Footnote Re Ivan Bell Impeachment by Standards Committee

Regarding our previous story that we ran on Ivan Bell's imminent hearing before the Standards Committee regarding his conduct being allegedly at variance with the Council's Conduct Code we should have mentioned that Councillor Bell is a "prospective" - or as he tends to put it "perspective" -Independent Candidate for the High Peak at the next General Election.

It is also worth pointing out at this stage that we believe the Standards Committee to have been set up by none other than that paragon of official good conduct John Prescott during his time as the Minister for Environment, Transport and the Regions, or possibly as Deputy PM.

Although John Prescott was not averse using his offices and official time when in highly salaried position to dally with his Diary Secretary, Tracy Temple, he did not come before his own or any Standards Committee nor did he feel it necessary to resign from his post for using paid time in this way.

Is there a lesson there for Councillor Bell possibly? Choose your (alleged) misconduct more carefully perhaps or more probably make sure you get a top job at public expense, where you seem to be immune from having to comply with any kind of code of conduct at all when in office (barring possibly that of the Karma Sutra?)

Ivan Bell comes before the Standards Committee at 10am on Friday 6th June 2008. As far as we know the venue remains the Chinley Council Offices.

Cllr Ivan Bell falls foul of Standards Committee

News about Ivan Bell the Controversial Councillor for Old Glossop

Ivan Bell, Councillor for Old Glossop is not everyone's cup of tea, though he has been elected successfully as Councillor for Old Glossop on two occasions, which is more than can be said about a lot of Labour councillors in their respective wards.

He does however walk a political tightrope that carries the threat of alienating both the mainstream and those dissenting voices that are traditionally aligned with the left and green issues. Speaking as a "man of the people" has not entirely endeared him to some of us at this particular hotspot of local political comment, as previous articles reveal, whilst now he has seriously fallen foul of the Council's Standards Officer and is apparently subject to some kind of "impeachment" process if that is the right word.

I would have been less than surprised if this "impeachment" had derived from Mr Bell's failure to wear the "bureau" suit look , without tie, as modelled by former Council Head Cllr Lomax in High Peak Connect. However it appears that Cllr Bell has not fallen foul of the authorities for such sartorial crimes, that might make him stand out from the council's uniform. We stress that wearing a somewhat battered cloth cap does not of itself incur any kind of penalty that is known of.

Nor apparently is Cllr Bell's offence related to the fact that he wished Councillors and Officers of the Council to sign up in its Code of Conduct to an enshrined commitment to "tell the truth to the public" in a new media section. The said Councillors and Officers apparently felt that a "tell the truth to the public" clause was not relevant to its code of conduct, though some might argue differently, and it was voted down.

Nor is there any overt indication that he has been "arraigned" for thinking or speaking for himself, and not being accountable to any particular party whip that might rein in his overactive tongue and man of the people stance. There is no overt indication that this is a crime in the UK today, obviously if that were the case serious questions might be asked about whether we truly live in a climate of free speech and democracy.

No apparently Mr Bell's alleged misdeamenour is of a more familiar type. We believe another Local Cllr, Les Wilcox - not to be confused with County Cllr David Wilcox OBE who has never been involved in similar controversy - a few years back, fell foul of similar allegations although that was before the Standards Committee existed, at least as I understand it.

On that occasion the perception of bullying and harassment (as I recall) raised so much concern that local MP Tom Levitt felt justified in using valuable parliamentary time to raise the matter in our national forum at Westminster, as being presumably of national concern. Judging from the newspaper reports a lot of political people were unhappy with Mr L Wilcox, who was coincidentally another Independent Councillor, unaccountable to a Party Whip. I believe Mr L Wilcox was removed from office.

On this occasion a Standards Committe is in place. The alleged misdemeanours are those of alleged "bullying and treating a female officer with disrespect". I should stress that this clearly very serious allegation was referred to an external Standards Board by the High Peak Standards Officer and it was re-referred for hearing, as it was felt externally that there was a case to answer. The Hearing is at this stage at the usual somewhat inaccessible central High Peak location of Chinley Offices, 10am Friday 6th June, though Cllr Ivan Bell wishes if possible to move the venue to Glossop so that his constituents can attend. We are not quite sure why this but could it be that Cllr Bell feels he wishes his defence to be heard by those he has striven to represent? We will see.


It does seem to us that it is reasonable to conclude that High Peak Borough Council's mainstream councillors and council struggle to work with unaffiliated politicians. Perhaps the other Independent Chris Webster might feel a little concerned, as potentially being in a somewhat isolated position.

In the meantime watch this space.

Councillor Ivan Bell - Breaking the Mould or not?

Councillor Ivan Bell is the Independent Local Councillor and prospective Independent parliamentary candidate for the High Peak. He hopes, as I understand it, to "break the mould" in local politics and offer High Peak voters something different and perhaps more meaningful to put their cross against than the rather remote and weary traditional options of Liberal Democrat, Labour, or Conservative.

Now nearly every time I read a statement in the press made by him for some reason the word “demagogue” springs to mind. So I decided to look to look it up and found the following definition: “leader of the populace; political agitator appealing to desires or prejudices of the mob” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary). Bearing mind Cllr Ivan’s favoured headgear I was led to ask “Does the cap fit?”

Cllr Ivan was recently quoted in the Chronicle with regard to the Glossopdale Housing Moratorium as wanting :-“Local houses for local people built by local people”. The article also said “Cllr Ivan Bell… supported local people being allowed to build small numbers of houses on their own land.”

The statements of the demagogue put under scrutiny usually prompt the question "what does an apparently significant populist statement mean in real terms", if anything? Does Cllr Ivan mean that he wants people to build freely or on top of their existing dwellings, or in their back gardens, without hindrance or interference from development control and irrespective of consideration of their neighbours? Or does he mean any large developer who has bought up agricultural land at a knock down price should be free to develop it, on the proviso that he is of “local origin”? Again it is possible, but we cannot be sure.

Does his emphasis on local extend to “local materials” manufactured by “local manufacturers”, and even to running on “local energy” or does he wish draw a line on his “local” concept at that stage and if so, why? I am afraid I suspect the only real content of the quoted statement is that the speaker wants to appeal through simplistic utterance to the self-interest of the man in the street.

This leads me on to the problem with so called “plain speaking”, which is another “hobby horse” that Cllr Ivan has championed in the local press. The problem is that this principle of “plain speaking” or “clear English” might seem appealing when forwarded against the mealy-mouthed “bureau speak” of the modern world, but it can lead to the equal pitfall of clarity achieved at the expense of meaning.

Unfortunately, much as we might wish otherwise it is true that many issues in today’s world are complex, but I think we can draw some hope and say that whilst not as simple as envisaged by the demagogue and/or the childlike desires of our hearts, they need not be as ridiculously complex and intangible as the mealy-mouthed utterances of self-promoting officialdom would suggest.

However I would stress that to flee from this obfuscation into the arms of simplistic utterance, and appealing to simple self-interest is also a mistake. Politicians who spoonfeed the frustrated populace with what they want to hear irrespective of considered content are not in my view to be trusted, and perhaps need to be treated with something like contempt. If they have opinions, let them be well and fully thought out, and then clearly articulated. Just because Town Hall cannot speak clearly that does not mean that this is an impossible goal. It simply requires clear analysis of an issue, a draft statement or two, followed by a publishing a considered point of view.

We favour such an approach over either the “obfuscation” of officialdom or the “plain speaking” rhetoric of the demagogue.

As a footnote I would like to add that I have found Cllr Ivan when speaking publicly to be far more plausible and to live up rather better to the clear speaking principles that he avows. I do think however that if he is to stand as a convincing and refreshing alternative to the traditional parties of spin in the next General Election he has a lot to learn about policy making and its proper expression in the media.

Right of reply exists on this blogsite and there is a published email address, which I am assured will honour this according the true principles of fair debate.

Ivan Bell's right of reply

Hawk-eyed readers may have noticed that we had some comments from one of our subjects of ridicule over the past 12 months. Yes, Ivan Bell seems to have discovered this blog on New Year's day, and set about leaving comments on this post about SCC, and also on our 2007 round-up post.

On the SCC post, Bell is charitable enough to afford the (now quiet) protestors over Rossington Park some degree of success. He thinks that if they had not been active, even more sheds would now be present. And let's face it, he should know being a Councillor. We will discuss more about High Peak Borough Council's continuing environmental onslaught on this part of the High Peak in future posts, but for now, we'll agree with that statement.

The other comment is a mix of compliments, insults and absurd statements. The compliments are aimed at us for our 'interesting' views. Clearly, Bell didn't read our posts about him earlier in the year. The insult is where he says we should stand for election: if he'd read the blog closely enough, he'll know that our politics leave us with nothing but contempt for politicians of all kinds, along with the whole political and economic system of capitalism.

Absurd statements come in the form of his views of what should happen now about Rossington Park:

"our only chance is to try and get it more environmentally friendly"

We'd agree, but we're from the Jack Mansfield* school of views regarding eyesores: a stick of dynamite will do the job.

What Bell means - and it's the drum he's been banging for a long time - is that Rossington Park should be painted a different colour. He's been in the Glossop Chronicle with this familiar refrain only the other week. And we now agree - paint them Hi-Viz yellow. That way, the locals will sooner resort to the Jack Mansfield tactics these eyesores deserve. And the sooner someone calls him out for being the distraction from outrage that he is, the better.

But before we close this post, it's probably best to have a little tour of the skidmarks Ivan Bell has left on his travels around the internet. First stop is his lovely blogger user profile: he likes drinking 'real beer' (as opposed to false), and his favourite movie is 'Doctor Zivargo' (sic) and his favourite book is that well-known tome 'History Novels' (we'll be asking for that at the library next week).

Next is his lovely website. He promised to give us a link on here, and he has bless his heart. But wait, oh dear - his comments on the Peak District tourist logo:

"This is not the GAY site even if it is pink"

...except it's purple. Never mind Ivan, we're all as 'good as you'.

But have a look at his other links: "Soil Stabilization" (sic) ("Soil stabilization and erosion control and dust control products and services"). Hmmn, what about this - "Massage School" ("Best massage therapy school with latest techniques"), ahem...

We do so hope that Ivan stops by again. It's nice to be having a political debate, even if it's with a cretin who wears a hat too small for his head.

*Jack Mansfield was a lovely old Glossopian, very reminiscent of Compo, who publicly called for urban guerilla tactics to demolish the (still present) eyesore that is the Ferro Alloys chimney.

Ivan Bell...again

Further to yesterday's post, Councillor Bell's letter in the Chronicle is markedly different than that in the Advertiser. Again, here it is verbatim:

I wish to thank all the voters in Old Glossop for supporting Independent Councillor Chris Webster and myself.

There have been a lot of changes to the High Peak Borough Council this election and I hope that the 'in power' Conservative Party will recognise the expertise and commitment of two hardworking, honest, non-party councillors who have been returned virtually unopposed in Old Glossop.

Unti April 7, 2006, our unelected Peak District National Park Authority Council had supported the Longendale Bypass.

However, the officers of this quango had decided that the residents of Tintwistle, Hollingworth and Mottram should continue to suffer the continuing traffic problems by brining (sic) a motion before the April Council 2006 meeting to change policy and object to it.

Unfortunately, no recorded vote was taken, indeed the names of the proposer and seconder were not recorded and only a Cllr Mrs J Bevan (a Derbyshire Dales councillor) requested that her vote against the motion be recorded.

I have requested under the freedom of information act that these people's names and the full vote count be made available to me so I can name and shame them in a future letter.

I have also asked for a full list of all the expenses that these people are getting for misrepresenting the majority of Peak District residents.

Some of the more responsible environmental groups and councillors are pressing for wetland and tree planting (to replace the areas required for the bypass), to take place now so that when the bypass is constructed these will already be established and if the bypass is not constructed we will have gained extra wildlife areas

I would have thought that if the park authority were genuinely concerned about the area they would have been at the forefront of such a move instead of being swayed by negative thinking of non-park members.

I do not know how our two Labour Derbyshire County Council representatives voted, but I am rather concerned because their addresses listed on the Peak District website are very misleading, non-Post Office approved which could be construed to make people think they lived in the Peak District.

I really think that until such time as the Peak District National Park Authority is made up of elected members from the Peak District and not from selected members, its views on non-park issues should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

One of the things I will be hoping to cure now I have been re-elected, are the council speak gobbledygook documents and reports. These are designed to cover up secrets and hide the truth from the public by using terribly written buzz words, and jargon etc.

It seems that not only the HPBC and DCC are guilty of this, but a recent consultation document issued by the Park Authority is full of this gobbledygook and could do with a makeover from the Campaign for Plain English people (sic).

It's interesting that the Advertiser clearly chose to judiciously edit this rant to within an inch of it's life, but also how the Chronicle have excised all references to Rossington Park.

Perhaps he should have his own blog and give everyone a laugh on a regular basis?

Join the dots

Whilst we know that Labour Party Councillors (if not their members) are fully behind the bypass (and we needn't even talk about the Tories), some people might have hopes of independent councillors.

But that's all dispelled in a letter from Ivan Bell to this week's Glossop Advertiser. Once again, we will reproduce it verbatim below:

I wish to thank all the voters in Old Glossop for supporting Independent Councillor Chris Webster and myself.

There have been a lot of changes to the High Peak Borough Council this election and I hope that the powers that be in the Conservative Party will recognise the expertise and commitment of two hardworking, honest, non-party councillors who have been returned virtually unopposed in Old Glossop.

I have many things to do as a councillor, but most importantly, at the Public Inquiry on the bypass at Stalybridge I will be asking the inspector to give weight to the opinions of people who live in the villages of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle.

And to only note the opinions of unelected bodies like the Peak District National Park Authority and people who are not resident in those areas.

Some of the more responsible environmental groups and councillors are pressing for wetland and tree planting to replace the areas required for the bypass so that when the bypass is constructed these will be already established.

And regarding the eyesores of Rossendale Park (sic) Hadfield and Bridgend (sic) Tintwistle, I am sure the residents would applaud the Peak Park authority if it helps to curb the ravages of the council planners in allowing such unsightly developments to take place.

This plonker wants to have it both ways. He wants a bypass, but not Rossington Park. He's a fool - as we've shown, RP has been built in anticipation of the bypass, and the clear (but latent) plan to create a strategic transportation route will entail further development of this kind in the area.

Who cares if the Peak Park isn't an elected body? Councillors are, and look what a shower of shit they are. The fact of the matter is that the Peak Park are the only institution fighting this road. If they were elected, they no doubt be lobbied by corporations to bend over and give them want they want. Either that or they would be comprised of people who have a past career amongst those behind this road - hauliers for example, or even former councillors who've taken a bung at every available opportunity.

But then again, his contradictory logic condemns the 'unelected' Peak Park for opposing the bypass but commends it for anything they can do to stop Rossington Park. To cap it all he lives in and represents people in Old Glossop, not Hadfield, Tintwistle, Mottram and Hollingworth.

There's clearly something else at work here which merits further examination.

Those fighting Rossington Park have common cause with us. If this road goes ahead, it will be almost impossible to prevent Rossington Park and other such schemes.