Racism allegations among latest complaints against Peterborough councillors

Below is a list of the most recent complaints, with names redacted by the council as members are not identified unless the complaint is upheld.

Complaints since February 8 (descriptions from a council report)

. May 8 - A complaint was made by a member of the public regarding a verbal exchange between them and a councillor, with the latter accused of refusing to speak to the former on the grounds of them being a “racist with white privilege”.

The complainant considered that the councillor’s behaviour was “rude, disrespectful and discriminating”.

The councillor “confirmed that the conversation had taken place but that it had been more detailed than alleged and that he had apologised at the time”.

The apology was accepted as an informal resolution.

. May 7 - A complaint was made by a member of the public regarding a councillor’s support for a local business establishment “which is the known subject of nuisance complaints”.

The complainant considered that this “demonstrates bias on the part of the subject member and in light of the concerns raised has the potential to bring them/the council into disrepute. The complainant also considers that it is preventing the nuisance from being properly addressed”.

The complaint is now being escalated to the next stage.

Recently concluded complaints

. January 20 - A councillor alleged that another councillor had breached the code of conduct by “inciting religious hatred via comments made on social media”.

However, the deputy monitoring officer “did not have sufficient information to progress the complaint and therefore requested the complainant to complete the template complaint form. No further information was forthcoming and the complaint has therefore been discontinued”.

. February 3 - A complaint was made by a member of the public regarding comments alleged to have been posted about them on social media.

Further information was sought but the complainant “responded to confirm that they would not be pursing their complaint and the matters was therefore concluded”.

. January 20 - A complaint was made by a member of the public in relation to comments made by a councillor during a visit to business premises.

The councillor was “accused of making racist comments about the progress of the Covid-19 recovery programme”.

They responded by denying any recollection of the alleged remarks but offered an “unreserved apology for any offence that may unintentionally have been caused during the course of the conversation”.

This was accepted.

. January - A complaint was made by a member of the public in relation to two city councillors and their involvement in a “local issue”.

However, further information was not provided from the complainant who “indicated they would prefer to take an alternative route and make a complaint to the LGO (Local Government Ombudsman”.