Atheist victory on council prayers in UK

the culture of deference

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/atheist-victory-on-council-prayers-6700032.html

Christians and politicians reacted with dismay as the High Court
today outlawed the centuries-old tradition of formal prayers being said
at the start of local council meetings up and down the country.

The National Secular Society and an atheist ex-councillor won a test case ruling that Bideford town council, Devon, was acting unlawfully by putting prayer on meeting agendas.

He added: "I do not think that the 1972 Act dealing with the organisation, management and decision-making of local councils should be interpreted as permitting the religious views of one group of councillors, however sincere or large its number, to exclude or, even to a modest extent, impose burdens on or mark out those who do not share their views and do not wish to participate in their expression.
"They are all equally-elected councillors."

Simon Calvert, of the Christian Institute, said: "Prayers have been a part of council meetings for centuries, and many people, either for religious reasons or cultural reasons, see them as a positive part of our national life.
"It's a shame the courts have taken sides with those whose goal is to undermine our Christian heritage."

He called on Parliament to "stop this assault upon our national heritage".

Keith Porteous Wood, the society's executive director, said: "There is no longer a respectable argument that Britain is a solely Christian nation, or even a religious one."

The legal challenge was launched in July 2010 after the National Secular Society was contacted by Clive Bone - a non-believer who was then a Bideford councillor.

Mr Bone later left the council because of its "refusal to adjust" its prayer policy, which caused him embarrassment.

In court, the secularists' argument included assertions that prayers breached equality laws and articles nine and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect an individual's right to freedom of conscience and not to face discrimination.

The Bishop of Exeter, the Rt Rev Michael Langrish, condemned the ruling.
He told the BBC: "Every time there is a survey of religious beliefs in this country, around 70% of the population profess a faith and to saying private prayers.

strobe

Meh... I'm not a man to try and 'know the mind of God', but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess he probably doesn't mind too much if the faithful meet up 10 mins earlier to say their prayers off the clock rather than once they are in session.

Kind of a waft of people whinging becuase they actually want unconditional respect and special dispensations for 'Christians' (i.e 'themselves') rather than The Big Cheese. He hates that shit apparently. They gonna get smote yo.

Galvasean

Big meh. So they can't pray during meetings? Big boo-hoo! Do your prayers beforehand, then go to work!

Hotblack Desiato

Galvasean wrote: »

Big meh. So they can't pray during meetings? Big boo-hoo! Do your prayers beforehand, then go to work!

Tell that to our Dail and Seanad.

The Quadratic Equation

strobe wrote: »

Meh... I'm not a man to try and 'know the mind of God', but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess he probably doesn't mind too much if the faithful meet up 10 mins earlier to say their prayers off the clock rather than once they are in session.

ninja900 wrote: »

Tell that to our Dail and Seanad.

God does have something to say on the matter, not that many Irish politians would have the decency to observe it.
Honest people generally don't go into, or have anything to do with Irish politics.

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full." Matt. 6:5

Ellis Dee

That former Archbishop of Canterbury is clearly suffering from a major dose of paranoia if his article in the Daily Hatemail is to be believed. He seems to think that elected representatives of the people not being required to mumble some mumbo-jumbo words to an imaginary friend the sky fairy is an "attack on Christianity".:) It is not. There are plenty of places for prayers - churches,mosques, synagogues, chapels, temples, gurdwaras, stupas and, for that matter, fairy circles, raths and what have you. Council chambers and parliaments are workplaces, and they usually deal with the real world. If, for example, Laois County Councillors could get the sky fairy to just "vanish" the potholes in the county, I'd be all in favour of council meetings being nothing more than one big prayer session, but ---:rolleyes::rolleyes:

phurryphace

the culture of deference wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/atheist-victory-on-council-prayers-6700032.html

Christians and politicians reacted with dismay as the High Court
today outlawed the centuries-old tradition of formal prayers being said
at the start of local council meetings up and down the country.

Thank god fer dat.

robindch

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

God does have something to say on the matter [...] "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men." Matt. 6:5

Last time I was at a catholic religious service, everybody stood up and prayed in public quite a few times.

Does that mean they're hypocrites, or does what Jesus said not apply any more?

Galvasean

Jesus against organized religion FTW

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Jesus against organized religion FTW

Well, in all fairness and looking again at what Jesus said, I think he was only dissing catholics who stand up and pray in synagogues.

Context, context, context!

pH

robindch wrote: »

Well, in all fairness and looking again at what Jesus said, I think he was only dissing catholics who stand up and pray in synagogues.

Context, context, context!

And on street corners, let's not forget them. Clearly from reading this if you're doing public prayer in a council chamber then that's neither a street corner nor a synagogue - therefore you're golden.

The sad thing is there are many theist posters who have posted stuff not to dissimilar to the above about bible passages and they really think they're both being terribly clever and interpreting the bible - when in reality they're actually being tediously stupid.

UDP

Simon Calvert, of the Christian Institute wrote:

Simon Calvert, of the Christian Institute, said: "Prayers have been a part of council meetings for centuries, and many people, either for religious reasons or cultural reasons, see them as a positive part of our national life.
"It's a shame the courts have taken sides with those whose goal is to undermine our Christian heritage."

He called on Parliament to "stop this assault upon our national heritage".

I hate this bull**** about religion and heritage. It has nothing to do with heritage - it is about belief. Why would someone pray to a god they do not believe exists? for heritage reasons? BS

Galvasean

Our heritage also involves human sacrifice and shooting people we don't like and yet somehow we manage to have meetings without doing those things. (well, most of the time anyway)

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

Last time I was at a catholic religious service, everybody stood up and prayed in public quite a few times.

Does that mean they're hypocrites, or does what Jesus said not apply any more?

CONTEXT!!!!:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

(we should really make a meme card out of that one)

Peregrinus

A few facts about the case:

1. The Council in question was Bideford Town Council.

2. The procedure being challenged went like this; the Mayor entered the Council Chamber and then there were prayers led by a minister drawn in rotation from one of the 8 churches in Bideford.

3. After prayers attendance was noted and apologies for absence were taken, and the meeting proceeded.

4. No councillor was obliged to be present for prayers and, because no attendance was taken until after prayers, there was no record of who was, and who was not, present on any occasion. (Though of course the Mayor or deputy Mayor would always be present.) Those who were present were not obliged to join in the prayers.

5. The case was taken by a Mr. Bone, who was a member of the council. He was elected in 2007. In 2008 he brought a motion before council that prayers cease; the motion was lost by 9 votes to 6. In 2009, he brought another motion proposing that prayers be replaced with a short period of silence; this was lost by 10 votes to 5.

6. He brought the action with the financial support of the National Secular Society.

He won, of course, but the interesting point is the grounds on which he won. In the proceedings, he argued three grounds for illegality:

- It was unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2006, because Mr Bone, and other councillors and potential councillors of like mind, were put at a disadvantage on the basis of their lack of religious belief.

- It was contrary to articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (Convention rights to be secured without discrimination on the grounds of religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

- It was contrary to section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, under which local authorities have power to do “any thing which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions”.

Mr Bone lost on the first two grounds. The only disadvantage he could show to himself from the practice of prayers was the degree of distaste he felt at being present when others prayed, or the momentary inconvenience leaving the room briefly to avoid that. The court found that this just wasn’t enough to amount to “discrimination” of the kind that the Equality Act or the European Convention would concern itself with.

He succeeded on the last ground, on the basis that communal praying was not something “calculated to facilitate . . . the discharge of any of [the Council’s] functions” - in particular, the function of considering and deciding the agenda items tabled for the meeting. The very fact that councillors were free to absent themselves showed that the prayers were not connected with the conduct of the meeting’s business.

Mr. Bone and the National Secular Society will be glad to have won, of course, but they will be sorry to have won on such narrow grounds. They would have hoped, in these proceedings, to extend the application of the equality legislation and/or the ECHR to cover their concerns, but it was not to be. In fact, on those matters, this case now becomes a precedent which they would rather not have set.

Because of the narrow basis of the judgment, it will have comparatively little effect. Not only Bideford Council, but presumably all local governments in England and Wales, will now have to drop prayers - but only from council meetings. A council may well organise other functions at which prayers might be conducive or incidental to the business, e.g. a public Remembrance Day event.

Sarky

Meh. If god has to be dismantled one rural council meeting at a time, so be it.

Peregrinus

Sarky wrote: »

Meh. If god has to be dismantled one rural council meeting at a time, so be it.

Well, it seems, not even that. Since my earlier post I've found that the Local Government Act 1972, on which Mr. Bone succeeded, has been repealed and replaced. The 1972 Act provided that Councils could only legally do things which facilitated, or were incidental or conducive to, their statutory functions, and the case held that prayer was not one of these. But the new legislation says that Councils can do anything which is not expressly forbidden by law.

Consequently if a Council wants to include prayers as part of its council meetings - and the evidence was the Bideford Council does want to do that - it now can.

Newaglish

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it seems, not even that. Since my earlier post I've found that the Local Government Act 1972, on which Mr. Bone succeeded, has been repealed and replaced. The 1972 Act provided that Councils could only legally do things which facilitated, or were incidental or conducive to, their statutory functions, and the case held that prayer was not one of these. But the new legislation says that Councils can do anything which is not expressly forbidden by law.

Consequently if a Council wants to include prayers as part of its council meetings - and the evidence was the Bideford Council does want to do that - it now can.

Do you think local government meetings should commence with prayers?

MrPudding

A couple of points…

Peregrinus wrote: »

2. The procedure being challenged went like this; the Mayor entered the Council Chamber and then there were prayers led by a minister drawn in rotation from one of the 8 churches in Bideford.

This is a very simplistic view of the issue, and some clarification is required. First of all, it is eight christian churches in the area. Apparently the quakers led the prayers occasionally as well, I am not sure if they are Christian, being honest.

Further, the prayer is on the official agenda and is recorded in the minutes.

Peregrinus wrote: »

4. No councillor was obliged to be present for prayers and, because no attendance was taken until after prayers, there was no record of who was, and who was not, present on any occasion. (Though of course the Mayor or deputy Mayor would always be present.) Those who were present were not obliged to join in the prayers.

Regardless of this, the prayer happened after the official start of the meeting, which is open to the press and public.

Peregrinus wrote: »

He won, of course, but the interesting point is the grounds on which he won. In the proceedings, he argued three grounds for illegality:

- It was unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2006, because Mr Bone, and other councillors and potential councillors of like mind, were put at a disadvantage on the basis of their lack of religious belief.

- It was contrary to articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (Convention rights to be secured without discrimination on the grounds of religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

- It was contrary to section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, under which local authorities have power to do “any thing which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions”.

Mr Bone lost on the first two grounds. The only disadvantage he could show to himself from the practice of prayers was the degree of distaste he felt at being present when others prayed, or the momentary inconvenience leaving the room briefly to avoid that. The court found that this just wasn’t enough to amount to “discrimination” of the kind that the Equality Act or the European Convention would concern itself with.

This is not quite correct… There was also embarrassment. Additionally there is a subtle point in this judgment, and you seem to have missed it. The judgment on the equality grounds and the art 9 grounds had to start from the premise that the prayers were lawful; it could not be any other way. In order for them to be legal they would have to “calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions” Indirect discrimination, unlike direct discrimination can be justified and defended. The judge felt that, were the prayer legal and therefore “calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions” then this could provide justification for the discrimination. He also felt that the disadvantage suffered by Mr Bone was not sufficient to counterbalance this.

The art 9 point failed for similar reasons. If the prayer were legal then the discrimination, if there was any, was justified.

Peregrinus wrote: »

He succeeded on the last ground, on the basis that communal praying was not something “calculated to facilitate . . . the discharge of any of [the Council’s] functions” - in particular, the function of considering and deciding the agenda items tabled for the meeting. The very fact that councillors were free to absent themselves showed that the prayers were not connected with the conduct of the meeting’s business.

No. you have this wrong. The prayers were part of the formal business of the meeting. This was the opinion of the judge and it was also agreed by the defendants. The prayers appeared on the agenda that was posted to the councilors summoning them to the meeting. The mayor formally opens the meeting and then the prayers are said. The prayers, or at least the fact they were said, are recorded in the minutes. As far as the council was concerned they were part of the formal meeting. This was one of the issues highlighted by the judge, the council contradicted itself on this point. If the prayers were related to the functioning of the meeting, as is required by s111, then they can’t allow councilors to absent themselves from them. If they can absent themselves from them then they can’t fall under s111 and therefore have no place in the formal meeting.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mr. Bone and the National Secular Society will be glad to have won, of course, but they will be sorry to have won on such narrow grounds. They would have hoped, in these proceedings, to extend the application of the equality legislation and/or the ECHR to cover their concerns, but it was not to be. In fact, on those matters, this case now becomes a precedent which they would rather not have set.

I am not so sure about the narrow grounds… The prayers were found to be illegal under the legislation that governs council meetings. Granted, it is a shame that the EQA and HRA grounds were not more successful, but you can’t win them all.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because of the narrow basis of the judgment, it will have comparatively little effect. Not only Bideford Council, but presumably all local governments in England and Wales, will now have to drop prayers - but only from council meetings. A council may well organise other functions at which prayers might be conducive or incidental to the business, e.g. a public Remembrance Day event.

And this was never the issue. It is quite clear from the judgment that this only applies to local government, the hint is in the name of the legislation used, and further, only in respect to council meetings. The judge himself makes this clear in the judgment.

The requirement for an item to be conducive or incidental to business is only for council meetings. It does not apply to anything else a council, or members of that council might do. This case was only ever about having prayer removed from the formal business of council meetings.

Additionally, the NSS also were at pains to point this out:

NSS Website wrote:

So, in anticipation of all this predictable stuff — which will flood the Daily Mail and Telegraph — here are a few attempts at balancing the reaction.

• Nobody will be stopped from praying. The only restriction will be on when they pray. Councillors who want to can still get together before the meeting and make their invocations. Otherwise, councils are secular institutions engaged in civic business, they are not churches, and prayers cannot be part of their official agenda.
• This is a ruling about a breach of the Local Government Act. It applies therefore only to local government. Silly claims that the Coronation Oath will be illegal and prayers in Parliament will have to cease — and even that councillors will be banned from attending Remembrance Day Services — and even, as was claimed by one prominent evangelical Christian at the Oxford Union yesterday, that the saying of grace before meals will be outlawed – are all untrue.
• Religious liberty is in no way compromised by this ruling. Everyone in this country is free to practise a religion in any way they want to – within the law. As this judgment shows, praying as part of council business is not within the law. Of course, if councillors want to pray during their duties, they can do it silently and who could stop them? Surely if a prayer is to an omnipotent God, it would be just as effective inside the head as one that is spoken? The problem comes from the way the phrase "religious freedom" has been redefined by the churches to mean not only that they are free to worship according to their lights, but that they are entitled to privilege and to impose their beliefs on others.
• Studies show that huge numbers of people in this country have no religion, don't want any religion and, increasingly, are hostile to religion. Why — as a condition of serving their community — should they be forced to participate in an activity that goes against their conscience?
• Members of other religions are also increasingly participating in our local democracies. We can no longer insist that only Christian prayers are said and, as we have seen in Portsmouth, attempts at multi-faith prayers can result in believers of other religions walking out because they don't want to participate. This could be catastrophic for community relations and is completely avoidable if prayers are said voluntarily away from the council chamber.

MrP

Ellis Dee

This decision has caused quite a bit of hysteria in some segments of the UK media, with many of the "usual subjects" like Christine Overdone of the Daily Torygraph and Baroness Warty of the Tory cabinet huffing and puffing about the need for believers to defend themselves from the vicious assaults of militant atheists. Like here:



Just imagine that fellow on the right strapping on his suicide belt and rushing into a church shouting "Dawkins akhbar!":):)

MrPudding

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Oops. Facts don't go down too well on this forum.

Particularly incorrect or incomplete ones.

I see you are still working on your one liners.

MrP

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Since my earlier post I've found that the Local Government Act 1972, on which Mr. Bone succeeded, has been repealed and replaced. The 1972 Act provided that Councils could only legally do things which facilitated, or were incidental or conducive to, their statutory functions, and the case held that prayer was not one of these. But the new legislation says that Councils can do anything which is not expressly forbidden by law.

Consequently if a Council wants to include prayers as part of its council meetings - and the evidence was the Bideford Council does want to do that - it now can.

I think you're right, and it seems to have been enacted since 15 Nov 2011, superseding the 1972 legislation that the secular case narrowly won on.
Funny that nobody involved in the court case seems to have known about the new Localism Act.
Possibly the Minister in charge of it, Eric Pickles, forgot to give a start date or give the official nod to the Councils to begin operating under the new law; even he seems a bit confused;

In the Mail he "vowed to override the High Court ruling by bringing in the Government’s Localism Act, which would give councils the power to hold prayers at the start of meetings, as early as next Friday.."


And then in the Independent he apparently says;"(the decision is) surprising and disappointing" - and queried whether the judge had got the law right.
Mr Pickles said: "Christianity plays an important part in the culture, heritage and fabric of our nation. "The Localism Act now gives councils a general power of competence - which allows them to undertake any general action that an individual could do unless it is specifically prohibited by law. Logically, this includes prayers before meetings."

Regardless of the timing, I'd say this has more to do with certain people wanting to preserve a heritage which involves "Good Christian, White, Middle to Upper Class Englishmen" making the decisions down at the Town Hall.... but this will all come back to bite them on the arse when the town council meetings in Bradford start opening the official proceedings with an Imam's call to prayer :pac:

Peregrinus

Newaglish wrote: »

Do you think local government meetings should commence with prayers?

No, I think they should not.

Galvasean

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Just imagine that fellow on the right strapping on his suicide belt and rushing into a church shouting "Dawkins akhbar!":):)

an atheist suicide bomber - all dressed up but nowhere to go...

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

Further, the prayer is on the official agenda and is recorded in the minutes.

Regardless of this, the prayer happened after the official start of the meeting, which is open to the press and public . . .

. . . The prayers were part of the formal business of the meeting. This was the opinion of the judge and it was also agreed by the defendants. The prayers appeared on the agenda that was posted to the councilors summoning them to the meeting. The mayor formally opens the meeting and then the prayers are said. The prayers, or at least the fact they were said, are recorded in the minutes. As far as the council was concerned they were part of the formal meeting. This was one of the issues highlighted by the judge, the council contradicted itself on this point. If the prayers were related to the functioning of the meeting, as is required by s111, then they can’t allow councilors to absent themselves from them. If they can absent themselves from them then they can’t fall under s111 and therefore have no place in the formal meeting.

Yes, that’s correct. Individual councilors weren’t in practice required to participate in prayers or even to attend, but the prayers were something officially done by the council, corporately, collectively. The problem for Mr Bones is that a claim framed under the Equality Act or the ECHR tends to focus on the situation of the individual, so the fact that the individual could opt out was an answer to the complaint, regardless of what the Council did collectively.

Whereas the Local Government Act focuses on what Councils can do and cannot do, not so much on individual councilors. And he won on that point, the court finding that praying was not something that Councils could properly do - in this context and situation anyway. The very fact that individual councilors could, in practice, absent themselves told against the Council here, since it indicated that the praying wasn’t really pertinent to the substantial business of the meeting.

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not so sure about the narrow grounds… The prayers were found to be illegal under the legislation that governs council meetings. Granted, it is a shame that the EQA and HRA grounds were not more successful, but you can’t win them all.

Well, it’s narrow in at least this sense. As it stands, the judgment creates a precedent which is relevant only to local government bodies. Had Mr Bones succeeded on the Equality or EHCR grounds, the result would have been a ruling of much wider application. And I don’t doubt that the NSS were hoping for that.

MrPudding wrote: »

And this was never the issue. It is quite clear from the judgment that this only applies to local government, the hint is in the name of the legislation used, and further, only in respect to council meetings. The judge himself makes this clear in the judgment.

Yes. My point is that the NSS would have hoped for something more, and I think will be disappointed not to have got it.

MrPudding wrote: »

The requirement for an item to be conducive or incidental to business is only for council meetings. It does not apply to anything else a council, or members of that council might do. This case was only ever about having prayer removed from the formal business of council meetings.

No, the “incidental or conducive” requirement applies (or, rather, applied) to everything a local government authority does. This has caused problems before in other areas, with councils entering into transactions and then, when they prove disadvantageous, attempting to back out of them on the grounds that they aren’t “incidental and conducive”. (And this is why the law was changed recently.)

But, while the "incidental and conducive" requirement is general, the court didn't hold that prayers were never incidental and conducive; just that they weren't at a council meeting. If a council organised a different event, prayers might well be incidental and conducive - e.g. at a Remembrance Day ceremony. Or, I suppose, they could be incidental and conducive at a council meeting which was to consider a motion of condolence in reletion to some public or recent tragedy. Or in a variety of other scenarios. But they point is moot now, so we won't find out.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, that’s correct. Individual councilors weren’t in practice required to participate in prayers or even to attend, but the prayers were something officially done by the council, corporately, collectively. The problem for Mr Bones is that a claim framed under the Equality Act or the ECHR tends to focus on the situation of the individual, so the fact that the individual could opt out was an answer to the complaint, regardless of what the Council did collectively.

Whereas the Local Government Act focuses on what Councils can do and cannot do, not so much on individual councilors. And he won on that point, the court finding that praying was not something that Councils could properly do - in this context and situation anyway. The very fact that individual councilors could, in practice, absent themselves told against the Council here, since it indicated that the praying wasn’t really pertinent to the substantial business of the meeting.

No, I really think you have this wrong. You are correct on certain aspects, Mr Bone was joined in the action as an individual is required to activate EQA or HRA protections.

The fact that the councillors could leave did not show the prayers were not pertinent to the meeting. There was not real discussion of this because it was not in question. The judge believed that the prayer were part of the formal meeting and the council did not deny this.

As I mentioned earlier, in order to analyse whether or not Mr Bone's rights under the EQA or HRA were breached that judge had to assume that the prayer were, in fact, legal. By assuming they were he also had to assume, obviously, that they fitted in with the requirement of s111. As a result, it had to be assume that the prayer actually added to the proceedings and actually had a value.

Next, the type of discrimination that was being claim was indirect. Indirect discrimination, unlike direct discrimination, can be justified. In addition to this, art 8 of the HRA act is a qualified right that can be set aside in certain circumstances. So, if the prayers were legal, compliant with s111 and therefore of benefit to the proceeding, and given that the discrimination claimed was indirect and art 8 was qualified, then it was possible to say that any discrimination, had there been any, was justified.

Now, the judge did some analysis of the EQA and HRA aspects of the case, but these were coloured with the assumption that the prayers were legal and had a value to the proceeding. Against this background it was felt that the discrimination was not great enough. Given this, it is unsurprising that the findings were as they were...

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it’s narrow in at least this sense. As it stands, the judgment creates a precedent which is relevant only to local government bodies. Had Mr Bones succeeded on the Equality or EHCR grounds, the result would have been a ruling of much wider application. And I don’t doubt that the NSS were hoping for that.

Perhaps you are right, but I have been following the NSS for some time and any time they have spoke of this case it has only been in the context of prayers before council meetings. Of course, as they are mostly filthy atheists they may have been lying.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. My point is that the NSS would have hoped for something more, and I think will be disappointed not to have got it.

Again, you may be right here, but maybe not. Personally I would be quite happy with the result. According to everything the NSS have said about this case there only intention was to challenge the legality of prayer before a council meeting. The judge himself in the judgement stated that the case was limited to this context. Assuming the NSS and the judge were telling the truth about this then the result is exactly as desired. no one challenges something on a single ground; ideally, you will have a minimum of two.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, the “incidental or conducive” requirement applies (or, rather, applied) to everything a local government authority does.

Sorry, you are right here, the judicial review was limited to prayer during the formal meeting, and therefore, as stated by both the NSS and the judge, would not have had any impact beyond that single area.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, while the "incidental and conducive" requirement is general, the court didn't hold that prayers were never incidental and conducive; just that they weren't at a council meeting.

Either you are mistaken here, or being intentionally disingenuous. The court was not asked to comment on prayer in any context other than in the formal council meetings. As I mentioned previously, both the NSS and the judge said that this was the case.

The council brought up the concern that a finding for the NSS and Mr Bone would put other events, like remembrance services, at risk. The judge was at pains to say this was not the case. He did not hold that prayers outside the formal council meeting were fine, he simply stated that they were not in the scope of this judicial review. A small but very important difference.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If a council organised a different event, prayers might well be incidental and conducive - e.g. at a Remembrance Day ceremony. Or, I suppose, they could be incidental and conducive at a council meeting which was to consider a motion of condolence in reletion to some public or recent tragedy. Or in a variety of other scenarios. But they point is moot now, so we won't find out.

It is not a moot point, it is simply one that has not, thus far, been subject to a judicial review.

MrP