PRESS RELEASE – FROM NEIL FULCHER DATED 22-07-2010
STANDARDS BOARD OF ENGLAND / RMBC V COUNCILLOR NEIL FULCHER
CASE REFERENCE: LGS/2010/0504 Rotherham Law Courts The Statutes 19th / 20th July 2010
SUBJECT MATTER: Reference in relation to a possible failure to follow the Bramley Parish Council Code of Conduct
APPLICANT: Jonathan Wigmore, Ethical Standards Officer Standards for England
RESPONDENT: Councillor Neil Fulcher of Bramley Parish Council
Judge: Patrick Mulvenna
Member: Richard Enderby
Member: Peter Norris
STATEMENT FROM NEIL FULCHER
Not a 100% victory but a victory never the less in spite of the fact that I was never going to get a fair trial in view of the covert and clandestine activity surrounding this case. After a 13 month investigation involving over 10 officers and many, many more back office staff at an estimated cost of over £160,000 to the public purse I find it insulting to the public at a time of great national hardship money has been deliberately wasted on what has been nothing more than a public vendetta by Rotherham Borough Council Officers Mumford, Waller, Battersby, Sheera and Councillor Terry Bradley. Heads should role and accountability should be demanded from those who are elected by ballot to run our services in Rotherham. Such a substantial breach of fiscal and political policy can only be described as incompetence by a third rate three star lacklustre council.
The decision by the Standards Tribunal Panel to dismiss some of the charges is testament to the poor quality case made by such vast resources at RMBC and the SBoE. Charges without substance or factual evidence to back them other speculation and vengeance. All made against Councillor Fulcher because I used my democratic right to have a say, hold an alternate opinion and be an activist in exposing the appalling record of this deplorable Labour controlled council.
It is quite extraordinary that the charge sheet states “The Tribunal has considered an application from an ESO following an investigation of a complaint that the Respondent had failed to follow the provisions of the Code of Conduct of Bramley Parish Council” when in fact I have not even been tried against the Bramley Parish Code of conduct but by Tim Mumford’s self made Borough Council Code of conduct. This aptly demonstrates the tribunal process is flawed constantly making mistakes with many, many inaccuracies. Even the charge sheet read Councillor Fulcher of Wigan Council. Another major flaw in the quango Standards Board soon to be abolished by national Government is been found guilty on charges that I have never been interviewed about or asked one question about. How appallingly wrong is that and in a so called justice system? The standards Board have unremittingly gone out of their way to case build, collude and manipulate with the Rotherham Borough Council officers to gain an outcome that dealt with that “Troublesome Councillor” once and for all in their high mined opinions.
The most stupid thing of all about the hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money wasted in this fiasco is it only came about because of the descriptive words I used to expose the totalitarian corruption behind Rotherham Borough Councils bullet biting, gun ho, bunker building, greenbelt land grabbing policies.
I used words such as Numpty, incompetent, inept, pathetic, stupidity, arrogant, conceited, misconceived. I admit it is quite a textual bombardment and bang on accurate. It is really something mature Officers such Mumford, Waller, Battersby, Sheera and Bradley throw their dummy out of the Borough pram just because there are other people in the sweet shop. The tribunal judge said of my words “they were pejorative (negative), unjustified and probably defamatory”. They are accurate, articulate and acutely true. If the best they can come up with to find me guilty is probability then that accurately, articulately and acutely demonstrate why this inept organisation is to abolished as the whipping boy organisation it has become.
I stand by what I said, every single word, I stand by the people who I represented as a councillor and I stand by the community where I live, work and socialize. I can prove that my words where descriptively accurate to describe these people and the situations RMBC had manipulated to their own deceitful advantage and that why they fought so long, so hard, so expensively to shut up that “troublesome councillor”.
It is quite ironic that the Standards Board Tribunal have band me from having a public voice as a councillor for 6 months have in practice given me an even greater voice as Neil Fulcher the citizen. I will not be going away in fact I now have leave to be more active in uncovering RMBCs Totalitarian Regime and dogma down at town hall towers. I will attending council meeting as a citizen and will debate and challenge and expose accountability as often as I can. I will use my democratic freedoms to call these people numpty, incompetent, inept, pathetic, stupidity, arrogant, conceited, misconceived wherever and whenever appropriate those terms need to be applied.
The case file all 2000 pages will now be going to HM Government and Mr Eric Pickles, Government Minister for Information who is spearheading the abolition of hundreds of Labour quangos and useless organisations that just tax payer money in serving no purpose other than to control, manipulate and implement Labour party politics.
As always I make myself I am open to public scrutiny and will answer questions asked of me and provide proof of my justifications. If the Council don’t like it then let’s a full open public debate about it and let the people decide.
Lastly I would like to thank the countless people who have supported me over the last 13 months throughout these malicious unjustified allegations. Your help and support was so much appreciated.
Neil Fulcher (power to the people)
BELOW IS THE FULL OFFICIAL ISSUED TRIBUNAL DECISION
Notice of Decision
Ref No: LGS/2010/0504
Subject matter: Reference in relation to a possible failure to follow the Code of Conduct
Applicant: Jonathan Wigmore, ESO, Standards for England
Respondent: Councillor Neil Fulcher of Bramley Parish Council
Judge: Patrick Mulvenna
Member: Richard Enderby
Member: Peter Norris
- The Tribunal has considered an application from an ESO following an investigation of a complaint that the Respondent had failed to follow the provisions of the Code of Conduct of Bramley Parish Council.
- The Tribunal reached the following decision after considering the written evidence and submissions of the parties.
- The Respondent did not fail to comply with paragraph 3(2)(b) the Code of Conduct, but did fail to comply with paragraphs 3(1) and 5 of the Code of Conduct.
- The Code of Conduct provides:
- Paragraph 2:
- ‘(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) to (5), you must comply with this Code whenever you—
- conduct the business of your authority (which, in this Code, includes the business of the office to which you are elected or appointed); or
- act, claim to act or give the impression you are acting as a representative of your authority,
- and references to your official capacity are construed accordingly.
- (2) … this Code does not have effect in relation to your conduct other than where it is in your official capacity.’
- Paragraph 3 states:
- ‘(1) You must treat others with respect.
- (2) You must not—
- bully any person’.
- Paragraph 5:
‘You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute’.
- The Respondent breached paragraphs 3(1) and 5 of the Code of Conduct by mounting continuing and sustained attacks on the integrity and character of two Council officers and another Councillor which were pejorative, unjustified and probably defamatory.
- The Tribunal decided to impose the following sanction:
- To suspend the Respondent for a period of six months.
- The date such sanction is to take effect is 1 August 2010.
- The written reasons for the decision will be sent to the parties as soon as reasonably practicable, which is likely to be within 14 days and published on the Tribunal’s website.
- Any request for the decision to be reviewed or for permission to appeal needs usually to be made to the First-tier Tribunal within 28 days of receipt of the Tribunal’s reasoned decision. Such applications need to be in writing.
19 July 2010