Cracks - Still Nothing Options

[Simon Kirby]

Latest on the cracks snafu.

£85,000 spent, only £6,000 of which is on repairs, and the council only have a contingency of £10,000 for all further repairs.

"Mr Swift-Hook said that was still not clear whether the hydrogeological report or any of the other investigations will ever be made public."

This nonsense has gone on long enough, it's time to publish the reports. In a recent Freedom of Information request the Council would not even disclose the confidentiality agreement which they claim prevents them from disclosing the reports. The agreement itself can't possibly be classified - the Council have already told us what it is supposed to say. The only reason I can imagine for the Council withholding the confidentiality agreement is that it doesn't say what they claim, or it simply doesn't exist. Whether or not the council have mismanaged the cracks debacle, their commitment to open and accountable government is a miserable failure, and that is always a bad sign.

[On the edge]

I think we'd be justified in assuming that the report does not support the council's case. After all, if it did, they'd publish and be confident of winning any action they chose to commence. This is a farce, it would be very amusing if we were we not paying so much.

[Simon Kirby]

I think we'd be justified in assuming that the report does not support the council's case. After all, if it did, they'd publish and be confident of winning any action they chose to commence. This is a farce, it would be very amusing if we were we not paying so much.

Yes OtE, I agree. As the FoI request details, the story about the confidentiality agreement came out a very long time after the reports were written and it's implausible that the council had this confidentiality agreement and just didn't mention it when the failure to publish the reports was causing such controversy. It does point to the reports not supporting the council's case, and it's just this kind of mismanagement that open government is supposed to prevent.

[blackdog]

Has anyone tried an FOI request on the lines of 'does the hydrological report support the council's case for compensation' as opposed to 'please let me have a copy of the report'?

[Cognosco]

Latest on the cracks snafu.

£85,000 spent, only £6,000 of which is on repairs, and the council only have a contingency of £10,000 for all further repairs.

"Mr Swift-Hook said that was still not clear whether the hydrogeological report or any of the other investigations will ever be made public."

This nonsense has gone on long enough, it's time to publish the reports. In a recent Freedom of Information request the Council would not even disclose the confidentiality agreement which they claim prevents them from disclosing the reports. The agreement itself can't possibly be classified - the Council have already told us what it is supposed to say. The only reason I can imagine for the Council withholding the confidentiality agreement is that it doesn't say what they claim, or it simply doesn't exist. Whether or not the council have mismanaged the cracks debacle, their commitment to open and accountable government is a miserable failure, and that is always a bad sign.

A well argued case but still non answers supplied by our, experts at giving non answer, council.
As suspected by many others the Council are in the smelly stuff and are now just praying it will all go quietly away, as usual, and keeping stum.
I am only surprised they did not answer No No No Yes!
I think this just confirms that there is something rotten in the Borough of Newbury?

[Andy Capp]

Yes OtE, I agree. As the FoI request details, the story about the confidentiality agreement came out a very long time after the reports were written and it's implausible that the council had this confidentiality agreement and just didn't mention it when the failure to publish the reports was causing such controversy. It does point to the reports not supporting the council's case, and it's just this kind of mismanagement that open government is supposed to prevent.

What don't get if this version is correct, is why didn't the council, realising they had weak evidence, just not say so? They could have easily just said 'we have spent £x and the evidence we have is not strong enough to merit any more expense, please direct all enquiries to WBC'.

[Lolly]

What I don't understand is how the Town Council can refuse the confidentiality agreement saying that it too was provided in confidence.

"Point 6 - The confidentially requirement was received from the third party
but we are withholding since we consider that the exemption under the
Freedom of Information Act (2000) Section 41 – Information provided in confidence" - applies to it.

[Cognosco]

What I don't understand is how the Town Council can refuse the confidentiality agreement saying that it too was provided in confidence.

"Point 6 - The confidentially requirement was received from the third party
but we are withholding since we consider that the exemption under the
Freedom of Information Act (2000) Section 41 – Information provided in confidence" - applies to it.

Oh dear I feel another couple of Vexatious Complainant notices are about to be issued?

Lolly please don't expect any replies as NTC Don't do replies; at least not any that anyone can understand!

I just don't understand why they won't just throw their hands up and admit we have gaffed again........ or is there an election over the horizon?

[Andy Capp]

This nonsense has gone on long enough, it's time to publish the reports. In a recent Freedom of Information request the Council would not even disclose the confidentiality agreement which they claim prevents them from disclosing the reports.

I have a feeling that Mark Knight is dancing dangerously close to you know what!

[Cognosco]

I have a feeling that Mark Knight is dancing dangerously close to you know what!

I hope he is not an allotment tenant?

[Simon Kirby]

Has anyone tried an FOI request on the lines of 'does the hydrological report support the council's case for compensation' as opposed to 'please let me have a copy of the report'?

FoI gives you a right (subject to some exceptions) to "information", and that includes documents and other recorded data, but that information has to already exist. The council will of course answer "yes" to the question you pose, and if they're right then fine, what what if they are mistaken or lying. It is necessary to put into the public domain all the information to allow the public to engage meaningfully with this issue and decide for themselves.

[Simon Kirby]

What I don't understand is how the Town Council can refuse the confidentiality agreement saying that it too was provided in confidence.

"Point 6 - The confidentially requirement was received from the third party
but we are withholding since we consider that the exemption under the
Freedom of Information Act (2000) Section 41 – Information provided in confidence" - applies to it.

I know, it's absurd. It's necessary to see the agreement now just to understand why the council don't want to disclose it. The most obvious reason is that they have something to hide, but it's also entirely possible that they simply don't believe that their parishioners should be so presumptuous as to question their authority.

[Simon Kirby]

What don't get if this version is correct, is why didn't the council, realising they had weak evidence, just not say so? They could have easily just said 'we have spent £x and the evidence we have is not strong enough to merit any more expense, please direct all enquiries to WBC'.

It's entirely possible that the council's actions are completely supported by the evidence and that the decision to withhold the reports is just irrational. It's also possible that from the first report it was clear that there wasn't the necessary evidence to support their position but that through some irrational fear of failure they felt unable to face that reality and so just ploughed on, and the further on they went the more they had to hide, and the more they had to hide the further on they had to go. We need to see the reports to be able to decide for ourselves which it is.

[On the edge]

For the Council. This looks like a catch 22 situation. If they win, their damages are highly likely to be far less than the cost of restoring Victoria Park, no matter what larding is included in the costs - you never get all your legal fees back. All pretty pointless really. Let's face it, had it been published at the time, hidden away on their web site, I suspect very few of us would have bothered to read it. All this from the party of 'open government'!!!

[On the edge]

I hope he is not an allotment tenant?

Well being banned from using other Council facilities might mean an allotment would be a suitable final resting place...!

[Andy Capp]

I know, it's absurd. It's necessary to see the agreement now just to understand why the council don't want to disclose it. The most obvious reason is that they have something to hide, but it's also entirely possible that they simply don't believe that their parishioners should be so presumptuous as to question their authority.

Or more likely they have been advised by a legal adviser not to.

What I don't understand is why this isn't for WBC? What are they doing allowing a tin pot council take on the big boys? Come to think of it, didn't someone from WBC say they would help NTC expedite the conclusion?

[On the edge]

Or more likely they have been advised by a legal adviser not to.

What I don't understand is why this isn't for WBC? What are they doing allowing a tin pot council take on the big boys? Come to think of it, didn't someone from WBC say they would help NTC expedite the conclusion?

Again, hiding the report could well suggest that WBC actually DID give advice, which wasn't taken! The trouble here being that the outcome is not quite so obvious as the armchair pundits suspected. Sadly, not publishing means it that it looks as if the report was commissioned simply to satisfy the vanity of the Town Council.

[Andy Capp]

Can confidentiality agreements be challenged when they concern a public body?

[On the edge]

Can confidentiality agreements be challenged when they concern a public body?

Yes. In practice, there are very few real reasons why a public authority could legitimately sign a confidentiality agreement. So the public interest test would be applied when challenged. In this case, what purpose can the confidentiality agreement actually serve?

[Andy Capp]

My guess then is that the developer's report was only going to be handed over if the council would sign an agreement, or by court order. What does surprises me is that something like that report isn't with Building Control (or whoever) anyway! I can't see this as NTC's battle to fight.

[Exhausted]

What does surprises me is that something like that report isn't with Building Control (or whoever) anyway! I can't see this as NTC's battle to fight.

I have to agree with this. The development was approved by WBC, they have all the trained staff, engineers and building surveyors so must carry some if not all the responsibility for the way the buildings were erected and for ensuring that the regulations have been adhered to. So, why has this been left to a group of amateurs to resolve. WBC fell over backwards to accommodate everything that Standard Life and their developer wanted even allowing major changes so that they could squeeze in a further outlet, John Lewis. Some body, either WBC or Thames Water allowed the extraction of water and the construction of the pipelines into the Kennet, where is their participation..
There were so many underhand deals perpetrated by our council that one has to wonder if it's being kept under wraps to protect themselves from further revelations. Remember Pam letting the cat out of the bag over parking income, the sale of the site for a pound, the way some of the tenants and owners of properties were treated, the nodding through of the major design change for John Lewis, the climb down on the amount of low cost housing and the kickback that WBC had to pay. because of it...... and so on.

[On the edge]

There is, of course, a massively unpopular reason. That is, the report suggests that the pumping did not cause, or was only a minor contributor to the problems in Victoria Park.

[Andy Capp]

There is, of course, a massively unpopular reason. That is, the report suggests that the pumping did not cause, or was only a minor contributor to the problems in Victoria Park.

That doesn't explain WBC reticence, and even if true, what fool, or fools would pursue this: costing the public purse tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees. My guess is that the dewatering has contributed, but the argument rests on how much. If I were the owner and my nose was clean, I'd publish.

[Cognosco]

I have to agree with this. The development was approved by WBC, they have all the trained staff, engineers and building surveyors so must carry some if not all the responsibility for the way the buildings were erected and for ensuring that the regulations have been adhered to. So, why has this been left to a group of amateurs to resolve. WBC fell over backwards to accommodate everything that Standard Life and their developer wanted even allowing major changes so that they could squeeze in a further outlet, John Lewis. Some body, either WBC or Thames Water allowed the extraction of water and the construction of the pipelines into the Kennet, where is their participation..
There were so many underhand deals perpetrated by our council that one has to wonder if it's being kept under wraps to protect themselves from further revelations. Remember Pam letting the cat out of the bag over parking income, the sale of the site for a pound, the way some of the tenants and owners of properties were treated, the nodding through of the major design change for John Lewis, the climb down on the amount of low cost housing and the kickback that WBC had to pay. because of it...... and so on.

Agree but what have the two local authorities got to worry about? Just cast minds back over the last few years? CCTV, Allotmentgate, Parkway, etc. They have not been held to account by ratepayers for all the snafu's therefore they are carrying on in the same tradition.......ignore the outcry it is only a few complainers and nothing will come of the complaints. Unfortunately it always ends up costing ratepayers money. Until the precept payers take it upon themselves to complain in large numbers and vociferously then things will not change?

There is no logical reason that I can see of for withholding the Hydrological Survey?

[dannyboy]

There is, of course, a massively unpopular reason. That is, the report suggests that the pumping did not cause, or was only a minor contributor to the problems in Victoria Park.

I seem to remember making that assertion when the cracks first started appearing.


Problem was there were calls for public enquiries, halts to Constain's construction, general wailing & chest beating. Poor old NTC went with the consensus, the fools........

[dannyboy]

There is no logical reason that I can see of for withholding the Hydrological Survey?

probably not - but it seems there is a good legal one.....

[Andy Capp]

I seem to remember making that assertion when the cracks first started appearing. Problem was there were calls for public enquiries, halts to Constain's construction, general wailing & chest beating. Poor old NTC went with the consensus, the fools........

Looking in to it wasn't foolish, keeping going on thin evidence is.

[dannyboy]

Looking it to it wasn't foolish, keeping going on thin evidence is.

do you know something we don't?

[Simon Kirby]

Looking it to it wasn't foolish, keeping going on thin evidence is.

I agree. Looking into it was prudent and entirely appropriate, but if the evidence didn't support further investigations and all those legal expenses then that was money poorly spent. Thing is we're denied the reports and so we can't make an informed opinion, and faced with the council's apparently unsupportable decision not to disclose the reports we're left guessing.

[Andy Capp]

do you know something we don't?

There is s strong possibility of that, but I'm not sure that it has anything to do with this thread.

[Simon Kirby]

There is no logical reason that I can see of for withholding the Hydrological Survey?

probably not - but it seems there is a good legal one.....

That's yet to be seen. Actually it looks like the council doesn't have a good case for holding onto the reports, so if the complaint is made the Information Commissioner may end up ordering the Council to disclose the reports, though that process takes a while to run.

I think the Council needs to take some good advice on the requirements of open government and then publish the findings. Doing this would engage with the legitimate concerns of the precept payers, and if they acknowledge any problems the review turns up it will restore some considerable confidence in the council's commitment to open and accountable government. Ignoring the criticism will just compound their problems.

They could engage someone like this to critique their handling of the request.

[MontyPython]

I seem to remember making that assertion when the cracks first started appearing.


Problem was there were calls for public enquiries, halts to Constain's construction, general wailing & chest beating. Poor old NTC went with the consensus, the fools........

We asked for action to be taken - and part of that was the survey that , as taxpayers, we have funded. All we have asked for is for either :

1) Action be taken against the developer (as money has been spent on lawyers one must presume there is a case)

or

2) We see the results of the survey we funded (If Costain provided additional info that we did not fund this element may be withheld)

In the case of 2 though we should be told why NTC proceeded on further costly legal expenditure and under whose advice this deemed prudent.

Once one of the above has been provided we will cease to complain on the issue, save that if on being told there was no case, those of us who requested action (myself included) will apologise for the waste of money to those who wanted no survey.

Not really a difficult request even for NTC!

[Simon Kirby]

We asked for action to be taken - and part of that was the survey that , as taxpayers, we have funded. All we have asked for is for either :

1) Action be taken against the developer (as money has been spent on lawyers one must presume there is a case)

or

2) We see the results of the survey we funded (If Costain provided additional info that we did not fund this element may be withheld)

In the case of 2 though we should be told why NTC proceeded on further costly legal expenditure and under whose advice this deemed prudent.

Once one of the above has been provided we will cease to complain on the issue, save that if on being told there was no case, those of us who requested action (myself included) will apologise for the waste of money to those who wanted no survey.

Not really a difficult request even for NTC!

Well put.

[On the edge]

I seem to remember making that assertion when the cracks first started appearing.


Problem was there were calls for public enquiries, halts to Constain's construction, general wailing & chest beating. Poor old NTC went with the consensus, the fools........

You weren't the only one, not by a long chalk. The consensus was theirs!

[Cognosco]

I seem to remember making that assertion when the cracks first started appearing.


Problem was there were calls for public enquiries, halts to Constain's construction, general wailing & chest beating. Poor old NTC went with the consensus, the fools........

Are you trying to imply that NTC listens to precept payers.......go and wash your mouth out!

[dannyboy]

Are you trying to imply that NTC listens to precept payers.......go and wash your mouth out!

So funny.

You're not even happy when they do.

[MontyPython]

You're not even happy when they do.

But they haven't yet that's the problem - but as usual you seem to blind to see it!

So far they have gone to all the expenditure but not given us the results either in compensation from the developer or a published report from the experts that our money has funded.

[Cognosco]

So funny.

You're not even happy when they do.

I would be happy if they did get something correct for a change, even if it was accidentally!
Or even if they apologised for everything they got wrong......but of course they would not do that would they....goes against the training that you council employees receive eh?

[dannyboy]

But they haven't yet that's the problem - but as usual you seem to blind to see it!

So far they have gone to all the expenditure but not given us the results either in compensation from the developer or a published report from the experts that our money has funded.

seems that they did & wasted a shed load of cash trying to prove that Constain were to blame for some cracks appearing.

[Andy Capp]

seems that they did & wasted a shed load of cash trying to prove that Constain were to blame for some cracks appearing.

It's a bit early to be saying that I think, although the outlook doesn't look good.

[MontyPython]

seems that they did & wasted a shed load of cash trying to prove that Constain were to blame for some cracks appearing.

Are you really so stupid that you can't understand the point I am making (perhaps you do work for WBC).

All we are asking for is to see the report we have funded (if Costain are not to blame) or action against Costain or compensation if they are.

[Simon Kirby]

It's a bit early to be saying that I think, although the outlook doesn't look good.

This is really the issue and the point MontyPython is making: we just don't know. The hydrogeological reports can tell us how likely it was that the dewatering damaged the park, and with the costings report from the quantity surveyor we can decide for ourselves whether the damage justified pursuing the case.

If the Information Commissioner agrees with the council that they couldn't disclose the hydrogeological reports and that it wasn't in the public interest to disclose the costings report then fair enough (though I think the council might have made a better fist of justifying the non-disclosure), but if it turns out that the council were unfairly withholding reports which didn't support the council's pursuing of the case then that'll be a serious matter.

[dannyboy]

Are you really so stupid that you can't understand the point I am making (perhaps you do work for WBC).

All we are asking for is to see the report we have funded (if Costain are not to blame) or action against Costain or compensation if they are.

Nah, I'm not that stupid.

NTC should never have bothered getting a report in the first place, as it was bleedin obvious it would be inconclusive.....

that it is confidential is par for the course. I'm surprised you think otherwise.

[On the edge]

This week's free paper from the bin in the Library had a front page spade with Councillor Allen saying he was running out of patience with Costain! So are we Councillor Allen, so are we.

He goes on to say the Council has a strong and robust case and every right both morally and legally to issue instructions.

GET ON WITH IT THEN!

As you feel the case is so good, you can't loose. Let's face it, if if was just one of us little people who'd transgressed, I doubt if our local councils would stay proceedings for very long. So what's the problem?

[Andy Capp]

Nah, I'm not that stupid.

NTC should never have bothered getting a report in the first place, as it was bleedin obvious it would be inconclusive.....

that it is confidential is par for the course. I'm surprised you think otherwise.

Is there not a planning/building/environment authority who would have these type of reports for public record? Surely it is down to the WBC to ensure the environment is not adversely affected buy new developments? Should they not have monitored the situation? Normally it is the 'landlord' that deals with these sort of things? I understand that NTC are simply the 'management'.

[dannyboy]

Is there not a planning/building/environment authority who would have these type of reports for public record? Surely it is down to the WBC to ensure the environment is not adversely affected buy new developments? Should they not have monitored the situation? Normally it is the 'landlord' that deals with these sort of things? I understand that NTC are simply the 'management'.

I'm sure there is.

I'm also pretty sure that the plans to build a ruddy great big housing & commercial development were drawn up with full concern for any environmental impact.

What they won't take into account is the effect of the development + a drought.

[Andy Capp]

I'm sure there is.

I'm also pretty sure that the plans to build a ruddy great big housing & commercial development were drawn up with full concern for any environmental impact.

What they won't take into account is the effect of the development + a drought.

Your assessment has no foundation (pardon the pun) unless you happen to be a geologist of course. That is to say: so what if there was a drought?

My original point is 'they' are obliged to make an environmental assessment. I would have thought a hydrological report would have formed a part of this, bearing-in-mind the area is notoriously 'wet'.

[dannyboy]

Your assessment has no foundation (pardon the pun) unless you happen to be a geologist of course. That is to say: so what if there was a drought?

My original point is 'they' are obliged to make an environmental assessment. I would have thought a hydrological report would have formed a part of this, bearing-in-mind the area is notoriously 'wet'.

So what if there was a drought? You get cracks as the ground dries out.

A hydrological report is a certainty - that why the builders knew they'd need to do some dewatering....

[Cognosco]

So what if there was a drought? You get cracks as the ground dries out.

A hydrological report is a certainty - that why the builders knew they'd need to do some dewatering....

Ah but only the hole they dug for the car park needing de-watering Victoria Park and it's environs did not that is the problem isn't it? If you stop the equivalent of what amounts to a river flowing whatever is downstream will dry out and crack up and alter that environment.

Mind you we have the whole £1.00 profit we made from the sale of the land so perhaps we should be doffing our caps to the benevolent Standard Life? Perhaps you should be posting how ungrateful the plebs of Newbury are?

[dannyboy]

Ah but only the hole they dug for the car park needing de-watering Victoria Park and it's environs did not that is the problem isn't it? If you stop the equivalent of what amounts to a river flowing whatever is downstream will dry out and crack up and alter that environment.

Mind you we have the whole £1.00 profit we made from the sale of the land so perhaps we should be doffing our caps to the benevolent Standard Life? Perhaps you should be posting how ungrateful the plebs of Newbury are?

hence the problem of trying to blame Costain for cracks in Victoria Park.

[Lolly]

Your assessment has no foundation (pardon the pun) unless you happen to be a geologist of course. That is to say: so what if there was a drought?

My original point is 'they' are obliged to make an environmental assessment. I would have thought a hydrological report would have formed a part of this, bearing-in-mind the area is notoriously 'wet'.

I've had a look and there is loads of environmental information with the planning documents which presumably was given careful scrutiny by West Berkshire Council. I haven't gone through to see if there is a hydrological report but it would be too technical for me anyway. Documents are here if anybody fancies trawling through them:

http://planning.westberks.gov.uk/rpp/index...05/02843/FULMAJ

[Andy Capp]

So what if there was a drought? You get cracks as the ground dries out.

Yes, but are you prepared to bet your life savings that the dewatering (or the development itself) had nothing to do with the problems in Vickie Park?

A hydrological report is a certainty - that why the builders knew they'd need to do some dewatering....

So why cannot that be used then? Also, was there any contingency for monitoring the water table during the works? Can it be demonstrated that the water table fell in accordance with the lack of rain and increased sunlight, or not?

[dannyboy]

Yes, but are you prepared to bet your life savings that the dewatering (or the development itself) had nothing to do with the problems in Vickie Park?


So why cannot that be used then? Also, was there any contingency for monitoring the water table during the works? Can it be demonstrated that the water table fell in accordance with the lack of rain and increased sunlight, or not?

I think I have already said, months ago, that the problem is there won't be any unequivocal proof that the dewatering was to blame. For every 'expert' who says it is, there will be one who says it isn't. The only winners will be the lawyers.

[On the edge]

I think I have already said, months ago, that the problem is there won't be any unequivocal proof that the dewatering was to blame. For every 'expert' who says it is, there will be one who says it isn't. The only winners will be the lawyers.

No, you've got that wrong. NTC who have the report are saying very clearly that their case against Costain is rock solid. As our civic leaders, they will be relying on expert advice and guidance, otherwise they couldn't and wouldn't be making such statements. Costain clearly aren't going to hand over the cash until the last moment; who would? So there is absolutely no reason for any delay in starting proceedings is there; what have they got to loose?

[On the edge]

I think I have already said, months ago, that the problem is there won't be any unequivocal proof that the dewatering was to blame. For every 'expert' who says it is, there will be one who says it isn't. The only winners will be the lawyers.

No, you've got that wrong. NTC who have the report are saying very clearly that their case against Costain is rock solid. As our civic leaders, they will be relying on expert advice and guidance, otherwise they couldn't and wouldn't be making such statements. Costain clearly aren't going to hand over the cash until the last moment; who would? So there is absolutely no reason for any delay in starting proceedings is there; what have they got to loose?

[dannyboy]

No, you've got that wrong. NTC who have the report are saying very clearly that their case against Costain is rock solid. As our civic leaders, they will be relying on expert advice and guidance, otherwise they couldn't and wouldn't be making such statements. Costain clearly aren't going to hand over the cash until the last moment; who would? So there is absolutely no reason for any delay in starting proceedings is there; what have they got to loose?

So they are experts all of a sudden are they? If it were so, why are they not in court ?

the whole thing is a total waste of cash.

[Andy Capp]

So they are experts all of a sudden are they? If it were so, why are they not in court? the whole thing is a total waste of cash.

Taking steps to investigate the problem was incumbent on either WBC or NTC, but to pursue it like they have is another matter. Yes, lawyers are getting rich, but then it seems ill-advised of NTC to have continued with this without the backing of WBC, who I am sure were originally behind them on this.

I think it would be quite reasonable of us to ask who decided the strategy regarding the pursuit of all this. If all your opinions are fairly accurate, then someone, or some people are guilty of a rather big balls up.

[Simon Kirby]

So they are experts all of a sudden are they? If it were so, why are they not in court ?

the whole thing is a total waste of cash.

I'm entirely with you here DB, though I think OtE had his tongue in his cheek.

[Nothing Much]

though I think OtE had his tongue in his cheek

Bleedin' ironyists get everwhere.
ce

[On the edge]

though I think OtE had his tongue in his cheek

Bleedin' ironyists get everwhere.
ce

I've been following your lead on the DIY front, but not grouting, just sticking things with strong glue....the smell is lovely......

[Andy Capp]

...

[On the edge]

If they keep quiet long enough everyone will have forgotten about it.....


Just a thought, isn't it rather foolhardy to even contemplate another brand new construction (vis the proposed tea room) no matter how nice on such an apparently unstable site?

[Simon Kirby]

If they keep quiet long enough everyone will have forgotten about it.....


Just a thought, isn't it rather foolhardy to even contemplate another brand new construction (vis the proposed tea room) no matter how nice on such an apparently unstable site?

I think the site's fine, it's the instability of the council that concerns me.

Town Meeting Monday evening, perhaps someone should demand some openness - if you don't mind being smeared as Vexatious.

[Cognosco]

I think the site's fine, it's the instability of the council that concerns me.

Town Meeting Monday evening, perhaps someone should demand some openness - if you don't mind being smeared as Vexatious.

Are you going Simon?

Can you imagine them letting the plebs ask such questions on such a well orchestrated back patting pantomime?

[Simon Kirby]

Are you going Simon?

Fcuk no. I want nothing to do with the tyrants and their corrupt regime, and I don't think anyone else should collaborate with them either, because it just lends credibility to what is a failed organisation.

Can you imagine them letting the plebs ask such questions on such a well orchestrated back patting pantomime?

I can certainly imagine them victimising anyone who should try.

[dannyboy]

I can certainly imagine them victimising anyone who should try.

reminds me of this forum......

[Simon Kirby]

I can certainly imagine them victimising anyone who should try.

reminds me of this forum......

In what way do you feel forumistas are victimised for asking difficult questions?

[pbonnay]

In what way do you feel forumistas are victimised for asking difficult questions?

Well, I do see people victimised on this board, whether or not they post....sometimes with vindictive and unpleasant comments.

A couple of days ago, on another thread, you wished the plague on the houses of people you have had a disagreement with, having weaved your allotment dispute into yet another thread.

Do you really wish great ill on them and their families?

[Simon Kirby]

Well, I do see people victimised on this board, whether or not they post....sometimes with vindictive and unpleasant comments.

A couple of days ago, on another thread, you wished the plague on the houses of people you have had a disagreement with, having weaved your allotment dispute into yet another thread.

Do you really wish great ill on them and their families?

OK, I see that. You feel that I victimise the town council because of the way they have behaved towards me. I'm not going to get into that, so I think I'll just flounce.

[dannyboy]

In what way do you feel forumistas are victimised for asking difficult questions?

You are not that daft Simon that I need to spell it out........

[The Hatter]

Well, I do see people victimised on this board, whether or not they post....sometimes with vindictive and unpleasant comments.

A couple of days ago, on another thread, you wished the plague on the houses of people you have had a disagreement with, having weaved your allotment dispute into yet another thread.

Do you really wish great ill on them and their families?

You must have a very protected life if you think you've detected rudeness or victimisation on this forum it's one of the most gentlemanly I know It seems like a group of old men slapping each other with dead fish. 'A plague of houses' is simply a common term, my boss uses if all the time, because he's too posh to swear

[The Hatter]

You are not that daft Simon that I need to spell it out........

That looks like you have lost your nerve!

[MontyPython]

It seems like a group of old men slapping each other with dead fish.

You're trying to out me aren't you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9SSOWORzw4

[pbonnay]

You must have a very protected life if you think you've detected rudeness or victimisation on this forum it's one of the most gentlemanly I know

Er, my post was a little tongue in cheek and was only highlighting some hypocrisy.

To those who like to misquote Shakespeare & Leviticus I would point to Luke 6:31, "Do unto others...

'A plague of houses' is simply a common term, my boss uses if all the time..

...in objecting to planning applications?

[The Hatter]

Er, my post was a little tongue in cheek and was only highlighting some hypocrisy.

To those who like to misquote Shakespeare & Leviticus I would point to Luke 6:31, "Do unto others...



...in objecting to planning applications?

But of course.

[dannyboy]

That looks like you have lost your nerve!

LOL,

let me see now - this forum is basically the sounding board for a small group of men who in one way or another have lost out against the local council ( parking ticket, planning application, etc etc ) & instead of accepting that & moving on with their lives can't get over the fact that they were wrong, so instead they rant on incessantly & at great length to all & sundry how everything could be better if only they had their way & things were done according to their personal POV, not withstanding the fact that most of the time they are contradictcing themselves.

and woe be tide anyone who should just say - 'get over it' - for in order to negate anything & everything the 'just get over it' person says, in the mind of the few they must be a council stooge, or on the council payroll or just saying it beacuse they have a vested interest, and then the other few get on the band wagon & before you know it another poster has decided this forum isn't worth the bother & were are left with the same few miserable old gits.

this forum is basically about

I am right & I told the council I was right, but they didn't listen ( as they have actually to think about the rights of 35,000 people & not just me but I can't see thet cos I am the centre of my universe ) so now anything & everything that they do must be wrong & I must tell everyone & anyone who will listen that they are WRONG!!!

[dannyboy]

LOL,

let me see now - this forum is basically the sounding board for a small group of men who in one way or another have lost out against the local council ( parking ticket, planning application, etc etc ) & instead of accepting that & moving on with their lives can't get over the fact that they were wrong, so instead they rant on incessantly & at great length to all & sundry how everything could be better if only they had their way & things were done according to their personal POV, not withstanding the fact that most of the time they are contradictcing themselves.

and woe be tide anyone who should just say - 'get over it' - for in order to negate anything & everything the 'just get over it' person says, in the mind of the few they must be a council stooge, or on the council payroll or just saying it beacuse they have a vested interest, and then the other few get on the band wagon & before you know it another poster has decided this forum isn't worth the bother & were are left with the same few miserable old gits.

this forum is basically about

I am right & I told the council I was right, but they didn't listen ( as they have actually to think about the rights of 35,000 people & not just me but I can't see thet cos I am the centre of my universe ) so now anything & everything that they do must be wrong & I must tell everyone & anyone who will listen that they are WRONG!!!

good enough for you?

[dannyboy]

good enough for you?

I say carry on as we are, but just make sure there are websites with forums so we can all gather round and moan about it. The vast majority of people don't care.

[MontyPython]

Well done Dannyboy - showing your inability to understand the English language and what people have posted.

With the exception of Simon and his clear grievance with the council I am unaware of any of the posters who have a direct problem with a planning process or parking ticket. I certainly haven't.

Many including me are not complaining so much about the decisions more the underhand methods and tactics used by those in office who have made or influenced those decisions. Our other grievance is wasting of public money.

[dannyboy]

Well done Dannyboy - showing your inability to understand the English language and what people have posted.

With the exception of Simon and his clear grievance with the council I am unaware of any of the posters who have a direct problem with a planning process or parking ticket. I certainly haven't.

Many including me are not complaining so much about the decisions more the underhand methods and tactics used by those in office who have made or influenced those decisions. Our other grievance is wasting of public money.

LOL, no direct problems - just cos they ain't said so don't make it untrue.


wasting public money - LOL - that isn't how it comes across.

[The Hatter]

LOL,

let me see now - this forum is basically the sounding board for a small group of men who in one way or another have lost out against the local council ( parking ticket, planning application, etc etc ) & instead of accepting that & moving on with their lives can't get over the fact that they were wrong, so instead they rant on incessantly & at great length to all & sundry how everything could be better if only they had their way & things were done according to their personal POV, not withstanding the fact that most of the time they are contradictcing themselves.

and woe be tide anyone who should just say - 'get over it' - for in order to negate anything & everything the 'just get over it' person says, in the mind of the few they must be a council stooge, or on the council payroll or just saying it beacuse they have a vested interest, and then the other few get on the band wagon & before you know it another poster has decided this forum isn't worth the bother & were are left with the same few miserable old gits.

this forum is basically about

I am right & I told the council I was right, but they didn't listen ( as they have actually to think about the rights of 35,000 people & not just me but I can't see thet cos I am the centre of my universe ) so now anything & everything that they do must be wrong & I must tell everyone & anyone who will listen that they are WRONG!!!

Yeah, so what! Lighten up, people moan; they always have. Who do you know who isn't in it for themselves, it's human nature. In a way it's pretty good that people feel they can say they don't believe the bollocks the council comes up with.

[dannyboy]

Yeah, so what! Lighten up, people moan; they always have. Who do you know who isn't in it for themselves, it's human nature. In a way it's pretty good that people feel they can say they don't believe the bollocks the council comes up with.

so what - well you asked so I answered.

yeah but on here it is always dressed up as 'i'm doing it for the gipper'

[On the edge]

Interesting one this. Over the years, I've consistently given FGW a good kicking and Biker1, for whatever reason, has robustly defended them. We are still on the forum and haven't gone elsewhere. Several other services and utilities get the same treatment and have their regular detractors and defenders. However, you are right, it's quite noticeable that our local authorities have very few regular defenders and those there are seem to have very thin skins. That might tell you something.

[Andy Capp]

so what - well you asked so I answered. yeah but on here it is always dressed up as 'i'm doing it for the gipper'

And your 'motives' or inspiration are otherwise altruistic?

What I find so disappointing is that few, if any, people in authority can find the wherewithal to address some of the points made on here.

[dannyboy]

And your 'motives' or inspiration are otherwise altruistic?

What I find so disappointing is that few, if any people in authority can find the wherewithal to address some of the points made on here.

probably because they have better things to do with their time than attempt to reconcile the inconsolable.

altrusitic. I get parking tickets because I flount the rules. Fair cop. I pay up. I don't try & claim that it is the system that is wrong.

when the bollards were taking out a vehicle a month, never once did a single driver have the balls to say - I tried it on & failed. It was always 'the signs werre wrong, the signs were hidden, the signs were hard to understand, the road layout is confusing', etc etc etc.

MP states that he is against wasting public money. Yet I don't remember seeing any comments on the Parkway bridge ticket thread ( except from Spartacus & look where that got him ) saying 'you got caught out, pay the fine'. Instead we get umpteen posts about the legality of the signs, the postition of the signs, the use of the parking ticket tribunal, the evil council making money out of the innocent etc etc.

Personally I can't see the problem. The signs in plain english say that certain vehicles can't use the bridge. End of story. Arguing techincalities over the wording is a far bigger waste of tax payers money - get rid of the tribunal if you really want to save some public money.

[dannyboy]

Interesting one this. Over the years, I've consistently given FGW a good kicking and Biker1, for whatever reason, has robustly defended them. We are still on the forum and haven't gone elsewhere. Several other services and utilities get the same treatment and have their regular detractors and defenders. However, you are right, it's quite noticeable that our local authorities have very few regular defenders and those there are seem to have very thin skins. That might tell you something.

It tells me they have better things to do with their time than argue the toss.

[On the edge]

It tells me they have better things to do with their time than argue the toss.

It tells me that they are simply arrogant, now known as the Maria Miller syndrome.

[dannyboy]

It tells me that they are simply arrogant, now known as the Maria Miller syndrome.

yeah, of course, given the chance to claim dubious expences we'd not......

[Andy Capp]

probably because they have better things to do with their time than attempt to reconcile the inconsolable.

If that is the case, I suggest they should have considered an alternative vacation than politics. There appears at least one that doesn't feel like that, and all power to him. If he can, others can.

altrusitic. I get parking tickets because...

I'm talking about your motives; not others. What motivates you to keep posting similar posts about peoples' complaints on here? Why do you feel the need to continually focus on complainants on this forum?

[dannyboy]

If that is the case, I suggest they should have considered an alternative vacation than politics. There appears at least one that doesn't feel like that, and all power to him. If he can, others can.


I'm talking about your motives; not others. What motivates you to keep posting similar posts about peoples' complaints on here? Why do you feel the need to continually focus on complainants on this forum?

Thats all this forum is about - moaning.

Why do you feel the continous need to post about my posts?

[MontyPython]

Thats all this forum is about - moaning.

Why do you feel the continous need to post about my posts?

We do praise WBC when they do some good, unfortunately that doesn't happen often.

You rarely post any constructive argument and reasoning in your posts, and frequently seem not to display the intelligence to understand the questions raised. I am sure this is not always the case and that you often post just to be obstructive and to deflect criticism from the authorities.

[On the edge]

yeah, of course, given the chance to claim dubious expences we'd not......

No, frankly many 'little people' wouldn't. I still see many examples where people could over claim, but don't out of a sense of personal honour. They also hand in purses and money found on the street. They also work before and after time etc. etc.

I went through and signed a pile of staff expense forms this lunch time. Travel expenses where no matter where the journey had started, the daily usual home to office bit had been deducted, each claim was substantiated by receipts, even for trivial amounts.

The body rots from the head, and given the example of their leaders, the 'everyone is on the make' attitude which pervades public service isn't so surprising.
l

[MontyPython]

yeah, of course, given the chance to claim dubious expences we'd not......

So you would willingly claim expenses you were not really entitled to would you - but someone who misses a sign and therefore commits a minor traffic offence must be punished at all costs. Maybe it's because it pays your wages and dubious expenses

[Andy Capp]

Thats all this forum is about - moaning. Why do you feel the continous need to post about my posts?

Because I have thing about about evasive hypocrites!

[dannyboy]

Because I have thing about about evasive hypocrites!

don't we all.

[dannyboy]

So you would willingly claim expenses you were not really entitled to would you - but someone who misses a sign and therefore commits a minor traffic offence must be punished at all costs. Maybe it's because it pays your wages and dubious expenses

I would.

[dannyboy]

No, frankly many 'little people' wouldn't. I still see many examples where people could over claim, but don't out of a sense of personal honour. They also hand in purses and money found on the street. They also work before and after time etc. etc.

I went through and signed a pile of staff expense forms this lunch time. Travel expenses where no matter where the journey had started, the daily usual home to office bit had been deducted, each claim was substantiated by receipts, even for trivial amounts.

The body rots from the head, and given the example of their leaders, the 'everyone is on the make' attitude which pervades public service isn't so surprising.
l

so predictable.

[Andy Capp]

don't we all.

QED

[On the edge]

so predictable.

Quite, so why do you defend it so much

[dannyboy]

Quite, so why do you defend it so much

err, cos I don't agree with you.

sure there are faults, but there are faults in everything.