In The Public Domain?

Tuesday, 4 August 2026

Labour: The Rajbir Singh mystery #Part 2

Keir Starmer holds himself out as a paragon of virtue. Now that he has time on his hands maybe he will come clean about what he knew about the sudden defenestration of a Labour Council Leader [sic], Rajbir Singh, since the rumours keep involving Downing Street.

Rajbir Singh (aka "The Boy Blunder") is now the Reform Councillor for Bartley Green on Birmingham City Council and yet Labour have taken no steps to shaft him. The silence is deafening.

The Skidder set out Part 1 of this curious story in an earlier post:

https://thesandwellskidder.blogspot.com/2026/03/labour-rajbir-singh-mystery.html

At the time of the first post, members of the Sandwell Sikh community kept telling The Skidder to look at interactions between Singh and Imogen Walker - now a Scottish Labour MP (pictured). We saw in the first post that Singh was instrumental in appointing Walker to a specially-created post so that the taxpayer was able to improve her financial status. Walker is publicly named as the wife of Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's former Chief of Staff.

The word from local Sikhs is that Singh's defenestration at Sandwell Council was the result of an interaction between him and Walker and which was sanctioned at the highest level within Downing Street. A further allegation is that Sandwell Council paid for Singh and pathetic liar, former Sandwell Labour Councillor, Iqbal Singh Padda, to travel to Scotland to meet Walker. Further, a member of staff at Sandwell Council alleged that the expenses claim was still extant on the Council's records.

The Skidder contacted Singh (yet again) but he had again declined to comment. We also wrote to Walker MP whether she received a visit in Scotland from Singh but she too has failed to reply.

We wrote to the liar, Padda, and he too has not responded although given his track record his testimony may have been worthless.

A Freedom of Information request (and an application for an Internal Review) to Sandwell Council - which has an appalling record for the corrupt concealment of documents (see several Information Tribunal hearings) - has drawn a blank too. Despite the whistleblower's claim the Council categorically denies still holding a copy of the expenses claim.

It's time for Starmer and McSweeney to confirm what actually happened. And until Singh himself fesses up Reform itself and all opposing parties need to keep asking him for an explanation.

LEGAL NOTICE (Version 4 from 8th October, 2023.)

I cannot list every previous mention of individuals referred to in the entirety of this blog. Where I refer to a specific story please follow the supplied hyperlink since this forms legal justification for later comments. Similarly references to “posts or Skidders passim” and to earlier posts mean any individuals concerned about purported defamatory or otherwise unlawful material must read later posts in the context of earlier posts. Full information can also be supplied within a reasonable time upon application via email to thesandwellskidder@gmail.com

We may also add hyperlinks or references to content in our associated blogs, “As The Crow Flies!” (at crowmultimedia.blogspot.com) and Rotten Council Governance - Legal Review (at rottencouncils.blogspot.com). Reference to content in those blogs also forms part of the context, meaning of, and justification for, contents in this blog.

In most cases we try to give the subjects of these blog posts the opportunity to comment on our journalism pre-publication to ensure the accuracy of our work.

Every now and again we make a genuine error and get something wrong. If an error in the blog affects you please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com and we shall use our best endeavours to remove offending material and/or publish appropriate corrections forthwith (together with an apology, if applicable).

We have had to remove the direct comment facility from this blog due to the malicious activity of a West Bromwich woman but we are pleased to receive comments via email to thesandwellskidder@gmail.com, on Twitter via our publishers @CrowMultimedia or via our dedicated Facebook Group: “The Sandwell Skidder - Speaking Truth to Power!” We are happy to publish any sensible commentary and offer a right of reply where applicable. We can also publish “guest” posts on mutually agreed terms.

If you consider that anything written is defamatory or otherwise unlawful please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com or telephone 07470 624207 forthwith. If your complaint has merit we shall endeavour to make immediate amends.

Tuesday, 23 June 2026

Sandwell Labour: warning - this will make you sick!

Remember Covid? How could we forget? But can you remember the propaganda that bent Labour Sandwell Council (as was) put out about how hard its "brilliant" employees were working? It transpired that, in fact, this was yet another Labour lie and there had been a pandemic of absenteeism by the Labour crony shirkforce.

The crisis did lead, however, to a large increase in the number of employees "shirking from home" (which was good news for at least one employee who was able to entertain his/her Labour Councillor lover in private!)

In the last full municipal year of Labour before Reform took control of the failing Council - that's 1st April, 2025 to 31st March, 2026 - an incredible 44,234 working days were lost through absence due to alleged sickness!

Remember, Labour was screwing the people of Sadders year in, year out with maximum council tax, rent and fee increases whilst the staff were taking residents for a ride.

Bent Labour Sandwell (as was) say that, in addition to a generous holiday entitlement, skiving staff each took an average of 11.76 days off last municipal year for alleged sickness! WTF? And what is the part-time, but very-highly paid, Chief Executive, Shokat Lal, doing about this?

In The Skidder's open letter (Skidder passim) to the new Reform administration we urged it to save money by culling a MINIMUM of 10% of the shirkforce. Looking at these incredible figures it is to be hoped that they will take action sooner, rather than later!

[Coming soon in The Skidder - the very disappointing story of how Reform is backing an appalling piece of nastiness by former Labour Leader [sic], Kerrie "Dim Kez" Carmichael.]

LEGAL NOTICE (Version 4 from 8th October, 2023.)

In most cases we try to give the subjects of these blog posts the opportunity to comment on our journalism pre-publication to ensure the accuracy of our work.

Every now and again we make a genuine error and get something wrong. If an error in the blog affects you please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com and we shall

use our best endeavours to remove offending material and/or publish appropriate corrections forthwith (together with an apology, if applicable).

Thursday, 11 June 2026

Reform/Tory Basildon employ "racist quip" Monitoring Officer

The brilliant Private Eye magazine Rotten Boroughs column features Basildon Council in the current edition. With no party having overall control, Reform and the Tories are running the show. They have appointed the appalling Mark Greenburgh as Interim Monitoring Officer despite his history congtracting for one of Britain's worst councils - Sandwell. Incredibly, given his track record, he has been handed total power over standards investigations.

A spokesperson for Basildon told Private Eye that Greenburgh has a clear disciplinary record with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). Up to a point, Lord Copper. In fact, Greenburgh was rebuked in 2018 for making a racist "quip" that a Muslim Councillor's daughter was disabled due to "inbreeding" within the Muslim community. Here is the proof:

The SRA kindly clears the record of errant solicitors so that records of wrongdoing after three years are expunged. One person petitioned the SRA about this in the specific case of Greenburgh on the basis that there should be no time limit on racism. And so Basildon may genuinely be unaware of Greenburgh's run-in with the SRA, but they could have found out a lot about him by googling this blog.

If you google "The Sandwell Skidder + Wragge Report" you will find numerous stories about Greenburgh. Briefly, he was a crony of Jan Britton from Buckinghamshire Council days. Britton became the disastrous Chief Executive of (then) bent Labour Sandwell Council (currently Reform, at least for a few more weeks). [Britton was later kicked out in disgrace, but in the sick world of local government found highly-paid work with other local authorities.]

Back in the day, and primarily thanks to fraud disclosures in this blog, the police started an investigation into a councillor and his son (an employee of the Council). Labour did the trick of "buying off" the cops (with whom they enjoyed a corrupt - and in one case, sexual - relationship) by setting up an "independent investigation" (see further below). This resulted in Britton appointing his pal Greenburgh from solicitors Wragge & Co (now Gowling WLG). Greenburgh, and a Wragge colleague, produced a terrible,shoddy, report - popularly known as "The Wragge Report" which is in the public domain. But it worked. The police dropped their "investigation" and, whatever his misdeeds may have been, the councillor was found to have breached the Councillors' Code of Conduct in a ludicrous show trial which would have made Stalin blush. [All was later forgiven by bent Labour and the councillor's son - who had left the council by then - was given a massive chunk of a SEND taxi contract in highly controversial circumstances.]

Tom Watson MP (now Unelected Legislator Watson) had prepared a dossier on the Muslim Councillor and with the support of (then) fellow MP, the greaser John Spellar (now Unelected Legislator Spellar) it was decided to shaft him. They had their pathetic rimmer, Gurinder Josan (now an MP), meet with the writer on three occasions to collate information. The grovelling Jan Britton appointed his mate to write the report and when Greenburgh made the infamous racist comment Britton dismissed it as just a "quip". But, later, Sandwell conducted a further investigation into Britton and Greenburgh - "The Cox Review"which Labour has refused to this day to make public - with the connivance of Grant Thornton, accountants. Happily this blog obtained a copy and published it. We also found evidence of Britton trying to influence what Greenburgh put in the original report.

At the time of his appointment Greenburgh boasted of being a Zionist but this didn't stop Britton setting him on the Muslim Councillor. The Cox Review found that Britton had not used proper procedures to appoint his mate to a valuable contract, and failed to use the proper systems to pay Wragges so as to conceal the level of the payments. Britton upped the agreed sum for the work without following normal Council procedures. Importantly, there was evidence in the Review of further racist and inappropriate comments by Greenburgh so that Britton's claim that the racism was a one-off "quip" was also called into doubt.

This blog went back to the SRA with the new evidence in The Cox Review since Greenburgh had previously only been dealt with for the "isolated quip". The SRA refused to take further action on the basis that several racist remarks were no worse than a single racist "quip"! The full story of this referral can be found in detail via this link:

https://thesandwellskidder.blogspot.com/2021/08/gowling-wlg-racism-scandal-rolls-on.html

Despite the racist remarks Greenburgh went on to work with the, wait for it, Diversity Trust. And despite (a) the shoddiness of the Wragge investigation and report, and (b) the racist of their own partner, Wragge's refused to repay the sums the taxpayer had paid them - prompting an anti-racist demo outside their offices. [The same demo also gathered outside the offices of Grant Thornton given its part in Labour's cover-up of the racism.]

And here is The Cox Review which bent Labour has tried to conceal. Employers of Greenburgh and Britton should take a careful look at this!

https://thesandwellskidder.blogspot.com/2022/02/here-it-is-folks-cox-review-revealed.html

(As above. searches will find a number of other articles about the Wragge Report and Cox Review.)

Finally - READ PRIVATE EYE and READ THE SKIDDER, KIDDER!

LEGAL NOTICE (Version 4 from 8th October, 2023.)

In most cases we try to give the subjects of these blog posts the opportunity to comment on our journalism pre-publication to ensure the accuracy of our work.

Extraordinary Breaking News - Wednesbury Market

Unbelievable even by Sandwell Labour standards! The public may finally have seen through Labour's corruption, cronyism and incompetence in general, and appalling councillors like Peter Hughes and Luke Giles in particular, but their pathetic legacy continues to haunt the Borough.

Wednesbury is an unappealing town which Labour has run into the ground. The remnants of the market were a sad affair but then the socialists had the brilliant idea of simply throwing money at a super [sic] new layout. At the time this blog and many others forecast that this cosmetic exercise would fail - and so it has. But the scale of the failure is staggering!

The Skidder was in Wednesbury pre-election and noted the astonishingly cheap stall rents (see picture). He asked how the market could possibly be paying its way?

Thanks to a Skidder Freedom of Information request the Council has confirmed that despite operating three markets per week in Labour's last year in charge it only received £11,179. Yes, you did read that right. Shokat Lal's employees are claiming - at the moment - that their systems are so inadequate they have no idea how much it actually costs to operate the market - seriously!

But despite employing a markets manager and, presumably, staff to set up the markets it is only taking in just under £215 a week despite the huge sums thrown at trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. But then Labour loves to splash out with other people's money.

The Council's website still peddles the absolute lie that Wednesbury is one of the Borough's "most vibrant markets"! Surely an early job for the new Reform administration is to consider "privatising" the market to an established firm like LSD Promotions. Or perhaps a consortium of Sandwell folk could take the market over - surely they could not do worse than Labour?

When in Wednesbury ...

The Skidder walked past this hideous building which was to be auctioned at the end of April. [Does anyone know if anyone bought it?]

The town may, metaphorically, be a sh*thole but this building was literally one - being the site of the former public lavatories. Regular readers will know that it is a monument to Sandwell Labour corruption being part of the "Boggate" scandal [first revealed in The Skidder]. For the benefit of newer readers bent Labour sold off some former public lavatories to parties connected with one of their own.

Bake My Day!

On a brighter note, local Bakery firm "Bake my Day" has opened in Union Street in Wednesbury. The lovely family behind the bakery were shat upon from a great height by bent Sandwell Labour. This hasn't stopped Antonia "Ranting Moron" Bance - inexplicably a local Labour MP - from attempting to bathe in the reflected glory of the opening on social media just as stick-thin Sicko Sarah Coombes claims to be a big fan of Firkins - ROFLMAO.

LEGAL NOTICE (Version 4 from 8th October, 2023.)

In most cases we try to give the subjects of these blog posts the opportunity to comment on our journalism pre-publication to ensure the accuracy of our work.

Tuesday, 12 May 2026

BREAKING NEWS - JALIL STANDARDS BREACH "NOT PROVEN"

Cllr Rizwan Jalil has been exonerated by Sandwell Council in respect of a breach of the Code of Conduct for Councillors. Here is the decision which Chief Executive Shokat Lal and Monitoring Officer Michael Jones held back for many months although the Decision Note is dated yesterday!

Decision Notice of the Deputy Monitoring Officer for Dealing with Standards Allegations Under the Localism Act 2011

Reference: MC20250313

Complainant(s): Mr. J. Saunders

Subject Member: Cllr Rizwan Jalil

Person Conducting

the Assessment: James McLaughlin, Deputy Monitoring Officer Date of Assessment: 12 May 2026

1. Complaint

1.1 A complaint was received on 13 March 2025 from Mr. J. Saunders, stating:

“On 27th January, 2025 Cllr Jag Singh was chairing Licensing sub Committee 2. At some point an application for, as I understand it, the grant of a taxi licence was due to be decided. Shortly before the application an unknown Labour Councillor, believed to be Cllr Rizwan Jalil, made contact with Cllr Singh and attempted to suborn him, and to ensure that he and the sub-Committee granted the licence.

Cllr Singh acted very properly. He immediately informed one or more law officers of the Council of the attempt to unduly influence him. I understand that he was advised to recuse himself from hearing the application which he duly did. Cllr Fenton took the Chair.

Cllr John Giles was later informed of what had happened. I understand that he was appalled at this crass corruption.

This was a disgraceful and egregious breach of the Councillor’s Code of Conduct by the Councillor - believed to be Jalil - particularly the requirements of Councillors to act in a selfless manner, and with Integrity and honesty.

I attempted to seek information concerning this appalling incident from the Monitoring Officer and Cllrs Giles, Singh and Fenton without success, apart from a bland form of words from the Monitoring Officer. This has all the hallmarks of yet another Sandwell Council cover-up of Labour wrongdoing – hence this formal Standards Complaint which is made to ensure that this issue is dealt with in the correct manner.”

2. Complaint summary

2.1 The complaint relates to an alleged conversation between Councillor Jag Singh and Councillor Rizwan Jalil. The complainant has submitted that this conversation took place at some point before or during the meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee on 27 January 2025. No other information has been submitted by the complainant in respect of the circumstances of the conversation. [Note 1]

2.2 The complainant alleges that the subject member referred to a licensing committee hearing being held that same day (27 January 2025), to be chaired by Councillor Jag Singh. The complainant alleges that the subject member raised the issue of one of the applicants for a private hire licence, scheduled to be discussed at the licensing hearing, with Councillor Jag Singh prior to hearing the application.

2.3 In considering a previous complaint in relation to this matter, [Note 2] the Monitoring Officer conducted interviews with the subject member and separately with Councillor Jag Singh. A summary account of the allegation in the complaint was put to the subject member and opportunity provided for the subject member to give their own account of events.

2.4 The subject member wholly disputed the allegation and account of the complainant and set out an alternate account of events.

2.5 The subject member advised that he was in the vicinity of the Members Lounge in Sandwell Council House with Councillor Randhawa and saw the complainant. The complainant and subject member then spoke briefly on the corridor after Councillor Randhawa had entered the Members Lounge. [Note 3]

2.6 The subject member account is that he was aware an individual would be attending the licensing hearing later that day for his private hire taxi licence application to be considered and determined. He had gained that knowledge following a conversation with an Imam who had telephoned him separately. During that call, the subject member recollected the Imam stating he had “a friend of his coming to committee, please can you look into it”.

2.7 In response, the subject member advised the Imam that the applicant should take a lawyer with him to assist in the hearing process as his representative.

2.8 The subject member states that he gave this account to Councillor Jag Singh during their exchange and he considered that Councillor Jag Singh misunderstood and misinterpreted the information provided by the subject member and instead took this as an attempt to influence the outcome of the licensing hearing. [Note 4]

2.9 The subject member stated that at no time had they ever sought to influence the outcome of any hearing or decision-making process and, as a former member of the licensing committee, that he was wholly familiar with these requirements. Further, as holder of a private hire licence outside of borough, the subject member stated he was fully aware of the impact such inappropriate actions could have.

2.10 In his consideration of this matter, the Monitoring Officer asked several clarification questions of the subject member. Responses provided were wholly consistent with the account of events that they provided. [Note 5]

2.11 The Monitoring Officer established from the subject member and Councillor Jag Singh that there were no third-party witnesses to the conversation and its alleged content. The complainant has also not provided details on any third-party witnesses. [Note 6]

3. Consultation with Independent Person

3.1 The Independent Member was consulted and agrees with the assessment that it would be impossible to determine whether the allegations or Councillor Jalil’s account were correct. [Note 7]

4. Stage One - Legal Threshold

4.1 The subject member is currently a serving Councillor. At the time of the disputed exchange he was present on Council premises. His account of the conversation indicates that it clearly relates to Council business, namely the process for considering private hire taxi licence applications.

4.2 As a result of this, the allegation is capable of being a breach of the Code of Conduct in relation to the following components of the Code -

5. Disrepute

As a councillor:

5.1 I do not bring my role or local authority into disrepute

Selflessness

Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

Integrity

Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must disclose and resolve any interests and relationships.

Honesty

Holders of public office should be truthful.

5. Stage Two Initial Assessment

5.1 Whilst the Monitoring Officer has previously considered a complaint in relation to the same matter from another individual, this is not a repeat complaint and therefore none of the criteria in the Stage Two Initial Assessment apply, and therefore the matter shall proceed to the Public Interest Test.

6. Public Interest Test

6.1 The Public Interest Test is satisfied taking account of the following factors:

- The breach is capable of bringing the council into disrepute

6.2 It is therefore in the public interest to deal with this matter under the Arrangements for complaints under the Code of Conduct.

7. Decision

7.1 Having reviewed the original consideration of a separate complaint connected to this matter, and after consulting and having regard to the views of the Independent Person, the Deputy Monitoring Officer considers the complaint not proven.

7.2 The absence of independent witnesses or corroborating evidence to support the accuracy of the account provide by either the complainant or subject member is fundamental to this complaint. As a result, and on a balance of probabilities, it would not be possible to determine which account of events was accurate. It would therefore not be proportionate to proceed with any further investigation. This conclusion was reached by the Monitoring Officer in their assessment and having reviewed all of the available information, the Deputy Monitoring Officer has agreed with that assessment. [Note 8]

7.3 On this basis it would be inappropriate for the Deputy Monitoring Officer to recommend or undertake any further action on this matter within the scope of the complaints process.

7.4 The Deputy Monitoring Officer does consider that the subject member would benefit from refresher training on the requirements of the Code, specifically that any scenarios when a member feels an attempt may have been made to influence decision-making should be notified to the Monitoring Officer. Training delivered personally by the Monitoring Officer to the subject Member has taken place since this incident occurred. [Note 9]

7.5 In accordance with the arrangements for consideration of such complaints, the Deputy Monitoring Officer will report the outcome of the complaint to the Group Leader and Whip of the relevant political group. The political group may determine how to proceed in relation to the issues raised in this complaint. Any such decision and process shall be undertaken entirely independent to Sandwell Council. [Note 10]

8. If referring for Local Resolution:

8.1 The Deputy Monitoring Officer agrees with the Monitoring Officer’s conclusion that complaint against the subject member is not proven and therefore local resolution has not been considered.

9. Notification of decision

9.1 This decision notice is sent to the:

• Complainant.

• Member against whom the complaint was made.

• Independent Person.

9.2 Summary information will be provided to the Leader and Chief Whip of the political group for both complainant and subject member.

10. Appeal

10.1 There is no right of appeal against the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s decision.

End

Note 1: There was further evidence in the form of an email from ex-Cllr John Giles where he states that he thought Cllr Jalill's behaviour was disgraceful. I saw the email with my own eyes, but was not supplied with a copy. I believe it was sent to other members of the Committee. Further they were aware of what happened and why were statements not taken from them? of course, I wasn't there - although the Monitoring Officer was!

Note 2: An interesting point that there was another complaint. Further that the Monitoring Officer, Michael Jones, who was directly involved in the actual incident saw fit to undertake interviews when he was himself a witness and should not have done so as he had a very obvious conflict of interest.

Note 3: My reading of this is that the first formal complaint was from Cllr Jag Singh - the Chair of the Committee - which is precisely what I was told.

Note 4: Jag Singh is NOT a moron.

Note 5: The Monitoring Officer was there! Jag Singh went to him on the day. He arranged for Cllr Singh to stand down for the afternoon session and for Cllr (as was) Fenton to take the Chair! Why, if he was not concerned ON THE DAY?

Note 6: The Monitoring Officer WAS an Independent Witness. WTF? And what happened to Cllr Randhawa?

Note 7: I am not going to cast aspersions on the Independent Person. I don't know who s/he is. The Monitoring Officer (and Deputy) are Solictors. It would have been perfectly possible for the Standards Committee to hear the matter and decide whether they believe Singh of Jalil as they did, for example, with Ian Jones and Mahboob Hussain. It's like a, er court hearing which you might imagine Solicitors might be familiar with.

Note 8: Cllr Singh has not been believed! And why is there mention of the Monitoring Officer again when he WAS a witness? Stonewall conflict of interest.

Note 9: WTF? And has refresher training been given to Cllr Singh who allegedly got things so totally wrong?

Note 10: Over to your Reform!

LEGAL NOTICE (Version 4 from 8th October, 2023.)

In most cases we try to give the subjects of these blog posts the opportunity to comment on our journalism pre-publication to ensure the accuracy of our work.

Every now and again we make a genuine error and get something wrong. If an error in the blog affects you please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com and we shall use our best endeavours to remove offending material and/or publish appropriate corrections forthwith (together with an apology, if applicable).

Saturday, 9 May 2026

Teal Tsunami - An Open Letter to Sandwell Reform Group

Congratulations on your stunning electoral success. It was tremendous to see so many who have done SO much harm to Sandwell finally get the bum’s rush - Carmichael, Hackett, Hughes and many more.

ADDENDUM: 11th May, 2026 - when I wrote this I missed a key piece of advice - you will be getting your official Council email addresses this week. These are NOT secure. Sandwell Labour routinely accessed private emails with the connivance of some members of staff. ONLY use your official email for official business and watch our for any unauthorised access. Do not use it for anything else.

I doubt you will take any notice of this post - particularly with Durnell pulling the strings - but heigh-ho.

The ONLY thing that is going to improve Sandwell’s lot is economic growth. That will be difficult to deliver with Labour, nationally, causing mayhem, and local Labour’s hatred of business and enterprise destroying Sandwell over the last 50 years. An economic impact assessment should be made in respect of all non-statutory expenditure and not a penny of taxpayers’ money spent unless the effect will be positive for the local economy and jobs. (All statutory expenditure also needs to be reviewed, of course, to make sure that (a) the money isn’t going to Labour’s cronies, and (b) the Council is getting best value on the contracts.)

You need to be aware that the staff at the Council are, for the most part, Labour apparatchiks. Many are unemployable in the “real world”. Cut the staff where you can. Ten per cent would be a sound starting point. And look at the “shirking from home” rules Labour has allowed.

But do note that the pro-Labour staff will be against you from day one. As with the Tories who were elected not so long ago, staff are likely to make malicious complaints about members of your duly elected Group. Wherever possible use emails to communicate so that there is a written record. If you have to meet with staff try and make sure you have a witness present. If that is not possible, follow up with an email confirming what was discussed. You really do need to watch your backs.

Ditto with the unions. You will be aware that Labour is bringing in catastrophic new union legislation which will take Britain back to the awful conditions of the 1970’s. The first thing to do is to cut the number of staff at SMBC on “Facility Time”. This is where SMBC staff have a nominal “job” with the Council but are paid by the taxpayer to work for the union - full, or part-time. It would be wholly inappropriate if they are allowed to undermine elected members whilst being paid by taxpayers. You will need to check the legal position. Facility Time is a statutory right. See if you can cut the number of them at Sandwell to just one representing all unions. If that is not possible, cut to one per union. A win for your Group members AND for taxpayers.

And Labour has allowed some of the unions rent-free licences for offices in Council buildings like the Smethwick and West Brom Town Halls. Either evict them on day one or make them pay a full commercial rate. The former is the better option since why would you want a cuckoo in the nest undermining you from within the Council’s own buildings?

If he is willing to help, PLEASE use Darryl Magher. Most of your Group are political virgins. There will be a mountain of reading to do in the next few weeks and before meetings. Darryl has good knowledge of procedures and the nous to identify the right questions to ask. Ignore Durnell and use him!

Shokat Lal and Monitoring Officer, Michael Jones, have been very tardy in dealing with Standards Complaints against Labour (although some will be academic if the alleged miscreants have been kicked out in the teal tsunami.) Order Lal on day one to release my two ongoing standards complaints against (a) Rizwan Jalil, and (b) Those Councillors who failed to declare an interest when voting for Jeffcoat’s crazed motion to stop the WM Pension Fund investing in the arms trade.

If Lal is still doing a four-day week (with his “foreigner” in Tower Hamlets) stop that immediately. There is more than enough work for someone so highly paid to get Sandwell on the right track. He needs to be there to give you, hopefully, professional advice. If he wants to do outside jobs, renegotiate his contract so that he is only paid pro-rata.

Do not trust people like Paul Moore and keep them at arm’s length. Remember that Jeffcoat is a great guy, but a Labour puppet. Note especially that the notorious green masturbator, John “Tosser” Tipper, is in a bromance with world-class piece of sh*t, Adam Smith, at The Express and Star. Don’t be surprised if you tell Tosser something and then it appears in The Star. (Adam Smith is not to be trusted in any circumstances, and many BBC and other local journalists are fiercely anti-Reform. So watch your backs again.)

You may be surprised to note that Durnell is the de facto head [sic] of “Save Lion Farm Fields”. At the moment I have gone to the Information Commissioner as Lal is refusing to make available details of Sandwell Labour’s latest attempt to destroy the Fields. Reform should make it clear to the whole of Sandwell that the Fields will not be built over whilst Reform is in control. Lal should be asked to reply properly to the FOIA request.

You will be astonished, as you take control, how the corrupt Labour Dictatorship has embedded itself into every nook and cranny of Sandwell life. Your Leader needs an immediate meeting with Chief Sup’t Madill where she should be made aware that Reform will not allow her and others to continue to put out overtly pro-Labour propaganda. You also need to look at the membership of the Independent Advisory Group (IAG) which has, hitherto, been totally controlled by Labour members of the Sikh community.

There are very many charities and organisations which exist (a) purely as Labour fronts - SIPS, SCVO etc., or (b) put out pro-Labour propaganda in return for taxpayers’ money, like Multistory.

Reform needs to promote volunteering, the arts and community groups but only where this produces genuine benefit. Check that any organisation holding out the donations plate for taxpayers’ money isn’t a Labour Front (you should pull funding from the likes of SIPS on Day One or as soon as contractual obligations allow). Check how many paid employees these organisations have and how much they are personally raking in. Check the reserves held - many community groups (so-called) want taxpayers’ money when they are sitting on unused reserves. Immediately investigate where all the money is going at Let’s Dance Again (LDA) and consider the removal of its free use of Wednesbury Town Hall - at the very least until the accounts are clarified. Look too at who "charities" like LDA are employing - are they cronies or genuine third parties?

You obviously have 4 local MP’s gunning for you and you will be well aware of their desperate attempts to smear Reform before polling day. Unfortunately, we now also have an unwanted extra tier of local government with the hapless Parker as Labour Mayor. You need to make sure your representative or reserve is always at Combined Authority meetings.

Remember the general stuff - keep feet out or mouths, underwear on etc. Improve Sandwell’s disastrous position of league tables of poor health, deprivation and so on. It will be difficult for you to actually do worse than Labour, but TRY to make things better. Be open and transparent, and people will help you.

One thing that you SHOULD do - but won’t - is come clean on the Rajbir Singh/Imogen Walker scandal. You won’t because the “Boy Blunder” has just been elected as a Reform member of Birmingham City Council. That is a shame but I am on that particular case myself.

Good luck - you will need it.

Jules

LEGAL NOTICE (Version 4 from 8th October, 2023.)

In most cases we try to give the subjects of these blog posts the opportunity to comment on our journalism pre-publication to ensure the accuracy of our work.

Every now and again we make a genuine error and get something wrong. If an error in the blog affects you please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com and we shall

use our best endeavours to remove offending material and/or publish appropriate corrections forthwith (together with an apology, if applicable).