Former policeman calls for judicial review into Brighton and Hove golliwog row

Stuart Bower

Dawn Barnett

First published in News by

A former police officer claims a council breached the human rights of a councillor who was disciplined over her comments in support of golliwogs.

Stuart Bower has submitted legal papers to Brighton and Hove City Council calling for a judicial review into the authority’s disciplinary action taken against Councillor Dawn Barnett in November last year.

Mr Bower has made the move despite announcing he is to stand against Coun Barnett as a UKIP candidate in 2015.

He has labelled the whole process “a pointless waste of time” after council officials wrote back to him saying that the mandatory diversity training for all councillors initiated was not in fact mandatory.

The challenge is the latest development in the racism row which has rumbled on for six months since Coun Barnett spoke to The Argus in August.

She was brought before a standards hearing in December and found guilty of bringing the council into disrepute.

As part of the hearing, a panel of councillors recommended that all 54 councillors attend diversity workshops.

A number of councillors have already declared they have no intention of attending and the first of the session was cancelled because not enough members could attend.

In response to Mr Bower, senior solicitor Simon Court replied in a letter: “The word “mandatory” should not be taken literally as no member would ever be compelled against their will to attend training; nor would a candidate be prohibited from standing for election to become a member just because they objected to undergo such training.”

The letter then sets out in detail why the decision to discipline Coun Barnett was not contrary to article 10, seven, nine and six of the Human Rights Act and that Mr Bower’s claim is not conceded.

However Mr Bower said: “If a councillor is to be denied her right to freedom of speech, that affects every one of them.

“The only people who can sanction a councillor for their views is the electorate when they come to vote.

“The council can promote and encourage multi-cultural diversity, but what it cannot do is enforce diversity on people.

“It’s a pointless waste of time.”

Coun Barnett distanced herself from the legal move saying she wanted to move on from the whole incident.

She said: “I have not had anything to do with this. I just want to put the whole thing to bed and move on.”

A Brighton and Hove City Council spokeswoman said: “The council confirms it has received correspondence from Mr Bower concerning his intention to seek a judicial review of the decision of the Standards Panel at its hearing on December 19 regarding Councillor Dawn Barnett.”

Comments (41)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:11am Tue 4 Feb 14

rogerthefish says...

Another waste of tax payers money, move on and get a life.
Another waste of tax payers money, move on and get a life. rogerthefish
  • Score: 12

6:52am Tue 4 Feb 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult.
It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.
Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult. It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 64

6:56am Tue 4 Feb 14

monkeymoo says...

Former policeman should stop being so sad, he just wants his picture in the press!
Former policeman should stop being so sad, he just wants his picture in the press! monkeymoo
  • Score: -19

8:00am Tue 4 Feb 14

Sir Prised says...

rogerthefish wrote:
Another waste of tax payers money, move on and get a life.
It's because challenging small , yet farcical decisions such as this, is seen by the vast majority as pointless, that political correctness is allowed to steadily inveigle it's way into our lives. Golliwogs are prefectly acceptable toys, which have been targetted by those eager to make a point. Being offended is a choice and all the faux upset simply creates division. People need to learn tolerance, which is the real source of harmony..
[quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: Another waste of tax payers money, move on and get a life.[/p][/quote]It's because challenging small , yet farcical decisions such as this, is seen by the vast majority as pointless, that political correctness is allowed to steadily inveigle it's way into our lives. Golliwogs are prefectly acceptable toys, which have been targetted by those eager to make a point. Being offended is a choice and all the faux upset simply creates division. People need to learn tolerance, which is the real source of harmony.. Sir Prised
  • Score: 52

8:12am Tue 4 Feb 14

whatone says...

"He has labelled the whole process “a pointless waste of time”

And yet then goes ahead with 'submitting legal papers to Brighton and Hove City Council calling for a judicial review'

Another useless 'wanna be' politician!
"He has labelled the whole process “a pointless waste of time” And yet then goes ahead with 'submitting legal papers to Brighton and Hove City Council calling for a judicial review' Another useless 'wanna be' politician! whatone
  • Score: -15

8:31am Tue 4 Feb 14

All 9 of me says...

UKIP ......
UKIP ...... All 9 of me
  • Score: 12

8:34am Tue 4 Feb 14

Quiterie says...

The Council have made themselves look really stupid on this one.... and continue to make themselves look stupid (the word “mandatory” should not be taken literally)...... here's an idea, if it's not meant to be used literally, then don't use it then...... perhaps voluntary might be a better word???

..... but it's time to move on from this and stop wasting any more money.....

What I find sad is that if we don't like Councillors we can vote them out. But that still leaves the incompetent Council Officials who actually have more influence on our day to day lives......
The Council have made themselves look really stupid on this one.... and continue to make themselves look stupid (the word “mandatory” should not be taken literally)...... here's an idea, if it's not meant to be used literally, then don't use it then...... perhaps voluntary might be a better word??? ..... but it's time to move on from this and stop wasting any more money..... What I find sad is that if we don't like Councillors we can vote them out. But that still leaves the incompetent Council Officials who actually have more influence on our day to day lives...... Quiterie
  • Score: 33

8:38am Tue 4 Feb 14

Boloney-marshal says...

As a former shop assistant, I couldn't care less!
As a former shop assistant, I couldn't care less! Boloney-marshal
  • Score: -12

8:58am Tue 4 Feb 14

SoupOfficial says...

Is it "mandatory" to pay council tax?
Is it "mandatory" to pay council tax? SoupOfficial
  • Score: 19

8:59am Tue 4 Feb 14

ourcoalition says...

"Its a pointless waste of time" - you said it Mr UKIPPER...........
"Its a pointless waste of time" - you said it Mr UKIPPER........... ourcoalition
  • Score: -2

9:15am Tue 4 Feb 14

ThinkBrighton says...

whatone wrote:
"He has labelled the whole process “a pointless waste of time”

And yet then goes ahead with 'submitting legal papers to Brighton and Hove City Council calling for a judicial review'

Another useless 'wanna be' politician!
Or you could say another nobody trying to be a somebody, and with UKIP, has he also got a comedy act.
[quote][p][bold]whatone[/bold] wrote: "He has labelled the whole process “a pointless waste of time” And yet then goes ahead with 'submitting legal papers to Brighton and Hove City Council calling for a judicial review' Another useless 'wanna be' politician![/p][/quote]Or you could say another nobody trying to be a somebody, and with UKIP, has he also got a comedy act. ThinkBrighton
  • Score: -7

9:22am Tue 4 Feb 14

Indigatio says...

Sir Prised wrote:
rogerthefish wrote:
Another waste of tax payers money, move on and get a life.
It's because challenging small , yet farcical decisions such as this, is seen by the vast majority as pointless, that political correctness is allowed to steadily inveigle it's way into our lives. Golliwogs are prefectly acceptable toys, which have been targetted by those eager to make a point. Being offended is a choice and all the faux upset simply creates division. People need to learn tolerance, which is the real source of harmony..
Well said Sir Prised. I totally agree with you.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Prised[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: Another waste of tax payers money, move on and get a life.[/p][/quote]It's because challenging small , yet farcical decisions such as this, is seen by the vast majority as pointless, that political correctness is allowed to steadily inveigle it's way into our lives. Golliwogs are prefectly acceptable toys, which have been targetted by those eager to make a point. Being offended is a choice and all the faux upset simply creates division. People need to learn tolerance, which is the real source of harmony..[/p][/quote]Well said Sir Prised. I totally agree with you. Indigatio
  • Score: 25

9:31am Tue 4 Feb 14

Quiterie says...

SoupOfficial wrote:
Is it "mandatory" to pay council tax?
Sorry you'll need to be more specific. Are you using the word "mandatory" literally? Or are you using it to mean something completely different like the Council?
[quote][p][bold]SoupOfficial[/bold] wrote: Is it "mandatory" to pay council tax?[/p][/quote]Sorry you'll need to be more specific. Are you using the word "mandatory" literally? Or are you using it to mean something completely different like the Council? Quiterie
  • Score: 19

9:39am Tue 4 Feb 14

Bill in Hanover says...

The Council are now saying that the word 'mandatory' (definition, required or obligatory by authority) doesn't actually mean mandatory which doesn't come as any surprise to most of the local residents as this loony Green Party have been telling us one thing whilst meaning another since day one.
The Council are now saying that the word 'mandatory' (definition, required or obligatory by authority) doesn't actually mean mandatory which doesn't come as any surprise to most of the local residents as this loony Green Party have been telling us one thing whilst meaning another since day one. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 23

10:22am Tue 4 Feb 14

Andy R says...

Well....Stuart has very cleverly got himself lots of free publicity for himself and UKIP there.

(Stands back and applauds....)
Well....Stuart has very cleverly got himself lots of free publicity for himself and UKIP there. (Stands back and applauds....) Andy R
  • Score: 6

10:28am Tue 4 Feb 14

redwing says...

Is there any Party that Stuart hasn't supported?
Is there any Party that Stuart hasn't supported? redwing
  • Score: 3

10:29am Tue 4 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult.
It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.
I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff.

I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult. It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff. I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power. mimseycal
  • Score: 15

10:30am Tue 4 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

Andy R wrote:
Well....Stuart has very cleverly got himself lots of free publicity for himself and UKIP there.

(Stands back and applauds....)
And made the council look rather stupid in the process. I'm guessing it was Sir Humphrey that suggested "mandatory" doesn't really mean "mandatory" ?

You really couldn't make it up ! And this person is EMPLOYED ?????
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: Well....Stuart has very cleverly got himself lots of free publicity for himself and UKIP there. (Stands back and applauds....)[/p][/quote]And made the council look rather stupid in the process. I'm guessing it was Sir Humphrey that suggested "mandatory" doesn't really mean "mandatory" ? You really couldn't make it up ! And this person is EMPLOYED ????? Fight_Back
  • Score: 11

10:31am Tue 4 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

mimseycal wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult.
It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.
I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff.

I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.
And two council employees don't forget.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult. It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff. I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.[/p][/quote]And two council employees don't forget. Fight_Back
  • Score: 8

10:41am Tue 4 Feb 14

clubrob6 says...

This case was political correctness gone mad,in my hometown Maryport in Cumbria we had a similar case wasting thousands of taxpayers money,Labour got two councillors arrested for a comment they did not even write in a leaflet as they said it was racist.The comment was a well known English phrase PAY PEANUTS GET MONKIE's the judge threw the case out on the first hearing really the police should not have taken action.The people who bring these sort of cases up should be held accountable.
This case was political correctness gone mad,in my hometown Maryport in Cumbria we had a similar case wasting thousands of taxpayers money,Labour got two councillors arrested for a comment they did not even write in a leaflet as they said it was racist.The comment was a well known English phrase PAY PEANUTS GET MONKIE's the judge threw the case out on the first hearing really the police should not have taken action.The people who bring these sort of cases up should be held accountable. clubrob6
  • Score: 17

10:44am Tue 4 Feb 14

Gribbet says...

There's no such thing as altruism. I was wondering why on earth an ordinary guy would pursue this off his own back, but then it mentioned he was running for council in 2015 with UKIP. Another politician using the Argus for free publicity.
There's no such thing as altruism. I was wondering why on earth an ordinary guy would pursue this off his own back, but then it mentioned he was running for council in 2015 with UKIP. Another politician using the Argus for free publicity. Gribbet
  • Score: 1

10:44am Tue 4 Feb 14

ARMANA says...

SoupOfficial wrote:
Is it "mandatory" to pay council tax?
Not if everyone stopped paying it at the same time, there would be no one to issue the summonses, or run the courts, unless of coarse they did it for nothing, but it wouldn't happen in this country, the English lions, "bloody sheep" more like it....Baa Baa
[quote][p][bold]SoupOfficial[/bold] wrote: Is it "mandatory" to pay council tax?[/p][/quote]Not if everyone stopped paying it at the same time, there would be no one to issue the summonses, or run the courts, unless of coarse they did it for nothing, but it wouldn't happen in this country, the English lions, "bloody sheep" more like it....Baa Baa ARMANA
  • Score: 5

10:56am Tue 4 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

Fight_Back wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult.
It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.
I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff.

I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.
And two council employees don't forget.
As the two individuals you refer to complained as members of the public their employment has no bearing on the matter. Council employees are not precluded from being members of the public.
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult. It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff. I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.[/p][/quote]And two council employees don't forget.[/p][/quote]As the two individuals you refer to complained as members of the public their employment has no bearing on the matter. Council employees are not precluded from being members of the public. mimseycal
  • Score: -4

11:04am Tue 4 Feb 14

JHunty says...

mimseycal wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult.
It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.
I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff.

I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.
And two council employees don't forget.
As the two individuals you refer to complained as members of the public their employment has no bearing on the matter. Council employees are not precluded from being members of the public.
And they complained in their own time using their own resources to do so? Or was it during council time using council resources? Had the two employees ever had a run in with Dawn previously?
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult. It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff. I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.[/p][/quote]And two council employees don't forget.[/p][/quote]As the two individuals you refer to complained as members of the public their employment has no bearing on the matter. Council employees are not precluded from being members of the public.[/p][/quote]And they complained in their own time using their own resources to do so? Or was it during council time using council resources? Had the two employees ever had a run in with Dawn previously? JHunty
  • Score: 10

11:07am Tue 4 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

JHunty wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult.
It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.
I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff.

I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.
And two council employees don't forget.
As the two individuals you refer to complained as members of the public their employment has no bearing on the matter. Council employees are not precluded from being members of the public.
And they complained in their own time using their own resources to do so? Or was it during council time using council resources? Had the two employees ever had a run in with Dawn previously?
They did not use their status as employees in their complaint so their employment by BHCC has no bearing on the matter.
[quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult. It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff. I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.[/p][/quote]And two council employees don't forget.[/p][/quote]As the two individuals you refer to complained as members of the public their employment has no bearing on the matter. Council employees are not precluded from being members of the public.[/p][/quote]And they complained in their own time using their own resources to do so? Or was it during council time using council resources? Had the two employees ever had a run in with Dawn previously?[/p][/quote]They did not use their status as employees in their complaint so their employment by BHCC has no bearing on the matter. mimseycal
  • Score: -1

11:14am Tue 4 Feb 14

Indigatio says...

mimseycal wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult.
It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.
I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff.

I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.
And two council employees don't forget.
As the two individuals you refer to complained as members of the public their employment has no bearing on the matter. Council employees are not precluded from being members of the public.
In which case they should have expressed an interest!
Were they the only two to complain? I grew up with Golliwogs and have never thought of them as anything other than a toy doll. In fact we have two a home. One at the foot of our bed who sits there quite happily with 'Rosie & Jim' dolls and another who sits on a radiator downstairs with some teddy bears. We also have a very nice painting done by a local Shoreham artist called 'Golly' of a girl Golliwog.
I am against Racism but I do not consider Golliwogs as a racist, never have an never will. My opinion and in an open a free society I am entitled to it, as indeed others are to theirs. The BIG difference is that I do not try and force my opinions on others and I try and respect other peoples differing opinions as well. Rant over :-)
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult. It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff. I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.[/p][/quote]And two council employees don't forget.[/p][/quote]As the two individuals you refer to complained as members of the public their employment has no bearing on the matter. Council employees are not precluded from being members of the public.[/p][/quote]In which case they should have expressed an interest! Were they the only two to complain? I grew up with Golliwogs and have never thought of them as anything other than a toy doll. In fact we have two a home. One at the foot of our bed who sits there quite happily with 'Rosie & Jim' dolls and another who sits on a radiator downstairs with some teddy bears. We also have a very nice painting done by a local Shoreham artist called 'Golly' of a girl Golliwog. I am against Racism but I do not consider Golliwogs as a racist, never have an never will. My opinion and in an open a free society I am entitled to it, as indeed others are to theirs. The BIG difference is that I do not try and force my opinions on others and I try and respect other peoples differing opinions as well. Rant over :-) Indigatio
  • Score: 22

12:06pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Richada says...

Gribbet wrote:
There's no such thing as altruism. I was wondering why on earth an ordinary guy would pursue this off his own back, but then it mentioned he was running for council in 2015 with UKIP. Another politician using the Argus for free publicity.
The whole thing smacks of a cheap political stunt to me too.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: There's no such thing as altruism. I was wondering why on earth an ordinary guy would pursue this off his own back, but then it mentioned he was running for council in 2015 with UKIP. Another politician using the Argus for free publicity.[/p][/quote]The whole thing smacks of a cheap political stunt to me too. Richada
  • Score: 3

12:10pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Fight_Back says...

JHunty wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult.
It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.
I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff.

I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.
And two council employees don't forget.
As the two individuals you refer to complained as members of the public their employment has no bearing on the matter. Council employees are not precluded from being members of the public.
And they complained in their own time using their own resources to do so? Or was it during council time using council resources? Had the two employees ever had a run in with Dawn previously?
At least one of them had already had run in's with Cllr Barnett, yes.
[quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult. It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff. I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.[/p][/quote]And two council employees don't forget.[/p][/quote]As the two individuals you refer to complained as members of the public their employment has no bearing on the matter. Council employees are not precluded from being members of the public.[/p][/quote]And they complained in their own time using their own resources to do so? Or was it during council time using council resources? Had the two employees ever had a run in with Dawn previously?[/p][/quote]At least one of them had already had run in's with Cllr Barnett, yes. Fight_Back
  • Score: 10

12:16pm Tue 4 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

No, they were not the only complainants. There was one additional member of the public. No, I do not see why they should have registered an interest. They were complaining in their private capacity, they are employees and not elected councillors. They have no interest to register and that they may or may not have had previous run ins with Dawn Barnett is neither here nor there.

This whole fiasco is complex enough and we really do not need to complicate it any further by requiring that members of the public, merely because they happen to be employed by BHCC, should be precluded from raising a complaint as a member of the public. It also deflects from the real issues of concern which are:

a) that a non accountable work force forum can push through a complaint and force the complaint to be escalated.

b) the Standards and Complaints department within Brighton and Hove City Council can be blackmailed by implied threats of further action by a non elected, non accountable work force forum
No, they were not the only complainants. There was one additional member of the public. No, I do not see why they should have registered an interest. They were complaining in their private capacity, they are employees and not elected councillors. They have no interest to register and that they may or may not have had previous run ins with Dawn Barnett is neither here nor there. This whole fiasco is complex enough and we really do not need to complicate it any further by requiring that members of the public, merely because they happen to be employed by BHCC, should be precluded from raising a complaint as a member of the public. It also deflects from the real issues of concern which are: a) that a non accountable work force forum can push through a complaint and force the complaint to be escalated. b) the Standards and Complaints department within Brighton and Hove City Council can be blackmailed by implied threats of further action by a non elected, non accountable work force forum mimseycal
  • Score: 3

12:59pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Bob_The_Ferret says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
The Council are now saying that the word 'mandatory' (definition, required or obligatory by authority) doesn't actually mean mandatory which doesn't come as any surprise to most of the local residents as this loony Green Party have been telling us one thing whilst meaning another since day one.
Its all greenspeak!
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: The Council are now saying that the word 'mandatory' (definition, required or obligatory by authority) doesn't actually mean mandatory which doesn't come as any surprise to most of the local residents as this loony Green Party have been telling us one thing whilst meaning another since day one.[/p][/quote]Its all greenspeak! Bob_The_Ferret
  • Score: 5

1:04pm Tue 4 Feb 14

JHunty says...

mimseycal wrote:
JHunty wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult.
It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.
I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff.

I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.
And two council employees don't forget.
As the two individuals you refer to complained as members of the public their employment has no bearing on the matter. Council employees are not precluded from being members of the public.
And they complained in their own time using their own resources to do so? Or was it during council time using council resources? Had the two employees ever had a run in with Dawn previously?
They did not use their status as employees in their complaint so their employment by BHCC has no bearing on the matter.
You aren't answering the questions I asked. Instead you are answering a question I didn't ask, a straw man argument.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult. It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff. I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.[/p][/quote]And two council employees don't forget.[/p][/quote]As the two individuals you refer to complained as members of the public their employment has no bearing on the matter. Council employees are not precluded from being members of the public.[/p][/quote]And they complained in their own time using their own resources to do so? Or was it during council time using council resources? Had the two employees ever had a run in with Dawn previously?[/p][/quote]They did not use their status as employees in their complaint so their employment by BHCC has no bearing on the matter.[/p][/quote]You aren't answering the questions I asked. Instead you are answering a question I didn't ask, a straw man argument. JHunty
  • Score: 4

1:55pm Tue 4 Feb 14

alyn, southwick says...

mimseycal wrote:
No, they were not the only complainants. There was one additional member of the public. No, I do not see why they should have registered an interest. They were complaining in their private capacity, they are employees and not elected councillors. They have no interest to register and that they may or may not have had previous run ins with Dawn Barnett is neither here nor there.

This whole fiasco is complex enough and we really do not need to complicate it any further by requiring that members of the public, merely because they happen to be employed by BHCC, should be precluded from raising a complaint as a member of the public. It also deflects from the real issues of concern which are:

a) that a non accountable work force forum can push through a complaint and force the complaint to be escalated.

b) the Standards and Complaints department within Brighton and Hove City Council can be blackmailed by implied threats of further action by a non elected, non accountable work force forum
Perhaps we should all declare our vested interests.
I'm white so don't know what its like to be racially insulted.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: No, they were not the only complainants. There was one additional member of the public. No, I do not see why they should have registered an interest. They were complaining in their private capacity, they are employees and not elected councillors. They have no interest to register and that they may or may not have had previous run ins with Dawn Barnett is neither here nor there. This whole fiasco is complex enough and we really do not need to complicate it any further by requiring that members of the public, merely because they happen to be employed by BHCC, should be precluded from raising a complaint as a member of the public. It also deflects from the real issues of concern which are: a) that a non accountable work force forum can push through a complaint and force the complaint to be escalated. b) the Standards and Complaints department within Brighton and Hove City Council can be blackmailed by implied threats of further action by a non elected, non accountable work force forum[/p][/quote]Perhaps we should all declare our vested interests. I'm white so don't know what its like to be racially insulted. alyn, southwick
  • Score: 2

3:52pm Tue 4 Feb 14

BiggerH says...

alyn, southwick wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
No, they were not the only complainants. There was one additional member of the public. No, I do not see why they should have registered an interest. They were complaining in their private capacity, they are employees and not elected councillors. They have no interest to register and that they may or may not have had previous run ins with Dawn Barnett is neither here nor there.

This whole fiasco is complex enough and we really do not need to complicate it any further by requiring that members of the public, merely because they happen to be employed by BHCC, should be precluded from raising a complaint as a member of the public. It also deflects from the real issues of concern which are:

a) that a non accountable work force forum can push through a complaint and force the complaint to be escalated.

b) the Standards and Complaints department within Brighton and Hove City Council can be blackmailed by implied threats of further action by a non elected, non accountable work force forum
Perhaps we should all declare our vested interests.
I'm white so don't know what its like to be racially insulted.
some of my best blacks are jewish so I'm in the clear
[quote][p][bold]alyn, southwick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: No, they were not the only complainants. There was one additional member of the public. No, I do not see why they should have registered an interest. They were complaining in their private capacity, they are employees and not elected councillors. They have no interest to register and that they may or may not have had previous run ins with Dawn Barnett is neither here nor there. This whole fiasco is complex enough and we really do not need to complicate it any further by requiring that members of the public, merely because they happen to be employed by BHCC, should be precluded from raising a complaint as a member of the public. It also deflects from the real issues of concern which are: a) that a non accountable work force forum can push through a complaint and force the complaint to be escalated. b) the Standards and Complaints department within Brighton and Hove City Council can be blackmailed by implied threats of further action by a non elected, non accountable work force forum[/p][/quote]Perhaps we should all declare our vested interests. I'm white so don't know what its like to be racially insulted.[/p][/quote]some of my best blacks are jewish so I'm in the clear BiggerH
  • Score: 2

4:39pm Tue 4 Feb 14

mimseycal says...

JHunty wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
JHunty wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Fight_Back wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult.
It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.
I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff.

I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.
And two council employees don't forget.
As the two individuals you refer to complained as members of the public their employment has no bearing on the matter. Council employees are not precluded from being members of the public.
And they complained in their own time using their own resources to do so? Or was it during council time using council resources? Had the two employees ever had a run in with Dawn previously?
They did not use their status as employees in their complaint so their employment by BHCC has no bearing on the matter.
You aren't answering the questions I asked. Instead you are answering a question I didn't ask, a straw man argument.
No, I did not answer the specific questions as in fact those questions are neither here nor there. No more so as to whether you are using your own computer or a work computer to ask them are relevant. Or whether you are using a tablet, a laptop or a desktop.
[quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Perhaps he can also challenge the council's equality policy as Dawn Barnett was investigated yet councillor Ben Duncan was not despite tweeting that a church school was a cult. It seems the council cherry picks what it finds offensive. Clearly religious intolerance is ok with the council.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that it was because the BMEWF (a non accountable workplace forum within BHCC) got on its high horse over Dawn Barnett but no similar corporate blackmail was exercised over the Ben Duncan gaff. I agree that to start bleating about human rights is a waste of funding. More importantly though is the fact that this demeans the concept of human rights. The whole matter is very simply a matter of abuse of power.[/p][/quote]And two council employees don't forget.[/p][/quote]As the two individuals you refer to complained as members of the public their employment has no bearing on the matter. Council employees are not precluded from being members of the public.[/p][/quote]And they complained in their own time using their own resources to do so? Or was it during council time using council resources? Had the two employees ever had a run in with Dawn previously?[/p][/quote]They did not use their status as employees in their complaint so their employment by BHCC has no bearing on the matter.[/p][/quote]You aren't answering the questions I asked. Instead you are answering a question I didn't ask, a straw man argument.[/p][/quote]No, I did not answer the specific questions as in fact those questions are neither here nor there. No more so as to whether you are using your own computer or a work computer to ask them are relevant. Or whether you are using a tablet, a laptop or a desktop. mimseycal
  • Score: -1

5:13pm Tue 4 Feb 14

jimpy762 says...

ARMANA wrote:
SoupOfficial wrote:
Is it "mandatory" to pay council tax?
Not if everyone stopped paying it at the same time, there would be no one to issue the summonses, or run the courts, unless of coarse they did it for nothing, but it wouldn't happen in this country, the English lions, "bloody sheep" more like it....Baa Baa
We did that in my battalion in 89 when the poll tax first came out. They sent us bills for 3 or 4 hundred pounds while we were in Belfast, living in fortresses and confined to them unless out on duty. None of us paid and about a year later the whole battalion got court summonses. None of us turned up for that either and that was the last we ever heard of it. Mind you, the Army looks after its own and I know from experience how adept it is at keeping troops away from the civil courts.
Might start making decent gollies and selling them. The 'perpetually offended on other peoples behalf' could well drum me up some free publicity.
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SoupOfficial[/bold] wrote: Is it "mandatory" to pay council tax?[/p][/quote]Not if everyone stopped paying it at the same time, there would be no one to issue the summonses, or run the courts, unless of coarse they did it for nothing, but it wouldn't happen in this country, the English lions, "bloody sheep" more like it....Baa Baa[/p][/quote]We did that in my battalion in 89 when the poll tax first came out. They sent us bills for 3 or 4 hundred pounds while we were in Belfast, living in fortresses and confined to them unless out on duty. None of us paid and about a year later the whole battalion got court summonses. None of us turned up for that either and that was the last we ever heard of it. Mind you, the Army looks after its own and I know from experience how adept it is at keeping troops away from the civil courts. Might start making decent gollies and selling them. The 'perpetually offended on other peoples behalf' could well drum me up some free publicity. jimpy762
  • Score: 4

6:36pm Tue 4 Feb 14

wippasnapper says...

More money down the drain to witch there will be yet another rise in council tax if this is allowed to take place… but on the point of golliwogs most people I know who are of the African decent cant see what all the fuss is about …
The golliwog, golliwogg or golly was a black character in children's books in the late 19th century usually depicted as a type of rag doll. It was reproduced, both by commercial and hobby toy-makers as a children's toy called the "golliwog", and had great popularity in Europe and Australia into the 1970s. While home-made golliwogs were sometimes female, the golliwog was generally male. For this reason, in the period following World War II, the golliwog was seen, along with the teddy bear, as a suitable soft toy for a young boy. The image of the doll has become the subject of heated debate. While some see the golliwog as a cherished cultural artifact and childhood tradition, others argue that the golliwog is a destructive instance of racism against people of African descent.
So should use weight people feel racially abused by weight dolls ha no of cores not but if someone produces a black doll were inciting racism towards the black community’s of this country witch to be honest is a low of hot ear as long as the doll is named a “golly” its ok but add “wog” to the end and your being racist – but lets be honest hear its ok for a dark skin’d person to racially abuse a weight person but wrong very wrong if we weight’s do it – the law kneads to change to reclassify racial abuse i.e. of any colour or race so we of any colour are protected under the gide lines.
More money down the drain to witch there will be yet another rise in council tax if this is allowed to take place… but on the point of golliwogs most people I know who are of the African decent cant see what all the fuss is about … The golliwog, golliwogg or golly was a black character in children's books in the late 19th century usually depicted as a type of rag doll. It was reproduced, both by commercial and hobby toy-makers as a children's toy called the "golliwog", and had great popularity in Europe and Australia into the 1970s. While home-made golliwogs were sometimes female, the golliwog was generally male. For this reason, in the period following World War II, the golliwog was seen, along with the teddy bear, as a suitable soft toy for a young boy. The image of the doll has become the subject of heated debate. While some see the golliwog as a cherished cultural artifact and childhood tradition, others argue that the golliwog is a destructive instance of racism against people of African descent. So should use weight people feel racially abused by weight dolls ha no of cores not but if someone produces a black doll were inciting racism towards the black community’s of this country witch to be honest is a low of hot ear as long as the doll is named a “golly” its ok but add “wog” to the end and your being racist – but lets be honest hear its ok for a dark skin’d person to racially abuse a weight person but wrong very wrong if we weight’s do it – the law kneads to change to reclassify racial abuse i.e. of any colour or race so we of any colour are protected under the gide lines. wippasnapper
  • Score: -1

6:48pm Tue 4 Feb 14

woodie49 says...

monkeymoo wrote:
Former policeman should stop being so sad, he just wants his picture in the press!
Well good for him. There's only one sad person and its not him.
[quote][p][bold]monkeymoo[/bold] wrote: Former policeman should stop being so sad, he just wants his picture in the press![/p][/quote]Well good for him. There's only one sad person and its not him. woodie49
  • Score: 1

9:13pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Bill in Hanover says...

All 9 of me wrote:
UKIP ......
PLEASE, the voters in Brighton voted in a Green MP and Council with their protest voting and I doubt that UKIP with their threadbare manifesto would do any better.
[quote][p][bold]All 9 of me[/bold] wrote: UKIP ......[/p][/quote]PLEASE, the voters in Brighton voted in a Green MP and Council with their protest voting and I doubt that UKIP with their threadbare manifesto would do any better. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 0

10:09pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Roundbill says...

wippasnapper wrote:
More money down the drain to witch there will be yet another rise in council tax if this is allowed to take place… but on the point of golliwogs most people I know who are of the African decent cant see what all the fuss is about …
The golliwog, golliwogg or golly was a black character in children's books in the late 19th century usually depicted as a type of rag doll. It was reproduced, both by commercial and hobby toy-makers as a children's toy called the "golliwog", and had great popularity in Europe and Australia into the 1970s. While home-made golliwogs were sometimes female, the golliwog was generally male. For this reason, in the period following World War II, the golliwog was seen, along with the teddy bear, as a suitable soft toy for a young boy. The image of the doll has become the subject of heated debate. While some see the golliwog as a cherished cultural artifact and childhood tradition, others argue that the golliwog is a destructive instance of racism against people of African descent.
So should use weight people feel racially abused by weight dolls ha no of cores not but if someone produces a black doll were inciting racism towards the black community’s of this country witch to be honest is a low of hot ear as long as the doll is named a “golly” its ok but add “wog” to the end and your being racist – but lets be honest hear its ok for a dark skin’d person to racially abuse a weight person but wrong very wrong if we weight’s do it – the law kneads to change to reclassify racial abuse i.e. of any colour or race so we of any colour are protected under the gide lines.
I liked the bit in the middle, where he copypasted a bit from someone who can spell and use punctuation. That was the best bit.
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: More money down the drain to witch there will be yet another rise in council tax if this is allowed to take place… but on the point of golliwogs most people I know who are of the African decent cant see what all the fuss is about … The golliwog, golliwogg or golly was a black character in children's books in the late 19th century usually depicted as a type of rag doll. It was reproduced, both by commercial and hobby toy-makers as a children's toy called the "golliwog", and had great popularity in Europe and Australia into the 1970s. While home-made golliwogs were sometimes female, the golliwog was generally male. For this reason, in the period following World War II, the golliwog was seen, along with the teddy bear, as a suitable soft toy for a young boy. The image of the doll has become the subject of heated debate. While some see the golliwog as a cherished cultural artifact and childhood tradition, others argue that the golliwog is a destructive instance of racism against people of African descent. So should use weight people feel racially abused by weight dolls ha no of cores not but if someone produces a black doll were inciting racism towards the black community’s of this country witch to be honest is a low of hot ear as long as the doll is named a “golly” its ok but add “wog” to the end and your being racist – but lets be honest hear its ok for a dark skin’d person to racially abuse a weight person but wrong very wrong if we weight’s do it – the law kneads to change to reclassify racial abuse i.e. of any colour or race so we of any colour are protected under the gide lines.[/p][/quote]I liked the bit in the middle, where he copypasted a bit from someone who can spell and use punctuation. That was the best bit. Roundbill
  • Score: 5

10:32pm Wed 5 Feb 14

StevieD says...

Oh come on. How sad is this world when a centuries old word causes such a storm. No one is being deliberately racist, if they were I would object, it is just one of those old fashioned terms of endearment that some narrow minded idiot has decided to make a fuss about. Any excuse to set off a petty political spat that is just as ridiculous as the original accusation. Grow up.
Oh come on. How sad is this world when a centuries old word causes such a storm. No one is being deliberately racist, if they were I would object, it is just one of those old fashioned terms of endearment that some narrow minded idiot has decided to make a fuss about. Any excuse to set off a petty political spat that is just as ridiculous as the original accusation. Grow up. StevieD
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Mon 10 Feb 14

semper cogitans says...

Sir Prised wrote:
rogerthefish wrote:
Another waste of tax payers money, move on and get a life.
It's because challenging small , yet farcical decisions such as this, is seen by the vast majority as pointless, that political correctness is allowed to steadily inveigle it's way into our lives. Golliwogs are prefectly acceptable toys, which have been targetted by those eager to make a point. Being offended is a choice and all the faux upset simply creates division. People need to learn tolerance, which is the real source of harmony..
Hear Hear!
[quote][p][bold]Sir Prised[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: Another waste of tax payers money, move on and get a life.[/p][/quote]It's because challenging small , yet farcical decisions such as this, is seen by the vast majority as pointless, that political correctness is allowed to steadily inveigle it's way into our lives. Golliwogs are prefectly acceptable toys, which have been targetted by those eager to make a point. Being offended is a choice and all the faux upset simply creates division. People need to learn tolerance, which is the real source of harmony..[/p][/quote]Hear Hear! semper cogitans
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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