Thirlwall affair raises questions about council

What was the question Peter Thirlwall posed to his fellow councillor? Your report makes no mention of the Mayor ruling it inappropriate, so I can only presume the question itself was acceptable and respectful.

Why did the Mayor (as impartial chairman of the meeting) not instruct the councillor being questioned to answer a reasonable question or justify his silence?

Why was Peter Thirlwall’s persistence and his refusal to leave but his insistence to remain and press for an answer, ruled disrespectful and the other chap's silence and non-co-operation accepted and even defended?

This sounds very much like the Labour Group obeying the drill order close order march, which takes me back to the original question what was it and why was the required answer apparently so sensitive?

Why was it necessary to involve the police? Your report makes no mention of Peter Thirlwall being unruly, swearing, shouting or getting physical or abusive, his only crime was one of persistence in the face of stone-walling from the opposition.

I find it worrying that asking an apparently straightforward question persistently, calmly, can lead to someone being asked to leave and when he persists the police are called in to remove him. What breach of national security was involved to necessitate such a heavy-handed reaction?

Concerned Democrat (name and address supplied).

Version of democracy

Sir—All of a sudden our mighty council leader, Roger Stone, is championing democracy at Rotherham Borough Council and his interesting method of enforcing his perception of democracy is to get one of his grossly overpaid snivelling sycophants to improperly call in the police and eject Cllr Peter Thirlwall from the debating chamber.

And what was Cllr Thirlwall's heinous crime? Well, he simply insisted upon receiving an honest answer to a simple question. Fat chance of that happening at Town Hall Towers, especially when it involves one of Stone's cohorts.

Now, let me just think back a little. Oh yes, this is the self-same champion of democracy who promised Cllr Thirlwall that if the people of Bramley voted for a particular village improvement scheme, then they would have it.

Indeed, he went further and stated that he would "be stupid not to" accept the community's preference.

So what happened when 90 per cent voted for the scheme? Why of course, our mighty council leader permitted one of his other cohorts to renege on his great promise; this then, is the real measure of Roger Stone's democracy.

Cllr Stone even had the contempt to refer to this latest incident as a "sad day for democracy." Well, let me tell him something. The saddest day for democracy in Rotherham was when he set foot in the Town Hall and destroyed any faintest notion of that concept.

The sooner that Stone and his henchmen, and their spineless, obsequious, bootlickers leave the Town Hall and are replaced by people who have even the slightest inkling of integrity, the quicker Rotherham will become a much better place to live.

Robert Foulds, Bawtry Road, Bramley.

Legitimate question

Sir—How dare Peter Thirlwall ask his fellow councillors for a truthful answer to a legitimate question?

The word truth and Rotherham Labour Group is a contradiction in terms because those self-serving, power-corrupted, money-grubbing incompetents wouldn't know the truth if it came up and bit them on the bum.

They obviously are trying to cover up a dishonest statement made either by the deputy leader of the council or in the minutes of the last meeting.

Why, and more importantly, how many times have they lied and covered up important matters before, corrupting the democratic process of local government?

I understand that at the beginning of this meeting all councillors found a laminated copy of Standing Orders in front of them, which appears to be proof that this whole incident was orchestrated by the Labour Group to silence this democratically-elected councillor who fights for the rights of Council Tax payers throughout the borough.

This is the true democracy of Rotherham Borough Council!

This incident also highlights the role played by our grossly overpaid chief executive who acted as a puppet of the Labour Group by calling the police to an incident which, in my opinion, certainly did not require their attendance.

What we must remember is that this puppet acts as the Returning Officer for all elections which take place in the borough and as such should show no allegiance to any political party.

Can we trust this man to be impartial at the next elections?

Jim Fletcher, Southlands Way, Aston.

Legal obligation

Sir—With regard to the RMBC strong leader's apparent new found enthusiasm for abiding by the rule of law and choosing to obey the standing orders that he likes, and the RMBC chief executive's utter ineptitude in asking the police to attend the council chamber to do his Labour Group bidding for him and remove Cllr Peter Thirlwall from the chamber, can they now both assure that the residents of Flash Lane at Bramley of their same dedication to legal duty and contractual obligation by insisting to elected members and officers that the Flash Lane pedestrian crossing, for which RMBC have already received a developer's sizeable financial contribution, will finally be built?

Or will it be the case that once more the hopelessly out-of-touch elderly Rotherham Labour Group and its slavishly obedient group of grovelling officers will choose to cherry pick those obligations and laws that they like and very conveniently disregard the rest?

Donald H. Buxton, Radley Avenue, Wickersley.