Skip to main content

Labour lose it in Council

Another symptom of an early General Election (apart from the financial crisis embroiling the government and the disputes between Brown and Blair) was Labour's antics today in the council chamber.

Firstly, they don't want to keep the Yardley wards together. Yardley, Sheldon and Acocks Green as areas have been together since 699. The Boundary Commission supported by Labour want to split them up putting Sheldon in with Washwood Heath and putting Yardley/Stechford in with Small Heath and Sparkbrook. This means the road Constance Road by the Cricket Ground would actually be in Yardley Constituency.

This Council opposes this supporting an alternative more sensible scheme.

Secondly, Labour voted against our proposal to hold onto the PRG monies. We have about £8 Million sitting in a bank account. We would like to have this to spend on Social Care dealing with children, elderly people and the disabled. Labour want to spend it. The only specific project they mentioned was a Skate Park in the city centre.

Labour are claiming we want "cuts" because we want to spend the money on social care rather than on a Skate Park.

The fact is that the City Council had a forecast deficit of £22.7 Million in Social Care alone by 30th June 2004. The new administration took "office" on 29th June. However hard we tried we would not be able to spend £22.7 Million on Social Care in one day.
In any event the Labour Leader and Deputy Leader squatted
in the Leadership offices for about a week well into July.

Quite surreal.

To add to the surreality of this we have Lib Dem Watch's take on the situation. If the Labour Group were chanting then they had better learn to chant a bit louder - I couldn't hear them. No wonder the Labour Party are calling for more effective campaigning in Birmingham if this is all they can come up with.

Labour clearly want Skate Parks not care for the vulnerable. In any event there is a Skate Park in my ward (South Yardley) and also the Council is supporting Epic Skate Park which may be the biggest skate park in Europe. How many skate parks do we really need.


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).


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.

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…