South Ayrshire Council slammed for day of shame as MSP says residents 'deserve better'
Siobhian Brown hit out at the spectacle which took place in County Buildings this morning.
South Ayrshire Council has humiliated itself on the public stage and left residents "dismayed and disillusioned," according to one MSP.
Siobhian Brown, herself a former councillor with the local authority, slammed this morning's antics at County Buildings which led to Provost Iain Campbell quitting during remarkable exchanges.
A day of high drama also saw the council's depute leader, Bob Pollock, demoted during a vote by members - and leader Martin Dowey was forced to fall on his own sword just hours later.
It leaves the council rudderless with three of its main positions now unfilled.
Members of the public witnessed today's key meeting descend into chaos when one councillor, taking part in the session remotely, was heard over a microphone referring to someone as a "wee c**t".
That sparked a furious reaction from the Provost who then walked off the job, slamming the behaviour of "despicable people whose egos are better than their ability."
And Ms Brown says the people of South Ayrshire deserve better.
She hit out: "At a time when leadership should be grounded in honesty and accountability, what we witnessed was anything but. Integrity in public office matters.
"Even more disturbing was the internal chaos on display: the Conservative group turning on their own Depute Leader, rather than upholding public confidence or serving the people who elected them. What's clear from today's events is the sheer desperation of the Tory leadership to hold onto power at all costs, no matter the damage to public trust, staff morale, or the reputation of the council itself.
"The chaos reached a boiling point when Provost Iain Campbell resigned at the end of the meeting, stating he'd had enough of the backstabbing and infighting. This only highlights the utter dysfunction within the Conservative group, whose internal conflicts seem to take precedence over the needs of the public.
"This meeting, broadcast live for the public to witness, was a spectacle and a shameful misuse of council time and taxpayer money. Residents tuned in expecting clarity. What they got was self-interest, infighting, and a complete lack of leadership.
"The people of South Ayrshire deserve better than this, they deserve representatives who put public service before personal survival."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
3 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
MP urges Government to protect live music venues from new neighbours' complaints
Dame Caroline Dinenage has proposed letting decision-makers take into account existing properties, when they grant or refuse permission for new projects. The Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee chairwoman warned that 'live music's in crisis, the Government needs to be listening' as she proposed a new clause to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Dame Caroline, the Conservative MP for Gosport, told the Commons: 'It isn't about venues versus developers. 'It's about making sure we have a balance right between building enough good homes and making sure the places we're building keep the things that make life worth living. 'In Westminster and our constituencies, everyone agrees that our high streets have been in decline, so it's vitally important that we protect the places that are special to us, our constituents and our communities, the places that provide a platform for our creators and our world-beating creative industries where we can make memories, celebrate and have fun.' Dame Caroline called on the Government to let town halls and ministers rule on plans 'subject to such conditions that would promote the integration of the proposed development of land with any existing use of land, including such conditions as may be necessary to mitigate the impact of noise on the proposed development'. A similar principle already exists in national planning rules, known as the National Planning Policy Framework, to ease pressure on existing businesses which 'should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result' of newer builds. But the Music Venue Trust's annual report last year warned that, in 2023, 22.4% of venues closed as a result of 'operational issues', compared with 42.1% of its members reporting 'financial issues'. The Trust identified noise abatement orders or other neighbour disputes as being among the issues which have resulted in permanent closures. 'Consistent application of the 'agent of change' principles will de-risk and speed up planning and development,' Dame Caroline told MPs, and added that her proposal was 'good for venues' and 'good for developers and new neighbours'. She said the law change could help authorities stop 'expensive and often pointless bun fights' when neighbours complain about noise. She continued: 'It'll make sure the needs of an existing cultural venue are considered from the start and it will save developers from late-stage objections and lengthy expensive legal disputes down the line.' Dame Caroline said music venues 'are the foundation of our world-beating creative industries and also very important for our local communities', and that they had been placed 'under threat, including from our disruptive planning system and our onerous licensing regime'. The Commons select committee recommended last year that the 'agent of change' principle should be put on a statutory footing, to protect grassroots music venues.
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
The Scottish Tory who has perfected the art of 'vice-signalling'
I believe Fraser, like myself, is straight. Being straight, I tend to leave it to the LGBT community to decide what's homophobic. Fraser, however, seems to believe that including trans people is a homophobic act. It rather bewildered Scotland's LGBT community. Certainly, when I asked friends who are gay - ranging in age from 25 to 82 - they were mystified by Fraser suddenly becoming a warrior against homophobia. In 2014, when the Scottish Parliament voted for gay marriage, Fraser was one of just 18 MSPs opposed. Last year, whilst running for leadership of the Scottish Tory Party, Fraser said he's still opposed to gay marriage. It's due to his religious beliefs, apparently. Still, none of this stopped him shooting his gob off in a thoroughly attention-seeking fashion which seemed designed to both offend and be unnecessarily cruel. Which is vice-signalling in a nutshell. Though maybe Fraser had different conversations than I with his own gay friends that justified his actions? Anas Sarwar, realising that nothing matters so much as thirsting to be the centre of attention, got in on the vice-signalling act. He accused John Swinney of running a 'disgraceful' campaign. That's the same John Swinney who defended Sarwar when Nigel Farage's Reform unleashed 'racist' attack adverts against him. Now clearly, nobody needs to be thanked for calling out bigotry, but it's pretty difficult to see how Swinney ran a disgraceful campaign whilst simultaneously having Sarwar's back. Perhaps, being raised rich and well-connected insulates Sarwar from silly notions like decency and courtesy? Evidently, Scottish MSPs are mere minnows compared to the King and the Kong of vice-signalling: the politicians of London and Washington. Reform's newest MP Sarah Pochin wasted no time getting straight to vice-signalling by resurrecting the 'ban the burqa' culture war. Kemi Badenoch clearly felt left out of the cruelty derby so quickly told the world that she won't speak to women who wear burqas in her constituency surgery. How thoroughly democratic of her. Badenoch has her work cut out though. One of the nastiest characters in British politics wants her job: Robert Jenrick, who as Tory immigration minister ordered the removal of cartoon murals in a centre for refugee kids in case they found it too welcoming. Gleeful bullying, sneering mockery and spiteful grandstanding are everywhere you look these days. Among the New Right, dead-naming trans people seems to be a modern-day Olympic sport, and laughing at poverty positively required. God help us, one American-Israeli "comedian" even seeks laughs from dead Palestinian babies. Donald Trump (Image: Ap) The entire Trump presidency - which seems rapidly shifting towards outright militarised authoritarianism - has turned vice-signalling into an art form. The White House puts out tweets designed explicitly to hurt, mock and humiliate. One featured a group of handcuffed people being deported to the soundtrack "Na, na, hey, hey, kiss him goodbye" by Bananarama. It takes quite the talent to be both ghoulish and childish simultaneously. I reckon there's a few psychological assumptions we can make about what's happening. First, some people are just nasty b******s and they like wearing the nasty b*****d badge. They're like the kid you went to school with who had no friends but could sometimes be found torturing cats down by the riverbank. Most vice-signallers, though, probably aren't raving psychopaths. They're the more interesting, from a clinical point of view anyway. Why do they act in ways that many of us never would? Well, for a start, more and more people are beginning to act like this. The anonymity and immediacy of social media both protects the goon squad and encourages their behaviour. It's like the old adage: "If everyone is doing it, then why can't I?" Monkey see, monkey do. The more blood-soaked the online world becomes the more people want blood. Sometimes literally. I rarely use Twitter today, but when I do I'm stunned by the levels of actual, physical violence on display. Then there's the fact that a large minority of people are rather pathetic and attracted to bullies and thugs. It's likely a sign of their own psychological and physical weakness. They see someone kicking the daylights out of an innocent person and reckon it's much safer to cheer on the attack than step in and do the right thing. To step in requires courage and risks them becoming the target. On a deeper level though, perhaps humanity is simply subconsciously at the end of its tether? We can all behave appallingly when we're tired and scared. Who amongst us hasn't had a terrible day and then acted like a petty idiot to someone who didn't deserve it, taking our misery out on the innocent? Just look at this sulphurous world. We're living on a planet that's nuked up to the eyeballs with wars of profound brutality raging and the people in charge either don't care or seem out of their minds. The Earth is being destroyed, as we level rain forests and gobble up resources. We're wilfully allowing climate change to ruin the future for our children. We know the next virus could decimate us. We've no clue how to fix poverty, but each day there's more billionaires. Is it any wonder that cruelty is in fashion? Being a b*****d is the new black because as a species we're terrified of the future and hate our failures and what we've become.
Wales Online
3 hours ago
- Wales Online
Smacking ban would be ‘heavy-handed', warns Tory critic at Westminster
Smacking ban would be 'heavy-handed', warns Tory critic at Westminster Speaking in Parliament, former MP Lord Jackson of Peterborough argued "reasonable chastisement" was harmless Introducing a smacking ban in England would be "disproportionate and heavy-handed", a Conservative peer has warned. Speaking in Parliament, former MP Lord Jackson of Peterborough argued "reasonable chastisement" was harmless and calls to abolish it as a defence for punishing a child risked "criminalising good and caring parents, as well as overloading children's services departments". He made his comments as the House of Lords continued its detailed line-by-line scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. One of the changes proposed to the legislation was a move to outlaw the smacking of a child by scrapping the common law defence of reasonable punishment. Former president of the British Medical Association (BMA) and independent crossbencher Baroness Finlay of Llandaff said children had been left vulnerable by the legal "loophole" and urged for it to be closed, as it had been already in Scotland and Wales. She told peers: "There is clear evidence that physical punishment has no positive outcomes for children." Article continues below She added: "Hitting children hurts on the outside and on the inside. It damages emotional development. "Eight in 10 child runaways cite family violence as a cause." Highlighting support for the proposal by a number of leading organisations, including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the NSPCC, Barnardo's and the Children's Commissioner for England, Lady Finlay said: "It is time to protect children from assault and battery." But opposing the amendment, Lord Jackson said: "I believe it is an egregious interference in family life by the state and an intrusion. "It is an attack on family rights and it will encourage a childish disrespect for authority. "It is disproportionate and heavy-handed and it risks criminalising good and caring parents, as well as overloading children's services departments." He added: "The law as it stands is sensible. It outlaws violence, abuse and unreasonable chastisement. "Crown Prosecution Service guidelines are clear that, if the actions of a parent cause anything that is more than transient or trifling, it is unlawful. "The reasonable-chastisement defence simply permits parents to use very mild physical discipline, like a tap on the hand or a smack on the bottom, without being charged with assault... 'Reasonable chastisement' is common and harmless." Lord Jackson went on: "Everyone wants the state to intervene to protect children who are in danger of abuse, but, if that is to be done effectively, the limited resources available need to be focused on identifying and helping those at risk, not investigating innocent, loving parents because the law of assault has become politicised by activists who do not agree with reasonable chastisement. "Making trivial smacks a criminal offence will cause misery for parents and children." But the peer faced criticism for his remarks from Liberal Democrat Baroness Walmsley, who said: "He used 'smacking' quite a lot. I will never use that word myself, because it trivialises what we mean. "We are talking about a hit – about a physical assault on a child. "The reasonable chastisement defence is only ever likely to be used in a court of law, and it has been." She cited the murder of 10-year-old Sara Sharif in 2023, whose father Urfan Sharif claimed in a call to police after fleeing England that he "did legally punish" his daughter but he "beat her up too much". Pressing for the removal of the "reasonable chastisement" defence, Lady Walmsley said: "The presence of those words in the law sends a message that it can be lawful to beat a little child." Former Playschool presenter and Barnardo's vice-president Baroness Benjamin, who sits as a Liberal Democrat peer, said: "Almost 70 countries have banned smacking, leaving no ambiguity in the law. "It is never OK to 'reasonably punish' a child. It is time to join those countries and end physical punishment against children." Responding, education minister Baroness Smith of Malvern pointed out the most serious cases of child abuse would not be covered by the reasonable punishment defence. She said: "We are looking closely at changes in Scotland and Wales and continue to build our evidence base, but we do not want to take this important decision yet." The minister added: "Most parents want what is best for their children and they should be supported. Article continues below "It is right that we protect all children who are at risk of harm, but it is also right that we do not intervene in family life when children are safe, loved and well supported."
