Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Disrepute
Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Newbury News
Pages: 1, 2
Simon Kirby
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.
Andy Capp
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. laugh.gif

I like reading the squabbles actually, as it usually exposes the Tory/Lib Dem hypocrisy.
JeffG
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Dec 31 2011, 11:49 AM) *
as it usually exposes the Tory/Lib Dem hypocrisy.

Are you referring to the Coalition? Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't extend to local authorities.
Berkshirelad
Neither does the concept of privilege apply outside Parliament and Court proceedings
dannyboy
Who cares?

Thats what politicians, of whatever ilk do. Squabble.
Simon Kirby
QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Dec 31 2011, 12:29 PM) *
Neither does the concept of privilege apply outside Parliament and Court proceedings

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.
user23
QUOTE (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. laugh.gif

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

How does one Councillor criticising another who represents a different political party, bring the Council into disrepute?
Andy Capp
QUOTE (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.

No I am not referring to the coalition; merely implying that the two senior Newbury parties are hypocritical.
Andy Capp
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 31 2011, 01:32 PM) *
How does one Councillor criticising another who represents a different political party, bring the Council into disrepute?

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

Quite so.
user23
QUOTE (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.
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"?
Andy Capp
QUOTE (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"?

No, but a councillor allegedly tabling untruths and another councillor calling out that councillor is.
Cognosco
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 31 2011, 01:32 PM) *
How does one Councillor criticising another who represents a different political party, bring the Council into disrepute?


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

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! rolleyes.gif


user23
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Dec 31 2011, 02:21 PM) *
No, but a councillor allegedly tabling untruths and another councillor calling out that councillor is.
Some moan when Councillors don't criticise or hold each other to account.

Now some are complaining that a Councillor is doing just that.
Andy Capp
QUOTE (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.

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.
Simon Kirby
QUOTE (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 'dispute' word in his letter, at least he wouldn't have looked like a hypocrite in my eyes.

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.
Cognosco
QUOTE (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.


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! rolleyes.gif
Vodabury
QUOTE (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.


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.
dannyboy
He probalbly chose to do it in such a way as the nimbies have recived a fair amount of column inches in the NWN.
dannyboy
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Dec 31 2011, 02:25 PM) *
:

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?

LOL, you think the councillors are part of the OBN.
Andy Capp
QUOTE (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.

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.
Vodabury
QUOTE (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.


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
Cognosco
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Dec 31 2011, 06:32 PM) *
LOL, you think the councillors are part of the OBN.


They managed to get through the selection process to stand for councillor did they not - self explanatory then surely? rolleyes.gif
Simon Kirby
QUOTE (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.

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.
dannyboy
QUOTE (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? rolleyes.gif

No.
On the edge
QUOTE (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.


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.
NWNREADER
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.
Cognosco
QUOTE (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.


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? rolleyes.gif

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! wink.gif






NWNREADER
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.
On the edge
QUOTE (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.


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.
Cognosco
QUOTE (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.


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! rolleyes.gif
Andy Capp
Let's cut to the quick: are one of the councillors lying?
Cognosco
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jan 1 2012, 10:41 PM) *
Let's cut to the quick: are one of the councillors lying?


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? rolleyes.gif


Andy Capp
QUOTE (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? rolleyes.gif

To lie, is not always on purpose, but I think the brick-heads we have in 'power' are.
NWNREADER
QUOTE (On the edge @ Jan 1 2012, 09:12 PM) *
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.



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.
Rusty Bullet
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Jan 2 2012, 12:02 AM) *
The role of Officers - professionally qualified subject matter experts


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.
Cognosco
QUOTE (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.


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? rolleyes.gif
On the edge
QUOTE (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.


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.
dannyboy
QUOTE (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.

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

What did RB miss out?
dannyboy
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jan 2 2012, 05:12 PM) *
What did RB miss out?

Haha, you'll just have to go find out!
Andy Capp
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jan 2 2012, 05:13 PM) *
Haha, you'll just have to go find out!

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.
dannyboy
QUOTE (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.

Neither can I, but then my memory is quite good.....
Andy Capp
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jan 2 2012, 05:37 PM) *
Neither can I, but then my memory is quite good.....

Not that good it seems.
dannyboy
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jan 2 2012, 05:48 PM) *
Not that good it seems.

20:20. Just can't be arsed to do your donkey work for you.
Andy Capp
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jan 2 2012, 05:54 PM) *
20:20. Just can't be arsed to do your donkey work for you.

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. wink.gif
dannyboy
QUOTE (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. wink.gif

I still ain't gonna do your donkey work.

When it comes down to it were all inherently lazy. You included.
Andy Capp
QUOTE (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.

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.
dannyboy
QUOTE (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.

You can think what you like - it ain't gonna work.
Andy Capp
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jan 2 2012, 06:36 PM) *
You can think what you like - it ain't gonna work.

I feel I have succeed in 'outing' your hypocrisy.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.