Report comment

Am I missing something?

This loan was made as an emergency measure when there "was no rationale" for doing so. Those who might have argued against it were kept in the dark. There seem to be no records of the methodology applied. Public money has been wasted.

I assume that proper procedures outside the emergency regime would have involved the scrutiny of the loan by all sides of the council - possibly a debate and vote?

If I'm right, how can the end result be legal and appropriate given that it might have been voted out? How is the after the event justification made out?