Standards Latest on Labour Crim Melia & Liar Kaur

Keir Starmer's favourite local Labour Crim, Steve Melia, is to face a Standards Investigation at bent Labour Sandwell Council in respect of his assault on The Skidder. And Labour liar, Cllr Parbinder Kaur, has been found to have breached the rules by failing to declare her ownership of a smart, modern, detached house on the Yew Tree (but let off with a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce leaf).

The Crim, Melia

I put two complaints in re The Crim, Melia. Firstly, a complaint from a parent about an alleged verbal assault on his son at Oldbury Council House - the tail end of which is available on You Tube. Surjit Tour, bent Sandwell's highly controversial Monitoring Officer, has tried to bat that away as he has arbitrarily introduced a "six-month time limit" for Standards Complaints - unlikely to be lawful when bent Labour hide evidence of wrongdoing for months, and even years!

The second complaint was about the assault on me which over 100,000 folk have watched on social media outlets. But Tour is pulling an old trick again. I have sent the following email to the equally infamous SMBC Solicitor, Maria Price (with a small redaction or two):

"THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION

Thank you for the Decision Notice. 

With regard to Complaint One, I understand that the so-called "six-month time limit" is a LGA recommendation which they themselves say can be overruled in appropriate circumstances. If I am wrong (and I have read the LGA guidance) please confirm the relevant statutory provision for the arbitrary six-month limit?

In any event there is clear "similar fact evidence" linking Melia to abusive and threatening behaviour on two occasions, and the first incident is also partly recorded and available on You Tube.  Not long ago the parent placed this on social media:

"This is the councillor at the very first brandhall green space demonstration that shouted at my 7 yeat old autistic son calling him brainwashed and a stupid little f*cker".

The evidence for the "prosecution" is clear (and you will have the CCTV too from OCH) so that there is no reason why Melia should not face the charges and defend himself.

With regard to the complaint regarding the assault on myself I object in the strongest possible terms to xxxxxxxxx being appointed as the lead investigator. I was unaware that xxx was still with SMBC. You yourself know that I made a formal complaint about employee Lisa McNally in respect of her possible breach of the Local Government Officers (Political Restrictions) Regulations and that I received an abusive response from xxxxxxx. I made a complaint at the time and YOU exonerated her.  At that precise same time YOU, Tour, Stevens. Lynch and Cllr Crompton (and maybe others) were conspiring to unlawfully fund McNally's absurd case against me (and that subject is far from concluded). You will recall that without looking at the evidence Lynch then held, xxxxxxx falsely accused me of a "malicious and unjustified attempt" to discredit McNally. Of course, McNally went on to discredit herself in the High Court.

I appreciate that the Monitoring Officer has form for doing this sort of thing eg. with the appointment of Goolden in the Eling & Marshall affairs, but he is not going to get away with it this time. I insist that a truly independent person is appointed as investigator.

There are a couple of errors in the Decision Notice. There is no mention that I am a journalist and there is a statement that there was no physical injury whereas the Magistrates were informed of - admittedly minor - hand swelling. There was also damage to my phone.

When you confirm the identity of an independent investigator I will provide a detailed statement to him/her and include the statement I gave to WMP.

I am copying this to the Leader of the Opposition. I am also making this public with xxxxxxx's name redacted at present."

Two Labour Councillors struggle to restrain The Crim

I'll keep you posted folks!

The Liar, Kaur

This blog exposed Cllr Parbinder Kaur for (a) lying about her property interests and (b) lying about her business as a private landlord (at, at least, two Sandwell properties) - see Skidders passim and the legal notice below.

In respect of (a) Tour has found that she simply made a mistake "lol" when she forgot that she owned a sizeable modern detached house on the Yew Tree!!!!! But, curiously, given his behaviour in standards cases since 2017, Tour reported this matter to the Bent Blues, aka West Midlands Police, where Kaur has many friends. Quelle surprise - they decided it would be inappropriate to take further action. I have written to Chief Superintendent Ian Green about all this, and particularly to ensure that CI Keeley Bevington (Skidders passim and see legal notice below), was not involved in the so-called "investigation".

Readers will recall that I put up a picture of the window of another house Kaur owns in Sandwell where she rents rooms out. Indeed there was an advert in the window requesting tenants. Several people also say she was renting out the Yew Tree property too - and there were people living in the house who were not the Labour Councillor. She has not declared in her Register of Interests that she receives business income as a private landlord (as do several other Labour Councillors in sh*thole Sandwell). Bizarrely, Tour does not refer to any investigation into this during the standards process but right at the end makes the bizarre comment that renting out properties for profit is somehow not "a business"!!!!!!

There are a number of questions about the nature of Tour's investigation and Skidder nerds can see the issues I have raised with him set out below after the Legal Notice. Again, I will keep you posted.

The Ian Green Letter - An Extract

I have today written to Chief Superintendent Green with regard to certain Sandwell matters which must remain confidential at present but here is one part of the letter which I can disclose and it's an absolute shocker!

"I was stunned at your prompt action when Cllr Melia assaulted me and was very satisfied with the way I was treated by your colleagues (and that’s a line I never thought I would be writing!) However, all the good work has been undone by you with the publication of the attached picture on social media. This was taken by West Brom Neighbourhood Team and you arranged for this to be put into the public domain as an advertisement for Melia just 21 days before the election when the convicted criminal was standing as a candidate (and after my blog of 8th April specifically referring to WMP electoral bias in Sandwell). I understand that the street watch arrangement recently had a paedo wandering the streets with your officers and now here you are, seemingly making a deliberate ploy to rig the election by exonerating and supporting a convicted Labour criminal - one you were instrumental in potting? Can you give me and Skidder readers ANY reason why this was done and why you, personally, “liked” the Tweet (as did Inspector Grandison)? No wonder Melia and your Officers are smiling when they are taking the p*ss out of us all. And no wonder that many people think Sandwell Police are utterly corrupt when it comes to bent Labour!"

THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - COMMUNITY NEWS - READ THE SKIDDER, KIDDER!

**** Phone No: 07470 624207 ****

Email: thesandwellskidder@gmail.com

Facebook: Julian Saunders  

Facebook Group: The Sandwell Skidder - Speaking Truth To Power!

Twitter: Publisher: @CrowMultimedia; Julian Saunders: @SandwellSkidder            

Post:  Jules Saunders, 11 Chelworth Road, Birmingham B38 0BG

PROUD TO HAVE BEEN TROLLED BY DICKHEAD DARREN COOPER DECEASED!

LEGAL NOTICE (Version 3 from 14th February, 2021)

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 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

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 honest 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 publish appropriate corrections forthwith.

We have had to remove the direct comment facility from this blog due to the 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.

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.

Questions to Surjit Tour re Kaur Standards Complaints

Heading: Stage One - Legal Threshold. (Complaint about failure to declare ownership/co-ownership of a detached modern house at Yew Tree.)

“The Monitoring Officer raised this matter with the Subject Member and the Subject Member confirmed that she is co-owner of the property and that she had mistakenly not declared this on her register of interests (a pecuniary interest).“

“The Subject Member stated that this was an oversight and she was not aware that she had make this declaration as she did not live in the property.”

[Should this read, "she had to make"?]

“The Subject Member is not in any Council business involving the property in question and nor did she make any gain as a result of the non-disclosure.”

[What on earth does this mean, particularly the words "Council business"? She was/is renting this property out and therefore should declare this in Part A Paragraph 1 as a "Disclosable Public Interest". In passing, it is noteworthy that the likes of Cllr Piper are declaring war on private landlords and it is of significant public interest if Cllr Kaur has failed to declare her interest as one - and see further below.]

“Moreover, the subject member has confirmed that her Register of Interests has been updated.”

“The Localism Act 2011 is clear that it is a criminal offence to fail to declare a pecuniary interest to the Monitoring Officer within 28 days of the interest arising.”

“Given the circumstances the Monitoring Officer reported the Subject Member's omission to West Midlands Police.”

“West Midlands Police found that there were no aggravating factors arising from the Subject Member’s omissions to declare the interest and noted that the Subject Member would be undergoing training by the Monitoring Officer. As such no further action would be taken, but that they would keep the matter on file.”

“In the circumstances the Monitoring Officer is satisfied that stage 1 threshold.”

[Presumably this should read "satisfied that the stage one threshold is met"?]

“In respect of allegation one, the matter was referred to West Midlands Police, who considered the omission to declare the property in question and determined that no further action would be taken on this occasion other than to keep the matter on file.”

[There is ample evidence over the years of the corrupt relationship between SMBC and certain officers of West Midlands Police. You cannot rely as statutory Monitoring Officer on their alleged "investigation" unless you are sure there was a thorough one. Did WMP interview Kaur under caution for example?]

Heading Stage 2 - Initial Assessment (Complaint (a) about failure to declare a property rental business at her declared address in Smethwick and (b) use of the telephone Kaur uses for Council business to advertise for prospective tenants.)

[You appear to have dealt solely with the issue of the telephone number here (subject to an odd comment at the end of your decision notice) and not considered at all the part of the second complaint relating to the failure of Cllr Kaur to declare her property rental business at the Smethwick address. As above, this should have been declared in Part A Paragraph 1 of the Register of Interests. Even though she amended her entries she has still not declared her interests as a private landlord, although you yourself say, "the circumstances have not changed since the complaint was made out'". Quite - Cllr Kaur continues to commit a criminal offence in failing to declare a pecuniary interest although you, as statutory Monitoring Officer say the "complaint is relatively minor"! You are supposed to be enforcing the law here! Further you do not appear to have raised this aspect of the matter with WMP. Why not? You have said that the second complaint does not amount to a potential breach of the Code of Conduct but you have not dealt adequately or at all with the property business run at the Smethwick house. This is a clear error on your part.]

[Please state:

1. the date of the complaint to WMP;
2. the identity of any WMP officers involved including especially CI Keeley Bevington;
3. was the complaint made by you and if not, by whom was it made;
4. did the complaint only relate to the Yew Tree property and, if so, why, 
5. what date did WMP inform you of the completion of their investigation?
6. as above, did WMP interview Kaur under caution and, if so, where?

[You have declined to refer this matter for investigation as you say that there are no aggravating factors but, for the reasons above, there clearly are since, at the very least, the failure to declare property income in respect of the Smethwick property is uninvestigated and actually ongoing.]

[You and the Independent Person make the absurd statement that no further action should be taken because Kaur did not make any gain from the failure to comply with the Code. If that is the situation what on earth is the point of having councillors declare pecuniary interests under Part A, Paragraph 1 of the Register of interests in the first place?]

“The Monitoring Officer… determined … but the Subject Member should have declared her interest in [the Yew Tree property] as a disclosable pecuniary interest. [He] has deemed that the matter should be dealt with by way of local resolution [i.e. attendance at a training course].”

[Having made no findings about the Smethwick property you say in a throwaway penultimate line that those property rentals "do not amount to business interests" which is completely absurd. You have failed to investigate this aspect of the matter in accordance with your statutory duty either adequately or at all. Please now do so.]

End.