List of councillors who have misled the public Options

[Richard Garvie]

Alan Law: "No affordable housing at the Racecourse will be lost as a result of removing the minimum commitment in the LDF" - He has now said he expects the developer to come back and request a dilution (check his comments in the NWN last year and his comments at the Executive Member meeting in January 2011)

Barbara Alexander: "Sure Start centres will be protected" - In the agenda for the Executive member meeting Feb 2011, it suggests that there is no funding allocated to Sure Start beyond the current financial year)

Anthony Stansfield: "The network is almost fully operational, only a few cameras are left to connect" or "We are 95% there" or "Everything will be completed by the end of this week (Said on 6th Jan on Newbury Sound) - Read the NWN from 6th Jan through until present day and read the comments and listen to the audio on the Newbury Sound website. Then look at the FOI document which has dates for all work and you will see exactly how much Cllr Stansfield has misled you.

Joe Mooney - Said on the Andrew Peach show he didn't know of any cuts to Adult Social Care and claimed people would not be affected by these cuts - In truth, five day centres are closing and support groups have had funding reduced.

Graham Jones: "All 40 CCTV cameras were visible in Windsor before the Newbury control room closed" - said in the Feb 2011 Executive Member meeting, yet the FOI document disputes this, and no other person has suggested this was the case before that Exec meeting took place. Why say it now?

Graham Jones: "The council are making a further investment of £3.2m in the coming financial year" - If you look at the budget document, is almost £1.9m of this investment not paying off the current financial years overspend? That means it isn't a £3.2m investment in the coming year, surely???

[NWNREADER]

Barbara Alexander: "Sure Start centres will be protected" - In the agenda for the Executive member meeting Feb 2011, it suggests that there is no funding allocated to Sure Start beyond the current financial year)

Repeating a statement in a new thread does not make it accurate.. You asked a question about this in another thread you have just started, and a possible solution to your conundrum is there to see......

[Richard Garvie]

Repeating a statement in a new thread does not make it accurate.. You asked a question about this in another thread you have just started, and a possible solution to your conundrum is there to see......

In the section that details funding allocated to sure start centres, there is no funding allocated beyond this coming year.

[NWNREADER]

In the section that details funding allocated to sure start centres, there is no funding allocated beyond this coming year.

Because there will be no 'Sure Start' schemes because there will be no 'Sure Start' fund. The work is planned to continue, but rebranded and re-launched.

Just look at the website, like wot I dun

[Richard Garvie]

Because there will be no 'Sure Start' schemes because there will be no 'Sure Start' fund. The work is planned to continue, but rebranded and re-launched.

Just look at the website, like wot I dun

Have you got a link? It would appear that West Berks have pre-empted a commons statement on the issue, as Cameron had said Sure Start would continue but with reduced funding. I've not seen anything that suggests it will be rebranded (until now ofcourse).

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/update...sure-start/5578

"While the government hasn’t cut the £1.1bn it has allocated to councils for Sure Start, it has removed the ring fencing that previously protected that budget.
What Mr Osborne has done, is thrown the £1.1bn Sure Start funding in with the Early Intervention Grant (EIG’s) funding of £2.5bn – and cut the whole pot by 11 per cent to £2.2bn.
So the Sure Start centres aren’t safe – councils might choose to spend the new ‘Sure Start & EIG pot’ in other areas, on schemes for teenage pregnancy or disabled children for example."

So according to channel four, funding pots have merged. I accept that, but none of this would explain why the sure start schemes in the budget have not been allocated capital beyond this year.

EDIT: If these centres are not facing cuts in services, where is the written proof?

[NWNREADER]

Have you got a link? It would appear that West Berks have pre-empted a commons statement on the issue, as Cameron had said Sure Start would continue but with reduced funding. I've not seen anything that suggests it will be rebranded (until now ofcourse).

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/update...sure-start/5578

"While the government hasn’t cut the £1.1bn it has allocated to councils for Sure Start, it has removed the ring fencing that previously protected that budget.
What Mr Osborne has done, is thrown the £1.1bn Sure Start funding in with the Early Intervention Grant (EIG’s) funding of £2.5bn – and cut the whole pot by 11 per cent to £2.2bn.
So the Sure Start centres aren’t safe – councils might choose to spend the new ‘Sure Start & EIG pot’ in other areas, on schemes for teenage pregnancy or disabled children for example."

So according to channel four, funding pots have merged. I accept that, but none of this would explain why the sure start schemes in the budget have not been allocated capital beyond this year.

Richard, if you want to be a success you must learn to research. I am not going to do your work for you. The source is rather better than a blog, though, as it is accountable.

[Richard Garvie]

Richard, if you want to be a success you must learn to research. I am not going to do your work for you. The source is rather better than a blog, though, as it is accountable.

Where is the evidence that proves Sure Start projects are not facing cuts?

[NWNREADER]

Where is the evidence that proves Sure Start projects are not facing cuts?

Seek, and you shall find.

I certainly think you are in danger of shovelling yourself into a deepening hole while you are so clearly ill briefed.

[Richard Garvie]

Seek, and you shall find.

I certainly think you are in danger of shovelling yourself into a deepening hole while you are so clearly ill briefed.

£5.77m for 2012/13. That's how much the combined Early Intervention Grant (including Sure Start) will be.

[Richard Garvie]

I guess the bottom line is: Is SureStart funding being reduced???

[user23]

I guess the bottom line is: Is SureStart funding being reduced???

How can you suggest that Barbara Alexander has mislead the public without knowing this?

[Richard Garvie]

How can you suggest that Barbara Alexander has mislead the public without knowing this?

Because I know it is being reduced!!! There is even a West Berkshire campaign to stop the proposed cuts to SureStart centres. Maybe you should start reading the paper!!!

Anyway, I was right about people misleading regarding CCTV and I was right about Joe Mooney misleading people regarding the cuts to Adult Social Care. Do you want to dispute any of the other within this thread? I could even add David Holtby to the list, he said the building in Bridge Street Hungerford was being dealt with and told the paper that meetings were expected to take place shortly involving planning control. Richard (the head of planning control) said a meeting had taken place regarding bridge street, but this was as a result of the bit in the paper. So for David Holtby to suggest that meetings were planned before this article would surely be misleading???

[user23]

I guess the bottom line is: Is SureStart funding being reduced???

Because I know it is being reduced!!! There is even a West Berkshire campaign to stop the proposed cuts to SureStart centres. Maybe you should start reading the paper!!!

Print out these posts. Keep it in your wallet.

If you ever wonder why people don't take you seriously just take it out and read them.

[Richard Garvie]

Print out these posts. Keep it in your wallet.

If you ever wonder why people don't take you seriously just take it out and read them.

My priority is establishing the truth in public, as our elected members appear to be economical with it. The facts should be published for all to see.

[Sidney]

My priority is establishing the truth in public, as our elected members appear to be economical with it. The facts should be published for all to see.

.......... bit like Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction then ??

[user23]

My priority is establishing the truth in public, as our elected members appear to be economical with it. The facts should be published for all to see.

They are. It's only you that seems to have trouble finding them.

[Andy Capp]

I would imagine more people than Richard Garvie struggle with that. I notice you haven't shone any light on the subject for instance. Nor have others that claim to know the 'truth'.

[NWNREADER]

I would imagine more people than Richard Garvie struggle with that. I notice you haven't shone any light on the subject for instance. Nor have others that claim to know the 'truth'.

All that is required is to do a bit of Googling, and look through the WBC website.
Some personal research of quality information is better than spoonfeeding a single line.

Here is a start, there is lots more:
Sure Start

Obviously as a Government source it is not to be trusted..........

[Andy Capp]

That might be true, but if I have evidence to support my points of view, I like to make that easily available. To just say it is out there demonstrates to me that the person is not entirely sure themselves.

[Richard Garvie]

All that is required is to do a bit of Googling, and look through the WBC website.
Some personal research of quality information is better than spoonfeeding a single line.

Here is a start, there is lots more:
Sure Start

Obviously as a Government source it is not to be trusted..........

I accept all of that. But show me the proof that sure start is not being cut here in West Berkshire. That was also a key pledge for Mr Benyon in the election debates, so where is the proof? Groups of mums are campaigning to save members of staff and groups from being axed fro,m their surestart schemes, but you seem to know better than them NWNREADER?