Friday, 25 February 2011

McGregor to Sargeant: "I do not believe that investing further money in the recovery process is justified"

A Freedom of Information request has now elicited the below letter which the Leader of Anglesey County Council, Cllr Clive McGregor, sent to Carl Sargeant, WAG Minister for Local Government, on January 24th -- the day he sacked two group Leaders from the Executive:

(NB: the names have been removed)24 Jan 11 CMcG to CS

77 comments:

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

There is only one route forward....McGregor please do the decent thing and fall on your sword.

Anonymous said...

Y mae'n amlwg y bod Clive McG yn ceisio codi problemau yno!

Cwestiwn arall yw pam felly y mae'r lle dal i fod o dan y "recovery board"? Mae'n hen amser i cael glanhau'r lle unwaith ac am byth!

Anonymous said...

Y ffordd orau i godi fwy o firri ydi cysylltu hefo Paul a gofyn iddo edrych i fewn i drigioni a rhoi nhw ar y blog!

Mae pawb wedi cael llond bol o darllen am miri mawr a miri bach, helynt Cyngor y Bradwyr,ond y bobol sy'n cario y poen, pwy sydd am dipyn o gacen Mon?

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

"He suggested that it would be in my best interest to go before a vote of no confidence was called for in the Council Chamber as some members would detail a catalogue of allegations against me"

This is a shocking statement. This culture must be stamped out.

It makes one wonder who is holding who to ransom and who is scratching who`s back.

I am shocked.

Anonymous said...

Ah well - The Circus has changed but the Clowns remain the same !

Anonymous said...

McGregor- the only genuine man there!

Anonymous said...

"The only genuine man there"?

What a crass ludicrous thing to say

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Fed up with the plank. said...

" For far to long, members of this authority have been content to put up with personality politics at the expense of serving the public".

Well pardon me for asking but what the hell doe's McGregor think he's doing?

Talk about Hypocrisy, what a nonsense this man is.

SheepMeister said...

Yay! Now what? Well, we might get an early election. But the sheep of Anglesey will vote the same idiots back in. Clever people who stand against them don't have a chance - Anglesey people like the friendly, welsh-speaking 'local'. Look where that took us.

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

Paul - why the redaction? The document has been made fully public without redaction. Councillors have to stand up to proper scrutiny.

Anonymous said...

Todays letters as with news papers and their contents become tomorrows toilet paper.

In a very short time it will be Clive Who?

Anonymous said...

Under investigation by the Information Commission for alleged breaches of the Data Protection Act.
Under Investigation for alleged breaches of the Companies Act.
Under investigation By the Ombudsman for alleged breaches of the Councillors Code of Conduct.
Not bad for the first three years in office having brought the Council to it's knees in the bargain.

Anonymous said...

Surely Clive McGregor, didn't really expect Councillor to stick to his outrageous and lawless, "Terms Of Engagement" once they realized that they were in line to get their back sides sued off. Or does he think he can walk on water?

Anonymous said...

how will putting bob parry and john chorlton in charge make things better? Things can only get Worse

the outsider said...

Labour and Plaid top brass apparently approved 'The Terms of Engagement'!!!

Anonymous said...

@"Y Photon"
Efallai fel yna cafwyd Paul (y Derwydd) y llythyr. Wedi ei dderbyn yn dilyn cais "Rhyddid Gwybodaeth" rwyf yn meddwl.

Mae "redaction" Adobe (neu beth bynnag y mae'n ddefnyddio) yn rhoi stribedi du, nid stribedi gwyn fel sydd yn y ddogfen yma.

Labour said...

Labour and Plaid top brass did nothing of the sort, in fact they condemned it and still do. Get facts right please.

Anonymous said...

I don't doubt that Labour and Plaid top brass opposed it, but if there opposition was 'solid' how come their councillors signed it?

Made opposing it a pretty sterile, irrelevant and pointless position.

Maes Llwyn said...

Further turmoil....this Council is an utter disaster, and disgrace.
Never in the UK has there been such a CIRCUS of a Council.
The Minister shouls call an immediate election AND BAR EVERY ONE OF THE 40 FROM STANDING.
Let there be no doubt, there are willing, intelligent, honest, no-baggage candidates out here ready to replace them !
Minister....over to YOU.

Anonymous said...

08:44
Your quite right and I total agree. The issue is not quite as simple as that though.

Here we have two elected members, one who has been a member of the council for many years and one who has only been a member since 2008, Both reported to the Ombudsman for allegedly breaching the Councillors Code Of Conduct by Mr David Bowles.

So why the need to demand the support from the Elected members?
What do the Elected Members know about the Complaint to give such support? What evidence have they been shown to show that the complaint is solid enough to succeed?

If David Bowles wished to make a complaint to the Ombudsman,he should stand by his own convictions, get on with it and stop trying to bully others into supporting him on something they are not a party to.

It's quite obvious that having signed the "Term of Engagement" with it's very offensive content they have realized the shocking implications and withdrawn.

On the other hand because they have done that, Clive McGregor, clearly not being familiar with decency,has taken to publicly abusing them and thats whats made him unfit to carry on.

Of-course as with many things there are other contributing factor of dark forces working here also, some of a very serious criminal nature. So I would suggest we consider. In who's interest is all this in?

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who thinks that the majority of the above comments were written by the same crank?

Probably the one who felt the need to SHOUT at 20.27 and who has been polluting this blog for ages now.

Anonymous said...

"Paul - why the redaction? The document has been made fully public without redaction. Councillors have to stand up to proper scrutiny"

I wondered about that too. I had a quick look at the usual suspects but couldn't quickly find an online copy - was there one? I'm reluctant to rely on educated guesses to fill in the blanks even though they'd probably be right.

"[...]the majority of the above comments were written by the same crank?"

If that were the case and it was done the lazy way (as such things often are), the blog owner would be able to tell very quickly.

Anonymous said...

10:27
If that all you've got to offer, don't bother.

In the Know. said...

The odd thing about all this is, whist Clive McGregor is demanding that Councillors toe his line and support his tyranny and continue naming , shaming,and condemning other Councillor because David Bowles has complained to the Ombudsman about them , he makes no mention of the Complaint to the Ombudsman about himself!

Now I would suggest thats the trait of a real nasty hypocritical so and so.

Groundhog Day said...

@Photon.
I'm sure that Paul has his reasons for redacting names from this document - if they were there at all when the document was released to him under FoI. Here's a suggestion, you have your own blog, why not get your own copy of the letter under FoI and publish the names on your own blog if they are not redacted on receipt. Show us what a man of the people you are Photon.

Anonymous said...

I have a distinct feeling that this Council will be taken apart soon, not by the Welsh Assembly, but by the people who put them there, if the people can do this in other countries, then surely we can do it here. This is the dilemma, the Councillors are unwanted, the Welsh Assembly interference is unwelcome, and the majority of the peope treat all of the Councillors as being unwashed.

In America, In Wisconsin, there was a massice rally and protest, the Police were called in, to stop the protest,an dended up joining them!
Who on Anglesey would protect this Council, if the protesters stood outside demanding it's dismissal?
Who, here would protect Mc Gregor?

It is NOT unlawful to protest, but it is unlawful to do NOTHING!

Mochyn Mon Ar Wasgar said...

I strongly suspect that much of the anti-Mc.Gregor posts we're seeing here are being posted by one or more fellow- travellers of the Usual Suspects. Anonymous and un-attributed, they follow their masters tried and trusted ways of doing business - win by fair means or foul. Diatribes that would make Gadaffi proud as he, and they, surely meet their just desserts!

Anonymous said...

There are postings here that are NOT attrituble to the Clowns we have as Councillors they are posted by people dedicated to Freedom from an oppressive regime, a regime built on greed and a slice of Anglesey Cake, their reason for postings are to defend the victims and to get at the heart of the abusers of Power, our only goal is to let the people know that we are campainging for them we are not interested in changing one bunch of Clowns for another, we are only interested in making sure that the welfare and the wellbeing of the people of Anglesey comes first.

Were not interested in a Yes vote for more powers for the Assembly, we are only interested in a Yes vote to get rid of this incapable Council.
The letter proves that they don't care about us only themselves, they don't care about the people, only their allowances, their legitimaticy as a Council is now Zero.

Insider said...

As an insider I can say that the majority of Councillors are honest, hard working people, who think nothing of turning out no matter what the time to help those they represent.

There is a small minority that have always been trouble and we all know who they are.

Following the 2008 elections Clive McGregor as a member of the Cabinet and as the leader of the Council up till February 2010 took it on himself with the help of others to clean the Council up. However, some time after David Bowles arrived he turned turtle stabbed his supporters in the back and joined up with the David Bowles, brush it under the carpet group and started attacking publicly, those he had done the dirty on.

This not only had a dramatic effect on the way the council was been run, but on the new image being created to show that Anglesey was shedding its image of being a rotten Borough.

Thats all out the window now and no matter how much Clive McGregor and David Bowles, squirms and slags everyone else off,let there be no mistake, there is only two people to blame and thats McGregor and Bowles.

Photon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Photon said...

@several:

From the copy of the 'officially' released document I've seen, the names are not redacted. It's Paul's prerogative not to publish, of course. In the end, I don't think it matters much, because we all know where this crap is heading.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone hear of an enquiry last Tuesday into allegations of fraud against the council by a leading Councillor?

Anonymous said...

No names ever get published, then the public get blamed for voting in the same old Councillor.
Nowt ever gets published in the local papers about what`s really going on. The majority of the public dont read these blogs. It`s just a vicious circle.

OneintheKnow said...

As one in the know I'm going to adapt a name suitable to my position and proceed to attack those that I don't like thus hoping that at least some gullible and foolish people think that I know what I'm on about and will therefore believe my crock of shite.Every little chuck of mud helps.


Just like the guy at 15 25

Anonymous said...

I think we all know what 15.25 is on about. The evidence has already been posted on this and other blogs.

Anonymous said...

17 28.(also 15 25 and all the 'crank' posts no doubt) You are entitled to an opinion. But evidence? In your own head matey.
As Simon and Garfunkle once sang
'A man will hear what he wants to hear and disregard the rest'

Anglesey Council Tax Payer... said...

Is it True ????-Bowles,The Board and The Commisioners may be on their way to Flint Council--(See Daily Post page 13 today)..At least with all thats going on in Anglesey our Elected Members agreed on the future but sensitive Budget Cuts/Council Tax....Well Bowles..is this another £1100 a day coming up ????

Sensible Daily Post Reader said...

To Anglesey Council Tax Payer 18;17....That will not be allowed to occur..Who is the A.M. for Flint ????...Oops Trouble at mill Carl ???

Anonymous said...

18.04 The same song could apply to you - No ?

Anonymous said...

No

Anonymous said...

15:25,18:04 & 19:30.
???????????????????????????????????

Anonymous said...

Dictatorship can never prevail.

The recent debacle of Clive McGregor and his Alliance is all down to his tyrant style leadership. I am right, all you are wrong, you will do as I say or I will publicly shame and undermine your good name.

Why is this nutter still in office? Why on earth is he allowed to continue trashing the good name of any Councillor he takes a dislike too?

Even in this weeks North Wales Chronicle, he naming Councillors. Maybe this is a case of criminal Harassment? Maybe the Councillors should Boycott all the Council Meetings until he's Gone altogether?

Carl Sargeant & David Bowles, you've got a lot to answer for.

Anonymous said...

Seems like one rule for McGregor and a different one for everyone else.

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

The Ombudsman will do nothing, his decisions have to go to the Welsh Assembly first for approval and political consent, don't have faith in that poodle called the Ombudsman, we need a rotweiller to sort out the mess.

Question How many members of the Council have relatives in the Ombudsman's office? The answer will surprise you all.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what we have learnt from this mess that we have encouraged and created?

Let me see, the Council is still in existance, but has been carved into two camps, the idiots and the halfwits. Two leaders have emerged as front runners, both interested in one goal, and forget thinking that it's the people and the Island they are bothered about, their goal, is to control everything, and the distrubition of the Anglesey Cake amongst themselves.


We have failed to stop the cancer spreading, we have allowed it to spread from one party to the next and they are all as bad as one another.

We can continue, we can write things down here for the next 12 months, but nothing will ever change, it's called indifference, to you and to me, the people don't care, the Council won't care, and the Welsh Assembly try to care, but get diverted, by infighting and the cutting up of the Anglesey Cake. What is this Cake?

The cake is the power, the power to get what ever they want, be it planning, perks, flights to and from Rugby matches, you name it, they get it, this is what the fight is about, they can't let the Cake go, and they don't want the people to know, what they have had and when, be it a massive house built on allowances, while the children struggle for school books, or be it the new car, that get's buried in a field, all we know is that for us to get rid of the Cake, we have to get rid of the whole Council, and how do we do that? Answers on a Postcard to

How do we get rid of this Council
The Druid
Llangefni
Anglesey.

The Red Flag said...

I keep saying this, the only way to stop this is to force the whole council to stand down and bar every councillor past and present from ever standing as a councillor at any level.

It's a shame and some good councillors will have to be dispensed with in order to get rid of the bad ones but there is literally no alternative. If there were an election tomorrow most of the current councillors would be returned, in some cases probably unopposed.

But as foir the 'good councillors' that doesn't include any who have knowledge of what was going on but have not said anything publicly. Which means there are literally probably only a handful of good councillors because to know and say nothing means you are not just as bad - you're worse.

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

I think we are lucky to have a Photon Blog, a Druid Blog and Ynys Mon.com They don`t have to engage.
That`s only my opinion.

Bog Off said...

18:15.
If you don't like it just BOG OFF.

Anonymous said...

I entirely agree with your sentiment and fully support your right to the opinion.

However, this Photon does engage (when it suits)Certainly much more than the Druid does and I can't comment on the third as I don't read it.

Transparency and openess is a one way street it seems.If he has had a problem with threats etc then fair enough but to lump all challenges with that is not conducive to having a full and frank discussion is it.

Again I reiterate that this has bearing on this blog as that is the sort of thing others are accused of. It could all have stayed on his blog couldn't it.

Anonymous said...

Bog Off
Just seen your reply whilst I was typing. Thos ethat don't like people like Mubarek, Gaddafi etc can Bog Off as well can they. They are 'not the same as us' so they can Bog Off

What a funny man you are. Must have rolling in the aisles.
No doubt you aren't really the cretin that you portary yourself as being.

Bog Off said...

18:56.
"No doubt you aren't really the cretin that you portray yourself as being".

Certainly hope not.

Anonymous said...

Good lad but get someone to take that spade off you.
Your comments remind me of those kids who used to hover on the edges of altercations and sneak in with a sly kick.Or those who would stand far away and hurl an insult. There's a name in welsh for them but I can't quite remember it.Oh, I see my WV is exactly what I have in mind. Dandin
Now, run along, the adults want to talk. There's a good lad.

Anonymous said...

Any chance of indicating what was wrong with the 18 15 post, Paul.

Bog Off said...

19:34
Sarcastic gob-shit.
Now Bog Off.

Anonymous said...

"Sarcastic gob-shit.
Now Bog Off."

See? You've now gone and worked yourself up into a lather and all because you decided to have that sly little kick.

(It's gobshite by the way)

Bog Off said...

20:00
I rest my case.

Anonymous said...

I rest my case


Just as well cos it was dowhill all the way from your first snidey comment wasn't it.

Prometheuswrites said...

The paper trail details what has happened in the past.

This post on the Camarthenshire Planning Problems blog shows something of what is one of the current underlying issues with local democracy/authorities.

"Recording Council Meetings - The Response"

http://carmarthenplanning.blogspot.com/2011/02/recording-council-meetings-response.html

I think it's something to do with 'transparency'

Anonymous said...

Who in their right mind would want to lead IoACC at the moment?

The former leader Fowlie ended up on the operating table and Clive has aged ten years in his term.

Also, paying Bowles film star wages is an outrage and what exactly does Paddy Gibbon expect him to deliver?

It's no different to paying a Premiership Football Manager stupid money to manage Llangefni FC.

AH

Anonymous said...

Cover-up merchants can now be prosecuted under Section 3 of Fraud Act 2006.

In lamen terms, it's a criminal offence to conceal a financial crime regardless if you were involved or benefited from the crime.

A prime example would be an auditor who misrepresents financial data with intent to distort the truth.

AH

Prometheuswrites said...

While the problems bedevilling Anglesey Council have been with us since before 1997 the big question this week is how to vote in the coming Referendum.

As I’ve posted before, the issue for me is one of scrutiny.
David Davis (Conservative Monmouth) gave this as his reason for voting ‘No’.

His argument was that while the current system took time that there was a lot to be said for not rushing legislation through and that the current arrangement meant that new laws for Wales would be scrutinized by about 1500 elected members (both houses at Westminster) as opposed to 40 (soon to be 30 AM’s in Cardiff).

This BBC article: “What will Wales powers referendum result mean?” (Roger Scully) predicts some possible outcomes.

For a Yes Vote:

1. If Wales votes Yes, the assembly could then pass laws without first having to gain the consent of Westminster. - What is done with those powers, though, will depend greatly on the outcome of May's election, and any coalition negotiations that may follow.


2. Second, taken together, a more powerful Welsh assembly and the Westminster government's planned reduction in Welsh MPs from 40 to 30 would likely produce a distinct shift in Wales's political centre of gravity. What goes on in London would still matter for Wales. But rather more of Welsh political life would tend to focus on Cardiff Bay.


3. Third, some consequences of a Yes might extend well beyond Wales. A more powerful Welsh assembly would reduce, though not eliminate, the asymmetries in devolution across the minority nations of the UK. This might lead to a renewed focus on devolution's major remaining anomaly - the position of England. (i.e. The ‘Lothian Question’ – why should Scottish/Welsh/NI members have a say on what happens in England if English MP’s don’t have a say in what happens in the devolved areas of power in Scotland/Wales/NI?)

For a No vote:

1. The emerging consensus among Wales' political elite in recent years has regarded devolution as a developing process, with steadily growing - though not fervent - public support. A No vote would shatter this consensus, and indicate that it had been based on fundamentally flawed assumptions. The very existence of the assembly would be questioned, and there would likely be calls for a referendum on its abolition.

Prometheuswrites said...

Now my problems with this are firstly that I’m faced with a dilemma (Yes or No?) rather than a choice (what do I/you want?) If I don’t want either or a bit of both then I’m denied a say in how my democratic licence is exercised.

Secondly (In the words of Gil Scott-Heron “Mandate my ass”); I don’t know what will happen to my vote if I abstain (don’t vote) or spoil my ballot paper (write ‘none of the above’ on my voting slip).
When the Assembly was formed it was done with a Yes vote from 25% of the electorate – (i.e. 75% of the electorate did not vote for a Welsh Assembly) and I don’t want to see further powers granted on the wishes of a small percentage (<50%) of the electorate.

Thirdly I have to question why, when much of the world is up in arms, (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Jordan, Oman, Bahrain, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, China, (and Croatia & Wisconsin – USA), over representative democracy, is Wales headed in the opposite direction? – See ‘Yes’ point 2 in the previous comment – with the centralisation of power in Cardiff.

Or to put it another way; Anglesey council has 40 members, The Welsh Assembly has 40 members. Would Anglesey residents vote to give Anglesey council greater law making powers without independent scrutiny? (I do accept the difference that there is a party system in WAG that would allow wayward AM’s to be ‘disciplined’), but that doesn’t guarantee what may happen in the future.

So I’m not saying Vote ‘Yes’ or Vote ‘No’ – just that I think the wrong questions are being asked and that the real issue is being sidestepped.

The Red Flag said...

I'm voting YES.

The reason? Because a NO vote or an abstention is a vote to keep things as they are. A YES is a vote for change - whether it will be the right change remains to be seen but at least it will change whereas we know as it is it is failing.

Incidentally When the Assembly was formed it was done with a Yes vote from 25% of the electorate – (i.e. 75% of the electorate did not vote for a Welsh Assembly) is a flawed argument. Most people couldn't care less either way hence why they didn't vote. It's only the ones who vote that count.

Same as General Elections, Blair won one - with a majority - with only 22% of the available electorate. By your argument 78% didn't vote for him. So who should run the country then? Biggest 'vote' went to no-one, so should no-one run the country? Proposal to bring in AV and the same people complaining about Blair winning with so low a vote complain that they don't want AV (Tory), and proposal to balance the constituencies to produce fairer proportion (Labour against).

We have to have a result in this referendum and if people can't be bothered to vote then it moeans they don't care either way so whoever gets the most votes cast will be the winner - end of. And it will be a low turn out and the yes's will probably take it by a whisker. I'm probably one of only half a dozen people in Wales who have read the rubbish put through my letterbox. The YES leterature is poor. The NO literature is laughably pathetic and whoever wrote it should be shot.

PrometheusW said...

Red Flag:
What you quoted me saying wasn't an argument (flawed or otherwise), just a statement of the facts.

If a political principle is worth voting under then it is a matter of being consistent with the principle that counts; and using a rationale disguised as pragmatism doesn't do the principle justice.

As you point out in your last two paragraphs, what we have got isn't working and unless you believe that what we have is the best it's possible to get, then it has to change. (Voting No would probably change things too, according to Scully)

As someone remarked a while back "maybe it isn't society that's broken, its government" gave me food for thought ... the result of which can be read in the comments I made over on Photons blog posting today.

I'm not disagreeing with you as you will probably be proved correct in your prediction, after all there's a world of difference between what is and what could be.

PS. How about making voting a legal requirement (like in Australia) and then including the abstentions and spoiled voting slips in the results?

The Red Flag said...

I don't believe voting should be compulsory. What should be compulsory is attendance at a polling station to collect your ballot. Whether you choose to use it, spoil it or dispose of it in a shredder positioned at the station should be your choice. It's interesting that Australia moved to this position because turn-out fell to 60% - something we rarely see except in General Elections. And our GE elections - although recovering slightly - have been in decline since post 1992. Postal voting needs limiting (I lived in Oldham for a few years, the open abuse is incredible despite what the politicians chose to believe) and I would limit it to the registered disabled, services overseas and pensioners. Who else needs it? Perhaps moving polling to saturday and sunday would improve turn-out - doubt it though, people just don't care anymore and I don;t see anything other than compulsory attendance getting levels up to above the 75% mark - a level that gives genuine credibility.

It is a fact that 'couldn't give a toss' is the largest choice in General Elections and an outright majority in nearly every other poll. What 'couldn't give a toss' fail to realise is by not voting they have opted out of being taken into consideration let alone seriously - you can be part of the process or deliberately exclude yourself from it.

Anonymous said...

"there is a party system in WAG that would allow wayward AM’s to be ‘disciplined’"

Help me out here. What has party discipline (presumably on party matters) got to do with holding representatives accountable to basic qualities like honesty, competence, diligence, and the avoidance of (appearance of) conflict of interest, as required by the Nolan principles?

The main (only?) reason parties matter is so that people have a bit of a clue about what they're voting for. And that didn't exactly work well with Cameron and Clegg and their Millionaire's Cabinet. Twenty-odd millionaires implementing policies unheard of this time last year, policies to benefit... Millionaires.



"In the words of Gil Scott-Heron “Mandate my ass”"

I wasn't expecting to see that here. I don't know why not, it's still entirely appropriate - particularly appropriate given the current Millionaire's Cabinet.

Anonymous said...

Short version of 22:25 (with link)

"Representative democracy my ass".

Twenty-odd tax-dodging millionaires in the Millionaire's Cabinet is neither representative nor democratic. (Is it, Druid?)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1280554/The-coalition-millionaires-23-29-member-new-cabinet-worth-1m--Lib-Dems-just-wealthy-Tories.html

Anonymous said...

Cracking front page by today's Daily Mirror.

Westminster Council has now made it an offence to sleep on the street and even worse has made it an offence (even for charities) to feed the homeless.

Who said the tories had changed. Still despicable once you scratch the surface. Bit like them lizards off 'V'.