Showing posts with label statement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statement. Show all posts

Monday, June 21, 2021

Statement from Rutland County Council Leader, Councillor Oliver Hemsley regarding Travellers Christian Festival event at Rutland Showground

Statement from Rutland County Council Leader, Councillor Oliver Hemsley regarding Travellers Christian Festival event at Rutland Showground

It has been a challenging weekend for many of the county’s residents and businesses, and I would like to thank all residents for your support and patience. 

Rutland County Council was not made aware of this event as no event application was submitted in advance. 

Our standard event procedures require for event organisers to submit an event application and risk statements, which enable partners to review to ensure all aspects of an event – from health and safety, including compliance with Covid-19 regulations through to traffic management – are compliant. Unfortunately, without prior notification, the Council and its partners were unable to do this.

We have been working closely with partners, especially the Police, to manage and respond to the immediate issues arising from this event, including putting in place increased patrols across our community. 

Officers will be undertaking traffic management at key times, including school drop off and pick up, and will also be located at areas that are attracting increased numbers.

Plans are underway to ensure minimal disruption to the community at key points in the event, for example the event closing.

There is ongoing communication with the event organiser. We have reviewed their event procedures and documentation and will be making relevant recommendations to improve the running of this event to protect attendees and the wider community. 

Additionally, we are looking to increase the numbers and presence of our Covid-19 Marshalls in our towns, offering PPE to the event organisers to distribute amongst participants and providing PPE to key shops. 

I truly understand the concern that the events of this weekend have brought to the county and want to assure you that the Council and its partners are doing all we can to protect you. 


Friday, April 09, 2021

The Death of HRH The Duke of Edinburgh Statement from Cllr Romney, Mayor of Oakham

The Death of HRH The Duke of Edinburgh Statement from Cllr Romney, Mayor of Oakham




On behalf of Oakham Town Council, The Mayor and Mayoress Cllr David and Di Romney, it is with great sadness and a huge loss to the country, that we would like to extend our deepest sympathy to Her Majesty and the Royal family, you are forever in our thoughts.

Monday, January 14, 2013

The Rutland Anti Corruption Party, Statement, Rutland council meeting was nothing more than an act of desperation


 “The Rutland council meeting was nothing more than an act of desperation in an attempt to stop our group from asking perfectly reasonable and sensible questions in order to do our job and duty as county councillors on behalf of our electorate.

“At the meeting we stated that openness, transparency, accountability and empowering councillors was at the heart of the Conservative Coalition thinking.

“Despite all the presentations not one piece of evidence was produced to substantiate the allegations of harassment of officers or defamation of the council.

“We welcome any decision that will bring this to a speedy conclusion. It is regrettable that the council see fit to resolve this in court, at a substantial cost to the tax payer. However, in the event that this does go to court, under the rules of disclosure we will at least achieve the openness and transparency we sought from the outset, which is fundamental to accountability.”

Friday, September 21, 2012

Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, statement on Tom Daley case and social media prosecutions




DPP 

20/09/2012

Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has said: "On 30 July 2012 Daniel Thomas, a semi-professional footballer, posted a homophobic message on the social networking site, Twitter. This related to the Olympic divers Tom Daley and Peter Waterfield. This became available to his "followers". Someone else distributed it more widely and it made its way into some media outlets. Mr Thomas was arrested and interviewed. The matter was then referred to CPS Wales to consider whether Mr Thomas should be charged with a criminal offence.
"The Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send a communication using a public electronic communications network if that communication is "grossly offensive". It is now established that posting comments via Twitter constitutes sending a message by means of a public electronic communications network. It is also clear that the offence is committed once the message is sent, irrespective of whether it is received by any intended recipient or anyone else. The question in this case is therefore whether the message posted by Mr Thomas is so grossly offensive as to be criminal and, if so, whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.
"There is no doubt that the message posted by Mr Thomas was offensive and would be regarded as such by reasonable members of society. But the question for the CPS is not whether it was offensive, but whether it was so grossly offensive that criminal charges should be brought. The distinction is an important one and not easily made. Context and circumstances are highly relevant and as the European Court of Human Rights observed in the case of Handyside v UK (1976), the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions "...that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population".
"The context and circumstances in this case include the following facts and matters:
(a)       However misguided, Mr Thomas intended the message to be humorous.
(b)       However naive, Mr Thomas did not intend the message to go beyond his followers, who were mainly friends and family.
(c)       Mr Thomas took reasonably swift action to remove the message.
(d)       Mr Thomas has expressed remorse and was, for a period, suspended by his football club.
(e)       Neither Mr Daley nor Mr Waterfield were the intended recipients of the message and neither knew of its existence until it was brought to their attention following reports in the media.
"This was, in essence, a one-off offensive Twitter message, intended for family and friends, which made its way into the public domain. It was not intended to reach Mr Daley or Mr Waterfield, it was not part of a campaign, it was not intended to incite others and Mr Thomas removed it reasonably swiftly and has expressed remorse. Against that background, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Wales, Jim Brisbane, has concluded that on a full analysis of the context and circumstances in which this single message was sent, it was not so grossly offensive that criminal charges need to be brought.
"Before reaching a final decision in this case, Mr Daley and Mr Waterfield were consulted by the CPS and both indicated that they did not think this case needed a prosecution.
"This case is one of a growing number involving the use of social media that the CPS has had to consider. There are likely to be many more. The recent increase in the use of social media has been profound. It is estimated that on Twitter alone there are 340 million messages sent daily. And the context in which this interactive social media dialogue takes place is quite different to the context in which other communications take place. Access to social media is ubiquitous and instantaneous. Banter, jokes and offensive comment are commonplace and often spontaneous. Communications intended for a few may reach millions.
"Against that background, the CPS has the task of balancing the fundamental right of free speech and the need to prosecute serious wrongdoing on a case by case basis. That often involves very difficult judgment calls and, in the largely uncharted territory of social media, the CPS is proceeding on a case by case basis. In some cases it is clear that a criminal prosecution is the appropriate response to conduct which is complained about, for example where there is a sustained campaign of harassment of an individual, where court orders are flouted or where grossly offensive or threatening remarks are made and maintained. But in many other cases a criminal prosecution will not be the appropriate response. If the fundamental right to free speech is to be respected, the threshold for criminal prosecution has to be a high one and a prosecution has to be required in the public interest.
"To ensure that CPS decision-making in these difficult cases is clear and consistent, I intend to issue guidelines on social media cases for prosecutors. These will assist them in deciding whether criminal charges should be brought in the cases that arise for their consideration. In the first instance, the CPS will draft interim guidelines. There will then be a wide public consultation before final guidelines are published. As part of that process, I intend to hold a series of roundtable meetings with campaigners, media lawyers, academics, social media experts and law enforcement bodies to ensure that the guidelines are as fully informed as possible.
"But this is not just a matter for prosecutors. Social media is a new and emerging phenomenon raising difficult issues of principle, which have to be confronted not only by prosecutors but also by others including the police, the courts and service providers. The fact that offensive remarks may not warrant a full criminal prosecution does not necessarily mean that no action should be taken. In my view, the time has come for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media."
Ends