A few random questions?

Rotherham Politics poses the difficult questions:

Why are the Conservatives in Rotherham so poor at providing opposition?

Why did the independent remuneration panel only take evidence and advice from Council Officers, before recommending more? Rotherham Politics thinks that ordinary people should have had an input!

Where was Iain StJohn, when he was unaccountably missing from meetings of Anston parish council last week? And the linked questions, why were the usually rowdy and domineering Labour members so polite and quiet? Will this spread to other parish councils? No one should hold their breath whilst waiting, leopards do not change their spots!

Surely, when the Council nods through Councillors allowances, aren’t they actually setting the total sum to be paid, not with extras like a pension or NI payments? Councillors are not employees! Are these extra payments actually legal? Interesting question at least!

When will all Rotherham’s citizens be able to view meetings over the internet? This is an equalities issue as well as an outrageous deficit in Rotherham’s democracy! The cameras are not just for Mayor making, they are for every day!

Aren’t ‘special responsibility’ payments supposed to be paid for ‘special responsibilities’? Why then, are most Labour members in receipt of these ‘special’ payments? There’s nothing ‘special’ if everyone gets them!

What does RotherFed actually achieve? Beyond providing employment opportunities for at least one ‘favoured son’, it would appear?

When will the RMBC website actually let the public view what is being done in their name? The search function is a waste of time, just when you think you have found the document you seek, it’s invariably missing! There is some evidence that the search functions work an awful lot better if you are logged on through the Council’s own servers.

Is the Great Firewall of Rotherham, Up or Down?

Section 106 Agreements, aren’t they just legalised extortion?

Did the community champion wear himself out with his recent magnum opus in the Advertiser? Or has he realised that you cannot defend the indefensible?

Why exactly does Chairman Ireland of Anston parish council, want a chain of office?

Why has ‘Darren the Defector’, been the most common search term for over a month now?

Are there any Liberals left in Rotherham?

How much does the Mayoralty cost? Isn’t it just an expensive anachronism? Why did it become a political reward and part of the Leader’s patronage? Why have all been Labour?

Star success for Rothpol commenter – PJ Cawkwell makes it into print!

The Star has today published a defence of the public sector workers who took strike action on Wednesday.The principal author, our very own Community Champion, PJ Cawkwell!

It’s right to strike

Published on Friday 2 December 2011 09:00

People should remember this week’s strike is not and has never just been about public sector pensions. This is also about a way of life.

I won’t sit back and let the Government charge me to see my GP, or to use any NHS facility, or to see day care centres for the elderly close down, or see the privatisation of public sector call centres such as HMRC and the DWP which means people being sacked to make way for lower-paid staff. Read on……………

Community Champion – We deal firstly with his complaint

An email dropped in my inbox Friday evening from P.J. Cawkwell, Rotherham Community Champion, Labour Party member, buddy of the Deputy Leader of RMBC Jahangir Akhtar and denizen of Conisborough, Doncaster, it read:

“Hello

You are excluding me from Rotherham Politics simply because I don’t follow in line like xxxxxx and the other people you have on their, all back slapping and cheering each other on as you bully and harass the Borough Council and/or its Officers.  That continue’s to this day as I refuse to fall in line.

Actually, my letter in the Rotherham Advertiser was correct.  The website address was correct, the content was correct, your view on Chris was correct”

Firstly, You are not banned from Rotherham Politics, it is online for everyone to read.

As for making a comment, the reading of all three pages of About Rotherham Politics is advised, before making comments, as comments will not be published if adjudged to be outwith the spirit of basic etiquette that this blog subscribes to, along with most blogs of our kind. Having comments published, is not a right, but a privilege which recently yourself and others have abused.

The key to getting a comment published is for it to genuinely add to the debate or contribute new information on the subject matter under discussion. In your case, none of your recent comments pass any of the criteria above and consequently they have been rejected. You are very welcome to comment further in the future and hope you will enjoy greater success, as a result of reading this advice.

Secondly, your defence of my criticism of the falsehood contained within your ‘Tiser letter still contains a falsehood that I simply must challenge. I quote from your email; “your view on Chris was correct” This is simply an outrageous distortion of the truth!

I draw your attention once again to the post in question: The Bank of Rotherham – From the Taxpayers Alliance, please read it very carefully. This story, was free of opinion from either myself or on behalf of Rotherham Politics. We also have a disclaimer, I quote, “We are not responsible for the views of contributors, nor for the content that this site links to.”, that means we do not endorse the opinions found through links provided on this blog.

So It seems incredible, that you should continue to state that Rotherham Politics and/or it’s editor Rik, are opposed to Mr Chris Hamby or his project to revitalise High Street and it is offensive to us that you continue to repeat your undoubted libel, safe in the knowledge that ordinary folk have no chance of redress!

I will deal with the other element of your email separately as it appears to be dealing with another issue.

Rik