News just in! Police to probe Labour Dirty Tricks!

Police to investigate the Dirty tricks played by Gerald Smith and Holderness Labour!

Following the elections on May 5th this year when Labour went well beyond the acceptable, issuing election leaflets that were deceptive and libellous in the Parish of Aston-cum-Aughton, a complaint has been made to the Police in this case and it can now be reported that the Police have opened an investigation!

We are aware that there are similar problems in the Parish Council of Anston, where Iain St John and the local Labour Party have also been reported to the Police and we understand that this will be formally investigated as well.

Comment: Labour really need to understand that they don’t own Rotherham, they cannot expect to act outside of what is legal, decent and honest! The people own Rotherham! They need to understand that simple fact! Increasingly the public are no longer prepared to let them get away with their control freak, arrogant, greedy and dictatorial ways! Power to the people! We say!!…

Previously published: Click Here.

Blue badge abusing councillor should fess up and resign his seat! NOW!

When the scandal of ‘blue badge abuse’ by a councillor first emerged, it seemed no more than a symptom of casual labour arrogance. As this sorry tale was investigated it revealed much of the control structure, routinely used to keep information, the public has a right to know, from them. The gravity of this issue is of the utmost seriousness as it appears to involve multiple breaches of both Officers and Councillors Codes of Conduct. It has also become apparent that this type of cover up is evidence of a deeper cultural malaise within RMBC that cannot go unchallenged!

One of the other main problems in establishing the identity of the abuser was that this form of abuse has been widespread in the past, and information can be difficult to verify. One particularly egregious example that turned up, was the councillor who blatantly used his wife’s blue badge whilst he visited the Town Hall, even though she was occupying a bed in Rotherham District General Hospital at the time! Although interesting, it proved to be a diversion in this case.

Tales From the Town Hall, revealed that a great deal of effort had gone in to protecting the identity of the abuser, with vague threats of some form of legal action involving the Freedom of Information Act! So much effort, so much officers time has been expended on this futile cover up! Attempting to use the FOI as the means for enforcing a cover up is quite extraordinary and possibly a novel approach.

From a previous post: “The councillor involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, not only for  abusing the Blue Badge in the first place, but for hiding the truth from us by obliging officers to mount a cover up!

The sheer effrontery of this loathsome individual deserves nothing but contempt from the people of this long suffering Town. His actions are positively outrageous from someone who purports to be a ‘public servant!’ The fact that he still seems to be under the protection of ‘Labour Group’ and Senior Officers, just adds to the outrage!

He should do the only decent thing in the circumstances. fess up and resign his seat! NOW! By his own actions he amply demonstrates his unsuitability for public office of any kind.”

Like Watergate, the cover up is what catches up with you in the end! Had this councillor admitted his mistake in the first place, he would no doubt have been embarrassed, but would probably have ultimately survived. That option is no longer available to him! Once exposed he will have to go! Local people will demand nothing less!

What do you think? Leave a comment, click link below.

Previously Published, click Here. Send us information, RikiLeaks.

Wickersley Labour Lies! Voters deceived?

Chris Read

When Labour selected their candidate for the Wickersley Ward of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council they knew straight away that they had a problem, they had selected, not a local Wickersley resident, but a resident of Swinton, Mexborough and if that were not difficulty enough he doesn’t even own a car nor drive!

Why was this a problem for Labour? Swinton lies a stones throw from both Barnsley and Doncaster! Not exactly local then! The issue of lack of personal transport will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for him to represent Wickersley as well as he should.

This is a rapidly increasing problem for Labour in Rotherham, as they have many ‘bussed in’ councillors liberally sprinkled around Rotherham. Wouldn’t it be useful if they could simply keep this information from voters in the future?

That is exactly what Rotherham Labour Party decided to do, conceal the truth from the voters of Wickersley Ward, quite outrageous!

I got an inkling of the issues ahead, when upon my arrival at the count at Magna at 10 pm, Councillor Alan Atkin from Wath Ward, without being in fact asked, couldn’t restrain himself from giving me an explanation, that bore much more than a striking resemblance to the official answer, I was given later by Maggs Evers, the Council’s Elections Officer?

Others I spoke to at the count, freely acknowledged that much discussion had taken place about this within Labour circles, and involving I understand, both the Chief Executive and Assistant Chief Executive, Martin Kimber and Tim Mumford respectively. Martin Kimber, it should not be overlooked, was acting as Returning Officer for the elections held on May 5th. If Martin Kimber or Tim Mumford were involved, the conflict of interest issues might well prove problematic.

How did they do it? The issue of how to conceal the inconvenient fact of his domicile on election literature was easily achieved, nothing in the text of the leaflets from Labour mentioned that Chris Read lived elsewhere than within the Ward. The imprint also is not required to have the address of the candidate, only their name, provided that the promoter and publisher were properly identified. A deception indeed! But at least perfectly legal.

How about the Ballot Paper? Surely his full address should be stated there? Apparently not, according to the opinion of RMBC! This is of course where most of the discussion and debate was focussed, how to procure a ballot paper that was essentially deceptive by confusing the issue of where he lives and effectively conceal the facts from Wickersley voters by manipulation.

What goes on the ballot paper is the address information given on the nomination paper. That’s when a bright idea came to them, if the candidate was nominated using the following address 2A Church Street, Rotherham, S64 8QA, then that is what would appear on the Notice of Poll, displayed at Polling Stations and on the ballot paper. Read Wickersley Notice of Poll here Wickersley.

I am advised that the correct full postal address for Chris Read is in fact; 2A Church Street, Swinton, Mexborough, S64 8QA, quite a difference!

A result for Labour you might think? As this stunt will, no doubt. be pulled across the Borough next year by Labour Candidates wishing to conceal their often distant domicile fearing their electorates won’t like it.

Rob Foulds

Will it work? Unfortunately for Labour, one of the other candidates Rob Foulds, the Rotherham Independent candidate, he is not happy about this and will not rest until every avenue of this disgraceful and deceptive episode is explored and any wrongdoing exposed! They may have scored a spectacular ‘own goal’ on this one as Rob Foulds is a doughty fighter for what is right, if ever there was one!

Another potential problem for Tim Mumford to ponder upon is that this ruse may well turn out not to have been such a good idea once all facts are known. The ballot paper may well be ‘legal’ but the legality of the original nomination is quite a different matter.

As a Full Postal Address is required by law for the nomination to be valid, this does not look to be a valid nomination to me, because the address is deficient and believe it should not have in fact been accepted!

A final point. This trick goes against the advice contained in Labour’s own ‘Keep it Legal‘ election manual! The Labour Party devotes considerable attention to issues such as this and I am confident that if this was such a good idea Labour would have advised so.

Councillors Allowances and Expenses 2009-10 Total £1,134,838.37! Can this motley crew be worth this much corn?

Just out, the annual parade of councillor greed! Read it here first!

The table below gives full details of the cost of Rotherham’s greedy bunch of councillors, or does it? Continued below…




Name Basic Special Responsibility Travel Subsistence Total
Akhtar J £12,306.98 £16,315.10 Nil Nil £28,622.08
Ali S £12,306.98 £1,251.42 £143.40 £33.80 £13,735.60
Atkin A £12,306.98 £4,757.07 Nil Nil £17,064.05
Austen J* £12,306.98 £10,876.43 Nil Nil £23,183.41
Barron IC £12,306.98 £1,227.60 £12.20 Nil £13,596.78
Blair W £12,303.59 Nil Nil Nil £12,303.59
Boyes MG £12,306.98 £10,876.43 Nil Nil £23,183.41
Burton J £12,306.98 £1,251.86 £15.90 Nil £13,974.74
Clarke JM £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Currie S £12,306.98 £1,097.15 Nil Nil £13,404.13
Cutts B* £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Dodson B* £12,306.98 £5,427.81 £11.00 £75.50 £17,821.29
Donaldson L £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Doyle J* £12,306.98 £14,301.22 Nil Nil £26,608.20
Falvey J £12,306.98 £1,251.86 Nil Nil £13,558.84
Fenoughty T £12,303.59 Nil £108.95 Nil £12,412.54
Foden J* £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Gamble J £12,303.59 Nil Nil Nil £12,303.59
Gilding J* £12,306.98 £10,875.98 Nil Nil £23,182.96
Gosling A £12,306.98 £1,251.86 Nil Nil £13,558.84
Goulty K £12,306.98 £1,097.15 Nil Nil £13,404.13
Hamilton J* £12,306.98 £1,251.86 Nil Nil £13,558.84
Hamilton N* £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Havenhand J* £12,306.98 £1,251.86 Nil Nil £13,558.84
Hodgkiss FD £12,306.98 £1,767.88 £82.40 £33.80 £14,191.06
Hughes D £12,303.59 Nil Nil Nil £12,303.59
Hussain M £12,306.98 £16,317.17 £46.75 Nil £28,670.90
Jack HL £12,306.98 £10,876.06 Nil Nil £23,180.04
Johnston L £12,306.98 £5,427.81 Nil Nil £17,734.79
Kaye B* £12,306.98 £1,251.86 Nil £11.40 £13,570.24
Kirk M £12,306.98 £2,059.86 Nil Nil £14,366.66
Lakin P* £12,306.98 £5,427.81 Nil Nil £17,734.79
License N £11,625.43 £1,097.15 Nil Nil £12,772.58
Littleboy R* £12,306.98 £1,251.86 Nil £324.00 £13,882.84
Mannion A £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
McMahon C £12,292.37 £659.79 Nil Nil £12,952.16
McNeely R £12,306.98 £10,879.93 Nil Nil £23,186.91
Nightingale G £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Parker M £12,303.59 Nil Nil Nil £12,303.59
Pickering D £12,306.98 £10,879.93 £83.39 £22.42 £23,292.72
Rushforth A £12,306.98 £2,059.68 Nil Nil £14,366.66
Russell GA £12,306.98 £10,879.93 £14.00 £68.00 £23,268.91
Russell PA £12,306.98 £1,251.86 £13.80 £68.00 £13,640.64
Russell RS £12,306.98 £16,317.17 £337.02 £166.1. £29,127.27
Sangster WA* £12,306.98 £10,876.43 Nil Nil £23,181.41
Sharman TR* £12,306.98 £21,755.40 Nil Nil £34,062.38
Sharp G* £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Sims K £12,303.59 £154.28 Nil Nil £12,457.87
Slade B* £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Smith G £12,306.98 £16,317.17 £106.00 Nil £28,730.15
StJohn IGL* £12,306.98 £14,301.22 £99.64 Nil £26,707.84
Stone R* £12,306.98 £32,640.84 £131.60 £328.30 £45,407.72
Swift JF* £12,306.98 £5,427.81 £11.66 Nil £17,746.45
Thirlwall P* £12,306.98 Nil Nil Nil £12,306.98
Turner JRA £12,306.98 £4,757.07 Nil Nil £17,064.05
Tweed S £12,303.59 £1,097.16 Nil Nil £13,400.75
Walker S £12,306.98 £1,251.86 Nil Nil £13,588.84
Whelbourne G £12,306.98 £16,315.00 Nil Nil £28,662.08
Whysall J £12,306.98 £5,427.81 Nil Nil £17,734.79
Wooton P* £12,306.98 £10,873.06 Nil Nil £23,180.04
Wright F £12,306.98 £1,251.42 Nil Nil £13,558.40
Wright S £12,306.98 £16,317.17 Nil Nil £28,624.15
Wyatt KJ £12,306.98 £16,290.46 Nil Nil £28,597.44
Total £774,619.85 £357,869.49 £1,217.71 £1,131.32 £1,134,838.37
These Figures exclude pension payments of £59,470.00 for 2009-10.

Note *Denotes up for re-election May 2011.

Some councillors (Who?) are signed up to the South Yorkshire Local Government Pension Scheme, which means that these figures are in fact incomplete and understate the full cost to us of their greed as this means that they are treated as employees for pension purposes which obliges the Council to make employers pension contributions on their behalf to the scheme in addition to the sums accounted for here!

This figure for the last financial year 2009-10 was the eye-watering  figure of £59,470.00 in fact, a not inconsiderable sum as extra benefit not accounted for publicly.

This raises the total to £1,194,308.37 for this useless bunch of councillors last year!

Upon reflection, £59,470.00 represents 11.6% of the total (Employers pension contribution rate 2009-10 was 11.6%), so doing the arithmetic, this equates to £512,672.oo in terms of allowances! Getting on for 50% of the council are on this particular little money maker! This is an utterly disgraceful situation that must be challenged, this extra hidden greed must be exposed!

This figure still underestimates the full figure, because benefits acquired from other sources such as Joint Authority Allowances and Expenses and benefits in kind, remember this crew always expect recompense for any activity so there must be some to account for, where are the details? We should be told!

Missing too is any mention of National Insurance Employers contributions paid in respect of these councillor/employees, surely they must be paying NI contributions from their allowances? So RMBC must be paying their employers contributions for them.The total paid out to the employee/councillors is £512,672.00 so their NI contributions would have been 3.7% at the contracted out rate, again doing the arithmetic it equates to £18,968 of hidden benefits not publicly accounted for.

This raises the total to £1,213,276.37! Don’t forget, there is more still not accounted for.

Just a few idle thoughts on this subject:

Being a councillor is not a job. so why are we paying pension contributions on these allowances? Especially when they should not be regarded as employees in the first place!

Every year the Allowance Scheme has to be approved by Council, these payments, Pension costs and NI are extra to the figure covered by the decision so how can it be legal to exceed the authority provided by this annual decision?

Surely these payments above should properly be made, not in addition to, but deducted from their allowances? Does legal authority exist for these payments, I wonder? Oh dear! Perhaps Tim Mumford may need some extra painkillers to untangle this one?