Skip to main content

Boundary Inquiry

There is an inquiry into the Parliamentary Boundaries going on in The Council House today.

I have put forward our case that Yardley, Sheldon and Acocks Green should stay together (as has been the case for about 1300 years).

Whereas as far as Labour were concerned Bordesley Ward had a natural affinity with Washwood Heath in 2004 now Labour are calling for the following seats:

Washwood Heath, Hodge Hill, Shard End, Sheldon
South Yardley, Stechford and Yardley North, Sparkbrook, Bordesley Green
Acocks Green, Hall Green, Brandwood, Billesley

As usual Labour show no real consistency save self-interest.

Another example of Labour inconsistency is on the 2nd runway at BIA where Solhull Labour oppose it and Birmingham Labour support it.

Comments

Bob Piper said…
...and where Birmingham's representatives on the Board support the runway, whilst the Deputy Leader of the Council opposes it. Life eh, so full of inconsistencies.
john said…
The Council's policy (supported by Conservatives and Labour, opposed by Lib Dems) is to support the runway. Hence the Council's representatives take that view (they are in fact Conservative and Labour). That is not inconsistent.
Ian Ward said…
So John Hemming, the Deputy Leader of Birmingham City Council, opposes a key City Council policy, so does he resign? No, he continues as Deputy Leader in his own self interest - clearly a man of principle.
john said…
I oppose a council policy, I have always opposed this council policy. The concordat agreement is not a merger between two parties. It accepts that the two parties will disagree on some issues. This is one of them.

I fail to see the problem.
Ian Ward said…
The problem is that you tell the people of Yardley that you oppose the expansion of Birmingham International Airport whilst in the city centre you are the deputy leader of an administration that supports the expansion of BIA.

I suppose I should not be surprised because you have had 2 positions on so many issues for so long, that you do not see a problem with being two-faced.
john said…
Name an issue upon which I have had two positions.

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…