Monday, 18th May Civic Centre 7pm
The motion reads: "The latest revelations in the local, regional and national media allege very clearly that Councillor Stephen Akers-Belcher has lied publicly on numerous occasions.
"He has misled the press, fellow councillors and most damning of all the people of Hartlepool. Moreover he has lied about a partner North-East Council, forcing them to publicly defend themselves against these lies.
"All of this leads to the, widely held, view that he is simply not fit for office, in any form. To that end the council has a duty to take action, even if the only thing we are legally able to do is record a vote of no confidence.
"We therefore formally move a formal vote of no confidence in Coun Stephen Akers Belcher as councillor of this borough and call on him to tender his resignation as a councillor immediately."
The meeting will be held at Hartlepool Civic Centre at 7pm on Monday, May 18.
I didn't understand tonight's meeting. No vote on SAB (which is supposed to be what the meeting was about). Brash trying to construct an intellectual argument to people, some of whose minds are permanently embedded in the gutter of spite and self-enrichment. Pointless.
One entertaining episode. After listening at the beginning to the various woes expressed at the prospect of 5 years of a Conservative majority Government which, unsurprisingly, led to no rebut from Martin-Wells whatsoever, we were treated to Carl's most recent gaff as he talked about 'our friends the Conservatives', as an example of cooperation between parties.
Timing is everything.
Well I will have to read about the outcome of the Meeting in the Mail once Joy has been briefed what too print ! No mention of it on the first online edition, TorLab still editing the press release ?
Well I'm not 100% sure exactly what went on last night or what exactly the final proposal was but I understand why Brash and Thompson decided to go with a different approach. The vote of no confidence was never going to achieve anything. The lab/cons would have made out SAB was an angel and that the proposers of the motion were being vindictive. They always seem to think being legitimately challenged on an issue is a personal attack.
The most disappointing thing for me about last night was Chris Simmons spitting his dummy and walking out. A little bit of an overreaction I think.
Regarding the issue of chairing the meeting. I have no issue with Mary Fleet being the ceremonial mayor but I can't see how she can go on chairing the meetings. It wasn't the debacle of last time but she would have really struggled without Stubbs to help her.
Classic example of how Labour is unable to think on its feet. They would have been given their instructions during the pre-meeting get together; presumably in this case, a 3-line whip to vote in support of the Mayor come what may.
When the subject matter veered away from this, they malfunctioned en-block. Simmons wanted to delay any decision so that his group could receive new instructions from the Leader while Richardson wanted to get back to a vote on the Mayor because they knew what to do on that one.
I don't agree that the vote of confidence wouldn't have achieved anything. It would have been voted down for sure but I don't think it was about SAB any more; it was about Labour (and Tory) recognition of those Nolan Principles. If they truly believe that a majority is all you need to brush such basic principles of behaviour aside then they should have been forced to say so by voting on it.
Yes I see your point there. It would have been interesting to see them trying to justify his behaviour, though they probably wouldn't have bothered and pushed for the vote as quickly as possible. That in itself would have spoke volumes about their principles.
I got the impression that CAB knew about the change in approach as he read a prepared statement in response. However, they did go into a bit of a spin when they needed to make a decision and CAB seemed to be looking for Marj for guidance. ::)
I was sitting in row 3 of the public gallery............. I did`nt realise that the 2 Ukip-pers weren`t in attendance. lol
Are we not talking about basic ground rules here covering councillor behaviour? It looks like any such basic ground rules have now gone out of the window and anything goes.
I think that's right. After all that has gone on, I think we need to hear from all councillors that they are each committed to the Nolan principles and accept that any councillor breaching those principles should face some sort of sanction. From where I'm standing, it looks like we have no such commitment at the moment.
It appears to be quite a climb down from the opposition now the elections are over.
For some reason they seem to be living in some sort of parallel world where they are already committed to these principles. In recent meetings when anyone has questioned or challenged this, their reaction is usually one of shock and dismay. Look what happened last night when Simmons has his principles questioned. He threw his toys out of his pram and stomped off. They are all totally delusional.
Quote from: fred c on May 19, 2015, 09: AM
I was sitting in row 3 of the public gallery............. I did`nt realise that the 2 Ukip-pers weren`t in attendance. lol
;D It took me a good while to realise they weren't there too. This is probably a reflection on their usual contribution to meetings.
Guy Fawkes had the right idea.
Who's to say that is what tht two UKIP councillors were doining! Using their passes to plant the gunpowder!
Quote from: craig finton on May 19, 2015, 10: AM
I think that's right. After all that has gone on, I think we need to hear from all councillors that they are each committed to the Nolan principles and accept that any councillor breaching those principles should face some sort of sanction. From where I'm standing, it looks like we have no such commitment at the moment.
The problem with The TorLab Mob is that they are more likely to be conversant with The Nolan Sisters, than with the Nolan Principles......
Have the ginger testicles been handed into lost property at the civic yet ?
I'm away working in Cheltenham at the moment so I haven't been able to properly follow recent events. The Hartlepool Mail's coverage of last Monday's meeting was a bit sparse and unusually, The Post doesn't seem to have covered it at all so it's difficult for me to understand what exactly happened. Why, for example, was there no vote of no confidence in the Mayor? I thought that was what the meeting was supposed to be about.
I was there on Monday night but it wasn't easy to understand what was actually agreed in the end. My understanding is that everyone (reluctantly) agreed to work together within the Council Working Group to look at ways that all Councillors could contribute to the decision making process. It is debatable about whether they can actually make that happen as the Lab/Cons will be more than reluctant to move their 10am committee meetings to an evening so more 'working' Councillors can actually attend.
If I'm wrong about any of that then I'm sure someone will correct me.
I personally think the flak that Councillor Brash is taking from some people over this is a little unfair. It was a surprise to me that he changed tack but I understand his reasons for it. He has explained in the comments on the Mail site why he did what he did:
Quote
I understand the sentiments of some on this issue and I prefaced my speech last night by saying that some people would not like what I had to say.
Obviously not everything I said was covered in this report (I do go on a bit) so I'd like to make a few things clear:
1. My contempt for the Akers-Belcher is absolute and I said so very clearly last night, although not reported. I think they are bad for Hartlepool and I think we have shown that repeatedly over the course of the last couple of years.
2. However, the local elections were the moment for change and Hartlepool increased Labour's control. If all 33 councillors had been in the room last night the motion would have been lost 26-7. So let's not pretend that there was some great opportunity to get the lying disgrace last night. If the electorate had made a different decision, then yes last night could have been different, but they didn't and that must be accepted and respected.
3. With Labour and the Akers-Belcher having effective control of 26 out of 33 councillors (I, of course, include the Tories in that) I believe that we must find new ways of ensuring that everyone (public and politicians alike) get to be involved with the big decisions facing us. This is because the Labour group like to do business in closeted meetings at 10am on a week day morning, safe in the knowledge that their critics and opponents are at work. That's what I sought to change last night, and I think and hope with some success.
Take the local health plan - if the Labour Group leadership had had their way it would have been developed in virtual secret. Instead, because we forced their hand, with the help of many members of the public who turned up to the town hall, that is not going to happen. Instead the plan will be developed in public, in the evening, with maximum engagement from all. We have seen time and time again that the Labour Group wilt under that pressure and last night was about ensuring that this pressure and scrutiny happens across a range of issues, not just health. Why do you think Chris Akers-Belcher fought tooth and nail against it?
I could have stood up and called the Mayor every name under the sun, lost the vote and gone home. Instead I tried, in the face of huge opposition, to push through a proposal that will put the Labour Group under greater scrutiny.
There will now be, I hope, that mechanism going forward.
You may not agree, but believe one thing - my intentions are honest and clear. I will never rejoin the Labour Group, never do a deal with a Labour Group led by the Akers-Belcher and will act only with one intent - improving the lives of Hartlepool people.
One final thought - last night, as I highlighted the Akers-Belcher's disgraceful behaviour and argued for a new kind of politics in Hartlepool - there were more than a few heads nodding behind the dear leader. Something for him to think about.
Change is possible, but a new approach is needed.
SABs lies and the way the Lab/Con coalition has supported him confirms that HBC is rotten to its very foundations. Brash's idea to build a new way of working on top of such rotten foundations is therefore fundamentally flawed. Such a thing would need to be built from the ground up on new foundations and the first one should be that dishonesty is not acceptable. So far, the Lab/Con coalition have refused to accept this so to me it's a non-starter.
Think back to the way Mandelson's 'award' was fixed in advance and you see the way Brash likes to work.
Selective criticism again,what about the other four Councillors who called for the meeting?.
Quote from: pensionater on May 20, 2015, 04: PM
Selective criticism again,what about the other four Councillors who called for the meeting?.
If you think it important then you post the information.
Or is it you prefer other people to do the dirty work for you?
Perhaps you should threaten to resign from the board if no one does your bidding.
You could always 'unresign' straight afterwards!
https://youtu.be/Kb6Ca6FMn-0
After watching the video, I thought it was a huge and very honest gesture to offer the olive branch by Councillor Brash and others (considering who its offered to). For the good of the town I hope they ponder on his speech and deep down remember that they all have voices of their own instead of pampering a certain persons ego. If it comes to nothing at least the branch was offered honestly. Then could i suggest a cricket bat?
Questions.
1. Did the 'Handsome Ste' put in a sick note ?
2. Where, in reality, was he ?
3. Has he put in a claim for expenses for not attending this meeting ?
4. Can we believe the reason for his non attendance ?
5. Will someone publish photo's proving he was somewhere else, when he shouldn't have been there ?
6. How long have we to put up with this charade ?
Answers will only accepted on the back of a plain brown.
Whattheheck. Point 6 of your check list, you will have to put up with it for as long as you have a majority of Labour councillors, and as the good people of Hartlepool had a most exellent opportunity to change the council, what did they do , yes you guessed it, returned even more Labour councillors, and in the misplaced world of the mayor this is an endorsement by the public he has done nothing wrong, watch him go for a 3rd term. You couldn't make it up.
Straight question. Why did you (beanz) dodge the meeting the other night? Where were you and why did you make such a big deal of it in the days leading up to it and not tell us you (and your mate) were going to be 'busy' elsewhere?
Can you reply in two parts. One just giving the reason why you were elsewhere and put all the rambling conspiracy theory stuff in a second post-please!
This olive branch spiel is a load of bs,suppose it had nothing to do with the fact that 3 of the people who signed the motion lost their seats.Damage limitation ,don't want PHF looking like serial losers do we.Oops too late.
Ginger bollocks lost his bottle.
Quote from: pensionater on May 22, 2015, 05: PM
,don't want PHF looking like serial losers do we.Oops too late.
So unlike the UKIP 'success ' of losing half of its seats and Farage making a complete laughing stock of the party with his 'I resign' fiasco.
Still no sign of Beanz telling us why he had to
duck sorry I mean 'was unable to attend' the meetun.
I suspect he is at this very moment trawling back 5 generations to find some distant relative who was buried that day...............
Have watched the full meeting and understood what Brash was saying, basically all Councillors should work together, put aside the personal animosity, for the good of the town.
Fine in principal, but it will never happen, whilst we have Labour in the driving seat under the SCABS.
They appear to be adamant that they have done nothing wrong and that are being victimised, whilst their 'comrades' don't have the balls to stand up and speak out.
Must admit though, it would have been more fun if the esteemed liar had chaired the meeting, instead of a white haired granny, who's grammar was appalling and had to be led by the hand and passed notes by Stubbs to advise her what to do next.
I just despair for this town when people can vote for people like her and Cllr Mrs Belcher who also had difficulty in stringing two words together, not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer
Anyway, thanks, err, for cummun 'ere, an I 'ope we can werk together .
The meeting appears to all intents and purposes to have been an utter irrelevance. Appeals for eveyone to work together is, in my opinon, a dreamy ideal but as unlikely as me organising an over 80's orgy in Buckingham Palace forecourt, we are talking politicians after all.
Meanwhile, the star feature of the show slips seamlessly into the background as pointless attempts brotherly love and fraternity take centre stage.... unfinished business still after the meeting that never was.
The only power Brash had was being a thorn in the side of the ruling coalition.
He has no hope of influencing the mob.
Who chopped his dangle berries off ?
As I've said many times before; I wouldn't trust Brash as far as I could throw him.
PHF is a convenient vehicle to get him whatever he wants and once he has that, he will drop you all like the proverbial hot stone.
Having watched the opening of the last meeting a thought struck me. It must be some sort of record, Cllr. Sandra Belchers maiden speech was to declare an interest in a motion doubting the integrity of her son.!!!! As Fredc says,"only in Hartlepool"
Can anyone tell me when Beanz will resurface?
I did say at the time Brash was kicked out if his beloved Labour mob that if he was a decent human being (or words to that effect) that he should spill the beans on all the mobs wrongdoings and shenannigans. He didn't of course.
At the time, myself and others realised it was the classic Mexican Standoff. The mob knew Brash's dirty secrets and vice versa.
His little pantomine at the meeting just affirms that in my opinion.
Be careful what you wish for....
Good Lord Jim, you truly are an odd fellow. When you meet people face to face you're all smiles and politeness, then get online and slag them off.
On this issue (and once again, for you have been told) Brash exited the Labour group partly because of his calling for and getting a public enquiry into MRA. He then put publicly gave evidence to the enquiry highlighting what he characterised as corrupt and bullying behaviour by some of his former colleagues, who he named. The fact that nothing came of that was not for the want of his trying.
He has subsequently spent the last 2 years hurling everything at the SCABs. Believe this, if he had some great silver bullet to fire, he would. Moreover if the SCABS had even the merest hint of something they could unleash on him they would. Lest we forget they generally have to resort to making something up. They are the most vindictive human beings imaginable, who believe the can do no wrong.
Your ongoing fantasy about some deep dark secret would seem a great deal less delusional if you had the guts to say them to your targets face. By all means, however, prove me wrong!
Quote from: notenoughsaid on May 23, 2015, 04: PM
Having watched the opening of the last meeting a thought struck me. It must be some sort of record, Cllr. Sandra Belchers maiden speech was to declare an interest in a motion doubting the integrity of her son.!!!! As Fredc says,"only in Hartlepool"
Is this some kind of ' take your mother to work' scheme...?
Given the Conservative Party in Hartlepool seems to consist of the Wells family is it any surprise the SCABs are going down that road?
SAB needs all the help he can get in order to get a job from the council. He is now on a blacklist of troublemaking/lying health workers and will never get a position again anywhere outside of Hartlepool. His only chance is to establish a family franchise in order to keep the money rolling in.
Brash is in the same boat as Fisher. They know enough to seriously damage the present office holders but to do so would end all hopes they have of rejoining Labour.
They will talk big but never burn their boats. Besides this is a two-edged sword. Can you imaging what the SCABs have on Brash?
These 'third person' conversations are odd..........
LOL
So TSteels is Brash.
Talking about himself in the third tense.
What a tit.
If you are Brash I've never "met" you face to face or smiled at you or otherwise.
You know where my office is, right in the heart of your Ward.
Feel free to pay me a visit anytime your passing
Hi Jim,
Not an avid poster myself, but thought it best to clear up confusion as to who is who. Anyway, reading your posts, you're wrong about a lot, but entitled to your opinion. Although worth pointing out that we have met, more than once, and I am well aware of your business.
All the best
p.s. Come along to a council meeting or better yet the working group when it's up and running - be great to get your thoughts on strengthening links between business and education.
Quote from: JBrash on May 24, 2015, 10: PM
Hi Jim,
Not an avid poster myself,
And yet within 21 minutes of the exchange below being posted (10:33) you manage to see it, register(10:47, 14 minutes since Jim's post) and reply!
Quote from: Jim Gillespie on May 24, 2015, 10: PM
LOL
So TSteels is Brash
Jim posts 10:33
TSteels logs off at 10:39
JBrash registers 10:47
Also:
Quote from: JBrash on May 24, 2015, 10: PM
Although worth pointing out that we have met, more than once, and I am well aware of your business.
This was alluded to earlier-remarkably only 90 minutes earlier!
Quote from: TSteels on May 24, 2015, 09: PM
When you meet people face to face you're all smiles and politeness, then get online and slag them off.
LOL.
Well spotted MK1
Will the real Brash please stand up...... Haha
Assuming one if them is the true article (it is him with two accounts of course) then perhaps you can answer me one question?
Just what was your objective in putting Picton up as a candidate?
I can think of only two reasons:
1. You were hoping for the "Drummond effect", or
2. You were deliberately trying to dilute the vote to keep our MP Labour
Not as daft as it may sound now you've given your "olive branch" monologue
Continued silence from the Brash one.
Maybe he is too busy writing his next "kiss ass" monologue to the Labour mob.
How is the funding for Hartlepool Families First looking?
...... better than your attempt at product placement on Radio Hartlepool at a guess
If that last post was aimed towards me, I've no idea what you are talking about?