Meh. All Council meetings are minuted and these will be published on the Council's website unless the minutes are deemed to be exempt.

They can't just exempt things willy nilly though and those exempt minutes will still be scrutinized by both their external and internal auditors (not that the former will have much interest in these discussions), will be made available to police, regulators, NAO on request and probably are available on an FOI as well so the question is not so much "should the public be able to scrutinise?" (because they will and always can) it's "how?". I'd bat your comment about a "sanitised press release" back to you and ask is seeing it as presented through the lens of some of our more sensationalist press any better?

Why might they want some of the minutes to be exempted here? I'm sure there's a huge element of arse covering here; no doubt some of the Councillors and officers there will have had direct portfolio responsibilities relating to this tragedy and don't want their name splashed all over the press.

Just slightly presenting the less salacious angle though (which I know this sub hates but there you go), I'm also fairly certain that there are things which need discussing which, if out there in the public domain, could later be deemed to have prejudiced a jury in the event of a criminal trial in the future.

I have no legal training, but I think I'm right in saying that the Council could be deemed to have some kind of responsibility here to control the flow of relevant information at this point. I highly doubt they want a contempt of court or causing a mistrial charge (or a civil case of company x or individual y sues over something, which I think is already happening anyway) on top of the rest of the shitstorm.

Not trying to excuse anything away but just trying to present a slightly alternative view.