Category Archives: south yorkshire

14,547 first preference votes and uncounted tens of thousands of second preference votes!

Our PRESS RELEASE on the results in South Yorkshire:-

David Allen, the English Democrats’ Candidate for the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election

David Allen says:- “I was delighted to represent the rising force of English nationalism in the South Yorkshire Mayoral election under the slogan of “English Democrats:- A Parliament for England!” With a miniscule campaign budget we got 14,547 first preference votes and uncounted tens of thousands of second preference votes.  I would like to thank all those who voted for the English Democrats and voted for an English Parliament in this election.”
David continued:- “The British Political Establishment parties, had the benefit, not only of their vast resources, but also quite a lot of their supporters turning out for local elections based on the self-interested leafleting and canvassing work of their local election candidates.”
David said:- “The good news for those who opposed the pro EU “Regionalists” candidates in Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the EU “Regionalist” so-called “Yorkshire” Party, is that in a few month’s time, we are likely to have a re-run of the South Yorkshire Mayoral election.  This because South Yorkshire Police have already confirmed that they are investigating Dan Jarvis for the electoral fraud offence of giving a false address in his nomination forms.”
David continued:-  “Mr Jarvis has claimed that he did this for personal security reasons, but the law is clear that upon conviction such an approach leaves his election as “void” and would also lead to him being disqualified from public office for five years.”  
David said:- “So in a few months time we may also have a parliamentary by-election in Barnsley Central, as well as a re-run of the South Yorkshire Mayoral election.  This will be at a time when there are no other elections and so it will be far more of a level playing field between the English Democrats and the British Political Establishment Parties.”
David concluded:- “I am therefore looking forward to the next election and I hope that all those that voted English Democrats their first or second preference this time round will give me first preference next time and put the English Cause front and centre in South Yorkshire politics!”

BBC refuses to report biggest story in South Yorkshire Mayoral Election – to protect Labour candidate!

BBC refuses to report biggest story in South Yorkshire Mayoral Election – to protect Labour candidate!
 
There are two parts to this story.
 
First the Labour candidate in the biggest election this year has an address which does not exist as his home address in his nomination papers. This means that if he is elected then that result is voidable as having a false address in his nomination forms is the offence of “Corrupt Practice”. We have reported this to the Police who have confirmed that “South Yorkshire Police is investigati(ng) an allegation of electoral fraud in relation to the forthcoming Sheffield City Regional Mayoral elections”
 
Second we have here a classic “Electoral Fraud” story of the type that BBC Sheffield so eagerly ran when it was alleged that Paul Nuttall of UKIP had committed a nearly identical election fraud as is alleged in this case.  That was in the Stoke By-election, so it is not even directly related to either Sheffield or South Yorkshire! Now however the local BBC are trying to protect a Labour MP from adverse publicity which might, as Labour put it in Mr Nuttall’s case, “call into question” Mr Jarvis “fitness for office”!
 
There is no credible basis for The BBC’s excuse of saying that giving this story the proper level of publicity would put Mr Jarvis under risk of attack, especially as it is his failure to give his home address which is the basis for him being investigated by South Yorkshire police!  So how would anyone know his address?
 
Here is a link to the Statement of Persons nominated where you can see Dan Jarvis’ false address >>> https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Statement-of-Persons-Nominated.pdf
 
There is no Marsham Road in London.

So this is what the charge-sheet against Dan Jarvis MP and/or his agent Paul Nicholson might look like:-
 
CONTRARY TO SECTIONS 3 AND 6 OF THE FORGERY AND COUNTERFEITING ACT 1981
Details of Offence on or before 6th April 2018 at the offices of Sheffield City Council in the County of South Yorkshire used an instrument, namely a local government election nomination form relating to Dan Jarvis which was and which they knew or believed to be false with the intention of inducing the Returning Officer, Dr Dave Smith, to accept it as genuine and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or another person’s prejudice.

(Upon conviction an indictment of this offence which is called the “Misuse of a Statutory Instrument”, the person convicted may be sentenced up to 10 years imprisonment.)

CONTRARY TO SECTION 65A(1)(A) OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1983
On or before 6th April 2018 in the offices of Sheffield City Council in South Yorkshire Dan Jarvis or his Election Agent caused or permitted to be included in a document, namely a local government election nomination form relating to a candidate stated to be Dan Jarvis which was delivered or otherwise furnished to Dr Dave Smith the returning officer for use in connection with the Sheffield City Regional election in South Yorkshire to be held on 3rd May 2018 a statement of the home address of the said candidate, which you knew to be false.

(This offence is labelled a “Corrupt Practice” and the successful election of a candidate found guilty (whether personally or by his agent) of a “Corrupt Practice” is void and anyone found personally guilty of a Corrupt Practice is prohibited from holding any elected office for a period of five years.)
 
So you can see that the probable minimum outcome of the investigation of this case would be that Dan Jarvis’ election would be declared void. He may also be disqualified from office for five years.  It is therefore absurd that the BBC is refusing to report a police investigation which will probably result in this election result being declared void.
 
The general location of what is probably Mr Jarvis’s real address can quite easily be found on the Barnsley Council’s website where the location of his home address is given on the published Notice of Persons Nominated for Election as the MP for Barnsley Central here >>> https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/media/5855/statement-of-persons-nominated-barnsley-central.pdf.
 
I have therefore specifically warned BBC Sheffield that unless the BBC does its job and properly reports this issue then I shall be complaining to OFCOM over clear breaches of the “Ofcom Broadcasting Code”, Sections are 5, 6 and 7.  They have not done so and so I shall be complaining.
 
In Section 5 in breach as follows:-
 
Section Five:
Due Impartiality and Due Accuracy and
Undue Prominence of Views and Opinions
(Relevant legislation includes, in particular, sections 319(2)(c) and (d), 319(8) and
section 320 of the Communications Act 2003, the BBC Charter and Agreement, and
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.)
Principles
To ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy 
and presented with due impartiality.
To ensure that the special impartiality requirements of the Act are
complied with.
Rules
Meaning of “due impartiality”:
“Due” is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself
means not favouring one side over another. “Due” means adequate or appropriate
to the subject and nature of the programme. So “due impartiality” does not mean an
equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every
facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may
vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the
likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content
and approach is signalled to the audience. Context, as defined in Section Two: Harm
and Offence of the Code, is important.
Due impartiality and due accuracy in news 
5.1
News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented
with due impartiality.
5.2
Significant mistakes in news should normally be acknowledged and corrected
on air quickly (or, in the case of BBC ODPS, corrected quickly). Corrections
should be appropriately scheduled (or, in the case of BBC ODPS, appropriately
signaled to viewers).” 
The BBC are failing to report views and failing to act with due impartiality and are ignoring the requirement to report with due accuracy and are excluding the reporting of news because of their biased views and opinions
 
“5.5
Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters
relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person
providing a service (listed above). This may be achieved within a programme or
over a series of programmes taken as a whole. 
Meaning of “series of programmes taken as a whole”: 
This means more than one programme in the same service, editorially linked, dealing
with the same or related issues within an appropriate period and aimed at a like
audience. A series can include, for example, a strand, or two programmes (such as a
drama and a debate about the drama) or a ‘cluster’ or ‘season’ of programmes on the
same subject.”
 
This is a matter of political controversy and so their duty of due impartiality applies.
 
“5.7
Views and facts must not be misrepresented. Views must also be presented with
due weight over appropriate timeframes.”
 
They are failing to present relevant views and facts at all.

“5.8
Any personal interest of a reporter or presenter, which would call into question
the due impartiality of the programme, must be made clear to the audience.”

They are not declaring their personal interests as Labour supporters and not allowing adequate representation of alternative viewpoints.
 
“5.12
In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and
major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of
significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme
or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be
misrepresented.”
They were no doubt asked by Labour or by their candidate not to report this story and by agreeing not to do so they are complicit in giving undue prominence to their views and opinions.
 
Section 6 the BBC appear to be in wholesale breach of.  Not only in this matter but also in failing to give equal treatment to the candidates in the South Yorkshire Mayoral election and significantly the direct failure of their reports to comply with Section 6.10, which requires that:-
 
“Any constituency or electoral area report or discussion after the close of
nominations must include a list of all candidates standing, giving first names,
surnames and the name of the party they represent or, if they are standing
independently, the fact that they are an independent candidate. This must
be conveyed in sound and/or vision. Where a constituency report on a radio
service is repeated on several occasions in the same day, the full list need
only be broadcast on one occasion. If, in subsequent repeats on that day, the
constituency report does not give the full list of candidates, the audience should
be directed to an appropriate website or other information source listing all
candidates and giving the information set out above.”

 

Look North’s BBC’s Evening News item from 6.30 -7.00 p.m. earlier last week carried a report by Look North’s News Political Editor, Mr James Vincent on the powers of the role of the new South Yorkshire Mayor.  This was in the proposed Mayoral office and he commented “nice view but no powers”!
 
There was then a discussion in the BBC studio amongst Look North’s in-house staff  commentators, Ms Amy Garcia and Mr Harry Gration, who were complaining about the cost of the election address booklet and of the election generally.
 
This was the second or third occasion that Look North has referred to the South Yorkshire Mayoral elections in which they only referred viewers, who wanted more information, to the official election website but did not spell out at all the names or the parties of the candidates in the election.


https://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gifhttps://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gif(The link to the code is here >>>  https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/100103/broadcast-code-april-2017.pdf
 
The correspondence on this matter which sets out both issues is below, in chronological order:-
—–Original Message—–
From: Robin Tilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
To: robintilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 7:39 pm
Subject: PRESS RELEASE Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as Sheffield Mayoral Candidate 
 
 
 
PRESS RELEASE
Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as Sheffield Mayoral Candidate
In the Statement of Persons Nominated as a candidate in the election, Dan Jarvis has the non-existent address in London of 76 Marsham Road.  No postcode is provided.  Whereas there is a 76 Marsham Road in Kings Heath, Birmingham, there is none in London.  
It therefore seems that on his nomination paper Mr Jarvis has made a declaration that his address is 76 Marsham Road, London – clearly a false declaration and so it seems that he has committed an electoral fraud, which upon conviction would probably get him disqualified from holding elected office, not only as Mayor, but also as an MP!
Here is the Electoral Commission Guidance set out in:-
Guidance for candidates and agents Part 2b of 6 – Standing as a party candidate.   April 2017 (updated December 2017.
The relevant part of the Guidance states:-
“Home address form 1.12
The home address form must state your home address in full. If you do not want your address to be made public and to appear on the ballot paper, you must make a statement to this effect on the home address form and give the name of the constituency in which your home address is situated or, if you
live outside the UK, the name of the country in which you reside.
1.13
Your home address:
• must be completed in full
• must not contain abbreviations
• must be your current home address
• must not be a business address (unless you run a business from your home)
1.14
Your address does not need to be in the constituency in which you intend to stand.”
 
76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR does however exist and that is Great Minster House which is a Barrett luxury development whose website address can be found here >>> https://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/h634701-great-minster-house/ .  This is a new development in which Right Move shows that a 2 bedroomed flat is currently for sale at £2,650,000! (Click here >>>  http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-48448119.html .  
Also in the Mayoral Booklet for Election Addresses Mr Jarvis has given his address as 200 Duke Street, S2 5QQ, Sheffield, which is not only not a residential address but is also not really a proper address at all.  It is actually the side of the Labour Party’s Sheffield office!  
The proper address of Labour’s office is given by Mr Jarvis’ Election Agent, Mr Paul Nicholson, who gives his address as the proper address Labour’s Sheffield Headquarters of Talbot Street, S2 2TG. 
So the two addresses that Mr Jarvis has given in his paperwork for this important election are both addresses that he neither lives at nor works at!
In the Stoke By-election Labour said:-  “Mr Nuttall’s use of an empty house as his address raised questions about his fitness for public office”! 
The English Democrats take the view that if Labour felt that it was proper to report Mr Nuttall to the Police when the address given by him was both a real one and one which he presumably had leased then in this worse case the matter should be reported to the police and so we have done so.
David Allen, the English Democrats’ candidate for the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election said:-  “I always knew that Dan Jarvis MP was a Notts man with no real connections with Yorkshire at all, but now it appears that he cannot even give a proper address for his candidacy. 
This can only mislead electors in South Yorkshire into wrongly thinking that Dan Jarvis is someone with roots here in Yorkshire.”
David continued:-  “Furthermore if Dan Jarvis has committed an electoral fraud offence then it could be a wasted vote for Labour supporters to vote for him when he could soon be disqualified.  
The honourable thing for Mr Jarvis to do now would be to stand down from this election.  If he follows this advice it will be interesting to see whom he recommends his supporters to vote for.  I suspect it will be the equally anti-English Regionalist Yorkshire Party, which, just like Dan Jarvis, is not campaigning for the traditional Yorkshire at all, but for the EU Yorkshire & Humber Region which excludes parts of traditional Yorkshire and includes parts of traditional North Lincolnshire and whose main effect is to begin the break-up of England”
 
David Allen
St Edmunds House
Anchorage Lane
Doncaster
South Yorkshire  
DN5 8DT  
Tel: 01302 781347
Mobile: 07450 098964 
Email: Davidsallen64@gmail.com
 
 
Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats,
Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
Tel: 01277 896000
Mobile : 07778 553395
Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/
Twitter: @ RobinTilbrook
Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org
Party Twitter: @EnglishDemocrat
Supporting VotetoLeave.EU
Key facts about the English Democrats
The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.
The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8th largest contingent of candidates in England. In the October 2016 Batley & Spen, Westminster parliamentary, By-election we came second and easily beat all three British national parties and in the 2017 Greater Manchester Mayoral election we came 5th beating UKIP and beat the Greens in all but 2 boroughs.
 
 
—–Original Message—–
From: Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>
To: robintilbrook < robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 4:56 pm
Subject: FW: PRESS RELEASE Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as South Yorkshire Mayoral Candidate 
Hi Robin,
 
I can’t find the mayoral booklet for election addresses, I’m not sure it’s been made public yet. Do you have a copy?
Can you scan a page and send it me?
Thanks,
 
Liz
 
Liz Roberts
POLITICAL REPORTER
BBC SHEFFIELD
Mob: 07711 348956
 
 
 
 
—-Original Message—–
From: David Allen <davidsallen64@gmail.com>
To: Liz Roberts <liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>; Robin Tilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Apr 13, 2018 6:13 pm
Subject: Re: PRESS RELEASE Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as South Yorkshire Mayoral Candidate 
Liz
 
Enclosed is a picture of Jarvis’ entry in the booklet. I’ve also included a picture of the statement of nominations which has incorrect and incomplete London address too. If you need a better picture please let me know.
 
Regards 
 
David Allen 
 
 
 
From: David Allen [mailto:davidsallen64@gmail.com]
Sent: 13 April 2018 18:54
To: Liz Roberts; robintilbrook
Subject: Fwd: Your Email 13/4/18
 
 
———- Forwarded message ———
From: STEPHEN LEACH < Stephen.Leach@southyorks.pnn.police.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 at 18:24
Subject: Your Email 13/4/18
To: davidsallen64@gmail.com < davidsallen64@gmail.com>
 
Good afternoon
 
I can confirm that South Yorkshire Police is investigation an allegation of electoral fraud in relation to the forthcoming Sheffield City Regional Mayoral elections.
 
Regards
 
DI Steve Leach
SYP Cyber Crime
Stephen.leach@southyorkshire.pnn.police.uk
 

SYP Alerts offers information about local policing issues by text, email or voice message. Sign-up now at www.sypalerts.co.uk #SignMeUp

https://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gifhttps://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gif
 
—-Original Message—–
From: David Allen <davidsallen64@gmail.com>
To: James Vincent <james.vincent@bbc.co.uk>; Liz Roberts <liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>; Tim Smith-Leeds <tim.smith@bbc.co.uk>; robintilbrook <RobinTilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 16, 2018 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: Your Email 13/4/18 
 
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 at 10:52, Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote: 
Hi David,
 
We’ve decided we won’t be running the story. This is due to the safety risk posed to Dan Jarvis and his family.
 
Liz
 
Liz Roberts
POLITICAL REPORTER
BBC SHEFFIELD
Mob: 07711 348956
 
Hi Liz
 
Thanks for your message.
 
I am sorry to say I am not surprised. I suspect the real reason is more likely the political risk to what appears to be a BBC preferred candidate.
 
I fail to see how reporting him being investigated for electoral fraud constitutes a compromise to his or his family’s safety, bearing in mind his allegedly bogus London address is a matter of public record.
 
Each of the other candidates have had their home addresses published and perhaps myself and my family the most likely to be safety compromised amongst them.
 
Actions like this do nothing to dispel the growing belief that the BBC is ‘The Guardian’ on air and has abandoned any pretence of balance, particularly since BREXIT.
 
I am sorry you have been given the dirty job of being the messenger when it was you who dared to pick up the story in the first place.
 
This complaint is in no way directed at you personally.
 
Regards 
 
From: David Allen [mailto:davidsallen64@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 April 2018 15:51
To: Liz Roberts; robintilbrook
Subject: Dan Jarvis
 
Liz,
 
Further to your statement regarding the alleged compromise of the Jarvis family safety.If you would be so kind would you tell me , who told you this and the reasons they gave?
 
Regards
 
https://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gifhttps://btmail.bt.com/cp/ext/resources/images/default/s.gif
 
——- Forwarded message ———
From: Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 at 16:16
Subject: RE: Dan Jarvis
To: David Allen < davidsallen64@gmail.com> 
 
David,
 
I’m not prepared to go into the details, but we have looked into this extensively and come to the conclusion that there would be a genuine and increased risk to Dan Jarvis and possibly his family if we were to broadcast anything that might lead to his address being discovered.  I’m sure you are aware that these are difficult times in terms of the security of elected MPs, and especially so for someone like Mr Jarvis who is so publicly associated with our armed forces.   Please be reassured that this decision was taken after discussion with the management team at BBC Radio Sheffield and after a great deal of thought.
 
Liz
 
Liz Roberts
POLITICAL REPORTER
BBC SHEFFIELD
Mob: 07711 348956
 
 
 
—-Original Message—–
From: David Allen <davidsallen64@gmail.com>
To: Liz Roberts <liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk>; robintilbrook <RobinTilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Apr 16, 2018 6:05 pm
Subject: Re: Dan Jarvis 
Liz,
 
Thank you for you reply.
 
Please can you identify, by name and position, the members of the management team at BBC Radio Sheffield responsible for making this decision.
 
Regards
 
David Allen
 
 
 
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 at 09:27, Liz Roberts < liz.roberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote: 
David,
 
The managing editor is Katrina Bunker, the Assistant Editor is Mike Woodcock.
 
But if you’d like to make a complaint you can do so here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
 
Liz
 
Liz Roberts
POLITICAL REPORTER
BBC SHEFFIELD
Mob: 07711 348956
 
I await your response to this complaint.
Please acknowledge receipt.
Yours sincerely
 
Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats,
Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
Tel: 01277 896000
Mobile : 07778 553395
Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/
Twitter: @RobinTilbrook
Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org
Party Twitter: @EnglishDemocrat
Supporting VotetoLeave.EU
Key facts about the English Democrats
The English Democrats launched in 2002 and are the only campaigning English nationalist Party. We campaign for a referendum for Independence for England; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England; and we supported a YES vote for Scottish Independence.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include:- in the 2004 EU election we had 130,056 votes; winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council in 2009 and also the 2012 mayoralty referendum; in the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000; we won the 2012 referendum which gave Salford City an Elected Mayor; in 2012 we also saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; and in the 2014 EU election we had 126,024 votes for a total campaign spend of about £40,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK!). In the 2015 General Election we had the 8th largest contingent of candidates in England. In the October 2016 Batley & Spen, Westminster parliamentary, By-election we came second and easily beat all three British national parties and in the 2017 Greater Manchester Mayoral election we came 5th beating UKIP and beat the Greens in all but 2 boroughs.

"South Yorkshire Police is investigat(ing) an allegation of Electoral Fraud in relation to the forthcoming Sheffield City Regional Mayoral elections" — Detective Inspector Steve Leach South Yorkshire Police

Our PRESS RELEASE about the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election:- 

Dan Jarvis uses two dodgy addresses in standing as Sheffield Mayoral Candidate
In the Statement of Persons Nominated as a candidate in the election, Dan Jarvis has the non-existent address in London of 76 Marsham Road.  No postcode is provided.  Whereas there is a 76 Marsham Road in Kings Heath, Birmingham, there is none in London.  
It therefore seems that on his nomination paper Mr Jarvis has made a declaration that his address is 76 Marsham Road, London – clearly a false declaration and so it seems that he has committed an electoral fraud, which upon conviction would probably get him disqualified from holding elected office, not only as Mayor, but also as an MP!
Here is the Electoral Commission Guidance set out in:-
Guidance for candidates and agents Part 2b of 6 – Standing as a party candidate.  April 2017 (updated December 2017.
The relevant part of the Guidance states:-
“Home address form 1.12

The home address form must state your home address in full. If you do not want your address to be made public and to appear on the ballot paper, you must make a statement to this effect on the home address form and give the name of the constituency in which your home address is situated or, if you

live outside the UK, the name of the country in which you reside.

1.13

Your home address:

• must be completed in full

• must not contain abbreviations

• must be your current home address

• must not be a business address (unless you run a business from your home)

1.14

Your address does not need to be in the constituency in which you intend to stand.”
76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR does however exist and that is Great Minster House which is a Barrett luxury development whose website address can be found here >>>https://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/greater-london/h634701-great-minster-house/.  This is a new development in which Right Move shows that a 2 bedroomed flat is currently for sale at £2,650,000! (Click here >>> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-48448119.html. 
Also in the Mayoral Booklet for Election Addresses Mr Jarvis has given his address as 200 Duke Street, S2 5QQ, Sheffield, which is not only not a residential address but is also not really a proper address at all.  It is actually the side of the Labour Party’s Sheffield office!  
The proper address of Labour’s office is given by Mr Jarvis’ Election Agent, Mr Paul Nicholson, who gives his address as the proper address Labour’s Sheffield Headquarters of Talbot Street, S2 2TG. 
So the two addresses that Mr Jarvis has given in his paperwork for this important election are both addresses that he neither lives at nor works at!
In the Stoke By-election Labour said:-  “Mr Nuttall’s use of an empty house as his address raised questions about his fitness for public office”! 

The English Democrats take the view that if Labour felt that it was proper to report Mr Nuttall to the Police when the address given by him was both a real one and one which he presumably had leased then in this worse case the matter should be reported to the police and so we have done so as is confirmed by the quotation that is the title to this article.

David Allen, the English Democrats’ candidate for the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election said:-  
“I always knew that Dan Jarvis MP was a Notts man with no real connections with Yorkshire at all, but now it appears that he cannot even give a proper address for his candidacy. 
This can only mislead electors in South Yorkshire into wrongly thinking that Dan Jarvis is someone with roots here in Yorkshire.”
David continued:-  
“Furthermore if Dan Jarvis has committed an electoral fraud offence then it could be a wasted vote for Labour supporters to vote for him when he could soon be disqualified.  
The honourable thing for Mr Jarvis to do now would be to stand down from this election.  If he follows this advice it will be interesting to see whom he recommends his supporters to vote for.  I suspect it will be the equally anti-English Regionalist Yorkshire Party, which, just like Dan Jarvis, is not campaigning for the traditional Yorkshire at all, but for the EU Yorkshire & Humber Region which excludes parts of traditional Yorkshire and includes parts of traditional North Lincolnshire and whose main effect is to begin the break-up of England”
David Allen
Email: Davidsallen64@gmail.com
Robin Tilbrook
Chairman,
The English Democrats

Regionalisation exposed by the CEP as a devious EU tactic to destabilise the UK

Regionalisation exposed by the CEP as a devious EU tactic to destabilise the UK (& England!)
 
Many thanks to the Campaign for an English Parliament for this intel:-

“Many initial responses to hearing that there is a Yorkshire independence movement and a Yorkshire Party is to pour scorn on the idea as being fiscally irresponsible or plainly unworkable. This is because it is obvious that without the British government’s subsidies Yorkshire Services wouldn’t function properly.

However, to simply dismiss these two organisations that have the same Liberal Democrat leadership is to underestimate the manipulation and the devious actions of the EU in supporting a new sounding name for the old EU Regionalisation project for Britain and for England. http://www.e-f-a.org/about-us/

First it is important for any patriots to realise that the EU is supporting the Yorkshire Party as it belongs to an EU umbrella organisation, called the European Free Alliance (EFA). That EU organisation gathers together 45 “Progressive nationalist, regionalist and autonomist” parties throughout Europe. This grouping can only be conceived as an EU attempt to break-up and digest those nations that the regionalist organisations work within. This is because the EU supports the Regionalisation agenda because it makes resistance to their EU federalism agenda difficult if the nation state is fighting on two fronts. (the EU commission and EU supporting regionalist voices within).

The structure in Catalonia and Spain is a good example showing how devious the EU truly is:- The EU has openly distanced itself from those Catalonian parties that have called for full independence but it fails to mention that some of these parties are also included in their EU, European Free Alliance organisation. In effect, they are funded encouraging Regionalisation behind the scenes but are publicly slapping down independence. That is because the regionalist within the nation state is an EU regionalist patsy!

Once you accept that Regionalisation is all about pushing the EU Federalist agenda then you realise that The Yorkshire Party is not about benefiting the people of Yorkshire but about promoting EU federalism. This makes the Yorkshire party dangerous because it is about creating internal divisions and arguments within England and the UK whilst the British Government are engaged in full Brexit negotiations.

The British Government is weakened by the Regionalist pro-EU parties of the SNP and Plaid Cymru but now the EUs promoting a Regionalist political party within England that is for continuing to stay in the EU.
http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk/europe, http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk/sign_our_petition_support_the_rights_of_eu_citizens_in_yorkshire

This is not new and any person should be able to see the 4 EU stages that have and are being attempted to create destabilise the UK:-

(1) Under the Blair Labour government the EU promoted regionalisation of the UK and of England but the idea failed to gain any momentum in England and they lost at the ballot box in the North East of England. (You only need to look at the EU zealot, Tony Blair’s current EU stance to realise what his regionalist agenda was not about better governance. It was about destabilising the UK for EU advantage by creating a Welsh Assembly, a Scottish Parliament, and a Northern Irish Assembly and English Regional Assembly*). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Alliance#Full_members

(2) Thus with Tony Blair’s help the EU had been successful in creating an unbalanced constitutional situation. Having created Regional Parliaments that could challenge the British government, the EU began to focus more on England. They started to support the term ‘Localism’ which really meant Regionalisation of England. If you break England up into EU Regions then you really have created an internal political and constitutional crisis for the UK.

Initially, it was Mebyon Kernow, the Cornish nationalists getting far more pro-EU media exposure than the actual support for their party would have commanded and now it’s the turn of the Yorkshire Party to be promoted. http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15787239.Councillors_vote_to_back_devolution_move/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-leeds-42427906 ;

(3) Now we need to look forward to 2018, having helped establish the idea that Yorkshire can stand alone as a Region within the EU, they could allow the Yorkshire party to push for their own parliament with more fiscal autonomy and claim that Yorkshire doesn’t have any connection with the south of England and that the British Government has no more right to speak for them than for Scotland. http://www.yorkshireparty.org.uk

(4) Then Yorkshire Party will demand the same powers as Scotland and it’s own independence referendum which states it wants to remain in the EU!
https://en-gb.facebook.com/voteyorkshire/

To fully corroborate the Regionalist agenda it is worth noting that the Leader of the Yorkshire Party, Stewart Arnold, was previously a liberal Democrat Councillor and Parliamentary candidate and he also worked as a Policy and Communications Director for the European Parliament between 2001 -2012. Mr Arnold was involved in establishing the “Yorkshire Independence Movement” and is its Vice Chairman as well as becoming the Yorkshire Party’s as its leader. Also added to this is Nigel Sollitt’s comments as, The Yorkshire Independence Movement’s Chairman, states that their aim is:- ‘a Yorkshire empowered to make her own decisions and determine her own destiny’. https://yorkshiredevolution.co.uk/current-executive-committee.html

In conclusion, by not discouraging Regionalism, the British government is sleepwalking into the same problems that Spain now has with Catalonia but with the major difference being that the British government is about to start negotiations to leave the EU, Spain isn’t. The Spanish Government must therefore seem as an enemy of the EU whereas the British Government is.

Regionalisation is a process that the EU uses to promote its Federalist policy, if English Regionalism is encouraged then “dissolution” of the UK will occur. This puts the EU Regionalist party, Yorkshire party in direct opposition to the British government and the British State itself as well as in opposition to the continuance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland!”


*

 United Kingdom Mebyon Kernow  Cornwall 2003
 United Kingdom Plaid Cymru  Wales 1983
 United Kingdom Scottish National Party  Scotland 1989
 United Kingdom Yorkshire Party[28]  Yorkshire 2015/2016

South Yorkshire Police Commission By-election update


South Yorkshire Police Commission By-election update

Here are the expenses for the South Yorkshire Police Commissioner By-election:-

Labour:

Number of votes: 74060

Spent:£123459.61

Cost per vote:£1.68.

UKIP:

Number of votes: 46883

Spent: £157048.65

Cost per vote:£3.35

Conservative:

Number of votes:18536

Spent: £18231.51

Cost per vote:98 pence.

English Democrats:

Number of votes: 8583

Spent: £9567.

Cost per vote: £1.11.

While I had already done a previous Blog item about this by-election, which can be found here >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-lessons-of-south-yorkshire-by.html, I thought it was interesting that actually, contrary to some of the comments that I have seen about the relative position of the English Democrats and UKIP, that despite them spending over sixteen times as much money as we were able to spend in the election, and significantly more than even Labour’s spend, they were still not anywhere near beating Labour in South Yorkshire.

It was also interesting that UKIP spent more than three times as much than we did on each and every vote that they received. I think the moral is that if we were actually able to raise enough money to match UKIP’s spending, not only would we beat them, but we would have been more likely to win election than they ever could be.

Could that be something to do with the relative appeal of English nationalism as against British nationalism?


The victims of Rotherham’s Pakistani/Muslim child rape gangs to sue?

The victims of Rotherham’s Pakistani/Muslim child rape gangs to sue?

You may have seen in a previous Blog article what the English Democrats have tried to do politically in South Yorkshire as a result of the Pakistani/Muslim child rape gang scandal. (Click here >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-lessons-of-south-yorkshire-by.html

On reflection however I thought that, as a lawyer, there may well also be something more that I could do. Something which might even bring some much needed justice for the victims and against the guilty.

I therefore thought to put in a provocative advertisement proposal to South Yorkshire’s media!

You might think (but I couldn’t possibly comment!) that local journalists would be likely to have heard about what was going on. Yet the startling fact is that, with a very few honourable exceptions, there was extraordinary little reporting of these appalling crimes and the scandal of the authorities’ complicity.

In these circumstances I thought the exchange below might well be of interest as it does give an insight into the mind-set of a key local journalist; that is the Editor of the Rotherham Advertiser.

Below is the correspondence. See what you think.

From:RobinTilbrook
Sent: 08 January 2015 17:36
To: Advertising Department at Rotherham Advertiser
Subject: Re: Placement of Advert

Dear Sir

Re: Placement of Advert

I may wish to place an advertisement with your newspaper. Please could you let me know how much this would cost?

To all under age victims of South Yorkshire’s “Grooming” Gangs

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you may well be in a position to sue, not only the gang members but also all their “clients” for damages for Rape. This could amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

You could also sue the Council for the gross negligence for having left you vulnerable to such exploitation.

Also if the police were involved and failed to act to help you, then you may be able to sue the police too.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.

Yours faithfully

R C W Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

In a message dated 09/01/2015 14:34:51 GMT Standard Time,

rotherhamadvertiser writes:

Hi Robin,

Thank you for your enquiry regarding advertising in the Rotherham Advertiser. The text you have listed below would fit into a 7 x 2 box, or a 5 x 3 box, the cost of the 7 x 2 in the general run of paper would be £93.94 plus VAT, the 5 x 3 would be £100.65 plus VAT.

There are many other sizes available smaller and larger, however the 7 x 2 is the smallest that this amount of words would fit into and still have room to make the setting stand out. If you would like more information then please do not hesitate to give me a call.

Many thanks,

T.M.

From: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 09 January 2015 17:17
To: Rotherham Advertiser
Subject: Re: FW: Placement of Advert

Dear T

Thank you for your email. I am probably interested in placing this advert for £93.94 plus VAT. What more do you need from me?

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

 

From: rotherhamadvertiser
To: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 12/01/2015 09:15:40 GMT Standard Time
Subj: RE: FW: Placement of Advert

Hi Robin,

Because you have not used us before we do not have a credit account set up for you so I would need prepayment for the advert. I can email a proforma invoice and would need you to pay on a card or by bacs. Let me know how you would like to pay and I will email the invoice and details on how to pay. The deadline for this week’s paper is 3pm Wednesday.

Kindest regards, T.

From: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 12 January 2015
To: Rotherham Advertiser
Subject: Re: FW: Placement of Advert

Dear T

Thank you for your email. Yes if you could send me the invoice that would be fine. However before you do so please could you check with your Editor that the paper will run it as it is a bit controversial?

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s

———————————————————————————

From: T.M.
Sent: 12 January 2015 13:19
To: A.M. Editor
Subject: FW: FW: Please check content is Ok for publishing

Hi A,

Can you check that we are OK to run this advert and let me know as I need to book and take payment.

Thanks, T

To all under age victims of South Yorkshire’s “Grooming” Gangs

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you may well be in a position to sue, not only the gang members but also all their “clients” for damages for Rape. This could amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

You could also sue the Council for the gross negligence for having left you vulnerable to such exploitation.

Also if the police were involved and failed to act to help you, then you may be able to sue the police too.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.

In a message dated 12/01/2015 13:39:31 GMT Standard Time,

rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk writes:

HI Robin,

Our editor has made some changes would the copy below be Ok with you? Let me know.

T.

From: A.M. Editor
Sent: 12 January 2015 13:38
To: T.M.
Subject: RE: FW: Please check content is Ok for publishing

Hi T,

Maybe something like the below?

A.

If you are a victim of child sexual abuse or exploitation you could be in a position to sue the perpetrators and the relevant authorities you believe let you down and failed to help you.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.

From: robintilbrook

Sent: 12 January 2015

To: TM

Dear T

The revised advertisement is good, but the purpose of my advertisement is to reach those who are victims of South Yorkshire’s Muslim/Pakistani child rape gangs not other types of cases so I would prefer:-

To all under age victims of South Yorkshire’s “Grooming” Gangs

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you could be in a position to sue, the gang members and all their “clients” for damages for Rape. This would amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

You could also sue the Council for the gross negligence for having left you vulnerable to such exploitation.

Also if the police were involved and failed to act to help you, then you may be able to sue the police too.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

In a message dated 13/01/2015 13:27:01 GMT Standard

Time, Rotherhamadvertisor writes:

HI Robin,

Please see below from my editor. Let me know if this is acceptable.

Many thanks, T

From: A.M. Editor
Sent: 13 January 2015 13:01
To: T.M>
Subject: RE: Grooming Gangs Advert

Hi T,

I’m uncomfortable about saying it would amount to tens of thousands of pounds as it might not. Equally, I don’t think we can name the council or the police. We are probably okay saying “grooming gangs” if that’s the bit he wants in to differentiate between those victims and the victims of abuse from, say, a family member.

Thanks,

A

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you could be in a position to sue

the perpetrators and the relevant authorities you believe let you down and failed to help you.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.

From: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 13 January 2015 18:54
To: rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk
Subject: Re: FW: Grooming Gangs Advert

Dear T

Thank you for your email. I am a bit puzzled by your Editor’s comment about the amount as this is to be stated in my advert and is not something that he is expected to verify.

I am a Civil Litigation specialist and can specifically confirm that I expect that every finding of Rape would probably attract an award in excess of £50,000. So for one of those girls whose plight was reported on in the Jay Report who has been raped hundreds of times the damages may well exceed £1million.

So far as mentioning the Council and the Police, this is also a basic litigation position. Of course we would sue them whereever sufficient grounds exist as they probably will for the Council in every case where the child was in Care. Where the police were involved and failed in their duty to act, the same applies.

So yes given the significant sums involved I do want the Council and the Police mentioned. I am happy to keep it generic but of course I actually mean Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police. I would add I shall also be carefully considering whether individual Councillors and Council officials are worth ‘powder and shot’!

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

 

From: rotherhamadvertiser
To: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 14/01/2015 09:31:43 GMT Standard Time
Subj: RE: FW: Grooming Gangs Advert

HI Robin,

I don’t think he meant that he would need to verify the amount it was more a case of mentioning large sums that may not be an achievable amount.

However if you are happy to go with the last version then the deadline is 3pm today to get into Friday’s Advertiser. Let me know.

Kind regards, T.

From: T.M. Rotherham Advertiser
Sent: 14 January 2015 10:22
To: A.M. Editor
Subject: FW: FW: FW: Please check content is Ok for publishing

Hi A

He wants to use this one is this OK?

Let me know. T.

To all under age victims of South Yorkshire’s “Grooming” Gangs

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you could be in a position to sue, the gang members and all their “clients” for damages for Rape. This would amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

You could also sue the Council for the gross negligence for having left you vulnerable to such exploitation.

Also if the police were involved and failed to act to help you, then you may be able to sue the police too.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.




 

From: rotherhamadvertiser
To: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 14/01/2015 10:59:06 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Please check content is Ok for publishing

Hi Robin,

I am sorry my editor is still unhappy with the phrasing, he has suggested the text below. As you can see from his email he is unhappy with naming the authorities and promising amounts that at this stage cannot be guaranteed.

Let me know what you think.

Kind regards

From: RobinTilbrook

Sent : 14 January 2015

To: Rotherhamadvertiser

Dear T

Thank you for your email. I am surprised by your Editor’s comments. We do not need there to have been any arrests for the victim to be able to sue. It is simply a legal fact that these types of cases will attract damages of tens of thousands of pounds. The relevant authorities are the Council and the police so why should I pussyfoot about?

It is very strange that your Editor has made his joke about my sentiments. This is one of the most appalling scandals ever and yet he is concerned about mere nuance!

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

From: A.M.
Sent: 14 January 2015 10:42
To: T.M.
Subject: RE: FW: FW: Please check content is Ok for publishing

Hi T.

He can’t say gang members as there haven’t been arrests, he can’t say tens of thousands of pounds and he needs to say relevant authorities rather than council or police.

The whole sentiment behind the advert and the way he’s phrasing things comes across as cheap and nasty.

I don’t think he can say much more than the below:

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you could be in a position to sue the perpetrators and the relevant authorities you believe let you down and failed to help you.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.

In a message dated 14/01/2015 15:08:31 GMT Standard Time,

rotherhamadvertiser writes:

Hi Robin,

Sorry to hassle you but we are on deadline now for this week’s paper so if you do want to go ahead I would need to know within the next half hour.

Kind regards,

T.

To: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 22/01/2015 15:35:56 GMT Standard Time
Subj: RE: Deadline

Hi Robin,

The editor is not happy for the authorities to be named, so you could put the relevant authorities but not Council or Police. The amount that they could get you said would be tens of thousands but you would have to put could be not would be as there are no guarantees. He is also not willing to print anything that points to any specific cultural group.

If you can word the advert around this then we would be happy to print it. Let me know if you do want to go ahead but I will have to run it by him again once the wording is submitted.

Kind regards,

T.

From: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 22 January 2015 15:14
To: rotherhamadvertiser
Subject: Re: Deadline

Dear T

I am still interested in placing an advertisement in the Rotherham Advertiser, but of course it does have to be wording that is useful and meaningful to me as an advertiser. Please could you confirm with your Editor what the position is?

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

——————————————————————-

From: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 28 January 2015 09:22
To: T M
Subject: Re: Deadline

Dear T

Thank you for your email which I am surprised and puzzled at. Please remind your Editor that I have not asked to specifically identify Rotherham Council or the South Yorkshire Police – I have said the “Council” and the “Police”.

So far as ethnic/religious group is concerned, could you please remind your Editor that Professor Jay’s report was very clear that the perpetrators, with only one exception, were all Pakistani Muslims. The only exception was very much the “exception that proves the rule” as it was an Afghan Muslim of the same tribal group as most of the other perpetrators, i.e. Pathan/Pashtun. It would therefore in fact be wholly appropriate for my advert to be far more ethnic/religion specific than I have asked for.

So far as the money is concerned I actually anticipate, given the hundreds of rapes that many of these girls endured, that the money at stake may not merely amount to tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, but run into figures well above a million.

In the light of these comments I would request your Editor to reconsider his position on this advert.

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

_____________________________________________

From: rotherhamadvertiser
To: RobinTilbrook
CC: J.R.@rotherhamadvertiser
Sent: 28/01/2015 11:48:51 GMT Standard Time
Subj: RE: Deadline

Hi Robin,

I passed your email to my editor who discussed it with our MD and they are still unwilling to run the advert with the details you mention. The fact that you are only targeting your advert at people suffering abuse at the hands of certain ethnic groups, all victims of abuse deserve compensation whomever was the cause. Also they have reservations about running it as there have still been no arrests made for these acts of abuse.

As a sales person I am sorry to turn down the revenue but my hands are tied.

Kind regards, T

————————————————————————

Sent to Rotherham Advertiser 28.1.15

From : Robin Tilbrook

Dear Tina

Your reply is amazing and concerning. My proposed advertisement actually does not identify any “ethnic groups”. This is despite, as I have said, the fact that it could properly do so, given the clarity and strength of the evidence in the Jay Report.

Your Editor’s reaction suggests that the Rotherham Advertiser may have been complicit in the cover-up of the activities of Muslim/Pakistani child rape gangs prostituting under-age girls in Rotherham by failing to properly and truthfully cover the extent of the criminality involved. How does your Editor answer to this serious charge?

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

In a message dated 28/01/2015 16:43:48 GMT Standard Time,

rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk writes:

Hi Robin,

Again I have passed your comments to the Editor and forward any reply.

Kind regards, T

From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
To: rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk
Sent: 28/01/2015 17:08:11 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Deadline

Thank you T.

Robin

From: A.M.@rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk
To: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
Sent: 29/01/2015 16:16:24 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Are you really a solicitor?

Robin,

I would expect a solicitor to at least know that what you state below is an accusation (a pretty silly one at that) rather than a charge. A charge is made when police have enough information to make one (at least that’s the idea).

Your advert comes across as a crass and desperate attempt to profit from the misfortunes of others in a town hundreds of miles away from where you actually operate. Is local business so bad? Also, it gives what is likely to be false hope to most would-be claimants.

A

————————————————————————————————————————————-

From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
To: A.M. @rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk
Sent: 30/01/2015 20:30:38 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Are you really a solicitor?

Dear A

Thank you for your email. The words “charge” and accusation” mean very much the same thing.

I notice that your response has been the classic diversion strategem rather than answering the question. Use of this usually implies guilt. If I were cross examining you in court, I would probably leave it at that and invite the court to draw its own conclusions from your evasion when the question had been put to you.

Nevertheless I shall ask again are you one of those who is guilty of not reporting what you know and so helping the cover up? Viz: One that is part of the conspiracy of silence? Was this done for the politically correct appeasement of “community relations”?

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

THE LESSONS OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE BY-ELECTION FOR POLICE COMMISSIONER


THE LESSONS OF THE SOUTH YORKSHIRE BY-ELECTION FOR POLICE COMMISSIONER

 

The fact that is strangest to those of us that have an idealist hope that representative democracy can be a force for good is that over 85.12% of those registered on the electoral roll in South Yorkshire could not be bothered to get off their backsides to vote.  This is whilst they were living in the midst of probably the worst scandal in the whole of the Western world.  They could hardly fail to have been fully aware of it and of much of its ramifications and their idleness puts them as being somewhat complicit in the scandal.  Can it be imagined that if significant numbers had taken to the streets to object over the last 15 years, that even the conspirators at the heart of South Yorkshire Labour wouldn’t have re-thought their approach?

The extent of the scandal is this, for many years now isolated voices have been pointing out that there is a widespread problem of Pakistani/Muslim men sexually predating upon very young English girls.  Although it is now clear that many people within the upper reaches of Labour and, no doubt, of the local media were well aware of this happening.  Not only did they not do anything to prevent it, but they actively demonised anyone who raised it.

This case must be the most appalling example of institutionalised racism and bigotry that anyone could imagine taking place in England.  Given the current furore over Jimmy Saville (and for that matter Ched Evans, the Sheffield footballer, who appears to have taken advantage of a drunken, but at least adult girl), who can doubt the seriousness of what is now officially admitted to be, in Rotherham alone, at least 1,400 children raped, trafficked, abused and, no doubt, at least similar numbers in many other towns across England.

For example, Manchester is beginning to look like a place where Labour behaved in the same way, where Labour government officials, social workers and the police and local media all behaved in the same way.  In Manchester the numbers of girls may exceed 10,000.

It would appear that across England that the scandal may well encompass over 100,000 girls, most of whom were supposedly in local government “Care”, very often having been taken away from feckless parents to be put in a situation which turned out to be far worse.

The extent of the scandal is not just those local officials, police and local politicians who were aware of it and did nothing, or actively colluded in covering it up, but the scandal went as far into the heart of the Labour Government as the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, and was certainly known about by the Labour MPs of the various towns involved, as is clear from the Yorkshire Post article below.

Yet in the midst of this utterly appalling scandal, that any decent human being should be up in arms about, this is the very context in which 849,654 adult citizens living in South Yorkshire couldn’t be bothered to vote.  This figure does not even take account of up to 25% of those eligible to vote who care so little about the future of our country that they are not even on the electoral roll.  It is not as if there was no choice given to those people to vote against the corrupt Labour establishment.  No our candidate, David Allen, had come second last time.  We delivered a hard-hitting leaflet, which I show below, and there was a reasonable amount of media coverage and reporting of what was going on.

Why then was it that only 8,583 people voted for the only candidate genuinely committed to a root and branch tackling of this appalling problem?

Well one answer of course is the paedophile vote.  Labour scraped back in again with mostly postal voters (somewhere in the order of 80% of their vote was postal votes), and they got 74,060 votes.  Those voters would have been the paedophiles themselves, their friends and family and all those that had been involved in the cover-up and institutionalised neglect of their duty to these girls.  There were also, no doubt, some un-thinking Labour Party supporters.  The Liberal Democrats did not stand and that of course helped Labour, as their standing would have split the votes of unthinking Leftists.

Then there is also the fundamental lack of State support for these elections.  When Police Commissioner elections were being introduced by the then Police Commissioner, the aptly named Nick Herbert, I, and many others, lobbied him to have mayoral style booklets delivered to every elector, which would not only explain the role of the Police Commissioner, but also the voting system and every candidate would have an opportunity to put their electoral address into the leaflet.

The Conservative Minister’s calculation was they did not need the booklet as much as the other parties because they have got the most money and therefore could afford to pay for leafleting, but also there is the usual Conservative Party ‘bean counter’ mentality of keeping the costs down, even where that seriously undermines the purpose for which the money has been spent.

Elections are always quite expensive, not least because the returning officers send a notice of the election card to every elector.

All too typically for the British State the card that is sent has very little of importance or use on it and sending it is nothing more than a ‘tick box’ bureaucratic exercise.  Whereas if that note was replaced with a Mayoral style booklet we would have a realistic chance of getting some better involvement from the electors.  But no, Nick Herbert absolutely refused to support these elections in a way that would have made it likely that this ostensibly commendable reform would succeed.

Given the size of the electorate at 1,000,015 and the distances to be covered over the whole of South Yorkshire, comprising some 14 Westminster parliamentary constituencies, and that there is no support in making contact with the electorate for any of the candidates, it is obvious that the amount of money spent on the campaign is likely to make all the difference.

Unfortunately, but inevitably, the English Democrats had the smallest war chest for fighting these elections.  We had a well-designed, hard-hitting leaflet.  We did our best to raise the issue on social media, but in the end the amount of money spent was inevitably going to tell.

 
Labour had not only invested time and effort in the past in getting their supporters on the postal voting system, but also had relatively deep pockets and an urgent need to try to maintain their position in order to close off the prospect of senior members of the Labour Party being arrested for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and various other conspiracy charges arising out of their disgraceful behaviour.

The Tories were there in their role of trying to keep the Punch & Judy shows going between Labour and the Conservatives and splitting any non-establishment opposition vote and got 18,536 votes.

UKIP stood, despite being a party that is opposed to the concept of Police Commissioners, a bizarre position for a party claiming to be in favour of democracy.  They put up a former South Yorkshire Police Inspector, who, even if he wasn’t personally involved in the scandal, must have known about it.  He was supposedly in “Community Policing” and engaging in buttering up the Imams in the various mosques of South Yorkshire.  He would have a vested interest in protecting his friends and former colleagues who are guilty.

However when it came down to money it has been stated that by senior people within UKIP that they spent over £150,000 on the election.  I have also heard others say that they spent up to £250,000 on the election.  In either case they spent at least 15 times as much money on this election as we did and still got nowhere near winning it.  Their vote was 46,883.  So UKIP may have spent over £5 per vote.

It was also interesting that the English Democrats counting agents at the various counts reported that about 40% of all the Second Preference votes were English Democrats, so it sounds as if, even if Labour had not succeeded in getting over the 50% mark, that UKIP would not have succeeded in winning the seat.

The lessons therefore of this election are that it is not enough to have the best policies, or the best candidate, or the best leaflet, or even the best social media campaign, what is required to win this was large numbers of potential supporters signed up to vote on the postal vote and also much more money.

In the absence of either of these two key resources, the English Democrats nevertheless did quite well to get 8,500 votes and to retain our deposit.  We also got significant additional publicity and were treated with respect by the media as a serious political party with serious political aims and a serious and sensible candidate.

Well done David Allen and the South Yorkshire English Democrats who made it all possible!

Here is the Yorkshire Post article I mentioned:-

 

Exclusive: MP and Home Office failed to act on Rotherham grooming 11 years ago

by Adrian Pearson, the Yorkshire Post’s Political Editor

ROTHERHAM’s horrific abuse concerns were raised with the Home Office and the town’s MP but never acted on, The Yorkshire Post can reveal.

Abuse campaigners have revealed how in 2003 they met with a senior Home Office representative to say the Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police could not be trusted and called for urgent Government action.

And in 2009 they wrote to Denis MacShane with a five page letter detailing abuse concerns made by a Rotherham family but received no response.

Mr MacShane has said he was never approached by constituents raising abuse concerns, and that was why he did not speak on the issue of Rotherham-specific abuse in the House of Commons.

The former MP said he has no knowledge of the letter, and that as it was not directly addressed to him but to a larger group he might not necessarily have had to act on it.

The letter was sent by charity Parents Against Child Sexual Exploitation, then known as CROP, who said its own researcher had to stop work because of fears a serving police officer was passing information on to abusers.

Evidence of the 2009 letter, released by the influential Home Affairs Select Committee, comes as it emerges former Rotherham Council staff face criminal charges for misconduct in public office.

South Yorkshire Police chief constable David Crompton revealed he asked the National Crime Agency to look at council failings and those of his own force as part of its investigation into how abuse claims were handled.

The abuse charity PACE said it still could not understand why when the Home Office was informed of widespread abuse, incompetence or worse in public office and the possibility of police corruption, civil servants did nothing.

Minutes from the charity show that in early 2002 the Home Office knew its own researcher was under pressure to stop asking difficult questions, with records stating “The Home Office in London…know that she is being asked to falsify data and has other problems.”

The Home Office though told Rotherham charities and youth workers that the researcher’s work was to be axed and, it can today be revealed, banned them from publishing the provisional abuse inquiries.

From 2003 onwards briefing notes had been prepared for the then Home Secretary David Blunket and the charity was told “The Home Secretary is ready to read what CROP sends.”

In 2004 charity chair of trustees Hilary Willmer met with Sue Jago from the Home Office “in which she promised the Home office would give a high profile to the issues we raised”.

Ms Willmer last night said: “When we found out what was happening to these girls we assumed everyone would be horrified and there would be immediate action. We had to painfully learn that that was not the case, including when we told the Home Office.”

Ms Willmer’s charity revealed a family support worker was appointed but was forced to quit because of “she believes at least one police officer was undermining her work and potentially putting her personally at risk as he/she was being paid by pimps/groomers for information.”

It emerged yesterday that South Yorkshire Police has now referred 14 people to the IPCC watchdog and may make further referrals should the criteria be met. The force said Both South Yorkshire Police and the independent investigation will remain in constant dialogue with the IPCC.

Mr MacShane said he has no memory of the charity rasing concerns with him. He said he was among the first to speak out in 2012 when the claims became public, and said many serving officers will have questions to answer.

“No one ever approached me on this, not a single person came to me as a constituent on child abuse by Asian males. This notion that the whole world knew and there was a cover up is balderdash.”

He added: “The real people who have questions to answer are Rotherham police officers. It happened at a district level and all those who served at a district command from roughly 1999 to 2010 need to exam their records to see what they knew.”

The Home Office did not provide a comment.

Click here for the original article>>> http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/exclusive-mp-and-home-office-failed-to-act-on-rotherham-grooming-11-years-ago-1-6913834

South Yorkshire Police Commissioner by-election

David Allen – English Democrats

Today is voting day in the South Yorkshire Police Commissioner by-election – which is an election using the Second Preference voting system.


Our English Democrats’ candidate David Allen is head and shoulders above the other candidates in this election as was shown in the BBC Radio Sheffield debate broadcast yesterday.  To listen to this please click here >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p028ltd5


The debate begins at 02:02:40

 

Anyone who doesn’t vote is wasting this opportunity to make a difference! 
 
Should we also frankly say that anyone who doesn’t vote is an Idiot who is handing the election to those very people who have betrayed the trust placed in them?

 
As Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot) says An idiot in Athenian democracy was someone who was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private—as opposed to public—affairs. Idiocy was the natural state of ignorance into which all persons were born and its opposite, citizenship, was effected through formalized education. In Athenian democracy, idiots were born and citizens were made through education (although citizenship was also largely hereditary). “Idiot” originally referred to “layman, person lacking professional skill”, “person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning”. Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), was considered dishonorable. “Idiots” were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term “idiot” shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individuals who are “stupid”.

ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE LABOUR IN SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTION

Our Press release on standing in the South Yorkshire Police Commissioner By-election

ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE LABOUR IN SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTION


The English Democrats are pleased and proud to announce that David Allen, who was our candidate in the previous Police Commissioner election, is again standing for us in the coming South Yorkshire Police Commissioner By-election, triggered by the resignation in disgrace of the previous Labour Police Commissioner, Shaun Wright.

In the last election the English Democrats came second and won the vast majority of Second Preference votes. Given the disgraceful behaviour of the local Labour Party machine in South Yorkshire in covering up Pakistani/Muslim child rape gangs and allowing them to operate for years with impunity because of Labour’s politically correct and diversity ideology we aim to win this time. The People of South Yorkshire need and deserve a change from Labour.

David Allen is the challenger to Labour’s corrupt one party state in South Yorkshire and he is the new broom that will sweep clean by remorselessly ordering the hunting down and prosecuting, not only all South Yorkshire’s child rapists gangs, but also all of Labour’s national politicians, councillors, officials, councillors, social workers and police officers who may be guilty of offences, including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in covering up these crimes and for breaches of their public duty to the People of South Yorkshire.

David Allen, the English Democrats’ candidate said:- “From day one on the job, if elected, I will be tireless in the pursuit of these criminals and in bringing them to justice. The law should be administered without fear or favour and without ideological bias. The scandal in South Yorkshire has not been only the large number of child rape offences perpetrated by men of Muslim Pakistani origin, but also the deliberate concealment of these offences and failure to do their job of many people being paid handsomely out of the public pocket. Often this failure was motivated mainly by careerist, partisan advantage. Anyone guilty of these offences should not be in any doubt that if I am elected they will be rooted out and their political careers at public expense will be over.”

“As for the “grooming” gangs, they should note that if the court and prison service fails to impose an adequate punishment, then every time the offender re-offends we shall aim to prosecute again until they are sentenced for a sufficient time to make them no longer a risk to the public”

“South Yorkshire Police will also be directed to cease harassing people who are protecting their homes from burglars and will instead be directed to concentrate on prosecuting the burglar rather than the home defender.”

David Allen stood in the 2012 PCC elections for the English Democrats and came in second place: he is a foundry engineer by training and has experience is sales and sales management. David is married with two children and lives in Doncaster.

David says: ”If elected I will remind the police of their oaths to enforce the law without fear or favour. It is essential that they keep the consent of the people and that justice is seen to be done. I will pursue those who have failed in their duty and broken the law within the entire establishment, particularly with regard to vulnerable children.”

David thinks that a truly independent inquiry is needed to establish the performance of the South Yorkshire police, he would bring in an independent force to do so.

It is my belief that prevention is better than cure and that visible police constables are a reassurance to the public and a deterrence to criminals. Crime should be prevented on the street and not reduced with pen and ink.

For any of these things to happen the police must be freed from the tyranny of political correctness. It is a restrictive and disabling doctrine that prevents good men and women from doing their jobs properly. Equal rights not special rights

I promise if elected to listen to the public and try hold the police to account on their behalf, whilst supporting and defending them in their duty too.

Vote David Allen, English Democrats – ”MORE POLICE – catching criminals!”