Skip to main content
The City Cabinet on Monday had a few interesting decisions.


The demolition and redevelopment of North Newtown is a typically absurd decision by the Housing Department and Cabinet. This estate has a problem with crime. The Housing Department have plucked a figure out of the air that it would cost about £33,000 to improve each of the properties. By underestimating the cost of repurchasing the 35 private properties (which would not cost 33K to improve) they come out with specious figures indicating that it is cheaper to knock the properties down rather than improve them. This, of course, ignores the cost of rebuilding any properties.


Meanwhile in the real world the drug dealing will continue. The people living on the estate will live on an estate that deteriorates dramatically whilst they wait to be cleared and fewer houses will exist for people to live in and as a consequence more people will live in crowded conditions.


Meanwhile the Birmingham Trades Union Council have written the following letter:

We are writing, on behalf of Birmingham Trades Union Council, to advise you of an important resolution adopted by the Trades Union Council at its November meeting.


The Trades Union Council is deeply concerned at the deal done between Labour and Conservative Councillors on Birmingham City Council, as a result of this concern the Council passed the following resolution:

    "Birmingham Trades Union Council condemns the shabby deal entered into between the Birmingham Labour Party Councillors and the Conservative Party to share out leading positions in the City Council.

    This dirty deal is not in the interests of the Birmingham Working Class and represents collaboration of the worst kind, which this Trades Council has always opposed.


    We therefore call upon the Birmingham TUC to lead a trade union campaign to oppose this deal with the object of ensuring that the Labour Councillors withdraw from it and never conclude a similar deal in the future."

As part of the campaign we are launching about the deal we would encourage you to raise this matter with your members and ask them to lobby their Labour Councillors and ensure that no such deals are done in the future. We will also be writing to all Branch and Constituency Labour Parties in Birmingham, and we would ask you to join us in lobbying them to change Labour Party policy to rule out such deals.


The Birmingham Trades Union Council will shortly be organising a series of meetings to develop policies for our public services that advance the interests of working people, as opposed to deals with Conservative Councillors.


Yours sincerely,

Mick Rice/Douglas Jewell - Joint Secretaries Birmingham Trades Union Council


Given that the Mick Rice who has signed this letter is also the Councillor Mick Rice who is a member of the Labour Cabinet (with the support of the Conservatives) this raises some questions in peoples' minds. Luckily although this letter was sent out on 28th November he has already dealt with the issue by trying to disown the letter on 4th December in a confidential email sent to Labour councillors plus 2 Lib Dem Councillors which reads as follows:

Dear Comrades

I am in the process of sending you a letter in my capacity as joint secretary of Birmingham TUC.

PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM SENDING THE LETTER IN MY CAPACITY AS AN EMPLOYEE OF BIRMINGHAM TUC.

The fact that I have signed the letter as an OFFICER of Birmingham TUC does not constitute personal support or agreement with its contents.

Best Wishes

Mick Rice


So that's clear then.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…