Stop Richmond Council flying "progress flag"

[C0rdelia4104]

https://www2.richmond.gov.uk/Account/ePetitionDetails.aspx?ID=195

Richmond Council flies the "progress flag" during pride month. I think this is quite wrong. They are meant to be following the Nolan principles of impartiality.

If you live in London Borough of Richmond please sign. Councils should not fly ideological flags

PLEASE SHARE so we can get to 500 signatures

Most importantly it needs planning permission. If they do not have it, and I bet they won't, it must be taken down immediately. Quick email

https://www.richmond.gov.uk/services/planning/planning_enforcement/report_a_breach

Impartiality isn't one of the Nolan principles. Those principles also apply to individuals, rather than institutions.

I'm thinking Richmond Council CEO and staff are all public office holders so the principles apply to them - ethical conduct and decision-making based on honesty, integrity, objectivity and the rest.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life2

i have done that - they say planning permission not needed as it is flying on Council premises

"1.3 Objectivity
Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias".

Institutions are made up out of individuals who work in them.

Link to the seven very good principles that, had they been followed by those in public life, this whole nonsense would have stayed where it belongs - as a niche issue for certain adults who should be treated with compassion.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life/the-7-principles-of-public-life--2

It’s a lib dem council. Better chance of flying to the moon

Yes, so the principle is objectivity, not impartiality.

Of course the logical consequence of your reading of objectivity is that individuals subject to the Nolan Principles cannot form and express views on matters of public controversy. Which is patently absurd.

They are. So now identify which one of them took the specific decision to fly the flag and explain how that specific individual did so without appropriate regard to their obligation of objectivity.

And while you're at it, perhaps define what you think objectivity means, and why you think the decision to fly the progress flag cannot have been taken objectively.

I am seeing a lot less Pride stuff this year

A few years back the flags were everywhere

That's wrong. There's an easy to understand guide to flag flying on the government website.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flying-flags-a-plain-english-guide/flying-flags-a-plain-english-guide

Here

Can you imagine?
Developer: I’m just going to build this 25 storey block of flats here and I do t need planning because it’s my land.
Council: no.

I'm not sure you quite understand the Nolan principles and how they work when you're employed by a local authority.

You can personally hold all the views you like and can often express them in the workplace subject to your terms of employment. What you can't do is "take a side", be under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work.
Pride is a political organisation. The individuals who work in an LA like Richmond shouldn't be flying that flag or any other political activist group's flag. Pride are trying to influence all sorts of issues in society and Richmond shouldn't be promoting their particular political views

Hope I explained that clearly?

That’s incorrect.

the pride rainbow flag is permitted.

the progress flag. A quite different flag. Still needs planning permission. Tell them that in the email.

I turned on BBC to watch the tennis at Queens this afternoon- they were only showing the wretched Progress Pride flag (instant nausea from me). Otherwise I haven’t seen too much of it.

Not really no.

Are you really trying to say that local authorities are not permitted under the Nolan Principles to express views on matters of public controversy?

😁
If you're a local councillor then you likely belong to a political party and will express political views (see MPs as well).
If you work for an LA, the civil service etc then you're meant to be impartial. You're paid to do a job, not represent a political party or view.

This boundary has been repeatedly breached with the general public being pretty pissed off by those paid for out of the public purse indulging themselves in the workplace with political performances. The sexual politics of Pride is part of that.

Right but here we’re talking about a council. So since you accept that political office holders are perfectly entitled to express views on matters of controversy without breaching their Nolan obligations, you’re going to need to explain which non-political person took this decision if you want to argue the Nolan principles have been breached.

I suspect you can’t do that though, can you? Because it is virtually certain that this flag was erected with the agreement, or likely even at the instigation of the council itself.

Which is why trying to apply Nolan principles to an institution rather than an individual is really pretty daft and unworkable.

Are you by any chance my autistic son? You sound just like him!

You originally claimed that:
"Of course the logical consequence of your reading of objectivity is that individuals subject to the Nolan Principles cannot form and express views on matters of public controversy. Which is patently absurd"

Your comment is evidently incorrect. I merely gave you the courtesy of following up your claim by clarifying two different types of people who work in councils - politically elected officials who evidently can express partisan political views (I agreed with you) and local government officials who are required to be politically neutral.

I get it's complicated - like so much in life, there's nuance and competing arguments. But having worked at times in local government I'm quite secure about the need to follow the Nolan principles of Objectivity and the requirement to be impartial. It's a shame it's such a foreign concept for some determined to push their niche political views.

Anyway, this has derailed the OP's thread for too long - sorry OP.

Sounds like your son talks a lot of sense.

But I’m sure he’d be delighted that his mother is on the internet using the suggestion of autism as a negative.

You got there in the end.

The Nolan Principles do not require everyone bound by them to avoid expressing views on politically contentious issues, since we now agree that there is a big cohort who are indeed permitted - indeed expected - to express views on these sorts of issues.

Including the councillors of Richmond Council. Glad you got there eventually.

Sometimes. Other times not. Increasingly sounding like his father who enjoys picking a fight.

Your assumption of negative. Not mine.

Just a thought OP. If you can be bothered, using Freedom of Information enquiries often exposes information about institutions & officers over reaching in Councils. They've been used to great effect in exposing corruption / inappropriate use of public funds / improper influence of political activists etc. Anyone can legitimately request sight of emails, details of meetings involving elected and paid officials and organisations in relation to council actions.

They've proved to be very useful and are one of the tools that's exposed the levels of bias and influence that breaches the Nolan Principles & has enabled this niche interest group to so powerfully dominate aspects of life to the detriment of society as a whole.