Skip to main content

Coleen Gill (2)


The previous post has all the details. Lets have a look at the things according to the APE that Coleen should not have done:

  • Attended a meeting without declaring she is a councillor. This is badly flawed. Council Officers should behave the same way regardless of whether or not a councillor is in the room. However, people do not do this. It is, therefore, useful for councillors to act as "mystery customers" to check that people are doing what they should.
  • Written to an MP before exhausting all the local procedures. Ho Ho Ho.
  • Advocated on behalf of someone. If one writes a letter to the council on behalf of someone with the information they have provided, this will almost unvariably be taken at face value (ie unverified) and partisan (ie not having all the facts). If it is required that a) one verifies all information and b) always provides both sidesof the story then you cannot do anything.
  • Turned up at a meeting when told not to do by a council officer.

The key tension in government, particularly local government, is between councillors and officers. Many officers would like councillors not to exist.

The theory behind the actions of the APE and the SBE appears to be that Officers always do the right thing for the best possible reason. If that were to be the case then there would be no need for any democratic accountability. Unsurprisingly in the real world this is not the case.

One of the big flaws with the Standards Code is that people are guilty of breaking it even if someone believes they might have done something wrong - whether or not they have done something wrong

The bringing into disrepute issue is again not an objective test, but a subjective one. One person's disrepute (in this instance) is the vast majority of the population's proper behaviour.

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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…