Councillors Allowances and Expenses 2009-10 Total £1,134,838.37! Can this motley crew be worth this much corn?

Just out, the annual parade of councillor greed! Read it here first!

The table below gives full details of the cost of Rotherham’s greedy bunch of councillors, or does it? Continued below…




Name Basic Special Responsibility Travel Subsistence Total
Akhtar J £12,306.98 £16,315.10 Nil Nil £28,622.08
Ali S £12,306.98 £1,251.42 £143.40 £33.80 £13,735.60
Atkin A £12,306.98 £4,757.07 Nil Nil £17,064.05
Austen J* £12,306.98 £10,876.43 Nil Nil £23,183.41
Barron IC £12,306.98 £1,227.60 £12.20 Nil £13,596.78
Blair W £12,303.59 Nil Nil Nil £12,303.59
Boyes MG £12,306.98 £10,876.43 Nil Nil £23,183.41
Burton J £12,306.98 £1,251.86 £15.90 Nil £13,974.74
Clarke JM £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Currie S £12,306.98 £1,097.15 Nil Nil £13,404.13
Cutts B* £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Dodson B* £12,306.98 £5,427.81 £11.00 £75.50 £17,821.29
Donaldson L £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Doyle J* £12,306.98 £14,301.22 Nil Nil £26,608.20
Falvey J £12,306.98 £1,251.86 Nil Nil £13,558.84
Fenoughty T £12,303.59 Nil £108.95 Nil £12,412.54
Foden J* £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Gamble J £12,303.59 Nil Nil Nil £12,303.59
Gilding J* £12,306.98 £10,875.98 Nil Nil £23,182.96
Gosling A £12,306.98 £1,251.86 Nil Nil £13,558.84
Goulty K £12,306.98 £1,097.15 Nil Nil £13,404.13
Hamilton J* £12,306.98 £1,251.86 Nil Nil £13,558.84
Hamilton N* £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Havenhand J* £12,306.98 £1,251.86 Nil Nil £13,558.84
Hodgkiss FD £12,306.98 £1,767.88 £82.40 £33.80 £14,191.06
Hughes D £12,303.59 Nil Nil Nil £12,303.59
Hussain M £12,306.98 £16,317.17 £46.75 Nil £28,670.90
Jack HL £12,306.98 £10,876.06 Nil Nil £23,180.04
Johnston L £12,306.98 £5,427.81 Nil Nil £17,734.79
Kaye B* £12,306.98 £1,251.86 Nil £11.40 £13,570.24
Kirk M £12,306.98 £2,059.86 Nil Nil £14,366.66
Lakin P* £12,306.98 £5,427.81 Nil Nil £17,734.79
License N £11,625.43 £1,097.15 Nil Nil £12,772.58
Littleboy R* £12,306.98 £1,251.86 Nil £324.00 £13,882.84
Mannion A £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
McMahon C £12,292.37 £659.79 Nil Nil £12,952.16
McNeely R £12,306.98 £10,879.93 Nil Nil £23,186.91
Nightingale G £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Parker M £12,303.59 Nil Nil Nil £12,303.59
Pickering D £12,306.98 £10,879.93 £83.39 £22.42 £23,292.72
Rushforth A £12,306.98 £2,059.68 Nil Nil £14,366.66
Russell GA £12,306.98 £10,879.93 £14.00 £68.00 £23,268.91
Russell PA £12,306.98 £1,251.86 £13.80 £68.00 £13,640.64
Russell RS £12,306.98 £16,317.17 £337.02 £166.1. £29,127.27
Sangster WA* £12,306.98 £10,876.43 Nil Nil £23,181.41
Sharman TR* £12,306.98 £21,755.40 Nil Nil £34,062.38
Sharp G* £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Sims K £12,303.59 £154.28 Nil Nil £12,457.87
Slade B* £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Smith G £12,306.98 £16,317.17 £106.00 Nil £28,730.15
StJohn IGL* £12,306.98 £14,301.22 £99.64 Nil £26,707.84
Stone R* £12,306.98 £32,640.84 £131.60 £328.30 £45,407.72
Swift JF* £12,306.98 £5,427.81 £11.66 Nil £17,746.45
Thirlwall P* £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Turner JRA £12,306.98 £4,757.07 Nil Nil £17,064.05
Tweed S £12,303.59 £1,097.16 Nil Nil £13,400.75
Walker S £12,306.98 £1,251.86 Nil Nil £13,588.84
Whelbourne G £12,306.98 £16,315.00 Nil Nil £28,662.08
Whysall J £12,306.98 £5,427.81 Nil Nil £17,734.79
Wooton P* £12,306.98 £10,873.06 Nil Nil £23,180.04
Wright F £12,306.98 £1,251.42 Nil Nil £13,558.40
Wright S £12,306.98 £16,317.17 Nil Nil £28,624.15
Wyatt KJ £12,306.98 £16,290.46 Nil Nil £28,597.44
Total £774,619.85 £357,869.49 £1,217.71 £1,131.32 £1,134,838.37
These Figures exclude pension payments of £59,470.00 for 2009-10.

Note *Denotes up for re-election May 2011.

Some councillors (Who?) are signed up to the South Yorkshire Local Government Pension Scheme, which means that these figures are in fact incomplete and understate the full cost to us of their greed as this means that they are treated as employees for pension purposes which obliges the Council to make employers pension contributions on their behalf to the scheme in addition to the sums accounted for here!

This figure for the last financial year 2009-10 was the eye-watering  figure of £59,470.00 in fact, a not inconsiderable sum as extra benefit not accounted for publicly.

This raises the total to £1,194,308.37 for this useless bunch of councillors last year!

Upon reflection, £59,470.00 represents 11.6% of the total (Employers pension contribution rate 2009-10 was 11.6%), so doing the arithmetic, this equates to £512,672.oo in terms of allowances! Getting on for 50% of the council are on this particular little money maker! This is an utterly disgraceful situation that must be challenged, this extra hidden greed must be exposed!

This figure still underestimates the full figure, because benefits acquired from other sources such as Joint Authority Allowances and Expenses and benefits in kind, remember this crew always expect recompense for any activity so there must be some to account for, where are the details? We should be told!

Missing too is any mention of National Insurance Employers contributions paid in respect of these councillor/employees, surely they must be paying NI contributions from their allowances? So RMBC must be paying their employers contributions for them.The total paid out to the employee/councillors is £512,672.00 so their NI contributions would have been 3.7% at the contracted out rate, again doing the arithmetic it equates to £18,968 of hidden benefits not publicly accounted for.

This raises the total to £1,213,276.37! Don’t forget, there is more still not accounted for.

Just a few idle thoughts on this subject:

Being a councillor is not a job. so why are we paying pension contributions on these allowances? Especially when they should not be regarded as employees in the first place!

Every year the Allowance Scheme has to be approved by Council, these payments, Pension costs and NI are extra to the figure covered by the decision so how can it be legal to exceed the authority provided by this annual decision?

Surely these payments above should properly be made, not in addition to, but deducted from their allowances? Does legal authority exist for these payments, I wonder? Oh dear! Perhaps Tim Mumford may need some extra painkillers to untangle this one?

MacShane Still Smarting about IPSA, Will He Ever Learn?

Denis MacShane, is still upset about the new expenses regime that might just put an end to his greed by exposing his imaginative use of the definitions in the Green Book to allow claims that should not have been allowed under the old regime but were allowed under the regime administered by the previous Speaker Martin, who is reputed to have promised relaxation of the claiming rules as part of his campaign to become Speaker. Fill your boots seems to have become the order of the day under Martin and they did!

Extract from Hansard:

Denis MacShane (Rotherham, Labour)

“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sir, if you go out into the corridors around here, you will find closed circuit television cameras being installed in the Central Lobby and other corridors that are normally private to Members. Is this known to you? Some people say that it is just to do with the Pope’s visit, and that is perfectly reasonable, but if that is so, can we be sure that the cameras are taken down? I love the surveillance society. I am not sure whether the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has an investment in making sure that we are all here and that we are going to our restaurants and coming out with the appropriate bills, but I do not like CCTV cameras in this our House of Commons.”

All Parliamentarians must understand now that we are watching them closely and will challenge each and every example of greed that we discover.

The past is gone but not forgotten. In the cases of Eric Illsley, a serving Labour MP and the Ex Labour MP’s, Elliott Morley, Jim Devine and David Chaytor as well as Tories Lord Hanningfield and Lord Taylor, they are grinding through the criminal justice system. Undoubtedly there will be more to follow these six, they cannot be the only ones to have allegedly acted in a fraudulent and dishonest way, we shall see!

There are more Parliamentarians from both Houses whose greed and manipulation of the rules is yet to be exposed. No one who has been guilty of this should relax, as the people are on their case!

Pope – Not welcome on State Visit. Guardian Letter.

The last visit (the first ever) by the Pope was a joyous affair with John Paul welcomed even by atheists like me because of his role in the freeing of the world from communist domination starting with Poland and his support for the Solidarity Trades Union.

Pope John Paul was also a completely different man from Pope Ratzinger with charisma in buckets. John Paul’s public image is now tarnished by the fact that the paedophile scandal took place on his watch with his then enforcer, fundamentally involved in the cover up. Who was his enforcer? Step forward Cardinal Ratzinger now Pontiff, which explains the antipathy to his forthcoming State Visit.

The following letter has appeared in today’s Guardian newspaper, published under the names of quite a list of prominent secularists including Denis MacShane’s ‘beloved’, Joan Smith.

“We, the undersigned, share the view that Pope Ratzinger should not be given the honour of a state visit to this country. We believe that the pope, as a citizen of Europe and the leader of a religion with many adherents in the UK, is of course free to enter and tour our country. However, as well as a religious leader, the pope is a head of state, and the state and organisation of which he is head has been responsible for:

Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of Aids.

Promoting segregated education.

Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women.

Opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.

The state of which the pope is head has also resisted signing many major human rights treaties and has formed its own treaties (“concordats”) with many states which negatively affect the human rights of citizens of those states. In any case, we reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a state and the pope as a head of state as merely a convenient fiction to amplify the international influence of the Vatican”.

Stephen Fry, Professor Richard Dawkins, Professor Susan Blackmore, Terry Pratchett, Philip Pullman, Ed Byrne, Baroness Blackstone, Ken Follett, Professor AC Grayling, Stewart Lee, Baroness Massey, Claire Rayner, Adele Anderson, John Austin MP, Lord Avebury, Sian Berry, Professor Simon Blackburn, Sir David Blatherwick, Sir Tom Blundell, Dr Helena Cronin, Dylan Evans, Hermione Eyre, Lord Foulkes, Professor Chris French, Natalie Haynes, Johann Hari, Jon Holmes, Lord Hughes, Robin Ince, Dr Michael Irwin, Professor Steve Jones, Sir Harold Kroto, Professor John Lee, Zoe Margolis, Jonathan Meades, Sir Jonathan Miller, Diane Munday, Maryam Namazie, David Nobbs, Professor Richard Norman, Lord O’Neill, Simon Price, Paul Rose, Martin Rowson, Michael Rubenstein, Joan Smith, Dr Harry Stopes-Roe, Professor Raymond Tallis, Lord Taverne, Peter Tatchell, Baroness Turner, Professor Lord Wedderburn of Charlton QC FBA, Ann Marie Waters, Professor Wolpert, Jane Wynne Willson

I totally agree with the substance of the letter. I never thought I would agree with Peter Tatchell and Dick Taverne at the same time!

See also British Humanist Association.

Next Years Crop?

Political parties throughout the country are beginning the process of choosing their candidates for next years round of local council elections.

This list below details the Rotherham councillors that successfully fought these seats the last time they were contested in 2007.

If this list ends up looking anything like next years field of candidates then both Labour and the Tories are definitely having a laugh at our expense! It must surely be time for some of of them to go if their respective political parties want us to take them at all seriously in the future.

Hens ‘earn their corn’ by laying eggs, when they stop laying, it is surely time for them to go!

So too it should be on the council, when they have out lived their usefulness, it is time for them to stand aside, not to continue on until carried out in a box!

Even the Labour Party insists that being a councillor is not a job for life, but it is a pity that the Labour Party’s writ does not run as far as Rotherham, never has!

Which is why we are landed with such poor candidates year after year because no one wants to give up their allowances that give them a good life. We must not forget the ‘State Funeral’ that is their due entitlement if they die in office. We must also not forget, that when there are ‘bodies buried’, it pays to be around lest anything gets out.

When a labour councillor dies, the relatives of the recently deceased are treated to an immediate search and removal of anything that appertains to the work on the council of their loved one, quite outrageous when you have seen it up close from the relatives perspective!

Anston and Woodsetts Ward
Iain St John – Labour -1394 (321)

Boston Castle Ward
Peter Wootton – Labour – 1282 (451)

Brinsworth and Catcliffe Ward
Reg Littleboy – Labour – 1515 (366)

Dinnington Ward
Jane Havenhand – Labour – 1216 (427)

Hellaby Ward
Brian Cutts – Conservative – 1516 (697)

Holderness Ward
Jane Austen – Labour – 1801 (713)

Hoober Ward
Jane Hamilton – Labour – 1531 (612)

Keppel Ward
Barry Kaye – Labour – 1190 (238)

Maltby Ward
Ben Slade – Independent – 913 (90)

Rawmarsh Ward
Neil Hamilton – Labour – 1495 (673)

Rother Vale Ward
John Swift – Labour – 1461 (917)

Rotherham East Ward
Barry Dodson – Labour – 1312  (826)

Rotherham West Ward
John Foden – Labour – 1305 (369)

Silverwood Ward
Roger Stone – Labour – 1088 (217)

Sitwell Ward
John Gilding – Conservative – 1901 (967)

Swinton Ward
John Doyle – Labour – 1436 (729)

Valley Ward
Paul Lakin – Labour – 1271 (668)

Wales Ward
Gavin Sharp – Conservative – 1045 (322)

Wath Ward
Alex Sangster – Labour – 1641 (717)

Wickersley Ward
Peter Thirlwall – Labour (Sits as Independent) – 1329 (233)

Wingfield Ward
Terry Sharman – Labour – 1411 (545)

For a quick look at photos of the Rotherham councillors all on the same page, not recommended for the nervous or easily shocked, you have been warned click here to view.

At first glance, there are an awful lot of very old pictures here, time surely for an update?

In this ‘Age of Austerity’. Are they really worth this much?

Recent information has become available on the pay of the Rotherham Council ‘fat cats’. Firstly the Senior Officers who, between, them actually run our town.

Position Total Remuneration 2007-08* Total Remuneration 2008-09* Total Remuneration 2009-10**
Chief Executive £159,183.00 £163,083.00 £169,665.00
Assistant Chief Executive Policy and Performance £100,611.00 £100,939.00
Assistant Chief Executive Human Resources £97,008.00
Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services £96,007.00 £96,847.00
Sub Total £464,459.00
Strategic Director of Financial Services
£110,673.00 £132,772.00 £132,772.00
Strategic Director Neighbourhoods and Adults Services £110,673.00 £132,772.00 £132,772.00
Strategic Director of Children and Young Peoples Services £110,673.00 £132,772.00 £132,772.00
Strategic Director Environment and Development Services £110,673.00 £132,772.00 £132,772.00
Total £995,547.00


* Source Tax Payers Alliance

** Source Statement_of_Accounts_2009-10

Secondly, a summary of the totals paid to Councillors in the years 2005-2010. The detailed breakdowns will be published as soon as they become available. Meanwhile the totals and averages are very illuminating!

The total amount of money our councillors pocket for representing us has grown significantly over the last five years from £981,750 to £1,194,308, an increase of £213,558 no less! An eighteen percent increase in just five years!

No small wonder then that Rotherham is in a mess? Evidently, the gravy train still pulls out of Rotherham!

The other reason that Rotherham Borough Council is always chaotically run, is the long continuing problem of the Labour Group thinking they run Rotherham ‘lock stock and barrel’, nothing of any significance happens without interference from at least one ‘senior’ councillor or other, engaging in micromanagement that has caused one or two difficult problems in the past, once exposed. The hubris of the Rotherham Labour Group has led them into the delusion that they run things, not the officers!

Thirdly, Some of the above would not be quite the problem it has become, were it not for the fact that the competency level amongst the Council Members is so poor! A quick review of the Labour ranks shows them to be older on average than at any time since 1974. It is such a problem that it has led to speculation that their collective age now exceeds their IQ?

Without an extensive clear out of the sitting councillors before next May’s local elections, Rotherham Councillors will end up on average, even more spectacularly ill equipped to discharge their duties and become the public embarrassment they are, once the spotlight is thrown upon them.

If Rotherham Labour really have the best interests of Rotherham at heart then it is time to bite the bullet and get rid of some of these geriatric old timers that populate the Town Hall, making it resemble more a day care centre than a place of serious decision making!

To those of the Conservative persuasion looking at their own panel of councillors, I would simply say, if the cap fits?

Councillors Allowances (Excluding Joint Authority Allowances) Total 63
Years 2005-06 2006-07 * 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Totals £981,750.00 £1,076,797.00 £1,137,235.00 £1,165,736.00 £1,194,308.00
Average £15,583.00 £17,092.00 £18,051.00 £18,503.00 £18,957.00

Note * Said to Include Joint Authority Allowances.


Seen Elsewhere: BNP, Voice of Freedom. Cynicism Exposed!

Ordinarily this blog is a nazi free zone, but an exception needs to be made in this instance. Despite it’s originator, Marlene Guest (Aka GOL), the results of her Freedom of Information (FoI)  request has yielded important information that should have been made public without the necessity to drag it out of them. I have had the following extract emailed to me and I now share it with you.

The people of Rotherham  are footing the medical health care bill for 70 black African immigrants who have been diagnosed with HIV, an article in the new Voice of Freedom newspaper has revealed.

According to the report, the services for those suffering from HIV and Aids in the South Yorkshire town have been swamped with just one operator, Shield, contracted to provide housing and support.
They can provide places for 49 clients with HIV, Aids and Hepatitis C which should be sufficient for Rotherham’s residents.
Out of a population of 242,000 traditional Yorkshire folk, there are exactly 49 cases of people who have been diagnosed with HIV.
But it’s the town’s new arrivals that have thrown the local health care in chaos, Freedom reports.
“From 800 black African immigrants, 70 have Aids-related diseases, while from other immigrant communities in Rotherham totalling 8,000 people, there are another 10 cases,” the article says.
“The extent of the disease amongst immigrants in Rotherham and the possible threat of infection posed to the host population only came to light thanks to the diligent work of local British National Party representative Marlene Guest and her team who uncovered the scandal.
When Ms Guest first heard from residents who were concerned about immigrants with Aids were being given priority in housing provision and the burden placed on local health services, she made a Freedom of Information request to NHS Rotherham to find out the extent of the problem.
She asked: “How many people in the Rotherham have HIV/Aids and what are their origins.”
At first NHS Rotherham claimed they couldn’t answer because they didn’t understand what Ms Guest meant by ‘origins’.
They then stonewalled again saying that she hadn’t stipulated a specific year for the information. Finally they said they didn’t keep such figures.
Not deterred, Ms Guest sifted through hundreds of council documents to find the information she required. “I have no doubt there has been a cover-up,” she told Freedom.
“There are two Rotherham councillors who have a very close connection with Shield. One has declared an interest but the other hasn’t.
“These councillors who knew about the implications and repercussions of HIV immigrants being housed amongst local residents and should have alerted them to what was happening.
“But they didn’t. They chose to keep quiet and cover-up the issue, just like Rotherham NHS tried to do, and that’s a scandal.”
How immigration has brought Aids to Rotherham will be a key issue when the British National Party contest local council elections in the town next May.

The last paragraph is extraordinarily revelatory. It clearly demonstrates the mindset of the BNP and their representative in Rotherham, Marlene Guest. The frankly nasty approach of this pernicious bunch of nazis exploiting for their own ends a situation that will require openness, tolerance and goodwill to address a problem as complex as this one, the exact opposite to the BNP approach in fact!