01/10/2025
VALE COUNCIL SHUTS DOWN FREE SPEECH AND EXPELS CONSERVATIVE GROUP LEADEr
The far-left. Labour-run, Vale of Glamorgan Council last night demonstrated just how far-left it really is when challenged by the Conservative Group leader Cllr George Carroll (Conservative Llandough) on its undemocratic bid to achieve the pro-immigration status of a so-called “County of Sanctuary “.
Cllr Carroll reminded the febrile Labour councillors that:-
“Conservative members voted against this at the time, and we faced many smears for doing so, we warned of the dangers of associating with city of sanctuary UK, an organization that has adopted many what we would call extreme positions, warning that its charter effectively endorsed open borders by stating that people should be able to seek safety in the UK no matter how they came here.”
“….By definition ,this would include illegal immigrants.”
“Sadly, we have been proven right. Subsequent revelations about City of Sanctuary UK posed further concerns. The charity has been reported to the Charity Commission for what many alleged to constitute political activity.”
“It also pushes a Schools of Sanctuary programme, which, regrettably, some failed schools have signed up to.”
“Not only does this scheme push propaganda on the contentious political issue of migration within schools ( something which we consider highly inappropriate) – it It has also led to many other inappropriate activities taking place, including a highly publicised incident in the press in which children as young as five were asked to write Valentine’s cards to asylum seekers throughout our country.”
Labour members had no hesitation in breaching the council’s own Code of Conduct to barrack Cllr Carroll whilst he was speaking – but nevertheless Cllr Carroll continued to tell the angry Labour councillors what they evidently did not want to hear. Cllr Carroll went on to say:-
“Illegal migration is currently placing huge and unprecedented pressures on our public services and housing stock.”
“It leads to an increased risk of crime in our communities, and there have regrettably and unacceptably been many incidents involving people in this country illegally committing the most serious crimes, including s*x offences and rape”.
“It is therefore incumbent upon authorities and those in positions of influence to convey a zero-tolerance approach to illegal migration. The message must be clear, if you are in Britain illegally, you have committed a crime, and you will not be allowed to stay here.”
‘County of Sanctuary’ status delivers the opposite of that. It sends a message that illegal migration is and will be tolerated. City of Sanctuary UK, the organisation behind it is not a group with which this authority should be associated.”
It is time for those members who backed embarking on this path to admit that they got it wrong and to vote for our motion this evening calling on the council to revoke its county of sanctuary status and to sever all of its ties with City of Sanctuary UK, This council’s focus must shift to managing budgets, responsibly improving service provision in our communities and delivering value for money for council taxpayers. ..And I so move”
However, Labour councillors seem to be overwhelmingly in favour of immigration, no matter how much it ruins the country and the county … And some appeared to have been extremely well briefed, in advance, of the content of Cllr Carroll’s speech and set out to try to trip him up.
Cllr Helen Payne (Labour) claimed that there is no reliable data on illegal status and crime “so it’s not possible to say with certainty whether being in the UK illegally is associated with higher crime rates compared to legal immigrants or citizens.”. She also claimed that the story about schoolchildren being compelled to write Valentine cards to asylum seekers was – as she put it – “entirely inaccurate”.
Cllr Ian Johnson, (group leader of the pro-immigration party Plaid Cymru), said he too would be opposing Cllr Carroll’s motion. He said:-
“The purpose of a Nation of Sanctuary or County of Sanctuary is to help asylum seekers and refugees to assimilate into the community.
“Usually, those who receive refugee status are escaping dreadful situations such as war or famine. The policy aims to ensure better outcomes for these families who join in our community, while helping our own community to improve and to thrive. …. It helps people to learn English as well as Welsh”
Online, there is frequent reference to £55,000,000 (fifty-five million) spent on the Nation of Sanctuary by Welsh Government, – a misleading figure because it includes 6 years of expenditure. Usually, the real cost is around one to 2 million annually.”
“There are some who think that designating a Nation or County of Sanctuary is a pull factor, but out of the 6,200,000 who became refugees in Ukraine, some 7,000 came to Wales, a little over 0. 1% – and a per person spend of £6,500 by Welsh Government.!
Plaid Cymru are once again proud to support a policy which integrates refugees and asylum seekers into society and also helps our communities. We have a choice between hate and love today, and we should choose love.”
In a sanctimonious and largely irrelevant contribution, the Leader of the Vale Council – Cllr Lis Burnett (Labour Stanwell ) said the council was still awaiting the result of its application to become a “County of Sanctuary”. She said:-
“We still await the outcome of that application. Since then, we’ve developed our new Five Year Plan, “Vale 2030″, which includes the objectives giving everyone a good start in life and supporting and protecting those who need us.”
“So if you’re someone who has dementia, has experienced domestic abuse, homophobia, hate crime, are homeless, are disabled or in crisis, this motion is about you and how this council feels. Its role is to support you.”
“I am proud that over recent years, this council has been independently described as value led, that no child is left behind, or that we have a united culture, with people at the heart of our service.”
[Cllr Burnett did not mention the Vale schools in Special Measures, the rampant overspending, the rocketing Council Tax, the lengthening housing waiting lists or the public demonstrations against immigration at Llantwit Major, at the Holiday Inn Hotel at Rhoose or the protests on the council’s very own doorstep at its Barry HQ]
It was at this juncture that a line in Cllr Burnett’s irrelevant speech appeared to reveal what Labour’s co-ordinated strategy was – to isolate the Conservatives – and Cllr Carroll in particular . Cllr Burnett went on to say
“I hope tonight we can reaffirm our support to be a County of Sanctuary for all, just as in that scrutiny committee, let Cllr Carroll be a lone voice, the people of the Vale of Glamorgan need to see exactly who would turn their backs on them in their hour of need.”
Cllr Kevin Mahoney (Independent Sully) brought the debate back to the subject at hand – immigration, and the Vale’s bid to become a virtue-signalling “County of Sanctuary” . Overcoming the racket in the council chamber, Cllr Mahoney delivered some straight-talking common sense. He said:-
“We don’t need to be called a County of Sanctuary . That must be fairly obvious that the immigration system has been abused – the immigration system and the asylum system – in such vast numbers, and that’s been done by political parties and their representatives and administrations.”
“I mean, surely it must be obvious to everybody, you can’t take in the whole World .”
” There’s hundreds and hundreds of conflicts at any one time. We’ve seen the vast numbers that are coming in. When we had a proud heritage of welcoming people to our country, it was in fairly limited numbers. The numbers now are just unbelievable, We can’t cope. And anybody in our chamber who thinks that our public services are bearing up to this clearly has never been up a hospital lately.”
“Every single day, without exception, I’m speaking to people who are having to fork into meager pensions, and cash them in to pay for hip and knee operations because our public service is overrun.”
“I’m particularly concerned about the continued politicisation of our schools and our school children. Our schools there are there to teach our kids to read and write and to prepare them for their forthcoming future life. This is a country where 20% of our children going to secondary school have been described as illiterate. We can’t even get that right.”
“Our doctors’ surgeries are overrun. Our public services are overrun. Our local authority services are overrun. We can’t take everybody from the world.”
“Now, we should still welcome people who are in danger to a certain degree, and the Ukrainian situation has been described. I mean, my heart goes out to what those children and their families are experiencing over there, and I would hope, a temporary measure, we have members of Ukrainian here who, I would hope, will return back to their own country once that situation is sorted out. But the thought that we can take in everybody in the world is just absolute and utter nonsense.”
Cllr Gwyn John (Llantwit First Llantwit Major), whose village was not consulted about housing hundreds of immigrants at the development at the Eagleswell Road (Heol Croeso) pre-fabricated encampment, said :-
“Llantwit Major councillors, for the last 3 years, have had huge problems from residents basically objecting to the Eagleswell Road, temporary accommodation. Well, we stepped out against it, because it was our view to support Ukrainian refugees. And you know, a lot of people complained about trouble at Eagleswell Well, you know these Ukrainians that live there, absolutely perfect. We’ve not had a day’s trouble since that site at Heol Croeso opened. “
Cllr Janice Charles (Conservative) said
“The existing infrastructure does not have the flexibility for schools and transport to cope with a sudden population increase, especially in small towns and villages. School children initially would require additional assistance while learning to speak Welsh and English. There’s a community division, which I think is the saddest thing of all. Many local residents feel that they have, once again, not been consulted, and have had this major change imposed on them. The designation [ County of Sanctuary] is highly controversial and causes significant division with the local community.
Summing up, Cllr Carroll said opinion polling on the Welsh Labour Government’s “Nation of Sanctuary” concept , carried out last week, had showed that the people of Wales wanted the designation “Nation of Sanctuary” to be scrapped.
Cllr Carroll went on to say :-
“So I do think that this debate shows that in this council chamber that the majority of members are out-of-step with what our communities want to see happen on this issue.”
“Now Cllr Payne, in her remarks, disputed the links between illegal migration and crime and councilor perks stated that there are no statistics that illegal migrants commit crime. I would simply refer to the fact that the clue is in the name they are illegal migrants, they are here illegally. By virtue of being an illegal migrant, you have committed a crime.”
“Now the leader, Councillor Burnett, in her comment, stated that she wanted me to be a lone voice this evening. Now again, that shows how out of touch this authority is, and this administration is that that’s the position that she takes when this is a matter of deep concern. Illegal migration is a matter of deep concern to people across our country and within our communities.”
” I think one member called for safe and legal routes that might have been Cllr Perks. The point I would make here is that anybody arriving on a small boat is not fleeing persecution. They are coming from France, a designated safe country. It’s a separate matter of debate whether members wish to redesignate France as a place that’s dangerous,”
Labour councillors were outraged. They raised bogus points of order demanding Cllr Carroll retract his statement, but Cllr Carroll calmly refused to do so. The abuse from Labour was so intense at some points that the Mayor had to remind Labour members they could be in breach of the council’s Code of Conduct . She said:-
“I’m really sorry to interrupt. Can I remind members now that debate must remain respectful from all parties and focused on the motion before us, personal remarks or abusive comments towards other members are not permitted under the Code of Conduct. “
Cllr Carroll continued :-
“…So I’ve been subjected to many comments this evening. I’m personally fine with that. My responsibility is not to seek approval from members within this chamber who appear to take a radically different view on the issue of immigration and asylum than the vast majority of people in our country do this debate. I think Cllr Birch asked for evidence I would refer her to all opinions on this matter.”
There was yet more hubbub from Labour members. Letting her impartiality slip, the Mayor, Cllr Naomi Marshallsea, gave her allegiances away by saying –
” I don’t want to have to ask anyone to leave, despite whatever we may think of what Cllr Carroll Carroll is speaking. He is an elected member and is allowed to speak without interruption. “
Cllr Carroll said :-
“I’m disappointed by some of the extreme positions that I have heard expressed by members from other parties this evening. Border Control is a sensible moderate position. The idea that we should have open borders, as I think many members seem to be suggesting, from the nature of their contributions in this debate, is completely unsustainable and highly irresponsible.”
Cllr Carroll’s measured and phlegmatic comment provoked yet more hysterical outrage from pro-immigration Labour and pro-immigration Plaid Cymru. Plaid Group leader Cllr Ian Johnson asked :
“Cllr Carroll, are you saying that the general consensus of this council is that we have open borders? Is that true or not? If not, it will need to be retracted.”
Cllr Carroll said ” I didn’t say that.”
Cllr Johnson said “Yes, you did. …you inferred [sic] that the general consensus of the council was that people wanted open borders.”
Cllr Carroll retorted “No,The point that I made is it seems to be from this debate that many members, ,….
The Mayor, talking over Cllr Carroll, interjected to say “I don’t agree that that is the case” – thus, herself, breaching the council’s Code of Conduct.” So I don’t believe that you were, you were putting forward the correct, the correct feeling of the general councilors here. So can you retract that statement please?”
Cllr Carroll said he would “watch the recording back and if a retraction needs to be made I will happiy retract it if I think it needs to be made”
Ungrammatically, the Mayor replied “but no, but no, but the point of order was that that’s what you inferred.[sic] And actually that isn’t the case of what other people are saying.”
Cllr Carroll pushed back – saying “No, I said that it seems to me, in this debate, from the contributions we’ve heard from others ( I did not name any other members, and I will make that point) that many members of this authority appear to favour the concept of open borders. I stand by that statement,”
The Mayor then said “Okay I’m going to get a little bit of support – of advice – and I’ll come back to you on that.”
Eventually, the Mayor said “Councillor Carroll, if you’d like to continue, then you do need to retract that statement – as I previously thought,”
Mangling her English again, Mayor Marshallsea said “Cllr Carroll, you inferred [sic] that the general consensus of most councillors in the room was that, was that councillors believe we should have open borders. I didn’t hear one comment about open borders. Can you retract that statement? Or you will need to leave the chamber. It’s a matter, Cllr Carroll, can you retract that statement?”
Cllr Carroll said again – firmly – “I’m not going to retract that statement. If you listen very carefully to the statement that I made. I said that it appears to be the case from the statements that have been made by other members in this debate, that they seem to favour the concept of open borders. I did not state that anybody in this debate said that they were in favour of open borders. I am happy to clarify that “
By this time, Mayor Marshallsea was being directed in what she was saying by a retinue of council officers – which included Chief Executive Rob Thomas.
She said ” I don’t think anyone reasonably watching the debate would believe that that to be the case. So you can choose. You can retract the statement, or you can leave the chamber.. Officers next to me also feel the same. I’m the mayor and the chair of this of this chamber right now, so you can make that decision, whether you leave the chamber or whether you retract that comment.”
Cllr Carroll said, “It’s a statement of opinion.”
Mayor: ” I’m sorry. Can you leave the chamber then please Councillor Carroll?,
Cllr Carrol said again, “I’m not prepared to retract the statement”.
Mayor : “Okay, if you’re not prepared to retract the statement, then you will need to leave the chamber.”
Cllr Carroll: “It’s a statement of opinion!!.“
Mayor: “Councillor Carroll what are you choosing? You have two options…”
Cllr Carroll : “it seems to me that from the statements I have heard, many members of this council appear to favour the concept of open borders. I did not name any member in this debate.”
Mayor: “Cllr Carroll,You have two options. Do I need to count to five?… genuinely, because I’m sorry, you’ve broken. You’ve broken. There was a point of order. It was absolutely correct. So now you need to make a decision.”
Cllr Carroll “I have clarified the position.”
Mayor :You’ve clarified the decision that you’re not going to retract.”
Cllr Carroll:“No, I clarified my position. ….”
Mayor “Can everyone else be quiet so we can try and get somewhere. I would appreciate that. Cllr Carroll, are you retracting the statements?
Cllr Carroll “I did not say that people had open borders.”
Mayor ” OK, so what would you like to say about members then,? Do you believe that members think that we should have an open border policy?
Cllr Carroll said “It is my belief that many members, in effect, favour an open borders policy. I am entitled to make that statement. It’s a statement of opinion. The effect of is the effect of their position on these policies, the effect of members positions on these policies.”
Mayor: “ I don’t believe we’ve discussed open borders, and as I’ve mentioned now numerous times, you will need to make a decision now on whether you’re retracting or leaving. Is now 8:28, I’m going to leave it till 8:29, for you to make that decision.”
Cllr Carroll “It was a statement of opinion”.
Mayor “It’s now 8.29, actually”
Cllr Carroll “I will say this, If this authority, wants to expel a member…”
Yet again talking over Cllr Carroll, the Mayor said “Councillor Carroll, you do need to leave the chamber. Now, I’m very sorry, but you won’t retract the statement that, from a point of order we’ve proved is incorrect. So you need to leave the chamber unless you’re willing to retract it. It’s now 8:29,”
Cllr Carroll : I”‘m not willing to retract that statement “
Mayor “Okay, you’ll need to leave the chamber.”
Three councillors, including Cllr Carroll, then proceeded to leave the chamber.
Cllr Russell Godfrey (Conservative) who had been waiting to contribute via the internet from his home but suffered technical difficulties – was refused leave to speak and said he would complain to the monitoring officer about the imbalance with which the debate had been conducted. He was told that contributions to speak were “ according to the percentage of members that we have in this group” – whatever that meant.
In his absence, Cllr Carroll’s motion was then put to a vote. 4 were in favour of the motion, 34 were against and there were 3 abstentions. The Mayor failed to announce the large number of councillors (14 in all) who had NOT voted.
happiy
