Mayor queries the validity of hearing

This Is Wiltshire: Voting at the civic offices on the future of Mayor Nick Martin Voting at the civic offices on the future of Mayor Nick Martin

THE Mayor of Swindon, Nick Martin, has questioned whether the standards committee can provide a fair judgement into his conduct after he won a motion of no confidence last month.

Coun Martin (Con, Shaw) said he is determined it will now be business as usual, and added he will be liaising with his legal team to find out if the investigation has been compromised.

The motion of no confidence was put forward by Coun Jim Grant (Lab, Rodbourne Cheney) following accusations the mayor had made derogatory remarks about people with learning difficulties last year.

He is alleged to have said: “They aren’t still letting those mongols have sex with each other are they?”

Coun Martin offered his resignation ahead of the historic vote on the condition that the two complaints against him were dropped, but Labour councillors rejected his offer, and the issue will now be determined by the standards committee this year.

But Coun Martin has now questioned whether the standards committee can provide a fair judgement in the wake of the vote.

“After having to go through all this I am intent on going full term,” he said. “I am now particularly concerned as to the fairness of the standards committee. I am going to have my legal advisors seriously question if it can even take place now.

“I have been judged in full council, and there are councillors in the standards committee who took part in that meeting. The vote may have taken place already, but in my opinion the resolution made to council was pre-emptive.”

Coun Martin said he wanted to get on with fulfilling his role, and hoped the issue would be resolved sooner rather than later.

“I just want to get on with doing the job of mayor,” he said. “I have always been very particular about being as supportive to people and organisations as I can be. It is a hard working position, but it is ceremonial. Considering how hard pushed we are financially, it is important to recognise success in events that are taking place.”

He added he felt vindicated by the result of the vote, which found 27-25 in favour of an amendment which stated that because there was a pending investigation it was not right to pre-judge the mayor.

“It is quite disappointing the whole thing has become political,” said Coun Martin, who said he felt bullied by the Labour group throughout. “When I attend events I am proud to do so on behalf of the people of Swindon.

“Standards may or may not occur in March, but I will question whether they have any judgement to make now, given what has preceded it.

“Having been contacted by a lot of people who have told me not to turn back, I feel remarkably well supported by a silent majority. We have to hope that full council meetings in the future are not as embarrassing as they have been. They are a public window to the council and it is astonishing what some councillors want people to see.”

Coun Grant, leader of the Labour group, said: “My understanding is that the standards investigation into the Mayor is only now in the process of starting, even though the original complaint was submitted as long ago as early October. As all of the people who attended the training session have confirmed he said the remark in question, I fully expect this investigation to conclude that the Mayor said the offending remark and that this investigation can be done in a timely manner. “We think it’s in the best interest of the council, the town as a whole and even the Mayor himself for him to stand down, and our position hasn’t changed.

“My worry has always been the longer this drags on the more reputational damage this saga will inflict on all involved.”

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:38am Thu 9 Jan 14

RichardR1 says...

Mr Martin should resign for the sake of the integrity of the office of Mayor. He shouldn't have taken on the role after being censured over another incident.
Mr Martin should resign for the sake of the integrity of the office of Mayor. He shouldn't have taken on the role after being censured over another incident. RichardR1
  • Score: 13

9:15am Thu 9 Jan 14

Always Grumpy says...

Just go Martin!
Just go Martin! Always Grumpy
  • Score: 12

9:59am Thu 9 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Either he said it or he didn't. If he did then the mayor shouldn't act that way and should be removed from the post. He knows if he did it or not and if he is lying then that makes it even worse.
Either he said it or he didn't. If he did then the mayor shouldn't act that way and should be removed from the post. He knows if he did it or not and if he is lying then that makes it even worse. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 14

10:21am Thu 9 Jan 14

BeardyBill says...

“I have been judged in full council, and there are councillors in the standards committee who took part in that meeting..." The argument is flawed in so many ways: the vote was on an amendment that because of a pending investigation, it would be wrong to pre- judge the issue. If Martin is now arguing against that investigation, then surely it must go back to the Council for another confidence vote.

This should transcend petty party lines - it is simply unacceptable for an elected representative to make comments like this about mentally handicapped people. If the allegations are true, Martin should be kicked off the Council, not only out of the Mayors job.

Yet another example of a politician trying to weasel there way out of taking responsibility for their actions, trying to cling on to the status and expenses at all costs. The councillors who voted to support this man should be ashamed, by putting party loyalty ahead of common decency, they have condoned these disgusting comments. Truly the nasty party showing its true colours.
“I have been judged in full council, and there are councillors in the standards committee who took part in that meeting..." The argument is flawed in so many ways: the vote was on an amendment that because of a pending investigation, it would be wrong to pre- judge the issue. If Martin is now arguing against that investigation, then surely it must go back to the Council for another confidence vote. This should transcend petty party lines - it is simply unacceptable for an elected representative to make comments like this about mentally handicapped people. If the allegations are true, Martin should be kicked off the Council, not only out of the Mayors job. Yet another example of a politician trying to weasel there way out of taking responsibility for their actions, trying to cling on to the status and expenses at all costs. The councillors who voted to support this man should be ashamed, by putting party loyalty ahead of common decency, they have condoned these disgusting comments. Truly the nasty party showing its true colours. BeardyBill
  • Score: 9

10:38am Thu 9 Jan 14

Old Town Comment says...

Silent Majority? A Bawden-esque phrase indeed. Did Cllr Martin not notice that the Adver vote was clearly against him?

But this comment surely this is just political maneuvering of the same level as offering to resign if he was not punished. There seems a huge lack of integrity and class to Cllr Martin whatever the findings of the committee. How can one person be so crass as to fight so hard to hold on to what is an honorary and voluntary position. Cllr Martin, you have a strange self view.

Ironically many in the Swindon do question the standards committee, But because we feel it is insufficiently diligent, tends not to prosecute councilors for anything except financial misdeeds, any seems to offer no teeth in terms of suspensions or other sanctions.
Silent Majority? A Bawden-esque phrase indeed. Did Cllr Martin not notice that the Adver vote was clearly against him? But this comment surely this is just political maneuvering of the same level as offering to resign if he was not punished. There seems a huge lack of integrity and class to Cllr Martin whatever the findings of the committee. How can one person be so crass as to fight so hard to hold on to what is an honorary and voluntary position. Cllr Martin, you have a strange self view. Ironically many in the Swindon do question the standards committee, But because we feel it is insufficiently diligent, tends not to prosecute councilors for anything except financial misdeeds, any seems to offer no teeth in terms of suspensions or other sanctions. Old Town Comment
  • Score: 10

11:51am Thu 9 Jan 14

BeardyBill says...

Noting the comment "I am going to have my legal advisors seriously question if it can even take place now" can we have a categorical assurance that any costs for legal advice will be picked up personally, and not charged to any Council funds? C'mon Adver, time for a FOIA request......
Noting the comment "I am going to have my legal advisors seriously question if it can even take place now" can we have a categorical assurance that any costs for legal advice will be picked up personally, and not charged to any Council funds? C'mon Adver, time for a FOIA request...... BeardyBill
  • Score: 5

12:37pm Thu 9 Jan 14

trolley dolley says...

Is it right that the very people who have made the complaint to the Standards Board and attended full council did not make a Declaration of Interest before participating in the debate and the vote.

Maybe a complaint should be sent to the Director of Legal Services.
Is it right that the very people who have made the complaint to the Standards Board and attended full council did not make a Declaration of Interest before participating in the debate and the vote. Maybe a complaint should be sent to the Director of Legal Services. trolley dolley
  • Score: -5

1:11pm Thu 9 Jan 14

BeardyBill says...

trolley dolley wrote:
Is it right that the very people who have made the complaint to the Standards Board and attended full council did not make a Declaration of Interest before participating in the debate and the vote.

Maybe a complaint should be sent to the Director of Legal Services.
I don't follow your reasoning - why would they have an interest to declare? And what would be the basis of the complaint?
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Is it right that the very people who have made the complaint to the Standards Board and attended full council did not make a Declaration of Interest before participating in the debate and the vote. Maybe a complaint should be sent to the Director of Legal Services.[/p][/quote]I don't follow your reasoning - why would they have an interest to declare? And what would be the basis of the complaint? BeardyBill
  • Score: 3

2:27pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

MonicaSBly wrote:
I think, I can never earn over which I paid by my precedent employer, but I was wrong, world is so large to try their fate.but now I am making 92 dollar a hour even more, can easily minimum 1753 dollar weekly, on the experience everyone must try to do work online, easy way to earn, here's an example what I do... www.Day37.cℴm
Prostitute?
[quote][p][bold]MonicaSBly[/bold] wrote: I think, I can never earn over which I paid by my precedent employer, but I was wrong, world is so large to try their fate.but now I am making 92 dollar a hour even more, can easily minimum 1753 dollar weekly, on the experience everyone must try to do work online, easy way to earn, here's an example what I do... www.Day37.cℴm[/p][/quote]Prostitute? Davey Gravey
  • Score: 2

3:06pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Spurs Fan says...

Cllr Martin said “When I attend events I am proud to do so on behalf of the people of Swindon" The problem is Swindon can't be proud of Mayor Martin.
This is a politician that has been found guilty already of misconduct even before he is judged on his latest alleged misdemeanor. Why the hell was he given this role in the first place!
Cllr Martin said “When I attend events I am proud to do so on behalf of the people of Swindon" The problem is Swindon can't be proud of Mayor Martin. This is a politician that has been found guilty already of misconduct even before he is judged on his latest alleged misdemeanor. Why the hell was he given this role in the first place! Spurs Fan
  • Score: 10

3:14pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Old Town Comment says...

@ trolley dolley
The Director of Legal Services, sat in the room at the vote and publicly advised the Mayor that he could vote and that he could vote twice if required The Mayor offered no comment on conflict of interest - fascinating in itself.
I suppose the phrase is 'what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' - how can the Mayor be allowed to vote to save his own skin, but those who believe themselves wronged and hence accuse him are not allowed to register their lack of confidence?
and it is that last point that is pertinent. There was no vote as to whether Cllr Martin was 'guilty', although Cllr Pajak defended him in the debate by confirming that he made the alleged remarks!!??
A vote was whether there was confidence in Cllr Martin to behave by reasonably accepted standards and to suitably discharge his role. If I had a vote I would have voted against the Mayor - not for what is alleged and possibly unproven until standards - but purely because of his high handed disdain for public office, lack of grace and unseemly and desperate attempt to hold on to his position.
A sad and badly principled reaction to 'being caught'. Ho hum.
@ trolley dolley The Director of Legal Services, sat in the room at the vote and publicly advised the Mayor that he could vote and that he could vote twice if required [casting vote.] The Mayor offered no comment on conflict of interest - fascinating in itself. I suppose the phrase is 'what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' - how can the Mayor be allowed to vote [twice] to save his own skin, but those who believe themselves wronged and hence accuse him are not allowed to register their lack of confidence? and it is that last point that is pertinent. There was no vote as to whether Cllr Martin was 'guilty', although Cllr Pajak defended him in the debate by confirming that he made the alleged remarks!!?? A vote was whether there was confidence in Cllr Martin to behave by reasonably accepted standards and to suitably discharge his role. If I had a vote I would have voted against the Mayor - not for what is alleged and possibly unproven until standards - but purely because of his high handed disdain for public office, lack of grace and unseemly and desperate attempt to hold on to his position. A sad and badly principled reaction to 'being caught'. Ho hum. Old Town Comment
  • Score: 11

5:51pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Grimwald says...

Which way did his fellow ward councillors vote in the debate?
Which way did his fellow ward councillors vote in the debate? Grimwald
  • Score: 1

5:53pm Thu 9 Jan 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

A vote of no confidence is completely different to the standard committee investigating and passing judgement.

The vote of no confidence should never have been called; in part because the majority of councillors will always vote along party lines as they mostly did in this case.

The mayor will know what he did or didn't say, and he should take responsibility and resign if he did say the things that he did. If he didn't he has every right to defend himself. However a vote of confidence proves nothing of the allegations.
A vote of no confidence is completely different to the standard committee investigating and passing judgement. The vote of no confidence should never have been called; in part because the majority of councillors will always vote along party lines as they mostly did in this case. The mayor will know what he did or didn't say, and he should take responsibility and resign if he did say the things that he did. If he didn't he has every right to defend himself. However a vote of confidence proves nothing of the allegations. LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 5

9:05pm Thu 9 Jan 14

BeardyBill says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
A vote of no confidence is completely different to the standard committee investigating and passing judgement.

The vote of no confidence should never have been called; in part because the majority of councillors will always vote along party lines as they mostly did in this case.

The mayor will know what he did or didn't say, and he should take responsibility and resign if he did say the things that he did. If he didn't he has every right to defend himself. However a vote of confidence proves nothing of the allegations.
But surely the point is it is damaging to the office of. Mayor, and the public perception of the town that for the incumbent Mayor to have the allegations of such a nasty type hanging over him. The confidence vote was absolutely the right thing to do.

Martin absolutely has the right to defend himself, but as a matter of good grace he should have stepped down to protect the integrity of the Mayoral post.

His position is untenable - it looks like he is desperately clinging to the job, while those that support him are effectively condoning his actions. The town deserves better.

The fact that the allegations have been circulating for some time, and have been repeated in in both the local and national press without any sign of a defamation writ speaks volumes.
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: A vote of no confidence is completely different to the standard committee investigating and passing judgement. The vote of no confidence should never have been called; in part because the majority of councillors will always vote along party lines as they mostly did in this case. The mayor will know what he did or didn't say, and he should take responsibility and resign if he did say the things that he did. If he didn't he has every right to defend himself. However a vote of confidence proves nothing of the allegations.[/p][/quote]But surely the point is it is damaging to the office of. Mayor, and the public perception of the town that for the incumbent Mayor to have the allegations of such a nasty type hanging over him. The confidence vote was absolutely the right thing to do. Martin absolutely has the right to defend himself, but as a matter of good grace he should have stepped down to protect the integrity of the Mayoral post. His position is untenable - it looks like he is desperately clinging to the job, while those that support him are effectively condoning his actions. The town deserves better. The fact that the allegations have been circulating for some time, and have been repeated in in both the local and national press without any sign of a defamation writ speaks volumes. BeardyBill
  • Score: 1

9:05pm Thu 9 Jan 14

MrAngry says...

Most embarrassing mayor ever !!! Even worse than the kerb crawling mayor of a few years ago.
Most embarrassing mayor ever !!! Even worse than the kerb crawling mayor of a few years ago. MrAngry
  • Score: 3

10:47pm Thu 9 Jan 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

BeardyBill wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
A vote of no confidence is completely different to the standard committee investigating and passing judgement.

The vote of no confidence should never have been called; in part because the majority of councillors will always vote along party lines as they mostly did in this case.

The mayor will know what he did or didn't say, and he should take responsibility and resign if he did say the things that he did. If he didn't he has every right to defend himself. However a vote of confidence proves nothing of the allegations.
But surely the point is it is damaging to the office of. Mayor, and the public perception of the town that for the incumbent Mayor to have the allegations of such a nasty type hanging over him. The confidence vote was absolutely the right thing to do.

Martin absolutely has the right to defend himself, but as a matter of good grace he should have stepped down to protect the integrity of the Mayoral post.

His position is untenable - it looks like he is desperately clinging to the job, while those that support him are effectively condoning his actions. The town deserves better.

The fact that the allegations have been circulating for some time, and have been repeated in in both the local and national press without any sign of a defamation writ speaks volumes.
Based on your take on the issue, someone could make an unfounded allegation against someone in a mayoral position and expect the mayor to step down without hesitation.

What makes a mockery of this situation is that councillors who should know better (including the mayor by this article) should allow due process to be followed which is for the standards committee to report their findings.

If the mayor is found to be guilty of the misconduct then agreed he will have made a mockery of the position and that is why the decision to step down in advance of the findings should be his and his alone; not forced by the press or opposition councillors. The major knows what he did or did not say. The choice to cling to power is his.

I guess a recent analogy to this scenario is minister Andrew Mitchell being forced from his ministerial position over allegations that now turn out to be untrue and where the accusers are very much discredited.

I'm not defending the mayor or his stance on the issue I'm defending the right of due process Personally I don't have much time for the guy either; but all there are at the moment are allegations. Its pretty clear there is a lot of squirming going on based on his comments to the press and this article seems very much an attempt to evade the findings of the standards committee.
[quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: A vote of no confidence is completely different to the standard committee investigating and passing judgement. The vote of no confidence should never have been called; in part because the majority of councillors will always vote along party lines as they mostly did in this case. The mayor will know what he did or didn't say, and he should take responsibility and resign if he did say the things that he did. If he didn't he has every right to defend himself. However a vote of confidence proves nothing of the allegations.[/p][/quote]But surely the point is it is damaging to the office of. Mayor, and the public perception of the town that for the incumbent Mayor to have the allegations of such a nasty type hanging over him. The confidence vote was absolutely the right thing to do. Martin absolutely has the right to defend himself, but as a matter of good grace he should have stepped down to protect the integrity of the Mayoral post. His position is untenable - it looks like he is desperately clinging to the job, while those that support him are effectively condoning his actions. The town deserves better. The fact that the allegations have been circulating for some time, and have been repeated in in both the local and national press without any sign of a defamation writ speaks volumes.[/p][/quote]Based on your take on the issue, someone could make an unfounded allegation against someone in a mayoral position and expect the mayor to step down without hesitation. What makes a mockery of this situation is that councillors who should know better (including the mayor by this article) should allow due process to be followed which is for the standards committee to report their findings. If the mayor is found to be guilty of the misconduct then agreed he will have made a mockery of the position and that is why the decision to step down in advance of the findings should be his and his alone; not forced by the press or opposition councillors. The major knows what he did or did not say. The choice to cling to power is his. I guess a recent analogy to this scenario is minister Andrew Mitchell being forced from his ministerial position over allegations that now turn out to be untrue and where the accusers are very much discredited. I'm not defending the mayor or his stance on the issue I'm defending the right of due process Personally I don't have much time for the guy either; but all there are at the moment are allegations. Its pretty clear there is a lot of squirming going on based on his comments to the press and this article seems very much an attempt to evade the findings of the standards committee. LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 2

11:23pm Thu 9 Jan 14

BeardyBill says...

@LordAshOfTheBrake

Absolutely...as soon as the allegations were made, he should have stepped down and as well as defending himself through the standards committee, he could have also chosen to sue the a**e off the people making the allegations if he was sure they were completely unfounded.

You make the parallel with Lansley - yes, he did the right thing, although in that case it's still very unclear whether the word pleb was used or not..
@LordAshOfTheBrake Absolutely...as soon as the allegations were made, he should have stepped down and as well as defending himself through the standards committee, he could have also chosen to sue the a**e off the people making the allegations if he was sure they were completely unfounded. You make the parallel with Lansley - yes, he did the right thing, although in that case it's still very unclear whether the word pleb was used or not.. BeardyBill
  • Score: 1

8:38am Fri 10 Jan 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

BeardyBill wrote:
@LordAshOfTheBrake

Absolutely...as soon as the allegations were made, he should have stepped down and as well as defending himself through the standards committee, he could have also chosen to sue the a**e off the people making the allegations if he was sure they were completely unfounded.

You make the parallel with Lansley - yes, he did the right thing, although in that case it's still very unclear whether the word pleb was used or not..
No. According to you any allegation on inappropriate behaviour or commenting should result in an instant stepping down. That would be very open to abuse. You'd probably have a new mayor every week with the petty behaviour of the current crop of councillors.

The mayor will know what he did or did not say and thus should make a genuine call on himself whether he is right to stand his ground.

However I agree that based on this article he appears to be trying to subvert due process and that is unacceptable.

My parallel was Mitchell not Lansley. He should not have been subjected to trial by media losing his job over something that had not been properly investigated. The police's account of the affair is in tatters and the allegation will never been proven either way. Thus someone has lost a job over unfounded/unproven allegations via trial by media involving police officers that have been proven to have been misleading at best.

Due process should be allowed to run its course and attempts to interfere with that should be dealt with very harshly. That now includes the Mayor, but those make the original no confidence vote etc should also be held to account.

If I remember correctly, one of the labour councillors who is supposed to have heard the comments even supported the mayor in the no confidence vote because they believe due process should be followed and not a witch hunt by people with vested interests. (previous Adver article if I remember correctly)
[quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: @LordAshOfTheBrake Absolutely...as soon as the allegations were made, he should have stepped down and as well as defending himself through the standards committee, he could have also chosen to sue the a**e off the people making the allegations if he was sure they were completely unfounded. You make the parallel with Lansley - yes, he did the right thing, although in that case it's still very unclear whether the word pleb was used or not..[/p][/quote]No. According to you any allegation on inappropriate behaviour or commenting should result in an instant stepping down. That would be very open to abuse. You'd probably have a new mayor every week with the petty behaviour of the current crop of councillors. The mayor will know what he did or did not say and thus should make a genuine call on himself whether he is right to stand his ground. However I agree that based on this article he appears to be trying to subvert due process and that is unacceptable. My parallel was Mitchell not Lansley. He should not have been subjected to trial by media losing his job over something that had not been properly investigated. The police's account of the affair is in tatters and the allegation will never been proven either way. Thus someone has lost a job over unfounded/unproven allegations via trial by media involving police officers that have been proven to have been misleading at best. Due process should be allowed to run its course and attempts to interfere with that should be dealt with very harshly. That now includes the Mayor, but those make the original no confidence vote etc should also be held to account. If I remember correctly, one of the labour councillors who is supposed to have heard the comments even supported the mayor in the no confidence vote because they believe due process should be followed and not a witch hunt by people with vested interests. (previous Adver article if I remember correctly) LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 2

9:24am Fri 10 Jan 14

OldTown90 says...

Grimwald wrote:
Which way did his fellow ward councillors vote in the debate?
Gary Perkins voted against the amendment to the 'no confidence' motion ie he voted the same as Labour. Only he is able to say if this was a show of no confidence in Mayor Martin.


Keith Williams sat through the meeting but left before the vote was taken. Only he is able to say if this was a show of no confidence in Mayor Martin.

Interesting interview on Wiltshire radio with Mayor Martin - can be accessed online at;
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/programmes/p01nh4w7


have to go to 1hr5mins into broadcast for the interview
[quote][p][bold]Grimwald[/bold] wrote: Which way did his fellow ward councillors vote in the debate?[/p][/quote]Gary Perkins voted against the amendment to the 'no confidence' motion ie he voted the same as Labour. Only he is able to say if this was a show of no confidence in Mayor Martin. Keith Williams sat through the meeting but left before the vote was taken. Only he is able to say if this was a show of no confidence in Mayor Martin. Interesting interview on Wiltshire radio with Mayor Martin - can be accessed online at; http://www.bbc.co.uk /programmes/p01nh4w7 have to go to 1hr5mins into broadcast for the interview OldTown90
  • Score: 1

3:26pm Fri 10 Jan 14

trolley dolley says...

Good to know you can rely on FREINDS!!! in a crisis.
Good to know you can rely on FREINDS!!! in a crisis. trolley dolley
  • Score: 0

10:00am Sat 11 Jan 14

Old Town Comment says...

Friends, crisis.

A crisis of one's own making. Not the 'old fashioned language' but the bombastic and unrealistic nature of the defence.

I always find block voting in chamber uncomfortable.Rarely appropriate.
This instance was unedifying.
Friends, crisis. A crisis of one's own making. Not the 'old fashioned language' but the bombastic and unrealistic nature of the defence. I always find block voting in chamber uncomfortable.Rarely appropriate. This instance was unedifying. Old Town Comment
  • Score: 0

10:51am Sat 11 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Outside of the chattering classes, desperate Labour types and the even more desperate Labour types at Talk Swindon, Martin's comments won't have even been noted by the vast majority - and many of them will have found them amusing.

People often fall foul of false-consensus bias. While it's obviously tempting for Labour to try and score points with the mayor's alleged comment, and while they may like to think it'll affect any forthcoming elections, the reality is that it won't make any difference at all.

The vast majority of people don't know who/what Martin is, they wouldn't be able to vote for or against him in any case and, more to the point, they will either not know what he's supposed to have said or won't care even if they do.

Virtually everyone who claims to be so aghast at the alleged comments seem to have a very vested interest in portraying it as the crime of the century. It's all very tired but quite amusing all the same.

I've lost count of the number of things that the likes of Talk Swindon thought would affect local elections... and they never do.
Outside of the chattering classes, desperate Labour types and the even more desperate Labour types at Talk Swindon, Martin's comments won't have even been noted by the vast majority - and many of them will have found them amusing. People often fall foul of false-consensus bias. While it's obviously tempting for Labour to try and score points with the mayor's alleged comment, and while they may like to think it'll affect any forthcoming elections, the reality is that it won't make any difference at all. The vast majority of people don't know who/what Martin is, they wouldn't be able to vote for or against him in any case and, more to the point, they will either not know what he's supposed to have said or won't care even if they do. Virtually everyone who claims to be so aghast at the alleged comments seem to have a very vested interest in portraying it as the crime of the century. It's all very tired but quite amusing all the same. I've lost count of the number of things that the likes of Talk Swindon thought would affect local elections... and they never do. ChannelX
  • Score: 7

6:52am Sun 12 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

The majority of people have nothing to gain from "polical point scoring" as they are not involved directly with the council or politics.

Indeed, the majority will have no idea who these councillors are but , that does not make disgraceful behaviour acceptable.

Having said that, times are changing, facebook, twitter, etc
The majority of people have nothing to gain from "polical point scoring" as they are not involved directly with the council or politics. Indeed, the majority will have no idea who these councillors are but , that does not make disgraceful behaviour acceptable. Having said that, times are changing, facebook, twitter, etc Empty Car Park
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree