News

Badger treads Caerphilly

Published

12 years ago

October 13, 2013

JAMIE ADAMS, ‘popular’ leader of the IPPG, took to the Western Telegraph this week to deride those councillors seeking to examine the Staff Remuneration Committee’s decision to give Bryn Parry Jones a wodge of Council Tax payers’ cash rather than pay tax on his blue chip pension.
Councillor Adams, who is known to have difficulty remembering when to submit his expenses claims, pronounced confidently on the complex legal issues involved.
Unfortunately, the IPPG’s leader appears to be ignorant of what the Wales Audit Office (WAO) decided in Caerphilly. That Council was subject to a Public Interest Report by the WAO following a probe into payments made to senior officers. It is not suggested that there is any evidence of criminality in the decision made by Pembrokeshire County Council’s own remuneration committee, but elements of the decision-making process seem remarkably similar.
In Caerphilly, Councillors attended a meeting – at which officers were present – and during which officers’ pay and conditions were discussed.
In Pembrokeshire’s case, Councillors attended a meeting – at which officers were present – and during which officers’ pay and conditions were discussed.
In Caerphilly, the officers did not declare an interest and leave the meeting while their pay and conditions were discussed.
In Pembrokeshire, the officers did not declare an interest and leave the meeting while their pay and conditions were discussed.
Of course, one big difference exists:
In Caerphilly’s case, the Council had additional and external guidance to assist Councillors. Pembrokeshire did not. Councillors in Pembrokeshire relied upon an internal guidance prepared by an officer who potentially stood to benefit from the outcome of the Councillors’ decisions.
But even the presence of the independent report did not save Caerphilly Council from the auditor ruling the conduct of the relevant meeting unlawful.
As Jamie Adams appears to be of the opinion that he – and not the auditors – is best placed to determine the lawfulness of the decision-making process, Badger –produces the relevant section of the Auditors’ report on Caerphilly so Jamie Adams can take the time to read and try to understand it:
“Certain officers who were among the beneficiaries of the decision were present throughout the Committee meeting on September 5 2012, and no declarations of interest were made. In addition, the report presented to the Committee was authored by the Chief Executive.
“A person is disqualified from participation in a decision-making process if there is a real possibility that he or she would be influenced by a pecuniary or personal interest in the outcome of the decision as established by case law. Such an interest has to be declared. Individuals having such an interest are not entitled to participate in the decision-making process unless the interest is too remote or insignificant to matter. As such, we would have expected:
* officers to have declared an interest in the proceedings;
* officers to have left the meeting whilst the members of the Committee discussed the recommendations in the Chief Executive’s report and reached their decision;
and
* the members of the Committee to have approved the terms of reference for the independent advice commissioned into remuneration (AS A MINIMUM –emphases added – in respect of the Chief Executive’s pay).
“… In my view, the participation of these officers in the decision-making process renders the decision of the Committee ultra vires and therefore unlawful, on this further ground.”
Badger is a bit stumped as to how Jamie squares this circle.
As Bryn and the other officers were present, Jamie Adams’ bold assertion in the Telegraph that “the legality of the meeting is not in question” as the officers were “not part of the decision-making process” seems to try and draw a distinction where there is no difference. Council members’ own guidance unequivocally states that the presence of those with an interest in the outcome of meeting – whether they speak or not – is deemed to influence its outcome. How reassuring it must be to Bryn the Merciless to discover that Councillors are accustomed to ignoring him!
If Sunny Jamie and his IPPG cohorts have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from scrutiny. Instead they are running scared of giving Councillors the advice upon which they state they rely when making assertions of lawfulness and proper process.
When it is the conduct of Jamie Adams and his motley crew which is in question, the public have a need to know and a right to know.
Jamie Adams’ attack on the motives of Labour leader Paul Miller is a crass attempt to deflect criticism and play the man and not the ball. As a transparent and squalid attempt to smear a fellow Councillor, Jamie Adams’ comments are beneath contempt.
Badger asks his readers: why should the people of Pembrokeshire, let alone their representatives, put faith in Councillor Adams’ judgement or that of his discredited administration?

News

BBC apologises to Herald’s editor for inaccurate story

Published

31 minutes ago

December 4, 2025

Staff Writer

THE BBC has issued a formal apology and amended a six-year-old article written by BBC Wales Business Correspondent Huw Thomas after its Executive Complaints Unit ruled that the original headline and wording gave an “incorrect impression” that Herald editor Tom Sinclair was personally liable for tens of thousands of pounds in debt.

The 2019 report, originally headlined “Herald newspaper editor Tom Sinclair has £70,000 debts”, has now been changed.

The ECU found: “The wording of the article and its headline could have led readers to form the incorrect impression that the debt was Mr Sinclair’s personal responsibility… In that respect the article failed to meet the BBC’s standards of due accuracy.”

Mr Sinclair said: “I’m grateful to the ECU for the apology and for correcting the personal-liability impression that caused real harm for six years. However, the article still links the debts to ‘the group which publishes The Herald’ when in fact they related to printing companies that were dissolved two years before the Herald was founded in 2013. I have asked the BBC to add that final clarification so the record is completely accurate.”

A formal apology and correction of this kind from the BBC is extremely rare, especially for a story more than six years old.

Business

First wind turbine components arrive as LNG project moves ahead

Published

3 hours ago

December 4, 2025

Tom Sinclair

THE FIRST ship carrying major components for Dragon LNG’s new onshore wind turbines
docked at Pembroke Port yesterday afternoon last week, marking the start of physical
deliveries for the multi-million-pound renewable energy project.

The Maltese-registered general cargo vessel Peak Bergen berthed at Pembroke Dock on
shortly after 4pm on Wednesday 26th November, bringing tower sections and other heavy
components for the three Enercon turbines that will eventually stand on land adjacent to the
existing gas terminal at Waterston.

A second vessel, the Irish-flagged Wilson Flex IV, has arrived in Pembroke Port today is
due to arrive in the early hours of this morning (Thursday) carrying the giant rotor blades.
The deliveries follow a successful trial convoy on 25 November, when police-escorted low-
loader trailers carried dummy loads along the planned route from the port through
Pembroke, past Waterloo roundabout and up the A477 to the Dragon LNG site.

Dragon LNG’s Community and Social Performance Officer, Lynette Round, confirmed the
latest movements in emails to the Herald.

“The Peak Bergen arrived last week yesterday with the first components,” she said. “We are
expecting another delivery tomorrow (Thursday) onboard the Wilson Flex IV. This will be
blades and is currently showing an ETA of approximately 03:30.”

The £14.3 million project, approved by Welsh Ministers last year, will see three turbines with
a combined capacity of up to 13.5 MW erected on company-owned land next to the LNG
terminal. Once operational – expected in late 2026 – they will generate enough electricity to
power the entire site, significantly reducing its carbon footprint.

Port of Milford Haven shipping movements showed the Peak Bergen approaching the Haven
throughout Wednesday morning before finally tying up at the cargo berth in Pembroke Dock.

Cranes began unloading operations yesterday evening.

The Weather conditions are currently were favourable for this morning’s the arrival of
the Wilson Flex IV, which was tracking south of the Smalls at midnight.

The abnormal-load convoys carrying the components from the port to Waterston are
expected to begin early next year, subject to final police and highway approvals.

A community benefit fund linked to the project will provide training opportunities and energy-
bill support for residents in nearby Waterston, Llanstadwell and Neyland.
Further updates will be issued by Dragon LNG as the Port of Milford Haven as the delivery
programme continues.

Photo: Martin Cavaney

Crime

Banned for 40 months after driving with cocaine breakdown product in blood

Published

3 hours ago

December 4, 2025

Sarah-Jane Absalom

A MILFORD HAVEN woman has been handed a lengthy driving ban after admitting driving with a controlled drug in her system more than ten times over the legal limit.

SENTENCED AT HAVERFORDWEST

Sally Allen, 43, of Wentworth Close, Hubberston, appeared before Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on Thursday (Dec 4) for sentencing, having pleaded guilty on November 25 to driving with a proportion of a specified controlled drug above the prescribed limit.

The court heard that Allen was stopped on August 25 on the Old Hakin Road at Tiers Cross while driving an Audi A3. Blood analysis showed 509µg/l of Benzoylecgonine, a breakdown product of cocaine. The legal limit is 50µg/l.

COMMUNITY ORDER AND REHABILITATION

Magistrates imposed a 40-month driving ban, backdated to her interim disqualification which began on November 25.

Allen was also handed a 12-month community order, requiring her to complete 10 days of rehabilitation activities as directed by the Probation Service.

She was fined £120, ordered to pay £85 prosecution costs and a £114 surcharge. Her financial penalties will be paid in £25 monthly instalments from January 1, 2026.

The bench—Mrs H Roberts, Mr M Shankland and Mrs J Morris—said her guilty plea had been taken into account when passing sentence.