The miserable, sour heart of Ledbury Town Council was again on show at its meeting last week (29 September 2016). It was debating a motion decrying racism and hatred, encouraging tolerance and welcome to all sections of the community. Along with many hundreds of councils throughout the country, the initiative was proposed as a gesture of solidarity with minority communities who have been suffering hatred following Brexit. In Hereford, Leominster, Kington and Malvern, with Herefordshire Council, an identically worded motion had been passed unanimously. Not in Ledbury.
 
Dozens of local residents sat bemused or horrified as councillor after councillor took the opportunity to disparage the blameless sentiments by accusing the proposer Cllr Liz Harvey of 'rank hypocrisy'. Bob Barnes went further (at 8'18") and said the whole thing was a political stunt. He said he would not vote for it because the proposer had conducted a 'relentless campaign of intimidation, bullying and hatred towards this council, its councillors and, most significantly, our office staff, it is hardly an example of tolerance.' During the tirade, despite calls from councillors that his words were clearly out of order and irrelevant to the motion, he was allowed to finish unhindered. Thus encouraged, Martin Eager, Noel and Jayne Roberts lined up to stick the boot in also.
 
Was this motion about Liz Harvey? No. It was about East Europeans and others being shouted at and abused on the streets of Ledbury. Four statements from members of the public confirmed that this had been happening. Even so, Cllr Martin Eager and county councillor Emma Holton agreed with proud UKIP supporter Yvonne White that 'there is NO racism in Ledbury. It is a figment of people's imagination... This motion is a load of rubbish and a waste of time.' (The loud applause at the end of Mrs White's speech in the video clip, 14'45",  is Cllr Holton's.)
 
With characteristic clarity, Annette Crowe said (16'58"): 'this has caused me some concern... I have not a got a racist bone in my body. I think the principle is really good. I have not witnessed anyone being racially abused... I don't think it sends a good message about Ledbury if we put out statements like this, people will assume that there is a major problem in Ledbury, which there isn't... I support the sentiment... So I will be abstaining.'
 
Wrapping up the debate, Cllr Andrew Warmington challenged Deputy Mayor Elaine Fieldhouse's contention that 'I cannot speak on behalf of other people. It's not my job to speak on behalf of other people.'
 
'Yes we can', he said. 'We are elected to the town council, we are meant to show leadership. It is for us to put out a positive message to the people of Ledbury and to those who have been affected [by racism].'
 
Possibly the best - and briefest - comment of the night was from Cllr Nick Morris: 'If there isn't a unanimous vote for this motion, it will bring this council into disrepute'. Tittering uncontrollably, Elaine Fieldhouse, evidently found this as amusing as Tony Bradford was outraged. (See 20'18")
 
Andrew Warmington summed up exactly what was wrong with this discussion in an interesting Facebook discussion thread on the 'Town Talk Ledbury Politics' page. '[The motion] was not, as others [have stated], about the council and whether or not any of its members are racist, but about the council taking a lead on behalf of the town. Unfortunately for some, the whole thing is so personalised they took it as an insinuation they were racist and/or felt they had to be against it because Liz [Harvey] proposed it. This is not a way for a council to run itself.
 
Is it really possible to state categorically that there is no racism or xenophobia in Ledbury? The evidence from the street appears to show otherwise. Can Annette Crowe really say that she hasn't got a racist bone in her [white, British] body? To do so, not only sounds horribly complacent, but is to confound decades of social research which has understood racism, not just as an individual state of mind, but an organised social framework in which prejudice and discrimination are systematically embedded in the fabric of society.
 
To take a small example, there are no East Europeans (nor Gypsies/Travellers) on Ledbury Town Council, (nor Herefordshire Council). It will be claimed that the reason for this, is that they don't come forward to stand as candidates. This is true, but it ignores the fact that not only does the Town Council make zero effort to connect with these communities, but people from such backgrounds would justifiably fear that they would be made unwelcome, even the object of prejudice.
 
The Stephen Lawrence report by Lord MacPherson described the idea of 'institutional racism' as 'the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.'
 
I am willing to accept the assurances from Ledbury Town Councillors that they are not individually, consciously racist in their outlook.  I cringe however when I hear privileged white men and women smugly deny the very idea of racism or xenophobia existing in our town, in our council or in ourselves. Such thinking is delusional. What was it Jesus said about the Pharisees? 'Woe unto you, hypocrites! for you are like unto whitewashed sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outwardly but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.'
 
The councillors say they haven't witnessed prejudice in Ledbury. Perhaps they weren't looking. Or perhaps they were looking the other way.
 

 
As expected, the louts from the far right didn’t materialise in town on Saturday (21 May), but this doesn’t mean the threat to democracy and free speech has gone from the streets of Ledbury. A more insidious authoritarian movement is taking root in the town, not among the more rabid elements of social media as might be supposed, but centred within Ledbury Town Council itself.
 
There is a conspiracy to purge the Council of dissenters. Some councillors appear to be waging a concerted campaign of denigration against their critics. Yes, they are telling lies, but the old guard are also busily manipulating the levers of power to firm their grip on power. The aim is to eliminate from Ledbury Town Council dissident voices, any trace of resistance. By also creating such a hostile environment, it is clear that no decent-minded person would in future contemplate standing for election. If all goes according to plan, at the next poll, there will be few candidates willing to stand for Council, just the old faces, allowing the old rotten borough practice of co-option to return with a vengeance. Neat isn't it?
 
In Ledbury, as in other politically stricken towns (such as Berwick, Frodsham, Peterlee, Tewkesbury), local democracy is being nicely snuffed out by a ruthless clique of legally sanctioned hoodlums. Town and parish councils are truly laws unto themselves: there is no oversight, no ombudsman, no higher authority to which you can appeal. Resistance is not tolerated. They are fertile territory for power freaks, narcissists and right-wing authoritarians.
 
As 'banned' Ledbury Town Councillor Andrew Harrison pointed out at last week's Annual Council Meeting (12 May 2016), our Council is a morally bankrupt institution.
 
If you express an opinion which is contrary to the majority view, and which offends elements of extreme right wing nationalists, you are now liable to be reported for bringing the council into disrepute. Even as an elected councillor, you are not allowed to state your opinion within a council debate, it seems. [i]
 
Minutes, the bedrock of legal constitutional practice, are subject to manipulation, distortion and omission of key facts which present a false account of proceedings. [ii]
 
Scrutiny by elected members is regarded at best as trouble-making, but if persistent, is subject to accusations of bullying and harassment leading to ‘banning’ (as has happened to Andrew Harrison and Liz Harvey).[iii]
 
When some elected councillors with alternative opinions attempt to put their side of things, they are told to be quiet, while others, with more palatable views, are given free rein to read out pre-written statements, wander off topic and be generally offensive or inflammatory whenever they wish. [iv]
 
The Ledbury Town Council establishment takes a very relaxed attitude to the application of its standing orders and financial regulations, either ignoring them completely or, if this proves inconvenient, chucking them aside and coming up with new rules that better suit its purposes. Meantime, some of the rules of operation are scrupulously observed, generally those that disallow discussion or are controlling in nature.[v]
 
At the head of this league table of democratic contempt is the matter of council resolutions, when a vote is taken to do something: these decisions are theoretically inviolate, as legally binding as a court judgement. But in the deceitful world of Ledbury Town Council, they are, if required, completely ignored by councillors (and sometimes staff). [vi]
 
Taken in the round, Ledbury Town Council is a corrupt institution. It has members who are motivated by greed for power, personal self-interest and covert political objectives. It is a place where objectivity, fairness and respect as core ethical values are entirely missing. Anything goes.
 
Political scientists draw a distinction between dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. The former are characterised by the rule of a single figure, or a small ‘junta’; they are totalitarian in the sense that there is no freedom of speech or expression, while democratic institutions and an independent judiciary are suppressed.
 
Ledbury is not a dictatorship – despite the increasing power and influence that has accreted to the cultish figure of the Mayor in recent years under Annette Crowe and Bob Barnes, abetted by the local press.
 
Life under an authoritarian administration is rarely much more agreeable even if it appears less overtly vicious than a dictatorship. There exists superficially a plural system to which the trappings of democracy are paid lip service with elections, legislative debate, and the toleration of dissent – up to a point.
 
In places like Russia, Zimbabwe, and Turkey however, the odds are stacked against alternative voices. There are prosecutions for defaming the government or the church, trumped up charges against opposition politicians, redrawing of the legislative framework to outlaw criticism and there is collusion with a supine press which presents one-sided reportage. Sound familiar? 
 
In this toxic setting, political corruption is rife: nepotism, croneyism, mutual back-scratching for personal advantage and shady deals to do down opponents, up to an including violence. Because the government so effectively controls the channels of mass communication, and by patronage, pulls the strings of the civil service and judges, these regimes cling to power by popular assent. Putin, Mugabe and Erdogan are undeniably popular, and continue to win elections. It doesn’t make them good people or run good governments. The people are spun a line, kept in ignorance. Critics of the regime have their reputations ruined. Dirty tricks do the trick.
 
When there are no rules to which the powerful (and rich) adhere, and when there are no mechanisms to call politicians to account, the door is open to financial corruption. If there’s nobody watching the sweetshop, why wouldn’t people fill their pockets with lollies and bonbons? In dirty politics, you do what you can get away with. Why not?
 
The cancerous nature of authoritarian administration is more than dispiriting. It robs places of their creative vigour and dynamic energy. What’s the point in trying? Advancement happens not by talent or merit, but by knuckling down and playing the game, doing as you’re told, licking sweaty arses.
 
And so to Ledbury. The miserable tarnished crew dodge and scheme their way to looming perdition. We hope. But in the meantime, the casualties are many. Not just the two banned councillors, and those who have resigned or retired in disgust (I am one of a long line over the years), but the decent souls around the town who look on in dismay, the young people sickened by politics, the ratepayers who receive poor value for money, and the enthusiasts for change and action who have their dreams quashed at every turn. Good things happen in Ledbury despite its entourage of costly politicians. Mediocrity rules.
 
Ledbury's authoritarian town council is not just a democratic obscenity, but it is a tragedy for our community.
 
Here's a final thought. I have had some harsh words to say about these people over the years. People ask me, how do I get away with saying such awful things without incurring actions for libel. It's quite simple. I tell the truth. Nothing I say, not a word, is without evidence and justification. Ledbury Town Council is at liberty to sue me for defamation. I challenge them. Do it.
 
Notes...

[i] Cllr Liz Harvey is being reported by Ledbury Town Council for bringing the Council into disrepute. Her offence was to suggest that red, white and blue bunting should not be left up all summer long as it could be construed by some people as a political symbol of the far right, of Loyalist sentiment. Cllr Annette Crowe said that ‘because we’ve had so many complaints about the [bunting issue], and that’s gone into the national newspapers, and the threat from the far right… should not be how a council acts, and I propose that [this] goes forward to Herefordshire Council [as a complaint].
 

[ii] At Ledbury Town Council Standing Committee on 22 December 2015, a resolution was taken to seek alternative clerical support and advice to that being offered by Lynda Wilcox, who was judged not to be impartial and objective in managing the staff complaints process against Cllrs Harrison and Harvey. Lynda Wilcox was acting as stand-in Clerk to LTC and is the Chief Executive of Herefordshire Council of Local Councils. (She is also the wife of Cllr Brian Wilcox, Conservative Councillor and Chairman of Herefordshire Council, but that's another story...)
 
Minutes of that Standing Committee meeting were presented by Annette Crowe to Full Council on 28 January which omitted the Standing Committee resolution dispensing with Lynda Wilcox (who also wrote the minutes). Annette Crowe presented them as an accurate record, knowing them to be incomplete and misleading.
 
A verbal report was also made by Mayor Annette Crowe to LTC Full Council on 19 January, stating that it had been agreed by Standing Committee that Full Council would henceforth be handling the staff grievances (not Standing Committee). No such discussion took place. Annette Crowe actively misled Ledbury Town Council.
 
At the meeting of 25 February Full Council, Cllr Maria Mackness asked why the minutes of Standing Committee were ‘incomplete’. Mayor Crowe refused to discuss the matter and ordered Cllr Mackness to move on. Minutes of that Full Council meeting  (25 Feb) written by Karen Mitchell, presented on 7 April, omitted Cllr Mackness’s important question. Councillors challenged the accuracy of these minutes (because they were incomplete), and were told by the Clerk that accuracy could only be discussed of what was written, not what had been left out.
 
Mrs Wilcox clerked the Extraordinary Full Council Meeting (5 May) to consider ‘sanctions’ against Cllrs Harrison and Harvey.
 
Cllr Harrison questioned why Full Council was being asked to determine the  sanctions against them for bullying, when there had been a council resolution on 19 January which said that the Grievance Panel itself should set the sanctions. Lynda Wilcox said the process was within the terms of reference agreed, and LTC was acting correctly. (It was not).
 
Minutes presented at LTC council meeting 12 May, omitted Cllr Harrison’s important question: again, discussion of the accuracy of minutes was only allowed for what was written, not was left out.
 
Annette Crowe misled councillors on 19 January by not stating that Standing Committee had resolved not to use Lynda Wilcox henceforth because she was prejudiced and compromised.
 
Minutes have been systematically falsified to conceal this fact by Lynda Wilcox, and presented as accurate by Annette Crowe, Mayor.
 
Council took decisions concerning the prosecution of the grievance process which were contrary to council resolutions, unlawful in respect of the provisions of the Localism Act 2011, and outside of ACAS guidelines pertaining to grievance procedures.
 
Had they been provided with a true and accurate record, it most unlikely this process would have unfolded in the way it did.
 

[iii] Cllrs Harrison and Harvey have been found guilty of bullying, harassment and intimidation of the Clerk and Deputy Clerk of Ledbury Town Council. The evidence for this is subject to independent review by the Monitoring Officer of Herefordshire Council so cannot be discussed in detail at this point, but it will soon be in the public arena. Both councillors deny any wrong-doing and contend that they have been systematically blocked from investigating potential financial irregularities, breaches of procedure, lack of staff impartiality, and political conspiracy. 
 

[iv] As an example, during the discussion of the motion to report Cllrs Harvey and Warmington to Herefordshire Council for misconduct, Cllr Harrison attempted to say a few words in their defense (at 7’41” in the film clip). He was stopped by Mayor Debbie Baker. In contrast a few minutes earlier, Cllr Martin Eager (at 4’38”) read out a prewritten statement denouncing Cllr Harvey which had nothing to do with the motion under discussion but was allowed to speak unhindered.
 
Such two-sided treatment is a regular feature of LTC debate: if you agree with the ‘establishment’ you can speak, if not, you are silenced.
 

[v] The most outlandish recent example of this concerns the procedure LTC used to prosecute the grievance complaints against Cllrs Harrison and Harvey. In short, LTC should have referred the complaint to Herefordshire Council for review by the Monitoring Officer. Even if it had been handled in-house, the matter should have been dealt with by the Standing Committee according to Standing Orders. Instead it was given to the 16 councillors who constitute the Full Council. The reason for these hastily cobbled together changes were to load the dice against an innocent verdict by recruiting about a dozen politically hostile councillors into the process: precisely the reason why code of conduct complaints should properly be considered by the Monitoring Officer.
 

[vi] Having got itself into a mess with the grievance process against Cllrs Harrison and Harvey, LTC has twice voted for resolutions which it then has ignored because they would have got in the way of its objective to deliver a guilty verdict. 

In politics, there are, very occasionally, moments of such astonishing awfulness and toe-curling wretchedness, that you wish for time to stop. It matters little that you don’t like the person who is speaking, or disagree with what they say. To watch a person publicly humiliate themselves is a truly disturbing experience; but when they show no inkling of their self-inflicted abasement, when they appear to lack any insight or better judgement, the unfolding social horror provokes an odd feeling of compassion and concern for their plight. Such was Annette Crowe’s farewell Mayoral address at last week’s (12 May 2016) Annual Ledbury Town Council meeting.
 
Who can watch Tony Blair’s cringe-making speech to the Women’s Institute conference in 2000, amid the slow hand-clapping, without feeling an urge to run to the stage and whisper quietly in his ear: ‘it’d be better to leave now Tony, just go’? Tory leader William Hague later smashed the point home: "It is the mark of an out of touch prime minister that you don't know why you're out of touch".
 
Outgoing mayor Annette Crowe displayed that same brazen confidence that comes of arrogance and ignorance. In her valedictory speech, she launched a ferocious attack on her newly acquired political enemies, principally Cllr Liz Harvey. All gone were the conventional niceties of political diplomacy, of focusing on achievements and offering heartfelt thanks to the people of the town for their support. What should have been a dignified vote of gratitude turned into a diatribe of jaw-dropping poison and malice.
 
Looking out of the Community Centre windows at the blossoming May trees, at a cat jumping onto a window sill, at laughing couples walking hand in hand along Lawnside Road, I was reminded that the world is a joyful place of simple pleasures. Life goes on, the seasons turn. Returning to Mrs Crowe’s speech, it was if that beautiful scene outside was being doused in petrol and burned to its skeletal outlines. Whatever was she thinking?
 
As she unfurled her paean of hate, there came on her face a smirk of satisfaction, almost of sadistic pleasure. From the audience of seventy came many cries of “shame” and “cheap”, amid hissing and booing. It must have been a surprise to her that this, her moment of vengeful triumph, the ‘naming and shaming’ that she had promised around the town, aroused not so much admiration but sickened revulsion.
 
There was a time when I liked Annette and counted her as a friend. Despite the rough edges, I used to think she was at heart a kind, sensitive person. This may account for that rogue pang of sympathy I felt.  That she had so ill-judged the mood of the audience, of the occasion, of the ethics and decorum that were demanded of her, provoked a brief urge to still her voice and lead her away from temptation.
 
It passed. The sheer corrosive nastiness of her words were like bleach to the collective conscience in that room. People shuffled out at the end of the meeting, aghast and traumatised. As she tossed her long blond locks this way and that, turned her pages gleefully and stared shamelessly at the audience, what we saw last Thursday was a Donald Trump-like figure: boastful, sure-footed, abusive and proud of the spotlight, a narcissist. Here was yet another Ledbury Town Councillor, an ex-Mayor who had turned bad. How many more must there be before sanity returns to this town? Is that gold-plated Mayoral chain cursed?
 
Here is the video of her speech.

Two town councillors are about to be ‘named and shamed’ for bullying and harassment by Ledbury Town Council. Their crime is to ask questions and challenge irregular practice in the administration of the Council.

These two councillors - Liz Harvey and Andrew Harrison - have been themselves hounded by the Council and put through an illegal kangaroo court to find them guilty. The Chief Legal (Monitoring) Officer at Herefordshire Council has repeatedly requested that LTC desist from its illegal process, citing the Localism Act 2011 to justify her position.

This evening at the Community Hall at 7.30 (opposite the swimming pool), the Council holds its Annual Town Meeting where the next Mayor will be chosen. In this forum, the current mayor, Annette Crowe, has let it be known that Liz and Drew will be publicly castigated and is hoping that as many people as possible will come along to witness the spectacle.

Annette Crowe has worked hard for the town over the years, but in this, she has acted with very poor judgement in shoring up council incompetence, mismanagement and financial profligacy. 

According to Mrs Crowe, council staff have threatened Ledbury Town Council with legal action if they did not find against Cllrs Harrison and Harvey. The result has been a disgraceful miscarriage of justice, which may itself lead to the Council being sued for defamation and harassment.

Last week, LTC voted to write to all local organisations and groups denouncing the two councillors. Again the Monitoring Officer has warned them strongly not to do this until she has concluded her own independent investigation into all the circumstances of this affair, including multiple breaches of the Councillor Code of Conduct by the Mayor and two thirds of the Council. 

Does Ledbury Town Council ever listen to sound advice? 

Liz Harvey has written to friends in the town and says: 

"A fortnight ago, at the annual town meeting I made a public statement regarding what I believe to be serious maladministration in Ledbury Town Council (see attached along with a statement I have prepared for tomorrow). Areas of concern include the handling of public money, the non-declaration of interests in planning matters and the withholding of information from councillors and from members of the original Neighbourhood Plan.

In response to the questions I and others have asked, blocking action have been taken by those involved to avoid acknowledgement and to prevent correction of these matters.

At [tonight's] meeting it seems likely that councillors intend to predetermine the outcome of independent investigations currently commissioned by the solicitor to Herefordshire Council. Instead, it is proposed to ban me and another respected and trustworthy councillor from participating in council business for at least 12 months.

This public ‘shaming’ is intended to intimidate us and to stop us from asking questions in the public interest.

This is further illegal action which will put public money at risk and will damage both personal and corporate reputations.

Councillors have been repeatedly requested by one of the UK’s leading barristers and by the county council’s solicitor to desist from this course of action, to no effect.

I would be most grateful if you can make time to attend this meeting and to witness the debate for yourself.”

Liz and Drew are intending to read out personal statements explaining how they have been so grievously treated; it is likely that they will have to wait until the meeting is concluded before this can happen; they hope that by showing dignity and forbearance in the face of such vindictive and politically conspiratorial behaviour, local residents will gain an insight into the truly awful culture of Ledbury Town Council.

 
News editors around the world are grappling with abuse and trolling in their online comment forums. These discussion threads that sit beneath a news story or opinion piece, have increasingly become places for insulting, threatening and hateful language. So serious has the problem become that some publications have shut down comments altogether.
 
Herefordshire’s local media boss takes a more relaxed view, believing that insulting language is just part of the ‘everyday knockabout’, what you would expect ‘in the pub, on the doorstep, in life.’  Peter John, is the Midlands Regional Editor for Newsquest newspapers. He oversees many local titles such as the Worcester Evening News, the Hereford Times and the Ledbury Reporter/Malvern Gazette.
 
In the wake of Liz Harvey’s sensationalist shaming by the Reporter over ‘bunting-gate’, there was a predictable blowback in social media. Enraged readers vented their feelings on Facebook and newspaper discussion threads, including The Reporter’s. I complained about a comment on their web site as it clearly violated the rules: ‘Who voted for this brain dead unpatriotic woman?’ asked “EddyR”. Newsquest’s terms and conditions say that you must not ‘post anything that is false, abusive or malicious.’
 
I was surprised to get a response from busy Mr John himself. He said: ‘While the comment is harsh, it does not seem to me to be so personally offensive that it goes beyond the bounds of the normal knockabout, hyperbolic statements you would expect in web comments. It also seems to me that the person’s right to free speech to vent their anger trumps a politician’s sensitivities.’
 
We exchanged several emails on the bounds of acceptable language, free speech, and on the destructive impact of spiteful name-calling. I also suggested that news editors should  uphold the same standards of civilised debate within their online comments forums as they do in their reporting and printed letters pages. Mr John eventually lost patience with me or ran out of time, and said he wasn’t going to read my final email. He said I was ranting. Judge for yourself: you can review the exchange here.
 
Midlands Newsquest seems to be running against the tide of informed editorial opinion on this matter. Read The Guardian’s penetrating report: The Dark Side of Guardian Comments and Tariq Moosa’s piece: Comments sections are poison: Handle with care. Martin Belam writes a good piece too in respected online portal, the Media Briefing: It’s tough below the line: the paradox of reader comments
 
Anyone patient enough to let Newsquest’s online news pages load amid the slow avalanche of banner advertising and video content, can read routinely degrading, prejudiced, sometimes hateful comment. Certain news stories are predictably prone: travellers and gypsies, Muslims and mosques, flags and other nationalist paraphernalia. In Newsquest’s Midlands newspaper ‘stable’ (an appropriate term), the brakes are off. It’s ok to call people retards, tell Muslims to get back to North Africa, make references to Zyklon B gas, and say ‘beware of gypsies everyone. they are camped near the Avoncroft museum, so lock it up or loose (sic) it.’ And of course, calling local politicians ‘brain-dead’. Apologies for this language by the way. 
 
So what effect does this brutal and ethically debased environment have? Certainly, intelligent and reasonable voices are often deterred from participating. Comments threads become skewed in favour of right-wing, loutish opinion. Like our friend EddyR, most of these contributors don’t have the courage to post under their real names. In cyber-discussion, the Yahoos are upon us.  
 
There is a more insidious effect. Rude and abusive comments alter people’s perceptions of information itself. Strongly negative online behaviour seems to harmfully distort our reading of otherwise balanced and reasoned editorial material. The downside of a situation or issue is accentuated, perceived risks and damage are heightened, while positive aspects and benefits are attenuated. The researchers who observed this, Anderson, Brossard et al (2013), called it the ‘nasty effect’. One of the study authors Dietram Scheufele said the modern media environment is like "reading the news article in the middle of the town square with people screaming in my ear what I should believe about it". An abusive environment isn’t just unpleasant; it dumbs down debate and actively promotes ignorance.
 
Not just socially pernicious, online abuse is bad for business too. In an article for Journalism.co.uk, Alastair Reid argues that ‘creating a positive environment for community and engagement to flourish gives readers a reason to come back and drives traffic, a factor that the website can use to attract commercial partners.” There is good evidence which suggests that negativity in forums is a turn-off for readers: who wouldn’t be repelled?

"It's not a great advert, if you will, for readers or web users who enjoy participating on other sites if we don't make it as welcoming as possible for them as well," said Laura Oliver, the Guardian’s Community Manager. Why, even the British National Party impose a strict code on commenters: “we have our own brand, our own image” they say. “If your post is not in keeping with our objectives or could damage our image, then your comment will be moderated or rejected.”
 
Derogatory online behaviour is not value-neutral, nor is it conducive to informed public debate. For the first time in history, the nasty minority have a mass-media platform to vent their rage and prejudices. They occupy a disproportionate amount of space. The hate fuelled views of these flotsam and jetsam are not representative of society nor should they have any place in respectable media sources. It is not your right to hurl insults at anyone you think you don't like.
 
Peter John says that such discourse is par for the course, down at the pub or in the street. He is utterly wrong. Unless you are very drunk, politically unhinged or mentally deranged you simply don’t abuse people to their faces the way some of Newsquest’s commenters are allowed to do; that’s unless you are cruising for a punch on the nose. Even if you were, that doesn’t mean that such behaviour is acceptable in a family publication that purports to offer a balanced and responsible news service.
 
If you’ve got something to say, do as the BNP helpfully suggest and don’t make sweeping generalisations but do “offer a well-reasoned critique that helps others understand the problem, together with what you think the answer is.”
 
It comes to something when you have to invoke one of Britain’s most hateful organisations to persuade an experienced news editor to rein in his attack trolls and start behaving himself.
 
He won’t of course. He's old school. Is it any wonder that journalists, along with bankers and politicians are the least trusted professions in Britain?

Flushed with the success of "Bunting-gate", the Ledbury Reporter has pressed the marketing advantage and launched a fun point of sale promotion. For each copy of the Reporter bought, lucky customers are rewarded with a bag of Tesco jam doughnuts. 

Throwing health concerns to the wind, regional editor of Midlands Newsquest Peter John said: 'This is a great chance for Reporter readers to remember just how good Tesco's doughnuts are.

'People seem to have got out of the habit of buying their weekly doughnuts, even though they are still super-tempting and sweet as ever. It could be the internet that's hitting sales. We hope with a little help from the Reporter's increasing number of readers, that the Tesco doughnut line will be able to get back on its feet. It would be a tragedy to lose this traditional doughy favourite. 

​Mr John added, 'Go on. You know you love them!

Doughnut sales have been falling steadily according to Retail Price Monthly. Health concerns, changing habits and a general belief in the truth is thought to lie behind the decline, according to experts. 

Editors' note: this piece contains flagrant disinformation, made-up comments and a heavily slanted presentation of the facts. Believe nothing you read. 

Local reporter Gary Bills-Geddes must be thrilled that his bunting story hit the populist jackpot - and made the national tabloid press into the bargain. It's not often a part-time weekly newspaper journalist breaks a story which ends up in the Daily Mail. Somebody's got to do it I guess. Mark Twain said 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story'.
 
That Gary deliberately slanted his story for maximum impact is clear. It's what journalists do. Did he and his colleagues though really intend to unleash a true patriots versus foreigners, us and them crusade against dissident town and county councillor Liz Harvey?
 
Comparing Liz Harvey's words with the way it was reported reveals significant discrepancies. Other elements of the story from the brief Town Council discussion were also left out.
 
In the Ledbury Reporter's extensive coverage, five times the word "foreign" was used in the front page splash and related features, even though Liz Harvey did not utter that word once in her brief address to Ledbury Town Council. This is what Mr Bills-Geddes said in the opening sentence of the story: 'A councillor has voted against red, white and blue... because she fears it will upset foreign visitors.' In a photo caption of Bob Barnes the paper said:  'Cllr Liz Harvey claims the patriotic colours could 'unsettle' foreign visitors to the town.' In an editorial, it twice uses the phrase 'unsettle foreign visitors'. There is a What You Say piece; this too opens with the 'unsettling foreign visitors' phrase.
 
Why did the Reporter keep repeating that phrase 'foreign visitors'? Was it designed as a dog whistle to whip up chauvinistic, even racist sentiments?
 
It worked. Small wonder that the baying mob on Voice of Ledbury said that 'foreign visitors' can go jog on, or less polite words to that effect. The flotsam and jetsam of the fascist fringe are so outraged, they plan to demonstrate in Ledbury.
 
When a 'social media frenzy' (the Reporter's words) takes place, it's advisable to check the evidence. What Cllr Harvey actually said was: 'There were quite a few poets who came from Ireland who were on the [Poetry Festival] programme. They were really quite unnerved by the red white and blue and actually wondered whether they’d walked into a sort of National Front area because they were used to that in Ireland.'
 
She went on: 'I like the idea of bunting but ... it might be an opportunity to get some brightly coloured bunting that would look lovely in the middle of town but wouldn’t make people unsettled who come here as visitors'. She was responding to a suggestion from Mayor Annette Crowe that the union jack bunting be left up all summer.
 
From these off the cuff remarks, clearly unacceptable in these days of intolerant jingoism, Liz Harvey has been turned into a right wing hate figure, pilloried and threatened online, and now, outrageously according to Mrs Crowe, the cause of the potential fascist demonstration.
 
The Ledbury Reporter was also very selective in its commentary of the ensuing Council discussion. Cllr Tony Bradford, who normally gets full coverage, spoke out strongly against buying bunting for the Queen and said the money should be spent making a donation to the Ledbury Food Bank. At the other end of the argument, Cllr Jayne Roberts made what appeared to be a typically incoherent racist-xenophobic comment: 'Unfortunately', she said, 'the Moslems that come and visit us, the Irish that come and visit us... I'm afraid, it's our Queen...' When the vote came to buy red, white and blue bunting, seven councillors either voted against or abstained, including the Deputy Mayor, Keith Francis. This was over a third of the Council.
 
None of these 'facts' were reported, just Liz Harvey's words and vote. So much for balanced reporting.
 
By the time the tabloids had the story, it had been mangled into a loonie left councillor wanting to 'BAN' the flag for the Queen's birthday. A flower seller and barman, quite clearly fictional creations, were quoted in the piece.
 
One of the few balanced reactions to this hot-air balloon of political puff came from a contributor to the Facebook 'Voice of Ledbury' discussion (itself instigated by Mr Bills-Geddes). He said:
 
'I cannot believe the negativity directed toward one person who said so little, based upon a few published words from one person who should have known better.
 
'I believe that Gary Bills has caused quite the little race-storm, resulting in a public witch-hint against Cllr Harvey by not just writing an article so everyone could read what she said, but also publishing her picture, so everyone could now SEE who said it. Well done. Great job.

'Being a journalist (and I'm guessing a fairly intelligent person), I am convinced that he must have known that the reaction to his article would end like it has - with VOL going all "if they don't like it here they should just go home" and all that uneducated garbage. To me, this is really bad form.

'Whilst I understand that Cllr Harvey may possibly regret saying what she did, it was only (as I understand it) in reaction to a couple of Irish visitors, who inquired as to the nature of the blue/white/red coloured flags.

'Now, in certain parts of Ireland those colours are considered pretty political, so I can totally understand why they asked, and why she put it to the council.'
 
This gentleman might understand why, in a democratic country, people are permitted to put alternative points of view, but clearly our friends in the media do not.
 
We have been warned. When it comes to the flag, Liz Harvey is correct: it is indubitably used as a symbol of far right resistance.  It also seems these days that we may not question the wisdom of patriotic-nationalist imagery festooning our streets on pain of a reactionary backlash, led by the local paper.
 
You keep your mouth shut and your head down. Here's to the future! To democracy and free-speech! Not.  
 

What was that we were saying about Ledbury, draped in nationalist insignia all summer long, could be mistaken for a centre of far-right activism?
 
It seems our local fascist chapter, the Hereford Patriots is organising a rumble in Ledbury on 21 May. On their special Facebook Group, they say it's a: 'demonstration to demand that Cllr Liz Harvey be sacked for her anti-British, politically correct, offensive comments. Various groups attending. All welcome'. It's been advertised nationally throughout far-right networks. Lots of nice-sounding people are coming to say hello. Groups so far who have rsvp'd include the Midlands Infidels, South Coast Resistance, Pie and Mash Squad ("it's going to be a hoot"), March for England, UK Casuals ("30 game lads waiting"), London Patriots, North East Patriots, South West Infidels, Anti-anti-fascist network. "Real handy crew they are aswell" according to Mr Paul Barber commenting on Facebook.
 
The flag-waving, queen-loving, beer-swilling true patriots are now uniting under a clever little social media codeword: #5W. It stands for Five Words: We Go Where We Want. They say they are 'no longer taking it'.
 
So much for those fabled British values of tolerance, free-speech and respect for others, the Hereford 'patriots' announce: 'Lefties in positions of power who either demand that refugees are put before our people for housing, or who openly attack British ways or patriotism ought to know that we wont (sic) stand for your nonsense and you are going to draw the herd to your town/city'.
 
Herd is a good word for them to use about themselves. It means a collection of animals. They will no doubt be warmly received by some of Ledbury's indigenous racists, right-wingers and raging red-necks.

Will the local 'game lads' who threatened to fire-bomb the half Hungarian family out of the Horsehoe Pub a few years ago because they were flying the Hungarian flag be laying on lashings of half-time lemonade and sandwiches for all their pale-skinned chums?


From Ledbury Town Council a few councillors might also be swelling with patriotic pride as the parade of fluttering red, white and blue flags waves gaily down the Homend in the Spring sunshine. What a delightful tribute to our dear old Monarch and all she stands for. Well done Bob Barnes and Annette Crowe for your inspiring rallying cry last week swaddling yourselves in the Union Jack, sterling work.
 
No article about sincerely felt anti-foreigner sentiment could be complete without nodding in the direction of Cllr Jayne Roberts, veteran Ledbury Town Councillor and ex-Mayor.
 
Contributing at the end of the Council bunting debate (but unreported of course in the Ledbury Reporter) she said: 'Unfortunately, the Moslems who come to visit us, the Irish who come to visit us, I'm afraid, it's our queen'. She didn't get as far as explaining what was unfortunate, apart presumably from being Moslem or Irish.
 
Well known for her intolerance of "the pickers" as she refers to seasonal agricultural workers, Mrs Roberts the other summer had a cheery experience on her way to the office.
 
'Ha ha haygrove artic in hedge at redmarley this morning, wonder what the driver was doing this time?', she quipped on Facebook's Voice of Ledbury (where else?). 'Could it be texting, phoning or eating? this is the second time since xmas that an artic has decided to lie down in the hedge.'
 
While most reasonable people would have stopped to offer assistance and made sure there were no injuries, Mrs Roberts was happy to drive on mirthfully. When she got to work she commented:

'Not surprised as these foreign drivers should not be on our roads as they have no idea how to drive in this country'. What a lovely sentiment.
 
So when all the brave lads arrive in Ledbury, buoyed up with their #5W slogans, they won't be all alone. There will be at least a few people who will welcome their celebration of xenophobic pride. 

When I opened up my copy of the latest Ledbury Reporter and caught site of the front page, I was fortunately at home and able to run to the sink to empty the excessive saliva that had begun pooling in my mouth. While I managed to interrupt an actual attack of sickness, the lingering feeling of queasiness has persisted off and on for several days, every time in fact when I glance at those two faces grinning fatuously like a pair of Britain First supporters.

When every rational line of argument is spent, when you are facing political oblivion or pressure to own up to wrongdoing, when the game is up, there's only one thing for it. Bunting. You know that things have reached the pits when politicians wrap themselves in the flag.
 
Ertswhile enemies now best Council buddies it seems, the two laughing mayors, Mr Barnes and Mrs Crowe, have gone better than this: they have literally swagged and festooned themselves in Union Jacks. If you look carefully on the left side of the picture, you will see that Bob Barnes has got his right hand raised in a diagonal posture which for all the world looks like a fascist salute.  Or is it a raised fist or the Red Hand of Ulster? The mind boggles. Thank god the hand is cropped so we are spared the full horror of the image.
 
Flags are potent symbols. They mean lots of things. They are expressions of pride, as when Mo Farrah won his gold at the London Olympics, or of national celebration for the Queen's jubilee, or of sorrow for the fallen: who can forget the heartbreaking site of a sea of tiny flags at the Normandy commemoration each one representing a life lost in the fight against Nazism?

Or they can be objects of hatred. In Britain, the Union Jack, and more particularly the St George Cross have assumed ugly connotations over the years, unfairly so perhaps. Throughout my youth travelling to and from school in grimy Birmingham, the sight of red, white and blue flags, along with skin-head haircuts provoked in us grammar school boys, a shudder of fear and revulsion. It was the era of the Pub Bombings, and being a catholic school, we were evacuated with bomb threats on a weekly basis, as well as being targets for violence and abuse. At the Longbridge car factory against a back-drop of Union Jacks, there were terrifying mock hangings of Irish men. Anti-Irish hatred was as palpable then as anti-Muslim hatred is now. The flag had been indelibly tainted by the National Front, by extremist politics, by fascism. And I admit, those associations still linger in my mind. The lunatic right continues to appropriate the flag while menacing shoppers on Saturday afternoons and deliberately terrorising BME communities. Across the water, last summer Belfast erupted over the disputed right to fly the Union Jack over City Hall.

I have been driven up the Shankhill Road and visited North Belfast and seen the eerie sight of kirbstones painted red, white and blue, bunting and tattered flags fluttering sadly in the drizzle. In these pitifully deprived neighbourhoods, families save their pennies to have their houses painted from top to bottom as Union Jacks. You'll see a few adolescent boys kicking a can around in the broken glass, perhaps a scrawny dog wandering idly. In such benighted working class communities, tokens of patriotism, unionism, and loyalism, for they are one, are worn defiantly by people against the encroachment of enlightened, secular values, against integration and outsiders, vouchsafed against the decades of hurt and bitterness which has soured their hearts. Something of the same is witnessed in the Republican areas, although without quite the visceral xenophobia of the Loyalist districts.
 
So when Irish visitors, or people from multicultural London or Birmingham, or some black people whose lives have been ravaged by racist thugs brandishing Union flags, when they visit a quaint country town, predominantly a white British town, and see it decked in a profusion of red, white and blue for no apparent reason, they do feel a cultural jolt, a political charge, as do I. It's probably wrong, but there it is. You can't deny your gut instincts. The flag is still controversial. It means something. Is it, as those Irish poets asked, a political statement? Is this a centre for right-wing extremism? They could be forgiven for enquiring, as some of the baying mob against Liz Harvey are undoubtedly motivated by those views. Some of those loud voices on Voice of Ledbury are known right-wing agitators. Perhaps there are one or two of them in Ledbury Town Council judging by the rancid comments of some councillors in recent years.
 
Annette Crowe is outraged at the suggestion that the crass image on the front of the local paper might be seen as a nod to the far right. She asks: 'Any connotation like that, about our town; it's unacceptable. It puts the town in a bad light. Just putting the comments out there is unacceptable.' Is she either extremely naive or is this just more political hay-making, another gambit to get her name in the paper yet again? Is that look of defiant glee genuinely about intense patriotic sentiment or the prosecution of tawdry political opportunism? I hadn't realised that we had disappeared down a worm-hole and wound up in North Korea, where free thought, much less a stated opinion is forbidden.

The Daily Express and Mail, themselves proud fascist sympathisers in the 1930s and still raging against anyone left of Mrs Thatcher, claimed Liz Harvey wanted to 'BAN (their caps) the Union Flag.' Did she really? See the transcript of exactly what she said in the Council meeting here.  More worrying is the fact that Annette Crowe appears keen to ban real concerns people might have about the far right and its imagery permeating our town. Even the mention of it is now 'unacceptable' in Mrs Crowe's dubious judgement.

The question for Mr Barnes and Mrs Crowe is why they would ever think that staring out provocatively draped in rampant nationalist insignia could ever be a good thing, except on a day of national celebration. Even then, good taste surely demands that there are limits. A few 'true patriots' no doubt will be delighted. Most reasonable people will think them tastelessly vulgar. Others with longer memories, finer political sensibilities or first-hand experience of the corrosive effects of nationalist hatred will be disturbed, even worried. 
 
My view, and it's not worth much, is that by all means we should put out the flags and swathe the town in bunting for the old Queen's birthday and 1916 commemoration. Let there be lots of red, white and blue, but there should also, properly be a healthy dose of Commonwealth colour. The 56 nations of the Commonwealth love Elizabeth as much as the Brits; they fought in the First and Second World Wars, one million seven hundred thousand men and women died. Does their contribution, and memory count for nothing in Ledbury?
 
What a kind gesture it would be both to the monarch, and to our friends overseas, that Ledbury celebrates its place in the world and shows that we are not a narrow-minded little town full of patriotic zealots.
 
To Mr B and Mrs C, they should remember Samuel Johnson's words: patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Note: please no comments pulling me up on my use of the Union Jack, rather than the supposedly correct 'Union Flag'. In Britain, it's known universally as the Union Jack whatever the pedantic patriots  say.

News that planning permission has been granted to predatory housing developer Gladman Developments to build 321 houses on green fields to the south of Ledbury has been greeted with dismay and disbelief in the town.

Now a precedent has been set to build beyond Ledbury's southern by-pass, there's nothing to stop other schemes also being given the go-ahead. Already, Bovis has proposed a 625 house estate on land adjoining the Gloucester Road roundabout, up the hill from the Gladman scheme. 

Both of these developments are in addition to the 600 houses proposed in the Council's Core Strategy for north of the viaduct and the 100 houses already granted permission on the Cricket field by the Full Pitcher. 

Ledbury is well on its way to another two thousand houses, despite the Core Strategy proposing only 800 units for the town up to 2030.  

Ledbury Ward Councillor today issued a stinging rebuke for Ledbury Town Council for delaying progress on the Neighbourhood Plan. She said:

"This is a very concerning decision. It makes a nonsense of the effort we have all gone to in shaping the county council’s planning policies for Ledbury and demonstrates the damage that the Town Council has done to the town in dragging its heels for so long on the Neighbourhood Plan.

"There is nothing good about the Gladman development as far as I’m concerned. It detracts from the functionality of our bypass, makes it difficult and dangerous for young people to get to school and to sports facilities on foot and by bike from the site, it damages our landscape setting, it is the first development to actually reduce our sustainability as a community, it brings with it no employment land and it delivers us absolutely nothing in terms of community facilities.

The likelihood is that government changes to the definition of ‘affordable housing’ will mean that only a fraction of the homes which eventually get built will be truly affordable for local people; and the minimum build standards required by council policies mean that the houses will be much more expensive to live in and to heat than need be the case.

In addition it will call into doubt whether the cricket pitch site ever comes forward for development, which in turn will reduce the likelihood that a new cricket facility is built in the town.

I hope the councillors who have deliberately hampered the progress of the Neighbourhood Plan since its inception and have most recently led the scheme to pull the plug on it altogether feel proud of themselves. These councillors have acted selfishly and through their actions have denied the community a voice on the future for Ledbury. In doing so, they have rendered the Neighbourhood Plan all but irrelevant.

I was ashamed to be asked to defend these councillors’ actions to the inspector in the appeal hearing. Dissolving the Neighbourhood Plan working group was a gift to Gladmans. The timing could not have been better for Gladmans and worse for Ledbury.

What many people don’t seem to realise is that the Gladman development will be in addition to the viaduct site, not instead of it. Neither will it reduce in any way the number of houses to be built to the north. Both this sites will come forward before the Neighbourhood Plan is able to wield any influence. It will be down to ward members working with planners to get the best outcomes for the town now.

Heaven only knows what was in the mind of the Mayor when she sanctioned a call for further development sites throughout the town only last month at a cost of a further unbudgeted £5,000 on the Neighbourhood Plan account. How much more development does Cllr Crowe want to see here in Ledbury?

The most ironic part of all this is that these two huge developments will both be approved ahead of the introduction of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – the government’s new local development tax … so the Town Council won’t get a penny of CIL money from either of these developments … which formed such a large part of their motivation for undertaking Neighbourhood Planning in the first place.

​I hope these councillors see the sense of putting aside their petty interests and small town politics. Ledbury is in peril and I would hope that everyone who cares about the town will start to work for our collective good."
​