Sheffield councillor loses whip after getting caught anonymously commenting on social media
Cllr Ruth Milsom made around 30 anonymous comments on Facebook - about controversial plans for new housing developments
The Sheffield Labour councillor who got caught commenting anonymously on posts regarding the controversial Greenbelt development across the city has lost her whip temporarily but stays on as councillor.
Cllr Ruth Milsom has lost the whip for three months, resigned as the chair of the Health Scrutiny Committee and as co-chair of the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Panel, the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) has learnt.
In addition, Cllr Milsom will no longer serve as Sheffield Labour’s Chief Whip at Sheffield Town Hall.
A spokesperson for the Labour Party confirmed that Cllr Milson would remain a Labour councillor and “is expected to abide by the Labour whip”. They previously said the party expects all elected representatives to “always conduct themselves in an open and transparent way” and it would “look into the issue”.
This comes only a few days after an action group published a spreadsheet containing around 30 comments allegedly made anonymously by Cllr Milsom on posts discussing the controversial plans for Greenbelt development across the city.
Earlier this week, the S35 Community Action Group, behind the Save Chapeltown, Ecclesfield and Grenoside’s Green Belt campaign, released the comments of Cllr Ruth Milsom, who had previously admitted to commenting anonymously on posts about the Greenbelt developments in Sheffield.
In the spreadsheet sent to the LDRS, the group included at least 29 comments they identified as belonging to Cllr Milsom, posted between May 8 and July 15.
In a Facebook post accompanying the document, which can be found on the group’s website, the campaigners said: “Were you unknowingly influenced by anonymous posts about the Sheffield Local Plan?
“Between May and July, a councillor anonymously posted potentially misleading comments on our community Facebook page, which may have shaped opinions, while anonymising their identity.
“This councillor has since apologised but if any of those posts swayed you, or just made you pause to think, you deserve the full story.”
According to the spreadsheet, Cllr Milsom was very supportive of the Greenbelt development for a number of reasons — mostly because of the Local Plan — while also attacking the opposition.
In one comment from early May, she apparently wrote: “What were the Liberal Democrats’ suggestions for other sites where the additional housing can get built?
“They say they fully recognise the need for more housing then just vote against building any. What is their plan?
“If they get control of the council what is their plan then? If they succeed in blocking the entire Sheffield Local Plan from being adopted, that will be disastrous and totally irresponsible.
“We want control of where things are built for the next 15 years. If we don’t have a Local Plan, it’s just a free for all, with no power for the Planning Committee to reject unsuitable developments.
“I don’t think they are acting responsibly in this. It’s a difficult debate but every generation has faced decisions like this and I don’t think they are helping by trying to send the Local Plan down the pan.”
In another comment, Cllr Milsom apparently said that while the Liberal Democrats were irresponsible, people are saying Labour and Green councillors should be voted out for supporting the Greenbelt developments.
She, anonymously, wrote: “But they’re actually the ones thinking of the more massive problem Sheffield will have if the Local Plan is delayed or not adopted.”
On other occasions, she apparently attempted to defend Cllr Tom Hunt, other Sheffield City councillors, and Penistone and Stocksbridge MP Marie Tidball in comments aimed at countering criticism of them and their intentions.
She, a serving councillor at Town Hall, at one point claimed she knew “a number of councillors and council officers/employees” who she said “without exception they do care, very deeply”.
In one comment, responding to someone, she was said to write — as a serving councillor of the Labour Party — that she “doubt very much Tom Hunt Sheffield Labour councillor and the leader of the council or any other councillor drew up the longlist and then the shortlist of the greenbelt sites for potential release”.
In mid-July, the S35 Community Action Group — which runs the Save Chapeltown, Ecclesfield and Grenoside’s Green Belt campaign — posted on Facebook that one of the anonymous accounts engaging in Greenbelt discussions belonged to a sitting Sheffield City councillor.
The group asked the councillor to come forward, and Cllr Milsom did so before a deadline set by the campaigners.
She later apologised and, in a lengthy post, explained that she had joined the group out of concern about “a degree of confusion around some aspects” when news first broke regarding the Greenbelt requirements tied to the Local Plan.
She then said: “I wanted to help in ensuring that people were properly equipped with facts to participate in the formal consultation.”
Cllr Milsom added that she felt more connected to the group’s campaign because: “I see your upset and anger.”
She said she had realised that posting anonymously “is not good in certain respects”.
Cllr Milsom said she had wanted to join the group as a concerned person rather than with the “councillor hat” on, but she realised that it is not possible to separate the two entirely.
Cllr Milsom added: “I realise that it probably looks like a cowardly or dishonest choice not to post under my name. Admins of Facebook groups take the important decision of whether or not to allow anonymous posting.
“I have posted behind that anonymous shield because I thought it would allow me to contribute more freely.”
Following the publication of the comments attributed to her, the LDRS approached Cllr Milsom to confirm or deny whether she made those listed in the spreadsheet.
The LDRS approached Sheffield City Council for a statement regarding whether any complaints had been made about Cllr Milsom in relation to SCC’s code of conduct for councillors and, if so, what the nature of those complaints were.
In response, Robert Parkin, Assistant Director of Legal and Governance at Sheffield City Council, said: “In line with Council protocol, any complaints must be handled in the strictest confidence and we are not able to comment further.”
Cllr Ruth Milsom was also approached for a comment but she failed to respond.