News

Badger writes a letter

Published

11 years ago

March 4, 2015

pawprint THIS WEEK Badger writes a slightly different column. It’s a letter. A letter to chair of the Corporate Governance Committee: Former council Cabinet stooge; one time aspirant to the leadership of the Labour Group; and a man who desperately wants to be County Council Chair in 2016/17. This week, readers, Badger writes to the voice of Ken, Ken Rowlands:

Dear Ken, A writer of The Pembrokeshire Herald phoned Badger on Monday evening. He was beside himself with grief and worry. And you caused it, Ken. You were responsible for this poor little lamb’s distress. There he was sitting and taking notes of a committee meeting which you were chairing when you said that the press would not report good news because it was not sensational enough. That was after you had opined ex cathedra about ‘lies’ appearing in the press. Lies, Ken. Really? Which lies were you thinking about? When you warned everyone about lies appearing in the press. were you thinking about the lies you have told over the years to your electors? Let’s focus in on a few of those shall we. Ken. Ken: You published your newsletter which claimed that you and the community council you chair. Johnston. had made representations to County Hall about the new school due to be

built in council. So we have a sense of completeness. Ken, you said this: “Members of the Community Council joined with me to help make an informed decision at County Hall … when the proposals were then submitted to the Welsh Government for approval.” But Ken, as the then Cabinet Spokesperson for Education, any influence you brought to bear would have been wholly inappropriate due to your disqualifying interest as a governor of Johnston School. A fact you had previously recognized yourself and one which the reporter who was at the committee meeting asked !PPG leader Jamie Adams about when he saw your newsletter. For the record, Ken, this is what your leader said at the time: “What Cllr Rowlands was referring to in his newsletter was discussions he had held with his electorate about potential sites for the new school and not about associated matters connected to the school, such as funding and planning issues which have yet to be decided.” Can you spot the difference between those two positions. Ken? Badger can, Ken. Badger can. One of you is not telling the truth, Ken. Is it you or Jamie Adams? Please. Ken, let Badger know whether you simply embroidered the facts or breached the Code of Conduct. Now. Ken: you have form about Johnston School. Ken. Don’t you?

In 2012, Ken, you told your electors that you had secured £7m of funding for a new school in Johnston. Do you remember that Ken? It was another case of can-do Ken answering a question nobody was asking. But, Ken, let’s look at what your Leader, Jamie Adams, said about it: “It was essential to note that these were only approvals at an outline stage. At this stage, therefore, it was impossible to provide members with certainty about the confirmed inclusion of specific projects, their timescales or their prioritisation across the entire programme.” That’s not ‘committed funding’, Ken, which is what you claimed. Can you spot the difference between those two positions, Ken? Badger can, Ken. Badger can. One of you is not telling the truth, Ken. Is it you or Jamie Adams? Please, Ken, let Badger know whether you simply embroidered the facts or breached the Code of Conduct by using your position on the council to leak confidential information favourable to you to the electorate. In 2008. Ken, you told the Labour Party that you were their man; their candidate for Johnston. And then Ken, in appropriately biblical fashion, you claimed a sudden conversion. A conversion so sudden and dramatic that it happened too late for the Labour Party to select an alternative candidate. You claimed after the election that your defection was not

motivated by the offer of a Cabinet post, you also claimed that your decision to join the Independent Political Group was made after the election. But Ken, you and me know that isn’t true. If its untrue, why would your name and the name of other official Labour Party candidates who subsequently joined you in the then MG, have appeared on a list of safe !PG seats produced before the 2008 election? Why would your name appear on documents showing you to be a key recruiter for the IPG at the count for the 2008 election? Are all of the documents containing your name about the 2008 election a conspiracy to implicate you in the biggest electoral rook in Pembrokeshire’s recent past? That’s not changing tack after the election. Can you spot the difference between those two positions, Ken? Badger can. Ken. Badger can. Either the documents are not telling the truth, or you are not. Which is it. Ken? Last weekend. The Pembrokeshire Herald related the content of a conversation that took place between you and your former Cabinet colleague David Simpson. In that conversation you confirmed a rumour that it was Rob Lewis who told you of your appointment to the committee investigating Bryn Parry-Jones’ conduct; that at the same meeting you were told to ‘keep your mouth shut’ while on that committee; that the meeting in which you

were told the above took place in the presence of a Council Officer. We were able to report that because Cllr David Simpson told our assistant editor about the conversation between you. Badger is inclined to believe ClIr Simpson. Badger thinks that a lot of others will, too. If you maintain that any of the above is ‘a lie’. Ken – write to Badger and let him know. He has had one of his little woodland chums trawl through our past letters and emails to see if you have ever complained about any ‘lies’ about you in this paper. They found not a single scrap of correspondence. Funny that. So, Ken, before you next abuse your position as the Chair of a council committee to try and settle scores, Badger invites you to just answer the questions posed of you above. If you can. Love and sloppy kisses

PS: One more thing Ken, don’t you think your electors would be served better if you were a voice FOR Johnston?

Crime

Man accused of Milford Haven burglary and GBH remanded to Crown Court

Published

9 hours ago

December 5, 2025

Court Reporter

A MILFORD HAVEN man has appeared in court charged with burglary and inflicting grievous bodily harm, following an incident at a flat in the town earlier this week.

Charged after alleged attack inside Victoria Road flat

Stephen Collier, aged thirty-eight, of Vaynor Road, Milford Haven, appeared before Llanelli Magistrates’ Court today (Friday, Dec 5). Collier is accused of entering a property known as Nos Da Flat, 2 Victoria Road, on December 3 and, while inside, inflicting grievous bodily harm on a man named John Hilton.

The court was told the alleged burglary and assault was carried out jointly with another man, Denis Chmelevski.

The charge is brought under section 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968, which covers burglary where violence is inflicted on a person inside the property.

No plea entered

Collier, represented by defence solicitor Chris White, did not enter a plea during the hearing. Prosecutor Simone Walsh applied for the defendant to be remanded in custody, citing the serious nature of the offence, the risk of further offending, and concerns that he could interfere with witnesses.

Magistrates Mr I Howells, Mr V Brickley and Mrs H Meade agreed, refusing bail and ordering that Collier be kept in custody before trial.

Case sent to Swansea Crown Court

The case was sent to Swansea Crown Court under Section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Collier will next appear on January 5, 2026 at 9:00am for a Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing.

A custody time limit has been set for June 5, 2026.

Chmelevski is expected to face proceedings separately.

News

Woman dies after collision in Tumble as police renew appeal for witnesses

Published

10 hours ago

December 5, 2025

Tom Sinclair

POLICE are appealing for information after a woman died following a collision in Tumble on Tuesday (Dec 2).

Officers were called to Heol y Neuadd at around 5:35pm after a collision involving a maroon Skoda and a pedestrian. The female pedestrian was taken to hospital but sadly died from her injuries.

Dyfed-Powys Police has launched a renewed appeal for witnesses, including anyone who may have dash-cam, CCTV footage, or any information that could help the investigation.

Investigators are urging anyone who was in the area at the time or who may have captured the vehicle or the pedestrian on camera shortly before the collision to get in touch. (Phone: 101 Quote reference: DP-20251202-259.)

News

Greyhound Bill faces fresh scrutiny as second committee raises “serious concerns”

Published

10 hours ago

December 5, 2025

Tom Sinclair

THE PROHIBITION of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill has been heavily criticised for a second time in 24 hours after the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution (LJC) Committee published a highly critical Stage 1 report yesterday.

The cross-party committee said the Welsh Government’s handling of the legislation had “in several respects, fallen short of the standard of good legislative practice that we would normally expect”.

Key concerns highlighted by the LJC Committee include:

Introducing the Bill before all relevant impact assessments (including a full Regulatory Impact Assessment and Children’s Rights Impact Assessment) had been completed – a step it described as “poor legislative practice, particularly … where the Bill may impact on human rights”.
Failure to publish a statement confirming the Bill’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The committee has recommended that Rural Affairs Minister Huw Irranca-Davies issue such a statement before the Stage 1 vote on 16 December.
Inadequate public consultation, with the 2023 animal-licensing consultation deemed “not an appropriate substitute” for targeted engagement on the specific proposal to ban the sport.

The report follows Tuesday’s equally critical findings from the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee, which questioned the robustness of the evidence base and the accelerated legislative timetable.

Industry reaction Mark Bird, chief executive of the Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB), described the two reports as leaving the Bill “in tatters”.

“Two consecutive cross-party Senedd committees have now condemned the Welsh Government’s failures in due diligence, consultation and human rights considerations and evidence gathering,” he said. “The case for a ban has been comprehensively undermined. The responsible path forward is stronger regulation of the single remaining track at Ystrad Mynach, not prohibition.”

Response from supporters of the Bill Luke Fletcher MS (Labour, South Wales West), who introduced the Member-proposed Bill, said he welcomed thorough scrutiny and remained confident the legislation could be improved at later stages.

“I have always said this Bill is about ending an outdated practice that causes unnecessary suffering to thousands of greyhounds every year,” Mr Fletcher said. “The committees have raised legitimate procedural points, and I look forward to working with the Welsh Government and colleagues across the Senedd to address those concerns while keeping the core aim of the Bill intact.”

A Welsh Government spokesperson said: “The Minister has noted the committees’ reports and will respond formally in due course. The government supports the principle of the Bill and believes a ban on greyhound racing is justified on animal welfare grounds. Work is ongoing to finalise the outstanding impact assessments and to ensure full compatibility with the ECHR.”

The Bill is scheduled for a Stage 1 debate and vote in plenary on Tuesday 16 December. Even if it passes that hurdle, it would still require significant amendment at Stages 2 and 3 to satisfy the committees’ recommendations.