Labour still in denial

In the answer to the second part of the question many may conclude that, like all those around at the time and still around now, he was in denial that there was a problem?

This protracted rambling says absolutely nothing that we have not heard repeatedly from local politicians: that they were unaware of what was happening, or at least the scale of what was happening. Meanwhile the Jay report is quite clear in its findings and unambiguous in its conclusion, that no one around at the time of the seminar in 2005 (memo printed in this paper) can claim that they were unaware of what was happening.

This whole letter is one sad outpouring of despair from a former councillor suggesting everyone else, and every other agency, was to blame but Labour politicians. The public will not be duped in this way. They are fully aware that there was a catastrophic failure by all the agencies and local politicians to deal with the problem. And it happened under Labour’s stewardship!

Adding further insult to the intelligence of residents, he carries on in attempting to exonerate Roger Stone.

We know Roger attempted to block this inquiry. I am not the only one who believes that defending those who are indefensible is egregious.

Many of us are well aware that Roger Stone is now going around telling all those willing to listen that he was not responsible, was unaware of what was happening, and it is all the fault of RMBC officers.

This is synonymous to the schoolboy caught red-handed committing some minor offence who then goes on to deny he was ever involved.

And in a final cynical move, he resigned as a councillor at a time too late to hold a by-election, thus denying the residents of Silverwood full council representation.

So if he was not guilty, why resign?

And furthermore, Roger’s legacy to this town is one of debt and failure.

Far from being the fault of every other agency, other local politicians still have questions to answer. For instance, I and my fellow UKIP colleagues have yet to hear a response from John Healey to the Andrew Norfolk article in Times newspaper. Or from our own Sir Kevin who had two members of his immediate involved — is he still claiming they did not discuss these matters?

Finally Lord Ahmed’s extended ramble is meant to be a contribution to this issue. In fact it is a poor effort, considering the time-scale and that many of the points he raises are being addressed, and that there are numerous investigations in train.

He would do well to remember the phrase: it is better to be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and prove it.

Allen Cowles, Sitwell Ward