Peter Thirlwall once again is having to assert his democratic rights. This is first post on this subject, from this weeks Advertiser:
.
Rotherham Politics
Robust scrutiny of all things political around Rotherham and beyond. Speaking truth to power since 2008
Rotherham Politics 
This is true face of the Labour Party. I keep saying that this is dictator set up of the Labour in Rotherham. They had it so good for over 50 years that can not allow any one to ask questions and demand answers . This is the Council that told lies in appeal court when I took them to court over provision of service for the WHEEL CHAIR users. A council that resorts to lying in court not provide a service to wheel chair users it no surprise that they ban Mr Thirlwall illegally. If he has not been charged or cautioned by the police then he can not have broken any laws. What is SYP is doing by acting wrongfully just because a officer of Council ( who is in the pocket of the scum labour any way) has asked them to evict. They should be impartial and act as per law and if law is not breached they should not have arrested Mr Thirlwall. Maybe as an another blogger stated police and RMBC are in some peoples pockets and they act as they are instructed regardless of any breach of law.
So it is not only ex deputy Akhatar who expected his community to bow down to him, it is all the Labour elites who expect people to bow down to them and do not expect any one to ask any questions.
Mr Thirlwall well done for standing up against the evil of Labour.
LikeLike
I call on that over-paid incompetent, Martin Kimber to quote the exact piece of legislation, Act and Section, and quote it word for word on this website, which gives him the power to ban ANYONE from the Town Hall which is a publicly owned building. I don’t believe there is any such legislation which allows him to ban Peter Thirlwall at all. If there is, I will be alongside Peter, together with other supporters to show our disgust at these actions. Once again, THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY IN ROTHERHAM!!
Jim Fletcher
LikeLike
@ Anonymous.
Whilst I do not agree with the heavy handed response by Kimber the answer to your question about legislation might be here:
Last year, the government changed secondary legislation to open up councils’ executive meetings to the press and public. However, this did not apply to councils’ committee meetings or full council, nor to parish councils. Mr Pickles asked councils to open up their committee meetings, but many councils are still not complying.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-press-freedom-law-to-open-up-town-halls
Unless I’ve misunderstood your question?
LikeLike
Thank you for that Colin but, firstly has this been passed as legislation or is it still “advice” from Eric Pickles? Secondly, the way it appears to be worded, to ban Peter Thirlwall from the meetings, Kimber MUST ban all other, non-council personnel and the press. I’m sure this would go down very well with our local newshounds.
LikeLike
On page 7 there is also a piece about Cllr Stuart Thornton being gagged for a second time by Anston Parish Council at the behest of certain Cllr Beck. Another example of democracy, Rotherham Labour style?
LikeLike
All credit to the Tiser, some very balanced reporting of the political landscape that is Rotherham!
LikeLike
Seems like a case of men of a certain age. Time to grow up all round, me thinks.
LikeLike
Spot on Mr Jim Fletcher. Mr Kimber must publish the exact Law. The law that relates to Members of the Public attending Public Meetings is the, “Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 ” I think section 1(1) refers. Whilst a person can be removed from a meeting, that removal only applies to that particular Meeting. So Mr K must be referring to some other Law or Rule.
I know this because Cllr Beck and his Labour cohort at Anston evict me on a regular basis, to stop me representing a different view from theirs. I call this Bullying, but the RMBC Monitoring Officer refuses to even consider any cases of Bullying by Cllr Beck, even whilst he was sat on the Standards Committee.
I urge people to go to the story on page 7 and see how very similar the two stories are. What`s more worrying is I attended a meeting of Dinnington Town Council recently, and the Chairman read out a statement saying that if individuals (and he was implying one particular person, who, surprise, surprise, questions the Council) do not comply with his statement, he would ban them from the meeting and then ban them from attending all other meetings. He then went on to “challenge” the Public that they had taken “legal advice” (I wonder where from) and they could do it.
Sorry Mr Chairman you cannot, and I suspect the person you were referring to will challenge you. What are you going to do when he proves you wrong ??.
What are these people afraid of, its a case of we don’t like/can not handle your comments, so we will bully you into submission. Shame Shame Shame.
Make it Public Mr K.
LikeLike
I’m not sure where all the confusion comes from. The right of the public to attend Council meetings is clearly set out in the 1972 Local Government Act (as amended) Part VA 100A section(1) and section (6) (b) states: while a meeting is open to the public the council shall not have the powers to exclude members of the public from the meeting. There is, in addition, other legislation, guidance and legal precedents supporting the individual and these state that any expulsion from a meeting, for whatever reason, cannot extend beyond that particular meeting and most certainly be for an indeterminate period. If anyone out there is aware of any legislation that may be helpful to me in this case I would be grateful if you could let me know. The attitude of the police in this case will however be crucial.
LikeLike
It is my understanding the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 is still in force and Sect 4 (c) says: while the meeting is open to the public, the body shall not have power to exclude members of the public from the meeting……………………….
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/67/section/1
However it is an offence under the Public Meeting Act 1908 to try to break up a lawful public meeting by acting in a disorderly manner or to incite others to do so. The maximum penalty is six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine up to £1000. If a police officer is present and reasonably suspects you of trying to disrupt the meeting, then, at the chairperson’s request, he or she can ask you for your name and address. It is an offence if you fail to give these details or give a false name or address (maximum penalty is a fine at level 1 – currently £200).
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-right-of-peaceful-protest/meetings-and-picketing.html
I think Kimber will use the Public Meeting Act 1908 to claim you were ‘acting in a disorderly manner’ which like most claims about disorder in public meetings is a matter of perception.
You claim the right to speak, councillors will claim you are “being disorderly”..
The bullying tactics used by Labour councillors are becoming more frequent because it is easier to attack the questioner instead of answering embarrassing questions.
LikeLike
Peter why dont you join Respect Party?
You are very passionate as they are?
LikeLike
Is it true that Peter Thirlwall shall be standing for UKIP next year?
LikeLike
No
LikeLike
I can assure Peter Thirwall that whilst they may be able to evict you from one meeting ,they cannot evict you for all time. The only way I can see that they may be able to ban you is in some way connected with the actual building itself, say trespass. However by virtue that individuals could not enter a public meeting they are entitled to attend by law, it would not be a public meeting. The Meeting would then have to be moved to another location. The only other way they could prevent you from attending the meeting is through some sort of restraining order. It would be a very brave Council that did that, because there would be uproar. I cannot see the new UKIP Cllrs supporting it . Again the so call rule to ban should be published in full, so we can all judge how democratic RMBC really is..
On a slightly different note, why is Mr Kimber, an unelected Employee of RMBC, making all the press comments. I don’t think Mr K has any powers to stop people entering the Town Hall, or is it a case the Leader is again using employees to get him out of trouble.
LikeLike