Originally Posted by Tealeaf (Post 949525)

Yeah...but it's the Telegraph bit. A pity their reporter did not pick up on the story of the council launching it's foreign policy initiative.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 947971)

Can't find the minutes online...just yet.

Just the Observer's Twitter feed.

StuartPike78:
Motion from #HBC Coun Allah Dad on atrocities in Kashmir. [via Twitter]http://cdnsl.coveritlive.com/templat.../fb_share2.png
9:01
http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/7...601_normal.jpgStuartPike78:
#HBC Cllr Britcliffe says proud to support integrity of Kashmir. [via Twitter]http://cdnsl.coveritlive.com/templat.../fb_share2.png

9:02
http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/7...601_normal.jpgStuartPike78:
#HBC Coun Nick Collingridge says motion not balanced and need someone from Indian community to speak for them. [via Twitter]http://cdnsl.coveritlive.com/templat.../fb_share2.png

9:04
http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/7...601_normal.jpgStuartPike78:
#HBC Cllr M Dad proposes amendment supporting self determination and the people of Kashmir in Hyndburn. [via Twitter]http://cdnsl.coveritlive.com/templat.../fb_share2.png

9:05
http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/7...601_normal.jpgStuartPike78:
#HBC Everyone getting very hot under the collar about motions and amendments. [via Twitter]http://cdnsl.coveritlive.com/templat.../fb_share2.png

9:10
http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/7...601_normal.jpgStuartPike78:
#HBC amendment passed. [via Twitter]http://cdnsl.coveritlive.com/templat.../fb_share2.png

Replay: Hyndburn council meeting | Accrington Observer - menmedia.co.uk

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 949546)

Well wi the weight Britcliffe carries among his minions,can understand the tories voting fer it, as hes proud to support it.:rolleyes: cannot understand labour supporting this n then not having the strength of conviction to comment on this matter, :(i find that very spineless.

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 949546)

Well wi the weight Britcliffe carries among his minions,can understand the tories voting fer it, as hes proud to support it.:rolleyes: cannot understand labour supporting this n then not having the strength of conviction to comment on this matter, :(i find that very spineless.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 949550)

I'm just itching to get my hands on the minutes of the meeting, so we can see who voted for this very one sided resolution.

Originally Posted by gynn (Post 949564)

I'm afraid the minutes won't show how each named councillor voted, unless it was a "recorded" vote which is only taken in exceptional circumstances, or if individual councillors requested that their vote be minuted against the motion.

The twitter reports make no reference to either of the above happening at the meeting, so it is likely the minutes will just blandly report the resolution.

It is for individual councillors to come on here and tell us how and why they and/or their colleagues voted. Otherwise they will have the cloak of anonymity around them.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 949567)

Ah thanks.

Would who voted for this resolution have been recorded though?

So the information could be aquired under a F.O.I. request?

Originally Posted by Tealeaf (Post 949525)

Yeah...but it's the Telegraph bit. A pity their reporter did not pick up on the story of the council launching it's foreign policy initiative.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 949545)

What I don't understand is that an Observer reporter was sat there, Tweeting the proceedings, and missed the significance of what they were doing.

Whoosh.

If I'd have been fit, and had been at this meeting as planned, after being invited, perhaps me taking my shoes off to throw at them, and shouting abuse, might have alerted him to the fact there was quite a newsworthy, and important story here.

Originally Posted by gynn (Post 949564)

I'm afraid the minutes won't show how each named councillor voted, unless it was a "recorded" vote which is only taken in exceptional circumstances, or if individual councillors requested that their vote be minuted against the motion.

The twitter reports make no reference to either of the above happening at the meeting, so it is likely the minutes will just blandly report the resolution.

It is for individual councillors to come on here and tell us how and why they and/or their colleagues voted. Otherwise they will have the cloak of anonymity around them.

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 949580)

in the case of a majority I don't think it even states the vote for and against although I could be wrong on that point

Originally Posted by Tealeaf (Post 949631)

According to the agenda for the council meeting held on November 10th, the Kashmir motion was one of four submitted under council procedure rule A9. The details of procedure A9 can be found here:

http://www.hyndburnbc.gov.uk/downloa...e_Rules_2_.pdf

For those of you who do not wish to read through it all, A9.2 reads as follows:

Scope:

Motions must be about matters for which the Council has a responsibility or which affect
Hyndburn.

That is it. There is nothing further.

My question is how this motion passed can in any way whatsoever relate to council responsibility or affecting Hyndburn. The simple answer is it does not on either count. It seems to me therefore, that the council in passing this resolution have not only exceeded their remit, made the borough a laughing stock, wasted council tax payers money and resources but have in fact acted unconstitutionally in doing so. Arguably, the motion cannot stand; any attempt to reiterate its legality can now only be met by referral to a higher authority, such as the local government ombudsman.

Originally Posted by Tealeaf (Post 949631)

Scope:

Motions must be about matters for which the Council has a responsibility or which affect
Hyndburn.

That is it. There is nothing further.

My question is how this motion passed can in any way whatsoever relate to council responsibility or affecting Hyndburn. The simple answer is it does not on either count. It seems to me therefore, that the council in passing this resolution have not only exceeded their remit, made the borough a laughing stock, wasted council tax payers money and resources but have in fact acted unconstitutionally in doing so. Arguably, the motion cannot stand; any attempt to reiterate its legality can now only be met by referral to a higher authority, such as the local government ombudsman.

Originally Posted by gynn (Post 949859)

What is your view, Ken?