The Offending and Offensive Gerald Smith Leaflet

Hilda Jack has told us clearly, that the leaflet in it’s entirety was produced by Gerald Smith.

In addition to the lack of a legal imprint, for which Gerald Smith received a Police Caution, which is recorded as a conviction, there are fundamental untruths concerning the Independent Candidates previous political affiliations!

This is the offending leaflet:


Rotherham Politics was disturbed at the time that such a leaflet was produced and distributed in support of Labour Candidates. That this was authored by Gerald Smith makes this even more offensive, as he should have known better after all his years of experience!

Micael Elmer was right to characterise this as an example of  ‘Scum Labour’ in action!

More on this will be published later.

6 thoughts on “The Offending and Offensive Gerald Smith Leaflet

  1. Christian Democrats are to the left of Christian People’s Alliance who themselves are right-centre so Paul is hardly extreme right wing. There also is nothing inconsistent with affiliating to a party and being Independent on local issues (tho CPA and CD are hardly big players nationally), nor in being an Independent per se at the same time as being an Independent identified with a specific locality. Paul Martin’s dignified silence speaks volumes on this. Apart from the illegality and nastiness, the toilet tissue (I mean “leaflet”) is also illiterate (e.g. Line 3 “There has been…” with a plural subject? Tut, tut! Spacing? Very poor). And somebody should introduce Mr Smith’s ghost writer to punctuation! Commas and question marks after interrogative statements e.g. A FULL STOP to some Labour political careers might be on the cards in the very near future, if Rotherham Independents have anything to say about it…The only thing to say in defence of this puerile and ignorant trash is that it was definitely not produced by a spin doctor in London.


  2. Thanks for that Simon, your analysis is spot on!

    High time this ‘old warhorse’ Smith, was put out to grass?

    Don’t the Labour Party care who represents them? Not in Rotherham, it would appear!


  3. I totally agree with Simon regarding Paul Martin but what about the comments regarding David Gee? No doubt David attended all 44 Parish Council meetings and no doubt that in all those meetings he was not privy to the decisions made by the majority Labour members who had already held their meeting immediately prior to the P.C. meeting and made all the decisions. This is how Aston P.C. have carried out their so called “business” for decades, a system, which is totally corrupt and dishonest. How can one single, honest man deal with such corruption? How can he ask questions about matters which have already been decided prior to the meeting? Any critics should attend an Aston P.C. meeting and witness this first hand. It stinks!
    The really disgusting thing about this is that Smith has managed to get away with these disgusting lies without legal action against him.
    He no doubt took the easy option of accepting the caution to the offence of the lack of a legal imprint on the document instead of being prosecuted for the filthy lies he printed.


  4. The so called article by Hilda Jack is mainly inaccurate. She identifies me as the Agent for the Parish Council Elections of 2011. Please contact the Elections office to verify there are no agents for Parish elections. I produced one legal election Manifesto for each of the three Parish Wards which were sent to and printed by a legitimate printer. Had the leaflet in question been an election leaflet it would also have gone to the same printer. It was in fact a briefing paper for members canvassing in the South Ward.. I did not give Mrs. Jack 120 as she claims as I only printed 25. I accepted a voluntary caution from the Police because A. I was not aware at the time that a huge number had been photocopied and delivered in the South Ward and B I took advise from a Council Solicitor Richard Waller to take the caution as he informed me that as soon as it was issued it was classed as spent. It was not as has been described as a prosecution ( See Wikipedia) had I known at the time that Mrs. Jack had done the copying and delivering of a huge number of the leaflets (her Husband was a candidate in the South Ward) I would not have accepted the caution. If it was an Illegal document She was guilty of copy and delivering such a leaflet and should have been seen by the police. It seems a bit questionable why she took two and a half years to make a statement of the incident. Is it possible the reason for producing it now is that we have been informed she has been approached by UKIP to stand as a candidate next May. or is it revenge for her de-selection . I asked our members why they had not supported her. there replies were the copying and delivery of the leaflet but mainly because she had taken a council bungalow and was RENTING OUT HER OWN HOUSE at the same time( not exactly true socialism is it) any thing that was needed for her ill husband could have been converted in her own home. You will be pleased to know I am sure you will be pleased to know That I have been supported by the Regional Labour Party Officers and the NEC and accepted as a candidate for the Election Next May


  5. Pingback: Gerald Smith Response to Hilda Jack | Rotherham Politics

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.