SLI parking money to West Berks Council Options

[dannyboy]

And how is that a problem? Surely there was a business plan draft with high and low projections?

I'm sure there is.

But Politicians & those with an agenda, being what they are, they never use facts & figures correctly do they?

[Andy Capp]

I'm sure there is.

But Politicians & those with an agenda, being what they are, they never use facts & figures correctly do they?

Maybe not, but I'm not sure that is a good reason not to be told?

[dannyboy]

Maybe not, but I'm not sure that is a good reason not to be told?

Problem is we have two sets of politicos busy trying to catch each other out & playing silly buggers with each other.

[Richard Garvie]

Problem is we have two sets of politicos busy trying to catch each other out & playing silly buggers with each other.

And then we have people like myself who have been fairly consistant in speaking up for normal people. Cut the waffle and just give us the answers please. That's what people are saying.

[Andy Capp]

Problem is we have two sets of politicos busy trying to catch each other out & playing silly buggers with each other.

I have to repeat, this isn't a good enough reason for our administration to decide to keep schtum. Perhaps they could actually start by publishing accurate information.

[user23]

And then we have people like myself who have been fairly consistant in speaking up for normal people. Cut the waffle and just give us the answers please. That's what people are saying.

Indeed, could you answer the questions regarding your petition NWNREADER has posed please.

[Andy Capp]

Indeed, could you answer the questions regarding your petition NWNREADER has posed to you please.

That is an irrelevant post here ... you being one of a few on here that are displaying that disrespectful attitude that some in the council seem to be happy to endorse.

And Richard: you need to sharpen your attitude, you are doing NOTHING to support the beleaguered public you claim to be fighting for, your shoot anything that moves doesn't work. Think before you post, you are sometimes as stupid as the council you appear to resent.

[user23]

That is an irrelevant post here ... you being one of a few on here that are displaying that disrespectful attitude that some in the council seem to be happy to endorse.

It's entirely relevant to the phrase "Cut the waffle and just give us the answers please" given Richard's reticence.

Come on Richard, cut the waffle and just give us the answers please.

[Andy Capp]

It's entirely relevant to the phrase "Cut the waffle and just give us the answers please" given Richard's reticence.

One has a greater obligation than the other, although your post would be more appropriate on the other thread you referred to. This would not normally be an issue for me, but you so often pick other people up for forum etiquette.

But user23 is right Richard: you shouldn't demand anything of people you are not prepared to do yourself. First law of leadership I'd say.

[Richard Garvie]

One has a greater obligation than the other, although your post would be more appropriate on the other thread you referred to. This would not normally be an issue for me, but you so often pick other people up for forum etiquette.

But user23 is right Richard: you shouldn't demand anything of people you are not prepared to do yourself. First law of leadership I'd say.

I've not made it to random rants yet, I've been in Calcot all afternoon / evening.

[Andy Capp]

I've not made it to random rants yet, I've been in Calcot all afternoon / evening.

Just say yes or no to the question of: do you have the required amount of signatures? Two letters.

[Richard Garvie]

Just say yes or no to the question of: do you have the required amount of signatures? Two letters.

YES. - PS. That's three letters.

[Andy Capp]

YES. - PS. That's three letters.

I was expecting a different answer! You see, truth is best delivered fast and accurate (unlike the WBC), and you appeared to be prevaricating.

[blackdog]

YES. - PS. That's three letters.

So how old must a petition be before WBC can ignore it on the basis that 'it was the opinion of the signatories x months ago, what is there to say they still feel like that'?

What right do you have to deny the signatories the referendum they plainly want?

[Richard Garvie]

I was expecting a different answer! You see, truth is best delivered fast and accurate, and you appeared to be prevaricating. Unlike the WBC!

Haha, I've been pretty clear that the signatures isn't the issue, we've not been out collecting in a while now, too busy on the diligience and ensuring we have met all of the criteria.

Back to the subject at hand then...

Why are the council refusing to release the financial details??? Best case and worst case for instance? Yes, some may have a go around the worst case figure, but surely if the worst case in terms of money going to SLI does not represent a drop in income to the taxpayer, they still have a very flimsy argument. The reason they are clamming up is that it is indefensible. They are given away taxpayer money, and if it's £100k, £500k or £850k, that's more savings we have to find elsewhere.

How can you sack hundreds of people, close front line services and then justify this? It's simple really, YOU CAN'T.

[Richard Garvie]

So how old must a petition be before WBC can ignore it on the basis that 'it was the opinion of the signatories x months ago, what is there to say they still feel like that'?

What right do you have to deny the signatories the referendum they plainly want?

It's not about denying them. It's about verifying the signatures and ensuring that there is no way the council can refuse the petition. These things are not as simple as they appear, anyone can sign it but there is no way of ensuring at the time that the signature is accurate. If you have other questions, please put them on the other thread, otherwise Abuser get's exactly what he wants.

[Andy Capp]

Why are the council refusing to release the financial details??? Best case and worst case for instance? Yes, some may have a go around the worst case figure, but surely if the worst case in terms of money going to SLI does not represent a drop in income to the taxpayer, they still have a very flimsy argument. The reason they are clamming up is that it is indefensible. They are given away taxpayer money, and if it's £100k, £500k or £850k, that's more savings we have to find elsewhere.

How can you sack hundreds of people, close front line services and then justify this? It's simple really, YOU CAN'T.

I quite agree and it is absolutely disgusting vanity - if true. And if it is true, it shows what a pathetic bunch of councillors we have, both Tory and Lib Dem (at least). It was stories like this that did for the Tories, all those years ago, but we didn't have the Internet then.

Tories pride themselves on efficiency and integrity, but they appear as profligate as the Lib Dems were when they were in charge.



... if the rumours are true.

[Richard Garvie]

... if the rumours are true.

Absolutely. Despite the Tories saying that this is another Garvie conspiracy and despite the officers directing their anger towards me, it was Pamela Bale who exposed this, not me. All I've done is ask for answers.

We now know the deal is in place and that it lasts for ten years. But how much is it going to cost? That's what we want to know.

[NWNREADER]

Cut the waffle and just give us the answers please. That's what people are saying.

I couldn't agree more..........

[Andy Capp]

I couldn't agree more..........

To be fair, he has recently explained most, if not all of the concerns.