‘We didn’t think it was right to allow the public in' (From The Oxford Times)
When It Happens Panel Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'OXFORD NEWS' to 80360 or email
‘We didn’t think it was right to allow the public in'
9:00am Friday 18th January 2013 in News
COUNCILLORS who voted to bar the press from a standards hearing into comments allegedly made by Lord Mayor Alan Armitage have broken their silence.
Standards committee members Gwynneth Royce, Mike Gotch, James Fry and Dick Wolff voted to exclude the press and public from Wednesday’s meeting at the Town Hall.
It emerged yesterday that Labour Councillor Susanna Pressel also joined their vote.
Since the meeting, three have contacted the Oxford Mail by email to explain why.
Ms Pressel, who represents the Jericho and Osney ward, said: “With great regret I decided to vote against allowing the press in because Jeremy [Thomas, the council’s head of legal] said that if we let you in, we couldn’t say no to anyone else, eg any member of the public.”
Lib Dem Mike Gotch, councillor for Wolvercote, said: “Difficult balance and consequent decision for all of us but I will not comment further.”
James Fry, another Labour councillor, who represents the North ward, said: “The reason we voted to hold it in private was because we were informed that if we allowed press to attend the hearing, then we were obliged to allow members of the public to attend as well, and then the safeguards required to protect the identities of the children involved in the case would have been impossible to enforce.”
Despite being approached by the Oxford Mail, Mr Wolff failed to respond and Ms Royce declined to comment.
The meeting was adjourned for five weeks after Mr Armitage, who is accused of making inappropriate comments to a schoolgirl at an event in Oxford last June, announced he wanted to contest the conclusion of the investigation.
Comments(8)
Joe Chapman
says...
10:40am Fri 18 Jan 13
Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
says...
10:48am Fri 18 Jan 13
Joe Chapman wrote:Your right the city is not answerable to the Oxford Mail.
Since when has this city been answerable to The Oxford Mail? Please stop playing politics and stick to reporting.
Elected representatives are however answerable to the electorate and the Oxford Mail simply reports what we have a right to know.
Tom Cranmer
says...
11:12am Fri 18 Jan 13
Abingdon Neil
says...
12:08pm Fri 18 Jan 13
In this case however, where the need to protect the identity of a schoolchild giving evidence is concerned, I think the councillors concerned made the right decision.
Dick Wolff
says...
12:35pm Fri 18 Jan 13
I have no problem about explaining why the decision to exclude the press at this point was permissible and advisable, though regrettable. (Cllr Dick Wolff)
Grunden Skip
says...
2:55pm Fri 18 Jan 13
Tom Cranmer wrote:Actually Tom they do. As in When a sporting event is ordered to be played behind closed doors. No members of the public are admitted, yet the press still are. In this case I see no reason why the press couldn't be admitted and the public still barred. At least that way the hearing would still be in the public domain as it would be publicly reported, and still maintain the privacy of the alleged girls involved. But to be honest if it was anything even remotely serious then the police would be involved.
I think the right decision was made; the press do not have a different legal status from you and I (despite what the national tabloid's believe!), so there would be child protection and anonymity concerns. The hearing is not in the public interest, the hearing's findings will be in the public interest. The distinction between "public interest" and "interesting to the public" appears to have been confused.
Myron Blatz
says...
11:56pm Fri 18 Jan 13
A Scroat says...
9:40am Fri 18 Jan 13