Your Letters



Will Labour Party clean up its act?



Letter of the Week: Mark Eastwood, Dewsbury



Dear Sir,



Well done to The Press and former Dewsbury South councillor Khizar Iqbal for their good work in exposing wrongdoings relating to the Muslim burial ground scandal and postal vote fraud in Dewsbury South. 



Having read the damning council report linked to the burial ground issues, I think it’s now time for Dewsbury South councillor Abdul Patel to do the decent thing and resign.



It is also of paramount importance that Kirklees Council does not sweep this matter under the carpet. 



A whitewash in the name of community cohesion should not be tolerated in this instance and the council has a duty to refer the report findings and all evidence to the police and HM Revenue & Customs, so that these serious allegations can be investigated thoroughly. 



The most concerning aspect of what has been going on recently though, whether it be postal vote fraud, or the Muslim burial ground scandal, is that it always seems that the shadow of the local Labour Party is never too far away. 



Add to that the total disregard certain Labour councillors show for their local residents on important issues, the ridiculous legal threats and smear campaigns that the Labour machine aim at any individual or group who doesn’t agree with their point of view. 



Not to mention the disrespectful behaviour of certain Labour supporters during the election and at the election count. It all begs the question, when will the Labour Party in the area clean up its act? 



Or will we, as I suspect, continue having malign influences hanging over our town and a third world version of politics which will continue to tarnish its reputation?



Dewsbury deserves better.





Clean dog’s mess



From: Darren Aubrey, Bywell Road, Dewsbury



Dear Sir,



Please can I make an appeal via the letters page in your publication.



Please can the person/persons responsible for letting their dog persistently foul on the grass verge in front of my property take time the next time their dog decides to carry out the said deed, to knock on my door and explain exactly what health benefits they think my threeyearold daughter, partner and I receive from this.



If they are not willing to do this can I please ask them to do what any decent human being would do and just CLEAN IT UP.





Fantasy prevails over the truth



From: Name and address supplied



Dear Sir,



It’s no secret that both police and local authority (and politicians) attach a greater importance to the maintenance of the multicultural fantasy than they do to upholding the rule of law. 



And their turning a blind eye to corruption and illegality within Britain’s Asian/Muslim community is perfectly consistent with these priorities – in fact we’ve come to expect it.



The powers that be make every effort to avoid any issue that casts a bad light on their multicultural idea, no matter how serious it is.



And they act only when they have no choice but to do so.



This was the case with the recent burial ground scam and they’re still refusing to deal properly with the voterigging scandal. 



Such dereliction of duty is evident throughout the land. It seems there’s nothing the authorities won’t sweep under the carpet in the cause of their brave new multicultural world – not even the rape and abuse of children.



Monday’s Times (24/10/12) leads with the story of the widespread and systematic abuse and rape of young English girls by members of Britain’s Pakistani Muslim community. I quote: “... for more than a decade organised groups of men were able to groom, pimp and traffic girls across the country with virtual impunity. Offenders were identified to police but not prosecuted.” 



A child welfare expert told the Times that the authorities’ reluctance to tackle this is, “...the biggest child protection scandal of our time.”



Police, politicians, and local authorities knew but it took them over 10 years to act – that is when it became impossible for them to ignore any longer.



A confidential report commissioned by the Rotherham Safeguarding Children Board (sic) gives the game away: The report noted that these crimes had “...cultural characteristics” and were “locally sensitive in terms of diversity” and that in dealing with this matter great care should be taken to “embrace Rotherham’s qualities of diversity.” But of course; diversity must be embraced, whatever the cost.



The Times reports: “A 13yearold was found at 3am with disrupted clothing in a house with a large number of Asian (sic) men who had fed her vodka. A neighbour reported the girl’s screams. Police arrested the child for being drunk and disorderly but did not question the men.” 



Well they wouldn’t would they? The priority wasn’t the girl. The priority was the determination not to upset hairtrigger cultural sensitivities for fear it may impact badly on the public’s perception of multiculturalism.





What is Kirklees so afraid of?



From: David Field, Dewsbury



Dear Sir,



The recent reports of Kirklees’ alleged reluctance to upset the Indian and Pakistani community in this area highlights an ever increasing decline of this country’s willingness to treat all sections of our community in an ‘even handed’ way. 



This has got worse over the last 40 years and it seems to me that this once proud country is frightened of this minority group. 



As I write this I have just read a story in a daily newspaper that a report on the grooming of white girls by predominantly Pakistani men was damning of both South Yorkshire and the Midlands police forces for their reluctance to follow up complaints because of the ethnicity of the alleged perpetrators.



Locally your excellent exposé shows that a report into the shortcomings of the Muslim Burial Committee seems to suggest again that the ethnicity of the people involved was a factor in not following things through. 



Why are we so afraid?





Vote rigging is a threat to us all



From: Alan Carcas, Liversedge



Dear Sir,



It is pointless saying much about the corruption scandal at Kirklees before we see the result of the discussions at their meeting on September 26.



But I must say I am struck by the use of the old canard, that the people who were involved in the nonsense that has gone on over the Muslim burial ground, “are no longer employed by the council.”



And there was most of us thinking that once people got on to the local government bandwagon, they had a job for life.



But, employed by Kirklees or not, there seems to have been a level of fraud in certain instances, and in that case everybody involved should be, and can be, followed up. 



That’s, of course, if any action is likely to be taken. On the record so far, nobody can surely have any high hopes of that.



But, I want to follow further the problem of alleged postal vote fraud, in which the latest twist seems to be the high level of rejected ballot papers. 102 postal votes rejected in Dewsbury South, the ward in dispute. And 1,129 rejected in the whole of Kirklees.



I have been an election agent in every type, and size, of election, from the old, small, urban districts with just a few thousand voters, to the massive European Parliament constituencies, with an electorate of over half a million.



At no time in my experience have I ever seen ballot papers rejected on that scale. I ask the question, did all the candidates actually see all those 102 rejected ballot papers in Dewsbury South, as they are entitled to?



Must have been quite a scrum round the Election Returning Officer’s (ERO) table!



Rejected ballots are adjudicated upon by the official ERO, but all candidates and agents are permitted to view those rejected to see if they agree, or if some can be accepted, because no candidate wants to see any elector lose their vote on a technicality. And, who knows, one or two votes might be the difference between winning and losing, or even forfeiting your deposit.



Because this is where the corruption goes deepest.



If it is as simple, and easy, through postal votes on demand, to gerrymander, corrupt, fix, an election in one ward, why not in another, and another, until you have perfected the process?



Thankfully the number of rejected ballots suggests that still has some way to go, but constituency MPs can be elected, or rejected, on such a corrupted process.



I’ve seen constituencies won/ lost by single figure margins – Brighouse and Spenborough in 1970 by 59 votes, less than one vote per polling station. That’s the sort of thread on which our democratic system hangs. 



I’ve said before that the police are in a difficult position with regard to the laws governing elections, but Parliament isn’t. 



Surely Simon Reevell understands that his success, or failure, at the next General Election could hang on the type of events allegedly seen in just Dewsbury South, to say nothing of what could happen the same way in other wards.



It’s not unknown for a Tory MP in Dewsbury to be a oneterm marvel, but to go out like that? That isn’t democracy, that’s corruption! 



And we all deserve better, especially from the people we elect to represent us.



So far, all can see is Khizar Iqbal and The Press jumping up and down. But how soon before their pages are overtaken by the next scandal.



And the next!





Write now to oppose LDF



From: Derek Cartwright, Woodkirk



Dear Sir,



Do you believe you can make a difference? Or do you believe that whatever you state to politicians or Kirklees Council especially they will not take the blind bit of notice?



It’s that time again! Yes, Kirklees are moving further on with their development plans! (That’s a joke.)



But did you know that if you have made objections on the current LDF it matters not a jot, unless you object yet again? Yes, Kirklees have made that written statement. 



There again you could object for the first time! You might not give two figs about Green Field development because you certainly voted for building houses on the local fields in the last local elections – as you voted for the current council’s majority. 



Or two figs about employment opportunities....



Section 2.2 of the core strategy states that by 2028 the number of households in Kirklees are expected to increase by 33,300. The Council agreed only for a figure of 22,470 – the key proposal in the strategy.



Along with the first household increase they stated the need for a similar number of new jobs. 



Do you believe that? If so you don’t have to do anything! But clearly from the lower figure Labour don’t even agree with their own strategy, so why should you?



Between 20022009, 12,161 production sector or manufacturing jobs were lost in Kirklees. 



If you don’t object, you must believe that future employment statistics are far better. You might believe that, but I don’t!



If not, you need to object to this strategy.



I could make an argument that we only need for houses because of immigration, but that is another matter. 



I could write of the authorities’ alternative for empty retail properties, but they don’t have one!



Then will you fill out the forms? Ye who have the signs up saying ‘Save Our Green Belt’ or went on protest marches – don’t march, write...





Answers, councillor



From: A Ellis, Heckmondwike



Dear Sir,



I note in your letter from Mr D Wood (Sept 14) that he too would require answers from Coun David Sheard (right –  (Labour, Heckmondwike) should Danny Lockwood’s exposure of the Muslim grave digging scandal be found correct by Kirklees MC.



Having now read the full report by KMC plus The Press (Sept 21) I think we can safely say the journalist and Mr Iqbal have been absolutely on the money with their complaints.



As such I trust Mr Wood will have a letter in the paper this week explaining the answers he has managed to get from the Deputy Labour leader, who would appear to have trouble stomaching the humble pie Mr Lockwood offered him.





Locala explanation is not the full story



From: Name and address supplied



Dear Sir,



May I thank Mr Flack for his indepth reply to my questions regarding Locala Community Partnerships C.I.C.



However, several points in his response seem to belie the facts, though the first may simply be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a private company.



Firstly, whether Locala is a mutual or form of Social Enterprise, it is still a private company, the Certificate of Incorporation categorically states the company is limited by shares, which is available with the original company formation documents (IN01) signed by Mr Robert Flack as Director, from Companies House.



He is correct that services will be put out to tender all across the country (and Europe incidentally), however, I believe he is incorrect if it had stayed as part of the NHS, as the PCT is legally able to transfer its community services to another NHS body without undergoing a procurement process, as the secretary of state covers both bodies, an option that many other organisations took.



While I appreciate Mr Flack and the PCT were following the guidance given to them by the Department of Health in its “Social Enterprise – Making a Difference: a guide to the right to request” publication, it would seem they may have been misled or illadvised.



The fact that Locala were given a ‘guaranteed contract’ is questionable under the EU Treaty and Regulation 4 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, which cover private sector procurement by a public body.



Gloucester PCT effectively did the same thing as Kirklees PCT only reconsidering their procurement strategy in an out of court agreement prior to the start of a Judicial Review.



As I am privy to the brief by the QC in that case, I am awaiting a response from the Department of Health as to what legal basis under national and EU procurement law they offered ‘guaranteed contracts’ to private companies, as well as the legal advice given to Gloucester PCT to compel them to put the contract out to tender, before proceeding further as to questioning the validity of any subsequent contract between Kirklees PCT and Locala.



Finally I appreciate his comments regarding the primary concern being patients.



However my concern is also for the many employees who have dedicated many years to looking after people, and who do not have the luxury of £95,000+ salaries and huge pension pots to fall back on come 2014 when the contract is put out to tender, Europewide incidentally.





Share this post