On Thursday the 17th of February I went to the Guildhall in Cambridge to observe a full meeting of Cambridge City Council. On arrival I found the main doors to the building closed and locked. This isn’t usually the case when there is a full council meeting. There was no indication anything was going on and no signage. I was about to call someone and ask them to look online to see if I had the day or time wrong but as I was parking my bike I noticed some activity at a side entrance. I approached and found a bunch of men stood in the door much as you’d find at a dodgy night club; behind them were more men wearing fluorescent jackets with the word “security” on the back. This is being unusual for the Guildhall on the evening of a council meeting I asked if there was about to be a full council meeting. I was told “yes”, and one of the men asked me my name and picked up a list as if he was going to check to see if I was on it. I asked why he wanted my name and stated it was a public meeting; he then handed me a piece of paper which he said contained rules on behaviour in the council meeting and stood aside and let me in. I started to walk up the stairs to the public gallery and was barked at by one of the mob on the door saying: “take the lift”; I declined this offer which resulted in one of the individuals in a fluorescent jacket being dispatched to follow me up the stairs.
On arriving in the corridor outside the public gallery I saw two police officers, one of whom was PC Simon Railer, (read about my previous encounters with this officer here). I said hello but he ignored me. I entered the public gallery, briefly paused by the door, to decide where to sit, and was gruffly ordered to sit down by a member of council staff.
A number of those visiting the council on the evening were probably doing so for the first time; and this kind of welcome certainly wouldn’t make a very good impression in my view.
I had arrived as the council was being preached to by a chaplain of some description. The public gallery was fairly full; with about 40 people present. It has been fuller and on a couple of occasions the council has permitted overspill from the public gallery to sit behind the councillors in the chamber.
The meeting got underway with the mayor’s announcements; one of which was a report that she had, on behalf of the city given congratulations to Prince William on his engagement. This was met with sighs of derision from the gallery. The mayor then presented an award to one of the city’s ex-mayors who made an acceptance speech in which he talked with great enthusiasm about all the encounters with the Queen he had experienced as mayor, many invites to garden parties, her visit to Cambridge etc. A number of low-key heckles questioning if we lived in a democracy, and a joking: “Off with their heads” could be heard following all this rather overt royalism, but nothing exceptional.
The meeting got underway with a petition to save the Lion Yard toilets; amazingly this had 10,300 signatories. It was presented to the council by Gerri Bird, who the Lib Dems stressed had been a Labour candidate, implying the petition was motivated by party political point scoring.
Gerri Bird spoke about the petition, making arguments for keeping the toilets on the ground floor in their current location, making points such as the fact lifts aren’t reliable, the new toilets will be smaller and will take much longer for disabled people in particular to get to.
The mayor then picked up the large legal archive box containing the petition and ceremoniously handed it to the deputy mayor who ceremoniously placed it on his desk.
Leader of the council, Liberal Democrat Cllr Reid, responded saying the toilets were being moved, not closed, and claimed there was an agreement in principle from members of all parties in the council that the move should take place. Labour councillors protested, and Cllr Reid claimed they had voted for it. (Later Cllr Hart explained that they had voted to approve a scheme conditional on an acceptable new location for the toilets being identified). Cllr Reid stated an equalities impact assessment was being conducted and both the council and the centre management were sensitive to the public outcry at the proposals. Cllr Reid promised any closure would be deferred until the outcome of the impact assessment.
The public gallery applauded this announcement; the mayor was twitchy and responded to this applause by saying: “There is a limited time period of fifteen minutes for this slot and the more you applaud the less time there will be for councillors to discuss the petition”. The mayor appeared to be trying to turn the meeting in to a pantomime and the public gallery all together made an “ooooh” sound in shock at being so harshly chastised for a little clapping of an announcement which will be clearly welcomed by many in Cambridge. (While not all signatures will be from Cambridge, the population of Cambridge is about 100,000 so the size of the petition is about 10% of the population, this is something very many people care about).
The mayor outlined the very restrictive rules for the fifteen minute session on the petition; councillors could not debate, they could only ask Gerri Bird questions. This prompted some very creative phrasing of political points formulating them into questions. Councillors called the proposed closure a travesty, others asked about alternative ground floor toilets in the area, and were told M&S and McDonalds had some but they were only available to their customers. Liberal Democrats asked why Gerri Bird was petitioning them and not the centre management; she explained she’d been to see the centre management and they’d put her onto the council as they’re the landlord (and the toilets are owned and run by the council!).
After the questions Cllr McGovern, the executive councillor who took the decision to close the toilets was given the chance to respond. As he explained the financial motivation for the change a paper aeroplane was thrown from the public gallery and someone heckled asking if he was putting profit before the interests of the people of Cambridge.
In response to this relatively minor interruption the mayor ordered the removal of the heckler (who had not been warned individually; and the whole gallery had only been warned about too much clapping). Before the council staff had a chance to react, and before the heckler had been given any chance to leave the mayor, unprompted by any further disruption, suddenly and inexplicably ordered the removal of the whole front row of the public gallery. This was odd as the heckler was as far as I could tell not in the front row.
This prompted many protestors in the gallery to throw paper planes down into the chamber and to begin chanting: “No ifs, no buts, no public sector cuts”. The mayor at this point ordered the meeting suspended and I began filming. (On my film you can see the Sergeant at Mace swoop in and scoop up the council’s mace and take it away). Council staff and those in the fluorescent security jackets then ordered people out of the gallery.
Members of the public, who included a number of people who had come specifically to see the response to the petition, some regular observers of council meetings, local party staff (I think) and at least one prospective candidate in the upcoming local elections were among those removed.
Council officers gave assurances that those who were not causing any disruption would be let back in; a number of people only left the gallery having been made that promise.
Two individuals were arrested and handcuffed by police in the corridor behind the public gallery and led away. One was told he was arrested: on suspicion that he might commit a public order offence, this understandably annoyed the individual concerned who questioned how he could be arrested for something he hadn’t done yet.
Under threat of arrest for non-compliance everyone was then ordered out of the council building by the police and council staff. It appeared that many people had been required to leave bags, coats etc. by the door downstairs. As we had been promised we would be let back in very quickly some didn’t pick up their belongings on the way out (others couldn’t as they were being manhandled by police, and/or were in handcuffs).
One individual was arrested on the street outside. The arresting officer (the baldish officer) told him he would arrest him, take some details, then de-arrest him. I watched this bizarre charade take place. A perfectly calm and compliant individual was arrested, handcuffed, spoken to, notes taken, then de-arrested and un-handcuffed.
Meanwhile notorious PC 1555 Steve Hinks was antagonising one of the protestors; winding him up to the point where supposedly he swore giving PC Hinks grounds to arrest him.
The police then sent more officers; a van turned up along with a motorcycle one of those who had been arrested was bundled into the van by PC Hinks who accompanied him in the van.
In total I believe there were seven arrests and six de-arrests.
A pair of PCSOs also turned up. All those ejected from the public gallery were then left on the street; most waited for quite some time expecting to be allowed back in. Cllr Julie Smith emerged after some time, reporting the councillors had not at that point re-started their meeting. (The Cambridge-News who had a reporter inside the chamber reported the meeting was suspended for 40 minutes). When Cllr Smith returned from a trip to the shops I half jokingly asked if she would invite me back in (Cllrs’ invited guests were still inside, and Lib Dem Cllr Sarah Brown was tweeting suggesting those expelled who wanted to continue to observe should seek such invites.)
Eventually the council’s side door was closed, the guildhall became a fortress, two police officers could be seen inside the doors guarding them; and a police officer and two PCSOs were outside. The PCSOs patrolled the perimeter of the guildhall for over half an hour while inside the council meeting continued with an empty public gallery. The public were not able to hear Executive Cllr McGovern’s response to the 10,300 person petition; or the points made by public speakers and the council’s response to them.
Bored; I phoned the Cambridge-News and told the news editor on duty there what was going on.
Dan Ratcliffe tweeted:
Promised by Police & @CamCitCo officers we would be allowed back after disruption.Now that we’re out they’re denying it.
Many people started to walk away, and eventually one individual, the member of council staff who had promised those ejected they could return came out to say no-one would be allowed back in. When asked if the meeting was underway again in secret session he said it had restarted and that the press and invited guests were allowed inside. I asked if I could be considered press; he said the council held a list of accredited press and only those on their list would be allowed in. (I don’t believe the council has any such list, and am not aware of any such policy)
During the period the doors were closed a number of people arrived hoping to observe elements of the council meeting.
A couple of students were trying to get their bags back from inside, but the police and security guards who could be seen inside the doors refused to open them. The PCSOs weren’t prepared to help and try and reason with their colleagues inside the doors, or at least help contact them via their radios to explain the purpose of the knocking and ringing of the bell.
After a long delay, accompanied by a large police, security and council officer presence the public petitioners and public questioners were escorted from the building via the side door.
I spoke to the petitioners about what had happened; about their campaign and about what I’d missed inside. They told me the council staff had been very worried about getting them out and what they might face when they opened the doors; they warned them they might have cower back inside!
The member of council staff who had told many people they would be allowed back in was standing in the doorway after I had spoken to the petitioners; so I returned to him and asked him who he was. He identified himself as the council’s building manager. While talking to him I spotted the council’s Chief Executive and Head of Finance just inside the side-door. I told the Chief Executive that the building manager had told those ejected that she had made the decision to clear the whole public gallery and not let anyone back in. I asked if that was correct. She denied this and stated the decision had been made by the mayor. I also explained how many of us had been lied to by her officer who assured us we’d be allowed back in.
A few minutes later the Chief Executive came onto the street and invited me back into the public gallery. I asked why she was doing this, if she had accepted my request to be considered as press? She said she had decided to allow those who were waiting on the street back in. At this point it was almost two hours after ejection and I was the only person left on the street (the doors had been closed and there’d been no sign of movement for quite a while). I was escorted back up to the public gallery which was unlocked for me, another member of the public joined me a few moments later and the council’s building manager watched closely over us. The meeting was in recess for the councillors to have their dinner so I asked if I could go into the corridor to make a phone call, not without being accompanied, came the reply. By now it was gone 20:30 and the meeting had started at 18.00; I asked when the meeting was due to re-start but no-one knew.
Labour Leader Lewis Herbert called up to the public gallery to ask if the doors were open again. I said yes, as I’d been told they were.
Shortly after that I was told by the building manager that the doors had been closed again and only the two of us had been allowed back in. I shouted this correction back down to Cllr Herbert when he re-entered.
Action was clearly taken as Dan Ratcliffe and others managed to join us in the public gallery before the meeting reconvened.
As councillors returned to the chamber Liberal Democrat Executive member Cllr Blair turned to Labour Leader Lewis Herbert and stated that many of the disruptive protestors were his party colleagues. Cllr Herbert was appalled by this, denied it, and challenged Cllr Blair to make that allegation again in a public forum where it could be robustly refuted.
The meeting eventually re-started at 20:55. I was standing up as the Sergant at Mace processed in with the mayor and deputy mayor and the officer now known to be the building manager ordered me to sit down. I expressed my surprise as this is the bit where sometimes the public gallery stand up along with the councillors as the mayor walks in. (Recently in a Cambridge Court someone was sent to the cells for contempt for not standing for the entry of a magistrate; I didn’t want to be thrown out the gallery again!)
Bizarrely the meeting re-started with council leader Liberal Democrat Cllr Reid congratulating the mayor on the way she had handled the disruption. The mayor welcomed the members of the public back to the public gallery and councillors applauded us (presumably for our perseverance standing around for almost two hours!)
Two staff were monitoring the four of us in the gallery; for the remainder of the meeting. When someone wanted to leave the building or go to the toilet, they were accompanied.
During the debate that followed Green Cllr Adam Pogonowski expressed his disappointment that more of those who wanted to watch the budget debate had not been allowed to, and only the “cherry picked” members of the public had been allowed back in.
Cllr Herbert stated that he had never, in his long decades of service in local government (I’m not sure he phrased it quite like that) experienced a whole public gallery being cleared in the way the Liberal Democrat mayor Stuart had ordered that evening. He questioned the council’s commitment to openness (this was during the debate on the filming protocol where he also drew attention to the better quality footage it was possible to obtain under the County Council’s relatively unrestricted filming rules compared to the limitations imposed by the Lib Dems running the city council).
In my view the police, mayor, council officers and security staff were spoiling for a fight; they were determined to have a mass ejection from the gallery whatever happened, or at least on the very slightest provocation. The building manager appeared to agree with me on this, as he escorted me out after the meeting he stated that the council has plans for situations like this and this plan was simply put into action.
As I understand it the City Council filming protocol applies when meetings are in session; I only started filming once the meeting had been suspended.
34 responses to “Mass Ejection from Public Gallery at Cambridge City Council Meeting”
Further images:
Individuals are arrested and de-arrested on the street:
Police and Council Staff defend the building; they later close the doors:
Police patrol the perimeter of the Guildhall while councillors continue their meeting with an empty public gallery and the doors firmly closed:
If you look at the video you can see that none of those sitting near me were involved in the chanting; none threw paper aeroplanes either.
At least one of those present was a student studying politics who had come to see how the council works.
At just past 7am I was interviewed on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire about the events at the Council Meeting.
The first headline on the BBC Cambridgeshire 0730 news this morning was:
An excerpt from the 0800 news including a clip from my interview:
I’m boggled by the fact that you can be arrested just for heckling. Boggled, and a bit concerned. Had anything more happened I would have understood but how this can be seen as disturbing the peace is not something I can grasp.
Thanks very much for reporting on this. It’s a pity the whole meeting wasn’t recorded; if it had then those ejected would at least been able to view the proceeds.
I’m glad that you were let in again, the whole episode really doesn’t look good. The actions of the Mayor and officials, not to mention the Police seem unnecessarily authoritarian. I have never been arrested, and find the prospect of being so, for no offence at all, deplorable.
Richard, thanks for bringing the truth about what happened. Your piece really highlights the arrogance and contempt LDs have for the public and its taxes.
I heard from Lewis Herbert that Cambridge Matters Magazine will be kept at a cost of £40,000 per year. Spin over substance and a blatant abuse of public money.
And to think that Sian Reid complained to Eric Pickles about a shortage of money!
Both very interesting and worrying. In the absence of any detailed (or, it seems, accurate)reporting by the local press, this is a very helpful account for those of us who weren’t there but would like to know what happened.
It’s extraordinary that several police officers/PCSOs were thought to be necessary to deal with what seems to amount to a bit of shouting by a tiny handful of people. Councillors may find these people irritating and disruptive, but they don’t appear to have been threatening or aggressive – unlike some of the people who were outisde the pubs round the corner from the Guildhall at the same time. I’d rather see them dealing with alcohol-related ASB than a couple of people chanting unimaginative slogans, personally.
Rutyh, it is very strange that Cambridge News did not cover this story in detail and have interviews with those arrested. I have always felt they have an LD bias.
On another matter, I hear that the county’s spin rag, Your Cambridgeshire, is to close after the next issue saving £152,000 per year.
It is correct that there is a list of invited guests, these being the people whose ward councillors have requested tickets for them to sit behind the councillors on the floor of the chamber. It is also correct that anyone who wants such an invitation may usually (subjet to space) get on by asking their ward councillor. None of the invited guests were disrupting the proceedings and none were asked to leave – they remained present during the 30 minutes that the council was in session with the public gallery closed.
“thought to be necessary to deal with what seems to amount to a bit of shouting by a tiny handful of people”
“A bit of shouting” was such that the meeting couldn’t continue. Failure to pass the budget would have meant considerable costs due to delaying the normal process of printing council tax bills, this potential waste of public money apparently not worrying the demonstrators.
One might have preferred to decamp the council to another room in the building and leave the protestors to enjoy the public gallery on their own for as long as they liked, thus resulting in no need to remove them, but unfortunately no such room was available as the large and small halls were occupied by another event.
Also on the radio this morning the Liberal Democrat leader Cllr Reid stated the Mayor had handled the disruption: “beautifully”.
I have placed my full interview, along with an debate between Cllr Reid and Labour Leader Lewis Herbert online at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-LB_ACXjwU
Yes, I think she did. However, I do not think it was the right call.
It’s true that the protesters did not handle themselves well and the council response showed just how arrogant and authoritarian they are. The right way would have been to have invited their representative onto the floor to make their case. Of course, they could have booked a slot to speak at the meeting.
However, the protesters knew that whatever they said would make no difference to the outcome: the Labour group were making many of the points the protesters would have wanted to make and of course the budget was settled behind closed doors anyway.
Last year I spoke at three council meetings and one committee meeting regarding the waste of money that is Cambridge Matters Magazine. There were no protesters there then, even though the smell of burning, which has since turned into a firestorm of essential cuts, was in the air. I have little sympathy for them but I mourn the loss of the democratic right to protest. Sian Reid and the Mayor should resign.
Richard’s video of the ejection was on the News website yesterday. It may still be there. Other than that, no they didn’t make much of it.
It’s the apparent loss of the right to protest I’m mainly bothered about, Tim. The fact that it seems to require the police to arrest people. That councillors seemed to think it was impossible to tell who was disruptive (when those who were there say otherwise.) We saw this with the student protests in Cambridge too. Several police vans converging on King’s Parade just to sort out some peaceful protesters. As might be said elsewhere: #democracy # fail.
“budget was settled behind closed doors anyway”
Actually all the scrutiny committee meetings through which the various parts of the budget passed were open to the public, as was the Executive meeting, as was the Council meeting (apart from those members of the public who chose to get themselves ejected).
There does seem to be quite a lot of misinformation floating around, much of it quite unnecessarily as in many cases the truth is easily available.
Tim, watch the video again, the Council meeting was not open to the public. Though I appreciate the efforts of one of my Councillors to get me back into the meeting, those who didn’t have the mobile number of their Councillors were not permitted into the meeting, whether they had anything to do with the protests or not.
To Tim Ward: “budget was settled behind closed doors anyway”. What happens at these meetings, which are open to the public, are rarely attended by the public. The public’s fault? Not really as they know that unless you get 10,000 signatures, the council won’t listen. The decision to slash the bin service in 2004 was taken behind closed doors: there was no vote. “Closed doors” of course is a just an expression. It covers the conversations between Sian Reid and the CEO which are never witnessed or recorded. In all the council meetings I attended not one Lib Dem voted against the leader. Any objections by Labour or others would be voted out when the vote was made in the chamber.
One of the reasons this situation persists is because the local press are so feeble.
Richard Taylor’s account of the proceedings is tendentious and inaccurate. A small group of ‘protesters’ were intent upon disrupting the meeting and did so by continuously yelling mindless slogans from the public gallery. The mayor was extremely patient but to no avail. I know because I was there from start to finish. This is the last occasion I shall visit RT’s blog because of the unreliable nature of the comments.
DP
““A bit of shouting” was such that the meeting couldn’t continue.”
Yes Tim, that seems clear from Richard’s filming, and I can see why the shouters were removed. But did it really require several police officers plus security personnel to deal with it? These people were not ever likely to be violent, which would obviously require a police presence, just loud. The use of so many to remove so few looks heavy handed – it looks as if councillors either think that the security personnel the council employed are not up to the job or that they are scared of their own constituents. Neither makes the council look good.
It seems to me that, particularly in a time of such severe budgetary constraints, the police’s limited resources could be far better spent dealing with the drink-fuelled ASB you routinely see in Cambridge city centre on a Thursday evening (or any other night of the week).
Ruth (spelling own name correctly this time)
Doreen Plumb, had RT been able to film the full council meeting, as he was able to at Shire Hall, we would all be fully and accurately informed. Under the LD in the Guildhall such transparency is not allowed. RT has provided by far the most accurate account of what happened and having spoken to Lewis Herbert he was also appalled at the arrogant and authoritarian way the CEO and Sian Reid behaved. They tried to stamp on democracy as surely as any dictatorship would by deploying brute force, threats and intimidation. All of this is in keeping with the secretive way the council likes to operate.
The county council’s head of communications has tweeted to say
It’s a pity the Liberal Democrats running Cambridge City Council, who were elected on manifestos promising openness and transparency, don’t take that view.
Tonight outside there were two real police officers plus security staff as well as many council officers just inside the door.
Members of the public were escorted up in the lifts and handed over to guards (council staff) in the gallery.
There were just two of us in the gallery as the meeting started. The mayor stated that in the event of a general disturbance the whole gallery would again be cleared.
The mayor stated it was the Chief Executive and not her who made the decision to keep the doors to the guildhall closed after everyone was thrown out from the public gallery last Thursday.
“the Council meeting was not open to the public”
I don’t need to watch the video, I was there.
At no point was the meeting closed to the public, and public were present throughout, as one of them says above.
For thirty minutes (whilst council was in session) the public gallery was closed. During those thirty minutes no decisions were taken.
Cllr Ward is deluded if he thinks a meeting held behind closed doors, guarded by police, is open to the public.
I and many others sought entry and were denied.
While no decisions were taken a number of public speakers were heard; responses given to those speakers on EMA, bus subsidies and other subjects were cited in the debate on motions on those matters yet the public were not able to listen to those contributions.
Members of the public were also denied the opportunity to listen to Cllr McGovern’s response to the 10,300 person petition.
While the gallery was only closed for 30 minutes of active council “session”; this was followed by a 30 minute dinner break so anyone waiting for the re-opening would have had to wait well over an hour (given council didn’t re-start for at least half an hour after everyone was thrown out).
Also the public gallery was only re-opened after council staff had told everyone to go-away as no-one would be re-admitted. Only the most persistent stayed waiting at the door after that pronouncement.
Doreen Plumb appears not to have differentiated between the behaviour of the protesters after they had been ordered to leave (as shown on the video) and before hand where all that had occurred was a couple of very succinct and pertinent heckles and a solitary paper aeroplane.
I was at the Monday meeting. As I tried to enter the building I was asked for ID: I refused to present any telling security that I was attending a public meeting. Security then handed me a piece of paper with the motions to be discussed and a warning as to what would happen if anyone disrupted the meeting. On entering the building I was told to go to the public gallery. I told the official that I wanted to see Lewis Herbert, Leader of the Labour Group. When Lewis came out he kindly invited me to sit in the chamber. Before the meeting started a council official verbally warned me about heckling; up until then I had not said anything.
These council meetings should be an opportunity for members of the public (taxpayers) to meet councillors and directors to express their views and concerns without hinderance. It was clear that there would be no protestors and the council overreacted wrt security. By 9-30pm the security guards had left, having secured their overtime payments. The police had left 10 minutes before the meeting began at 17-50.
The council meeting must be open to all without question. Implied or actual threats of eviction for heckling should not be allowed.
AND FINALLY: There was plenty of heckling and speaking out of turn by the councillors.
Maybe councillors in the city should read this before they close the doors on the next public meeting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2011/feb/23/local-government-network-blog-professional-development
While I was asked for my name (a request that was dropped when I merely asked why) I’m surprised to hear Mr Harvey was asked for ID. I think this shows the Liberal Democrats are not in control of the council, I’m pretty sure as a party they wouldn’t be in favour of having to identify yourself before viewing a public meeting.
Normally the County Council requires visitors to sign-in; no ID is required though, and this whole process was dropped as it was overwhelmed by the number of members of the public seeking to watch the budget debate two weeks ago.
Currently observing a Cambridgeshire police authority meeting requires a state-issued photo ID, and they take your photo as you go in. There is no justification for this as visitors are escorted and meetings are generally held in a room right next to the main entrance of police headquarters.
Richard, I note that when you asked why they were asking for your name they (security) backed off. The LDs, nationally, have long campaigned for an end to ID cards and databases: maybe the message hasn’t got through to Cambridge yet – this is supposed to be a free country. In all my dealings with the council through FOI requests they have always tried to obstruct them with,typically, requests being met after 19 days and four hours – just short of the legal limit. Indeed, two requests were answered within two of each other. Collusion between the departments? Surely not.
The behaviour of the police authority is a hangover from the days of Gordon’s army and they will find it hard to justify such nonsense when the cuts arrive on their doorstep. Still, at least they aren’t fingerprinting people (yet).
The LDs in Cambridge regard democracy with contempt and guard information jealousy in case the truth about their profligate incompetence emerges. I can’t wait to see their organisation chart which they will shortly be forced to publish on line.
Barnet Council appear to have been even more heavy handed than Cambridge.
In Barnet their security officers are reported to have been wearing hidden cameras to monitor the public gallery:
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/barnet_council_spies_paid_to_secretly_film_you_at_open_meetings_1_847659
The progress of time may have broken the video embedding at the top of the article (it’s not working for me right now). The video can be found at:
https://vimeo.com/20086848