Catch the Rabbit

[rabbit]

Over to you Stuart. If you want to leave a meaningful legacy... you know what do do.

Well, if there are any bodies, he`ll have a good idea where they are buried.

[mk1]

Maybe we should give Stuart posting rights under an assumed name?
He can supply the ammo for others to load and fire........

[fred c]

Maybe we should give Stuart posting rights under an assumed name?
He can supply the ammo for others to load and fire........

I can understand where your coming from with this comment mk1....... but if he does have an box of ammo in his locker...... i would have preferred that he had fired it long before now.

[steveL]

Memory recalls two instances involving possible council representative appointments to the board of the Credit Union. Because the Credit Union is a defacto bank of sorts, both appointments had to be given the nod by the Financial Services Authority. In one case, the FSA had a problem with one particular councillor nominee sitting on the board in any capacity. In the other, once it became known that the FSA would have to look into the financial background of the councillor nominee, he quickly back-tracked and announced that he was no longer interested.

We'll never get to know what the problems were, of course, but it makes you wonder. 

[SRMoore]

Shane, a Question from me.... would you support a more rigorous & transparent Register of Interests, that lists any & all earnings received by councillors from any organisation that is connected to, or receives funding from HBC ?

Unless they have something to hide I don't know why anybody would not support this.

[fred c]

Shane, a Question from me.... would you support a more rigorous & transparent Register of Interests, that lists any & all earnings received by councillors from any organisation that is connected to, or receives funding from HBC ?

Unless they have something to hide I don't know why anybody would not support this.

That answer makes complete sense to me Shane, However............

I asked a question in connection with that point at the November Council meeting & was given short shrift, the Borough Solicitor made the point that the existing Register of Interest was all that was required.

[SRMoore]

Perhaps the current register of interests IS all that is required. However when the integrity of Hartlepool Borough Council and its elected members are being questioned I would have thought they'd be happy to show the public and their peers that they are open, transparent and willing to squash the rumours, rather than closing rank and looking suspicious.

[steveL]

At one time, the register of interests included a question on sources of 'taxable income', so even a councillors 'normal' employment would have to be declared. It didn't asked for income amounts or other details but at some stage recently this question disappeared from the form altogether.

It attracted our attention because Wells had entered N/A against the question.

[marky]

I see no reason why all income shouldn't be declared; it's not just those interests deriving from public funding. I'm thinking particularly of developments that go through the planing process where 'interests' can be once or twice removed from the actual applicant. . . and then there's the question of donations made to organisations in which councillors have 'an interest'......Niramax, for example.

Why do I get the feeling that this is already being hijacked? Maybe I'm just too suspicious, but  it's already been handed to the Chief of Exec to come up with costs and terms of reference. Does it have to be this eleaborate? Surely there are several options such as taking a look at what other councils are doing and opting for 'best practice'. Alternatively, why not just agree that all should declare it whenever they gain from the allocation of public funds or are involved in those organisations which do? Why not agree to declare all sources of income? They could do that now without it costing a penny.
At some stage, we will be told it's all going to cost too much money to bother.

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/public-inquiry-into-councillors-1-5215544

[marky]

It's taking some time for us all to be told what allowances are going to be paid to the new Leader of the Council and others when the new system comes in. Can we take it that CAB will be giving up his full-time job at LINKS to earn his full-time salary at the Kremlin? Can't see it myself. I see someone forever missing from his LINKS role 'on council business' but still picking up a second full-time salary from it.

[fred c]

I see no reason why all income shouldn't be declared; it's not just those interests deriving from public funding. I'm thinking particularly of developments that go through the planing process where 'interests' can be once or twice removed from the actual applicant. . . and then there's the question of donations made to organisations in which councillors have 'an interest'......Niramax, for example.

Why do I get the feeling that this is already being hijacked? Maybe I'm just too suspicious, but  it's already been handed to the Chief of Exec to come up with costs and terms of reference. Does it have to be this eleaborate? Surely there are several options such as taking a look at what other councils are doing and opting for 'best practice'. Alternatively, why not just agree that all should declare it whenever they gain from the allocation of public funds or are involved in those organisations which do? Why not agree to declare all sources of income? They could do that now without it costing a penny.
At some stage, we will be told it's all going to cost too much money to bother.

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/public-inquiry-into-councillors-1-5215544

I don`t think you need to be Einstein to realise why they don`t want an indepth enquiry into this whole business....

And as you mention marky............. why not just adopt a Register of Interest that lists all earnings both from organisations funded by HBC, & 3rd party organisations that a councillor may have a connection with in some way, however tenuous.

[fred c]

Looks as though thats another question for the next Full Council Meeting.

[mk1]

With Wells and the f**ty Belchers both stating the purpose of any enquiry was to show  all the rumours were wrong and everything is hunky dory at the Kremlin I think we know which way the wind is blowing.
Why  the Tories allow Wells to drag them down like this is beyond me.

[fred c]

Another 35 yarder from the former CEO would be useful......

[steveL]

I guess this is what they mean by 'perception'