DISSENTING OPINION OF MRS. J. LIDDY

              JOINED BY MM. B. MARXER AND G. RESS

1.   We agree that there has been an interference with the applicants'

freedom of expression and that the interference was prescribed by law

for the reasons given by the majority.

2.   We also consider that the Regulations pursued a legitimate aim

of protecting the rights of others within the meaning of Article 10

para. 2.  The maintenance of the tradition of abstention from active

party politics on the part of certain public servants can be regarded

as aimed at protecting (a) the interests of individual members of the

public who have occasional or routine dealings with the administration

and who wish to rely on there being an apolitical approach by the

individual dealing with the file; (b) the interests of fellow-employees

or new candidates for appointment in local government offices in there

being a system which ensures, insofar as possible, that promotions and

appointments are based on factors such as merit and experience rather

than political affiliations; and (c) the right of elected politicians

on local government bodies to rely on transparently impartial advice

and briefing.

3.   With regard to the necessity of the Regulations in a domestic

society, we agree with Mrs. Thune that these Regulations do not only

concern individual freedom of expression but also the neutrality of

local government officers.  We recall that the applicants have not

shown that in practice they are applied in an unduly harsh fashion.

There does not appear to be any case-law concerning disciplinary

proceedings brought for breach of the Regulations, or challenges to

decisions of local authorities or the adjudicator under the 1989 Act

or the Regulations.  Article 10 expressly refers to the "duties and

responsibilities" of those who wish to avail themselves of their

freedom of expression, and it is legitimate for States to impose a duty

of discretion on public servants.  It has not been shown that the duty

of discretion is interpreted in practice in such fashion as to stifle

reasonable exchanges of views and ideas on topics of current interest.

In the absence of practical examples indicating an unreasonable

approach to the balancing of the interests at stake, we are unable to

base ourselves on the majority's analysis of the Regulations at

paragraphs 80 to 82 of the Report, and to find a violation of Article

10.  It appears to us, on the contrary, that it was within the margin

of discretion of the United Kingdom to adopt measures which can be

regarded as necessary not merely in a democratic society but also for

the maintenance of a democratic society the functioning of which is

based on the tradition of abstention from active party politics on the

part of certain public servants.

4.   We also consider that there has been no violation of Article 11

in the light of the foregoing considerations.  We note, moreover, that

the Regulations do not prohibit membership of any political party or

trade union, and do not affect management of trade unions.