It would seem that totalitarianism has now become the order of the day for the Labour Party, and chairmen lying to the public; even at the Bland Comedy Club that is Dinnington Town Council.
At the June meeting of the Dinnington Town council, before he opened the meeting the chairman, McIver the engine, read out a statement to the public. It was obviously in response to a question I had asked at the previous meeting, about J.A.D.E being assisted by two Dinnington Town/borough councillors to obtain the council offices in Dinnington. I am entering all the statement because it has clear relevancies to what is happening at RMBC.
“The public session of the meeting is only for questions for the town council as a whole, i.e. policies, projects or administrative duties. It must not be used to question individuals in any way, there are procedures for this. (we were not enlightened as to what these procedures are) It is also not for questions on Borough Council business. It was very disappointing to see an attempt to humiliate Town Councillors at the last meeting and the respect and courtesy members show to each other and the public should be reciprocated by the public in return. As a result of this latest incident the Town Council could not let this kind of behaviour continue. If behaviour of this or similar occurred again I will look to members to suspend the meeting until the person or persons have left the building, and if necessary look to seek a motion to SUSPEND THEM FROM ANY FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING FOR AN APPROPRIATE TIME, then I will close the meeting. I do not seek to stifle public debate, it has to be done with respect to others and as chair I have a duty to protect both Town Councillors and the public from this kind of behaviour at public meetings.”
Note the part where he states suspend them from any future meetings for an appropriate time.
Now think of Mr Thirwall at RMBC, Dinnington got their legal advice from Rotherham.
When I questioned McIver the engine on this at last nights meeting the legal advice was use the standing orders, when I pointed out to him that the standing orders has no such clause; he took the stoned man of Rotherham stance “I will put my reply in writing”.
I will let you know what it is when I get it.
I also pointed out that he had read his statement before the meeting was opened and so it could not be entered into the minutes, despite numerous members of the public backing this up the chairman lied and said he had opened the meeting, the council went on to compound this by passing the minutes as a true record.
It is obvious that Labour are running scared of close questioning, this is a blatant attempt to stop the public from asking searching questions about the motives and actions of individual councillors.
It would seem in desperation Labour are becoming a totalitarian party.
Dave Smith
Rotherham Politics 
Sandwell MBC (70 out of 72 Councillors Labour ) a very similar approach to open government
LikeLike
Reblogged this on maltbyblogger and commented:
Oh my goodness.
Dinnington Council use the same tactics as Maltby Town Council and RMBC, as Dave Smith says. Totalitarianism indeed.
LikeLike
Tut Tut, It looks like Dinnington Town Council is going exactly the same way as Anston Parish Council.
Anston did not like being held to account by the Public`s questioning, so they changed standing orders to restrict them. Anston (read Cllr St John) also throws out the Independent when they don`t get their own way. Its my understanding that even now, at the next Parish Meeting, the Labour Party at Anston are using their supporters to try and further stop members of the Public asking questions at Public meetings.
Top Tip to the Chair of Dinnington, don’t lie in Public. you may be asked to resign. What you said in the previous meeting was not what was transcribed in the Minutes. I was at both Meetings so can verify what Mr Smith is saying is true.
The statement that was read out, was BEFORE the meeting opened. Mr Smith should insist that at the next meeting you read out the statement again, (yes it was written down for you, and you read from the paper, so that paper exists) it then can be compared with what`s in the minutes.
If I was a Dinnington Town Cllr, I would be asking for a second opinion over the advice from RMBC, Because its wrong, you cannot exclude a member of the Public from a Public Meeting, for more than one occasion. If you try to go down the same route of the Town Hall, and ban someone from the building, I think you may well be in serious trouble.
Ask yourself this, If a person is excluded from a building, and that building is used for “Public Meetings”, and that person is legally entitle to attend those Public Meetings, Then if he, as a member of the public, is excluded from attending, is the meeting a ” Public Meeting”?.
The solution to both Anston and Dinningtons problem is simple, when asked a question, answer openly, honestly and with out fear, then you wont have a problem. Dodging questions only makes Matters worse.
LikeLike