Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 31 2011, 11:37 AM

In the letters page of the NWN this week, Alan Law accuses Tony Vickers of bringing West Berkshire Council into disrepute by making multiple factual errors in his support of the Sandleford nimbies.

While I would very much like to see all town and district councillors held to account for their actions, I'm not altogether convinced that the letters page is the most appropriate forum for one councillor to accuse another of bringing the authority into disrepute. For one thing it doesn't provide Cllr Vickers with a satisfactory means of stating a detailed defence of what could very well be a legitimate interpretation and expression of opinion, for another it doesn't provide Cllr Laws with a privilege defence if Cllr Vickers were to prosecute the accusation as libel, and then finally a public display of the authority's dirty washing does nothing to my mind to enhance the reputation of the authority.

Having made his complaint in public I'm assuming that Cllr Law has already made a formal complaint to the Standards Committee, and if Cllr Vickers is found to have lied and so brought the authority into disrepute then he needs to resign, but I think the committee needs to consider the appropriateness of Cllr Law's public accusation too because this kind of squabbling erodes my confidence in the authoriy.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 31 2011, 11:49 AM

I laughed at Cllr Law's letter as well. He complained of Cllr Vickers bring the council in to disrepute, something which, by having his letter published detailing councillor's false statements, he is immediately guilty of doing himself.

I like reading the squabbles actually, as it usually exposes the Tory/Lib Dem hypocrisy.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 31 2011, 12:25 PM

Are you referring to the Coalition? Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't extend to local authorities.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Dec 31 2011, 12:29 PM

Neither does the concept of privilege apply outside Parliament and Court proceedings

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 31 2011, 01:00 PM

Who cares?

Thats what politicians, of whatever ilk do. Squabble.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 31 2011, 01:25 PM

You're thinking of absolute privilege, but qualified privilege would apply to an allegation about a councillor made in confidence to the standards committee's proper officer, and only if the complaint was proved to be malicious would the complainant's defence of privilege fail.

Posted by: user23 Dec 31 2011, 01:32 PM

How does one Councillor criticising another who represents a different political party, bring the Council into disrepute?

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 31 2011, 02:09 PM

No I am not referring to the coalition; merely implying that the two senior Newbury parties are hypocritical.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 31 2011, 02:15 PM

When presented in the manor Cllr law did, it is disrepute by default. Evidence of this are my and Simon's comments above.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 31 2011, 02:16 PM

Quite so.

Posted by: user23 Dec 31 2011, 02:19 PM

You think Councillors disagreeing with each other in public forums such as a newspaper's letters page or the internet brings the Council into "disrepute by default"?

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 31 2011, 02:21 PM

No, but a councillor allegedly tabling untruths and another councillor calling out that councillor is.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 31 2011, 02:25 PM

And there was me thinking they could not get any more disreputable?

This shows something has gone drastically wrong with the old boys system, I thought they only had fake squabbles to show the plebs that they had a choice for what is euphemistically called democracy in Newbury, its just not on old chap don't you know?

They had better **** well get their acts together; dread to think where this could all lead to what with all our troubles over Parkway, dustbins, CCTV etc. No it's just not good enough; get them into headquarters straightaway!

Next we shall have that unruly Garvie asking questions, you know the one that does not play by the proper rules?

No this will just not do!

Posted by: user23 Dec 31 2011, 02:29 PM

Some moan when Councillors don't criticise or hold each other to account.

Now some are complaining that a Councillor is doing just that.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 31 2011, 02:33 PM

I am certainly not complaining or moaning, but the method chosen by Cllr Law exacerbates the issue. If he had left out the 'disrepute' words in his letter, at least he wouldn't have looked like a hypocrite in my eyes.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 31 2011, 02:40 PM

Exactly. Complaining about Tony Vickers being factually inaccurate without saying specifically what those factual inaccuracies were and is just run-of-the-mill intellectually flaccid politicking that we have come to expect from lib dem and conservatives alike, but an accusation of disrepute is something much more serious and only properly made in confidence to the Standards Committee.

Posted by: Cognosco Dec 31 2011, 03:08 PM

Hey calm down it's only for show it's not real you know? Remember this is Newbury it will all be sorted out behind closed doors as usual! Dear oh deary me!

Posted by: Vodabury Dec 31 2011, 05:22 PM

I agree. Such is not the correct way to make an allegation of this nature - as SK has suggested, there are more appropriate avenues available.

Perhaps it is just a bit of grandstanding and will get sorted out...

Happy New Year to all.

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 31 2011, 06:31 PM

He probalbly chose to do it in such a way as the nimbies have recived a fair amount of column inches in the NWN.

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 31 2011, 06:32 PM

LOL, you think the councillors are part of the OBN.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 31 2011, 06:55 PM

It is quite obvious why Cllr law wrote his letter, but the way he has done it is to inflame the slanging match in public, viz, bringing the council in to disrepute himself as well.

Posted by: Vodabury Dec 31 2011, 07:39 PM

I can see why members of the public who may be affected by a planning application local to where they live feel it proper to write to the local newspaper voicing their concerns or objections in order to get a few column inches. That is not quite the same as to what is being discussed here; re the behaviour of a councillor and the way he chooses to make allegations of improper behaviour against another.

P.S. Everybody is a nimby over something!

Regards

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 1 2012, 12:05 PM

They managed to get through the selection process to stand for councillor did they not - self explanatory then surely?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 1 2012, 01:01 PM

I agree. Sandleford has the potential to be an excellent development with a country park that knocks sock off the existing limited access of a footpath accross a bean field, and if the development as a whole is well planned it will, IMHO, be an excellent place to live. I'm seriously unimpressed that the portfolio holder for the contentious policy areas of planning, transport policy, housing, and economic development has made such a weak fist of engaging the public with Sandleford's many benefits.

If you ignore the bunny perspective the nimby's substantive argument is traffic chaos, so why don't Alan Law and Tony Vickers just publish the traffic analysis - it's civil engineering 101, really, it's not rocket surgery. Civil engineers know the traffic capacity for roads and roundabouts and know the traffic denisty generated by residential developments, so bung the numbers into the model and bingo, we can all judge the argument on its merits without any name-calling.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 1 2012, 01:04 PM

No.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 1 2012, 06:10 PM

Wholly agree. If only we could get party politics out of local government - we might get some decisions based on logic and potentially on what people actually want.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 1 2012, 06:12 PM

As I read the letter, Cllr L insists Cllr V is deliberately making false(?) statements to his constituents and others interested in the proposal: statements which he has been told internally are not accurate. If Cllr L is correct, then I can understand him going public, as it is the public who need to know.
If it is just a matter of 'preferred interpretation' then my opinion is that personalising the disagreement in public is not the way forward.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 1 2012, 06:42 PM

How many statements put out by the council in recent times have not been euphamistically called accurate?

When was this new policy adopted then? Since when has WBC considered it is the public who need to know?

Why if councillors have a different interpretation should it not be discussed in the open? They have obviously discussed this in meetings, and have been unable to agree, so throw it open to the public and let them decide?
This will make an interesting change from the usual council meeting press release.

Just ensure all the facts are presented to the public and let it take its course I say!

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 1 2012, 07:02 PM

If the 'facts' are in doubt then the Officers should ensure the project/proposal etc is worded more clearly to avoid the ambiguity. The Council Party Leaders should be briefed as to the correct facts and ensure Members thereafter make clear whether they simply disagree with the plan or want to challenge an element of it.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 1 2012, 09:12 PM

In a perfect World, yes but that's not how it is and that's why people are so disillusioned with local government. The truth is spun to suit the political leaders, the 'opposition'

The council staff; whose job should be simply to implement what our elected members tell them. Another area where things are out of control - the staff do not and should not ever determine policy.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 1 2012, 09:42 PM

If ambiguity was not built in then perhaps all of us taxpayers would know what was going on and they would be in more trouble than usual? Also it would provide them with no wriggle room when found out, usually too late, of just exactly they were intending!

This is just not supposed to happen is it? If councillors start thinking for themselves then where will it all end for goodness sake? Next they will start doing the bidding of the electorate, no, this has to stop and now!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 1 2012, 10:41 PM

Let's cut to the quick: are one of the councillors lying?

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 1 2012, 10:53 PM

Oh Andy how could you? Councillors and politicians don't lie. It is called being unaware of all the facts before making a public statement!
Once the big boss gets involved they will all state it was just a misunderstanding and the wayward one will toe the line as usual again, so don't worry too much. This is Newbury after all not proper politics?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 1 2012, 11:00 PM

To lie, is not always on purpose, but I think the brick-heads we have in 'power' are.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 2 2012, 12:02 AM

The role of Officers - professionally qualified subject matter experts - is to deliver the policies of the majority party in accordance with Law and Public Policy. They do not determine the policy, but neither do they meekly follow the direction of the Councillors: there is a balance to ensure Members do not go off on one. Officers will produce a workable version of the policy the members decide. That can be the source of ambiguity, especially where the majority party wants something done at all costs.

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Jan 2 2012, 10:00 AM

Would this be the same WBC officers (Planning) who allowed a plant to be built up at Greenham which operated for one day before another bunch of WBC officers (Environmental Health) turned up and shut it down?

Qualified experts indeed.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 2 2012, 10:52 AM

Ah now you realise the importance of having two different departments!

I bet you were one of those who thought the council was overstaffed too eh?

They know what they are doing they are the experts!

Wonder if they managed to obtain two lots of fees for the work carried out?

Posted by: On the edge Jan 2 2012, 04:07 PM

Regrettably, over the years this is exactly how it has panned out. In other words there is absolutely no point in having Councillors. Simply in management terms I'm not sure if 'professionally qualified subject matter experts' actually means anything realistic. No one is expecting them to meekly follow but like it or not they are still hired hands and just like most of the rest of us employees, supposed to do what the Boss says. After all, we should all be 'experts' in where and how we live, if we need specialist advice - it can be purchased. Sadly, and in my opinion since the Heath reforms back in the 1970s Local Councillors have simply abdicated their executive responsibilities and have turned into not much more than unpaid social workers.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 2 2012, 04:23 PM

A perfect example of what councillors do - be 'economical with the truth'. You'd make a fine councillor RB.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 2 2012, 05:12 PM

What did RB miss out?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 2 2012, 05:13 PM

Haha, you'll just have to go find out!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 2 2012, 05:30 PM

I can't be bothered, but it devalues your allegation. Perhaps you are a councillor as well! Cllr Law made similar public accusations recently without any examples.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 2 2012, 05:37 PM

Neither can I, but then my memory is quite good.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 2 2012, 05:48 PM

Not that good it seems.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 2 2012, 05:54 PM

20:20. Just can't be arsed to do your donkey work for you.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 2 2012, 05:56 PM

Well, that as I said earlier, devalues your post to little more than spam. You also have the cheek to accuse someone of behaving like a councillor while you too seem 'suitable' to be one.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 2 2012, 06:00 PM

I still ain't gonna do your donkey work.

When it comes down to it were all inherently lazy. You included.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 2 2012, 06:26 PM

I'm lazy, but it is customary if someone tries to argue a point, they offer data to support it. Why should I put effort into trying to understand an argument of yours. I have enough with my own points?

I don't think you have any good argument, hence your reticence.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 2 2012, 06:36 PM

You can think what you like - it ain't gonna work.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 2 2012, 06:46 PM

I feel I have succeed in 'outing' your hypocrisy.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 2 2012, 07:03 PM

Feel what you like. RB did exactly what most politicians & councillors do. Why I should bother to fill you in on the details is beyond me.
RB was economical with the truth, because it suited their post. They could have given a fuller recap of the events surrounding the temporary Lafarge works site, but didn't. Nuff asid.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 2 2012, 09:23 PM

Which is exactly like what you did, and as it is you that claims an economy of truth, it is incumbent on you to 'put up or shut up', I say.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 2 2012, 09:52 PM

This is all getting personal and fogging a debate. Could it be the personal slagging brings the forum into disrepute?


The analogy does not work anyway, as planners approving the building of a premises/structure has nothing to do with the control of the operation of it by EHOs. In fact, for the EHOs to have stood back just because the planning approval existed would have been perverse

Posted by: blackdog Jan 3 2012, 12:58 AM

I thought planning gave permission for the temporary use of the site for a mobile tarmac maker machine thingy - are you saying that planning does not consider the environmental impact of anything they approve? Or do they just ignore the air pollution aspects?

Fortunately EH was on the ball. Of course they did have the advantage of being able to measure the emissions, while the planners would have had to use modelling supplied by the applicants.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 3 2012, 01:00 AM

You got it in one. As I said earlier, we're all lazy.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 3 2012, 01:08 AM

And I'm bored of your spam. I've said my bit; you are just on a wind up and don't deserve any more of my time. So until you stop acting like a child or post something meaningful: case closed as far as I am concerned.


This is what I was thinking.

Would it not be sensible for there to be cross department involvement when developments are proposed? I was pleased with the EH's response when it did happen, but it would be good if the planning process was robust enough to have things in place that don't rely on complaints to verify the integrity of any give industrial initiative. We only have to think of the Chieveley incinerator project. Are our planing department competent enough to ensure that will be a low risk venture?

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Jan 3 2012, 02:50 AM

Two quotes.

"However, officers told the parish council that they were not prepared to serve any form of planning enforcement on Lafarge because the development had not caused demonstrable harm to the surrounding site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) - although officers came to this decision before operations began a couple of weeks later."

"The owners of a controversial asphalt factory near Greenham Common have been ordered to shut down the plant and clear off site until they get planning permission, in a suprise council U-turn.
Lafarge Aggregates, which is contracted by the Highways Agency to resurface the A34 between Tot Hill and Chieveley services this year, was served with a formal “Stop” notice yesterday (August 10) forcing it to immediately cease operations at the controversial plant and remove all machinery from the site.
Residents criticised Lafarge in recent weeks for erecting the plant without planning permission and claimed the plant started belching out thick smoke and loud noise throughout the night last week.
Site landlord, Greenham Common Trust, was also berated by residents for allowing Lafarge to operate on the site.
As a result of the complaints, council health officials tested the site last Wednesday evening and issued Lafarge with an abatement notice because the plant was too noisy - before planning officers shut it down completely in an unexpected change of heart."

Readers are asked to judge whether this story makes some departments at WBC look coolly coldly professional. or more like a bunch of numptys.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 3 2012, 11:42 AM

When I talked about 'professionally qualified subject matter experts' I was talking about a status gained by qualification. As in all fields, having a certificate does not prove competency or correct decisions 100% of the time.
I remember the above case, but did not have it to mind when making my earlier comments. While none of us know it does seem to me a certain amount of 'on the nod' had gone on that was not appropriate in this case. and I don't doubt such things happen elsewhere. When it works out things move more smoothly to a result that was correct. On other occasions things rumble on with no-one prepared to say 'we got it wrong'. That is because the 'decision' is by the Members and it is politically unacceptable to have been wrong....

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 3 2012, 03:02 PM

You have to see exactly what Lafarge put in their planning application to know.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 3 2012, 06:00 PM

I think the suggestion is there was no application prior to operation commencing. The suggestions of smoke and noise imply the operation of the plant (an EHO issue) was outside what would have been expected with an 'agreed' planning move. Modern asphalt plants - while neither silent of 100% clean - do not need to be so disruptive. I comment from experience, M'Lud. If the suggestions are correct the Planning Officer could have been told there would be an operation akin to Wigmore Lane whereas the actuality was a 60's edition of asphalt production....

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 3 2012, 06:08 PM

Exactly - there is far more to it than

Would this be the same WBC officers (Planning) who allowed a plant to be built up at Greenham which operated for one day before another bunch of WBC officers (Environmental Health) turned up and shut it down?

which is a leading statement worthy of a councillor having a slanging match in the local rag.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 3 2012, 06:27 PM

NWNREADER starts his statement with 'I think ... '. I suggest, therefore, that his is only an opinion and that he might not be correct with his assertion. So perhaps you do-not yet have reasonable grounds to come to your conclusion.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 3 2012, 06:29 PM

Oooo, I thought you'd given up?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 3 2012, 06:32 PM

I know your lazy, but if you could be bothered to read my reply properly, you will see that isn't what I said. Again, you slam others for being something you are yourself.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 3 2012, 06:32 PM

As I read what was said I perceive the suggestion to be so. Only the writer can say if my perception is correct. If it is, then the comment stands. If not a further clarification is requested of what the statement does mean....

And we wonder why councillors argue over the meaning of a policy?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 3 2012, 06:33 PM

And I'm the first to admit it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 3 2012, 06:58 PM

I know what you were saying, but dannyboy used your hypothesis as confirmation for his argument. I'm simply arguing that he had nt tangible right to do so.

Taking the NWN's articles on the subject in good faith, I understand that the following happened in chronological order:

1 Lafarge started to use their site.
2 Planning did a site visit and confirmed Lafarge had no permission.
3 Lafarge issued an application.
4 Planning rejected some details and sent the application back to Lafarge. Planning were concerned about a successful appeal by Lafarge and decided not to issue a stop notice.
5 EH issued a noise abatement notice. EH did not shut the sit down.
6 Planning issued a stop notice.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 3 2012, 07:14 PM

Now if RB had said something like that, I'd not have accused him of being anything like a councillor.

Could EH & Planning have worked together to stop Lafarge....

If you were really wanting to stir it up you could think that as the road works in question were in Hampshire, on a bit of road that another council used as a reason to raise objections to the Prologis development at Greenham, that WBC were being churlish. Notwithstanding that the Prologis development was to build a supermarket depot to replace the current one in Basingstoke....allegedly.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 3 2012, 07:23 PM

The thrust of RB's argument was sound, even if technically inaccurate, however; I don't think RB's 'summary' is a unique councillor 'trait'. A 'regular person' could be excused for making an expedient point on a forum. Not so a councillor I would suggest, and they should check their data more readily than they appear to do. The point RB was making is that they doubted the professionalism of the council, not whether the council were guilty of behaving like partisan councillors.


They did, eventually, and after a lot of apparent cajoling.


As the council initially seem reluctant to do anything, I'm not sure that is relevant.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 3 2012, 07:25 PM

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 3 2012, 07:31 PM

I updated my post as you posted this. RB's post was technically flawed, but the argument RB was making wasn't about councillors behaving tribal, but whether the council were competent. As there was demonstrably some dithering and backtracking on the issue, RB's argument is sound in my view.

Of course, had you not subsequently behaved like a partisan councillor yourself and corrected RB at the beginning, we might have had a different debate.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 3 2012, 08:22 PM

So..... where does this diversion take us on the issue of 'disrepute'?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 3 2012, 08:50 PM

Like everything else on this forum, nowhere. What is your view on 'disrepute'?

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Jan 3 2012, 09:09 PM

There do seem to be some very short memories sometimes. The site, was closed exactly one day after it reached full working capacity. It had taken a week to start up and iron out the snags etc.

Planning allowed it without seeing (or hearing) it working. There are many other such plants run by the same company up and down the country. Why didn't they go visit one?

I was actually answering a point about how qualified (bright) our officers are.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 3 2012, 09:21 PM

The two elements are not necessarily linked, so your connection is faulted.

The role of the professionally qualified Officers is to advise members on the construct and implementation of policy they decide upon under their mandate. The Officer may not be competent, either generally or in respect to an individual incident. The qualification is not always a 'document', it can be specialist experience. Sometimes they are directed by the members to deliver a policy or project that would not receive their professional recommendation, or they make a recommendation members reject. In the former situation the convolutions to deliver a legal/ethical proposal can create ambiguity.

So, as regards the core story for 'disrepute', if the proposal/policy is ambiguous then one Cllr may well be flagging that exists - something for debate. If it is not ambiguous and he has been told of his error in fact/presentation then he should not continue to tell the story that way. If Cllr V is correct, then he should say his version whenever he sees fit.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 4 2012, 10:45 AM

This is the interesting bit. The ultimate choice is resignation - an honourable remedy little used these days.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 4 2012, 10:57 AM

Unless you work in the planning dept, you can't comment with anything other than off the cuff opinion.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 4 2012, 11:11 AM

So honourable councillors resign and others (dishonourable?) don't.

I would prefer that it was the other way around.

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Jan 4 2012, 03:07 PM

Sorry, it's not an opinion. It's a question. If you look you'll see there's a little question mark after it.

And it's a valid question. It's true that I don't expect them to come here and answer, but it's a valid question all the same. If they ever need transport, I'd be happy to run them about at my own expense. I fail to see the usefulness of seeing a plant when it's silent and not in use.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Jan 4 2012, 04:26 PM

Does that also include planners from another authority?



What? Faulted? WTF?

Posted by: On the edge Jan 4 2012, 05:07 PM

How do you make that happen then? Its all about personal integrity and a sense of honour. I'd much prefer to vote for someone I felt would stick to his / her principles - even if that left the less reputable in place for a short while longer. But then I'm very old fashioned. We've arrived at a position where elected representatives simply become party placemen at best - party before all else. Sad, very sad.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 4 2012, 06:59 PM

'Qualified' and 'bright' do not automatically go together...........

Posted by: blackdog Jan 4 2012, 07:10 PM

The trouble is that they don't stick around 'for a short while longer' - they stick around for ages, while those who have the nerve to think for themselves give up or get kicked out by the party.

Actually I can't think of any that resigned in an honourable response to making a mistake. And not many who have gone so far as to apologise for a mistake.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 4 2012, 08:37 PM

Not in the recent past. Nevertheless, our view of the 'elected' both local and national has hit rock bottom. Yes, to a massive extent, they are to blame. The 'me first' greed is good society. Doesn't make for a good society or even a big society though.