Thank you Chloe, I take your point and I can’t say that I disagree, although the uncertainty and the catch 22 element was of course the conundrum and the different opinions offered I am very grateful for.
Believe me though, our Chair does not normally have an issue with control; a retired professional who had a team of account managers working for her. I know employer to employee meetings are often easier to control but in her two terms as chair she has never had an issue even on one occasions with 60 plus angry residents to deal with, this due to a main council failing.
Posting the whole recording to social media may not really be an option as it is was a very full meeting lasting 3+ hours and the Zoom file is 1.5Gbs, larger than many feature films.
However what this last Zoom meeting has highlighted (Zoom being new to us) is that the Chair has not had access to the Zoom controls with only the Clerk being able to mute or eject someone. As said we are on a Zoom learning curve so that will now be corrected for future meetings although we are hoping to get back to live meetings ASAP, this months was hoped be our last Zoom as the neighbouring Parish have already returned to (approved) live meets with considerably less space than we have.
Re the law tipping very slightly in favour of a FIA request, I do respect your view on that but I am not so sure that a judgement (if it had to go that far) could be predicted to tip slightly in any particular direction. If that were an established fact surely there would be no need for a judgement.
Anyway that aside, the resident requesting the recording was informed by email of the previous request for privacy and invited to attend our next Zoom meeting so that we could discuss. She didn’t reply or attend the meeting, held yesterday; apparently a continued disregard for common courtesy. As previously said she has never before attended meetings or shown any other interest and I would guess that will likely be the future. Although by all accounts she is quite active on the local FB page and it seems this was the residents concern regarding privacy. Meaning he didn’t want to find video clips of a lively meeting, involving himself, that had been edited and joined to convey a totally different picture of what had taken place and I find it hard to be at odds with that reasoning.
The problem has now gone away due to the resident concerned apparently having no further interest and minutes having been read and signed off in public the recording will now be deleted in accordance with our standing orders . Thanks to all for the opinions all of which I found helpful.