Lyndale School parent “we really have lost faith in the democratic process”
Lyndale School parent “we really have lost faith in the democratic process”
Councillor Harry Smith asks a question about Lynn Wright’s qualifications
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Above is a nearly two-minute video that shows a number of comments made at meetings about Lyndale School (plus at the end one councillor’s views on filming). A transcript is below.
CLLR PHIL DAVIES: Retaining the Lyndale School, this is chaos.
CLLR LEAH FRASER: The buildings have been valued at £1.7 million and the land at errm, the land at errm £508,000.
DAVID ARMSTRONG: It’s not a value, it’s an accounting process.
CLLR HARRY SMITH: What are Lynn Wright’s qualifications?
CLLR MOIRA MCLAUGHLIN: It’s the kind of question Harry I don’t want to take from this teaching assistant.
CLLR HARRY SMITH: With respect Chair, she was criticising her qualifications so I’m asking her what are Lynn Wright’s qualifications?
CLLR MOIRA MCLAUGHLIN: We’ll ask Lynn Wright as well what her qualifications are if you’re able to answer that?
NICOLA KENNY (TEACHING ASSISTANT): Errm, well I can’t tell you exactly all her qualifications but what I can tell you is in terms of PMLD, she’s not as qualified as me.
(applause)
CLLR WENDY CLEMENTS: And I just wonder if there’s anything else particularly that you think we need to know that will help us make our decision tonight?
DAWN HUGHES (parent): And we feel that you know that we’ve lost, we really have lost faith in the democratic process and how that we really haven’t been listened to and we feel that the, that local authority officers have not been comprehensive in their examination of all the evidence and the evidence that they’ve presented to Cabinet and that when our views are not listened to and we have an authoritarian top down way of dealing with people in the community, then you know people get angry and frustrated and people are angry and frustrated about this whole process and not just us I think actually generally the community across Wirral is really unhappy about this so I just wanted to make those comments.
CLLR STEVE NIBLOCK: I’m asking you to stop filming, that means stop now! Stop now!
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Labour councillor bans filming at public meeting to decide whether to licence a taxi that’s over 10 years old
Labour councillor bans filming at public meeting to decide whether to licence a taxi that’s over 10 years old
Last Thursday there was a public meeting of Wirral Council’s Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee. Part of this meeting considered an item deferred from a Licensing Panel the week before.
Below is a transcript of what happened at the Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee meeting on the 25th March 2015. It shows that Wirral Council still thinks it has the power to stop filming at public meetings.
Derek Cummins is a union representative in the UNITE union. Margaret O’Donnell works for Wirral Council.
Councillor Bill Davies gets irate and starts wagging his finger when he’s told he can’t ban filming any more Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee 25th March 2015
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): The next item, the last item is… Margaret? Do you want to come forward sir?
CLLR TOM ANDERSON: Is this exempt?
CLLR JOHN SALTER: Are we exempted?
CLLR STEVE NIBLOCK: Can we ask for legal clarification about whether or not this item should be exempt because it might be to do with personal or financial circumstances with regard to this application and I’d prefer that we should consider whether it was exempt?
LEGAL ADVISOR TO COMMITTEE: I think we need to clarify whether or not there’s an objection first from the individual before we determine whether or not a decision needs to be made in that respect.
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): Are you objecting sir?
TAXI DRIVER: Well, yeah sorry, are you talking about my finance?
DEREK CUMMINS: He didn’t quite understand. Yeah, if it’s possible.
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): If you’ll just come forward.
TAXI DRIVER: Sorry.
MARGARET O’DONNELL: Just stay there.
CLLR JOHN SALTER: Yeah, just, just keep, yeah sorry, so you don’t, you’re not identified at the present time.
DEREK CUMMINS: Yeah, just to be confident it’s that disagreement on the internet, I don’t want for, for the, could we just sort of err stop filming this side? Well I would suggest it.
CLLR MICHAEL SULLIVAN: Yes, he said stop filming.
UNKNOWN COUNCILLOR: Stop filming.
CLLR JOHN SALTER: So do it under 12A!
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): You don’t want to be filmed or recorded?
TAXI DRIVER: I’m ok, it’s just err on the finance.
CLLR JOHN SALTER: Yeah.
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): There’s finance involved?
CLLRS STEVE NIBLOCK AND CLLRS JOHN SALTER: Yeah.
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): Right you cannot be filmed because finances are going to be involved.
JOHN BRACE: Sorry did he say he was ok with being filmed but we’re going to be excluded anyway?
DEREK CUMMINS: Yeah, he did.
JOHN BRACE: In a bit yeah? That’s fine, but they’ve got to agree the exclusion first.
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): I can’t, I can’t hear from up here, would someone, would someone?
MARGARET O’DONNELL: Can I assist? Firstly, err Derek are you representing the applicant?
DEREK CUMMINS: He didn’t come to me at all, it’s just he doesn’t quite understand what the agenda is.
CLLR MICHAEL SULLIVAN: We’re concerned about you being filmed and disclosing personal information.
DEREK CUMMINS: That goes on the internet.
CLLR MICHAEL SULLIVAN: That could very well end up on the internet
OTHER COUNCILLOR: Yeah.
CLLR MICHAEL SULLIVAN: and on Youtube.
DEREK CUMMINS: So you’d rather have that handled?
TAXI DRIVER: No, yeah. Yeah.
CLLR MICHAEL SULLIVAN: We’re trying to protect your interests so you’re alright.
TAXI DRIVER: Thank you.
DEREK CUMMINS: So there’s a thing called 7A so we’re excluded, everyone’s excluded, except you.
CLLR MICHAEL SULLIVAN: So would you be happier if we just said no filming?
TAXI DRIVER: Please.
CLLR JOHN SALTER: Yes.
TAXI DRIVER: Please.
CLLR JOHN SALTER: Yes Chair.
JOHN BRACE: If they’re excluding the public then it doesn’t matter.
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): Sorry, it’s not an exempt item. The person can stay but they don’t film.
JOHN BRACE: I’m getting confused now. Sorry are you excluding members of the public or not?
CLLR BILL DAVIES (and other councillors): No, no, no, no.
CLLR MICHAEL SULLIVAN: But you can’t film.
JOHN BRACE: But the reason….
CLLR BILL DAVIES: He’s an individual, if he’s got human rights like everybody else. He doesn’t want to be filmed, he doesn’t want to be filmed.
JOHN BRACE: I was just going to point out that although we had this discussion a lot longer at Standards
CLLR DAVID ELDERTON: Please take it down and take it out.
JOHN BRACE: Sorry can I finish what I’m saying? Err, I thought you were about to say you were going to exclude the members of the press and public and he was going to stay and you were just going to decide that, but now you’re saying you’re going to decide, if you’re going to decide this when the press and public are going to be here then the regulations say that any bit of the meeting that’s public can be filmed but obviously if we were excluded then we can’t film it.
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): Well the gentleman there does not want to be filmed.
JOHN BRACE: Yeah but I can film the other side of the room?
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): That’s what he’s saying. I think that’s quite clear! Some of us don’t want to be filmed. At the end of the day, if it ends up on the internet or Youtube this committee and the officers and something goes wrong will be responsible. It won’t be you, it will be us and this man has said, do you want that recorded. Do you want to be filmed or recorded?
TAXI DRIVER: No.
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): That’s fine. You can stay but you don’t film or record. I have made it quite clear because the gentleman, if the gentleman wants to be filmed, no problem. He doesn’t.
JOHN BRACE: OK.
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): OK.
CLLR DAVID ELDERTON: It is the Chair’s discretion.
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): Yep. OK.
CLLR JOHN SALTER: Will you switch it off?
JOHN BRACE: At the Standards Committee it was said if you’re going make a decision that filming is not allowed, then you record that in the minutes with the reasons.
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): Yeah, I will do that.
JOHN BRACE: OK, could you give..
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): but we’re not at the Standards Committee, we’re at the Licensing Committee.
JOHN BRACE: Yeah, I know, but just
CLLR BILL DAVIES (Chair): but you must realise that there’s certain times when individuals have private, personal or financial and they do not want their business spread elsewhere.
JOHN BRACE: I’ll just say I’d like that recorded in the minutes and if that’s the case then I’ll stop filming because I want to challenge that anyway under the regulations so that’s my position.
Once the camera was switched off and the lens cover was shut, councillors went back on what they’d said and excluded the press and public from the rest of the meeting anyway!
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Every year, a legal requirement on Wirral Council means that they have to publish for each councillor how much was spent on travelling and subsistence allowances for each councillor.
Last year I made a Freedom of Information Act request for a breakdown of payments made to three taxi firms (A.P. Contract Hire Ltd, Wallasey Cars Limited and Wirral Satellite Cars Limited) for taxi journeys made by councillors paid for by Wirral Council.
Here is the breakdown for each councillor, taxi firm and total amount for that financial year.
AP Contract Hire
Cllr Irene Williams £11.20
Cllr Phil Davies (Plus 3 Staff) £54.00
Cllr Steve Niblock £51.00
AP Contract Hire Total £116.20
Wallasey Cars
Cllr Bill Davies £25.00
former Cllr Brian Kenny £5.00
Cllr Christina Muspratt £10.10
Cllr Irene Williams £46.20
Cllr Joe Walsh £50.60
Cllr Moira McLaughlin £197.10
Cllr Pat Hackett £700.00
Cllr Steve Niblock £442.90
Cllr Tony Norbury £13.00
Wallasey Cars Total £1,489.90
Wirral Satellite Cars
Cllr Bill Davies £106.65
Cllr Chris Meaden £6.70
Cllr Christina Muspratt £159.40
Cllr Denise Realey £20.10
Cllr Harry Smith £25.20
Cllr Irene Williams £117.70
Cllr Joe Walsh £184.55
Cllr Moira McLaughlin £558.20
Cllr Phil Brightmore £7.30
Cllr Steve Foulkes £17.50
Cllr Steve Niblock £16.00
Cllr Tony Norbury £51.95
Wirral Satellite Cars Total £1,271.25
Grand Total £2,877.35
An amount of £10.20 for an Anne Davis for Wallasey Cars was also included in the response to my request, but as there is no councillor called Anne Davis, I have not included this amount in the figures above.
One thing to be noted is that all the councillors in this list are from the same party (Labour Party). Let’s take one councillor’s taxi expenses at random and compare them to the published list for 2013/14.
Cllr Moira McLaughlin’s taxi rides came to £197.10 with Wallasey Cars and £558.20 with Wirral Satellite Cars (total £755.30).
Taking another councillor from the list above, £700 was spent on taxi rides for Cllr Pat Hackett with Wallasey Cars. Yet when you read the published list for 2013/14 his expenses are down as £0 and travel expenses £0.
I would suspect that if I went through the list of councillors above I’d find that none of these taxi rides appear on the list that’s published each year. The response to my FOI request contains the line “The use of taxis’, and the associated costs, has been in connection with legitimate Council business.”
This all reminds me of that quote from Wirral Council’s former Chief Executive Graham Burgess of “We need to spend less on ourselves and more on services” and I wonder what the £2,877.35 spent on taxi journeys for councillors could have been spent on instead.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
A professor, 2 solicitors and 3 councillors discuss alcohol sales at Westbourne Hall & filming of public meetings
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
The Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee comprising of Cllr Steve Niblock, Cllr Denise Roberts and Cllr Louise Reecejones supposed to start at 10.00am actually started at 10.20am. Cllr Steve Niblock was chair for the meeting. Quite why meetings of the Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee never start on time is a Town Hall mystery to write about another day, but councillors were there to decide on an application for selling alcohol at Westbourne Hall in Westbourne Road, West Kirby which is now run by Westbourne Hall Community Trust.
Attending the meeting were two trustees from the Westbourne Hall Community Trust whose names were David Wade and Ray Davies. Representing them was a solicitor called Barry Holland. There were also various council officers present to take the minutes, give legal advice or answer questions about the detail of the application.
A local resident, described as a professor who lives near Westbourne Hall was objecting to the application was also present, as was myself and my wife. Normally that would be everyone, but unusually (as there were no objections to this application from Merseyside Police) Sergeant Simon Barrigan (Licensing Sergeant for Wirral) and an unknown police officer accompanying him, sat and observed the meeting in silence.
At the start of the meeting Margaret O’Donnell (Licensing Manager, Wirral Council) informed people present that two residents had contacted Wirral Council officers to say that they couldn’t attend the hearing but had emailed in their views. The solicitor representing the Westbourne Hall Community Trust, Barry Holland said that he had had a chat with the objector to straighten out some issues. The Chair, Cllr Steve Niblock read out what he does at every Licensing Act 2003 Subcommittee about what the purpose of the meeting was.
Margaret O’Donnell raised the issue of filming the meeting by saying, “Just to confirm for those who are present as well, that this particular hearing is being filmed and whether or not you wanted to give people an opportunity to comment on that.” I’ll point out here that when Pt 2 of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 came into effect on August 6th of this year Wirral Council is not allowed to stop filming at its public meetings. The Chair, Cllr Steve Niblock asked people present if they consented to being filmed and asked people present to confirm their consent.
As I sat there, as I’ve sat there through many discussions about filming at the start of public meetings at Wirral Council, I felt like I was in the film Groundhog Day where the same thing keeps getting said in an endless loop about filming in an effort to try my patience.
Heads were nodding around the room about the filming issue and the professor said in reply, “Well I assume I don’t even have a say in the matter, but as it’s a public meeting, usually I object to that in general but I also approve of the general principle of public meetings, so I think I don’t have any choice but to accept.”
Seemingly with a look of disappointment and a big intake of breath Cllr Steve Niblock as nobody was objecting to the filming of the meeting he asked their legal adviser Ken Abraham for “guidance on this issue”. I will point out at this point that in June, Cllr Niblock totally ignored the guidance that Ken Abraham gave him at a previous Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee meeting which led to the stop filming, that means stop now blog post back in June.
Mr Ken Abraham replied very quietly as he can hardly be heard on the video, “Well legislation has recently been passed in respect of meetings held in the past, held by the local authority which is regulations which are in force as well in relation to that. The guidance that was issued, really doesn’t touch upon the issue of individuals who object to the meeting being filmed. So there may be a pragmatic view really, if an individual did object to recording then that part of the hearing with which they were involved, you could ask for the camera to be switched off and we would have to in making that request, rely on the errm credibility and honesty of the individual filming to ensure the fact that the camera is actually put off and there would be no filming of that part.
Really to object to this filming, it would be a shame et cetera. So, councillor as I said before, Members around the table, you could attempt to do that but that is the rule.”
The professor said he didn’t want to cause any problems, followed by the solicitor for the applicant saying they would not to object to filming as it would be “churlish” as the application was being made on behalf of the community.
Margaret O’Donnell said that the purpose of the hearing was to decide on an application for a premises licence made by Westbourne Hall Community Trust and related to Westbourne Hall, in Westbourne Road, West Kirby. She said that they currently had a premises licence, which also allowed for regulated entertainment. Margaret O’Donnell read out the times they had applied for and that there were representations from residents about the application and one resident was here at the hearing.
The Chair, Cllr Steve Niblock asked the solicitor for the applicants to speak in support of their application. He said that it was not an application for a public house, sporting club or any kind of commercial venture. Westbourne Hall had operated as a community trust, originally run by Wirral Council and people from the area. Mr Davies had been associated with it since the joint panel was formed in 1994, but he had been involved before that dating back to 1991.
He went on to make it clear that it would not be a public house, there would be no stock and the application was to enable the premises to offer to people who rent it such as charities, arts groups, martial arts groups, dance groups and that it was a “genuine community venture”. Mr Holland said that the hall was rented out for wedding receptions and that the hall had had a licence since the inception of the 2003 Licensing Act.
However Westbourne Hall used its full quota of twelve temporary event notices and that there was no objection from any of the responsible authorities to this application. He said that due to the restriction the hall had lost out on potential lets and gave the example of an organisation renting the hall for rehearsals but also wanting to have an annual dance and Christmas party there. At the moment these were going to Heswall or Hoylake.
When the trust had taken over they had put a business plan together as to how they intended to run it, but they lost bookings who had gone elsewhere. He referred to the Hoylake Community Trust had done the same and it was to level the playing field. The community trust was not a commercial venture and he went into the detail as to the times.
Birthday parties for people aged 18-25 would not be permitted and he explained that they had had to make notices available about the application on the premises and in the press. If he had changed the wording of these notices to please the neighbours to explain it was not a commercial facility then it could have been argued that the statutory requirements hadn’t been complied with. He had been involved in a previous application where this had happened.
He asked for the artificial restriction of only twelve temporary event notices a year to be lifted and that the hall didn’t aim to change the relationship with its neighbours but he would happily answer any questions.
Two councillors (Cllr Louise Reecejones and Cllr Steve Niblock) asked similar questions about how they would ensure that the licensing objectives were upheld by organisations renting the hall and selling alcohol?
To be continued…
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
A report of the Licensing Act 2003 Committee of Wirral Council of the 7th November 2012, Interest Declarations, Minutes (25th July 2012), Result of consultation on draft statememt of principles (Gambling Act 2005), classification of Small Creatures (Light Cinema, New Brighton)
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Licensing Act 2003 Committee (Wirral Council) 7th November 2012
Present
Cllr Bill Davies (Chair), Labour
Cllr Rob Gregson (Labour)
Cllr John Salter (Labour)
Cllr Harry Smith (Labour)
Cllr Steve Niblock (Labour)
Cllr Denise Roberts (Labour)
Cllr Mike Hornby (Conservative)
Cllr Adam Sykes (Conservative)
Cllr Dave Mitchell (Liberal Democrat)
Council officers
Anne Beauchamp (Committee Officer)
Margaret O’Donnell (Licensing Manager)
Ken Abraham (Legal adviser)
Unknown officer (male)
In attendance
Cllr Geoffrey Watt
Press/public
John & Leonora Brace
The meeting started with Cllr Dave Mitchell (Lib Dem) giving apologies for Cllr Pat Williams (Lib Dem). The meeting was interrupted by the tune of an ice cream van, which the Chair, Cllr Bill Davies made a joke about, he went on to say that there were a number of meetings going on of different committees and that a number of councillors had sent their apologies. Apologies had been received from Cllrs McCubbin, Davies (George), Leech and Williams (Pat). He said he had a quick Any Other Business and asked if he could sign the minutes?
Agenda Item 1 Declarations of Interest 1:09 to 1:30
Cllr Niblock asked if he could declare a personal interest as a member of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority in item 3.
Cllr Denise Roberts also declared a personal interest as a member of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority in item 3.
Agenda Item 3. DRAFT STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES UNDER THE GAMBLING ACT 2005 1:50 to 8:20
The Chair asked Margaret O’Donnell (Licensing Manager) to talk about this item. She said the Committee had agreed a draft statement in July which had gone out to consultation, which had closed on the 31st October [2012].
At this point a Council Officer arrived.
Margaret O’Donnell continued that they had received one response which was attached at appendix 3, there were no specific direct comments so no amendments had been made to the draft since July, she said the purpose of the evening was to seek approval, then it would go to full Council on 17th December [2012] and was to be revised no later than January 2013.
Cllr Niblock referred to page 15 3.3 in the reference to “Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service Authority” which should read Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority. He pointed out a minor error where a full stop should be a comma and asked a question about page 31 about bingo being played in a member’s club.
Margaret was about to answer his points but Cllr Niblock went on to point out page 36, 21.2 apologising and saying he meant 27.3 and the phrase “will be decided on a case by case individual basis”, which he thought should either be case by case or individual.
Cllr Harry Smith agreed with him.
Cllr Niblock went on to point out that certain proper nouns such as Licensing Authority needed to be capitalised but were all in lower case.
Margaret O’Donnell said she would ask it to be looked at.
Cllr Harry Smith said, “Who are we going to shoot?”
Cllr Hornby asked a question about CRB checks and qualifications for door supervisors?
The Chair said that they used to interview door supervisors.
Margaret O’Donnell said that [door supervisors] were covered by the Security Industry Agency and they had to go through a process to be licensed.
Cllr John Salter asked if they had consulted the Chief of Police and if the Police had made comments?
Margaret O’Donnell confirmed the police had made no comments.
The Chair commented about training, the three meetings on tonight and that they were looking for alternative dates. As there were no further questions, the recommendation to the Council meeting of the 17th December of the Draft Statement of Gambling Principles was agreed.
4. ANY OTHER URGENT BUSINESS ACCEPTED BY THE CHAIR 8:20 to 24:04 Classification of unclassified film “Small Creatures” (Light Cinema, New Brighton)
The Chair said there was one item of Any Other Business which Margaret would explain.
Margaret thanked the Chair for allowing this item of Any Other Business. She said it was in respect of the classification of a film in accordance with guidance issued by the British Board of Film Classification, as they had a cinema in New Brighton called the Light Cinema which wanted to show an unclassified film. She said they were obliged to protect children from harm. She said she received an email on the 6th November from a gentleman who wanted to show it during anti-bullying week (the week starting the 19th November), she said it had been classified by Liverpool Licensing Authority, she said the film related to anti bullying, an individual called Martin Wallace wanted to show the film Small Creatures and had submitted a synopsis and was classified as a 15 by Liverpool City Council screening at FACT. She read out a synopsis about the film. She said there was discrimination of a homophobic nature, on-screen cannabis smoking, no horror in the film, reference to two instances of self-harm, but brief, it had strong occasional language, no nudity but occasional references to sex, crime and occasional violence (a school fight on a field) and a stabbing on camera.
Cllr Harry Smith asked if there was a moral ending?
Margaret O’Donnell said the film was about 89 minutes long.
Cllr Harry Smith referred to possible abuse.
Margaret O’Donnell suggested it could be delegated to a subcommittee, who would then have the chance to view the film.
Cllr Harry Smith asked again if there was a moral ending?
Margaret said that the 14-year-old boy ignored the advice of his teachers and gets involved in knife crime, there’s then a stabbing.
Cllr Harry Smith said he was “disappointed with the ending of the film”.
Margaret said the key thing was the classification and if people should be permitted to go see it.
Cllr Niblock asked if Liverpool City Council had just classified it based on a synopsis, as what it looked like might not be like what’s written on paper. Margaret O’Donnell responded. She said they hadn’t been able to establish how Liverpool City Council had come to its decision.
Cllr Sykes referred to the guidance, Margaret O’Donnell responded by reading out what the British Board of Film Classification see as a 15 classification, during this Cllr Andrew Hodson arrived at 5:47pm for the 6pm meeting. Another councillor arrived at 5:48pm for the 6pm meeting.
Cllr Sykes asked if it would be shown as part of anti-bullying week? Margaret nodded.
Cllr Gregson made some comments.
Cllr Salter wanted something written down.
Cllr Gregson asked about the Liverpool decision.
Margaret O’Donnell said she was seeking the “general view of the Committee” and that she was more than satisfied to report back. She said the email had put them in a difficult position, if it hadn’t been for the meeting she’d have suggested setting up a subcommittee, which would depend on the availability of councillors, she said she would report back the comments made this evening and it was a matter for the applicant if they wanted to pursue it further.
Cllr Hornby said it depended on how the film was directed, which can be misunderstood. He said, “I don’t like the idea of we giving carte blanche to something because someone else across the river said, “It’s OK.”” Cllr Hornby said it was his view it had to be done through a subcommittee.
Cllr Harry Smith said he was really worried there was no moralising end to it and referred to what happened to the baddies at the end of Grange Hill.
Cllr Hornby referred to direction.
Cllr Mitchell agreed that it should be delegated to a subcommittee, who would get the information prior to the meeting, she said it’s to coincide with anti bullying week.
Cllr Roberts asked if the Liverpool councillors seen the film? She said it was no worse than books for teenagers.
The Chair said at his discretion a member of the public has indicated they wish to say something and that he will allow it.
Declaration of interest: The member of the public is my wife and writes and edits for this blog.
Mrs. Brace thanked the Chair for letting her speak. She said that similar types of films had been banned, but if it did go ahead she thought that only people aged over 18 should go and watch it.
The Chair thanked Mrs. Brace for her comments.
Shirley Hudspeth arrived.
The Chair said he thought a decision had been made and it would go to a subcommittee. It was agreed to delegate the decision to a subcommittee.
Shirley Hudspeth arrived.
The Chair closed the meeting and said that the Licensing, Health & Safety and General Purposes Committee would start in five minutes.
