‘You Won’t Gag Us Say Aldermen’ As New Protocol Is Revised

Published on: 12 Apr, 2014
Updated on: 19 Dec, 2018

‘Petty’ has been the term used by former Guildford mayor and alderman Bernard Parke over a move by the council that originally suggested aldermen and freemen should lose their right to speak out openly over borough matters.

Aldermen Gordon Bridger and Bernard Parke.

Ahead of a meeting of the council on Thursday, April 10, in which a review of the civic function was discussed, alderman Parke and alderman Gordon Bridger were outraged to learn of a proposed change to the protocol that, in their opinion, was nothing short of ridiculous.

Mr Bridger was at the meeting and said an amendment was agreed to the effect: “The restrictions set out in this part of the protocol apply only when the person concerned acts in their capacity as an honorary freemen or honorary alderman as appropriate.”

Bernard Parke said: “I imagine this applies to when we don our robes and process up the High Street about three times a year on civic duty. Hardly a situation when we would say anything out of turn!”

However, the two men are still unhappy over the whole saga that had been brewing up over the past week which they say has at its base a move to prevent them from freely expressing their opinions to the press and others.

Mr Bridger spent a good deal of time over the past week looking into the proposal. He says so far he has had 34 responses from other local councils none of which have similar rulings and many were appalled with what he told them.

He said: “Officers advised me that, in 1972, when the Government established that aldermen should no longer have a vote [on council decisions] there was no indication what responsibilities, if any, they should have. I and others accepted this honorary role on this basis.

“For a council therefore to seek to determine and indeed restrict the freedom of expression of an alderman is not only an infringement of the liberty of a citizen, but it usurps the role of Parliament. I believe this would be an unconstitutional act.

“Dare I mention the Human Rights Act which would surely defend the right of a citizen to express an opinion?

“I am not the least bit worried about my name being expunged from the Council Roll of Honour – it would discredit the council rather than myself. Everyone would be intrigued by a blank space.

“Not being allowed to criticise a local authority is an infringement of Article 10 – Freedom of Expression  in the Human Rights Law.

“I have taken legal advice and am informed that freemen and aldermen are no longer members of the council and a council edict cannot restrict our freedom. Also the position being an honorary one under the Local Government Act  means we are not  members of the council and an edict cannot apply to us. And being retrospective it cannot apply anyhow.

“The objection by some councillors that the public can be deceived into thinking one is speaking on behalf of the council implies that citizens are so ignorant that they are not aware of the title ‘honorary’.

“How dotty can it be that someone who is invited to be freemen is then told they must not criticise the council?

After the meeting, Caroline Reeves, speaking on behalf of Guildford’s Liberal Democrat councillors, said: “A number of us were unhappy with the suggestion that alderman should lose their right to speak out openly regarding council matters, and the amendment agreed last night went some way to addressing this. We feel that it’s always better in terms of openness and transparency to make a statement that has a name to it than to make anonymous comments.

Bernard Parke added: “The whole thing is so petty. What right do certain people have to question our integrity? I am not going anywhere, no-one is going to gag me.”

Share This Post