|
Post by Bartonite on Apr 24, 2015 10:32:03 GMT
I'm concerned that UKIP in Gloucester have been as lacklustre about tackling local issues as the other parties, ignoring the advice of Farage, and that thry will consequently only pick up enough votes to keep Labour from winning (Nadering Sophy Gardner).
|
|
|
Post by MM on Apr 24, 2015 14:39:34 GMT
If it keeps Labour out then that seals the deal for me.
|
|
|
Post by Bartonite on Aug 13, 2015 12:31:41 GMT
I've finally made a complaint to the city council about the candidate suspension controversy, or rather, asked for an investigation. It's up to them to respond, now, but I cc'd the Citizen as well, and Private Eye too, since this kind of thing is bread and butter to them.
|
|
|
Post by Bartonite on Aug 17, 2015 19:39:29 GMT
Martin Shields, returning officer, unsurprisingly wasn't interested, so... To Force.ControlRoom@gloucestershire.pnn.police.uk, today: Cheers, then. Note that everything I know about this is public knowledge, and widely reported by The Citizen and other newspapers, so questions should be directed at the individuals involved, such as the candidates and councillors in charge of the constituency parties concerned, and the council itself. Whether they provide satisfactorily clear and detailed answers, and therefore any hope of a prosecution, is another matter. The individual who posted the following comment on my board did so anonymously, so only the candidates can be quizzed as to the veracity of the allegation: 'I don't this (sic) to be true as Richard is very close with Sajid but a Conspiracy theory I heard was Ali knew he wasn't going to stand. He is friends with Sajid Patel, he took one for the team so to speak and this is nothing to do with party but all to do with friendship and keeping a friends seat safe.' Read more: glospolitics.freeforums.net/thread/42/party-sites-censorship?page=1#ixzz3j4umg1wiJoe Kilker -----Original Message----- From: Force Control Room <Force.ControlRoom@gloucestershire.pnn.police.uk> To: 'starredark@aol.com' <starredark@aol.com> Sent: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 14:11 Subject: RE: WJ Candidate fraud allegations from last May's elections Good Afternoon Mr Kilker, Incident 218 17/08/15 has been created in relation to this e-mail and has been passed to our incident assessment unit who will be in contact. Regards Force Control Room + Tri-Service Emergency Control Centre, Waterwells Drive Quedgeley, Glos GL2 2BP. ( 101 8 www.gloucestershire.police.uk Twitter page Facebook page Please be aware that all calls to the Contact Management Department are recorded From: starredark@aol.com [mailto:starredark@aol.com] Sent: 17 August 2015 13:49 To: Force Control Room; Wendy.Jones@gloucester.gov.uk; HeretoHelp@gloucester.gov.uk; Kate.Haigh@gloucester.gov.uk; paul.james@gloucester.gov.uk; jeremy.hilton@gloucestershire.gov.uk Cc: strobes@private-eye.co.uk; citizen.news@glosmedia.co.uk Subject: Re: WJ Candidate fraud allegations from last May's elections Hi, Consider this brought to the attention of the police, then. They will probably be contacting the council for details, as well as acknowledging receipt of this email. Joe Kilker PS and I never would have expected much from Martin Shields, anyway. -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Jones <Wendy.Jones@gloucester.gov.uk> To: starredark <starredark@aol.com>; Here to Help <HeretoHelp@gloucester.gov.uk>; Kate Haigh <Kate.Haigh@gloucester.gov.uk>; Paul James <paul.james@gloucester.gov.uk>; Jeremy Hilton <jeremy.hilton@gloucestershire.gov.uk> CC: strobes <strobes@private-eye.co.uk>; citizen.news <citizen.news@glosmedia.co.uk> Sent: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:49 Subject: RE: WJ Candidate fraud allegations from last May's elections Dear Mr Kilker Thank you for your email to Gloucester City Councils contact centre. Martin Shields in his capacity as Returning Officer for the local elections in May 2015, advises that any allegations of electoral offences must be reported to the Police. Neither he nor the Council has the power to investigate such matters. We do however thank you for bringing this to our attention. By way of explanation, from the Returning Officer’s perspective, Mr Ali was a validly nominated Labour Party candidate when the deadline for withdrawals passed and as such remained on the ballot paper. Candidate selection processes are a matter for individual political parties. Sorry we could not assist further with this matter. Wendy Jones Contact Centre & Customer Services Service Manager
|
|
|
Post by Bartonite on Aug 18, 2015 14:26:26 GMT
It's ongoing. Just sent... No, I'm actually quite jaded about local politics, and the capability/willingness of the police to become involved when someone raises the prospect of wrongdoing. This will probably be the last time I ever make the effort to highlight circumstances no-one else is willing to touch. It depends on the decision your consideration leads to. I would cc this to the Police & Crime Commissioner as well, but despite claims to the contrary, I would only receive an automated acknowledgement, never a proper answer, by human hand, to any querying of poor performance in the constabulary. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/non_responses_by_the_pccs_office#incoming-606379Joe Kilker -----Original Message----- From: Ginn, Ian <Ian.Ginn@gloucestershire.pnn.police.uk> To: 'starredark@aol.com' <starredark@aol.com> Sent: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:09 Subject: RE: WJ Candidate fraud allegations from last May's elections Dear Mr Kilker, I am going to gather the available information in order to consider whether any offences may have taken place. After I have considered this, I will be in a position to decide whether to formally investigate or not. You are obviously very passionate about this matter, but I would ask that you contain your enthusiasm until I have had the opportunity to conclude my considerations. To that end, I will as stated previously, respond further to you by the 1st of September with the outcome. Yours Sincerely Ian Ginn Detective Inspector Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Prism House c/o Gloucestershire Police Headquarters No.1 Waterwells Waterwells Drive Quedgeley Gloucestershire GL2 2AN Force Control Room 101 www.gloucestershire.police.ukTwitter page Facebook page From: starredark@aol.com [mailto:starredark@aol.com] Sent: 18 August 2015 12:30 To: Ginn, Ian Cc: Wendy.Jones@gloucester.gov.uk; HeretoHelp@gloucester.gov.uk; Kate.Haigh@gloucester.gov.uk; paul.james@gloucester.gov.uk; jeremy.hilton@gloucestershire.gov.uk; strobes@private-eye.co.uk; citizen.news@glosmedia.co.uk; ben.falconer@glosmedia.co.uk Subject: Re: WJ Candidate fraud allegations from last May's elections Thank you. But are you going to just 'consider' the allegations (which aren't all mine, my input is chiefly questions which other people have strangely failed to ask, particularly the local media), or are you going to investigate them? A Conservative candidate was allowed to coast to victory in Barton & Tredworth, despite the subsequent voting suggesting that the candidate selected by Labour would've won, with their continuing endorsement*, because no-one had been told about an investigation into the Labour candidate that started months earlier, and it was only revealed that he had been disqualified from running businesses, and therefore supposedly ineligible to stand for election (although he did stand) after the deadline had passed for Labour to change candidates. The timing of this revelation is therefore suspect. Given that Ismail Ali's name did remain on the ballot paper, this suggests that his disqualification was only a problem for the Gloucester Labour party, and not the council. Consequently, given how well Ali did without endorsement from Labour, that party effectively handed victory to the Conservatives, instead of taking the seat first, and taking disciplinary action (and mandating a by-election?) against Ali later. Labour may have been concerned about fielding a compromised candidate. That, also, seems to have played into somebody else's hands. I'd say that was something that needs investigation, not consideration, and I'm not sure, given how slowly investigations seem to take place (one I've asked the Charity Commission to conduct into the still existing Barton & Tredworth Community Trust has been taking months, and they would probably be reluctant to even call it an investigation, given that they've sat on their hands for two or three years prior to that), that barely two weeks will be long enough. Joe Kilker *unless anyone thinks he did better without the endorsement? -----Original Message----- From: Ginn, Ian <Ian.Ginn@gloucestershire.pnn.police.uk> To: 'starredark@aol.com' <starredark@aol.com> Sent: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 11:14 Subject: FW: WJ Candidate fraud allegations from last May's elections Dear Mr Kilker, Your email has been forwarded to me as the Single Point of Contact for Electoral Malpractice allegations. I will consider your allegations and respond to you accordingly by the 1st of September. Yours Sincerely Ian Ginn Detective Inspector Criminal Investigations Department (CID) Prism House c/o Gloucestershire Police Headquarters No.1 Waterwells Waterwells Drive Quedgeley Gloucestershire GL2 2AN Force Control Room 101 www.gloucestershire.police.ukTwitter page Facebook page From: Force Control Room Sent: 17 August 2015 16:16 To: Ginn, Ian Subject: FW: WJ Candidate fraud allegations from last May's elections From: starredark@aol.com [mailto:starredark@aol.com] Sent: 17 August 2015 13:49 To: Force Control Room; [my previous post, forwarded]
|
|
|
Post by Bartonite on Aug 20, 2015 4:02:01 GMT
I posted this saved email elsewhere, and it seems to have disappeared. I can keep re-posting it, until someone gives me a reason why it should be deleted (as I don't see a PM from Proboards notifying me of any ToS violations): Saj Patel: To Jim DANIELS, <philip.staddon@gloucester.gov.uk>, <heather.clarke@gloucester.gov.uk>, TIFFNEY, Daniel, <hassanvaizie@hotmail.co.uk>, Paul James, sajid patel, gordon barrington From: sajid patel (saj1patel@hotmail.com) du112w.dub112.mail.live.com/mail/#Sent: 08 February 2011 21:39:09 To: Jim DANIELS (Jim.Daniels@Gloucestershire.gov.uk) Cc: <philip.staddon@gloucester.gov.uk> (philip.staddon@gloucester.gov.uk); <heather.clarke@gloucester.gov.uk> (heather.clarke@gloucester.gov.uk); TIFFNEY, Daniel (Daniel.Tiffney@gloucestershire.gov.uk); <hassanvaizie@hotmail.co.uk> (hassanvaizie@hotmail.co.uk); Paul James (paul.james@gloucester.gov.uk); sajid patel (saj1patel@hotmail.com); gordon barrington (bartredchair2010@hotmail.co.uk) Good evening Jim, From the streets I am aware of, I see there are still some of the warning signs up in Archibald, Midland, Regent, Brook and All Saints Rd even though the review has not been completed in these streets. You said in your email on Friday that they would be removed early this week, but there are still some signs up and tomorrow is going to be midweek (Wednesday). We will happily take these down ourselves if you cannot be bothered to do get this sorted. The bottom line is that these warning signs should never have gone up in these streets in the first place and is just another example of incompetence. Also, you have still not completed the work in Hopewell St and Alfred St in reducing syl & dyl's even though the review has apparently been completed in these streets according to your incorrect records. It would help if you actually bothered to go and check if the works have been completed before putting up the enforcement warning signs, as you agreed you would at the meeting in Nov 2010. You also agreed the following at that meeting... "City Council to UNDERTAKE VERY LIGHT TOUCH ENFORCEMENT ACROSS B&T AREA for first few months until Phase 4 is in place."You have truly gone back on your word on what was agreed at the meeting we attended with yourself, Paul James and Phil Staddon in November 2010. You say one thing and do another when it suits you. We are saddened to say that we cannot trust you anymore as you are a liar, cannot be trusted and lack certain principles. You are obviously not a man of your word. Over time we have noticed that you have never ever put your hands up and admitted when you have been in the wrong, and just fobbed us with excuse after excuse for delays etc. In your reply to us on the 4th Feb, you also stated "I must stress that the increase in numbers is intended to raise their visibility and allow for easier dialogue – it is not intended to be a ‘heavy handed’ approach to enforcement"As per your above statement (another lie) can you now please explain and justify the following.... Today in Sinope St (a residential street), a whole row of approx 15+ vehicles were ticketed because there is a ridiculous and unnecessary '1 hour only waiting' which not many people were aware of, including us. There is absolutely no need for this restriction to be there as people live in this street and they do not want this restriction. We demand this restriction and the signs are removed immediately. Are these signs still even legally enforceable? For the record, these vehicles were not parked on yellow lines and were not parked on the pavement either. As far as we were aware from day one, the whole purpose of the parking restriction review in B&T was to create additional parking and at the same time, remove stupid illogical and unnecessary restrictions such as these which serve no purpose for the residents. The only purpose these sort of restrictions serve is to make money for the council and the private enforcement company and make life hell for residents. Where on earth do you expect people living in this street to go and park their vehicles in the daytime? You really need to apply some common sense here. As part of the review, it seems that you have not carried out a thorough review even though it's taken your dept over 2 years to do this. This can only be deemed to be incompetent and disgraceful. There is also a unnecessary 'no loading sign' restriction in All Saints Rd near the Barton St corner which I noticed today that needs to be removed asap as well. Otherwise the wardens will come to sinope st and all saints rd and lie in wait to unfairly ticket vehicles every single day. This is exactly the sort of unjust situation we didn't want to see, hence the demand by us for the review in July 2008. For your info, the same situation as Sinope St arose in June 2008 in High St when we were collecting signatures for our 1500+ signed petition, and back then we got the ridiculous unnecessary 1 hour waiting signs removed immediately thanks to Nick Peters and Philip Williams who took a common sense, understanding and reasonable approach. We hope you can apply the same principles in Sinope St, All Saints Rd, and any other streets where these stupid and unnecessary restrictions may be in B&T. I urge you to work in partnership with us, not against us. Regards Sajid Patel On behalf of Barton & Tredworth Neighbourhood Partnership On 4 Feb 2011, at 11:04, sajid patel < saj1patel@hotmail.com> wrote: Hi Jim, Thanks for your reply. May I remind you of our agreement in the meeting in Nov with Phil Staddon and Paul James present. The following was agreed:- "City Council to UNDERTAKE VERY LIGHT TOUCH ENFORCEMENT ACROSS B&T AREA for first few months until Phase 4 is in place." It seems you are now going back on your word. Can you explain why? Regards Saj
|
|
|
Post by Bartonite on Dec 11, 2015 12:04:02 GMT
Ian Ginn finally gave his verdict some two month late, on November 24th:
Dear Mr Kilker,
The law is very specific in respect of describing the occasions when individuals will not be eligible to stand as candidates for elections generally and, in this case, for local elections.
I have now had the opportunity to review the facts of this matter and can update you that no electoral offences have been committed in the circumstances presented in relation to Mr Ali’s candidacy.
I have also consulted with the Force Solicitor regarding this matter and he has reached the same conclusion.
I would expect any political party accepting a candidate to represent it, to have conducted due diligence checks regarding that individual to ensure that they are happy, as a party, to have such individual representing them. The decision to accept a candidate is one for the relevant political party and not a matter for the police.
I realise that this is not the conclusion that you sought, but from a policing perspective, I now consider this matter closed.
Yours Sincerely
Ian Ginn CMgr MCMI
Detective Inspector 1834
Criminal Investigations Department (CID)
Prism House
c/o Gloucestershire Police Headquarters
No.1 Waterwells
Waterwells Drive
Quedgeley
He can 'realise' what he wants about the conclusion I 'sought', though disappointment at the police's lack of stringency in investigating anything is a given. That I raised this as an issue, when nobody else would, is good enough for me. I'm sure the issue will be a talking point at the next local elections for city councillors.
|
|
|
Post by Bartonite on Dec 11, 2015 12:16:38 GMT
I posted this below the story about this in the Gloucester Review, Party backing withdrawn for city council Labour candidate (it hasn't appeared yet, and may not for a while. Their 'short pause' to scan seems to be a very long one): 'Fact is, if Gloucester Labour let it go this far without proper checks, they don't deserve to be elected in ANY seat.' Perhaps I'm being unfair, though. If Labour had asked about such checks, would being banned as a company director actually be grounds for rejecting someone as a candidate for a council seat? If not, would it be a relevent question to ask? A better question might be, how did this go unnoticed for months, and then suddenly, just when it was too late for Labour to do anything about it, it's brought to light? Who was the helpful individual who pointed it out just now? Not the nice Mr Graham, of course, but there are others who aren't quite so charming. Way back in 2005/2006, Tarren Randle, for example, asked me, in the playground of Hatherley Infants School, to keep an eye out for any evidence of profligate spending by then councillor Carol Francis and her husband, council worker Derrick. She seemed to think they were taking very expensive holidays for what their income was, but this way of dealing with such suspicions strikes me as indicative of the Tory modus operandi... That link is now dead, by the way. I have a pretty low opinion of the Review, it's only good for kindling and pet bedding, really.
|
|
|
Post by Bartonite on Dec 16, 2015 10:11:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tredworthy on Dec 19, 2015 15:03:00 GMT
Have you seen the new story about Ismail Ali in the Gloucester Review online? I presume that it is also in the latest paper copy, which I haven't seen. The Citizen hasn't picked it up yet. Ismail Ali is now working for GARAS - presumably so that he can have first pick of the vulnerable asylum seekers! The Review isn't allowing comments...
|
|
|
Post by Eddddy on Dec 19, 2015 20:24:30 GMT
I wonder why Kay
|
|
|
Post by Bartonite on Dec 20, 2015 20:19:37 GMT
The Review has never really been a newspaper, even less so now that it no longer permits comments below the articles, and has given up the pretence that it will ever have a letters page.
That said, and while allowing that there is something typically shady about a left-leaning organisation like GARAS throwing Ali a bone, it's funny watching UKIP supposedly having conniptions about this issue, and not the allegations about Ali's friendship with Sajid Patel. How has the news of the new job 'emerged', I wonder? Is there another sting in the offing?
If I was really suspicious, I'd wonder if Labour councillors Usman Bhaimia and Ahmed/Said Hansdot wanted Patel to win as well. Politics in Barton & Tredworth don't necessarily follow party lines, but rather influential cliques.
|
|
|
Post by Tredworthy on Dec 21, 2015 21:24:27 GMT
Interestingly, the Gloucester Review did actually publish a letter (for the first and only time, I think) some weeks ago. No explanation. I do wonder if it might be worth writing to them, asking to have a letter published.
|
|
|
Post by Bartonite on Dec 22, 2015 10:32:20 GMT
Worth considering. The only time I've emailed them was, IIRC, to ask why the online comments I tried to post were not appearing. That's a moot point now.
|
|