The iron fist

Well, the worst has happened. If reports are to be believed, many local bloggers and forums have fallen foul of draconian action taken by the Chief Executive of Conwy CBC to ban access to these sites from work computers in Conwy.  Does Byron Davies realise the full implications of this demagoguery? No longer will the planning department be able to peruse the details of who folk think Oscar really is, the sheer captivating delights of reading about double-scanning in Somerfields will be denied Trading Standards, whilst the Highways chaps won’t have the unalloyed joy of absorbing minutiae  about trams and monorails.

However light we make of this, there is a more serious side to what is - in effect - censorship.  The inimitable Jason Weyman on his highly informative and reliable blog reveals that both he and Cllr Groom asked the individual in question why such action had been taken. The response was startling in its clarity, perception and thoughtfulness:

I have been concerned with regard to staff and elected members bringing to my attention (instead of focusing on the job), slights, inaccuracies, innuendo and froth regarding staff and councillors which has been published on blog sites.

Oh dear. Notwithstanding that Byron’s grasp of English is less than sterling - rather tenuous, in fact - or his apparent requirement that the elected members only do what he deems important, what is actually being said here is that extracting information from external sources is not part of the remit of Conwy staff. And if we could find out what ‘froth’ means in the context, our life experience would be immeasurably enhanced, of that we can be sure. More worryingly,  however, he’s clearly being flexible with the truth.

Understandably, some have argued in favour, one anonymous contributor pointing out to Jason that “I agree with the CE, let the councillors and the employees look at these blogs and websites in their own free time. They are paid to work on official business not trawl the net. How would you feel Jason if your workers spent time chatting on their mobiles to friends or looking for holidays etc during work time when you are paying them.” but that comment itself makes several assumptions, one of which appears to be that ‘trawling the ‘net’ is not a legitimate use of an employee’s time.  Surely, however, that would depend on exactly what the purpose of the trawling was and what was found.

None of this matters, however, when we look at the real consequences of such actions. Although employers have the right to insist on their employees working during the working day and the prescribed hours, simply to deny access in such an arbitrary fashion to one identified ‘froth’ source makes a significant and not altogether healthy observation  about the standard of management within Conwy council offices.

Employees have work to do and the managers’ job is to ensure that a reasonable amount of that work is completed within a reasonable time. If Byron thinks the workers are not, as he puts it “focusing on the job” then there are legitimate remedies available to the management, such as competency and fitness hearings. Unless, of course, he has no evidence of his allegations.

In his rather less than erudite, not to say somewhat broken English, he goes on to say 

“Any officer or councillor can, in their own time and using their own equipment, have access to the internet and blog sites as they see fit however, I do not see why Council facilities and resources should be misused and wasted on these matters.”

If that’s the case, then perhaps he should present evidence to support his peremptory action. What evidence exists that “Council facilities and resources (are being) misused and wasted”?  Or does he, in fact, have any at all? Surely, he can't be doing this simply on hearsay, or after requests by a couple of councillors?  That would indeed call his capacity to be CE into question.  It's one thing appointing someone who finds the composition of  simple sentences daunting,   (although why they did is a little disconcerting) but appointing someone whose ability is to make judgement calls based upon imaginary evidence seems of far greater concern.

Of course, he’s in good company. China, Burma, Vietnam, North Korea and Egypt all block access to sites which comprise content the rulers would rather their citizens not see. But he really should consider exactly why he’s doing it. There are a number of possibilities why people censor, but the single most common reason is that they fear the truth.  And they fear their minions learning the truth.  Byron’s facile and ethereal arguments simply don’t hold water;  censoring access to any medium for a whole cohort of workers is dangerous, short-sighted and trading on their willingness to accept the actions without question.  But the final, albeit paraphrased, word belongs to Amnesty:

“An (agency) which censors the information available to its people, other than in a state of national emergency is an (agency) which seeks to keep the people in a state of ignorance, and should not complain if the people have no loyalty to it.”

Byron;  we’re only sorry you won’t be able to see that you have been warned.