'One of a kind' Northamptonshire unitary council boss to leave
Anna Earnshaw came to West Northamptonshire Council from the outsourcing company, Capita, where she managed partnerships with local authorities.She joined Northamptonshire County Council in 2016 and became its deputy chief executive in 2020.At the time, the council was effectively going bankrupt and central government decided to abolish the authority and seven other councils across Northamptonshire.Ms Earnshaw was chosen to be chief executive of the new West Northamptonshire Council - the fifth largest unitary in the country - which was under Conservative control until Reform UK took over the reins in May.
She said: "It has been an absolute privilege serving west Northamptonshire's communities and I'm extremely proud of everything we have achieved together."Having made my decision to leave on a personal level some time ago, it was important to me to support our new administration through their first months in office."She added that leaving behind "dedicated" council colleagues had made her decision to leave "so difficult" but "the time is now right personally for me to do new things".
The leader of the council, Mark Arnull, said: "Anna really is one of a kind in local government and an excellent, dedicated public servant."The leader of the Conservative opposition, Dan Lister, said: "She has been a hardworking and highly capable chief executive, respected by members and officers alike."
Sally Keeble, the leader of the Labour group, said Ms Earnshaw had seen the authority "through from its earliest, shadow days, and through unprecedented financial and political upheavals, with great skill. "For the Liberal Democrat group, Jonathan Harris said Ms Earnshaw's departure was the second senior-level resignation by a women since May's election, coming after the departure of assistant chief executive Rebecca Purnell in July.He added: "Now, the council faces a period of uncertainty along with an inexperienced administration."Anna has played a pivotal role in supporting the council through its transition to a unitary authority."
Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Police used ‘Orwellian' powers to gag firefighter in free speech row
Police used 'Orwellian' powers to gag a firefighter and prevent him revealing he had been arrested after posting online messages criticising his bosses. Staffordshire Police told Robert Moss that his right to 'freedom of expression' had to be 'limited to maintain public safety and order' following his arrest on suspicion of malicious communications. But a special bail hearing at Newcastle-Under-Lyme magistrates' court overturned the 'gagging clause' amid fears officers were behaving as if they lived in a 'police state'. Now Mr Moss, who was never charged with a crime but had his home raided, said he believes 'heavy-handed' police were 'weaponised' to silence him. It is the latest example of claims that some police forces are using draconian powers to curtail freedom of speech. Mr Moss, 56, had worked for the Staffordshire fire and rescue service for 28 years before being sacked in 2021, shortly after he became the Fire Brigade Union's secretary for the county. Two years later, an employment tribunal found the service had unfairly dismissed him from his job on the grounds of capability. The father-of-one continued to offer advice to firefighters in a private Facebook group where he made a number of comments that were critical of the fire service's management. Speaking from his home in Newcastle-Under-Lyme, Mr Moss insisted the messages, seen by The Telegraph, were 'anodyne' and 'certainly not criminal'. After a 7am police raid in July in which officers seized two telephones, an iPad and computer, Mr Moss, a former Labour councillor, said he felt like a criminal. He was given bail with six conditions, which included prohibitions on posting any communication, online or otherwise, relating to the county's fire service, its chief and deputy chief fire officers, and posting messages relating to the police investigation. Tom Beardsworth, a barrister hired by the Free Speech Union (FSU), told the court Mr Moss was a man of good character who should have been dealt with by a voluntary interview rather than a police raid. Although he did not challenge four of the bail conditions, which prevented Mr Moss from contacting or communicating with Rob Barber, the Staffordshire fire chief officer, and his deputy Glynn Luznyj, Mr Beardsworth argued that two conditions limited his freedom of speech. 'A deep threat to the right of free expression' He told magistrates: 'These allow the police to arrest and detain someone and then when they are released prevent them from telling others what had happened with the threat of further arrest if they do not comply. 'We do not live in a police state and Mr Moss should have every right to speak about his arrest. 'For the police to prohibit an arrested person from speaking about their arrest is extraordinary and Orwellian, and it is not hyperbole to put it in those terms. 'This is a deep threat to the right of free expression and it engages real matters of high principle.' He quoted the College of Policing guidance on 'pre-charge bail', which said conditions should only be imposed where necessary, and referred to a police briefing note that said the conditions were 'limiting' freedom of expression to 'maintain public health and order'. DC Isobel Holliday, the arresting officer, insisted the bail conditions were 'proportionate' because Mr Moss's posts had been 'malicious and reckless', denying that requiring him not to talk about the fire service until a September bail hearing was 'unnecessary' and 'gagging'. Paul Tabinor, the chairman of the magistrates' bench, ruled that Mr Moss could post messages about the fire service and scrapped the ban on him making any posts relating to the police investigation. Mr Moss said: 'I feel strongly that under a joint police and fire commissioner the police and fire services are hand-in-glove and the fire service had weaponised the police to silence me. 'I was a critic of Staffordshire fire service and I had been gagged from saying anything about individuals there, the service itself and my arrest. That is a breach of my human rights.' Sam Armstrong, the FSU's legislative affairs director, said: 'In the more than 4,000 cases the Free Speech Union has handled, this is amongst the most egregious abuses of state power we have encountered. 'Robert's comments were not crimes, his arrest was not lawful and the police have been acting like the Stasi, not a constabulary. Staffordshire Police's chief constable must urgently end this investigation and apologise to Mr Moss before he finds himself writing an even bigger cheque than he already will have to.' A spokesman for Staffordshire Police said: 'We arrested a 56-year-old man, from Newcastle-under-Lyme, on Tuesday 8 July, on suspicion of harassment without violence, sending communication/article of an indecent/offensive nature and knowingly/recklessly obtain or disable personal data without consent of the controller. The man has been released on conditional bail as our enquiries continue.' A Staffordshire Fire and Rescue spokesman said it would be inappropriate to comment while legal proceedings are active. It's not against the law to criticise someone in authority. Not yet, anyway By Lord Young On the face of it, Staffordshire Police's efforts to gag a critic of the Staffordshire fire and rescue service are quite shocking. Robert Moss, a former firefighter and Labour councillor, was arrested last month under suspicion of having committed an offence under the Malicious Communications Act. That in itself was quite heavy-handed, given that his alleged 'crime' was to have criticised the fire service's management in a private Facebook chat. But the really sinister thing – which Mr Moss's barrister describes as 'Orwellian' – was that his bail conditions included a gagging order, stopping him from saying anything more about his former employer, either online or offline. Thankfully, with the help of the Free Speech Union (FSU), the organisation I run, he managed to get this order removed and he's now free to say what he thinks about his former employer. He is still under investigation, but I'd be amazed if he's charged with a criminal offence, given that it's not against the law in this country to criticise someone in authority. Not yet, anyway. The reason I'm not shocked by this case is because it fits a pattern of the police over-reacting to social media posts, often at the behest of people who feel they've been unfairly criticised. Earlier this year, the FSU helped Julian Foulkes, a retired special constable who had his home in Kent raided by six police officers after he got into a spat with a pro-Palestinian activist on X. After commenting on the 71 year-old's 'Brexity' books, the officers arrested him, confiscated his electronic devices, took him to the station in handcuffs, locked him in a cell for eight hours, then interviewed him under suspicion of having committed a Malicious Communications Act offence, only releasing him after he agreed to accept a caution. With the FSU's help, Mr Foulkes managed to secure a pay-out of £20,000 from Kent Police for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, as well as an apology from the Chief Constable. We are trying to get comparable compensation from Hertfordshire Police for the arrest of Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine, two parents whose home was raided by six officers from Hertfordshire Police following 'disparaging' comments in a WhatsApp group about the management of their child's school, as well as critical emails they'd sent to the headteacher. They were detained in front of their young daughter before being fingerprinted, searched and left in a police cell for eight hours. Like Robert Moss, they were interviewed under suspicion of having committed a Malicious Communications Act offence. According to custody data obtained by The Times, the police are currently arresting more than 30 people a day over 'offensive' posts on social media and other platforms. In total, police are detaining around 12,000 people a year under suspicion of committing just two speech offences, up from about 5,500 in 2017. At the FSU, we received a surge in requests for help following the investigation into Allison Pearson for a year-old tweet and the imprisonment of Lucy Connolly, who wrongly blamed the murder of three schoolgirls in Southport on an illegal immigrant in an intemperate social media post. Several dozen people have been prosecuted for various speech offences in connection with the Southport attacks, including one man who spent eight weeks in jail for sharing a meme suggesting a link between migrants and knife crime, a case that was singled out in the US State Department's recent report on the erosion of free speech in Britain. Of the people who are arrested for speech offences, only a fraction end up being convicted. For instance, in 2023 fewer people were convicted for breaching section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act and section 127 of the Communications Act than in 2017, when the number of arrests was much lower. This suggests the police are being over-zealous in their pursuit of thought criminals, with the data revealing that only about one in 20 of those arrested under suspicion of committing these two offences end up being sentenced. But that's scant comfort to those who find themselves under police investigation, particularly when the bail conditions interfere with their right to freedom of expression. In many cases, when the police decide to take no further action the nightmare isn't over since the episode is then logged as a 'non-crime hate incident', with the FSU estimating that more than a quarter of a million of these have been recorded since 2014. These can show up on enhanced criminal record checks, preventing people getting jobs as teachers or carers or securing a firearms licence. It's becoming increasingly clear that the police need a 'reset' when it comes to online speech offences. They should stop policing our tweets and focus on policing our streets.
The Sun
25 minutes ago
- The Sun
High street chain with 160 stores launches NEW closing down sales after already shutting 38 shops
A HIGH street chain with 160 stores has launched a new closing down sale. Clintons, the card retailer, will close its branch in Hartlepool's Middleton Grange Shopping Centre today, August 16. 1 To shift stock before it closes for good, the chain has launched a closing down sale and has slashed prices by 30%. The move has left shoppers heartbroken, with one sharing: "Shocking, our poor town has gone down the nick." And another described the area as a "ghost town". Meanwhile, a third added: "Well the town won't be worth a light!". It comes as two more stores are set to leave the shopping centre including Holland & Barrett and River Island. The fashion brand will exit in January as part of a major restructuring, which will see at least 33 stores close. As for Clintons, the chain closed 38 stores in the last financial year, which resulted in 300 job losses. The chain has also launched a closing down sale at is branch in Eldon Sqaure shopping centre in Newcastle. But the branch is reportedly set to relocate to another area of the shopping centre in the coming months. The Sun has contacted Clintons for comment. Major card chain with 163 shops launches closing down sales ahead of shutting its doors for good More recently, its Keighley, West Yorkshire store closed its doors on June 14. And another site in Rugby Central is also due to close but an exact date is yet to be confirmed. The chain, which was acquired by Pillarbox Designs also closed a branch in Andover in Hampshire closed in April. Clintons revealed it returned to profit in April this year following a period of distress. The chain made a pre-tax profit of £8million up from £5.3million pre-tax loss it posted in the previous year. A statement from Clintons read: "The company has continued to close loss-making stores and the portfolio of retail stores is now down to approximately 170 stores. "The high street continues to be unpredictable and the company is seeing reduced footfall in the stores year on year. "The company continues to monitor the performance of the existing estate and to close the poor performing stores, which, whilst impacting on turnover, should improve profitability moving forwards." It comes amid a troubling time for UK's retail sector. Just this week, . All outlets will remain across the UK as it mulls "the best possible path forward". Elsewhere, River Island will close 33 stores across the UK as part of a major restructuring plan. The plan is aimed at balancing the retailer's books and writing off its debt as it struggles to stay afloat. Elsewhere, New Look has also closed over a dozen stores this year and its entire estate in Ireland, which consisted of 26 sites. RETAIL PAIN IN 2025 The British Retail Consortium has predicted that the Treasury's hike to employer NICs will cost the retail sector £2.3billion. Research by the British Chambers of Commerce shows that more than half of companies plan to raise prices by early April. A survey of more than 4,800 firms found that 55% expect prices to increase in the next three months, up from 39% in a similar poll conducted in the latter half of 2024. Three-quarters of companies cited the cost of employing people as their primary financial pressure. The Centre for Retail Research (CRR) has also warned that around 17,350 retail sites are expected to shut down this year. It comes on the back of a tough 2024 when 13,000 shops closed their doors for good, already a 28% increase on the previous year. Professor Joshua Bamfield, director of the CRR said: "The results for 2024 show that although the outcomes for store closures overall were not as poor as in either 2020 or 2022, they are still disconcerting, with worse set to come in 2025." Professor Bamfield has also warned of a bleak outlook for 2025, predicting that as many as 202,000 jobs could be lost in the sector. "By increasing both the costs of running stores and the costs on each consumer's household it is highly likely that we will see retail job losses eclipse the height of the pandemic in 2020."
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Public think Labour will use new online laws for censorship
New laws will be used by the Government to censor content posted online, a majority of the public believe. There is strong backing for the aims of the Online Safety Act to protect children from online harms but deep scepticism about the consequences for people's privacy and whether it will work in practice, a major poll of more than 2,000 adults by Ipsos has revealed. While 69 per cent supported age verification for platforms hosting harmful content, half of those polled were not confident it will stop under-18s accessing it, according to the poll, published exclusively today by The Telegraph. More than six in 10 (61 per cent) believe the Act will lead to personal data being compromised and a similar proportion (58 per cent) expected increased government censorship. More than four in 10 say it will threaten free speech online. It follows The Telegraph's disclosure of a secretive 'spy' unit which has been used by the Government to target social media posts criticising migrant hotels and 'two tier policing'. Last week the US state department criticised the Online Safety Act over its potential impact on free speech as it warned the British Government had 'repeatedly intervened to chill speech' after the Southport attack. The Act also sparked a political row after Reform UK leader Nigel Farage pledged to repeal the Act as a threat to free speech, prompting Labour to accuse him of being on the side of sex offenders like Jimmy Savile. Keiran Pedley, Ipsos director of UK politics, said the poll exposed a 'significant paradox in public opinion'. 'While there is a clear and broad desire to protect children online, reflected in the strong support for age verification, this is matched by deep-seated scepticism about whether the Act can deliver on its promises,' he said. 'Data breaches and the potential for censorship are highlighted, as the public doubt these measures will be effective against tech-savvy young people. This creates a major challenge for platform operators and regulator, Ofcom: how to implement robust age assurance systems that the public actually trusts and is willing to use.' Nearly half (48 per cent) believe the Act will enable parents to better protect their children from online harms and 46 per cent said it will enable adults to more easily block inappropriate material. However, 44 per cent believe it will limit free speech online, against 40 per cent who do not. A similar proportion (43 per cent) fear it will limit adults' access to 'non-harmful' information online. Half of those polled (48 per cent) said they would be likely to submit proof of age to access a platform or website, against 30 per cent who would not. However, this dropped to 14 per cent for porn sites and 19 per cent for dating apps. More than half (56 per cent) were comfortable with using their email as proof of age but the public drew a line at financial information, with fewer than one in five saying they would use a credit card or banking information. Almost seven in 10 Britons (69 per cent) believed it would be easy for children and young people to get around safeguarding procedures by social media platforms. More than half (51 per cent) feared that it would lead to children using less safe parts of the internet such as the dark web. Nearly a quarter (24 per cent) admitted that they used a VPN when browsing the internet, a technology that enables users to encrypt their communications and hide their IP address. A similar proportion (22 per cent) said they had considered or downloaded a VPN since the introduction of the Online Safety Act. Despite this, four in 10 (40 per cent) believed the Act would prevent children and under 18s from seeing illegal or harmful material, although 52 per cent did not believe it would. While 37 per cent believed the legislation would make platforms and websites remove harmful and illegal content, 51 per cent did not.
