Mark Pack

Southwark Council tries to ban people talking about what they’ve already talked about

By | Sun 17th October 2010 - 8:55 am

Liberal Democrats in Southwark claim the council is £26 million pounds worse off because of decisions the Labour-run body has taken over a regeneration scheme for Elephant & Castle.

This figure has been the subject of political debate, it’s been mentioned in the council, it’s been mentioned in the press and it’s been mentioned online.

So what happened when Liberal Democrat councillors tried to put the figure in a motion to be debated at the council? The council said no – the figure is secret and can’t be mentioned.

As London SE1 reports:

A Southwark Council spokesperson said: “On the advice of the monitoring officer we removed commercially confidential information from public papers.”

Lib Dem councillors say that they believe that the censorship is politically motivated.

“This is an outrageous attempt by Labour to stop Liberal Democrat councillors speaking the truth,” says Cllr Geoffrey Thornton.

“The amount Labour lost through their incompetence is already in the public domain and for the council to try to maintain the fiction of secrecy is utterly ridiculous and pointless.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Local government, London and News.
Advert

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Joseph Bourke
    The last thing thart is needed is anymore “responsible adult” interventions to separate the squabbling children and their backers. The issues can only be s...
  • Matthew Radmore
    I do wonder if a two-state solution is still viable? It seemed viable in the 90s. I don't understand what went wrong then, why the opportunity for peace then w...
  • Roland
    @Mick Taylor- Apologies I should have taken more care over the phrasing of my response; I wasn't directing my comment specifically at you, but at those who thin...
  • Mick Taylor
    @Roland. Read what I wrote again. I do not and never have condoned the Israeli actions. What I said, and I stand by it, is that those who try to justify the Oct...
  • Katharine Pindar
    @ Peter Martin, @Simon R. That has been a useful discussion between you and Michael BG about job guarantee schemes. I expect, Peter, our party could indeed bu...