Your main story of 4th June concludes with quotations from two SIC councillors who do not wish to be named.
Not for the first time in your reports of this long-running sorry case some councillors have felt able to talk tough only if their comments are unattributed and I think that this behaviour is worthy of comment. It is not a favourable comment but I find I can put my name to it quite easily. What’s their problem?
It is striking that although all of the present SIC councillors stood as independents, their subsequent behaviour shows remarkable levels of collusion. It also seems that many in this group try, overtly and covertly, to depict those who disagree with them as somehow at fault, as if people could only disagree because they are disagreeable.
We are now told that complaining against councillor Jonathan Wills caused the complainants agitation and sleepless nights. Please correct me if I am wrong but I seem to remember that at the time of making the complaint the complainants saw to it that the details were emailed to all SIC employees. Would any of the five signatories now care to explain why they did this? Otherwise it might appear that they ganged up to try to isolate and undermine a troublesome councillor.
I expect that Dr Wills is something of a troublemaker – and the trouble is that he often has a point. Anonymous calls for him to shut up are a shoddy substitute for argument. At least the five signatories put their names to their complaint. Anonymous public criticism by other councillors is sly and reprehensible behaviour. The paper is quite right to use this material because this furtive behaviour by councillors is remarkable and it seems remarkably poor.