As if it were yesterday?

Gallery

Rothpol thought a suitable reminder of Gerald Smith’s Formal Police Caution: Gerald Smith guilty! takes his punishment! Posted on July 25, 2011 by rothpol “We have learned that an important strand of the problems that surfaced in Aston cum Aughton during … Continue reading

Standards Committee – Helpful, as ever!

The Standards Committee met on 8th September 2011, amongst other cases being considered was a complaint concerning Judith Dalton the newly elected Borough Councillor for Anston and Woodsetts Ward (5th May, 2011).

The minutes, available as pdf here, make very interesting reading, scroll down to section B11 Judith Dalton and you will see just what I mean! Reversing an irreversible decision!

Thanks go to Trambuster, for spotting this valuable and instructive document to our attention.

I must say Richard Waller must be worth every penny we pay him! ‘Get out of Jail Free’ cards a speciality? Wonder what he would be like with ‘blue badges’?

RMBC Members, co-opted Members and Officers codes of conduct

More frequently requested information made easily available here.

Download the Councillors and Co-opted members code of conduct.

Download the officers code of conduct.

Together they make very interesting reading!

Those interested in recent events regarding Gerald Smith, should study these documents thoroughly. When compared to his outrageous behaviour he has some very serious charges to answer!

The Ten General Principles

Selflessness
1. Members should serve only the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.
Honesty and integrity
2. Members should not place themselves in situations where their honesty and integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.
Objectivity
3. Members should make decisions on merit, including when making appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards or benefits.
Accountability
4. Members should be accountable to the public for their actions and the manner in which they carry out their responsibilities, and should co-operate fully and honestly with any scrutiny appropriate to their particular office.
Openness
5. Members should be as open as possible about their actions and those of their authority, and should be prepared to give reasons for those actions.
Personal judgement
6. Members may take account of the views of others, including their political groups, but should reach their own conclusions on the issues before them and act in accordance with those conclusions.
Respect for others
7. Members should promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person, and by treating people with respect, regardless of their race, age, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability. They should respect the impartiality and integrity of the authority’s statutory officers and its other employees. Rev July 2007
Duty to uphold the law
8. Members should uphold the law and, on all occasions, act in accordance with the trust that the public is entitled to place in them
Stewardship
9. Members should do whatever they are able to do to ensure that their authorities use their resources prudently and in accordance with the law.
Leadership
10. Members should promote and support these principles by leadership, and by example, and should act in a way that secures or preserves public confidence.

Sad isn’t it that our lot of greedy, self aggrandising, arrogant, secretive morons in the Town Hall, regularly drive a ‘coach and horses’ through these standards that are ‘honoured more in the breach than the observance’, in good old Rotherham Town Hall!

Another one of Gerald Smith’s lies nailed!

Gerald Smith’s outrageous behaviour during the parish council election campaign of this May is being exposed for what it was, a total disgrace for a politician engaged in democratic politics!

Today we can nail the blatant lie and fabrication by Smith that Christian Democracy is “a far right European organisation. This can be verified by the parish clerk.

We have the definitive answer to that particular canard from Professor DL Hanley of the University of Wales, who states:

“I can state unequivocally that to describe Christian democracy as belonging to the far right reveals at best political ignorance and at worst the desire to mislead.
The Christian democrat movement and its European instance the EPP (European
People’s Party) are recognised by all political scientists as located firmly in the
tradition of centrist or moderate centre-right politics. Christian democracy has always
been firmly opposed to the far-right.” Read Letter from Prof Hanley in full.

So there we have it, Smith is either a liar or a fool, either way he is unfit for ‘public service’ and should consider his position and resign. The Aston parish clerk also should resign for either being a fool or something much worse!

Gerald Smith guilty! takes his punishment!

We have learned that an important strand of the problems that surfaced in Aston cum Aughton during the later stages of the election campaign, has been resolved.

When the Aston cum Aughton Independents learned of the existence of a scurrilous election leaflet, produced and printed by Gerald Smith, they decided they were not going to take this, and made a formal complaint to the Police. The Police have been investigating ever since. The outcome can now be reported:

Last Friday, Councillor Gerald Smith was formally cautioned by the Police for his actions associated with the issuing by him, of a scurrilous election leaflet.

We at Rotherham Politics understand that this means that he has therefore admitted his guilt and now has a conviction on his record!

The ramifications of this will take some time to become fully apparent. A reference to the Standards Board for bringing the Council into disrepute, perhaps? Or suspension from the labour whip at RMBC? Now standing convicted of election offences it is difficult to see him remaining in the bosom of the party, especially once the Regional Party hears about this embarrassing situation. To complain yourself, email them  yorkshire@new.labour.org.uk.

Ed Miliband, also a local MP, will not want Rotherham Labour Group to bring any further embarrassment to him or the party over an issue as clear cut as this!

Gerald Smith could always do the honourable thing and stand down from the elected positions he holds himself. He can’t be taken seriously ever again and he must go!

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!

Why did the Council not tell us the full truth?

Why do they not make it plain that these figures are only eight months worth? Click Here To Download pdf.

Were they trying to take us for fools with this outrageous deception?

Allowances for the Members of The Standards Committee, it would appear, were introduced with effect from 1st August 2009, so the figures to be published in a future Advertiser I presume, are only for the period August 2009 to March 2010, only eight months, I present the annualised figures in the table below. Click Here for Council Minutes reference the decision.

2009 – 2010
The Real Full Year Figures!
Members of Standards Committee – Co-optees’
Member Co-optee Allowance Travel Subsistence Total
Andrew M £3,500.00 £76.85 £31.20 £3,608.05
Bates D £1,000.00 £1,000.00
Bingham A £2,500.00 £5.10 £20.00 £2,525.10
Buckley A £1,000.00 £1,000.00
Daines I £1,000.00 £1,000.00
Elder P £1,000.00 £1,000.00
Foster DG £1,000.00 £1,000.00
Musson G £1,000.00 £1,000.00
Porter J £1,000.00 £1,000.00
Sykes N £1,000.00 £1,000.00
Totals £14,000.00 £81.95 £51.20 £14,133.15

It seems that nowadays all public service has to have a financial reward.

Call me old fashioned if you like, but this kind of public service should not attract financial reward in my opinion, or are even School Governors to be paid! Or is that already happening? We should be told?

The Standards Committee inevitably loses much credibility and independence by this disastrous move to reward members. How can they discipline councillors? When they rely on them to vote for their financial reward! Exactly! Credibility holed below the waterline! Quite OUTRAGEOUS in fact! Has no one heard of conflict of interest, perhaps?

Did no one on the committee realise the difficulties this would put them in? Or were they all dazzled by the money?

See below, Standards Committee, What Have They Done to Deserve These Payments? Repayment would still take twelve years at these rates!

£14,000.00 per year plus expenses is an awful lot of OUR money!

Greed, more Greed, everywhere you look!!!!

The ‘gravy train’ evidently still runs in Rotherham!

The sound of ‘snouts in the trough’ is deafening!

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: http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/download/3675/members_allowances_and_expenses_2009-10

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 http://www.thestar.co.uk/doncaster/Councillor-suspended-as-explanation-over.6314921.jp

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!

Numpty

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.

Incompetent

Being useless or very bad at your job or task.

inept

adjective

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.

Pathetic

adjective

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.
.
Stupid
adjective
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.

Arrogant

adjective

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

Conceited

adjective

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

Misconceived

adjective

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!

Rik