of the public members of this group? raymondo999

12:24pm Sat 21 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

Holding strong views about one issue does not of necessity mean you cannot hold valid views on another. I hold loads of views on loads of subjects ... planning and environment is not necessarily one of them ... though if it ever falls within my notice ... say, some developer proposes to build what passes for a crumbled tin can on the King Alfred site ... I'll be there.
Holding strong views about one issue does not of necessity mean you cannot hold valid views on another. I hold loads of views on loads of subjects ... planning and environment is not necessarily one of them ... though if it ever falls within my notice ... say, some developer proposes to build what passes for a crumbled tin can on the King Alfred site ... I'll be there. mimseycal

12:45pm Sat 21 Dec 13

JHunty says...

raymondo999 wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
raymondo999 wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session.

So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother.

We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it.

It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued.
Yesterday you subjected me to a history lesson on golliwogs and a tirade of abuse for suggesting that I personally found them racist. Now I read that you seem to be quite closely involved in this case and say that "we" demanded to have her statement. Would you care to let everyone know who you are and what organisation you represent? Before you ask I am just an interested bystander with no political or organisational affiliations.
Valerie Paynter was one of the members of the public who attended the hearing. As was I and a few other concerned individuals ...
Thank you but that's not quite the whole story is it? Since my last posting I have discovered the "Save Hove" web site which describes itself as a planning and environmental action group. I would not have described golliwogs as a planning issue, but Valerie Paynter appears to have used this site to publicise her research on them and her own strongly held views about this case.. She has used much of this material in her contributions on this thread.. Are you and the other concerned members of the public members of this group?
I'm glad Valerie and others attended, it's good the council and those who made the complaints understand that their actions will be held up for scrutiny. You seem to be trying to suggest some sinister motive behind that fact. You also seem to be trying to float the idea that there is some sort of secret society involved here. As for "discovering" the save hove web site, are you serious? Every regular reader of the Argus is well aware of this site and Valerie's connection to it. I'll give you a clue, it's a site on the Internet, it's not exactly how you go about hiding things, by putting them on the Internet.
You seem to think if you can't play the ball you'll play the man. Smearing those you disagree with won't win you any fans.
[quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: Please note the advisor on the panel had no vote. Only the 3 Cllrs had the decision to make. Cllr Summers looked angry and upset and very unhappy when the panel covened at the end of its nearly day-long deliberations to announce its findings in open and public session. So how did they vote? I'd be surprised if Cllr Summers voted in favour of the sanction in view of how she behaved when Lizzie Deane announced it from her notes. They had time to get it typed for circulation to assembled and did not bother. We demanded to have her statement : verbatim and officers surprised Cllr Deane by appearing to prevaricate about that - speaking only of a council decision notice "early next week". Cllr Deane then herself sought assurance her text would be provided. And they all scuttled out without a clearly stated undertaking to provide it. It matters because of the possibility formal complaints against various parties may be pusued.[/p][/quote]Yesterday you subjected me to a history lesson on golliwogs and a tirade of abuse for suggesting that I personally found them racist. Now I read that you seem to be quite closely involved in this case and say that "we" demanded to have her statement. Would you care to let everyone know who you are and what organisation you represent? Before you ask I am just an interested bystander with no political or organisational affiliations.[/p][/quote]Valerie Paynter was one of the members of the public who attended the hearing. As was I and a few other concerned individuals ...[/p][/quote]Thank you but that's not quite the whole story is it? Since my last posting I have discovered the "Save Hove" web site which describes itself as a planning and environmental action group. I would not have described golliwogs as a planning issue, but Valerie Paynter appears to have used this site to publicise her research on them and her own strongly held views about this case.. She has used much of this material in her contributions on this thread.. Are you and the other concerned members of the public members of this group?[/p][/quote]I'm glad Valerie and others attended, it's good the council and those who made the complaints understand that their actions will be held up for scrutiny. You seem to be trying to suggest some sinister motive behind that fact. You also seem to be trying to float the idea that there is some sort of secret society involved here. As for "discovering" the save hove web site, are you serious? Every regular reader of the Argus is well aware of this site and Valerie's connection to it. I'll give you a clue, it's a site on the Internet, it's not exactly how you go about hiding things, by putting them on the Internet. You seem to think if you can't play the ball you'll play the man. Smearing those you disagree with won't win you any fans. JHunty

1:37pm Sat 21 Dec 13

raymondo999 says...

Forgive me, I am not a regular reader of the argus, although I have lived in brighton for 40 years, and so was unaware of the save hove website. I was not intending to smear anyone, although the vehemence of the responses I get does make me slightly suspicious of organised harassment. However on reading the save hove site, I notice that Valerie Paynter gets a lot of useful information on golliwogs from a US university museum of racist memorabilia. That seems to say a lot to me, even though she thinks this is an unjustified hijacking of a loveable toy. But she also thinks the swastika is value free.......
Forgive me, I am not a regular reader of the argus, although I have lived in brighton for 40 years, and so was unaware of the save hove website. I was not intending to smear anyone, although the vehemence of the responses I get does make me slightly suspicious of organised harassment. However on reading the save hove site, I notice that Valerie Paynter gets a lot of useful information on golliwogs from a US university museum of racist memorabilia. That seems to say a lot to me, even though she thinks this is an unjustified hijacking of a loveable toy. But she also thinks the swastika is value free....... raymondo999

1:58pm Sat 21 Dec 13

thevoiceoftruth says...

Motorcyclist wrote:
The claim that Golliwogs are racist is supported by literary depictions by writers such as Enid Blyton. Unlike Florence Upton's, Blyton's Golliwogs were often rude, mischievous, elfin villains. In Blyton's book, "Here Comes Noddy Again", a Golliwog asks the hero for help, then steals his car. Blyton, one of the most prolific European writers, included the Golliwogs in many stories, but she only wrote three books primarily about Golliwogs: The Three Golliwogs (1944), The Proud Golliwog (1951), and The Golliwog Grumbled (1953). Her depictions of Golliwogs are, by contemporary standards, racially insensitive. An excerpt from The Three Golliwogs is illustrative:

Once the three bold Golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and ****, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn't quite ready so Woggie and **** said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woggie and ****, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song - which, as you may guess, was Ten Little **** Boys.

Offensive? Yes!
You need to take into account the fact that Enid Blyton was born over 100 years ago. She was not only xenophobic but also called the working class 'common and vulgar' and always gave them the part of the villain. I remember my nan (who was born around the same time as Enid) coming out with a racist word which I repeated. My mum gently explained that nan was from a different era and that attitudes had changed and I should never use words like that. In those days, the word n*gger was a commonly used term.

I'm sure your relatives from the Victorian era would share similar views.

We cannot delete history. We can only learn from it. Otherwise we may as well burn all the books from the past, because many of them will contain outdated views in comparison with today.
[quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: The claim that Golliwogs are racist is supported by literary depictions by writers such as Enid Blyton. Unlike Florence Upton's, Blyton's Golliwogs were often rude, mischievous, elfin villains. In Blyton's book, "Here Comes Noddy Again", a Golliwog asks the hero for help, then steals his car. Blyton, one of the most prolific European writers, included the Golliwogs in many stories, but she only wrote three books primarily about Golliwogs: The Three Golliwogs (1944), The Proud Golliwog (1951), and The Golliwog Grumbled (1953). Her depictions of Golliwogs are, by contemporary standards, racially insensitive. An excerpt from The Three Golliwogs is illustrative: Once the three bold Golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and ****, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn't quite ready so Woggie and **** said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woggie and ****, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song - which, as you may guess, was Ten Little **** Boys. Offensive? Yes![/p][/quote]You need to take into account the fact that Enid Blyton was born over 100 years ago. She was not only xenophobic but also called the working class 'common and vulgar' and always gave them the part of the villain. I remember my nan (who was born around the same time as Enid) coming out with a racist word which I repeated. My mum gently explained that nan was from a different era and that attitudes had changed and I should never use words like that. In those days, the word n*gger was a commonly used term. I'm sure your relatives from the Victorian era would share similar views. We cannot delete history. We can only learn from it. Otherwise we may as well burn all the books from the past, because many of them will contain outdated views in comparison with today. thevoiceoftruth

2:18pm Sat 21 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

raymondo999 wrote:
Forgive me, I am not a regular reader of the argus, although I have lived in brighton for 40 years, and so was unaware of the save hove website. I was not intending to smear anyone, although the vehemence of the responses I get does make me slightly suspicious of organised harassment. However on reading the save hove site, I notice that Valerie Paynter gets a lot of useful information on golliwogs from a US university museum of racist memorabilia. That seems to say a lot to me, even though she thinks this is an unjustified hijacking of a loveable toy. But she also thinks the swastika is value free.......
I don't think Valerie thinks the Swastika is value free, though of course Valerie is free to correct me on that.

Again, for those who do not regularly read these comments ... as a member of a family that was largely decimated by the Nazis in their concentration camps, I don't blame the Swastika nor do I cringe in horror or feel mortally offended when I see images of the Swastika.

When I see the Swastika it reminds me of many things and possibly first and foremost is the fact that a symbol means no more and no less then the meaning I allow it. It was hijacked by an extremist ideology and I claim it back! What I find offensive is people telling me that as a Jew, as the progeny of a family that lived, and mostly died, in the full horror of the Holocaust, I should be offended by the Swastika.

Yes, the Swastika has value. It is loaded to the brim with symbolic value. As a symbol it has been used for 3,000 years or more. It predates the Egyptian Ankh for crying out loud.

On 7 August 1920 the German Socialist Nationalist party decided it needed a national emblem ... this was during the Salzburg Congress BTW. They selected the Swastika as it had connotations that were relevant to them at that time. Not least of which was the fact that it historically has stood for life, sun, power, strength, and good luck in many cultures over thousands of years. Though the fact that it was also the emblem of the German Gymnast' League and with the partys' preoccupation with physical prowess may have had a bearing as well.

I do not intend to let their perversion of a symbol have any power over me, my equilibrium or my personal sense of security and self worth.
[quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: Forgive me, I am not a regular reader of the argus, although I have lived in brighton for 40 years, and so was unaware of the save hove website. I was not intending to smear anyone, although the vehemence of the responses I get does make me slightly suspicious of organised harassment. However on reading the save hove site, I notice that Valerie Paynter gets a lot of useful information on golliwogs from a US university museum of racist memorabilia. That seems to say a lot to me, even though she thinks this is an unjustified hijacking of a loveable toy. But she also thinks the swastika is value free.......[/p][/quote]I don't think Valerie thinks the Swastika is value free, though of course Valerie is free to correct me on that. Again, for those who do not regularly read these comments ... as a member of a family that was largely decimated by the Nazis in their concentration camps, I don't blame the Swastika nor do I cringe in horror or feel mortally offended when I see images of the Swastika. When I see the Swastika it reminds me of many things and possibly first and foremost is the fact that a symbol means no more and no less then the meaning I allow it. It was hijacked by an extremist ideology and I claim it back! What I find offensive is people telling me that as a Jew, as the progeny of a family that lived, and mostly died, in the full horror of the Holocaust, I should be offended by the Swastika. Yes, the Swastika has value. It is loaded to the brim with symbolic value. As a symbol it has been used for 3,000 years or more. It predates the Egyptian Ankh for crying out loud. On 7 August 1920 the German Socialist Nationalist party decided it needed a national emblem ... this was during the Salzburg Congress BTW. They selected the Swastika as it had connotations that were relevant to them at that time. Not least of which was the fact that it historically has stood for life, sun, power, strength, and good luck in many cultures over thousands of years. Though the fact that it was also the emblem of the German Gymnast' League and with the partys' preoccupation with physical prowess may have had a bearing as well. I do not intend to let their perversion of a symbol have any power over me, my equilibrium or my personal sense of security and self worth. mimseycal

3:50pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Satanslittlehelper says...

I am not a fan of Dawns by no means but I do feel she is being made an example of just for voicing her opinion. Freedom of speech? I bet those who fought and died in the war will be turning in their graves.
I am not a fan of Dawns by no means but I do feel she is being made an example of just for voicing her opinion. Freedom of speech? I bet those who fought and died in the war will be turning in their graves. Satanslittlehelper

4:42pm Sat 21 Dec 13

peachesncream says...

As I said on the previous article on this subject: on the opinion section of the Argus "This smacks of a witch hunt in a kangaroo court. Whatever happened to the freedom of speech and thought? George Orwell's predictions in "1984" have arrived in Brighton."

This panel consists of petty-minded control freaks who are now wasting more tax payers' resources on unnecessary equalities training for Dawn Barnett.

Furthermore, the Panel have acknowledged that "Councillor Barnett did NOT fail to comply with paragraph 3(2)(a) of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Members (‘You must not do anything which may cause your authority to breach any of its equality duties (in particular as set out in the Equality Act 2010’)". So why on earth should Councillor Barnett have to be given equalities training. This is absolutely and totally illogical.

If Councillors are to be hauled over the coals for expressing an opinion which offends a tiny number of people resulting in the likelihood that a Councillor's office or authority is brought into disrepute, then it will become increasingly difficult for Councillors to give an opinion on anything in case they offend someone and then become the subject of an internal investigation. This will lead to a further stranglehold on democracy under this increasingly autocratic totalitarian Council.

By their comments and ludicrous decisions, the Panel have confirmed that they are illogical in their reasoning and are not fit for purpose and should be replaced with more open-minded people.
As I said on the previous article on this subject: on the opinion section of the Argus "This smacks of a witch hunt in a kangaroo court. Whatever happened to the freedom of speech and thought? George Orwell's predictions in "1984" have arrived in Brighton." This panel consists of petty-minded control freaks who are now wasting more tax payers' resources on unnecessary equalities training for Dawn Barnett. Furthermore, the Panel have acknowledged that "Councillor Barnett did NOT fail to comply with paragraph 3(2)(a) of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Members (‘You must not do anything which may cause your authority to breach any of its equality duties (in particular as set out in the Equality Act 2010’)". So why on earth should Councillor Barnett have to be given equalities training. This is absolutely and totally illogical. If Councillors are to be hauled over the coals for expressing an opinion which offends a tiny number of people resulting in the likelihood that a Councillor's office or authority is brought into disrepute, then it will become increasingly difficult for Councillors to give an opinion on anything in case they offend someone and then become the subject of an internal investigation. This will lead to a further stranglehold on democracy under this increasingly autocratic totalitarian Council. By their comments and ludicrous decisions, the Panel have confirmed that they are illogical in their reasoning and are not fit for purpose and should be replaced with more open-minded people. peachesncream

5:03pm Sat 21 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

peachesncream wrote:
As I said on the previous article on this subject: on the opinion section of the Argus "This smacks of a witch hunt in a kangaroo court. Whatever happened to the freedom of speech and thought? George Orwell's predictions in "1984" have arrived in Brighton."

This panel consists of petty-minded control freaks who are now wasting more tax payers' resources on unnecessary equalities training for Dawn Barnett.

Furthermore, the Panel have acknowledged that "Councillor Barnett did NOT fail to comply with paragraph 3(2)(a) of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Members (‘You must not do anything which may cause your authority to breach any of its equality duties (in particular as set out in the Equality Act 2010’)". So why on earth should Councillor Barnett have to be given equalities training. This is absolutely and totally illogical.

If Councillors are to be hauled over the coals for expressing an opinion which offends a tiny number of people resulting in the likelihood that a Councillor's office or authority is brought into disrepute, then it will become increasingly difficult for Councillors to give an opinion on anything in case they offend someone and then become the subject of an internal investigation. This will lead to a further stranglehold on democracy under this increasingly autocratic totalitarian Council.

By their comments and ludicrous decisions, the Panel have confirmed that they are illogical in their reasoning and are not fit for purpose and should be replaced with more open-minded people.
It goes somewhat further. The recommendation (read order) is that all elected representatives will, as part of their induction, be required to undergo a form of equality and diversity training.

This is a highly lucrative industry BTW with a vested interest in discovering inequality. Would be interesting to see how much money our strapped for cash council anticipates they will have to spend on this.
[quote][p][bold]peachesncream[/bold] wrote: As I said on the previous article on this subject: on the opinion section of the Argus "This smacks of a witch hunt in a kangaroo court. Whatever happened to the freedom of speech and thought? George Orwell's predictions in "1984" have arrived in Brighton." This panel consists of petty-minded control freaks who are now wasting more tax payers' resources on unnecessary equalities training for Dawn Barnett. Furthermore, the Panel have acknowledged that "Councillor Barnett did NOT fail to comply with paragraph 3(2)(a) of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Members (‘You must not do anything which may cause your authority to breach any of its equality duties (in particular as set out in the Equality Act 2010’)". So why on earth should Councillor Barnett have to be given equalities training. This is absolutely and totally illogical. If Councillors are to be hauled over the coals for expressing an opinion which offends a tiny number of people resulting in the likelihood that a Councillor's office or authority is brought into disrepute, then it will become increasingly difficult for Councillors to give an opinion on anything in case they offend someone and then become the subject of an internal investigation. This will lead to a further stranglehold on democracy under this increasingly autocratic totalitarian Council. By their comments and ludicrous decisions, the Panel have confirmed that they are illogical in their reasoning and are not fit for purpose and should be replaced with more open-minded people.[/p][/quote]It goes somewhat further. The recommendation (read order) is that all elected representatives will, as part of their induction, be required to undergo a form of equality and diversity training. This is a highly lucrative industry BTW with a vested interest in discovering inequality. Would be interesting to see how much money our strapped for cash council anticipates they will have to spend on this. mimseycal

5:33pm Sat 21 Dec 13

peachesncream says...

@mimseycal

I realise that and the implications - I just didn't want to lengthen my comment any further.

It seems that whatever this ineffective local administration does seems to line the pockets of others whilst stripping us of whatever little we have.
@mimseycal I realise that and the implications - I just didn't want to lengthen my comment any further. It seems that whatever this ineffective local administration does seems to line the pockets of others whilst stripping us of whatever little we have. peachesncream

7:14pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Valerie Paynter says...

For the record and especially to reply to Raymondo999. I met Mimseycal for the first time at Hove Town Hall as the Inquisition was progressed. A number of people independently attended. Including the editor of The Brighton & Hove Independent. That weekly is now on the streets to pick up and covers the item very critically indeed. People talked. We had a long wait to be allowed in for their verdict. I only arrived after the start when they had all been turfed out of the meeting.

Raymondo you are quite right that saveHOVE is mostly about Conservation, planning and development. A quick look at the tag cloud tells you that. But Cllr Barnett is a Hove councillor so some licence was exercised. Hove needs to save a diligent councillor as much as protect the turf - we don't have enough of them - from this kind of opportunist hunter-killer action as the complainants tried to pick her off from the edge of the Tory herd and have her for breakfast (IMHO).

And the swastika is not value free. The saveHOVE articles provide its value. Hindu/Buddhist and borrowed by fascists. No symbol is value free that is why they are symbols. All symbols encode values. WE CHOOSE WHAT THAT WILL BE. I personally favour original value and think first value has first call on identity.

Black people are no better than white people or immune from depiction as a doll, cartoon, whatever. What about Homer Simpson and Fred Flintstone? What about a lot of dolls and characters? Black people should be grabbing the golliwog(g) back from racists. How many black dolls are out there? Over time? Not many! Any?
For the record and especially to reply to Raymondo999. I met Mimseycal for the first time at Hove Town Hall as the Inquisition was progressed. A number of people independently attended. Including the editor of The Brighton & Hove Independent. That weekly is now on the streets to pick up and covers the item very critically indeed. People talked. We had a long wait to be allowed in for their verdict. I only arrived after the start when they had all been turfed out of the meeting. Raymondo you are quite right that saveHOVE is mostly about Conservation, planning and development. A quick look at the tag cloud tells you that. But Cllr Barnett is a Hove councillor so some licence was exercised. Hove needs to save a diligent councillor as much as protect the turf - we don't have enough of them - from this kind of opportunist hunter-killer action as the complainants tried to pick her off from the edge of the Tory herd and have her for breakfast (IMHO). And the swastika is not value free. The saveHOVE articles provide its value. Hindu/Buddhist and borrowed by fascists. No symbol is value free that is why they are symbols. All symbols encode values. WE CHOOSE WHAT THAT WILL BE. I personally favour original value and think first value has first call on identity. Black people are no better than white people or immune from depiction as a doll, cartoon, whatever. What about Homer Simpson and Fred Flintstone? What about a lot of dolls and characters? Black people should be grabbing the golliwog(g) back from racists. How many black dolls are out there? Over time? Not many! Any? Valerie Paynter

7:31pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Valerie Paynter says...

Raymondo, the "we" demanding verbatim transcript of the judgment was all of us who had patiently waited many hours to be let in to hear it. It was me who raised the issue when an officer (lawyer and democratic services officer) both spoke of a formal council decision notice/statement and I saw scope for weasle words and editing.

The others all piled in when the officers began to prevaricate and squirm. This included a reporter covering for Brighton & Hove Independent. We were just being "we" for the sake of justice and clarity and accountability really on the day.
Raymondo, the "we" demanding verbatim transcript of the judgment was all of us who had patiently waited many hours to be let in to hear it. It was me who raised the issue when an officer (lawyer and democratic services officer) both spoke of a formal council decision notice/statement and I saw scope for weasle words and editing. The others all piled in when the officers began to prevaricate and squirm. This included a reporter covering for Brighton & Hove Independent. We were just being "we" for the sake of justice and clarity and accountability really on the day. Valerie Paynter

8:08pm Sat 21 Dec 13

havendweller says...

Hove Actually wrote:
Kitcat must be working for the UKIP party if she thinks calling Brightonians "inbred" is the way forward.
Polish Car washes, Polish Callgirls. Polish Builders and now Polish Racists
Brighton really does have them all
That could be considered diverse!
[quote][p][bold]Hove Actually[/bold] wrote: Kitcat must be working for the UKIP party if she thinks calling Brightonians "inbred" is the way forward. Polish Car washes, Polish Callgirls. Polish Builders and now Polish Racists Brighton really does have them all[/p][/quote]That could be considered diverse! havendweller

8:43pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Roy Pennington says...

and the unwritten requirement that this tribunal make a consensus decision might explain the averted gaze of cllr summers......it is beyond reason that such type of tribunal should always be unanimous...it is better that minority decisions be allowed
and the unwritten requirement that this tribunal make a consensus decision might explain the averted gaze of cllr summers......it is beyond reason that such type of tribunal should always be unanimous...it is better that minority decisions be allowed Roy Pennington

9:01pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Valerie Paynter says...

Roy Pennington wrote:
and the unwritten requirement that this tribunal make a consensus decision might explain the averted gaze of cllr summers......it is beyond reason that such type of tribunal should always be unanimous...it is better that minority decisions be allowed
Are you sure it WAS consensus and not a majority 2-1? Are the 3 panellists allowed to say?
[quote][p][bold]Roy Pennington[/bold] wrote: and the unwritten requirement that this tribunal make a consensus decision might explain the averted gaze of cllr summers......it is beyond reason that such type of tribunal should always be unanimous...it is better that minority decisions be allowed[/p][/quote]Are you sure it WAS consensus and not a majority 2-1? Are the 3 panellists allowed to say? Valerie Paynter

9:02pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

It still seems to me the complainants should be investigated as there is much to be concerned about in their complaints as many have already pointed out. Perhaps they need to be charged with bringing the council into disrepute.

More power to those who tried to attend the kangaroo court and are attempting to ensure the truth comes out in the end.
It still seems to me the complainants should be investigated as there is much to be concerned about in their complaints as many have already pointed out. Perhaps they need to be charged with bringing the council into disrepute. More power to those who tried to attend the kangaroo court and are attempting to ensure the truth comes out in the end. Idontbelieveit1948

9:10pm Sat 21 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Roy Pennington wrote:
and the unwritten requirement that this tribunal make a consensus decision might explain the averted gaze of cllr summers......it is beyond reason that such type of tribunal should always be unanimous...it is better that minority decisions be allowed
Are you sure it WAS consensus and not a majority 2-1? Are the 3 panellists allowed to say?
From what I recollect them saying at the end, when we were allowed back in to hear the 'verdict', the presiding Cllrs are gagged. Dawn Barnett is free to speak ... Which is quite funny really when you come to think about it as this whole debacle came about as apparently Dawn Barnett was not free to speak.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Roy Pennington[/bold] wrote: and the unwritten requirement that this tribunal make a consensus decision might explain the averted gaze of cllr summers......it is beyond reason that such type of tribunal should always be unanimous...it is better that minority decisions be allowed[/p][/quote]Are you sure it WAS consensus and not a majority 2-1? Are the 3 panellists allowed to say?[/p][/quote]From what I recollect them saying at the end, when we were allowed back in to hear the 'verdict', the presiding Cllrs are gagged. Dawn Barnett is free to speak ... Which is quite funny really when you come to think about it as this whole debacle came about as apparently Dawn Barnett was not free to speak. mimseycal

12:52am Sun 22 Dec 13

Fight_Back says...

mimseycal wrote:
Valerie Paynter wrote:
Roy Pennington wrote:
and the unwritten requirement that this tribunal make a consensus decision might explain the averted gaze of cllr summers......it is beyond reason that such type of tribunal should always be unanimous...it is better that minority decisions be allowed
Are you sure it WAS consensus and not a majority 2-1? Are the 3 panellists allowed to say?
From what I recollect them saying at the end, when we were allowed back in to hear the 'verdict', the presiding Cllrs are gagged. Dawn Barnett is free to speak ... Which is quite funny really when you come to think about it as this whole debacle came about as apparently Dawn Barnett was not free to speak.
So let me get this right -

1. The hearing was held in private DESPITE it involving an elected councillor
2. The Councillors involved in the decision were unbalanced - i.e. 2 Green and 1 Tory
3. The Councillors involved in the decision are not permitted to say how they decided
4. Two clearly biased council officers - Tim Read and Dan Hermitage - were 50% of the main complainers
5. We the public will never know the reasons for the decision

And yet politicians ( of all parties ) wonder why we the voters think they are out to con us and take our money ? Local government is clearly corrupt - they hide things and don't act in transparent ways. I wouldn't be surprised to find council officers and councillors involved in a Christmas Wonderland venture in the New Forest - after all - that's how they all seem to act - i.e. CORRUPT !!!!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Roy Pennington[/bold] wrote: and the unwritten requirement that this tribunal make a consensus decision might explain the averted gaze of cllr summers......it is beyond reason that such type of tribunal should always be unanimous...it is better that minority decisions be allowed[/p][/quote]Are you sure it WAS consensus and not a majority 2-1? Are the 3 panellists allowed to say?[/p][/quote]From what I recollect them saying at the end, when we were allowed back in to hear the 'verdict', the presiding Cllrs are gagged. Dawn Barnett is free to speak ... Which is quite funny really when you come to think about it as this whole debacle came about as apparently Dawn Barnett was not free to speak.[/p][/quote]So let me get this right - 1. The hearing was held in private DESPITE it involving an elected councillor 2. The Councillors involved in the decision were unbalanced - i.e. 2 Green and 1 Tory 3. The Councillors involved in the decision are not permitted to say how they decided 4. Two clearly biased council officers - Tim Read and Dan Hermitage - were 50% of the main complainers 5. We the public will never know the reasons for the decision And yet politicians ( of all parties ) wonder why we the voters think they are out to con us and take our money ? Local government is clearly corrupt - they hide things and don't act in transparent ways. I wouldn't be surprised to find council officers and councillors involved in a Christmas Wonderland venture in the New Forest - after all - that's how they all seem to act - i.e. CORRUPT !!!!!!!!!!!! Fight_Back

5:50am Sun 22 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

About the only thing I would object to here is point 4. Tim Read and Dan Hermitaqe may indeed work for the council however they made their separate complaints as concerned members of the public. There is no record, of their either using or intimating that their 'complaints' are anything other.

We do not want to set the precedent that council employees may not also be members of the public. Aside from which it is by far the least objectionable aspect when it comes to the complainants.

As has been pointed out, when it comes to the complaints from the members of the public, of far greater concern is the 'complaint' from Mr Narinder Madhar. It is a 15 page rambling, incoherent, verbally violent and highly racist tirade . Further, when it comes to intimating that standing, aside from being a member of an ethnic minority, should give his 'complaint' extra weight ... it is Mr Narinder Madhar that highlights his previous involvement in a Council 'equality' process and his standing, at the time of writing, as a member of a tenant scrutiny panel.
It is however clear that aside from attaching this diatribe, this complaint is largely dismissed as at no point during the entire sorry episode is his demand that Dawn Barnett be EXPELLED (yes, it is capitalised) so much as even referred to.

Of far greater concern is the involvement of the councils' BMEWF (Black and Minority Ethnic Workers Forum) and the weight they are claiming to carry. Not only do they claim to carry this weight, they throw it about bounteously. It is the BMEWF who have forced through this Hearing by their manipulation, machinations and abuse of position within the council.
About the only thing I would object to here is point 4. Tim Read and Dan Hermitaqe may indeed work for the council however they made their separate complaints as concerned members of the public. There is no record, of their either using or intimating that their 'complaints' are anything other. We do not want to set the precedent that council employees may not also be members of the public. Aside from which it is by far the least objectionable aspect when it comes to the complainants. As has been pointed out, when it comes to the complaints from the members of the public, of far greater concern is the 'complaint' from Mr Narinder Madhar. It is a 15 page rambling, incoherent, verbally violent and highly racist tirade . Further, when it comes to intimating that standing, aside from being a member of an ethnic minority, should give his 'complaint' extra weight ... it is Mr Narinder Madhar that highlights his previous involvement in a Council 'equality' process and his standing, at the time of writing, as a member of a tenant scrutiny panel. It is however clear that aside from attaching this diatribe, this complaint is largely dismissed as at no point during the entire sorry episode is his demand that Dawn Barnett be EXPELLED (yes, it is capitalised) so much as even referred to. Of far greater concern is the involvement of the councils' BMEWF (Black and Minority Ethnic Workers Forum) and the weight they are claiming to carry. Not only do they claim to carry this weight, they throw it about bounteously. It is the BMEWF who have forced through this Hearing by their manipulation, machinations and abuse of position within the council. mimseycal

7:23am Sun 22 Dec 13

Sir Prised says...

Being offended is a choice ! If you don't want to be offended, just turn the other cheek. This type of invented outrage is merely a political tool and our stupid Council choose to fall for it. If you can find a more tolerant country or people, I'd like to hear about it !
Being offended is a choice ! If you don't want to be offended, just turn the other cheek. This type of invented outrage is merely a political tool and our stupid Council choose to fall for it. If you can find a more tolerant country or people, I'd like to hear about it ! Sir Prised

10:32am Sun 22 Dec 13

Vox populi 2 says...

The posts overwhelmingly support Cllr Barnett and spell out clearly that those sitting in jjudgement are representative of the E U and NOT the people they were elected to serve. And for the information of those sitting in judgment the meaning of DIVERSITY is (a) VARIETY - variety of something such as opinion, colour or style (b) DISCREPANCY - discrepancy, or a difference of what is normal and expected.
Cllr Barnetts opinion was fair and in line with the MAJORITY ( golliwogs are nostalgic in most fair minded peoples eyes) and it cannot be argued it is not normal and expected a child will cuddle up to a golliwog thats been handed down through the years or have food served on a place mat with a picture of a golliwog. And I still treasure the golliwog my parents bought me for Christmas many moons ago.
And if the council considered Cllr Barnetts' opinions to be racist then it was for a court to decide that, not people with little or no understanding of the word RACIST or the word DIVERSITY. In line with fair minded peoples opinion Cllr Barnett should appeal the muppet decision of the council.
The posts overwhelmingly support Cllr Barnett and spell out clearly that those sitting in jjudgement are representative of the E U and NOT the people they were elected to serve. And for the information of those sitting in judgment the meaning of DIVERSITY is (a) VARIETY - variety of something such as opinion, colour or style (b) DISCREPANCY - discrepancy, or a difference of what is normal and expected. Cllr Barnetts opinion was fair and in line with the MAJORITY ( golliwogs are nostalgic in most fair minded peoples eyes) and it cannot be argued it is not normal and expected a child will cuddle up to a golliwog thats been handed down through the years or have food served on a place mat with a picture of a golliwog. And I still treasure the golliwog my parents bought me for Christmas many moons ago. And if the council considered Cllr Barnetts' opinions to be racist then it was for a court to decide that, not people with little or no understanding of the word RACIST or the word DIVERSITY. In line with fair minded peoples opinion Cllr Barnett should appeal the muppet decision of the council. Vox populi 2

10:35am Sun 22 Dec 13

jackthekipper says...

i was teased all through school for having an irish name and called paddy and seamus etc or thick paddy,i was despised by parents who associated anything irish with the bombings in the seventies by ira members and thought i must have connections to the organisation,being a kid i took it all with a shrug not really understanding til i was older,i remember golliwogs = marmalade ,we didnt know what racist meant and the few black kiddies in school might have had the mickey taken for being different but only like a kid with glasses,no malice was meant or thought and i grew up with all colors for mates .this racist thing comes from a different generation and should be buried forthwith.im 46
i was teased all through school for having an irish name and called paddy and seamus etc or thick paddy,i was despised by parents who associated anything irish with the bombings in the seventies by ira members and thought i must have connections to the organisation,being a kid i took it all with a shrug not really understanding til i was older,i remember golliwogs = marmalade ,we didnt know what racist meant and the few black kiddies in school might have had the mickey taken for being different but only like a kid with glasses,no malice was meant or thought and i grew up with all colors for mates .this racist thing comes from a different generation and should be buried forthwith.im 46 jackthekipper

11:49am Sun 22 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

Vox populi 2 wrote:
The posts overwhelmingly support Cllr Barnett and spell out clearly that those sitting in jjudgement are representative of the E U and NOT the people they were elected to serve. And for the information of those sitting in judgment the meaning of DIVERSITY is (a) VARIETY - variety of something such as opinion, colour or style (b) DISCREPANCY - discrepancy, or a difference of what is normal and expected.
Cllr Barnetts opinion was fair and in line with the MAJORITY ( golliwogs are nostalgic in most fair minded peoples eyes) and it cannot be argued it is not normal and expected a child will cuddle up to a golliwog thats been handed down through the years or have food served on a place mat with a picture of a golliwog. And I still treasure the golliwog my parents bought me for Christmas many moons ago.
And if the council considered Cllr Barnetts' opinions to be racist then it was for a court to decide that, not people with little or no understanding of the word RACIST or the word DIVERSITY. In line with fair minded peoples opinion Cllr Barnett should appeal the muppet decision of the council.
Mr Narinder Madhar did complain to the Police. There is a record somewhere within the Councils paperwork of the Police decision that there was no case to answer as there had been no breach of the law.

Further, it is clear that the BMEWF is not happy with the standards set by central government as they at one stage explicitly state that they want BHCC to 'raise the bar' on racism as set by central government.
[quote][p][bold]Vox populi 2[/bold] wrote: The posts overwhelmingly support Cllr Barnett and spell out clearly that those sitting in jjudgement are representative of the E U and NOT the people they were elected to serve. And for the information of those sitting in judgment the meaning of DIVERSITY is (a) VARIETY - variety of something such as opinion, colour or style (b) DISCREPANCY - discrepancy, or a difference of what is normal and expected. Cllr Barnetts opinion was fair and in line with the MAJORITY ( golliwogs are nostalgic in most fair minded peoples eyes) and it cannot be argued it is not normal and expected a child will cuddle up to a golliwog thats been handed down through the years or have food served on a place mat with a picture of a golliwog. And I still treasure the golliwog my parents bought me for Christmas many moons ago. And if the council considered Cllr Barnetts' opinions to be racist then it was for a court to decide that, not people with little or no understanding of the word RACIST or the word DIVERSITY. In line with fair minded peoples opinion Cllr Barnett should appeal the muppet decision of the council.[/p][/quote]Mr Narinder Madhar did complain to the Police. There is a record somewhere within the Councils paperwork of the Police decision that there was no case to answer as there had been no breach of the law. Further, it is clear that the BMEWF is not happy with the standards set by central government as they at one stage explicitly state that they want BHCC to 'raise the bar' on racism as set by central government. mimseycal

12:03pm Sun 22 Dec 13

jonem1 says...

Mimseycal is quite right to point out that council staff are also private members of society and have the right to act in that capacity. However their complaints were based on the hearsay "evidence" of Narinder Madhar not their own experience (though one of them makes serious unsubstantiated allegations that the Councillor had made racist comments previously). Both called for Diversity training to be imposed on the Councillor despite the fact that Narinder Madhar's complaint had been investigated by the Police and found to be baseless, surely an unwarranted pre-judgement on their part of guilt?

As the matter had been investigated by the Police does the Council have the right to take further action in the matter? Isn't this double-jeopardy for Councillors, council-workers and those who live in council-owned properties? Shouldn't there be an "either or" status for such matters? Either seek redress through the Courts or through the Council - not both.

I have to wonder whether the BMEWF, and other minority groups, are seeking Equality by such actions - or Advantage? Equality. Yes! - Advantage, No!

Have a little sympathy for the Councillors who are called to sit on the Hearings Panels, PC pressures abound in these matters. Surely an independent Panel chosen from the wider Public would be a better method? Perhaps we should be working towards that?
Mimseycal is quite right to point out that council staff are also private members of society and have the right to act in that capacity. However their complaints were based on the hearsay "evidence" of Narinder Madhar not their own experience (though one of them makes serious unsubstantiated allegations that the Councillor had made racist comments previously). Both called for Diversity training to be imposed on the Councillor despite the fact that Narinder Madhar's complaint had been investigated by the Police and found to be baseless, surely an unwarranted pre-judgement on their part of guilt? As the matter had been investigated by the Police does the Council have the right to take further action in the matter? Isn't this double-jeopardy for Councillors, council-workers and those who live in council-owned properties? Shouldn't there be an "either or" status for such matters? Either seek redress through the Courts or through the Council - not both. I have to wonder whether the BMEWF, and other minority groups, are seeking Equality by such actions - or Advantage? Equality. Yes! - Advantage, No! Have a little sympathy for the Councillors who are called to sit on the Hearings Panels, PC pressures abound in these matters. Surely an independent Panel chosen from the wider Public would be a better method? Perhaps we should be working towards that? jonem1

1:07pm Sun 22 Dec 13

thevoiceoftruth says...

In another case recently, a chef has been found guilty of discussing the golliwog used on Robertsons jam in front of a black colleague. A judge described it as 'inherently racist' and that even saying the term in front of a black person, whatever the context, was “offensive".

Despite this, the woman who complained lost her case as she had waited five months before lodging a grievance.

I find this pretty sinister. Using the word as an insult is clearly racist but discussing the change of a logo?
In another case recently, a chef has been found guilty of discussing the golliwog used on Robertsons jam in front of a black colleague. A judge described it as 'inherently racist' and that even saying the term in front of a black person, whatever the context, was “offensive". Despite this, the woman who complained lost her case as she had waited five months before lodging a grievance. I find this pretty sinister. Using the word as an insult is clearly racist but discussing the change of a logo? thevoiceoftruth

1:37pm Sun 22 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

jonem1 wrote:
Mimseycal is quite right to point out that council staff are also private members of society and have the right to act in that capacity. However their complaints were based on the hearsay "evidence" of Narinder Madhar not their own experience (though one of them makes serious unsubstantiated allegations that the Councillor had made racist comments previously). Both called for Diversity training to be imposed on the Councillor despite the fact that Narinder Madhar's complaint had been investigated by the Police and found to be baseless, surely an unwarranted pre-judgement on their part of guilt?

As the matter had been investigated by the Police does the Council have the right to take further action in the matter? Isn't this double-jeopardy for Councillors, council-workers and those who live in council-owned properties? Shouldn't there be an "either or" status for such matters? Either seek redress through the Courts or through the Council - not both.

I have to wonder whether the BMEWF, and other minority groups, are seeking Equality by such actions - or Advantage? Equality. Yes! - Advantage, No!

Have a little sympathy for the Councillors who are called to sit on the Hearings Panels, PC pressures abound in these matters. Surely an independent Panel chosen from the wider Public would be a better method? Perhaps we should be working towards that?
Unless there is a record supporting the claim that Mr Read and Mr Hermitage wrote their complaint on 'hearsay' evidence, whether from Mr Madhar or anyone else for that matter, there is very little point in pursuing this.

If it can be evidenced that the complainants, Read and Hermitage, either jointly or independently, acted on hearsay evidence, then the matter becomes a tad more serious; morally rather then legally as the weight of evidence is somewhat lighter outside of a court of law. The matter becomes far more serious if it is however indeed hearsay evidence in support of Mr Madhar. Considering the tone of his complaint, there is clearly a mental health issue involved here. Their 'support' could be considered either collusion or exploitation; neither of which would do much for their credibility; or decency I would have thought.

The double jeopardy concept is indeed thought provoking. I will have to check back to make sure but I seem to recollect that Mr Madhar refers to a complaint he had lodged with the police in his letter of complaint to the council (and anybody else he could think of). A lot would depend on whether council proceedings were initiated before the police declared there was no case to answer or while the police were deliberating the matter. I am not here referring to the proceedings to call the full hearing but rather the calling in of Dawn Barnett to the Standards team to discuss her statement re golliwogs with the Argus reporter in the first instance; which was initiated by receipt of the complaints from Mr T. Read, Mr D. Hermitage and Mr N. Madhar.

That would have been around about the same time that the BMEWF wrote a letter of concern (later to become their 'staff' complaint) to Cllr G. Theobald who proceeded to inform them that Cllr Dawn Barnett was subject to an investigation by the Standards team and he was therefore not at liberty to discuss the matter with them.
[quote][p][bold]jonem1[/bold] wrote: Mimseycal is quite right to point out that council staff are also private members of society and have the right to act in that capacity. However their complaints were based on the hearsay "evidence" of Narinder Madhar not their own experience (though one of them makes serious unsubstantiated allegations that the Councillor had made racist comments previously). Both called for Diversity training to be imposed on the Councillor despite the fact that Narinder Madhar's complaint had been investigated by the Police and found to be baseless, surely an unwarranted pre-judgement on their part of guilt? As the matter had been investigated by the Police does the Council have the right to take further action in the matter? Isn't this double-jeopardy for Councillors, council-workers and those who live in council-owned properties? Shouldn't there be an "either or" status for such matters? Either seek redress through the Courts or through the Council - not both. I have to wonder whether the BMEWF, and other minority groups, are seeking Equality by such actions - or Advantage? Equality. Yes! - Advantage, No! Have a little sympathy for the Councillors who are called to sit on the Hearings Panels, PC pressures abound in these matters. Surely an independent Panel chosen from the wider Public would be a better method? Perhaps we should be working towards that?[/p][/quote]Unless there is a record supporting the claim that Mr Read and Mr Hermitage wrote their complaint on 'hearsay' evidence, whether from Mr Madhar or anyone else for that matter, there is very little point in pursuing this. If it can be evidenced that the complainants, Read and Hermitage, either jointly or independently, acted on hearsay evidence, then the matter becomes a tad more serious; morally rather then legally as the weight of evidence is somewhat lighter outside of a court of law. The matter becomes far more serious if it is however indeed hearsay evidence in support of Mr Madhar. Considering the tone of his complaint, there is clearly a mental health issue involved here. Their 'support' could be considered either collusion or exploitation; neither of which would do much for their credibility; or decency I would have thought. The double jeopardy concept is indeed thought provoking. I will have to check back to make sure but I seem to recollect that Mr Madhar refers to a complaint he had lodged with the police in his letter of complaint to the council (and anybody else he could think of). A lot would depend on whether council proceedings were initiated before the police declared there was no case to answer or while the police were deliberating the matter. I am not here referring to the proceedings to call the full hearing but rather the calling in of Dawn Barnett to the Standards team to discuss her statement re golliwogs with the Argus reporter in the first instance; which was initiated by receipt of the complaints from Mr T. Read, Mr D. Hermitage and Mr N. Madhar. That would have been around about the same time that the BMEWF wrote a letter of concern (later to become their 'staff' complaint) to Cllr G. Theobald who proceeded to inform them that Cllr Dawn Barnett was subject to an investigation by the Standards team and he was therefore not at liberty to discuss the matter with them. mimseycal

12:58pm Mon 23 Dec 13

ThinkBrighton says...

raymondo999 wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
raymondo999 wrote:
Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.
Don't happen to work for the council do you ? Maybe you are Tim or Dan !
No but I've been on a long walk to freedom, have you?
A long walk to freedom?, is that Midsommer Freedom or Lower Freedom.
Why didn't you take the bus like any sane person would have.
[quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.[/p][/quote]Don't happen to work for the council do you ? Maybe you are Tim or Dan ![/p][/quote]No but I've been on a long walk to freedom, have you?[/p][/quote]A long walk to freedom?, is that Midsommer Freedom or Lower Freedom. Why didn't you take the bus like any sane person would have. ThinkBrighton

1:19pm Mon 23 Dec 13

All 9 of me says...

Man of steel wrote:
A previous poster said:-
The stupid dumb blonde should stick to taking her clothes off ! Oh, sorry, was that offensive Ania ?
I think you will find that she still does, see the following link.
http://www.starnow.c

o.uk/aniakitcat
My mum always told me never to trust a woman with no lips ...
[quote][p][bold]Man of steel[/bold] wrote: A previous poster said:- The stupid dumb blonde should stick to taking her clothes off ! Oh, sorry, was that offensive Ania ? I think you will find that she still does, see the following link. http://www.starnow.c o.uk/aniakitcat[/p][/quote]My mum always told me never to trust a woman with no lips ... All 9 of me

10:14am Tue 24 Dec 13

roystony says...

Eugenius wrote:
This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago.
Jason, you're not much of a genius!!
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: This is a bad example of a council following its own rule book to the letter. Once a bureaucratic process is set up it is then applied rigorously in all cases in the interests of fairness but at huge expense. It's not a Green administration policy, we made similar complaints about the system when Jason was sanctioned for posting clips of council meetings on YouTube a couple of years ago.[/p][/quote]Jason, you're not much of a genius!! roystony

4:07pm Tue 24 Dec 13

jonem1 says...

It is the job of the Adninistration to ensure that the Executive does its job properly and that is not happening - read the Global HPO Report the BMEWF requested you commission and fund last year, It paints a picture of staff bullying and being bullied, ducking responsibilities to challenge bad practise and a stupefying lack of progress in managing that over the past three years. No wonder we've just had the crass handling of Cllr Barnett's quite unnecessary Hearing. Start practising what you preach and stop wasting our taxes.
It is the job of the Adninistration to ensure that the Executive does its job properly and that is not happening - read the Global HPO Report the BMEWF requested you commission and fund last year, It paints a picture of staff bullying and being bullied, ducking responsibilities to challenge bad practise and a stupefying lack of progress in managing that over the past three years. No wonder we've just had the crass handling of Cllr Barnett's quite unnecessary Hearing. Start practising what you preach and stop wasting our taxes. jonem1

4:59pm Tue 24 Dec 13

mimseycal says...

The BMEWF is not part of the Administration. It is the workers forum.
The BMEWF is not part of the Administration. It is the workers forum. mimseycal

11:25am Wed 25 Dec 13

jonem1 says...

I am aware of that mimseycal. The comment was for Eugenius as a reminder that if a policy isn't working as intended the Administration need to review and amend it so it does.
I am aware of that mimseycal. The comment was for Eugenius as a reminder that if a policy isn't working as intended the Administration need to review and amend it so it does. jonem1

11:59am Wed 25 Dec 13

Dirk Von Roden says...

I too an age to find a "Black Doll and a Cloth Golliwog " for my stepdaughter, I could not find one in the UK, but did find many in Holland and Belgium! the Golliwog is no more offensive to Black people as a rag doll is to a white person! In fact the "Robertson Jam" company did have a Golliwog as a symbol on their jars,many of the badges and original ragdols of the golliwog fetch good money on the net nowadays! the council have brought the council in disrepute and the person who complained in the first place appears to me to be the one with issues! we can all see Racism Homophobia and sexism in almost everything nowadays and its a shame as the real issues then become insignificant!
I too an age to find a "Black Doll and a Cloth Golliwog " for my stepdaughter, I could not find one in the UK, but did find many in Holland and Belgium! the Golliwog is no more offensive to Black people as a rag doll is to a white person! In fact the "Robertson Jam" company did have a Golliwog as a symbol on their jars,many of the badges and original ragdols of the golliwog fetch good money on the net nowadays! the council have brought the council in disrepute and the person who complained in the first place appears to me to be the one with issues! we can all see Racism Homophobia and sexism in almost everything nowadays and its a shame as the real issues then become insignificant! Dirk Von Roden

9:52pm Wed 25 Dec 13

her professional says...

raymondo999 wrote:
Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.
Correct, well said. Fortunately the 70 or so bigots on here are not representative of the majority of Brightonians, as the ballot box shows time and again, it's not just the Greens who dislike this nastiness thank goodness. Funny how posters talk about "police state" etc, yet refuse to accept election results that they don't agree with.
[quote][p][bold]raymondo999[/bold] wrote: Golliwogs are a demeaning symbol of racist supremacy and have no place in a civilised society.[/p][/quote]Correct, well said. Fortunately the 70 or so bigots on here are not representative of the majority of Brightonians, as the ballot box shows time and again, it's not just the Greens who dislike this nastiness thank goodness. Funny how posters talk about "police state" etc, yet refuse to accept election results that they don't agree with. her professional

9:59pm Wed 25 Dec 13

her professional says...

Ricayboy wrote:
I hate Brighton sometimes and I hate the Green Party for this kind of nonsense.
Off you go then
[quote][p][bold]Ricayboy[/bold] wrote: I hate Brighton sometimes and I hate the Green Party for this kind of nonsense.[/p][/quote]Off you go then her professional

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree