A COUNCILLOR who turned the air blue during a public meeting claimed a swear word was no longer perceived as obscene.

Peter Cawthron, Tendring Council’s last remaining UKIP councillor, admitted using the word during a video meeting, which was broadcast live on Facebook, on November 24 last year.

The profanity was uttered after a discussion over plans to require public fireworks displays to promote an awareness campaign about the impact of fireworks on animals and the vulnerable - and to encourage local suppliers to stock “quieter” fireworks.

Labour’s Garry Calver told the meeting he had heard an obscenity and asked for the matter to be investigated so the councillor could be identified.

Clacton councillor Mr Cawthron then spoke up and admitted he had uttered what “would have been an obscenity in the 1950, 60s and 70s” but it was “no longer perceived to be one by the majority of the British people”.

After failing to resolve the matter informally, the council’s monitoring officer Lisa Hastings made a formal complaint that Mr Cawthron had conducted himself in a manner that could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or the authority into disrepute.

A report by external investigator John Austin said: “My view is that Mr Cawthron probably uttered the offending word out of frustration at the outcome of the vote.

“I do not think he directed it at any individual or group.

“He may also have thought his microphone was muted.

“I do not however accept Mr Cawthron’s explanation that the word is more acceptable today than it was decades ago.

“The correct course of action would have been for Mr Cawthron to apologise immediately. He failed to do that.

“He also failed subsequently to agree a suitable apology with the monitoring officer after initially indicating his willingness to do so.

“Had he had done so, it would probably have been the end of the matter.”

Mr Austin added that Mr Cawthron also failed to comply with the principle of accountability by not engaging with the monitoring officer or his investigation and caused the council to “expend valuable resources” in officer time and the cost of the external investigation.

In conclusion, Mr Austin foundMr Cawthron conducted himself in a manner that could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or the authority into disrepute and therefore breached the council’s Code of Conduct.

The council’s Standards Committee is due to decide today whether Mr Cawthron breached the code and what action it should take.

Sanctions could include publishing its findings on the council’s website, reporting its findings to the full council for information, recommending that he undergoes refresher training on the Code of Conduct or recommending to the full council that he should be excluded from the council’s offices or other premises, with the exception of meeting rooms as necessary for attending council meetings.

Mr Cawthron was approached fro comment by the Gazette, but had not responded at the time of going to press.