Abuse of the Chair’s powers and Zoom muting of my comments – 18.10 is where these abuses begin.

I agree that DCC Standing Orders should be rigorously observed at meetings to promote transparency and Democracy. 
The relevant Standing Order 25.2 specifies:
A member who is raising a point of order must state precisely what its subject is. Points of order may be raised for the following subjects: 

(a)  disorder – bringing disorder to the attention of the Chairperson; 

(b)  language – use of disrespectful, offensive or malicious language; 

(c)  irrelevance – the topic being discussed is not the matter currently before the meeting; 

(d)  misrepresentation – misrepresentation of any statement made by a member or by an officer or council employee; 

(e)  breach of Standing Order – the breach of any Standing Order while also specifying which Standing Order is subject to the breach; 

(f)  request the recording of words, such as a request that the minutes record words that have been the subject of an objection. 

My statement that ‘Cr Staynes had misled Council by saying that it was impossible for him to attend a delayed meeting’ was manifestly true and relevant to the meeting that Cr. Staynes surprisingly did attend, and therefore not possible to be characterised by Mayor Hawkins as a Point of Order. Mayor Hawkins’ claimed point of Order simply was not a Point of Order and should have been rejected by Chair Benson-Pope. 

Since it was not a Point of Order and Mayor Hawkins had not stated precisely what the Point of Order subject is, it was inappropriate for Cr. Benson-Pope to rule on it as a Point of Order and to rule in favour of what was not a Point of Order.
Cr. Benson-Pope’s subsequent insistence that I should withdraw a true statement, and apologise for it, was inappropriate, and his threat to have me removed from the Zoom meeting on this pretext was beyond his authority, [Ultra Vires] and an abuse of the important right to Democratic vote due to follow. 
Cr. Benson-Pope’s repeated muting of my Zoom microphone connection was also an inappropriate breach of his responsibility to allow elected representatives to speak and to raise a real Point of Order or to object to his attempted removal of me from the meeting, especially as Cr. Staynes had confirmed that he did say what I had accurately quoted him as saying.