A difference of legal opinion?

From: Collins, Jacqueline <Jacqueline.Collins@rotherham.gov.uk>
Date: Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 4:29 PM
Subject: RE: Cllr.Gerald Smith’s Formal Police Caution.

Thank you for your e-mail.

I have reviewed the position and the information has been considered by Phil Beavers, Independent Person.

I understand that the situation arose in respect of leaflets which were produced for internal use by the Labour Party were inadvertently distributed to the public.  As Cllr Smith’s name was omitted from the leaflet he  accepted  an *informal caution from the Police. This does not count as a criminal record.*

As the matter has been resolved and as it relates to events two and a half years ago, I take the view that this matter does not need to be referred to a Panel of the Standards Committee for further consideration.

Phil Beavers has, independently, concluded that  no further action is required.

Yours sincerely,

Jacqueline Collins
Director
Legal and Democratic Services
Resources Directorate
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

* Rothpol’s emphasis.

7 thoughts on “A difference of legal opinion?

  1. It was not an “Informal caution” as Ms Collins states, it was a “Formal caution; thus a conviction!
    An informal caution is when the police advise someone regarding their conduct. This lady has been either badly informed of the circumstances or is totally incompetent.

    Like

  2. From past experiences I can assure you Mrs. Collins will not do anything that resembles a reprimand to any Labour councillor. Her solution to conflict is to try to resolve it by ‘Informal resolution’.
    No, I don’t know what it means either.

    Like

  3. If these leaflets were for internal Labour Party use then presumably the number produced would have been equivalent to the number of members of the Party in the area concerned. I wonder if either Miss Collins or Mr Beavers asked to see the invoice in order to clarify the position.

    Like

  4. The issue about the leaflet and it’s distribution is not the bone of contention here, the substantive issue is wheather a public money was used to provide private legal advice to a councillor. The person who alleged this is the councillor himself. There is no attempt whatsoever to address this issue or even justify such behaviour, but it still clears him anyway. Space is still found for a council official to spin and downplay the previous private indiscretion of this councillor. A public funded defence, deja vue.

    Like

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

  6. At Anston Parish Council there has been OVER 28 complaints against Cllrs. The complaints have been against Labour and Independent Cllrs. Of that number only two complaints have been put forward for investigation. Those two Cllrs are both Independent, I leave it to the Public to make their own minds up.
    PS The Labour Ex Parish Council Chairman, Who just happens to be on the Standards Committee, is not one of those subject to investigation, even though he thinks it right to verbally abuse Members of the Public. Mrs Collins states that he is not being protected, and we have to believe her, but again Ill let the Public make up its own mind.

    Like

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.