River Ward Statement

The news that Cllr David Craggs resigned suddenly due to a conflict of interest with his role as a Special Constable has landed on very hot ground indeed, but it now appears that the resignation was unneccessary.

The press statement today by River Ward Conservatives has however clarified the resignation, and indeed is quick to point the blame onto the Kent Police.

As below:

"Before the election they had confirmed that there were no rules to preclude a volunteer special constable from being a local councillor, indeed there are two Conservative MPs and one Labour MP who serve as special constables, whilst being at the heart of the law making process at Westminster. Philip Hollobone, Conservative MP for Kettering is also a SITTING COUNCILLOR on Kettering Borough Council. Magistrates are similarly allowed to become local councillors and vice versa, there are no restrictions.

Such was the intense pressure put on David that he felt he had to resign from the post of a paid councillor in order to carry on as an unpaid and volunteer police officer, a position he has held for 17 years. That letter of resignation was delivered to the Acting Chief Executive of Medway Council yesterday at 11.00am. Acting upon the resignation letter, an appropriate ‘Notice of vacancy’ in River Ward was issued by Medway Council, in accordance with electoral law. Within hours, and subsequent to legal advice already obtained by Rochester and Strood Conservative Association, the Kent Police Authority confirmed that there is no restriction in a special constable being a councillor.

Kent Police were incorrect, and arguably unlawful. They had even threatened disciplinary action against David Craggs. Because the statutory ‘Notice of vacancy’ has now been issued, acting upon David Craggs resignation letter, the electoral cycle is started and cannot be retracted, despite the resignation now clearly being unnecessary, based on wrong advice and arguably extracted under duress."

Labour has led the charge today calling for the local Conservative Association to repay the cost of the byelection in full in light of the waste of time and money on another byelection.

Despite the pressure on the candidate, the people of River deserve better then this.

The time lime of events now goes as thus. It seems to be that RSSCA had advice prior to the election from one source that it was OK for David Craggs to be a Councillor, but then received contradictory information post-election from Kent Police HR / Personnel on the specific force eligibility, stating it was not because of established policy. The Councillor then resigned his position, before the advice was received from the Kent Police Authority that it was not illegal for Cllr Craggs to be Councillor but presumably individual forces have the right to follow individual procedure.

Confused? You betcha...

After reading, re-reading and then reading the press statement thrice time; finally it made sense. Or has it!? No, it seems the Medway Conservatives have omitted a great chunk of time, noticeably the period between David Craggs being selected and then being elected.

Now it does get serious folks because despite the verbage there do remain some major questions here that still need to be answered.

The Conservative statement made clear that the candidate had received confirmation of eligibility prior to the election which then changed. Who confirmed his original eligibility; the Kent Police, Kent Police Authority or another third-party?

What was the legal advice received by RSSCA prior to the KPA advice. If that advice was that it was legal, was that communicated to Cllr Craggs prior to his resignation?

If the advice was to suggest it was legal, why did the Councillor not decide to appeal internally, rather then resign his Council position? Was this avenue explored?

Why has it taken so long (13 days it would appear) to get confirmation from the Kent Police Authority and when was this advice sought by Medway Council / RSSCA? Post or pre-election?

Did the RSSCA or any of its officers make any direct approach, not via the candidate, to Kent Police post-selection but pre-election on eligibility?

Individual Forces are entitled to different positions on eligibility and whilst the rights and wrongs of this can be explored, they are simply not relevent to the key point which was David Craggs was ineligible to be both a Councillor and a Special Constable prior to his election. The candidate should have known his eligibility before he stood and was absolutely sure of this position. Obviously, if he was given poor advice then we should all know the source.

I agree though with the statement that it is a regressive policy being enforced by Kent Police and think it should be repealed.

The candidate and RSSCA should have made absolutely clear with all parties prior to the election that his standing was allowed. This ambiguity should not have happened 13 days aftet the election.

Blame of course can be spread. But in the end, the fact is we have a byelection and it is a Tory that has had to stand down because facts were not confirmed in advance in the appropriate manner. Understood people took assurances at face-value as anyone would. But the fact remains that in politics, if you make mistakes like this, you have to suffer the consequences.

This is a total mess.

NB

If the above is accurate however Kent Police now stand to be slammed.

This is a totally unacceptable way to act with an individual who has given years of service. It is absolutely discusting behaviour of the highest order and heads should roll immediately for this outrage. The Police stand not only to have embarrassed and harmed a serving officer but also to have caused massive local instability and harm to residents, who once again have to go through an election process.

The Police need to respond immediately.