Ged makes the big time!

[whatabouthisthen]

GED has made Private Eye under the headline GED KNOTTED. The article mentions Ged's attempt at intimidation, Granney, Wilcox and the peer-to-peer report.
Perhaps it will do some good.

[Lucy Lass-Tick]

Maybe Ged's mummy always said to tell the teacher if he was being bullied ... 

[fred c]

It was a case of attempted Bullying plain & simple, he obviously hoped, by making that call to affect the employment situation of Mr Riddle in some way.... & obviously not for the good.... Mr Lee obviously looked at the situation as any intelligent Boss would do & came to the conclusion that the Cllr was bang out of Order..... No Surprise there then.

Watching him perform whilst attempting to answer the original question, it was obvious to all impartial people present he was totally out of his depth, he was that eager to answer the question he thought was being asked he made a complete a**e of himself.

He would have been far better to have answered the question that was actually asked... a clear case of Mouth operating before Brain was in Gear.

[marky]

. . . a bit brief but still worth the buy. I see Who Cares gets a mention

[testing times]

There can't be many councils that that have earned not one but two mentions in the Rotten Boroughs column . . somehow I don't expect the council's PR department to be churning out a press release about this apparent honour any time soon.

[DRiddle]

Hello everyone, as you may have noticed in tonights Mail, Councillor Hall has submitted a letter which references me. This is the third time in print he has commented directly on the questions I asked. Twice now in the Hartlepool Mail, as well as in the Northern Echo.

I have maintained a comparitvely dignified silence on the issue as the matter is the subject of an on going inquiry being undertaken by the council's deputy chief solicitor.

I intent to continue my professional approach with regard to the matter. What i WILL say, with regards to the letter in tonights Mail, is that Councillor Hall  asserts that he "Had little chance to speak or respond".

He also states in his letter that my questions contained "factual inaccuracies".

I will make two comments on his letter directly.

Firstly, he DID speak immediately after I asked my question. He interjected on a "point of misinformation" although it was never made clear what the actual supposed 'misinformation' was. Anyone that was actually present at the meeting will confirm that he spoke at length, in fact he spoke for FAR longer on the matter than the Mayor, to whom the question was originally directed.

Secondly, initially he stated that my question was potentially subject to "defamation charges" from his solicitor (to my boss at work when he phoned him). He then stated that my question contained "false allegations" in print media. Tonight, my 'defamatory remarks' that then became 'false allegations' are now apparently "factual inaccuracies". Which is it Councillor Hall? There's a big difference between the first thing you described my questions as, and your latest description.

Finally, members of the public might like to be aware that the council's Deputy solictor has tried for several weeks to contact Mr Hall on this matter. She has informed me she has sent e-mail(s) and made phone call(s) and that she is aware of his home address. Although whether or not she has contacted him by letter I do not know.

She has not (up to this weekend at least) been able to get hold of him.

If only a recording or a verbaitim transcript of the questions and his responses existed.

That would clear this matter up.

There's a strong argument that Council meetings should be recorded to prevent this kind of thing happening in future.

That is all I have to say on the LETTER. I will allow Ms Carman, the solicitor to do her job and follow due process.

That assuming of course that she is able to get an answer from Mr Hall as to why he phoned my boss.

[mk1]

  Here is the letter:


John Ringwood (Mail, April 9) i continues the debate regarding public questions to Hartlepool Borough Council and, in particular, the "situation" between myself and David Riddle. Under normal circumstances, I would not use the Mail columns to comment on such a scenario, but I must point out - one factor which all contributors to this debate seem to have overlooked. If the questions had been directed to me, I would have had no problem with them and would have corrected the questioner on his factual irregularities. The fact that they were asked of the Mayor, and I had little chance to speak or respond, shows the level of mischief which was behind them, particularly in view of the subsequent inuendo hidden in the supplementary questions. One may only speculation the source of the factual inaccuracies, but people may rest assured that I most certainly do not blame Mr Riddle.

Councillor Gerard Hall,
Hartlepool Borough Council,
Civic Centre,
Victoria Road,

[fred c]

"I most certainly do not blame Mr Riddle".

Whoaaaaaaaaaaa... a serious case of Ar*s Kissing by the looks of it..........

I was present at the meeting..... He did not listen to the Question & Jumped the gun with his answer........ As for him not getting a chance to say much

You Couldn`t shut the bloke up........ which to be honest, is the norm when a labour member is under the cosh, the chair allows the "Member" licence to attempt to bully the Questioner.

[norfolkngoode]

Mr Hall is hopelessly out of his depth and should call it a day now, to save himself and the town any further embarrassment.

[steveL]

What a snake of a man this guy is wriggling his way around the truth such as if he touched it, it would burn his skin.

". . . but I must point out - one factor which all contributors to this debate seem to have overlooked. If the questions had been directed to me, I would have had no problem with them and would have corrected the questioner on his factual irregularities. The fact that they were asked of the Mayor, and I had little chance to speak or respond, shows the level of mischief which was behind them . . . "

As Hall well knows, the public are not allowed to ask individual councillors questions which is why virtually all questions have to be directed, in the first instance, at the Mayor. Even so, Hall protests that the question was not directed at him.

So this would be good time to remind Hall that part of Brash's amendment in the 'public questions' debate was that members of the public should be able to direct their questions at any councillor.

Labour AND Ged the Snake voted against it.

[fred c]

Snakes aren`t the "Slimy, Slippery Creatures" most people think...........

So it`s a bit unfair to compare them to Ged Hall

[steveL]

This is a quote from the Northern Echo 11th March:

Coun Hall said: "It's totally untrue, absolutely false, that I called the headteacher - who I know - to be vindictive in any way.

"I don't blame Mr Riddle for his questions and I know where they come from.

"There's a lot of politics, jostling for position in the council at the minute and I think he's been set up. He can come and see me to talk about it and I'm prepared to offer him a qualified apology but I'll also put him right on a few matters of information."

An example of Hall's belief that you can say absolutely anything to the press whether it's true or not or whether he actually believes it or not.

Far from being 'willing to talk', my understanding is that Hall has so far refused to even respond to any e-mails from Riddle and five weeks on, has also so far failed to respond to the assistant solicitor's efforts to contact him over Riddle's complaint.

A Labour Group out of control . . . drunk on arrogance and a belief that it is answerable to no one.

http://tinyurl.com/cwl6ahd

[grim reaper]

So Ged informs the Northern Echo (now there's a REAL newspaper) that the £640,000 handed to Wilcox, Akers-Belcher, Akers-Belcher and Hall (involved in the running of the 'charity'), was given in a lump sum, without any due diligence, background checks and experience of handling such large sums because "it was urgent". 
If that is the case, why is it still in the 'Who Cares'  charity account, recorded by the Charity Commission, as "Retained for future use"?   

It really is time for the police to get off their backsides and open an investigation into the whole affair. 

[testing times]

I would guess that the figures on the Charity Commission website are a snapshot of 'a moment in time' and not a running balance. If Manor Residents accounts are anything to go by, then I would also guess that the Who Cares accounts will be submitted late, be inaccurate, unaudited and at least half fictional.

[testing times]

"Coun Hall told The Northern Echo today (Monday, March 11) there was no question of any wrongdoing in awarding the contract, explaining that under special rules a large contract can be awarded at the end of a financial year if it's for health or social care provision and is urgent."

Just an observation, but I really don't see how this contract could have been described as 'urgent'. The Connect Care service was run as a pilot project beforehand for a whole year, I believe and also went through a fairly long-winded, if clearly flawed, Scrutiny process. It's not as if anyone could claim that they were surprised by the town-wide roll-out or that it was unexpected. It looks to me that they have found some piece of legislation, clearly intended for another purpose, a sudden outbreak or catastrophe, for example, and are trying to twist its purpose for their own use.

The more I think about this, it seems clear that Wilcox is not the only conspirator and that a whole bunch of them are involved.