Gerald Smith Response to Hilda Jack

“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.

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.”

Gerald Smith

Handbags at dawn? If this were a tennis match, the ball would be back in Hilda Jack’s court. Should such a response come, Rothpol would be happy to publish.

Published previously:

Does Rotherham have their very own ‘Two Homes’ councillor?

Speculation is rife throughout the borough that Rotherham may well have their very own ‘I’m-Alright-Jacks’, with reports coming in of at least one councillor living in council accommodation whilst owning a property about a mile away! More information is being … Continue reading

Gerald Smith – Hilda Jack’s Account

The Offending and Offensive Gerald Smith Leaflet

The Gerald Smith Files

15 thoughts on “Gerald Smith Response to Hilda Jack

  1. Well at least we now know that councillors view this blog and take the contents seriously. I wonder though why Gerald hasn’t commented on the blog accusing him of accessing inapropriate images of a sexual nature on the Councils computer system and sexually harassing a female member of staff. Can we take it therefore that these accusations are true? Oh and by the way, should Gerald have been using the Council’s Legal Dept. to obtain personal advice, with regard to his police caution, at taxpayers expense?


  2. When clearing Gerald to be Labour’s candidate for the Holderness Ward, I also wonder if they took into consideration these two prior issues.

    Gerald Smith accessing inapropriate images of a sexual nature on the Councils computer system!
    Further, PP understands. he sexually harassed a female member of staff, she left and was paid for her silence.


  3. Labour’s due diligence lets them down again?

    Next someone will be informing us that Jahangir Akhtar has been cleared to stand for Labour next year!

    Now that would be a catastrophe for Labour, should they be so arrogant or so stupid?


  4. Dear Gerald, if your leaflet was as you say, purely for members of the Labour Party, why did you include the statement, ‘how can a silent man represent your views? ‘ linguistically it would seem you are directly addressing the electorate. I am also surprised that the council legal team were used to advise you on what seems to be a personal legal technicality that involved you and the police. It seems strange that an innocent man would plead guilty out of pure conveniance. Could you clarify whether or not you paid for this service and how much time was taken up with dealing with your personal ‘problem?’ I will be looking into this and whether or not other councillors are using Mr Waller’s services for personal matters.


    • Spoken to representatives of several of Rotherham’s opposition political parties they confirm the truth of your comment.
      The Labour party will, they are confident, lose other seats in addition to Rotherham West, if they should approve Akhtar as their candidate.


  5. Dear Gerald. You say, “It was not as has been described as a prosecution”: No one has ever said it was a prosecution. IT WAS A CONVICTION, and for a political offence! You are a convicted criminal and as such, you should never be allowed to stand as an election candidate.
    You know as well as anyone, you took that caution because the alternative was for you to go to Court and defend yourself for the criminally inaccurate content of that leaflet. You printed election matter which contained absolute lies about an opposition candidate which is an offence.


  6. “I produced one legal Manifesto”, This shows beyond doubt that Cllr Smith was acting in his role as a Labour Party Member. Therefore Mr Waller should not have given any advice at Tax payers expense.
    With regard to the use of RMBC Legal Department, giving RMBC Cllrs legal advice on personal issues, this confirms my suspicions that this practice has been going on for years. As recently as 2012, Cllr Beck in his role as Chairman of Anston Parish Council was seeking and receiving legal advice from the Head of Legal Services as to how he could prevent a Cllr entering a Parish Council meeting as a Member of the Public. As a Tax payer, I am extremely angry that my Council Tax is being used to give free legal advice about Parish Council Business to any Tom, Dick or Harry RMBC Cllr who asks for it. There is no separation between PC Business and personal issues when it comes to RMBC Members. Mr Smith should make a contribution to RMBC for his “free” legal advice and make it quick.


  7. The document in question was manifestly NOT a briefing paper, it is a leaflet. It is written like an election leaflet, it looks like an election leaflet and it reads like an election leaflet. This statement is disingenuous at best on that particular point.

    Question: does Councillor Smith know what a briefing paper is?
    Question: what is Councillor Smith doing issuing such a briefing paper in any case, that contains such distortions of the rival candidate’s political leanings? Does this not show a nasty political style in any case, and an intention, in some shape or form, to slander the opposition?
    Question: did the imprint at the bottom get added by the “out of line” Labour activist supposedly involved? Or was it already there in the briefing paper?
    Question: if the person involved was responsible for the printing why did the police question and caution Councillor Smith?
    Question: why did Councillor Smith not ask the police to investigate how the leaflet got printed and distributed if he was indeed innocent, but accept the caution instead?
    Question: at what point did the Rotherham Labour Party become aware that the offending leaflet had been sent out and why did they not issue an immediate correcting leaflet?
    Question: does the distribution of this leaf…sorry I mean “briefing paper” not show that the Labour Party in Rotherham are at best, indisciplined and incompetent and, at worst, immoral (not to mention illiterate)?
    Question: does Councillor Smith honestly think being supported by the regional Labour Party is grounds for a clear conscience? Or that any of us care?
    Question: how many “briefing papers” will be “inadvertently” distributed to the electorate next May, I wonder? How convenient that this blunder still had a desirable affect on the election for Labour.
    Question: does he think we are totally stupid?


    • Yes, would be the answer to your last question. This time though, old dinosaurs like Smith, will pay a heavy price at the polls as a result of their arrogance! The electorate is more engaged than ever and where the red rosette wearer is an old fool, will likely have a very hard time getting re-elected!


  8. RE: the reply from Mr Smith re Mrs Jacks. May I than him doing so. I hope this catches on with his colleagues, both elected and non elected. However,

    POINT One – If you are allocated a bungalow for medical reasons (and if you own your home it has to be for medical reasons) you have to sell your home. You do however have time to do so – this is council policy. (Considering the state of the housing markets rightly so) In the mean time, while selling your home, you can rent it out, though this has to be declared. Mr Smith should know this. If not he shouldn’t be advising on housing issues until he has brushed up his knowledge. If he does know this he is merely playing politics for electoral gain and therefore breaching confidentiality,the RMBC guidelines and the Data Protection Act. I would prefer to think it is a gap in his knowledge and we all can’t know everything. It;s only human.

    Considering this point can i add a little footnote to this – to get on a waiting list for a bungalow for health reasons your needs have to be assessed by professionals as severe, long term, current and life affecting and limiting. Mr / Mrs Jacks needs obviously met these guidelines. Is Mr Smith qualified to question this professional decision? . If not, and he is simply making assumptions without basis, he should apologize for the any intentional or unintentional innuendo concerning Mr / Mrs Jacks housing needs and health status and they can both move on re this point..

    POINT Two – a formal caution, (even voluntary) is a formal warning to someone who has admitted they HAVE committed an offence, and though technically not a conviction (only a court can actually hand out a conviction) can be, and is, often viewed by future courts as a previously committed offence. One thing is clear however; a Caution – is only issued to someone who has admitted the offence. It is not a ‘let off’ or a process issued to the innocent. (Unless that is the individual is misinformed enough to accept responsibility for something they did not do)

    Formal Cautions can be Conditional – where as they stay on your record for three months – Unconditional can be spent at source. They are used by the police as a vehicle of addressing offending behavior where they view the formal prosecution (of the person who has admitted the offence) as either too time consuming, too costly or not necessary in regards to individuals past record or future risk offer offending behavior. The interest of public safety is also one consideration.

    Anyone employed or paid by RMBC, who come in to regular contact with vulnerable adults or children, has to declare all convictions, or Conditional or Unconditional Cautions, spent or otherwise correctly and honestly. This stipulation can be found in all job applications, contacts and policy documents and procedures at RMBC .It must be stated that a Caution of any kind does nor bar you form taking up public office or a paid post .

    Although not technically a conviction, despite misconceptions, all cautions can stay on your record for longer than many jail sentences and are seen as a pointer to previously existing offending and criminal behavior should future offences be committed. Indeed in most circumstances it will actually stay on you record and may never actually leave your record sheet. (To be fair many don’t realize this when accepting a caution) If Mr Smith received a formal Conditional Caution he should declare it as such. likewise if it was Unconditional. If Mr Smith has failed to do so, or declared it wrongly to RMBC or the electorate, he is liable for disciplinary procedures under the RMBC Guidelines and possible removal from his position.The same applies to the Labour Party. In extreme cases – though this is rightly rare – even prosecution can result for false or misguided declarations. I trust Mr Smith has declared the Caution correctly – although clarification regarding the exact nature of the status of the Caution would help.

    POINT Three: Mr Smith claims that ALL the adaptations needed for Mrs Jacks home in regards to her husband’s needs WOULD have been provided in their own home. As Mr Smith knows (or should know) this is not so. RMBC tell mortgage or home owners in need of help they are not eligible for assistance because they own their own home and therefore can pay themselves. (Unless on certain income related benefits) RMBC say people who own their home and apply for assistance can only receive help with the BASICs and will refer home owners to charities for any other assistance with no guarantee of help being offered; after that RMBC say they cannot help. If you own you own home, and are lucky to actually get a referral to RMBC for help, you are told many adaptations are not available for budgetary reasons (Council and Government cuts). One get out is you are told to get your family to help with tasks – whether the family can or are capable of providing assistance or not. If you approach the Housing / Environment Department at RMBC for help with health related safety issues and say you own your home they will stop you immediately and say the support is only available to people that rent from RMBC. In short Mr Smith’s statement does match RMBC’s practice.

    Now don’t get me wrong – I do hope Mr Smith is quoting official policy. But if so he has a lot of work to do. Mainly banging the heads of the management of these departments together and ensuring all departments are made aware of what they should be doing to support people and what they should be telling them regarding to what they are entitled to. Indeed, if he is right (and I hope he is) I look forward to his public announcements, via the media and other public outlets, informing us all of our full rights and how to actually ensure we receive the support he claims is on offer to all including people that own their own homes.

    I have a little message to Mr Smith. Like you, as all who know me, I am not a UKIP supporter and will never be. (Sorry RothPol UKIP contributors but surely that’s no surprise) I am indeed a life long Labour voter. But all this said I don’t agree with politics being about personal issues or attacks. And I view the statements about Mrs Jacks and other opponents (in the leaflet and posts) as personal. As I said I cannot vote UKIP; but neither can I vote for individuals that use innuendo rather than policy a vehicle for debate. What I ask for is when choosing a candidate is clarity and honesty when voting .

    Finally, Mr Smith, if you do have a minor criminal record or Conditional Caution I do not see that as a problem. One in three adults in Britain have minor criminal records; even more so with Cautions. It does not preclude them from positively contributing to public well being and life; indeed, many of our most successful politicians and business people have ‘pasts’. (As do many on here). If you made a mistake admit to it. I will respect you for doing so. If the mistake was down to others put that right and be seen to do so; again I will respect you for doing so. But please, please,please do not rely on personal attacks and innuendo. That’s why many of my friends are turning away from Labour locally to pastures they would rather not be found to graze. Buck the Aktrhar – esque trend and be clear and precise. Show your different from the others that will one day be brought to book; it may set you aside and work.



    PS: Thanks to all who sent best wishes regarding my illness and health issues. Despite our ‘occasional’ political differences in debate it’s nice to know that people care. Now back to normal – that blooming Godfrey Bloom // George Osborn / Nick Clegg / George Galloway etc etc doesn’t half annoy me lol Bless xxxx


  9. Pingback: A difference of legal opinion? Clarified? | Rotherham Politics

  10. Pingback: Jim responds to Gerald | Rotherham Politics

  11. Well well well how very interesting to hear this awful woman may now stand for ukip, if only she knew her biological great grandchild is of Jamaican descent, not that she even knows he exists, all the best ‘gramdma ‘


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.