A Labour MP has banned a regional daily from a public meeting about a hospital closure in case the presence of journalists “deterred people from speaking”.
The Press, York, had been due to attend the meeting about the closure of Bootham Park Hospital in the city, but organiser Rachael Maskell, MP for York Central, declared the meeting was not open to journalists.
Ms Maskell, pictured above left, is calling for an inquiry into the closure of the hospital, which shut its doors to hundreds of mental health patients on Wednesday after an unnanounced Care Quality Commission inspection found it was unfit for purpose.
Ironically, she had only been made aware that the closure would be taking place after being contacted by a reporter from the newspaper about it.
In a statement, Ms Maskell’s office assistant told The Press ahead of last Thursday’s meeting: “Rachael feels the presence of journalists may deter people from speaking.”
The Press objected to the ban along with local radio station Minster FM, while a mental health campaigner who was formerly a resident at the hospital also criticised the move.
Perry Austin-Clarke, editor of The Press, said: “Unfortunately Rachael Maskell does not seem to understand the concept of a public meeting or the fact that the local press are merely representatives of the public, and we go along to these events on their behalf so we can keep them fully aware of important issues that affect them and their families.
“It is ironic that Ms Maskell was not even aware that York’s last remaining mental health hospital was being closed down until our reporter contacted her.
“For her then to try to turn a forum for our readers to express their concerns into a venue for her to grandstand behind closed doors is wholly unacceptable and not the sort of behaviour we expect of a local MP.
“This is an incredibly important decision that has caused waves of concern across the city and it is clear that many of those even directly affected are very keen to have their voices heard and it is our job to provide the platform for them. Ms Maskell’s decision to exclude all press and media from such an important debate flies in the face of local democracy.”
Former Bootham Park patient Hayley Harteveld told Minster FM: “It’s in everybody’s interest to know what’s going to happen with Bootham and to raise their views and I think it’s important that the media try to cover this as much as possible.”
She added: “If there are people like me who want to talk about it and are free to talk about it, we should all be listening and the press should be involved.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
Just remember this in 4 years time, and intact in between now and then, when she is craving publicity to be re-elected.
The almost total lack of coverage of Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan in the national titles, following their anti-press campaign, seems to have put paid to their careers.
You reap what you sow.
Report this comment
‘infact’
Where is a sub when you need one?
Report this comment
Great idea, Rachael. I’d hate to think that anybody turning up to a public meeting would be frightened of expressing their opinion in front of other people. While you are bravely defending our sensibilities, can you also ban clapping? I’m concerned people may jump out of their skins if there is a spontaneous outburst of noise.
Report this comment
Laughable, they should send two reporters undercover.
Report this comment
Expect more of this now that so many experienced journalists have been given the boot, offices closed down, production outsourced to India etc by all the “excited” management bods.
Report this comment
If it’s a ‘public’ meeting how can she ‘ban’ reporters…?
Report this comment
Hmm?
Think about it. You are very concerned about the closure of this hospital but when you turn up at the meeting you find the press are there and so you do not speak about the plight of your loved one who has mental health challenges.
Unfortunately there are still many negative attitudes towards mental health. Perhaps Ms Maskell was afraid there might not be a true reflection of people’s concerns if the media were present when, it appears, she wanted to gauge the impact of a closure?
However, this could have been resolved before the meeting by the MP and the media discussing how this important issue could be properly covered without identifying possibly harrowing cases.
Report this comment
Just go and cover it anyway
Report this comment
Of course the paper should go undercover and do a full report. That is a given, surely?
Report this comment
How about the MP resigns? Obviously out of touch.
Report this comment
I sincerely hope the Labour party wholeheartedly condemns this MPs astonishing attitude…
Report this comment
Another example of ‘the new politics’, and the woefully poor quality of back bench MPs.
Report this comment
Why the negative vibes?
Surely the Press smuggled in a mole or briefed a media-friendly member of the public to splash on The Inside Story That MP Tried to Ban.
Or is investigative journalism dead in this part of Yorkshire?
Report this comment
Have I got this right?
MP bars paper from a public meeting
Paper obediently is a no show at meeting in question.
Then paper complains to this website after the event about being barred from said meeting.
Am I missing something?
Report this comment
Why didn’t somebody from the paper just go along as a member of the public? Or am I just stating the obvious?
Report this comment
But is it possible for someone to “grandstand behind closed doors” I wonder.
Something of a contradiction in terms, maybe?
Report this comment
Reading up on it, it appears the MP called the meeting and it was not public in the sense that anyone could attend, rather people involved in the campaign were invited along.
Why the Press did not just get a campaigner to take them along as not explained though
Report this comment
I tweeted her, asking her if she had banned the Press from a public meeting, and she replied: “No. It was a meeting just for service users, family and staff.”
Report this comment