What is illegal offline should be illegal online” has been the sensible mantra of prime ministers and secretaries of state for a number of years. The aim has been to toughen regulation on social media, in particular over threatening language, … Continue reading
A Point of View: Why we should defend the right to be offensive Free speech can make for uncomfortable listening, argues Roger Scruton, but it needs to be defended even when it gives offence. To people like me, educated in … Continue reading
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:
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the reading of all three pages of About Rotherham Politics is advised, before making comments, as comments will not be published if adjudged to be outwith the spirit of basic etiquette that this blog subscribes to, along with most blogs of our kind.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.
Yesterday, 15th September, has broken all previous records by a country mile. We exceeded 300 hits on a single day for the first time with 309. The previous record day was back in July with 264 hits. Thanks to all of you that made this possible.
Our record breaking post, Gerald Smith case goes international – Swedish ‘Kristdemokraten’ picks it up!, has surged past the 500 mark with a total of 546 hits to date and attracting a record number of comments at 63!
Thought readers would like to see this from Index on Censorship about law breaking local government bullies trying to silence criticism. Outrageous!
The government’s draft defamation bill — presently under scrutiny from Parliament’s Joint Select Committee — contains measures to exclude such bodies from bringing defamation actions.
This springs from a 1993 court decision now referred to as the Derbyshire judgement. This ruling established the principle that public bodies such as councils, local authorities and government departments may not sue for libel. Read on……and weep!
Date: Monday, 8 August, 2011, 12:27
FOI 2011.08.08 – £25,000 LOAN TO ROTHERHAM UNITED IN 1986
As an active and empowered citizen with an interest in the costs and activities of those who are elected and paid very well to govern our town on our behalf with our consent, I have lately become acquainted with the following story from “25 Years Ago”, p40 of the “Rotherham Advertiser”, Friday 5 August 2011″, and which I reproduce with their consent below:
August 8, 1986
“Rotherham councillors who sanctioned a controversial £25,000 loan to the town’s football club have no idea what interest will be charged. The embarrassing admission was made at a full meeting of the Council this week, when Conservative councillors demanded more details of the loan made four weeks ago.
“We want to know if the loan is secure, when is the deadline for repayment and what percentage interest we are getting from Rotherham United”, asked Cllr Tony Flynn, leader of the Conservative Group. But Cllr Eric Manns, vice-chairman of the Policy Committee which sanctioned the loan, said the details were locked away with the director of the club, Mr Syd Wood.”
Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act I require you to provide me with the following information in relation to the above loan that was made with public funds to Rotherham United:
(a) what interest rate was applied to the loan
(b) was the loan secured, and if so, please describe such security
(c) when was the deadline for repayment
(d) was the loan repaid in full and within the agreed term
(e) please supply a copy of the loan agreement
Please supply the above information in electronic format and within the timescale prescribed in the Freedom of Information Act.
Donald H Buxton
“Carmarthenshire County Council’s Chief Executive, Head of Law and Head of Resources now have delegated powers to commence and fund (with taxpayers money) libel proceedings against the public and the press on behalf of themselves and other officers. The council as a governing body, has now enabled itself to bring and fund illegal libel actions under the cloak of a private claimant. This is the only council in the UK to have granted themselves these powers. This is unlawful, open to abuse, a threat to free speech and a grave misuse of taxpayers money.” Pinched from Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more.
This approach from a public body is quite outrageous, illegal and just plain wrong in a democracy. Free speech under attack indeed!
Bloggers who receive this kind of treatment are advised to refer to Arkell vs Pressdram, in their response.
The latest and last episode in the vendetta against Labour Party Councillor Neil Fulcher, Bramley Parish Council member is to play out at the Courthouse in Rotherham on July 19th – 20th.
This spiteful case against Councillor Neil Fulcher has already set records that will never be surpassed, because Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary has announced the abolition of The Standards Board for England, in view of cases such as this, no doubt?
This is, in Cllr Fulcher’s own words, letting his supporters know of the most recent developments:
“The final pages of totalitarian governance are playing themselves out. I do hope you are able to attend the final public performance at the Rotherham Law Courts on the 19 / 20 July. It will be a stunning show as the final curtain drops in RMBC’s and Councillor Terry Bradley’s attempt to stop democracy at it’s core in Rotherham, is concluded.
A couple of things to take note on that will help you navigate the complicated scene changes as all the stops are pulled out to get Captain White in the Bramley Parish Council cloisters with the lead pipe and candle stick.
(1) it is now commonly acknowledged that this performance by the Standards Board for England is the longest ever made at 14 Months, so it should be a great show.
(2) it is now commonly acknowledged that this performance by the Standards Board for England is the most expensive performance yet, costing rate payers and tax payers over £80,000 plus.
(3) As you will see from Standards Board of England’s paper work after 14 months and £80,000 they still cannot get it right as I am a member of Wigan Council and not Bramley Parish Council.
(4) This then is just another reason why Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for local Government, has announced the abolition of the Standards Board of England. Eric Pickles said The Government will exterminate (nice word Eric) the Standards Board of England and it’s meddlesome waste of public money. It cost the public over 7.8 million pounds and only dealt with 1000 cases last year! Many of which should not have even been sent to the Standards Board but were sent by whinging and complaining councils trying to stymie local activists who contest unjust decisions in their local communities.
(5) I hope you can attend the Court case at the Rotherham Law Courts because I am barred so the system can deal with that “troublesome local activist”. This is what David Laverick Principal Judge says in his Pre-court statement QUOTE “ I am now barring the Respondent (Councillor Neil Fulcher) from appearing in person or by a representative at the hearing on 19 / 20 July 2010”. David Laverick Principal Judge gives an indication that he will also bar the public from the law courts and hold any deliberations in private chamber, (nice one David) good old fashioned justice then.
(6) Not bad after 14 months and £80,000. Out of 7 counts lodged against me by RMBC and Councillor Terry Bradley, all involving nothing more sinister than words I said, or wrote, all on public record and all of which I fully stand by and all of which are provable, verifiably and factually correct (Oh that’s why I am barred or my witness not allowed then). I have only been interviewed about 2 of 7 and all 5 high profile key witness who can verify the facts of consistent public injustices committed by RMBC senior officers, Borough councillors and Parish Councillor Terry Bradley, none have been allowed to attend court on my behalf. I have written to the David Laverick Principal Judge and his legal team and they refuse to reply to my questions. This appalling lack of professional involvement is un-believable here in England.
Well that’s it for now folks enjoy the show on the 19 /20 July. We all value our basic right to hold an alternative point of view. To have freedom of speech in England, which I used to full effect. To have a free press and the freedom to write and debate differences of opinion in open public, which I used to full effect. If we lose these basic rights we live not in a true democracy but in glass jar labelled democracy which in fact is on shelf known as totalitarian governance in a room seen as our society in house balloted as Government in place we call England and home.
Thank you all so very much for your support over the last 14 months by telephone, email, letters and in person it has been a long hard battle that now involves over 2000 pages of RMBC and SBoE propaganda. I could not have survived the injustice committed against me alone without your support and the key impartial help and advice from RF NA AL DS JC DB BA MKLF JD RA and many many others.
Irrespective of the outcome I know I have made a stance and represented the people who kept me in office as their duly elected Councillor. I also made that stance as a community member, parent and activist fighting for the right to have say, express an option in the things that matter in Rotherham where we live, work and socialise.
Thank you all (power to the people)”
Councillor Neil Fulcher.
This situation is intolerable to those committed to, ‘Truth, Justice and the Rule of Law’.
How can Justice possibly be delivered? When the accused has all their rights to be heard and to be represented taken away, by diktat of a Judge who appears to be more involved with the denial of justice than it’s protection.
Even more outrageous, is that it is likely, that this case will be heard with the public and press excluded. What then of the concept of justice being seen to be done! An essential prerequisite of a just and free society!
Stalinist, ‘show trials’ are with us after 13 years of Labour in power! At least they would be, if the public were to be let in. Joseph Stalin at least used to hold his ‘show trials’ in public, Labour has gone one better in the 21st century!
This injustice should not be tolerated by anyone who values our freedoms, painfully and slowly, won with the lives and blood of our predecessors.
This is one of those cases where genuine concerns and principles are at stake!
It should set of alarm bells to us all! We must not sit idly by, when we see basic rights, so trampled upon.
As Bob Marley so eloquently put it, “Stand up! Stand Up For Your Rights!”
Email Neil Fulcher here, Cllr Neil Fulcher, if you want to show your support to him or simply to find out more.
I emailed Neil Fulcher in the following terms:
Thanks for your recent email containing details of your imminent ‘show trial’, or at least it would be if it were to be held in public.
I am sure that your cause is just, free speech is one of our most important of all our rights and must be defended by all who cherish it!
I would like to share this with a wider audience as it exemplifies just what is wrong with the current attitude towards free speech, both locally and nationally.
May I quote from your email in a post I would like to make on Rotherham Politics about this iniquitous situation, you find yourself in?
You are guilty of nothing more than assuming freedom to represent your constituents to the best of your ability and falling foul of the ‘Mafia’ that run things in Rotherham by questioning the status quo!
You can be assured of my support at all times.
If I can be of any practical assistance, please let me know.”
Cllr Neil Fulcher responded to me thus:
Councillor Neil Fulcher”