EXCLUSIVE Tory council leader is criticised for posting Facebook picture of luxury steak dinner and bottle of red wine with message asking: 'Wonder what all the poor people are doing?' Headline goes here
Kay Mason Billig, 61, who leads Norfolk County Council and is a former Tory parliamentary candidate insisted that she was making a self-depreciating joke about her circumstances rather than mocking people in poverty
But opposition councillors criticised her comment as 'shocking' and she is now facing calls for her resignation.
The post by Mrs Mason Billig who is also chairman of the Standards Committee of South Norfolk Council, appeared on one of her publicly visible Facebook accounts on Saturday evening and has since been deleted.
One of her pictures showed a freshly-cooked Tomahawk steak ready to be carved on a board, beside a bottle of red wine, a bowl of salad and a potato dish in peppercorn sauce.
Another image featured her husband Michael sitting at a table and grinning while holding up a glass of wine, alongside the words: 'Wonder what all the poor people are doing?'.
Tomahawk steaks which are thick cut with a long rib bone attached so they resemble an axe are usually cooked in the oven after being pan fried, and are often sold by Waitrose and Tesco to mark special occasions such as Father's Day last weekend.
Mrs Mason Billig's steak is believed to be from Tesco's Finest range which was last week selling Tomahawk steaks for between £25 and £32.50 depending on the weight, complete with star shapes of wild garlic butter.
Tesco described its Tomahawk steaks online as being 'succulent and flavoursome' and 'matured on the bone for 30 days for maximum flavour and tenderness'.
The wine in her picture is thought to be an award-winning bottle of Amarone Della Valpolicella. Similar bottles of the Italian red are currently priced at £21 in Morrisons.
Mrs Mason Billig, who represents the Loddon division south of Norwich and reportedly gets allowances of more than £51,000 a year from the county council, failed to answer multiple emails and messages from MailOnline asking for her to comment on the post.
But she told the Eastern Daily Press today: 'My husband and I have sometimes called ourselves 'the poor people'.
'It's a private joke as we live fairly modestly, so when we have a treat, we will sometimes post about it. This is asking if friends wonder what we (the poor people) are doing.
'It's not intended to be about anyone else and is no reflection on people who are less well off than ourselves. It's a bad state of affairs when I can't even joke about myself without it being twisted into something it isn't.
Talking about her post being leaked, she added: 'I am deeply disappointed that someone has decided to be this horrible when they must certainly know it's actually self-deprecation. What a sad world we live in.'
But Steve Morphew, leader of the Labour group at Norfolk County Council, said: 'People like to have council leaders who show they are in touch, care about the plight of others and show humility and pride in the public positions they hold.
'This is a nauseating example of the exact opposite. I find nothing amusing here.'
Michael Rosen, the Labour group leader on South Norfolk Council, told MailOnline: 'It is quite a shocking thing to say when we are freshly out of the winter period when so many people in Norfolk had to make a choice between heating or eating.
'It 100 per cent calls into question her suitability to lead Norfolk County Council which has a number of the country's most deprived areas in its boundaries. A lot of Norfolk residents have to make careful choices about what they eat very night. She is really letting her own side down by posting things like this.'
Dr Catherine Rowett, the Green Party group leader on Norfolk County Council, said: 'I find it really distressing that someone in public service could be so snobbish, so devoid of empathy.
'She surely needs to resign now! Norfolk is a county with extremes of inequality. People are struggling, with two or three jobs, wishing they could see their children for Father's Day.
'My thoughts would be on how we could help those families enjoy Father's Day too, rather than mocking people who are less fortunate.'
A senior Norfolk Conservative, quoted by the Eastern Daily Press, said they believe Mrs Mason Billig, should quit over the post.
They said: 'I think she should resign. We are entitled to a private life and to let our hair down, but I don't think anybody should degrade those less well off than others.
'Under Conservative party guidance, there's a case that she has brought the party into disrepute and the party should be carrying out an investigation.
'This falls well below the Nolan Principles for Public Life.'
Another Tory said: 'Most politicians are wise to avoid social media. It's hard to win votes, but easy to lose them.'
A furious source who forwarded a screenshot of Mrs Mason Billig's post to MailOnline said: 'I couldn't believe it when I saw it.
'Lots of people post pictures of their nice dinners, but her comment about poor people and wondering what they were eating was in incredibly bad taste.'
The source who asked not to be named, added: 'I have had to deal with the county council on occasion and they have a reputation for being so righteous with the letters they send out and employment stuff you have to fill in.
'Yet you have the leader of the council writing silly comments like this. She must have realised it was a stupid remark because she deleted it.'
Mrs Mason Billig stood unsuccessfully as the Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Norwich North constituency in 2001.
She has been a South Norfolk district councillor since 2011, and was the council's deputy leader from 2018 until her appointment as the county council leader in May 2023. She was re-elected as a county council for the second time in 2021.
Mrs Mason Billig is reported to have had a 'legal background' with a career in the marine sciences industry in Great Yarmouth which led to her becoming a Group Company Secretary.
A spokesperson for Tory-run Norfolk County Council said they could not comment as Mrs Mason Billig's Facebook post was 'not relevant' to her council work.
The spokesperson added: ''It is not posted on any council accounts or relevant to her (council) business so it is not one we can comment on at the council. It's certainly one she may be able to comment on. A message has been forwarded on to her.'
Daniel Elmer, the leader of Tory-run South Norfolk Council, failed to respond to calls for comment. His council's communication team was also approached and did not comment.
Mrs Mason Billig was criticised earlier this week for comments made during a debate over Norfolk County Council's vision for a single council for when all eight of the county's councils are abolished and new ones created.
She said children could die should plans to abolish all eight Norfolk councils and create new ones result in two or three different councils delivering social services.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a minute ago
- The Independent
Former Salmond staffer rejects Sturgeon claims in book as ‘obviously false'
Nicola Sturgeon's new book contains 'falsehoods at worst, fabrications at best' about her predecessor, Alex Salmond's former chief of staff has claimed. Geoff Aberdein, who worked for Mr Salmond when he was first minister, hit out at Ms Sturgeon, saying: 'I was brought up that you didn't speak ill of the dead. 'But I think if you're going to speak ill of the dead, at least make your claims accurate.' He told the Holyrood Sources podcast that Mr Salmond's widow Moira was 'particularly upset and frustrated at a lot of what has been said' about her late husband, who died suddenly in October 2024. Mr Aberdein continued: 'I think it was important to set out and correct the record not just because Alex is not in position to defend himself, but for myself as well and the series of other officials and civil servants that have contacted me.' Claims that Mr Salmond was the person who leaked the story of the sexual harassment allegations against him are 'obviously false', Mr Aberdein insisted. He said that when his former boss took the phone call to say the story about the allegations was being published by the Daily Record he was actually meeting lawyers to 'draft a legal summons to prevent Nicola Sturgeon's Government from making the allegations public'. Mr Aberdeen said: 'To suggest Alex was simultaneously leaking documents deeply damaging to his reputation whilst at the same time paying lawyers a lot of money to get a court order to prevent publication of the same material is just utterly absurd.' Mr Salmond went on to be acquitted of all the charges against him in a court case in 2020. Mr Aberdein also dismissed claims by Ms Sturgeon that Mr Salmond 'didn't read' the white paper on independence which had been produced by the Scottish government in the run up to the 2014 referendum. In her recently published memoir, Frankly, Ms Sturgeon spoke out about her 'cold fury' with her former leader over his 'abdication of responsibility' on the key document. Mr Aberdein – who said he would not be reading the book – accepted that his former boss 'delegated the responsibility for drafting the white paper to Nicola Sturgeon'. However he insisted: 'To suggest, as I think was the purpose of this story, that he wasn't engaged in the process of a prospectus for independence is utterly nonsense. The former Salmond chief of staff also rejected claims that Mr Salmond was 'apparently against same-sex marriage' – saying that this was 'demonstrably false'. Mr Aberdein told the podcast Mr Salmond had 'declared his personal support for gay marriage for the first time' in a newspaper article in April 2011. And he added that while the SNP election manifesto that year had pledged to consult on the issue Mr Salmond 'chose to come out… excuse the pun, the turn of phrase, ahead of that result, to say that he personally supported it.' With the SNP having won the 2011 Holyrood election, Mr Aberdein recalled 'being in the room with advisors, civil servants and indeed ministers about how we would go about reassuring different sections of our society about that legislation, particularly religious leaders and other civic leaders'. He also made the 'obvious point' that 'if Alex Salmond didn't want legislation to be progressed, he was the first minister of a majority SNP government, it wouldn't have been progressed'. Mr Aberdeen said: 'The point falls down on that alone.'
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Met Police's use of live facial recognition is 'unlawful', equality watchdog warns
The use of live facial recognition by Britain's biggest police force is 'unlawful' and not compatible with human rights laws, the equalities watchdog has said. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has claimed Scotland Yard's rules and safeguards fall short of standards and could have a 'chilling effect' on individuals' rights when deployed at protests. Live facial recognition (LFR) is set to be deployed by the force at Notting Hill Carnival over the August bank holiday weekend. More than one million people are expected to converge on the streets of west London for the annual celebration. And Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has already sought to reassure campaign groups that the technology will be used without bias. And a spokesman from the force said it believes its use of the tool is 'both lawful and proportionate, playing a key role in keeping Londoners safe.' The EHRC has been given permission to intervene in an upcoming judicial review over LFR, brought by privacy campaigner Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo and anti-knife crime community worker Shaun Thompson. They are seeking the legal challenge claiming Mr Thompson was 'grossly mistreated' after LFR wrongly identified him as a criminal last year. EHRC chief executive John Kirkpatrick said the technology, when used responsibly, can help combat serious crime and keep people safe, but the biometric data being processed is 'deeply personal'. 'The law is clear: everyone has the right to privacy, to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly. These rights are vital for any democratic society,' he said. 'As such, there must be clear rules which guarantee that live facial recognition technology is used only where necessary, proportionate and constrained by appropriate safeguards. 'We believe that the Metropolitan Police's current policy falls short of this standard. The Met, and other forces using this technology, need to ensure they deploy it in ways which are consistent with the law and with human rights.' The watchdog said it believes the Met's policy is 'unlawful' because it is 'incompatible' with Articles 8, right to privacy, 10, freedom of expression, and 11, freedom of assembly and association of the European Convention on Human Rights. Big Brother Watch interim director Rebecca Vincent said the involvement of EHRC in the judicial review was hugely welcome in the 'landmark legal challenge'. 'The rapid proliferation of invasive live facial recognition technology without any legislation governing its use is one of the most pressing human rights concerns in the UK today,' she said. 'Live facial recognition surveillance turns our faces into barcodes and makes us a nation of suspects who, as we've seen in Shaun's case, can be falsely accused, grossly mistreated and forced to prove our innocence to authorities.' 'Given this crucial ongoing legal action, the Home Office and police's investment in this dangerous and discriminatory technology is wholly inappropriate and must stop.' It comes as Home Secretary Yvette Cooper defended plans to expand LFR across the country to catch 'high-harm' offenders last week. Last month, the Metropolitan Police announced plans to expand its use of the technology across the capital. Police bosses said LFR will now be used up to ten times per week across five days, up from the current four times per week across two days. A Met spokesman said the force welcomes the EHRC's recognition of the technology's potential in policing, and that the Court of Appeal has confirmed police can use LFR under common law powers. 'As part of this model, we have strong safeguards in place, with biometric data automatically deleted unless there is a match," they said. 'Independent research from the National Physical Laboratory has also helped us configure the technology in a way that avoids discrimination.'
Telegraph
2 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Met Police's facial recognition policy ‘unlawful', says human rights watchdog
The Metropolitan Police's policy on live facial recognition technology is unlawful because it is incompatible with human rights laws, the equalities watchdog has said. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said the UK's biggest police force's rules and safeguards over using the tool 'fall short' and could have a 'chilling effect' on individuals' rights when used at protests. The Met is set to use LFR, which captures people's faces in real-time CCTV cameras, at the Notting Hill Carnival over the August bank holiday. Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has already sought to reassure campaign groups that the technology will be used without bias. A Met spokesman said the force believed its use of the tool was 'both lawful and proportionate, playing a key role in keeping Londoners safe '. The EHRC has been given permission to intervene in a forthcoming judicial review over LFR, brought by Silkie Carlo, the Big Brother Watch director, and Shaun Thompson, an anti-knife crime community worker. They claim Mr Thompson was 'grossly mistreated' after LFR wrongly identified him as a criminal in 2024. John Kirkpatrick, the EHRC chief executive, said the technology could help combat serious crime and keep people safe but the biometric data being processed was 'deeply personal'. 'The law is clear: everyone has the right to privacy, to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly. These rights are vital for any democratic society,' he said. 'As such, there must be clear rules which guarantee that live facial recognition technology is used only where necessary, proportionate and constrained by appropriate safeguards. 'We believe that the Metropolitan Police's current policy falls short of this standard. The Met, and other forces using this technology, need to ensure they deploy it in ways which are consistent with the law and with human rights.' The watchdog said it believed the Met's policy was incompatible with articles eight, on right to privacy, 10, on freedom of expression and 11, on freedom of assembly and association of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 'Most pressing human rights concern' Rebecca Vincent, the Big Brother Watch interim director, welcomed the involvement of the EHRC in the judicial review. 'The rapid proliferation of invasive live facial recognition technology without any legislation governing its use is one of the most pressing human rights concerns in the UK today,' she said. 'Live facial recognition surveillance turns our faces into barcodes and makes us a nation of suspects who, as we've seen in Shaun's case, can be falsely accused, grossly mistreated and forced to prove our innocence to authorities. 'Given this crucial ongoing legal action, the Home Office and police's investment in this dangerous and discriminatory technology is wholly inappropriate and must stop.' Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, defended plans to expand LFR across the country to catch 'high-harm' offenders last week. In July, the Metropolitan Police announced plans to expand its use of the technology across the capital. Police bosses said LFR would now be used up to 10 times per week across five days, up from the current four times per week across two days. A Met spokeswoman said the force welcomed the EHRC's recognition of the technology's potential in policing, and that the Court of Appeal has confirmed police can use LFR under common law powers. 'As part of this model, we have strong safeguards in place, with biometric data automatically deleted unless there is a match,' she said. 'Independent research from the National Physical Laboratory has also helped us configure the technology in a way that avoids discrimination.'
