Chrisy Morris - Parking Tickets and Bailiffs.

[Dr. Caligari]

However, I have signed that piece of paper and been a member of the Local Government Association. I've even been referred to the old Standards for England board on two separate occasions and had the complaints thrown out.

Were you with the Slightly Silly Party?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Were you with the Slightly Silly Party?

All parties are slightly silly all the time, and they are all are monster raving loony at one time or another. (I think that avoids a sanction for politicking )

If it helps narrow it down, I met and chatted with Screaming Lord Sutch backstage at a secret Duran Duran warm up gig.

[longdog]

You have to sign a piece of paper accepting the role of councillor.

I did not know this, and I've worked in a local authority committee section! According to this site 'In law you are not a councillor till you sign'. Never doubt the Owl....

https://askyourcouncil.uk/the-good-coun ... under-way/

Which begs an interesting question when it comes to Mr Morris. Did he sign as the legal fiction?

Hmmm... Sorry to be pedantic (he lies) but that just says you are not a councillor until you have signed the declaration of acceptance of office. It then says "At the same time, if your council agrees, you should undertake to observe the Code of Conduct which you must read". The acceptance of office and the code of conduct seem to be entirely separate documents and I don't see anything there that says signing the code of conduct is mandatory before becoming a councillor. it just says "should".

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Hmmm... Sorry to be pedantic (he lies) but that just says you are not a councillor until you have signed the declaration of acceptance of office. It then says "At the same time, if your council agrees, you should undertake to observe the Code of Conduct which you must read". The acceptance of office and the code of conduct seem to be entirely separate documents and I don't see anything there that says signing the code of conduct is mandatory before becoming a councillor. it just says "should".

Since you seem to be hammering this into the ground, well beyond the use-by date, this it the TL;DR version.

If you accept the role of councillor, either by signing an acceptance document at the count (as I did), at the annual meeting which confirms the make up of the council, or by turning up at your first council meeting in the role, you have accepted the council's standing orders which makes you subject to the code of conduct.

There is a slight chance that you have a bunch of incompetents running your council, in which case your council is not lawfully constituted and I don't know of any, but under English law, all council's must legally have code of conduct which is binding on anyone who accepts the office of councillor - Localism Act 2011 Part 1 Chapter 7 Section 27.

[longdog]

Since you seem to be hammering this into the ground, well beyond the use-by date, this it the TL;DR version.

If you accept the role of councillor, either by signing an acceptance document at the count (as I did), at the annual meeting which confirms the make up of the council, or by turning up at your first council meeting in the role, you have accepted the council's standing orders which makes you subject to the code of conduct.

There is a slight chance that you have a bunch of incompetents running your council, in which case your council is not lawfully constituted and I don't know of any, but under English law, all council's must legally have code of conduct which is binding on anyone who accepts the office of councillor - Localism Act 2011 Part 1 Chapter 7 Section 27.

I don't know why you are getting snotty about this as I'm simply saying that so far I have seen nothing from a credible source that says you either have to sign the code of conduct or that refusal to sign or agree to abide by it means you are not legally a councillor. As far as I can tell the only things that disqualify you from being a councillor are bankruptcy, being jailed for more than three months or failing to attend meetings for six months.

Telling the council to shove their code of conduct where the sun don't shine doesn't appear to disqualify you (and the Localism Act link doesn't say anything to that effect by the way) although it may make you a bit of a spare prick as the rest of the council aren't going to have much to do with you. But you can still vote in full council meetings.

I'm trying to get to the bottom of this as, if disregard for the code of conduct was a de-coucilloring offence, then you would think Cwissy would have already been booted or one of the reports would mention he was at risk of being booted. The fact neither of them seem to have happened would suggest that disregard of the code of conduct has no effect on your legal status as an elected councillor.

Let me try to phrase the question in an unambiguous way. Is there any part of any act of parliament that states that a councillor who refuses to agree to be bound by a code of conduct is removed from office as an elected councillor? If so what is it?

If my quest for an answer to this question bothers you so much then might I respectfully suggest you don't respond and do something more soothing or just say you don't know.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I don't know why you are getting snotty about this as I'm simply saying that so far I have seen nothing from a credible source that says you either have to sign the code of conduct or that refusal to sign or agree to abide by it means you are not legally a councillor.

It's not being snotty, but the "I haven't seen it so it can't be true" is the path to FotLer madness!

If you don't sign the acceptance, you are not able to function as a councillor. Implicit in signing the acceptance, is that you accept the code of conduct. Now, you can choose to ignore the code of conduct (and the "penalties" are token after the Localism Act 2011) but you then don't get any of the privileges.

Declaration of acceptance of office.

(1)The person elected to any of the following offices, that is to say, the office of chairman, vice-chairman, [F1 presiding member, deputy presiding member,] F2. . . councillor [F3 or elected mayor] of the council of a county [F4, county borough], district or London borough F5. . . shall not, unless he has made a declaration of acceptance of office in a form prescribed by [F6 an order made by the Secretary of State], and the declaration has within two months from the day of the election been delivered to the proper officer of the council, act in the office except for the purpose of taking such a declaration.

[F2] Removed "Alderman"

[F6] Removed the proscribed format of the declaration (mostly to do with devolved councils of the nations of the UK meaning it was inappropriate for the Secretary of State to proscribe a form for the whole UK)

Nothing I can see in later legislation has overridden the Local Government Act 1972 on this matter.

As I have previously mention, there is a certain amount of laxity allowed with Town/Parish councils.

I also addressed your "amended" question in an earlier post.

If you do sign it the worst that can happen is that you get kicked off committees and outside bodies. You can't actually be suspended, unless you have broken other appropriate laws. e.g. using confidential data, harassment, or failing to declare an interest which are prosecutable independent of the standards code. They can refuse you access to council facilities which has a similar effect to being suspended, but they can't withhold your allowance.

Always happy to stand corrected.

[Eaststander]

I don't know why you are getting snotty about this as I'm simply saying that so far I have seen nothing from a credible source that says you either have to sign the code of conduct or that refusal to sign or agree to abide by it means you are not legally a councillor.

It's not being snotty, but the "I haven't seen it so it can't be true" is the path to FotLer madness!

If you don't sign the acceptance, you are not able to function as a councillor. Implicit in signing the acceptance, is that you accept the code of conduct. Now, you can choose to ignore the code of conduct (and the "penalties" are token after the Localism Act 2011) but you then don't get any of the privileges.

Declaration of acceptance of office.

(1)The person elected to any of the following offices, that is to say, the office of chairman, vice-chairman, [F1 presiding member, deputy presiding member,] F2. . . councillor [F3 or elected mayor] of the council of a county [F4, county borough], district or London borough F5. . . shall not, unless he has made a declaration of acceptance of office in a form prescribed by [F6 an order made by the Secretary of State], and the declaration has within two months from the day of the election been delivered to the proper officer of the council, act in the office except for the purpose of taking such a declaration.

[F2] Removed "Alderman"

[F6] Removed the proscribed format of the declaration (mostly to do with devolved councils of the nations of the UK meaning it was inappropriate for the Secretary of State to proscribe a form for the whole UK)

Nothing I can see in later legislation has overridden the Local Government Act 1972 on this matter.

As I have previously mention, there is a certain amount of laxity allowed with Town/Parish councils.

I also addressed your "amended" question in an earlier post.

If you do sign it the worst that can happen is that you get kicked off committees and outside bodies. You can't actually be suspended, unless you have broken other appropriate laws. e.g. using confidential data, harassment, or failing to declare an interest which are prosecutable independent of the standards code. They can refuse you access to council facilities which has a similar effect to being suspended, but they can't withhold your allowance.

Always happy to stand corrected.

Is that it now? Have you two finished?

[longdog]

It's not being snotty, but the "I haven't seen it so it can't be true" is the path to FotLer madness!

What a truly shabby attempt to shift the burden of proof. Very, very shabby.

If you don't sign the acceptance, you are not able to function as a councillor. Implicit in signing the acceptance, is that you accept the code of conduct.

No it isn't. They are different documents entirely and 'functioning as a councillor' and being a legally elected councillor are not the same thing.

Declaration of acceptance of office.

(1)The person elected to any of the following offices, that is to say, the office of chairman, vice-chairman, [F1 presiding member, deputy presiding member,] F2. . . councillor [F3 or elected mayor] of the council of a county [F4, county borough], district or London borough F5. . . shall not, unless he has made a declaration of acceptance of office in a form prescribed by [F6 an order made by the Secretary of State], and the declaration has within two months from the day of the election been delivered to the proper officer of the council, act in the office except for the purpose of taking such a declaration.

Irrelevant.

I also addressed your "amended" question in an earlier post.

If you do sign it the worst that can happen is that you get kicked off committees and outside bodies. You can't actually be suspended, unless you have broken other appropriate laws. e.g. using confidential data, harassment, or failing to declare an interest which are prosecutable independent of the standards code. They can refuse you access to council facilities which has a similar effect to being suspended, but they can't withhold your allowance.

Always happy to stand corrected.

No that's a different question and you have omitted the line above you quote.... "It's simple. If you don't sign it you are not a councillor." That is false. You have to sign the declaration of acceptance of office but not the code of conduct. Unless you can cite the law saying otherwise of course.

[JamesVincent]

You have to sign the declaration of acceptance of office but not the code of conduct. Unless you can cite the law saying otherwise of course.

He said it was not a second document and, by law, if you sign the document accepting the position you also implicitly accept the code of conduct. I don't recall any of our Senators and so forth signing a document making them liable to the Ethics laws but if they accept the position then they are held to it.

[Hercule Parrot]

It's not being snotty, but the "I haven't seen it so it can't be true" is the path to FotLer madness!

What a truly shabby attempt to shift the burden of proof. Very, very shabby.

Enough, please. You are both esteemed stalwarts of this community and "on the same side" for everything that matters. Please don't drive a schism from some trivial detail.

[Burnaby49]

I'm stepping in too. This has gone way past a neutral discussion and has turned into a personal argument. Nobody cares in the slightest about the issue but you two. So, from a moderator, time to stop.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I'm stepping in too. This has gone way past a neutral discussion and has turned into a personal argument. Nobody cares in the slightest about the issue but you two. So, from a moderator, time to stop.

I'd stopped already until you posted that!

[longdog]

I'm stepping in too. This has gone way past a neutral discussion and has turned into a personal argument. Nobody cares in the slightest about the issue but you two. So, from a moderator, time to stop.

I'd stopped already until you posted that!

Me too... Shall we both gang up on Burnaby? Bloody trouble-maker

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Me too... Shall we both gang up on Burnaby? Bloody trouble-maker

I think he's exceeded his powers. I thought ArthurWankspittle was the moderator of the UK group? Seems to be a lot of Canadians who think they can do better than our natives. Jacquie Phoenix is another. Coming over here thinking they understand our finely honed sense of ridiculousness! Usurpers.

[exiledscouser]

Is it safe to come out now?

[Burnaby49]

I'm stepping in too. This has gone way past a neutral discussion and has turned into a personal argument. Nobody cares in the slightest about the issue but you two. So, from a moderator, time to stop.

I'd stopped already until you posted that!

You think I pay a lot of attention to the details at 3:30 in the morning after a bottle of wine?

[longdog]

Me too... Shall we both gang up on Burnaby? Bloody trouble-maker

I think he's exceeded his powers. I thought ArthurWankspittle was the moderator of the UK group? Seems to be a lot of Canadians who think they can do better than our natives. Jacquie Phoenix is another. Coming over here thinking they understand our finely honed sense of ridiculousness! Usurpers.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I think he's exceeded his powers. I thought ArthurWankspittle was the moderator of the UK group? Seems to be a lot of Canadians who think they can do better than our natives.

I am but last time I looked I thought you'd both calmed down a bit. There's nothing to stop other moderators stepping in on forums if they don't like what they see. It's all in the Illuminati Operations Manuals.

[longdog]

It's all in the Illuminati Operations Manuals

Not in my copy it isn't.

Mind you... I've still got the 2018 copy so maybe that useless bastard Henderson-Smythe-Smythe-Obleson in personnel has just forgotten to send me the latest revision... Again.

I'll be arranging for that triple-hyphenated-twat to get his "retirement clock" early if he's not careful.

[Philistine]

Me too... Shall we both gang up on Burnaby? Bloody trouble-maker

I think he's exceeded his powers. I thought ArthurWankspittle was the moderator of the UK group? Seems to be a lot of Canadians who think they can do better than our natives. Jacquie Phoenix is another. Coming over here thinking they understand our finely honed sense of ridiculousness! Usurpers.

I've got your back Burnaby. Let me know if you want me to pull the battle canoe out of the rafters.
/Sometimes found lurking in Cornwall