Friday, 2 July 2010

Carl Sargeant to Anglesey Councillors: No more second chances (updated)


No doubt in response to requests by Councillors excluded from the new alliance at Anglesey County Council, the WAG Local Government minister, Carl Sargeant, has sent a letter to all County Councillors clarifying his position on the recent changes. Here are the relevant points:

Although he accepts that the Council has made some progress since last year, Sargeant goes on to say:

"But the underlying issues have never gone away. Council business too often focusses on internal disputes and rivalries rather than on delivering for the citizens of the Island. Too many members still prefer jockeying for their own personal advantage rather than serving those who elected them. As I said to you in February, the people of Anglesey do not care about petty squabbles. They care about vital services, and about their council providing leadership in these difficult times. They are still not getting that."

He clarifies his and WAG's position with regards to the formation of the new Alliance:

"It is not for me to endorse this or any other arrangement, and neither I, the Recovery Board, or any of my officials had any part in negotiating the new alliance or its terms of engagement. We are determined not to enter into local politics or take sides. Nor do we have any power to approve the appointment of a Leader or any interest in influencing such a decision ... But I welcome anything which leads to greater political stability within the Council and more focus on delivering for citizens rather than on internal squabbling."

He ends by making a clear warning that in the event that the Alliance fails, then there will be no more second chances:

"Recent development have shown how quickly change can occur. That works both ways: arrangements can fall apart as fast as they can be put together. Accordingly I have asked my officials in the Recovery Board to prepare contingency plans which we can implement urgently if recovery falters and/or the alliance fails. Those plans would have drastic and possible permanent consequences for the council and its current membership. It is in everyone's interests to ensure that they are never needed."

This is a clear though veiled warning that if the current structure fails then the council will be taken over completely by the Welsh Assembly Government and run from Cardiff. Although this blog is often a critic of Anglesey County Council it also recognises that local people are best served by having decisions about services which affect them taken locally by their elected representatives. Accordingly the Druid hopes that all Councillors will heed Carl Sargeant's warning and none will be so stupid as to 'press the nuclear button' which would lead to the collapse of current arrangements and a WAG take over. It is sad that I should need to write this, but it is time for Councillors to put Anglesey first. 

You can read the full letter below:

Letter to all Anglesey Councillors from Carl Sargeant

UPDATE: Cllr Barrie Durkin, one of the councillors "named and shamed" in the Alliance's Terms of Engagement has sent the below open reply to Carl Sargeant's above letter:

Cllr Barrie Durkin's reply to Carl Sargeant
 

253 comments:

1 – 200 of 253   Newer›   Newest»
stats man said...

With the need for major savings now a priority, the case for merging the Council's is even stronger. I suggest we also we need a fundamental review of all public services in Wales and who delivers them.

We should not be confused between efficient council's and local democracy. It's not who delivers the service that matters, it is the quality of the service that counts, and the value we put on that service.

Anonymous said...

It is my clear understanding that the only issue which is still creating full endorsment of the Alliance and their "Terms Of Engagement! is an number of items there in. In particular number eight.
"Publicly and robustly condemn Councillor Schofield and Councillor Durkin in a clear statement supporting the Council's position in reporting these individuals to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales for breaches of the Members' Code of Conduct"
No evidence has been produced to support such demands and is in clear breach of both Councillors Human Rights and could cost the Council a very large sum of money if were to go to court.

What makes this whole matter worse is the intransigent attitude of Bowles and McGregor in there refusal to remove the offending items which only shows who the trouble makes really are and if the Alliance fails it will be down to those two and those two alone.

If there is a genuine complaint to the Ombudsman then it should be made, but by breaking the law as they are clearly doing to satisfy there own agenda of spite is repugnant and will bring our council to it's knee's.

Anonymous said...

As long as David Bowles and Clive McGregor continue to peddle there propaganda trying to portray that their is no evidence of dishonesty, when they are literally snowed under with it, this farce will continue.

Root the buggers out now, deal with them, and lets move on or get the assemble in to do it for us.

Anonymous said...

12:47 & 13:04
That being the case the Welsh Assembly should be moving in and removing both Bowles and McGregor before there's a rebellion and it's all to late.

Nooka said...

Sadly, Druid, I think the "nuclear button" has already been pressed in the form of the terms of the Alliance. The terms focus almost entirley on the "internal disputes" and as such has only inflamed the situation.
The people of Anglesey and the Alliance may have been better served by Terms that actually addressed the problems encountered by the people rather than those encountered by Councillors.

Although I personally agree with Druid that local problems are best solved locally I suspect that an eventual merger with Gwynedd will inevitably come to pass. We seem to have come to the end of the "de-centralisation" strategy which is being reversed. We see this within the health set up, where the Local Health Boards have been abolished, excepting Powys which is being merged with Powys County Council.

Anonymous said...

You are right 13:52.
The "Terms of Alliance" has turned out to be nothing more than a self serving document for the wrong doer's to keep themselves out of jail and to attack those who wish to clean up the Council so it can then move forward without it's previous baggage.

As it is, if the "Terms" are not amended to make them lawful, Which is the Director of Legal Services Duty to ensure. I'm afraid the Alliance and the Council is doomed to failure, which will inevitability cost a lot of jobs, and Bowles and McGregor, will be held solely responsible.
If Carl Sargeant can't see that, then goodness knows what he's thinking..

Anonymous said...

Though there might have been day to day challenges and disagreements amonst those governing Anglesey, the whole matter seems to have been escalated in the months leading up to the last County Council elections. It would seem that there has been a concerted 'divide and rule' plan not necessarily involving elected councillors.

Continued innuendo, allegation and sniping have had the effect of making matters appear far worse than they actually were / are but so much of it came into the public arena people have been asked to make judgements on what they have heard. What they have actually heard results from a 'whispers campaign' .

The great shame seems to be, so many who have come to live on Anglesey seem to have found it not to be what they thought from their holiday visits and they have become discontent. That discontentment has resulted in much of what has transpired.

The vast majority seem at peace and content, they are not asking for burger bars, fast food, multiplex cinemas, bowling alleys.

What might give them a degree of enjoyment would be some sets of Stocks on Llangefni car park into which proven dissidents might be put.

Anonymous said...

17:50
Proven is the key word.

Anonymous said...

Match Over.
On reading the Letter from Carl Sargeant it is no little wonder that he, the Recovery Board or his officials would have had any part in negotiating the new alliance or its "Terms of Engagement" because they are an affront to the European Convention of Human Rights and unlawful.

Anyone who is in the UK has fundamental Human rights which government and public authorities are legally obliged to respect. These became law as part of the Human Rights Act 1998.

To condemn and robustly insight other to do so, without a fair unbiased trial, hearing or a arbitration is a breach of one of the most fundamental rights contained within the Convention.

It is unlawful for a public Authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention Right.

The Human Rights Act 1998 gives further legal effect in the UK to the fundamental rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. These rights not only impact matters of life and death, they also affect the rights you have in your every day life: What you can say and do, your beliefs, your right to a fair trail and other similar basic entitlements.

It is inevitable that if the "Terms" are not amended which in no way will mitigate the damage already done, the whole Council is finished, certainly as it stands today.

As the Council has no legal right to do what they have done, its position is zero and those responsible should be sacked, preferably before we see the nations press and media parked on the county hall steps.

As For those who are responsible. You should hang your heads in shame for what you have done. you have let the people of Anglesey Down good and proper..

Anonymous said...

Talk about getting in a mess, this Council must be run by Doe Doe's. Haven't they heard about the laws on Discrimination? I would say the Council needs closing down now before they get into any more problems.

As for the letter from Carl Sargeant and the terms. He should be demanding the changes to the terms not sitting on the side lines. What a cop out. And they call him the Minister for Justice!

Anonymous said...

KNOCK KNOCK WAKE UP.......

THE ONES WHO SET OUT TO DEMOLISH THIS COUNCIL BEGAN THEIR PLAN LONG BEFORE THEY WERE ELECTED.

THEY MUST BELIEVE THERE IS SOMETHING IN IT FOR THEM ONCE THE SHUTDOWN / TAKE-OVER HAS BEGUN.

I DO NOT SEE WHAT IS IN IT FOR THEM, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A CLUE?


Whistful

Holyhead. said...

About time Cllr Durkin. You've been quite for far to long, but now we all Know why.
Keep at the buggers Barrie, They've got a lot to answer for.
Good luck, the people of Anglesey are right behind you. At least the honest one's are anyway.

Anonymous said...

If ever there was a need for a Judicial Review in to the way the Council is now being run, now is the time. I have to agree, the Nuk button has been pressed and Carl Sargeant must take some of the responsibility as with the Recovery Board.

One of the main concerns I have is. Why did David Bowles on arriving in Anglesey go and live with JAJ, and then attack all the elected member for showing their concerns at such a crass move? what does he have to hide there I wonder?

As for the term of engagement, it's all being said. Disgraceful

dave said...

Get rid of these clowns now and ban them from standing for good

Anonymous said...

The problem is. That if Bowles & McGregor remove the unlawful items now they will be admitting to acting wrongly and have to go. On the other hand if they still refuse to remove them, they will be hung out to dry.
Talk about a rock and a hard place.
I'd go now if I were them, very quickly.

stats man said...

I am not sure what this (the actions outlined by Cllr Durkin)is going to achieve for the people of Ynys Môn.

We all know that there are examples of Councillor not following correct procedure when it comes to planning applications. This is nothing new and not confined to the Council of Ynys Môn.

But this should be addressed by ensuring that any decision taken follows the principles of good governance.

Cllr Durkin may feel aggrieved, but he has history so to speak, which we are all aware of, and sometimes the brave man is the quiet man, for it is better to be on the inside watching than outside shouting.

To paraphrase President Obama again - '[Ynys Môn] doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions”.

Maybe if Cllr Durkin believes he has the support of the people of the island (and I have no reason to doubt it) he should carry out his pledge and stand for election as AM. Democracy is after all about the will of the people.

Anonymous said...

I found the letter from Cllr Durkin to Carl Sargeant quite enlightening.
He say's it as it is, giving those causing the mischief something to really think about.

I don't agree that all we are taking about is whether correct procedure have been followed. The lawless activities being used to keep Cllr Durkin quiet indicates that there are some very serious issue that need proper investigation.
I too have to say, the Terms are deplorable, and those involved should be ashamed of themselves. I also suggest in reality 12:23 knows nothing about Cllr Durkin at all, only hearsay and invidious remarks. Nor do I see anywhere on these blogs where Cllr Durkin has said he has the the support of the people. It is others who say that, showing that he has.

Crewe said...

12:23.
You cannot create strong institutions without having strong men to build them. Read your history. How do you think Democracy was built and kept alive? By having men like Cllr Durkin around to help us. We know Cllr Durkin has his faults but don't we all?
Do you know how many commendations Cllr Durkin holds. No I don't suppose you do. Now if you've got nothing better to do than keep knocking the chap, go check that one out.

stats man said...

To 12:57 and 13:11 This is not about Cllr Durkin, he matters not, this is about good governance and how it can be achieved.

Good governance is achieved by having strong institutions, history has shown us that.

And who am I to disagree with the President of the USA.

Puck said...

A little bird (quite a big one actually) tells me that the prize for signing up to the Alliance is one of those engraved gold and black rings that many of our 'worthies' wear on their pinkies, along with an apron for the missus.
How was it put to me? - "Don't cross the brotherhood". - The topic was Whistleblowing in public institutions, (including the WAG).

Anonymous said...

Who is the President of the USA to be telling use about good governance? Their never happy unless there shooting one another.

Anonymous said...

Stats Man.
If this is not about Cllr Durkin. Why bother mentioning him so much?

stats man said...

May I say again this is not about individuals this is about procedures.

The days of the small council are numbered. It is clear that the current model of democracy on this island is not working, and we need another (I have already suggested an alternative).

But let us not forget that for the majority of us, the work of the Council as it currently operates is satisfactory, and the majority of its workers should be praised for their hard work and dedication.

Anonymous said...

Weeding out the wrongdoers should have been Bowles main priority.
Instead, the wrongdoers have been allowed to form their own "immune to prosecution" coalition.
This is not recovery-Its a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

The real issues which have plagued this Council from day one is corruption. Bowles should have tackled it head on, backed BD and CMcG to the hilt.
His failure to do so has split the Council apart leaving those who have a desire to rid our Council of corruption wondering what have they done wrong and given those who have in the past commited offences more power.
The public are being fooled into believing that that the issues are petty squabbles.
Petty squabbles dont buy land, log cabins, luxury cars and properties.

Anonymous said...

Is not possible to look to the future of the Anglesey we pay our rates for without the continual
Barrie Durkin worship messages.
Barrie D is but one of forty councillors. Wht do we not hear the good things about the work of the others they deserve praise, lots of it.

Councillor Durkin right or wrone will, like all the other elected come and go, Anglesey will remain. So why spend all this time trying to pull it to bits.

The team or teams might be in disarray but like it or not it is only by working with and in a team that the day to day workings of our islane and progress though this troubled time will come through to happier and more benficial times.

So lets hear words of actual progress and the self proclomations and back biting.

Let us rate payers see that they have progressive words.

No one is going to jail, no one is going to be punishedor fined so why waste all this time and OUR money?

Get on with it as you were elected to do.

Anonymous said...

It could be taken that you 20:53 are one of those who's it. you cannot make a silk purse from a pigs ear no matter how much you try.
So keep paying your rates and let the crooks get away with everything. Eh.
You sound such an honest person. I'm glad I don't live next door to you.

Anonymous said...

No, no one is going to jail, punished or brought to book. Why ?
Because as usual the crimes are covered up or swept under the carpet.

Anonymous said...

20:53
Get on with it as you were elected to do.
That's Exactly what Cllr Durkin is doing, you should take the trouble to read his election pledges and the Council's Constitution which he is sticking ridgelly to.

As for pulling Anglesey to bits, it appears to me that Councillor Durkin, is trying to do the opposite and take step to get back the Council's good name. It's those who are against him who are pulling the council to bits, a bit like yourself maybe!

Prometheuswrites said...

I copy the following from the IOACC website 'Leader's Page':

"I decided that if the Council was to maintain the progress that had been made to date, we needed to encompass all groups represented on the Authority. One way of achieving this was to form an unofficial Board with representatives of all groups sitting on the cabinet. Discussions on this radical change to how the Council was governed were commenced under the watchful eye of Steve Thomas, Chief Executive of the WLGA (Welsh Local Government Association)."

I'm assuming that 'under the watchful eye' implies a degree of oversight, whilst not going as far as implying approval.

A Councillor said...

Proetheuswrites 01:12.
As one who has discussed the issue with, no bullshit, say's it as it is, Steve Thomas, Your assumption is correct.

Anonymous said...

Scathing attack on "Liars" who rule county council.
Published Date 06 September 2004.

Lincolnshire County Council is ruled by bullying, malicious politicians whose lies have pervaded the authority like a cancer... the damning final words of David Bowles who stepped down as chief executive on Friday.

Given just three minutes to air his views at his final full council meeting, he went down in a blaze of criticism and reproach at the end of 'a period by smear, innuendo and lies'. Below you can read individual quotes from the full transcript.

'Such lies are designed to do one thing and one thing only - set member against member and set member against officer and in so doing move the spot light away from where it should be. However lies are the cancer which pervades this council. But we all know that truth is the first victim of any grubby politicians desperate scrabble to hold on to power'.

'Staff talk to me about the Conservative group being "morally bankrupt and rotten to the core'. They ridicule members with contempt'.

'I have never worked in a council where officer at all levels openly show so much contempt for those in power'.

'A council which has lost the trust and confidence of both the staff and public will only go one way.

I have recently been reading about Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement with Hitler. It is staggering that such a policy, which could have cost this county its freedom, lasted so long. It lasted because of blind loyalty and friendship within the Tory party at that time. Chamberlain relied not only upon his friendship but a system of patronage and crude bulling to stay in power. That was 1939 this is Lincolnshire 2004'.

'This is 2004.You may not have noticed but politicians are on a par with Estate Agents when it comes to respect. Respect has to be earned. You have much better staff than you deserve'.

'Finally what is clear is that there has been a breakdown of the political management arrangements of the County Council more than anything else'.

'I will leave you with my reputation enhanced. Some of you will leave with your in tatters'.

Quite a nasty little man. Doesn't seam to like elected members one little bit. Then autocrats don't. do they Mr Bowles?

What the hell did the Assembly think there were doing sending such an arrogant, overbearing, presumptuous trouble making character as David Bowles, to help Anglesey County Council move forward. Are they all mad? It was doomed from the start.

stats man said...

In reply to above (Anon 11:29) and in defense of Mr Bowles please see:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2004/apr/22/localgovernment.politics

i.e:

A public interest report from KPMG found Mr Bowles to have "acted properly, in the best interests of the council and sought to raise the standards of ethics and probity within the council".

I hope his good work for Ynys Môn Coubty Council continues for sometime.

Anonymous said...

Such a telling picture 11:29.

David Bowles has shown himself to be clever and very intelligent but above all a very dangerous Sociopath, not through what you say above but by the way he has acted whilst in Anglesey.

The profile of a Sociopath fits him like a glove.
Glibness & Superficial Charm. Manipulative and Conning. They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviours as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victims as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self. Feels entitled to certain things as "their right".

Pathological lying. Has no problem lying coolly and easily. Can get caught up in, a complex belief about their own power and abilities.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt. A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who ends up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow Emotions. When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experience and serves an ulterior motive. Outrage by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy. Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having no concept for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no concern for their impact on others.

Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause.

Last but not least. Does not accept blame themselves, as he did with when going to stay at JAJ'S. As if it really mattered. But blames others, even for the acts they obviously committed.

Anonymous said...

Stats man

Where a council's external Auditors' are concern .You must be Joking. it was Bowles who hand picked them to come in.

Anonymous said...

We know all that Stats.
So why is he not doing what he did there, here. Go after the Crooks, In stead of trying to brush everything under the carpet and keep attacking those that are .

Anonymous said...

We can not have a page withour reading the priae of Mr Durkin.
Mr. Durkin knows all the bad stuff about everyone else.

Well Mr Durkin, why don't you tell us about all your bad stuff sir?

stats man said...

I for one still think Mr Bowles is a hardworking and dedicated Acting Managing Director.

No amount of shouting will change my mind.

Anonymous said...

Yes Stats.
But that's before his psychotic out burst six months later at full council, showing precisely what sort of a man he is.

Anonymous said...

Hear we go again Druid.
Degenerating into more negative crap.

They should take their big spoons and shove them where the sun don't shine and leave those of us who wish to see a better Council, get on with it ourselves with out constantly having to read the none stop prattle of shit heads.

Anonymous said...

13;49
No amount of shouting will change your mind.
That is another trait of a Sociopath. There more of us about than you think. wak wak.

Anonymous said...

We all want a better Council but most of us believe that to have a better Council means cleaning up the Council, tackling the issues which have plagued the Council for many years. These issues are corrupt officers and Councillors. Most still hold office year after year because the public havent got a clue what is going on behind closed doors.
The public are just beginning to learn why Cllr Durkin is being labelled a troublemaker. And, believe me we are not happy.
The word "corruption" has gone hand in hand with Isle of Anglesey County Council since I can remember and will continue if troubleshooters or the like keep sweeping the past under the carpet.
Like it or not what we have now is a coalition labelled "the get out of jail free alliance" Like it or not, the public think that those who signed the Terms of Engagement have something to hide. All tarred with the same brush.
If this Council is to survive they must start respecting the Whistleblowers and stop treating them like lepers.

stats man said...

Maybe all of us should learn from the words of Carl Sargeant AC/AM (and a not a member of ACDC as put by Cllr Durkin)to the Council in February of this year:

"But disagreement should reflect genuine and sincere differences about policy and service delivery. If I were to stop people in the street outside this building and ask them what they wanted their council to deal with, I am pretty sure that none of them would mention who said what to whom in a committee meeting here, the ownership of a small area of land in Amlwch, or the identity of David Bowles’s former landlord.

Focusing on personal rivalries and allegations like this is self-indulgent in any circumstances. Doing so despite the numerous and pressing problems that this island faces is even worse. It is a betrayal of Anglesey’s citizens and communities, who deserve action and leadership, not petty bickering."

Anonymous said...

Driud.
There appears to be commentators who have failed to understand what this blog is about.

Its about the letter from Carl Sargeant to all Councillors. Cllr Durkins' Reply and the law breaking activities of those responsibly for the Terms of the Alliance.

Whilst those terms stay as they are the Alliance is acting, in all it does, illegally and if those responsible for its continuation in its present form attacking County Councillors, elected by the People have got real problems ahead. Not just with those named but by showing that they are happy to act illegally with their arrogance of immunity.

Anonymous said...

If bowles and McGregor really want to see the council move forward quickly without any more trouble all they need to do is both bugger of now and let all those willing clean their own back yard up. Simp-plull's.

Anonymous said...

Stats Again.

Carl Sargeant Knows only to well that what he said was nothing more than his attempt to water down the Reality of the councils problems.
If he think The people of Anglesey Hasn't see through that bit of hog- wash, then he's a bigger fool than you are.

stats man said...

To Anon 17:15 Thank you for your kind words, and oh yes sorry it's me again.

You can read the whole of what Carl Sargeant AM/AC said to Ynys Môn Council on their website. It is in the Committee Minutes section, which is good reading i.e the Scrutiny Committee Minutes

Anonymous said...

46 angry Comments so far.
Where were all these doubtless good but sadly anonymous commentators when the Q&A bandwagon was travelling over Anglesey to hear people`s views, with ample opportunity at 7 venues to vent........sniping from the sidelines is easy...not intellectually equipped to stand up and face them publicly perhaps ?
You sad lot !

Prometheuswrites said...

Why Wales Won't Work.

There have been several comments castigating people for not being more publically open and active in holding the IOACC to account.

I attach links to two recent cases and a report regarding the consequences faced by those who were prepared to stand up and be counted. I believe these examples explain the reluctance of those of us concerned with the covering away of past misdemeanors and current transgressions.

1. The Plas Madoc Scandal: http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2010/03/19/whistleblower-s-battle-to-reveal-plas-madoc-financial-scandal-55578-26064589/

2: Children's Commisioner for Wales
http://www.denbighshirefreepress.co.uk/news/88435/whistleblower-s-life-made-a-living-nightmare-.aspx

3. The Waterhouse Report
Background to the Report

(http://www.alison-taylor.freeserve.co.uk/waterhouse)

Alison Taylor worked for Gwynedd County Council in senior childcare posts from 1976 to 1987.

In 1987, she was dismissed after breaking ranks and informing the police of her concerns about the neglect and abuse of children in care. She was vilified and condemned at every turn, and despite making innumerable approaches to the Welsh Office, the Department of Health in London, the Home Office, various Home Secretaries and Ministers of Health, and Margaret Thatcher, repeatedly encountered apathy and almost insurmountable obstacles.

The first breakthrough came in 1991, when HTV, The Independent, and Private Eye took the brave decision to bring the matter into the open. Between 1991 and 1993, North Wales Police mounted a huge retrospective investigation and subsequently referred some 800 allegations to the Crown Prosecutions Service. Fewer than 3% of these referrals proceeded to trial, much to the dismay and mystification of many of the alleged victims and of the adults who knew the extent and nature of the alleged abuse.

The North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal of Inquiry was announced in summer 1996 by William Hague, then Secretary of State for Wales. The announcement followed more than a decade of abuse allegations, counter allegations, police investigations, the conviction of a handful of former social workers, the broken promise of a public inquiry, the suppression of at least one damning report on abuse in children's homes in North Wales, and mounting public and political concern.


If vunerable children and impoverished communities are treated with such blatant disgregard for very people these progammes are intended to help, while collectively vilifying and destroying the lifes of those public sprited citizens seeking to bring these abuses of power to light, then what chance of justice for the long suffering residents of this fair isle?

Maybe what we need here is as similar public enquiry to examine allegations of wrongdoing by those entrusted with the due diligence of both holding public office and administering the process of checks and balances that should be in place to prevent cthe corrupt practices that are so corrosive of public trust; which as many of the posts here show to be the underlying issue in moving IOACC forward. This enquiry could be pursued concurrently with the reorganisation and corrective practices needed to restore IOACC to a semblance of functional governance, as desired by Mr Sargeant.

PS. IOACC: This what I would have liked to have raised at Q&A session at the travelling roadshow, but given the above, prehaps wiser not to have done so.

PPS. In the light of difficulties faced by Alison Taylor, maybe a journalistic investigation and media exposure is the way to open the door to justice. Our politians seem to be more concerned about trail by media than the publically inaccessible due process of law.

stats man said...

To Promethuswrites

In respect of the Waterhouse Inquiry, and subsequent investigations I was involved with many innocent members of staff in a support capacity and therefore know of what occurred at some depth. What I learnt in confidence will stay with me till my grave.

I am saddened that you appear to be trying to draw comparisons between the abhorrent abuse of young and vulnerable children at young offender institutions and what is occurring in the Council today.

I have mentioned previously we need an independent Good Governance Commissioner to investigate complaints against the Council, but please can we keep things in perspective.

Anonymous said...

Even David Bowles was abused and treated like a leper having helped send the Leader of Lincolnshire County Council, Jim Speechley, to jail

Maybe his bad behaviour here, is his way of getting his own back?

Anonymous said...

To Statsman

I dont think Prometheuswrites was comparing child abuse to what is happening in the Council. He was pointing out what happened to the whistleblower who was trying for some time to bring the abuse to the attention of the authorities who would not listen.
Which is what is happening here.

Anonymous said...

This is getting rediculous.
Councillor Durkin this, Councillor Durlin that. One would think we do not need the other 39..but of course whilst he gets on with his publicity stunt the rest are getting on with being councillors....what they were elected for. The guy is a total sham. Wake up folks before heruins everything.

The Druid of Anglesey said...

Sorry - 2 comments deleted for naming names (however obliquely) and making allegations.

Anonymous said...

So often something happens and all the authorities say "we had no idea". Little baby P for example. The fact is the authorities did know but did not do what was necessary. I know that is very different from what has been suggested above however, are we similarly and severally guilty of allowing somthing to be hidden from public knowledge?

Anonymous said...

Getting a sweat on 22:23.
Sounds like he's onto you over something or other? We know he's got McGregor' Chorlton, Parry and Thomas, up with the Ombudsman. Are you one of them?

Full Council Meeting tomorrow, lets just see what that brings.

Anonymous said...

23.37 I sweat a lot in this weather but that comes from an appalling unfitness and nothing else my friend.

As you are so exceedingly well informed,what on earth does HE claim to have that would genuinely be useful to the Ombudsman, are you expecting them all to be in Jail by tomorrow night...you must be joking..just anothetr tptal waste of our money.

Reemeber...He is in trouble with the VAT
Remember He does not have planning for that operation
Remember He falsely uses titles

All a complete load of tosh.

Promethesueswrites said...

Stats Man:
I was indeed trying to point out what kind of treatment the whistle-blowers received; as pointed out by Anon 22.16.
I included the Waterhouse excerpt as I had followed a link on one of the web-pages I referenced.
I was a little suprised as I knew nothing about the Waterhouse Enquiry, despite the fact that it was commissioned in 1996 and ran for ten years (according to the article).

I wish to stress that I am not suggesting in any way that any such things are happening here and I apologise if I have caused anyone any offence.

The only abuse I wished to debate is that of power.

Anonymous said...

"Bury the past" and no doubt every complaint made by the public.

Including my complaint regarding the administration of grants. Mr Bowles and Mr McGregor can afford to bury the past. They are financially secure.

Me, my business is destroyed, my shop and the two flats above are for sale and I am about to fall behind on my mortgage.

Why, because my complaints against the agent and builder carrying out the grant work on my property were ignored by the Grants Dept .

"(name) and (name) were not unhappy with the materials and workmanship" said the Contact Report. When in reality the property was a death trap with 24 contraventions of the Building Regulations.

With so many omitted works and items it is surprising that the property was still standing. I never did find a builder to finish off the work properly, they did not want to put their names to such appalling work and would only start from scratch. I could not afford to remedy the situation.

I have since met with several people with exactly the same complaints and we all complained to the same grant officers.

G. Pierce

Anonymous said...

Anyone who wishes to see the IOACC Contact Report, the IOACC Work Inspection Sheet and compare them to the report prepared by a Surveyor I acquired, the Building Regs contraventions and photographs of what the grant inspectors deemed satisfactory dont hesitate to e.mail me at gwynfor2@aol.com.

G. Pierce

Anonymous said...

Sorry

gwynfor2@aol.com

G. Pierce

Anonymous said...

23:48
WHO IS HE?

Anonymous said...

Gwynfor. P

Wading through lots of paper is beyong the time capabilities of
legal authorities, the 'On A Plate' type of presentation is probably more acceptable to them.

Reporting an IOACC departmental contravention to another IOACC department would most likely bring about a 'back covering' excercise.

How about getting a solicitor and private detective combination and by working together they could refine and summarise a presentation.

Have you tried the CAB for help


Captain Kirk

stats man said...

To Promethesuewrites - Thank you no offense taken

To Mr Pierce

I cannot comment on your individual case and would caution others from doing so. I can though sympathies with you, as you say you are not the only one who feels aggrieved.

The question therefore is how can Town Improvements Grants be improved to ensure that no problems arise in the future. We should all be concerned if public money has been misused irrespective of who is to blame.

I understand that changes have been made to the procedures for such grants at the Council. But I will go further and ask whether the local councils are in fact the best means of delivering such grants.

Above all this is a lesson for us all - choose your agents and builders carefully, and if you are not sure seek advice from professional bodies.

Anonymous said...

Statsman & Mr Pierce,

Being a codger it is obvious the grants system has changed since the time my grant was approved.

At that time one was awarded a grant, selected a contractor, got the work done then got the money.

The one who applied for / got the grant was responsible for verifying the work.

Was that a better system ?
Why did the system change?

stats man said...

To Anon 11:54

Again I cannot answer or do I wish to discuss the case put forward by Mr Pierce.

The simple question I put is this:

Are we satisfied that the current system ensures the best use of public money in the delivery of improvement grants, or is there a better and more cost effective means of doing so, not only to the public purse but also to those receiving the grant.

Maybe you are right, maybe the means of delivering grants applicable at the time you gained such grants was the best means of doing so, we can only ask.

Anonymous said...

These are the missing links in the broken chain the authorities call administration, leaving the grant system wide open to fraud and corruption. I copied and pasted these Control Objectives from a document called - Module 2 Housing Renovation Grants

10. The Council monitors the contractors invited to tender by individual agents.

11. Apparent links between particular agent and contractors are followed up.

15. There is adequate separation of duties amongst officers and adequate supervision and checking of work by Managers

16. The Council undertakes random inspections as a further check to ensure that work is actually being performed to the required standard.

22. The Council carries out checks to ensure that grant conditions are being complied with e.g. checks
with other systems, postal surveys or physical inspections..

G. Pierce

Anonymous said...

GP 13.53
11. Watch this one in particular, we know one or two unscrupulous grant agents operating in Anglesey !! but can not name them !

Anonymous said...

I was the 11.54
The system outlined by Mr Pierce is so open to misuse it's rediculous. The older system had no avenues for fraud.

Perhaps the newer system was compiled for one reason only!

Did all councils use the same method as that for Mr Pierce?

1154

Anonymous said...

GP 19.40
Who was your grant agent, pray tell, it`ll be on the public record anyway ???

Anonymous said...

We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come tumbling down.

They are all asleep, drugged by their Allowances potion, morally rotten, physically flabby, and apparently mentally deficient.

It is time to take back, that, what was taken from the people of Anglesey, our rights, our human rights, our legal rights.
Can you hear me Carl, we are still waiting for change!

Anonymous said...

Your concern about Human Rights for the Councillors of the Council of Betrayal frightens me, what about my Human Rights!!, what about the Human Rights of the people of Anglesey!!, will these be mentioned in the reply of Carl Sargeant?

We are all waiting the decision, do we have Human Rights in the eyes of the Council of Betrayal?

Huw Terry

Anonymous said...

Today, David Bowle's at the full council meeting in public, attacked Cllr Durkin by saying that. Because he needed to protect his officers from Cllr Durkins' concerns of wrongdoing, Cllr Durkin is not a fit and proper person to be on the Planning Committee. You What, you might say! Yes. That's what he said.
He also said the he expects a report to come out soon that will so Cllr Durkin up!

Anonymous said...

David Bowles, had better know what he's doing. Cllr Durkin, has a habit of keeping the best bits up his sleeve for the final round and it normally leave's someone else with a red face.

Anonymous said...

David Bowles had better have eyes in the back of his head, there are unresolved issues that he is covering up, and his attempts will fail, we will not need any force to get him to wake up to reality, that his days here are indeed numbered and his reputation as a cover up artist and con merchant will be in tatters, this is his final warning.

Life long friend said...

21:49
Cllr Durkin is one of the most hard working campaigners I have yet to meet. Ever since the late 60's he's always stood up for the little man.
He is well known here for his conquests and getting council to do the right things, always in the interest of the people and a number of those conquests were about saying peoples live and councillors taking liberties.

I don't know who David Bowles is or Clive McGregor, but if you are on a wrong-un with Durk. Good luck, your going to need it.

Anonymous said...

I would say from experience and the documentation that I have, that it is the Senior Officers that need investigating more so than Councillors.

Like I said previous, read the three Internal Audit Reports - the same documents were on file when they published Report 1 so why are they all so different. Because every complaint I made had to be covered up.

They wont let me correct the latest Report. The consequences would be too great. I believe I can show that the WAG have been defrauded and how.

Each and every invoice should contain "Internal" or "external" work. This identifies which grant is being paid. The external invoices are clearly a Town Improvement Grant documents and vice versa.

An invoice containing no reference to external or internal but just works carried out can be used for either TIG or HRG or BOTH.

By tippexing the Interim Number and changing it the same invoice can be used again and again.

I have such a tippexed invoice which was said to have been issued to another client of the builder in the first instance.

Later when I discovered the invoice for £17,625 on the Council file, it was tippexed and Interim 3had been inserted.

However, I already had a Interim 3 it was for £8,450

The invoice for £17,625 in question is not evidenced in payment according to the builder (March 2009 Report 1) issued to another client (document 21.4.09)
has been part paid by the Council to the value of £10,299.92 according to the Director of Finance (27 Oct 2009) with the TPO saying that the Council were issued with an invoice for £10,299.92 (24 Oct 2008) which the builder has since raised.

G.Pierce

To anon above, It`s best I dont name names.

Anonymous said...

Mr Pierce:
What is TPO?

Anonymous said...

TPO is the Councils Technical Principal Officer.

Anonymous said...

21:49
As a Councillor I've had the opportunity to read all the documents relating to the concerns Cllr Durkin has brought to the Councils attention and the abusive letters he received in response.
I have also have copies of all the correspondence from David Bowes on the subject and the allegations he makes against Cllr Durkin. I can say categorical that David Bowes is a bear faced liar and is being so to cover up his officers wrong doing.
I also know of a number of issues that Cllr Durkin hasn't even raised yet and would not like to be in Bowles shoes or those involved when he does. I think it will be inevitable.

Anonymous said...

23.16: Now would that be a Panda or a Grizzly?
;-)

Anonymous said...

I am informed the builder and the agent in your case, Mr Pierce, have already being raided and their docs and computers removed.
Don't know the out come, but the TPO has a lot of answering to do.
The whole bloody lot are rotten to the core and these are the people David Bowles and Clive McGregor are trying to protect?

Anonymous said...

Sorry about the spelling 23:21. We cannot all be as clever as you.
If spelling is all we have to worry about we could all go and live in Utopia. That imaginary island governed on a perfect political and social system, which forms the title of a book by Sir Thomas More published in 1516; hence, any ideally perfect social and political system. What do you think? Eh.

Anonymous said...

I won`t count my chickens before they hatch 23.23 but I do hope that you are correct.

Since Wales is watching can I tell you why Report 2 is so different to the latest Internal Audit Report.

The TPO advised in April 2008 that there were no contract instructions issued by my agent in respect of the TIG and prepared his own cost summary. Hence the TIG contract figures in June 2009Report 2.

A month later I discovered that the Contract instructions had been on file all along, reducing the TIG contract considerably. The covering letter for the contract instructions were stamped IOACC Planning Department 16.10.2006

Hence, the latest Audit Report called TIG Final March 2010 instead of Report 3.

G. Pierce

Anonymous said...

23.36 There's no political problems on the Skerries. Of actually, in 1971 my mate was blown up on a shiowreck. A gang of Sco**ers pressed the button. Luckily he lived after a longish stay at THE C&A Hospital. The police said it "was offshore and out of their jurisdiction" , bit like Llangefni really!

Anonymous said...

23.36:
Apologies. I didn't mean to be a clever dick(head).
I just had to share the image that came to me when I read your comment. :-)

Anonymous said...

23:36
I'm on nights this week so I've got till 6.30am on the bosses computer to play this game.
No need to be so vulgar, I was hopping you had more interlect than that. Ops there goes my spelling again.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know why the senior auditor resigned from the Council's external Auditors after the 2007-2008 report which included the unlawful &300,000.00 purchase of Graigwen, was brought out

I'm reliably informed it was because he was threaten and bullied to water down the report and not to name those responsible which he felt was wrong and left shortly after.
Does anyone know about this? It is known that a senior officer at the council gave him the impression that if he did not do as he was told it was like having a sherman tank on his lawn!

Anonymous said...

I have heard of and read of "Graigwen" Amlwch but do not know why the purchase by IOACC was illegal, can some someone clarify thatfor me please.

AI

Anonymous said...

08:13
The Proper Procedure was not followed. It not only failed to satisfy the requirements of the Council's Constitution but was also contrary to statute (Section 11(7)of the Local Government Act 2000)

The defective procedure could not have been remedied by another meeting of the Executive as such a meeting would, by then, have fallen foul of the Access to Information Regulations; of itself raising the prospect of challenge.

Accordingly the Monitoring Officer met with the Managing Director and the Corporate Director (Environment and Technical Services) to express her concerns, advising that the best course of action would be not to participate in the auction, but it was agreed by the three officers present including the Monitoring Officer to proceed despite the failing of the process and potential for challenge. "Ultra Vires"

Regina said...

Cllr Durkin: I cannot comment on the veracity of your specific case against the Council, although I am certainly very surprised at the apparently libellous documents that have been issued over the past few weeks. At best, these are misguided. At worst, they are causes for legal action, as you indicate you are already considering.

Of course, Court is an expensive place to visit, and my own view is that, if your solicitor or barrister can show us, maybe through Druid or another intermediary, a reasonable case can be made, then the readers of this blog, and the wider population of Anglesey, would, I am sure, be prepared to contribute whatever we can each afford to support your case. Clearly, you would have to make a substantial contribution, too, otherwise it becomes too easy to forget to do a regular self-check of how strong your case really is.

Personally, I think those who have been making their comments should apologise and bring this sorry matter to its logical and moral conclusion.

County Councillor Barrie Durkin said...

Regina 09:14.
I thank you very much for your all inspiring comments and all those who have taken the trouble to express their views on these blogs, by email, phone and letter.
I might have some problem in complying with your request showing a reasonable case to be made through Druid or another intermediary, as it could be deemed as been prejudicial. However it will be given much thought. Thanks again.

Regina said...

Cllr. Durkin,

In that case, all we need to know is that the case has been listed, and that we can then look at ways of raising some money. The people of Bodffordd raised their own money for the biodigester plant (let's not go off on a tangent about that, people!), so we should be able to do something similar for you, but taking into account the possibility of losing (which is less likely if, as it appears, the Council will not be able to show definitive legal-standard proof that what they have said is correct and true). All we ask is that personality and revenge is taken out of the equation, if any exists.

The Great Councillini said...

It's good to see Carl Sergeant mentioning the 'Hawl i Holi' sessions.

It's just a pity he seems to have been spoon-fed Council propaganda, because these have never been very well attended, and by now, are being treated for the tokenistic joke that they are.

As soon as we have new people with a genuine, rather than a convenient interest in the people of Anglesey, we'll come to your meetings. But not before then. You've already had 16 years, you see, and nobody wanted urgently to become the island's friend for all that time.

Cllr Durkin said...

Regina 09:53. Thanks for that.

Anonymous said...

Regina.
I don't know whether you are aware, but Anglesey County Council have and still are spending vast sums of public money on outside Solicitors, Wheightmans of Liverpool under the supervision of Mr Graeme Creer, the companies local government partner, to try and put a case together to save the officers skins!

So now you can see the depths of dishonesty this council will go to to cover up their unlawful activities.

Regina said...

@10:50

That's very interesting. Of course, I can't comment on whether or not any of what you say is true, but if it is, then it will be interesting to see the kind of case, if any, that eventually results. The use of solicitors doesn't necessarily mean they are trying to cover-up or defend themselves against wrongdoing - it can be for any number of reasons - including defending themselves against malicious claims.

Time will tell, as always...

stats man said...

In the interest of balance and from the Weightmans website:

"Graeme [Creer] joined Weightmans as Head of Local Government in 2006 after thirty years experience in this area. He was a planning specialist at two London boroughs, and headed the Legal Service at the London Borough of Barnet for 11 years before becoming City Solicitor at Liverpool City Council.

His legal departments won the LGC Legal Award in 2000 and 2006. Graeme was a member of the ACSeS Executive, included in The Lawyer Hot 100 in 2004, and profiled by the LGC in 2005 as one of the top five local authority lawyers.

Graeme is recommended by Legal 500 and Chambers 2010 which says “Practice head Graeme Creer is an incredibly well-known figure in local government circles and his former in-house experience ensures that he has ‘enormous insight into the inner workings of local authorities.’”

Therefore an excellent choice to advice the Council.

Blue Shells said...

@11:32

The barrister representing the Council (John Howell, QC, instructed by Alan Carr) was also apparently a top choice for the abortive - and very expensive - claim against the mussel fisherman in the infamous Beaumaris marina case. This is how he is described by his Blackstone Chambers web site:

"He has an 'impressive intellect, and is one of the smartest barristers in the world'

Chambers UK 2010 "

The other barrister, Emma Dixon, also came highly-recommended:

"Emma has particular expertise in environmental judicial review, where she is recognized as a “respected” leading junior by the Legal 500 (2008) and in Legal 500 2009 and she is also recommended in Professional Discipline & Regulatory."


Their success, though, isn't quite so clear. They failed in their first case, had an appeal rejected, and then the House of Lords, in one of its last decisions, rejected a request for leave to appeal to them. Many legal wranglings have continued, and it's probably time for us to ask once more what the final legal total now runs to.

Anonymous said...

That's Right 11:08 & 12:22
We must also remember. What ever transpires at the end of the day, it's going to cost the Tax Payers of Anglesey a lot of money one way or another, and all because the Welsh Assembly sent us a Megalomaniac to help take the Council forward who, then uses his position for his own gratification at everyone else's expense, and not for the first time I might add.

stats man said...

To Blue Shells

Sorry I mention Graeme Creer and you mention someone totally different.

For what it is worth I thought the action by the Council and others against be rights of the mussel fishermen was misguided.

However that court case was about the interpretation of government legislation.

I am not therefore sure what the connection is, if any, or what your point in the first place was.

Blue Shells said...

"I am not therefore sure what the connection is, if any, or what your point in the first place was."

I think it's pretty clear: that legal representatives who come, as you said, stats man "an excellent choice to advice [sic] the Council", do not necessarily always bring the excellent kind of results that type of comment implies. Indeed, as many commentators have pointed out, there is something of a belief that the highest-cost option will bring the results you want. Mr. Bowles' employers have met this criticism, and from some pretty lofty circles.

Clear now?

The Opposition said...

I thought readers might like to learn of my recent case with a referral of a complaint against a very senior officer of the Council to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman himself tries to keep things as quiet as possible, although you could get a copy if you wrote in directly.

To get around that sort of cosy togetherness, you can read an account here:

http://ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk/personal_accounts/j_rowlands.html

In essence,although the Council say they have apologised, they clearly haven't met the Ombudsman's own definition of an apology so as a senior officer, you can make wholly false accusations in writing, send them to someone else, get referred to the Ombudsman and STILL get away with it in large part. Democracy? What a good idea, as Mr. Gandhi once said.

stats man said...

Blue Shells

No sorry still not clear what you are on about.

I was talking about the possible case of misconduct by a Councillor, you seem to be talking about the interpretation of legislation. Quite different areas of law.

Furthermore not sure how a Councillor can sue a Council as they would be suing themselves so to speak.

Anonymous said...

Mr Rowlands AKA The Opposition:
A fascinating read and an all too typical outcome.
Your experience closely reflects the experiences of several people I know who have submitted complaints to the Ombudsman. Even my own IOACC councilor castigates the Ombudsman's office as a waste of time.
In practical terms the Ombudsman is a neccesary, (but futile), step in moving a complaint forward. The council misrepresent events and disregard the Ombudsmans' findings and recommendations. Even the Ombudsman acknowledges that they have no real power and in many cases can't even address applicants' concerns as they do not fall under the Ombudsman's juristiction. It seems they are there only to report on whether the council have followed their own internal procedures, (which are nortoriously hard to obtain directly from council officers)
The Ombudsman is unfortunately nowadays regarded as a humourless joke.

The Opposition said...

13:35

Thanks for your comments. As the OmbudsmanWatch site clearly shows, they are as you say a necessary but ultimately futile organisation. If one thing needs a total revamp and update, it's the Ombudsman.

I have never understood why a simple, straightforward apology is always such a difficulty for people. It seems that these people have sat in their offices for so long that they believe they cannot actually ever be wrong. Either that, or they think that if they say sorry, they are admitting their wrongdoing.

Nooka the Frustrated said...

The question is: Can an organisation proceed with transparency side by side with a reluctance to "wash their dirty laundry" in public? Once a "blame culture" is in place it is difficult to transform it into a "learning culture". People will always make mistakes, as we are all fallible, but when mistakes occur over and over and are not acknowledged and lessons not learned then the people affected by those mistakes inevitably get increasingly frustrated.

stats man said...

To Mr Rowlands

I am wrong in summarising your case as follows:

A public footpath had been obstructed and you say that someone in the council turned a blind eye to this, and then when they eventually asked for the obstruction to be removed they where somehow guilty of not realising that your neighbour had misread the content of the letter you has sent to him.

Which still left the fact that the footpath had been obstructed by someone which is an offense, and the Council when informed of such obstruction had a duty to investigate.

The Opposition said...

14:01

I certainly would not hide anything about this affair from anyone, but a blog is probably not the place to get into the fine details, as it's bound to get out of hand. What I want to say I think I have said in the account. The important point is that applogies don't come easily from the council, no matter how wrong they are.

Anonymous said...

Never explain, never apologise !
A good maxim ?

stats man said...

Sorry 'The Opposition' you cannot make allegations on a blog and then when challenged claim you cannot discuss them.

You yourself have already said the footpath was obstructed, and that unless certain works where carried out the obstruction would have to be removed.

So the Council took a long time in responding to your complaint, which still left the footpath obstructed, which as you state is an offense.

Anonymous said...

Stats:
Have you followed and read the link - the story is there.
However I don't think Opposition is taking issue on here with the cattle grid, rather about the difficulty in getting at the very least an apology for the sending of personal correspondence to the other disputant. Even though the Ombudsman has found in his favour.

Am I right with this, Opposition?

The Opposition said...

"Sorry 'The Opposition' you cannot make allegations on a blog and then when challenged claim you cannot discuss them."

Nice try, but this my account is not an allegation, and you clearly have the Council's interests at heart! These are facts. Would you like me to copy a redacted onto scribd? No problem. It's a public document, and we'll get it up here soon enough. If anyone wants to write to the Ombudsma directly, it's Report number 2009010832/LP, the investigator was Miss Laura Phillips.

The matter of the footpath is a private one, and those details are not the subject of the complaint. You may accuse or moan as much as you like, but my part of the path is open, that of most of my neighbours not. That is enough for you to know.

Anonymous said...

"You yourself have already said the footpath was obstructed, and that unless certain works where carried out the obstruction would have to be removed."

I think you are commenting without much knowledge of the case, aren't you?

Anonymous said...

"So the Council took a long time in responding to your complaint"

Now, how did you know that? Is that right? Or is it something you've got inside information on? Did I miss the advert for Counter-Blogging Officer or something? Got to be worth £14k a year, at least (job description subject to to review).

Anonymous said...

TODAY'S NEWS.
Welsh Assemble to replace David Bowles with the vicar of Dibley. The I'dear is they now feel the need for someone to spread love and harmony instead of hate and destruction, and save Anglesey from being taken over by the Which Finder Generals. Sounds good to me.

stats man said...

Taken directly from the page the
'Opposition' made reference to:

"In fact, in a letter to my neighbour, what I had said was that the "Council had a right to remove the cattle grid" if certain works were not carried out, and that I hoped that situation would not occur. This was a completely true account, and I relied upon a document sent to me by the Council itself - 'Managing Access' (Countryside Council for Wales) to write my letter. Indeed, not only does a Highway Authority have the right to remove unlawful obstructions, it has a statutory duty to do so. "

and

"This found essentially all the elements of the complaint I had made against the Council upheld. It said they had not issued a reply within the proper timescale, had allowed the officer being the subject of the complaint to handle the affair himself, rather than an independent person handling it, that they had breached the Data Protection Act, that they had favoured my neighbour's view without checking that what they had been told was in fact true, and that they had generally demonstrated maladministration in handling the matter."


And so I rest my case, a public footpath is a public footpath and not a private matter therefore.

Also it shows how easy it is to divert the attention of certain people from the main topic of the day. £14,000 for this and I do it for nothing.

Anonymous said...

Discussed the issues today with friends.
It seems now that the truth is emerging why Cllr Durkin was dismissed from the ruling group prior to the new coalition being formed, he is gaining more support than ever.
A complete amnesty to those who have brought this Council to its knees and let them carry on running the Council is scandalous.
Bowles made a big mistake and the public will not forgive him. We wanted a clean up not a cover up.
The stigma of being the most corrupt council in Wales is now well and truly imprinted because as always the corruption gets covered up.
Sorry Mr Bowles, but it`s not the example we the public expected from you.

stats man said...

To Anon 18:42

"It seems now that the truth is emerging why Cllr Durkin was dismissed from the ruling group prior to the new coalition being formed"

So please inform us the people what this was, so that we can decide for ourselves.

Anonymous said...

It appears to me that no matter who is right or wrong, Anglesey County Council, It's Corporate Governance and the Senior Management have been opened up to full scrutiny which should have happened long ago, and they don't like it.

I for one think this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The council have put themselves in a no win situation because if they are really considering legal action against Cllr Durkin and we are told Bowles has sanctioned thousands of pounds of our money to pay top notch Solicitors to do just that. Does Bowles think that Cllr Durkin won't bring out his big guns to tell all?
Maybe Bowles is to arrogant to realise that? I should coco.

Anonymous said...

18.59
Get real, BD has no big guns, and no deep pockets, only a big mouth, and an empty head !

stats man said...

Who is considering legal action against whom - you decide. Sounds like a good game show, and we shall see.

But then again who are we in the mad world of a councillor from the mad world, where mad things happen.

No, well neither do I.

stats man said...

To 19:40

Excellent a anon trying to insult another anon, we learnt much from this in depth argument. You are wise indeed.

Anonymous said...

Oh, 19:18
Your on a higher Intellectual level than us lot. We are only mere mortals
Not even any good at spelling either.
Never mind we can't all be no-alls

Anonymous said...

Insults in my stride..no problem...I know far more than you know !
You cling to dreams.
You pathetic rabble.
Insider.

Anonymous said...

XXX

stats man said...

Please explain Mr Alan Llangefni - what would you do if you were to meet with someone you do not know in a dark alley one night. Not me of course I'm a coward.

Anonymous said...

And which no brain Anon are you 20:00 you all look the same to me.
Vicar of Dibley stuck on the ferry will be here tomorrow. free drinks all round.

Anonymous said...

Teach him some manners for a start.

Anonymous said...

Gentlemen.
I am an insider.
With sincerity and respect, the point is simply this. All the venomous anonymous venting, sniping and ranting on this Blog, including a little harmless sporting mischief by some from time to time to get some puerile minds working overtime (which is very amusing), will not change one iota of the governance of IACC...FACT.
What difference do you really think you are making ?
We, insiders,regard this blog as something of a low political Sporting Life.
But Enjoy !

Anonymous said...

If all of Wales is watching then shame on them for doing nothing in respect of our venting, sniping and ranting.
It has been a FACT that our complaints have been ignored for the past twenty years too.
Nothing will change, your right there because the criminals have been given an amnesty.
Fancy slating a man who is fighting corruption. Thats a good one to tell the kids.

Anonymous said...

19.18 I think you are completely correct. AND why is he so scared of divulging his dark past??

By the way Rolf Harris was scoffing in Ye Olde Bulls Head last night with his friends. Boing Boing Boing, now couldn'y he paint a pretty picture of the Anglesey goings on, ah, perhaps he was looking at LLys Helig or even Abergwyngregin that little bit of Anglesey gone astray

Anonymous said...

I'm puzzled by your comments 21:51.
What dark past and who is HE??

Anonymous said...

Ye Olde Bulls Head. More drunken tripe. We need better than that if you don't mind, that's if you want to be taken for something more than a gossip monger.

Anonymous said...

19.18 and 21,51

You wish boys. If thats what you think or hope, you are completely incorrect.

I can confirm, with statesment like that you do not know BD at all.

Anonymous said...

Tell us more, if you know BD that well, tell us more. Wales is waiting.

Anonymous said...

Who gave Bowles and McGregor the right or the power to give wrongdoers amnesty.
Justice should take its course.

This is unreal.

Will all the benefit fraudsters get amnesty. Or is it just the Officers Bowles thinks belong to him.

"Protect his Officers". Theyre all laughing behind his back and can`t wait to pick up where they left off when he`s gone.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

To 22.48

You think BD is skint has a big mouth and an empty head.
Do your homework lad and get back to me when you get over the shock.

Anonymous said...

Anon 22:57.
That sounds like a resounding vote of no confidence in Bully Bowles from the council staff. I'm I right?

Anonymous said...

There's a planning Committee Meeting tomorrow at 1pm. I wonder how many of Durkin's constituents will be glad of his help in trying to stop some outrageous application in the countryside getting approval in favour of another, fly by night developer?

Anonymous said...

Al Capone gave money to charity,
did that make Him a Saint?

stats man said...

Well we have all learnt a lot tonight haven't we, what surprises me is there are grown men out there (some of them Councillors) who think that such behavior is acceptable.

Except we haven't - we haven't learnt anything have we, just the same old, same old from the usual suspects peddling there dodgy dossiers of half baked truths.

Meanwhile back in the real world my bins got collected on time this morning and what more can you ask.

And I still do not work for the Council.

The Great Councillini said...

Re: Prometheuswrites' comments on people's attitudes to coming forward to protest.

I absolutely agree. Despite the Council's own 'stats man' expressing concern at the parallels drawn, I find no reason to be so disappointed. The topics are different, certainly, as is the gravity of the two situations. One cannot compare child abuse with petty council wrongdoing. That much is granted.

But where the lines draw parallel is in the attitudes concerned and, indeed, in the kinds of people involved - influential, high-ranking, often public servants and members of the Freemasons.

Let's not forget the quiet cover-ups of the North Wales abuse scandal. The story goes that some pretty 'important' people were involved - judges, police, and so on. I have no evidence for that, but there are peculiarities that need explaining, and I think the abused would be the first to agree.

So, the important point is: if you can cover up a child abuse investigation, at least in part, you can very easily cover-up what might be going on in a Council office.

So far, I have seen little evidence of the Council's willingness to meaningfully and sincerely accept public criticism. They will use the 'right' words to satisfy Carl Sergeant, but the real test - the test of time - has yet to be applied to the same old people who claim to have fundamentally and overnight, changed their whole approach to public service. We'll measure the value of Cllr. McGregor's words then - should his Council still be here!

Anonymous said...

To be sure, if nothing else, David Bowles and Cllr Clive McGregor, have through there unacceptable attitudes and behaviour have started a ball rolling that they have lost control of long ago.
They can never win, but more importantly, the People of Anglesey will be picking up the bill and see their services suffer in the bargain.

The Great Councillini said...

"What difference do you really think you are making ?
We, insiders,regard this blog as something of a low political Sporting Life."

Yes, that much is very apparent. But thanks for reminding us of the outdated and contemptuous way in which public servants, paid for by the taxpaying public of Anglesey, view the electorate.

Carry on thinking of this blog in the way you are doing. Already, things have overtaken you, without you noticing, at Llangefni. There is no more hiding behind desks. There is no more 'I'm the boss here, 'I'm big in the office, I'm big on the island'. Soon, there may be no more Council...

We are all perfectly content that, when this blog attracts so much attention from Councillors, senior staff and sometimes the media, that it is highly successful in knocking down the Freemason-built walls of this, the worst example of a Local Authority imaginable.

The Druid of Anglesey said...

You all have been keeping my deleting finger busy last night & this morning. As always: no allegations against named persons, definitely no addresses, and no pointless abuse.

Anonymous said...

Someone above mentioned the Planning Committee...an interesting beast indeed !
Lets have a mature discussion ?
Under what circumstances (if any) should one expect to obtain planning permission for a dwelling in the open countryside ?
Response ?

stats man said...

Thank you 10:52 here are a few thoughts:

The presumption is against new dwellings in the open countryside except for certain categories i.e Forest workers dwelling.

One question though to consider is derelict buildings which need to meet strict criteria before they can be redeveloped. There could be an argument for allowing the redevelopment of derelict buildings where it would remove an eyesore of the derelict building.

Also where the development of outbuildings would allow the safeguarding of the main building (if historically important etc)this should also be considered acceptable.

Anonymous said...

11.36
Thanks, I agree.
But my focus is on the more controversial new-builds ???

Anonymous said...

23.57
Our bins get collected.
That`s right. And other services are delivered reasonably efficiently. e.g. Housing, highways, planning, social services etc etc.
Its ironic is it not that the staff of IACC keep beavering away in delivering all this, despite the political storm that is constantly blowing over them.

stats man said...

To 11:41

I think these days the focus should be on developing new dwellings within existing settlements in terms of sustainable developments and access to services.

As I said there should be a presumption against new dwellings in the open countryside, unless of course for key workers.

Also lets not forget large development of new houses, which by scale could bring benefits to the local community by for example funding road improvements, or improving public transport or funding new local health facilities.

And finally existing development settlements should be allowed to grow to make room for new dwellings where there is a need.

Anonymous said...

13.39 Stats man.
So you advocate large developments of new houses in rural communities...how do we justify this ? They might be filled with in-migrants...is that good for cohesive communities ?

Anonymous said...

xx

Anonymous said...

14.02 Most of them already are, that is one of the problems. Move in, take over!

stats man said...

For communities to grow and develop they need new houses for the children of those already within the community and also for new people to move into the community.

New development would of course need to be sustainable, and be seen to meet a requirement not presently catered for.

However, before all that we need jobs, or there will be no need for new houses.

Anonymous said...

14.26 and others I can think of two highly qualified people wanting to build homes and return to the island, even The Druid says he "returned to Anglesey" . The two I think of were brought5 up in a rural setting and want that peace now but were refused.

They of course would not be "migrants" but it was "migrants" of one sort or another who raised the objections.

Anonymous said...

15.22
But how do we define migrants ?
How do we define a "local" ?
I know that migrants/retirees from afar often object to true "locals" being granted pp, near them.
The fact is, people have this territorial ethos of "my space", which often assumes the right to an unobstructed view or preservation of open-ness over another`s land, so they object to a planning application on that land. Human nature ?
Another point, can we realistically have a rule for locals, and a different one for migrants ? Discrimination ?
Touchy subject.

Anonymous said...

xx

Anonymous said...

15.31 I was watching the 'Tom Jones 70th Birthday' celebrations the other night, it was followed a couple of days later by a morte detaild doccumentary. One of Tom's great songs was the Green Green Grass of Home. Well, there used to large areas of green green grass around my village but now it is all built on. Most of the dwellers 'migrated' to the district.

No grumbles, just pointing out the migration. Birds do it, they come and go, now theres a thought.

Anonymous said...

15.31 I was watching the 'Tom Jones 70th Birthday' celebrations the other night, it was followed a couple of days later by a morte detaild doccumentary. One of Tom's great songs was the Green Green Grass of Home. Well, there used to large areas of green green grass around my village but now it is all built on. Most of the dwellers 'migrated' to the district.

No grumbles, just pointing out the migration. Birds do it, they come and go, now theres a thought.

Anonymous said...

15.31
Yes, actually, you can have a different, more favourable, rule for "locals"...a number of planning authorities impose "local person" occupation conditions on planning permissions, in order to protect affordability, culture, commuty sustainability,language and so forth.
It applies in Gwynedd, and Snowdonia Nat.Park, as well as national parks elsewhere.
Quite right too...locals should be supported, wherever they reside in the UK, as well as key workers in the cities.

Anonymous said...

16.59 you ought to watch out. With opinions like that you might get nasty letters sent out about you, supported by a famous Anglesey County Councillor.

I am with Tom by the way!

Anonymous said...

13.39 you are of course entitled to your opinion, as it happens I disagree and agree. What I find odd and hypocritical is the way countless people in countryside rural areas fight tooth and nail to suppress new applications but make no allowances for the fact their own homes arose out of identical situations. They are therefore NIMBY's it was OK for them to find their "quiet spot" on Anglesey or wherever but woe betide anyone else with the same thoughts. True

Anonymous said...

Its all about policy dear boy Polices.

Anonymous said...

Tonight's News.
Check it out for yourselves.
The new Chief Executive of Conwy Is in court on 21st July charged with rape.

Anonymous said...

If he`s as lucky as our lot, he`ll get an amnesty.

Prometheuswrites said...

Coincidentally this article covers two topics in current discussion on this thread, immigration and leadership qualities.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/10528230.stm
“The UK Border Agency's independent chief inspector found Holyhead seaport a high risk area for immigration (offences)”
“There was an overall perception among staff that change was not managed well and staff had raised concerns about the quality of leadership in the region.”
And that old favourite; “And the chief inspector found several serious issues which did not appear to conform with health and safety regulations.”

The Great Councillini said...

"unless of course for key workers"

And there's the problem. Key worker, as we have now, is a woefully outdated term. Farmers and forest workers were given favour because they were of importance in the war and post-war world. A bit like the Barnett formula, nobody's thought of doing much about that since then.

I politely suggest that, in a desperate economic area like Anglesey, that just about all workers are 'key workers', because they are stopping the island collapsing in on itself. At the very least, small businesses, the backbone of the UK economy and often operating from home, should be given some sort of urgent recognition.

As for renovations, houses in the fields and so on, how the hell do you get to build a monstrosity such as is to be found near Hebron, or the one near Rhosbeirio? It's difficult to see what precise policy they conform to.

Anonymous said...

8.08
Ask a certain Anglesey planning consultant how he managed them both ? All above board, within policy, and within the law, I am assured !

The Opposition said...

"And so I rest my case, a public footpath is a public footpath and not a private matter therefore."

See, you are quick to copy and paste, but equally quick to jump the gun. I did not say the public footpath is a private matter; I said that the contents of the report and the circumstances necessitating it were private. This remains the case, and if you apply to the Ombudsman (hello Ombudsman, thanks for your visit to my account of the affair at 1:30 yesterday, where you spent 8 minutes, 16 seconds looking at it, no doubt tipped-off by the COuncil's plant on here), then all you (should) get is the anonymised and very sketch-like summary, devoid of any detail such as you wrongly suggest should be available to all.

Hey - why not leak it? You lot at the Council are good at that (but not much else). Not a Council bod, you claim? The log will (and does) show differently...

The Great Councillini said...

"Meanwhile back in the real world my bins got collected on time this morning and what more can you ask."


Well, you could ask: who actually collects the bins? That's right, not the Council, but the private operation that used to be called Ecovert and now rebranded Verdant group. Remember them? Corporate hospitality for Leon Gibson, The Director of Public Protection and the Leader of the time (Gareth Winston Roberts) in a rugby international match in Paris? Ring any bells? Once the Leader has this trip 'brought to his attention' he did repay the trip costs. Not sure why he took so much prompting to see it was or appeared to be wrongdoing, as he himself admits could be the appearance to the outside world. The Leader's daughter was, incidentally, the Contracts Supervisor involved with the waste collection. BTW, all involved admitted 'poor judgement' and that their actions were 'ill advised' A police investigation was underway as Ceri Stradling wrote his report in 1996.

Source of all information: Section 15 District Auditor's Report, Isle of Anglesey County Council, Audit of Accounts 1996/1997. Author: Ceri Stradling. Relevant pages, pp 23-29.

stats man said...

There is I suppose an argument for expanding the definition of key workers essential or dependent upon the countryside.

The main aim these days should be sustainability and the building of communities.

We all cant have quiet spots and lovely views to enjoy, but I'm sure if you look at the current market you will find many rural dwellings with peace and quiet and rural views already on the market.

Without jobs who are there to buy these dwellings, the wealthy retired maybe. But is that the best place for them in years to come as age becomes a burden, isolated and remote from the services they will need and rely on.

stats man said...

To the Opposition

I do not work for the Council, and if you can prove that is not true you are welcome to try.

Because I do not work for the Council in any capacity.

Funny really having an argument with someone you know nothing about except for a made up and frankly silly name of Stats Man.

Hey - it was you who raised the subject and made it public. I will though respect your desire to keep the matter private and will not comment further.

The Opposition said...

"Funny really having an argument with someone you know nothing about except for a made up and frankly silly name of Stats Man. "

No argument in the negative sense, I assure you. As Voltaire famously said: "I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". (Normal restraints of law apply, obviously!)

The Great Councillini said...

"The main aim these days should be sustainability and the building of communities."

Absolutely! It seems that in the 1960s and 70s, planning was a simple affair for the massive expansion of our coastal retirement ghettoes. I welcome anyone here, but it is true to say that, until very recently, nobody gave a similar level of attention to provision for our resident younger population.

Now look at us - most youngsters, even those in well-paid jobs of £30k and more are unable to get a mortgage for even the cheapest house. The message of the desperate plight of younger folk is totally lost on the people in power, because they lived through a predominantly prosperous few decades and are removed from the reality of the world of work, families and house-buying.

As an example, the current 'affordable housing' system sets a level of 75% of the current average house price as that which is affordable. Let's say a young family has a fairly substantial deposit of £10k (I had about £2k when I first had a mortgage of £34k), and the average house price in a cheaper area like Amlwch is £130k, then that family will need a mortgage, if they buy an 'affordable home' of £97k. Except, £10k isn't enough deposit anyway, and even if it was, the combined salary you'd need, at a multiplier of 2.5x, two people bringing in about £40k, or £20k each. That is probably not a very common level of income for a family on Anglesey, and you always have to figure for someone losing their job if you're not to lose your home. If you're single, then you're in the same predicament, but even worse off. My own brother in law is on a very decent, for the area, £30k plus, and has no hope at the moment, until he has an enormous deposit that he may or may not be able to get together, of buying his own home.

It was predicted long ago that, as the population ages, those people will have a greater and greater say in how things are done, and most of it will be to their own benefit. I fear that, in a place like Anglesey, all there is left to do is show our kids the way off the island; certainly, that will be the fate of our own kids, and frankly, I have no regrets - there is precious little left here to stay and defend.

stats man said...

The Great Councillini raise an important point.

How many empty properties are out there, which could be used by young people ?

If you know of an empty property go to the Shelter Website

http://www.sheltercymru.org.uk/home/default.aspx

and "Report an empty house"

Prometheuswrites said...

When we talk about business sectors I'm beginning to think that the divisions we talk about should be public,private and corporate.
Listening to the radio I heard a commentator (Rob Peston?) stating that despite the huge shareholder and executive renumerations, that corporations do not pound for pound generate the levels of employment as do SME's (Small Medium Enterprises) and self-employment.

I note that that it is the culture and strength of SME/family run businesses that form the bedrock of the German economy, which as anyone following economic events in the EU will know, is all that is holding the Eurozone (our primary trading partner) together.

I for one would like see a breakdown of costs for large corporate projects in terms of employment vs. capital expenditure vs. profit distribution vs. clean up (for Wylfa B - see recent articles on BBC about Trawsfynedd clean up costs).

My neighbouring farmer tells me his children have little interest in following in his footsteps, so I can look forward to his farm being merged into one of the agri-mega-corp farms or his land (and wonderful but dilapidated traditional Welsh farm buildings) being used for rural renewal (housing development). Still I always thought that Ynys Mon was being groomed as the perfect retirement real-estate for the well to do, - once global warming has completed the desertification of Spain,the South of France and other overseas retirement destinations. Now all they need to do is to get rid of the those troublesome indigenous inhabitants - Diego Garcia here we come.

Oh God! I'm disillusioned with the coalition goverment already!!

What are those words - "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" - (but worse)

stats man said...

In terms of farming are we only returning to the old days of large estate, and of tenant farms?

It is sad no doubt that small farms are no longer viable, but to sustain an ever growing population we need to produce more food.

But we should concentrate on essential foods which we require to sustain a healthy life, milk i.e is not really one of them.

Puck said...

Prometheus:
Dr Puck prescribes some oxygen for your stuttering flame and a dose of nitrous oxide for your humour
;-)

Anonymous said...

I always knew Nathan was the man for planning permission.

Anonymous said...

Extracts From a letter sent by Clive McGregor, Leader of Anglesey County Council to some members, but not all!

"Your group still includes one member who is still prepared to support Elwyn, in clear contempt of the Minister". What contempt Cllr McGregor?
Didn't the Minister say in his letter dated 30th June to the councillors which can be read on this blog.

"It is not for me to endorse this or any other arrangement, and neither I, the Recovery Board or my officials had any part in negotiating the new alliance or its terms of engagement.We are determined not to enter into local politics or take sides".
So again we ask. What Contempt Cllr McGregor?What contempt are you talking about.

Anonymous said...

Anon 20:21 Hello Mr Durkin have you been busy today ?

Anonymous said...

Will the idiot at 20:27. Please get off the phone. We, that is those of us who are serious about cleaning our council up, are still waiting for an answer from Cllr McGregor.

Anonymous said...

Did 'we' hit a raw nerve perhaps - phone I am not on the phone - if you think you are please seek help. I have noticed Mr Durkin likes the royal 'we' is all I shall at this point.

Anonymous said...

Sick sod, Durkin's got no nerves.

Anonymous said...

Anon 21:35 He must have, surely, but maybe your right, maybe he is an android from the future. Maybe he can give me a tip on the next Grand National winner ?

Anonymous said...

"Extracts from McGregors letter"

The propagandsa that McGregor is peddling is dangerous.

Someone should travel down to Cardiff to try and find ways of sacking him.

Anonymous said...

If Councillor Durkin has no nerves, why is it that 80% of his blogs are anonymous?

Why is it that most blogs against the councillor disappear from this site?

Why is it the only councillor getting praise on this site IS said councillor?

Makes one think doesn't it..

Anonymous said...

If Councillor Durkin has no nerves, why is it that 80% of his blogs are anonymous?

Why is it that most blogs against the councillor disappear from this site?

Why is it the only councillor getting praise on this site IS said councillor?

Makes one think doesn't it..

Anonymous said...

yesterday I met a potential candidate for Anglesey AM, born and bred Ynys Mon, bilingually fluent, young, interesting, unpolluted, NOT A LAWYER, I think she was GREAT

Anonymous said...

01.30 Same problem has existed for years at Offa's Dyke !

Anonymous said...

20:27. 21:07. 22:14. 22:19.Just the same old someone with a demented grudge and nothing else to offer. TUT TUT.

Anonymous said...

22.22 - well? tell us more. which party?

Anonymous said...

It`s a shame our Council fed newspapers didnt publish Cllr Durkins letter this week. There would be mass support for Durkin. Theres people talking about marches and petitions where I live.
Years and years of opression to be swept under the carpet. Officers and Councillors to be given amnesty.
Not going down well with the public in general I dont think.

Anonymous said...

Yes TUT TUT indeed and there within belies the problem, which none of what I am saying now matters to certain self important individuals who think the world resolves around them. So wise people say lets us move on and others say but it was a goal, nothing will be achieved we can only change the system so it does not occur again.

Goodnight everybody and may you have a nice day all of you, including you.

The Great Councillini said...

"So again we ask. What Contempt Cllr McGregor?What contempt are you talking about."

Indeed. He is talking in that semi-literate way that all policemen tend to do. 'Regarding the legalistic situation appertaining to contemptuosity for the ministerial officer.'

As the man says, Mr. McGregor, the Minister, rather sensibly given the shenanigans dragging down our entire Council, takes no sides.

So there can be no contempt for the Minister, can there?

Anonymous said...

22.34 8th. Did you know Archbishop Desmond Tutu went to watch the world cup matches? He got himself a VUVUZELA and now he is known as Desmond Tututututututu.

Bit like someone on here blowing his own trumpet....figuratively that is, his belly is too big!

Anonymous said...

More Abuse Druid? As with 09:52 again.

Doing nothing more than showing the world that the issues at hand are not taken seriously and we deserve everything we are not getting.

Can you remove them Druid so that observers can see that we are not all negative people here on Anglesey.

Anonymous said...

So we ask again, Cllr McGregor. What contempt are you taking about.

It's becoming increasingly evident that the contempt Cllr McGregor has written about is just a small part of a much bigger dishonest agenda of propaganda aimed at blackmailing those who will not succumb to joining his little band of, I'm all right jacks, stay out of jail Alliance.

This is the sort of trouble making dishonest behaviour we need exposing. McGregor's on his last legs and Bowles will dump him at a drop of a hat.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 253   Newer› Newest»