Nottingham City Council is proposing to close the Beckhampton Mother and Baby unit, a specialist centre providing education and support to school age pregnant young women. It is proposed that students should remain in mainstream schools instead, with extra support provided 'when required', presumably by a peripatetic support system rather than one on site.
The Post has an article today including interviews from pupils and you get a strong impression that such an approach will be inadequate. I have also heard from someone connected to the school that referrals to the unit are being blocked to give the impression that demand is falling.
Graham Allen, MP for Nottingham North, has publicly criticised the move which is almost unheard of when it is the City Council responsible for a proposal. Normally Labour Party solidarity prevents him from sticking his head above the parapet.
There is a petition against the proposals and you might also wish to respond to the public consultation being run by the Council. We are told that no decisions have been made (yeah right) so if enough people respond maybe they'll change their minds. We can live in hope.
Tuesday, 24 November 2015
Tuesday, 17 November 2015
More Human Rights Hypocrisy
The City Council jumped on the bandwagon today and organised a vigil for the victims of the Paris attacks, complete with local bigwigs.
I feel obliged to point out that the City Council took absolutely no notice of the massacre of over 2000 people in Gaza by the Israelis.
Furthermore, the number of people killed in Paris is approximately the same as the number of people executed by the Chinese regime in three weeks, something that Nottingham City Council is falling over itself to invest in.
Fucking hypocrites.
I feel obliged to point out that the City Council took absolutely no notice of the massacre of over 2000 people in Gaza by the Israelis.
Furthermore, the number of people killed in Paris is approximately the same as the number of people executed by the Chinese regime in three weeks, something that Nottingham City Council is falling over itself to invest in.
Fucking hypocrites.
Friday, 6 November 2015
Who Cares About Human Rights? Not Nottingham...
Not a huge amount to say about this that I haven't said already in similar circumstances but Nottingham City Council is proudly (or should that be Proud-ly?) announcing that it is joining a delegation to China to scrounge for some cash.
Once again, no regard for China's appalling human rights record and the international community is left with the impression that Nottingham is a city that doesn't care about such things, as long as we get some Yuan.
Way to go guys, I don't think.
Once again, no regard for China's appalling human rights record and the international community is left with the impression that Nottingham is a city that doesn't care about such things, as long as we get some Yuan.
Way to go guys, I don't think.
Friday, 30 October 2015
Abuse Victim 'Silenced' By Nottingham City Council
Two posts in one day? Blimey, go me...
Unfortunately it means that bad things are happening. I've just seen a news report that Nottingham City Council has taken legal action against Mickey Summers, a lead campaigner and complainant in the Beechwood Children's Home scandal to shut him up.
The Council has taken out an interim anti-social behaviour injunction against Mr Summers with a somewhat wide-ranging scope -
"The injunction bans him from visiting all "non-residential" council premises or approaching staff and from posting "any material involving anyone from Nottingham City Council, its staff, councillors, employees or agents" on the internet."
Considering that this concerns Mr Summers' experiences of being abused as a child at the hands of NCC (and the County as predecessors) this seems an excessively draconian attempt to silence the victim. NCC is never very keen for people to go around spreading information that undermines its reputation. It often uses the bullshit excuse that staff are affected. You know what I say to those staff? Get over yourself.
I hope Mr Summers is able to challenge the injunction at the full hearing.
Unfortunately it means that bad things are happening. I've just seen a news report that Nottingham City Council has taken legal action against Mickey Summers, a lead campaigner and complainant in the Beechwood Children's Home scandal to shut him up.
The Council has taken out an interim anti-social behaviour injunction against Mr Summers with a somewhat wide-ranging scope -
"The injunction bans him from visiting all "non-residential" council premises or approaching staff and from posting "any material involving anyone from Nottingham City Council, its staff, councillors, employees or agents" on the internet."
Considering that this concerns Mr Summers' experiences of being abused as a child at the hands of NCC (and the County as predecessors) this seems an excessively draconian attempt to silence the victim. NCC is never very keen for people to go around spreading information that undermines its reputation. It often uses the bullshit excuse that staff are affected. You know what I say to those staff? Get over yourself.
I hope Mr Summers is able to challenge the injunction at the full hearing.
Latest Council Tax Blackmail Wheeze
*awakes from slumber, yawns*
Sorry about the lack of postings, this is due to my ongoing mental decrepitude. I had thought of retiring the blog permanently as I don't really have the energy to keep it going on a regular basis but, well, let's see...
For now, I want to alert you to NCC's latest wheeze to heap pressure onto people who can't pay their Council Tax. NCC is proposing to report non-payers to Credit Reference Agencies (CRA), something which they accept that no other council does nor is thinking of doing. Part of their justification is a suspicion that people pay other debts before their Council Tax in order to not end up with a CRA entry.
Ok, well assuming people are that daft, won't that actually make things worse? Dodgy loan companies will be able to see than applicants have been prepared to miss CT payments to pay off low priority debts and will see them as a safer bet. Remember, many lenders do not use CRAs to tell if a person is 'financially responsible' they use them to risk assess whether the applicant is likely to repay that particular debt and whether they are a person they can make a profit from. Hence the fact that you can always get credit, just that the worse your credit file, the less likely your kneecaps are to survive the experience.
Perhaps more importantly, if you sign up for a loan or credit card you sign up to T&Cs that allow the lender to pass your details to CRAs, otherwise they would be in breach of data protection rules. No such agreement is entered into with Council Tax as payment is a statutory requirement i.e. you are forced, rather than agree, to pay. Therefore it is my belief that NCC would be in breach of the Data Protection Act if it were to pass details of non-payers to CRAs.
We should also remember that a big part of the reason for high numbers of non-payers is NCC's decision to widen the paynet to include a minimum 20% charge even to those of us who are on Income Support levels of income. Much bleating about cuts to central funding and how they 'cannot afford' to provide services, while at the same time refusing to accept that we cannot afford to pay despite real terms cuts to our benefits. Hypocrisy to the max and demonstrative of Nottingham Labour's fetish for threatening and punishing the poor.
I strongly recommend that you respond to the 'consultation' on this proposal and tell them what an illegal unjustifiable measure it is.
Sorry about the lack of postings, this is due to my ongoing mental decrepitude. I had thought of retiring the blog permanently as I don't really have the energy to keep it going on a regular basis but, well, let's see...
For now, I want to alert you to NCC's latest wheeze to heap pressure onto people who can't pay their Council Tax. NCC is proposing to report non-payers to Credit Reference Agencies (CRA), something which they accept that no other council does nor is thinking of doing. Part of their justification is a suspicion that people pay other debts before their Council Tax in order to not end up with a CRA entry.
Ok, well assuming people are that daft, won't that actually make things worse? Dodgy loan companies will be able to see than applicants have been prepared to miss CT payments to pay off low priority debts and will see them as a safer bet. Remember, many lenders do not use CRAs to tell if a person is 'financially responsible' they use them to risk assess whether the applicant is likely to repay that particular debt and whether they are a person they can make a profit from. Hence the fact that you can always get credit, just that the worse your credit file, the less likely your kneecaps are to survive the experience.
Perhaps more importantly, if you sign up for a loan or credit card you sign up to T&Cs that allow the lender to pass your details to CRAs, otherwise they would be in breach of data protection rules. No such agreement is entered into with Council Tax as payment is a statutory requirement i.e. you are forced, rather than agree, to pay. Therefore it is my belief that NCC would be in breach of the Data Protection Act if it were to pass details of non-payers to CRAs.
We should also remember that a big part of the reason for high numbers of non-payers is NCC's decision to widen the paynet to include a minimum 20% charge even to those of us who are on Income Support levels of income. Much bleating about cuts to central funding and how they 'cannot afford' to provide services, while at the same time refusing to accept that we cannot afford to pay despite real terms cuts to our benefits. Hypocrisy to the max and demonstrative of Nottingham Labour's fetish for threatening and punishing the poor.
I strongly recommend that you respond to the 'consultation' on this proposal and tell them what an illegal unjustifiable measure it is.
Friday, 6 February 2015
Contempt For Democracy Part 2 (Subtitle; What's That Burning Smell)
As well as the important stuff as detailed in the last post, we also have the questions the Tory councillors asked which seemed to mirror my own doomed attempts at playing democracy and holding the Dear Leader to account.
Now, I'm the first to admit that you could quite happily replace the Tory councillors at NCC with garden gnomes and it would be some months before anybody noticed. Frankly you could say the same with 75% of the Labour councillors too. I can say stuff like that out loud, I'm just a blogger. If you're the leader of the councillor I think it's traditionally expected that you respect the fact that people did actually vote for them and that you at least pretend to give a shit what they say.
Not JoCo.
Again, straight from the minutes -
Now, I'm the first to admit that you could quite happily replace the Tory councillors at NCC with garden gnomes and it would be some months before anybody noticed. Frankly you could say the same with 75% of the Labour councillors too. I can say stuff like that out loud, I'm just a blogger. If you're the leader of the councillor I think it's traditionally expected that you respect the fact that people did actually vote for them and that you at least pretend to give a shit what they say.
Not JoCo.
Again, straight from the minutes -
"Councillor Georgina Culley
asked the following question of the Leader:
Would the Leader of the Council
inform the council how many questions for City Council meetings
addressed to him by the public have been refused and deemed
unworthy of submission and response?
Councillor Jon Collins replied
as follows:
Thank you Lord Mayor. I'm happy
to say I've answered all the questions from the public I've been
asked in this chamber."
I bet JoCo thought he'd been REALLY CLEVER with that. You can see what he did there, he said he'd answered every question he'd been asked 'in this chamber'. So presumably, he meant not including the ones he'd been shielded from by ever obliging and sycophantic Lords Mayor. I bet he got many congratulatory pats on the back for that piece of low cunning.
But, whatever you think of the Tories, it's clear that he didn't answer the question that he was actually asked so JoCo* is clearly guilty of LYING by omission. So, as I said before he is a LIAR and the burning smell is his PANTS ON FIRE, the lying liar.
*If I get sued I will just state that when referring to 'JoCo' I was simpply referring to an obscure clown without a moral compass.
Contempt For Democracy Part 1
So, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign got to present their petition, with over 5000 signatures, to full Council. Sadly it's almost as if they needn't have bothered.
Because the petition reached the magic 5k the council was required to actually debate the petition motion. I'm not sure that this has ever happened before (I'm prepared to be corrected so do write in) so it's a significant matter to be considered.
Anyway, here's what Nottingham City Council considers to be a debate.
Firstly, an extract from the standing orders concerning petitions that require a debate due to having received the required number of signatures -
"The relevant Portfolio Holder(s) will present a provisional written response to the petition to inform discussion and to help full Council agree a response."
In this case it was the beloved Leader, so 'inform the discussion' and 'help...agree a response' is pretty much a direct instruction. An d here's the 'provisional written response' he provided -
“Nottingham City Council acknowledges receipt of the petition collated by Nottingham Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which accumulated over 5000 signatures from Nottingham residents.
Words fail etc. And so does democracy.
Because the petition reached the magic 5k the council was required to actually debate the petition motion. I'm not sure that this has ever happened before (I'm prepared to be corrected so do write in) so it's a significant matter to be considered.
Anyway, here's what Nottingham City Council considers to be a debate.
Firstly, an extract from the standing orders concerning petitions that require a debate due to having received the required number of signatures -
"The relevant Portfolio Holder(s) will present a provisional written response to the petition to inform discussion and to help full Council agree a response."
In this case it was the beloved Leader, so 'inform the discussion' and 'help...agree a response' is pretty much a direct instruction. An d here's the 'provisional written response' he provided -
“Nottingham City Council acknowledges receipt of the petition collated by Nottingham Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which accumulated over 5000 signatures from Nottingham residents.
Nottingham City Council’s petitions
scheme requires that a petition will be debated at a meeting of the
City Council if it receives 5000 or more signatures from Nottingham
residents and is presented to the Head of Constitutional Services
at least 12 working days prior to the next Council meeting. This
scheme was introduced by the City Council in June 2010 following
national legislation which, at that time, required Councils to have
a petitions scheme.
The City Council recognises the hard work of
the Nottingham Palestine Solidarity Campaign in gathering over 5000
signatures, which were counted and verified as representing
Nottingham people.
As a local authority, Nottingham City Council
has responsibility for local services and influence over many
issues of local concern. From cleaning streets and caring for the
vulnerable, to job creation and encouraging investment, the remit
of the City Council is wide and varied. As a City Council these are
our primary concerns and we should focus most of our time on these
issues where we can have direct control or influence. Nonetheless,
we also recognise that international issues such as this are of
great concern to many local people, and it is therefore important
that they receive due consideration when representations such as
these are made locally.
Nottingham City Council takes seriously its
responsibility to promote community cohesion. Our recent
‘Citizen Survey’ shows that 90% of those asked feel
that Nottingham is a place where people of different backgrounds
and opinions get on well together. The Council will continue to do
all we can to maintain and improve this and are therefore happy to
transparently work with the Nottingham Palestine Solidarity
Campaign to address the concerns raised
in the petition for further consideration within our local
context.”
Note the complete lack of any concrete commitments there.
Oh and the debate? From the minutes -
"The petition and the written response were
debated by Councillors, and the response was supported."
Words fail etc. And so does democracy.
Monday, 26 January 2015
Think the Tories Are Reading the Blog
Today is the full council meeting which pals from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign will be attending. Good luck to them with that.
On looking at the agenda, and in particular the questions to be asked by councillors, I came across this -
Think they might have been reading the blog...
Just for the record, it did cross my mind contacting one of the opposition councillors to see if they'd be interested in asking questions about the issue but I kind of draw the line at working with Tories. I also briefly considered contacting one of my local (Labour) councillors but ... yeah right.
My guess is that JoCo will answer this by throwing a few insults, claims of 'needlessly' re-openiing 'closed' issues and not actually answering the question at all. Bonus points if I get a mention by JoCo as the inspiration, probably as a 'sad blogger'. Be interesting to see what happens.
On looking at the agenda, and in particular the questions to be asked by councillors, I came across this -
Think they might have been reading the blog...
Just for the record, it did cross my mind contacting one of the opposition councillors to see if they'd be interested in asking questions about the issue but I kind of draw the line at working with Tories. I also briefly considered contacting one of my local (Labour) councillors but ... yeah right.
My guess is that JoCo will answer this by throwing a few insults, claims of 'needlessly' re-openiing 'closed' issues and not actually answering the question at all. Bonus points if I get a mention by JoCo as the inspiration, probably as a 'sad blogger'. Be interesting to see what happens.
Tuesday, 20 January 2015
Palestine Solidarity Campaign Petition Goes Before Full Council
The local branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign has submitted its petition asking NCC to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaign against Israel and to call upon the government to generally pressure Israel into obeying UN Resolutions and the Geneva Convention. The full text of the motion before the Council is as follows;
“We the undersigned
request the City Council to undertake the following
action:
To transparently work with
Nottingham Palestine Solidarity Campaign to draw and pass a motion
affirming its official support and calling upon the UK government
to support the following against Israel until it complies with
international laws:
1. The “Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions” (BDS) campaign;
2. An end to attacks against
Palestine
3. An end to Administrative
Detention;
4. An arms embargo.”
As with any petition/motion on an essentially national issue some will wonder why the council should bother; in fact expect Zionists to campaign against the motion on that very point, along with the usual empty accusations of anti-semitism. However, the agreement of the motion will send a strong message of support to the Palestinians and a further message to central government that the fate of Palestinians matters to people in Nottingham and that we can no longer sit on the sidelines as we have done up to now.
At the end of last year Leicester City Council agreed a motion condemning Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and resolving to boycott products from illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, to traditional furore. Nottingham's petition goes considerably further, asking for full adoption of the BDS campaign. This includes removal of any investments in Israel and a boycott of ALL Israeli goods, not just those from illegal West Bank settlements. In truth, this probably means the council is even less likely to agree to it.
NCC doesn't have a particularly good [recent*] record on condemning oppression abroad, enthusiastically lapping up Chinese investment despite the illegal occupation of Tibet. This past record would open the council up to charges of hypocrisy, with more justification than those faced by Leicester.
I strongly recommend that you contact your local councillors and urge them to vote in favour of the motion.
*Addendum; back in 1984 Nottingham City Council DID have the political courage to agree a comprehensive policy to boycott and divest from South Africa, see p20 of this report.
*Addendum; back in 1984 Nottingham City Council DID have the political courage to agree a comprehensive policy to boycott and divest from South Africa, see p20 of this report.
Friday, 9 January 2015
Free Speech Depends on Where You Are
I would normally just be having a quiet little chuckle over the news that Nottingham Labour has suspended Cllr Rosemary Healy for retweeting a satire of the Tories latest election poster, along with her ludicrous defence that she had no idea what the picture was.
I mean, it's not Skegness beach is it?
Even Ed Milliband, on a day trip to Hucknall, waded in saying the tweet was “objectionable and totally wrong”. Blimey.
But then of course the Charlie Hebdo killings happened in Paris and suddenly publishing extremely offensive satirical cartoons is a cornerstone of free speech. Frankly, if you haven't yet published a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed in a compromising position by now you are an enemy of freedom, truth and light. Well, that's if all the media organisations pledging to keep the magazine going and reprinting their cartoons in 'solidarity' are anything to go by. Leftlion had a go at doing some of their own, see if you can guess which one they later described on Facebook as a picture of a 'typical terrorist'.
Let me pause briefly to say that I'm not arguing equivalence here. On the one hand, 12 people were shot dead in cold blood, on the other, a minor local politician has had the whip suspended but is otherwise unhurt, not even financially. I am about to criticise some of the Charlie Hebdo output but let's make no mistake; no matter how offensive you are a death sentence, especially an extra-judicial one, can never be justified.
But the consequences of your actions in themselves don't make any difference as to whether you were expressing free speech or not. To my mind, many of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are way more offensive than the Thomas pride mock-up, yet the former is 'free speech' now and the latter 'objectionable and totally wrong' apparently. I can't quite square that myself.
The fact is that we don't have absolute free speech and neither should we. We have legal limits to what we can print or say in order to prevent defamation, harassment and hatred/incitement etc, as do most countries. Those laws probably aren't perfect but the key point is that free speech has limits. My own view is that a few of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons I've seen cross those limits (I understand they have indeed been prosocuted under French hate-crime laws on occasion), the Thomas Pride mock-up really doesn't.
The killings of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists are not a free speech issue, they are a 'turning up at someone's workplace and murdering them is never justified, even if they have been dicks' issue. Healy's suspension is merely the local Labour Party disappearing up itself.
I mean, it's not Skegness beach is it?
Even Ed Milliband, on a day trip to Hucknall, waded in saying the tweet was “objectionable and totally wrong”. Blimey.
But then of course the Charlie Hebdo killings happened in Paris and suddenly publishing extremely offensive satirical cartoons is a cornerstone of free speech. Frankly, if you haven't yet published a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed in a compromising position by now you are an enemy of freedom, truth and light. Well, that's if all the media organisations pledging to keep the magazine going and reprinting their cartoons in 'solidarity' are anything to go by. Leftlion had a go at doing some of their own, see if you can guess which one they later described on Facebook as a picture of a 'typical terrorist'.
Let me pause briefly to say that I'm not arguing equivalence here. On the one hand, 12 people were shot dead in cold blood, on the other, a minor local politician has had the whip suspended but is otherwise unhurt, not even financially. I am about to criticise some of the Charlie Hebdo output but let's make no mistake; no matter how offensive you are a death sentence, especially an extra-judicial one, can never be justified.
But the consequences of your actions in themselves don't make any difference as to whether you were expressing free speech or not. To my mind, many of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are way more offensive than the Thomas pride mock-up, yet the former is 'free speech' now and the latter 'objectionable and totally wrong' apparently. I can't quite square that myself.
The fact is that we don't have absolute free speech and neither should we. We have legal limits to what we can print or say in order to prevent defamation, harassment and hatred/incitement etc, as do most countries. Those laws probably aren't perfect but the key point is that free speech has limits. My own view is that a few of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons I've seen cross those limits (I understand they have indeed been prosocuted under French hate-crime laws on occasion), the Thomas Pride mock-up really doesn't.
The killings of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists are not a free speech issue, they are a 'turning up at someone's workplace and murdering them is never justified, even if they have been dicks' issue. Healy's suspension is merely the local Labour Party disappearing up itself.
Monday, 5 January 2015
Is Jon Collins a Shameless Liar Part 2
So, following on from yesterday's piece about JoCo's fibbing to Leftlion, here's what happened next.
Rather than barge in accusing JoCo of untruths I thought it would be an idea to give him the opportunity to publicly explain himself. After all, there could have been further developments since that report four years ago. So I submitted a question to be answered at full council in the following terms -
"In a recent interview with local magazine Leftlion, Cllr Jon Collins was asked about the mis-allocation of council houses and the perceived lack of action taken.
In reply Cllr Collins stated -
"A number of people were prosecuted and lost their jobs, others had formal warnings and several of the houses in question were re-allocated."
http://www.leftlion.co.uk/articles.cfm/title/councillor-jon-collins/id/6994
The report to the Council's Executive Board in December 2010 said that no houses had been re-possessed due to legal arguments being weak, one right-to-buy application was being contested and one overpaid right to buy discount had been recovered and that was it.
As far as disciplinary action was concerned, one agency worker was let go, three permanent staff were investigated, in only one case was disciplinary action pursued and a final warning was issued.
http://committee.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/Data/Executive%20Board/20101221/Agenda/$PIRreport%20-%2046138.doc.pdf
Of course, it may be that more things had happened since that report, despite it being presented as a final summary. Perhaps the leader could update citizens with the full picture of action taken and thus explain the apparent inconsistency.
Lastly, did the City Council explore the possibility of individuals being charged with misconduct in public office? Was any advice sought on this possibility? If so, what was this advice?"
Want to know what happened? They refused to let the question be asked. The reply I received on 4 December 2014 was as follows -
"The Lord Mayor has considered your question and decided that it should receive a departmental written response. This is because it relates to a historical issue that has been addressed in Council questions and other public forums already."
I wrote back to challenge this and received the following the next day -
"The Lord Mayor decides which questions are asked at the Full Council meeting and has made the decision that this question should receive a written response.
I have spoken with the department and they have confirmed that the position given in the Executive Board report you have referred to is still the position so I’m sorry but there is no further information that can be provided."
I should first of all say that I've received no departmental written response so far and I don't expect to get one. The minutes of the full council meeting on 8 December 2014 falsely state the following -
"No questions from citizens were received."
The upshot of this is that JoCo can hardly claim that he wasn't given an opportunity to explain himself in a high profile public forum. After all, he was the one moaning that nobody wanted to report the end findings of the enquiry and said that things should be done 'as transparently as possible'.
It also means that the Lord Mayor, Cllr Ian Malcolm, is prepared to spike citizens' questions to council if they might be embarrassing to the Politburo which essentially makes the whole thing meaningless. According the the Lord Mayor's webpage his key task is -
"To act as the a-political figurehead of the City Council; champion of the city of Nottingham and its people and symbolise the social cohesion of the city and its many cultures and faith"
Note the 'a-political' (sic) bit. He should be ashamed of himself.
The one thing the replies do confirm is that no further progress has been made since the Executive Board report, in turn confirming that JoCo's Leftlion comments were indeed a flight of fancy.
Cllr Jon Collins, your pants are on fire.
Rather than barge in accusing JoCo of untruths I thought it would be an idea to give him the opportunity to publicly explain himself. After all, there could have been further developments since that report four years ago. So I submitted a question to be answered at full council in the following terms -
"In a recent interview with local magazine Leftlion, Cllr Jon Collins was asked about the mis-allocation of council houses and the perceived lack of action taken.
In reply Cllr Collins stated -
"A number of people were prosecuted and lost their jobs, others had formal warnings and several of the houses in question were re-allocated."
http://www.leftlion.co.uk/articles.cfm/title/councillor-jon-collins/id/6994
The report to the Council's Executive Board in December 2010 said that no houses had been re-possessed due to legal arguments being weak, one right-to-buy application was being contested and one overpaid right to buy discount had been recovered and that was it.
As far as disciplinary action was concerned, one agency worker was let go, three permanent staff were investigated, in only one case was disciplinary action pursued and a final warning was issued.
http://committee.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/Data/Executive%20Board/20101221/Agenda/$PIRreport%20-%2046138.doc.pdf
Of course, it may be that more things had happened since that report, despite it being presented as a final summary. Perhaps the leader could update citizens with the full picture of action taken and thus explain the apparent inconsistency.
Lastly, did the City Council explore the possibility of individuals being charged with misconduct in public office? Was any advice sought on this possibility? If so, what was this advice?"
Want to know what happened? They refused to let the question be asked. The reply I received on 4 December 2014 was as follows -
"The Lord Mayor has considered your question and decided that it should receive a departmental written response. This is because it relates to a historical issue that has been addressed in Council questions and other public forums already."
I wrote back to challenge this and received the following the next day -
"The Lord Mayor decides which questions are asked at the Full Council meeting and has made the decision that this question should receive a written response.
I have spoken with the department and they have confirmed that the position given in the Executive Board report you have referred to is still the position so I’m sorry but there is no further information that can be provided."
I should first of all say that I've received no departmental written response so far and I don't expect to get one. The minutes of the full council meeting on 8 December 2014 falsely state the following -
"No questions from citizens were received."
The upshot of this is that JoCo can hardly claim that he wasn't given an opportunity to explain himself in a high profile public forum. After all, he was the one moaning that nobody wanted to report the end findings of the enquiry and said that things should be done 'as transparently as possible'.
It also means that the Lord Mayor, Cllr Ian Malcolm, is prepared to spike citizens' questions to council if they might be embarrassing to the Politburo which essentially makes the whole thing meaningless. According the the Lord Mayor's webpage his key task is -
"To act as the a-political figurehead of the City Council; champion of the city of Nottingham and its people and symbolise the social cohesion of the city and its many cultures and faith"
Note the 'a-political' (sic) bit. He should be ashamed of himself.
The one thing the replies do confirm is that no further progress has been made since the Executive Board report, in turn confirming that JoCo's Leftlion comments were indeed a flight of fancy.
Cllr Jon Collins, your pants are on fire.
Sunday, 4 January 2015
Is Jon Collins a Shameless Liar?
So the blog awakes from its slumber for 2015. Will it last? Who knows...
But back to the matter in hand. JoCo appeared in local music mag 'Leftlion' for an interview back in October. It wasn't exactly challenging, more 'Left Love-In' than Leftlion if you ask me but he was asked about why 'no action' was taken over the Housing Allocations scandal. I will quote his answer in full -
"We did take action, it was just largely unreported by local media who were very quick to report the early facts, but less interested in covering the action points after that. A number of people were prosecuted and lost their jobs, others had formal warnings and several of the houses in question were re-allocated. The issue illustrates why we don’t want to work on projects like reconfiguring city boundaries and why it’s better to do our core jobs to the best of our ability, as transparently as possible."
The first thing you'll notice is that the last sentence is just gobbledegook, it makes no sense whatsoever. But in addition he states as fact the following -
- 'a number' of people were prosecuted and lost their jobs
- 'others' (note the plural) had formal warnings
- 'several' houses were re-allocated.
Compare this to the only public statement ever made by NCC at the Executive Board meeting in December 2010. You can read it for yourself to check but as far as I can tell the sum total of action taken is as follows -
- NO tenancies repossessed, although one case is said to be 'under review' (paras 1.3-1.5).
- One 'right to buy' application being 'contested' and another right to buy discount being recovered via the courts (para 1.6)
- NO fraud cases brought (para 1.7)
None of this could really be said to be 'several houses re-allocated' and at best it could only be said that two people were prosecuted, more likely only one. Technically speaking 'two' is of course 'a number' but that's not how most people would interpret it in conversation. So far we have clear falsehood and obfuscation from JoCo there.
- ONE agency worker had their 'service terminated'. There's no information as to whether this extended as far as being sacked from their agency but we'll count it up as a 'person losing their job'.
- two workers investigated but no disciplinary action pursued
- one worker who received a final written warning
So one worker lost their job (possibly) and one received a written warning. Not 'a number' or 'others' plural at all. JoCo's account to Leftlion is demonstrably false.
For completeness I would suggest that there is absolutely no possibility that JoCo would not have been kept fully informed of all action taken, in considerately more detail than that given publicly too. He was at the Executive Board meeting where the report was presented and, even though he left early, he would have received a copy of the report.
So in conclusion, JoCo expressed false statements, along with some obfuscation, and he must have known them to be false. The word for a person who does that is 'liar'.
TBC in part 2
But back to the matter in hand. JoCo appeared in local music mag 'Leftlion' for an interview back in October. It wasn't exactly challenging, more 'Left Love-In' than Leftlion if you ask me but he was asked about why 'no action' was taken over the Housing Allocations scandal. I will quote his answer in full -
"We did take action, it was just largely unreported by local media who were very quick to report the early facts, but less interested in covering the action points after that. A number of people were prosecuted and lost their jobs, others had formal warnings and several of the houses in question were re-allocated. The issue illustrates why we don’t want to work on projects like reconfiguring city boundaries and why it’s better to do our core jobs to the best of our ability, as transparently as possible."
The first thing you'll notice is that the last sentence is just gobbledegook, it makes no sense whatsoever. But in addition he states as fact the following -
- 'a number' of people were prosecuted and lost their jobs
- 'others' (note the plural) had formal warnings
- 'several' houses were re-allocated.
Compare this to the only public statement ever made by NCC at the Executive Board meeting in December 2010. You can read it for yourself to check but as far as I can tell the sum total of action taken is as follows -
- NO tenancies repossessed, although one case is said to be 'under review' (paras 1.3-1.5).
- One 'right to buy' application being 'contested' and another right to buy discount being recovered via the courts (para 1.6)
- NO fraud cases brought (para 1.7)
None of this could really be said to be 'several houses re-allocated' and at best it could only be said that two people were prosecuted, more likely only one. Technically speaking 'two' is of course 'a number' but that's not how most people would interpret it in conversation. So far we have clear falsehood and obfuscation from JoCo there.
- ONE agency worker had their 'service terminated'. There's no information as to whether this extended as far as being sacked from their agency but we'll count it up as a 'person losing their job'.
- two workers investigated but no disciplinary action pursued
- one worker who received a final written warning
So one worker lost their job (possibly) and one received a written warning. Not 'a number' or 'others' plural at all. JoCo's account to Leftlion is demonstrably false.
For completeness I would suggest that there is absolutely no possibility that JoCo would not have been kept fully informed of all action taken, in considerately more detail than that given publicly too. He was at the Executive Board meeting where the report was presented and, even though he left early, he would have received a copy of the report.
So in conclusion, JoCo expressed false statements, along with some obfuscation, and he must have known them to be false. The word for a person who does that is 'liar'.
TBC in part 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
