What The Parliamentary Candidates say, UKIP, Conservative, Independent, Green, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Rutland Times Election 2015

What The Parliamentary Candidates say, UKIP, Conservative, Independent, Green, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Rutland Times Election 2015

These are the people hoping for your vote in the Melton and Rutland constituency when polls open on Thursday, May 7.

Richard Billington (Ukip)

Alan Duncan (Con)

Marilyn Gordon (Independent)

Alastair McQuillan (Green)

James Moore (Lab)

Ed Reynolds (Lib Dem)



Richard Billington UKIP Rutland Times Election 2015

Alan Duncan Conservative Rutland Times Election 2015

Marilyn Gordon Rutland Times Election 2015

Alastair McQuillan Green Party Rutland Times Election 2015

James Moore  Labour Rutland Times Election 2015

Ed Reynolds Liberal Democrat Rutland Times Election 2015

UKIP, Rutland Protest, Rutland County Council, Corruption, Police Corruption

UKIP,  Rutland Protest, Rutland County Council, Corruption, Police Corruption

European Election 2014 East Midlands Candidates, An Idependence From Europe, BNP, Tories, English Democrats, Greens, Harmony, Labour, Lib Dems, UKIP

EAST MIDLANDS Candidates 

AN INDEPENDENCE FROM EUROPE



1. Chris Pain
Harrington Lodge, Gibraltar Road,
Skegness, Lincs. PE25 3TJ

Lincolnshire county councillor Chris Pain wants striking teachers to be ... be fined £60 per child

2. Val Pain
Toft House, Eaudyke Road,
Friskney, Boston Lincs

PE22 8RT

3. Alan Jesson
33 Balmoral Avenue, Spalding,

Lincolnshire PE11 2RN

Lincolnshire County Councillor Former Ukip Councillor Alan Jesson Accused Of Racist And Homophobic Rants On Facebook http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/21/ukip-councillor-alan-jesson-facebook_n_3312256.html


4. John Beaver

18 The Rowans, Gainsborough DN21 1WH 
Lincolnshire County Councillor former UKIP

5. Carl Mason
21 Colingdale Drive, Boston, Lincolnshire
PE21 9AZ
Stood as a UKIP Candidate in 2013 for  County Councillor for Grantham East

BNP East Midlands 

6. Catherine Ann Marie Duffy 

9 Babington Road, Rothley Leics
LE7 7PB

Charnwood Borough Councillor

7. Robert Malcolm Brian West 
35 Farrow Avenue, Holbeach
Lincs PE12 7DG


Conservative Party Cllr elected South Holland District Council 2003

8. Bob Brindley 
1509 Victoria Centre, Nottingham
NG1 3PL

9. Geoffrey William Dickens 
'Pendale' Main Street, Shawell, Lutterworth
Leics LE17 6AG

10. Paul Hilliard 
12 Maple Drive, Alvaston Derby Derbyshire
DE24 0FT


Conservative Party 


11. Emma McClarkin 
26 Soar House, Welland Place, St
Mary’s Road, Market Harborough,
Leicestershire LE16 7GR

12. Andrew Iain Lewer 
Hornbeam House, Hopton,
Wirksworth, Matlock,
Derbyshire DE4 4DF

Derbyshire County Councillor

13. Rupert Oliver Matthews
8 Fir Tree Close, Epsom, Surrey
KT17 3LD

English author on the paranormal, and a Conservative Party politician.


14. Stephen John Castens 
9 Westhorpe, Ashley, Market Harborough,
Leicestershire LE16 8HQ



15. Brendan Clarke-Smith
8 Amesbury Circus,
Cinderhill, Nottingham
NG8 6DA

school teacher and long-suffering Notts County supporter


English Democrats 


16. Kevin Sills 
4 Aynsley Close, Desborough,
Northants NN14 2YD

17. David Wickham
1 Grizedale Close, Corby,
Northants NN17 2YJ

43-year-old father-of-four, has lived in Corby for many years and has worked in food manufacturing for the last two decades.

18. John Dowle
The Holt, 25 Caister Road, Market
Rasen, Lincolnshire LN8 3HY

John Dowle I would much rather Britain sink on its own, than be shackled to the EU Momster. Everyone is out to harm our beloved homeland and that includes to good old US of A. Britain had the biggest empire the world has seen, we created the modern day world and we have more history per square mile than the rest of the world combined. We were the greatest and still punch way above our weight. The other countries know this and will do anything to take this away from us! Not on my watch!



19. Oliver Healey 
Millstone Court, Millstone Lane, Leicester
LE1 5JN

Oliver Healey

Yesterday · Edited

UKIP TARGET ENGLISH DEMOCRATS
UKIP OPPOSE REPATRIATING EU NATIONALS
UKIP OPPOSE CONTROLS ON RADICAL ISLAM
UKIP OPPOSE ENGLISH JOBS FOR ENGLISH WORKERS
UKIP SUPPORT MULTICULTURALISM
UKIP OPPOSE ZERO IMMIGRATION
UKIP ARE NOT NATIONALISTS
VOTE ENGLISH DEMOCRAT MAY 22ND
SEND RADICAL ISLAMISTS HOME
ENGLISH JOBS FOR ENGLISH WORKERS
ZERO IMMIGRATION FOR 5 YEARS
UKIP IF YOU WANT TO BUT THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS FIGHT FOR YOU, 

YOUR NATION AND YOUR WAY OF LIFE

20. Terry Spencer 
Andridgh House, 160 Midland Road,
Wellingborough Northants NN8 1NG


Green Party 


21. Kat Boettge
4 Wyrale Drive, Nottingham
NG8 6NN

Psychotherapist


22. Sue Mallender 
135 Trent Boulevard, Lady
Bay, Nottingham NG2 5BN

Sue was born in Walsall in the West Midlands and came to Nottingham as a student.
She has lived in West Bridgford for 29 years.
Sue has a First Class Honours Degree and worked as a teacher for many years.
She now works as a Play Development Officer for Nottingham City Council.

Sue has two daughters, Lizzie and Alice, aged 22 and 18, and has recently married fellow Green Councillor, Richard Mallender.


23. Richard Mallender 
135 Trent Boulevard, Lady Bay,
Nottingham NG2 5BN

Richard was born in Worksop, Nottinghamshire and now lives in West Bridgford near Nottingham.

He is married to fellow Green councillor Sue, and has two step-daughters.

Richard has a degree in Computer Science from the University of Teesside. 

He also studied at post-graduate level at the University of Aberdeen.

Richard has worked in IT and telecommunications and for the Red Cross. 

He currently works for Nottingham City Council.

24. Peter Duncan Allen 
8 Slatelands Road, Glossop, SK13 6LH

25. Simon Edward Hales 
Flat 155 Cavendish Court, Cavendish Street,
Derby DE1 1UD


26. Harmony Party 

27. Steve Ward 
03/49 Cornwallis Gardens,
Hastings, East Sussex TN34 1LX


Labour Party 



28. Glenis Willmott 
Winnow Barn, 27a Main Street,
Lockington DE74 2RH

Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands since 2006 and I’m Labour’s Leader in Europe.


29. Rory Palmer 
25 Raeburn Road, Leicester
LE2 3DR

Deputy City Mayor & Cllr, Leicester City Council supportive of the work of the Labour Animal Welfare Society


30. Linda Woodings
7 Ellwood Crescent, Nottingham
NG8 1GD

Linda Woodings is the political officer for the East Midlands region of the Communication Workers Union. She has been a trade union activist for 30 years. She also negotiates nationally for call-centre workers and is a senior case-handler.

31. Khalid Hadadi 
21 Guthlaxton Street, Leicester LE2 0SF

European Affairs Manager for Channel 4 in Brussels?


32. Nicki Brooks 
71 Burton Road, Carlton, Nottingham,
NG4 3DL

Labour Gedling Borough Cllr & Chief Whip
Member of GMB
Vice-chair Gedling Constituency Labour Party
Co-operative member
Professional campaigner



Liberal Democrats 



33.Bill Newton Dunn 
10 Church Lane, Navenby, Lincoln
LN5 0EG

He is the only remaining British MEP from the first ever European  elections in 1979

34. Issan Ul-Haque Ghazni 
47 Homefield Road, Aspley,
Nottingham NG8 5GH


35. Phil Knowles 
Bream Cottage, Back Lane, East
Langton, Market Harborough,
Leicestershire LE16 7TB

Councillor - Harborough District Council


36. George Smid 
Rose Lodge, Kings Cliffe Road, Wansford,
PE8 6NU

My name is George Smid and I am a Liberal Democrat Prospective European Election Candidate. I was born in what was at that time communist Czechoslovakia. I left the country in 1981, gaining British citizenship in 1987. So I am European by birth and British by choice. This allows me to understand Europe intuitively and to promote Britain shamelessly.

37. Deborah Violet Newton-Cook 
Avenue Joseph Chaudron, 91 1160
Auderghem, Belgium



UK Independence Party (UKIP) 


38. Roger Helmer 
Ivy House Farm, Peveril Road,
Ashby Magna, Lutterworth,
Leicestershire LE17 5NG

defected from the Tories in 2012
Also The UK Independence Party chooses MEP Roger Helmer to fight the Newark parliamentary by-election next month.

39. Margot Parker 
17 Church Walk, Weldon,
Corby, Northants, NN17 3JX

UK Independence Party (UKIP). UKIP Employment Spokesman
candidate Corby by-election was a by-election held in England on 15 November 2012

40. Jonathan Deryck Bullock
2 Thomas Rippin Close,
Geddington, Northants NN14 1SF

41. Nigel Mark Wickens
11 Croft Lane, Roade, Northampton,
Northamptonshire, NN7 2QZ

42. Barry Joseph Mahoney 
10 Wentworth Way, Stoke Bruerne,
Northamptonshire NN12 7SA

Cllr Richard Gale, UKIP, Rutland County Council, Cover-ups, Lies, Avoidance, Letter

Cllr Richard Gale, UKIP, Rutland County Council, Cover-ups, Lies, Avoidance, Letter

Rutland county Council, Public Anger Increases, Joy Evenshaw, Calls For Tory, UKIP, Officers Resignations and For the Government to enforce Special Home Office Measures

In a letter to the Rutland Time another resident writes about Rutland county Council.

Public Anger Increases, Joy Evenshaw, Calls For Tory Leaders Begy & King, UKIP Councillor,
Officers Resignations and For the Government to enforce Special Home Office Measures

With the fear of arrest I must say like many other I fully agree with this letter.

If this public anger grows and the defective old Tory fools cling onto power, I can see Leicester
Magistrates court full of residents accused of harassment!

And for DS McDonald who told me I should keep out of other peoples
politics! I think your statement is more suited to you.
You don't live in Rutland, I and the many unhappy residents do.
It is our politics and this Tory mob you support is having an adverse effect on us all!

Rutland County Council, UKIP, Anti Corruption, Rutland saga timeline BBC NEWS

Rutland saga timeline BBC NEWS


UKIP Three, the former RAC Team

Cllrs Gale, Richardson, and Wainwright 

8 October 2012 - County council votes to investigate activities of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group

Date:    Monday 8 October 2012

Time:    7.00pm

Venue:  Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham

Agenda

Agenda - 8 October 2012

Reports

Report No. 202/2012 Cabinet Recommendations to Council

Report No. 202/2012 Cabinet Recommendations to Council (Appendix A)

Report No. 204/2012 Committee Recommendations to Council (Audit & Risk)

Report No. 204/2012 Committee Recommendations to Council (Link to Strategies)

Report No. 201/2012 Local Sustainable Transport Fund Bid

Minutes 

17 October 2012 - Law firm Bevan Brittan commissioned to investigate

January 2013 - Report published and advises council it could sue the three councillors and take out an injunction under the new Localism Act

10 January - Council votes to take action

Date:    Thursday 10 January 2013 

Time:    7.00pm

Venue:  Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham

Agenda - 10 January 2013

Reports

Report No. 13/2013 Independent Report - Rutland Anti-Corruption Group

Report No. 13/2013 Appendix A

Report No. 13/2013 Appendix B

Minutes - 10 January 2013

17 January - In a statement in Parliament, Lord McNally said a council could not sue, under a principle established in 1993

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): My Lords, it is now 2 pm. I have to start the proceedings as usual by saying that in the event of a Division in the House, which is extremely unlikely, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes. Before we come to the first amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has a statement to make which is not debatable.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): My Lords, at the beginning of the Committee's discussions on Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, raised an issue in relation to legal advice which had been given to Rutland County Council. It suggested that the general powers given to local authorities in Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 had overturned the bar on them suing in defamation, which was established by the House of Lords in Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers.

My officials have explored the issue with officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government, which is responsible for the 2011 Act. The Government are in no doubt that if a case were brought, the courts would still find that local authorities cannot bring action in defamation. The decision in Derbyshire was reached on public policy grounds, which we considered remain compelling. The House of Lords found that it would be contrary to the public interest for organs of government to be able to sue in defamation, and that it would be an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech. It must be borne in mind that Derbyshire was decided before the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. Consideration of Article 10 would only bolster the reasoning of the House of Lords in Derbyshire.

“The Government are in no doubt that if a case were brought, the courts would still find that local authorities cannot bring action in defamation. The decision in Derbyshire was reached on public policy grounds, which we considered remain compelling. The House of Lords found that it would be contrary to the public interest for organs of government to be able to sue in defamation, and that it would be an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech.”

June - The three councillors switch to UKIP

Three Independent Councillors to join UKIP

As three very experienced and long serving Independent Councillors on Rutland County Council we have decided to join the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) forthwith.

Councillor Richard Gale, a businessman and now farmer, is one of the longest serving Councillors on Rutland Council, having served for 18 years.

Councillor David Richardson, an ex-serving RAF Officer and fighter pilot, has been a Councillor for 10 years.

Councillor Nick Wainwright, a Building Project Manager who has overseen such projects as the build of the British Embassy in Moscow, has been a Councillor for 6 years; formerly a member of the Conservative Cabinet before becoming disillusioned with the way in which the Conservatives were running Rutland Council in the pretence of Conservatism.

In May 2011 we all stood in the election as Independents on a platform of honesty, integrity, openness and transparency along with upholding the fundamental principles of democracy, believing we should always be accountable to the electorate and were there only to serve them.

We formed an Independent Political Group on the Council, under the name of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group, to make it quite clear where we stood.  Having grave concerns in the way Rutland Council was being run, the Group asked a number of questions in line with our duty and responsibility as Councillors, especially given the number of major multi-million pound land deals; asset disposals; suspect planning approvals and the squandering of millions of pounds of grant funding.  Instead of answers we found ourselves being blocked from receiving the very basic information we are entitled to as Councillors.  As a consequence, with a growing suspicion and concern of serious fraud and corruption, this was duly reported to all appropriate authorities, including Mr Pickles Office.  Nothing was done except prevarication and a determination to ignore the basic facts and interpret law to suit.  As we pressed for due diligence and proper investigation, we found instead ourselves to be on the receiving end of accusations and a co-ordinated attack to now do nothing more than denigrate us.  A law firm, Bevan-Brittan, being employed at public expense to investigate us; a Kangaroo Court; vilification by our Local Conservative MP; along with suggestions that we had harassed Officers merely for doing nothing more than ask questions in line with our duty; being placed on a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) restricting us from communicating with the public and Council; finally a Police enquiry against us on the grounds we had supposedly harassed the ##########.  It was, in fact, ourselves being harassed for doing nothing more than asking straightforward and reasonable questions.  We are, however, determined to see democracy upheld and the truth revealed and will not be intimidated by such actions.

Having endured all of this, trying to do the best for a Country we love and are proud, a Country we believed upheld the principles of democracy, we came to recognise that as Independent Councillors we are not afforded the protection of a Political Party, this has allowed this Conservative Council to do nothing more than pillory us, whilst running a Council to suit their own end rather than that of the public.

We therefore decided to join UKIP to afford some protection and to have a Political Party supporting us in our endeavours to do nothing more than reveal the truth.  The current misuse and misappropriation of public money is an utter disgrace.

UKIP was the obvious choice, as they supported the same ideals as ourselves; those of honesty, integrity, openness and transparency, along with upholding the fundamental principles of democracy.  UKIP also does not impose a whip, thus allowing Councillors to exercise their own judgement and vote in line with the wishes of their electorate.


We believe, as does UKIP, that Local Government has to be returned to the people and must no longer rest with the bureaucrats, working too closely with Council Leaderships, bureaucrats who do nothing but use the tools of burdensome bureaucracy, created by them, to suit nothing more than their own agendas and interests and most certainly not those of the people.

29 July - Council votes to pay legal fees for officers to sue the councillors and gives the three men a week to apologise

Date: Monday 29 July 2013

Time: 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham

Agenda - 29 July 2013 (Special)

Report No. 173-2013 Update on Special Council Meeting January 10th 2013

Minutes - 29 July Minutes

August - They write to the council but do not apologise

Our ref:

Your ref: JRNI/JRN1/94586\3

5 August 2013

Bevan Brittan LLP Kings Orchard

1 Queen Street

Bristol

BS2 01-IQ

Dear Sirs,

Your Client:  Rutland County Council

Matter:         Alleged Defamation of Council Officers

I write in relation to your client's allegations of libel, and refer to your letters dated 1 and 15 July 2013.

For the avoidance of doubt, I reject any suggestion that your client has a cause of action in the tort of defamation.

Your client will therefore be well advised to immediately withdraw its instructions to you. Should your client continue its ill-conceived pursuit of me in any form, including action under the Pre-Action Protocol, it will be an abuse of its power. Should your client instigate proceedings, I shall, at the appropriate time, apply to strike out on the basis that your client has no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and/or it is an abuse of the process.

In addition, should your client continue to pursue the matter, I will consider this to be harassment as defined by Sections 1 and 2 of the Harasment Act 1997, and will take appropriate action,

I understand that your client has to date, expended approximately £42,000.00 in the matter. I consider that this is a misuse of public funds and those officers that have sanctioned the expenditure are culpable. Public funds have been used far payment for what I consider to be a private civil action.

Notwithstanding that your client has no cause of action, is abusing its powers, is acting ultra virus and is misusing public funds, I briefly comment on the contents of your letter dated 1 July 2013 in relation to the alleged defamatory remarks.

Your letter dated 1 July 2013

You have stated that your client has instructed you on behalf of "the senior officers of the Council including ################## .  You are requested to disclose all of the senior officers' names that your client purports to act on its behalf.  You are also requested to disclose your instructions. Failure to disclose either one of these requests will result in me making an application under the Freedom of Information Act and / or under Part 31.16 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

It is quite improper for your client, which will not be a party in any defamation proceedings, to withhold the names of individuals that are the complainants.

Ignoring the fact that the remarks quoted are incapable of being reconciled against any person, proper or otherwise, you have failed to:

a) Identify the actual words complained of;

b) Identify the precise factual inaccuracies or unsupportable comment within the words complained of insofar that each Claimant gives a sufficient explanation to enable me to appreciate why the words arc inaccurate or unsupportable;

c) Detail all the facts and / or matters which make each Claimant identifiable from the words complained of; and

d) Provide details of any special facts relevant to the interpretation of the words complained of and / or any particular damage caused by the words complained of.

Should any individual complainant proceed with the matter of defamation and issue a Letter of Claim, it will be mandatory for each Claimant to provide the information as set out above and detailed at paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of the Pre-Action Protocol. Indeed, to be successful a claimant must prove on balance:

a) that the publication carries a defamatory meaning;

b) that the publication does refer to the claimant; and

c) that the defendant is responsible for the publication.

In order to bring a claim for defamation therefore, each Claimant must prove that I published a defamatory statement to a third party which refers to the particular Claimant, of which the statement made other people think worse of the particular Claimant. From case law, there is no doubt that the Council officers that your client purports to act on behalf of, will be unable to adduce the requisite level of evidence to show that the alleged defamatory statement actually referred to the particular Claimant.

For the avoidance of doubt, the statement as quoted in your letter is not defamatory, nor does it identify any person or class of person, and thus it is impossible for any individual of the Council to have been defamed in a way that would lower him or her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society at large. The combined statement is nothing but public criticism of Rutland County Council, made in the context of an honest comment.

It is clear to me that your letter is fundamentally deficient in substance and cause. Your letter is no more than a thinly disguised attempt to bring illegitimate pressure onto me in order to restrain my freedom of speech which is contrary to section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I look forward to receiving the information requested.

Yours faithfully,

Also August

 “The Derbyshire principle is clear that local authorities cannot bring libel or defamation actions.  

Democratic bodies should be open to public criticism, within the law. 

Whilst I make no comment on the nature of allegations, I believe it is totally inappropriate for private defamation actions to be funded by council taxpayers’ money, given the clear Derbyshire principle"

*******************Brandon Lewis MP Member of Parliament for Great Yarmouth

The BBC leave out how the Councillors have been harassed in a similar manner as I have by
Leicestershire Police. But that is covered in the Councillors Statement shown above.

KPMG, Audit Report, Corby Council’s, management, Corby Cube, Oakham Enterprise Park, Progress Report, Cllr, D. Richardson, UKIP

In June of this year KPMG issued an Audit Report on Corby Council’s project management of the Corby Cube. Some of the findings were that:

• There was insufficient member oversight at critical periods of the schemes

• Where established governance arrangements and internal controls did exist they often did not operate as they should have done

• Financial and project management of the schemes was poor

 

We have, time and again, emphasised how it is essential that Rutland Councillors take a keen and deep interest in all projects, seeking and reviewing all the facts, especially the financial detail and implications, since it is we, as Councillors, that have to approve such expenditure in light of all those facts and ultimately be held accountable.

So take for example: On the 20th June 2013, given that there was a “Oakham Enterprise Park Progress Report” in the Places Scrutiny Meeting that night, I duly sent the following email requesting information:

Dear ………………,

The Places Scrutiny Meeting tonight is considering Report 154/2013, Oakham Enterprise Park Progress Report.

I note there is no financial report or detail, which I would have considered one of the most important aspects of the project, especially given the recent criticism this week of Corby Council by its auditors, KPMG, in which I understand they were highly critical of Councillors for not being diligent enough in checking the financial situation and progress of several projects.

In the Risk Management section of the Report it notes the risk for Finance as “High”, I would therefore expect a constant financial update in Reports. Would you be good enough to send a full breakdown of the finance for this project, outlining all costs and income to date. Would it also be possible to do this showing progress against the original Business Plan.

Many thanks.

Yours sincerely,

Councillor D.Richardson

This is the reply I received from the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) (Note: as a consequence I have no idea who sent this):

“The project is being managed within the project budget and business plan expenditure forecasts/income projections as set out in previous report to Cabinet (25/9/12, Report 182/2013) as delegated by Council (Report 14/5/12, Report.98/2012).”

We are willing to hear from anyone who finds this acceptable, since your Conservative Councillors do. No information or detail whatsoever has been provided. To be merely told that all is being “managed within the project budget” of some 9 months previous, for which we have had no interim Report, is, in our opinion, unacceptable. At the very least one would expect a detailed Monthly financial update made available to all Councillors and, as far as we are concerned, also published on the Council website for the public.

However, the Business Plan in Report 182/2013 referred to, was nothing more than a mere half side of A4. No Bank Manager, or anyone else for that matter, would accept such a scant Business Plan, with no detailed breakdown whatsoever. Furthermore, this Report, in our opinion, should never have been exempt; this is public money, your Council Tax and you have a right to know how they plan to spend it. Worse still, the Business Plan had changed significantly from the one of only 5 months previous referred to of May 2012, with Income suddenly over £1M more and Capital Financing costs nearly £1M more, with no detailed breakdown for such a substantial change. Yet Conservative Councillors once again blindly approved this without question.  (That Capital Financing cost will impact on your Council Tax)

We feel it is totally unacceptable that we be treated in this manner as your representative, not providing information when requested, when all we are trying to ensure is that your money is spent to best effect. It is essential we are fully informed and have detailed breakdowns of finance in any project. We do not want Rutland Council to be on the receiving end of a KPMG report which states:

“There was insufficient member oversight at critical periods of the schemes”

However, that oversight can only be provided if that information is forthcoming.

It will be interesting to see how Rutland Council’s Auditors view this?  Especially given their Report below:

Detail of the Corby KPMG Report:

Auditors raise concerns over Corby Borough Council’s regeneration management arrangements

KPMG LLP, the appointed auditors of Corby Borough Council, have issued a public interest report which highlights flaws in the Council’s arrangements for managing significant capital regeneration projects. These are the Cube civic offices, Kingswood estate developments, improvements to the Rockingham Triangle sports complex and the sale of land in the St James area of the town.

The three construction projects involved over £67 million over the last 6 years and whilst all of them involved other organisations the Council has played the major role in managing the projects and bearing related risks. The Council sold the land at St James in 2010 for £3.8 million. During this period the Council has had limited usable revenue reserves over its designated minimum balance of £0.8 million and its external borrowing increased from nil to a high point of £47 million in 2011/12.

The report acknowledges the very real benefits that the regeneration projects have brought to the residents of Corby and the surrounding areas, that external borrowing has since reduced to £36 million and that the Council is starting to take action on the reported weaknesses. However, KPMG found that:

· the Council’s arrangements for managing the projects were ambiguous and ill defined leading to uncertainty as to who should have made key decisions

· There was insufficient member oversight at critical periods of the schemes

· Where established governance arrangements and internal controls did exist they often did not operate as they should have done

· Financial and project management of the schemes was poor

· On the face of it the land at St James was sold for considerably less than best consideration without getting the requisite statutory approval to do so 

· This was compounded because the checks and balances, including the statutory responsibilities of key officers, which should have alerted the Council to the failings, did not operate

The auditors conclude that these have meant that the Council:

· may have breached its statutory obligations and made decisions and against its own internal policies and procedures;

· has exposed itself to greater risk than it needed to have done; and

· would have been in a better position to respond to the significant financial challenges currently facing the Council if the failings had not existed.

The report makes 18 recommendations for the Council to consider covering governance, statutory obligations, Council policy and procedure, financial and project management, use of professional advice and actions of senior officers.

KPMG’s audit director Neil Bellamy said: ‘There is no doubting the very real benefits to Corby residents from the regeneration projects considered in this report. However, these were at the expense of good corporate and financial governance. We found that decision making arrangements were unclear, and that there were significant failings in the design and operation of the Council’s governance arrangements. Together these led to the Council making decisions when it was not fully aware of the financial impact they would have, exposing it to unnecessary and significant financial risk, and which led to a likely breach of its statutory obligations. In our view these placed it in a weaker position from which to address the current financial challenges it faces.

“On top of this it is disappointing that the ‘failsafe’ statutory responsibilities of key senior officers did not operate as they should have done, which would have brought these failings to light sooner.

“It is imperative that the Council learns from the above and that officers and members work together to strengthen governance arrangements and establish and embed a culture and environment where the arrangements operate as they were intended.”

The report will be considered at a meeting of the Council in early July, to be held in public, when the Council will provide a response to the points raised.  The Council will confirm the date shortly.

Copies of the report are available from Corby Borough Council or from the Audit Commission website at 

www.audit-commission.gov.uk/corbypir

Rutland County Council, Special Meeting, 29th July, Minutes, UKIP, Legal Action

Rutland County Council
Catmose Oakham Rutland LE15 6HP

Telephone 01572 722577 Facsimile 01572 758307 DX 28340 Oakham
Minutes of the TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY SIXTH (Special) MEETING of the
COUNCIL held in the Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham on Monday 29 July 2013 at
7.00 pm.

PRESENT: Mr M E Baines (Vice-Chairman) – in the Chair

Mr R B Begy OBE
Mr J M Lammie
Mr K A Bool
Mr J R Munton
Mrs C J Cartwright
Mr C A Parsons
Mr G J Conde
Mr G Plews
Mr W Cross
Mr M D A Pocock
Mr J T Dale
Mr D L Richardson
Mrs C Emmett
Miss G Waller
Mr R J Gale
Mr A S Walters
Mr D C Hollis
Mr M R Woodcock
Mr T C King

OFFICERS

Ms C Chambers Deputy Chief Executive and Strategic Director for
People

PRESENT: Mrs H Edwards Interim Monitoring Officer

Miss M Gamston Democratic Services Officer

Mr C Jones Strategic Communications Advisor

APOLOGIES:

Mrs J K Figgis,
Mr B A Montgomery,
Mr M A Oxley,
Mrs L I Stephenson,
Mrs C L Vernon,
Mr N M Wainwright.

219 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Chairman reminded all present that this was a meeting open to the public
not a public meeting and that only Members to speak.

220 ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE LEADER, MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
AND THE HEAD OF THE PAID SERVICE

No announcements were received from the Leader, Members of the Cabinet or
the Head of the Paid Service.

221 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS
Mr Gale and Mr Richardson declared that they had “a personal and prejudicial
interest”, as they were mentioned in the report.

Mr Gale and Mr Richardson informed the Chair that they would not remain for
the rest of the meeting.

7.02 pm Mr Gale and Mr Richardson left the meeting.

DEPUTATIONS AND QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC
Thee following deputation
and questions from members of the public were received.
Questions received from Ms Helen Pender, Oakham

Due to political interference by Leicestershire Police I can not publish the deputations,
questions or most of the minutes because they mention a employee of the council, 
even though this is a published public document. 

DS McDonald accuses me in his statement of effecting their political standing nationally and within the Conservative party?

(I am sure there is a law that prevents paid council staff being political involved, rather like the one that is meant to apply to our fine police force.)

For the full minutes of the meeting please click here 

Councillor Gale, Councillor Richardson and Councillor Wainwright, UKIP, Rutland County Council, Leicestershire Police Harassment

Today the Three UKIP Councillor on Rutland  County Councillor sent the following letter to all Rutland County Councillors. I fully support their complaint of harassment by the local Tory Police. Ds McDonald had the cheek to tell me all I am enduring is a test case. I hope he and Leicestershire police get plenty of egg on their face when the district Judge gets to hear my case.  

We have today sent the following statement to Rutland Councillors advising them that we have now joined UKIP and why.  You will also note that we outline the fact that, as far as we are concerned, it is us that are being harassed and intimidated from doing our duty as Councillors and we make it quite clear we are no longer prepared to accept this, as it is severely restricting us from properly representing the people of Rutland.

Dear Fellow Councillors,

We write to notify all Members that the members of the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group, Councillor Gale, Councillor Richardson and Councillor Wainwright, have now joined the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP.

You may have seen the recent Press statement as to why we joined UKIP, which was mainly on the grounds that UKIP support the same ideals as ourselves, those of openness, transparency, honesty, integrity and supporting the fundamental principles of democracy, all of which, as far as we are concerned, have sadly been lost in Rutland.  UKIP also stated they liked our tag of Anti-Corruption as it represented the very platform they come from, they, like us, see it as nothing more than a statement of what we stand for.  UKIP are also adamant that the whip will never be held over UKIP Councillors and that all Councillors are there first and foremost to represent their electorate, not those of self or Party interest, which we found very encouraging.

We also feel we should make you are aware of the recent lengths that have been taken to effectively harass us from doing nothing more than our duty as Councillors for our electorate, most recently this involved a complaint of harassment against Councillor Gale to the Police.  This complaint resulted in Councillor Gale being called to the Local Police Station for an interview,  which involved three Detectives, for 3 hours.  They concluded there was no evidence to take the matter any further.  We believe this has merely served to waste extensive Police time and resources.  The continued harassment of us has been further exacerbated with a letter from the Police, sent separately to all three of us, effectively warning us from going about our business as Councillors and which would then restrict us from carrying out our duty in a free and unrestrained manner.  However, we are not prepared to accept this type of intimidation.  This latest letter from the Police is factually incorrect and, as far as we are concerned, has been written without a full and proper investigation of those facts resulting in very much a one-sided statement, yet again it implies we are guilty without evidence, trial or jury, we would have expected better from the Police, this we now believe to be nothing more than clear harassment and intimidation against us.  This was a further reason we made the decision, after much deliberation and consultation with others, to join UKIP in order to be afforded the proper political support which we found so sadly lacking before as Independents.  We attach a copy of the recent letter we received from the Police to indicate what we are having to endure. (to be published separetely)

Yours sincerely,

Councillor Gale, Councillor Richardson, Councillor Wainwright

Mr Baker UKIP Rutland and Melton Candidate

Mr Baker UKIP Rutland and Melton Candidate Chats to shopper in Oakham Market Place