That’s the way to do it!

Rotherham Politics seems to have stumbled upon two examples of practises long since dead in Russia and China, but still going strong in North Korea and Rotherham it would appear!

What practise would that be? That of altering the public record retrospectively!

The first example and the most recent concerns Barry Dodson, the Deputy Mayor, the second concerns Jahangir Akhtar, the recently re-instated Deputy Leader of RMBC.

These pairs of .pdf files of Declarations of Interests have altered, even though they bear the same date of signature by themselves and Jacqueline Collins, RMBC Monitoring Officer. How can this be so and legally correct at the same time?

The only legal option would seem to be an entirely fresh Interests Declaration dated correctly, to replace the previous one, why didn’t this happen? We should be told!

Someone might like to explain themselves, as  Rothpol thought the public record should be sacrosanct and not alterable retrospectively?

Barry Dodson Interests Declaration 8th October 2012 Version 1

Barry Dodson Interests Declaration 8th October 2012 Version 2

Jahangir Akhtar Interests Declaration 14th August 2012 Version 1

Jahangir Akhtar Interests Declaration 14th August 2012 Version 2

Update:

Readers should know that these two sets of Declarations have prompted a reader to enquire further and to attempt therefore in obtaining what will be ‘the official version of events’ to excuse this behaviour. Will report fully on this, once a response has been received.

3 thoughts on “That’s the way to do it!

  1. They always get caught out good work Rothpol. What other illegal acts have these two have been upto? Wonder what they gained from making such changes.

    Like

    • I doubt they did it in the interest of transparency. Akhtar presumably altered his because he was caught out! The gain for Dodson is less clear. Does anyone know why Barry altered his? Readers would like to know.

      Like

  2. This calls into question the suitability of Jacqueline Collins as Monitoring Officer for RMBC. She is (allegedly) legally trained so why did she not spot the discrepancies between the two sets of DoI?
    Her failure to notice the differences leads me to conclude she is also part of the problem and not the answer.
    If she had declared political sympathy with either the Tories or UKIP when first offered the job she would not have been appointed by RMBC.
    Different suit, same trough.

    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.