Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: GMR Feb 20 2015, 05:44 PM

WBC parking con.

Last year WBC put up signs in Old Bath Road (and in other areas) stating that the free parking – that was – will now be charged. This charging will be by phone (only). They put up signs last year (2014) stating "WARNING On-street charging in operation wef ["With Effect From"] Monday 28 July Pay by phone only". Notice no year date on that sign! There are reasons for this.

After that date – last year (28 July 2014) – charges were put into operation, and people started paying. All fine so far.

Some of you may have noticed that 2014 has gone, but not those signs. Therefore, people are parking there – from outside Newbury – and upon seeing those signs, and reading them as those charges will take effect from 28 July (of this year, as there are no year dates on those signs). I have reported this to WBC and the Traffic wardens that they are misleading, and because of this people will park there without paying (under the belief that they are free to park there until Monday July 28th). Every traffic warden I have spoken to knew this, but I got the impression they are still there to mislead; for the purpose to help increase WBA parking revenue. As I said to two of the Traffic Wardens, "Your job seems to be there to uphold the rules and make sure payment is received to WBC, while WBC's objective is to deceive the honest and hardworking driver for their own profit benefits". They just smiled.

I often go past those signs, and the cars that are parked there, and you are still seeing notices on certain cars for failing to pay. A perfect con.



http://postimage.org/
http://postimage.org/

http://postimage.org/
http://postimage.org/

Posted by: The Hatter Feb 20 2015, 06:34 PM

Perhaps they are trying out a new joke 'How many traffic wardens does it take to remove an out of date sign? Answer 'none because its more than my jobs worth'.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 20 2015, 06:49 PM

OK, being generous, one could say that a hard pressed staff have accidentally overlooked this. So is it really cynical to suggest it's being left because they are on the make. However, given the 'oversights' that keep happening in the department responsible, even those who aren't so jaundiced amongst us would be justified in asking what on earth is going on. It would certainly be worth sending an email to your local WBC Councillor and asking. The Councillor could then ask a WBC manager...if he can find one.

Posted by: GMR Feb 20 2015, 07:36 PM

That would be a fair comment, only that it was reported to the Wardens and WBC last year. The truth of the matter is that they were left there to generate more money unfairly.

I believe that they made quite a bit of money through this misinformation.

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 20 2015, 08:21 PM

more money for Club funds

Posted by: GMR Feb 20 2015, 08:24 PM

Throughout the country councils are finding new ways to boost their profits; that is by hook or by crook. And the best way is through parking charges. We've already seen making the parking bays smaller.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 20 2015, 09:52 PM

I think it's just that they didn't make them bigger!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 21 2015, 12:55 AM

It was obvious from the start. Stark incompetence.

Posted by: spartacus Feb 21 2015, 07:57 AM

Is GMR just stirring perhaps?

The yellow signs on Newtown Road and in Faraday Road certainly didn't have any dates on them last night.




I think they still serve a purpose as they are and remind people in the areas where there aren't ticket machines in place that they need to be aware. They should be kept in place.

Posted by: GMR Feb 21 2015, 09:18 AM

"Stirring" what up? Are you saying that informing the public of WBC blatant abuse of a misleading sign to get more revenue is justified and shouldn't be brought to the attention of the public? After all this isn't the first time that WBC have been pulled up about other irregularities.






And who is arguing with that? I totally agree such signs should be up to help guide the public in what they are expected to do or pay. And what you highlighted is totally correct (highlighted in bold). But that is not what I was talking about here. I was talking about (and showed photos to highlight this) of signs giving a date that gives the impression that the charges won't be enforce until after 28 July of this year. There was no year date on those signs, and the reason for this is to give false sense that one can park there free, and then when they do they will be ticketed/ fined.

The pictures were taken yesterday (20th Feb/ Friday).

Posted by: GMR Feb 21 2015, 09:21 AM

And why didn't they make them bigger? It is all about making WBC more money so that they can pay their top Executives even more bonuses and wages.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 21 2015, 09:25 AM

Top dogs, maybe?

How long ago was that photo taken, and have you checked that the date is still on there today? Spartacus says in his post that the dates have been removed from the signs at other parking sites.

Posted by: GMR Feb 21 2015, 09:27 AM

Exactly, that is what they think they are.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 21 2015, 09:30 AM

Hope they enjoy their bones, then.

Posted by: GMR Feb 21 2015, 09:30 AM

The photos were taken yesterday at about 11.30ish (Friday 20th). Even if the signs are taken down today that doesn't change anything; they would have been up for over 7 months. Enough time to con people into thinking they could park there free and be caught out by the WBC's Traffic Wardens. Is WBC going to give those fines back?

Posted by: spartacus Feb 21 2015, 09:56 AM

Computer says NO

Posted by: spartacus Feb 21 2015, 10:02 AM

yeah, yeah.. of course they were.....

yesterday you say...


But which YEAR yesterday? hmm?

Posted by: GMR Feb 21 2015, 10:14 AM

I'll make it simple for you, unlike WBC who's only wish is to confuse and gain money in the process.

11.30ish pm. Friday 20th February 2015.

Do you work for WBC by any chance? Let us say the "Sign, confusion and propaganda department"?

Posted by: GMR Feb 21 2015, 10:17 AM

Spoken like a true WBC employee (?). They obviously would pay you well out of the money they gain out of their misleading sign initiative And if they are not paying you then maybe you are expecting a cheque through the post?

Posted by: spartacus Feb 21 2015, 11:13 AM

That's not me btw... I don't have a dress that colour and I prefer a more subtle shade of lippy...

Posted by: GMR Feb 21 2015, 12:17 PM

Twenty-four hours after I took that photo, and 18 hours after it went up on this forum, WBC changed that misleading sign to a more appropriate worded sign.

Talking to somebody where the new sign replaced the old one, I was told that the misleading sign was taken down as a rush job.. A sign that gave them extra revenue; falsely.

Obviously their quick action – to remove the sign and replacing it with a proper worded and non-misleading sign - was done out of fear being exposed; and being compared along with other accusations that have been levelled at them over parking charges.

The question now is; will they compensate those that have been misled into paying surcharges? Will they make a statement? I doubt it somehow.

http://postimage.org/
http://postimage.org/app.php

Posted by: spartacus Feb 21 2015, 12:40 PM

If only you'd waited 24 hours you could have saved us from reading all your conspiracy theory nonsense


They're out to get you

Posted by: user23 Feb 21 2015, 12:42 PM

24 hours after someone reported something was wrong they've fixed it? On a Saturday?

Sounds like great service to me.

Posted by: GMR Feb 21 2015, 12:46 PM

And who is saying it is "nonsense"? A WBC employee put on this forum to cover their backs? What I said was factual. Those signs were reported last year; reported to Traffic wardens and WBC itself. If they were concerned about misleading signs then why didn't they do something about it last year? They only decided now because a member of the public exposed what they were doing. If anybody is out to get anybody then it is people like you defending WBC.

Posted by: GMR Feb 21 2015, 12:48 PM

A "great service" or fear of allowing this to blow up in their face? That is along with other accusations concerning parking. We also mustn't forget that User23 also works for WBC. A nice defence of their services. They pay you well, do they?

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 21 2015, 12:58 PM

Sorry, sounds like a "Sh!te boys, we've been caught with our pants down again, hope this doesn't make the Daily Wail like our other screw ups. Someone sort it today and we'll pretend it was done months ago. Those photos could have been taken last year so we're OK. Get one of our abusive councillors to front this one. Our Newbury Today spokesperson is already on the case"

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 21 2015, 01:03 PM

It would be if it were so - but as usual you twist the facts to try and make WBC look efficient. GMR states that he reported it last year which in my book is nearer 3 months at the least if he reported it on the last day of the year!

It may be 24 hours since it went on here but nobody of any worth from WBC reads these forums we are repeatedly told.

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 21 2015, 01:06 PM

I think he's one who gets his published salary band increased with the "special payment" - all good and transparent then.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 21 2015, 01:07 PM

I think we should apologise, you clearly don't work for WBC....FGW maybe

Posted by: GMR Feb 21 2015, 02:23 PM

Actually I reported it in September (for the benefit of Spartacus, that was September 2014; which was last year, we are now in 2015. That was 6 (six) months ago). If still confused then may I suggest a lobotomy?

Posted by: On the edge Feb 21 2015, 05:31 PM

Well. Even if it's not a conspiracy it's pretty slack. After all, look at the number of 'official' street walkers we have these days. Real Police, 'Plastic' Police, the NTC Wardens, and not forgetting the Traffic Wardens. Too busy 'fighting crime and anti social behaviour' I exoect....

Posted by: GMR Feb 26 2015, 07:12 PM

It seems that a story has been generated by a Newbury Weekly News journalist concerning this thread. Dan Cooper is the Newbury Weekly News reporter.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2015/council-comes-under-fire-for-misleading-parking-sign

The Journalist article is below

Posted by: Mr Brown Feb 26 2015, 08:00 PM

Real local paper story that one! Why on earth didn't the Council people just apologise for lousing up and tell anyone who thinks they've been wrongly charged to get in touch but I loved the fact it was on someone's 'to do' list. An unconscious attempt at humour!

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 26 2015, 08:07 PM

It is truly worrying how the Council are unable to grasp just why the signage should have been replaced with a new appropriate sign as soon as the charging had come into force?

Just when you thought our local Authorities had reached new lows of incompetence they amaze you with even more feats of idiotic incompetence!

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 26 2015, 09:19 PM

The worry here is that these are visible signs of the council's lack of care and their belligerent attitude but what about the things that we, the electorate, don't and can't see.

Once again, a simple sorry chaps would have done and perhaps a little contriteness by offering to review the parking fines which had been issued would have been nice. A few quid handed back is an insignificant amount compared with the Parkway giveaway.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 27 2015, 07:41 AM

Sad, really sad. Imagine you work there, just one of the minions. It must be terrible, whatever goes wrong, if management cant blame the customers, they blame you. No wonder they pay well; how else would they attract any staff!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 27 2015, 11:00 AM

It has always been the case, inept, unintelligent PR. All unnecessary too.

"Would like to thank a member of the public for bringing this to our attention and although we feel it would be not in the public interest to spend tax payers money to repaint the bays, we will ask that parking wardens take into account the bays size when deciding if a parking infringement has taken place; however, we understand that 95% of cars on the road are able to park properly within the current allocated space"

or

"We acknowledge that the bays are smaller than government guidelines; however, parking pressure on the town led us to size the bays accordingly. We understand that 95% of cars on the road are able to park properly within the current allocated space. We will ask that parking wardens take into account the bays size when deciding if a parking infringement has taken place."

Posted by: GMR Feb 27 2015, 05:02 PM

And the reason? The reason being is to mislead those that park there in the belief that it is free until July 28^th. Putting a year date on the signs would have informed the public better, thus no extra charges for not having a paid ticket. But doing that would miss the point of the councils objectives; and that is to get more money, by hook or by crook.

QUOTE

A spokeswoman for the council, Peta Stoddart-Crompton, said: "There is no nefarious reason for a year not being shown.

Whether that is true or not, it still was misleading and a misleading sign could/ and has gained them extra monies in fines.

QUOTE

"It was always the intention that the signs would remain in place after the introduction of the parking restrictions and be amended with all reference to the date being removed after about six months.

Six months in the case of being found out, however, if it had been year when it was brought to the councils attention then the above would have read "…removed after one year". They must pay somebody to have an answer for every occasion. Probably lawyers.

QUOTE

"The signs were not taken down, as they still serve as a warning of the parking restrictions in place.

Nothing wrong with that statement, other than it also added a date that was long gone by and with no year date on it. This misled people into parking in that area on the understanding that they could park there free – of this year – until 28 July.

QUOTE

"The reference to dates has however been removed from the signs. This was on our task list prior to the forum post so no, it wasn't due to that."

And I was just psychic. Of course, if I had mentioned it on the forum in a year's time, then they would have said the same.

QUOTE

The council said it did not agree with Mr Renshaw's views that the signs were misleading or confusing to motorists…

Unless of course you happen to be the motorist. However, if it wasn't misleading to the motorist then explain how you managed to get people to park there under the belief that they could park there free until July 28.

QUOTE

…and said it would not be compensating motorists who received a ticket.

Of course not; the whole point of the misleading signs is to make more money so that you can justify taking even more money when the wages discussions comes around again.

QUOTE

However, it said all motorists had the right to appeal to the Independent Traffic Penalty Tribunal.

For misleading signs? But how do they/ or would they know that they were misleading until somebody brings it up? Not everybody buys the NWN or lives in the area. So shouldn't the council inform those that were misled so that they can take action?

QUOTE

Speaking to the NWN in 2013, a spokeswoman for the Department of Transport, Melanie Purkiss, said: "The Department provides clear guidelines to councils to help them produce signs that comply with the regulations."

And in this case they broke it by misleading the motorist into not getting a ticket to park in that place.

QUOTE

"It is not for central Government to police council's traffic signs – this rightly falls to elected local politicians who are accountable to their residents and communities."

Yes; but what happens when the politicians are of the same party of those that work in the council? Look at the latest scandals, such as cash payments etc.; so are our politicians the right people to overlook the councillors?

Posted by: JeffG Feb 28 2015, 09:09 AM

That is absolute nonsense and you know it. Even the strongest council detractors here would not say anything so stupid (or possibly actionable, if the council could be bothered).

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 28 2015, 11:42 AM

I don't see anything actionable. I don't think it is that stupid either. Or at least no less stupid that an sign that displays things like 'wef'.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 28 2015, 02:34 PM

The stupidity is in asserting that the council deliberately left the wef date on the sign (which obviously got overlooked when the others were altered) just so they could trap motorists in order to make money out of them. I am no fan or the council, but it just annoys me when people make ridiculous assertions like this. It was just incompetence on the council's part - not a deliberate act.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 28 2015, 02:51 PM

We have come to expect incompetence haven't we so that is acceptable...........but deliberate acts to raise extra revenue and no intention of reimbursement that may just be another incompetence too far! Even the long suffering and patient Newburian taxpayer may say enough to that eh?

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 28 2015, 03:22 PM

I agree with you Jeff.
While not acceptable, and those fined should be re-reimbursed, I don't believe that this was done deliberately to fine motorists into swelling the council's coffers.
I have not checked, but surely there must be other signs along this road regarding parking fees?
Council bashing just going a little bit too far??

Oh, and no, I don't work for WBC!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 28 2015, 11:55 PM

Nope. Bashing deserved. i.e. Jeff's talking cobblers in my view.

Just read: "While not acceptable, and those fined should be re-reimbursed"

It shouldn't happen in the first place.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 1 2015, 08:35 AM

Also read "I don't believe that this was done deliberately to fine motorists into swelling the council's coffers."
Yes they got it wrong and should be admonished but to suggest it was done in malice is "going a bit too far".

Posted by: JeffG Mar 1 2015, 10:21 AM

Are you therefore saying that the council deliberately left the partial date on the notice in order to trap motorists? Which is what I said was nonsense, if you care to read my post properly.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 1 2015, 10:31 AM

I did read it and the council wilfully put an ambiguous sign in place. That means it was deliberate.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 1 2015, 11:25 AM

After the deliberate penalising of motorists after being notified of the incorrect signage months before in Kings Road. After the deliberate penalising of motorists for crossing the wharf bridge
after being informed by a legitimate authority that the signage was not to the required legislation you would have thought that WBC would have inspected all signage promptly to ensure it complied with the current legislation and was up to date and relevant?

Not only have they not ensured this but knowing full well that motorists have been penalised knowing that their signage was totally misleading they are not even offering a refund to those who are prepared to claim one...........what other interpretation can you have other than it appears to be a deliberate revenue raiser?

If you were Managing the signage in Newbury and had articles in national newspapers and local media would you have not ensured that an inspection was carried out to ensure there was no more flack heading your way? Of course not our beloved WBC.....no one held accountable as usual......pocket the money and business as usual.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 1 2015, 05:57 PM

Just had a roll back through your posts because I have noticed a theme here and, while I am no fan of either council, you really do have issues don't you?
Your sole contribution to this forum is "council bashing"!!
I think you have made your point..............not keen eh?

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 1 2015, 06:29 PM

Well spotted that good man!

It just beggars belief that with all the underhanded antics of both Councils they just carry on regardless and have no remorse or shame in how they treat the taxpayer who they are supposed to serve. And don't even start on how much needless council tax and precept they are just throwing away without a care it seems!

Someone has to keep up the good work as it appears many don't have the stamina to take them on..........getting on the wrong side of some of these Councillors can cause a person a rather lot of aggravation you know........and of course the dreaded vexatious label awaits all who dare to take up the cause!

Posted by: Rowley Birkin Mar 1 2015, 06:36 PM

you must work for the council posting stuff like that

Posted by: On the edge Mar 1 2015, 07:56 PM

What amazes me is that some now seem to see 'incompetence' as an OK position; so not worth mentioning. What a strap line to put over the doors 'WBC - not bad just incompetent'. I wonder if there is an industry award for that?

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 1 2015, 08:22 PM

Why's that. I find it amazing that one kind word regarding WBC must mean the writer works for them.

Posted by: GMR Mar 2 2015, 05:00 PM

Is it? Let us look at the facts. I used to work for a sign company many years ago. One of the first things you learn is to make sure that signs don’t mislead. What are the long-term consequences of the sign etc?




WBC have said that they planned for the sign to be up well past the date of the beginning of the charges. According to them 6 months longer. Therefore they knew that that sign would be up for at least 2 months into 2015. But they didn’t say that on the sign or give a year date, so it was misleading. And people were hooked into thinking they could park there for free. This is all factual. They must have realised the possibility that the sign could fool people into parking there for free. So either they intentionally misled or they were grossly incompetent, naïve and stupid. The first possibility I would prefer because it would give the impression that they are at least intelligent, crafty and were planning ahead. If you go for the second option; that they were incompetent in not realising that the sign could mislead; and those people are in charge of running a multimillion budget. That is scary. Which do you think it is?

Posted by: GMR Mar 2 2015, 05:01 PM

Reading what I said above; it is not ridiculous.

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 2 2015, 06:18 PM

Nonsense. I think you are being naïve here. I used to work for a council in London many years ago and you’ll be surprised the tricks they think up to make more money. If you read some of the other things WBC have been accused of then you’d realise that GMR’s comments are totally plausible and realistic.

I’ve been reading in the paper about shorter parking bays etc. This has nothing to do with getting extra cars in but to make WBC more money. You sound like an employee of WBC defending your masters. I am very amazed with the gullibility of people of this country who believe whatever their councils' tell them. WBC left those signs up for one reason and one reason only. If they didn’t then GMR’s second prognosis about naivety must be the answer. And if that is the case then serious questions need to be answered over what or who is running WBC.

Posted by: JeffG Mar 2 2015, 06:51 PM

And you, madam, can take that offensive accusation back. I have never in my working life worked for the public sector, and have long been retired.

I have been considering leaving this forum populated with people like you for quite a while, and now seems like a good time. Don't bother to wish me well.

Posted by: Spider Mar 2 2015, 07:07 PM

I think it is diabolical what WBC have been getting up to, without no checks. They seems to be a law unto itself. I notice reading the posts in here that the only people who defend WBC are those that are connected to them in one way or another.
WBC has no excuses. They put a sign up that was misleading, either through incompetence or by design. Whatever way people want to pick they need to be held accountable.

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 2 2015, 07:23 PM

Touchy! I think that you’ve answered my concerns quite nicely. Even though I haven’t written on this forum for some time I have often read the musings of the local scallywags and I’ve found them amusing and hilarious (on most counts). I doubt you will leave as you and one or two others are part of the fabric of this forum. Where else are you and others going to go to get the attention you crave?

How do we know that you’ve never worked for the public sector? Anybody can say anything on here and often do. With a lack of evidence of which way one might swing, we therefore must go on the musings of one’s writings on here. If I am mistaken then then I am mistaken precisely for that reason.

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 2 2015, 07:26 PM

Quite agree with you here. Company's get away with it because the public choose to look the other way and pretend our Councillors are there to do our bidding. WBC should be held to order and questioned every step of the way.

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 2 2015, 07:27 PM

.....and the problem is that often people say "You have the opportunity to vote them out at the next election" which of course isn't true. All the day to day running of the council is done by the council officers who are full time employees, not by the part time councillors. Their job, the councillors, is to ratify what actions the officers decide upon and perhaps take the plaudits or the crap as a result.

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 2 2015, 07:34 PM

You've hit the nail on the head here. Councilors are just mouth pieces and can easily be removed (in theory), while the real makers just carry on regardless. Their attitude is "more than my job is worth" and that is their priority. As I said on a previous post. I used to live in London and worked for one of the councils so I know what is what.

Posted by: Spider Mar 2 2015, 07:44 PM

Even if you could vote them out, you only get something similar in return. One councilor or party is as bad as another. They don't serve us, but themselves. They want to run the district in the way they want it done and disregard the public's views. At least the Newbury weekly News and the general public (at least a few of them) are keeping them in check. As this and other threads show. But I do find their response to peoples concerns shocking though.

Posted by: Spider Mar 2 2015, 07:46 PM

Steady on. If you think you've been misjudged then fight your corner, but attacking those that get their impression from what one says on here only makes you look more guilty. I smell something iffy here.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 2 2015, 08:15 PM

Please be cautious remember there are certain people counting how many times you Council bash?

You are only allowed to Council bash if you join in with other posts if I understand my critic correctly?

I post on the topics that I have an interest in and having regards to Council bashing, when they start acting in a democratic, open, transparent, and public serving way then they may get some praise..........but until then!

Posted by: On the edge Mar 2 2015, 08:47 PM

....but then we'll have other issues to concern us, what with the mayhem all those sky bound porkers will cause!

Posted by: Mr Brown Mar 2 2015, 08:54 PM

Are these suggestions that various if us work for the Council valid?
Reading what most think, it doesn't look as if anyone 'works' for them!

Posted by: On the edge Mar 2 2015, 09:07 PM

Ho Ho, the old ones are always best!

I still think it's odd, a heated debate about which adjective to apply; devious or incompetent! Umm, not sure I'd want either.

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 2 2015, 10:05 PM

In fairness, there are people who want to become involved and want to try for a betterment of the town or their neighbours. For example, the Newtown Cemetery friends who have managed to turn a derelict area of Newbury into what is now quite a nice green area and provide a web site to enable us to research the incumbents and by doing so add to the history of the town. They, like most of the other groups, friends of the museum, Victoria Park and even our beloved town councillors, are unpaid and give their time freely.

Where it sometimes goes wrong is that those volunteers can become a little self serving and want to bathe in the limelight (What actually is limelight and why would we want to bathe in it). The Town council take this, unlike most of the parish councils, to a level where it becomes an elite club who believe they are working for the community but often lose sight of what they set up to do. It sort of boils down to empowerment.

Our WBC councillors are of course paid for what they do and are paid well bearing in mind it is a part time job but nevertheless, a nice little earner. By default, they need to bang the drum to justify their remuneration and to fight their political corner. That really is a club, with two chapter houses and one which few people can break into. Selection just to stand involves a selection by the chapter house and if you don't fit, you don't get the opportunity to stand come the elections. Nothing will change while we have this allegiance to Westminster and nobody within either party wants to rock the boat. Stand as an independent, yeah right, that'll work.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 3 2015, 06:05 AM

Yoiks!, unmasked I fear!!
I suppose it is a diversion from being accused of being a Network Rail spokesman!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 3 2015, 07:33 AM

Yes, I agree with that, but I still have faith to believe that Independents csn get elected.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 3 2015, 08:25 AM

Exhausted's post is a pretty good summary and points out what can be achieved if we get it right. The slavish allegiance to Westminster is mortally damaging true local government. To reverse this, in reality our only hope does lie in properly independent councillors. As those presently involved in the present arrangement are hardly likely to want to damage their vested interest, such change needs to come from us.

To aid and sustain this, other changes also needed. There should be an absolute ban on double dealers - that is Councillors sitting on both Town and District Councils. It's this tension where most of the politicking manifests itself. Secondly, the councillors should really live in their constituencies. After all, if the people in a locality can't actually find anyone amongst themselves to represent them, do they deserve to have a collective voice at all?

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 3 2015, 04:39 PM

I think one of the main tenets would be for Councillors to actually consult and listen to what constituents want rather than trying to dictate what they require.
Councillors should also consult on what constituents want their money spent on not dictate how their money should be spent.
They are there to represent the constituent after all not the party which appears to happen at the moment or, as On The Edge states, the other local Authority that they may sit on.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 3 2015, 04:46 PM

Independents don't have the resources to compete. But is is not just the councillors that are guilty of sticking with the party machine, the electorate are guilty too.

Posted by: Spider Mar 3 2015, 05:06 PM

The electors might be guilty to a point, but the choices they have is a major problem. Usually Independents have their own agenda and that creates concerns for the voter too.

Posted by: Lolly Mar 3 2015, 07:32 PM

Wish we had a 'like' button!

Would also be nice to know how our money has been spent - Despite the requirement for proactive publication, it appears even the NWN has to put in FOI's to find out how S106 monies are spent ( Kennet Heath?) Move down the pecking order to Town & Parish councils and it becomes hit & miss. Some seem quite professionally run, others less so....

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 3 2015, 07:34 PM

West Berkshire council should apologise for misleading people and offer money back (for sign abuse). If we want people to visit this town or even respect it that respect must start with WBC respecting us and working with us, not taking advantage.

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 3 2015, 07:35 PM

Even if Independents had resources to compete it wouldn't be long before they are dragged into WBC mentality of abusing their position and trust.

Posted by: Lolly Mar 3 2015, 07:38 PM

Party affiliated candidates can have their own agendas too. How much do we really know about our existing Councillors?

Posted by: Spider Mar 3 2015, 07:40 PM

You mean apart from money grabbers and abusers of Newbury's trust?

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 3 2015, 09:17 PM

You are suggesting that the councillors are the money grabbers perhaps. You have to remember that the elected persons don't make the decisions. They are the front men for the council officers and it is they who come up with the ideas and pass them through the various committees. I accept that the council wants to squeeze every last drop from the ratepayers, developers, house builders and visitors to the town but that has become the norm nationally and I believe that we must blame central government for allowing them to do it. I don't think Newbury has had any scandals about financial irregularities unlike their masters in Westminster who are perhaps the role models.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 3 2015, 10:31 PM

I suspect you are right. The issue isn't one of scandal, more control freakery. The worst thing that happened to WBC was the wretched cabinet system and the bloke that made it happen disappeared elsewhere soon after. The politicians in both Councils are really there because they think it makes them look important - just like a few letters after their name from some paid for 'institute' that their employees are so keen on. That's what drives them - playing the big chief....but without the risk.

Posted by: JaneGibbs Mar 5 2015, 07:24 PM

I haven't been on this forum for some time but a friend of mine pointed out this debate about signs. That is its wrong wording and still up over its well past used date.

I also noticed that many on here defend the signs or WBC as a mistake (in the case of WBC of leaving them up too long). If it is a mistake then it is one too many. I accept mistakes do happen, but when they do they should not only be corrected but anybody caught out in that mistake should be compensated. In WBC's response they said they will not refund. That leads me to believe that it wasn't an accident but a deliberate attempt to create extra revenue. Whichever way one looks at it it is very disturbing. It also gives the impression that that organisation (WBC) are not accountable to anybody but their own money making schemes, at the expense of its tax paying citizens. The question is what should we or can we do? Singly we can't do nothing as they will only laugh at us. Collectively we have something. The Poll tax riots did achieve something. I suppose nothing will change unless it is directed at all of us together, which is sad.

Posted by: GMR Mar 5 2015, 07:40 PM

Those that defend stick out like a saw thumb. When they get outed they then get stroppy and say "not me guv'". As for what we can do; nothing. And WBC know this. Apathy is always a tool of the governing authorities. I hope you stay with us this time?

Posted by: On the edge Mar 5 2015, 08:04 PM

I have to say I have a tiny bit of sympathy for WBC. C0ck ups occur in any organisation, big and small; that's life I'm afraid. The real issue is that because of their inability to interact with their customers properly over many years, they can't even get away with minor errors. If we are looking at costs, surely the PR people could be dispensed with; time and again, their inane statements just make things worse.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 5 2015, 08:55 PM

Completely agree.

I'll add that I simply wouldn't park if I couldn't park within a marked zone. I would take the hint from the council that I am not welcome in my car and park or go elsewhere, and I do. From my point of view, I think Newbury shops might like to know that I and possibly others now don't visit Newbury to shop, in part, because of parking charges and WBC's attitude to parking.

Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 04:42 PM

Maybe they think they are big enough and powerful enough not to give a **** (which seems to be the case).

Posted by: On the edge Mar 6 2015, 05:22 PM

Oh certainly, no accountability. I don't think there should be professional PR people, the Councillors should be the only ones talking to the press and giving the responses. The trouble is, the politicisation of local government has meant they abdicated this responsibility as too risky!

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 6 2015, 06:52 PM

As Eric Pickles said....


We are ending the war on drivers who simply want to go about their daily business. For too long parking rules have made law-abiding motorists feel like criminals, and caused enormous damage to shops and businesses.

– Eric Pickles, Communities Secretary

Interesting to determine what that means.

Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 07:16 PM

Whatever that means I bet WBC won't like it. They are in business of making money, not thinking about the public or what is best for Newbury.

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 6 2015, 07:32 PM

I was talking to a girlfriend yesterday who works for the council at a senior level (a council in London, not Newbury) and she told me that all Council's objectives are to make money any way they can. If challenge then they can take them to court, but nobody ever does. They count of the fear factor and apathy of the public that allows them to do what they do. This explains a lot. It was no different in my day when I used to work for the council in London. When people vote for a councillor they don't really know what they are doing or what the council is doing. That is why the can put up misleading signs and hope that the public will just think it was an oversight if challenged. Very rarely are councils challenged in depth.
If you look at this forum, how many people have said it was a mistake or an oversight on behalf of the council? It is fools like this that allows councils to do whatever they see as right for the greater good (not the good of the individual).

Posted by: Spider Mar 6 2015, 07:46 PM

That makes sense Heather. I never trusted Councils to work for us, but their own agenda. I also don't think that that sign (the misleading one) was an oversight but intentional. And if WBC are saying they won't refund then that answer confirms it was deliberate. If it was a mistake I am sure they would want to correct that mistake and be fair all around, and the only way they can achieve that is to correct any mistakes that might have occurred because of their oversight.

Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 08:05 PM

Interesting, but nothing new. There was a programme last year or the year before that put councils under the spot light on how they go about getting their money and they said roughly the same. Of course the sign being left up there was deliberate. Honest people who makes mistakes will always try to correct those mistakes. They know that nobody will take them to court so they can afford to be flippant.

Every time you pick up the local paper or read something on here it is always about something bad WBC is doing. Once is a mistake, twice is suspect and three time incompetence.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 6 2015, 08:07 PM

There is a reason councils are compelled to do this though, they have had their buncer from the government slashed.

Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 08:11 PM

I agree, however, if they were more honest about it they might not get so much sh!t thrown at them. I think we all know why they were doing it, but does their antics make them right in doing it?

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 6 2015, 08:23 PM

You make a good point, but do you think if we were living in more prosperous times they wouldn't have done the same? When I worked for the council in London times were better then and they still tried to find ways of making even more money. Serving the public or being fair was the last thing on their minds.

Posted by: GMR Mar 6 2015, 08:24 PM

Any Capp is right, but so are you. Whether we are doing well or not their objectives are still the same.

Posted by: user23 Mar 7 2015, 10:17 AM

This came out yesterday and shows that, on average http://www.lgiu.org.uk/2015/03/06/the-spending-power-of-local-authorities/.

Add to this that more cuts are planned by all the major parties and an ageing population is costing society more to care for, and I suspect you'll see big changes what councils do, over the next five years.

Posted by: Lolly Mar 7 2015, 11:21 AM

Interesting link user23 - to an article run by the LGiU 'a think tank and local authority membership organisation as well as a registered charity' - I wonder whether our Local Authority is a member & whether we (residents) pay the membership fee?

Vested interests come to mind, but that said there are some interesting points made, not least about the broken system of local government financing:

"And when we start talking about local government finance we all understand that it’s broken. We don’t think it’s fit for purpose. It doesn’t work. But when we talk about reform we start fiddling around the edges. And I worry that fiddling at the edges actually is equivalent to fiddling while Rome burns."

I haven't worked in Local Government, but it does seem to me that there is an increasingly element of postcode lottery within what should imo be national services ( health, social care, education etc) but with local oversight.

i also have some sympathy towards Council officers trying to balance the books when demands are increasing and funding being reduced, but as others have already said on this thread it is the way that West Berkshire Council ( and Councillors) deal ( or have dealt in the past) with criticism that tends to perpetuate threads such as this one.

I hope that message may be getting through to High Command!

Posted by: user23 Mar 7 2015, 12:24 PM

Unfortunately the High Command seems more intent to deal with things such as http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31759767, rather than the bigger issues that councils face.

No, our http://www.lgiu.org.uk/lgiu-members/, by the way.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 7 2015, 12:52 PM

It's a worry isn't it, how are we going to afford essential services, like a ceremonial Mayor, charter market, council run allotments, ...?

Posted by: On the edge Mar 7 2015, 12:53 PM

That's a good argument. I woukd be willing to go along with that, but present practice and experience doesn't bear it out. If we are really so short of cash in local government and there being one precept, we must take both councils together, how come that round here, we have recently:-
- agreed to do up two derelict buildings, with no real requirement
- installed some shiny new excercise equipment in a local park
- started a project to build a pavilion in the middle of the park
- spent rather a lot to refurbish adequate primary school kitchens
Etc. Etc. .....not withstanding large sums on legal fees.

Sorry, isn't this just a scare story, in the hopes that us mugs carry on voting for the status quo.

Posted by: user23 Mar 7 2015, 01:24 PM

Or it's a scare story, in the hopes that people will vote for someone other than the status quo who all say they'll make more cuts after the next election.

Or it's not a scare story and we'll see http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/03/autumn-statement-2014-george-osborne-spending-cuts.

Take your pick, and find out in five years time.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 7 2015, 03:27 PM

I certainly agree it's a good place to start and it's about time we had done real debate; rather than simply trading nostrums.

Let's look at the claim here. Are the 1930s spending numbers before or after credits for the then substantial municipal trading accounts are added back? What does it include, local and central government services were delivered and structured very differently back then.

Going back to the 1930s, particularly the late 1930s, wouldn't be a bad thing in my view. The Councils then ran local transport, gas, electricity, water, etc. and did so quite well. In effect, they provided the natural monopoly provisions. The money they made could be used locally, without government interfearence to do things the locality needed.

I wholly agree with Simon K's view that Mrs Thatcher was a real 'small government' liberal, which was her dad's politics in the 1940s.

Posted by: user23 Mar 7 2015, 04:48 PM

Be careful what you wish for. We may see a return to a time with no National Health Service and very little social care provided by the state, just like the 1930s.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 7 2015, 04:55 PM

The reason for the 10 minute grace is because our CEO's are being encouraged to be as resourceful as possible in raising cash through penalties. Hence the not removing non compliant and outdated signage...........raising cash is the mantra and it falls to the poor motorist or the most vulnerable in society that seems to be the first in line that suffers?

I always understood that penalties and parking charges were only to be made if it improved or aided traffic management? But new parking charges in the Old Bath Road etc. has not improved traffic management. There are still cars parked in the same places but only now they are being charged for parking how as this improved traffic management?

Posted by: On the edge Mar 7 2015, 05:27 PM

Depends very much which end of the 1930s and indeed which unlicensed service model. For instance Reading Corporation (with its trading arms and embryonic health and social services) and Berkshire County Council (with a do what we must and leave what we may mantra). Frankly, in reality that's localism, you get difference and choice.

The health service is also interesting. Ironically, were it not for the reforms Neville Chamberlain introduced in the mid 1930s, which proved themselves with the wartime Emergency Medical Service, Bevan would not have been able to 'nationalise' health care. The real secret of the public attachment to the NHS is that it's apparently a free service. All Bevan did was extend the Edwardian compulsory insurance scheme as recommended by Beverage. A 'free' health care service, just as comprehensive but arguably accountable could more easily have been delivered on a local regional basis.

Delivering things like health care locally mean that people are rather more inclined to support and cherish them - which is then real 'big society'. Very few are willing to do so for a massive faceless bureaucracy.

Posted by: user23 Mar 7 2015, 05:58 PM

We could see more councils take control of their local NHS budget, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31747149, after May.

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 7 2015, 06:41 PM

The first thing they will do is outsource it, like most other services.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 7 2015, 07:02 PM

But of course someone will want to make a profit from it first and no doubt the council will want to retains some of it ergo less ends up actually going into patient care! Just do some investigating and see how many MP's or their immediate families have now set up companies associated with medical care?

Posted by: On the edge Mar 7 2015, 08:01 PM

Yes, we could.

But, and for me its a massive but. We'd need a massive change round here, putting it very politely, our own local council(s) are simply too small to do it.

Posted by: The Hatter Mar 8 2015, 09:02 AM

My GF says we have at least three Councillors for our area. I've not seen any of them. What do they actually do? If we walk along the river walk to Tesco's there is always a lot of litter and the fences broken.

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 8 2015, 12:45 PM

I think litter has been outsourced.

Posted by: user23 Mar 8 2015, 12:55 PM

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/100004/the_council_and_democracy/66/councils_in_greater_manchester, all administering a smaller area than West Berkshire.

Posted by: newres Mar 8 2015, 03:14 PM

Perhaps he meant small minded? But in any case, population densities are totally different. Manchester City Council has five times the population of West Berks.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 8 2015, 07:43 PM

But I can't help thinking that there might be a million or so more people living there.

Posted by: Lolly Mar 8 2015, 07:47 PM

I don't think litter picking comes under Councillor duties, but they should be able to put you in touch with the right service. Or you could try using this web site to report a problem:

https://www.fixmystreet.com

Posted by: The Hatter Mar 8 2015, 08:55 PM

Thanks we'll do that. I know Councillors don't do litter picking but don't they keep an eye on the area and tell the Council what's wrong or what's not being done?

Posted by: On the edge Mar 8 2015, 10:31 PM

Actually, you have quite a valid point. Some local government constituencies have one WBC Councillor and two or three Town Councillors. Given such things as financial cut backs, schools going to foundation status etc. one can wonder what on earth they actually find to do. it cant be very rewarding.

Posted by: Don Mar 10 2015, 05:21 PM

Howdy all,

My name is Don and I just joined this forum so that I could voice my concerns over local issues. I did join, before Christmas, Newbury.net, but sadly only one or two participate, but most of the time it is dead (I did give it a couple of months). I suppose this forum is the people’s choice.

My first concern are the signs that were up on the Old Bath Road for six months, thus misleading the motorists into a false sense of security and parking there in the belief that one can park there free until July 28th of this year. I am a pensioner (75) and even though I wasn’t caught out, I could have been. I often look for free parking around Newbury and if it wasn’t for my bad foot (I needed something closer) I would have parked there in the belief that it was free. As it turned out it wasn’t free, the sign was just misleading. I wonder how many people like me took the bait and parked there, only to give the coffers of WBC extra revenue? Reading the article on Newbury Today page and then reading more on it on this forum, and of course WBC’s reply, I was concerned with their dismissal of people’s concerns and ending with saying that they had no intention of refunding misled people. Is this right?

I just wanted to voice my concern in how easily the voting public of this constituency can be duped. Does anybody know what our MP thinks of such underhand money making schemes? I did read by one of the members on here that times are hard and councils up and down the country need to find ways of getting extra monies. I appreciate this. But the question is how one goes about it. My pension is tight and if I tried to find ways of boosting my pension, but suspiciously, I am sure the authorities would be down on me like a ton of bricks. So why am I taken over the coals, but powerful organisations (and another example is Banks) get away with it? Is it because we are easily swatted away like annoying insects or we are just nothing in the greater stratagem of things? Is it all about authority, big business and such, and our roles are just part of the food chain?

I am sorry for taking up so much of your time, but I do thank you for reading this (if you do) and letting me participate in this discussion.

Don.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 10 2015, 06:42 PM

Hello Don,

Nice to see someone new posting, I moved away from Newburyin October last year so I don't post much now, but I enjoy reading how old Newbury and its residents are doing!

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 10 2015, 07:23 PM

Yes, welcome Mr Don. You seem to have made a splash on the political "weeding" section But we can do with some fresh faces on here.

You age isn't important on here, what is is whether you are compos mentis and not everybody on here is. Just look at some of the drivel some members speak.

Posted by: Don Mar 10 2015, 07:38 PM

Howdy Heather and Strafin for your kind welcome. I can assure you that I have all my marbles and I hope for many years to come. But again thank you for your kind welcome.

Don.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 11 2015, 08:30 AM

Care to name and shame??

Posted by: Spider Mar 11 2015, 04:57 PM

Hi Don and welcome. I am glad you've got all your marbles as we need some interesting debates and intelligent answers on here.

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 12 2015, 10:18 AM

Again, as in my last post, who does not submit "interesting debates and intelligent answers on here"?

Care to name and shame those without "their marbles"?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 12 2015, 01:06 PM

I think in the land of Spiders, and others, people will label others as unintelligent if they happen to disagree with their views.

It seems after a big fanfare, Don has legged it.

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 19 2015, 06:01 PM

Why? Can't you read yourself what other people write?

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 19 2015, 06:02 PM

Do you care to name those with "their marbles?"

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 19 2015, 06:07 PM

It is not a case of labeling somebody unintelligent because they don't agree with what was said, but how they disagree is more to the point. People disagree with me all the time, but they've made intelligent comments. At the same time there are those that have agreed with me, but with stupid and unintelligent comments.

A lot of people have legged it on here it seems.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 19 2015, 06:49 PM

I was addressing a specific person's comment. They seem to regard anyone as unintelligent that hold a contrary (often political) point of view. You may different.

Posted by: HeatherW Mar 19 2015, 07:08 PM

I hope I am different, I hate to be labeled.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 19 2015, 09:54 PM

Goodbye Tory-agent Don (it seems).

Posted by: Biker1 Mar 20 2015, 06:10 AM

Yes, but just wondered what he / she interprets as "drivel" and who from.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 20 2015, 09:51 AM

Oooh I misread that Biker, thought you wrote 'dribble'....then that's me what's guilty. Then I read again and yeah it still applies. So the age thing is more than just marbles it's eyesight as well. Still, one advantage of age; I did at least get to go on real steam trains in every day service!

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 20 2015, 10:53 AM

Someone recently wrote that they were pleased to find someone else who didn't understand what CE was talking about.

Nice to have a champion who replied that it was better to have a mind of a cricket than no mind at all.
I think it was a compliment. Who needs marbles when you've got cricket. As for petanque...
ce

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 20 2015, 05:47 PM

Still talking boules NM?

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 20 2015, 06:04 PM

Posted by: Don Mar 20 2015, 07:20 PM

Howdy Andy, I wouldn't say I was a Tory agent, more of a voter. Who else is there? You either vote for them or pick Labour or the liberals. Simple choices my friend, but you words did make me chuckle. Nobody has ever compared me to a Bond or Tory agent before. Should I take that as a compliment?

Don

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 20 2015, 07:30 PM

I predict that there will be a number of independents standing this year, at town, borough, and parliamentary, so you should have an alternative to party politics if that's what you're looking for - and quite a few people are!

Posted by: JaneGibbs Mar 20 2015, 07:33 PM

I think you need a strong institution and a sense of humour to go on message boards. I think women in-particularly get the rough end of these forums. But that shouldn't be the case as we are an important part of society and our voices should be listened to. My boyfriend things I am stupid, but it is my choice and I occasionally like to say something I hope is useful.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 20 2015, 07:42 PM

Posted by: JaneGibbs Mar 20 2015, 07:47 PM

Well spotted my spelling mistake or should I say typing error? My boyfriend is going to get a good laugh over that one. But spelling mistakes or typing errors doesn't define the character or intelligence of the writer, only that he or she is just like everybody else, human.

Posted by: Petra Mar 24 2015, 07:37 PM

Dear All,

There has been a lot of criticism of late against the council that represents the people of this fine constituency, and a lot of that criticism, if not all, has been unfair. I could have picked any story or thread, as I believe it is properly called, on this forum, but I picked this one as it depicts the ignorance out there and unfair biases against our council (WBC).

In the articles leader photos were taken and shown of a sign that said “WARNING. On –street charging in operation wef Mon 28 July. Pay by phone only”. Quite clear and straightforward, and that should have been the end of the matter. But some mischief maker decided to make a mountain out of a mole hill and put up their conclusions on this forum (and wrong conclusions, as the council pointed out). People must remember that when councils – up and down the country – puts such operational procedure into effect it is done for the greater good, not for the individual. In this case the greater good is for the residents of this county (the money they collect goes to worthwhile causes and procedures). This means that on an individual level, there could be losers. The point of taking every opportunity to turn spare free spaces into parking areas’ benefits Newbury has a whole.

In the council's reply it stated that they planned to take down the signs or change them 6 months later. Of course the accusations are that motorists were misled. I’ve seen those signs on numerous occasions and I understood exactly how those signs should have been taken. As a council member said in reply to the journalist’s questions on this subject; “… all motorists had the right to appeal to the Independent Traffic Penalty Tribunal,” if not happy, end of.

What the council doesn’t want and doesn’t deserve is for Mr and Mrs nobody to put up thoughtless posts/ threads that could show their hard work in a bad light (which is done in your name). The proper course of action, if you are happy, is to confront the council, local MP or go through a complaints’ channel if you have any concerns. As one of the council officials said to the Newbury Weekly News reporter; “However, this week the council said it could find no record of his complaint.” Again, end of.

At worst, it was an oversight. But I personally believe it was as the council official said. My point is that we should think before engaging one's brain and remember that the council is there for the greater good, and not there for the individual. They work for us. Let us sit back and reflect on this please, before making ill judged comments and accusations.

Thank you,

Petra

Posted by: Strafin Mar 24 2015, 07:48 PM

Hello Petra, firstly, the councils signs said charging started from the 25th July, if they were up now, that would indicate to me that chargeable parking wasn't in place yet. Secondly, the council have a duty to do things correctly, they can screw up, they are human after all but they should admit it, apologise and move on. Sadly they make so many mistakes that process isn't really available to them anymore.

Thirdly, WBC council caused me so many issues over my council tax when I lived in Newbury, that I would suggest that both you and them can suck my balls.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 24 2015, 07:51 PM

I've just booked a seat on the rofl copter.

Posted by: Petra Mar 24 2015, 07:59 PM

Hello Strafin,

I understand what you are saying in the first paragraph, however, common sense should be used here. The council doesn't usually put up signs 7 months before hand, and as the council had stated, they were coming down in January or February. If I was concerned I would have contacted the council for clarification. But is your doubts or concerns reason enough to put a thread up without consulting the council? No!

As for your last comment: there is no need for crudity. If you've had problems then consult the council. Your crudity shows us your level of intelligence, therefore I would suggest that the problems you've had stems from within yourself, not with the council.

Regards,

Petra

Posted by: Ruth Mar 24 2015, 08:03 PM

Wow, that is a very forthright reply from the council.

Posted by: Petra Mar 24 2015, 08:06 PM

Young lady, I never said I was or wasn't a member of the council. Never presume something or state something unless you know for sure. There are too many assumptions on this forum by ignoramuses.

Regards,

Petra

Posted by: Ruth Mar 24 2015, 08:08 PM

Sorry, I've only just joined today and I apologise if I've broke etiquette rules on here.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 24 2015, 08:11 PM

Shall I bring the pop corn?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 24 2015, 08:13 PM

WTF does 'wef' mean? I'm not sure that is a well understood TLA!


All it needs is for the council to invest in better public relations, to show humility when it is deserved, then some might not feel the need to speak so ill. The council, like the electorate, deserve everything they get.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 24 2015, 08:15 PM

Well it is election time, they come crawling out from all over the place!

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 24 2015, 08:15 PM

Naw, shove over, you can have some of mine.

Didn't know user was married?

Posted by: Petra Mar 24 2015, 08:16 PM

Mr Kirby, this is the low level sort of response I was hoping to avoid. If you have something constructive to say then I think we would all like to hear it, otherwise your meaningless reply is just that, meaningless. May I remind you that all our replies define us and how we are observed by others. A bit of decorum is called for, don't you think?

Regards,

Petra.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 24 2015, 08:17 PM

Don't worry, you didn't. It's just that someone out there obviously doesn't understand how public forums work.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 24 2015, 08:17 PM

I'm not sure Simon's post was the worse case of flippancy I have ever read; I don't think he deserved that. If you genuinely wish to avoid such statements, I suggest you choose a shorter horse from which to perform!

BTY - welcome to the forum, you are a fantastic breath of fresh air.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 24 2015, 08:19 PM

We certainly don't deserve the cabal that is WBC.

Posted by: Petra Mar 24 2015, 08:20 PM

If the council has any problems then it is the low level of responses they have to deal with. The council has a high degree of educated membership amongst its staff. If the same applied - that is in intelligences - in the outside world then there-never would be any misunderstandings. Remember that when mouthing your ill advised comments.

Regards,

Petra

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 24 2015, 08:24 PM

I'm sure they do, but the public only sees what is in front of them and any misunderstanding could always be dealt with better, if they had better PR. And I'm sure I am not the only victim of the complaints procedure (read obfuscation carousel) at WBC.


I wish I could find Threep's tribute to the mighty West Berks Council on YouTube!

Posted by: Petra Mar 24 2015, 08:24 PM

Oscar Wilde said that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. In answer to your last paragraph.

As for the first: I just go on by what I see. I've read this forum for many years before coming on so I know exactly what the make up of this forum is, so I don't need any pointers from the resident voice of this forum.

Regards,

Petra

PS if people want to debate sensibly then please do so.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 24 2015, 08:24 PM

The only ill advised thing I can see here is the council getting some lackey to join the discussion.

Posted by: Petra Mar 24 2015, 08:27 PM

No, Mr Capp, the public sees through ignorant eyes. unfortunately council officials and people of office have to clear up the mess that they - the public - leave behind in their wake.

Regards,

Petra.

Posted by: Petra Mar 24 2015, 08:29 PM

Then may I suggest specsavers?

Regards,

Petra.

Enough of this silly nonsense as I have more pressing things to engage with. Good day to you (at least for now).

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 24 2015, 08:32 PM

Yes, the public may see through ignorant eyes, but that is in part due to the arrogant way the council deal with them.

If we are going to complain of a mess, let's look at the damage Parkway has caused to reputations, not to mention other badly negotiated initiatives around the town.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 24 2015, 08:33 PM

Like reporting back to user whilst wearing a "thats told them" smirk on your face?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 24 2015, 09:01 PM

Care to cite a reference to the work where he said that? - like you say, there are some terribly ignorant people posting on the internet and we generally expect forumistas to back up their statements.

Incidentally, the full quotation is "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence." But you knew that, right?

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 24 2015, 09:04 PM

Got the rofl copter warmed up and ready for flight, coming?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 24 2015, 09:15 PM

Wouldn't miss it, I always fly PML.

Posted by: Lolly Mar 24 2015, 09:20 PM

You got there before me!

Most amusing thread I've read on here so far. So is anybody going to own up to being Petra?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 24 2015, 10:00 PM

We'll have to wait until Petra has finished folding flyers.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 24 2015, 10:34 PM

The thrust of your argument is that all negative opinion is wrong because the council say-so. I'm sorry, if you wish to have a sensible debate, you will have to bring more to the table than that.

I also don't buy the argument that it is acceptable to say that if anyone doesn't like it they can appeal. Many people are timid and for the council to use that as a quality control measure is not acceptable.

All criticism of the council is fair if the council will not engage in a reasonable and professional manner with it's paying public.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 25 2015, 12:52 PM

This is brilliant, yes welcome to the forum Petra, you are indeed a breath of fresh air, funniest poster yet! I am guessing you have a bit of a hang up about intelligence because people have raised it with you a lot? Don't worry petal, nobody is judging you for your intellect. Your personality needs addressing first. Why would you publicly slate so many people backed up with a "if you disagree then you are wrong and stupid" argument, whilst demanding that nobody else dares to speak in that matter! There are people on here who provide a positive slant on the council and that allows for a more balanced debate. We are grateful for them, but we don't all agree. However we discuss and argue for and against the various merits and shortfalls and back up with facts of evidence of opinions where possible.

You don't seem capable or willing to do that, so please have a word with yourself and try again.

Posted by: GMR Mar 25 2015, 04:50 PM

What an arrogant response from somebody from the council.

First of all I did contact the council offices. On top of that I also notified various traffic wardens.

It wouldn't have been removed if it wasn't for me putting it up on this forum. In the process many motorists got caught up in the misleading sign and parked there without paying. As another member said on here that he nearly parked there in the belief it was free. As for six months; why six months - going into a new year?

Another point; people in authority need to be put in the spot light and questioned. That is called a democracy. Nobody in authority should be above that.

Posted by: GMR Mar 25 2015, 04:51 PM

She is just a mouth piece.

Posted by: GMR Mar 25 2015, 04:52 PM

Yes, we need a good laugh on here.

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 25 2015, 05:19 PM

Just because someone is pro council, in my book wef (with effect from) the 1st January 2015, it doesn't mean they are employed by the council or actually are a councillor. I understand that the council doesn't want to engage directly with an anonymous group of keyboard warriors and why should they. The whole point of the thread though was the neglect by the council to look after their signage and it's not the first time that has happened.

I think the reply to a fairly new member was a bit patronising especially the scolding tone "Young lady" and the advice on her assumption.

However, excellent piece of swordplay which I found quite enjoyable. I have to add in defence that the council does go flat out to punish the motorist and within that the local traders with whom one may or may not have sympathy. Even Eric Pickles realised and has said publicly, that our councils go over the top. Possibly a personal hobby horse for him. It is difficult to ascertain where the parking income goes as my understanding is that it should not be used to support general revenue items. The council does seem to have a problem getting their parking income from Standard Life however, one of the big boys. So if you think the council is squeaky clean Petra, that's fine you are welcome to that opinion, so I look forward to your further positive posts.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 25 2015, 06:38 PM

I think someone, probably the person who wrote your script, should remember that they are here to serve us, the public. This is part of the problem when some people seem to think that it should it should be the other way round.

Posted by: Petra Mar 25 2015, 07:21 PM

I am always pleased to answer questions put to me and I’ve picked the best of the semi-intelligent ones. I am not prepared to entertain those that are rude, obtuse and ignorant. To get involved with such posts only lowers one’s position and puts one amongst the dull-witted. I am sure those that read this forum want something more enlightening, mind-challenging and of course informative.

Dear Mr Capp,

In answer to your queries:

Paragraph 1)
“Negative-opinion” doesn’t help anyone. I am all for criticism – intelligent and constructive criticism – but through the right media. A kangaroo court on here doesn’t help, other than those that want to be amused. People do have a right to question and confront those in positions of authority. But there are means and ways. If you are concerned with, say, the signposts that have been put up, then you should go through the correct channels. If you do not get any joy there then you can take the matter further, all the way to an ombudsman. But I can guarantee you that 9 out of 10 never get that far because their grievances are normally sorted out well before that. Laying out one’s grievances on a forum like this doesn’t and won’t get you any further, in fact, could make things worse for you (in the long run).

Paragraph 2)
Whether you buy the argument or not is neither here nor there. It is not for those of authority to wipe peoples noses of those who are of a “timid” nature. Council and such treat everybody the same and fairly. Those in authority don’t have the added time trying to run around looking for those that are timorous.

Paragraph 3)
The council does engage with the public, if they didn’t there would be uproar. Of course not everything is to ones liking and you can’t please everybody. As I said in my opening letter/ statement, the people of authority/ institutions are there for the greater good and not for the individuals. That doesn’t mean that individuals can’t or won’t be helped; they are where possible.

I hope I have answered your questions fairly and to your satisfaction? I am always happy to engage anybody, providing they speak without crudity or rancour.

Yours sincerely,

Petra.

Posted by: Petra Mar 25 2015, 07:24 PM

Dear Mr GMR,

You are the silly person who started all this silliness and hostility towards the council, at least on the subject of signs. Such bad judged comments don’t go unnoticed in certain quarters, however, as you started your ill-judged post I am happy to put you right or at least humour you.

1) First of all I never said or even hinted what I do and I certainly never said I worked for the council or any other authority, nor did I say I didn’t. Don’t presume that it is only people from the council that can reply to such misinformed posts. Anybody with any intelligence and knowhow of the workings of such institutions could answer sufficiently. And of course, there are many council employees who patrol this forum who could answer you.

2) As for your contacting council offices: as they have stated they have no record. Concerning traffic wardens: wardens are people who are there to do a job and not carry messages or even debate with members of the public. It is not within their remit or capabilities.

3) As the council had stated, it was up there for a limited period and taken down when they stated they would be. Your timing was just coincidental. There was no need to get excited. I think you’ve been watching too many X-Files and thus coming up with all sorts of conspiracies.

4) As for your last comment. I already answered that in my reply to Mr Capp. I hope this now ends and no more silly stuff about WBC and silly machinations.

Yours sincerely,

Petra

Posted by: Petra Mar 25 2015, 07:37 PM

I wouldn't use the word "serve," but help Mr machine. But we also must recognise the limits of some of the public and how they can be more antagonistic, than articulate.

Nobody wrote any script for me as I have the capability - lacking in many - to articulate my own responses. I dance to nobody’s tune, especially on a platform that gives room and voice to those who live in a world of conspiracy theories and are dramatists.

yours sincerely,

Petra

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 25 2015, 07:37 PM

Wow! Trolls here. And It's not even Friday! Finished the Old Man's supper then?

Posted by: Petra Mar 25 2015, 07:48 PM

Do you know the definition of a "Troll" Mr Machine? I somehow doubt it. To you it is anybody who challenges the uneducated and or ignorant. Maybe you should look in the mirror, along with some of your chums, to understand the definition of a troll.

Regards,

Petra.

Ps you can’t accuse somebody who stands up to ignorance and or tries to correct somebody as Trolling. That is idiotic. No wonder the more informed, articulate and intelligent don’t stay long on here. Disagree by all means, but with intelligence, common sense and proper diction. Not hairy fairy stupidity. In the end it will only bounce back and bite you.

Yours, Petra

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 25 2015, 07:57 PM

Sincere apologies Lady Haw Haw I can assure you we have now learned the error of our ways and we will never besmirch the highly thought of Local Authorities that we have been blessed with ever again!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 25 2015, 08:09 PM

Lucky you didn't say anything about the dirty knife, GMR.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 25 2015, 08:35 PM

No,no, no. They are there to serve us, the public. The problems start when they (and people like you) forget this and instead begin to believe their own press. This council is riven by arrogance, mismanagement and appallingly bad communication skills. Far too many of it's members honestly believe that if they simply deny, lie, fudge and muddle the facts then that's sufficient.

Your problems stem from not fully understanding the raw power of the internet where information is swiftly fed to the public and arrogance and mismanagement quickly recognised. By simply closing your eyes to it and saying such screamingly childish things merely expose you as someone with not only a vested interest in attempting to argue the facts (badly) but as someone with no interest in holding up the facts to the cold light of day for public scrutiny. And to quote your own self, end of!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 25 2015, 08:43 PM

Well said.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 25 2015, 10:23 PM

I sincerely hope WBC, or indeed any other public authority, doesn't really employ Petra; otherwise the problem with our governance is even worse than a top grade cynic like me could imagine. Public service used to be an honorable profession.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 25 2015, 10:39 PM

That's fine if we were talking about a level playing field, but we are not. The complaints procedure is the only option for legal matters, but not the only option available to the average Joe. However, if one decides to pursue the complaints procedure, be prepared for a 'war of attrition'.

Mind you, the point I was trying to highlight was that you were somewhat begging the question with your 'everything is alright because the council say so' stance.


I'm not talking about wiping people's noses, I'm saying that the council should do better than rely on public deference for sloppy performance. In my view that is what happened here, as elsewhere around town: like the bollards and the parkway bridge design. I seem to remember that parking issues in town have been brought to officers attention, but were ignored. The council have form on this.


I'm not doubting the council does engage with the public, but I question its quality and professionalism. I have seem them make many gaffs and most were avoidable.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 26 2015, 07:30 AM

It's the mind blowing arrogance that gets me, every time. Of course the Council cannot please everyone, but with a little humility they'd please far more. If we go back to the original complaint, it would have made a massive difference if they'd simply said sorry, it was just a mistake - particularly if that sat well against their usual attitude. The vast majority of us would accept that, even if we thought it might be a try on. It's high time we got rid of the Local Authority tag and go back to the Public Servant one.

Posted by: GMR Mar 26 2015, 04:17 PM

For somebody who wants to keep discussions intelligent then I am surprised your comments "silly person". But we will let that pass for now. A couple of questions:

1. what "quarters"?

2. Misinformed from your prospective, not mine.

3. What did you mean by not in their "capabilities"? Are you saying that they are incapable in passing messages on? If so shouldn't they have said so, instead of saying they would?

4. This whole sign business has created a bit of a mess really, hasn't it?

Fair is fair, I will give you credit for coming on here and replying; whether you are a council member or not. I would rather have your tone and answers than silence.

Posted by: greenmeanie61 Mar 27 2015, 10:55 AM

"Concerning traffic wardens: wardens are people who are there to do a job and not carry messages or even debate with members of the public. It is not within their remit or capabilities"

Excuuuse me, I wouldn't go that far! I'm certainly capable of debating with members of the public. As West Berkshire Council Civil Enforcement Officers, our supervisors/management like us to be "ambassadors" for the council when patrolling. We are the only uniformed council presence on the streets after all. If we know the answer to any questions asked, we will try and give correct advice. I convey messages all the time. (its usually, "Oi, not there" or "no, Sir, its not free after 6pm"), but we try our best to help where possible.

Perhaps some people think this sign issue is a bit of a mess, but as CEOs, we don't get involved with signage issues. I don't think its a conspiracy to defraud or mislead the public, as much as I wish there was, as much as some people think. WBC make mistakes, just like any business up and down the country, and PR isn't a strength of any council, full stop!

As Bob Marley said, "You can't please all the people, all the time."

Posted by: greenmeanie61 Mar 27 2015, 10:57 AM

I often say to Members of the Public, "Hold your council to account, it's your right as a citizen!!"

Posted by: blackdog Mar 27 2015, 11:41 AM

Sadly it's a right that we can really only exercise at election time - and only in a very crude way. It would take a huge upswell of local dissatisfaction to vote out the existing council, especially on a General Election day.

If they want to make government more democratic (and they don't) then we whould have one councillor per ward (no more multiples) and they should be elected one at a time every month or so. That way we would have genuinely local elections for candidates who would have no choice but to campaign on local issues rather than ride on the coat tails of a national party campaign. We might even see a few successful candidates who are independent of party political ties.

It would be even more interesting if there were one or two such elections each year where the ward up for grabs would be drawn out of a hat a month before - so every councillor always knew there was a chance that their seat could be at risk within the next few months. I can't help feeling that the concerns of their electorate would be of far more concern to them in such circumstances.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 27 2015, 01:27 PM

I'd just like to see better public communications, instead of the trite cobblers we usually get.

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 27 2015, 02:42 PM

I know this was not WBC and is of course our Town Council, but ask Simon about a war of attrition. Perhaps that is why he sometimes gets a bee in his bonnet.

I would echo several other posts, I have said so myself, it's just the use of the word sorry now and again for these minor misdemeanours that would have resolved the whole matter.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 27 2015, 04:52 PM

TBF to councils, I would imagine they respond in a manner advised by legals. Their responses to failure mirrors other organisations like the MoD.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 27 2015, 05:36 PM

I'd be very surprised if WBC didn't have some mechanisim for front line staff to be able to feed back information they pick up - even in general terms. Otherwise the term 'ambassador for the Council' is just trite management speak. Whether the higher ups do anything with it is quite another matter.

Yes, they may be advised by legals, but more often internal bureaucrats. Blackdog is spot on, the word 'sorry' now and again would do far more for their credibility and incur far less cost than the result any amount of advice from technical college lawyers.

Posted by: Petra Mar 27 2015, 07:21 PM

First of all I must thank you, Mr Capp for replying to my post without acrimony, which seems to be beyond the others on here. A respectful reply or question deserves a respectful response in return. Those that wish to sink this forum into the quagmire of dirt and tattle are not doing a service to those that read/ observe such discussions/ debates and who want some sort of insight. Those others that have followed your example will be rewarded with a reply.

1). 'War of attrition': says who? I don’t agree and from my observation of council staff/ members they try to bend over backwards to help the public. They are not there to annoy them. What proof do you have that this is so? I am sure that if you took your concerns to WBC they would be very helpful. Have you?

Everything is not all right because the council says so. The majority of people are satisfied, nevertheless, there are those that won’t be, but that doesn’t mean they are left behind. People in such institutions will always bend over backwards to help. The sad thing is you can’t please everybody and those you can’t please will always shout the loudest and complain the loudest, but that doesn’t make them right.

2). “sloppy performances,” says who? Those that can’t be satisfied? You talk about sloppy performances, but not about those that find services like WBC top of their form. Those that disagree don’t agree because they haven’t got what they want.
Were they “ignored”? You don’t hear everything that goes on behind the scenes. You only know snippets that happen.

3). You say that you “question its quality and professionalism”. I refer you to what I said above.
I hope I’ve answered your questions to your approval, if not, then I have no doubt that you will be back.

Yours sincerely,
Petra

Posted by: Petra Mar 27 2015, 07:21 PM

Mr Machine,

In today’s society, people in such institutions are not there to serve, but to be helpful and obliging. And they are helpful. We are living in a different society where members of such authoritative organisations should be shown respect, that is why the word “serve” is no longer acceptable in a political correct society. Each side should show respect. Your other comments/ complaints I refute. Of course members of the public will agree with some of your terminology – those that are disgruntled – but the majority wouldn’t agree with what you say.

Your problem is that you don’t understand the vindictive side of the internet. It is not only there for good, but it also allows the loony element to spout their misinformed nonsense. As people do on this forum. You say tomato, I say tomahto. Who is right? There is always an intermediate system if one is disgruntled: use it and stop moaning, which doesn’t help anybody.

Yours sincerely,
Petra

Posted by: Petra Mar 27 2015, 07:22 PM

Dear Ms Edge,

“Humility” is always given, if need be. I don’t think you realise what sort of riffraff go through the doors of public services. Public helpers get abused on a daily level because people always believe they are right.

As for the original complaint: why say sorry if they are not wrong? WBC has replied, so why can’t you accept that? People in authority are not in the habit of saying sorry when they are in the right. Why are you so sure that the original thread creator isn’t wrong? Once you open the door to wrong or misguided apologies you then make a rod for your own back. Apologies are given where justified, in this case it is not.

As for “public servant tag,” that will never happen, as I said elsewhere, they are not “servants” but equals and should be shown respect in that content. They are there to help, not serve or be browbeaten. At the end of the day they have more authority, knowledge and ability in their professional remit than those that approach them. Remember that when being critical of an organisation that is there for the greater good of the citizens of this county.

Yours sincerely,
Petra

Posted by: Petra Mar 27 2015, 07:23 PM

Dear Mr GMR,
There is nothing wrong with such tame comments as “Silly boy,” as compared to some of the more caustic language used by some on here.
Misinformed from the point of facts, or lack of facts, in your case.
We all have various levels of capabilities. We are normally where we are because of our abilities and qualifications.
No, is the simple answer to your question concerning the signs.
Yours sincerely,
Petra

Posted by: Petra Mar 27 2015, 07:24 PM

Dear GM61,
I totally agree with you (on certain points) and my comments were more of a generalisation.

I am sure that you are capable of debates, but as you well know, you are not the voice of everybody in your field. On top of that “debating” with the public is frowned on by your employers. Yes, I agree that one should be polite and courteous where able, but getting into lengthy debates is not part of their/ your job description. Not only that, but if Traffic Wardens were spending time “debating” with members of the public then when do they get the time to do their actual work? I am sure you were speaking about your spare time and not having lengthy debates on your employers time. I know for a fact that there isn’t one rule for the office staff and another for those out on the field.

Where I disagree with you is that the sign issue isn’t and hasn’t been a bit of a mess and only brought to the table by somebody who wanted his 15 minutes of fame. But as you pointed out, CEOs don’t and shouldn’t get involved in such concerns. It is above their pay level, therefore you should have stuck to what you are qualified to answer.

Yours sincerely,
Petra

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 27 2015, 07:55 PM

Yes.

I raised a complaint many years ago and it just went round in circles where the salient details were 'not on record' and replies usually lacked detail to prevent a reply, or showed a degree of obfuscation. I think officers and staff bend over backwards if your complaint or enquiry is routine, but not so if there is an element of culpability.


What is the council's KPI on 'customer satisfaction'? That would add weight to your POV if it were high.


That isn't what I meant. My point was that the council shouldn't 'rely' on the public's deference to avoid doing things properly. That isn't to say they do, but merely a response to your: 'you can always complain' point. I'm sure the council know that most people tend to 'grin and bear it'.


Here the evidence is in the public domain and I cannot tell you how often I have read the words of a spokesman that have been regrettable. I frequently read things that lack any detail or information, and are largely littered with platitudes.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 27 2015, 08:00 PM

I don't think the sign thing was a bit of a mess, I just think it was joke: poorly designed and poorly managed, but it gave a bit of fun to the local Facebook page, anyway.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 27 2015, 08:28 PM

There is quite a difference between NTC and WBC, and I have very little experience of WBC's handling of complaints, though my one experience of making a complaint I found them to be arrogant and vindictive. I have though found other parts of WBC to be really professional and well run so I think it's a bit of a mischaracterisation to think of WBC as a single entity, and it's more of a curate's egg - but once you make a complaint you're up against the corporate machine, and that is a truly relentless grind, and you should indeed expect a war of attrition.

My experience with NTC is more thorough. In all practical regards parish councils are a law unto themselves. I've described in detail how I was threaten by NTC not to raise a concern about the fairness of the allotment tenancy agreement, how when I nonetheless raised that concern with Trading Standards who upheld the complaint the Town Council just evicted me in revenge and were happy to spend around £10k of public money making good on their tyranny. After four and a half years the Council lifted my Vexatious Complainant designation last autumn and that made it possible for me to use the Council's complains process to seek redress - and having invited detailed complaint the Council have refused me any documentary evidence on the grounds that my request was vexatious, and I am still waiting for a response to my complaint. It is a hopeless task, and they most assuredly do everything they can to grind down your resolve to see the matter through - and of course, as they are judge jury and executioner there is very little point pursuing a complaint against them anyway

I'm currently pursuing the disclosure of the hydrogeological reports with a friend through the Information Tribunal, and this has been a wearing task. 15 months after making the request for the reports we're now waiting for the Information Tribunal to make a ruling, and that might yet have 12 months to run.

It is indeed a relentless slog to hold local government to account if it doesn't of itself want to be held accountable. Not all organisations behave like this, and by far the best strategy is openness and accountability - if you make a mistake you apologise and make it right - good customer service isn't really that difficult, and the paradox is that no one feels bad about the organisations who admit their errors, it's only the organisations who fear blame and develop a culture of denial that people resent. In commerce a company with that attitude just wouldn't survive, but being arrogant and delivering rubbish service isn't much of a problem for local government if its leadership doesn't think it's a problem.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 27 2015, 09:05 PM

Well, Petra, your powers of deduction are rather less acute than you believe. Rather than correct things, which might possibly call for an apology, I'll say no more save the clue is in the salutation.

As for how public servants should behave, just remember that 'riffraff' pay their wages and are their customers. And, as that popular TV character Mr Selfrage was perported to have said, 'the customer is always right'. Ironically, the very training courses they encourage their junior staff to take stresses these very basic customer service principals.

In many cases they do not have better skills or knowledge than those they shoukd be serving; something they actually acknowledge themselves, rather too frequently, by employing expensive consultants.

I think you are confusing servant with servile, I haven't suggested they are less equal! All most of us want is to be treated with that self same respect you are demanding.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 27 2015, 09:13 PM

Relax, It's a setup, no one could be as patronizing and vacuous as this 'Petra' purports to be. Not and survived without being beaten to death with a soggy copy of the Guardian that is.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 28 2015, 07:31 AM

You are probably quite right. Wind ups woukd be rather easier to spot if the output of our local council PR operation less plodding and basic.

Posted by: greenmeanie61 Mar 28 2015, 10:31 AM

Debating the semantics of parking restrictions with members of the public is part of the job and is something we all do on a daily basis, but obviously there is a big difference between arguing and debating.

I wonder, do you actually work for the council? In my many years working in the public sector, in many different roles, I would say without doubt that we are public servants. I don't agree with the statement that the public "pay my wages", but they are definitely our customers, and we are there to serve their needs. If the public were not there, what would be our purpose?


(edited from original post)

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 28 2015, 11:34 AM

I suppose we are all servants to our customers.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 28 2015, 12:06 PM

Quite so, the essence of a market driven economy. However, where there is a monopoly, those involved often need to be reminded or amongst other things suffer the indignity of contempt.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 28 2015, 12:07 PM

Glad to hear this, one minor point though, who does pay your wages?

Posted by: greenmeanie61 Mar 28 2015, 12:30 PM

West Berkshire Council pay my wages. Obviously a percentage of that comes from tax payers, but I believe it is an over simplification to say that the public pay my wages.

In my opinion, Council Tax pays for services of the council, not individual employees. I think that's a subtle but important difference. The problem is that people too often use this as an excuse to abuse council employees, as if contributing to our wages allows them to treat us how they like.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 28 2015, 12:48 PM

Therein lies the rub. The Council is supposed to be 'the people' - it has no existence without them. The Crown, the ultimate authority in this Country is represented by the Lord Leftenant. So you are stuck with us!

The trouble is, many people expect anyone providing a service to be servile and it's that bit which produces the abuse. Straightforward answer to anyone doing that is to refer the. To their Councillor, because it's their wishes you are carrying out.

Posted by: GMR Mar 29 2015, 05:21 PM

You are not really answering my questions, however, I share what others have said on here about you.

Posted by: Petra Mar 30 2015, 06:08 PM

Dear Mr Capp,

In answer to your questions.

1). I don’t believe that you did enough to try to get a satisfactory outcome. Not only are there measures within the system that can take you further, but there are also outside resources. Such as Citizen Advice Bureau. From my own experience in dealing with officials I never give up and eventually win my cause. That is providing I am right. Unfortunately, I don’t know what you did or didn’t do or how you approached it so I can’t answer more beyond what I already said. Sorry.

2). Have you tried to find out yourself?

3). If the people just “grin and bear it” then that must be down to them. Organisations such as WBC are there to help, but they deal with thousands of people and can’t or haven’t got the time to walk everybody through the motions. I understand what you are saying, but if you want them to increase their help, output, then more resources need to be put into WBC or other such organisations. That means more money. In the case of WBC it means higher taxes/ rates. That would not be very popular with the public.

4). Such as?

Yours sincerely,

Petra

Posted by: Petra Mar 30 2015, 06:09 PM

Ms Edge,

“Riffraff” may pay their wages, but that doesn’t change the fact they are what they are. People are judged by how they treat others.

The “customer is always right” to their face, but that doesn’t mean they (the public services) must be submissive to every little whinge they come out with. And don’t forget that Mr Selfrage was running a shop and those customers were making him millions. Services like WBC are an amenity that is paid out of tax payers money. Selfrage’s has to compete with other companies fighting for patronage. Councils are a monopoly that doesn’t have to worry about competition.

I disagree that those that have visited their councils have better skills or knowledge (at least on the whole). Council staff or any civil servant employees are trained to the highest calibre.
Hiring expensive consultants actually means – and what I said above – that they have the highest calibre working for them.

They – the customer – treat the public with respect, but don’t always receive it in return.

Yours sincerely,

Petra

Posted by: Petra Mar 30 2015, 06:11 PM

Dear GM61,

I am sorry, but you are wrong. Debating suggests something stronger and that is beyond your pay level. What you do, if confronted or what you should do, is advise or even state the reasons why the motorist has been given a ticket. You are not there to get into a full blown dialogue with them. If they are not satisfied with what you have said then you must refer them to somebody higher. A Traffic warden isn’t paid beyond that. I think you are trying to give yourself a more colourful position/ authority than you actually require or warrant.

Concerning whether I work for the council or not. First of all I have never said I work for anybody, or even not worked for them. I have come on here as an individual expressing my opinions based on my experiences. If I came on here stating that I worked for such and such service I would have to moderate my language and be very, very careful in what I said. Otherwise, people would be contacting my employers and demanding or saying all sorts of things.

While I am on the subject of positions or not positions I would like to make a comment on the thread called “Council Spokesperson??, Who is she / he?” As I stated above, I speak for nobody other than myself. If you, or anybody wish to judge me then I should be judged on what I said/ say. When replying to others on this forum or any other medium I always take that person at face value, unless I know otherwise. Besides, if I said I was working for such and such an organisation the next question would be, prove it (and rightly so). However, if I am to be outed then shouldn’t the outers be outed themselves?

I’ve only just joined this forum, but have been reading it for many years. My friends, colleagues and I have always had a good laugh over the few who dominate the many to a point where most have left. When this forum started NWN used to put quotes up from forum members in their letter pages’. But not now. Why? Mainly people came on here to voice their concerns or just give their opinions. But over time a few dominated the many until a small rump of people dominated this forum. Checking the top 20 list from this forum I picked the top 6 most posted members. AnyCapp, Dannyboy, GMR, Simon Kirby, On the Edge, Iommi, Biker1 and User21, and there are one or two others who are consistently on here. Why don’t new members come on here and get involved or even stay? Well, all you have to do is look at the thread “Council Spokesperson??, Who is she / he?” Because people would feel condemned, criticised and questioned to who is behind the mask. To many this is a no go area. I am in a high pressured job so I have very thick skin. The question you’ve got to ask yourselves, are you happy with the current domination by the few or would you prefer a more robust intelligent forum with intelligent debates/ discussions? Whatever I am, whatever anybody else is we all should be judged on what we say and how we conduct ourselves.

You all should remember that there is a high readership on here and it is to those people, as well as those that write on here, whom I am trying to reach out and say that there is another side to the one-sided biased and ignorant viewpoint that is often spouted on this forum.

Yours sincerely,

Petra

Posted by: On the edge Mar 30 2015, 06:28 PM

Well GM61; we can now see the attitudes you encounter from some of the public. Frankly you deserve a medal; I'd want a rifle!

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 30 2015, 06:44 PM

Yeah, but, we've all got small rumps. So that's nice.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 30 2015, 07:23 PM

So just to clarify! Anyone that has had an awful experience with any of our beloved local Authorities has only themselves to blame for not following through and winning especially when they are right?

So all the gaffs that have been carried out by our beloved local Authorities, Allotmentgate, Parkwaygate, Victoriacrackgate, Parkingsignsgate etc. etc. never really happened and it is only the few on this forum who posted one-sided biased and ignorant viewpoints that has concocted these gaffs out of the air?

Keep talking Lady Haw Haw you are performing a splendid piece of work making the councils look more incompetent than we ever could!

Posted by: newres Mar 30 2015, 09:02 PM

Nut job.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 30 2015, 09:07 PM

That is completely true, but after two ring binders full of correspondence with various bodies in and out side of the council and a family matter that took precedence, I had to call it a day for the sake of my own health.


No, but it is you making the claim, so I see it as incumbent on you to do that.


I think you are re-directing my point; however, I have made mine so I will leave it there.


Parkway parking, Vickie Park cracks, one way bridge, bollards, if you have been keeping an eye on the conversations on here, you would have seen the number of debates we have had about them.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 30 2015, 09:23 PM

The public find few things more annoying that an authoritarian attitude of 'if you don't like it, here's the phone number'. This particular 'Green Meanie' has had the decency to come on here and calmly advise on local parking issues - without ever needing to become obnoxious. I hazard a guess that he is respected for that and people here appreciate it.

We also have Biker1 to thank for advice on trains too.


You are not the first person to appear to 'know' why this forum doesn't have more active participants and while your argument might have some merit, I very much doubt that yours is the main reason why the forum isn't more active. All forums are going quiet; it is an evolutionary thing.

And while we are at it, re: “Council Spokesperson??, Who is she / he?” I'd say many if not most people have come out in support in you remaining anonymous and supportive of your entitlement to be so.


Of course there is, it is just disappointing that so few have the strength of conviction to come on here and say so, but then we all know how timid the average person can be!

Posted by: Berkshirelad Mar 31 2015, 09:10 AM

Could you explain when West Berkshire became a county?

Last time I looked, it was one of a number of unitary authorities that comprised the County of Berkshire...

Posted by: Berkshirelad Mar 31 2015, 09:28 AM

GM61 - to use your shortened form is not and, as a WBC employee (ie CEO), never has been a Traffic Warden.

traffic Wardens have very different powers and are managed by the Police, not local authorities. Parking tickets issued by them are criminal matters with enforcement via Magistrates' Court

If you are going to argue points, please try to remain factual.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 31 2015, 10:19 AM

If only! 'Unitary' in most people's understanding means just one, so why do we have to suffer with two?

Posted by: greenmeanie61 Mar 31 2015, 11:51 AM

Petra, if you actually did the job I do, your opinion may be different.

I'm saying nothing more, I would probably get in trouble!

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 31 2015, 12:18 PM

If they are anything to do with our councils you might!

Posted by: GMR Mar 31 2015, 03:38 PM

Something Andy Capp said that made me go back to this thread. You stated - as a CEO - that the whole issue of signs is a bit 'of a mess'. But this contradicts what the official statement was from the council; that is was planned and the wording is/ was ok. So what is a bit of a mess, in your official position (as a representative of the council on here)? However, I accept your wording as it goes with mine, so shouldn't the council pay back what they wrongly got - through bad wording of the sign - from innocent motorists?




Whatever Petra is or isn't, you are claiming to represent them so your voice is more authoritative than Petra's on here.

Posted by: Strafin Mar 31 2015, 03:44 PM

Ah, come on GMR, that's not fair to GM61, he's been very open on here and could get into trouble but has offered up his opinion in good faith. I don't think he has ever claimed to represent the council, just standing up for him and his colleagues. Would be good to have his opinion, but I don't think he should feel obligated to give it.

Posted by: GMR Mar 31 2015, 04:19 PM

If he has been open on here then it won't hurt him to be a bit more open for the sake of all those motorists that were misled into thinking they didn't have to pay.

If I stood up and said I was representing the police or some other authority then I would expect a bombardment such as this. At the end of the day he contradicted the 'official' version.

Personally I think that anybody who comes on here claiming to represent anybody and criticises somebody giving a different viewpoint should show their credentials. Any fool can come on here and say they are so-and-so. I've often been challenged for what I've said and I've never said I represent anybody, so why is he any different? Also this Petra has been confronted and asked to prove who she is or at least say so.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 31 2015, 04:29 PM

I don't think you are being fair here.

He said: 'perhaps this sign thing is a bit of a mess'. He has admitted nothing and has not stated anything as an official voice. He has contradicted nothing, but the end result will just be a gagging order from the council, so be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: GMR Mar 31 2015, 04:35 PM

So basically he is just hot air? Maybe he is not admitting nothing because he is a fabrication of his own mind.

He claims - even perhaps - that it is a mess. I agree with him and so do most others. The trouble is he claims to be a CEO for the council; that carries weight.

What I wish for is the council to be honest and admit they made a mistake or that they intentionally planned to mislead and repay those that were caught out in their net.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 31 2015, 06:12 PM

This is not the proper forum. Petra is correct: if you want official recognition, this is not the place for it. This is not an official media outlet for the council or it's members and employees.

Your unreasonable behaviour will only seek to stop another interesting and valuable person from posting.

Posted by: GMR Mar 31 2015, 06:38 PM

Tough! somebody comes on here claiming to be an official of WBC/ Traffic Wardens then must expect to be cross examined. And aren't you and others (including myself) being a bit rich when we condemn Petra? She is right on one thing; if she said she was an official from WBC then the next question would be "prove it".

Posted by: Petra Mar 31 2015, 06:51 PM

Mr Coqnosco,

1). If they are right then they should fight their cause. Of course authorities could be wrong, but it is for the claimer to prove it and fight its case.

2). I haven’t been discussing “allotmentgate,” etc.

3). “Lord Haw Haw” (or as you say Lady) was actually William Joyce, who was a British citizen and was hanged for collaborating with the nazi’s against the free world. As you are suggesting that I am “Joyce” and that you as also presume that I am working for WBC then by your analogy WBC must be the Nazi’s. This is offensive to the men and women of WBC to be compared to Nazi’s. For your information, many Jews work for WBC and they would find your comments offensive, abusive and insulting to compare them to Nazi’s. Whatever you think of me or them, they do not deserve such comparisons? I would regard your comments as anti Semitic and therefore a criminal offense.

Yours sincerely,

Petra.

Posted by: Petra Mar 31 2015, 06:52 PM

Dear Any Capp,

1). By your own admission it is your failure to continue your fight against what you believe is wrong. WBC is there to represent the people as a whole, and not there to surrender because somebody believes they are in the wrong. Whatever company one goes up against they must prove their case. You surrendered yours.

2). I stated what I know, it is for you to contradict me with facts or accept my word.

3). As stated I have been reading this forum, however, they are old events – which you show – so I wasn’t here to comment on.

Yours sincerely,

Petra

Posted by: Petra Mar 31 2015, 06:53 PM

Dear Andy again,

1). I wasn’t obnoxious, I just didn’t agree with you had said so. As for the GM61, how do you know he is who he says he is? Also, he seems to be contradicting the official voice of the council, as GMR picked up. Basically he is just a name that claims to be somebody. You only “guess” it favorably because you are in agreement with him. While you don’t like me tackling you or others on here. In my profession, I am well respected, thank you.

2). This forum has been going quiet for some time. But that doesn’t change the fact that if anybody comes on here they are quickly browbeaten away.

3). Timid, yes, certainly, however, browbeating is a different thing.

Yours sincerely,
Petra

Posted by: Petra Mar 31 2015, 06:54 PM

Mr Berkshirelad,

How do you know what he is? Any fool can come on here spouting anything, that is why I say I speak for myself rather than anybody else.

As for the term “Traffic Warden” it was the term used originally on here so I stayed with that. I am also presuming that GM61 is just giving himself a heading on here to look impressive.

I use the term (“county”) meaning locally as that is how we refer to it at work.

Yours sincerely,

Petra

Posted by: Petra Mar 31 2015, 06:57 PM

Mr Capp,

Exactly, which says he doesn't really know what is going on but is stumbling in the dark. A wannabee I would imagine.

Never trust anybody that says they are an official, unless they can prove it. No official I know would put their name on the chopping block and say such things to contradict their employers.

yours sincerely,

Petra

Posted by: JaneGibbs Mar 31 2015, 07:10 PM

I don’t come on here very often, but often read with amusement. But I thought I had to come on here and say that anybody that claims to be an official for any organisation should prove their claim. As for Petra, I am not sure, however, again she should say a bit more.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 31 2015, 07:41 PM

And you have.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 31 2015, 07:45 PM

Hardly fair GMR. GM61 is here in a private capacity and provides an interesting insight and perspective on their job - any of which is up for discussion in the usual way, but if you have a problem with their employer you need to take it up with them.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 31 2015, 07:56 PM

An unconvincing Reductio ad Hitlerum, but a passable Godwin's Rule.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 31 2015, 08:05 PM

Posted by: CrackerJack Mar 31 2015, 08:13 PM

Hello,

GM61 is empowered through his/her employment to stick tickets on a windscreen. Nothing more, nothing less.

That bit of the job specification is not rocket science and there is no part of the country where CEOs actually need to be rocket scientists to patrol and enforce on parking restrictions. That would also be the case here in West Berkshire.

Comments made to members of the public on this forum in their own time are their own personal opinions. Having a uniform hanging up in the cupboard, a ticket machine and a forum name which implies they are CEOs does not make them qualified traffic engineers. They may well be CEOs, but they would not know, nor would they need to know, all of the intricacies of traffic law which make parking restrictions enforceable.

In the course of their duties, if a member of the public does have a problem with a sign or other type of parking problem CEOs should just acknowledge and nod in agreement and tell the customer they will pass it up through the parking management team. Opening their mouth for any other reason while at work and providing what poses as detailed knowledge is a sure fire way to find themselves being quoted and it is never safe to agree that a sign is wrong when you are not armed with all the information.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing and one word out of place will see their comments taken as gospel.

GM61 has provided comments on this news forum before. GMR has taken the latest ones as gospel. He is assuming this is an official representation from the council. It is no such thing and there is no reason why it should be thought as such when this forum is just an add-on piece of software on the local paper's website which is only used by a very small number of people.

If GMR or JaneGibbs want official comments they should approach the officials at the council. This isn't the place to start a witch hunt or sniff out who is qualified to comment.



GM61 may be wishing he hadn't registered on this forum under that username as there will be members of the team of CEOs trying to work out who he is - or they may already know/have guessed. Demanding further information from him, demanding he 'proves' he is a council official, demanding he 'qualifies his statements' so they can be taken as comments in an official capacity when they are not may see him invited in for tea and biscuits without the tea and biscuits from the head of parking. It may also just mean there will be less and less contribution from posters on here not wanting to join in with the witch hunt

Regards
Jack

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 31 2015, 08:14 PM

The words 'clutching' and 'straws' come to mind. If all else fails fall back on playing the good old racism card. Well done. One more platitude and I shall have a full house!

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 31 2015, 08:17 PM

A good, solid, sensible post.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 31 2015, 11:17 PM

You might be being rich; I am not. I just don't believe in slitting my throat to spite my face.

Posted by: CrackerJack Mar 31 2015, 11:47 PM

The same goes for PCSOs. They are not warranted police officers despite what some of them may think and comments they make to the general public should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 31 2015, 11:48 PM

My case was factually proven, twice. What I gave up on was asking the council to explain why they failed a community of people. A profound personal experience and a sudden change in circumstance meant I made a choice for the benefit of me and my family.


I guess you are not an engineer or a scientist as that is not how it works. It is incumbent on you to support your argument, not for me to look for a lack of evidence; that is illogical.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2015, 12:12 AM

You are repeatedly rude and obnoxious and not just on this segment of a topic.


Within this forum he is not an official spokesman for the council; no-one is.


Since when did I say I don't like you 'tackling' me. The only things I don't like is your arrogance and your lack of detail or data. Your arguments are every bit as partisan and lacking in any substance as those you berate.

My considerations for the CEO are that he posts in good faith and generally supports what he purports to do; however, I recognise his views have no legal bearing.


We have some trolls and some who had ridiculous views. No one is ever threatened, and if people are 'scared-off' the NWN forum, then they probably will find the Internet a very scary place.

My view of why the forum has gone quieter is because of a lack of new discussions, not because of the belligerent members of the forum.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2015, 12:26 AM

Yes it was a particularity stupid post by our latest active member.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 1 2015, 07:01 AM

I suppose it was inevitable really, given their record, the Council can't even make a simple mistake without simeone seeing a massive conspiracy! In this particular case, I'd suggest the biggest problem was the statement made by the Council's professional public relations person. Frankly, Greenmeanie on his own, and inspite of it being 'below his pay grade' has made a far better and rather more competent effort. What concerns me, is that if attitudes like those we see displayed from Petra are common in the higher echelons of public service, then we have a bigger and even nastier problem than we might imagine.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2015, 08:18 AM

I quite agree, but it does explain a lot.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Apr 1 2015, 08:45 AM

Absolutely.

They have no more power of arrest or right to direct traffic than Joe Public. They have authority to detain someone for up to 30 minutes (I guess to give time for a real policeman to arrive!)

The best description I have come across of their role is "professional witness"

Posted by: On the edge Apr 1 2015, 01:23 PM

How many more 'officials' are we to have roaming the streets? The Police, the PCSOs, the CEOs, the Community Wardens to say nothing of the volunteer Specials and Neighbourhood Watch, All augmented by a widespread and manually monitored CCTV scheme...and yet we still have undetected crime, parking violations and lots of litter. Something wrong surely?

Posted by: GMR Apr 1 2015, 03:54 PM

Totally agree. Nothing more than that.

QUOTE

That bit of the job specification is not rocket science and there is no part of the country where CEOs actually need to be rocket scientists to patrol and enforce on parking restrictions. That would also be the case here in West Berkshire.

Again, can't argue with that.

QUOTE

Comments made to members of the public on this forum in their own time are their own personal opinions. Having a uniform hanging up in the cupboard, a ticket machine and a forum name which implies they are CEOs does not make them qualified traffic engineers. They may well be CEOs, but they would not know, nor would they need to know, all of the intricacies of traffic law which make parking restrictions enforceable.

They may make comments in their own time – we presume it is their own time – however, when they drag their employer into it (by naming them) then it is not surprising that they are linked together.

QUOTE

In the course of their duties, if a member of the public does have a problem with a sign or other type of parking problem CEOs should just acknowledge and nod in agreement and tell the customer they will pass it up through the parking management team. Opening their mouth for any other reason while at work and providing what poses as detailed knowledge is a sure fire way to find themselves being quoted and it is never safe to agree that a sign is wrong when you are not armed with all the information.

Again, agreed.

QUOTE

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing and one word out of place will see their comments taken as gospel.

Exactly

QUOTE

GM61 has provided comments on this news forum before. GMR has taken the latest ones as gospel. He is assuming this is an official representation from the council. It is no such thing and there is no reason why it should be thought as such when this forum is just an add-on piece of software on the local paper's website which is only used by a very small number of people.

I didn't take what he said as gospel, I just used it to make a point. If anybody comes on here saying something and then says he is working for so and so then there is no reason to presume that that isn't linked. Speaking to people who work at the council, and hearing what the Greenmeanie had said there does seem an underlining theme that contradicts the official version. It is through people like the Greenmeanie that you actually hear the truth, rather than the contrived official version. In other words, you get a closer link to the truth and thinking of the rank and file workers, as opposed to people like Petra or the official verdict.

QUOTE

If GMR or JaneGibbs want official comments they should approach the officials at the council. This isn't the place to start a witch hunt or sniff out who is qualified to comment.

Here lies the problem; if you read the other posts on here, the 'official version' is the crap and bull**** version. To be honest any fool can write the official version himself or herself. We all know what they are going to say. That is why it is so refreshing to hear the underlining discord from those that don't just read or sign up to the party line. They come on here to moan about the bull from above.

QUOTE

GM61 may be wishing he hadn't registered on this forum under that username as there will be members of the team of CEOs trying to work out who he is - or they may already know/have guessed. Demanding further information from him, demanding he 'proves' he is a council official, demanding he 'qualifies his statements' so they can be taken as comments in an official capacity when they are not may see him invited in for tea and biscuits without the tea and biscuits from the head of parking. It may also just mean there will be less and less contribution from posters on here not wanting to join in with the witch hunt Regards Jack

Anybody who comes onto this forum, including myself, must expect to be challenged, inspected, and debated on anything they say. It has happened to all the main stayers on here. Just look at what is happening to Petra, and rightly so. Even though, in her case, she is not saying who she works for, she is nevertheless defending WBC and for that she is scrutinised, criticised or congratulated, and rightly so.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2015, 04:11 PM

What has GM61 said that is controversial or contradictory?

Posted by: GMR Apr 1 2015, 04:31 PM

If you've taken in what I said then you know the answer. Of course you might not call it controversial or contradictory, but then it is all semantics.




Are you Petra, by any chance as it is only her that calls Greenmeanie GM61?

Posted by: CrackerJack Apr 1 2015, 05:32 PM

It's the way you're doing it.

I don't see this place as somewhere where you 'must expect' to have your contributions challenged. This is a place for people to put some thoughts down and perhaps have a discussion. Getting into an argument on the other hand, especially when the tone you are using for your arguments is 'forthright', ramps the stakes up and for most people it is just not the reason they have signed up. Many would rather walk away than get into a protracted on-line argument and slagging match.

Places like this are often described as pub bars for people who haven't got the time or inclination to go to the pub. If some of these arguments were replicated in the real world rather than the virtual then you could quite as easily end up with a smack in the mouth rather than your opponent walking away.

Jack

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2015, 05:42 PM

I think I have read everything, but I am asking just in case I have missed something. As far as I can tell he hasn't contradicted the council so I don't think what you are saying is true. I'd also question if he has said anything controversial either.

In my view both statements sit comfortably with each other. Had GM61 said that he knows for a fact that the council did as you believe, then that would be cause for debate, but for him to make a throw away comment means that isn't the case, in my view.


Well now there are two.

Posted by: CrackerJack Apr 1 2015, 05:42 PM

Just because GM61 agrees with you doesn't mean he is right.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 1 2015, 06:09 PM

Lady Haw Haw.

You are obviously as guilty yourself of what you accuse most of the posters of this forum of.

Read my Post #6.

I distinctly stated I do not believe you are employed or are associated with WBC or NTC.

I call you Lady Haw Haw as I believe you are doing exactly the same task that Joyce was recruited to do, Twist facts to suit your own Political agenda!
Therefore it was only your good self who raised the Nazi specter and then tried to spin it by trying to erroneously infer that I mentioned WBC Staff.
Of course I will have to bow to your detailed knowledge of just how many Jews or other nationalities etc. are employed by WBC and I feel sure that they will grudgingly accept your apology just as soon as you submit it.

I repeat again for you as you do seem rather vague trying to interpret reading what posters write!
I do not believe you are in any way associated with any of our local authorities and that you are in fact trying to wind forum members up I deduce this by simply believing that no one can be as ridiculous as you come across?

Please keep posting though as it keeps the entertainment level up......even though our Local Authorities may cringe every time you make a posting.

Posted by: Petra Apr 1 2015, 06:20 PM

Dear Crackerjack,

A very good post and intelligently thought out.

Your comments have put GM61 where he should be, in his place.

You are also totally right when you say that if people like GMR or anybody else wants any answers from official organisations, then they should go to that organisation and get an official response.

Anybody’s opinion should be welcome on this forum, but once they say they work for an official body, then it is only natural that both are interconnected. That is why I refuse to say whom I work for or whom I represent. I speak for nobody but myself. End of.

I imagine that GM61 is a lowily figure in his profession who dreams above his station. Because of this he gets on a platform, such as this, feeling big and important (which many make him out to be) and with an air of that believed authority speaks beyond his authority without thought or concern (as we have seen). All jolly good stuff on a small scale, but could have devastating consequences if taken literally and as informative.

Yours sincerely,

Petra

Posted by: Petra Apr 1 2015, 06:20 PM

Mr Andy Capp,

1). Obviously you made a wise choice.

2). You are correct, I am not a scientist or an engineer. However, I did make a comment, based on what I know and stated it on here. Beyond those comments you can take it or leave it or find out yourself.

Yours Sincerely,
Petra.

Posted by: Petra Apr 1 2015, 06:21 PM

Dear Andy again,

1). I’ve already answered this, but I can understand why you are hostile. You can’t get what you want or you can’t bully me into coming around to your thinking.

2). Whether he is regarded as official or not he comes over or tries to come over as somebody in authority. He puts the two together, therefore he has only got himself to blame if anybody links what he says to whom he works for. End of.

3). New discussions usually mean the same people going around and around in circles, nothing more, nothing less.

Yours sincerely,
Petra

Posted by: Petra Apr 1 2015, 06:22 PM

Ms Edge,

You must remember that the people at the top of such organisations as WBC and those at the bottom (like GM61) have two different roles. Those that are at the bottom are there to be helpful, polite and follow the official line and not think beyond that. Those that are at the top are there to make sure that targets are met, if problems then an official line is found and stuck to. That the work the organisation demands is done for the greater good over the whinging concerns of the few (no “ifs” or “buts”). Organisations such as WBC are there to make money/ find money and think what is the best for the area/ town they cover (not the individual). That is in the short term and long term. People in such positions are paid very highly and for that they are expected to put the best interests of their employers over the few who are outside the circle.

I remember an interview with John Cleese about the original Basil Fawlty (who the story was based on). He said that his daughter (the original Fawlty’s daughter) said, “that if it wasn’t for the customer then this would be a good job”. I agree. Unfortunately, they are a necessary evil, who happen to pay their wages. But because they pay their wages doesn’t mean they can have their pound of flesh. People like Andy Capp think that such organisations owe them, they don’t.

Yours sincerely,
Petra.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 1 2015, 06:25 PM

Just going out to pick up some popcorn, anybody wanna chip in and I'll get the extra big bucket

Posted by: GMR Apr 1 2015, 06:27 PM

Of course!

QUOTE

I don't see this place as somewhere where you 'must expect' to have your contributions challenged. This is a place for people to put some thoughts down and perhaps have a discussion. Getting into an argument on the other hand, especially when the tone you are using for your arguments is 'forthright', ramps the stakes up and for most people it is just not the reason they have signed up. Many would rather walk away than get into a protracted on-line argument and slagging match.

I suppose we all see things differently, that is why we got what we get.

QUOTE

Places like this are often described as pub bars for people who haven't got the time or inclination to go to the pub. If some of these arguments were replicated in the real world rather than the virtual then you could quite as easily end up with a smack in the mouth rather than your opponent walking away. Jack

But this world is as you describe it, not a pub bar. That is why it attracts some, but not others.

Posted by: GMR Apr 1 2015, 06:30 PM

As you support his continuous contribution then you could see it no other way. We are all in your for different reasons.






But was it a throw away comment? Or something more strategic? I suppose that depends on how intelligent you think he is.




With you being the first; on both counts.

Posted by: GMR Apr 1 2015, 06:31 PM

It doesn't mean he is wrong either

Posted by: GMR Apr 1 2015, 06:33 PM

Couldn't agree more

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 1 2015, 06:34 PM

Yes, but, IT'S ABOVE HIS PAYSCALE!

Posted by: GMR Apr 1 2015, 06:35 PM

Interesting how you agree with him. My first thoughts when I read his post was that he was a WBC employee. Or both working for the common cause.

Posted by: GMR Apr 1 2015, 06:37 PM

Fawlty towers exactly. A euphemism for WBC, me thinks

Posted by: CrackerJack Apr 1 2015, 06:45 PM

This other forum you're a member of, the one in your signature block http://s9.zetaboards.com/KEYBOARD_FRIENDS/index/
Are you just as obnoxious there as on here?

Posted by: Don Apr 1 2015, 06:46 PM

Howdy folks,

When I read the posts from those that work for WBC or claim they do, it saddens me. I always thought, actually grew up to believe that a new dawn was supposed to be upon, but the same old stuff. This is how wars started. Disagreements and infighting.

I pay my rates as everybody else does, but what do we exactly get in return? Are people like Petra the future? I am not worried for myself, but my grandchildren. It is they that are supposed to be the future and the future doesn't look that bright from where I stand.

Don

Posted by: GMR Apr 1 2015, 06:47 PM

No, just me being me.

I wonder if your criticism here is based on my comments on you and petra? Maybe I hit a raw nerve?

Posted by: GMR Apr 1 2015, 06:50 PM

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2015, 07:14 PM

What people on hear need to be weary of is trolling. I thought with the new member(s) that we could have some engaging debate, but as has been demonstrated, their posts are as ridiculous as the posters they claim to resent.

Wait until the elections are out of the way and we can get back to normal!

Beware the troll!

Posted by: GMR Apr 1 2015, 07:19 PM

I Agee.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 1 2015, 08:13 PM

Oh no you had to go and mention elections!

Wonder if any of our local lot will dare show their faces asking for support?

Posted by: On the edge Apr 1 2015, 09:40 PM

Facinating!

I don't think you'd find anyone at the Council elected or paid, who would agree that they are there to make money. Just a few moments thought and you'll see that's a nonsence. The staff get paid, well or otherwise if the Council makes money or not! They don't get more and certainly don't get less dependent on 'profit'. So who is this money for? The Council is effectively only there to do the bidding of our elected representatives (local and national).
However, you've summed up the attitude that causes many of the problems with the oft quoted remark about the effect of customers on good jobs. A phrase often on the lips of the inadequate in many organisations - often those who can only see one way of doing things. Sadly, you also demonstrate this controlling tendency by saying that a CEO is a lesser form of life and not capable of answering questions on behalf of his employer. Logically then, it follows that the only person so qualified would be the Chair of the Council alone - a manifest nonsense. You may well not work for the Council itself, but you have given the impression that you do have an impressive job. Might I humbly suggest that with your demonstrable attitudes, this job is not in the competitive private sector?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2015, 10:20 PM

They're trolling, so I don't think it is possible to tell. To single me out as one that thinks the council owe me is demonstrative of that. They certainly lack comprehension and listening skills.


...perhaps they do work for the council!

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 1 2015, 10:44 PM

Don't you just hate that juvenile expression "end of"?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2015, 10:59 PM

Meanwhile back at the Council's conflict resolution training (just before the LSB opens)...



"...then I posted: CEOs don’t and shouldn’t get involved in such
concerns. It is above their pay level, therefore you should have
stuck to what you are qualified to answer!"

Posted by: x2lls Apr 1 2015, 11:03 PM

Ping petra,

Your attitude and in particular, the way you talk about GreenMeanie is downright despicable.
'In his place' says so much about your arrogance. god help anyone whoever worked for or even with you.

Just saying, fella!

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 1 2015, 11:21 PM

Petra hosts the morning pep talk...



"...and you, you green backed pillock, any more posting like that and you can sod off back to litter pickin'
where you belong. You're not even a proper traffic warden! You're nuffin'! So wind you're bleedin' neck in!
Remember who pays your wages. The last thing we need is them knowin' what's goin' on 'ere!

...and 'ave you taken down that bleedin' stupid sign yet? We were told about that in September. How many
times do you have to be told!"

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 2 2015, 05:01 AM

This gets better and better!!
All of little consequence though because "this forum is just an add-on piece of software on the local paper's website which is only used by a very small number of people".

Posted by: greenmeanie61 Apr 2 2015, 06:57 AM

Hey everybody! I won't go on too much...but i'm loving those photos Brilliant!!

You can choose to believe me when I say I'm a WBC CEO, or you can choose not to. There would be no benefit in me pretending, as I have tried to answer parking related queries in a factual way, if I was making it up, i'd be wasting my time, and yours. But you never know in an environment such as this.

I agree that my main job is to issue parking tickets. (as well as other car park related duties) Sometimes, we encounter specialist knowledge, from working closely with the colleagues in other departments. (Perhaps it's knowledge I have learned in a private capacity) Sometimes we relay this factual, specialist knowledge to a member of the public if it is appropriate. It's not about "sticking to my paygrade", or "knowing my place", its about helping people!

We generally are not the sort of people to just nod and pass queries to the council offices. If I know the answer to a query from a member of the public, why shouldn't I give it? Being an unhelpful jobsworth has never helped anybody. However, If I don't know the answer to a question, why should I attempt to answer it? Talking rubbish hasn't helped anyone either. This doesn't just apply to my job, it applies to everyone at any time. No-one likes a bulls_h i tter.

But, I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't I suppose. I'll just crawl back under my pay scale and get on with grunting at members of the public and hiding in doorways, waiting to catch the hard working, honest people of Newbury. You never know, It Could Be Yoooou!

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 2 2015, 08:49 AM

I value your input. People like Stoner need skinning with a blunt potato.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 2 2015, 11:29 AM

Yes, especially when nothing ever is.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 2 2015, 02:23 PM

Oh well, it's really ironic, but Petra was originally railing about no one new coming here because of insults traded by the old guard. It also seems Greenmeanie will now 'down keyboard'. This week's letters page in the printed version of NWN carries two 'letters' which were originally posted on the NWN Facebook page, that it seems is the future.

Posted by: greenmeanie61 Apr 2 2015, 02:26 PM

You won't get rid of me that easily, but I will have to be careful what I say from now on, in order to stay within my paygrade.

Posted by: GMR Apr 2 2015, 03:12 PM

I read this earlier when you first wrote it and I am sure you said "Even you Petra". What I was going to say was, that be careful as she might be your boss. I think you removing it might confirm that that is the case, or you drew that conclusion and hurriedly removed it.

Posted by: GMR Apr 2 2015, 03:13 PM

You write whatever you like, it is such slip ups that brighten ones day

Posted by: GMR Apr 2 2015, 03:14 PM

What about death? Wouldn't that be 'end of'?