Councillor Chris Devine (Conservative – Wiltshire) Named and Shamed

My reply actually came from someone called Victoria Maloney who I presume is some sort of PA to Baroness Scott. So I've no idea whether or not Baroness Scott even saw my original email complaint.

I like your crude oil analogy although I think I would have used fuel duty being more aligned to the C24 tax change.

Did Councillor Devine really write this himself? His remarks are so ridiculous, ill-informed and illiterate that I wonder whether they were written without his knowledge by some council "official" wishing to smear the Councillor and air his own left wing views.

Reply to the comment left by "Michael Bond" at "06/01/2016 - 17:48":

Yes, but the councillor later gave a statement to the local press that he was completely unrepentant and stood by his rude and totally inappropriate private response to one of of his own constituents.

Now I know you will all find this hard to believe but the reply I received from Baroness Scott was different to all the others.

Dear Mr Price

Thank you for your recent email regarding Cllr Devine’s comments on the Finance Bill. I have had a number of emails both against and in support of Cllr Devine’s views, but to clarify: those are his personal views, and the Bill in question is not something that has or would be discussed by Wiltshire Council’s Conservative administration as it is a central government bill and we have not been asked to make any comment. I would suggest therefore that any of your comments about the Bill or any of its clauses should be submitted to your local MP.

If you wish to raise an objection regarding Cllr Devine’s conduct, this can be done via Wiltshire Council’s Code of Conduct process, details of which can be found here: http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/council/complaints/membercomplaints.htm

If you are unable to access the link above, please do get in touch.

Kind regards
Jane

Baroness Scott of Bybrook, O.B.E.
Leader
Wiltshire Council

01225 713111
http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk

Spotted the difference? It's in the first line, the response is addressed to me by name. A nice example of mail merge.

My response:-

Dear Councillor Baroness Scott,

Thank you for the standard reply to my complaint which has been posted on the internet by several individuals. I would make two points:-

1 I specifically did not complain about what was said only the way in which it was expressed.
2 Councillor Devine signed the email as a councillor and therefore the views expressed were made as a councillor and the council must take responsibility.

I have made a formal complaint and I ask you to also take action in accord with my original email and encourage Councillor Devine to consider his position.

Regards

David Price

Nah I got a Dear Mr address as well........ We are on a mailing / blacklist now!

Good point to make your #2. above.
And we are not acting in concert,

I directed the leader of my local Conservative Association to this thread, asking for her thoughts and what sanctions she would consider appropriate and this was her reply.

"I was flabbergasted to read the rude and bigoted mail written by Cllr Devine; I would not expect any Cllr, regardless of their party to write something like this. My views are not the same as his; in fact it is embarrassing that he is using the Conservative brand and coming out with these statements. The only possible sanction is through his local Conservative Association who could consider whether his mail has brought the local party into disrepute. I did some research on the web and found that the Conservative Agent for Wiltshire is Dirk Russell (dirk@wiltshireconservatives.com). I suggest it would be worth mailing him."

Perhaps Gareth should try this avenue to see what Dirk Russell thinks is an appropriate way to deal with Cllr Devine.

Excellent Alex
(I did send you an email last week, but it bounced back)

I like very much the evident outrage that this Conservative Cllr. has evoked. Please keep replies to emails posted. I shall be pleased to learn what action the Conservative agent is able to muster in bringing this bigot down.

Apart from Councillor Devine's disgusting verbal outburst, what is possibly even worse is the sheer level of hypocrisy that he exhibits.

Private landlords are forced (we do not have a choice) to obey the regulations laid out in the Housing Act; a piece of primary legislation created by ... wait for it ... the Conservative Party!

Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Party conceived and created the Housing Act, which introduced the Assured Shorthold Tenancy.

Buy to let mortgages were created during John Major’s leadership of the Conservative Party and have contributed to the total transformation of the private rented sector (PRS); massively increasing access to private rented housing and contributing to huge improvements in standards compared to the pre-BTL mortgage era.

Councillor Devine criticises private landlords for “exploiting” tenants through “high rents and short tenancies”. He forgets that both these factors were created by his own political party - the same political party that now wants to ‘transform’ the PRS by encouraging institutional investment by “taxing out of existence” private landlords and doing the opposite of ‘creating a level playing field’ between private and corporate landlords. The consequence of this policy will see a wholesale hike in rents over the coming few years.

Anyone who listens to crackpots like Councillor Devine and agrees with his disgusting diatribe simply shows themselves to be hugely hypocritical and ignorant.

Devine (NOT Cllr Devine) has at last replied and of course been exonerated by his peers. Its taken a long time to publish! I particularly like his comment in section 10.

To the Monitoring Officer:
Conduct Complaint against Cllr C Devine Jan 2016
Sir,
I have the following points for your consideration in the complaint made against me by a Mr David Price:
1. Mr Price is calling for my resignation on the basis that I have labelled him a `snivelling parasite`. I can truthfully state that I have never met this person or indeed communicated with him in any shape or form to my knowledge. Therefore this allegation is baseless; as I believe to label him as such I would have to have directed the phrase at him as an individual.
2. The phrase `snivelling parasites` is apparently a conjoining of two entirely separate words that I used in my email to an individual who had emailed me on the subject of Buy To Let (BTL) businesses. The fact that Mr Price has decided to take two separate words from a private email and declare himself a victim is entirely up to him and is not of my doing.
3. The email in question was never intended for a wider circulation beyond the individual concerned. However, the individual concerned runs a BTL website (of which I was unaware) and proceeded to publish the email as an act of revenge against myself for not supporting his cause and to `deter the others`. As well as publishing my email the website has also been publishing slanderous allegations against me, also, no doubt to increase the act of revenge.
4. Mr Price makes much play of the abusive nature of the private email to a third party, which was never intended for his eyes. I would say that although the email may be considered `robust` and `intemperate` it does not contain any words or phrases that are not in common usage. There are no inappropriate words or phrases (no swearwords) and as such it probably meets the current standard for a private email.
5. Mr Price refers to the issuing of threats by me to a Conservative Councillor in a separate email, which I sent to Mr Gareth Wilson, who was the recipient of my original email. This was sent on the 24th Dec 2015 as follows:
Gareth,
I am sure that you are now aware that your friend the Deputy Leader of Stevenage Council has written to me in your defence, in his official capacity. Not a very well thought out move as he will discover in the new year.
6. This was not a `threat` but, a forewarning in regard to the official complaint I am in the process of making to the Monitoring Officer of Stevenage Borough Council against the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group, for a number of offences against the Councils code of Conduct in his pursuit of a vendetta against myself in relation to the original subject email. I do not believe the specific details are relevant to this complaint. As I have stated I do not believe that any reasonable person would consider this to be a threat, but, rather a warning.
7. It would seem that Mr Price is complaining of the use of the word `Parasite` and the word `snivelling`. Whilst neither can be described as `warm friendly` words, they are both in current usage and as such their use may be described as robust rather than abusive. In the cut and thrust of every day communications we all sometimes fall short of complete civility in all communications and this is a case in point, I would suggest that the fact that the email was never intended to go beyond the individual concerned rather mitigates any third party claim to victimisation.
8. It should be noted that the publishing of my email on the 118 BTL website was a considered act of revenge and it is highly likely that the lodging of a complaint to Wiltshire Councils Monitoring Officer was part of the plan. I was never forewarned that my email would be published and neither was I notified when it was.
9. Mr Price alleges that I have breached Annex 1, Pt 7, of the Code of Conduct, to which I would reply that this applies to a Unitary Councillor on Council business, I was acting in a private capacity and as such cannot be guilty of this breach.
10.Finally I would reiterate that in my email communication and all subsequent communications, I was acting in my private capacity and not on Council business. The only reason I used `Cllr ‘in my email was because the original BTL email had been delivered to my Wilts Council mailbox.
Christopher Devine Cllr
6th January 2016

And the decision notice:-

DECISION NOTICE: No further action
Reference WC – ENQ00130
Subject Member
Councillor Christopher Devine – Wiltshire Council
Complainant
Mr David Price
Deputy Monitoring Officer
Mr Frank Cain
Independent Person
Mrs Caroline Baynes
Complaint
The complainant is alleging that the subject member has breached the Code of Conduct in that in an email he was abusive and has called for the Councillor’s resignation or the subject member’s dismissal. The Standards regime has no ability to dismiss an elected member.
Within the complaint submitted there is no indication as to in what ways the complaint considers that the subject member has breached the code.
Decision
In accordance with the approved arrangements for resolving standards complaints adopted by Council on 26 June 2012, which came into effect on 1 July 2012 and after hearing from the Independent Person, the Deputy Monitoring Officer has decided: -
o To take no further action in respect of this complaint
Reasons for Decision
Relevant background facts
This is a very unusual complaint. It is a complaint about what was purported to be said in an email exchange between the subject member and a third
party (not the complainant). The extract provided does not refer to the complainant by name nor does it have sufficient details to identify that the email is referring to the complainant. There is therefore no evidence within the complaint that the subject member was referring to the complainant and the subject member has confirmed that to his knowledge he has not met or communicated with the complainant.
It would appear that the third party then either published or passed to another person who published the contents of that private email exchange to a website which supports a particular political point of view.
There is no evidence within the complaint that the subject member was a party to such wider publication and in fact the subject member has confirmed that he was not so aware.
The complainant has not provided a copy of the email trail for anybody considering this complaint to put the email into context. It is apparent from the extract the complainant has referred to that the subject member was responding to an earlier email from the third party “Your email is deeply flawed”.
It is impossible to tell from the complaint whether the subject member was responding via a Council email or a personal email and without the full communications it is very difficult to identify whether the response was in an official or private capacity . The only evidence within the complaint that the Councillor was an elected member was within the signature in the extract was the fact that the subject member put “Cllr” after his name. This is a statement of fact and does not in itself establish the capacity in which the subject member was responded.
The subject member has confirmed that he received the query via his Council in box but responded via his personal email as he was acting in a private capacity.
It is apparent from the complaint that the subject of the email trail was buy to lets and that there was a political aspect to the issue. There is reference within the extract to central government actions in this regard.
Considerations
Upon going through the initial tests, I agree that the complaint relates to the subject member and that the member was in office at the time of the alleged incident and that the Code of Conduct was in force at the relevant time.
However there is no evidence that the subject member was acting in an official capacity. The Code of Conduct does not apply to elected members in their private capacity. The Code provides that it applies to elected members “when serving in your public post” and “accordingly, when acting in your capacity as a member”.
The Code of Conduct therefore does not apply to a subject member when acting in their private capacity and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of this standards regime and therefore there can be no further action on this complaint.
For the sake of completeness I would also point out that it is apparent from the small extract that the complainant has supplied that the topic of conversation was in the nature of political debate about buy to lets.
There is considerable case law in respect of freedom of speech in the context of political debate.
As was said by Beatson J in R (on the application of Calver) v Adjudication Panel for Wales [2012] EWHC 1172 (Admin),
it is clear, as a general proposition, that freedom of expression includes the right to say things which “right thinking people” consider dangerous or irresponsible or which shock or disturb: see R v Central Independent Television plc [1994] Fam 192 at 203 (Hoffmann LJ); ... Barendt, Freedom of Speech (2nd ed 2005) at 76-77, in the context of political speech (on which see 58ff), stated that the exclusion of “all emotive, non-rational expression from the coverage of the principle would be a mistake”. It would “often be hard to disentangle such expression from rational discourse” because “the most opprobrious insult may form part of an otherwise serious criticism of government or of a political figure”. He also stated that, even if it were possible to separate the emotive content from the other parts of a particular publication, “it would be wrong to allow its proscription” because “if speakers could be punished each time they included a colourful, non-rational epithet in their publication or address, much valuable speech would be inhibited”. He concluded that “some margin should be allowed for invective and exaggeration, even if that means some apparently worthless comments are as fully protected as a carefully balanced argument”.
In the current case there is no evidence that the statements complained of were more than colourful comments in the hurly burly of political debate and therefore even if the subject member was acting in an official capacity at the time (of which there is no evidence) there is no evidence of breaches of any of the provisions of the Code of Conduct.
Right of appeal
Both the complainant and the subject member have the right to appeal against the Monitoring Officer’s decision to a sub-committee of Wiltshire Council’s Standards Committee.
If either party wishes to appeal they must do so in writing within 5 working days of receipt of this decision notice. They should write to the Monitoring Officer providing clear reasons of the basis for their appeal. The Monitoring Officer will then arrange for a sub-committee of the Standards Committee to meet and determine the appeal.
Additional Help
If you need additional support in relation to this or future contact with us, please let us know as soon as possible. If you have difficulty reading this notice we can make reasonable adjustments to assist you, in line with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 2000.
We can also help if English is not your first language.
END

Let me add that this snivelling parasite not finished with him.