Tuesday, 10 August 2010

Rebecca to investigate Anglesey County Council

Word has reached the Druid that the respected investigative website Rebecca has started work on a series of articles about Anglesey County Council. The editor of Rebecca, which was the scourge of corruption in Welsh local government back in the 1970s, is Paddy French who was also the producer of the long series of ITV Wales This Week programmes about the council. Apparently, there will be a long article in the second edition of the magazine due out later this year. The first issue examined masonic influence in North Wales, including a controversial police investigation into a freemason accused of child abuse.

Any Druid readers who want an issue related to Anglesey County Council investigated – or who want to give information – can contact Rebecca at: editorial@rebeccatelevision.com.

115 comments:

Anonymous said...

Its good that a forensic-investigative external TV source with a proven track-record of rooting out abuse and corruption in public life should investigate certain issues in Anglesey and the investigator should be given all assistance to expose corruption wherever it is found.
He will be kept busy !

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

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Anonymous said...

Is Anon at 20:09 the only commentator with one key on his or her's key board or is there more out there who are bored?

Puck said...

20.20

That's the sound of someone contemplating a close shave

Anonymous said...

More humour like that please Puck.

You Think You Know Who I Am said...

"Is Anon at 20:09 the only commentator with one key on his or her's key board or is there more out there who are bored?"

I'd like to point out that it is not compulsory to attend this blog.

Rebecca: Brilliant! It's high-time quality, high-impact investigative journalism examined Anglesey in close detail. I can imagine the barriers being erected at Llangefni as we speak, such is their embrace of freedom of expression and truth.

"There can be no higher law in journalism than to tell the truth and to shame the devil - remain detached from the great."

Walter Lippmann.

Groundhog Day said...

I have met Paddy French in his previous role as presenter and producer of Wales this Week, in fact he sat in my lounge a few years back discussing certain issues that I had brought to his attention.Paddy was, of course, the man who was subjected to the "paedophile" rant by that spineless creep John Arthur Jones on national television. This was reported to the Ombudsman who in his wisdom did not even censure the odious Jones. I wonder why at the time did the angelic Lynne Ball as monitoring officer not have the then councillor disciplined for such an outrageous outburst.It further shows what a useless toothless and blinkered organisation Adam Peat as Ombudsman is running. One quango that is ripe for the chop methinks. Good luck to Paddy and his crew,long may he be a thorn in the side of this discredited council.

The Great Councillini said...

Rebecca is to be warmly congratulated on their work. I have no connection other than a passionate interest in investigative journalism, so readers may like to note Rebecca's web site, which states that it costs £25,000 to produce each edition.

There will be many readers of this blog to whom £1.50 per edition will be a small price to pay for quality journalism. If you are interested, please consider joining Rebecca here:

https://rebtest.ssl.subhub.com/subscribe

Remember: there's a reason why the press has historically always been the first target of undemocratic regimes. Support the free press!

Funny Handshake said...

VERY interesting! Well worth £1.50 to see some surprising names - including Anglesey councillors - who are masonic members.

Anonymous said...

Can we have that list reproduced on here please!

It is after all already in the public domain.

The Great Councillini said...

"Can we have that list reproduced on here please!

It is after all already in the public domain"

That would be a breach of Rebecca's terms and conditions, which is fair enough. If it's public information, then you should be able to find it, erm, in the public domain, shouldn't you?

I politely suggest that, given the groundbreaking investigative journalism that Rebecca is trying to revive, that a simple Paypal (you don't need an account) payment of £1.50 is very worthwhile, and it's not a rolling payment - just a one-off and you get a notice of all new editions as they come online.

Other stories in this first edition about police corruption are so good that they really do force even the most non-cynical person to wonder what on earth is going on in the establishment.

Groundhog Day said...

I've paid my thirty bob and well worth the money too is the first edition if only for the list of they who do funny handshakes and roll their trousers up in the name of secret squirrel societeis.

Anonymous said...

Rebecca.
Shear Excellence, professionalism at its best.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that Rebecca appears now. I wonder if it indicates some cyclical phenomenon of poor local government? If the men in charge were about 50 in the mid-1970s, then add 15 years to that takes you to their retirement - and about 1990. New men take over, probably late 30s to early 40s in age, settle down for a few years, become complacent. Hey presto! You reach the mid-to-late 2000s, when their antics become a bit too obvious for their own comfort.

Mind you, it probably doesn't wash for Anglesey, as it's always been a dark ages council, run by despots.

Anonymous said...

We knew all along the Masons ran this Island and they run us now!

Make the nearest masonic lodge your legitimate target, see who goes in, see what they do, see how they will DESTROY you!

Anonymous said...

The masons are the ABUSERS of the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT.

Anonymous said...

Most of them are in the PLANNING DEPARTMENT, watch out, if they want your land, they will get it!!

Anonymous said...

They all love screwing welsh people, welsh families, beware the masons!

Anonymous said...

MASONIC PARANOIA ??
Take it from me as one who knows...I was one for a short period, but was soon bemused, and left. They revel in useless mystery and puerile boy scouts-like ritual....meaning nothing at all.
The Club for social-climbing wannabees....they have absolutely no influence on anything...you might as well join the Buffs, or Round Table....or even the Young Farmers.
So lets not elevate Masonry to anything above a mildly amusing group of sad black anoraks, carrying little satchels and wearing leather aprons and a lot of bling ?
Non Entities.

Anonymous said...

If only it were that simple.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's time for the Rebecca rioters to be reformed and to start protesting about the unfair treatment of the people of Anglesey by the Council? We have no Toll gates to destroy, maybe we should look for other symbols of tyrrany!

Anonymous said...

19.54 Interesting.
Not a tweet from our masonic non-entity brethren with shaven legs..

Anonymous said...

Look no further 15:04.
The Kremlin on the Cefni is more than a big enough symbol.

Anonymous said...

So mote it be ?

Anonymous said...

Druid....13th Aug 20.57 should be removed.
Incitment to violence should not be akin to your good pages.


AI

The Druid of Anglesey said...

09:50 - It has now been deleted.

Anonymous said...

Anglesey county council planning committe strike yet again. Having fought an issue together with my fellow residents and community council for the last 14 months the planning committe have voted against their own officers to give permission for an industrial shed in a residential area in a dangerous location (traffic wise) and refused permission for the objectors to speak or appeal during the cooling off period before finalising the decision. What happened to the right to speak? Rumour has it that Clive McGregor spoke against it so is this the reason the committe voted for it? In fighting rears its head again.
Patricia

Anonymous said...

Patricia at 11:50
What was the Planning Application Number.

Anonymous said...

17th August 11:50.
If the Committee voted to approve against officers recommendations then we need to look very closely at the committee and who voted to approve and their reasons why.

What is the application number?

Patricia said...

the application number is 26C100A

Anonymous said...

Thanks Patricia.

Anonymous said...

26/C/100A.
This is one of the most blatant attempts to obtain planning permission for a building that is going to be used for something other than that applied for this year. The Officers were right to oppose this sham.

This application must now go back to the Planning Committee in September to ensure that the correct conditions become part of the Approval.

Can't think what the Planning Committee were thinking of, but will be watched on this one with great care.

Anonymous said...

Which councillor is the elected one for the 26C/100A patch ?

Anonymous said...

17:07.
It is funny you should ask that.

Cllr Clive McGregor..

Local said...

Clive McGregor called this application in to the Committee on the grounds that there was "local opposition" Why.

As the officers wanted to refuse it anyway, why was their a need for a call in if Cllr McGregor had the interests of his constituents concerns at heart?

Sinks to high heaven.

Anonymous said...

What do you expect.

When we see the Director Of Legal Service/Monitoring Office making a fraudulent planning application and then failing to adhere to planning conditions, which Clive McGregor has taken an active part in covering up. What do you expect?

The further you go up the ladder the more dishonest they get.

Anonymous said...

Question.
When making a Planning Application there is a requirement under the, Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 Article 7 to inform the Planning Authority who the owner of the land is.

This is done on Form 21 Certificate A.

In the Lynn Ball's application she certified that: "On the day 21days before the date of the accompanying application nobody except the applicant was the owner of any part of the land which the application relates"

This declaration was made on 11th May 2003 with the Planning Application yet the Land registry shows that Lynn Ball, did not become the owner till 04.07. 2006. some three years after she declared the ownership to be hers for planning purposes.

Why be so deceitful and find it necessary to lie?

Anonymous said...

Her boy friend in her office is as bent as her. He's the one who has destroyed the Ombudsman's Independence by getting him to dance the Council's tune.

If I was him and the Ombudsman, I'd get out now before the the shit hits the fan big time.

Patricia said...

Thankyou for your comments and support. I together with other residents have employed a planning consultant to speak on our behalf on the 1st Sept. any other ideas would be appreciated.

Anonymous said...

Patricia.
The Planning Committee Agenda will be out shortly, application 26/C/100A will be listed for it's final hearing following it's approval against Officers Recommendations last time.

There is no reason, as the applicant was allowed the opportunity to speak on the application, why a member of the public or their agent should not be allowed like wise at this hearing.

However, you must be warned. You are dealing with Anglesey County Council, which is perceived to be as bent as they come.

Patricia said...

Our agent will be allowed to speak on the 1st Sept. We are first on the agenda. I am horrified therefore to find that it is common knowledge that the application has already been granted and that the applicant is ready to commence work. Your comments are well founded. Even if the application is upheld I intend to fight every case of coruption in the future. They dont call me a jack russel for nothing!

Benllech said...

Patricia.
You should talk to Cllr Durkin, not only is he ace at roughing out CORRUPTION, but he's the only County Councillor with the bottle to take the cretins on, and stay on.

Anonymous said...

The Agenda for the next Planing Committee on the 1st of September is now available.
Members had resolved to approve the erection of a portal frame building for the storage and maintenance of agricultural tractors and implements at Tan y Coed, Marianglas, contrary to Officers recommendations. In accord with with the council's constitution, the application is again being presented to members, so that they can consider their resolution which is again being recommended by Officers for refusal.

The minuets of the last meeting show that although Cllr McGregor called the application in to Committee because of local concern he did not argue a case on their behalf. What he did do is sit on the fence SAYING:
"The main concerns of the local people are based on the use of the site. The application is for a large building and there is concern that the building may be used for commercial purposes".adding "That he had expressed the local views and WOULD ACCEPT ANY DECISION THE COMMITTEE WOULD REACH"!

Now is that not the cop-out of the year? He certainly wasn't there to represent his constituents, that's for sure.

Patricia said...

Again, why am I not surprised? At every step of the way people (including my local councilor) have offered support and then back tracked. One wonders why???? I have been told twice today, once by a close friend of Mr. Richardson after he called me a liar and a trouble maker and suggested that the village would be a better place without me in it. I have told no lies and only stood for what I believe is right and proper. The second by an uninvolved person that the planning consent is a foregone conclusion and that ANYTHING we do is a waste of time and money because the application is a foregone conclusion. Councilor McGregor will be unable to attend as he returns the day after the meeting.

Anonymous said...

This application was set for approval long before it went to Committee.
Why did Clive McGregor call it in to committee when he knew that officers were going to refuse it under there delegated powers.
The calling in of this application by Clive McGregor aided the applicant to get the result he wanted. and it stinks.

The recommendation by the Officers' to refuse was for very good reasons, yet again we see the blatant disregard for policy being brushed aside against the public interest making a mockery of the Planning Committee and all it's members.

They will have the opportunity to redeem themselves next Wednesday, but I bet they Don't.

Anonymous said...

If a local member is unavailable to speak on behalf of his or hers Constituents, particularly if that local member called the application in, then you can ask a member from another constituency to represent you.

Patricia said...

Today is the day for planning application 26C100. Not holding my breath for fair play. Still one can live in hope that just once things will work out as thay should! Wish us luck.

Patricia said...

Just back from the planning meeting and no prizes for guessing the outcome.It was approved 5 for and 4 against. With one breath they were saying that no trees etc would be cut and the next saying that area would be cut to improve visibility to the main road. Part of the consent had a proviso that no commercial work would be carried out, we are all aware that this condition can be overturned at any time once the building is erected. I was amazed to see the committee members approaching the applicants prior to the meeting and shaking their hands. Is this classed as lobbying? Can anyone tell me, is there a right to appeal, is there any where else to go or do we roll over and grin and bare it?

The Red Flag said...

You would at this stage I suggest be best advised by someone who is a practitioner in local planning laws. It might cost you £100 for an initial consultation, but you will know where you stand legally and what your chances of success are and how much oit is likely to cost you if you lose.

Patricia said...

Thankyou red flag. I already have taken this step and am told that the decision cannot now be over turned. I can however take it to the proper authorities if I consider anything improper to have taken place. Knowing and proving is something else. Watch this space!

Anonymous said...

Patricia.

If any of the members of the planning committee were involving themselves in anyway with the Applicant prior to the Meeting and then failed to declare an interest at the meeting then that is a serious breach of the Councillors Code of Conduct and should be reported.

Patricia said...

Thankyou for your comment, duly noted and actioned.

Anonymous said...

Patricia.
If members of the Planning Committee are corrupted by another member of that committee by his/her failure to declare an interest, then there is a case for the Planning Authority to consider taking action and not send the decision notice out until a full inquire has taken place.

Patricia said...

thankyou, can you help me a little more please. Is it reason enough that councillors approached the applicants representatives in council chambers PRIOR to the meeting and did not declare an interest.They were seen in conversation, laughing etc and shaking hands.

Anonymous said...

Patricia.
In taking into account the need to make decisions impartial, Councillors on the planning and orders committee should not favour or APPEAR to favour any person,company, group,or locality and should not declare which way they intend to vote in advance of the meeting. To do so without all relevant information and views would be unfair and prejudicial.

If the councillor feels that the public would believe He/She had been lobbied by an interested person then He/She should not take part in the debate, nor vote on the issue.

Anonymous said...

Patricia:

Just to clarify; Was this planning application passed against the recommendations of the IOACC planning officers?

This case sounds to me similar to the case in Llangefni, where an elderly woman complained about lack of privacy from AND dangerous road access to the property behind her house.

I beieve in this case it was the Ombudsman who overturned the planning permission.

Given the apparent similarities it may be worth writing directly to the head of the recovery board asking for them to review the decision in the light of the previously overturned application.

The matter for the recovery board to consider would be whether IOACC has reviewed AND amended their earlier procedures regarding accepting advice from planning officers and making full allowance of health and safety conditions for road users and local residents.

One for your legal/specialist advisor perhaps?

Anonymous said...

From what is transpiring, there appears to be evidence that predetermination has taken place or at the very least some members of the planning committee have given the perception that predetermination has taken place, either way they have broken the Code of Conduct. When we note who's involved should we be surprised.

As a matter of interest. How can the Portfolio Holder for planning Cllr John Chorlton also be a member of the Planning Committee. Is this not a conflict of interests?

Patricia said...

I am forever in your debt for your help in this matter. I am a lady of limited means so I think taking the matter to law will be out of question for me. I am however reasonably intelligent so intend to try and go it alone. IOACC planning officer did recommend refusal on both occasions. Where do I write to the recovery board, are they local? Many thanks again

Patricia said...

I have set the wheels in motion, emails have been sent, not come up with a contact for the recovery board yet, can anyone help?

Patricia said...

I received an e mail today from IACC stating that they did not consider my statement to be proof of pre-determination. Guess thats it folks? Info is with the ombudsman but perhaps I should not hold my breath. Feel a bit like David fighting Goliath.

Anonymous said...

Patricia:
The head of the Recovery Board is Professor Elan Closs Stephens (CBE)
Professor of Communications and Creative Industries at Aberystwyth University.

Her email is listed as:

ecs@aber.ac.uk

Hope this helps.

Anonymous said...

Patricia.
Its not IoACC place to tell you that your statement is not evidence of predetermination, its for them to investigate all the concerns including giving the perception of predetermination which in itself is a breach of the Code of Conduct.
However you are dealing with the most Corrupt Council in Great Britain who's senior officers according to Bowles are as white as the driven snow? need more be said?

Patricia said...

I received an e mail this morning from the obudsmans dept. who say that I have not yet exhausted all the correct proceedures for complaint. In view of your comments and the response that I am getting from IACC I am at a loss as to where I should go next.When the head of planning, highways and legal dept are involved, just who do you go to? Bowles hasnt even replied. Thanks for the recovery board add. I have sent an e mail to them today.

Anonymous said...

10.13 Patricia dear, you are flogging a dead horse. Give up and stress down ? Nothing you can do !

Broken ehearted Patricia said...

Breaks my heart. I hate injustice and corruption. I love this island and its people, they deserve better than this bunch. The unit will go ahead, people with money to throw at the council will win again. SO WHATS NEW? Will it never end? will we ever get a council that will fight for its people and not its own twisted and corrupted ends?

Anonymous said...

PLANNING !!
The problem is that people, lay people, just do not understand the rationale and raison detre of our planning system....it is a complicated system with law a yard long on the shelf.
If every nimby had his/her way, nothing would ever get built.
The system is fair and lawful and has enough checks and balances.
Anyone who feels aggrieved should engage timely professional help...such help can often stop an undesirable development, but not always.
BALANCE IS THE KEY WORD.

Patricia said...

I am a lay person but NOT a nimby, this application had you studied it has serious safety issues. The access/egress is very dangerous (had a safety audit carried out). Had the community council and the planning officer advised acceptance of this application you would have heard no more about this issue from me.

Anonymous said...

I have seen the file.
When it comes to developments close to us, we are all nimby`s dear.

Anonymous said...

11.45
Dear Nimby

The issue is not now the building.
The issue is (yet again) the planning process and whether or not the rules have been followed properly.


;)

Patricia said...

My point! The building is now passed .. I accept that but the rules were not adhered to. The safety issue is not being addressed. I give you my word gentlemen, this access/ingress is frightening. Highways say they have no concerns, if someone is injured or God forbid killed, will they then say that it wasnt a matter of concern and that they had no prior knowledge. This is definatley not the case, they have been informed many times. And please, dont call me nimby (lol) my name as you are all well aware is Patricia (no doubt some of you read the H and A Mail.

Anonymous said...

Patricia 15.59
So your only concern is public safety on the highway, not your own interest ?

;) said...

17.10

Public safety is obviously ONE of Patricia's concerns.

Are you making assumptions that anything a person does has to be for self-interest?

Your posts have the whiff of red herrings.

Anonymous said...

17.38 We all have self interests....Patricia should answer for herself, TRUTHFULLY ?

Patricia said...

I will answer you TRUTHFULLY> when this started I declared my interest as was right and proper in the meeting I was attending. I took no part in the voting. The matter is closed, planning consent has been given but in the interest of safety and for the duty of care I have to other residents I think I can truthfully say this is not a case of self interest and I will fight against what I feel to totally wrong.

Anonymous said...

PATRICIA.
We like the sound of you, perhaps you should consider standing for the County Council in 2012 ??

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

Patricia: Please let us know if you get a response from Prof Elan Closs Stephens.

I'm thinking of writing to her myself and would like to know whether it's a waste of time or not.

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

Anglesey Council needs new blood....lets encourage anyone who is honest, with a reasonable IQ, and a community conscience.
The Druid Party is for you !

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

Patricia
Is wasn't to long ago when a leading Councillor was given planning permission based on a pack of lies by a Highways Officer showing no concern for road safety. I think Cllr Durkin resign as vice Chairman of the Planning Committee over it, in disgust.

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

Patricia - why are you baffling on about a safety issue with access, the road has remained the same for years has it not? Has there been a history of accidents there? No
From the paper the gentleman wants to keep antique tractors, not like they go out at all ours like a taxi cab.
Stinks of self interest to me

Anonymous said...

21:12
who do you think your kidding?
It will be used for all sorts of commercial servicing etc, just you see, never mind any conditions they can always be removed if the price is right.

Anonymous said...

See ynysmon.com Tonight.

Is this Anglesey County Council's 9/11 cometh?

Patricia said...

You are of course entitled to your opinion, thats what a democratic society is about. You are how ever wrong about the access. A section of road was closed after a bad accident on the brow of the hill and the access we are discussing is below the brow of the hill and therefore more dangerous. How can this be self interest when the permissions have already been granted? Perhaps you are speaking from a position of self interest? Perhaps you have a vintage tractor that will require shelter and servicing?

Anonymous said...

The only self interest here is that of the applicant .It is he who wishes to develop in an area unsuited for his plans not anyone else.

Patricia said...

I have made that point so many times. The complaint has been made, not yet acknowledged, all is quiet. A lull before the storm or will it just all die away in a wimper?

patricia said...

Still no word from the complaint, I am keeping an eye on the time frame. Its very quiet here, not used to the silence, have you all gone on holiday or is there just nothing worth talking about?

Patricia said...

Just an update. Complaint has been made. No confirmation received from officer. Checked planning file and from that I understand that permissions will not be sent out until complaint is investigated. Absolutely no word fron IACC, one would expect to be kept up to date.

Anonymous said...

Particia love, do not be surprised...its been kicked into the long grass....never to be seen again. Get on with your life ?

Patricia said...

Big smile ... oh dont worry .. I am getting on with my life but not giving in either. Getting ready to ex. my paintings in the electric mountain .. looking forward to that very much.

Anonymous said...

Good for you, wish you well....don`t obsess and vex too much about planning matters.

Patricia said...

Thank you for the good wishes. I really do think of other things besides planning (honest!) but I also think its important to see things thro to the proper conclusion (what ever it may be). If you do not fight for what you believe to be right then, they will always win wont they?

Patricia said...

Received a letter from complaints officer with the reply from Head of Planning andHighways. They say no comment to several points and answer some in a very vague manner. Highways think the road is safe tho to date no one in the area has seen any sight of an inspection being made. I have15 days to take the matter to level 2. Ah well, as I said in my previous comment .. right to the end.

Anonymous said...

03/10, 11.26
The "inspection" would have been an officer sitting in his car, with the plan on the dashboard,for all of 5 minutes ! Believe it.

The Red Flag said...

The "inspection" would have been an officer sitting in his car, with the plan on the dashboard,for all of 5 minutes ! Believe it

From knowing one I believe the technical term is a 'walk past'.

The housing office does the same when they assess whether a property qualifies for the amount of housing benefit being applied for.

retired highwayman said...

Patricia,

You claim the road is unsafe, however you need evidence, have you asked the Council for the accident records for the road. What is the volume of traffic on the road, has a survey been carried out?

What additional traffic would the development add to the road - it has to be significant. You would need to demonstrate that the road is unsafe, and that the proposed development would result in a significant increase in the volume of traffic, further adding to the likely danger on the road. And I mean daily, especially in the peak hours, and not just occasional movements.

These are general comments without in depth knowledge of the application you refer mention.

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

Highwayman - seems no one wants to answer all your valid points.

Agricultural tractors used for show purposes tend not to be used daily not even weekly

Patricia said...

Highway Man
Many thanks for your very helful comments they are appreciated. Sorry I havn,t responded earlier but I have not been well for a few days. I will take your comments on board and act accordingly.

Anonymous said...

Patricia
Your agent was not persuasive on the day, was he....you can always seek a Judicial review of the decision....if you have deep pockets !

Patricia said...

I really dont think that anything any one said on the day would have made much difference, the decision was made before the meeting convened. If you were there then I am sure you know what I mean. I dont have deep pockets, I receive only my pension but never the less I will fight to the best of my ability and within my means. Wonder woman Patricia stamping on corruption !!!! lol.

Patricia said...

We now proceed to stage 2 of the complaint. Quite a saga!

Patricia said...

Well I am waiting for the response to stage 2. Not sure what happens next but I guess all will be revealed.

Anonymous said...

This matter is now closed - thanks for all your concerns ;-)

Patricia said...

As a matter of interest .. who decides when a matter is closed? The matter is as yet still ongoing and will be closed when the complaint has been dealt with in a fair and proper manner. This is not yet the case.

TGC said...

"You claim the road is unsafe, however you need evidence, have you asked the Council for the accident records for the road"

This is interesting, because I've had the same debate with the Council. We live on a fast road with concealed access. Entering the main road is, by everybody's assessment of doing it, dangerous. No, there haven't been any accidents at this point, but there are very many near-misses, acts of ridiculous driving, driving at twice the speed limit during evening hours, and other aspects which clearly amount to a dangerous road.

But the Council rely on accident stats. In every sense, it means that people have to die before they will do anything. Accident prevention only comes when accidents have already happened. That's like saying 'we'll put a safety guard on the machine when someone's caught their hair in it'. In any other sphere of activity, this approach would not be tolerated.

Arrive Alive (now Go Safe) do much the same thing. They say they monitor known accident blackspots, yet they never appear on the north coast road between Bull Bay and Cemaes. Why is that? The Air Ambulance lands on this road to RTAs almost every week.

The latest I heard from the Head of Highways was that traffic survey updates were under threat due to cutbacks at the Assembly. They were still waiting for the money to be released a couple of months ago, even though promises had been made to local communities that the surveys would be undertaken.

Road safety is mired in politics and funding issues. Objective and reasonable it is not.

TGC said...

"We now proceed to stage 2 of the complaint. Quite a saga! "

Oh dear! You have very little chance of getting an objective assessment from the Council's own complaints procedure. For starters, it's not a finalised policy. Secondly, they always try to defend their staff, not properly examine the evidence and reached an unbiased conclusion. I say this from experience, as a complaint was rejected at stage 1, 2 and robustly dismissed under questioning by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman didn't support their view, however, and found maladministration to have occurred.

The feedback form is also biased - 'Very Satisfied', 'Satisfied' and 'Not Satisifed' - two positive outcomes and only one negative. That's bias. That's Anglesey Council.

Anonymous said...

What are you all talking about?

The council NEVER do anything wrong. No maladministration,no wrongdoing and certainly no dishonesty.
It's everyone else, don't you know that by now?

Anonymous said...

You know what? I do know it by now! Silly me, expecting responsible people in well-paid jobs to do things properly, fairly and impartially!

Patricia said...

Well! you got it right again! Rejected at stage 2 and now on to the ombudsman. Oh and I now have a right to see the risk assessment carried out on the road in question. And yes you are right about the Bull Bay to ...well to Holyhead road really. A dear friend was killed on the stretch of road you mentioned. Will keep you up to date altho I think we all know the outcome. Oh and the permissions have gone out to build the "small shed" even before the ombudsmans decision. How wrong is that?

Patricia said...

Well! you got it right again! Rejected at stage 2 and now on to the ombudsman. Oh and I now have a right to see the risk assessment carried out on the road in question. And yes you are right about the Bull Bay to ...well to Holyhead road really. A dear friend was killed on the stretch of road you mentioned. Will keep you up to date altho I think we all know the outcome. Oh and the permissions have gone out to build the "small shed" even before the ombudsmans decision. How wrong is that?

RapidSSL said...

Perfect just what I was looking for!