THE FOLLY of shamed Burnley councillor Peter Swainston has already cost him the privilege of being the town's first citizen.

He resigned as Mayor last month after admitting a sex offence offence in public toilets at Nelson.

And he was right to do so - though his dishonour might have been tempered with more credit had he resigned immediately he was caught, not once his appearance in court (curiously, switched to Preston's magistrates) was revealed.

For such disgrace does not mix with the dignity of the mayoralty.

But tonight Burnley Council is being asked whether it should also go with the role of councillor.

For Independent councillor Harry Brooks is calling on the town's Labour bosses to condemn the ex-mayor's action in a bid to force him to quit as a councillor.

His motion calls on members to record their belief "that acts of gross indecency in a public lavatory are incompatible with holding elected public office representing the whole or any part of Burnley."

No-one would dispute Coun Brooks's right to put forward this view.

But whether it is inspired by moral concern, politicking or simply a desire to twist the knife, it is one that his fellow councillors are quite free to ignore since it is not their job to make that judgment.

Had Coun Swainston not resigned as mayor and such a motion been put in regard to his continuing to hold the office, it would be perfectly valid - since the mayor is appointed by the council.

But, as the word "elected" in Coun Brooks's submission emphasises, councillors are chosen by the people.

And it is only they, the voters of Coun Swainston's ward, who in this case have the democratic right to decide whether holding elected public office and acts of gross indecency in a public lavatory are incompatible.

It would, of course, have spared Coun Swainston the embarrassment of this call to quit if he himself had already answered that question differently.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.