Fly posting – The Ex-Councillor, Mr Hughes responds!

Rothpol has been asked to give equal prominence to Darren Hughes response in the interests of fairness. I therefore reproduce Darren Hughes statement:

From Darren Hughes

“I would like to make some factual corrections to your posting.

a. Prior to erecting my election posters, I checked what the correct procedure was. Most councils have a policy specifically for election campaign posters ie that candidates may put posters up but must take them down by a week after the election.

b. On checking, I found that Rotherham has no policy on this. I contacted the Rotherham planning department and was told campaign posters were acceptable during election times and that there was a legal requirement for the posters to be removed within a specific time frame following the election. I proceeded to have the posters erected.

b. Following a complaint from an opposing candidate I was contacted by the Director of Streetpride and asked to remove the posters. I asked if this was
correct as there was not a specific policy and there seemed to be some
confusion between council departments. I was advised by Streetpride
that no action would be taken until the situation was clarified.

c. Several days later I was informed that the posters would need to be
removed. RMBC policy for fly posters is to advise and request that the
posters be removed within 7 days. I agreed with the Director of Streetpride that I would arrange for the posters to be removed myself by the
weekend. If I had not removed the posters by this agreed timescale
Streetpride officers would remove them.

d. I arranged for the posters to be removed only to find as we started to remove them (within the agreed timescale) that RMBC officers had already started their removal. Despite this, the vast majority of posters were taken down by my arrangement.

I am a little surprised that Mr Thornton has made this posting as he was one of the people who approved of my posters in a similar fashion in 2008, and who himself displayed posters during his own election campaign.”

Darren Hughes

Readers may need to refer to this post: Fly posting – The Ex-Councillor, Mr Hughes

18 thoughts on “Fly posting – The Ex-Councillor, Mr Hughes responds!

  1. And when any other business or individual decides to flypost they will be able to point to your flyposting as being accepted so if its ok for councillors its ok for them.

    Two issues from ex councillor Hughes post
    1) Like too many politicians he his showing by citing rules an inability to just see that flyposting is just wrong and a form of anti social behaviour towards the majority of people who just want a nice well kept neighbourhood.

    2) RMBC needs to, if the above is correct to change its rules and clearly ban flyposting during elections.

    On the upside kudos to Mr Hughes for posting a response


  2. I agree with you Michael, at least Darren had the kahoonas to respond to the charge laid against him. To be fair Darren is right some other towns do allow this sort of campaigning but RMBC didn’t hv a clear policy on this issue so in a way it’s thanks to him that we now have unambiguous guidelines that would negate this kind of campaigning.

    I know this is prob not a popular view amongst contributors on here but Darren was one of the most hardest working councillors. I hope that one day soon he gets the opportunity to again serve the people of Rotherham.


  3. Jahangir you know that anything with a Labour badge will be elected here in South Yorkshire, that is why you and Stone take advantage of the electorate, Shaun Wright is not up to the role and you know it.

    It is also why Darren the Tory will stand in Rawmarsh, you may not remember the pain inflicted on South Yorkshire by the Tory party, by the way look up the meaning of the word Tory, it just might shed some light onto why Darren the Tory will not be welcome in Rawmarsh.

    A few prompts, the miners strike, the steel workers strike, ring a bell?

    Thought not, more interested in stakeholders, inputs, outputs, action plans and the rest of the civic double speak.
    A bit of advice, Darren will change sides back to the Tory party just as soon as soon as you have given him the Rawmarsh seat.

    Why his he keeping up the back slapping on Twitter, he will make fools of you all, if that is at all possible.

    And another thing, I hear that the Rotherham Labour group have a book running on who could be put forward for the two potential MP seats at the next election, is this true?


    • Cerberus – you have an unfair advantage over me as you are using a pseudonym and choose to hide your identity so I am afraid I can’t enter in to a debate with you on the number of inaccurate statements in your post.

      So if you want a response from me then have the gumption to tell everyone your real identity and let the debate commence. Beacause it can’t be right that you know who I am and are able to cross ref my views on here and check against what I may have said publicly in the past but you on the other hand hide behind a mythical creatures name in the knowlege that you wont be taken to task on the comments you make. Now I am not saying we will agree on many things but at least we will have a level playing field


      • Dear Jahangir Akhtar,

        Oh how I sympathise with your posting.

        How unfair life is when you are taken to task by citizens and asked to account for your beliefs and actions and how they are remembererd and recorded.

        But hang on a minute, you chose an active public life in Rotherham politics, and are therefore IMHO, susceptible to the requirement to stand accountable to the Rovrum electorate and taxpayers.

        Whereas the ordinary citizen does not have to account for their actions, or inactions, to you or Da Dodger or any of his coterie of corpulent, lazy, ineffectual, well-fed and overpaid Corn Fed Grunters, Muppets and Clowns.

        Trust me, you have absolutely nothing to gain by locking horns with any of the citizen correspondents on here.

        I would strongly urge and advise that you let Da Corpulent One, aka Da Dodger, know that his time in office is limited in the extreme and that his continued silence on the issue that Cerberus has continually highlighted will cause long-term damage to both RMBC’s and Da Rovrum Laybah Grooip’s position.


      • Dear Graldhunter / Salaam alaykam

        I think you missunderstood or I wasn’t very clear on what I was saying to Cerberus.

        I said that I would not engage in debate / discussion with someone who chooses to keep his/ her identity a secret.

        You are quite right to say it was my choice to enter to the world of politics and I will always try to answer/ clarify any policy decisions I make in my position as a ward councillor and the executive position I currently hold.

        But with all due respect as its still a free country, it’s up to me wheather I choose to answer anyone on this site. And asI said in the earlier post I will not debate / discuss with anyone who chooses to remain anonymous.

        Now I know you also use a pseudonym but I am aware of your identity I am happy to discuss with you any issues that you may want to have a chat about.

        best regards



  4. Jahangir, as they say the truth often hurts, Yes I can see why you will not enter into a public debate, you are no better than Stone, possibly you are worse. as you pretend to be the man of the people and all the while you are creaming in the allowances and plotting to get Darren the Tory back into office.

    Typical of an RMBC Elected Member to take his bat and ball home just when the spotlight is on them, more Jahangir posts to follow, Jahangir for Leader, Jahangir for MP, I don`t think so, especially when his colleagues find out what he says about them.

    Oh and you still have not said what community cohesion is or what YOU are going to do to address the issue of grooming and abuse of children here in Rotherham, empty words and no action, so typical of an RMBC Elected Member, as I said you are just like Stone.


  5. Jahangir Akhtar – or as Darren Hughes called you – Janglier Akhtar!
    Darren Hughes one of the most hard(est) working councillors – Let us have the truth, Darren Hughes was hopeless, he never got back to the people he was supposed to represent.


    • Unless he was engaged in selling his constituents out, that is!
      Exclusive Brethren Cult School anyone? Destruction of green belt!
      This man is just a greedy Tory!
      Leopards seldom change their spots!


  6. @Jahangir (or fatty as I affectionately call him) then please debate with me.

    What message does it give to other flyposters if RMBC councillors/candidates are allowed to do it at all? Especially as your website states “The Council is dedicated to removing unauthorised posters throughout the borough. We have a policy of making repeat offenders remove their fly posters within a week, or face the possibility of being prosecuted. ” and that the council specifically list flyposting as anti-social behaviour

    Will you back a rule change through cabinet/council that clearly bans the practice for elections or is it the attitude of councillors that we mere mortals should do as the council says not as Cllr St John/ Mr Hughes do?

    ps agree with you on those that do not back their thoughts with a name.


  7. Michael – On the fatty issue, the term POT / KETTLE comes to mind -))))))

    The policy on fly posting for electoral purposes has now been clarified and any infringement will carry the same penalties as any other form of fly posting.

    happy to ask our electoral services to include the clarification to all candidates in future elections.

    Is that ok fellow fatty ?


  8. Lol fair does chunk but on the pot calling the kettle black just beware that other fly posters will use it against you.

    Would sooner you just make rule it shouldn’t be done

    Yours a fellow lardy


  9. I would like to respond to Mr Hughes “clarification”.
    In Paragraph a, Mr Hughes refers to the time frame of “one week”, I have had paperwork from RMBC Election offices that states that this period is “14 days” and permission must be obtained. So it looks like wrong information.
    In para b, Why did Mr Hughes contact the Planning Dept ?. Common sense says its Streetpride he should have contacted. He states “”were acceptable during Election time, (posters) and legal requirement to remove them in a specific time”. Note he does not state that time. Para a nad b are confusing, so he did not have any sound idea of what he was entitled to do, so he went and did it anyway.
    Mr Hughes goes on to say he was asked to” remove them several days later”, how ? Streetpride began to look at this issue on the Monday April 23rd, Mr Hughes was “asked” to remove them on Tue 24th April, next day . NOT several days later.
    Mr Hughes then goes on to say that ” only to find as we started (this was on the Friday) to remove them, that RMBC officers had already started their removal” Does he really expect us to believe that this event took place. Its my understanding that Streetpride began removing these posters on Thursday afternoon, and completed the job on Friday. (What is odd is that I was told that this was done by one man and a cherry picker, yet it has been stated that “the teams started work yesterday afternoon (Thursday). One man and a cherrypicker now appear to be a “team”)
    Whichever way this is looked at, there are contradicting statements comming from both Mr Hughes and Streetpride. Its my experiance that when this happens its usually due to someone somewhere trying to “bulls**t others. so no change there then.
    Mr hughes tries to Deflect away from his position by having a “go” at me, lets put more “clarification” on the table, Mr Hughes says that it was I “who approved of (his) posters in a similar fashion in 2008”. I had nothing to do with the posters he erected for his 2008 campaign, but this shows he was aware of the rules regarding fly posting in 2008, and if my memory serves me correct this topic was discussed at the time. HOME GOAL I think. With regard to my Election posters, these were not on any property of RMBC, and WERE REMOVED BY MYSELF not by RMBC staff. I did not cost the Taxpayers of Anston a penny.
    Finally its good to see that Mr Hughes has put the clarification into the Public domain, but he misses the point , the point being that his posters were removed at the expence of Anston/RMBC taxpayers. The more cynical of us could say that the removal of the posters was diliberatly delayed to maximise his publicity, and he was only galvanised into action (if he did) when he realised RMBC were actually removing them. He seems to think its acceptable to spend time “wriggling out of it” with a long list of “clarification”, when the right thing to do was put his hand in his pocket and pull out his cheque book. ITS ALL A QUESTION OF INTEGRITY.


Leave your comment

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

You are commenting using your 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.