Well I've heard (read) it all now. What on earth is happening to Hartlepool Council?
http://www.hartlepoolpost.co.uk/
This just doesn't work for me. If Stubbsy has stopped council officers appearing on Radio Hartlepool because he thinks its inappropriate when police investigations are going on then how can he block councillors suggesting the same thing might be the case for the three councillors? Can't have it both ways.
I'm told that some councillors, presumably the three councillors concerned, have asked for a 'period of grace'.
Go figure....
Bet Stephen is wishing he had read the papers and evidence I provided regarding inappropriate conduct at the station, in his capacity as a whistle blower, it would have come in handy right now.
This is not the first time councillors have been stopped from going near Radio Hartlepool. It may be that the Council are now going to do the right thing and do something about the behaviour off air as well as on the phone.
After all, Jason has done the very same thing as he is accusing these three Councillors of.
They are as bad as each other.
I would maybe consider investing in a new Board of Trustees/Staffing for the CHARITY COMMUNITY radio station to save such an asset to the town. Who are the Board these days?
Or consider an up and coming alternative I have just found out about http://www.schoolradio.com/users/21/player.
The Council know about it, and I think they are supporting them. They are very new but some excellent ideas which might help a lot of kids as well as bring a well needed community radio station which is politically neutral to Hartlepool.
Peter Devlin wants reporting to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and "struck off"
A Chief Solicitor who blocks democracy at every angle and hides the criminal activities of the council
Solicitors are more bent than the vilains.
www.sra.org.uk/
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regulates solicitors in England and Wales
I'm sure many would understand Senior Officers trying to defend the 'good name' of the Council.
The trouble is they are now confusing that role with defending the 'good name' of a few senior Councillors who ironically are the ones who are ruining the reputation of HBC.
I understand there has been a call from some Councillors for a ceasefire and an end to hostilities. My answer to that request would involved sex and travel.
Something is very wrong here how the hell can Devlin block it
Quote from: clav 73 on October 21, 2014, 07: AM
Something is very wrong here how the hell can Devlin block it
Is it because a police enquiry is taking place ? there can be complications in some. cases if informatikn relevant to an police enquiry enters thd public domain..........as with the Wilcox & MRA issue.
But this further "Motion" has obviously rattled The TorLab Mob.......theserious soap &bubble.........
Tgere are other serious reason for further proposed motions that they might not be able to sidestep quite so easily.
Theres still over a week for proposals & public questions to be put forward........
There's a log of A**e Twitching taking place in the mayors parlour.........no pun intended
I think it depends on how you see the role. Is Devlin there to protect the council or protect the public? Same as councillors, who are they there to represent? The public? Their voters? Their party? Themselves? or once tbey becone councillors do they represent the council above everything else? So who or what is Devlin's first priority? Himself would be most logical asthats what most people would put first. In which case ask yourself who controls Devlin's career prospects?
There's something not quite right here.
If it's true that some councillors have asked for 'a period of grace' and that is the reason Devlin has blocked the motion then there is nothing to stop Devlin stating that is the reason. Something along the lines of "I think everyone could do with a short cooling off period". Likewise, if the current police investigations are the reason then why not say so, "It would be inappropriate to discuss this matter while Police investigations are going on." etc. etc.
Instead Devlin is telling people that they are "legally prohibited from sharing his reasons but that he will speak to a member of the public if they are concerned".
So get calling. The Civic's number is: (01429) 266522
Given that the council have to see questions in advance you could maybe put a list of questions on here for people to choose from as only one per person.
an email or letter should also highlight the issues. Given the number of hits this site gets it would be enough to let councillors know the residents are not satisfied with silence.
the final sentiments of this clip seems to apply;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhWlAKdlQp4
The Party is at a low ebb. THis constant attacks have sapped the will to live. Everything has become a fight and they lack the motivation to constantly defend the SCABs. Their days are numbered.
It takes a very special politician to alienate both the local newspaper and the local Radio Station at the same time.
There is a rather cryptic readers comment in the Mail website that gives a clue as to the way the SCAB bunker operates:
Did anyone wonder why the Hartlepool Mail started reporting on the SCABS, the Hartlepool Mail sat on the Hartlepool radio story for one reason, they were being held to the same ransom. Only the Mail did not have the guts.
This all came about because The Dear leader(s) felt unloved. The 'cunning plan' to stifle all criticism in the local media was to cajole, bully and a last resort sanction (withdrawal of grants and advertising revenue) anyone who did not toe (mildly amusing word play) the SCAB line.They were sure that no one would dare stand up to them but forgot Jason was just as slippery as they are-and had an IQ larger than their combined total. The biter was bit and the situation is now 10 times worse.
So if you ring Devlin he will explain his reasons for the refusal.
However, he can't make his reasons 'public'.
What a strange dichotomy. ???
Like other 'senior' officers in HBC, he knows which side his bread is buttered.
Wilcox had to go because she was under police investigation.
Serious financial probity charges have been made against the mayor and 2 Cllrs and they are under police investigation.
HELLO...what is the difference? ??? :o
It really is time for an outside police force to be brought in to investigate the investigation into the whole of HBC dealings over the past 10 years. >:(
How ANYONE can believe in and vote Labour in this town after the many scandals, especially the treatment of poor Lynda, is beyond me.
They say the Tory party is the 'Nasty' party, you couldn't get any more nasty than this shower of bile. >:( >:(
Just a thought. Now Labour have fallen out with the Local Radio station how long before Cranney starts one up?
Quote from: grim reaper on October 21, 2014, 10: AM
.
Wilcox had to go because she was under police investigation.
Wilcox left the party of her own volition. She was not sacked or expelled. Truth is she knew too much to be forced out. Given that she remained in charge of MRA it is plain to see a deal was done to buy her silence. Angie is not one to go down without blaming the others and her looming trial should be a very revealing exercise in blame-shifting.
Quote from: mk1 on October 21, 2014, 10: AM
Just a thought. Now Labour have fallen out with the Local Radio station how long before Cranney starts one up?
Cranney FM
I can see it now.
;D
I would have expected the borough solicitor to ask that this matter be kept until a later date due to a police investigation BUT WITH THAT AS HIS REASON. there is no shame in making a decision, just shame in hiding behind a reason that you won't share with the public. Surely he knows that there are serious concerns regarding the actions of our elected officials for many people in the town so to block a motion with no public explanation looks 'strange'. There is no scrutiny or transparency
As for the ban on councillors using the allotted time on radio Hartlepool to discuss town issues perhaps that slot can now be used by us poor voters to discuss 'issues' in the town. Maybe topical political issues????? Obviously our councillors have a right to reply - oh yes, they are not allowed to do so because an unelected official is telling the democratically elected officials who they can speak to.
As they said in the Hartlepool Mail a few years ago (and well before Mr Drummond was elected)- years ago we used to hang monkeys in this town, now we just vote for them
And remember that the usual excuse when an Officer is asked to do something about a concern with a councillor is: HBC cannot control what that Councillor does/says.
Then the Councillors are ordered into this?
Shows double standards, and possibly bribery and corruption.
Do they know that to give false, misleading or inaccurate information is a criminal offence when it means that the culprits could be destroying the evidence and planning to pervert the course of justice?
That also goes for the statement from Dave Stubbs, what did he mean by the relationship with Newcastle City Council is as good as ever?
I would not think that Newcastle City Council would be happy to be accused of sacking a whistle blower as that is accusing their HR dept at the very least of a criminal offence. It is against the law to do so.
These things should not be dragged out. Do the right thing and suspend those under any suspicion so others do not get tarred.
She 'had to go'.
How can you transpose that to; 'she was not sacked or expelled'?
'A deal was done to buy her silence'.
Ergo...SHE HAD TO GO!
DOH.
If I'd had a very good run, lavished £1,000s n my family holidays, cars and homes and then walked away with £600,000 you can be sure I'd be keeping quiet about it too.
Quote from: grim reaper on October 21, 2014, 07: PM
She 'had to go'.
How can you transpose that to; 'she was not sacked or expelled'?
Very easily. She was not sacked. Therefore claiming she was is being "economical with the actualité"
SAB, Richardson and Wells all deny any wrong doing (see Hartlepool Mail today).
Do these three nincompoops not realise there are recordings of their comments to Jason.
As Russell Hart said, 'it only the lies that will find you out'.
The photo used by the Mail today shows they really are out to get him. They have loads of stock images of the man but they decided to use a new one that makes him look very shifty. That will teach him to tell people not to buy the Mail!
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/health/local-health/obesity-campaign-plan-for-hartlepool-as-a-third-of-young-people-are-overweight-1-6909273
(http://img661.imageshack.us/img661/9343/6T8Oy6.jpg) (http://imageshack.com/i/id6T8Oy6j)
Odd that Devlin's reasoning for blocking this debate doesn't seem to extend to the three councillors who are still apparently enjoying free rein to deny any wrong-doing through the pages of the Hartlepool Mail leaving the public with a one-sided view from councillors.
Devlin's excuses reasons for not allowing the debate have the whiff of him being set a homework task i.e. 'Compile a list of possible reasons which could be used to block another awkward motion been put to a meeting of the full council for debate."
Give him his due, he would probably get an A+ for his answer.
Just as well he's not doing Democratic Studies or he'd be staring an E- in the face.