A Nightingdale Sings in Barclay's Head

[steveL]

DAVID Riddle's letter (Mail, March 5) about the meaning of democracy is somewhat mischievous. Basically he is trying to justify why Hartlepool Borough Council should keep the current format that the public should be able to ask supplementary questions during council meetings and then frighten everyone into thinking that it would be a step towards tyranny if they don't. He gives the impression that supplementary questions is the norm but I can assure you that it isn't and what the council is proposing is in line with the vast majority of councils. What he does not tell you is the alternative proposal by the council. Its proposal is that members of the public will be able to ask two questions instead of the current one, and that the time be extended to 45 minutes from the current 30 minutes. Surely that has to be more democratic? As for dropping the supplementary questions I can understand his frustration as he is one of those persons that likes asking them. However, council meetings are for conducting council business and they are time-constrained. By no means is this stop- ping residents who wish to question councillors because they are free to contact them by phone, email, text, via the council, at council surgeries, residents' meetings, at the north and south forums, at committees or even Royal Mail. So dropping supplementary questions is hardly a step towards tyranny! The chairman of the council (Mail, March 1) was correct when he stated that in the past there have been cases where questions have been abused by people.
It is often the case that a member of the public is duped by unscrupulous politician(s) to ask supplementary questions to try and catch their opponents out. This can often be dangerous and at times breach the laws of defamation. Dropping supplementary questions will therefore prevent this from happening and will protect the public, and that alone justifies this action. Lastly he complains about the dominance of the Labour Party in one breath and then i the lack of democracy in another as though they are somehow related. Surely democracy is the ballot box and whoever governs this local authority will have been duly elected by the people of Hartlepool. That is democracy, not supplementary questions designed to try and embarrass and undermine the people's representatives!

Allan Barclay, Leyburn Street,

What a fascinating insight into the labour mind was Allan Barclay's letter of the 11th March and how reassuring to note that the abolition of the right to ask supplementary questions at council meetings is motivated purely to protect the public from their possible acts of defamation and from being 'duped' by 'unscrupulous politicians'. You're all heart Allan.

There are just a couple of things of which I'm not too sure. Perhaps you can help, Allan?

Can you tell us all of a single example of when a member of the public defamed a councillor by way of a question or even a single court action, pending or otherwise? I can only think of one incident when a Councillor said that he was 'considering taking legal advice' and then went running to a questioner's employer to tell him so. Apparently, he thought better of it in the morning. Just as well.

Secondly, do you think the average member of the public, let alone a teacher, is so gullible (or thick) as to allow themselves to be duped into asking a question by an 'unscrupulous politician' so easily?

Lastly, you say that D. Riddle is 'someone who likes asking (supplementary questions)'. Well actually, I've been going to council meetings for some time now and I only remember Mr Riddle ever asking 4 supplementary questions. I don't think that's very many, do you? Besides, he had only got as far as asking two of those questions at one council meeting before the moves by the Labour group to ban ALL supplementary questions began. Two was apparently more than enough for your Labour colleagues to get all in a flap about the issue.

I was there when Mr Riddle asked those first two questions and the discomfort on display as labour councillors were, for once, forced to think for themselves and on their feet was obvious for all to see. Stripped of their pre-scripted, officer assisted answers, they were like fish out of water, all flummoxed and vulnerable, and the very chance that a Labour councillor might actually express a personal opinion or say something that had not been discussed, voted on and agreed beforehand by the herd produced looks of sheer panic on the faces of some.

Neighbour forums? I don't think so. Held during the day when most people are at work, Councillors freely admit that no one goes to Neighbourhood forums. That's the idea isn't it? 

As for e-mail, I've been trying to get your Leader to answer an e-mailed question for months. Several times I've tried. So much so that on the 6th March, I approached him at the end of the council meeting and asked if he had any intention of answering it. He ran away, after experiencing what I suspect was an unfortunate sphincter reflex.

So let's be clear about what has happened to the public's right to ask questions of their council.

From May, any member of the public will only be allowed to submit two main questions, which must be on different subjects and both must be submitted in writing to the council 7 days in advance. In addition, the public will no longer be allowed to ask their questions personally and all questions will instead be read out by the Chief Executive. Furthermore, the public will have no right to ask a similar question at any subsequent council meeting even if, for example, a member of the public had not been satisfied with the original answer they had received.

In essence, Councillors will have a full 7 days to prepare an answer to any question, usually with the help of a council officer and will be able to say whatever they like even if it doesn't even approach anything like a direct answer to the question. So, you submit your question in writing, 7 days in advance; in reply the councillor is free to tell you what he did on his holidays and that's it – you're goosed. 

Perhaps it's now time to consider changing those signs at the entrances to the town to "Welcome To Hartlepool – Twinned With Pyongyang"

[Inspector Knacker]

Is he a member of the Labour Party .....?

[DRiddle]

It is often the case that a member of the public is duped by unscrupulous politician(s) to ask supplementary questions to try and catch their opponents out.

Rest assured I have a lot to say regarding this quote from Mr Barclay, as well as other things he has said in his letter. However, given the link to my complaint which is currently being investigated by the relevant parties involved, I feel it appropriate to maintain a dignified silence for now.

Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, it might have been appropriate for him to do the same...

[marky]

Yes he's in the Labour party and, until recently was a Labour councillor.

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

He may have come sixth, but to Labour eyes he 'should have won' - remember their somewhat graceless response after the Seaton election - votes polled didn't come into it. 

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

... a turd wearing a red rosette...

Oh dear ... I wish I didn't have a visual imagination ... 

[Rebel]

https://www.duedil.com/director/915730270/allan-barclay

The word dictatorship being highly appropriate!!

[Stig of the Seaton Dump]

We all know that the removal of supplementary questions is because some of the councillors don't have the ability to speak for themselves.
The number of questions is irrelevant, it is the fact they have to engage interactively with the public that is the problem.

A honest man (or woman) has nothing to fear by being cross questioned if they are relying on the truth to defend themselves.

They judge us by their own standards, not ours.
Why else would they be afraid of chairs being thrown?

[marky]

https://www.duedil.com/director/915730270/allan-barclay

The word dictatorship being highly appropriate!!

"Allan  Barclay is currently 59 years old and first became a director 2 years ago at the age of 57.   His most recent non-secretarial directorship is with Hartlepool Citizens Advice Bureau where he holds the position of "Councillor".

Suely that should be 'counsellor' - mind, if that letter is anything to go by, it does make you wonder about the quality of any 'counselling' he has to offer.

[whatabouthisthen]

Poor old Barclay. I understand he was a gunner - it must have all those bangs that has addled his brains.

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

If the letters page of todays mail is anything to go by, it looks like Mr Riddle isn't taking this lying down.

What does he have to say?  Any chance of putting the gist of it on HTH, as the online letters section is old enough to merit an archaeologist's attention? 

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

Thank you Perseus; maybe Mr. Barclay is getting mixed up with 'two for the price of one' offers in supermarkets ... does he keep hearing the phrase 'BOGOF' ? ...

[fred c]

I know the weather isn`t a seasonal as it should be...... But it is that time of year

Cuckoo, Cuckoo, Cuckoo

[mk1]

I presume Barclay had to hand  back the standard issue 2 brain cells when he stopped being a councillor.
His entry at The CAB shows he shares the Labour Group's homophone blindness.  It reminds me of the comical letter the group worked on and used to try and get  Lilly replaced. That was littered with childish spelling mistakes and a stranger to the rules of grammar & punctuation- just like the posters Angie's mob were holding up!
When the Fa*tty Belchers used to post here you could always tell which one was using the 'Straight Talking' ID. The thick one never managed to string a  coherent sentence together. 

[fred c]

I read the Mail again today, usual place, "Tescos Paper Rack"..... Who should make another appearance in the Letters Page but, Former Labour Councillor Barclay, he was again trying to explain why it was OK for Cllr Hall to phone D Riddle`s Head Teacher, he actually put it along the lines of it being a "Friendly Chat".............. Most people of a social disposition would put that kind of behaviour down as "Extremist Right Wing Conspiracy Theory", but not so "The Mob".

We should all ask the Question..... Just what was Cllr Hall hoping to achieve by contacting Mr Lee, was he for instance warning him that he had a known terrorist working in his school ?

Was he warning him that Mr Riddle was a dangerous & irrational user of Black Board Chalk ?

Was he informing Mr Lee that he had a teacher on his staff who not only takes his job seriously & the education of his pupils as a priority..... but also a committed & thoughtful member of the general public who takes an interest in the civic management of the town & it`s council ?

I cannot think of One positive reason why that phone call was made to Mr Lee, i can think of many negative reasons, reasons that bare no relationship to the democratic process....... calls to superiors were often made in previous times by various megalomaniacs & resulted in people disappearing into The Gulag or Concentration Camps

The decision to "Deny" the general public the right to question their elected representatives in an open forum is, "dispite what mr Barclay may think democray is" a total denial of the democratic process & the freedom of speech.