Gerald Smith guilty! takes his punishment!

We have learned that an important strand of the problems that surfaced in Aston cum Aughton during the later stages of the election campaign, has been resolved.

When the Aston cum Aughton Independents learned of the existence of a scurrilous election leaflet, produced and printed by Gerald Smith, they decided they were not going to take this, and made a formal complaint to the Police. The Police have been investigating ever since. The outcome can now be reported:

Last Friday, Councillor Gerald Smith was formally cautioned by the Police for his actions associated with the issuing by him, of a scurrilous election leaflet.

We at Rotherham Politics understand that this means that he has therefore admitted his guilt and now has a conviction on his record!

The ramifications of this will take some time to become fully apparent. A reference to the Standards Board for bringing the Council into disrepute, perhaps? Or suspension from the labour whip at RMBC? Now standing convicted of election offences it is difficult to see him remaining in the bosom of the party, especially once the Regional Party hears about this embarrassing situation. To complain yourself, email themΒ  yorkshire@new.labour.org.uk.

Ed Miliband, also a local MP, will not want Rotherham Labour Group to bring any further embarrassment to him or the party over an issue as clear cut as this!

Gerald Smith could always do the honourable thing and stand down from the elected positions he holds himself. He can’t be taken seriously ever again and he must go!

45 thoughts on “Gerald Smith guilty! takes his punishment!

  1. It will be interesting to see how Rotherham Council’s Standards Committee deals with a complaint against Grald – will they censure him, if so how? Or, more likely, will they let him off, even though he has admitted he broke the law.
    Bring it on!!!

    Like

  2. The Aston cum Aughton Independents should be justifiably proud, that they were prepared to stand up to this most unpleasant of politicians, who has been well past his sell-by date for years!

    Like

    • I thought that it was perfectly clear that due process had occurred here and the result reported on. The Gerald Smith elections offences have been admitted by him and he has accepted a police caution as punishment. This is a result! Perhaps the first occasion since the ‘anti poverty scandal’ that a councillor has actually been brought to account for his wrongdoing! Gerald Smith should now be in disgrace and further actions against him are expected imminently! It will reflect very poorly on Rotherham Labour Group if they do not take disciplinary action against him! A suspension would seem to be inevitable!

      Like

      • What I am saying is that by trying to judge what Rotherham Labour Group may or may not do isn’t helping the situation.

        Rotherham Labour Group must be allowed to carry out their own internal procedures without any outside influence.

        Like

  3. Now let’s consider what the highly respected Rotherham Labour Group might do then.

    Well, they could chuck Grald out, but wait!! – Nah, they’ll probably do what their puppet Standards Committee did with Licklelad.

    As a reminder for the Conisbrough Canary, or should that be Ostrich – in spite of the independent investigating solicitor confirming that in all probability Licklelad had indeed been abusive to the police officer who had brought the complaint, Licklelad’s Labour Group Chums simply ignored the overwhelming evidence and pronounced their mate totally innocent of everything and anything.

    So, are we really interested in “helping the situation” and depending upon the Rotherham Labour Group to “carry out their own internal procedures” with anything like objectivity and professional detachment?? – AS IF!!

    Like

    • What you appear to be neglecting in all of this is the fact that you can complain to the Standards Committee or indeed any other higher authority when you like, there is no immediate time limit on these proceedings.

      Jumping in feet first without any sort of official response from Rotherham Labour Group tells me you are more interested in achieving political points and not the truth or justice for those people who have been wronged, if anyone at all, as obviously there are different thresholds of proof depending on what body is dealing with your complaint.

      Like

  4. Community Champion, Are we not allowed to speculate, or in Rotherham, is that dream?
    “A reference to the Standards Board for bringing the Council into disrepute, perhaps? Or suspension from the labour whip at RMBC?”
    Your touching faith in the integrity, honesty and transparency of Labour in Rotherham is refreshing, perhaps! But misplaced, if history is any guide. Our cynicism is borne out of practical experience and not therefore, without good reason. Please try taking the blinkers from your eyes!

    Like

    • What I am saying is…all this mass hysteria before Rotherham Labour Group’s response can be seen as not giving Cllr Smith the right to a proper disciplinary hearing with his political party/employer.

      Also, it could be said, if he was dismissed and sent out of the Town Hall in disgrace that this page and been trying to prejudice any proceedings.

      Like I say, are you interested in justice or political point scoring?

      Like

      • Like I say, are you interested in justice or political point scoring?

        Oh, communitychampion, choices, choices, always a choice to be made.

        I know, in this instance I will be utterly greedy, just like my prey, and I’ll go for both, yum yum πŸ™‚

        Like

  5. Holding politicians to account is a good thing…110% what should be done.

    Hold them to account and always expect better then the best.

    However, without an official response from the Labour Party all this hot air is doing your cause more damage then good.

    Like

    • Hiya Patrick,

      How say you now Sir, given the very public story in today’s Tiser about an elected public servant accepting a Police Caution for infringing upon the law of this sceptred isle … and the still deafening silence about this matter from the Labour Corn-Fed Hogs at Town Hall Towers, the Rotherham Labour Group, the Holderness Labour Party, Yorkshire Region Labour Party, and don’t let’s leave out Darling Ed and the Chattering Classes in the Labour Party down in Da Smoke …

      My old man always told me to “judge a man by the quality of the friends he chooses to keep” … and on that basis I’d say there’s more than a lot deeply wrong wi t’bruvvers n sisters darn @ Town Hall Towers if they wanna be buddies with such a Muppet …

      Have I missed the very public condemnation of this saga from Da Dodger and his
      Kling-ons … no, I thought as much, ho hum … 😦

      Perhaps it would do the Elected Members and Officers of RMBC some moral and personal good to take advantage of their blackberries, hand-helds, laptops, and inbetween 1st-class travel journeys and junkets to read up on the very wise words of John Philpot Curran – “It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

      We pace the watchtowers 24/7 on this side of town, and we shall not sleep nor shall we rest while we are represented by such clowns as these in our midst …

      Watch your fronts …

      Like

  6. Why does anyone have to wait for “an official response from the Labour Party” ?

    If an elected councillor is ” formally cautioned by the Police for his actions associated with the issuing by him, of a scurrilous election leaflet ” then surely it is the right and honourable thing for that councillor to resign.

    Can’t see how a response from the Labour Party, official or otherwise, should make any difference to the situation. Your comments communitychampion, seem to be from someone backing their own party member regardless of the misconduct.

    Like

    • No – my comments are based on the ability to be impartial.

      It may well be that the Cllr concerned feels it is right for him to resign, or it may be that the Leader of the Council feels he should ask the Cllr to resign.

      It might even come to the said Cllr having the whip removed and expelled from the Labour Group.

      HOWEVER…before any of that can happen the Labour Party officials need to consider their position and that of their elected member.

      I am not going to lie, I am a member of the Don Valley Labour Party so don’t have anything to do with the Cllr concerned except on Streetpride issues – what I am trying to highlight is that people on here seem to take great pride in whipping something up without any reason to do because the political party hasn’t responded so therefore outside influences need to keep their views/opinions to themselves, if they choose not to, then its quite possible you are handing something helpful to any defence team the Cllr may chose to appoint.

      If the Cllr does find himself without the whip then you need to consider some very important facts – as individuals.

      Like

  7. No one is “whipping (anything) up without any reason to do” .
    No one needs to keep their opinions and views to themselves.
    I AM considering some very important facts as an individual, and then commenting on this site about the points.

    You miss the point again,communitychampion
    “The Point” to which I refer is stated quite clearly here :

    ” The purpose of this web site is to contribute to the effective scrutiny of elected representatives that represent us at all levels of the democratic process. This site is distinctly non-aligned politically. We believe that all legal political opinion is valid and has a right to be heard! All opinion should be subject to critical review and debate.”

    Go to “About Rotherham Politics” for more.

    Like

    • I appear to be the only one providing critical review and debate mind!

      I stand by my comments because its the right thing for me to have said in the circumstance and I would ask people to consider the points I have made.

      Like

  8. I have considered the points you have made, and I reject them, Grald will be let-off the hook by his muckers down at Town Hall Towers … just wait and see …

    P.S. Why does communitychampion take such an interest in our town when he’s an out-of-towner who can’t vote in parish or council elections or pay community charge to the Socialist Fiefdom of Rogerland?

    Like

      • Dear communitychampion, as a resident of Conisbrough you live in Doncaster MBC area and thus a very different electoral town and ward, therefore your MP, parish councillors (if any) and Town Councillors are entirely different to those who represent Rotherham MBC electoral district, and to which I and others are compelled by law to financially maintain through taxation.

        To which metropolitan district do you pay your community charge?

        So while you have an opinion which you wish to freely share with whoever will listen to it about your friends in Rotherham MBC, the simple inescapable fact remains that as a non-resident of Rotherham you are not subject to or affected by the antics of the Muppets at Town Hall Towers, and the buffoon who is the subject of this particular thread, and you are not compelled by law to finance them with your personal resource, whereas I am 😦

        Let me clarify a little more for you, some five or so years ago, there was a public meeting held at Bramley Parish Hall to discuss the much-hated Bramley Traffic Mis-Management Scheme, to which the Cabinet Member responsible (anyone guess who … ?) attended.

        His behaviour that evening was entirely as predicted – aka bullish, dismissive, arrogant, conceited and down-right bad-mannered, and led to a frank exchange of views between him and a leadiing Parish Council member who said to him that “We’ll vote you out at the next election”, to which the buffoon retorted: “Tharrr’ll not be voting me ‘art, cos tha lives in a different warrrrd ta me, and tha can’t vote in marrrr warrrrrrd”.

        So, you see, the Town Hall Towers Muppets have a very clear idea how to cling to power, and equally the active and empowered Rotherham residents have begun successfully scrutinising and challenging those we elect to govern our town on our behalf with our consent – and that scrutiny continues as I write …

        Like

  9. I am well aware of the incident you describe that occurred at the Bramley meeting.

    I fail to see why being a resident of Conisbrough should prohibit me from speaking out any issue, national or regional.

    Is this your way of trying to silence your opponents?

    Like

  10. “CC” – I am well aware of the incident you describe that occurred at the Bramley meeting.
    Grald-Hunter: I am very aware as I was present at the meeting, and both saw and heard the incident which occurred in front of me. Were you there or have you just read of it “CC”?

    “CC”: I fail to see why being a resident of Conisbrough should prohibit me from speaking out any issue, national or regional.
    Grald-Hunter: Of course being a resident of Conisbrough doesn’t prohibit you, hence your recorded views on this private forum. But what it does do is put into context your views as not being those of a Rotherham resident, taxpayer or voter.

    “CC”: Is this your way of trying to silence your opponents?
    Grald-Hunter: Dear Patrick I wasn’t aware you are an opponent, are you now choosing to be my opponent? RMBC and any other out-of-touch arrogant secretive junketing spend-thrift statutory public organisation that is maintained by political patronage is my opponent. I don’t have, nor would I wish to have, the power to silence you or anyone else, this is purely a private forum. Speak on dear Citizen, your words and views are eloquent testimony enough about RMBC, but they aren’t shared by me.

    15 All. New Balls.

    Like

  11. It was an observation as you and your fellow Bloggers appear to be quite content with pulling RMBC to pieces…I wish to provide that balanced view. This is what I meant by the term ‘opponent’.

    Can I ask, has anyone even asked anyone from the Labour Party for a response?

    Like

  12. Dear Patrick,

    Your contribution is certainly valid, be it balanced or otherwise, IMHO.

    Complaints about the above-mentioned behaviour were sent to Town Hall Towers … and guess what … you ain’t gonna believe it … the CEO said it ain’t my business, “he can say what he wants”, and of course the buffoon’s muckers just chuckled and guffawed and said that “he’s allus spouting stuff art, even thayr lass sez eez got a big gob”.

    The buffoon’s response when challenged about the way that he disdainfully winked and sneered at an elderly lady in the audience, who bravely challenged him about his sexist behaviour towards her, was to initially deny he’d winked at her, then when very robustly verbally challenged by many many citizens who observed his appalling behaviour his limp and feeble response was: “there were summat in mee eye”. Yeah, course there was – NOT.

    So, there you have it, my dear optimistic friend and supporter of RMBC, you may just be teetering on the edge of becoming aware why there is so much resentment, disenchantment, hostility, and downright disbelief and opposition towards Town Hall Towers in general and all it says and does, and this particular muppet and his coterie of muckers.

    Like

  13. Hiya Patrick,

    I don’t mean to be in the least pedantic about what you claim a certain person may have got, but – have a read at this link to get confirmation of what someone actually has when they accept a Police Caution as there is a subtle difference between this wording and your claim to what you think they have got – http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Beingstoppedorarrestedbythepolice/DG_196450

    Cautions and criminal records
    A caution is not a criminal conviction, but it does go on your criminal record. πŸ™‚
    The police will record your caution on their databases. πŸ™‚ This means that your caution may in some circumstances be told to an employer or used in court as evidence of bad character. πŸ™‚ The police will also keep a record of photographs, fingerprints and any evidence taken in your case. If you are cautioned for a sexual offence, you could be placed on the sex offenders register.
    The police may give your name and address to any victims of your crime if they ask for it. This means you might be sued for damages by a victim. πŸ™‚

    Like

    • Hiya Patrick, no hairs splitting from me re: your reply, and I assume your assumption is entirely correct.

      We’re courteous mature citizens with apparently opposite views who are engaging in a polite exchange of views – no more, no less. Maybe you can enquire to the Labour Party on behalf of this forum and share with us their open and engaging response?

      In relation to your question I am curious as to which particular Labour Party you refer to.
      Is it any of the following:
      (a) Holderness Labour Party
      (b) Rotherham Labour Party
      (c) Rotherham Labour Group
      (d) Yorkshire Labour Party HQ
      (e) Labour Party National HQ

      As the Labour Party is a political party organisation it has no statutory obligation to respond to any enquiries from whatever source, therefore FOI is of no possible help here.

      And based on past experience it’s highly likely that any of the (a) to (e) contenders above would backheel the enquiry to each other and fail to take responsibility for what is an important issue that you rightly raise.

      The deafening silence that rings around Town Hall Towers on this issue surely gives you a clue that they’re now adopting “silent running” in the best traditions of the submarine service. They may be hoping that if they dive deep enough and sit on the bottom for a while that the fuss on the ocean top will go away and they can resume their previous journey unimpeded …

      But what a huge mistake that would yet again be for them … you see the asdic’s pinging and the echo back is louder than ever – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOGGnQIwFZY&feature=related πŸ™‚

      Like

  14. Thank you for such an illustrative response.

    I have no interest in what the Labour Party may or may not say about this issue. I didn’t raise it and have never corresponded with anyone from the Labour Party about this.

    I was merely making the point that to prejudice any response would harm your cause. It doesn’t affect me and as I have been told before, ‘tha’s not a Rovram dwella, so tha can kip thi werds to thi sen’.

    When I say Labour Party I am making reference to the Labour Party branch which is connected to the Cllr/issue at hand.

    Like

  15. Rotherham Labour Group must be allowed to carry out their own internal procedures without any outside influence.

    Are we to presume then that you are referring to (c) as referred to by Grald-Hunter, cc ?

    Like

  16. Yes – I would hope that this issue wouldn’t be left at local Branch level. Any issues that could affect the confidence of residents in the RMBC area needs to be looked into, at the lowest level, I would suggest, being Leader of the Council and then take it through the process from there.

    To have this issue investigated by the Branch wouldn’t be fair on anyone, the Branch Officer’s, voters and the Cllr involved.

    Like

  17. “When I went to the police station they asked if I would accept a caution. I said yes, because we don’t want to waste taxpayers’ money on this by going to court.
    They were happy that it was just an error that people do make.” (Gerald Smith, Rotherham Advertiser 4th August 2011)
    HAHAHAHAHAHA … …

    So pleased that Cllr Smith is trying not to waste taxpayers’ money. !!

    Like

  18. Ha ha ha ha, at last he’s been outed and publically humiliated πŸ™‚

    I just knew it would happen sooner or later … it was always going to happen to a Muppet with an ego and a gob bigger than their miniscule brain … πŸ™‚

    But hang on a minute … it’s “just an error that people make” … well if that don’t take the biscuit … ah well at least it’s consident with the responses from those in the dock on the receiving end of justice every day in our Magistrates and Crown Courts … “it’s just an error”, as in I GOT CAUGHT … yeah and from a supposedly highly-experienced and veteran councillor and public servant with aeons of expertise in this field … oh really, lol,

    And now here’s the best bit – http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Beingstoppedorarrestedbythepolice/DG_196450

    “Cautions and criminal records”
    “A caution is not a criminal conviction, but it does go on your criminal record.

    “The police will record your caution on their databases. This means that your caution may in some circumstances be told to an employer or used in court as evidence of bad character. The police will also keep a record of photographs, fingerprints and any evidence taken in your case”.

    “If you are cautioned for a sexual offence, you could be placed on the sex offenders register”.

    “The police may give your name and address to any victims of your crime if they ask for it. This means you might be sued for damages by a victim”.

    I once heard a veteran British Army tank sergeant retort the following line to a very arrogant, overbearing and very-new inexperienced cavalry Second Lieutenant who was demanding respect … “Sir, rank you may well wear, but respect from me you have yet to earn” … Touche πŸ™‚

    Like

  19. I am glad Cllr Smith has accepted he was WRONG.

    I am glad Cllr Smith has accepted a formal police caution for the criminal offence he has committed.

    I am glad the people of Rotherham can have confidence that the Labour Party won’t shy away from these issues, or throw 200 press officers at it to make it go away…mistakes have been made.

    I hope that this can now conclude this issue and we can get back to real issues of the day…like who did the Blue Badge Dodge? If it’s a Tory I will insist on baring my beer gut in the fountain at lunchtime…but as this Blog seem’s to ignore their mistakes we can assume it was a Labour kid that did it.

    Should Labour get away with murder? No. Should Tories get away with murder as per their motions/questions in the Chamber? No. Who is held to account…? Only Labour.

    Here endeth the lesson πŸ™‚

    Like

    • Morning Patrick,

      Neat posting from you, Sir!!

      I thoroughly agree with you about the Blue Badge saga … and that’s neither forgotten nor is it ended yet. I’m a bit concerned about the offer from you to bear your beer gut in the fountain at lunchtime … pictures purleez πŸ™‚

      As to your comment re: the Tories and what you think they may get away with … well I have to be honest and say that in Rotherham the Tories on the Town Council are the biggest wastes of rations I have ever come across.

      They draw their inflated Councillors’ salaries and expenses and what do they do in return …. ABSOLUTELY ZERO 😦 … they do nothing to hold the dominant Labour Group to account … no-one quakes in their boots on the rare occasions that a Tory can get a grasp of an issue and ask a question of the Labour councillors …

      And the cumulative effect of all this is that due to a lack of a strong and credible Opposition a small cohort of elderly, biased, out-of-touch junketing corn-fed hogs can apparently roam free around the sty performing the kinds of antics which you have rightly condemned.

      Like

  20. From Standards for England Code of Conduct – list of ‘DON’TS (in no particular order)

    DON’T
    “Bring your authority or office into disrepute.
    Use the authority’s resources for party political purposes.
     Compromise the impartiality of people who work for your authority.
     Discriminate against people on the grounds of race, gender, disability, religion or belief, sexual
    orientation and age.
     Bully, intimidate or attempt to intimidate others.Use your position improperly for personal gain or
    to advantage your friends or close associates.
     Attend meetings or be involved in decision-making where you have a prejudicial interest – except
    when speaking when the general public are also allowed to do so.
     Disclose confidential information, other than in exceptional circumstances – refer to the Code of
    Conduct and our guide if you are unsure.
     Prevent anyone getting information they are entitled to.”

    Think Cllr Gerald Smith just about covers all of those “don’ts” in this one case ! How many other “errors” has he made during his time in ‘office’ ?

    How about an ‘e petition’ to get him out ? πŸ™‚

    Like

  21. Local Govt plays an important role in our democratic service and should be allowed to take place. All views and opinions should be recorded and acted upon by the Cllr.

    If anyone is unhappy please come to me.

    Like

    • Good Afternoon Patrick,

      I really appreciate your postings on here in which you, as a member of the Labour Party, have taken the principled line in relation to the appalling behaviour of this Councillor.

      Well, he’s had the intervention from the Police, as discussed above, and apart from your good self, there has been absolutely deafening silence on this shameful issue from –

      (a) Holderness Labour Party
      (b) Rotherham Labour Party
      (c) Rotherham Labour Group
      (d) Yorkshire Labour Party HQ
      (e) Labour Party National HQ

      There has been no public condemnation or public “leadership” whatsoever on this issue exercised by the RMBC Leader, or the Labour Whips, or any of the Rotherham MBC Labour Councillors … yet witness the Labour Group hysterics that were organised against Peter Thirlwall when he adopted his principled stance against junketing and profligacy that was, and still is, endemic among the Corn Fed Hogs down at Town Hall Towers.

      Talk about double standards or what 😦

      So, in answer to your posting – YES, I am very very unhappy with this unsavoury episode in the democratic life of my wonderful little town, and I would urge you to convey MY sense of disgust at this Councillor’s behaviour, right up the chain of Labour Party command.

      Please please please please let Ed Milliband and your MP Caroline Flint and senior national Labour Party leaders know what’s been happening here in Rotherham, cos once they know about it they should exercise leadership and ensure that the inappropriate actions of the Councillor under discussion are investigated and a decision reached on whether such a person is still considered a fit and proper person to be a Parish Councillor, a Town Councillor and Cabinet Member, and more to the point still allowed to remain as a Labour Party member.

      Patrick, you are now the man of the moment and local democracy needs you. Your title of Community Champion can truly be honoured by exposing this grubby shabby episode for ALL Labour Party members to see, and allow them to decide whether they condone or condemn this particular Councillor who has admitted his guilt by accepting a Police Caution.

      Like

      • Thank you for such an inspiring and uplifting message.

        I am a faithful member of the Labour Party but also a man of deep principled feeling, a committed socialist and staunch defender of the downtrodden and weak.

        My response to you is to place on record, that in my opinion, the Cllr involved should consider his moral and ethical stand point, and have a long hard think about his position, where he is at the moment and how he can go forward. This should be viewed as a neutral action to ensure the Cllr is happy to do whatever he decides is the best course of action.

        Its not my job to say who should resign or not, its his own personal, deep down feeling of loyalty, respect, common sense and moral values that should tell him RESIGN or GET ON WITH THE JOB.

        Like

  22. Dear Patrick,

    While I accept the honorable intent of your posting, I feel somewhat that you’ve moved from 4th gear in the previous posting back to a neutral gear and handed the issue back to the Councillor involved, and of course, his failthful Muckers in the Grubby Gang of Corn Fed Hogs at Town Hall Towers – this feels like the HMP Dartmoor Inmates & Members’ Club being left in charge of the Parole Board’s adjudications, no prizes whatsoever on guessing that outcome, surely 😦

    I feel that as this man has been found out for committing an offence, and accepted his behaviour was unacceptable and thereby received a Police Caution, that we, the tax paying public who he allegedly has served for aeons, shouldn’t have to rely on “HIS own personal, deep down feeling of loyalty, respect, common sense and moral values that should tell him RESIGN or GET ON WITH THE JOB”.

    After all if the Magistracy and Judiciary of this country, and our nation’s established honourable political institutions had to wait for “personal, deep down feelings of loyalty, respect, common sense and moral values” from those who transgress the laws of this sceptred isle, then in my experience of human life we should all be waiting a blinding long time, and more so, with this particular sad, elderly, out-of-touch, arrogant and ignorant individual.

    Surely, it’s now the hour when the National Labour Party should intervene and begin a damage-limitation exercise and make it plain to all and sundry that behaviour from individuals such as the one under discussion will no longer be tolerated and their presence be deemed no longer required in an organisation that supposedly prizes itself on taking a principled stance on life’s issues.

    In the Army, it’s called “SNLR”, which means Services No Longer Required, aka GET THEE GONE CHUM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like

  23. Oh now this story does get really really interesting –

    http://www.talesfromthetownhall.co.uk/the-cops-the-councillor-and-the-caution.html

    just what business does a “very senior executive” at RMBC have saying: “in his opinion, the police should not have told the Rotherham Advertiser that Cllr Smith had been given a caution because the caution was β€˜spent’ immediately it was given”.

    I do hope that these alleged comments were given in an off-duty part of the day, and not when the individual should have been hard at work engaged in their highly-paid executive duties for which the Rotherham taxpaying public make greater financial contributions every darned year 😦

    Like

  24. We all know that the ‘opinion’ of anything senior at THT is about as useful and valuable as a chocolate fire guard, nevertheless I think the public needs to know just exactly who this opinionated time waster is.

    Furthermore, are we then to assume that Grald’s law breaking activities are simply to remain secret, as indeed RMBC would most definitely prefer, or does this top notch lawyer from RMBC think that The Advertiser got the story from a dodgy copper or perhaps even a phone hacker??

    Der!! – it was public knowledge as soon as it happened, cos believe it or not, there was actually a victim of Grald’s lawbreaking i.e. the general public! And, do these buffoons at RMBC, who think nothing of wasting public money on valueless points scoring death flailings, really believe that The Advertiser shouldn’t report the serious wrongdoings by Grald et al – this is what is called ‘public interest’

    Like

  25. Pingback: Mystery deepens! | Rotherham Politics

Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.