Documentation: emails sent to Jane Bullimore. Rubbishy images.
A projected complaint against Jane Bullimore. Rowan Longhurst's premature and inadequate response.
Profiles of some Sheffield Green Party Councillors
Angela Argenzio
Alexi
Dimond
Brian Holmshaw (also to be discussed
in the sections on Sheffield Allotments)
Douglas Johnson
Christine Gulligan Kubo
Toby Mallinson
Sheffield University: Koen Lamberts, President, Vice-Chancellor and Part-Time Campsite Manager
South Yorkshire Police Unprofessional Standards Department: 'Lauren'
Oliver Coppard, South Yorkshire Mayor: Far From Feebly-Functioning Figurehead? Unfortunately, no.
Alan Billings, former South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner and apologist for slavery
Tapton School, Sheffield: David Bowes, 'Reservoir of Hope?' Nope
Introduction
This page is in preparation, at a very early stage. There are already links to this page from the Home Page of the Site but there will be a delay in providing much in the way of content. After the page has reached a much larger size, it will need to be revised and extended to do even partial justice to the issues.
The focus of attention is generally on very specific issues and a very limited number of people, but the issues raised, are broad rather than narrow. In the case of the allotment office, for example, I comment on and criticize some actions of the Allotment Officer, Jane Bullimore, who took the decision to end my tenancy of my two allotments after two 'inspections,' not on insufficient evidence but no evidence. I comment on and criticize the response of Rowan Longhurst, the Countryside Service Manager, who has failed to act with the detachment , and I comment on and criticize some policies of the Allotment Office, not only in connection with the inspection process, which has very serious faults, in my view, but with other aspects of the allotment regulations and the text of the 'Allotment Handbook.'
A great deal of the material on this page is 'Appreciation-Criticism,' where I have a very favourable view of the person or the organization but some strong reservations, or scathing criticism - but not nearly enough to affect my view that the strengths outweigh the weaknesses, perhaps by a very wide margin. I make this clear in the sections where this view applies. There are some other sections which are unreservedly critical or overwhelmingly critical. I make this clear in the sections where this view of things applies.
Chief Inspector Jane Bullimore of Sheffield Allotment Office
The inspection carried out by 'Chief Inspector Jane Bullimore' is inspection of allotments, of course, with no resemblance to the work of Inspector Nik Dodsworth of South Yorkshire Police. From the Home Page of the site, referring to inspections in 2024:
Documentation: emails sent to Jane Bullimor. Rubbishy images.
The emails are relevant to actions of Jane Bullimore, of course, but also relevant to some actions of South Yorkshire Police.
The emails are very varied. They prove, for example, that the Sheffield Allotment Office were well aware that there was a long pile of hazardous rubbish on Sheffield Allotments land - but did absolutely nothing to have it removed, and seemingly took no action. I take the view that this was blatantly biased behaviour, unfair favouratism, in effect giving a form of immunity to the two groups granted the use of this land.
Below, photographs of the long (total length approximately 10 metres) pile of discarded rubbish in the Sheffield Council land given to Lower Walkley Community Group rent free for a year, permission renewed for years, until the land was taken by the 'Garden Church' for their church services. The allotments made available to these two organizations is near to my two allotments, numbers 111 and 112 shown in the plan above. Their allotments are a short walk up Morley Street. The site is reached by taking the downhill path next to the building of the Walkley Bank Allotment Society.
The rubbish was placed there during the tenancy of the Lower Walkley Community Group. This wasn't the action of casual fly-tippers but the action of much more sophisticated people. I saw plastic containers which had contained 'organic mushroom compost.'
The Garden Church failed to do anything to have the heap removed. I made representations, pointing out the obvious - that the heap was potentially hazardous to wildlife and to people. It contained bare metal as well as masses of plastic waste. Sheffield Council Wheelie Bins are clearly visible. Obviously, this isn't a legitimate use of the bins. The people attending the garden church would include children. The Facebook page of the Garden Church publicized the fact that services in this derelict land (my description, not theirs) would last for two hours and would be held 'whatever the weather.' I pointed out that this wasn't in the least reasonable.
This year, I took more photographs of the site. The pile was reduced in size but there was still a great mass of rubbish, and the wheelie bins were still there.
The Allotment Office organizes inspections of allotments. This is allotment land. Was it ever inspected? If it was, how is it that nothing was done about this hazardous eyesore? I brought the problem to their attention.
In other ways, these two organizations, the Lower Walkley Community Group and the Garden Church, have been treated very, very leniently. In fact, they have been allowed to get away with just about anything they felt like doing and with anything they didn't feel like doing - such as pruning the hedges. The hedges have been very, very high - perhaps 8 metres high in many places - for year after year. Much of the site is in dense shade for much of the time. If food production in allotments is measured in units of 'mouthfuls-of-food' produced, the number of mouthfuls-of-food which have come from these allotments must be negligible.
The email extracts here are emails from me to Jane Bullimore. They are wide-ranging in content. One important issue which preoccupied me was the issue of security. The gloomy site occupied by the Garden Church is reached by walking down a gloomy path and is some distance from the road.
There have been 'crime waves' at the allotment sites in this area. I've personal experience of threatening behaviour and multiple experiences of theft of tools and equipment. In the allotment next to my upper allotment, I heard loud sounds. I went out and found that someone had been trying to break into the allotment area next to mine, using a long metal pipe to break the gate down. He fled the scene when I appeared. In another incident, a woman allotment holder was locked in her allotment by an intruder and had to summon help to leave the allotment. This is a long time ago, but there was a murder in an allotment not far from these allotments. A boy was stabbed with a garden fork.
There were other concerns as well. When I read that there was a plan to set up a Garden Church in this site, I had particular misgivings about aspects of safety and security and also felt strongly that this would be a breach of 'allotment values.' I take the same view as the Sheffield Allotment Office. The principal purpose of allotments is to produce food. I take the view that there are other important values - I include aesthetic values, the encouragement of wildlife, the encouragement of plant life other than food plants, even if the main emphasis has to be upon food plants.
I take the view that allotments should enhance Sheffield visually. I take the view that allotments should not be dismal displays of rusting metal, shattered glass and nondescript plants. I share the view of Jane Grigson (in 'Jane Grigson's Vegetable Book):
'In my most optimistic moments, I see every town ringed again with small gardens, nurseries, allotments, greenhouses, orchards, as it was in the past, an assertion of delight and human scale.'
Extracts from emails I sent to Jane Bullimore or in connection with Jane Bullimore.
27 September, 2024. Email sent to the Allotment Office rather than specifically to Jane Bullimore
apparent: I take the view that Jane Bullimore allowed Council land to be used in ways which were manifestly impermissible, such uses as the dumping of hazardous rubbish or raised no objection - or raised an objection but was disregarded. She apparently made no attempt to warn the users of the land that they had failed to use more than a minute - a negligible - part of the land for the growing of food crops. She apparently raised no objections to hedges which were something like 8 metres high. I take the view that she was operating a 'two tier' policy as regards use of the council land, with some users given almost complete liberty to do what they wanted, whilst completely different standards have been applied in my case.
at the Lower Walkley Comunity Garden at Morley Street, including the inaugural meeting proposed for October 17.
If, as I hope the decision is that Church events can't go ahead, I won't have to spend time on this particular matter.
I'll be able to give all my attention to interests and activities which are more congenial and more rewarding to me.
which concerns me but the use of this land. If land is shockingly neglected, then I regard that as an issue of great importance
in its own right. These recent photographs of sections of the long pile of rubbish at the Lower Walkley Community Group garden
surely show shocking neglect. Why didn't the Allotment Department do something about it long ago - the pile has been there
for years? I know that my own allotments and the allotments of other people have been inspected regularly, including inspection of the state of the hedges. Why was the Lower Walkley Community Group garden not inspected, including inspection of the state of the hedges? The heap is still there. The privet hedges are still
enormously high, blocking the light to the plants in the allotment space.
Some new information on the proposed garden church.
https://www.facebook.com/
'We look forward to welcoming you on the 17th October where you can find out more
about our community garden and how to get involved.'
but which need to be reinforced. The Garden Church Facebook page mentions at one point the use of the land
to promote what is referred to as 'mission.' The word has a special meaning for Christians. This is a commonly cited definition:
'A Christian mission is an
organized effort to spread
Christianity to new converts.'
The Facebook Page of the Garden
Church has a photograph of an
existing 'allotment church,'
showing Jill Duff, the Bishop of
Lancaster, with adults and
children. Three of the children
and one adult were baptized by
the bishop at an event at the
'allotment church.' It's
completely clear that one of the
main aims of this allotment
church is to convert
non-Christians. This is how
Sharon Collins, who is
associated with the 'allotment
church,' describes the 'mission'
of the allotment church. She
moved to an estate and then 'We
began prayer walking in earnest
around the estate, laying hands
on and claiming places for Jesus
and just crying out, when we got
given the use of a disused
allotment in the community,
which
means we could once again meet
to worship and we became a very
public and visible church.
"It's a very strategic position that God has thrown the doors out for us. So it is wonderful to be there. There's some fencing that surrounds the allotment and we use that as well for mission. So we often put posters up with Bible verses on them or with words of encouragement on them.'
...
As I've pointed out, Sheffield City Council is under no obligation to make land available for 'missionary' work. Its obligation is very different - to supply allotment land to those wanting to cultivate it for (primarily) fruit and vegetables. People who take on allotments will have a wide range of views on religion and related matters. It's completely unfair to allow a group with one particular set of views to make allotments into a temporary church.
The garden church at Morley Street may post photographs of a babbling brook and other peaceful scenes of
nature but it shouldn't be supposed that the garden church is to be simply a place for reflection and admiring nature.
In any case, this is an allotment site after all and anybody, any group which rents the land from the Council should be expected to follow the Council's rules on allotment use, such as using three quarters of the land for growing fruit and vegetables, and keeping the hedges to a reasonable height.
As I've
pointed out, Lower Walkley
Community Group seems to have
been excused from adhering to
these rules over the years -
over many years.
The Garden
Church has invited people
attending the inaugural event
planned for October 17 at Morley
Street to 'explore' the garden.
As I've already pointed out,
there are hazards in the garden.
The Garden Church hasn't
thought things through, has
failed to recognize
difficulties. I've already
pointed this out. I drew
attention to the unsafe working
practice shown in one photograph
on their Facebook page, the
garden fork with the upturned
tines.
One matter which I haven't already mentioned in emails to you. The Garden Church events, if they take place, are intended to last for two hours. This is at the time of year when the weather is so often very poor. Of course, at any time of year, the weather can be very poor here. What happens if there's a heavy downpour, torrential rain, and, in winter, a blizzard?
It has been made clear to me that the Garden Church will meet (if meetings are permitted, that is) no matter what the
weather. It
has been specifically made clear
to me that rain and snow will
not stop the events. Children,
of course, will be permitted to
attend the events with adults.
Adults may choose to tolerate
the weather, any weather,
but it's alarming and clearly
hazardous if children are
exposed to these conditions, and
for up to two hours.
I see it as
important that a decision in
this matter should take into
account argument and evidence.
I've provided a great deal of
evidence in my emails to you.
I've no knowledge of what
information has been provided to
you by the Garden Church or any
other Christian group in
Sheffield ...
... Since the Garden Church Facebook page makes it clear that the Garden
Church has every intention of holding an inaugural event on October 17 I hope that the allotment office will be able to announce a decision soon. As always, I appreciate the demands on your time. Given the fact that Christians have so many venues available to them, there was absolutely no need to contemplate setting up a Garden Church
on allotments, as I see it. However, people at the Garden Church will see things very differently - the Garden Church would give opportunities for 'mission,' they hope.
1 October 2021
The garden church has an entry on this Facebook events page:
The page includes this, 'Come and join us to celebrate our first service. There will be a chance to explore the garden,hear the parable of the seed and share some cake.'
I wouldn't dream of allowing members of the public to wander over my allotments. If the plotholders of the Lower Walkley Community Garden are happy to allow members of the public to wander over their
This section has two purposes: (1) to show that Jane Bullimore's decision to take away my two allotments was grossly unfair. (2) to form a record, with many illustrative images, of some of the work I've carried out at the allotments in 2025. A great deal of this most recent work has linkages with work in previous years. I'll be explaining the reasons below.
I can easily show that Jane Bullimore's decisions (in 2024) were based on multiple errors, some of them serious ones. I'll be presenting the evidence here. The decisions were eventually reversed, but the events form part of a wider pattern, taking up a very great deal of my time, requiring a very great deal of work which has taken me away from other work. The apparent simplicity of the situation - allegedly overgrown and uncultivated land, the enforcement of reasonable sanctions - was nothing of the kind. The background is wide-ranging and disturbing and I have the evidence, including emails from me to Jane Bulimore about weed control, allotment law and many other issues.
Just one aspect of the problem, the demand to remove my possessions from the two allotments, involved enormous complications and difficulties for me. Again, it had an impact on my other work. If my appeal hadn't been successful, the impact would have been very far-reaching. I make clear why this is so. This is a clear-cut case of badly mistaken judgment on the part of Jane Bullimore. There was negligible evidence of weed growth. I was facing substantial challenges in the early months of 2024. By the time of the first inspection, I'd pruned the fruit trees but hadn't dug over what was, and remains, by far the largest growing area on the two allotments. I have a rotavator but didn't use it. After the first inspection, I dug over the whole of this very large area, which is visible from the road lower down. Jane Bullimore didn't notice the obvious fact that it had been cultivated, or chose to ignore the fact.
There were patches of taller weeds in peripheral areas. As well as digging over the large area, a substantial part of what is by far the larger of the two allotments, I applied glyphosate to weeds in the upper and lower allotments. It wasn't possible for there to be very much weed growth by the time Jane Bullimore carried out the second inspection, when she made the adverse, and, I believe, thoroughly mistaken and completely unjustifiable decision.
Jane Bullimore was already aware, must have been aware for quite a long time, that I had a very determined attitude to weeding. On 17 June 2021, I sent an email, a lengthy one, on a problem concerning weeds. For many years, I controlled weeds only by organic methods. I still use these methods mainly. I've used glyphosate, I think, only three times in all my gardening years. Whenever possible, I uproot the weed plant simply by hand.
This is an extract from the email I sent to Jane Bullimore. My interest in controlling weeds hasn't undergone any reduction in the intervening period. The phrasing used in the two letters sent to me was wide of the mark. In the extract, I conceal the name of the allotment holder I spoke to and the numbers of his allotments.
I've two allotments at the Morley Street Site, numbers 111 and
112. Nearby are two allotments, numbers - and - .
Just over a month ago, I contacted -
...
My reason for contacting him initially was this: I'd noticed
that there was an extensive area of ground elder in plot 110. This had
spread underneath his hedge and there was now a long band of ground
elder growing along the path leading to my allotments. The ground elder
in this area hadn't yet reached my allotments but it was already growing
towards the allotments opposite his, allotments 113 and 114. The ground
elder growing inside his allotment had begun to enter my allotment, 111.
I put it to him that basically, there were two different methods
of controlling ground elder, the organic and the non-organic. It seems
that he follows organic methods of cultivation. My own approach is
different. For many years, I was a member of the Henry Doubleday
Research Association, an organic association, which later became 'Garden
Organic.' Although I follow organic methods in many ways, I find purely
organic methods unrealistic. I mentioned to him that opposite our
allotments, on the other side of Morley Street, there used to be a large
patch of Japanese Knotweed. It was sprayed with glyphosate and after a
second application, the spraying was completely successful - the
Japanese Knotweed was eradicated. Garden Organic advocates digging out
the rhizomes and if small sections are missed, the weed will regrow.
Ground elder isn't as bad a weed, but I put it to him that to would be
just about impossible to eradicate the ground elder inside and outside
his allotment by digging. An alternative approach would be to use a
thick layer of wood chippings or other mulch material and then wait a
year. To obtain and spread the amount needed would need enormous effort.
Landscape fabric could be used - it would need supplementing with a
mulch - but the nature of the ground in his allotment, sloping and
uneven, would make that approach very difficult. - and the other plot
holders at - and - have made use of plastic landscape fabric
- most of it has been in position for more than ten years - but there
hasn't been an attempt to use it to control the ground elder.
I left it to - to decide on the method he wanted and after
a delay he told me that the arguments I'd used had convinced him - he
would use glyphosate despite his reservations. He still hasn't sprayed
the ground elder. This week, I found that he'd used a strimmer to remove
some of the above ground growth on the ground elder growing on the path
outside his allotment. The ground elder inside hadn't been touched. I
reminded him that the ground elder couldn't be controlled by use of a
strimmer as the rhizomes were unaffected. He told me later that he
intended to do the spraying next Monday but yesterday, he told me that
he couldn't undertake the work after all on that day, and also that he'd
encountered difficulties obtaining glyphosate by the internet.
Some time ago, I told him that he was welcome to use a sprayer of mine
for the job and that I also had polycarbonate sheets he could use to
protect plants such as the hedging plants of my allotment and his
allotment against the effects of the glyphosate. I'd also given
information about the importance of choosing a day with no winds or only
the lightest of winds so that plants other than weeds wouldn't be at
risk. He's mentioned the issue but not, I have to say, in a way which
reassures me that every effort will be needed to avoid damage to
essential plants.
This is the situation, then. The ground elder is thicker than
ever now, of course (apart from the ground elder on the path, and that
will grow just as thick before long) and, of course, is continuing to
grow.
Organic methods have become more and more popular in allotments
but I don't think the disadvantages of some organic methods have been
taken into account by many of the allotment holders who use them. If an
organic grower fails to control weeds adequately and gives up the
allotment, then the next person who takes on the allotment is faced with
an enormously difficult job, The new allotment holder may get down on
hands and knees and attempt to remove every bit of weed root or rhizome,
but that method would involve immense sacrifices - there are many, many
duties. responsibilities, interests, pleasures which may have to be
neglected whilst this back-breaking work is carried on, without any
guarantee of success at all.
The organic gardener Geoff Hamilton was more flexible. He advocated the
use of glyphosate to clear the land, as a realistic approach to
management of the land. Many or most organic gardeners would deny that
Geoff Hamilton was really an organic gardener. He was certainly a very
successful gardener and a very influential gardener.
Best Wishes,
Paul Hurt
Inspection of the allotments in Sheffield has one obvious flaw, a major flaw, which renders the inspection system ridiculously unfair in so many cases. Despite the mention of the maximum height for hedges in the allotment regulations and the allotment handbook, this is ignored again and again. There are many, many allotments with such high hedges that it's impossible to see anything of the allotment interiors. There are many, many allotments with some of the interior visible, but large areas which are impossible to see. Perhaps the Allotment Office could consider buying a drone to make possible an aerial view into these allotments? My own top allotment has partial, very limited views, for very good reasons, to do with security. Below, I'll give much more detailed information about the facts and the implications.
A projected complaint against Jane Bullimore. Rowan Longhurst's premature and inadequate response.
A copy of an email I sent to Rowan Longhurst on 5 November 2025 in response to an email sent by Rowan Longhurst to me on 5 November:
Dear Rowan Longhurst,
My view is that your email of 5 November amounts to a premature response to my email of 31 October, which simply provided some preliminary information in concise form. I wrote in the email, 'This email isn't the complant itself but simply an introduction to the issues. I'll submit a formal complaint once Jane Bullimore, and any others wishing to make a submission, have had the chance to give a response, if they so wish'.
In the same email, Rowan Longhurst wrote,
Conduct of Jane Bullimore
-
Based on our review of the matters raised, I see no grounds for concern regarding how Jane Bullimore handled these issues. Her actions were consistent with council policies and procedures, and we are satisfied that they were carried out appropriately.
This is why her response was premature. She ought to have read my email with more care. I made it obvious that there was relevant information still to be supplied - in fact, very extensive information. All the relevant information has not been included in this page, which is still in preparation.
I've no confidence that the case will be assessed fairly and adequately. My experience of a different appeals process, as supplied by the woeful South Yorkshire Police Professional Standards Department, is that the police will be very unwilling, completely unwilling to assess cases fairly and adequately. A degree of independence isn't to be expected. If it is expected, expectations are overwhelmingly likely to be disappointed.
The fact that I have a large Website available to publicize the issues is an advantage to me, a very big advantage, but 'The System' should provide people without this advantage some prospect of a fair hearing.
She also mentions a very different matter.
- South Yorkshire Police
With regard to the actions of South Yorkshire Police, it would not be appropriate for us to comment. We do not have access to the details of the instances you refer to, and any concerns relating to police conduct should be directed to the appropriate authority.
I've abundant evidence that South Yorkshire Police has been heavily influenced by outside influences, people in the Church, reducing still further the limited independence they have. Their actions in response have been extraordinary - contacting Howden House to report 'clutter' and 'hoarding' in my house, claiming that I have mental health issues, urging Howden House to contact my medical centre to see my medical records - all this, and much more, flows from a set of malicious complaints based upon complete falsification.
I've no evidence that Church members have attempted to influence Jane Bullimore or anyone else in the allotment office but this possibility has to be taken into account and investigated. South Yorkshire Police will refuse absolutely to give information if they have any, the Church people will refuse absolutely to give information. I call for an independent tribunal or other body which is prepared to put questions to Jane Bullimore about these matters.
To me, the fact that Jane Bullimore did absolutely nothing about the very large heap of rubbish in the land owned by Sheffield Council during its use by the Garden Churcht (and its earlier use by Lower Walkley Community Group) strongly suggests that in these instances, not nearly enough robust independence was shown.
For almost all the time that the land has been used by these groups, there has been no locked gate. The trees and hedges block the view but Jane Bullimore was able to walk into the site completely freely to make inspections. Did she carry out any inspections? If not, why not? She can't possibly have failed to notice that long heap of plastic, metal and fabric waste.
I was ordered to leave my allotments for non-existent flaws. I have suspicions that the biased treatment was due to strong pressures exerted by the Church people - and perhaps even the police, who have shown that they are willing to act recklessly.
Asking for thorough investigations into these matters with results not decided in advance is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable request.
Rowan Longhurst's email to me also included this:
- Cultivation Requirements
Given the wooded nature of the plots in question, we have agreed that a viable and realistic level of cultivation should be maintained—one that reflects the physical characteristics of the site.
The site's production of vegetable and fruit produce under the care of Lower Walkley Community Group and the Garden Church would have been far less than 75%. Based on visits to the site, I would put it at less than 5%. The site is wooded but the trees allowed a much higher level of cultivation and in any case, trees can be removed. As a matter of strict fact, almost all the cultivated land in this country, farmland and gardens, is on land which was originally forest or in some cases wetlands, just as unsuitable for growing crops.
This year, I have felled an ornamental tree which I planted and regretted planting, a Magnolia tree. I have felled three apple trees, one with a virus disease and the other two for the reason that I didn't care for the apples it produced. I also felled three hazel trees, for various reasons, one of them being the fact that they were casting too much shade.
Unlike the two groups, who have or did have quite a number of helpers, I did the work myself, unaided. I didn't find the work at all excessive. I used only hand tools, not a chain saw - a bowsaw and a smaller pruning saw. I had available a suitable axe but didn't use it.
It seems to me that these groups may well have members who decided that some work presentd insurmountable difficulties when they were perfectly capable of carrying out the work, if only they had recognized that their attitudes were the obstacle. Not everyone who would like to carry away armfuls of produce has the necessary skills or knowledge or determination to carry out the work needed. Some determination is needed to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge, but to some people, this may be too much bother.
I'm sure I've shown, over the past twenty years, that I do have what it takes to cultivate the land successfully. I'm in no mood to accept excuses which would lessen the likelihood of a fair hearing to consider the complaint against Jane Bullimore which I fully intend to make, as part of a process which takes account of the detailed evidence I have available.
Profiles of some Sheffield Green Party Councillors
Above, The ridiculous Alexi Dimond, Sheffield Green Party Councillor and Slogan-Shouter, in action outside Sheffield Town Hall. If I ever come across a photo of Councillor Dimond engaging in intelligent and rational political debate, I'll be sure to add it to the page. I haven't found one yet. The red blocks are used because I observe copyright. I contacted the ridiculous Sheffield Green Party to ask if they had any objection to my including the images and they never replied with any objections. I've never contacted Sheffield Green Party to ask if they have any objections to any of these profiles. Obviously, I wouldn't remove any of the material if they did object.
It isn't likely that I'll be including material on other Sheffield Councillors, with the exception of some comments (largely appreciative) on Councillor Tom Hunt, Leader of the Council. The demands on my time are far too many to write them.
The profiles of the councillors here will be revised and extended, when I have the time and the inclination - this will be a tedious chore.
Angela Argenzio
The party she belongs to is a party which contains rabid rabble-rousers such as councillor Dimond and councillor Raouf. An extract from the profile of Councillor Raouf:
What is happening in Palestine is far worse than what is taking place in Ukraine, yet I don’t see you crying tears for Palestine.
The people he was criticizing were Sheffield Councillors. Coun Raouf was critical of a rally where councillors of all parties held Ukrainian flags.
I can only assume that councillor Raouf can't be bothered to keep up to date with the extreme realities of the conflict in Ukraine. As for his illusions about the Palestinian territories, I can't recommend that he take a look at information in the rest of the page because I'm sure he can't be bothered to take a look. The comparison he makes in this brief statement is beneath contempt. I intend making use of this opinion of his in future publicizing of the issues.
In the profile of Green Party councillor Toby Mallinson below, I mention the fact that I was a member of Amnesty International for a long time and so was Toby Mallinson. Angela Argenzio was a member for a long time too and may still be a member, for all I know. Amnesty has changed very much since I was a member and my view of Amnesty has changed very much since then. I now regard it as a discredited organization in certain areas. This is someone I knew quite well.
Angela Argenzio is a naive, a very naive councillor who finds some difficulty in defending her naive views, I would think. There's nothing distinctive about this - all the Green Party councillors are just the same. I'm willing to be proved wrong in this respect, of course.
If she finds nothing wrong, or hardly anything wrong, with the accusations repeated ad nauseam on Green Party publications - this is a representative example
- then she's complicit in the Green Party charade, to use for once a word quite often favoured by the Green Party, 'complicit.' The piece just cited uses it: 'They are complicit in these war crimes and must be held accountable.' 'They' refers to the 'Leadership of the Conservatives and the Labour Party.' And how exactly does the Green Party intend to hold them accountable? This is just another example of Green Party playing at politics - posturing, pretend-politics.
The more I consider the evidence, the more reason I find to criticize in the stance of Angela Argentio. Angela Argenzio is after all a member of the Sheffield Green Party which published this inflammatory piece on a page of its Website
https://sheffieldgreenparty.org.uk/2023/10/20/
green-councillor-condemns-uk-complicity-in-israeli-war-crimes/
'Green Councillor condemns UK complicity in Israeli war crimes.'
An extract:
'Alexi Dimond spoke at the rally to Stop Genocide in Gaza at Sheffield Town Hall.
'Yesterday, the Al Ahli hospital was bombed in the single most egregious act of barbarism so far in Israel’s genocidal campaign against Palestinians in Gaza ... Now our media is scrambling to cast doubt on who is responsible, a willing accomplice in covering up for war crimes ...'
Unfortunately for Alex Dimond and Sheffield Green Party, the balance of evidence shows that the damage to the hospital was caused by a malfunctioning rocket fired from Gaza against Israel. The evidence includes the small size of the crater, the lack of shrapnel evidence to show Israeli involvement, the relatively superficial damage to the hospital buildings. The number of deaths claimed was inflated by Hamas, shamelessly so.
My profile of councillor Mersereau is about her decision not to vote for sections of a motion to do with antisemitism. Councillor Argenzio made the same decision. I wonder why?
If anyone joins the Green Party for the quiet life, if anyone gets elected as a Green Party councillor for the quiet life - promoting cycling, recycling, walking, organic growing, composting and the rest - they may find that they're mistaken. It's far more likely that they will condone by ignoring the massive faults of the Green Party. A mass of discarded, fly-tipped rubbish is no more unpleasant than the screaming, screeching toxic beliefs of people like Alexi Dimond - and so many others - in the Green Party. This isn't to minimize the unpleasantness of discarded, fly-tipped rubbish. On this site, I recount my efforts to get an enormous amount of discarded, fly-tipped rubbish removed.
Alexi Dimond
Councillor Dimond's use of the word 'genocide' in the speech he gave outside Sheffield Town Hall amounted to gross misuse of the word. In my page on Israel there are images showing killings carried out by Nazi Einsatzgruppen, followed by this extract, which mentions the first use of the word 'genocide' in a legal context: the Einsatzgruppen Trial. The Green Party should be ashamed of giving publicity to the speech on its Website. The extract:
The Einsatzgruppen were SS mobile death squads, operating behind the front line in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe. From 1941 to 1945, they murdered around 2 million people; 1.3 million Jews, up to 250,000 Romani, and around 500,000 so-called "Partisans," people with disabilties, political commissars, Slavs, homosexuals and others. The 24 defendants in this trial were all commanders of these Einsatzgruppen units and faced charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity ... The trial marked the first use of the term "genocide" in legal context.
Other Green Party rabble-rousers - as well as many more genteel Green Party councillors and supporters misuse the word 'genocide' too, as well as the term 'war crimes.'
A record of the speech delivered by Alexi Dimond to the people of Sheffield - or some of them - outside Sheffield Town Hall.
https://sheffieldgreenparty.org.uk/2023/10/20/green-councillor-condemns-uk-complicity-in-israeli-war-crimhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKm79_PzTOY&ab_channel=SheffieldGreenParty
My criticism of the article and the speech is not here but in the profile of Christine Gilligan Kubo - for the reason that I consider Alexi Dimond a fanatic and Christine Gilligan Kubo is a 'moderate' and I take the view that moderates in the Green Party should be doing far more to prevent fanatics from damaging the party even more. I also take the view that there are misguided moderates in the Sheffield Green Party and the National Green Party, and more than just a few.
I use the tactic recommended by Comrade Dimond - but not as a result of reading about it in the grotesque Green Party article. I've used it for a long time. I ask specific questions and publicize the Green Party responses. Since they never give responses, all I can do is publicize their failure. There's more about this man's oratory in other profiles.
I can be sure that Alexi Dimond and Toby Mallinson have their own distinctive views but their comments on the flying of the Israeli flag over Sheffield Town Hall are indistinguishable in their ignorance. From the same article in 'The Star' newspaper mentioned, with a link, in the profile of Toby Mallinson:
Yesterday, Green councillor Alexi Dimond posted a picture of the Israel flag on X (formerly Twitter) with the comment: “Sheffield Council is flying the flag of an apartheid regime conducting a genocidal campaign against a captive civilian population ... The Council is supporting war crimes.'
A computer could do as well. Input - words and phrases such as 'apartheid,' 'genocidal,' 'war crimes,' used without any knowledge of its legitimate uses.
As with Toby Mallinson, I don't show the stupidity of Alexi Dimond's views in the profile but by the argument and evidence provided at length in the rest of the page.
The two of them are basically slogan-shouters: Apartheid! Genocide! Genocidal! And the rest. He shows not the least understanding of the terrible implications of the word 'genocide.' I can be sure that he lacks the historical knowledge of genocide, against Jews and others, and that he lacks the military knowledge and ethical background to know what he's talking about when he throws out the words 'war crimes.'
I'm completely ready to have a debate with Alexi Dimond about genocide, apartheid, war crimes and other accusations he may come up with, on this site or any site he would like. I doubt very much if the Green Party will make available a platform for a debate of this kind but I leave the decision to him. Of course, he's not ready to debate the issues and it isn't likely that he'll change soon. He prefers to address his ridiculous oratory to an audience of the converted with a sprinkling of bemused or bewildered passers by
Brian Holmshaw
Green Party Policy Pronouncements may sound good - to Green Party activists and other supporters - but again and again collapse in the face of political and economic realities. The policy pronouncements haven't been thought through. An example: the page 'Public Administration and Government.' This emanates from the Green Party at national level, not from Sheffield Green Party.
To isolate just one strand of the argument presented, the model of concerned citizens given access to all the information they need to make informed decisions and given the power to make actual decisions. In practice, if the Green Power Party decides that it doesn't like the decisions and doesn't agree with the majority opinion of the local people, then it will disregard the decisions or do everything in its power to frustrate implementation.
I take this view: Nobody tells me what to think. In practice, the Green Party tells people what to think again and again, but the attempted control is heavily disguised, sometimes by verbiage, sometimes by a complete failure to explain and provide argument and evidence.
'Trans rights' matter a great deal to Green Party councillors, far less so to ordinary citizens. In fact, a large number of ordinary citizens would reject an order of priorities in which trans rights have a very high rating, would reject the notion that trans rights are very, very important, amongst the most important political priorities.
Councillor Holmshaw believes that trans rights are matters of very high priority. It's doubtful if the majority of the people in the Ward he represents take the same view. He was one of the councillors who refused to accept Alison Teal as a Green Party parliamentary election candidate - one of the councillors who in effect denounced Alison Teal.
Another issue - offering sanctuary, offering migrants incentives to come to Sheffield. If the idea sounds noble and good, the realities are messy, intensely difficult and involve some very problematic decisions. To implement the policy in many cases will involve neglecting other issues. The electorate needs an honest appraisal, an honest account of the advantages and the disadvantages, but won't be receiving one if councillor Holmshaw has his way.
A direct question for councillor Holmshaw. Would he support the settling of a large number of refugees from Gaza in Sheffield? If so, could he give a rough idea of the numbers? 100? 500? 1,000? 5,000? 20,000? What would be the consequences for the housing stock of Sheffield? At each level of permitted settlement of migration, would it be realistic or unrealistic to attempt to take in these approximate numbers?
I'll quote now some statistics which have been very widely reported. I don't comment on them myself. I simply give the statistics. I'm sure that councillor holmshaw would interpret the statistics in a way which absolves the people convicted of crime of responsibility for the crime, perhaps by the claim that these people have been the subject of 'racism' or that the Danish police have been acting unfairly. In general, without reference to this particular issue, for every problematic issue there's a Green Party hypothesis which preserves the Green Party claim to a high degree of political and ethical purity. The Green Party is an exception to the realities of failure and bad decision making - the Green Party is the Party that can do no wrong (except for minor oversights.) Academic research on the relationship between immigration and crime has led to very varied conclusions. The evidence is mixed, with positive and negative correlations claimed.
In 1992, Denmark gave 321 rejected Palestinian asylum seekers extraordinary residence permits. These permits were given directly by parliament by a special law. These people have been tracked since that time. Data from the 2019 follow-up:.
-
-
270 of the 321 who were given asylum were still residing in Denmark.
-
Of the 321, 204 (64%) had received a serious fine or jail time for crime and 71 of them had been sentenced to imprisonment. A large proportion of them were receiving welfare, in particular the "early pension" (førtidspension) which is usually given to people with severe physical or mental issues but also awarded to immigrants who have little chance of obtaining a job, for whatever reason. -
-
Douglas Johnson
Douglas Johnson is the Speaker for the Sheffield Green Party. Poor party! Poor speaker, pitifully poor speaker!
But first, a limp, hopeless, not in the least resounding call from this caricature figure, recorded for posterity by 'The Yorkshire Post:'
'The Green Party has called for an immediate end to the violence in Israel and Palestine.'
I think of some animal rights demonstrations I took part in a very long time ago, the moronic chants which made me realize that this was no way to achieve the humane objectives: 'What do we want? Animal liberation! When do we want it? Now!' What, now? This minute? Animal liberation is an unrealizable objective, to secure improvements in animal welfare needs hard work, realism. Gains can be temporary gains. This is no field for naive people, except for naive people who want to be thought of as amounting to something, perhaps even people who would like to be taken seriously - this is yet another unrealizable objective. An easy way for nonentities to be transformed is to shout - or have published in 'The Yorkshire Post' - ridiculous simple minded claims.
The conflict between Israel and Palestine is deep seated and to imagine that it can be solvedy by a Green Party call for immediate action is unadulterated garbage-thinking, if it can be called thinking. This is someone with obviously no understanding of harsh realities - with not nearly enough understanding of life and its limits, the barriers to fulfilment.
Douglas Johnson is a reliable person, a very reliable person, someone you can depend on. He can be relied upon to endorse ringing slogans that sound good - to politically tone-deaf people. He can't be relied upon to produce argument and evidence for his views. That would be too much trouble. So, when he was asked, 'Do you agree with the finding of the Government's Sewell Report stating the UK is no longer institutionally racist? The box he ticked - but of course - was the box 'Strongly Disagree.'
Of course, he ignored all the contrary evidence. But what does factual evidence matter to ideologists like him? The mass of legislation which exists to safeguard the interests of racial minorities, the warmth and understanding of ordinary people - not all ordinary people, of course. There are ones with views that could be called toxic. But I'd describe the views of Douglas Johnson on Israeli-Palestinian relations as toxic.
This response of D.J, was recorded on the site,
https://whoismycouncillor.co.uk/
Christine Gilligan Kubo
A political party (or branch of a political party) which values its reputation doesn't allow fanatics to ruin its reputation. Moderates in a political party (or branch of a political party) have a responsibility to take effective action to curb the excesses of fanatics and if necessary see that they don't control the party and cause serious damage to the party. Obviously, not all the moderates need to take action but there must be enough of them to ensure that the action is effective. Mainstream parties have leaders who can be replaced if they fail badly in this task. The Green Party has a different view of leadership. They view strong leaders with disfavour. Strong leaders can cause damage if they fail but strong leaders can take effective action in cases like this, whilst the decentralized Green Party has endemic weaknesses. If individual councillors choose not to take any action, in cases where firm action is a necessity, then they can get away with it.
Political parties have competitors, of course, just as businesses have competitors. The political parties which are the competitors of the Green Party can benefit from any Green Party failures.
In Sheffield Green Party, I'd claim that councillor Alexi Dimond is a fanatic who can inflict serious damage on the party and I'd say that Christine Gilligan Kubo is one of the moderates.
Moderation isn't enough. Moderates may have many strengths but if they're ineffectual in matters like these, they lack an essential strength. Moderates are often well-meaning, wishy-washy people who are often fluent speakers but poor when it comes to realistic action. I don't claim that councillor Kubo is well-meaning but wishy-washy.
Is Christine Gilligan Kubo aware that Alexi Dimond is playing with fire? Is she concerned, very concerned, that Alexi Dimond's words and actions can cause massive harm to the Green Party? The same questions could be asked of other 'moderates' in Sheffield Green Party.
I've taken copies of the evidence I make use of here, and other evidence.
The Green Party is very weak in matters of defence. It can't, it won't make an adequate attempt to defend itself. It won't make even a token effort to defend itself, when faced with argument and evidence. It complacently assumes that its stance is ethical, beyond criticism.
I'd make a rough analogy with defence issues at the national level. A political party which wants to govern and has a realistic chance of winning an election may have all kinds of strengths but if its defence policies are weak, then the political party deserves not to win an election. The world is too dangerous a place to risk electing a party which is ineffectual in matters to do with defence. A country too weak to defend itself, a political party too weak to defend itself, unable or afraid to use argument and evidence.
Alexi Dimond's chant:
'Netanyahu, you can't hide, we charge you with genocide.
Biden, Biden, you can't hide, we charge you with genocide.
Rishi Sunak, you can't hide, we charge you with genocide.
Starmer, Starmer, you can't hide, we charge you with genocide.
To confine attention to Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer, to accuse the former Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition of genocide is gross misuse of a word which should never be misused, never used casually or thoughtlessly. A party which simply overlooked the inflammatory language of one of its councillors would be negligent enough. To actually publish the misuse of the word 'genocide' on its Website is worse still. To accuse the other politicians of genocide is abject misuse of the word too. Killing of civilians in war is overwhelmingly common. Only some of the killing deserves to be called 'genocide.' I discuss the issues in the column to the right.
People may join the Green Party for reasons to do with wildlife, wild flowers, organic gardening and other reasons which are far removed from these unpleasant issues. But political parties have to address unpleasant issues more often than pleasant issues. Undue specialization is a liability in a party which has aspirations to exercise power. If a political power wants to be regarded as responsible and effective, it has to be far more broadly based than any of those fringe parties, single-issue parties.
Toby Mallinson
He's someone I knew quite well. For about twenty years, I was a very active member of Sheffield Amnesty International and for most of that time, he was an active member too, as was Angela Argenzio, another Green Party councillor.. I've no knowledge of whether the two are still members of this discredited organization, which lost its way a long time ago. I intend to give the evidence in due course.
My view of Toby Mallinson is that he does a great deal of recycling. I'm not referring to the recycling of used materials, to save them from going to landfill, of course, but another form of recycling, very popular in the Green Party. I regard him as a political innocent, a naive and ignorant recycler of commonplace illusions and delusions.
An article in 'The Star' newspaper gives the background to the Israeli Flag episode
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/council/
sheffield-council-leader-calls-out-serious-danger-in-removal-of-town-hall-israel-flag-by-palestine-protesters-video-4368239
An extract from the article,
Coun Toby Mallinson (colleague of Alexi Dimond - his comment is given in his profile) also condemned the Israeli flag decision on X. He said,
'I condemn the appalling, criminal actions of Hamas killing hundreds of
civilians, and the reprisals of the apartheid Israeli regime killing
hundreds more. Decades of breaching international laws and the promotion of
hatred by the regime have led to this catastrophe.
'I am ashamed that Sheffield is flying the flag of the regime. I am very
concerned about the major damage being done to relations with Muslim and
other communities in our city by this act.'
I don't show the complete and utter disregard of realities, the complete and utter disregard of fair-mindedness her by discussing his claims one by one. I do show his stupidity by discussion in the rest of the page. For example, the claim so often made in these circles, and made by Toby Mallinson, that Israel is an 'apartheid state.' This claim is the subject of the section The Goldstone report and 'apartheid Israel on this page.
Other material on this page amounts to a refutation of other claims he makes. He would benefit from a remedial course in history, including branches of military history, and a remedial course in stylistics (the style is the familar fraudulent, standardized agitation, in essentials plagiarism pure and simple).
Ruth Mersereau
Councillor Mersereau was one of the councillors who abstained from voting for paragraphs of a 'Substantive Motion' at a Sheffield Council meeting.
https://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=19840
These were the paragraphs. I would have thought that they were uncontroversial. What reasoning - or obscure action on impulse - led councillor Mersereau to abstain? I'm puzzled. Perhaps she can explain - or perhaps she'd prefer not to explain. In my own experience, the Green Party finds explanation uncongenial. It prefers evasion.
That this Council:
h) recognises that, in 2005, the EU monitoring centre on Racism and Xenophobia (now the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights) adopted the following working definition of antisemitism:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(i) notes that the working definition has become the standard definition used around the world; (j) notes that this definition has been adopted by the European Parliament, the UK College of Policing, the US Dept of State, the US Senate and the 31 countries comprising the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; |
|
|
|
|
|
(k) recognises that, in 2016, the British Government also formally adopted this working definition of antisemitism; |
|
|
|
|
|
(l) in view of recent controversy over the precise definition of antisemitism, this city with its proud history of religious tolerance and the first UK City of Sanctuary proclaims its support for the published international definition of antisemitism; and |
|
|
|
|
|
(m) directs Sheffield City Council to formally adopt the official and international recognised working definition of antisemitism for this city. |
Henry Nottage
,Henry Nottage runs a cycle business in Sheffield. I respect him for that. Running a business is demanding. Running a business can give people a healthy sense of realities. Businesses run by naive, unrealistic people tend to go under. But it's possible for people who are very realistic in the running of the business to be naive and unrealistic in other matters, such as matters to do with international relations. International relations in which Israel, Hamas and Iran come to mind. I provide evidence for supporting Israel and condemning Hamas and Iran. The Green Party, including Sheffield Green Party, isn't a big believer in providing evidence or in providing context. In the case of Israeli-Palestinian relations, the context includes studies of civilian casualties in operations of war waged by the armed forces of democracies. I provide a summary of some of the evidence in the column to the right.
I'm not a cyclist now but I used to be one, a very long time ago - in London. Below, I mention an incident which affected me whilst cycling in London. There are difficulties in promoting cycling. The Green Party isn't honest about these difficulties. I see the need to take account of disadvantages as well as advantages. Very often, a course of action is promoted without taking account of the disadvantages. I call this 'alignment,' the pretence that all the advantages lie with the course of action being promoted. The Green Party uses this tactic again and again.
In the case of cycling, it's obviously true that cycling has vastly less impact upon the environment than driving. The industrial processes needed to manufacture bikes cause pollution but cycling causes no pollution. Does this mean that everyone who can realistically cycle rather than drive should buy a bike, if they don't have one already, and cycle rather than drive? There are difficulties here.
If arguments for and arguments against cycling are presented in two columns, for and against, the issue of safety would have to be entered in the column 'against.' First, some data from the UK government, followed by a personal experience of mine. An extract from the site,
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-pedal-cyclist-factsheet-2021/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2021
Pedal cyclists are one of the vulnerable user groups. They are not protected by a vehicle body in the same way car users are, and tend to be harder for drivers to see on the road. They are, therefore, particularly susceptible to injuries.
It should be noted that it has been long known that a considerable percentage of non-fatal casualties are not reported to the police. Non-fatal casualties for pedal cyclists are amongst the most likely to be under-reported in road casualty data since cyclists have no obligation to inform the police of collisions. This should be borne in mind when analysing and interpreting the data.
Between 2004 and 2021:
-
fatalities decreased from 134 to 111 (-17%)
-
serious injuries (adjusted) rose by 27%
-
pedal cycle traffic grew by 62%
Averaged over the period 2016 to 2021:
-
an average of 2 pedal cyclists died and 84 were seriously injured (adjusted) per week in reported road casualties.
-
An accident on a road I know very well, Rivelin Valley Road, Sheffield, a very scenic road. At the end of September 2023 a cyclist was hit by a car and died on the 22 October.
Another accident, another person: a former BBC presenter, Dan Walker, was knocked off his bike and injured at a roundabout in Sheffield where there have been 40 bike accidents in three years. The accident happened in February, 2023.
In my twenties, a very long time ago, I lived in London for a period of over four years. I bought a bike in Sheffield and used it in London. I was involved in an accident which could very easily have been fatal but which caused me no injury at all. It did make me aware of the dangers of cycling.
I was riding on a wide road, with wide lanes, at a time when there was hardly any traffic. A car overtook me and for some reason the car came so close to me that in a moment, I was knocked off the bike and was lying on my back on the road, completely uninjured. If a car, van, lorry or bus had been following, the chances of being killed would have been high. I got to my feet and found that the driver had stopped. He was very agitated. I didn't get angry with him. I went on my way and he went on his.
I didn't report the incident to the police. This is one of those many, many cycling accidents which go unreported. I can well believe that there are many, many cycling injuries which never appear in the official statistics. Cycling is much more dangerous than it would seem from reading the statistics. I'm very safety conscious. I've devised a very simple means of protecting users against some dangers involved in working with sheet metal. I take the view that young children should be protected from riding a bike on busy roads - protected by allowing them to ride only when they're older. I take the view that adults should consider the dangers very seriously before transporting young children on bikes which they are riding.
Not long afterwards, my bike was stolen. I did inform the police about the theft and a policeman came to see me. He was very helpful but of course couldn't do anything to help me to get my bike back. I'm glad that I never did get it back. I was forty years old before I learned to drive and bought a vehicle. Until then, I was a pedestrian and a user of public transport. The white van I drive now is absolutely essential for my work in construction, for the transportation of bulky materials, for instance. I haven't used it for driving long distances for a long time.
For so many modern activities, big business is essential. If someone takes the bus to work or cycles to work rather than driving to work, the buses, the cycles, the lorries which deliver organic vegetables and other organic products to specialist shops have been constructed with steel. The conversion of iron ore to steel by advanced modern methods can't be achieved using small scale methods. Much larger economic entities are needed - big business, in fact. Modern economies, the ones which provide Green Party councillors and the people who vote for them with the necessities of life and the other things they need, and provide them so reliably and efficiently, need large-scale methods.
Big businesses are essential, and can co-exist with very small enterprises, but small enterprises have necessary limitations. The country could never be fed by a system of small plots, including allotments. Economies of scale are essential. The bread needed by the many millions of people in the country could never be produced from small plots where the wheat is harvested with a hand tool. Massive combine harvesters are necessary.
It's necessary to put no unnecessary obstacles in the way of people who want to start a small business. I have a great interest in independent business and support them whenever I possibly can. I've a page Big business and small businesses where I make the case for small businesses. I also point out some difficulties.
Henry Nottage is a Sheffield councillor but like all the Green Party councillors he seems to have little or no awareness of the importance to Sheffield of the steel industry. The determination of the Sheffield Green Party to support steel making in the 'Steel City' is nowhere apparent. As with the other Green Party councillors, his view seems to be a limited one.
He's one of the Green Party councillors who could have a reputation for moderation. He's one of the Green Party councillors who aren't extremists, fanatics, of the councillor Dimond kind. But the non-extremist, non-fanatical Green Party councillors seem to have done nothing to oppose the fanatics. In private, they may have made it clear that they don't share these fanatical views but they've done nothing to make a difference. All those Green Party claims to be making a 'real difference to communities' but Green Party councillors of the more moderate kind seem to be incapable of making even the slightest difference when it comes to curbing the extremism of Green Party councillors. Some of the profiles on the page will make it completely clear what I'm referring to.
The failure of these moderates has severe repercussions.
Martin Phipps
The Green Party's Alison Teal has fallen foul of Gender Ideology enforcers such as Martin Phipps, Alexi Dimond, Brian Holmshaw and Angela Argenzio. I'm referring in particular to the 'Trans' issue.
Alison Teal has made a case. She has claimed that 'gender ideology' has a “frightening impact” on children and has called it “regressive”. She was heavily criticised after making use of an article which repeatedly referred to the comedian Eddie Izzard as a ‘man’ and a ‘he’ and opposed his use of women’s toilets. She went so far as to condemn the placing of male sex offenders in women's prisons.
It isn't that often that I agree with a Green Party figure, but in this case I side with Alison Teal.
The indignation, the horror of the would be enforcers would be fitting in the case of Iranian cruelties but not at all in this case.
Maroof Raouf
This will be the shortest profile of all, a short quotation from councillor
Raouf, a short comment, with a not so short link giving the source of the
information.
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/ukraine-russia-sheffield-politician-claims-some-councillors-more-eager-to-support-ukrainian-children-because-of-blue-eyes-and-blonde-hair-as-opposed-to-those-in-yemen-and-syria-3596399
Councillor Raouf, quoted in this article in the newspaper:
What is happening in Palestine is far worse than what is taking place in
Ukraine, yet I don’t see you crying tears for Palestine.
The people he was criticizing were Sheffield Councillors. From the article: Coun Raouf was critical of the rally where councillors of all parties held Ukrainian flags.
I can only assume that councillor Raouf can't be bothered to keep up to date with the extreme realities of the conflict in Ukraine. As for his illusions about the Palestinian territories, I can't recommend that he take a look at information in the rest of the page because I'm sure he can't be bothered to take a look. The comparison he makes in this brief statement is beneath contempt. I intend making use of this opinion of his in future publicizing of the issues.
Paul Turpin
Councillor Paul Turpin has his own page on the Sheffield Green Party Website. An extract:
We can make a big difference to people’s lives right here in Gleadless Valley, and across the city.
I see change coming from the ground up rather than the top down. By changing the way we do things here, we can change things in the city, in the country, in the world. That’s real Green politics.
Naive, simple-minded views often sound much more attractive than realistic views, views which take account of the constraints of action, the frustrations of action. To achieve changes, there's generally the need to take determined, sustained action, often with no quick results at all, often with
Councillor Turpin's claims make it sound quite easy - even change in regions far distant from the Gleadless Valley in Sheffield. His claims are largely empty ones, expressing empty hope rather than anything likely to be of benefit to many people in Gleadless. Act local, transform this nation and nations in Europe, Asia Australasia, North and South America? He's living in a world of illusion. I don't claim that he's living in a world of total illusion, of course. What he calls 'real Green politics' is full of misconceptions and falsifications.
In his article, Councillor Turpin makes this claim, this criticism, the claim that Sheffield council has 'a relentless desire to accommodate big business at the expense of Sheffielders.'
But Sheffield, like so many other places, needs big business. Big business can generate useless or almost useless products but it also generates a very wide range of useful products. If big business which manufactures and makes available useful products moves to a town or city it can provide employment for large numbers of people. If Sheffield fails to attract big business due to the undue influence of views like the views of councillor Turpin, then Sheffielders will be disadvantaged, including, it may well be, people in the ward represented by this councillor.
I'll give just one example to show some particular obstacles, unrecognized by Green Party paid-up believers. Councillor Turpin may or may not have an interest in growing things but the lesson can be applied to other areas and other issues. It shows the gulf between Green Party theory and action in the real world.
Anyone who gardens or farms will inevitably face the problem of weeds. When food crops are grown, weeds can reduce the yield so that it becomes next to nothing. If the weeds competing with food crops reduce the yield of many food crops over very large areas, then people would go short of food and eventually starved, if no action is taken to control the weeds effectively.
I face the weed problem in the land I rent, of course. In the decades that I've been cultivating the land, I've hardly ever used the weedkiller glyphosate but I've had to put in much more work and to spend far more time on weed control than I would have if I'd used glyphosate more often.
For a long time, I used organic methods, but now I use non-organic methods as well when necessary.
I have a powerful flame weeder, which kills the top growth of weeds but leaves their roots undamaged. It's not an effective solution to bring weed infested land into cultivation.
The organic method (as advocated by the organization Garden Organic, the successor to the Henry Doubleday Research Institute, the organic organization which I used to belong to) recommends digging out the roots of weeds. This is not just impractical but impossible. A person determined to use this method to eliminate weeds would need to neglect all other responsibilities and use all available spare time and still not succeed.
There are weeds which are comparatively harmless, although controlling them can still take up so much time. There are weeds with stubborn roots such as ground elder, creeping buttercup and couch grass which really do need a weedkiller which kills the roots and eliminates the weeds in very little time. The best known example in glyphosate. There are problems involved in using glyphosate, but they are largely exaggerated. Its toxicity is low. In a survey of the hazards of everyday life, the hazards of gardening and farming, the hazards of glyphosate are almost non-existent.
Very near to the land I rent, just across the road, in fact, there was a mass of Japanese knot-weed. Sheffield Council didn't send workers out equipped with trowels and spades to dig out the roots of the plant, prepared to spend months - years - in a futile attempt to control the weed using organic methods. It's impossible to control it in this way. The knotweed was sprayed with glyphosate and the problem wasn't solved. The knotweed hasn't come back.
Weed-control fabric can be laid down (and weighted down, to lessen the chance of wind moving it or damaging it) and this is acceptable according to organic standards. There's an element of hypocrisy here. Weed -control is a sythetic material derived from oil.
I regard his views - but not all his views - as damaging, He's failed to consider the disadvantages of his views. They're an example of the 'real Green politics' which is based on unreal thinking.
Sheffield University: Koen Lamberts, President, Vice-Chancellor and Part-Time Campsite Manager
Below, extracts from emails sent to Professor Koen
Lamberts, Vice Chancellor, University of Sheffield. I pointed out that in
allowing a student pro-Palestinian encampment to continue in the Concourse of Sheffield
University, very near the Student Union building, the university was taking
a huge risk, the risk of a disastrous fire. After receiving the emails, no
action was taken. The University decided that allowing the encampment to
continue was more important than the risk to members of the university and
the general public. The University also allowed the graffiti on buildings
and other structures to go unchecked, the obvious degradation of the
environment to go unchecked.
My page on this site
www.linkagenet.com/themes/camp.htm
gives a detailed record, with many photographs. These are a few of the photographs, showing tents touching or almost touching. If a fire had started, it would have spread very, very quickly, and it's overwhelmingly likely that there would have been loss of life and severe injury. The impact would have been catastrophic for those involved, and catastrophic for those who showed negligence.
When Sheffield University decided to order the encampment to be taken down
and the action to end, it was stated that one of the reasons for the
decision to have the encampment removed was the fire risk.
Extract
from an email sent to Professor Lamberts, 20 May, 2024.
Dear Professor Lamberts,
I wrote to you on 18 May with general material on the
encampment. You'll find that this email provides much more detailed
material on the issue of fire hazards ...
[I drew his
attention to materal on fire hazards on a page of the site. The material
is now on a different page, 'The Pro-Palestinian Camp at Sheffield
University: the case against,'
www.linkagenet.com/themes/camp.htm]
I think that the information about the spacing of tents to avoid or minimize fire damage is very graphic. The gulf between safety-conscious management of a campsite and haphazard, inadequate management of a campsite is very marked. I include some material here which isn't part of the Website page, or at least not yet.
From the page ' ... the tents at the Pro-Palestinian Camp in Sheffield University Concourse, near the Student Union building, are very closely spaced. Very often, the tents - the smaller ones and the much larger ones - are touching or almost touching. The recommendation, made again and again by Fire and Rescue Services and camping organizations, is this:
Tents should be at least 6 metres apart, to avoid the spread of fire.
At this camp, a grossly excessive number of tents have been packed into the available space.
A tent can be consumed by fire in 60 seconds and at this camp, fire would spread from tent to tent with dramatic speed. Tents are waterproof, not flameproof. Flammable materials abound in the large tents for substantial periods and I have seen no fire extinguishers. Fire regulations have been ignored at this camp. This camp isn't a 'Safe Space' but a dangerous one.
'Sheffield Campus Coalition for Palestine,' the organizers, and Sheffield University have been risking disaster. In the event of fire, the closeness of the tents would not only have accelerated the spread of fire but limited the ability of tent occupants to get out of the tent and get out of the area. The occupants would have got in each others' way, increasing the possibility of a high fatality rate and a high injury rate - a nightmarish scene which could involve students trapped in an inferno in the middle of the night.
There would have been very severe legal consequences, very severe general consequences, the University suffering catastrophic harm, its reputation suffering catastrophic harm. As I see it, the should be consequences for people implicated in this gross failure and if the reputation of some people in the University is harmed, it won't be undeserved in the least ...
Some users of the camping area have actively tried to prevent me from taking photographs, by means which include active obstruction, blocking my path. I've pointed out that the law allows me to take photographs - and to go where I want in this public space - and I've gone ahead and taken photographs, to document conditions at the site.'
...
I take the view that the serious shortcomings which I
claim are evident have legal implications. I take the view that the
University has failed to exercise due care for the welfare of
students and others, but that culpability lies with individuals, not
with the institution itself. The university, or its agents, was
under no compulsion to agree to the setting up of a camp organized
and run in such a way. The university has responsibility for the
general safety and well being of its staff, students and, in certain
cases, the general public. The priorities of the organizers of the
protest camp and the students who have taken part are very different
- I'd refer to them as ideological priorities, ignoring a whole
range of other responsibilities. The culpability or otherwise of the
organizers of the protest camp is a separate matter, then.
Best Wishes,
Paul Hurt
Extract from an email sent to
Professor Lamberts 21 May, 2024:
Dear Professor Lamberts,
...
I've found a document which, to me, shows the extreme
difference between a highly organized, very thorough approach to
fire safety, one which safeguards the welfare of the people
taking part in events making use of tents and marques - and the
approach followed by the organizers of the student encampment in
the Concourse of Sheffield University, which completely ignores
fire regulations and exposes students and others to completely
unacceptable risks.
...
The address of the document which
does the job properly, which shows active concern for
the welfare and safeguarding of people, is
https://www.
It includes this, 'The construction of marquees
[there are marquees at the student encampment], other
tents and similar structures used for social / public
events render these structures vulnerable to fire. To
ensure the safest use of these structures, this leaflet
outlines the legal responsibilities, policy, duties.'
The rest of the document makes these completely clear.
It's cause for deep concern that Sheffield University
has shown no recognition of the multiple failures of the
organizers of the protest, their complete neglect of
legal responsibilities, policy, duties - until, that is,
the issues were brought to their attention.
Best Wishes,
Paul Hurt
This is obviously not in the least a comprehensive examination of the strengths and weaknesses of Sheffield University. I take the view that the strengths obviously outweigh the weaknesses by a large margin but that the weaknesses aren't negligible. I don't examine here, for the time being, Sheffield University's failure to do more to encourage critical thinking, to stress the need to examine evidence and produce evidence, to avoid blatantly ideological approaches. I don't give reasons for thinking that the student encampment was an indoctrination camp. Sheffield University's failure is the failure of most universities, to a greater or lesser extent.
Inspector Nik Dodsworth of South Yorkshire Police, Sheffield North West: his subordinates Sergeant Hannah Woods and PC Sarah Forsythe
South Yorkshire Police Unprofessional Standards Department: 'Lauren'
My dealings with South Yorkshire Professional Standards Department have been limited. It would have been better if they had been non-existent. I've nothing whatsoever to report in their favour. My experiences have only been very, very disillusioning. Other people may have been more fortunate or more lucky. I'll simply provide here an email from someone called 'Lauren' who works in the department, or did work there, with an email from me to 'Lauren' and an email to the Department concerning 'Lauren.'
Email from 'Lauren' to me, 17 April, 2025:
Good morning Mr Hurt,
I can confirm receipt of your complaint regarding PC Woods.
In regard to your complaint I note that the allegation raised was as follows:
The complainant is unhappy that Sgt Hannah Woods has authorised for PC Ben Howell to attend his address on the 10th December 2024 in relation to matters involving Lu Skerratt-Love.
In relation to this complaint, I can confirm I have reviewed police systems, and located investigation 14/207485/24 which relates to a report of Harassment and you are recorded as the Suspect.
I can see that Lu Skerrat-Love is the victim in the case, and as such you were contacted to discuss the matter. As a duty of care, when a report is made to Police Forces they must carry out reasonable and proportionate enquiries in order to establish the circumstances of the reported incident. If officers didn’t follow this up, this would be a neglect of duty. Whilst I appreciate your frustrations, I can confirm that procedure was followed, and there is no further action to be taken in respect of your complaint.
Kind Regards
Lauren
Complaint Resolution Officer
Professional Standards Department
South Yorkshire Police
Extract from email from me to 'Lauren,' 15 May, 2025:
First of all, I would be grateful if you would provide by email your full name. In your email to me of 17 April, 2025, you only provide your first name, 'Lauren.' I need your full name because I have documented developments in the long running history of South Yorkshire Police's dealings with me.
...
You are mistaken in believing that I made a formal complaint against Sergeant Hannah Woods in connection with her decision to send PC [name withheld here] l to my house. I merely mentioned it as an intention, a possibility, but events quickly made me decide that this would not be productive. Since the visit of PC [name withheld] l, South Yorkshire Police continued to take action, action I consider fruitless but also very damaging. I decided that a complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct was the best way of proceeding. The complaint would be principally concerned with the actions of Sergeant Hannah Woods and PC Sarah Forsythe, one of the two PC's who came to my house on 4 March of this year but more recent events, which I find deeply disturbing, will now be included in the complaint. I can readily make a case for including your email in the complaint. I also intend to make a case for events which took place longer thana year ago. Less recent and more recent events belong to a pattern of behaviour on the part of South Yorkshire Police. Such matters can be presented, at the discretion of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. I see it as not just desirable but essential that the repeated actions of South Yorkshire Police in connection with the complaints of Lu Skerratt-Love and the Church Army should be examined in their totality.
I made known my wish to speak to Sergeant Woods about a
variety of significant matters in connection with the visit of [name
withheld]
and later developments - to ascertain, for example, if it
was
Sergeant Woods or some other
person who authorized the visit to my house on 4 March. Sergeant Woods
did provide me with the information that she was the person who
authorized the visit of PC [name withheld] to my house.
In fact, Sergeant Woods did phone me on my landline on 4 March. I was at home but did not get to the phone in time to take the call. She left me a message stating explicitly that she would
phone at intervals until she did manage to contact me. I was gratified by this. I regarded a phone conversation with Sergeant Woods as a matter of importance and it seems that she
thought a phone conversation of some importance too, giving the opportunity to discuss relevant matters. One of the principal pieces of information I wished to present to Sergeant Woods was my decision to make a complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. I wished to make it clear that I had no desire whatsoever to make a complaint to the Professional Standards Department. This is for the reason that my dealings with the Department have left me with no confidence whatsoever in the standards of the department. I confine my criticism to the department's dealings with me, which have had multiple deficiencies.
Sergeant Woods broke her promise to phone me. In the period of almost three weeks which followed Sergeant Woods' recorded message, I had cause to phone the 101 service a number of times. I made it completely clear to members of staff of the 101 Service that I was concerned about Sergeant Woods failure to contact me. I repeated my request that Sergeant Woods should phone me. After almost three weeks, a 101 staff member informed me that he had spoken to Hannah Woods in person and that she had informed him that she would definitely call me the next day. She failed to phone me, however. I phoned the 101 service reiterating my request that Sergeant Woods needed to phone me as a matter of some urgency. On March 24, she did phone me but I was out. Again, she left me a recorded message thanking me 'for my patience' and saying explicitly that she would phone me the next day, and early in the day. I was at my desk the next day and waited for five hours in the room. I regarded it as essential that I should have the opportunity to give Sergeant Woods information, such as the information about my intention to complaint to the Professional Standards Department. There was no phone call from Sergeant Woods later that day and she has not attempted to contact me since 24 March. I have a recording of Sergeant Woods' phone message, clear-cut evidence that she did promise to phone me the next day. Recordings are only kept for 30 days but it is possible to retain recordings for longer, indefinitely, and I have take the action at intervals to retain the recording.
Years ago, it was possible to contact individual members of police teams by email but this is no longer possible. The 101 service can offer only a very limited service in matters of some complexity, in my experience. If I had wanted to make a complaint to the Professional Standards Department about these matters concerning the visit of PC Howell and the authorization of Sergeant Woods, you would have available a form completed by me or some other documentary evidence that I wished to make a complaint to the Professional Standards Department. Kindly make available the evidence, if you claim to have it. I explicitly stated to PC Howell that I would not be making a complaint against him. He had informed me at the outset that he had the body worn camera facility for recording the visit. If at the time of his visit I did say that I would be complaining, then you will have a record of that, but I soon decided that the best way forward was a complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct - I also have the facilities for publicizing the issues available to me by the creation of a very large and, I think I can claim, prominent Website, which now needs to be fully updated to include this year's events, continued police action and my response to the action.
I am horrified by this sentence in your email, 'In relation to this complaint [against Sergeant Woods], I can confirm I have reviewed police systems, and located investigation 14/207485/24 which relates to a report of Harassment and you are recorded as the suspect.' Followed by this: 'I can see that Lu Skerratt-Love is the victim in the case.' I stated to PC [name withheld] that I would not be including on my Website or publicizing in any other way a record of the visit he made to my house and the matters discussed. I assured him that I would treat these matters as confidential, at the same time making it clear that he could use the information as he wished, that he was not bound to preserve confidentiality in the least. In the vast majority of cases, I preserve confidentiality as regards the emails I receive. |I took the view that anyone who contacts me to question, criticize or comment should be able to do so without any repercussions. For many years, I observed this self-imposed rule in all cases, but not so very long ago I decided that in some cases, very rare cases, it would be necessary for me to quote emails in full or in part. Your email to me belongs to that category.
Until your email, nobody had informed me that there had been a report of Harassment against me. A report of Harassment is no proof that Harassment ever took place. I am aware that the police describe the document issued in cases of genuine Harassment (as well as, in many cases, non-existent Harassment) as Police Information Notices, rather than 'Harassment Warnings.' No Police Information Notice has been issued to me following Lu Skerratt-Love's approaches to the police. South Yorkshire Police never approached me to ascertain my views, my comments. No opportunity was given to me to defend myself. In fact, I have a full defence against these accusations, with very detailed documentary evidence. I am sure that Lu Skerratt-Love is unable to produce evidence that I have engaged in Harassment. Can she quote statements made in emails, for example? I have proof that Lu Skerratt-Love has never received a single email from me.
An earlier complaint against me made by Lu Skerratt-Love resulted in a grotesquely unfair action, the issuing of a 'Community Protection Notice: Written Warning.' All the allegations presented in written form in that document were false. I have already presented the evidence in my Website and intend to present the evidence in the wide-ranging initiative I have in preparation. A prominent part of the (false) allegations was the claim that Lu Skerratt-Love had received unwelcome emails from me. That is not so at all. I sent a courteous email largely concerned with security and safety issues at a proposed garden church (she was a Founder-Member of the garden church). The Church Army had blocked all emails from me, and my email records make this completely clear, certain. One single copy of the courteous email was received by another individual at the Church Army. He has an interest in new forms of evangelism and the email was relevant to him.
One aspect which I haven't documented in any detail at all is this. Lu Skerratt-Love is a Trans activist. I have never been accused of being 'transphobic.' I have no idea if Lu Skerratt-Love has claimed that I have shown hostility to her in this capacity. If the claim has been made, then the claim is grossly unfair. I have spent decades in the field of human rights. I am an activist myself for various causes, although not a Trans activist. Although it happens that I am heterosexual, I have actively campaigned for 'homosexual / gay' rights. Lu Skerratt-Love's views of some Trans issues were presented in a sermon of hers preached in Liverpool Cathedral. I have very different views from the views presented in the sermon,, but my own view in this very circumscribed aspect would be very, very widely shared in the population.
This year, as in some previous years, South Yorkshire Police has taken action following complaints made by Lu Skerratt-Love or by the Church Army, which employed Lu Skerratt-Love for a time, action involving denial of rights freely granted to me by the law. I'll mention briefly one bizarre episode. I sent a letter to a Patron of the Church Army and sent a copy of the letter to some members of the Church Army, including some Trustees, for the reason that the matters discussed were relevant to them. The letter was completely courteous. A copy of the letter is provided on my Website as evidence. I received a letter from a Senior Team member of the Church Army noting that some Church Army members had received a copy of the letter, and had complained to South Yorkshire Police. Sending a copy of a letter in these circumstances is freely permitted. To prohibit the sending of the document would be in breach of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, 1998.
I called at the Church Army Headquarters in Sheffield and asked politely if I could speak with the person who had sent the letter to me. It was not possible to see her on that day. I left the building. I called the next day and reiterated my request. I was told that the person was at a meeting. Less than two hours after leaving the building, there was a knock at the door and two Police Constables asked to see me. I admitted them and there followed what was to me a deeply disturbing set of allegations from one of the two PC's, Sarah Forsythe, who will be included in the complaint to be submitted to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. I consider that her behaviour during the visit to my house was unprofessional. I consider that her conduct was frankly obnoxious. I have no adverse comments to make whatsoever about the conduct of the PC who accompanied PC Forsythe on this visit. I intend to provide the evidence for my adverse view of PC Forsythe's conduct on this occasion.
The subsequent action taken by South Yorkshire Police was completely bizarre. The police contacted Sheffield Social Services to inform them that (on the evidence of the front room where I spoke to them) there was 'clutter' and that I was 'a hoarder.' The only thing in the room which were there in any quantity - books. There are more than 900 books in the room, neatly arranged in bookcases which line all but one of the walls. To suppose that South Yorkshire Police has any right to police the number of books owned by a citizen of South Yorkshire would be nonsensical of course. South Yorkshire Police, in some of its actions at least, seems to show not the least awareness that its reputation could be harmed, that this is inviting ridicule, in effect - the possibility of ridicule at the national level as well as the local level. Any reporting of ridiculous behaviour in this case at the national level would surely come to the attention of the international media. I think that South Yorkshire Police action has been frankly reckless all too often in this series of dismal events.
South Yorkshire Police has certainly been wasting my time. I work in the environmental field amongst others. I design and construct structures, develop new techniques in various fields, in various settings, including farms, gardens and workshops. The Home Page of my Website includes many images which I have been awarded a United States Patent for innovation in farming. There are many, many demands on my time. I have had to spend far too much time defending myself against unsupported allegations, allegations unaccompanied by any evidence, or by evidence which I can easily shown is more than just faulty. South Yorkshire Police has been wasting the time of 101 call handlers. Today, I phoned the 101 service to report the email which you sent to me. I made it clear that the email and the context of the email raised issues of some complexity. I made clear my regret that it was necessary to take up the time of the 101 service on this occasion, as on previous occasions. South Yorkshire Police has also wasted the time of Sheffield Social Services. They handled the matter of the ridiculous claims concerning 'clutter' and 'hoarding' very well, but they had to devote time to the issues. A member of staff came to my house on two occasions in connection with the matter.
This protracted case, with its multifarious episodes - police visits to the house and the rest - is nowhere near its conclusion. My plans to publicize the issues and to defend my reputation will need the expenditure of much more time on the part of South Yorkshire Police. It will also necessitate the attention of the South Yorkshire Mayor. The Combined Mayoral Authority which assumed the responsibilities of the former Police and Crime Commissioner will need to be given much more information about these issues. My view is that there have been serious failures in oversight. I don't in the least confine my criticisms to Sergeant Woods and PC Forsythe. Representatives of South Yorkshire Police have on certain occasions acted in ignorance of the law or with a disregard for the law. They have acted in ways which require a much higher standard of oversight to correct and to prevent in future.
Not once but on various occasions, South Yorkshire Police has shown a complete disregard for rational and sensible priorities in policing. The action taken - a visit to my house by not just one but two PC's - after I simply called at the Church Army building with a request to speak to a member of their staff after a completely unjustified set of complaints concerning the simple sending of a copy of a letter - was not just excessive but deeply concerning. My Website has material on the failure of South Yorkshire Police (and other police forces) to take effective action - to take any action at all - in cases of real crime, not just failure on occasion but failure on many, many occasions.
Your response to this email, if any, is a matter for you to decide. It will be quite some time before I'm able to begin the next phase of my campaign. A great deal of work will be involved. One thing I would welcome very much, which would take up very little of your time, is the forwarding to me of your full name. This will be needed for the documentation in progress and for the complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Complaints to the Office can be made within a year of the events eliciting the complaint, so I do not need to submit the complaint for quite some time. Obviously, if you take the view that some some things in this email are unfair, or that, perhaps, many things are unfair and in need of correction, then obviously, by all means contact me and I will give thorough consideration to the objections.
I have given space to issues and action which have no direct relevance to your email but my view is that your email to me is one episode in a series of disturbing episodes. I regard the context as very important. The issues raised are wide-ranging, but part of a much more wide-ranging set of issues, practices in contemporary policing in this country. I have a strong interest in wider aspects of policing and civil and criminal law.
Paul Hurt
Email from me to PSDcomplaintsresolution.team, 29 October, 2025:
The Professional Standards Team never replied to the simple request. I still don't know the full name of 'Lauren.'
Oliver Coppard, South Yorkshire Mayor: Far-From-Feebly-Functioning-Figurehead? Unfortunately, no.
Alan Billings, former South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner and apologist for slavery
There's a great deal of material on this site concerned with Alan Billings, all of it very critical. The Hub Page on Alan Billings gives links to other pages on the man.
Tapton School, Sheffield: David Bowes, 'Reservoir of Hope?' Nope.
