As our current intern Stephanie Mullins reported last week, those attending the recent full council meeting witnessed the spectacle of councillors acting rudely towards each other.
It’ll be of no surprise to many to hear that some of the mud-slinging came from the direction of Cllr Roger Mazillius (as he’s got form) – this time directing what we’ve been informed was a potentially defamatory comment towards Cllr Jonathan Bacon.
When addressing Cllr Pugh’s motion to use underspend finances, Cllr Bacon delivered a light-hearted comment on the proposed ‘Celebration of the Isle of Wight festival’, referring to it as “Bit of a booze up”.
Personal offence
Responding later in the meeting, Cllr Mazillius said, “… it is a shame that he [Cllr Bacon] should just describe this event as a booze up – that says more about his personal leisure activities than anything else.”
Cllr Bacon immediately addressed the Chairman (Cllr Susan Scoccia) asking for the comment to be withdrawn, saying Cllr Mazillius was “going for personal offence rather than dealing with the subject matter”.
Cllr Scoccia replied, “He was only repeating what was said earlier Sir”, then addressing Cllr Mazillius said, “Councillor, can you continue.”
A “generally aimed joke” versus “personal defamation”
In relation to the incident, Cllr Bacon told VB, “I am very annoyed with myself that I allowed Cllr Mazillius to rile me.
“I attempted to make a joke earlier in the evening commenting on what I saw as a fairly pointless proposal by Cllr Pugh in which I did suggest that it was nothing more than a ‘booze up’ that might be enjoyed by Conservative councillors who might lose their seats next year, together with the beach huts and meeting places also proposed.
“Cllr Mazillius turned that round into a piece of personal abuse against me. I complained about this but the Chairman failed to appreciate the difference between a generally aimed joke and personal defamation.
“Unfortunately Councillor Mazillius now seems to spend most of his time in Full Council meetings concentrating on making personal attacks rather than adding to debate in any worthwhile way and is not worthy of the reaction I am afraid he provoked.”
Why was it overruled?
We asked the chairman, Cllr Scoccia, why she had “considered it unnecessary for Cllr Mazillius to withdraw the personal comment and allowed him to continue?”
She replied, “From your comments below, it would seem that you are missing out the fact that Cllr Bacon’s comments in the first place were both scathing and derisive about a serious proposal, and whilst Cllr Bacon did not address them to a particular Councillor, the understanding was that it was aimed at the members of a particular Group.
“I therefore felt that Cllr Mazillius’ reply in respect of Cllr Bacon’s comment, and as a member of that Group, was said in the same manner as Cllr Bacon’s original comments, and was part of the lively and robust political exchanges that are expected within the Chambers.”
What did Cllr Mazillius think?
We also wrote to Cllr Mazillius to see what he had to say about it.
We thought it would be interesting to show you, dear reader, how difficult some councillors make it for us to to obtain statements or replies to questions. Especially strange when we’re trying to help get their point of view across.
We initially asked,
“At last week’s full council meeting you made what Cllr Jonathan Bacon referred to as a personally offensive comment towards him. We are planning to run an article on this and have asked Cllr Bacon for a comment. For balance, we would also run a quote from you in relation to the incident.”
He replied,
“What exactly did I say which he “referred to as personally offensive”?”
We replied,
“Your exact words were ‘.. it is a shame that he should just describe this event as a booze up – that says more about his personal leisure activities than anything else.’ Cllr Bacon then asked for the comment to be withdrawn as you were, ‘going for personal offence rather than dealing with the subject matter’ Should we wait for your comment to include in the article?”
He replied,
“What was the Chairman’s ruling?”
We replied,
“She allowed you to continue. Are you planning to provide a comment for us to include?”
He replied,
“Is that an accurate comment? Surely she gave a reason?”
Getting frustrated with his apparently obstructive responses, we replied,
“We’re very busy on other stories, would you like us to include your comment or not?”
To which we received the hilarious reply from Cllr Mazillius,
“Please answer my question or I will consider you are not prepared to properly address the truth of what you are attempting to report”
