Barron airbrushes Corbyn

How strange; Sir Kev’s election leaflet makes no mention of Jeremy Corbyn at all. There is plenty of what you would expect from the sitting Labour MP-Tories and Tory plans are bad but I’m good. Sir Kev is one of many Labour candidates who do not include either a photograph or any reference to the Labour leader.

People are of course free to vote for any political party and in these here parts it is the Labour party candidate who is the favourite to win but seriously: Corbyn as PM? With can’t-do-my-sums-Abbott and the insufferably arrogant Thornberry as Ministers of State? Combine this with Kier Starmer’s pledge to ‘rip up the Tories Brexit White Paper’ and you can understand why Sir Kev campaigns as a lone soldier.

Does Sir Kev deserve your vote? He complained RMBC councillors did not talk to him nor did South Yorkshire Police. He also said he never had long and meaningful conversations with his daughter Amy Rushforth so when the CSE scandal blew up Sir Kev claimed he knew nothing about it.

Why would you vote for a man who doesn’t know anything?


Posted in Community News, Parish Council News | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Why Vote Labour?

  1. In last year’s EU referendum 66% of people in Rother Valley ward voted to leave the EU. Local Labour MP Sir Kevin Barron voted Remain.

The Rother Valley Ward is; Anston & Woodsetts. Dinnington.Hellaby.Holderness.Maltby.Rother Vale. Sitwell and Wales.

18046 people voted to Remain and 36182 voted to Leave. 54228 votes in total which means an overwhelming 66.72% in Rother Valley voted to Leave the EU.

The Parliamentary Labour party has said that it will do its utmost to thwart Theresa May’s efforts to get the best deal possible in negotiations with EU leaders. With this in mind can anyone explain exactly why people in Rother Valley should vote for the Labour candidate Barron?

His record in Anston is abysmal. Our roads are crumbling, he has not spoken out against fracking in Anston nor building on greenbelt. What new businesses has he attracted to Anston? What has he actually done for this part of the Borough?

Shouldn’t people vote for the party most likely to grant their wishes to leave the EU.? Do they vote for the Labour party because their Fathers, Grandfathers and Great Grandfathers voted Labour?

Do they honestly believe voting for the Labour party is the patriotic thing to do and in our Country’s best interests?


















Posted in Community News, Parish Council News | Tagged , , | 11 Comments

Can our Labour MP’s Be Trusted?

In light of the current snap General Election and the on going Police investigation into the three Labour MPs for electoral expenses fraud after they allegedly failed to declare tens of thousands of pounds spent on recruiting staff to get them re-elected back in 2015 South Yorkshire Police say that an application for an extension had been granted by the courts, I think now would be a good opportunity to enlighten readers with some forgotten information.

With the MP’s winning two High Court cases and showing that they will take anyone to court who dares to question their claimed lack of knowledge there was and is a massive problem of organized sexual abuse going on in their constituencies with a reluctance to focus attention on the perpetrators of these crimes for reasons of “community cohesion” or electoral expediency. It appears to be a common theme.

Rotherham MP Sarah Champion caused outrage after putting in an expenses claim for a £17 Remembrance Day poppy wreath claiming it was a ‘necessary expense’. Ms Champion then laid the wreath at a service in her Rotherham constituency although the money has since been paid back. Ms Champion was told she was not allowed to claim for Remembrance wreaths by IPSA, the parliamentary expenses watchdog.Would this have been paid back if the IPSA hadn’t picked up on it?

Doesn’t she receive enough money to have paid for this out of her own pocket in the first place?

Are the Labour MPs really complicit in a Cover-up?

Former Rotherham MP Denis Macshane who was first elected in 1994 but resigned in 2012 prior to a six month jail sentence for expenses fraud, admitted his political leanings stopped him from addressing the problem when he was the Rotherham MP.

Macshane in an interview with the BBC said he was aware of illegal incest and “the oppression of women within bits of the Muslim community in Britain” but turned a blind eye.

He admitted: “Perhaps yes, I suppose I didn’t want to raise that it was too hard”. The Times reported him also having said: “I, like so many MPs, preferred to keep silent on some of the dirty secrets about bad practices in the Kashmiri Muslim community”, a community that supplies “vast reservoirs” of votes at election time he added “There is in our country, just a dreadful culture and I wouldn’t pick particular on one ethnic community but it is a real problem, it’s a longer story about the nature of that community, their sexual relations, and the way they treat women”.

Another local unnamed MP has also confided the abuse remained unspoken of for so long because “there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat, if I may put it like that”. A culture of intimidation locally may have also played a part.

Reports about child sexual abuse began to surface relatively regularly in the national press back in 2011. A year later Wentworth and Dearne MP John Healey received a letter from a constituent expressing concern but he dismissed it. The Times reported that the local man, wrote to his MP in 2012 to inform him locals were “deeply disturbed by what was happening in Rotherham”.

The constituent asked whether his MP John Healey for the area since 1997 (which is alleged to be around the year the abuses of the 1,400 girls in Rotherham began), would “call for an investigation of all parties at fault”, meaning local child protection agencies and police as well as the perpetrators. John Healey replied” “I am not sure an inquiry would help the girls and their families, especially if it focuses solely on Rotherham and on Asian men grooming white girls”.

The Labour MP for Rother Valley, Sir Kevin Barron who has represented the area since 1983, said that in the past 16 years he had only ever been approached by one family in regard to child abuse issues.

Mr Barron said during the time he helped to raise the matter with the police and ensured the victim and her father gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in January 2013.

The MP told a local newspaper “It now appears that the case was not a relatively rare one as I had thought and that the abuse by her attackers and subsequent failure of response by the very agencies whose role it was to protect her was a widespread situation and just the tip of the iceberg in terms of child sexual exploitation. Why didn’t Mr Barron follow this up and investigate this himself ? He would have then known it wasn’t an isolated case.

Mr Barron has also said “local MPs have regular meetings with council leaders every three months and he could not remember the issue of child sexual exploitation ever being brought up for discussion”.

Are we to believe that after reports and minutes of meetings which have since been seen about CSE in Rotherham, that no councillor or Leader ever spoke to a Rotherham MP about this important issue?

Don’t the three MP’s speak to each other?

The Times report from 2011 which at first didn’t name Rotherham but referred to a place in “Northern England” where local sources “where so scared of reprisals that their town must not be named” went some way to explain why the abuser’s own community didn’t reveal their activities, which were often conducted in broad daylight.

The article refers to comments by community sources, who spoke of the “widespread view that betraying members of one’s own community to the police would be an even greater sin than child sexual exploitation.” White girls are targeted by such men because “if they did it to a Muslim girl, they’d be shot”.

As the parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of local agencies and authorities continues questions have been raised about the competency of the very bodies that were supposed to protect those abused.

During the questioning of the then resigning Rotherham chief executive Martin Kimber it emerged that an important and detailed piece of evidence, a 2008 report on child abuse had “disappeared” from the council’s archives.

We need a vote for change or are we too complacent to not care about crimes against children and the spin our three MP’s want us to hear?


Reblogged from:


Posted in Community News | Tagged , , | 12 Comments

Tram Train pilot during Spring bank holiday

The pioneering Tram Train project in South Yorkshire will take a significant step towards completion in the coming weeks as construction work continues.

Engineers from Network Rail will replace College Road bridge in Rotherham. The old road bridge needs to be demolished and a new, higher one installed so that the overhead lines which will power the Tram Trains can be safely installed underneath. To allow the bridge to be replaced, College Road will be closed for 18 weeks from Friday 14 April to Friday 18 August 2017.

South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE) was awarded £51 million from the Department for Transport to undertake the two-year pilot, with project partners Network Rail, Northern Rail and Stagecoach Supertram. Learning gained from the pilot will help determine whether Tram Trains can run in other parts of the country.

Work to prepare for the Tram Train service includes:
– Electrification of the rail line from Meadowhall South to Rotherham Central Station and Rotherham Parkgate tramway to the train tracks
– Construction of a 400 metre rail line (called the Tinsley Chord) to link the tramway to the train tracks
– New tram stop at Rotherham Parkgate
– Extended rail platforms at Rotherham Central Station
– Rail replacement engineering work to the Stagecoach Supertram network
– Modifications to the Stagecoach Supertram depot to accommodate Tram Trains
– The manufacture of seven Tram Train vehicles by Vossloh in Spain.

Rotherham Council’s Cabinet Member for Jobs and the Local Economy Cllr. Denise Lelliott added that better transport connections would help to reinvigorate the local economy.

All very good you might think but this grand scheme does not offer a single advantage to people who live in Anston. It’s all very well being able to whizz between Sheffield and Rotherham but what and where are the proposals to help us get there? There is the 19B bus service from Anston to Rotherham Interchange which takes 52 minutes. Alternatively there are the 216/X5 and X55 buses between Dinnington Interchange/Ryton Rd. which have journey times of 1 hour.      Seriously?

How many people want the Tram/Train running through Anston and Dinnington?

Let’s recap on this: £51 Million for The Tram Train pilot which will run for two years with a view to permanent operation and it is a sure bet that if  Stagecoach end up operating this scheme they won’t have to repay £51 million.

Would it have been better if RMBC had asked for money to repair and improve our roads instead? The A57 between Anston crossroads and Todwick is still a bottleneck. Woodsetts Rd and Swinston Hill Rd are still in urgent need of repairs.

Modern transport links are vital if Rotherham is to prosper but towns and cities need people to work in them, how is it proposed these same people get to work without snarling up the roads networks?


Posted in Community News, Parish Council News | Tagged | 8 Comments

Armed forces National Insurance contributions

This affects Service Personnel and Civil Servants.

Please read it as it might affect you or a member of your family.

If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, here’s the deal . xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The original article was forwarded to me in good faith by a local man-whom I know and trust-whose son served his country in the RAF. Since then I’ve done a bit more research- as this is a subject I know nothing about- and it would appear that the contents of the post was based on an erroneous assumption.

I apologise if this article has caused anyone distress or led to any ill feelings.                                                                              This is what the Forces Pension Society says:

The petition suggests that the National Insurance rules (which affect the size of your state pension) were changed by sleight of hand in April last year and that “opting out” or more properly  “contracting out” was something that happened retrospectively at the same time.  This is not true. As anyone who has served and is already drawing their state pension will know, contracting out has affected the level of state pension for those contracted out for at least 40 years and has applied to millions of pensioners across the whole public service and beyond. The petition also states that  the level of NI that Armed Forces personnel or other contracted out personnel paid was “allegedly” smaller. There is no allegedly about it. It was demonstrably smaller.  Given the length of time the rule has been in place and the breadth of its application we do not think this is a credible Armed Forces Campaign issue.  The Royal British Legion takes a similar view. It is however important that everyone understands what their entitlement to a pension will be, so  go online and apply for a State Pension Statement. You can then decide whether to top up your pension if you are eligible to do so and if you are a spouse who is missing NI payments because you were serving abroad apply to have the missing years reinstated.

The post below, extracted from the Forces Pension Society Newsletter from October 2015 explains the changes to the state pension which were about to occur when it was written:

“The new state pension goes live on 6 April 2016, so with some six months to go, time to find out how it will affect you. The changes offer opportunities for both those staying on the old state pension and those who will be on the new, so read on. Basic rule is that those MEN born ON or AFTER 6 April 1951 and those WOMEN born ON or AFTER 6 April 1953 will be eligible for the new state pension. The basic state pension is currently £115.95 a week or just over £6,000 a year. It is currently topped up by additional state pension entitlements – either the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) in place from 1978 to 2002 or the State Second Pension, which replaced it. This two-tier system will change from April 2016 and be entirely replaced for those retiring after April 2021 by a ‘flat rate’ pension. The official guidance says that it will be no less than £151.25 a week, which would amount to more than £7,800 a year. However, not everybody eligible for the new scheme will receive the full amount, a fact that has been the cause of some confusion. Currently, workers need to have 30 years of qualifying National Insurance contributions to get the current full state pension, but will need 35 years of contributions to get the full flat rate state pension in future. However, people who have contracted out of S2P and Serps over the years may get less than this. It comes as a surprise to some of our members to be told that they were “contracted out” when members of the Armed Forces and that their state pension entitlement is therefore less than they had anticipated. There is also a perception amongst some that this “special treatment” has been reserved for former members of the Armed Forces alone. This is not so. Contracting out was normal practice across the whole public sector and indeed amongst many independent Final Salary schemes. If you remain unsure about what your pension entitlement is likely to be you can apply for a State Pension Statement to give you an estimate of how much you are likely to get when you reach state pension age. The statement will be based on your National Insurance contribution record as it stands on the date the statement was produced. Worth applying so that you know where you stand. “




Posted in Community News, Parish Council News | Tagged | 5 Comments

Making Decisions?

Why does it take APC forever to make decisions?

How long should it take to make a decision?

Skatepark-Discussed for at least 6/7 years.

Crowgate-Discussed for the last 4 years.

The Green-Ongoing for the last 2 years.

Repair and reinstate the football pitch on the Recreation ground. Discussed for the last 4 years.

Repairs to the Annexe-Known about for at least 4 years and the structural report was discussed by councillors 4 weeks ago.

Seek external funding for major projects-Discussed for the past 18 months.

New restroom and storage area for the groundstaff-Voted for last year.

Lots of discussions, very little action. What a shambles.

In March 2016 we published this:

APC councillors still find it very difficult to work together for the benefit of Anston. Even more galling is that the same 6/8 councillors diligently attend Charity and Finance meetings and it is rare for all councillors to attend full council meetings. What happened to ‘We want to do the best for Anston’?

Numerous agenda items are deferred because either the sponsor of the item does not attend a council meeting or the council meetings run out of time. What on earth is going on? No single councillor is at fault but collectively APC is  disorganised, disunited and fails to make sure resolutions agreed by the council are carried out.

We need better decision making and more visible evidence that APC is actually doing something. Instead of just talking.



Posted in Community News, Parish Council News | Tagged | 24 Comments

Cost of Years of Neglect.

News reaches me that part of Anston Parish Hall is suffering from structural defects. It seems the annexe part of the hall, including the toilets, which is used by the Pre School and other users is falling away from the main hall. Closer inspection revealed the annexe was built without being tied into the main structure and the current problem is suspected to be a broken drain which has soaked the ground and caused the annexe to tilt away from the hall.

Other problems include the roof of the annexe which during the last 12/15 years has suffered from ‘repair’ work by Billy the Bodger and is leaking. I understand a structural survey of the annexe has been carried out by a professionally qualified local surveyor and his report is being considered urgently by APC councillors.

This problem has not arisen overnight. The previous administration knew the annexe was not securely fixed to the main building and as long ago as 2010/2011 a gap appeared at the top of the annexe wall where it joins the hall and has since got progressively worse. From about 2011 amateurs were given the go ahead to supposedly repair the annexe roof and it seems all they did was to put patch upon patch. How much of our money was wasted employing these cowboys?

Plans were drawn up some years ago-at great expense-for a new Parish/Community hall and then shelved. Why is anyone’s guess.

Anston Parish Councillors have the unenviable job of funding and rectifying years of neglect. Not all of the parish council reserves can be used to pay for the new hall.

The Council is required, under statue, to maintain adequate financial reserves in order to meet the needs of the organisation. Section 50 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 requires that billing and precepting authorities in England and Wales have regard to the level of reserves needed to meet estimated future expenditure when calculating the budget requirement.
The Council’s policy on the establishment, maintenance and adequacy of reserves and balances will be considered annually.
The Council will hold reserves for these three main purposes:  A working balance to help cushion the impact of uneven cash flows and avoid unnecessary temporary borrowing – this forms part of the general reserves;  A contingency to cushion the impact of unexpected events or emergencies – this also forms parts of general reserves;  A means of building up funds, often referred to as earmarked reserves, to meet known or predicted requirements; earmarked reserves are accounted for separately but remain legally part of the general fund.
2. General Fund balance
The general fund balance, commonly termed the ‘working balance’, is a balance on the council’s revenue account which is not held for any specific purpose other than to cushion the council’s finances against any unexpected short term problems in the councils cash flow.
The general fund balance is to be maintained at a level based upon a risk assessment carried out annually by the Responsible Finance Officer (RFO) when setting the budget for the forthcoming year. Any surplus on the reserve above the required balance may be used to fund capital expenditure, be appropriated to earmarked reserves or used to limit any increase in the precept.

The impact of unexpected events or emergencies‘. Nobody expected the parish council to have to find the money to repair the annexe at the time when plans are being considered and debated to secure extra external funding to build a bigger and better parish/community hall for everyone’s benefit.



Posted in Community News, Parish Council News | Tagged , , | 13 Comments