NYCC Election Preview – Cllr Peter POPPLE
The Public Record – County Councillor Peter – Double Dipper
- The practice of receiving compensation, benefits, etc, from two or more sources in a way regarded as unethical, as from a government pension and a government job.
Surely, the term is applicable to the act of accepting two separate Allowances (‘compensation, benefits, etc’), from two distinct ‘sources’ (NYCC and SBC), in respect of the one single expenditure arising from the fee contingent upon a single Broadband connection?
- County Councillor Peter now stands as an Independent member after representing the Labour Party in previous elections
- County Councillor Peter is a member of North Yorkshire County Council
- County Councillor Peter sits on the NYCC Standards Committee
- Member of Scarborough Borough Council
- County Councillor Peter sits on the SBC Standards Committee
- County Councillor Peter received £500+ per annum from NYCC for IT/Broadband
- County Councillor Peter also received between £245 & £54.96 per annum over the years from SBC for IT/Broadband
- County Councillor Peter has refused to pay back the excess money
- County Councillor Peter believes he is fully entitled to receive two lots of IT/Broadband Allowances when he only pays out a fraction of that
- County Councillor Peter attended one or more NYCC Council meetings where the IT/Broadband Allowance was discussed, so cannot claim to be unaware of it
- County Councillor Peter last elected on 04/06/2009 and sits in the Northstead division
- County Councillor Peter standing in forthcoming elections in Northstead ward
- County Councillor Peter resigned the Chairship of the (pilot) Whitby Harbour Board
- County Councillor Peter reported The Scarborough News to the Press Complaints Commission over the accurate reporting of the Broadband Allowance
All of the double-dipping NYCC/SBC Councillors were exonerated by the Standards Committees, the only dissenting voice being that of SBC Councillor Colin CHALLEN, who stated (on the Scarbrorough and Whitby Labour Party website):
“Another issue which emerged out of this hearing was that a County Council official appears to have provided at least four of the eight members with a paragraph long statement which those members then used in response to the County Council’s own investigating officer’s inquiries. This would be like a detective providing you with the answer to his own questions, and clearly this has muddied the essential independence of the officer – councillor relationship. It is a matter which warrants further investigation.”
Councillor Colin CHALLEN also stated:
“The simple solution would have been for the Committee to suggest to the members involved that if they thought that the identifiable sums paid (I won’t go into the arcane details of how the sum is calculated and paid) were excessive, then the difference could be repaid.”
Former West Yorkshire Police Detective Inspector Cedric CHRISTIE of the WYP Major Fraud Division has expressed the following opinion:
“Claiming twice for something like broadband is just the same as claiming mileage from two different authorities for the same journey. If I was investigating these circumstances I would consider a case of fraud by false representation under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.”
Scarborough News – 4th October 2012
“Councillor’s Censure Fails”
Councillor Peter reported the newspaper (SN) to the Press Complaints commission describing the paper as ‘scurrilous’, ‘irresponsible’ and linked it to the Leveson inquiry which is looking into press standards. But the article was in fact accurate and the councillor withdrew his complaint after the newspaper strongly defended its position.
It had revealed that he was one of a number of councillors being asked to explain allowances claimed for internet usage.
“This complaint was an attempt by a councillor to disrupt the rightful, proper and legitimate duty of a newspaper to publish a bona fide report which was quite clearly in the public interest”, editor Ed Asquith informed the Commission.
Cllr had already ignored three opportunities to comment to the newspaper.
The comments section of this article is intended to be a public record of the work, good or bad, that this Councillor has done on behalf of the public. Please post only factual comments relating to Cllr Peter ’s past conduct so the public can judge if he is worth re-electing.
Other Double-Dipping Articles:
[NW & TT]