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.)

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.

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.)

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.

Shokat Lal suppresses Rizwan Jalil investigation pre-election

Way back in March, 2025 - yes, 2025 NOT March this year - I made a standards complaint about a Labour Councillor at bent Sandwell. I put the substance in a blog post at the time without naming the alleged miscreant:

"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 xxxxxxxxxxx, 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 xxxxxxxxxx.

This was a disgraceful and egregious breach of the Councillor’s Code of Conduct by the Councillor - believed to be xxxxxxxx - 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."

[Full post - https://thesandwellskidder.blogspot.com/2025/03/more-sandwell-labour-corruption.html]

The alleged miscreant is Cllr Rizwan Jalil who is seeking the votes of the folk in Oldbury ward again on Thursday. Jalil vehemently denies the allegations and, indeed, some of his pals also took to social media to proclaim his innocence.

Normally, of course, this matter would be dealt with by Jones, the Council's Monitoring Officer but, as I pointed out at the time, Jones was directly involved in the incident and thus it was inappropriate for him to deal with the matter himself. Even he agreed with this and the case was referred to a Deputy Monitoring Officer - a solicitor called James McLaughlin.

Really this is the simplest of matters to deal with. All McLaughlin has to do was take statements from Cllr Singh, Monitoring Officer Jones and, of course, from Jalil himself. For good measure he could secure the correspondence involving Cllr John "Mr Blobby" Giles (and I have personally seen an email from Giles to other councillors wherein even he was disgusted at what had gone on).

Perhaps Jalil is innocent? Perhaps Singh made the allegations up - although this seems unlikely as he is said to actually be that rara avis, an honest Labour Sandwell Councillor lol! Perhaps Jones somehow misunderstood what actually happened and was too quick in having Cllr Singh stand down for the rest of the meeting to be replaced by Rent-a-Gob Fenton? Or perhaps Jalil was guilty, in which case surely the voters of Oldbury should be told even in a Borough as corrupt as Labour Sandwell?

And Jones told me as long ago as 22nd July, 2025 that McClaughlin had concluded his investigation and would contact me shortly. That was over NINE MONTHS ago!

[See also blog of 25th February, 2026: https://thesandwellskidder.blogspot.com/2026/02/]

I referred this egregious delay to the Ombudsman who wrote to bent Sandwell in early March of this year telling Lal's outfit to send me an update and to deal with my complaint about the delay. Lal has ignored the Ombudsman. I wrote to him yesterday, and will shortly be referring the matter back to the Ombudsman. This delay is shocking even by Sandwell standards and clearly deliberate.

The most hilarious thing from all this is that Dim Kez and Co. reselected Rizwan Jalil despite the supposedly ongoing investigation but deselected Mr Blobby who, for once, did the right thing and expressed his shock at what he perceived, at the time, to be Jalil's misconduct. Only in corrupt Labour Sadders ...

(Image courtesy of the excellent Sandwell Corruption.)

Curiously Labour puppet, "Independent" Councillor Richard Jeffcoat - never a man to use a few words when a few thousand will do - has gone quiet although he is "in the know" about this. Remember, he may be an "Independent" candidate but, as the Americans would say, he caucuses with bent Labour. [Thus, in reality if not on paper, there are four "Labour" candidates chasing three votes in Tipton Green this year.]

For obvious reasons given what the corruption at Sandwell - which I have been disclosing for more than a decade - I had that "feeling" that Lal would not deal with this matter in the proper way and so I also reported the incident directly to pro-Sandwell Labour, Sandwell Police. I know they received the information but have heard nothing further. Maybe this is not surprising noting the boss's overt support for "Sicko" Sarah Coombes MP - including a disgraceful display of contempt for the war dead to provide Sicko with yet another photo op.

Sandwell keeps voting for Labour and gets exactly what it deserves with the likes of Jalil (who has personally threatened me for writing about him!)

And on the subject of copsuckers ...

This blog had, for many years, exposed the political bias of Sandwell Police and put up many examples of "copsucking" where officers are allowing themselves to be used to promote a deeply corrupt local Labour Party. Seeing that the boss is now at it too, it is perhaps not surprising that the lower ranks do the same.

Skidder Facebook Group members will be familiar with this recent abhorrent example of copsucking:

The officer out canvassing with Labour has been named by Skidder readers as PC Sukhmandeep Rai. I wrote to West Midlands Police asking them to confirm his identity and to say whether WMP was taking any disciplinary action against him.

Let me just digress a moment - the last Chief Constable, when trying to keep "the Jews" out of Brum, had to resign when he relied on what he claims was a false report generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). Now read on ...

I am not sure whether this response was AI generated but it came via a software company called Vuelio:

"Response: This was an event involving a number of members of the community on 12 March."

Honestly, that's it! Nothing about his conduct or any disciplinary action. Lets's just remember what Sicko Sarah Coombes actually said:

"We have been out and about [with the three Labour candidates for Charlemont & Grove Vale]. We did a walkabout with police ..."

I am now taking this to higher authority. Watch this space ...

WILL SANDWELL VOTE CORRUPT LABOUR OUT ON THURSDAY? SURELY 52 YEARS OF LABOUR FAILURE IS ENOUGH EVEN FOR SANDWELL?

AND REMEMBER - YOU CAN SPLIT YOUR 3 VOTES IF YOU ARE UNSURE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO VOTE FOR ALL THREE FROM ONE PARTY.

My latest banner:

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.