A DISGRACED councillor exposed by the Manchester Evening News as a "dog of war" has claimed é6,000 in allowances since June - without attending a single town hall meeting.
Coun Peter Wright last week lost an appeal against a prison sentence of 23 weeks for assaulting his partner Karen.
This means he is automatically disqualified from being a councillor in Tameside, where he has represented the Audenshaw ward as a Liberal Democrat.
The municipal year started on June 1 and Wright's annual allowance is é10,596. So far he has been paid é6,145 but he last attended a council meeting on May 19 for a mayor-making ceremony.
Wright, 56, a former paratrooper, was sentenced after admitting assaulting his partner of 17 years, Karen, who is also a Liberal Democrat councillor on the same authority.
The M.E.N. revealed he was put on trial after the Angolan civil war in the 1970s and served eight years of a 16-year sentence for mercenary activities.
When Wright returned to Britain, after the Foreign Office negotiated his early release, he received a string of convictions for assault. In 1988 he was given a suspended prison sentence for three assaults and criminal damage.
He told Karen and the probation service he had served in the British Army for 19 years after joining at the age of 15.
But he later admitted to serving just two years in the Army after leaving school.
Equipment
Councillors are entitled to request a third of their annual allowance in advance so they can set up an office and buy stationery and equipment. Wright requested a third of his allowance and has received the rest in monthly payments.
A Tameside council spokeswoman said: "Legally Coun Peter Wright continued to be entitled to the basic allowance. He will stop getting his allowances when he is no longer a councillor."
The council has no powers to suspend or dismiss councillors but members are automatically disqualified from office if they fail to attend a meeting in six months or receive a prison sentence of more than three months.
When standing for election each candidate is required to declare whether they meet the necessary criteria, including not being convicted in the United Kingdom of any offence.
Councils do not have the power to check the truth of declarations and rely on other candidates or electors challenging in the High Court whether a candidate meets the criteria.
Wright is now to be expelled from the Liberal Democrat party.
Legal action is being taken to evict him from the home he shared with Karen in Elizabeth Avenue, Audenshaw.
It is owned by New Charter, a company which took over council housing stock.
Karen and their daughters left after the assault.
Wright should have been sentenced for the assault on Karen in early September, but the case was delayed after he suffered a stroke.
Should Peter Wright have been allowed to claim the allowances? Have your say.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Is this another case of weak financial auditing controls and approval procedures by the city council of our council tax. Especially when added to the recent cases reported in local schools.
And the gravy train rolls on and on - paid for by us hard working fools!
In the earlier story (3 Nov 2006) it was stated by his solicitor that "he lives on 275 pound a month" and that he had been unable to work since August after suffering a stroke. Six thousand pound since June of this year is about 1200 pounds a month - I believe him!
I think its almost taken as read now that Councillors help themselves to whatever expenses they see fit, while not being afraid to appear in the local advertisers santimoniously writing letters to justify their "pretend" jobs. In this respect there is nothing to choose between any of the parties, MPs included. Bear this story in mind when you get your inflated council tax bill next year - this is just the tip of the iceberg of where our hard earned Council tax goes.
And people ask me why I live here.
please dont judge us all against what peter wright did I am a councillor and work seven days a week at it I earn every penny I get .
I think the council allow this sort of behaviour just in case each one of them finds themselves in the same boat so they can still collect the money. They are all at it these days and no one more than the Local authorities.
Next time im Voting BNP i have had it with the LIB LAB CON lot. Time and tiome again they disgrace the system and take us taxpayers for idiots. No more its time for change
What evidence does Louise have for her silly remarks?
They sound good but aren't based in fact. There are bad eggs in every profession, including whatever line of work she's in. I've met Councillors through my residents association, and they've been normal hard-working people. Councillors expenses are publically available so she should go and get the evidence before making uninformed comments such as that.
And actually he had to attend the mayor-making meeting as he hadn't attended a council or committee meeting for the 6 months prior to that. If he hadn't attended, he'd have been automatically disqualified as a councillor back in May... so I guess he's had over ten grand for attending just ONE meeting in a year! Audenshaw deserves better!