LABOUR’S DEVIOUS DAN JARVIS AND HIS DODGY DEVOLUTION DOSSIER

LABOUR’S DEVIOUS DAN JARVIS AND HIS DODGY DEVOLUTION DOSSIER

In the best Blairite traditions, the EU Remainiac, Dan Jarvis, who ironically is the MP for the strongly Leave constituency, Barnsley Central, got his debate on Yorkshire devolution last Wednesday afternoon in the Westminster Hall annex to Parliament.  Here is a link to the record of that debate from Hansard >>>

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-01-09/debates/A258E72B-52AF-4DC3-9513-3AE8AF89AF03/YorkshireDevolution

It is lucky for Dan Jarvis that the debate took place in Westminster Hall rather than on the floor of the House of Commons, as then he might be in trouble for misleading the House of Commons. 

In the debate he said:-

“Barnsley and Doncaster made their voices heard. Some 85% voted in favour of a wider Yorkshire deal, 

The marching orders are thus: go back to the Government and get the deal the people want.

It is absolutely right that we listen to what the people have told us”

“My constituents were very clear about what they were voting for—a wider Yorkshire deal—because they believed that that would be in their economic interests.”

“Indeed, if we are prepared to ignore an 85% majority, what does that say about the state of our democracy?”

“They were very clear in what they said, and it would be wrong for them to be ignored”

“I do not say for one moment that Yorkshire and the Humber should be a special case, but I do believe—I make no apologies for stating it in these terms—that it is a special place. There is something special about what John Sentamu described this morning as God’s own county.  There is a huge strength in our diversity. If we could create an arrangement that brought together 5.3 million people into an economy bigger than 11 EU nations, we would truly be a force to be reckoned with, not just in this country but around the world. In the far east—China, Japan or wherever—people know about Yorkshire.”

Mr Jarvis is referring not to a “democratic” vote, like a referendum or an election, but to what would normally be called a consultation.  (Here is a link to a report on this >>>http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2017-12-21/barnsley-and-doncaster-voters-overwhelmingly-in-favour-of-one-yorkshire-devolution-plan/).  This consultation only offered two options, neither of which were very attractive to any patriots.  The options were a South Yorkshire Region, based around Sheffield, or alternatively a “One Yorkshire” Region.

Since the last thing that Barnsley and Doncaster people want is to be dominated politically by Sheffield it is not surprising that many of them voted for their county to be the devolved body. 

Even so out of a total electorate of Yorkshire and the Humber region of 3,835.075 only 41,952 “votes” have now been made for “One Yorkshire” devolution. 

In Barnsley, 40,280 residents took part in the “community poll” - that's 22.4% of the electorate. Of those, 34,015 (84.9%) chose “One Yorkshire”, while 6,064 (15.1%) opted for Sheffield City Region.

Meanwhile in Doncaster, 45,470 residents voted - a turnout of 20.1%. Of those, 38,551 (84.7%) came out in favour of “One Yorkshire”, with only 6,685 (14.7%) preferring “Sheffield City Region”.

For Mr Jarvis to talk about 85% as if that was of the whole electorate and to make remarks about democracy, can only be sensibly described as disingenuous and deceitful.  The total number of people who participated in the consultation was only 85,750, the total number people who voted for “One Yorkshire” devolution was 72,566.  That is not only less than 85% of the consultations but also is just over 1% of the electorate of Yorkshire and Humberside!

It is also interesting, when considering Dan Jarvis’ deviousness and disingenuousness, to pick up the way he jumps from talking about the county of Yorkshire, which even so is not all the historic county of Yorkshire to “Yorkshire and the Humber”.  Yorkshire and the Humber is of course the name of the EU “Region” which includes North Lincolnshire, but does not include, for example, Middlesbrough. 

In doing this he, of course, gives his game away.  He as discussed in the previous article on this blog, is not a patriot or even a Yorkshire nationalist but is a “Europeanist” or Europhile who is looking at ways to try to break up the integrity of not only the UK, but also England, in continuing to push for Regionalisation, as per the EU’s Regionalisation project. 

Mr Jarvis not only has no care for our Nation in pursuing this project, but also he would appear not to even care for his own constituents in Barnsley Central, since if England was in fact effectively Regionalised there would be every chance that the politicians of each “Region” would be wanting to hang onto all the tax take of their “Region” and this would be very likely to mean that there would be a dramatic reduction in the Government subsidy to people in Yorkshire. 

Again Mr Jarvis is deceitful in his use of the statistics as to what way Yorkshire stands on the level of subsidy, since he quotes a comparison to UK subsidies and thus the vastly inflated subsidies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Barnett Formula rather than looking at the average level of Government spending across England only.

The other thing about Mr Jarvis’ focus on devolution for Yorkshire and Humber is that he and his other “Europeanists” do not seem to have learnt from the fiasco of their attempt to try and entrench Regional Assemblies in “Yorkshire” and in the “North East”.  It was the very fact that the proposed regionalisation for Yorkshire was not the traditional county but instead the EU Region of Yorkshire and the Humber which led to the proposal for Yorkshire and the Humber being so unpopular that John Prescott did not even try to have a referendum there, but instead went for the only “Region” where he thought he had any chance, which was the “North East”.  Even then his proposal utterly flopped at the ballot box - getting only 29% support!

As it says in Proverbs, Chapter 26, Verse 11:- “As a dog that returns to his vomit, so is a fool who repeats his folly”.  So can we say to devious Dan “Ay up lad! Sup up!?”

Here are all the comments which Mr Jarvis said in the debate which I found to be “interesting”. 

What do you think? 

Here they are the extracts from his comments:-  “All of us here have a responsibility to work co-operatively together to best serve the interests of our region. 

A constructive way forward for a future devolved settlement for Yorkshire

people of Barnsley and Doncaster made their voices heard. Some 85% voted in favour of a wider Yorkshire deal, 

The marching orders are thus: go back to the Government and get the deal the people want.

It is absolutely right that we listen to what the people have told us.

The status quo is not delivering. People are disillusioned, and they have a right to feel that way.

Not only do the people of Yorkshire receive an income that is 80% of the national average, but they also receive £300 per head less in terms of public spending, 

Secretary of the State to send the strongest signal of intent to the north of England that they are listening to what people are saying, and are prepared to make decisions that best serve those people’s interests.

This Friday in York, the coalition of the willing—leaders from across our area—will meet to reaffirm their support for the wider Yorkshire proposal.

I do understand why people in our region are disillusioned and angry.

We need a new economic and political settlement that involves genuine devolution of political and economic power that will spread prosperity and opportunity to towns and counties of all regions.

The solution must be as ambitious as the challenge is profound. That is why I believe that a wider Yorkshire deal is the way forward. By working together across the whole of our county and, like in the west midlands, not being confined to just one city, we would have the collective clout and the brand reputation to co-operate and compete not only with other parts of the UK, but with other parts of the world.

My constituents were very clear about what they were voting for—a wider Yorkshire deal—because they believed that that would be in their economic interests.

Could not have agreed more. Both nationally and internationally, a single Mayor would provide the single voice required to unlock the much-needed new investment. That is critically required in areas such as our transport system.

A wider Yorkshire combined authority directing investment decisions and using its purchasing power to negotiate

Devolution is about more than just transport infrastructure. It is about accessing funding for skills and training, building affordable homes, and preserving our unique culture, countryside and heritage by working together, harnessing our talents, combining our energies and maximising our influence, all of which is in reach.

The sense of place, community and belonging that comes from identifying with Yorkshire is, in many ways, our greatest asset. 

That will take more time, so first we need an interim solution not only to preserve the goal of a wider Yorkshire deal,

Indeed, if we are prepared to ignore an 85% majority, what does that say about the state of our democracy?

They were very clear in what they said, and it would be wrong for them to be ignored, not least because the Secretary of State was right when he told the Local Government Association that the driving force behind devolution is the desire to bring decision making to a more local level. 

This is not a political argument, in the sense that there is cross-party support.

As part of the coalition of the willing, some people have said to me that we should press for a wider Yorkshire settlement earlier than 2020,

I do not say for one moment that Yorkshire and the Humber should be a special case, but I do believe—I make no apologies for stating it in these terms—that it is a special place. There is something special about what John Sentamu described this morning as God’s own county.  There is a huge strength in our diversity. If we could create an arrangement that brought together 5.3 million people into an economy bigger than 11 EU nations, we would truly be a force to be reckoned with, not just in this country but around the world. In the far east—China, Japan or wherever—people know about Yorkshire. It means something to them, and it means something to us. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put in place an arrangement that could be really meaningful for the people we represent, and I very much hope that we will not miss out.

Where there is political will to make changes, it should be entirely possible to do so".

South Yorkshire Police Commissioner by-election

David Allen - English Democrats

Today is voting day in the South Yorkshire Police Commissioner by-election - which is an election using the Second Preference voting system.

Our English Democrats' candidate David Allen is head and shoulders above the other candidates in this election as was shown in the BBC Radio Sheffield debate broadcast yesterday.  To listen to this please click here >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p028ltd5

The debate begins at 02:02:40

 

Anyone who doesn't vote is wasting this opportunity to make a difference! 

 

Should we also frankly say that anyone who doesn't vote is an Idiot who is handing the election to those very people who have betrayed the trust placed in them?

 

As Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot) says An idiot in Athenian democracy was someone who was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private—as opposed to public—affairs. Idiocy was the natural state of ignorance into which all persons were born and its opposite, citizenship, was effected through formalized education. In Athenian democracy, idiots were born and citizens were made through education (although citizenship was also largely hereditary). "Idiot" originally referred to "layman, person lacking professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning". Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term "idiot" shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individuals who are "stupid".

ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE LABOUR IN SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTION

Our Press release on standing in the South Yorkshire Police Commissioner By-election

ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE LABOUR IN SOUTH YORKSHIRE ELECTION

The English Democrats are pleased and proud to announce that David Allen, who was our candidate in the previous Police Commissioner election, is again standing for us in the coming South Yorkshire Police Commissioner By-election, triggered by the resignation in disgrace of the previous Labour Police Commissioner, Shaun Wright.

In the last election the English Democrats came second and won the vast majority of Second Preference votes. Given the disgraceful behaviour of the local Labour Party machine in South Yorkshire in covering up Pakistani/Muslim child rape gangs and allowing them to operate for years with impunity because of Labour’s politically correct and diversity ideology we aim to win this time. The People of South Yorkshire need and deserve a change from Labour.

David Allen is the challenger to Labour’s corrupt one party state in South Yorkshire and he is the new broom that will sweep clean by remorselessly ordering the hunting down and prosecuting, not only all South Yorkshire’s child rapists gangs, but also all of Labour’s national politicians, councillors, officials, councillors, social workers and police officers who may be guilty of offences, including conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in covering up these crimes and for breaches of their public duty to the People of South Yorkshire.

David Allen, the English Democrats’ candidate said:- “From day one on the job, if elected, I will be tireless in the pursuit of these criminals and in bringing them to justice. The law should be administered without fear or favour and without ideological bias. The scandal in South Yorkshire has not been only the large number of child rape offences perpetrated by men of Muslim Pakistani origin, but also the deliberate concealment of these offences and failure to do their job of many people being paid handsomely out of the public pocket. Often this failure was motivated mainly by careerist, partisan advantage. Anyone guilty of these offences should not be in any doubt that if I am elected they will be rooted out and their political careers at public expense will be over.”

“As for the “grooming” gangs, they should note that if the court and prison service fails to impose an adequate punishment, then every time the offender re-offends we shall aim to prosecute again until they are sentenced for a sufficient time to make them no longer a risk to the public”

“South Yorkshire Police will also be directed to cease harassing people who are protecting their homes from burglars and will instead be directed to concentrate on prosecuting the burglar rather than the home defender.”

David Allen stood in the 2012 PCC elections for the English Democrats and came in second place: he is a foundry engineer by training and has experience is sales and sales management. David is married with two children and lives in Doncaster.

David says: ''If elected I will remind the police of their oaths to enforce the law without fear or favour. It is essential that they keep the consent of the people and that justice is seen to be done. I will pursue those who have failed in their duty and broken the law within the entire establishment, particularly with regard to vulnerable children.''

David thinks that a truly independent inquiry is needed to establish the performance of the South Yorkshire police, he would bring in an independent force to do so.

It is my belief that prevention is better than cure and that visible police constables are a reassurance to the public and a deterrence to criminals. Crime should be prevented on the street and not reduced with pen and ink.

For any of these things to happen the police must be freed from the tyranny of political correctness. It is a restrictive and disabling doctrine that prevents good men and women from doing their jobs properly. Equal rights not special rights

I promise if elected to listen to the public and try hold the police to account on their behalf, whilst supporting and defending them in their duty too.

Vote David Allen, English Democrats - ''MORE POLICE - catching criminals!''

PETER DAVIES – SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI (so ends worldly glory)!

As I am often asked about what happened with Peter Davies I will set it out here and then leave it. Peter was our party's first great electoral success and if that had been followed up then our Cause would have been helped greatly. It is disappointing that this wasn't possible.

Most of the details of Peter Davies’ life can be seen here in his entry in Wikipedia. Click here for the details >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Davies_(politician)

For my part, my first awareness of Peter’s existence came about because our then Yorkshire organiser, Michael Cassidy (who had met Peter in UKIP and then the Referendum Party) where we had got him standing in a local election in Doncaster.

Peter had automatically become a member of the English Democrats on the basis of having previously been a member of a UKIP splinter party, Reform UK, which had recently merged with the English Democrats. I then got good reports back during and after the election that our message had gone down very well and that Peter was delighted with the fact that he had more than doubled his best previous performance.

I do not think I actually first spoke to Peter until Michael Cassidy brought him along to a National Council meeting. During the course of the next few months, with my active encouragement the strategic plan emerged to stand as much as our resources would allow in Doncaster and to start spreading our message and create brand awareness so when it came to the Mayoral election we would be in a good position to challenge. This plan went well with Peter standing in local elections and Michael Cassidy standing for us in the Parliamentary election.

Incidentally for those who think that it is practical to do a deal with UKIP, Michael Cassidy’s experience is telling. He had been, I think, the Secretary of the Regional Party of Yorkshire for UKIP and personally knew the organisers of UKIP within Doncaster. He wanted to stand in the Don Valley constituency which would have supported Peter’s local election candidacies, but UKIP’s local branch told him that that is where they wanted to stand. Michael therefore agreed that he would stand in North Doncaster, but when the nominations were announced by the Returning Officer, it turned out that UKIP had not stood in the Don Valley at all, but in North Doncaster in order to try and spoil our vote!

By the time of the run up to the Mayoral election and also the EU Parliamentary election which was to be held on the same date, I was aware that Peter was opinionated and seemed capable of making a good speech and dealing with question and answer sessions in a robust and mostly sensible way. I do not think, even with hindsight, that I had any information which should have led me to be wary. In any case it was probably either to put Peter up as Mayoral candidate or not to put up a candidate at all. I was keen to put up a candidate in Doncaster and mostly funded the election. We not only stood Peter as our Mayoral candidate but also put him on our Yorkshire EU Parliamentary list so that we would get a double mailshot and we used the EU Parliament election free delivery to mailshot the whole of Doncaster. I paid for this and for the Yorkshire EU Parliamentary deposit.

During the election campaign Michael Cassidy did tell me that things seemed to be going well and he did not need any further help. We were of course standing in the EU elections across England and therefore I was at full stretch.

I have since been told that even during that election campaign Peter threatened to resign. I understand that this was over the question of whether he could go off for a week during the campaign to go to the horse racing festival at Perth in Scotland. It was only when Peter came back from that and had the confirmation from Michael that we were doing well, that Peter actually began to do any serious campaigning.

We then had the sensational result that he was elected by a squeak on the second preferences. It was obviously a very exciting, if lengthy and drawn out count, with lots of re-counts during which all sorts of stunts were being played by the more partisan counting officials (including 600 BNP votes being mysteriously put in hidden amongst the Labour votes!).

Immediately after Peter was elected the first sign to me that he wasn’t going to be a “safe pair of hands” was when he gave an interview to Toby Foster for which he was totally unprepared and from which he flounced out in the middle of. When I discussed this with Peter, far from being sorry about it, he maintained that it was all the interviewer’s fault and that he would not give any further interviews with either Toby Foster or Radio Sheffield.

I did my best to repair the situation and did an interview with Toby Foster myself the following week on my way up to Doncaster to our new Mayor’s invitation.

At this time we were getting lots of media coverage and Peter was getting a flood of people saying how delighted they were that we had got him elected. Far from helping us respond to these letters and emails, he had his Council staff delete all of the emails and we never got any of the letters either. That was the first indications that things were not going to go smoothly.

Peter invited some of us up to Doncaster to celebrate and during our meeting we talked about the things that Peter could do to implement all relevant parts of our manifesto and the need to appoint a political advisor as his Chief of Staff. We had a National Council member available at the time, David Lane, who was willing to do the job. The second indication was when Peter initially said he would do it but didn’t in fact appoint him and became evasive about the reasons in the following weeks. At that point I thought it might be that he did not want to appoint David Lane, so I then invited him to appoint his close friend and agent, Geoff Crossman. He would not appoint him either. 

It was also becoming clear to me at this point that Peter was very disorganised and had a very poor memory for detail and was very inclined to make snap decisions without fully considering the situation, whilst also having no tolerance for those people he was dealing with in the Council who didn’t scurry obsequiously around him.

These were worrying signs and it was frustrating that we had got somebody elected to a high profile position of actual power, but yet he seemed to have no interest in implementing any aspect of our manifesto. I had become aware that Peter was volatile and headstrong, and it was unlikely that I was going to be able to get him to do anything that we wanted him to do.

I continued to try to get him to set up St George’s Day celebrations in Doncaster, but he would not do that; to focus the substantial community budget more on the English community, but he wouldn’t do that. He did not seem to have any strategic view as to what he was going to be doing in the Council, which was also frustrating. Having seen that the previous Mayor of Doncaster had fallen out with Labour and been independent for several years before the end of his tenure, I knew that I could not actually order Peter to do anything.

As a result of Peter’s election a significant number of people had joined the Party in Doncaster, but the reports that I was getting was that he was often falling out with individuals and the numbers were gradually dropping off.

In the first three years after his election we did nevertheless manage a significant number of candidates and have continued to regularly get the kind of votes that Peter had found he was getting once he started to stand for us.

There was then a highly critical report by Government Inspectors into the operation of Doncaster Council , which whilst it concentrated the heaviest fire on Doncaster’s Labour Party and Councillors, it was also clear that Peter was failing to respond to the situation in any sort of constructive way. I wasn’t entirely surprised by this stage. We nevertheless did our utmost to support Peter in what could have been a potential crisis.

We continued to lose good members of the Party in Doncaster, at least in part because of Peter’s behaviour but the next crisis was that Doncaster’s Labour Councillors decided that they would trigger a referendum on whether to keep the mayoralty. Peter had left dealing with this right until the very last moment and he then rang me in a panic asking me to help. I did and we produced a leaflet which won the day.

All the while Peter was being attacked on websites and in dishonest, utterly contemptible emails and blog entries from various sources including one particularly repellent individual called Jonathan Snelling, who is a failed Liberal Democrat candidate. It gradually became clear that many of the other attackers were people who had been pretending to be English nationalists but who were unmasked as being UKIP internet trolls (“UKIP’s Black Ops Team”).

When we won the mayoral referendum it was clear that we were in a good position to win the mayoral election again with Peter winning a further term. We now began to pick up indicators that Peter’s egotism had disturbed his sense of proportion to the point that he thought now, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that he had been elected entirely because of himself rather than as a result of any input from the English Democrats!

I suspect the Labour Councillors who he was regularly mixing with were astute enough to realise that Peter’s greatest weakness is his egotism and had played on him to try to divide him from us so that they would have a good chance of winning the mayoral election.

By this point it was becoming clear to me that there was a danger that Peter would spin us out long enough so it would be impossible for us to find an alternative candidate before Peter became an Independent. I made it clear to him, not only in conversations but also in writing, that if he did not stand as an English Democrat we would nevertheless stand. Perhaps as a result of this crystal clear warning Peter then started working on the active members of our Doncaster branch to get them to stay with him if he stood as an Independent. It was also becoming clear that he was openly trying to de-stabilise the branch and on at least one occasion he flounced out of the meeting, hoping that the branch would collapse.

I then invited him to a selection meeting by our National Council indicating that we had another candidate and there would have to be a selection. At this point he resigned and immediately began to attack the Party. He claimed that his resignation was something to do with BNP members, although there were no ex-BNP members in the Doncaster branch and he was well aware of the few people who came over from the BNP to us had done so 18 months or so before. In short Peter’s conduct towards us was not only a great let down and unwillingness to follow our manifesto, but also devious and disloyal.

Perhaps I should have immediately been put on my guard when he kept telling me that he was “loyal”! These words from his interviews in the media after his resignation show just what that meant:-

Peter was asked about his refusal to help us get St George’s Day properly celebrated in Doncaster by the Local Government Magazine and he said, and I quote,: - “I have never celebrated St George’s Day. I certainly think, in a racing town like Doncaster, that meeting fraternal colleagues in Perth is a far better use of my time than dancing around with a bunch of Morris dancers”.

Peter’s commitment to English Nationalism was not even skin deep.

Peter told the BBC last year that he had not been mayor very long before he “realised that being an English Democrat was a total irrelevance”.

Peter told ITV that:- “A good Mayor is a Mayor without a party. English Democrats policies have never played any part in my running of the town.”

By now Peter had become an ex-supporter of six political parties, having, as he had told me at one time, originally been a supporter of Labour and then for a longish while Conservative, Referendum Party, UKIP and Reform UK and finally the English Democrats.

If Peter had been willing to maintain even the façade of loyalty, even though he was never actually going to do anything that was English Democrat, he would nevertheless now be starting on his second term of office as Mayor of Doncaster as can easily be seen by the results, as together we would have had a majority of over 4,000.

Peter’s tenure office has been a disappointment but our troubles with him are by no means unique for any political party in dealing with egotists. Those of us that actually care about the Cause and are campaigning to make a difference for England for the better will carry on and in Doncaster we are already looking forward to the next elections. We saved our Mayoral Election deposit and again we showed that we are the second Party in Doncaster after Labour. This result shows that our support is good even in such difficult circumstances.

I am glad to see that out of the 43 candidates that we stood this May we have had a further 10,083 votes (plus an uncounted number of second preference votes in Doncaster).

Our County Council election results 2013

Our County Council election results have now been compiled. Many thanks to Stephen Morris who did so. 

Overall we got 5,468 votes (3.53%) including both those County Council electoral divisions where we made an effort and those where we were merely paper candidates. Our best result was for Stephen Goldspink, in Cambridgeshire, second with 29.32%.

In Doncaster we got 4.615 first preference votes (7.5%) and came third. We also saved our deposit (unlike the Conservatives and Lib Dems). In difficult circumstances we have confirmed that we are the second party there. We are now preparing for the next election there.

Well done to all those who stood and across England and also all those who helped. 

As the following item shows, although we have been successful in getting people aware of our Cause, we have not yet had nearly as much success in getting ourselves identitfied with its solution. 

Click here >>> http://networkedblogs.com/KUMl6. 

This report, from Labour's IPPR, is despite UKIP rejecting even Paul Nuttall's modest move towards an English Parliament and also despite UKIP's recent Party Election Broadcasts, during English Local Elections, not even deigning to mention either England or the English Nation once. On the contrary they asserted that UKIP is 'Proud to be British' and has signed up to vote NO to Scottish Independence.

More work to do! Per Ardua ad Astra! 

Peter Davies resigns from another Party!

It is with a little regret that the English Democrats and our Elected Mayor of Doncaster, Peter Davies, are parting company.

It’s always been something of a roller coaster ride with Peter and his regular gaffes (including his notorious suggestion that the Taliban could teach English people a thing or two about family values), but as Peter has got older he has become ever more inclined to speak without thinking first, let alone doing any research as to whether his facts are correct.

In the time since he was elected, Peter has regularly threatened to resign, usually on petty internal Party matters. It therefore comes as little surprise that he has eventually found something to actually resign over, even if it is something he hasn’t properly researched or thought about or made any serious attempt to understand or to engage with what we as a Party are trying to do.

Peter’s election was a pleasant but not entirely unexpected pleasure for us, the English Democrats, as we are the sensible and moderate English nationalist Party and our tide is rising. Although Peter’s previous involvement with politics was very chequered, having belonged to many political parties and his forays into elections were always previously attended with failure, nevertheless, having started to campaign for the English Democrats, he had found that he was getting very much more support electorally than anything he had achieved before.

Peter often said to me that he liked the title of being “Maverick Mayor” and he has certainly lived up to that title, even if his commitment to English Nationalism has always been somewhat tepid. To take one example among many, he flatly refused to help promote St George’s Day in Doncaster because it would conflict with his attendance at the Scottish horseracing “Festival” in Perth.

At this stage I am not aware if Peter has given up on the possibility of being re-elected - given his previous electoral track record that would be understandable. As Peter has made very little effort to help us build the English Democrats his absence from our ranks is unlikely to be much missed. The English Democrats will be standing a sensible moderate English Nationalist candidate in the next Doncaster Mayoral elections and we will be announcing our candidate in the next fortnight.

Peter’s conduct, whilst disappointing for us, is also a betrayal of the 25,344 English Democrats’ voters in Doncaster that elected him in the first place, the 31,287 Yorkshire voters who voted for us in the EU elections, and the 32,386 votes from Doncaster that the English Democrats have received since.

Whilst it is true that a few former members of the British National Party have joined the English Democrats this is a fact that is also true of other parties, including the Labour Party, who now have a former BNP councillor and parliamentary candidate as a councillor in Lancashire.

Peter has never been willing to take his politics seriously, always putting his passion for horse racing first. It is one thing being maverick but quite another to both attack people he has never met nor troubled to find out anything about and to turn on the Party which gave him his only electoral success.

All parties have similar problems to our ones with Peter but I won’t hide that it is a disappointment that Peter has proved as disloyal to us as to so many of the other parties which he has previously belonged to.

Robin Tilbrook,
Chairman,
The English Democrats

Doncaster, with our Mayor, shows the way!

17/08/11 - Dispersal order in Wheatley continues to be a success

A section 30 dispersal order, which was granted for six months in Wheatley at the beginning of June, has again proved its worth during the first few weeks of the summer holidays. Incidents of anti-social behaviour were down by 40% in July.

South Yorkshire Police and Doncaster Council applied for the order, which enables the police to disperse from the area groups of two or more people causing a nuisance, after residents raised a number of concerns about antisocial behaviour, including the use of abusive and foul language, criminal damage, littering and intimidating behaviour.

Activities have also been organised for young people to give them something positive to do with their evenings. The Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) is hosting multi sports activities for youngsters. Local youth clubs have extended opening hours and there have been a number of drop-in sessions organised at the Wheatley Youth Club and the Kingfisher Youth Club.

The Wheatley centre is open Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday nights and is open to young people aged between 11 and 19. The Kingfisher youth club runs every Wednesday and caters for young people aged 8 - 12. Since the dispersal order was put in place, more than 50 young people have attended the youth clubs on a weekly basis.

There is also an under-age club night planned for 11 - 16 year olds from across Doncaster at the Trinity nightclub on 25th August. The beach party night starts at 7pm and doors close at 10pm.

Peter Davies, Mayor of Doncaster, said: "Cutting anti-social behaviour is a priority for us and it’s encouraging to hear that incident numbers are still falling. Residents are telling us that this order is making a difference and we’ll continue to look at what else we can do to ensure people feel safe where they live."

Police Sergeant John Hunter for the Wheatley Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) said: "It is really pleasing to see the dispersal order making such a difference in the area. We have seen a decrease in the number of groups of young people hanging around and residents have told me they feel safer. The SNT will continue to patrol the area and enforce the order if necessary."

Councillor Eva Hughes, Ward Member for Wheatley, said: "We've worked closely with Wheatley residents to get this order put in place and it's really pleasing to see the positive effect it's having."

For media enquiries contact Chris Dawson, Communications Officer, on 01302 736697