Stuart Thornton gets a response to his Freedom of Information request and makes the following observations. It seem as though Dazza gets the Town hall for free to run the interviews for the Labour Party selection process. Dazza is not … Continue reading
Dinnington Guardian’s report on the latest meeting of Anston Parish Council, you really couldn’t make it up! Councillor is censured over breach Parish councillors in Anston voted to censure one of their fellow councillors at a meeting this week. The … Continue reading
Rothpol has been asked to give equal prominence to Darren Hughes response in the interests of fairness. I therefore reproduce Darren Hughes statement:
From Darren Hughes
“I would like to make some factual corrections to your posting.
a. Prior to erecting my election posters, I checked what the correct procedure was. Most councils have a policy specifically for election campaign posters ie that candidates may put posters up but must take them down by a week after the election.
b. On checking, I found that Rotherham has no policy on this. I contacted the Rotherham planning department and was told campaign posters were acceptable during election times and that there was a legal requirement for the posters to be removed within a specific time frame following the election. I proceeded to have the posters erected.
b. Following a complaint from an opposing candidate I was contacted by the Director of Streetpride and asked to remove the posters. I asked if this was
correct as there was not a specific policy and there seemed to be some
confusion between council departments. I was advised by Streetpride
that no action would be taken until the situation was clarified.
c. Several days later I was informed that the posters would need to be
removed. RMBC policy for fly posters is to advise and request that the
posters be removed within 7 days. I agreed with the Director of Streetpride that I would arrange for the posters to be removed myself by the
weekend. If I had not removed the posters by this agreed timescale
Streetpride officers would remove them.
d. I arranged for the posters to be removed only to find as we started to remove them (within the agreed timescale) that RMBC officers had already started their removal. Despite this, the vast majority of posters were taken down by my arrangement.
I am a little surprised that Mr Thornton has made this posting as he was one of the people who approved of my posters in a similar fashion in 2008, and who himself displayed posters during his own election campaign.”
Readers may need to refer to this post: Fly posting – The Ex-Councillor, Mr Hughes
Rotherham Politics brings you another interesting exchange of E-Mails regarding the fly posting of Mr Darren Hughes Election posters in and around North and South Anston. I am most highly peeved that MY TAX MONEY has been spent on the removal of illegal fly posters.
From S Thornton
To K Battersby
25th May 2012
Dear Mr Battersby,
It has been brought to my attention, both through the local papers and through local “blog” pages, that the Election posters placed in North and South Anston by Mr Hughes were removed by RMBC workers.
Could you please supply the following information:-
Were the posters erected by Mr Hughes for his campaign removed by RMBC staff?
If yes, how many staff were involved ?.
How long did it take for the staff to remove the posters (hours or days)?
If the staff did remove the posters, has Mr Hughes been sent an invoice to cover the cost to the Taxpayer ?.
What was the cost to the Taxpayer ?.
Did the invoice (if sent) cover costs for fuel for Council vehicles ?.
The information you supply maybe given to the wider Public.
I look forward to hearing from you in the near future, thank you for your time.
A reply duly came:
From K Battersby
To S Thornton
CC (Employee RMBC) (Employee RMBC) (Employee RMBC, Chief Exct office ?)
25th May 2012
Mr Thornton, thank you for your e-mail. I can provide the following initial answers to your questions.
Were the posters erected by Mr Hughes for his campaign removed by RMBC staff.
Yes that is correct.
If yes, how many staff were involved.
I think it is two. (employee) can you confirm please.
How long did it take for the staff to remove the posters (hours or days)
I don`t have an exact record, but I recall that it was two occasions.
I would have said it was in the order of a couple of hours.
If the staff did remove the posters, has Mr Hughes been sent an invoice to cover the cost to the Tax payer.
What was the cost to the Tax payer.
As we have not prepared or sent an invoice, I do not have a cost.
These were staff already employed and funded by the council.
Did the invoice(if sent) cover costs for fuel for council vehicles.
Stuart replied to Karl Battersby in the following terms:
From S Thornton
To K Battersby
30 May 2012
Dear Mr Battersby,
Thank you for your reply, I am very disappointed that RMBC staff have been employed on the removal of “private” Election fly posters.
The Election posters were erected by a private individual, Mr Hughes, who was at the time an RMBC Cllr.
The posters were his private property and therefore if they were removed by your staff Mr Hughes should be sent an invoice for the work involved.
My Tax money and the Tax money of the rate payers of Anston should not have been used for this “removal”.
I dispute your answer in which you say that the removal of these signs took “a couple of hours” by the sheer number of signs put up I think this would have been impossible to do in a couple of hours, the signs appeared to have been erected over a number of days.
Your reply states that “these were staff already employed and funded by the Council” This is stating the obvious, all staff employed by the Council are funded by the Council.
The point you completely miss is the fact that these two persons were already employed on Council business and had to be taken off the tasks they were allocated to remove private signs put up by an individual who also happens to be an RMBC Cllr at the time.
Are we now allowing RMBC Cllrs (as he was then) free use of Council facilities.
I now request under the Freedom of Information Act the following information (if a cost is either charged or quoted, I request an explanation as to why you are charging me for Council services and not Mr Hughes).
(1) Exactly how many staff were employed on the task of removing Mr Hughes Election posters.
(2) Exactly how long this task took in hours.
(3) Were the staff employed, taken off another”job” to remove these private Election posters.
(4) Who made the decision not to send Mr Hughes an invoice.
(5) Do you have any plans to invoice Mr hughes in the near future.
(6) If the answer to question 5 is no, please give a detailed response as to why no invoice will be raised.
Karl Battersby again responds:
From K Battersby
To S Thornton
31 May 2012
Mr Thornton thank you for your latest email. I can provide the following response to the questions you have asked;
(1) Exactly how many staff were employed on the task of removing Mr Hughes Election posters.
One operative, along with a cherry picker
(2) Exactly how long this task took in hours
Four hours, two two hour stints.
(3) Were the staff employed, taken off another “job” to remove these private election posters.
Yes and No, this employee has a substantive role which is to repair lighting columns, however it is within his remit to from time to time remove fly posted materials when required as when they are at height we can only take them down using the cherry picker.
(4) Who made the decision not to send Mr Hughes an invoice.
Current Council policy is to remove fly posting and where the poster can be identified we write to them not to do it again. If they re offend in the future we would then raise an invoice for the cost of removal.
5) Do you have any plans to invoice Mr Hughes in the near future.
(6) If the answer to question 5 is no please give a detailed response as to why no invoice will be raised.
See question 4
Regards Karl Battersby
It was at this point I gave up. It is quite clear that our Tax money was used to remove illegal fly posters and that Mr Battersby was not going to ruffle any feather by charging anyone.
I suspect, but cannot prove it, that Mr Hughes was called in to the office, told what a naughty boy he was, but don’t worry we will take them down.
Was this because he was a serving RMBC Cllr?.
That it was thought Mr Hughes would win the election, and then nothing more would be said was also possible.
Its my understanding that it took a full four days from the date of the complaint to the removal of the posters, was this just coincidence that it happened to be the last full week before election, Mr Hughes got an “extra” four days publicity. you make up your own mind.
Same old story, ask a question of RMBC, straight into defense mode and fob people off with rubbish answers, dig deeper and all seems not to as appears.
Did you notice that my FoI request did not “attract” the usual line of how much it had cost to process.
If RMBC staff are going to continue to flout the rules and waste my Tax money on their cronies then maybe we need more exposure of this kind.
THIS IS A DARK AND X RATED PRODUCTION
Little comedy – just gloom
Read and despair
Last Meeting of the Financial Year:
Councillor Thornton asked if the budget was over or underspent
Computer says aka (The Clerk, Michael Gazur) Don’t Noooooooooooooooooooo
Joyce Brindley also known to us as Poison Ivy- Asking whose turn it was to do the audit checks
Q Was this a loaded question
A Of course
A Because Councillor Thornton refuses to do the audit check, having asked on numerous
occasions for a breakdown of transfer of monies, between the Charity and the Parish
Q Did she trip up
A Oh yes, she ensnared the “illustrious” chairman who never does an audit check!
MEETING ADJOURNED by Cllr Dalton
Q Was a vote taken to adjourn the meeting
A Don’t be ridiculous
Q Did she declare the items for which this meeting was adjourned
A Don’t be silly
Q Was a vote taken to put items into secret session
A Don’t be so very silly
PARISH COUNCIL MEETING
Chairman Ireland opens the meeting with more obfuscation e.g.
Regarding the guest speaker from Groundwork who had been invited to talk about litter picks (child labour!) A councillor asked who invited this lady.
The chairman replied “We invited her at the last Parish Council Meeting”
WHAT A WHOPPER! – Councillor Dalton invited the lady unbeknown to the clerk or the chairman or indeed councillors.
THE LADY WAS NOT INVITED AT THE LAST PARISH COUNCIL MEETING
Q Does the chairman know which end of him is up?
A No but he knows where the Trooper is!
In Attendance – School boys of the local area who are users of the Skate Park.
They attended to bring their observations to the attention of the Parish Council of the poor and unsafe condition of the Skate Park.
An eloquent young skate boarder pointed out that rivets were sticking out of the ramps and this was dangerous. Also the mud on the tarmac was a danger.
After all the normal excuses the Chairman invited the boys to attend the inspection of the Skate Park on a week day i.e. school day!
Q Is it the Chairman’s policy or that of the Parish Council to encourage truancy?
A Looks like it
Mrs Wallhead – Who has been campaigning for this Skate Park for many years and is now campaigning for it’s safety, asked:
Q Have any of the councillors been to look at other skate parks
A In jumps Iain St.John “Yes is the short answer,
I was cabinet member for skate parks etc., The major problem with skate parks maybe the day to day use. What you are wanting is something like Clifton Park we think or Maltby.”
The eloquent young skate boarder replied: “The point is we have got other skate parks round the area. We are not asking for these amazing skate parks “WE JUST WANT THIS TO BE SAFE. IT IS TOO DANGEROUS FOR US TO USE.”
At this point the whole of the public applauded this eloquent and perfectly controlled young man and called Hear Hear
If Iain St.John was Cabinet Member and Parish Council Member – HOW COME WE END UP WITH CAST OFF EQUIPMENT AND END UP WITH THE WORST UNSAFE SKATE PARK IN THE BOROUGH?
Minutes of Parish Council Meeting 20 February 2012
Untrue recording of above Minutes:
Now for the truth (a foreign land to many Anston Parish Councillors)
Q Was Councillor Thornton evicted from the previous parish council meeting 20 February
Q Did the Minutes record the events truthfully
Q Did the Chairman take a vote to evict Cllr Thornton
A Yes TWICE!
Q Why twice
A Because the Chairman made a Bugger’s Muddle of this
Q Was he complying with Standing Orders
A proposal was made to amend the Minutes to record the true events
This was put to the vote
RESULT – 7 Abstentions 1 For 6 Against
NOTE: The 6 Against – These had been present at the 20 February meeting and therefore knew that the events recorded in the minutes were untrue!
Q Is it acceptable for councillors to cover up and lie
A NO certainly not
However untrue recording of minutes amounts, at Anston Parish Council to:
Record not what took place but what you would have liked to have taken place.
Hey here comes Boy Wonder giving us his wisdom – convoluted though it is!
The Chesterfield Canal Trust
Q Why did Staveley Town Council write to request Anston Parish Council to grant monies
to The Chesterfield Canal Trust?
A Surely the Chesterfield Canal Trust should write on their own behalf?
Q Why did Boy Wonder press so hard for this grant
A Surely not to impress the Chairman of the Chesterfield Canal Trust (Robin Stonebridge)
Q Did Boy Wonder speak against donating to our own stretch of canal
A Yes – it is a linked up project (Clang – medal struck for stating the b……g obvious)
Q Later did he report that 3 areas, including Rotherham had donated to their own stretch of the Canal
A Yes he did – Well let’s have it straight Boy Wonder (Clang – another medal struck)
10i Agenda Item -To discuss bullying of Councillors
Q At the previous month’s meeting, did Cllr St.John accuse another councillor of bullying
Q Did Cllr St.John make a complaint about bullying to the Standards Committee
Q Did Cllr St.John make this accusation for effect
A Of course – He can’t resist being on a stage
Q Did the accused councillor read out a statement in order to prevent himself being
evicted once more
Q Why were Poison Ivy and Boy Wonder sitting smirking with each other
A Obviously they think bullying is funny but then Poison Ivy does have a certain record
10ii Agenda Item – To discuss Councillor Thornton being evicted from the previous council meeting
Q Why did the chairman strike this item off the agenda
A Too near the knuckle
Q Did the chairman allow any discussion
A None whatsoever
Q What powers was he acting under
A Maybe he will let us know – when he finds out!
Q Did Cllr Thornton stand to make a point of order
Q Why was Boy Wonder jabbing his finger at Cllr Thornton saying “You need to state the
rules, You need to state the rules”
A Because he is infantile
Q Why did Poison Ivy stand to show a copy of Councils Direct regarding bullying
A Who knows why, this from a councillor who has assaulted another member 3 times
At this point Robin Stonebridge said to Cllr Thornton this is a platform for your paranoid fantasies – the tone of which can be imagined.
10iii Agenda Item To discuss the position of RMBC Members in relation to their role as Anston Parish Council Members.
This item was withdrawn due to the councillor not being given a fair chance to speak
At this point Cllr Stonebridge came in again and said “YOU ARE A WASTE OF LIFE”
The reaction from the public was one of understandable horror.
The meeting then descended into chaos with Poison Ivy shouting Shut UP to Cllr Thornton. Poison Ivy then turned her spleen on a member of the public and said in a threatening manner “I will see you later”
Outside in the playground –
Behind the bike shed –
I am not that childish –
Well you could have fooled us all, firstly she is striking councillors, then making untrue remarks, in a meeting, re a member of the public’s personal life and now issuing threats to a member of the public.
No wonder the meeting was in uproar
AND WHAT DID THE HAPLESS AND HOPELESS JOHN THOMAS IRELAND DO – BUGGER ALL!
The young skate boarding spokesman knew how to handle himself with maturity beyond his years –
He and his friends must certainly have been appalled at what they observed from certain councillors.
This Parish Council has plumbed the depths – it is an utter farce – is not fit for purpose – spends our money wantonly and should be disbanded immediately.
This type of base behaviour is not acceptable in any way to the people of Anston.
A DARK NIGHT INDEED – A VERY DARK NIGHT
JOTTINGS FROM “A QUALITY PARISH COUNCIL!!”
Tell the children that the pantomime season is now well and truly over.
Our theatrical performers have now moved into a new genre. THE FARCE.
THE FARCE – which is – Anston Parish Council
Scene 1. Act 1
Question: Why did Cllr.Liz O’Brian do a cover up job for Iain St.John?
Answer: Maybe she practising to be a magician!
Question: Did she blush beetroot red whilst telling her very elaborate story – That Iain St.John did leave the room after he declared “An Interest!?”
Answer: YES – BRIGHT RED
Question: Did she turn round 180 degrees to see him leave the room?
Answer: NO: she had her back to the door.
Question: Did Iain St.John leave the room?
Answer: NO NO NO – Members of the public emphatically state – He walked over and stood looking at the map which is by the door but in the meeting room.
See Pantomime post of December 2011.
Lying, covering up, dissembling? – All part of the tatty tapestry that is Anston Parish Council.
Scene 1. Act 2
TOO MUCH INTEREST Councillor Joyce Brindley
Question: When did it become acceptable for a parish councillor to comment, in a meeting, about the private life of a member of the public, who was present?
Answer: Never – Cllr Joyce Brindley’s behaviour has in the past, been less than professional and she continues her spleen venting, this time on a member of the public.
Question: Should Cllr Joyce Brindley avail herself of some standards?
Answer: Yes she should – and that goes for the majority of this less than trustworthy lot.
She has been buying into false information – She should ask for a refund!
Scene 1. Act 3
Anston Village Green:
Question: Did a member of the public ask when the track on the south side was going to be repaired?
Queston: Did The Clerk, say it had been repaired?
Answer: Yes he did
Question: Was this contested?
Question: Did Anston Parish Council allow this track to be deliberately damaged & destroyed?
Answer: Oh yes, despite being advised, repeatedly.
Question: In the past did Robin Stonebridge say that he personally would not do any repairs on the village green until hell froze over?
Answer: Absolutely he did – discrimination again.
Question: Has not the Clerk, said in the past, the council have no obligation to repair this track?
Answer: Oh yes he has.
Question: Does Anston Parish Council have a duty to protect & maintain the Village Green which is vested in them?
Answer: Most certainly they do
Question: Then why did they allow a resident of Anston Village Green to systematically destroy the area?
Answer: Good question.
Watch this space good people and learn much more.
This is Anston Parish Council’s repair!
End of Scene 1.
Scramble to the bar. We need a drink to fortify ourselves for what is to come.
Lights down, Curtain up.
Scene 2. Act.1
Question: Did The Clerk say the Green had been litter picked that day?
Answer: Yes he did
Question: Then why is there still a substantial amount of litter on the perimeter that has been there for a very long time?
Answer: Because we are waiting for the wind of change! This then will blow it away!
Question: Did Chairman John Ireland say to the effect “There’s more to Anston than the Village Green. Would that be the Loyal Trooper public house by any chance?
Answer: Make up your own mind audience.
Scene 2. Act.2
Boy Wonder – Booming Beck
Question: Who is this young person trying to impress by booming out unimpressively loudly and aggressively?
Answer: Probably Iain St.John, It does appear he has donned his mantle, shame it’s not the cloak of invisibility.
Question: Does this boy not realise he is emulating Yesterday’s Men?
Answer: Does not care?
Question: Is it appropriate for Booming Beck and Judy Dalton (Vice Chair) to sit sniggering in a pathetic congratulatory way when Booming Beck has delivered one of his tirades?
Answer: NO – but then who cares about decorum – it is Anston Parish Council!
Scene 2. Act.3
The Hapless & Hopeless Chairman Ireland
Question: What on earth or moreover what planet, any planet, is he on?
Answer: Who knows – the only hope for Anston is that he will be sucked into a black hole!
Questions: Did he remain in his seat as Chair during a complaint against him?
Did a member of the public point out his error?
Did the Chairman refuse to take note of correct procedure?
Did he fail to ask for a seconder before evicting Cllr Thornton?
Did he say he didn’t need to?
Did he then realise he should have done so?
Did he then say he already had – and it was Joyce Brindley!!!?
Did he then over look Joyce Brindley “co-operating” with Iain St.John to say she had?
Did he then………………
Oh well – you get the picture
Answers: YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES & YES
Question: Who had planned the ambush?
Answer: Surely not Iain St.John!
Question: Did Joyce Brindley just happen to have her Standing Orders before her and open at Section 50?
Answer: Oh yes – You bet she did
And why – Because Cllr.Thornton was, yet again, pointing out the errors under which Anston Parish Council was operating.
To quote Corporal Jones – “They don’t like it up em sir.” Should that be cur?
SO HERE WE GO AGAIN – YES WE DO – YET AGAIN – yawn – and again
Voting to evict Cllr.Thornton from the meeting.
Question: Did Iain St.John turn in his chair to face Cllr Thornton as he was leaving?
Question: Was he grinning and gloating?
Answer: As a child might after a playground spat.
Question: Did Cllr St.John then become very full of himself and start showing off in the meeting?
Answer: Well what do you think
Question: Do we need to know he has been out on his bike?
Answer: Don’t give a twopenny toss – Not relevant to the meeting, like so much of what comes out of his mouth.
(Fado would have had endless material from this lot of “under” performers!)
HOW VERSATILE THIS LOT ARE! Now from Farce to Tragedy
That Anston has this majority of under performers, playing to and for benefit of The Master Puppeteer.
Question: Has Chairman Ireland admitted to being Ian St.John’s puppet?
Answer: Oh yes, on a number of occasions.
Well we will see how Anston Parish Council is themed at it’s next performance. Come, come and see, if you can stand it. Why should we suffer alone? A good night out! Entrance free.
Lights up – curtain down – NO THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE AND PLEEEEZE NO ENCORE
To paraphrase Rogerson:
If drama were a person (St.John)
He would be a stern and noble fellow (Not)
If it was a comedy (St.John)
He would be a jovial chap (Not)
But if it were a tragedy (Most definitely)
He would be like a solemn girl. (Sure thing)
If drama were a tree (St.John)
He would be a grand old oak. (What a joke)
If it were a comedy (St.John)
He would be the merry beech (Nut)
But if it were tragedy (Most definitely)
He would be a weeping willow. (Surely Twisted Willow!)
Michael Gazur – clerk
Liz O Brien
Iain St John
Mr D Smith and his Professional Heckler Mr Brian Lewis – Dave Smith did not speak.
Bill Brindley husband of Joyce Brindley. At odds/verbally aggressive/confrontational with Brian Lewis.
The Chairman allowed Bill Brindley to speak at will, despite not being a parish councillor, his status at the meeting was that of a member of the public. He certainly should not have had a go at Stuart Thornton.
The Chairman – Ireland, as you might expect, did bugger all about it!
Representatives of The Brethren were there!! But did not speak!
Rotherham’s Labour apparatchiks like to conduct their business without benefit of public accountability for the decisions ‘made in their name’.
When local citizens take an interest in the goings on at their local Parish Council, abuse from Labour members is the usual result. For quite some time now, Anston Parish Council has typified this tendency and serves as a powerful example of the frankly tyrannical behaviour that can result!
The three worst offenders on Anston Parish Council? Iain StJohn, Robin Stonebridge and also Borough Councillor Dominic Beck, who are known to us now at Rotherham Politics, as the ‘three wise monkeys. Judy Dalton and Chairman Ireland have also lent a hand in this shameful record at times, with outrageous behavior tolerated by the Chairman on a routine basis!
Labour’s untrammeled power in Rotherham, has engendered an unwillingness to accept any form of accountability at all, to those they ‘claim to serve’. Even the Labour Party, that chooses them as candidates, has seemed unable, or unwilling, to ensure their performance, abilities, behaviour and conduct was of an acceptable standard!
Readers of Rotherham Politics will be familiar with this litany of woes as it has afflicted Anston Parish Council, so it will come as a pleasant surprise for us to report that at recent meetings of the Parish Council standards of behaviour and conduct from the Labour PC members was exemplary! All Rotherham Politics hopes, is that they can keep it up in the future? Hence the headline, All quiet on the Anston front!
Acorn Antiques January 2012
Reflections on Meetings of Anston Parish Council by Mrs Overall.
4th January Charity Meeting
It was a calm night – no wind blowing.
It was calm at the Parish Charity Meeting – no hot air!
In fact there seems to have been a lot of charity at this meeting!
Question: Is this their New Year’s Resolution?
Answer: We will have to wait and see
Question: Or – was it because Cllr.St.John was absent
Answer: Damned sure it was.
16th January Finance Meeting – Democracy in Action!
Agenda Item: 7a
To discuss allowing the public to query parish business, by asking questions at Wednesday Finance Meetings.
Cllr Beck – Strongly & loudly against the public asking questions regarding items on the Agenda.
Question: Why is he so against receiving verbal questions from the electorate he is supposed to represent?
Answer: He wants the public to write a letter to the clerk within 4 working days from the publication of the Agenda –
Question: Do all the public have access to a computer?
Question: What was the solution Cllr Beck came up with?
Answer: Oh! Truck on down to the Recourse Centre (Dinnington – next village)
Doesn’t matter if you are aged, disabled etc this 19 year old boy/young man, obviously has no thought for those parishioners.
Agenda Item: 7b
Cllr Beck – Strongly & loudly – Trying to allow councillors to speak and express a view on items they have a prejudicial interest in, at the beginning of the meeting
Question: Has he not read the Model Code of Conduct 2007 which clearly states Members are not allowed to speak unless the public are so allowed?
Answer: Code of Conduct – Why bother? None of the other Labour councillors do –
AND THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE COULD NOT CARE LESS.
Councillor Beck – Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
Another pleasant Meeting!
Question: Who was absent
Answer: Iain St.John
Arrived @ 7.20pm – Robin Stonebridge!
Parish Council Meeting: 16 January 2012
Litter: On the Village Green
Question: When is this going to be addressed along with other matters on the Village Green?
Answer: Reader – We will keep you posted, don’t hold your breath – it took 25 years to get a wall repaired. However we are on the case!
Tra La – Enter Iain St.John @ 7.45pm –
Question: Why did he not take the empty chair next to Cllr Thornton
Answer: Preferred to find a chair and squash up to Cllrs Beck & Stonebridge
3 Wise Monkeys? (Hear all, see all, say nowt! Perhaps?)
A chill now enters the room – Charity leaves by the window.
Dangerous parking near Hillcrest School
Well done new Cllr Gordon Jarvis for taking a pro-active stance, showing concern for the people you represent. Not so well done Borough Cllr. Dalton for trying to hijack the issue.
Cllr. Thornton proposed the Parish Council send a letter to RMBC Highways
Voted in favour unanimously.
Dangerous pavement at Church Farm development South Anston
Well done again new Councillor Gordon Jarvis
Question: Did Cllr Dalton try to hijack this subject as well?
Answer: Yes and backed up by Iain St.John.
Cllr. Thornton proposed the Parish Council write to Highways.
Question: Was this defeated.
Answer: Oh yes it was!
Question: Why did Four (4) Labour councillors look at each other and hesitantly raise their hands to vote this proposal down.
Comment – Nothing like voting for the Labour Party said Cllr. Thornton
(Great Uproar from Labour)
Question: Why did Chairman Ireland say he found the remark offensive?
Answer: Who knows and would Chairman Ireland know!
Cllr Thornton said “Because you find it offensive does not mean it is.”
Wait for it – Here we go again………………….
So what did Cllr St.John say next – Comes in from the sidelines saying AGAIN – We have rules to evict councillors from meetings if they constantly disagree with the chairman.
Unprompted!!! Chairman Ireland picks up the rule book says “I would like someone to propose that Mr Thornton leaves the meeting.
THE SILENCE WAS DEAFENING
Question: Why did we have, yet again, all this nonsense about evicting Cllr Thornton?
Answer: Chairman Ireland does as he is told/prompted!
Final comment from Cllr St.John – “I am not personally rude to people”
Sharp intake of collective breath – Oh yeeeeeer
Poor Mr Lewis – it caused him to have a severe coughing bout!
Well although relatively quiet & civil (up until a certain point!)
Let us see how long the New Year’s Resolution lasts.
Goodnight All – Mrs Overall
Mrs Overall’s Anston parish, Christmas Pantomime – Act 2
Hope you all enjoyed the intermission?
Lights down – Curtain up!
Anston Parish Council Pantomime – Act 2 begins:
It was a dark and dank Monday night – the wind was howling/or was it the Parish Councillors?
Question Time: Public Session
A resident asked – If the budget was being put out for public consultation? The resident pointed out that on the Labour election leaflet it was a manifesto promise:
“ We will consult residents before taking any major decisions affecting the village, including the Parish Council budget.”
Cue – All Labour councillors squirming in their seats!
Cllr Beck (the Boy Wonder!) sought to distance the parish council by saying this leaflet was nothing to do with the parish council.
Altogether now – Oh yes it is. It was in their election manifesto.
Pledge No.1, directly under Boy Wonder’s photograph.
Cllr Burton – We were elected to do this for them.
Question: Had she put her name to the Labour leaflet?
Answer: Yes – Along with the other 8 Labour councillors!
Are they changing tack because this leaflet is under police investigation?
Back to the minutes of 21st November – Cllr St John`s half declaration of interest.
Cllr Thornton again sought from Cllr St.John, clarification as to whether his declaration had been personal or prejudicial – Safe At Last Trustee. No answer was the firm reply!
Enter Boy Wonder Beck, throws over his cloak of protection – It is up to the individual whether to declare an interest, it doesn’t matter what you declare”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
However Standing Orders say you have to declare an interest and if it is prejudicial you must leave the room.
Question: Was Cllr St.John avoiding declaring correctly in order to remain in the meeting?
Answer: You bet your bottom dollar!
Question: Did Cllr St.John enter the discussion?
Answer: No – Cat got his tongue (Dick Whittington’s????)
Question: Why when other councillors declare fully does Cllr St.John fail to do so?
Answer: Possible arrogance?
Question: Is he the only one who does not leave the room?
Answer: YES -Well readers what do you make of all this.
Chairman Ireland get a grip.
Letter from Standards Committee:
Queston: Is Boy Wonder having his collar felt?
Answer: It appears so!
Letter of complaint by resident –
Question: Did Chairman Ireland instruct the clerk to reply as requested by the parishioner?
Answer: NO –
Letter of complaint by another resident –
Question: Was this discussed?
Answer: Bet your bottom dollar it was NOT – WHY
COMPLAINTS AGAINST COUNCILLORS AND YET AGAIN DELIBERATELY NO DISCUSSION
Approved for 2012/13
A recorded vote was asked for.
Cllr Thornton voted against.
Cllr Beck – “I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Cllr Thornton has voted against he had ample opportunity in both meetings to make his point known.”
Cllr Thornton retorted that when he had suggested savings to the budget he was shouted down by other councillors with one councillor saying leave it to the experts. At the second meeting he was shouted at by Councillor Stonebridge AND TOLD TO SHUT UP!
Question: Is Cllr Stonebridge reverting to type?
Answer: Well leopards do not change their spots!
Question: Did Cllr Stonebridge stare at Cllr Thornton lean forward and say “The pantomime season is on us, Pinocchio is about?”
Answer: Yes – Twice.
Chairman’s Chain of Office
What a bling king farce!
Question: Was the Chairman reluctant to name the prospective sponsor?
Answer: Oh yes you bet.
Question: Who did this turn out to be?
Answer: Darren the Defector.
Question: Is this against all propriety?
Answer: We would say so.
Question: Maybe part of his election campaign?
Answer: You make up your minds.
Question: Does the Chairman want this desperately?
Answer: Desperately enough to extend the discussion and confuse everybody.
What a “Buggers Muddle”
Congratulations to right thinking councillors for voting against this cynical ploy.
Staffing Issues – The Gang of Four
Working Party to discuss staff matters
Question: Who had decided that this would be a meeting of just 4 Councillors: Cllrs Ireland, Dalton, Beck & Stonebridge?
Answer: Obviously they did.
Question: Shouldn’t staffing matters be discussed by ALL councillors?
Answer: Not when you want to implement your own agenda.
Question: If the reason for this coterie was given as experience on staffing matters – What experience has a 19yr old in this field?
Question: How many of the other councillors have staff management experience?
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE OTHER COUNCILLORS FOR RESISTING THIS POWER HUNGRY CLOSED SHOP.
Curtain Down – Lights Up – Chairman showing largesse – providing booze & mince pies??
Mrs Overall’s Anston parish, Christmas Pantomime – Act 1
Finance Meeting 7th December Cllr Thornton queried what interest Cllr St.John had declared in relation to a 100% grant (free use of Parish Hall) on 21 November. Other members had declared personal or prejudicial interest whereas Cllr St.John just declared “An” interest. Cllr St.John stated he was a Trustee of Safe at Last, the group asking for the free use of hall.
Question: As a Trustee – Does he have a direct financial interest?
Answer: Yes and it is prejudicial, due to financial implications.
Cllr St.John was not at the meeting of the 7th – not available to answer what interest he had declared. Cllr Thornton queried if Cllr St.John had left the room, as required to do in Standing Orders.
Tra La Tra La – Riding to the rescue – Boy Wonder Beck, declared Cllr St.John had left the room.
OH NO – He didn’t , He’s behind you looking at the wall map. Then came back and sat next to you.
A member of the public confirmed he did not leave the room.
Telling porkies for a friend!?
AGRD Anston Kids – Grant
Question: Was this granted last month?
Answer: NO – Blocked by Cllr St.John.
Question: Was it granted This month?
Answer: YES – Overwhelmingly – £100 –
Question Was Cllr St.John Absent?
Question: Was this unanimous?
Answer: NO – Cllr Stonebridge queried if Children’s Services at RMBC had been informed? WHY?
Did he query The Junior Football Team’s application? – NO!
Well the pantomime season is here and he made a great performance of abstaining and asked for a recorded vote.
Question: Was this to let everyone know (if they were in doubt!) he had abstained.
Answer: Maybe it was more to do with Mrs Sheldon-Ennis – the applicant.
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE PARISH COUNCILLORS WHO VOTED FOR THIS GRANT TO BE GIVEN.
Broadcasting of Meetings
Question: Is this now dying a death – Seems to be – WHY?
Answer: Don’t they want us to see their performances? Oh shame.
Chairman of Parish Council sitting next to Cllr Dalton Chair of Finance Meeting.
Question: Did he start to get agitated at 9.30pm?
Answer: Well he always has to leave around this time to go to the pub!
Question: Had all Agenda items been discussed?
Answer: NO – There were more than 10 items left to discuss!
MEETING CLOSED IN FAVOUR OF THE PUB!
This was brought to you courtesy of Mrs Overall, to whom I am sure readers will be grateful.
We will bring you Act 2 later on.