Standards Committee, What Have They Done to Deserve These Payments?

The answer is nothing, apart from being involved in the country’s most expensive disciplinary case to date! That of Parish Councillor Neil Fulcher. Still not complete and has cost at least £170,000.00 to date!

Why? because this little group did not stand up, assert their independence and tell the complainants to grow up and get over it!

So, this group have cost us a small fortune! Perhaps they should consider repaying this sum by forgoing their Allowances until it is paid off? It will only take eighteen years!


Members of Standards Committee – Co-optees’ Allowances.
Member Co-optee Allowance Travel Subsistence Total
Andrew M £2,333.36 £76.85 £31.20 £2,441.41
Bates D £666.64 £666.64
Bingham A £1,666.64 £5.10 £20.00 £1,691.74
Buckley A £666.64 £666.64
Daines I £666.64 £666.64
Elder P £666.64 £666.64
Foster DG £666.64 £666.64
Musson G £666.64 £666.64
Porter J £666.64 £666.64
Sykes N £677.39 £677.39
Totals £9,343.87 £81.95 £51.20 £9,477.02

Extracted from:

Words, Words, Words!

Numpty, incompetent, inept, pathetic, stupid, arrogant, conceited and misconceived!

The words employed by Cllr Neil Fulcher when describing RMBC regarding their performance.

Suspending him from office for 6 months, the judge described them thus, “pejorative, unjustified and probably defamatory”.

A quick search of Hansard, the official record of Parliamentary business, shows that words such as these are in common usage on a daily basis apart from numpty, which has been only been used occasionally. None of these words then are considered at all un-parliamentary.

I am pretty sure that the defence of ‘fair comment’ would prevent any defamation law suits being successful.

So we are left with the inevitable conclusion here that vast quantities of your money has been spent, well north of £160,000, persecuting someone for what most would consider mild, insignificant and reasonable in the circumstances, I leave you to judge for yourself.

This situation is an example of internecine warfare within the Labour Party in Rotherham and demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the once proud ‘Party of the People’ in our town. If members of the Labour Party turn on one another in such a childishly vindictive and spiteful way, no wonder they are arrogantly contemptuous of their own voters and value them only as ‘voting fodder’, come election time! You have been warned!


Neil Fulcher – On Consistency! Or Double Standards At Work?

Neil Fulcher writes:

“Consistency is a prerequisite in any statutory empower body or so you would think.

Let me test your adjudication abilities if I may:

Doncaster’s proposed civic mayor sends factually proven emails from a council computer containing a strong racist and sexist content to council officers.

Rotherham Councillor Neil Fulcher sends factually proven emails from a home computer containing words like numpty, incompetent, inept, pathetic, stupid, arrogant, conceited, misconceived to council officers.

Sentence imposed by Standards Board Tribunal Doncaster.  Councillor 3 months suspended

Sentence imposed by Standards Board Tribunal Rotherham.  Councillor 6 months suspension

Consistency and impartiality at work in a system that quite rightly is soon to be abolished by the new government because it is neither consistent nor impartial”

Read text of Sheffield Star 24 May 2010 at

Neil Fulcher, farce ends in slap on wrist! Comment.

Neil Fulcher a Bramley resident and parish council member has been suspended for 6 months from holding elected office.

After well in excess of £160,000 has been spent trying to pursue this community activist for simply trying to perform his elected duties on behalf of his fellow constituents.

What were his crimes that merited such vast expenditure in bringing him to book?

He is on record as using the following terms when attempting to hold our slippery and opaque council to account:

“Numpty, incompetent, inept, pathetic, stupid, arrogant, conceited and misconceived”

Hardly the most pejorative terms to have used when commenting upon the poor performance of our Council! Much, much worse has been said in these columns and if this were a libel case,  ‘fair comment’ would surely win out as a defence. The Advertiser would also have found it self subject to litigation on a regular basis if words such as these were to be genuinely derogatory and libellous!

These words do not adequately cover the situation at RMBC, indeed Labour members, councillors and the odd MP have used much more direct and far cruder language than this when describing me in the past!


Scottish usage: a) Someone who (sometimes unwittingly) by speech or action demonstrates a lack of knowledge or misconception of a particular subject or situation to the amusement of others. b) A good humoured admonition, a term of endearment c) A reckless, absent minded or unwise person.


Being useless or very bad at your job or task.



1. without skill or aptitude for a particular task or assignment; maladroit: He is inept at mechanical tasks. She is inept at dealing with people.
2. generally awkward or clumsy; haplessly incompetent.
3. inappropriate; unsuitable; out of place.
4. absurd or foolish: an inept remark.



1. causing or evoking pity, sympathetic sadness, sorrow, etc.; pitiful; pitiable: a pathetic letter; a pathetic sight.
2. affecting or moving the feelings.
3. pertaining to or caused by the feelings.
4. miserably or contemptibly inadequate: In return for our investment we get a pathetic three percent interest.
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.



1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.



1. having an excessively favourable opinion of one’s abilities, appearance, etc.



Badly planned because of a failure to understand a situation and therefore unsuitable or unlikely to succeed.

As I said, fair comment, if not too mild and understated in my opinion!

Hope Neil appeals, that should be fun!


Neil Fulcher, farce ends in slap on wrist!



CASE REFERENCE: LGS/2010/0504 Rotherham Law Courts The Statutes 19th / 20th July 2010

SUBJECT MATTER: Reference in relation to a possible failure to follow the Bramley Parish Council Code of Conduct

APPLICANT: Jonathan Wigmore, Ethical Standards Officer Standards for England

RESPONDENT: Councillor Neil Fulcher of Bramley Parish Council


Judge: Patrick Mulvenna

Member: Richard Enderby

Member: Peter Norris


Not a 100% victory but a victory never the less in spite of the fact that I was never going to get a fair trial in view of the covert and clandestine activity surrounding this case. After a 13 month investigation involving over 10 officers and many, many more back office staff at an estimated cost of over £160,000 to the public purse I find it insulting to the public at a time of great national hardship money has been deliberately wasted on what has been nothing more than a public vendetta by Rotherham Borough Council Officers Mumford, Waller, Battersby, Sheera and Councillor Terry Bradley. Heads should role and accountability should be demanded from those who are elected by ballot to run our services in Rotherham. Such a substantial breach of fiscal and political policy can only be described as incompetence by a third rate three star lacklustre council.

The decision by the Standards Tribunal Panel to dismiss some of the charges is testament to the poor quality case made by such vast resources at RMBC and the SBoE. Charges without substance or factual evidence to back them other speculation and vengeance. All made against Councillor Fulcher because I used my democratic right to have a say, hold an alternate opinion and be an activist in exposing the appalling record of this deplorable Labour controlled council.

It is quite extraordinary that the charge sheet states “The Tribunal has considered an application from an ESO following an investigation of a complaint that the Respondent had failed to follow the provisions of the Code of Conduct of Bramley Parish Council when in fact I have not even been tried against the Bramley Parish Code of conduct but by Tim Mumford’s self made Borough Council Code of conduct. This aptly demonstrates the tribunal process is flawed constantly making mistakes with many, many inaccuracies. Even the charge sheet read Councillor Fulcher of Wigan Council. Another major flaw in the quango Standards Board soon to be abolished by national Government is been found guilty on charges that I have never been interviewed about or asked one question about. How appallingly wrong is that and in a so called justice system? The standards Board have unremittingly gone out of their way to case build, collude and manipulate with the Rotherham Borough Council officers to gain an outcome that dealt with that “Troublesome Councillor” once and for all in their high mined opinions.

The most stupid thing of all about the hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money wasted in this fiasco is it only came about because of the descriptive words I used to expose the totalitarian corruption behind Rotherham Borough Councils bullet biting, gun ho, bunker building, greenbelt land grabbing policies.

I used words such as Numpty, incompetent, inept, pathetic, stupidity, arrogant, conceited, misconceived. I admit it is quite a textual bombardment and bang on accurate. It is really something mature Officers such Mumford, Waller, Battersby, Sheera and Bradley throw their dummy out of the Borough pram just because there are other people in the sweet shop. The tribunal judge said of my words they were pejorative (negative), unjustified and probably defamatory”. They are accurate, articulate and acutely true. If the best they can come up with to find me guilty is probability then that accurately, articulately and acutely demonstrate why this inept organisation is to abolished as the whipping boy organisation it has become.

I stand by what I said, every single word, I stand by the people who I represented as a councillor and I stand by the community where I live, work and socialize. I can prove that my words where descriptively accurate to describe these people and the situations RMBC had manipulated to their own deceitful advantage and that why they fought so long, so hard, so expensively to shut up that “troublesome councillor”.

It is quite ironic that the Standards Board Tribunal have band me from having a public voice as a councillor for 6 months have in practice given me an even greater voice as Neil Fulcher the citizen. I will not be going away in fact I now have leave to be more active in uncovering RMBCs Totalitarian Regime and dogma down at town hall towers. I will attending council meeting as a citizen and will debate and challenge and expose accountability as often as I can. I will use my democratic freedoms to call these people numpty, incompetent, inept, pathetic, stupidity, arrogant, conceited, misconceived wherever and whenever appropriate those terms need to be applied.

The case file all 2000 pages will now be going to HM Government and Mr Eric Pickles, Government Minister for Information who is spearheading the abolition of hundreds of Labour quangos and useless organisations that just tax payer money in serving no purpose other than to control, manipulate and implement Labour party politics.

As always I make myself I am open to public scrutiny and will answer questions asked of me and provide proof of my justifications. If the Council don’t like it then let’s a full open public debate about it and let the people decide.

Lastly I would like to thank the countless people who have supported me over the last 13 months throughout these malicious unjustified allegations. Your help and support was so much appreciated.


Neil Fulcher (power to the people)


Notice of Decision

Ref No: LGS/2010/0504

Subject matter: Reference in relation to a possible failure to follow the Code of Conduct

Applicant: Jonathan Wigmore, ESO, Standards for England

Respondent: Councillor Neil Fulcher of Bramley Parish Council

Tribunal Members

Judge: Patrick Mulvenna

Member: Richard Enderby

Member: Peter Norris

  1. The Tribunal has considered an application from an ESO following an investigation of a complaint that the Respondent had failed to follow the provisions of the Code of Conduct of Bramley Parish Council.
  2. The Tribunal reached the following decision after considering the written evidence and submissions of the parties.
  3. The Respondent did not fail to comply with paragraph 3(2)(b) the Code of Conduct, but did fail to comply with paragraphs 3(1) and 5 of the Code of Conduct.
  4. The Code of Conduct provides:
    1. Paragraph 2:
    1. (1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) to (5), you must comply with this Code whenever you—
    1. conduct the business of your authority (which, in this Code, includes the business of the office to which you are elected or appointed); or
    2. act, claim to act or give the impression you are acting as a representative of your authority,
    1. and references to your official capacity are construed accordingly.
    2. (2) … this Code does not have effect in relation to your conduct other than where it is in your official capacity.’
    1. Paragraph 3 states:
    1. (1) You must treat others with respect.
    2. (2) You must not—
  1. bully any person’.
    1. Paragraph 5:

You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute’.

  1. The Respondent breached paragraphs 3(1) and 5 of the Code of Conduct by mounting continuing and sustained attacks on the integrity and character of two Council officers and another Councillor which were pejorative, unjustified and probably defamatory.
  2. The Tribunal decided to impose the following sanction:
    1. To suspend the Respondent for a period of six months.
  3. The date such sanction is to take effect is 1 August 2010.
  4. The written reasons for the decision will be sent to the parties as soon as reasonably practicable, which is likely to be within 14 days and published on the Tribunal’s website.
  5. Any request for the decision to be reviewed or for permission to appeal needs usually to be made to the First-tier Tribunal within 28 days of receipt of the Tribunal’s reasoned decision. Such applications need to be in writing.

Patrick Mulvenna


19 July 2010

Giant Salt Cellar – Latest News!

As is usual in Rotherham when councillors want their way, officers break every rule in the book to ensure that this happens!

I publish below the text of an email sent to Rotherham MBC Chief Executive today, from Neil Fulcher.

“Dear Chief Executive (RB2010/0727 – Erection of salt barn)

As a duly elected Councillor representing the people in the Rotherham Parish of Bramley I require you to explain why RMBC have purchased land out of the public purse to erect a mega concrete structured salt dome on planning application RB2010/0727.

Without detailed environmental impact reports?

Without informing the associated Bramley, Maltby, and Thurcroft Councils of the proposals?

Without any pre-public or local council consultation taking place?

Please explain the reasoning and rational behind why RMBC have and are completing building works on the site before full detailed planning permission any local consultation has been obtained.

And why RMBC are deliberately flouting there legal, political, social and moral obligations to impose a super structure without the very basic of community considerations been implemented.

Please explain how this extraordinary situation fits in with the Rotherham Borough Councils mission statement “To provide integrated local services so that, people can exercise choice, retain their independence, be offered protection and have equality of access.  Communities are active and shape local services to meet their characteristics and needs.  Neighbourhoods are safe, free from crime and places to be proud of.” when all the factual evidence proves in this situation the exact opposite has taken place.

This monolithically mega structure breaches RMBCs own mission statement above in that:

It does not integrate local services such as road, pavement and pollution

It does not allow people to exercise choice about their environment

It does allow people to retain there independence in shaping their communities

It does empower local communities to be part their community

It does not allow local people to shape local services for local needs

It does not allow local people meet there characteristics and needs for future generations

It does allow local people to be proud of such as stupid and ill conceived building programme

In fact if rides rough shod over the very word democracy and implements totalitarian governance.

This is not a freedom of information request this is set of questions from a duly elected councillor presented to the Rotherham Chief executive on behalf of the people who I am elected to represent.  I respectfully ask for a professional prompt reply to these major local concerns and not the usual stymied septic responce the people of Rotherham are used to.


Neil Fulcher

The Council clearly seems to be in breach of many procedural steps in the process of trying to force this through and Neil Fulcher is on to them!

Keep up the good work Neil.

‘Power to the People!’

More as soon as more news becomes available. If you want to give me information please email me HERE.


Want to know more? Want to object? Want to help stop it? Then contact them!

Rob Foulds; click here Rob Foulds. Phone 01709546778 Mobile 07990664710

Neil Fulcher: click here Neil Fulcher.