Tuesday, 19 February 2013

Under pressure

The accounts we've read of court proceeding suggest that Carmarthen chief exec Mark James had a slightly tricky time in the witness box.

The Western Mail - or possibly the Press Association given the similarity of reports - quotes Mr James as claiming that his actions, which subsequently found him and the county council sued for alleged libel, were motivated by noble intentions.

"There were a lot of misconceptions and falsehoods being put around about what we were or weren't doing", he told the court.

"Councillors felt that the entire reputation of the council was being put into disrepute and, as the principal advisor to the council, I was the one they turned to to do something about it."
This prompted him to write an unflattering letter about Jacqui Thompson aka blogger Caerbrwyn to a third party which was copied to 74 councillors and viewed 825 times in a different blog.

The circumstances as to how this all came about and how a counter-action for libel was authorised - as reported by Y Cneifwr - seemed a bit low on rationale and occasionally even lower on credibility.

The trail continues but we wait to see if anyone raises the point that the sequence of actions taken against Caebrwyn span the time in office of two separate and [supposedly] opposed political administrations. For the moment, Mr James appears to be at risk of coming over as the common denominator.


  1. Not sure about the separate and [supposedly] opposed administrations bit. The personnel of the two executive boards is more or less the same. Before the 2011 elections the Independents had more seats than their Labour coalition partners. After the election, Labour had a lead of 2. Following a recent defection, Labour and the Indies are level pegging.

    Whether you call it Independent-Labour or Labour-Independent, the people running the show are the same ones who have been there for years (10+ in some cases).


This is a blog - not a free speech forum. We operate a moderation policy which may result in the removal or amendment of text to enable publication.

Comments we deem as racist, offensive, defamatory or discriminatory will not be published. Offending ISPs will be blocked.