COUNCILLOR Ken Churchill was so incensed by the public actions and protest against imposed car parking charges that he has himself abused his authority.
COUNCILLOR Ken Churchill was so incensed by the public actions and protest against imposed car parking charges that he has himself abused his authority and shown his petulance by reporting Cllr van de Kerkhove to the standards committee for having the temerity to declare support for his Eynesbury constituents publicly (The Hunts Post, September 22). More time and money wasted on catering for the personal ego of councillors.
If, by representing the views of his constituents, those who voted him into office, Cllr van de Kerkhove contravenes standards, then obviously Cllr Churchill will never be in that invidious position of being similarly accused.
Faceless representatives who appear once every five years canvassing for election to office are of no use to communities.
However, all those present at the much-maligned protest march were present on their own behalf, including Cllr van de Kerkhove. This was a public demonstration, not a licensed event. Risk assessments were drawn up, and clear definitions of purpose and intention relayed to all participants.
Perhaps Cllr Churchill will explain to the wider public his true motivations? I cannot find any legislation that empowers local authorities to ban peaceful protest: the march was not an event on council property, and risk assessments were carried out.
Small wonder then that just last week the Government published its report indicating that standards committees are to be disbanded, reasoning: "They have become a vehicle for malicious and frivolous complaints....most of which are dismissed, but not before reputations are damaged and taxpayer money wasted..."
Shall we report Cllr Churchill before the abandonment of the standards committee?