Shabana has had this kind of difficulty before

Shabana has had this kind of difficulty before, this is from the Advertiser back in 2012:

scan-pdf1

Previously: Labour Dirty Tricks in Brinsworth & Catcliffe

 

 

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Abuse of power, Corruption, Councillor Greed and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Shabana has had this kind of difficulty before

  1. Steve Webster says:

    Only this time her election agent is Richard Price the Labour councillor for Maltby, his Maltby address is listed on his agent nomination paperwork therefore why is she this time using Reg Littleboy’s address?

    There is nothing listed under Fairfield Gardens, Brinsworth in any official paperwork in the public domain for this by-election on hers or Richards nomination paperwork.

  2. rothpol says:

    Shabana is in need of another plausible explanation for this bout of forgetfulness?

    • Rotherham Tyke says:

      On Saturday, Shagbama was finally sighted in Brinsworth driving her white Mercedes. The car, allegedly supplied by Asbo Akhtar as a gift, should have the words ‘supplied by Asbo Akhtar’, supported by ‘let me touch you up Roddison’ emblazoned on the side to make it more authentic.

      Everyone is aware of her colourful past, and in particular the question of parentage. Shagbama cariies more baggage than an airline, and has been recycled more times than waste paper.

      We see she is supported again in her attempt to deceive by the Labour party itself; supplying a false residential address on campaign literature, All designed to mislead voters by suggesting that she lives in Brinsworth when she actually lives in Whiston.

      When questioned she suggests Reg Littleboy of Brinsworth is her election agent, whilst officially (and on all election documentation) her election agent is identified as fellow Momentum member, Cllr Richard Price of Maltby. Memory lapses or a deliberate attempt to mislead? I leave it you to form your own opinion.

      What does all this subterfuge and deceit tell you about Read and Healey? Well, it suggests that they fully endorse this type of behaviour and despite their attempts to proclaim honesty and decency as their mantra, they are as morally corrupt as the shameful Shagbama.

      As leader, Read is expected to demonstrate sound judgement (coupled with integrity) yet he allows the selection of this dubious character as a candidate, and then has the gall to say ‘they have learned now and changed as it’s a new start’. I think not.

      In Dinnington the choice of candidate is little better, another old ‘has been’ or ‘never was’ councillor but an ex RMBC council officer who is brought out when there is no one else.

      Surely the people of Rotherham deserve better and no be fooled into electing dross to represent them again?

  3. Xinsider says:

    Time for a quick call to the Advertiser perchance ??

  4. Caven Vines says:

    Election irregularities need to be reported to the police to investigate they are the body that deals with election offences not the electoral commission

    • rothpol says:

      Has anyone actually ascertained whether this misuse of Reg Littleboy’s address on election material breaks any law, or is this simply another manifestation of the lying, mendacious and corrupt local labour party concealing the truth from voters?

  5. S Thornton says:

    Caven is right, all complaints of election wrong doing should be reported to SYP. But dont hold your breath, numerous complaints have been made in the past few years, and they just do not want to deal with them. Most of the complaints seem to be against Labour Candidates, and with a Labour PCC, do you really think any collars will be felt.
    How many Election complaints have to be made, before the police get the picture that if you break the law, you need to be investigated?.

  6. Caven Vines says:

    I beleive a ex Labour Councillor was given a police caution for imprint irregularities on a political leaflet ??

  7. Colin Tawn says:

    The law on imprints was changed by Section 143 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 which came into force with effect from 7 May 2007.
    The Commission explains the purpose of the imprint requirements in Section 4.33 of its guidance for candidates and agents:
    4.33 The intention of imprint requirements is to enable anyone to trace the person responsible for the material, for example in case of any complaint or query about its content. There is no requirement for an imprint address to be a home address, as long as it is somewhere the person can be contacted. It could, for example, be an office address.

    4.34 An email address is not acceptable as an imprint address because it is not a physical address, and it is possible to create one using false or fictitious details.4
    Election material must carry an imprint with details of the full name and full postal address of the printer and promoter of the material. The name and address of any person on whose behalf the material is being published must also be included if this person is not the promoter.

  8. Pingback: The Week That Was – Last Weeks Top Ten 28th January 2017 | Rotherham Politics

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s