Full Council Meeting 27th October

[admin]

The next scheduled meeting of the full council will be on Thursday, 27th October 2016 in the Civic Centre at 7pm

[Lord Elpus]

Interesting to note during this Council meeting SAB is being replaced on the Civic Honours Committee with his hubby CAB.

I smell a rat, I wonder if SAB is after a significant civic honour, perhaps the title of Freeman.  Or perhaps a life size bronze statue to be placed next to (or directly behind) Ralph Ward Jackson, or perhaps another portrait of  SAB to be hung in the Council Chamber

Watch this space.

[mk1]

I wonder if SAB is after a significant civic honour............. perhaps a life size bronze statue to be placed next to (or directly behind) Ralph Ward Jackson,

The cost of the bronze would be prohibitive. Perhaps CAB has in mind a 'slimmed down' version of his whale of a partner as per the  portrait he commissioned.?

[Land Phil]

Life sized statues of the pair would be handy.
The real them could go to work and the statues could be sent on jollies to stop them getting sacked.

When is the investigation into them bringing the council into disrepute ?

[fred c]

I can't believe even The Dear Leader would try & get a proven unmitigated liar who made spurios claims about the treatment of vulnerable adults a 'Civic Honour'

There really would be a public outcry & i wouldn't be surprised if there was a petition raised.

[DRiddle]

My comment about it being 'nice of see some socialism' seemed to split opinion amongst the Labour group.

Some laughed, some smiled, a couple of tuts and eye rolls but one person in particular seemed quite annoyed that I was implying they lack true socialist values.

(I won't say who I mean, but think 'Beaker' from the muppets with an under active thyroid problem).

The point is socialism IS a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Socialism is NOT voting to fund a company that's a few weeks old, set up by two of your mates, to the tune of a million quid.

That's not socialism. That's something entirely different altogether.

[fred c]

Another round of LabMob propaganda, most of them wouldn't know socialism if it jumped up & bit them on the a**e
The 'lottery crack' by Cook wasn't funny the first time around so why he thought it funny tonight was a puzzle, if thats a example of his sense of humour, he would probably laugh at having a bad case of the johnny giles.

[steveL]

I think we need to see some sort of declaration of how many public questions were received and how many were rejected because rejection has become the norm - a hidden barrier to getting any question answered. There's been a concerted effort to reduce the public's right to ask questions ever since the Manor Residents scandal broke directly as a result of such questions.

[Foggy]

I would be interested to know why the questions submitted were rejected. I'm not sure 'because the question may make someone uncomfortable' is a valid reason but I would suspect that is the one of the main criteria when selecting 'suitable' questions.

Speaking of Mr Devlin, I did find him laughing off the 'conspiracy theories' regarding Jacksons Landing a little 'off'. They can sit there looking like butter wouldn't melt and blaming some unscrupulous unnamed Agent all they like but I still smell the distict aroma of a rat. The rat might not be linked to this eBay business but there is still something amiss with the whole thing.

[DRiddle]

The 'conspiracy theory' tag makes me laugh. It's developed into a derogatory euphemism for 'freedom of thought'.

Remember when people who thought the government were listening in on their every move were labelled 'conspiracy theorists'? Or when people who believed the American democratic system was little more than a front for a shadow government were laughed at? Or the abuse people who believe the mainstream media lies to us on a massive scale used to get?

Then of course Edward Snowden and Julian Assange came along and 'conspiracy theorists' views don't seem quite as funny now.

Anyway, what's interesting about the whole MRA thing, is the number of councillors who know literally nothing about it. I don't mean denial, I mean complete ignorance to the whole situation.

Several members of the Labour group now talk quite openly to me. (Sorry Christopher, I assume they want me and the others on side for when they get shot of you as leader). What you discover when talking to them is many have no idea what went on. They know nothing about MRA, nothing about WCNE, and virtually nothing about the whole debacle.

When you fill them in on the ins and outs of it, they look at you with utter bewilderment. They can't get their heads around how or why so many large sums of money were awarded to companies and organisations linked to that woman (and others associated with her).

Then, all you have to do is ask them the question "What to you think is REALLY behind the moves to stifle public questions, restrict debate and limit the contribution of 'opposition' councillors and the wider public?"

Watch their eyes as you put that question to them and you can almost see the 'penny drop'.

A couple of years ago the stench of corruption was palpable in that council chamber and members of the public who drew attention to the whiff were chastised, castigated, labelled as conspiracy theorists and laughed at.

As it turns out, next week, it'll be formally shown that we were right all along.

It doesn't seem quite so funny now does it?

[steveL]

Much of that has been helped by the ridiculous length of time it has taken to get this matter into a court room, during which time we've all had to keep away from the subject while the boys in blue do their stuff. At the same time, no reference to it has been allowed within council meetings; much to the relief of those involved, no doubt.

It's important that when this episode finally comes to its conclusion that all such barriers are removed. There are many, many questions still needing to be answered and the role of other Councillors and council officers still needs to be fully exposed.

I go back to the recommendations of the LGA Peer Group which, among other things, called for greater transparency from HBC; questioned the frequency with which the council's constitution was changed and talked of 'the perception' that some Councillors were acting out of self-interest.

It's worth considering to what extent those recommendations have been put into effect now that the  'perception' has become factual.


One other thing, on the basis of last night's performance, it's abundantly clear that UKIP will not be providing anything approaching leadership on this or any other matter. A gust of breath from Clarke was all that was needed to blow them over last night.

[fred c]

Public questions are considered for entry on the agenda by, the Borough Solicitor, the CEO & the Ceremonial Mayor, quite why the ceremonial mayor has an imput is beyond me.

Last night was another indicator of how his influence on the meeting is skewed against anyone sitting to his right, his impartiality certainly leaves a lot to be desired & I wasn't the only person in the chamber to notice it.

The pre-cursor to the meeting by Mr Devlin was another request, for everyone in the chamber to stand at the entry of the Mace & Mayor & the same as they left the chamber, the first instance of such a 'request' was formulated by Ms Alexander when she took office.

From a personnal point of view, I find it ridiculous to be so dogmatic about respecting the Mace & Mayor, when the Mayor may well be someone you have no respect for, but the fact members of the public have a veiled threat hanging over them if they don't stand ( removal from the meeting) it is considered to be showing a lack of respect.

Consider then, we have Ciir Lying Ste Akers B, a proven liar, not only a liar, but a councillor who made spurios allegations regarding the treatment of vulnerable adults which resulted in him getting the sack, he then told further lies to an employment tribunal (he was ill) when in fact he was charing the appointments panel that gave the current CEO the job.

We also have Cllr Cranney, who was barred from being a company director by a judge at a Newcastle court, he has also managed to display his misogynistic traits whilst insulting an elderly lady during a packed council meeting, he has since followed that up by making a spectacle of himself when describing a member of the public as a 'wifebeater' during another council meeting, of which, incidentally he as the chairman.

We then have the present Leader of the council, who described cllr Cranney as a "great asset to the council" only a matter of days after his wifebeater outburst.

I find it staggering that senior officers are more concerned about members of the public refusing to stand, than they are about working with people who have shown a total lack of respect to the people they are supposed to represent & more importantly to the office they have been elected to serve.

But there you go, the term 'mischief makers' was used by a senior employee of the people of Hartlepool during last nights meeting....... I can only assume I am one of those mischief makers.

There really are serious questions that need to be asked about Hartlepool Council.

[steveL]

The Mace is meant to be a representation of the state and, in particular, to Queen Liz and I've never had a problem accepting this concept.

When people stopped standing up for The Mace during SAB's tenure of the office of Ceremonial Mayor, it was out of respect for Queen Liz that I refused to stand as it was brought into the chamber. I could not see a link between what The Mace stood for and the disgraceful behaviour of the incumbent. Stephen Akers-Belcher brought disgrace to The Mace and everything for which it stood.

Gill Alexander, who is well on the way to becoming the worst CEO the council has ever had, wasn't bright enough to understand this. Either that or she clearly believes that preservation of the organisation overrides all other considerations irrespective of how corrupt that organisation has become. This is a cultural thing and an attitude that permeates all areas of the public sector.

Peter Devlin himself once told me that he saw his first responsibility as protecting the reputation of the council.

There are two ways of achieving this.You can either take whatever action is necessary to ensure that Councillors and council officers act and behave in an appropriate manner and in a way which conforms to the Nolan Principles covering behaviour in public life.

OR

You can cover up wrong doing through secrecy, denial, spin and lies and by doing whatever possible to restrict the truthful dissemination of information and the public's right to question and scrutinise.

I think we've all figured out by now which option HBC have taken and it's up to those who give-a-damn to bring it to an end.

Personally, I have always been baffled in what possible satisfaction there could be in heading up a governing organisation that, under CAB's leadership, has moved relentlessly from being merely dysfunctional to becoming a complete basket case.

[DRiddle]

I hope Alan Clarke and Jonathan Tennant both have time to reflect on last nights little spat. Personally I thought J.T raised a perfectly valid point about NOT appealing on the grounds of the consultation process. Eventually, the process was very thorough, detailed and did everything it was legally obliged to do and more. That part of the appeal will be dismissed within seconds.

So in that respect J.T had a point. However, he presented the point in such a way that it appeared confrontational or at the least as an attempt to undermine the Labour Group. Presented differently, he may have gotten the amendment through because a lot of the Labour group KNOW that part of the appeal is very flimsy to say the least.

I was concerned about the appeal on the grounds I explained about last night. But so long as the appeal can't make the situation any worse I'm more comfortable with it.

All day yesterday councillors were relatively complimentary towards each other about NOT politicising the issue of the surgeries. I hope Alan is self aware enough to realise that HE politicised the issue right at the time he should have actually thought hard about J.Ts point.

That said, it was worrying how easily UKIP backed down on a valid point.

[steveL]

You describe it as an amendment and yet there was no vote on it; neither was it withdrawn - Tennant and UKIP just faded away after being snapped at by Clarke. There's no point in being a Councillor if you leave your balls at the door on the way in.