Still no explanation for Rotherham Council's Chuckle Square snub

He maintained the stance that a smaller tribute in Maltby would be more suitable, even though Paul Elliott, the surving Chuckle Brother, himself has pointed out the duo’s links with Rotherham were much stronger.

Resident Matthew Eyre raised the matter at Wednesday’s full council meeting. He asked if the decision might be reconsidered given the Maltby misconception.

He added: “Rotherham people and Chuckle Brothers fans across the country supported the petition, to bring some pride back to the town centre, which supposedly this council is all about.

“So there was a lot of shock at the decision, which seemed to be made with a lack of understanding about where the brothers were actually from.”

Cllr Steele said: “If you look into the evidence, the Advertiser gave us a petition saying it was in the best interests of Rotherham and fully supported.

“But 681 people signed that petition. It’s not a massive number. Do your maths. Less than half a per cent of the population of Rotherham. I don’t know what the big issue is with everybody.”

The Advertiser’s petition actually gained more than 1,600 signatures but names from outside the borough were discounted. 

We have pointed out that this makes it impossible to demonstrate outside support for a move we felt could bring visitors to the borough.

Cllr Steele said he would “make the same decision again tomorrow”. 

He added: “So is it the last nail in Labour’s coffin and I’m the number one hate man in the Rotherham Advertiser? No, it’s not.”

It had been suggested that the council may hold a grudge against the Chuckle Brothers over an incident where the pair were prevented from filming outside the Town Hall and late brother Barry Elliott’s support for a Rotherham free school — later scrapped in 2012 — under a Tory education policy.

Cllr Steele denied any personal vendetta from elected members against the Chuckles.

He said: “The thing about the Town Hall steps happened in 1996. All councillors on the scrutiny board, bar one, were not on the council in 1996 so how could it be personal?

“The thing about the free school, we did not make the decision, the secretary of state for the Conservatives made that decision.”

The Advertiser has written to the relevant department director asking for the decision to be reconsidered.