A profanity filter is employed. Please use a valid e-mail with your message and a valid name if at all possible. Please keep to the posters subject.
RICHMOND WATCHDOG OPEN FORUM
Go to Top  |  New Topic  |  Go to Topic  |  Search 
 Subject: RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?
 
Author: Anthony P Berend
Date:   11/4/2001 0:05 am WEDT
Most interesting Cllr Mann

I have a few comments and questions for you.

You say

"I think people should realise that things have changed quite a lot over the last 12 years. 12 years ago, it would have been the norm everywhere for planning matters to be discussed before decision, and even to have been voted on in a party political way. It still is the case in many places that this happens. The catalyst for change was the Nolan report".

Maybe in Liberal Richmond is was the norm 12 years ago but still illegal under the acts that govern Planning and Local Government. Maybe you could enlighten us with more detail?

Your comment "voted on in a party political way" is the first public admission that this was done under the Liberal administration. It was never done previous administrations. Although I cannot speak for what the Liberals did in opposition. If they voted, having agreed a party line 12 years ago 20 or 30 years ago it would have been illegal. They have been accused many times. They always rejected that it happened. Now Cllr Mann admits that his colleagues regularly acted illegally.

Thank you for your honesty.

For your information Planning applications can only be considered on planning grounds. In fact you yourself keep repeating it even when it is not relevent. As I am sure you know, a legal position which has not changed since 1947 when the first Town and Country Planning Act was brought in.

There has been no change due to Nolan's - the legislation was always clear. Any action to which you are now admitting your party got up to would have been actionable under corruption in Public Office legislation as well as other legislation.

The real problem is that as far as the Twickenham Riverside is concerned for party political reasons you are hiding behind a legal "Chinese wall" that is just as flimsy as most of the City’s Chinese Walls.

Cllr Mann you excuses do not wash.

You go on

"I have seen these notes before, and I have no reason to doubt that they are authentic",

Really !! That is an important statement - I shall quote you.

and

"but that does not mean that they are".

Political double speak??

"nowadays that would not be possible, because apart from anything else, only cabinet members would have been involved in such a meeting". [strategy meetings].

Another admission. The introduction of the cabinet system is to restrict even further the rights of ordinary members of the Council including Lib Dem members getting involved in policy and strategy. - For "strategy" read "keeping the dirty deals out of the public domain".

The senior Councillors cannot even trust their own Councillors - so just keep them in line with the prospect of large salaries in the future. In the mean time use them as lobby fodder. They cannot step out of line - not with £11,000 a year or so for the odd evening [maximum 4 per week for some 30/34 weeks a year].

Yes Mr Mann - the development Control committee does meet more often than most committees but the majority of committees only meet once in a cycle and the number of Council meetings [cycles] have been reduced to four per annum [or is it five]. One of which is ceremonial - the Mayor making.

The Liberals had to abandon their previous efforts of secrecy and avoiding public scrutiny - when they had nearly 100 committees and sub committees so no one could follow what they were doing and things were slipped through without scrutiny or debate. In those days the cycle was 6 weeks not 4 months. The cost of this policy was so horrendous that even Liberals had to abandon that scam.

And think of the trees that were consumed by the deluge of wast paper.


Anthony P Berend
Reply To This Message
 Previous Message  |  Next Message

 Topics Author  Date      
 Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/1/2001 5:35 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 7:13 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 10:45 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/1/2001 11:13 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 11:32 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 11:54 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 11:56 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Voter 11/1/2001 1:18 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 In need of more help 11/1/2001 2:58 pm WEDT
 STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 J. Watley 11/2/2001 0:10 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/2/2001 11:59 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 R H 11/2/2001 12:21 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Knowledgeable 11/2/2001 1:20 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 R H 11/2/2001 3:31 pm WEDT
 Still Waiting.   new  
 R H 2/24/2002 6:36 pm WEDT
 RE: Still Waiting.   new  
 Laurence Mann 2/25/2002 1:08 pm WEDT
 Minutes   new  
 R H 2/25/2002 2:07 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/2/2001 8:46 pm WEDT
 The Implications.   new  
 R H 11/3/2001 2:49 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/3/2001 10:05 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Anthony P Berend 11/4/2001 0:35 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 RichardMeacock 11/4/2001 8:41 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 7:56 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/4/2001 10:43 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 7:46 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Anthony P Berend 11/5/2001 0:35 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/5/2001 7:55 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 11:27 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 10:38 am WEDT
 Statistics.   new  
 R H 11/8/2001 3:55 pm WEDT
 RE: Statistics.   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/9/2001 9:09 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?    
 Anthony P Berend 11/4/2001 0:05 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 9:03 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Public Service Information 11/2/2001 8:37 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Knightsbridge LET Staff member 11/3/2001 10:23 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/4/2001 10:36 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 10:27 am WEDT
 Purpose?   new  
 R H 11/8/2001 3:23 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 3:14 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 4:47 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 8:07 pm WEDT
 Previous Topic  |  Next Topic
 Reply To This Message
 Your Name:  
 Your Email:  
 Subject:  
  Submission Validation Question: What is 64 - 31? *  
* indicates required field
     

Sexist, Racist, Rude or unnecessary messages will be removed. Tolerance to anonymous messages will be at the discretion of the administration body. Anyone who insults the owner of this forum will be barred for life. No adverts permitted.