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

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, 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

Cllr Neil Fulcher 'Show Trial'. Free Speech, the Casualty! Latest News!!

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:

“Hi Rik
No problem use whatever information you see fit.
I have unlike the standards board made myself open to all questioning throughout this fiasco even through the standards board have placed me under mouth arrest for 14 months in case my truth and their deceit gets out into the public domain.
I still make myself fully accountable to the electorate who voted me in I will answer any question put before me.
I truly hope the Rotherham Advertiser, Star, Telegraph and Daily Mail send reporters to listen to the case I am technically barred from on the 19 / 20 July.
If the David Laverick Principal Judge throws them out of court is will be a true demonstration that democracy is dead in England.

Councillor Neil Fulcher”

Cllr Neil Fulcher

The Standards Board for England (SBE) to be abolished! Hooray!

The coalition Government has just announced the abolition of the much hated and reviled, Standards Board for England (SBE). They have introduced New Clause 64 — Abolition of Standards Board for England. Hansard read it here on theyworkforyou.com.

No one, least of all me, will be sorry at this news because they consistently made perverse decisions on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Many of the cases referred to it from local Standards Boards were little more than trumped up accusations usually in pursuit of petty political vendettas that have local roots and should never have been referred to the National level in the first place.  The Standards Board for England should have been only for the very most serious of cases.

The main reason that so many frankly petty squabbles were not actually dealt with by the local Standards Boards was that so much political pressure was put on them that their role changed to one of deciding if a complaint had enough merit (in the eyes of the complainant) to be referred to the Standards Board for England that they lost sight of any objectivity on any matter before them.

I would cite the performance of the Rotherham Standards Board as a perfect example of all of these failures in action and some I have not mentioned which will be the subject of a more detailed examination later, along with others of the so called independent variety, such as the group that recommends Councillors Pay in Rotherham.


You might also be interested to read the Localism Policy Paper – Control Shift Returning Power to Local Communities. Or even the full Coalition Programme for Government if you really can’t sleep at night.