Criticism of mayor wasn't always such a risk-free business
The creation of the post of mayor of Leicester has been followed by floods of frequently very personal criticisms in the Mercury and elsewhere of Sir Peter Soulsby and his work (often from people who don't even live in the city, though that's another issue).
Perhaps the critics ought to reflect on the following historic case concerning publicly abusing the mayor, which was found in the Borough Records for 1549 (spelling modernised).
-
"Memorandum: the 22nd day of November in the third year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King Edward the Sixth, Thomas Cock of the town of Leicester, horse-dealer, in the open street did misconduct himself against Nicholas Reynold, then being mayor of the town of Leicester, with many and varied unseemly words.
"And the said Thomas Cock was ordered to (return to) his Ward (ie, the area of the town where he lived) for his so disobeying and there was punished for his offence (presumably spending some hours or longer in the stocks?)
SUNDAY OPEN BUFFET EAT AS MUCH AS U CAN £6.99PP & A LA CARTE...
Leicester's ONLY Lebanese Cuisine - Cedars Bar & Restaurant 46/48 Church Gate Leicester LE1 4AJ
View detailsCome & Try our Delicious Menu with an Amazing 15% off all Food Bills on a la carte menu only
Terms: Lebanese & Mediterenian Menu With An Amazing 15% Off Your Food Bills on a la carte menu only
Contact: 0116 2169184
Valid until: Sunday, May 26 2013
And on the application to Mr Gyllot, Master Wode & Master Cotton, being justices of the peace, the same Nicholas Reynold being mayor, did put the matter wholly unto them to use (deal with) the same as they thought convenient (suitable) and upon the same the said Thomas Cock came before the said justices and was sorry for his disobedience, acknowledged his offence, and promised before the same Justices never to use himself (act) so any more."
Patrick Boylan, Thurncourt.
Comments
by Oh_come_on
Sunday, December 30 2012, 11:02AM
“Ok to put it another way, 55% of those who voted choose to vote for Peter Soulsby. Either way he won the election fair and square under the rules of the election.
As I said before I may not agree with the way the position of mayor came about and I may not agree with some of his decisions but I would rather people discuss these issues in a adult manner rather than childish name calling.”
by democrat
Sunday, December 30 2012, 9:15AM
“Oh_Come_on
He was not elected by a majority”
by Oh_come_on
Sunday, December 30 2012, 9:06AM
“Eastonian- if only that were the case for every critic of Peter Soulsby. I agree with your argument that there should have been a referendum on the role of mayor. What I don't agree with is those who continuously criticise everything he does using childish schoolyard name calling. If they could formulate an adult argument against a particular issue/idea they maybe taken more seriously. Currently the majority of these childish comments just look like some personal vendetta rather than a serious argument against the role of mayor or the manner in which the role was created. Even if you don't like Peter Soulsby he was elected by the majority fair and square.”
by oldhenry
Saturday, December 29 2012, 7:52PM
“When you remove a proper council elected to run the city and replce it with a fiefdom what do youe xpect? I do not live in the city but had dealings withe SPS many years ago when working in local government. I woud not have voted for him, I would have chosen Old Nick himself perhaps.”
by braunstoneboy
Thursday, December 27 2012, 12:25PM
“@marky...i think there is a * missing in your observation !”
by Eastonian
Thursday, December 27 2012, 11:57AM
“The fact is, Patrick Boyland, it is not so much the incumbent of this newly created post but the way in which it was introduced and handled. Introduced by a vote of a few city residents who happened to be City Councillors and supporters of New Labour.
That is not what the Government intended or wanted to happen. It was always a case that the local population would decide by a referendum whether they wanted this new way of local governance was to be adopted or not. Just as the other 11 cities were given the opportunity.
You may reflect on what happened centuries ago but that has absolutely nothing at all to do with this situation. The citizens of Leicester were denied this basic right and you nor anyone else should forget it!!”
by Markymark002
Thursday, December 27 2012, 11:28AM
“Yes well those punishments date from a time when people believed the royal family was descended from god. Or, for that matter, from a time when people believed in god - or else.
Happily (most) people are less craven now, and more demanding of propriety - yes, Parsons, I'm looking at you - and accountability in public office. And quite right too. It's called freedom of speech. And, whilst there's still some left, if Soulsby or any other grubby little council gauleiter makes a decision that makes him look like a t*t, I reserve the right to point it out.
Happy New Year, one and all.”