A pretty unbelievable story from Dorset, as reported by the BBC:
A new coalition has been formed by Liberal Democrat councillors to include a member suspended from the party while he faces child sex charges. Weymouth and Portland councillor Ryan Hope was forced to stand down from the party last month after the intervention of its leader Nick Clegg.
The local party set up the Coalition of Liberal Democrats and Allies to protect Mr Hope’s place on council committees. Mr Hope, who is due to stand trial in April, denies all the charges. Under council rules, seats on committees are allocated proportionally between political groups, based on the number of councillors in each group. No party has overall control at the borough.
Councillor Ian Roebuck, who leads the Lib Dem group, said: “Ryan cannot currently use the Liberal Democrat name and sits as an independent on the borough council. He retains the total support and confidence of his Liberal Democrat colleagues, and we have unanimously agreed to constitute ourselves into a Coalition of Liberal Democrats and Allies which we have all, collectively and individually, invited Ryan to join, and he has accepted.”
While I can understand the personal loyalties here, it’s a bad decision. Ryan Hope faces serious criminal charges. Like anyone else he’s entitled to the presumption of innocence. But while the legal process is ongoing it’s right – for him and for the party – that his membership is suspended. For a council group to re-constitute itself to accommodate his continuing committee positions simply won’t be understood by the public.
Here’s what the national party has said about the matter:
“The party acted quickly to suspend Councillor Ryan Hope when we became aware of the extremely serious charges against him. “The party has been made aware of the decision by the council group in Weymouth. The regional party is now establishing the facts and will consider appropriate action.”
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Call for the Rutland Water Monster to be displayed in Oakham
Tackling a loophole in lobbying regulation, and a small win on WhatsApp
Not in our name
Another World Cup and new beginnings
Graham Evans
Rosemary Runswick
Jack Meredith
Peter Martin
Peter Davies
8 Comments
This is the sort of thing we should look into suspending the local party for; if nothing else, on the grounds of raw stupidity.
The BBC use the term child sex charges, somewhat of a coverall term for a wide scope of horrible and illegal behaviour.
But he is facing the court for allegations of child rape. Serious indeed and after the Mail inspired ‘paedophile apologists’ stories dredging up mud from 30 years ago, Weymouth Lib Dems should be under scrutiny for their own extraordinary behaviour.
If he is found innocent then he can rebuild his life and be welcomed back in all senses – until then the local party should be proceeding with common sense.
He might be found Not Guilty but he cannot be found “Innocent”
I rather hoped this would turn out to be a ‘group’ of two or three foolish people. But I find there are seven (not including Mr Hope). http://webapps-wpbc.dorsetforyou.com/apps/democracy/councillors.asp
I recall a similar case of misguided loyalty in Portsmouth. Is this a peculiar trait of south coast Lib Dem councillors?
While I have sympathy for anyone being done over by people in positions of power and authority because of their political allegiance, which I suspect (from experience of political acquaintances) happens more often than most people would credit, the mere fact that most people would not credit it means that even if you think that is the case, you should not ACT as if you do UNLESS you can prove it. Better to lose the Committee places, and wait till after the trial before commenting publicly (which would not prevent private expressions of personal confidence from those who felt they were warranted).
In this case, at first sight, the action taken by the remaining councillors might well suggest to most people a callous and unthinking disregard for the alleged victim in the case, even before the evidence against him has been presented in public.
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/10532826.Weymouth_councillor_in_court_on_rape_charges/
Last July! Was there no-one in Dorset Lib Dems who thought this worth mentioning to the national party before January?
For a ll the rubbish talked about professionalising the party, it has gone backwards in terms of knowing what local parties and councillors are doing and in taking action in cases like this. Who can doubt Labour, Tory or UKIP would have done something in July last year.
G P Purnell wrote:
“I recall a similar case of misguided loyalty in Portsmouth. Is this a peculiar trait of south coast Lib Dem councillors?”
I am not aware that any Liberal Democrat councillor in Portsmouth has been charged with a crime.
This is as clear a case of “bringing The Party into disrepute” as you could ask for.
More seriously its interfering in a Court case. If the 7 want to be character witnesses for the defendant, as individuals then that would be fine. To publicly announce their beleif in the defendants innocence as a Party group & as Councillors is something very different. It could easily influence The Jury. How can that be fair to the alleged Victim ? It strikes me as an abuse of power.