Yet again it's the woman in the alleged relationship who resigns or is sacked. Rhetorical question - has Stephen Mold no shame? He should take the lead from the fire service chief who took an ethical position
Unfortunately, the committee doesn't have the power to sack Mr Mold. It can resolve that it has no confidence in him, however. But will they feel the need to do anything at all, considering that they will, presumably, be sitting "in camera" once again?
I don't "do" Twitter. I regard Twitter as a cess-pit. Plenty of people seem to write things on Twitter that they wouldn't dream of actually saying. However, I find it stupendously easy to avoid being mortally affronted by what people put up on Twitter, because I don't have to look if I don't want to. The main good thing that Twitter does is that it provides an avenue for those idiots who might otherwise express their most foolish notions indellibly, with a spray can on someone else's wall.
One such idiot would appear to be Cllr Stevens. One would perhaps hope that in time he will grow up, but, since he is fifty already, that is going to have to be soon and fast. At least he had the residual good sense to post his rubbish using a semi-opaque pseudonym. But.....
If he didn't use his "councillor" title (or even his full name) in his mini rants against Caroline Lucas and others, then a disciplinary charge of bringing Wellingborough Town Council into disrepute is probably going to be a bit hard to sustain.
Of course, I haven't seen the Tweets that he has been arrested for, but I have read the Telegraph description of them, and of what happened when he was questioned by the police, having been arrested, and, if that is all broadly true (a medium-sized "if"), then it does seem that actually arresting him was a bit over the top. Especially considering that, by repute, the garbage that he posted is barely distinguishable from the garbage that many other Twitter users seem to produce. There is also the logical connundrum that if the original poster hasn't been arrested, then the re-tweeter surely shouldn't be either.
So, I will be "watching with interest", especially when Mr Adderley finds the time to react to the report that he has commissioned. If Mr Stevens gets de-arrested with an informal warning, surely the most likely outcome, then I wonder if Mr Mold (a man who could do with an easy opportunity to say something sensible) will have any opinion to offer on the public interest aspects of the misapplication of resources in a desperately overstretched police force?
Finally, for the "other" side, has the "Christian Legal Centre", in the totality of its existence so far, ever actually won a case?
East Midlands Legal Services (properly, East Midlands Police Legal Services) is basically an in-house solicitors service shared among most of the East Midlands police forces. So, it does conveyancing on police property, employment law and all sorts of other, mainly mundane, legal work, basically from the perspective of the defence of the respective police forces' interests. If you were a police officer, and, let's say, you suffered an in-growing toe nail due to having been provided with ill-fitting boots, your claim against your Chief Constable for compensation would be opposed by a solicitor from EMPLS.
How they came to be wrong is anyone's guess. I would venture to suggest that, just as there are avenues of employment (like occupational health) for people who only manage poor passes in their medical degrees, so there are also opportunities (like in-house legal services) for people with third class law degrees.
Yet again it's the woman in the alleged relationship who resigns or is sacked. Rhetorical question - has Stephen Mold no shame? He should take the lead from the fire service chief who took an ethical position
In answer to your question...no, he hasn't.
If he's not sacked by the committee it will merely show the circling of the wagons by a corrupt spent force.
As for Mark Kones suddenly leaving, it's a total joke.
Unfortunately, the committee doesn't have the power to sack Mr Mold. It can resolve that it has no confidence in him, however. But will they feel the need to do anything at all, considering that they will, presumably, be sitting "in camera" once again?
Welcome back! You were missed.
I don't "do" Twitter. I regard Twitter as a cess-pit. Plenty of people seem to write things on Twitter that they wouldn't dream of actually saying. However, I find it stupendously easy to avoid being mortally affronted by what people put up on Twitter, because I don't have to look if I don't want to. The main good thing that Twitter does is that it provides an avenue for those idiots who might otherwise express their most foolish notions indellibly, with a spray can on someone else's wall.
One such idiot would appear to be Cllr Stevens. One would perhaps hope that in time he will grow up, but, since he is fifty already, that is going to have to be soon and fast. At least he had the residual good sense to post his rubbish using a semi-opaque pseudonym. But.....
If he didn't use his "councillor" title (or even his full name) in his mini rants against Caroline Lucas and others, then a disciplinary charge of bringing Wellingborough Town Council into disrepute is probably going to be a bit hard to sustain.
Of course, I haven't seen the Tweets that he has been arrested for, but I have read the Telegraph description of them, and of what happened when he was questioned by the police, having been arrested, and, if that is all broadly true (a medium-sized "if"), then it does seem that actually arresting him was a bit over the top. Especially considering that, by repute, the garbage that he posted is barely distinguishable from the garbage that many other Twitter users seem to produce. There is also the logical connundrum that if the original poster hasn't been arrested, then the re-tweeter surely shouldn't be either.
So, I will be "watching with interest", especially when Mr Adderley finds the time to react to the report that he has commissioned. If Mr Stevens gets de-arrested with an informal warning, surely the most likely outcome, then I wonder if Mr Mold (a man who could do with an easy opportunity to say something sensible) will have any opinion to offer on the public interest aspects of the misapplication of resources in a desperately overstretched police force?
Finally, for the "other" side, has the "Christian Legal Centre", in the totality of its existence so far, ever actually won a case?
The more serious concern about Cllr. Stevens is a retweet which depicted the burning of the Koran which said " if I want to burn it fucxing will".
Who are East Midlands Legal Services?
How did they get their advice so wrong?
East Midlands Legal Services (properly, East Midlands Police Legal Services) is basically an in-house solicitors service shared among most of the East Midlands police forces. So, it does conveyancing on police property, employment law and all sorts of other, mainly mundane, legal work, basically from the perspective of the defence of the respective police forces' interests. If you were a police officer, and, let's say, you suffered an in-growing toe nail due to having been provided with ill-fitting boots, your claim against your Chief Constable for compensation would be opposed by a solicitor from EMPLS.
How they came to be wrong is anyone's guess. I would venture to suggest that, just as there are avenues of employment (like occupational health) for people who only manage poor passes in their medical degrees, so there are also opportunities (like in-house legal services) for people with third class law degrees.