Too good to miss – fresh in from Grald Hunter

News is filtering in that Gerald Smith may not yet realise the full significance of his caution and it’s potential for embarrassment both for him and a real test for the Labour Party which will expose the gulf between rhetoric and reality!

Grald Hunter might like to share the private joke with us implicit in his moniker?

Grald-Hunter says:

August 4, 2011 at 10:55 pm

Ha ha ha ha, at last he’s been outed and publicly humiliated :-)

I just knew it would happen sooner or later … it was always going to happen to a Muppet with an ego and a gob bigger than their miniscule brain … :-)

But hang on a minute … it’s “just an error that people make” … well if that don’t take the biscuit … ah well at least it’s consident with the responses from those in the dock on the receiving end of justice every day in our Magistrates and Crown Courts … “it’s just an error”, as in I GOT CAUGHT … yeah and from a supposedly highly-experienced and veteran councillor and public servant with aeons of expertise in this field … oh really, lol,

And now here’s the best bit – http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Beingstoppedorarrestedbythepolice/DG_196450

“Cautions and criminal records”
“A caution is not a criminal conviction, but it does go on your criminal record.

“The police will record your caution on their databases. This means that your caution may in some circumstances be told to an employer or used in court as evidence of bad character. The police will also keep a record of photographs, fingerprints and any evidence taken in your case”.

“If you are cautioned for a sexual offence, you could be placed on the sex offenders register”.

“The police may give your name and address to any victims of your crime if they ask for it. This means you might be sued for damages by a victim”.

I once heard a veteran British Army tank sergeant retort the following line to a very arrogant, overbearing and very-new inexperienced cavalry Second Lieutenant who was demanding respect … “Sir, rank you may well wear, but respect from me you have yet to earn” … Touche :-)

Read the full story and other comments here.

Should Chris Read have known better?

Chris Read the Labour Party member and Wickersley Ward candidate in May’s local elections, now elected as a councillor on RMBC, who turned out to be from Swinton was revealed also to be a full time Labour apparatchik! who works in York! For York Labour Party, in a prior posting and was therefore confirmation that indeed he should have known better!

The issue of Chris Read being a Labour employee who drove a ‘coach and horses’ through the rules on completion of nomination papers in order to procure a ballot paper that was essentially deceptive in nature and caused considerable attention and potential embarrassment for Yorkshire & Humber Labour Party would, you would have thought, been dealt with by now! But the fact that this issue won’t go away, and no one locally or regionally, has told him to stop his stupidity and put a halt to him being less than truthful to his constituents, speaks volumes about the tolerance of the Labour Party to abuses and wrongdoing such as this!

We have demonstrated beyond per adventure, that his creative approach to what constitutes a Full Postal Address, is not legal and will be vigorously challenged should any future repetition of this deceptive little scheme occur. An apology and correction of his Members Interests declaration would not go amiss!

Were Chris Read’s nomination papers correctly completed? The definitive answer!

Or, has the Advertiser mislead it’s readers?

Read comments here.

I read Gareth Dennison’s piece in last weeks Advertiser with interest. The story was cobbled together from copied emails provided by Rob Foulds, I was party to this circulation. So I was aware that by Friday, the story as published, was substantially misleading, because the final piece of the jigsaw from the Electoral Commission was not reported, and was the clincher in determining where the truth lies in this case.

I fully expected this to be covered again in this weeks Advertiser in view of the fact that Gareth knew the previous week, by the time the Advertiser hit the streets in fact, that his story was incomplete and gave a misleading impression as to where the actual fault lay. Needless to say I experienced anger and more than a little frustration at this thoroughly unprofessional journalistic behaviour, I expected better.

Labour in Rotherham are comfortable that their dominance will not be effectively challenged by anyone and have become careless and arrogant with their actions, especially so, since the Stone Age began.

The case of Chris Read’s address is an example of the way this dominance finds expression. This stunt was not the result of ignorance, but a calculated conspiracy involving the Labour Party and Senior Officers, who should know better! By election night, both Labour Councillors and Officers, were singing from the same hymn sheet about Chris Read and had let slip the extent of the discussions on this issue. I won’t name them, but I am indebted to them for the illumination they provided!

Unfortunately the Advertiser also fell for this official line, as though it was established fact, instead of the perverse interpretation of those blinded by self delusion and prejudice seeking a specific outcome. Where have the Advertisers objectivity and critical abilities gone? They must return! The Advertiser and it’s journalists really must start asking questions, instead of swallowing the Labour line, hook line and sinker!

Martin Kimber, Rotherham MBC Chief Executive, I am told is someone not easily persuaded to change his mind even when contradictory evidence comes to light! Stubborn and obstinate are words frequently used by those who work with him. Tim Mumford, just about to retire as the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Admin, advised that their perverse interpretation of the nomination procedures was legal! It was not! They had convinced themselves that the phase ‘commonly understood’ meant they could accept a deficient nomination with the address incomplete! They couldn’t have been more incorrect on this point as the definitive evidence from the Electoral Commission shows!

The Labour Party also convinced themselves that they had come up with a ruse that was legal, even though their own Legal Handbook advised otherwise, and would conveniently conceal the fact that Chris Read was not a local candidate and improve their chances of winning this difficult to predict ward that has developed a penchant for voting Tory in recent years. Those involved, among others, were the ‘grinning goon,’ Reg Littleboy and Chris Read’s Agent, Sue Ellis from Wickersley Labour Party, who put their plan into action.

Despite crude criticism of Rob Foulds for his apparent pettiness on this issue, his critics are wrong in almost every particular. This issue is very important as it demonstrates all the current failings of the Labour Party and Senior Officers. Respect for either the Law or their professional duties is subject to compromise that breaches the codes of conduct that apply here. The ‘blue badge abuse scandal‘ and the reinterpretation of legal orders to allow a councillor to escape justice, is another example of this unacceptable attitude at work! As is the issue over the Printer installed in the ‘Members Room’ by the Labour Party and Kimber’s inadequate response, another of the seemingly partisan approaches taken by  Martin Kimber and Tim Mumford that these recent examples shine a light on.

Sarah Hopson, from the Electoral Commission has confirmed Rob’s contention that a candidate has to complete the form and “the candidate’s home address must be completed in full and should not contain any abbreviations.” and that his address must be “commonly understood,” Chris Reed gave his address as Church Street, Rotherham which was wholly misleading and gave no common indication that he actually lives in Swinton. By the way, “commonly understood” means, how the locals would address themselves, it does not provide a cover for a deceptive address as in this instance!

It is clear that this deliberate deception was not legal or acceptable, this should serve as a lesson to the Labour Party locally, their arrogance will get them into trouble and nowadays their activities are being watched more closely than ever before!

Rob Foulds emerges from this sorry little tale of Labour chicanery, vindicated and with his dignity intact. Labour however have again demonstrated that there is no trick, they will not stoop to, to keep control of what happens in Rotherham! The Advertiser does not come out of this well either, they really must adopt a questioning attitude and not take the ‘official line’ as correct when they are in possession of the full facts! The police response, initially encouraging, was most disappointing. Even so, they acknowledged that deficiencies existed and undertook to remedy this in future elections.

Evidence:

From: Sarah Hopson <SHopson@electoralcommission.org.uk>
Date: 27 May 2011 14:47
Subject: RE: Local Elections 2011, Rotherham
To: “rob.foulds@googlemail.com” <rob.foulds@googlemail.com>

Dear Mr Foulds

Thank you for contacting the Electoral Commission about your experience during the May 2011 local elections in Rotherham. The Electoral Commission has no power to intervene in, or investigate allegations of electoral offences however; your e-mail has been passed to me to inform you of our guidance on the matters you have raised.

The first point that you raise is outlining the particulars of the address that the other candidate put on their nomination form.

The advice contained within our Candidates and Agents guidance on this matter is that the candidate’s home address must be completed in full and should not contain any abbreviations. We cannot comment on any individual cases as this would be a matter for the courts to decide. Any allegations of false statements on nomination forms must be reported to the police. However, it should be noted that where a home address is not absolutely correct, the nomination would not be open to successful challenge as long as the address can be commonly understood. This is covered in section 50 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

Your second point is about the failure to act by the Electoral staff. Returning Officers and their staff have to accept the information written on a nomination form on face value. They have no power to perform investigations into the details provided other than checking the electoral registration details of subscribers and that any description provided complies with the requirements of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006. They are tasked with checking that every item required has been completed and copying the details contained on the nomination form verbatim from the form onto the official documentation e.g. official notices and ballot papers.

Once the Returning Officer has made a decision that a nomination paper is valid, it cannot be challenged during the election, it can only be challenged after by way of an election petition. Just to note, the deadline for election petitions for 5 May elections has now passed.

I hope that this information is useful to you, if I can provide you with any further guidance on electoral matters please do contact me using the details given below.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Hopson

Regional Liaison Officer The Electoral Commission

_____________________________________________________________

From: <Gary.Blinkhorn@southyorks.pnn.police.uk>
Date: 24 May 2011 16:42
Subject: Re: Local Elections Rotherham 2011
To: Rob Foulds <rob@rofos.net>
Cc: Graham.Wragg@southyorks.pnn.police.uk, Caroline.Newman@southyorks.pnn.police.uk

Dear Mr Foulds

I have now examined your complaint and researched the relevant legislation
and Electoral Commission guidance notes and respond as follows:

As you indicate the address “2A Church Street, Rotherham, S64 8QA” would
perhaps be enhanced by the addition of ” Swinton”.
A person standing in that Ward does not have to reside in that Ward to
be a candidate providing he meets one of the four qualifications. Most
residents in Wickersley will know S64 isn’t their postcode.
Only the Labour Party Handbook gives actual specific guidance to include
the name of the village and in fact the more authoritative Electoral
Administration Act example you quote fails to give the village/area
within Basingstoke.
As you concede, it can be argued that his description does adequately
allow his address to be identified.
You received on the 6th April the “statement of persons nominated” which
included Mr Read’s name and address and on the 8th April the “Notice of
Poll” again including his name and address in the same form. However you
did not raise the matter until the evening of Polling Day when someone
else alerted you. I understand you are the Clerk to Bramley Parish
Council and perhaps better acquainted with these matters than most
candidates would be.
No changes could have been made to the nomination paper or new papers
submitted after the deadline and there is no legal requirement for
election staff to provide an informal inspection service for nomination
papers.

I have discussed the matter with my line manager and we are both agreed
that as no offence appears to have been committed by Mr Read no further
Police action will be taken The matter will be recorded with the Police
National Information Coordinating Centre, which reports to ACPO and The
Electoral Commission and I will ensure when we provide briefings to
candidates in future I will stress this area of the legislation. I did
attend the Rotherham briefing on the 6th April 2011, but I do not recall
this specific area being the subject of any questions.

Regards
Gary Blinkhorn
Manager
Research and Development Unit
Economic Crime Unit

_____________________________________________________________

Wickersley Notice of Poll Read here: Does this represent a Full Postal Address? I don’t think so!!!

_____________________________________________________________

Extract from the Labour Party’s ‘Keep it Legal,’ 2011 Election Manual:

“The home address of the candidate must be the official home address – not a business address or a temporary address. The place of residence must be fully stated, including the name of the town or village.”

_____________________________________________________________

Original Complaint: To read click here.

______________________________________________________________

Previously published:

Richard S Russell vs Rob Foulds – Fact Check

More news – Chris Read and Wickersley Labour – were the voters hoodwinked?

Wickersley Labour Lies! Voters deceived?

Richard S Russell vs Rob Foulds – Fact Check

Rob Foulds

In the wake of the local elections this year and the dirtiest campaign, from parts of the Labour Party, ever in Rotherham! Much has been made of the fact that Rob Foulds did not live in Rother Vale Ward where he stood as a Rotherham Independent candidate last year. Labour has taken every opportunity to draw attention to this fact believing that this would be damaging to Rob Foulds’s reputation.

Rob Foulds stood in the Rother Vale Ward, which he can see from his front window, because Richard Russell was a ‘bussed in’ Labour candidate from far away West Melton, just next door to Brampton Bierlow, part of the Dearne Valley and not the most ‘local’!

Richard Russell Deselected 'Dud'

Richard Russell was also a decidedly poor candidate, rejected by his home ward of Hoober, where  Labour Party members deselected him after 28 years as their councillor because they already had quite enough of this insufferably arrogant, ignorant and greedy**(See note below) Councillor, whose abilities appear to be in inverse proportion to his ego! A right numpty, in fact!

Interestingly and very illuminating, Richard Russell always gives as his address Wath-upon-Dearne. Say that to the neighbours, and they will tell you they live in West Melton or even Brampton Bierlow! What planet is he on? His wife Pat is also a councillor, representing the far away Silverwood ward. There seems to be a pattern emerging don’t you think?

The fact that Labour members from the Rother Vale ward selected this dud, previously rejected candidate, to represent them is evidence that Labour is completely contemptuous of the voters! And the stupidity of Labour members in Rother Vale was also made abundantly clear by their outrageous choice.

Another factor was also important for Rotherham Independents, the clamour from residents of the ward for a more able and local candidate. The resentment in the ward, even among fiercely loyal Labour voters was clear. This was eventually persuasive and crucial in deciding to contest the Rother Vale ward last year, I understand. This resulted in Rob Foulds reducing the Labour majority and gaining 1,700 votes, quite a surprise in this most tribal of Labour seats and with the backdrop of a simultaneous General Election, very surprising indeed!

Chris Read - Wickersley's Local Candidate?

When it became known that Wickersley Labour Party had selected a candidate with no local connexions, from far away Swinton, Rob decided to take a stand on this issue and made it an important plank of his campaign! Rob Foulds lives in the Wickersley ward and was fully entitled to be aggrieved that Labour was not fielding a local candidate but one from the only point where Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster meet, the Dearne Valley! To add insult to injury, Chris Read cannot drive, which will make serving the residents, difficult if not impossible, in the long term! Wait until winter comes!

Labour made the decision to do everything to conceal this fact from the Wickersley voters, the issues involved will be explored in detail in a later posting. The result reflected this but Rob’s vote put him in second place pushing the Tories into third place! Quite a result!

Notes: Greedy** Richard Russell made into third position in the greed list for last year receiving a total of £29,127.72 and Pat, his wife and fellow councillor, received a total of £13,640.64. Between them they got £42,768.36! Plus any benefits accrued by sitting on outside bodies, a not inconsiderable sum to add to their pensions! No wonder Richard Russell and Pat Russell became ‘carpet baggers’ to get on the Council, in Pats case, or to stay on after being deselected by Hoober ward members who know him best!

News just in! Police to probe Labour Dirty Tricks!

Police to investigate the Dirty tricks played by Gerald Smith and Holderness Labour!

Following the elections on May 5th this year when Labour went well beyond the acceptable, issuing election leaflets that were deceptive and libellous in the Parish of Aston-cum-Aughton, a complaint has been made to the Police in this case and it can now be reported that the Police have opened an investigation!

We are aware that there are similar problems in the Parish Council of Anston, where Iain St John and the local Labour Party have also been reported to the Police and we understand that this will be formally investigated as well.

Comment: Labour really need to understand that they don’t own Rotherham, they cannot expect to act outside of what is legal, decent and honest! The people own Rotherham! They need to understand that simple fact! Increasingly the public are no longer prepared to let them get away with their control freak, arrogant, greedy and dictatorial ways! Power to the people! We say!!…

Previously published: Click Here.

Election of Borough Councillors for Maltby

The results are in and Christine Beaumont (Labour) has been duly elected for Maltby with 1881 votes.
Michaek Burke (BNP) 388 votes, John Kirk (Ind) 370, Derek Johnson (Con) 322 and Michael Conlon 215 votes.
A turnout of only 35.7% speaks for itself at the interest/apathy coming from Maltby. Interesting that BNP have more votes than Con or Ind. This shows either that the BNP have more supporters who want to see their policies implemented, or that those who have little faith in the current majority want something “different”. I tend to think it’s the latter.
Maltby Town Councillor Jenny Andrews(Labour) has been elected as RMBC councillor for Hellaby. Mrs Andrews has previously been Chair of MTC. She has also previously classed herself as Labour, then Independent, now apparently Labour again. A bit better turnout out at Hellaby with 42.67%.
Results of the election to Maltby Town Council on a further post.

More news – Chris Read and Wickersley Labour – were the voters hoodwinked?

Extract from the Labour Party’s ‘Keep it Legal,’ 2011 Election Manual:

“The home address of the candidate must be the official home address – not a business address or a temporary address. The place of residence must be fully stated, including the name of the town or village.”

Pretty conclusive to me, don’t forget this is the minimum required to comply with elections legislation.

Chris Read’s address was therefore deficient and should have been corrected by the Returning Officer who failed to do so even though he could and should have done so, using his legal powers, referred to by the Electoral Commission’s:

Managing a local government election in England: guidance for Returning Officers

I quote from it:

“Candidate’s home address:

4.37 The candidate’s full home address must be included. If, however, any detail is wrong or omitted, the nomination is not automatically invalid if the description of the place is such as to be commonly understood. Also, the Returning Officer has a power to correct minor errors in nomination papers, the use of which is considered below under ‘Correction of minor errors’.”

Who is this, perhaps incompetent, individual who doesn’t seem to understand his professional obligations, legal duties or even the extent of his powers?

Why, it’s our old friend, Martin Kimber, the Chief Executive of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and Returning Officer, under a professional obligation to be impartial but appears to have been particularly partisan in this instance.

Martin Kimber’s spokesperson’s explanation in this week’s Advertiser, is at least disingenuous, based as it is on a false interpretation of the legal requirements or incomplete information! Either way, Kimber is going to have some awkward questions to answer!