The Standards Board for England has come under fire for failing to take action against a BNP councillor who sent out £5 notes to pensioners in Christmas cards ahead of an election. A probe by the local government watchdog found that the actions of BNP councillor Paul Cromie could be considered an "inducement" for votes – but it failed to act against the member for Queensbury, Bradford.
Bradford Council's leader, Coun Kris Hopkins, told the Yorkshire Post: "Putting five pound notes in envelopes and handing them out to voters seems to be as clear a breach of the rules as you are ever likely to see. It is equally disturbing that it has taken seven months for the Standards Board to reach its conclusion and, even then, I believe the verdict is weak bordering on farcical."
Coun Cromie was reported to the board after he gave the money to more than 200 people living in sheltered housing in his ward, only months before his wife, Lynda, was elected as a BNP councillor for the same ward with a slim 155 majority. The board report states: "As the gifts were directly linked to the name and to the party, they could have also been considered as an inducement to vote for Coun Cromie's wife."
The board ruled that his actions brought his office into disrepute.
Bradford's Liberal Democrat group leader, Coun Jeanette Sunderland, said she was "astonished" at the reaction from the Standards Board for England. Labour group leader for Bradford, Coun Ian Greenwood, echoed the call for stronger action by the board. "I think it sends out a very weak signal," he said.
Coun Cromie has always insisted that the donations were made as a goodwill gesture from his councillor's allowance. He said: "I have been donating to Queensbury charities for 30 years and I am not going to stop now. Obviously I will be careful and make sure it is done within the code."
Yorkshire Post
July 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
"It is equally disturbing that it has taken seven months for the Standards Board to reach its conclusion and, even then, I believe the verdict is weak bordering on farcical."
No more so than in the Nick Bourne case, no complaints about that one I see
Nick Bourne simply posted what he thought (quite rightly) of the BNP - he didn't attempt to bribe the voters. There's a fairly major difference there if you pay attention.
"Nick Bourne simply posted what he thought (quite rightly) of the BNP - he didn't attempt to bribe the voters. There's a fairly major difference there if you pay attention."
In your opinion but in the opinion of the Standards Board BOTH Bourne and Cromie were found to have transgressed but not enough for serious action to be taken by the board. What you think about Bourne and his comments is irrelevant as he was found to have been at fault by the board just as much as Cromie was.
To be consistent you need to highlight BOTH cases or accept win some lose some and not be a bad loser about it.
A bribe is usually when money is given conditionally, there were no conditions attached to the donations Cromie made to the pensioners
'In your opinion...'
In the opinion of any right-minded person.
"Nick Bourne simply posted what he thought (quite rightly) of the BNP"
'In your opinion...'
"In the opinion of any right-minded person."
Even though you now say you accept not everyone in the BNP is a nazi?
That doesn't mean I don't think they're twats for voting for the BNP.
Whether everyone who votes for the BNP is a nazi is doubtful but they're certainly idiots for wasting their votes.
That doesn't mean I don't think they're twats for voting for the BNP.
JayBee said...
Whether everyone who votes for the BNP is a nazi is doubtful but they're certainly idiots for wasting their votes.
Since the authot of this blog no longer accepts all BNP members are "nazi" I doubt if he/she thinks all that vote for them are either but in any case what Nick Bourne said was they were flotsam and jettsam and subhuman, not twats or misguided.
Post a Comment