Curly's Corner Shop, the blog!

South Shields premier political blog

Revealing figures

with 12 comments

leg showThe intrigue is quite alluring

Councillor David Potts the independent representative for Cleadon Village and East Boldon, continues to tease us with quiet revelatory Tweats concerning his rival representing the Beacon and Bents ward on South Tyneside Council, as it appears that the court case surrounding the infamous Mr. Monkey blogs in California rumbles on tediously.

In this Tweat he invites us to look at the figures regarding the business owned by Cllr. Ahmed Khan, Simply Workwear in Dean Road, South Shields: we have often had local businessmen and women represented on our local council, names such as Warden Newby, Albert Surtees,  Harry Marshall, Derek Thorpe, Bill Upsall, Maurice Piggott, and Lawrence Nolan are just a few of the many who come to mind as running successful businesses in the town. Their acumen and experience in understanding financial matters gave them valuable assistance in the examining and challenging of public finances in a way that brought some clarity to debate in the council chamber. It is also worth noting that there have also been successful businessmen representing the Labour Party in South Tyneside too.

Yet one must ask if it reasonable to assume that the public expects a level of success and competence when it comes to number crunching which can be applied in the public forum, which gives us confidence that good decisions will eventually be the outcome.

Whilst we can see that the finances of Simply Workwear do not appear to be the “rosiest” amongst those listed at Company House, and that two other companies operated by Cllr. Khan (Skorpion Recruitment Services Ltd., and Skorpion Property Services Ltd.) have been dissolved, Cllr. Khan continues to involve himself in expensive litigation. The ongoing case in the US at the San Mateo County Court in California now moves on to January 5th. next year when all parties are to present an updated case management statement. Yesterday Mr. Barrage for Cllr. Khan stated that an appeal against the Judge’s denial of the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion and a cross complaint will be filed, all of this adds to the legal costs which might fall on Cllr. Khan if he is not successful as the plaintiffs are determined that he carry all of their costs, including those so far expended by South Tyneside Council. You can keep up to date with the progress of the court case here, by searching under “case number search” for “unlimited civil” using case number 482779.

With all of the revealing seduction of a femme fatale one wonders just exactly how much we will eventually see.

add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

Written by curly

October 5, 2011 at 9:32 am

12 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Very alluring! If only the energy and commitment devoted to the destructive tweeting could be devoted to dealing with local issues , problems and constructive and creative proposals for the resolution/ mitigation thereof.

    John Evans

    October 5, 2011 at 12:06 pm

  2. Interesting comment, John.

    Let’s make a number of things very clear here:

    A) I register all of my interests

    B) Unlike, Khan. I, nor any of my corporate interests, have EVER been served with any CCJs. Let alone been dissolved or declared bankrupt. My financial history is stellar. We spend a fortune with a lot of businesses in South Tyneside (including some SMEs).

    C) I personally have triple A credit ratings in both the UK and USA. Check that out on a credit ref. website of your choice, if you don’t believe me.

    D) Don’t make absurd criticisms about my work for C&EB. I do more than my fair share for the area that I represent. You are taking the p*ss and you know it.

    Kind regards


    David Potts

    October 5, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    • Mr Potts can you not use moderate and considerate language?
      You are one of the ones who suffered from the writing of Mr. Monkey but there is no real need to bring your frustrations here is there?
      I cannot understand how Mr. Khan in one breath criticises the council for its spending of my money, yet at the same time ramps up their legal costs (not for the first time) and expects me to pay for his adventure, even if it may be temporary. Has he paid all of the costs involved in his last legal battle with the Returning Officer , which he subsequently dropped?
      Neither can I understand how he managed to garner a popular vote to have him elected to steward my money and that of thousands of council tax payers, he clearly has a problem in understanding the financial position of his own businesses let alone larger bodies such as a municipal authority. If he cannot manage to make a decent profit from over £50000 worth of stock, even after servicing his debts, then how does he manage to finance his hasty rushes of blood which lead to litigation, and how does he manage to finance his family holidays?

      Albert Weston

      October 5, 2011 at 9:56 pm

    • A B and C of no interest to me whatsoever, irrelevant as regards your work and commitment as a local councillor. I have no idea what you do or do not do for your constituents, because you never tweet about it and the “Gazette” does not appear to report it.

      John Evans

      October 5, 2011 at 10:29 pm

    • Ironic, considering situation that exists 12 months on.

      John Evans

      November 18, 2012 at 1:42 pm

  3. Mr E

    My Twitter account is primarily used for commercial purposes. Look at the profiles of my followers. Further, I have no control over Gazette editorial policy. I issue press releases, but they are seldom printed. The Gazette holds little sway in ST and its circ. is on the floor.

    I have a formal and ongoing PCC complaint against the newspaper, as it stole a private photograph of myself and a former girlfriend. I can only guess this is why its editor refuses to give me coverage.



    PS. Curly. I use the word “stole”. As you are an honourable and decent blogger, I understand any concerns you may have and absolve you of any and all liability for that statement. I formally declare that I accept all legal liability for use of that phrase.

    David Potts

    October 5, 2011 at 10:48 pm

  4. No wonder he was dying to get on the council, looks to me like he has banked more in council allowances than he banked from his business and he had the nerve to hsve a go at other councillors

    Sandra D

    October 6, 2011 at 8:17 am

  5. Curly

    In a Gazette story back in 2006, Cllr Jane Branley stated: “I do not claim any expenses because I see it as an honour and a privilege to be a councillor. No one should do it for financial gain.”

    Cllr Branley has repeatedly fought her election campaigns using this as a ‘headline’ issue.

    I can now reveal that not only is Cllr Branley claiming her monthly allowance, but also recently attempted to BACK CLAIM years of payments. An amount of around £80’000. A move blocked by Council bosses.

    As usual the Gazette refuses to report this. Alas, all of these facts can be confirmed by the Town Hall.

    Now I may be criticised for receiving my allowances, but the difference is this: I did not lie to the people of Cleadon & East Boldon. Not once, ever, have I stated that I would not accept payments. Branley (and Khan for that matter) have repeatedly mislead the public in election campaigns by saying one thing before the polls and doing another after them.

    So just what is it with the Indy Alliance and money?

    If, in 2010, I had made a similar pledge to my electorate and broken it, I would be getting (quite rightly) crucified by the Gazette and online commentators. Yet Branley and Khan get away scot-free. Fairness in the media? The Gazette is turning into the Fox News of South Tyneside. “We report, you decide”? More like, “we distort, you comply.”

    A Gazette reporter recently told me they had not reported it because she was “ill”. Yet in 2010, when I was months away from death suffering from chronic alcoholism they happily pasted me all over the front pages for ‘lying’ about my visit to South Africa. When I mentioned this to a Gazette reporter I was told that my case was different because alcoholism is a “lifestyle choice”. This despite the fact that it is recognised as a clinical disease by the medical establishment. I did not spend circa £100K on rehab, fighting a “lifestyle choice” and I cannot tell you how insulted I was by that ignorant and naive remark.

    Now let’s be clear. If for instance, Iain Malcolm, Rob Dix or George Elsom had made a pledge to the electorate before the polls not to claim allowances, and had done so afterwards do you really think the Gazette wouldn’t run it. I can see the headlines now “FURY OVER COUNCILLOR’S CASH CLAIMS”.

    One can only assume that the Gazette editor (who is currently on holiday) is, for some bizarre reason, terrified of upsetting the Alliance.

    David Potts

    October 8, 2011 at 10:13 am

  6. Just where is case CIV 482779 heading? It appears to be a potential “Dickensian” saga in the making, and an increasingly expensive one at that. There is a need for more transparency , subject to rules of confidentiality, regarding the progress, if any, of unearthing the identity of the blogger(s). Those of us who are interested in the law would appreciate an explanation in straightforward terms of the twists and turns and legal terminology. Whether or not a Police investigation would have been viable and/or justified is another consideration requiring more open discussion. I appreciate that the plaintiffs, who have suffered as a result of the content of the blog, are circumspect. Regrettably the pursuit of “Mr Monkey” has not discouraged personalised, anonymous, attacking tweeting; it is not anonymity that is an issue, it is the content of the tweets and the potential damage to family and personal life.

    John Evans

    October 8, 2011 at 11:55 am

  7. I cannot comment on any legal matters at this stage. My apologies.

    David Potts

    October 8, 2011 at 12:00 pm

  8. Appreciate your position and that of your co plaintiffs; Khan should follow suit.

    John Evans

    October 8, 2011 at 1:21 pm

  9. Worth looking at Wikipedia on “Doe subpoena” and doing a general search on the subject, if you want to try and get a handle on what is going in the USA along their court’s views on freedom of speech, anonymously or otherwise and the protection of public figures from alleged false, malicious and defamatory statements. Case of Doe v Cahill heard in Delaware Supreme Court in 2005 might be of interest as it concerns alleged defamation of city councillor; note relatively the mild nature of the bloggers opinions compared to those blogged and tweeted by some.

    John Evans

    October 10, 2011 at 11:17 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: