Councillor’s “Nutjob” Remark Sparks Legal Warning Over Equality Law Compliance

This blog assesses the Folkestone & Hythe District Council (“the Council”) Equality and Diversity Policy 2025–29 against UK equality law, focusing on the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). We examine specific concerns – about a Labour’s Cllr, Adrian Lockwood (pictured) derogatory comment in a private WhatsApp chat, the treatment of private communications under standards law, the policy’s consultation process, and needed policy amendments – and provide recommendations to ensure legal compliance and best practice. All findings are supported by relevant statutes, case law, and guidance.

Councillor’s “Nutjob” Comment – Breach of Equality Duties?

Finding: A councillor referring to a resident as “nutjob” in a private WhatsApp group raises serious concerns under the Council’s equality commitments and code of conduct, though it may not directly breach the Equality Act 2010 unless it targets a protected characteristic. The Equality Act’s PSED requires councils to “eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation” and “foster good relations” between those with and without protected characteristics. In context, “nutjob” is an insulting term that could be perceived as derogatory toward persons with mental health disabilities (a protected characteristic under “disability”). If so, the comment might constitute harassment related to disability, which the Equality Act prohibits in service delivery and public functions. Even if not clearly tied to a protected trait, such language toward residents is inconsistent with the PSED’s spirit of respectful engagement and could undermine public trust.

Legal Framework: Under UK law, individual comments by a councillor do not automatically amount to a direct “breach” of the Equality Act unless they form part of discriminatory treatment or harassment of an individual in a protected group. The PSED is a duty on the council corporately to have due regard to equality in its functions; it does not create a personal cause of action against an official’s remarks. However, a councillor’s derogatory statements can put the Council at risk of violating the “foster good relations” limb of the PSED if they create or signal a culture of disrespect toward people with (or perceived as having) protected characteristics. In Bracking v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions (2013), the Court of Appeal emphasized that equality considerations must be “placed at the centre of formulation of policy” and approached “with rigour and with an open mind”. A councillor privately disparaging residents runs contrary to these principles and suggests a lack of due regard in practice.

Codes of Conduct: More directly, the councillor’s remark likely violates standards of conduct. Local government members are generally required to treat others with respect and not bring their office or authority into disrepute. Under the Council’s own Equality Policy, “any instances of non-adherence… by its staff [or] Members… will be investigated and, where appropriate, disciplinary action will be considered.”. Case law confirms that when councillors make offensive statements (even in purportedly private settings), they can face sanctions. Notably, in Livingstone v Adjudication Panel (2006), the High Court quashed a suspension of the Mayor of London for offensive remarks made off-duty, but did so largely on jurisdictional grounds (the code then applied only to official capacity) – the court did not condone the remarks and acknowledged such conduct could justify censure if within remit. Under the current standards regime (Localism Act 2011), a council can address a member’s inappropriate private comments if they relate to council business or bring the council into disrepute. In this case, calling residents a “nutjob” (especially if those residents were engaging with the council) could be seen as conduct bringing the office into disrepute or failing to treat the public with respect. Thus, while not a direct Equality Act violation per se, the comment breaches the Council’s equality policy and the likely Code of Conduct duties of respect, warranting investigation and possible action (e.g. formal apology, training, or loss of committee roles).

Conclusion: A councillor’s “nutjob” slur against residents does not itself constitute unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 unless tied to a protected trait like disability. However, it contravenes the Public Sector Equality Duty’s ethos and the Council’s Policy commitments to dignity and respect. It should be treated as misconduct under standards procedures. In summary, the comment reflects a failure to uphold the expected equality and respect standards, but it is addressed through council disciplinary mechanisms rather than a direct legal claim by residents.

Private Communications by Elected Members – Legal Precedents

Finding: There are clear precedents where private messages by elected officials, once exposed, led to disciplinary or legal consequences. UK tribunals and monitoring officers have held that “private” communications are not immune if they reveal conduct unbecoming of a public official (especially if discriminatory or egregiously disrespectful). Two relevant strands emerge: political party discipline and statutory code of conduct enforcement.

• Political Party Discipline: Parties may suspend or sanction members for offensive private chat content. For example, in 2025 the Labour Party suspended 11 councillors for participating in an offensive private WhatsApp group. In that leaked group, a Member of Parliament and councillors had traded crude sexist and ableist insults about constituents – one councillor called a constituent “an illiterate retard” and others labeled the public as “arseholes.”. The party, upon learning of these remarks, took swift action, emphasizing that even communications presumed private can trigger consequences when they violate basic standards of decency and non-discrimination.

• Code of Conduct Enforcement: Formal legal proceedings have also arisen from private remarks. In a headline case from Wales, Edwards v Adjudication Panel for Wales (2025), a county councillor was disqualified for 4 years after sending a racist WhatsApp voice note in private. In that recording (leaked to the public), he said “all white men should have a black man or woman as a slave…they’re lower class than us white people.” The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales found it was likely his voice and referred the matter to the Adjudication Panel, which ruled the councillor had breached the code of conduct by making grossly racist remarks and banned him from office. The councillor’s attempt to claim the recording was a “deep fake” was rejected, and his private context did not excuse the behavior. He has the right to appeal to the High Court, but the case underscores that private communications can lead to official sanctions when they evidence prejudiced or hateful conduct.

• Other Rulings: Even in England, where enforcement powers are weaker, councillors have faced censure for private social media or email content. For instance, case law under the prior standards regime (pre-2012) held that a councillor’s blog or messages, though done outside formal meetings, fell within the code if the content clearly related to council business or status (see Calver v Adjudication Panel for Wales [2012], which balanced a councillor’s right to free expression against offensive blog comments about colleagues). Additionally, courts have drawn a line: if comments are truly in a personal capacity and unrelated to council matters, they may fall outside the code (as in the Livingstone case). However, most council codes (including likely Folkestone & Hythe’s) now stipulate that disrespectful or discriminatory conduct by members, when brought into the public realm, will be treated as a breach even if it occurred on “private” digital forums. The rationale is that hateful or derogatory speech by an elected member erodes public confidence and “is conduct capable of bringing the authority into disrepute,” a ground for action under many codes.

Conclusion: Legal and tribunal precedents demonstrate zero tolerance for discriminatory or grossly inappropriate language by councillors in any forum. Private electronic communications are not a safe haven for misconduct. If such messages become public, councillors have been suspended, publicly censured, or even removed from office. The Council can draw on these precedents in enforcing its own Policy: a councillor’s offensive private remarks about residents would justify investigation and sanctions, aligning with outcomes seen elsewhere in the UK.

Consultation in Developing the Equality Policy – Legal Analysis

Finding: The Council’s apparent failure to consult people from protected characteristic groups during the development of its Equality and Diversity Policy 2025–29 is a significant procedural flaw. While the Equality Act 2010 does not impose an explicit, general duty to consult on every policy change, case law on the PSED emphasizes that public bodies must base their decisions on adequate evidence and inclusive consideration of those affected. The absence of any consultation with diverse stakeholders can indicate that the Council did not have the required “due regard” to the needs of those with protected characteristics.

Legal Standards: There is “no general duty to carry out a consultation before making or changing a policy”. However, if a public body fails to consult at all, this can bolster a legal challenge that it breached the PSED. The reason is that without consulting or otherwise gathering input from protected groups, the council may lack essential information on how its policy affects those groups. Courts have been clear that “due regard” is not a mere tick-box exercise – authorities must actively inquire into and understand potential impacts on equality. In R (Brown) v DWP (2008) and R (Bracking) v DWP (2013), it was established that decision-makers should make a “conscious approach” to equality duties and must have evidence of a “structured attempt to focus upon… equality issues” when shaping policy. Failing to consult any individuals or groups representing (for example) disabled, minority ethnic, or LGBTQ+ communities suggests that the Council may not have fully identified or understood barriers faced by those communities – undermining the substance of its PSED compliance.

Public Sector Equality Duty: Section 149 of the Equality Act requires the Council, in carrying out its functions, to have due regard to eliminating discrimination and advancing equality. The specific duties regulations (applicable to councils) require publication of equality objectives and data, but do not mandate a particular consultation process. However, consultation is widely regarded as best practice under the PSED, as it helps demonstrate that the council considered diverse perspectives. For example, in R (LH) v Shropshire Council [2014], the Court of Appeal found that a thorough (and lawful) consultation on closing a disability day centre showed the council had due regard to equality, noting that the process of engaging affected service users evidenced compliance with the PSED. Conversely, if consultation is absent, a court may infer that decision-makers did not adequately equip themselves with the knowledge of equality impacts. Indeed, “without specific evidence, the public body cannot properly assess the likely impact of a policy on protected groups.”

In short, lack of consultation can lead to a breach of the PSED if it results in important equality impacts being overlooked. There is no direct statutory penalty for failing to consult on an equality policy, but the policy (or decisions flowing from it) could be vulnerable to judicial review on grounds of inadequate equality considerations. The Council itself recognizes in its Policy that “effective information, consultation and involvement are essential to [the] policy’s success” and commits to “inform, consult and involve the relevant people… so that they have the opportunity to influence policies and practices.”. Not following these stated principles could also breach the council’s governance standards and promises to the community.

Conclusion: The Council’s failure to consult any individuals from protected characteristic groups during the policy development is inconsistent with PSED principles and the Council’s own policy commitments. While not an automatic standalone illegality, it represents a serious risk area. In the event of a challenge, a court would likely examine whether the Council gathered enough evidence of minority and disadvantaged groups’ needs by other means. If not, the lack of consultation would bolster a claim that the Council did not pay due regard to the equality needs of its diverse residents. Proactively, the Council should treat inclusive consultation as a necessary step for any policy affecting equality outcomes.

Policy Compliance Gaps and Recommended Amendments

Our audit identifies two primary areas where the Equality & Diversity Policy 2025–29 should be strengthened to ensure full compliance with legal standards: (A) Accountability for Councillor Conduct, and (B) Inclusive Consultation Practices. Below we detail necessary amendments in each area:

A. Accountability for Councillor Conduct

Findings: The Policy currently acknowledges that it applies to “staff, Members, contractors and partners,” and that breaches will be taken seriously. However, it stops short of specifying mechanisms for holding councillors accountable. Given that councillors are not employees and cannot be disciplined under employee procedures, the Policy should explicitly tie member conduct to the Members’ Code of conduct and the statutory standards process. There is also no mention of the Nolan Principles (ethical standards in public life) – particularly Integrity, Accountability, Leadership – which underpin expected behavior. The recent incident of a councillor’s derogatory WhatsApp comment highlights that the Policy needs clarity on consequences for member misconduct in relation to equality.

Required Amendments (Councillor Conduct):

• Explicit Reference to the Code of Conduct: Amend the Policy to state that councillors (Members) “are expected to uphold this Equality and Diversity Policy at all times in their role, and any breach by a Member will be addressed under the Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct and statutory standards procedures.” For example: “Use of derogatory or discriminatory language by elected Members, whether in public or private communications relating to Council business, will be investigated as a potential Code of Conduct violation.” This creates a clear link between the Equality Policy and the enforceable code mechanism.

• Clarify Sanctions for Members: While the Policy notes disciplinary action will be “considered”, it should outline what sanctions are applicable to councillors. Recommended text: “If an elected Member is found to have violated this Policy, the Council may issue a formal censure, require training, remove the Member from official positions (e.g. committees or portfolio roles), or take other actions available in law.” This transparency aligns with the Localism Act 2011 framework and alerts members to real consequences.

• Include Examples of Misconduct: To reinforce expectations, the Policy could append examples of prohibited conduct. For instance: “Disparaging service users or residents with insults (such as mocking someone’s disability or using offensive slurs) is a violation of our Equality Policy and will be treated as misconduct.” Real-world cases like the WhatsApp incident or others (in anonymized form) might be referenced as illustrative scenarios.

• Training and Ongoing Monitoring: Add a requirement that all councillors receive regular training on equality and diversity (the Policy’s section 9 already hints at inviting speakers and training for Members; this should be made a firm commitment). Emphasize that participation in such training is expected and non-attendance may itself be noted by oversight bodies. Additionally, the Policy’s monitoring section could instruct the Council’s Standards Committee or Monitoring Officer to review any complaints of member bias or harassment as part of the annual equality objectives review.

These amendments will ensure the Policy not only states ideals but also plugs into the accountability structure needed to enforce those ideals. A councillor who refers to constituents in demeaning terms, for example, would clearly fall within the scope of enforcement action as amended, eliminating ambiguity about how the Council will respond.

B. Inclusive Consultation and Engagement

Findings: The Policy contains general commitments to consultation – it says the Council will “inform, consult and involve… elected Members, employees and stakeholders about decisions which affect them” and will “ensure that people from different backgrounds and protected characteristics are able to fully participate in consultation and involvement activities.”. However, the process of developing this very Policy seemingly did not involve any direct input from community members or groups representing protected classes. This contradiction exposes a gap between policy and practice. To comply with PSED best practice and assure the community that their voices matter, the Policy should be amended to mandate inclusive engagement when setting or reviewing equality objectives and policies.

Required Amendments (Consultation Practices):

• Commit to Co-Design with Affected Groups: Insert a provision that “the Council will actively seek out and listen to the perspectives of people who have protected characteristics in the development and review of any equality or diversity policies or action plans.” This could be operationalized by establishing an Equality Advisory Group or liaising with existing community forums (e.g. disability networks, faith councils, LGBTQ+ groups, racial minority community leaders). Even if not a legal requirement, such engagement is a powerful evidence of due regard.

• Public Consultation for Policy Updates: Make it explicit that each four-year review of the Equality Policy (or the annual light-touch reviews) will include a public consultation or stakeholder input phase. For example: “Prior to finalizing any new Equality Policy or substantial amendment, the Council will publish a draft and invite feedback from residents, staff, and representative organisations of protected groups.” This aligns with the principle that consultations should occur at a formative stage and allow sufficient time for input. Such a commitment, if in place, would have prevented the oversight of not consulting this time around.

• Record and Publish the Input: To enhance transparency and accountability, add that “the results of consultation exercises and how they influenced the Policy will be published on the Council’s website.” (The Policy already lists as an objective the publishing of consultation results for council events; this should explicitly extend to equality policy consultations as well.) By doing so, the Council demonstrates it is meeting the Cabinet Office consultation principles of facilitating scrutiny and feedback.

• Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) with Stakeholder Input: The Policy does require EIAs for new policies or revisions. We recommend amending it to say that when conducting an EIA on a major policy (including the Equality Policy itself), officers will engage with representatives of any group likely to be impacted. This might mean, for instance, inviting a local disability charity to comment on accessibility impacts. Such an amendment reinforces that evidence-gathering isn’t a purely desk-based exercise and reflects case law urging authorities to go beyond minimal internal analysis (see e.g. failure in Bridges v South Wales Police where lack of investigating potential racial bias in software was a PSED breach).

By implementing the above changes, the Policy will better fulfill the PSED’s requirements of “due regard”. It will ensure that equality policies are not drafted in isolation, but in partnership with those who experience inequality, thereby making the policies more effective and legally robust.

Recommendations Summary

To conclude, the Council’s Equality and Diversity Policy 2025–29 is a strong commitment on paper to the Equality Act 2010 principles. However, to align fully with UK legal standards and rulings, the Council should:

• Reinforce Councillor Accountability: Clearly integrate the Members’ Code of Conduct into the Policy’s enforcement section, stipulating that any councillor’s derogatory or discriminatory conduct (even in “private” discussions about council matters) will invoke standards proceedings and possible sanctions. This closes the gap between policy and practical enforcement for elected members, addressing scenarios like the “nutjob” comment with appropriate gravity.

• Mandate Inclusive Consultation: Establish in the Policy a requirement to consult or otherwise involve people from protected characteristic groups when formulating or reviewing equality objectives and policies. This amendment will help the Council demonstrate the “conscious approach” and evidence-based decision-making that the courts expect under the PSED, reducing the risk of legal challenge. It also honors the Council’s own stated principle that those affected by policies should have a say in shaping them.

• Enhance Training and Monitoring: Add provisions for regular equality training for both staff and Members (with specific mention of training for councillors on respectful communication and bias awareness). Also, task a responsible body (e.g. the Corporate Leadership Team or Standards Committee) with annually monitoring not just the numerical equality objectives, but also qualitative compliance – such as reviewing any complaints about councillor/officer discriminatory conduct and progress on consultation initiatives. This creates a feedback loop to keep the Policy alive and effective over its 2025–29 span.

• Review and Update Policy Language: Finally, ensure the Policy’s language itself reflects inclusivity. Any derogatory terms or outdated references should be removed (the current Policy does not use such language, but the Council should be vigilant). The Council may also wish to reference contemporary equality standards or definitions (for instance, explicitly noting that terms like “nutjob” are unacceptable and contrary to fostering good relations).

By implementing these recommendations, Folkestone & Hythe District Council will bolster its compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty. It will also set a clear example that equality is a lived commitment – upheld in officials’ conduct and in how policies are made – thereby protecting the council from legal missteps and, more importantly, promoting a fair and respectful environment for all residents and staff.

We would be interested in hearing about your experiences of your Fokestone & Hythe District Councillors. Email: TheShepwayVoxTeam@proton.me in confidence.

The Shepway Vox Team

Definitively Defiant Disabled Dissent