Sometimes asking questions works

Little did I think when Regular Reader noticed interesting alterations in Shaukat Ali’s declaration of interests, it would set off a doughty investigator of inquiring mind, to ask the simple question why?

The emails are reproduced in sequence from the start:

Sent: 18 February 2015 17:46
To: Collins, Jacqueline
Subject: Cllr Shaukat Ali

Dear Monitoring Officer,

I have a  copy of a  completed Register of Members’ Interests form dated by Cllr Ali on the 15/4/14 detailing Land at 44/46 Selbourne St (see attached) and I also have a Land Registry document (,see attached) showing that as at 31 July 2014 the Registered Owners of the two properties to be COPPEN (ESTATES) LIMITED and had done so from 29.03.2012.

Could you please ask Cll. Ali to clarify this matter

From: Collins, Jacqueline <Jacqueline.Collins@rotherham.gov.uk>
Date: Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:50 PM
Subject: RE: Cllr Shaukat Ali
Cc: “Leverton, Lindsey” <Lindsey.Leverton@rotherham.gov.uk>

Cllr Ali’s details at Section 4 of his Register of Interests were removed with my consent, and in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, as they constituted a sensitive interest.

I will consult Cllr Ali and determine whether it is appropriate for those  interests to be made public.

Jacqueline Collins
Director
Legal and Democratic Services

Date: Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 9:45 AM
Subject: Cllr.Shaukat Ali – “sensitive interests”
To: “Collins, Jacqueline” <jacqueline.collins@rotherham.gov.uk>

Dear Monitoring Officer,

Further to your email to me 2.50pm yesterday,

What do you mean by “a sensitive interest”?

Please kindly let me have a copy of the Code of Conduct and refer me to the appropriate section.

From: Collins, Jacqueline <Jacqueline.Collins@rotherham.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:57 PM
Subject: Cllr.Shaukat Ali – “sensitive interests”

I would refer you to paragraph 11.3 of the Code of Conduct, which is attached.

Cllr Ali has reviewed the position and I now consider that it is  appropriate for his property interests  to be disclosed.  Cllr Ali’s Register will be updated in the next couple of days.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Jacqueline Collins
Director
Legal and Democratic Services

Quite a result then!!

The attached Code of conduct can be read/downloaded here as a .pdf.

Originally posted as: Shaukat Ali – Spot the difference?

and those original changes that provoked the questions:

Original Declaration .pdf

Latest Declaration .pdf

17 thoughts on “Sometimes asking questions works

  1. Well done, good effort.

    Has Ms Collins finally realised that she can no longer cover up for this bunch of miscreants?

    Section 11.3 looks like a big cop out clause, I wonder how many other interests have not been declared as they are of a sensitive nature?

    Are we really expected to believe that to declare which houses he owns might lead to violence or intimidation? Presumably that threat has now subsided (if it ever existed) as he has changed his mind.

    The B.

    Like

  2. Yes well done to all involved, surprising what a little diligence & digging will expose, and further proof, not that it was needed, what a useful commodity this board and it’s members are.

    Like

  3. I’m a little confused as to how declaring properties Cllr Ali owns but doesn’t live in could leave him at risk of “violence or intimidation” but the home he does live in is declared.

    Like

  4. Well done rr.
    What a complete load of twaddle clause 11.3 is. As Badger says, a cop out.
    It brings to mind many “job descriptions” where at the end of a list of duties is written ” Any other duties as required by the employer at their discretion”.
    I am inspired to ask the Director of Legal and Democratic Services if Cllrs Rushforth, Beaumont and Godfrey have any “sensitive interests” that are being kept hidden from us. Have a feeling there might well be a few.

    Like

    • MB
      Whatever you feel inspired to do, stop for a moment and think hard about it.
      1. Any such FoI request should be directed at “All current councillors” not just the ones you wish to target.
      2. Whilst I recognise your real ability as an author; producing effective FoI requests is a specialist skill. Why not produce an initial draft and send it to Rothpol, for closed circulation to those of us who have some real experience in the field.
      In other words – lets keep it as a collective effort!

      Like

  5. Some things of interest may possibly be found by a google search on “coppen (estates) limited” .
    I know nothing about the Company’s activities, but I do know a little about the world they appear to be operating in.
    They are here :http://www.endole.co.uk/company/01340526/coppen-estates-limited
    ____
    Many Thanks and a “You Are A Star!” virtual badge to “the doughty investigator of inquiring mind”, who took up the challenge!
    ____
    There was a previous post on Rothpol which includes the Companies House details of another of Cllr Ali’s seemingly ex-properties (70 Milton Road) in the topic/introductory section.
    https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2015/02/15/shaukat-ali-spot-the-difference/

    Like

  6. Looks like Coppen (Estates) Ltd own lots of freeholds on long leasehold properties. Ali must own the leasehold but Coppen will appear as the freeholder.

    Like

  7. I’ll add my congratulations to our worthy investigator. Well done and a virtual e-pint has been sent.
    Jacqui Collins’ about turn is the complete opposite to the responses I’ve had from her and her sidekick Neil Concannon regarding Dalton’s failure to register her ‘Gangs and Grooming’ business which Collins initially said was ‘not a conflict of interests’. After I sent Concannon further evidence of Dalton’s duplicity (because I have no faith in Collins or her abilities) this matter is now ‘under investigation’. Allegedly.
    Collins and her department have two choices when considering FoI and other requests about councillors; Either comply or wait until a Commissioner takes over and studies the case files and then shows her the exit door. Collins is a political appointee with some knowledge of who and what was involved in CSE in Rotherham.
    Skeletons in the cupboard at RMBC? There are so many it’s bursting at the seams!

    Like

  8. Say for the sake of argument the grooming gangs got £200 a week out of each girl as a forced prostitute and on average they got the use of a girl for four years before they were old enough to break away on their own without any outside help that’s forty grand a girl. Now those numbers are a pure guess but if they’re in the right ball park then 1,400 girls (low estimate) would have brought in 56 million pound.

    If there were twenty Rotherhams in total around the country then you’re looking at a billion, forty Rotherhams in total would have brought in two billion pounds.

    A lot of people possibly made a lot of money off the betrayal of those girls.

    Like

Leave a Reply to rothpol Cancel reply

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.