Inbetween the jobs in what for me is a working Saturday I
generally try to catch up on any local news and one method I use is to put
Thanet into Google and click on the news tab on the left, you can see from the
screen shot, picture above, the news isn’t something one would necessarily want
to see on the first day of the jubilee holiday weekend.
I guess over the years I have come to the conclusion that
there is something fundamentally wrong with our council, the priorities that
one would hope and expect for from a council just don’t seem to be there.
Here in Ramsgate the acid test for me has been the
management of council owned assets, the main leisure site in the town
Pleasurama (our equivalent to Margate’s Dreamland) derelict for 12 years, the
town’s royal residence Albion House empty unused, The Royal Victoria Pavillion
empty and derelict, Westcliff Hall (our equivalent to Margate’s Winter Garden’s)
empty and derelict.
One or two of these unfortunate occurrences could be viewed
as coincidental but not the number we have and have had. Recently talking to
councillors particularly with respect to the maritime museum, I came to the
unhappy conclusion that to a greater or lesser extent some of our local
problems were spite related. This spite being directed towards parts of Thanet
where the ward councillors were out of favour with the governing councillors.
An added problem here is that local politics in Thanet has
become a two party system, theoretically Labour and Conservative although it
would seem that in many cases standing under one party or another has little to
do with any political ideology and a lot to do with getting elected.
Outside of the council, perceptions of why councillors stand
to be elected are not as one would hope and few of the people I speak to here,
perceive councillors as public-spirited people who represent the community.
Ask a Conservative councillor why they think a Labour councillor
stood for elections and they will mostly say for the allowances. Ask a Labour
Councillor why a conservative councillor why a Conservative councillor stood
and the answer will probably be more directed towards the power and the
enhancement of business opportunities.
Of course ask any councillor why they stood themselves and
they will say, for the benefit of the community.
I guess I think it probably boils down to a bit of most of
the above.
Anyway on to the homophobia issue, starting with the
question. Are all the councillors homophobic? Personally I think the answer to
this is, yes.
Here in the UK, up until recently homosexuality was illegal,
camp homosexuals real or acted are funny and homophobia to a greater or lesser
extent I would think exists in pretty much everyone in the UK including
homosexuals. We are all products of our society and the framework of the
language we use to think with, it is unavoidable.
I would say that there are areas where homophobia is
acceptable, but frankly where the dividing lines are exactly I don’t know.
Perhaps an example here, gay men often make jokes about homosexuality, I guess
they always will, this often happens in the media and the effect on young
people forming their impressions is probably negative.
There is also another whole set of problems, you may for
instance just dislike someone, perhaps just because the are dislikeable, but if
they are both dislikeable and homosexual this could be construed as
homophobia.
There is also the other side of the coin, pretending to
homosexual or publicising of homosexuality or bisexuality so that one can call
any opposition or insult to you homophobic. It is a bit of a minefield this.
One thing I am fairly certain of and that is there has to be
some set standards that people in public life abide by and this includes
councillors.
At the moment we have two openly bisexual councillors and
the furthest you could go with this is to say they can never be the but of any
joke and can never be called less than perfect, in case this is construed as
homophobia. Well his can’t be right one has to draw the line somewhere.
I would say that, calling one of the “the shirt lifting
gender bender” is not the behaviour that we would want or expect from a serving
councillor. Mind you I am not happy about calling another councillor,
presumably David Green, Fat Bastard.
So is this a sacking from the Labour group issue, is it a
resigning as a councillor issue? If this individual was working for me and had
posted either comment on the internet about another member of staff, it would
have been immediate dismissal.
This brings us around to the institutional part, and the
part about the whole issue that I found most worrying and offensive, which was
Bob Bayford’s deaf ear on the BBC.
As I have already said, I think all of us start off homophobic and this is unavoidable, the thing to do is to learn how not to be
by not behaving in a homophobic way, sometimes this all breaks down as it has
in the cases of Mike Harrison and Ken Gregory.
Then of course the victim, or the concerned right minded
people in whatever group it is goes to the leader of that group who acts in a
right and proper way, or turns a blind eye, deaf ear, blocked nose etc to the
situation.
If this happens then the whole situation moves into the
realms of institutional homophobia, where it is effectively impossible for a
homosexual to be part of the group.
Obviously in the case of Ken Gregory the offence was far
more serious for three reasons, one being that he holds and has held senior
positions in the council, another being that this was directed anonymously and deliberately
towards the victim, another being that the homophobia was much more vicious and
would have been enough in my opinion to be a resigning sacking issue without the
homophobic connotations.
This begs the question, should both offences carry the
same punishment?
As I have already pointed out, if they worked for me, they
would have both got dismissed immediately, but I don’t think either of them can
be sacked as councillors, this leaves us with the difficulty that they may
remain councillors and possibly even form yet another group.
As Tony Bignews has already pointed out, the nature of
the police action leaves them forbidden to communicate with their victims who
are other councillors, however the main part of a councillors function is to communicate
with the other councillors.
Lets for a moment here put the shoe on the other foot and
say that one if the TIGs left a voicemail on Simon Moores’s phone, saying the
he hoped his plane crashed and he died a slow and painful death.
I would have thought a bit more than police caution would
have been appropriate.
God alone knows what Simon would have had to say if the voicemail
had been played to the TIG group leader on the BBC news and the TIG group
leader had tried the blind eye, deaf ear, card.
I guess this brings us back to us all still being
homophobic and that includes the police and their very restrained action, sic.
“As this is the first time you have left a voicemail wishing someone dead,
raped, beaten up or whatever, we will let you off with a caution.
Having said all this and rather laboured some of my points
because I don’t really think I was getting my message across, it is evident
that we have a problem and that I think even the most die hard party supporters
must realise that all is not right with their parties.
The councillors and officers rode completely over the
leadership consultation and decided to stay with the cabinet system, so rightly
or wrongly this is the system we have.
In most cases the selection of councillors isn’t really
democratic because we the electorate can only vote for the candidates selected
by the parties, most of which relate to safe seats and national political
swings dictated by the government in parliament.
So a message to councillors, stop blaming the other party,
finding their faults is far too easy, a mugs game where you will always find
plenty at fault, look to your own parties faults and do your best to sort them
out.
Stupid to ask foxes and chickens to cooperate I suppose,
but at the moment there are so many problems in Thanet far to evident to
disagree about that you could probably find some common ground.