Northumberland CC ignore 2010 Equality Act by fleeing their responsibilities

 

White Feather Council fails to act.

Local Social Media has once again uncovered that Pontius Pilate has an office in County Hall in Morpeth complete with a handbasin and by the look of things the officers responsible for sorting serious complaints can no longer be contacted except by a ‘bot’ according to a long serving Councillor from Rothbury.

Its a specifically designed ‘bot’ that may or may not relay messages to guys and gals grafting hard to support their bosses so that the stacks of officers paid more than £100,000 per year can sit back in their armchairs situated in London’s leafy suburbs and never be inconvenienced to turn up at work as it might be too much bother. The Council has a new all encompassing powerful Leader to sort things in Morpeth.

A complaint under the 2010 Equality Act has been submitted to the Council explaining the homophobic actions of a Councillor.

The Council’s response is in paraphrase “when is a councillor a councillor?”

Its the sort of unbelievable spin from sailors whose boats carry too much ballast and have become impossible to rock. Or have they put their telescope up to Nelson's blind eye.

The Council has shown that a huge yellow streak exists and public protection, something every taxpayer should expect has been tipped out with the baby and its bathwater. Children’s Services should begin a search immediately.

Our regulars should read on and see what a jolly mess their council has fallen into:

From Chris Curran Complainant.

The reply I received after reporting the councillor to the monitoring officer

We write in response to the standards complaint you have submitted relating to Councillor Natalie Rolls.

The first stage the Council has to undertake is to determine whether we have powers granted by statute to process the complaint. The issue in this respect is whether Councillor Rolls was acting in her capacity as a Councillor when she posted the messages in question online. If we determine that we do have power under the legislation (ie jurisdiction), we would then determine whether the evidence provided within the complaint reaches the required threshold for formal investigation.

We have now concluded our initial assessment and have determined that no further action should be taken because the Council does not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint.

The reasons for this decision are as follows:

Acting in the Capacity of a Councillor

The governing legislation, setting out the powers of local authorities to process complaints into Member behaviour are set out in the Localism Act 2011. Particularly s.27(2) of that Act states:

…a relevant authority must, in particular, adopt a code dealing with the conduct that is expected of Members and co-opted Members of the authority when they are acting in that capacity.

We have highlighted the pertinent wording in the above extract. This sets out the legislative provision that for a local authority to be able to process a complaint then the Councillor must have been acting in their capacity as a Councillor. The code of conduct will apply when a Councillor is carrying out their official duties, for example when they are considering or discussing council business, either as a Councillor or representing the council on an outside body. For something to fall within the code there must be a clear link to a local authority function or the role as a Councillor. For example, an argument with a neighbour which does not relate to local authority business would not engage the code, even if the neighbour happens to know that the person is a Councillor and therefore complains to the local authority about being treated disrespectfully.

It is also possible for someone to be given the impression that a person is engaged in local authority business. For example, if someone attempt to misuse their position as a Councillor to seek to gain an advantage for themselves someone close to them. A number of factors will need to be taken into account to determine whether or not you had used or attempted to use your position as a Councillor. Examples of this could be:

writing to someone on local authority headed paper or using a local authority email address may lead someone to assume you were writing in your capacity as a Councillor

handing out a business card where you describe yourself as a Councillor may also lead to that assumptionwearing official local authority regalia

There has been an amount of judicial consideration of this issue, and it is clear from decisions that the actions complained of must relate in some way to Council business, and that this is to be construed narrowly.

With regards to messages on social media, if a Councillor describes themselves as such in a social media post or in their username or profile, it does not mean that every posting made would be covered by the Code. There must be a link within the individual posting or thread to the role as a Councillor or to local authority business. The converse is also true, just because a person may not describe themselves as a Councillor does not mean that a post cannot fall within the scope of the Code if local authority business is being discussed.

We are assisted here by guidance issued by the Local Government Association (LGA). The LGA produced a model code of conduct for elected Members which the Council’s code of conduct follows. Guidance was also issued to assist with interpretation of the mode code of conduct. The LGA guidance states the following:

Simply describing yourself as a Councillor in a social media posting or at the top of your page or in your username or profile, for example, does not of itself mean that every posting you make is covered by the Code. There must be a link within the individual posting or thread to your role as a Councillor or to local authority business. However, even if you do not describe yourself as a Councillor you may fall within the scope of the code if you are discussing local authority business.

For example, a posting which is simply discussing a recent football match is not covered by the code even if you have described yourself as a Councillor. However, if you make a posting threatening a fellow Councillor or officer that would fall within the code even if you have not described yourself as a Councillor as it relates to local authority business or your role as a Councillor.

In the circumstances, Councillor Rolls has described herself as a Councillor in her username for the account. However, the guidance stated above confirms that this is not enough. It does not mean that everything posted on this account relates to Council business. The subject of the posts is the RNLI and a flag that they are displaying. This is not on Council owned land, it is on private property and does not relate to council business or any business Councillor Rolls is undertaking on behalf of the Council. Accordingly on the evidence submitted, we must conclude that the Council does not have powers under the relevant legislation to process this matter through our arrangements and will take no further action in respect of it.

 

Please note that there is no right of appeal against this decision. If you consider that your complaint has not been properly considered properly, you may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman or make an application to judicially review the decision.

Is it time bring Max Caller back in?

 

Northumberland, has had millions of pounds spent in seeking advice on how to work more publically, accept that opposition members of council should be heard without fear of oppression or ridicule and begin to listen to and deliver some of what its residents want and need.

Possibly the most expensive single spend was on the Tory Government’s red hot fixer, Max Caller who did a deep dive into Northumberland Conservatives and decided the Council was utterly multi dysfunctional.

Big promises from the Sandermouth leadership team have led the Council down the ‘road to nowhere’ as residents lose services at an alarming rate as the Conservatives ‘Never Ending Story’ of charging more each year while delivering less and less outside of Tory voting areas is never spoken about or questions answered about their NES even when pressured extremely hard.

At the last full council the often read parable from the Councils farming fraternity of treating opposition Councillors like dogs was once again revived at a televised meeting and the Council’s chairman sat on his backside and didn’t stop this disgraceful outburst. Watch the video and make your own mind up (link below).

The prime opposition ‘the dogs’ had been defeated at the same meeting in their totalitarian wish to become even more elitist than the Tories by wanting to break all community ties and rule godlike without regional mayors, police and crime commissioners, parish councils or town teams having any part in on the ground decision making. In fact their motion actually agreed with the Tories secret cabinet decision to have an all powerful leader in Northumberland to take the strain of delivering nothing people want.

The proof that closer ties across communities are essential sits within another costly report commissioned and not implemented using public cash by the Tories, that of the so laughably called the ‘Best Report’. It points towards those good things the Council should be doing but what isn’t included are the long promised powers that should be given to area committees.

The Tories haven’t even nodded agreement to that element of local government legislation and following Reforms motion on totalitarianism they are simply ignoring it. 

Instead the Sandermouth regime have slashed all spend on local area committees and in their usual secret way have decided to stop them even though they they have never empowered them at all over the last eight years,  they are instead going to have soft centred Community Committees and let the third parties Reform hate set the agenda for the County Council.

What a palaver, but the Never Ending Story rolls on and on.

https://youtube.com/live/xi5sxPcTWWI?si=mLxLw8O1lU8cV0-A

Captain and Motley Crew Model failing Northumberland County Council?

 

With Northumberland Conservatives choosing a new direction of t
ravel for decision making by having an ‘all powerful decision making Leader and Cabinet’ people are concerned that the public are being completely left out of the ability to harvest information and agree or disagree with their Council’s adopted policies that apply both now and into the future.

Its very well known that the past Conservative Council’s since 2017 have kept decision making very secretive but the process of ‘Scrutiny’ by opposition Councillors and an active regional press has managed to expose many of the Council’s dodgy decisions that only comfort Conservative held rural areas and towns creating and disadvantaging the more urban and heavily problematic through poverty and historical deprivation zones leading to economic rundown and high levels of dependency on Housing Benefit and other Welfare assistance.

Its believed that the Leader and his Cabinet are making a series of policy decisions which have yet to see the light of day and Labour’s opposition leader Cllr. Scott Dickinson is concerned that no scheduled meetings to scrutinise the ‘new’ forward plan have been called since the election on May 1st and that the Conservative Cabinet may have top-sliced finance even further away from areas of need as paying the debt on their borrowing since 2017 is now beginning to catch up with them.

Reform UK the largest opposition group on Northumberland County Council  appear to be satisfied with trying to condemn organisations who celebrate unity, such as the RNLI, anything to do with fairness, including women's equality along with  running down the NHS improvements coming forward to assist poorer areas. The role of being a Councillor does not come naturally to most elected Reformers who up to now only wish to hoist a Trumpian DOGE onto the Council.

Extremism Its circles have a common theme.

Jumping around on the denial freight train whilst whipping up the common man is a well practiced art of extremists and political ‘bollockticians’ hungry for power.

Leon Trotsky and world-wide spinning of anti-state communism led to the Russian working people's acceptance that they are poor through slavery to the wealthy leading to the enlightenment of self emancipation is being used again and again by local bollockticians to whip up fear and as a methodology towards gaining power or causing great angst among Governments everywhere. 

In Russia the fear of being seen as anti-state is now used to bolster control by the new wealthy, things never really change?

The circles used by both right and left extremists are for slightly different purposes but they are still used effectively and the bollickticians slip from right to left at will to get the messages of the nouveau-riche carried directly to the people. Take BREXIT as a fine example of their art. It was and still is bollocks yet has caused great angst for two different Governments.

Let's take a quick look at two locals carrying the messages yet being used by others to re-enslave those who have been trapped in limbo for decades.

John Falkenstein and Natalie Rolls, John was a writer and reporter with extreme leftist views and sympathy’s whipping up workers and the youth following with his work published in the Ultra Left Militant newspaper. He’s now a living chattel of REFORM UK and its posh boy leaders who wish to control and enslave the lower classes.

Natalie Rolls on the other hand has shown a stronger hand when rising through the ranks of the ultra left by whipping up hatred through open questioning of the Tory led Northumberland County Council engendering herself on the altar of a reforming mammon seemingly pleasing her party suitors immensely pushing hatred to an unsubstantiated level.

Natalie published the following:

Statement Regarding Northumberland County Council’s Plans for Migrant Resettlement:

We, the residents of Northumberland, are deeply concerned about the council’s decision to cram 20,000 migrants into our communities without any meaningful consultation. These plans are being pushed through as though the voices of the people who actually live here don’t matter.

While we are not opposed to providing help to those in need, the reality is that our schools are already full to bursting, the NHS is stretched beyond its capacity, and housing is in a dire state. Adding thousands more people into this strained infrastructure will only exacerbate the situation, leading to further difficulties for the existing population.

Additionally, we are troubled by the financial impact of these plans. Our elderly, who have worked hard all their lives, are seeing their winter fuel allowance scrapped, while resources are being diverted to house and support migrants in 5-star accommodations. The stark contrast between £1.3 billion needed for fuel payments and the billions being spent on migration services is deeply unjust and feels like a slap in the face to the local people who have contributed to this country for generations.

This is not just about finances—it’s about preserving the culture and way of life that makes Northumberland special. Our communities thrive on unity, where neighbours look out for one another. The arrival of large numbers of people who may not integrate into these close-knit communities raises concerns about the future cohesion and identity of our region.

We urge the council to provide greater transparency and to respect the voices of its residents by engaging in proper consultation. The people of Northumberland deserve to have a say in decisions that will impact our communities for years to come.

Enough is enough. We call on the council to address these concerns and reconsider its current course of action.

She followed it up with a letter to the Council publishing it on her social media.

19th September 2024

Northumberland County Council�County Hall�Morpeth�Northumberland�NE61 2EF

Dear whom ever it concerns,

Re: Concerns Regarding Plans to House Migrants in Northumberland

I am writing to express my deep concerns about the council’s plans to house 20,000 migrants in our county. While I understand the importance of doing our part as a community, there are serious issues that need addressing—issues that many residents, myself included, feel are being overlooked.

Firstly, it is disappointing that there has been little to no public consultation on this matter. Decisions that impact our communities, culture, and way of life are being made without proper input from the people who live here. This lack of transparency is concerning, and it feels as though the council is pushing these plans through without considering the valid concerns of residents. We deserve a seat at the table and a real say in how our county moves forward.

Beyond the lack of consultation, there is the question of cost. Many of us see the immense financial strain that migration, both legal and illegal, is placing on the country as a whole. Billions are being spent on housing, benefits, and services for new arrivals, while our own people—especially the elderly—are struggling. The fact that the winter fuel allowance has been cut for many of our pensioners, forcing them to choose between heating and eating, while migrants are placed in high-quality accommodations, feels like an injustice. The comparison is stark: £1.3 billion to provide winter fuel payments once a year, versus multiple billions spent on managing migration. This is a real kick in the teeth for hardworking, long-standing members of our community who now feel left behind.

We are also deeply concerned about the strain this will place on our public services—our schools, healthcare, and housing. Northumberland is proud of its strong, close-knit communities, and we value our unique culture, heritage, and dialect. While we are open to change, it must be change that strengthens rather than undermines the fabric of our communities. Rapid and unmanaged migration could lead to cultural fragmentation, and we are not willing to see that happen here.

This brings me to some critical questions. First, what is the mechanism by which the council will determine the backgrounds of those being resettled here? How can we be assured that proper vetting and safety checks are in place? As residents, we are deeply concerned about the lack of transparency regarding who these people are and whether or not they will be integrating into our communities in a way that maintains cohesion and safety for everyone involved.

Moreover, I must ask what the council believes the outcome of this social experiment will be? It seems that these plans involve placing a large number of people—potentially from very different cultural backgrounds—into areas where they may not have the necessary support to integrate successfully. Has the council considered the long-term social and economic impacts of this decision on the fabric of our communities?

In addition to the costs of migration, we see huge amounts of taxpayer money being spent on initiatives like Net Zero, diversity, and inclusion projects—while our own people are suffering from a cost-of-living crisis. It feels like the priorities are misplaced, and we urge the council to consider the real impact this is having on the lives of local residents.

We are asking for reassurance from the council that these plans will be reconsidered, and that local concerns will be taken seriously. We need transparency, proper consultation, and a balanced approach that prioritises the needs of the people already living here, many of whom are struggling in these difficult times.

We all want to live in a community that is fair, inclusive, and sustainable. But that requires careful planning and genuine input from the people who call this county home. Please take our concerns seriously, and ensure that any decisions made about the future of Northumberland reflect the interests of its residents first.

I look forward to your response and hope to see more open dialogue moving forward.

Yours sincerely,

Natalie Rolls

Reform UK

lets wait and see what response we get from the council

She then sent a freedom of information request to the Council seeking even more personal information.

Dear Northumberland County Council,
I am submitting a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for information concerning the involvement of councillors, board members, and other relevant officials in both the Migrant Dispersal Scheme and Mears Group or any of its subsidiaries. My request seeks to understand whether any financial, personal, or professional interests exist that may affect the integrity of decision-making or procurement processes. Specifically, I would like to request the following information:
1. Declaration of Interests:Provide details of any declared financial, personal, or prejudicial interests of councillors, board members, and officials in relation to the Migrant Dispersal Scheme, Mears Group, or its subsidiaries (both past and present).
Information on any family members or close associates of the above officials who may have a financial stake in Mears Group or its subsidiaries.
2. Meeting Minutes and Records:Supply meeting minutes from relevant committees or council sessions, particularly the Cabinet, that discuss the Migrant Dispersal Scheme or any contracts awarded to Mears Group or its subsidiaries.
Include any discussions on potential conflicts of interest or any declarations of interest made during these meetings.
3. Procurement Process:Provide documents detailing the procurement and tendering process used in awarding contracts to Mears Group in connection with the Migrant Dispersal Scheme, especially any protocols for avoiding conflicts of interest or ensuring fair competition.
Copies of internal reviews, audits, or reports on how the contracts with Mears Group were awarded, including any clauses requiring adherence to Fair Tax principles or ethical standards.
4. Gifts, Donations, and Financial Incentives:Records of any gifts, donations, benefits, or financial incentives received by councillors, board members, or officials from Mears Group, its subsidiaries, or any associated entities in relation to their roles.
Information on any investigations, complaints, or disciplinary actions that have been raised concerning potential undeclared interests or conflicts involving officials with ties to Mears Group or the Migrant Dispersal Scheme.
5. Contractual Agreements with Mears Group:A list of all contracts awarded to Mears Group or any of its subsidiaries in relation to the Migrant Dispersal Scheme, including details of any key decision-makers or councillors who were involved in the selection or approval process.
Any correspondence that indicates financial links or influence between councillors, officials, or their associates and Mears Group.
6. Financial and Employment Connections:Information on any employment ties between current or past councillors, board members, or officials (or their family members) with Mears Group, its subsidiaries, or related entities.
Records of any shares, investments, or financial interests held by councillors, board members, or officials in Mears Group or its subsidiaries.
7. Compliance with Transparency Standards:Provide any documentation or reports that show how the council ensured compliance with the Fair Tax Declaration and other transparency or anti-corruption measures when awarding contracts to Mears Group.
Any monitoring reports or assessments showing whether the contracts with Mears Group and its subsidiaries have adhered to ethical, financial, and environmental standards.

Public Interest Argument:
This request is made in the public interest, particularly to ensure transparency and accountability in the involvement of councillors, board members, and officials in the management of public resources and contracts related to the Migrant Dispersal Scheme. Given the council’s commitment to transparency under the Fair Tax Declaration, it is essential to verify whether there are any conflicts of interest or ethical concerns that may affect public confidence in these decisions

I look forward to your response within the statutory timeframe of 20 working days as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Thank you for your assistance.
Yours sincerely,

Natalie Rolls

The response to her questions are attached to this link /https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/freedom_of_information_request_i_308/response/2810461/attach/2/Response%20some%20exempt.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1 showing her allegations of 20,000 migrants being housed in Northumberland were false, but the damage was done.

A look at the obvious was never knocked back by Northumberland Conservatives, the obvious question is where would 20,000 homes be purchased by the said Mears Group. The Conservative Leader of Council FAILED to knock back this massive social media spin into the public domain allowing racism to rule the social media airwaves.

The populations of Northumberland's largest Towns are as follows:

Where would 20,000 migrants live?

NOTES
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape///militant/1984/696%20Militant%2020%2004%201984.pdf