Pembrokeshire County Council leader responds to special Western Telegraph P1 comment

Western Telegraph: Pembrokeshire County Council leader responds to special Western Telegraph P1 comment Pembrokeshire County Council leader responds to special Western Telegraph P1 comment

Last week, the Western Telegraph ran a special front page comment about the scenes at Pembrokeshire County Council when a bid to have chief executive Bryn Parry-Jones suspended failed.

The comment was run under the headline 'A mockery of democracy'.

It can be read in full by clicking here.

Council leader Jamie Adams requested a right of reply, which is printed below in full:

"Last Wednesday, the Western Telegraph ran a front page ‘special comment’ prepared by News Editor, Lee Day. I requested a right to reply to his piece and am grateful to the Western Telegraph for agreeing to its publication.

"Two weeks ago, the Council met to consider the Public Interest Report concerning the pension arrangements of senior staff. During the meeting, I set out the background to the decision taken in September 2011. This background is critical; it is of significant concern to me that a number of commentators still seem to be ignoring the facts, choosing instead to hide behind salacious headlines.

"The pension decision – which affected all senior staff of the Council, not just the Chief Executive – was prompted by a letter from the Manager of the Dyfed Pension Fund concerning changes to local government pension arrangements. As a responsible employer, and with the implications of the changes on our ability to retain and recruit senior staff in mind, the cross-party Senior Staff Committee addressed the issue. We voted, unanimously, to allow senior staff to opt to receive the employer’s pension contribution directly (to be taxed as salary in the normal way) instead of the tax-free contributions which they would have received previously.

"Some two years after this decision was taken, Wales Audit Office raised concerns about its lawfulness. The Auditor’s concerns were based on his belief that there were a number of procedural flaws in the process followed by the Council. One of the suggested flaws was the presence of the Chief Executive and Head of Human Resources when the original decision was taken. Our legal advice on this matter is quite clear; the presence of the officers concerned was in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972. I and the four other current Members of the Council who took that decision have all previously written to the Auditor confirming that neither officer took any part in this discussion. At our Council Meeting two weeks ago, the Auditor confirmed that the difference in legal opinion between his adviser and the Council’s QC was perfectly acceptable. Consequently, I moved a motion, which the Council approved, that the Auditor’s recommendations were accepted. No Councillors voted against my proposal.

"The second issue discussed at our Council meeting was a motion to take disciplinary action against the Chief Executive. As many readers will be aware, a number of Councillors had previously made comments to the press concerning the Chief Executive’s position. Quite properly, Councillors were advised to consider whether or not these statements could be interpreted as pre-determined bias in the matter they were now being asked to consider (pre-determination is prohibited under the Councillors’ Code of Conduct). A number of Councillors reflected on this advice and opted to leave the Council Chamber. It was their choice and theirs alone; nobody was instructed to leave or prevented from speaking.

"Last week’s commentary on this issue by Mr Day was particularly misleading. Providing correct advice to Councillors does not undermine democracy. I find myself in the novel position of having to agree with Cllr Mike Stoddart who, also in last week’s Western Telegraph, was quoted as follows: “Having been advised by a leading QC that we should declare an interest and leave the meeting, those of us who had expressed an opinion were in a difficult position. Not only were we risking breaching the Code of Conduct, but there was also the possibility that any decision taken would be open to legal challenge because of our presence. Had that come about there could have been a claim for compensation that might have cost the taxpayer an awful lot of money”.

"Cllr Stoddart is quite right. The truth of the matter is that all Councillors are trained in the rules concerning pre-determination and bias. Members on all sides of the Chamber should have known better than to respond to the press in such unequivocal terms. What saddens me most, however, is the fact that when a number of Members were approached, the biased and personal nature of their antipathy towards a senior member of staff was such that they simply couldn’t help themselves.

"As for the manner in which some of my colleagues have sought to sensationalise the use of an envelope to seek guidance from and provide information to the Council’s legal adviser, I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions. This was not some underhand tactic. Suffice it to say that the last time I sent a letter to one of my constituents, I have to admit it was in an envelope."

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:07pm Fri 28 Feb 14

PembrokeshireMan says...

What a lickspittle.
What a lickspittle. PembrokeshireMan
  • Score: 17

7:41pm Fri 28 Feb 14

malcolm calver says...

So someone who could possible benefit from the decisions being taken at a council meeting is entitled stay in the meeting,.according to the leading light at County Hall Cllr Jamie Adams
The next thing you will ask us to believe Jamie is that accurate minutes would have been taken and also we have shy and retiring officers.
There must be one rule for councillors and another for employees. When I was a councillor we were advised admittedly by Laurence Harding that you must leave because you could influence the decision by just being present.
So someone who could possible benefit from the decisions being taken at a council meeting is entitled stay in the meeting,.according to the leading light at County Hall Cllr Jamie Adams The next thing you will ask us to believe Jamie is that accurate minutes would have been taken and also we have shy and retiring officers. There must be one rule for councillors and another for employees. When I was a councillor we were advised admittedly by Laurence Harding that you must leave because you could influence the decision by just being present. malcolm calver
  • Score: 37

7:45pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Doc Malik says...

Cowards. You should have stood behind your story and your news editor
Cowards. You should have stood behind your story and your news editor Doc Malik
  • Score: 20

8:14pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Indepedant says...

Luckily he actually comes off worse after reading this. Perhaps it's a cunning double bluff by the WT......one hopes.
Luckily he actually comes off worse after reading this. Perhaps it's a cunning double bluff by the WT......one hopes. Indepedant
  • Score: 30

8:45pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Maxboycey says...

What is Cllr Adams' take on the definition of a "public meeting in the CX office" I wonder? For that matter what is Bryns? Totally Underhand from the outset. Also, this statement comes from a man who admits " poor book keeping" previously by forgetting to claim four years worth of expenses. This whole argument is about one thing - saving Bryns bacon, saving their own and not giving the public of Pembrokeshire the respect and they deserve. What do they take us for? We're not the idiots they think we are that's for sure.
What is Cllr Adams' take on the definition of a "public meeting in the CX office" I wonder? For that matter what is Bryns? Totally Underhand from the outset. Also, this statement comes from a man who admits " poor book keeping" previously by forgetting to claim four years worth of expenses. This whole argument is about one thing - saving Bryns bacon, saving their own and not giving the public of Pembrokeshire the respect and they deserve. What do they take us for? We're not the idiots they think we are that's for sure. Maxboycey
  • Score: 33

9:28pm Fri 28 Feb 14

sammychips says...

Oh dear what a hole have you dug now Jamie not only are you still supporting BJP you are using the press to do it and therefore you have lost your right to vote,between you and Huw George you have hung yourselves ,ie Huw actually did it on S4C and you have done it in the WT twice and you call yourself a competent leader and the real report issued by Carmarthenshire's council,proves what blatant liars you really are and you even paid for the QC to come down and sit in your debacle of a meeting when knowingly he had already told you it was 50/50 whether you could defend your unlawful decision of pension payments ,how much did that cost us ? when are the auditors going to come in and investigate everything,when are the police going to investigate
Oh dear what a hole have you dug now Jamie not only are you still supporting BJP you are using the press to do it and therefore you have lost your right to vote,between you and Huw George you have hung yourselves ,ie Huw actually did it on S4C and you have done it in the WT twice and you call yourself a competent leader and the real report issued by Carmarthenshire's council,proves what blatant liars you really are and you even paid for the QC to come down and sit in your debacle of a meeting when knowingly he had already told you it was 50/50 whether you could defend your unlawful decision of pension payments ,how much did that cost us ? when are the auditors going to come in and investigate everything,when are the police going to investigate sammychips
  • Score: 40

9:36pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Tttoommy says...

Bryn Jones mouth piece - he/Adams want to focus just on the tax evasion thing, Pembs CC have been found wanting for years by central Gov., The Senedd, the High Court and by the ppl of Pembs - this tax thing is just the final score
Bryn Jones mouth piece - he/Adams want to focus just on the tax evasion thing, Pembs CC have been found wanting for years by central Gov., The Senedd, the High Court and by the ppl of Pembs - this tax thing is just the final score Tttoommy
  • Score: 29

9:38pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Eckysense says...

I am sure the British public feel most 'umbley grateful that BJP decided to pay tax up front on the employers contributions rather than wait for retirement. Perhaps other council employee's would much rather have seen this money go into their local government pension fund to help pay for those pensioners now retired or about to get the sack over the next few years.
I am sure the British public feel most 'umbley grateful that BJP decided to pay tax up front on the employers contributions rather than wait for retirement. Perhaps other council employee's would much rather have seen this money go into their local government pension fund to help pay for those pensioners now retired or about to get the sack over the next few years. Eckysense
  • Score: 23

10:17pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Doc Malik says...

What Jamie didn't say: https://www.facebook
.com/ThePembrokeshir
eHerald/posts/741580
472533324
What Jamie didn't say: https://www.facebook .com/ThePembrokeshir eHerald/posts/741580 472533324 Doc Malik
  • Score: 19

10:18am Sat 1 Mar 14

great gran says...

Do as I say not as I do comes to mind. We would get a prison sentence for doing half of this, but for some reason they are above the law of our land and get away with it time and time again.
Do as I say not as I do comes to mind. We would get a prison sentence for doing half of this, but for some reason they are above the law of our land and get away with it time and time again. great gran
  • Score: 22

11:24am Sat 1 Mar 14

seaveiw says...

Why vote for senior officers only to opt out of contributions to the pension scheme, perhaps other employees of the P.C.C. clould at least ben asked. I am sorry to say all these comments and rebuffs are a little too late to change the majority of the electorate of Pembrokeshires mind.
Why vote for senior officers only to opt out of contributions to the pension scheme, perhaps other employees of the P.C.C. clould at least ben asked. I am sorry to say all these comments and rebuffs are a little too late to change the majority of the electorate of Pembrokeshires mind. seaveiw
  • Score: 23

12:22pm Sat 1 Mar 14

JonnyBlueJeans says...

I am amazed at Jamie's stance. They were told by the audit office that what they did was wrong and then went into chamber and played games with the process of democracy. Hold your hands up and say your sorry and you were wrong Jamie, there's no problem with admitting you were wrong. The sad thing is, it'll happen again at the next meeting and once again it'll be broadcast live for everyone to see what a mess we're in here in Pembrokeshire. It's our own fault for voting these power crazed fools in mind, you get what you deserve in politics.
I am amazed at Jamie's stance. They were told by the audit office that what they did was wrong and then went into chamber and played games with the process of democracy. Hold your hands up and say your sorry and you were wrong Jamie, there's no problem with admitting you were wrong. The sad thing is, it'll happen again at the next meeting and once again it'll be broadcast live for everyone to see what a mess we're in here in Pembrokeshire. It's our own fault for voting these power crazed fools in mind, you get what you deserve in politics. JonnyBlueJeans
  • Score: 24

12:26pm Sat 1 Mar 14

js9325 says...

"The pension decision ... was prompted by a letter from the Manager of the Dyfed Pension Fund"

I wonder who prompted the Manager of the Dyfed Pension Fund to write the letter suggesting a pension change which some experts consider to be illegal?
"The pension decision ... was prompted by a letter from the Manager of the Dyfed Pension Fund" I wonder who prompted the Manager of the Dyfed Pension Fund to write the letter suggesting a pension change which some experts consider to be illegal? js9325
  • Score: 17

5:00pm Sat 1 Mar 14

PembrokeshireMan says...

I hope history will show Jamie Adams, Bryn Parry-Jones and their cohorts to be the slippery and downright dishonest bunch of individuals that their actions have shown them to be. Whatever happens, they will still have made off with an awful lot of money, lawful or otherwise.

At the end of the day, we were powerless to stop them.
I hope history will show Jamie Adams, Bryn Parry-Jones and their cohorts to be the slippery and downright dishonest bunch of individuals that their actions have shown them to be. Whatever happens, they will still have made off with an awful lot of money, lawful or otherwise. At the end of the day, we were powerless to stop them. PembrokeshireMan
  • Score: 19

6:40pm Sat 1 Mar 14

Gogledd says...

Tttoommy wrote:
Bryn Jones mouth piece - he/Adams want to focus just on the tax evasion thing, Pembs CC have been found wanting for years by central Gov., The Senedd, the High Court and by the ppl of Pembs - this tax thing is just the final score
they may well have been found wanting but NOTHING has been done about it.
[quote][p][bold]Tttoommy[/bold] wrote: Bryn Jones mouth piece - he/Adams want to focus just on the tax evasion thing, Pembs CC have been found wanting for years by central Gov., The Senedd, the High Court and by the ppl of Pembs - this tax thing is just the final score[/p][/quote]they may well have been found wanting but NOTHING has been done about it. Gogledd
  • Score: 12

12:36am Sun 2 Mar 14

PCC Weasel says...

js9325 wrote:
"The pension decision ... was prompted by a letter from the Manager of the Dyfed Pension Fund"

I wonder who prompted the Manager of the Dyfed Pension Fund to write the letter suggesting a pension change which some experts consider to be illegal?
The claim that the pensions scam was instigated by the letter sent to all senior staff by the Dyfed Pensions Fund is to say the least misleading. Farmer Adams very helpfully read this letter out at the recent EGM and it contained no suggestions that employers should review pension arrangements. The letter specifically advised staff to review their own pension position and in particular if they had taken out Additional Voluntary Contributions and invited them to a seminar on AVC's. 
[quote][p][bold]js9325[/bold] wrote: "The pension decision ... was prompted by a letter from the Manager of the Dyfed Pension Fund" I wonder who prompted the Manager of the Dyfed Pension Fund to write the letter suggesting a pension change which some experts consider to be illegal?[/p][/quote]The claim that the pensions scam was instigated by the letter sent to all senior staff by the Dyfed Pensions Fund is to say the least misleading. Farmer Adams very helpfully read this letter out at the recent EGM and it contained no suggestions that employers should review pension arrangements. The letter specifically advised staff to review their own pension position and in particular if they had taken out Additional Voluntary Contributions and invited them to a seminar on AVC's.  PCC Weasel
  • Score: 15

4:56am Sun 2 Mar 14

KeanJo says...

He just doesn't see it does he?
He just doesn't see it does he? KeanJo
  • Score: 16

8:36am Sun 2 Mar 14

South of the Landsker says...

A letter from the Dyfed Pension Fund.
Cllr John Davies admitting that he didn't put the Pension item on the Agenda for the Senior Staff meeting.
The Carmarthenshire public being told more than the people of Pembrokeshire.
Why are we held in such contempt, I feel as if I have been patted on the head and told to move along.
A letter from the Dyfed Pension Fund. Cllr John Davies admitting that he didn't put the Pension item on the Agenda for the Senior Staff meeting. The Carmarthenshire public being told more than the people of Pembrokeshire. Why are we held in such contempt, I feel as if I have been patted on the head and told to move along. South of the Landsker
  • Score: 16

8:54am Sun 2 Mar 14

Tttoommy says...

Will the Council ever tell us or allow us to find out who the second person was who benefited from the tax scheme, can someone remind me was it the Financial Director (or whatever the title is?) or someone else?

If he comes out of the scheme and pays back his payment will we never be told?

Suely this guy should ALSO be suspended whilst investigations are being made?
Will the Council ever tell us or allow us to find out who the second person was who benefited from the tax scheme, can someone remind me was it the Financial Director (or whatever the title is?) or someone else? If he comes out of the scheme and pays back his payment will we never be told? Suely this guy should ALSO be suspended whilst investigations are being made? Tttoommy
  • Score: 12

10:10am Sun 2 Mar 14

PCC Weasel says...

Tttoommy wrote:
Will the Council ever tell us or allow us to find out who the second person was who benefited from the tax scheme, can someone remind me was it the Financial Director (or whatever the title is?) or someone else?

If he comes out of the scheme and pays back his payment will we never be told?

Suely this guy should ALSO be suspended whilst investigations are being made?
The last time I posted this persons identiity the post was deleted by the WT, presumably under orders from the PCC Ministry of Propoganda, so I wont reveal his (alleged) identity again.
What I can say is we know from publicised comments that the person concerned is not a Director. IPPG members (who do know the identity) are also openly saying that this person was only appointed to their post after the illegal policy was introduced.
If you look back to the EGM agenda, one of the Appendices helpfully lists all senior staff appointments for the last few years which narrows the field of culprits down to around 6 or 7, and its not too difficult to spot the offender with that information available.
Personally though I think the focus should be on who instigated the policy in the first place. John Davies has admitted it wasnt himself (as leader at the time) or his party or cabinet and therefore was officer led. As only one officer initially took up the scam, its inconceivable that any officer other than that person instigated the report. The fact that the meeting was then held in his office.... well need I say any more.
That Farmer Adams can see no wrong and acceot no blame just makes the whole sordid affair even worse. He is extremely selective in what he says, having put great reliance on the legal advice from Tim Kerr as justifying the Councils position and yet refusing to share that legal advice, even with the Auditor, and we now know (as we can read it on the CCC website) that the legal advice was not conclusive at all, confirming actually that the Councils case has at best a 50/50 chance of success, and relying on proving the staff retention/recruitmen
t case which was very weak.
[quote][p][bold]Tttoommy[/bold] wrote: Will the Council ever tell us or allow us to find out who the second person was who benefited from the tax scheme, can someone remind me was it the Financial Director (or whatever the title is?) or someone else? If he comes out of the scheme and pays back his payment will we never be told? Suely this guy should ALSO be suspended whilst investigations are being made?[/p][/quote]The last time I posted this persons identiity the post was deleted by the WT, presumably under orders from the PCC Ministry of Propoganda, so I wont reveal his (alleged) identity again. What I can say is we know from publicised comments that the person concerned is not a Director. IPPG members (who do know the identity) are also openly saying that this person was only appointed to their post after the illegal policy was introduced. If you look back to the EGM agenda, one of the Appendices helpfully lists all senior staff appointments for the last few years which narrows the field of culprits down to around 6 or 7, and its not too difficult to spot the offender with that information available. Personally though I think the focus should be on who instigated the policy in the first place. John Davies has admitted it wasnt himself (as leader at the time) or his party or cabinet and therefore was officer led. As only one officer initially took up the scam, its inconceivable that any officer other than that person instigated the report. The fact that the meeting was then held in his office.... well need I say any more. That Farmer Adams can see no wrong and acceot no blame just makes the whole sordid affair even worse. He is extremely selective in what he says, having put great reliance on the legal advice from Tim Kerr as justifying the Councils position and yet refusing to share that legal advice, even with the Auditor, and we now know (as we can read it on the CCC website) that the legal advice was not conclusive at all, confirming actually that the Councils case has at best a 50/50 chance of success, and relying on proving the staff retention/recruitmen t case which was very weak. PCC Weasel
  • Score: 21

12:03pm Sun 2 Mar 14

PCC Weasel says...

Quote "This was not some underhand tactic. Suffice it to say that the last time I sent a letter to one of my constituents, I have to admit it was in an envelope." Unquote

There is a difference Farmer Adams, I presume the letter sent to your constituent was signed and identified as coming from you, the unmarked envelope left by your stooge, the so called independant Monotoring Officer was anonymous and contained biased information.

If you cannot see how that is wrong you are even more of a fool than you already appear.
Quote "This was not some underhand tactic. Suffice it to say that the last time I sent a letter to one of my constituents, I have to admit it was in an envelope." Unquote There is a difference Farmer Adams, I presume the letter sent to your constituent was signed and identified as coming from you, the unmarked envelope left by your stooge, the so called independant Monotoring Officer was anonymous and contained biased information. If you cannot see how that is wrong you are even more of a fool than you already appear. PCC Weasel
  • Score: 18

12:58pm Sun 2 Mar 14

seaveiw says...

PCC Weasel wrote:
Quote "This was not some underhand tactic. Suffice it to say that the last time I sent a letter to one of my constituents, I have to admit it was in an envelope." Unquote

There is a difference Farmer Adams, I presume the letter sent to your constituent was signed and identified as coming from you, the unmarked envelope left by your stooge, the so called independant Monotoring Officer was anonymous and contained biased information.

If you cannot see how that is wrong you are even more of a fool than you already appear.
He chose this underhand approach fully knowing that it would prejudice the out come. Oh by the way I was under the impression the envelope was addressed to the barrister.Hope my council wasnnt used to pay this person to come to defend these corrupt gang, I think our money could have been used more wisely ie. for education or social support.
[quote][p][bold]PCC Weasel[/bold] wrote: Quote "This was not some underhand tactic. Suffice it to say that the last time I sent a letter to one of my constituents, I have to admit it was in an envelope." Unquote There is a difference Farmer Adams, I presume the letter sent to your constituent was signed and identified as coming from you, the unmarked envelope left by your stooge, the so called independant Monotoring Officer was anonymous and contained biased information. If you cannot see how that is wrong you are even more of a fool than you already appear.[/p][/quote]He chose this underhand approach fully knowing that it would prejudice the out come. Oh by the way I was under the impression the envelope was addressed to the barrister.Hope my council wasnnt used to pay this person to come to defend these corrupt gang, I think our money could have been used more wisely ie. for education or social support. seaveiw
  • Score: 13

1:04pm Sun 2 Mar 14

seaveiw says...

seaveiw wrote:
PCC Weasel wrote:
Quote "This was not some underhand tactic. Suffice it to say that the last time I sent a letter to one of my constituents, I have to admit it was in an envelope." Unquote

There is a difference Farmer Adams, I presume the letter sent to your constituent was signed and identified as coming from you, the unmarked envelope left by your stooge, the so called independant Monotoring Officer was anonymous and contained biased information.

If you cannot see how that is wrong you are even more of a fool than you already appear.
He chose this underhand approach fully knowing that it would prejudice the out come. Oh by the way I was under the impression the envelope was addressed to the barrister.Hope my council wasnnt used to pay this person to come to defend these corrupt gang, I think our money could have been used more wisely ie. for education or social support.
Tax should be read after council sorry not quite alert yet
[quote][p][bold]seaveiw[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PCC Weasel[/bold] wrote: Quote "This was not some underhand tactic. Suffice it to say that the last time I sent a letter to one of my constituents, I have to admit it was in an envelope." Unquote There is a difference Farmer Adams, I presume the letter sent to your constituent was signed and identified as coming from you, the unmarked envelope left by your stooge, the so called independant Monotoring Officer was anonymous and contained biased information. If you cannot see how that is wrong you are even more of a fool than you already appear.[/p][/quote]He chose this underhand approach fully knowing that it would prejudice the out come. Oh by the way I was under the impression the envelope was addressed to the barrister.Hope my council wasnnt used to pay this person to come to defend these corrupt gang, I think our money could have been used more wisely ie. for education or social support.[/p][/quote]Tax should be read after council sorry not quite alert yet seaveiw
  • Score: 8

1:11pm Sun 2 Mar 14

seaveiw says...

PCC Weasel wrote:
Quote "This was not some underhand tactic. Suffice it to say that the last time I sent a letter to one of my constituents, I have to admit it was in an envelope." Unquote

There is a difference Farmer Adams, I presume the letter sent to your constituent was signed and identified as coming from you, the unmarked envelope left by your stooge, the so called independant Monotoring Officer was anonymous and contained biased information.

If you cannot see how that is wrong you are even more of a fool than you already appear.
Surely the monitoring officer was aware of the contents of the envelope, if not he should not have been involved.I thought his remit was to make sure that constutional law was always adhered to, obviously not here in Pembrokeshire.
[quote][p][bold]PCC Weasel[/bold] wrote: Quote "This was not some underhand tactic. Suffice it to say that the last time I sent a letter to one of my constituents, I have to admit it was in an envelope." Unquote There is a difference Farmer Adams, I presume the letter sent to your constituent was signed and identified as coming from you, the unmarked envelope left by your stooge, the so called independant Monotoring Officer was anonymous and contained biased information. If you cannot see how that is wrong you are even more of a fool than you already appear.[/p][/quote]Surely the monitoring officer was aware of the contents of the envelope, if not he should not have been involved.I thought his remit was to make sure that constutional law was always adhered to, obviously not here in Pembrokeshire. seaveiw
  • Score: 16

1:32pm Sun 2 Mar 14

PCC Weasel says...

Seaview
Yes the Monotoring Officer was aware of the contents, he admitted he put the press cuttings in the envelope with the Agenda. Mr Kerr stated he did not know who left the envelope so we can surmise it was left anonymously.

We do know the Monotoring Officer was handed the copies by another person whom he refused to identify, it also seems he does not read the local newspapers as he was "made aware" of them, and did not know of the equally predetermined comments from supportive IPPG members in the WT.

We also know thast Cllr Rob Lewis stood up in the meeting with a copy of the same cuttings and went so far as to say that that was all Lawrence Harding had, so he knew what the Monotoring Officer had been give. Can we surmise therefore that the unknown source and instigator of the "hear you are guv av a look at this" affair was none other than the IPPG Mr Fixit, Rob Lewis?

In the words of the Leader of the Kremlin, "I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions."
Seaview Yes the Monotoring Officer was aware of the contents, he admitted he put the press cuttings in the envelope with the Agenda. Mr Kerr stated he did not know who left the envelope so we can surmise it was left anonymously. We do know the Monotoring Officer was handed the copies by another person whom he refused to identify, it also seems he does not read the local newspapers as he was "made aware" of them, and did not know of the equally predetermined comments from supportive IPPG members in the WT. We also know thast Cllr Rob Lewis stood up in the meeting with a copy of the same cuttings and went so far as to say that that was all Lawrence Harding had, so he knew what the Monotoring Officer had been give. Can we surmise therefore that the unknown source and instigator of the "hear you are guv av a look at this" affair was none other than the IPPG Mr Fixit, Rob Lewis? In the words of the Leader of the Kremlin, "I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions." PCC Weasel
  • Score: 17

7:26pm Sun 2 Mar 14

MP676 says...

Doc Malik wrote:
Cowards. You should have stood behind your story and your news editor
The WT had a moral and legal duty to give Jamie Adams right of reply. It does not mean they are not standing by their 'Mockery of Democracy' comment, and is in no way a retraction or an apology. Indeed, in giving Cllr Adams opportunity to state his views, they are showing the PCC junta that debate, and the free exchange of views, is actually a good thing.
[quote][p][bold]Doc Malik[/bold] wrote: Cowards. You should have stood behind your story and your news editor[/p][/quote]The WT had a moral and legal duty to give Jamie Adams right of reply. It does not mean they are not standing by their 'Mockery of Democracy' comment, and is in no way a retraction or an apology. Indeed, in giving Cllr Adams opportunity to state his views, they are showing the PCC junta that debate, and the free exchange of views, is actually a good thing. MP676
  • Score: 7

8:29pm Sun 2 Mar 14

sammychips says...

So this envelope that was used anonymously to contain the news paper cuttings,was it Council Property ? if so isn't that miss appropriation of Council property as it was left anonymously bit like using Council computers to print Election material etc etc
So this envelope that was used anonymously to contain the news paper cuttings,was it Council Property ? if so isn't that miss appropriation of Council property as it was left anonymously bit like using Council computers to print Election material etc etc sammychips
  • Score: 3

12:43am Mon 3 Mar 14

Doc Malik says...

MP676 wrote:
Doc Malik wrote:
Cowards. You should have stood behind your story and your news editor
The WT had a moral and legal duty to give Jamie Adams right of reply. It does not mean they are not standing by their 'Mockery of Democracy' comment, and is in no way a retraction or an apology. Indeed, in giving Cllr Adams opportunity to state his views, they are showing the PCC junta that debate, and the free exchange of views, is actually a good thing.
What legal duty? What law?
[quote][p][bold]MP676[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Doc Malik[/bold] wrote: Cowards. You should have stood behind your story and your news editor[/p][/quote]The WT had a moral and legal duty to give Jamie Adams right of reply. It does not mean they are not standing by their 'Mockery of Democracy' comment, and is in no way a retraction or an apology. Indeed, in giving Cllr Adams opportunity to state his views, they are showing the PCC junta that debate, and the free exchange of views, is actually a good thing.[/p][/quote]What legal duty? What law? Doc Malik
  • Score: 3

3:15am Mon 3 Mar 14

KeanJo says...

Independent Monitoring Officer my foot. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The IPPG employs him.............. A Monitoring Officer should be employed and paid for by someone outside the Authority he /she is monitoring.Why not by the Welsh Audit Office?
Independent Monitoring Officer my foot. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The IPPG employs him.............. A Monitoring Officer should be employed and paid for by someone outside the Authority he /she is monitoring.Why not by the Welsh Audit Office? KeanJo
  • Score: 9

11:02am Mon 3 Mar 14

Citizen Pembs says...

In response to our Council Leader's rebuttal of the article ' A Mockery of Democracy' the following words come to mind

'Infamy, infamy. They have all got it infamy'

Some of the gems in his statement are:

A number of commentators are ignoring the facts and hiding behind 'salacious ' headlines

He is saddened by the 'biased' and personal nature of the attacks.

A claim for compensation might cost the taxpayer an 'awful' lot of money

Colleagues have sought to ' sensationalise ' the use of THE envelope.

It was not ' an underhand tactic'

To be fair to Mr Adams, it is very noble of him to allow readers to draw their own conclusions.
In response to our Council Leader's rebuttal of the article ' A Mockery of Democracy' the following words come to mind 'Infamy, infamy. They have all got it infamy' Some of the gems in his statement are: A number of commentators are ignoring the facts and hiding behind 'salacious ' headlines He is saddened by the 'biased' and personal nature of the attacks. A claim for compensation might cost the taxpayer an 'awful' lot of money Colleagues have sought to ' sensationalise ' the use of THE envelope. It was not ' an underhand tactic' To be fair to Mr Adams, it is very noble of him to allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Citizen Pembs
  • Score: 14

2:48pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Martin Lewis says...

The problem with you Jamie Adams is, like John Davies and others before you, you live in a world different to that frequented by the majority of people in this county. As far as you are concerned, we simply do not understand the facts; you're wrong!

What you don't understand, or what you choose to ignore, is that the vast majority of people in this county know that the rules, constitution, regulation and laws surrounding local authority have many grey areas, which can be argued ad infinitum at cost to the taxpayer, by expensive QCs.

They can be used either to benefit the people of the county or, as is the case in Pembrokeshire, used to benefit the people who are running the county council.

We can only hope that some day, you and the others that support you will get your comeuppance.

No matter how much effort you and your cohorts put into explaining this away, IT WILL NEVER WASH WITH THE ORDINARY PEOPLE OF PEMBROKESHIRE.

You're wrong Jamie, your judgement is flawed, no matter what the advice of your expensive QC, you'll only get away with it for so long.

Keep playing your games with our money and our democracy but remember, the bigger you are, the harder you fall.

Like Citizen Pembs mentioned in his comment above, the people of Pembrokeshire HAVE drawn their own conclusions, don't worry about that.

YOU may have been elected uncontested in the last election but at the next election I'll bet good money that there won't be enough weak "independent" individuals to fall for your patter.

And I sincerely hope that we'll have intervention from the Senedd before the next round of local elections although I won't hold my breath, the people there, like those at Pembrokeshire County Council management, are dominated by those who think they know best and suffer from delusions of grandeur once elected, whilst forgetting about the people who they are supposed to be representing.

The people who benefited from the unlawful pension arrangements should be suspended or stand down voluntarily during the Police investigation.

The people who authorised the unlawful pension arrangements should be suspended or stand down voluntarily during the Police investigation.

The Monitoring Officer should resign following his disgraceful involvement in the "envelope" saga.

The individuals who continue to prop up the IPG should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, especially the ones who stood for election under one banner and then abandoned their principles and joined the IPG with the financial windfall that benefited each of them following their election.

For the length of time that the shining lights of wisdom at Pembrokeshire County Council have been involved with the local authority, lessons from such obviously wrong decisions and actions should not be needed.

You're not fooling the public, that's for **** sure.
The problem with you Jamie Adams is, like John Davies and others before you, you live in a world different to that frequented by the majority of people in this county. As far as you are concerned, we simply do not understand the facts; you're wrong! What you don't understand, or what you choose to ignore, is that the vast majority of people in this county know that the rules, constitution, regulation and laws surrounding local authority have many grey areas, which can be argued ad infinitum at cost to the taxpayer, by expensive QCs. They can be used either to benefit the people of the county or, as is the case in Pembrokeshire, used to benefit the people who are running the county council. We can only hope that some day, you and the others that support you will get your comeuppance. No matter how much effort you and your cohorts put into explaining this away, IT WILL NEVER WASH WITH THE ORDINARY PEOPLE OF PEMBROKESHIRE. You're wrong Jamie, your judgement is flawed, no matter what the advice of your expensive QC, you'll only get away with it for so long. Keep playing your games with our money and our democracy but remember, the bigger you are, the harder you fall. Like Citizen Pembs mentioned in his comment above, the people of Pembrokeshire HAVE drawn their own conclusions, don't worry about that. YOU may have been elected uncontested in the last election but at the next election I'll bet good money that there won't be enough weak "independent" individuals to fall for your patter. And I sincerely hope that we'll have intervention from the Senedd before the next round of local elections although I won't hold my breath, the people there, like those at Pembrokeshire County Council management, are dominated by those who think they know best and suffer from delusions of grandeur once elected, whilst forgetting about the people who they are supposed to be representing. The people who benefited from the unlawful pension arrangements should be suspended or stand down voluntarily during the Police investigation. The people who authorised the unlawful pension arrangements should be suspended or stand down voluntarily during the Police investigation. The Monitoring Officer should resign following his disgraceful involvement in the "envelope" saga. The individuals who continue to prop up the IPG should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, especially the ones who stood for election under one banner and then abandoned their principles and joined the IPG with the financial windfall that benefited each of them following their election. For the length of time that the shining lights of wisdom at Pembrokeshire County Council have been involved with the local authority, lessons from such obviously wrong decisions and actions should not be needed. You're not fooling the public, that's for **** sure. Martin Lewis
  • Score: 20

7:57pm Mon 3 Mar 14

MP676 says...

Doc Malik wrote:
MP676 wrote:
Doc Malik wrote:
Cowards. You should have stood behind your story and your news editor
The WT had a moral and legal duty to give Jamie Adams right of reply. It does not mean they are not standing by their 'Mockery of Democracy' comment, and is in no way a retraction or an apology. Indeed, in giving Cllr Adams opportunity to state his views, they are showing the PCC junta that debate, and the free exchange of views, is actually a good thing.
What legal duty? What law?
To be able to use 'fair comment' as a defence to a defamatory statement, the right of reply must also be given.
One of the PCC ruling clique's worst traits is to try and stamp out legitimate debate. Calls for their heads to roll are justified. But you don't fix the democracy deficit in Pembrokeshire by calling for its main newspaper to just print one side of the story. Free and fair debate is the lifeblood of democracy.
[quote][p][bold]Doc Malik[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MP676[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Doc Malik[/bold] wrote: Cowards. You should have stood behind your story and your news editor[/p][/quote]The WT had a moral and legal duty to give Jamie Adams right of reply. It does not mean they are not standing by their 'Mockery of Democracy' comment, and is in no way a retraction or an apology. Indeed, in giving Cllr Adams opportunity to state his views, they are showing the PCC junta that debate, and the free exchange of views, is actually a good thing.[/p][/quote]What legal duty? What law?[/p][/quote]To be able to use 'fair comment' as a defence to a defamatory statement, the right of reply must also be given. One of the PCC ruling clique's worst traits is to try and stamp out legitimate debate. Calls for their heads to roll are justified. But you don't fix the democracy deficit in Pembrokeshire by calling for its main newspaper to just print one side of the story. Free and fair debate is the lifeblood of democracy. MP676
  • Score: 4

2:13pm Tue 4 Mar 14

ScoobyDooby says...

MP676 wrote:
Doc Malik wrote:
MP676 wrote:
Doc Malik wrote:
Cowards. You should have stood behind your story and your news editor
The WT had a moral and legal duty to give Jamie Adams right of reply. It does not mean they are not standing by their 'Mockery of Democracy' comment, and is in no way a retraction or an apology. Indeed, in giving Cllr Adams opportunity to state his views, they are showing the PCC junta that debate, and the free exchange of views, is actually a good thing.
What legal duty? What law?
To be able to use 'fair comment' as a defence to a defamatory statement, the right of reply must also be given.
One of the PCC ruling clique's worst traits is to try and stamp out legitimate debate. Calls for their heads to roll are justified. But you don't fix the democracy deficit in Pembrokeshire by calling for its main newspaper to just print one side of the story. Free and fair debate is the lifeblood of democracy.
It is a defence to show the statement complained of was, or formed part of a matter of public interest, and a publication was reasonably believed to be in the public interest. If the statement was a part of a dispute to which the claimant was a party, the court determines whether it was in the public interest, and must disregard the defendants omissions to verify the truth of the imputation. In determining a reasonable belief of public interest, the court must make allowance for editorial judgment. For the avoidance of doubt, the defence may be relied upon irrespective of whether it is a statement of fact or a statement of opinion
[quote][p][bold]MP676[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Doc Malik[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MP676[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Doc Malik[/bold] wrote: Cowards. You should have stood behind your story and your news editor[/p][/quote]The WT had a moral and legal duty to give Jamie Adams right of reply. It does not mean they are not standing by their 'Mockery of Democracy' comment, and is in no way a retraction or an apology. Indeed, in giving Cllr Adams opportunity to state his views, they are showing the PCC junta that debate, and the free exchange of views, is actually a good thing.[/p][/quote]What legal duty? What law?[/p][/quote]To be able to use 'fair comment' as a defence to a defamatory statement, the right of reply must also be given. One of the PCC ruling clique's worst traits is to try and stamp out legitimate debate. Calls for their heads to roll are justified. But you don't fix the democracy deficit in Pembrokeshire by calling for its main newspaper to just print one side of the story. Free and fair debate is the lifeblood of democracy.[/p][/quote]It is a defence to show the statement complained of was, or formed part of a matter of public interest, and a publication was reasonably believed to be in the public interest. If the statement was a part of a dispute to which the claimant was a party, the court determines whether it was in the public interest, and must disregard the defendants omissions to verify the truth of the imputation. In determining a reasonable belief of public interest, the court must make allowance for editorial judgment. For the avoidance of doubt, the defence may be relied upon irrespective of whether it is a statement of fact or a statement of opinion ScoobyDooby
  • Score: 5

9:34am Wed 5 Mar 14

teifion says...

Oh come on Cllr Jamie s comments ?

nah, sounds more like a lawyer than a farmer to me

Changing the subject - wasn't Bryn Jones a solicitor in a previous life?
Oh come on Cllr Jamie s comments ? nah, sounds more like a lawyer than a farmer to me Changing the subject - wasn't Bryn Jones a solicitor in a previous life? teifion
  • Score: 2

7:37pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ScoobyDooby says...

teifion wrote:
Oh come on Cllr Jamie s comments ?

nah, sounds more like a lawyer than a farmer to me

Changing the subject - wasn't Bryn Jones a solicitor in a previous life?
You cynic, you!
[quote][p][bold]teifion[/bold] wrote: Oh come on Cllr Jamie s comments ? nah, sounds more like a lawyer than a farmer to me Changing the subject - wasn't Bryn Jones a solicitor in a previous life?[/p][/quote]You cynic, you! ScoobyDooby
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree