Police appeal to find missing sex offender

This in from the police, in their own words, Ed


Detectives from Hampshire Constabulary are appealing for information about the whereabouts of a missing sex offender.

James CampbellPolice are asking for the public’s help to locate 41-year-old James Alexander Campbell after he failed to register his address with the authorities.

Many lines of enquiries have been followed and exhausted in repeated attempts to find and arrest Mr Campbell over the past four months.

Last seen in Portsmouth
He was last seen in Portsmouth on November 19, 2012 when he was released from court over an unrelated charge of shoplifting.

Mr Campbell is described as:

> White
> 5 ft 5 ins tall
> Average build
> Short cropped greying hair
> Clean shaven
> Hazel eyes with a cast in his right eye
> Mr Campbell has numerous tattoos – including a heavily tattoed left hand and forearm, the word JIMMY on his right forearm, UNDERDOG written across stomach, and a swallow at the base of his right thumb.
> He speaks with a Scottish accent.

Whereabouts remain unknown
Acting Detective Inspector Pauline Prior of Hampshire Constabulary’s Public Protection Department said:

“We have no information at the moment to suggest Mr Campbell is suspected of committing any further crimes or posing an immediate threat to any members of the public.

“However, we are clearly concerned about a registered sex offender, with a record of violence, who has not made any contact with police over the past four months. Under law, Mr Campbell must tell us where he is living.

“A wide range of enquiries and leads have been pursued since November, but the 41-year-old’s precise whereabouts remain unknown.

“What we do know is that Mr Campbell has links with the Yorkshire and Manchester areas, as well as Hampshire. Our investigation so far also suggests he visited the Devon and Cornwall area, specifically Penzance, shortly after he went missing in November 2012.

“Detectives appreciate the assistance of people and organisations that have helped us over the past four months. Although their co-operation has been useful, we are now in a position where a widespread public appeal is the next step in the investigation.

“Mr Campbell is not regarded as an immediate danger to the public, but because he has been violent in the past, our advice is that members of the public should not approach the 41-year-old if they see him.

“Any sightings should be reported to the police immediately by phoning 101 – or 999 if it’s an emergency.

“Anyone else with information is asked to come forward, particularly if you think you have seen Mr Campbell or had recent contact with him.”

Get in touch
Witnesses or anyone with information are asked to contact the Hampshire Constabulary Force Enquiry Centre by phoning 101 – asking to leave a message for the duty Detective Sergeant in the Hampshire Constabulary Public Protection team at Havant Police Station.

Mini-com users can phone 01962 875000.

Information can be given anonymously by phoning the independent Crimestoppers charity on 0800 555 111.

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
0 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ThomasC
17, October 2014 12:14 pm

It’s interesting that I collected signed Independent Councillor’s Covenants from most of the candidates last year, but don’t appear to have copies from Priest and Gilby. I guess they didn’t think it mattered at the time. As time passes, it looks like it mattered more and more. I’m confident Julia will do an excellent job working with the officers, she has the interests of the Island at… Read more »

Julia Baker-Smith
Reply to  ThomasC
20, October 2014 10:52 pm

A friend pointed this article out to me this evening, I’d just like to thank everyone for their supportive comments, I too was surprised to be the subject of a debate on the ability of parents to undertake their job in 2014! I’m pleased though that this debate has happened, I’d be very interested to speak to anyone (male or female) who has experienced discrimination in their… Read more »

Island Monkey
Reply to  Julia Baker-Smith
20, October 2014 11:02 pm

A friend eh.. You seriously don’t ever look on this blog yourself?

I find that very hard to believe.

Julia Baker-Smith
Reply to  Island Monkey
21, October 2014 7:52 pm

I certainly do miss the my days of scouring VB/OTW and wish I still had the time to do so. However I was genuinely and pleas

Julia Baker-Smith
Reply to  Julia Baker-Smith
21, October 2014 7:54 pm

Pleasantly surprised to read such supportive comments. Thank you .

davidwalter
Reply to  Julia Baker-Smith
20, October 2014 11:46 pm

Julia, don’t be too strict. Just be strict enough. And remember, when views are divided the status quo should remain. i.e. If it’s a green field, let it remain a green field. ;-)

tryme
Reply to  Julia Baker-Smith
21, October 2014 6:29 am

You have been coming across as a more than able person, Cllr Baker-Smith, and more than capable of dealing with patronising comments, (yes David, I’m looking at you!) And Island Monkey, you know it could even be true that a busy person isn’t glued to OTW but just dips in and out once in a while? Hard to believe for those with more time or different priorities,… Read more »

davidwalter
Reply to  tryme
21, October 2014 6:54 am

Aha! tryme. My first stalker! I feel humbled and honoured. Say hi next time. According to my diary the next IWC mtg I’m going to will be the Exec on 11th Nov.

Vix
17, October 2014 1:48 pm

Well done, Julia Baker-Smith, for holding your ground and not being swayed by the patronising argument that because you have children at home, you cannot take part fully in public life. I was really disappointed to read the argument that Cllr Hollis believes he should have the role because he doesn’t have small children living with him. If someone has taken that commitment, been elected into their… Read more »

martin William Wareham
17, October 2014 4:54 pm

I Believe Councillor J.B.S is the best choice Hollis was a very poor second choice and no thanks to Priest and Gilbey the turncoats the vote was very close .

Don smith
Reply to  martin William Wareham
18, October 2014 9:06 pm

Could Priest and Gilbey stand as Independents at the next local elections? It’s the only way they will stay as Councillors mi thinks
.

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  Don smith
19, October 2014 11:04 am

Don – they were elected as ‘Independents’ just last year, but are now voting with the very Tories they each stood against !

Lady at the Back
17, October 2014 5:00 pm

As a matter of interest, does anyone know how Cllr Blezzard voted?

steve s
Reply to  Lady at the Back
17, October 2014 5:29 pm

Cllr Blezzard abstained.

Food for Thought
17, October 2014 5:18 pm

The best man got the job. I am in total agreement with Vix in her comment. I have been to planning meetings where Cllr Hollis chaired and in my opinion his style, knowledge and chairmanship skills left a lot to be desired. If Cllr Ward did give notice to Cllr Hollis of his intention to let candidates speak on their nomination before a vote, as Cllr Baker-Smith… Read more »

Cynic
17, October 2014 5:46 pm

Give the recent problems of the Independents, does the recent voting pattern reveal anything?

Chairman Cllr Ian Ward (Tory), voted for Cllr Hollis (Tory)).
Cllr Pitcher (UKIP) voted for Cllr Hollis (Tory),
Cllr.Blezzard,(Ind) abstained
Cllr Richard Priest (notionally Ind) voted for Cllr Hollis (Tory),
Cllr.Jon Gilbey (notionally Ind) voted for Cllr Hollis (Tory),

MamaLu
17, October 2014 8:23 pm

I am disgusted that Cllr Hollis inferred that he was the better candidate because he didn’t have to look after a family. In any other employment situation surely that would have been a clear case of discrimination against a worker with children. I thought such behaviour was illegal. To be honest his comments have confirmed my opinion of him as a staunch Tory. I am therefore relieved… Read more »

Stewart Blackmore
Reply to  MamaLu
17, October 2014 11:21 pm

Cllr Hollis’s remarks surely shouldn’t surprise. It merely goes to prove that the Tory dinosaurs are still there. When will they finally accept that they are no longer in power?

tryme
Reply to  MamaLu
18, October 2014 1:17 pm

Totally agree, MamaLu. When I read Cllr Hollis’ pitch I thought: How odd he is telling us he has no family to care for. How many of us don’t spend time caring for family in all sorts of ways? I was sorry he had noone and hoped he had close friends instead. I wondered if this was a cry for help, and whether someone apparently advertising his… Read more »

Alison Hayden.
17, October 2014 8:43 pm

Councillor Baker-Smith responded admirably to the sexist, chauvinistic, inappropriate remarks made by Councillor Hollis. This young lady has managed to be a County Councillor entirely on her own merits, with no presumption that having a young family would in any way compromise her focus. There was utter disbelief that any one, let alone a County Councillor, should be allowed to publicly say such a thing to try… Read more »

tryme
Reply to  Alison Hayden.
18, October 2014 8:37 pm

I daresay there are all sorts of things one might also object to, in an effort to suggest someone isn’t fit to be Chair – the time they spend on the golf course, their drinking excessive alcohol and being unfit the next day, the threat to their mood and health through obesity, the time they spend off-Island, their dubious financial dealings, their unpleasant attitude towards their partners,… Read more »

davidwalter
17, October 2014 9:21 pm

If I may make a comment with no intentional political undertones whatsoever? Planning is a vital portfolio on this green holiday isle; our tourist come here because it’s so rural and non-urban. We already have a large elderly demographic bias and many younger families struggling with housing costs. And we have the needs of business. It’s a delicate balance. It isn’t an easy job and every decision… Read more »

Stewart Blackmore
Reply to  davidwalter
17, October 2014 11:23 pm

We agree again, David – there’s hope for you yet!!

davidwalter
Reply to  Stewart Blackmore
17, October 2014 11:43 pm

We often agree Stewart, particularly after you’ve read my input ;-)

yjciow
17, October 2014 11:14 pm

Would have like Julia Baker Smith to have gained more experience before accepting the role of Chairperson. I supported Julia in her campaign against the asphalt plant so it would be nice to think she will support me and other residents against the wind turbine application. Not sure that she will as she has said she likes the look of wind turbines. I like the look of… Read more »

Vix
Reply to  yjciow
17, October 2014 11:44 pm

The planning committee make judgements based on evidence and rules and law. Personal preferences are not part of that. Planning reasons have to be given and justified. I am sure that she knows the planning rules and they will be upheld.

davidwalter
Reply to  Vix
18, October 2014 12:20 am

Vix — Aesthetics are material planning factors. You can’t write a code of aesthetics. Peoples’ views are also legitimate planning factors. Nobody expects a lay Planning Committee to suddenly become fully trained Planning Officers. Provided the Committee listens carefully to the officers they stand a better chance of justifying decisions in a way that will not be overturned by appeal. IF the officers are playing ball, of… Read more »

Robbo
Reply to  Vix
18, October 2014 10:11 am

Is that the Vix who is keeping very quiet about being selected as the Island’s Green Party candidate at next year’s general election ?

Vix
Reply to  Robbo
18, October 2014 10:45 am

Bureaucracy still has the upper hand!

Robbo
Reply to  Vix
18, October 2014 10:46 am

Even in the Greens! Would never have thought it.

vix
Reply to  Robbo
20, October 2014 12:41 am

Btw I’m a parent and I have three children, the eldest is 8. No doubt I need to be prepared now for questions posed by the Cllr Hollises of this world.

davidwalter
17, October 2014 11:50 pm

yjciow — I used to like them when we had them in Cornwall but I got tired of them after a few years. However most people hate the look of them. Especially in rural areas. So doesn’t matter a jot whether I like them or not…they are not popular with those who have to live with them. Of itself that isn’t necessarily sufficient to turn down applications… Read more »

The Sciolist
18, October 2014 12:22 pm

Nice for them all to demonstrate their loyalties, but who chairs planning is almost totally irrelevant. Most applications will be decided on the Island plan, the law or as a last resort by the inspector in Bristol. Thankfully these days local politicians play a largely ceremonial part in all this. If they did not, there is no way that the number of new homes needed would ever… Read more »

Mrs Retired Hack
18, October 2014 3:56 pm

“It was interesting to see vice chairman, Cllr Chapman say he was abstaining, but the chair, Cllr Ian Ward, chose to vote (for Cllr Hollis).” Can I ask what the protocol is for the chairman voting? Normally one would assume that the chairman/woman was impartial and only had a casting vote in the case of a tie. If Cllr Ward voted, and then there had been a… Read more »

tryme
Reply to  Mrs Retired Hack
18, October 2014 4:18 pm

Good point. Especially as votes will be SO close now; but in any case it undermines the Chair’s role if councillors see that s/he is going to register their own view as they wish. Policy could now be decided at the behest of Ian Ward! I hope someone sorts this.

steve s
18, October 2014 4:53 pm

It’s highly unusual (and disappointing!) to see the chairman vote.
Let’s hope this isn’t an indication of what to expect in the future. :-(

Mrs Retired Hack
Reply to  steve s
18, October 2014 5:12 pm

Thanks for that, Cllr Stubbings. RH suggests that perhaps the next time the chairmanship is up for election, the candidates are invited to speak for two minutes on subjects including their policy on whether they would ever double-vote…

steve s
Reply to  Mrs Retired Hack
19, October 2014 8:59 am

What a splendid idea! Perhaps we could get Cllr Stewart to propose it.
I would have to say that, up until now, the present chairman has conducted himself with admirable decorum. It would be a great shame if, in the wake of recent events, this was to change in any way.

davidwalter
Reply to  steve s
19, October 2014 10:52 am

steve s — I think all would agree with you that Ian Ward has conducted himself well. I won’t go along with your qualification “up to now” because Ian has not explained his position. There may be good reasons, maybe he feels it is not appropriate to share them but his action was entirely in accordance with the IWC Constitution so the onus is not on him… Read more »

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  davidwalter
19, October 2014 11:15 am

I think everyone is forgetting that Cllr Ward also voted in a debate at the March 2014 Full Council over the highly contentious Executive Advisory Committees, which all the Tories opposed and subsequently boycotted – see http://www.iwight.com/Meetings/committees/mod-council/19-3-14/minutes.pdf He has a track record of partisanship since then in my view and his performance at the September 2014 Full Council was nothing short of disgraceful in his blatant favouring… Read more »

tryme
Reply to  steve s
19, October 2014 10:30 pm

I must say though Steve, that I squirmed at the way Ian Ward as Chair smiled seemingly jauntily all the while (was he nervous or just unfeeling?) at the poor bereaved son asking questions about his late mother’s death, at Full Council last month. I was very glad you retrieved the situation by immediately and seriously offering the son your condolences. The Chair should have done the… Read more »

Food for Thought
Reply to  steve s
18, October 2014 5:18 pm

I have Chaired many committee’s in my time, including Council meetings. It is highly unusual for a Chairman to vote unless it is a casting vote. I once voted on a matter that I knew Councillors had been put under pressure about by a political group. This necessitated me having also to make a casting vote and I voted against my view in order to stop the… Read more »

tryme
Reply to  Food for Thought
18, October 2014 8:01 pm

I’m staggered that the question of how the Council Chair operates is spoken about here as though we are entirely in the Chair’s hands. Is such a matter, that crucially pertains to decision-making, not laid down in writing for all to point to? As regards Cllr Hollis getting unfair advance notice of making a presentation, I had a feeling of something fishy going on, just from Sally’s… Read more »

phil jordan
Reply to  tryme
19, October 2014 9:12 am

Tryme: I didn’t speak out at the time….. but that was mainly because of how the whole issue unfolded. (and that is not to say that all of this is not stored for a suitable and even more effective moment to re-visit) Interrupting the presentation seemed inappropriate and we moved so quickly through the presentations and onto the vote…which went in favour of Cllr Baker Smith… that… Read more »

tryme
Reply to  phil jordan
19, October 2014 11:39 am

Phil, I know how one’s breath can be taken away by a blatantly discriminatory remark, and one misses the moment to react to it. Being in a Council meeting might pose its own procedural challenges, for all I know. ***However***, I think it’s crucial to identify any ‘dog whistle’ call to discriminate that is being made to councillors, and also deemed acceptable to make in front of… Read more »

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  tryme
19, October 2014 11:17 am

How about ‘neanderthal’ ?

davidwalter
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
19, October 2014 11:32 am

Neanderthal? Slight digression but the more we learn about Neanderthals we more accurate we find Jean Auel’s ‘Earths Children’ books. Originally written for children — particularly for girl-children — they are a fascinating insight into primitive societies, 20th Century attitudes to women vs men, Neanderthals, and their interaction with Homo Sapiens. I commend them as excellent reading; far more interesting even than the last minutes of the… Read more »

phil jordan
Reply to  steve s
18, October 2014 5:40 pm

…and as bad…. to learn that the chairman had agreed to allow Cllr Hollis (at least, I have no knowledge for Cllr Blezzard) to present his case to Council with a short presentation. That was NOT conveyed to Cllr Baker Smith prior to the commencement of the meeting and who.therefore, did not know she had to (or could) make a presentation. This was not their finest hour…..… Read more »

Robert Jones
Reply to  phil jordan
18, October 2014 6:53 pm

I couldn’t believe it when I read it – that anyone in this day and age would imply that someone couldn’t give their full attention to the job because she OR he had children is surely incredible? On the question of votes etc – I’ve been chairman of several organizations and vice chairman of several more: your job as chairman is to keep the meeting to the… Read more »

Robert Jones
Reply to  Robert Jones
18, October 2014 6:55 pm

Actually, Jones, don’t talk nonsense – local government is supposed to be transparent, and electors are entitled to know who voted for what. Private organizations are very different. Even so, I don’t think the chairman should exercise a casting vote in elections of individuals to any position.

davidwalter
Reply to  phil jordan
18, October 2014 8:26 pm

The IWC Constitution states that the rules of Full Council are to be in accordance with the Procedure Rules (embedded in the Constitution). The relevant section says:

2. Chairman’s casting vote
If there are equal numbers of votes for and against, the chairman will have a second or casting vote. There will be no restriction on how the chairman chooses to exercise a casting vote.

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  phil jordan
19, October 2014 11:53 am

Interesting Phil, that Cllr Hollis’ Tory colleague – Cllr Julie Jones-Evans – supported him despite these remarks. She is also the mother of a young child, though like Julia she also has the support of her family in her Council activities.

phil jordan
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
19, October 2014 3:59 pm

Geoff:

Yes….curious eh? ;0)

You’d think they were whipped sometimes….in spite of the protestations they are not!

This post was a big wish for the conservatives…

tryme
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
19, October 2014 9:24 pm

Do you both also check whether male councillors have ‘the support of their families’ and tell us about it? If not, it sounds a bit patronising to speak here in that vein of female ones.

And a pity that Cllr Baker-Smith felt obliged to tell us about her childcare arrangements, when no male colleague would have been expected to. How intrusive.

phil jordan
Reply to  tryme
20, October 2014 7:01 am

tryme:

This needs keeping in context of what was said in the Chamber and how it was said…. unfortunately, the recording is not yet online for this item to be able to do that….

tryme
Reply to  tryme
20, October 2014 9:58 pm

How about Council meetings being streamed online, Phil? I think that was favourably discussed here in the run up to the election.

tryme
Reply to  tryme
21, October 2014 7:16 am

Surely online streaming of Council meetings would say it all about the Indies’ wish for openness? And it would undercut Chris Whitehouse’s misinformation in the CP and his press releases generally, not to mention showing how reasonable the Indies are, and what they are *actually* saying. Only about 6 people in the very small public gallery can currently see much of the proceedings – if they are… Read more »

davidwalter
18, October 2014 8:28 pm

So those of the rules, last updated in March during this present administration. Could be changed but meanwhile it sounds as though Ian was obeying the rules. I would have been surprised had he not, echoing other earlier comments here. Not really his style.

retired Hack
Reply to  davidwalter
18, October 2014 9:23 pm

Certainly within the rules, that’s not in question. If he’d breached the rules, either the Monitoring Officer would have picked him up on it, or there’d have been a formal complaint made by now. This is not the same as “obeying the rules” because there’s no rule requiring the chair, or anyone else, to vote in the initial vote. The constitution does have a mechanism for dealing… Read more »

davidwalter
Reply to  davidwalter
21, October 2014 7:26 am

tryme, have a google and see the discussions that have taken place in other Councils – some have video some don’t. Clearly it is something we should have or must have but it isn’t as easy as just sticking four cameras in. For a start, some positions will inevitably give a bad side profile of some Members, etc. How would you or I like ‘unfortunate’ angles perpetually… Read more »

tryme
Reply to  davidwalter
21, October 2014 7:06 pm

I don’t know why you argue with me about this David. Perhaps you take me completely literally. Or you’re feeling very anxious about it. I was addressing Phil, (elsewhere on this topic), and got to the point rather than subjecting him to turgid prose. The issue was discussed here well before you arrived, and I am hardly amazed to hear that other councils are inclusive online, nor… Read more »

watchdog
18, October 2014 9:17 pm

When I was more actively involved in scrutiny of Island planning applications than I am now, I did a rough statistical analysis of planning decisions. Unless there is a major application sent to the Planning Committee by the Head of Planning or by the Chairman of the Committee, or unless it is called in by a councillor, the default position is that planning applications are delegated to… Read more »

davidwalter
Reply to  watchdog
18, October 2014 11:34 pm

Watchdog — The truth is that 80% of the applications only represents 20% of the value of the projects while the top 20% of applications are between them worth 80% of the spend. Or thereabouts, averaged over time. It’s called the 80/20 rule and it is ubiquitous. Nobody expects LDCs, advertisement applications, new cycle racks, minor access layouts etc., to go to committee. Of the 20% by… Read more »

watchdog
Reply to  davidwalter
18, October 2014 11:59 pm

DW: I was playing Devil’s Advocate a bit, so your additional remarks are welcome, of which I was aware and agree with you. Particularly crucial, though, are the remarks in your last two paragraphs.

Stewart Blackmore
19, October 2014 8:49 am

In all the time that I have attended in the public gallery I have never seen the Chair vote on any substantive motion. This does not augur well for the future, especially on a 50:50 split where he has a (further) casting vote. There is precedent here because the Speaker of the Commons has, in recent years, when called upon to use his casting vote, always maintained… Read more »

davidwalter
Reply to  Stewart Blackmore
19, October 2014 11:02 am

Stewart, that isn’t what I would expect a prospective legislator to argue! We can’t be governed by ad-hoc precedent. The rules of the Council are absolutely clear. I found the rule from the IWC website and pasted into this discussion in less than two minutes. The wording is so simple, unambiguous and accessible that every citizen can understand it. If one doesn’t like the rules one should… Read more »

Mrs Retired Hack
Reply to  davidwalter
19, October 2014 11:23 am

You are perfectly entitled to your opinions, Mr Walter, but I raised this issue here in the first instance, and I did not do so for, in your words “an opportunity to hurl mud at a political opponent”. I would have raised it whatever the chairman’s party. I just wondered if the IWC chairman normally had two votes, and if so, why. It leads to an obvious… Read more »

davidwalter
Reply to  Mrs Retired Hack
19, October 2014 11:46 am

Mrs RH — Yes, I realise that. The discussion has moved on a long way since your original post on that. I was directing my comment in Stewart’s direction starting my comment “Stewart, that isn’t what I would expect a prospective legislator to argue!” As to the discussion about ‘two votes’ and your comment about it being ‘an anachronism’ in some cases, I have already posted the… Read more »

Cynic
Reply to  davidwalter
19, October 2014 11:56 am

“A week’s notice”? Not quite David .

Art.16 states “Approval. Changes to the constitution by Full Council will only be approved by the Full
Council after consideration of the proposal by the monitoring officer.”

As Full Council meetings are monthly, it would probably be necessary to call an Extraordinary Full Council.

Stewart Blackmore
Reply to  davidwalter
19, October 2014 11:58 am

I think that you are just plain wrong David. The convention is quite clear as I have said elsewhere on this post, no matter what the Constitution says, that the Chair does not vote, except in deadlock and then (s)he votes for the status quo; and there are very good reasons for that. The Tories did not have a majority after May 2013 and, if the position… Read more »

Stewart Blackmore
Reply to  davidwalter
19, October 2014 12:22 pm

Also, David, why shouldn’t a prospective legislator argue that? The precedent certainly is not ad hoc and, don’t forget, most of our common law is set by precedent, i.e. what a previous judgement has set out despite it not being enshrined in an Act of Parliament.

That, to some (and not necessarily me!), is one of the benefits of having an unwritten Constitution.

steve s
Reply to  davidwalter
19, October 2014 2:35 pm

David,
You strike me as the kind of fellow who would encourage a batsman to stand his ground, even though he knows he got a big outside edge. It’s entirely within the rules. ;-)

Cynic
Reply to  steve s
19, October 2014 3:27 pm

A West Indian Test cricketer told me once that he never “walked” on an appeal until the umpire gave him Out. because there were good decisions and bad decisions from umpires.

However, once given Out he would leave the field without any of the tantrums one sees today in cricket at all levels from school to Test.

davidwalter
Reply to  steve s
19, October 2014 5:30 pm

Steve :-)

davidwalter
19, October 2014 12:37 pm

Cicero — Yes, would need an EFC. Not a big deal if the issue is a big deal? Stewart — Most of our Common Law has been enshrined into Parliamentary Law or Regulation of one kind or another. ‘Precedent’ in this context refers to ‘LEGAL Precedent’ i.e. where a Court has ruled and that ruling is accepted as the precedent until overruled by a higher court or… Read more »

Cynic
Reply to  davidwalter
19, October 2014 3:31 pm

David- would changing one minor Article (·i.e. Art.16) in the Constitution rate as a “big deal”?

Robert Jones
19, October 2014 1:02 pm

You’re always going to get this problem – it may be rare, but it’ll happen again – if you allow the chairman a casting vote on elections, as opposed to motions before the council. It’s probably common practice – I imagine IWC took its constitution from a judicious mix of other authorities’ constitutions – but common practice isn’t necessarily good practice. There’s a well-established theory on casting… Read more »

davidwalter
Reply to  Robert Jones
19, October 2014 3:10 pm

Robert Jones, I agree with all that and you expressed it well.

retired Hack
Reply to  Robert Jones
19, October 2014 3:41 pm

Just to be clear, it was Cllr Ward’s use of his first vote, not his casting vote (he didn’t use his casting vote because there wasn’t a tie), which started this debate off. The casting vote is a useful, perhaps even necessary, device for breaking ties. The non-use of the chair’s first vote, as a quid pro quo for having a casting vote, is a well-establshed and… Read more »

Ex Chair
19, October 2014 1:33 pm

Generally, if it’s possible, the Chair should use their casting vote in favour of no change. Example: Let’s suppose a large housing proposal was tied for or against at a planning meeting. Whatever the Chairs view or previous vote after debate, I think the protocol is to cast the second (Chair) vote in favour of the no side. In other words, a contentious matter should not proceed… Read more »

retired Hack
Reply to  Ex Chair
19, October 2014 7:26 pm

@Ex Chair. You say: “In other words, a contentious matter should not proceed only because the Chair made it happen with a second vote.” So: suppose the planning committee chairmanship vote had been tied, Cllr Ward having voted for Cllr Hollis, plus an extra A.N Other having done likewise (perhaps Cllr Chapman or Cllr Blezzard, both of whom actually abstained), making it 18-18; then Cllr Ward, in… Read more »

Cynic
Reply to  retired Hack
19, October 2014 7:43 pm

One approach is for a Chairman to have only a casting vote in the case of a tie and that vote would have to be cast in favour of the status quo ante i.e. the situation is restored to “the state in which previously” it existed. In this case,as the status quo was the lack of an incumbent as Chair of the Planning Committee it would mean… Read more »

davidwalter
Reply to  Cynic
19, October 2014 8:13 pm

Cicero — I was wondering the same. In this case it has merits but how would it would work in other cases? Will we see an Isle of Wight version of a Papal Conclave; an interminable series of black smoke followed by a puff of white and the (bemused) Julia B-S led to the Room of Tears to robe herself? Will she choose the red mozzetta to… Read more »

Cynic
Reply to  davidwalter
19, October 2014 8:36 pm

David- the legal side looks pretty clear in the Constitution as you have pointed out. Cllr Hollis exercised his right to a personal vote as the Constitution allows. However, I suggest that this debate is more about the morality of the way that vote was cast. Hence my suggestion that a Chairman- acting as a Chairman- should be restricted to having a casting vote that he/she can… Read more »

martin William Wareham
20, October 2014 7:58 pm

Councillor Ward one Conservative Councillor I had respect for but he turns out to be just as bad as the rest come on Ian it does you no credit to act in this manner when Councillor Chapman abstained you should have done the same. You Torys are desperate you cant get over the voters on the Island they thought you were crap and voted you out Get… Read more »

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined