100 signatures reached
To: The Conservative and Unionist Party
Sack Councillor Carroll
We the undersigned are appalled and disgusted that the Conservative Party have reinstated councillor Rosemary Carroll, after her sharing of an openly racist, vile 'joke' on her Facebook account in June 2017.
The joke was vulgar and incited hatred and discrimination against people of colour. Comparing brown people to dogs, and implying that they stink, and are stupid and lazy, is not acceptable at any level of society, let alone those we elect to represent us.
We also call on the Tory party to publicly apologise for such a cynical move. The reinstatement of this councillor was done for transparent reasons. Regaining her seat means the Tories now control the council.
We understand political parties have the aim of getting into power but welcoming this particular councillor back into the fold in order to achieve this is surely too high a price to pay, even for the Tory party.
The joke was vulgar and incited hatred and discrimination against people of colour. Comparing brown people to dogs, and implying that they stink, and are stupid and lazy, is not acceptable at any level of society, let alone those we elect to represent us.
We also call on the Tory party to publicly apologise for such a cynical move. The reinstatement of this councillor was done for transparent reasons. Regaining her seat means the Tories now control the council.
We understand political parties have the aim of getting into power but welcoming this particular councillor back into the fold in order to achieve this is surely too high a price to pay, even for the Tory party.
Why is this important?
Elected officials in this country are supposed to be guided in their every decision by the 7 principles of public life.
If we give this particular councillor the doubt, and ignore the codes on ethics and leadership, she surely a contravenes Article 3 of the code. Article 3 states the following:
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.
How on earth can the electorate be confident that this councillor can adhere to this principle? We can't trust in her ability to act and make decisions 'without discrimination or bias' when she is clearly and unashamedly racist.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life is currently undertaking a review of local government ethical standards which ends later this month.
Their comments about the review imply that their findings are going to be even stricter than the current guidelines.
'Robust standards arrangements are needed to safeguard local democracy, maintain high standards of conduct, and to protect ethical practice in local government.'
Surely this councillor must be sacked and a by election called, to maintain the integrity of public office and attempt improve the reputation of the Tory party.
If we give this particular councillor the doubt, and ignore the codes on ethics and leadership, she surely a contravenes Article 3 of the code. Article 3 states the following:
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.
How on earth can the electorate be confident that this councillor can adhere to this principle? We can't trust in her ability to act and make decisions 'without discrimination or bias' when she is clearly and unashamedly racist.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life is currently undertaking a review of local government ethical standards which ends later this month.
Their comments about the review imply that their findings are going to be even stricter than the current guidelines.
'Robust standards arrangements are needed to safeguard local democracy, maintain high standards of conduct, and to protect ethical practice in local government.'
Surely this councillor must be sacked and a by election called, to maintain the integrity of public office and attempt improve the reputation of the Tory party.
