[mi2]

howardmcs said:

the passage i found interesting in peters post, was that some councillors when cornered hide behind the legal excuse.
rather like national politicians using "matter of national security"!!!!

My pet peeves are the misuse of the 'data protection' and 'health and safety' acts by officialdom!

[Bern]

FF is right - it's not the mistakes but how we respond to them that counts: a firm/council/corporation that says "yes, we made a mistake - now here's how we are going to put it right" gain more respect than one who puts its head in the sand (or up its ****!) and displays its arrogance.

[Kevin Elks]

Bern said:

FF is right - it's not the mistakes but how we respond to them that counts: a firm/council/corporation that says "yes, we made a mistake - now here's how we are going to put it right" gain more respect than one who puts its head in the sand (or up its ****!) and displays its arrogance.

The DDC do not need respect, they have the power, our money and do what they want. There are two problems with the DDC.
1 - they are not accountable
2 - councillors are split up onto various committees and the paid officials manipulate them like puppets. Councillors are too busy being important in their little private members club to notice that they are being treated like fools. Planning officer (now retired and an independant planning consultant) Mr Peal told me some time ago that planning meetings no longer go on into the night because "we have trained them", like laboratory rats responding to a buzzer for food?

[Bern]

Yes Minister.............?

[mi2]

Kevin Elks said:

1 - they are not accountable

This is only true if we don't hold them to account.

[howardmcs]

try to hold them to account mi!!

only last week we found out that there was no tourism department, despite the present incumbents getting elected partly on a platform of selling the town.

the reason for dumping tourism was that an ASBO department would be opened.

it may have been opened, but is certainly closed now.

[ferrylooper]

so still no reply from suenicholls. is she still waiting for instructions on what to say next from the 'pooh-bahs' at whitfield planning office..........

[howardmcs]

we only get set replies from our leaders.

any sign of flak flying, they tend to run for cover.

[Bern]

No, she's just popped out to Waitrose.......

[suenicholas]

Ferry looper,
The name is Nicholas as the boys name.No i have not popped to Waitrose ,resting the poor old horse today.Trotting throught the Alkham Valley takes its toil.

I have received a very long letter from Mr Moulder.Yes we do have to take advice from our officers .If we did not do so Jo Public would hang us from the rafters or at worst put us in the stocks in Market Square Dover.

[Higham8]

Wow Ms Nicholas, if you can afford a horse on the wages of a councillor, I may even run for office myself.:cute:

[Bern]

Stocks? I am excited.....can we please try them out? I have a couiple of nominees........:lol:

[Kevin Elks]

suenicholas said:

Ferry looper,
The name is Nicholas as the boys name.No i have not popped to Waitrose ,resting the poor old horse today.Trotting throught the Alkham Valley takes its toil.

I have received a very long letter from Mr Moulder.Yes we do have to take advice from our officers .If we did not do so Jo Public would hang us from the rafters or at worst put us in the stocks in Market Square Dover.

Councillor, there are some points to be made regarding your post. I used to ride myself but as the old horse is now well over 30 years old and I am past my use by date it is a thing of the past but, that asside, back to your post:

1 - You do not have to take advice from the officers to talk and listen to members of the public. Your first duty as a councillor is to the citizens of the district and councillors should be in control, not in the situation where the councillor is like a child that has to ask mummy and daddy what she/he can or cannot do. For goodness sake you are an adult? It is not hazardous to listen to members of the public's complaints, fears or suggestions, is it?

2 - "Jo Public" as you call us would love to put councillors and others in the stocks if only it were allowed when they fail us as some (seemingly and sadly the majority) have done over the decades in this district.

As I see it the only reason to go running to those with the real power in the DDC (the officials) is to be primed on how to fob off, lie and cheat the electorate to preserve the safety of the most corrupt amongst the power house at Whitfield. I speak as one who had the guts and public spirit (without alcohol) to stand up in that sham of a so called consultation meeting at the Town Hall and ask the Chief Executive what he was doing to route out and prevent corruption and corrupt practices in the DDC (it was on the television news). The answer to that question was of course the usual wall of silence.

Councillor, break free from the chains that are binding you and those you represent to slavery and refuse to be a puppet. How about this for an idea? Talk to the citizen first and then go to the den of XXXXXXXX and see their side of the story and weigh up the facts for yourself.

You know that eventually the XXXX will hit the fan, who will be covered in it?

[Kevin Elks]

Higham8 said:

Wow Ms Nicholas, if you can afford a horse on the wages of a councillor, I may even run for office myself.:cute:

Not sure but I don't think councillors are paid as such, I think they only get expenses. Perhaps if they were paid we would get more people clambering to be elected and then some may well want to support the public that pays them. What do you think about that?

[The Fabric Fairy]

Kevin

Without putting words into Sue's mouth, I believe the case in question is sub judice and therefore there is a legal requirement for Sue to take guidance before commenting on it in public. As for everything else you have to say, I think you're pretty much spot on; I just wish Councillors would once and for all see that they are elected by us and therefore have a duty to the public - which means being answerable. Not adopting a stance with the attitude of "You're all plebs and we know better than you" which is [mostly] what you get out of Whitfield.

I'm sick and tired of being patronised by surly and defensive officials and councillors who think they know best. One or two Councillors are open about some of the decisions taken there, and will say if they think it's wrong - but the majority just clam up when anyone opposes their point of view and dogmatically will not see reasoned argument if it goes against Council policy.

If I could get DDC to take on board one sentence of friendly advice, it would be "Listen to constructive criticism; you're not omniscient, other people may have a valid point perhaps borne out of expertise in the subject - flexibility is a strength." Dodo and his skatepark is an example that instantly springs to mind - dogged bloody mindedness costs money to put right, so isn't it easier to get it right first time?

[Higham8]

Kevin Elks said:

Not sure but I don't think councillors are paid as such, I think they only get expenses. Perhaps if they were paid we would get more people clambering to be elected and then some may well want to support the public that pays them. What do you think about that?

I believe that is right, I am so glad this is at local level or else our dear authorities could be claiming in excess of £1mill per year, as was the case of Neil Kinnock back in the early 1990s when he was a MEP and claiming for his family. :arghh::arghh::arghh:

This post has been edited by Higham8: 29 August 2008 - 02:31 PM
Reason for edit: spelling

[Kevin Elks]

The Fabric Fairy, I don't think our councillor can claim any subject concerning the Moulder situation as 'sub judice'. The law on sub judice relates to matters before a judge or court of law, a judge can declare certain matters or the case sub judice in which case anyone breaking the ruling is guilty of contempt and may be jailed without trial and await the judges pleasure on his/her contempt; also matters already refered to the courts for determination. Until a matter is presented it is highly unlikely that the law or even rules of public bodies can apply because the law is there to protect the legal process for a fair trial (if there is such a thing). It is equally there for both defence and prosecution.

My view of this is that running to the offiocials first is what councillors have been wrongly 'trained' to do so that injustice and perhaps criminal activities can be protected agaist prosecution, in other words councillors are wrongly being put in the possition where they could be charged with conspiracy. Councillors should seek their own independant legal advice to protect themselves, the legal department of the DDC is there to protect the 'corporate' body as a statutory organisation, NOT the individual councillor. I have tried to warn them of this before but they are too mind conditioned to think beyond the box they have been put in. Well if they won't listen to good and friendly reason then they deserve all they get.

[Marek]

I don't want to get into the why's and wherefors of this particular case other than to offer my full support for Mr Moulder.But one thing in Sue's favour is that she does poke her head above the parapet to be shot at by other forumites.Most other councillors remain silent in their ivory towers not daring to converse with us the general public.Whether she is right or wrong in this case she has to be applauded for coming on here and defending her corner.

[The Fabric Fairy]

Very well said Marek! And thanks to Kevin for the Latin lesson, but I already have an A Level in it and therefore am aware of what sub judice means; it was meant to be taken as allegorical rather than literal. I meant that Sue may not be at liberty to discuss the matter, and I for one understand that. If a matter that I was involved with were being openly discussed on a forum such as this, I'm not sure I would want any council representative telling all and sundry about it before talking to me about it.

My support, too, lies with Peter - I just hope that putting it on DL may prove a significant stepping stone in getting his home rebuilt.

[Peter Moulder]

The Fabric Fairy said:

Very well said Marek! And thanks to Kevin for the Latin lesson, but I already have an A Level in it and therefore am aware of what sub judice means; it was meant to be taken as allegorical rather than literal. I meant that Sue may not be at liberty to discuss the matter, and I for one understand that. If a matter that I was involved with were being openly discussed on a forum such as this, I'm not sure I would want any council representative telling all and sundry about it before talking to me about it.

My support, too, lies with Peter - I just hope that putting it on DL may prove a significant stepping stone in getting his home rebuilt.

Particular thanks to The Fabric Fairy and Marek for their kind offer of support and to all others who have posted. It is very much appreciated.

I am aware that Sue Nicholas is probably very busy but I am confident that she will agree to a meeting with me to discuss the issues she has raised especially considering Marek’s comments about her. I have already contacted one of her fellow Councillors and he readily agreed to accompany her should she prefer to meet me in the presence of another Councillor.