As per all programmes about Ynys Môn it includes the obligatory pseudo-Celtic, mystic-sounding music and comments about "voices from the past", etc. However, beyond the cliches, it also included some interesting information. For example the fact that the combined cost to the Anglesey council tax and business rates payer for the "recovery" (including David Bowles salary, the costs of the recovery board, etc.) is running at around £1 million a year... a staggering sum.
Steve Thomas, Chief Executive of the Wales Local Government Association, described what sets council politics in Anglesey apart from that in the rest of Wales:
"Whats unique about it is the visceral nature of it in Anglesey. While there are people in councils throughout Wales who undertake vigourous debate, it doesn't quite degenerate into the level of personality politics that occurs on Anglesey. So the result of that is that is not unique but the depth and level of the politics up there does have a special character."
Prof. Elan Closs Stephens, chairperson of the WAG appointed Anglesey Recovery Board, made it fairly clear that she wants to avoid having the council run by Commissioners from Cardiff:
"My view, and that of the Board, is that we haven't reached the commissioner stage. I think there is still a lot of good will, still a desire to get things resolved. Commissioner stages are very difficult stage for councils because what you are doing is stripping away not only the councillors from from their democratic elected rights, but your actually stripping the Island & the people of the Island from being democratically represented and thats a very serious thing. I wouldn't wish to go there if possible."
The strangest part of the programme, however, was quite a long section on the Bodffordd Biodigester controversy. Bizarrely the BBC cites the Council's steadfast refusal to engage with huge local opposition regarding the plans to site a Methane Biodigester at Bodffordd as an example of the quality of the Council's services. Yes, you read that right: the fact that the council "didn't cut and run", as the BBC man put it, in the face of the local campaign against the plant apparently proves that the Council provides good services. Huh? Personally the Druid views the Council's decision to approve the siting of a Biodigester in Bodffordd as a prime example of the Council completely getting it wrong.
Anyway, you can listen to the whole programme on iPlayer here.
132 comments:
If the Recovery Board is so apparently reluctant to assume control, when/if the Alliance fails, as it inevitably will, that is a very bad signal for them to send...it makes clear to those obstructing progress that all they have to do is sit back and snipe from the wings, and get away with it.
I believe the RBd needs to be far more robust...are they afraid they are not up to the task I wonder ?
The tenor of this blog is that many people here are quite prepared to have democracy suspended, in favour of temporary autocracy, to rid the Council of its cancer.
Democracy can return when we have competent new members, after an election ?
Message to the Board : DO NOT SHIRK YOUR DUTY ??
BoF.
More BBC bollox here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/10607810.stm
BTW BBC, the Roman invasion was nearly 2000 years, not 1500 years.
Did you see Rich Hall's programme on lazy cliches and the Deep South last night?
Why the emphasis on the Bodffordd biodigester.....Anglesey`s woes are much greater than that small local issue !
There was at least one person in that programme that had clearly been drafted-in to speak-up for the Council. What was remarkable and unrealistic was the fact that he only spoke positively, and had nothing negative at all to say. All-too-typical of someone who wants something and might get a bit more.
Interesting, but could have been a hell of a lot more thorough and far-reaching. Entertainment, rather than investigation.
Anon 12:07 - Anglesey's woes are indeed much greater, but I mention the Bodffordd Biodigester as it is discussed at some length in the programme as an example of IoACC competence.
DRUID...competence..or incompetence, I have not seen the programme.
It is said today that Plaid have withdraw from the Alliance?
Peter Rogers came over very well. He emphasised the costs aspect of bringing in the recovery board and the MD.
According to the figures on the programme, the MD's salary alone is 1% of the annual expenditure of the coucil (£100M).
A second point of interest was that David Bowles MD did not feature on the programme: - an astute move on his part, as you can't be held to account for what you haven't said.
It would also appear that the company wanting to build the bio-digester paid for and did the leg-work for the legal case, with the council legal department 'being very helpful'.
I'm not sure, but aren't the legal department meant to represent 'the interests of the people'? I'm not sure that assisting a private company in a legal case against the local populations wishes is a wise move.
However listening to the man speaking on behalf of the biodigester company, it did seem that he had gone down the right channels at the economic development unit.
What they (the biodigester Co.) have appeared to have missed is that any projects that will have an significant impact on the local population and environment, (e.g. noxious smells and airborne micro-particulate matter) must under EU law go to public consultation - the same law that covers the Niwbwrch Forest clearances.
14.15
The decision to approve the biodigester had undergone substantial scrutiny as part of its planning application...its what the planning system is designed to do, after all.
The planning authority would have consulted widely, including EAW, the Council`s environmental health section, and CCW probably.
There was no planning or public health reason to refuse the application.
Mere perceived, but not proven, public worries of environmental threats, are inadmissible in planning decisions...at least they should not carry much if any weight.
Then JAJ took it upon his own shoulders to appeal the approval, by judicial review....Michael Farmer refused it....then the Cardiff High Court judge also refused it, having scrutinised the decision-making process flawlessly.
Conclusion : no procedural impropriety ! End OF.
BoF
ps. JAJ will have to face the substantial costs, not only of his own side, but the Developer`s, and IACC.
I hope, in the interest of the rate payers of Anglesey those costs have being claimed within any time limit if there is a time limit, that is.
Concerning Prof.ECS`s comments on the BBC, we may wonder and worry whether she has the time or the stomach to chair the recovery Board if/when it converts to a Commissioners Board.
Just take a look at her CV, and the mile-long list of public appointments she holds..a busy lady.....no-one can effectively carry out the task at IACC with so many distractions.
Impossible. We would expect the chair to be full time !
The need to do something if it doesn't get taken over how long will it be before it descends into more chaos than it is now, they're not doing us any favours by letting it run and run, the council are doing a great dis-service to the people of Anglesey, they should be ashamed to take our money, but I suppose they're that hard faced it doesn't bother them
BoF:
Apologies if I am in error.
I was working on the assumption that, if a localised protest group organised a judicial appeal, that that in itself would indicate that those people felt that they had not been listened to, or their concerns had not been adequately addressed in the consultation process.
My initial comment was prompted by the lack of mention, on the radio programme, of the people living in surrounding community.
To my ears it sounded like the biodigester company went to the council economic development, planning and legal department and said "We've got a good idea for a business. Where can we site it?"
I can't recall hearing any mention on the radio programme of a consultation with the local community. And the report of the radio programme was my focus.
Truth to tell, I don't know the in's and out's of the biodigester application, apart from what I've read on here. Personally I'm fully supportive of business idea's especially ones that can capitalise on recycling.
If I were personally concerned I'd be asking who the company was owned by ("we support local business" - said on the programme) and what the sources of capital were for the project. I'd also want to know what the local communities initial concerns were(if any), and how any concerns were addressed and accounted for in the consultation.
I say this above, remembering how 'ynysmon developments' (or somesuch) the company wanting to develop the llanfairPG site were based in Liverpool, (or so I believe); and how so often 'public consultation' is treated as a tick-box afterthought to decisions that have long been rubber-stamped.
The biodigester case shows what a utter mess Anglesey CC can get themselves in to just chasing after any old scheme.
remember Ty Mawr Llanfairpwll when they threw the planning policy book out of the window to back it.
This is of a similar magnitude and makes a mockery of local democracy,
1 - This will be built on council land at the Mona Industrial Estate, that they will sell to Gray's skips.
2 - A biodigester is supposed to serve a whole region, ie Gwynedd and Conwy not just Anglesey.
3 - Under planning ploicy TAN 21The biodigester is supposed to go where the waste production is highest, ie where the biggest population is, somewhere like Bangor, Caernarfon or Llandudno, not Bodffordd.
4 - WAG through a Quango have given the company £1.1m towards the scheme.
5 - gray's skips were using heavy duty PR company Strata Matix who are used by local authority's and the WAG.
6 - Whole process took less than 4 months from announcement to planning consent. Very speedy and just in time to stop JAJ talking at the planning meetings, which came into force this year.
7 - No Environment Impact Assessment, when other biodigester type schemes have had to get them, why not this one?
8 - Planning committee did not debate the application, just a quick show of hands.
All this stinks - as will Bodffordd once this monstrosity is built there
"no-one can effectively carry out the task at IACC with so many distractions. Impossible. We would expect the chair to be full time !"
And there you have 'the establishment' defined, dear friend. I couldn't agree more with your assessment of a diary so full. Is she a retired professor? If not, what are her students doing other than knocking on an empty office door?
"just in time to stop JAJ talking at the planning meetings, which came into force this year."
Yes, another fine example of how the Island of Island Island Council languishes in the Dark Ages; the majority of Councils have had this for years. Again, a contempt for and fear of the public is at the root of it.
A few comments on the above.
1. It matters not to a planning application who the applicant is.
2. It matters not if they are solvent, or not.
3. It matters not if their scheme is a white elephant.
4. The judicial review determined there had been no procedural impropriety in the decision-making process.
5. Whether JAJ could speak or not at the committee, for 3 minutes is irrelevant...he would have bombastically tried to blind them with science..as is his custom..it would have gone over their little heads...and in any event they would not support JAJ, of all people.
FACTS.
Lets move on with weightier matters, and let JAJ worry about how to raise the money for the fees of QC`s.
I recommend that we all google the members of the Recovery Board, for their credentials, and time-committments, or otherwise, for the task ahead of them !!
Since they will be in for the long haul.
Councillini and anon 18.53:
I would expect the MD to be full time.
I would expect the chair of the recovery board to attend, at the least, each monthly meeting of the recovery board and to have spent time reading the various reports.
Not knowing exactly what the remit and job descriptions of the recovery board are I really couldn't comment further.
Running a Council, especially a seriously failing one is hardly a matter of a monthly meeting...it is a daily, almost hourly responsibility.
I just wonder if the Recovery Board members have thought it through and do they have thetime to devote... or did they think the war would be over by Xmas ? Naive then.
BoF.
Although I have not seen the terms of reference of the Recovery Board it must be remembered that they where not appointed to run the Council, but to advice the Local Government Minister.
It would appear that the first stage was evidence gathering (observing meetings, interviewing Councillors etc) some of which was carried out by observers (From WLGA) on behalf of the Board.
In their March meeting they (the Recovery Board) said they would be moving to monitoring and analysing the progress made (or not made)
Maybe it would be useful if their terms of reference was published.
Lastly do not assume the Commissioners; should they be appointed, would be members of the Recovery Board.
Call me pedantic if you will, but there is only One Strait, therefore it is The Menai Strait-not straits.
strait (strt)
n.
1. Abbr. Str. or St. A narrow channel joining two larger bodies of water. Often used in the plural with a singular verb.
None of your comments have gone unnoticed nor has the Peoples Manifesto. Major changes will be taking place very soon and the real trouble makers will be gone.
In reality many of those changes were being empowered after the 2008 elections but were derailed by those with vested interests, hence the problems we have today, but not for much longer.
Instant reponse to the Manifesto??
Todays article in The Daily Post has Carl Sargeant calling for reforms across Wales in Local Government.
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2010/07/13/largest-welsh-law-yet-will-target-councils-shake-up-55578-26839079/
Here's another bone I like to gnaw on:
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2010/07/12/population-timebomb-is-ticking-for-north-wales-55578-26832080/
“This measure will take local government into the 21st century,” Mr Sargeant added.
Hmmm. It all seems like a whole load of populist nonsense to me.
One group of under-represented people not mentioned is 'those of above-average intelligence and integrity'. See if you can find one of them on your local council...
That 'Measure' (short of an Act) is a classic example of spin.
The WAG press release is almost entirely about getting a wider section of society involved in local politics.
Except, when you read the text of the approved 'Measure' (see: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/wales/mwa2009/mwa_20090002_en_1), it's clear that wider participation hardly figures and is just a very minor afterthought. Most of it is about tick-boxing to provide statistics to the Assembly on performance, most of which should be being measured already.
OK, maybe a need to tighten the measures already in place, and section sections 29-33 are useful and of great relevance to Anglesey's predicament (takeover measures). But do a search for the words 'accountability' and 'transparency', and you'll find essentially nothing.
So, Mr.Sargeant. A nice press release, but it seems very odd that you have spun this as a widening participation measure, and not as a government statistics measure. That said, we do hope to see the teeth of section 29 enforced, and you can try it out on Anglesey first!
07:45.
"See if you can find one of those on your local council" Implies. That none of the Councillors on the IOACC are above-average intelligence and integrity.
How wrong you are.
I see many bloggers commenting, but I would ask the question. How many have considered stand for election? and more to the point. How many even bother to go out and vote?
Has anyone read page eight of the Holyhead & Anglesey Mail today.
"Did Plaid leader urge Durkin investigations?"
Bob Parry and Clive McGregor have got real problems with this one.
If, as he admits, Bob Parry did meet with Barrie Durkin in Llanerchymedd. What was the reason for doing so, if not for what Barrie Durkin says?
I think this will show us all who the real trouble making liars are.
11.44
There is no doubt that they met, furtively, in a car, in a layby, in llanerchymedd...in ES`s local seat...to connive.
The ruling group at the time was hell-bent on getting rid of senior staff... not by paying them off...no indeed...by applying bully-boy tactics against them...to force them to go away.
I know.
The Holyhead and Anglesey Mail article (Further conflict within Anglesey Council 14/7/2010 by Elgan Hearn) raise important questions.
[Bob Parry said “I did meet Barrie in Llanerchymedd once but that was years ago and there certainly weren’t any tape recorders about.”]
Which if true the tape was recorded covertly and may be unlawful and may breach an individual's human rights. If this is true then Cllr Durkin has also implicated his solicitor, if he has a copy of the tape obtained illegally.
Or Cllr Parry is not telling the truth that he cannot recall the meeting being taped.
Can I suggest Cllr Durkin allows Elgan Hearn to listen to the tape to ascertain the truth. Hopefully for his part, Cllr Durkin can be heard asking Cllr Parry he has no objection to the conversation being taped.
As one of the councillors at the time, I know for a fact that Barrie Durkin met with Bob Parry in Llanerchymedd before he was elected and I know exactly why.
Following that meeting Barrie Durkin Wrote to all councillors on the subject. There is also correspondence between Barrie Durkin and the Managing Director of the time, Derrick Jones.
In fact apart from the tape recording, there's quite an Audit trail that tells all.
When it comes to who's telling the truth here. My monies NOT on Bob Parry or Clive McGregor.
Interesting information Insider.
I doubt anybody is disputing whether the meeting took place, which you imply took place prior to the 2008 elections.
The question I pose is did Cllr Parry give his permission for the conversation to be recorded ?
The answer hopefully can be found on the tape. Someone is not being truthful, I make no comment on who, but now the matter has been made public, the public has a right to know who that person is.
In the Daily Posts job vacancies on Anglesey - two ads, one for Senior Technical Officer and one for Scrutiny Officer.
Changing of the guard or reinforcements?
(Michael Caine in pith helmet turns to camera - "Druids, bloody thousands of them")
One of the things that worry me is Clive McGregor's tone, his constant references to the Authority process in preparing a number of serious complaints against Cllr Durkin in relation to his unacceptable behaviour!
I have yet to see any evidence of Cllr Durkin's, unacceptable behaviour. I would also suggest that if a complaint was to be made to the Ombudsman, what ever the merits. The complaint would have been so prejudiced by Clive McGregors behaviour, that it would have to be thrown out.
My monies NOT on Bob Parry either.
If Bob Parry and Clive McGregor are telling lies their positions are untenable and must go. The same goes for Cllr Durkin.
But if what 13:10 has to say is true and no doubt we will see very soon, I know who they will be.
I well recall BP at about the time Derrick Jones was pushed, being asked...who is next...and can you as a council afford it...to which he memorably replied:
"There are other ways of getting rid of them."
This was early after the Fowlie & Co.ruling group took power.
Their agenda was covertly to be rid of several senior officers.
Little wonder there was friction and mistrust between officers and members.
Hence, conniving and plotting !
Sanctimonious chapel-going Councillors pray on their knees on Sunday....and prey on their enemies the rest of the week !
Cllr Durkin has uncovered one hell of a hornets nest, and they don't like it. All they wanted was for him to expose just the ones they wanted exposing for their own wicked agenda, but the whole things back fired.
They should have realised, Cllr Durkin does not work like that. He's to honest and open to involve himself in such gutless behaviour.
As what's being said before, I also know where my money is.
16.47
IF (IF) what you claim is correct, why does BD not bring it ALL out into the open, and be done with it, once and for all, instead of behaving like a cat that`s caught a mouse, and is playing with it.
This drip-drip nonsense is doing no-one any favours.
BD has a PUBLIC DUTY to reveal ALL that he knows...this is not some sport !
Why did Bob Parry not report Lynn Ball's breaches of her planning conditions, instead of getting someone else to do it? After all it all happened on his patch. Is it because the residents in his wards were not happy with the development and because a lot of Lynn Ball's family live in his ward, he did not want to upset them?
talk about gutless.
17.12
Spot on, friend.
Why do the dirty work yourself (and lose votes in Gwalchmai) when you have a keen and enthusiastic volunteer, from the other side !
Typical Bob.
Don't talk tripe 16:56.
Why don't you ring Barrie up and when you have come back and tell us what he say's In fact better still email him and then you can post his response.
01248-689183 OR EMAIL barrie.durkin@btinternet.com
Whist your at it do the same with Bob Parry and lets see who is the open and transparent one.
17.18
Asking BD to do his public duty to expose any abuse by fellow Members is hardly tripe....its a reasonable expectation of a public representative.
Why is he holding so much back I ask ?
But I agree that BD has more transparency than BP, who is notoriously slippery (not a compliment).
17.18
Asking BD to do his public duty to expose any abuse by fellow Members is hardly tripe....its a reasonable expectation of a public representative.
Why is he holding so much back I ask ?
But I agree that BD has more transparency than BP, who is notoriously slippery (not a compliment).
It suited Bob Parry to report anomalies to BD, a bit like crime stoppers anonymous. He could snitch knowing BD would take the rap for being a whistleblower.
How underhanded is that ? Its evil.
Lets not forget.
These are the Cretins who demand that Member of the new Alliance, as dictated in their "Terms of Engagement".
Must Publicly and Robustly Condemn Cllr Durkin. Need any more be said?
Need any more be said ?
Um... YES
Cllr Parry says ".....there certainly weren’t any tape recorders about."
Cllr Durkin says "You will also remember, we both agreed for the avoidance of doubt, that our conversation should be recorded."
Someone is not telling the truth. The answer is on the tape, the this matter has very serious consequences to one of the above.
The tape should be handed to an independent observer (I suggest Elgan Hearn).
19.32
I suggest the tape does not exist.
It is obvious there is plenty of evidence in this story to make the good people of Trewalchmai think twice about returning Counc. Bob Parry OBE to the Council.
He has been seriously harmed by it.
Should he even remain as Deputy Leader ?
To 19:32 If as you suggest the tape does not exist, then Cllr Durkin may be said to have made a vexatious allegation contrary to the code of conduct.
Both Councillors (Parry and Durkin)need to consider their positions carefully.
20.01
Fine, let BD prove his allegation that the tape exists, outlining its contents, otherwise he should be reported to the Ombudsman.....where is the so-called Standards Committee these day...has it run for cover ?
Druid
I take note of what some say regarding my duty to tell all. There is a time and a place for that and I think I have complied with more than my duty already, even where others haven't
However I will put up a letter I wrote to all Members after my meeting with Bob. There are others. Too and from the Council's Managing Director at the time, but as I only have, as you will see, Bobs express permission to raise the issue, I cannot divulge the content of any others.
6th July 2007.
Dear Councillor.
Having had discussions with Cllr Robert G Parry OBE and receiving his express permission to raise this issue, please find below a summary of those discussions.
Shortly after exposing the unconstitutional way Lynn Ball's Planning application was approved and what followed thereafter, she is said to have informed Cllr Parry OBE,That: "I'd informed her that I was aware he'd accepted a bribe from her for helping and keeping quite about her planning application and he should be prepared, as he could be mentioned in one of my letters"
For the record, I emphatically deny making any such comment and more importantly, the fact that anyone could believe that Cllr Parry OBE would stoop to such levels is quite outrageous.
I am fully aware that there is a futile campaign in operation to discredit my name by supporters and members of the Radical Independents Group.... but that can only be expected from such individuals.
But to use Cllr Parry OBE in such away causing such disharmony within the council speaks volumes for the general state of mind of those involved, and in the interest of good governance needs stamping out.
I have called on the Managing Director to investigate, for what its worth, but still await any form of acknowledgement.END.
This is all but a small widow of a much bigger picture. I will be making a full press release shortly. But for Clive McGregor to now come out again attacking me by defending Bob about something he could not possibly Know anything about just about, just beggars belief.
BD 20.25
All very well, and thank you for that informative snippet.
But its only a snippet that we have teased out of you.
Our complaint is that you should reveal ALL...publicly, honestly and transparently, whatever allegations you have...that are provable....not some piecemeal effort which it has been so far.
Help the People to understand you ?
And the tape....
I will ask the questions again:
Does the tape Cllr Durkin refers to in his email of 8 July 2010 to Cllr Parry exist YES or NO
If the tape exists did he have the permission of Cllr Parry for the conversation to be recorded YES or NO
If the tape exists will he allow Elgan Hearn to listen to it - YES or NO
Fillan.
You ask to much. If Councillor Durkin say's he had a meeting with Cllr Parry in his car and it was agreed in both their interests that for the avoidance of doubt the conversation should be recorded, that's it. Bob Parry say's it wasn't. But when Clive McGregor stops bleating on about preparing a number of serious complaints to the ombudsman and gets on with it, I would think that, that's the time when Cllr Durkin will show and use the tape. along everything else.
Cllr Durkin has already endured a Standards Committee white wash before when he was censored, as it turned out everything he said turned out to be true in the end. They won't do it to him twice that's for sure.
Fillan
Get off your high horse, you'll get nowhere with such bigotry.
I tried to present a tape recording once as evidence, no one even listened to it.
It`s BP`s word against BD`s word. Even if there is a tape, BD would have asked BP for the avoidance of doubt, if he could tape before switching the tape on. If BP denies this, then it is stale mate. Tape will account for nothing.
What ever the account, BP & CM re-actions speak volumes. Anyone would think BP had done something wrong, although he was to spineless to raise what was undoubtedly a serious issue in the proper manner at least he did go out of his way and tell someone who he new would do something about it.
Which brings me to a much bigger concern of McGregor's attitued in this. It's clear that no matter what Cllr Durkin does, McGregor can't help but attack him.
I feel that it's McGregor who the real problem, not every one else.
By the end of this week, we will see a lot of changes.
If BP didn't speak to councillor Durkin about Lynn Ball's House and as the local member, didn't tell the Authorities. Then having breached the constitution the only rational conclusion is that he was willing to turn a blind eye to help Lynn Ball.
What other reason would there be, not to do what you were elected to do. Unless he's telling lies and he did tell Cllr Durkin.
BP can't have it both ways. We know he didn't inform the authorities as was his duty. and he say's through the leader that he didn't discuss it with BD.
Now I would call that a rock and a hard place. So instead of looking for answers from BD, its BP & CM who should be doing the explaining.
Sorry it's me again, still on my high horse.
The tape you see, either exist or does not exist. It is a simple question, it goes to the heart of the argument.
Cllr Durkin says he wants to rid the Council of wrongdoing, a noble cause no doubt, but it does not give him a right to break the code of conduct himself, glass houses etc.
And how did we start talking about this, because Cllr Durkin mentioned it in his email.
Will keep on asking the questions till I get a reply.
Produce the tape or resign - a simple request to Cllr Durkin
Fillan
At least you accept your on a high horse. Not the right state of mind to go demanding. You sound a bit like McGregor. The only one who say's there "certainly weren't any tape recorders about" is Bob Parry.
who are we to say other wise, the issue here is why did Bob Parry Meet with Mr Durkin in the first place?
As for 01:05 . Your up to late for your own good.
Above all this only goes to show how corrupt the council is, and has been over the years.
Lynn ball and her planning scam is a disgrace. Her refusal to abide by the Planning conditions resulting in Cllr Durkin, In the public interest, having to force her through the Enforcement team to make a retrospective planning application, is a disgrace. She should have being sacked.
What's an even bigger disgrace is the scandalous way Cllr Durkin is being treated by the likes on McGregor. I hope he does take legal action against the whole lot.
My message to BD is. Show nothing, let them squirm. show only when you are ready.
Keep it up, your doing the whole of Anglesey an enormous favour.
Fillan
Keep taking the tablets.
Fillan 23:54
Prey tell us dear,
Which part of the Code of Conduct are you relating to and why?
Bob Parry? Let me give you a transcript from a meeting of a meeting that took place February 2010 (anyone can get a copy if you ask for one).
I raised a point for the meeting to discuss, which was brought to the table by a councillor kind enough to take an interest.
Bob Parry's contribution? "I've got a problem with the complainant's letter'. Firstly, the letter wasn't a complaint, and secondly, it's not his place to 'have a problem' with anything; it's his place to consider and put forward reasoned arguments either for or against. But no, Bob Parry went into Anglesey mode and 'had a problem'. Shoot the messenger, all will be well, eh Bob?
What we are to conclude, more so than ever, is that this Council is so hopelessly paralysed as to be impotent...despite the best constructive efforts of some, and the destructive efforts of others, with the clueless incompetents and brain-deads in-between....its just heading for the final disaster, which is now close.
Watch this space.
"its just heading for the final disaster, which is now close."
Well, what's happening is certainly a disaster, but I think what is coming is a bit brighter.
We may have a minor chuckle at the qualifications (or not) of the people chosen to take over if that becomes necessary (and it really, really looks necessary to me). But the take-over would involve people with very little or no personal involvement in the area. Traditional, highly conservative Anglesey residents would have it that 'outsiders' aren't welcome - this is why we've chosen fifth-rate locals as councillors for decades, and why we keep returning the incumbent MP time after time after time.
So, I say that conservatism and insularism has patently failed, in the same way it fails everywhere. I would personally welcome a full take-over for a time, but that should not end-up in the same old faces reappearing and relapsing into the same, unacceptable behaviour that they have displayed for 16 years and across several reports highlighting the problems.
Those same old faces are glued to the belief they will survive this, keep their seats, their personal perks and influence and their 'esteem' in the community. They can believe that all they like, but the fact is, we have had enough of (most) of them, and they will not survive.
As has been said before, an immediate Election is essential...a total clear-out....and the current raft of Members should not be expected or welcomed to stand.
I`m afraid they are all tainted, notwithstanding the best and honest efforts of a few; but those few should also stand aside and sacrifice their seats, for transparency.
To those who wish to comment on Bob's statement in the Holyhead & Anglesey Mail.
"I did meet Barrie in Llanerchymedd once but that was years ago and there weren't any tape recorders about"
So there can be on misunderstanding. The tape recording does exist and shows both of us agreeing to record our conversation at the beginning.
As for the comments of 09:10.
I totally agree.
I hope 09:10's comments also include some of the Senior Officers such as Lynn Ball and David Bowles.
Counc. Durkin 9.20
Sir, You have gone up in estimation.Thank you.
9.20
The wily and devious BP agreeing to have his private conversation on such a sensitive matter taped in a car in a layby in Llanerchymedd, sitting with BD....highly implausible...he must have been demented ?
Thank you Cllr Durkin for confirming the tape exists.
Now can you confirm that you are willing to allow an independent observer to listen to the tape to verify what you say is true (that Bob Parry agreed to the conversation being recorded), I have suggested Elgan Hearn.
Otherwise it's still your word against his.
10.00
I sense public opinion inclines towards believing BD....but BD should put the absolute truth and evidence on record once and for all...otherwise doubts will continue.
If the truth destroys BP`s integrity credibility, so be it.
We shall not be too surprised ?
Cllr Durkin said
As for the comments of 09:10.
I totally agree.
which in part where...".an immediate Election is essential...a total clear-out......"
Does this mean that if a election was called immediately, he in the interest of transparency would sacrifice his seat?
The point I made is that ALL Councillors, as a matter of social conscience and transparency should be honest enough for the sake of Anglesey, to stand down, and not seek re-election.
Those who did seek re-election, should be seen with mistrust, as to their motives ?
I am an idealist, you see.
Yes Fillan. It is my word against Bob's. But until I feel it's necessary and in my interest, after what has been said by Bob and more to the point what Clive McGregor say's, the tape will stay under lock and key. Bob has said his bit. Iv'e said mine, I have nothing further to add. I hope you understand that much, but thanks for your input.
"The point I made is that ALL Councillors, as a matter of social conscience and transparency should be honest enough for the sake of Anglesey, to stand down, and not seek re-election."
And I think this is a very valid and constructive suggestion. I don't personally think any councillor with the interests of Anglesey and its people genuinely foremost in his/her mind would in fact object to the idea.
No Cllr Durkin I do not understand, three words sums it up honesty, integrity and transparency.
I fail to see why and for what reason you are refusing to allow an independent observer to listen to the tape so that the truth can be heard.
However, I have the answers to the questions I posed and will leave the matter at that, it is after all as you say a matter for your conscience.
Anon, Fillan.
Of course you don't understand, how could you. if you were that interested in honesty, integrity and transparency, you would not be hiding behind Anon. Give us your real name as does Cllr Durkin, then your high moral ridicule might gain some credit.
It would appear that the transcript of a full council meeting is being posted on the blog as comments.
BP he's a funny old man, takes credit for hard efforts yet denies involvement when things go badly, a bit like Bowles and McGregor, always smiling with toothless grins, living a perfect lie!
The storm is brewing, a storm that has spwaned for years, years of neglect, of political apathy, of people being spoon fed drivel and garbage.
Now we see, that Solicitors from England are reading all our posts, the English, who invaded our shores, and still have a cancerous grip over our lives, we can live our own lives Mr English Solicitor, we know that your there to read the anti Council postings, to spin them out of the mire, or here's a welsh word for you, cachu tail!
We have been let down, badly, Plaid Cymru, Bobbo Parry, the whole lot have betrayed us. We are watching daily, watching to see what the English Solicitors will do to defend the Council of Betrayal against the people of Anglesey!.
Huw Terry.
Commander
Real Welsh Nationalist Army.
Human Rights for Welsh People!
So, dear friends, we are just waiting for the last rites at IACC, are we ?
This lingering death can not continue. The Commissioners can do no worse....surely ?
Anglesey, Anglesey, under no circumstances should the management of this island be taken away from the island. Good or bad, the problems should be settled here by those who have the islands interests at heart. I for one am not keen on the idea of those who come and go, move in and move out, there is no dedication in that.
On the subject of BP and the leak, well they are doing thweir best in the states and over here I bet that if the 'conversation took place' one individual with pad and pen in hand probably said "do you mind if I record this?" implying it was a written record....I have seen that done so many times before....complete deceipt.
Tell us more about Penrhyn Point. what was the Planning Application Number? so we can view for ourselves.
18.32
A prominent headland ruin overlooking Lligwy Bay, owned by a Titled gentleman, prominent in the H.o.Lords, I believe. Granted PP for conversion to a holiday dwelling. Ask at the planning dept. they will helpfully show you the file.
Public record.
Comment removed for making allegations against obliquely named persons. This is not the place for that.
18:51
Give us the Application Number Please.
Huw Terry you are not all there....how are the English in any way to blame for the problems of IOACC?
18:51.
A Titled gentleman indeed, in the House of Lords no less.
It seems your not at all happy with this application. What's the application number. Who's Constituency is it in. what are you not happy with. tell us more. Sounds like something Cllr Durkin would want to know about, if there's anything wrong, that is.
19.08
Counc.BD is very well aware of it, old boy.
19:10.
Give us the application number old boy and stop messing about or but out.
19.18 many thanks.
Don`t know. Ask BD. Or ask at the desk at Planning, they`ll be only too happy to show you the file..use gloves...its toxic !
19:20.
You seem to know a lot about this application, even got your information from the Public records, but you don't know the ref: number! Are you saying that there is something wrong, if so, what? Are you also saying that Cllr Durkin knows that there's something wrong and looking in to it?
Please be a bit more precise.
Counc. BD is on the case.
WE ARE STILL WAITING 19:20.
What as in 'Book him Barrie' ?
It was 18.32 who raised the issue of Penrhyn Point...lets address the questions at him/her ?
18.51 merely gave an outline of the matter.
Anyway, the file is on the public record........go and look at it if you are that interested. Its FREE.
What we have here, are insinuations that a Titled gentleman, prominent in the house of Lords has had a planning application approved which you think 19:20 is toxic, suspect, and that BD is on the case. is that right. Is that about right?
29:06
Sorry your wrong, it was raised by 18:51 in his previous comment which the Druid removed as it made allegations against obliquely named persons. See 18:57.
The Planning Application Number is 26C50A
It is in the Ward of Mr Durkin
It allegedly did not go to Community Council prior to
being granted Planning Permission
Allegedly there is no comment or objection from the member on file
Strange really, that the pet subject of the member from all accounts of the Druid Blogsite is Planning & Corruption, still the teflon coating will once again be sufficient protection.
Anon 22.27
It has been said before on this site
"when there is speculation and money involved there never seems to be a problem"
Perhaps our noisy councillor will end up with an ermine collar!
Druid,
You have the ability to receive and publish letters, are you able / willing to receive photographs (of objects not people) and if relevant allow them onto blogs?
Planning application Number 26/C/50A.
Is in the ward of Mr Durkin.
For future reference to the above.
All Planning Applications in Cllr Durkins' Wards start with 30/C. NOT 26/C.
All planning application starting with 26/C ARE in Cllr Clive McGregors' Wards.
Planning application Number 26/C/50A.
O'dear, you Cllr Durkin Knockers.
I'd keep your mouths shut in future if were you.
All you've done by using Anon to air your spurious rubbish, is discredit all those who are attacking Cllr Durkin under Anon. You've stuffed it for them all.
Good morning Mr or Mrs Brain of the Island.
You are so right, 26 is in Mr McGregors ward and was wrongly applied to that ward. BUT was it a mistake? All public notices were put in the wrong place. Adjacent properties in the 30C ward were not advised hence no complaonts.
Is it true Llandyfnan / Mr <cG did receive the infor but passed it on to Mr Durkin?
So before you go off on your hot and cold trip check your facts and stop wasting space.
Was it a clever set-up. Wrongly listed, wrong ref number, wrong ward so they did not comment, did not get to correct Community Council so no comment. Wrongly advertised so no comment. No public awareness so no comment AND guess what no objections just a clear path to approval.
Accident or clever what!
For all those who know the IOACC councillors inside out, can you advise if there is one with a family history in Egypt, or is there one who has or had a connection with Harrods
Accident or what?
Go ask Clive McGregor.
09:59.
Are you saying that Clive McGregor was involved with a planning scam? If so, give us you name and we will come and threaten and abuse you in the same way we do with anyone else who dare challenge our dishonesty.
You've been told now. We wont tell you again. OK.
Let me remind you of the tape that Cllr Durkin is refusing to allow a independent observer to hear.
What has he to hide, a simple question, and the tape - well that was first mentioned by Cllr Durkin
Not letting go......
Change the Tape Fillan. your now in the realms of Harassment.
Now I know Fillan works for the council, with sort of attitude she must do.
Hello boys, I'm a girl am I
Idiots
Look up Fillan on google
And let me remind you of the tape that Cllr Durkin is refusing to allow a independent observer to hear.
What has he to hide, a simple question, and the tape - well that was first mentioned by Cllr Durkin
Not letting go......especially now
Todays news for the Kremlin.
Is this CAPITULATION?
Clive McGregor has been told to change the "Terms of Engagement" to omit all breaches of the Human Rights Acts and to include inclusiveness.
Having refused point blank to make any changes which has split the Council down the middle and created so much trouble, Will he now go?
Ha Ha Let me remind you of the tape that Cllr Durkin is refusing to allow a independent observer to hear.
What has he to hide, a simple question, and the tape - well that was first mentioned by Cllr Durkin
Not letting go......
Serious sh£t is getting caught defrauding the much needed grant assistance earmarked for Objective One Area's.
Conspitacy, is something only a judge and a switched-on law enforcement officer would latch onto.
Goodbye.
Ps. I reckon we have evidence in the form of Electronic Transfers and can easily locate the destination acount.
Simple as that U thieving tw£ts.
And that's all folk's
Bugs Bunny
Fillan. The Tape.
The letter also say's " I still have my copy" which implies, that not only was the conversation recorded with Bob Parry's consent, but he also had a copy.
I think as Clive McGregor has made it know that he and the County Council are spending large sums of our money on outside solicitors to put a complaint to the ombudsman against Cllr Durkin, such evidence of collusion and what went on is dynamite and if I were Cllr Durkin I be doing the same as him. Show nothing till he's good and ready.
To Bugs Bunny
If you have the evidence then take it to the appropriate authority, or the BBC or the papers (News of the World maybe) do something with it.
Listen - if there is fraud being committed as you allege then the perpetrators need to be caught.
To Peter
No sorry, does not work like that - Show nothing till he's good and ready - suggest he has nothing to show.
But I will give him time, his Solicitor office will be closed today.
Oh which reminds me, I did suggest a letter from his solicitor confirming they have the tape would suffice.
Not letting go.........
Fillan
Have you never heard the saying "keep your powder dry"
They were talking about musket-balls not vanity mirrors
This is another saying I think you will find:
The man who claims he has the winning ticket, better produce it to claim the price.
And thank you for your kind comment.....
Oh and the tape...........
To all those who think they have suffered breaches of their Human Rights at the hands of Anglesey County Council can you make contact with County Councillor Barrie Durkin.
email barrie.durkin@btinternet.com
There seems to be a lot of support from one fanatic for Bob Parry.
So lets not be bashful, lets tell it as it is.
Until Cllr Bob Parry stops Breaching the Human Rights Act and breaking the law, he and those who demand on his behalf deserve nothing.
Let us be clear........
Bob Parry should go and go know, he is a hopeless councillor...but that's my opinion....
But then there's a small thing called a tape someone said they had, but when challenged refused to produce it, even to an independent observer because it was not in their interest to do so.
Not letting go......
test
and then the tape...why has he not produced evidence it exists by now
Test
anybody out there, with the tape...
Test
No thought not.....
Human rights BD has no idea. Durkin that is.
Post a Comment