Ironic or what?

[steveL]

Fisher asks what was the cost of the probe into Akers-Belcher using council staff to help distribute Labour Manifesto Leaflet.

The irony? As CAB had already admitted the breach of rules, the costs of working out the costs of Devlin's endeavours will probably be about the same as the Devlin's initial examination of the matter itself.

Nice one, Fisher but I'm sure it will help you achieve one more step towards re-admission to the Snake Pit.

[mk1]

If you read the 'replies' to the Mail article you see Fisher desperately trying to row back from the headline by insisting he was not actualy criticising the Dear Leader:

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/what-was-the-cost-of-probe-into-distribution-of-political-leaflets-in-hartlepool-1-6285400

Polite Clarification ----

The quotations in The Hartlepool Mail report are absolutely correct in that I did indeed question the need for a formal enquiry into an occurrence which had already been publicly admitted

However what is NOT clear is that the report itself was of a Meeting of The Audit &Governance Committee meeting and it was at that meeting where the "Report of the Enquiry" was presented by HBC's head legal advisor.

It was then polite protocol for me, as Chairman, to thank the officer and his department for the preparation, and presentation, of such a report but in doing so I made it clear that I was conscious that there simply MUST have been costs incurred and that having been present at the full council meeting in the Chamber when the Council leader actually put his hand up in admission I question whether an "enquiry" was required.

It was, and is, my opinion that once something is admitted the only matter then to decide is "what now" and not "whodunit"

After doing his masters bidding by keeping out of the way whilst the original Hart decision was made he is making sure he stays in the good books.............

[brassed off monkey]

Hartlepool won`t be able to move on from it`s current problems until a "Regime Change" takes place & it` needs to involve not only "The Mob" but a major shake up at the top of the management tree.

The Peer Review Report hinted as much & the recent examples of "The Mobs" decisions would seem to support that point of view, the "Binning" of the town plan is a prime example & is further supported by the "manifesto circulation" & the impunity with which CAB took that decision.

There has been absolutely no sanctions imposed on any councilor over recent years, despite some disgraceful examples of lack of respect towards the office of councilor & towards members of the public.

Its not about the cost, its about the fact that a senior councilor can act quite willfully against the rules & get away with it, that`s what Fisher should be questioning.

[not4me]

Isn't it obvious from CAB ready admission that the truth is he just doesn't care? And why should he given the tone of Devlin's reaction? The attitude of both can be summed up as 'so what?'

Devin's conclusion seems to be to regard it as no more than petty point scoring rather than recognise what to me looks like a major breach of the rules.