MEMBERS of the Ludlow Campaign for Fairness attended a public meeting of Shropshire Council.
Our purpose was to put a question to the council leader, as follows: “Given the transfer of services to a private company, will the leader of the council explain how councillors can perform their roles responsibly if they are denied information on grounds of commercial confidentiality?”
Advance notice of this question had been given in accordance with the rules, but no reply had been received until our arrival in the chamber when a written reply was available with the agenda papers. No time was available to digest the reply which many of us found unsatisfactory. In the light of the written reply Dr Robertson was not allowed to put his question verbally but was allowed a supplementary.
There were other aspects of this meeting which give rise to serious concern. On entering the public seating area in an orderly manner, two members of our delegation had their cameras peremptorily confiscated. The chief executive announced that photography and recording were forbidden but was contradicted in an interjection from the public seats and was obliged to withdraw his objection, following further interventions from elected members, saying that photography and recording was allowed so long as it was not published. However, the cameras were not returned until after the meeting, allegedly on the grounds of "disruptive behaviour".
The account of this incident in the council’s press release is seriously misleading. It states “due to disruptive behaviour by a small number of people at today’s meeting it was necessary to confiscate their cameras for the duration of the meeting.” Any disruption only took place after the confiscation of the cameras and in no way could their continued retention be justified.
We feel it is important to set the record straight, following a slur against citizens who were exercising their democratic rights.
One other correction needs to be made. Councillor Barrow's statement "We have met with Churches Together and other community groups in Ludlow even as recently as March 30 this year" is misleading and inaccurate. "We" must refer to the official sent by the council to a meeting in Ludlow on March 27, who, because he was not a councillor, could not, or was not allowed to answer many of our questions. And it wasn't a Churches Together meeting - Councillor Barrow was either unable or unwilling to meet the churches group last year, despite our repeated invitations.
DR SANDY ROBERTSON
Ludlow Campaign for Fairness
REV NEIL RICHARDSON
Ludlow Churches Together