I attended the Town Hall as a candidate for co-option to the Council. What followed was not a fair or orderly process, but a clear abandonment of duty by those entrusted with public office.
My application was physically thrown to the floor in front of those present. Councillor Doug Rathbone then attempted to prevent me from distributing copies to the voting councillors, making repeated efforts to snatch them from my hand. This was not procedure—it was obstruction. The nature of that conduct, in a public setting and directed at a candidate, should reasonably be regarded as bullying behaviour.
When I began my candidate speech, I was met with repeated, unwarranted interruptions.
The Mayor then called for the meeting to be disbanded, and every councillor and officer complied without question—leaving me alone in the chamber, mid-process, as the candidate under consideration.
At that moment, those present did not merely adjourn proceedings—they abandoned their civic responsibilities. In doing so, they denied the process its integrity and failed in their duty to conduct Council business lawfully and transparently.
I raised a clear point of order: Section 2.8 of the adopted Co-option Procedure had not been followed. Instead of addressing that, an uninformed police officer approached me while I remained seated at the candidate table and instructed me to stop speaking. This intervention appeared to fall outside the officer’s proper role and jurisdiction within a civic meeting of this nature, and could reasonably be perceived as both unlawful interference and an act of intimidation. In that context, it may also be viewed as bullying behaviour.
I also perceived this sequence of events as a deliberate attempt to preserve the Council’s Liberal majority rather than to allow a fair and open co-option process.
This conduct has brought the Council into disrepute. It reflects not governance, but avoidance—where procedure is set aside when it becomes inconvenient.
The treatment I received appears rooted not in rules, but in the fact I stood as an independent candidate rather than aligning with the prevailing group.
I had witnesses present who observed the conduct in full.
What should have been a lawful and open democratic process instead became a display of disorder, obstruction, intimidation, and abandonment of office. That is unacceptable in any public body, and it demands accountability.
I believed my report, detailing the abuse, intimidation, and mistreatment I experienced at the hands of Liberal councillors, could serve as compelling evidence of why safeguarding protections are needed for members of the public who seek transparency, scrutiny, and accountability from those elected to serve them.
My intention was that the report be used to support Madeleine's campaign by providing a real-world example of an issue that is too often ignored. While considerable attention is given to protecting councillors from abuse, far less attention is paid to the treatment of citizens who challenge decisions, ask difficult questions, or demand openness from public authorities.
My experience raises a fundamental democratic concern. If elected representatives can subject members of the public to hostility, exclusion, intimidation, or retaliatory behaviour simply for exercising their right to scrutinise those in power, then the public themselves require safeguarding. Democracy cannot function if accountability carries personal consequences for those who seek it.
The report was therefore intended not as a personal grievance, but as evidence of a wider problem: the need to protect ordinary citizens from the misuse of power when they engage in legitimate democratic scrutiny. The question is not only who protects councillors from abuse, but who protects the public when abuse comes from councillors.
Thank you, Peter. Your previous comment pushed me immediately to act, and since then I’ve received several emails from other readers sharing their own experiences. So… it’s time to create The Black Book and place it directly into Parliament’s hands.
I also strongly recommend to read my next piece, it’s directly related, but goes much further into another part of the same machinery, driven in this case by the same baroness. I hope to publish it later today, if I can pull all these shocking facts together.
Time to bring them all to accountability, one by one.
Do I need to identify the council and the chair of the meeting? The meeting minutes state that the meeting was adjourned due to disruption, which is not an accurate reflection of what occurred.
The meeting was held by Westmorland and Furness Council at Kendal Town Hall, with Mayor Richard Sutton acting as Chair.
Of course not. And that’s exactly what we’re doing now: taking them to account with evidence so solid they can’t twist it, because it all comes from their own actions, not from any “complaining public”. The reason this was never challenged is the usual court‑fee intimidation tactic which always works because the average person has no idea how the process really works.
My experience of being abused by councillors
Report: Council Co-option Meeting – 7 April
Peter Nicholson
To: me · Wed, 15 Apr at 21:56
Message Body
Report: Council Co-option Meeting – 7 April
I attended the Town Hall as a candidate for co-option to the Council. What followed was not a fair or orderly process, but a clear abandonment of duty by those entrusted with public office.
My application was physically thrown to the floor in front of those present. Councillor Doug Rathbone then attempted to prevent me from distributing copies to the voting councillors, making repeated efforts to snatch them from my hand. This was not procedure—it was obstruction. The nature of that conduct, in a public setting and directed at a candidate, should reasonably be regarded as bullying behaviour.
When I began my candidate speech, I was met with repeated, unwarranted interruptions.
The Mayor then called for the meeting to be disbanded, and every councillor and officer complied without question—leaving me alone in the chamber, mid-process, as the candidate under consideration.
At that moment, those present did not merely adjourn proceedings—they abandoned their civic responsibilities. In doing so, they denied the process its integrity and failed in their duty to conduct Council business lawfully and transparently.
I raised a clear point of order: Section 2.8 of the adopted Co-option Procedure had not been followed. Instead of addressing that, an uninformed police officer approached me while I remained seated at the candidate table and instructed me to stop speaking. This intervention appeared to fall outside the officer’s proper role and jurisdiction within a civic meeting of this nature, and could reasonably be perceived as both unlawful interference and an act of intimidation. In that context, it may also be viewed as bullying behaviour.
I also perceived this sequence of events as a deliberate attempt to preserve the Council’s Liberal majority rather than to allow a fair and open co-option process.
This conduct has brought the Council into disrepute. It reflects not governance, but avoidance—where procedure is set aside when it becomes inconvenient.
The treatment I received appears rooted not in rules, but in the fact I stood as an independent candidate rather than aligning with the prevailing group.
I had witnesses present who observed the conduct in full.
What should have been a lawful and open democratic process instead became a display of disorder, obstruction, intimidation, and abandonment of office. That is unacceptable in any public body, and it demands accountability.
Peter Nicholson
Office of the Kendal Cultural Attaché
I believed my report, detailing the abuse, intimidation, and mistreatment I experienced at the hands of Liberal councillors, could serve as compelling evidence of why safeguarding protections are needed for members of the public who seek transparency, scrutiny, and accountability from those elected to serve them.
My intention was that the report be used to support Madeleine's campaign by providing a real-world example of an issue that is too often ignored. While considerable attention is given to protecting councillors from abuse, far less attention is paid to the treatment of citizens who challenge decisions, ask difficult questions, or demand openness from public authorities.
My experience raises a fundamental democratic concern. If elected representatives can subject members of the public to hostility, exclusion, intimidation, or retaliatory behaviour simply for exercising their right to scrutinise those in power, then the public themselves require safeguarding. Democracy cannot function if accountability carries personal consequences for those who seek it.
The report was therefore intended not as a personal grievance, but as evidence of a wider problem: the need to protect ordinary citizens from the misuse of power when they engage in legitimate democratic scrutiny. The question is not only who protects councillors from abuse, but who protects the public when abuse comes from councillors.
Thank you, Peter. Your previous comment pushed me immediately to act, and since then I’ve received several emails from other readers sharing their own experiences. So… it’s time to create The Black Book and place it directly into Parliament’s hands.
I also strongly recommend to read my next piece, it’s directly related, but goes much further into another part of the same machinery, driven in this case by the same baroness. I hope to publish it later today, if I can pull all these shocking facts together.
Time to bring them all to accountability, one by one.
Thank you so much, Madeleine.
Do I need to identify the council and the chair of the meeting? The meeting minutes state that the meeting was adjourned due to disruption, which is not an accurate reflection of what occurred.
The meeting was held by Westmorland and Furness Council at Kendal Town Hall, with Mayor Richard Sutton acting as Chair.
On and for the record
Brilliant, thank you :-)
Have their been any consequences for this corrupt practice?
Of course not. And that’s exactly what we’re doing now: taking them to account with evidence so solid they can’t twist it, because it all comes from their own actions, not from any “complaining public”. The reason this was never challenged is the usual court‑fee intimidation tactic which always works because the average person has no idea how the process really works.
Very well said...
LGC internal propaganda machine. To add Acting Editor comments: “National local election campaigns are pointless”