I
presented her with my credentials – a copy of a current UK Press Card issued by
the National Union of Journalist. These credentials meet the requirements of Thanet
Council’s new policy covering the filming of meetings which was agreed by the
Council on 3 October (1)
Despite
having the proper credentials Councillor Gideon ruled that I could not film the
meeting. She also ruled that I be not allowed to speak at the meeting.
I
was extremely surprised by Councillor Gideon’s response. Within the last week
Thanet Conservative MP Laura Sandys had urged the Council to permit filming of
meetings by the public. Just one day before the meeting of the Scrutiny TransEuropa
Task and Finish Group, the Thanet Council Conservative Group issued a press
release which stated that they “agree to the live streaming and public filming
of council meetings”.
In
the 24 hours which had elapsed since this statement was issued the Conservative
Group had either changed its mind about filming of Council meetings, or
Councillor Gideon had forgotten what her Party policy was on this matter.
Having
been refused permission to film even though I met the Council’s filming
criteria I decided to film the meeting secretly. Unfortunately I was discovered
and was asked to leave the meeting. I politely refused to do so as my rights as
a properly accredited person under the terms of Thanet Council’s Constitution
had been abused by Councillor Gideon.
By
refusing to leave the meeting I was following the advice I had been given by
Brandon Lewis MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary for Communities and Local
Government who in a letter to me said that “you should
openly challenge your council to welcome those who want to bring local news stories to a wider audience
through, for example,
filming and taking photographs”.
I
am at a loss to understand why, whilst hundreds of Councils across the country
are endorsing “digital democracy and welcoming the public filming their
meetings, Thanet Council continues to adopt an old-fashioned, medieval
approach.
Dartford
District Council recently told me that
it “welcomes the filming and relay of proceedings” which provides “huge
benefits in better, and deeper, engagement between this local authority and the
community it serves”.
Why
can’t Thanet Council adopt such a positive and welcoming approach? Why do they
have to insist on secrecy? What do they have to hide?
Notes
1.
Part 5 of Thanet Council’s Constitution, Filming of Council
Meetings sates that
Requests to film Council
Committee meetings will only be granted to accredited
media representatives. The
definition of an accredited media organisation is as follows:
“a media
organisation or individual that holds a National Press Card and is registered
with the
Press Complaints Commission (or its successor) or a similar regulated body
with a code
of conduct and associated complaints process through which the Council
could take recourse”.
2. Filming at Council meeting the facts.
·
The Government has issued
advice to all Councils advising them to allow the public to film meetings
·
The law will be changed
in 2015 to force those Council’s not already doing so, to allow the public to
film Council meetings.
·
Thanet and Swale
Councils are the only 2 Councils (out of 13) in Kent not to allow the public to
film meetings
·
The national leadership of
the Conservative, Lib-Dem and Labour all support the filming of Council
meetings but the leadership of the Thanet Conservative and Labour Parties
·
Anti-government
corruption watchdog Transparency International endorsed the filming of Council
meetings in its latest report on corruption in UK local government.
·
The Tax Payers Alliance
supports the filming of Council meetings
·
2 members of the public
have been thrown out of Thanet Council meetings in the past year and I have
also be thrown out on one occasion
·
I am facing a costly
investigation (estimated £6,000) for taking photographs of 2 councillors who
were about to have a fight in contravention of old fashioned anti-filming rules
THANET DISTRICT COUNCIL - FILMING AT MEETING
Thank you for your email of 4 October to the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP about filming the meetings of your Council. Your letter has been forwarded to me and I am replying as it falls within my ministerial responsibilities .
I note your concerns about your Council's
decision not to allow local people to film and photograph its meetings, but as I explained
in my letter to you in April this year , I cannot comment
on this matter as the Government cannot intervene in the
decisions councils take because councils
are directly accountable to their local people.
The guidance, recently
issued, highlights that councils are required by law to provide reasonable
facilities for any member of the public to report on meetings. It also recommends that those wishing
to film or take photographs should inform their councils before the start of the council meeting.
Councils should be at the forefront of promoting transparency and openness and this means that you should openly
challenge your council
to welcome those who want to bring local news stories to a wider audience
through, for example,
filming and taking photographs. Councils who resist this transparency and openness should
expect open criticism
from us and the public.
Yet another example of the pathetic state of the Tory 'opposition' at TDC. Makes you wonder why people are voting UKIP. Gideon should hang her head in shame. Bayford should resign. Hart should go on a very long holiday
ReplyDeleteAre you
ReplyDelete" registered with the Press Complaints Commission (or its successor) or a similar regulated body
with a code of conduct and associated complaints process through which the Council
could take recourse”."
Ian?
An individual cannot be registered with the Press Complaints Commission or its successor. Only publications are registered e.g The Times, The Sun, The Mirror. I am a member of the NUJ which has a code and a complaints process which the Council can use.
DeleteThey should all RESIGN. Even the BBC reports how corrupt they are. Can't be wrong can they? If it was false, the council would surely challenge opposition and threaten legal action on behalf of it's organisation or members. Because they don't do it and cannot prove otherwise naturally exposes how corrupt they really are!
ReplyDeleteOfficial records not trusted, independent neither. How can open debate work without trust, perhaps the open chamber came about because you can't rely on third party versions of events. Vested interests seem to rule against decision making in the common good. Filming can only capture expression and emphasis over a written record, but all can be skewed/edited. Verifying the characters of those taking decisions before they are let loose to do so might be better.
ReplyDeleteGideon allows the likes of her mate Ken Gregory to speak but stops Ian Driver.
ReplyDeleteI am confused. Bayford says allow filming. Gideon then refuses and Gregory backs her on his blog. Today the Conservatives announce they support exactly what we need; an independent standards committee with some teeth. Has Gideon taken leave of her senses or is this a case of Bayford pretending to appease the public while getting Gideon to sweep the ferry disaster under the carpet to avoid him any embarrassment. Of course Gregory wouldn't want any scrutiny either. Had thought that Gideon had some brain cells. How wrong you can be. That's three that need to resign.
ReplyDeleteGideon must go. She was the same incompetent on the Airport Committee. Where do we find these third-raters?
ReplyDeleteIm just guessing but is this because Council ruling is still no filming even though Bayford says allow it? agree makes no sense.We have seen threats and rudeness, some of us have unfortunately experienced it too.
ReplyDelete