Sorry if this is old news for some but I've just got back and am catching up. I see from Friday's Daily Post that an unnamed Plaid spokesman has said that "all parties involved aren't particularly happy with certain elements and have had input into changes in the operational document" and therefore the Alliance Terms of Engagement was being merely being "subjected to revision" to meet Plaid Cymru objections. Why now? The final Alliance Terms of Engagement were signed by all Member Group Leaders (including Plaid's Cllr Bob Parry) on June 7th, i.e. more than two months ago. Why is it that Plaid Cymru is only now waking up and making objections? Did Bob Parry not discuss this with our AM, Plaid Cymru's Leader Ieuan Wyn Jones at the time?
Cllr Bob Parry is further reported in the Daily Post as saying "There is no truth whatsoever in reports that Plaid Cymru are having to walk away from the Alliance. The Alliance is secure. We have one member (Rhian Medi) who has chosen to not sign up to the Alliance but she remains a Plaid Cymru member. All other members have signed up and remain in the Alliance". Not according to the Golwg article which states "that the majority of Plaid members are unhappy with the agreement" ("gyda mwyafrif cynghorwyr Plaid Cymru'n anhapus gyda'r cytundeb").
The original Golwg article further reported that Plaid Cymru's National Executive was unhappy that Plaid policies are not being pushed as part of the agreement. The Druid wonders what Plaid policies they have in mind? No to nuclear power, perhaps? Or maybe Plaid's policy of banning all low level flight training from RAF Valley? Furthermore as only eight of the 40 County Councillors represent Plaid, perhaps Plaid's National Executive may want think about what kind of democratic legitimacy they have in trying to push through Plaid policies through the back door in this way.
43 comments:
To tell you the truth Druid, it's rapidly becoming apparent that Plaid at a local level is following a different tac in several areas to Plaid at a national level.
For a party of this size that displays lack of leadership from the top.
If the Terms of Engagement aren't revised, and continue to breach the Human Rights Act, then Plaid will have no choice but walk away no matter what Bob Parry say's. As it is, Ieuan Wyn Jones chance of getting re-elected as AM next year is nil.
It shows lack of leadership at local level also. Probably because Bob Parry prefers to suck up to Bowles and McGregor rather than do what is right and honest.
The Alliance limps on.......?
If it works, and it seems to, reasonably effectively...lets not knock it ?
The members of the Exec. appear to get along...there is a working relationship and there is harmony.
CMcG is a good strong Leader doing a difficult job, in the most difficult time we have all seen in Anglesey local government, in a lifetime.
They are making difficult decisions...they are not dodging issues....our bins get emptied...our children get educated...our elderly get attended to.....and so on ??
Give them some space to do what they were elected to do...govern ?
Not much different from the Lib. Dems., then. This is what the official Lib. Dem. site says of nuke stations:
"More nuclear power will soak up subsidy, centralise energy production and hinder development of Britain’s vast renewable resources. Nuclear has a dirty legacy and increases global security risks. We oppose construction of further nuclear power stations."
And Cllr.(suspended) Morris-Jones (Lib. Dem/whatever takes his fancy) says:
"Building its solid platform around Wylfa nuclear power station, our island will harness the natural resource of the wind and Irish Sea tide together with the huge resource of nuclear energy and natural gas.”
So much for principles and party policies...
The Alliance limps on...?
WHAT ABOUT THEIR BREACHES OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT?
ANY ALLIANCE THAT CONDONES BREACHING HUMAN RIGHTS AND THOSE INVOLVED WILL NEVER BE SUPPORTED BY THE PEOPLE, IS ILLEGAL AND WILL BE CRUSHED.
18.17 Confirm to us which Article and/or Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 the Council has allegedly breached, when, and in what specific regard, please ?
"18.17 Confirm to us which Article and/or Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 the Council has allegedly breached, when, and in what specific regard, please ?"
That must be the umpteenth time that's been asked - and ignored! Please can this tiring, unsubstantiated claimant please move on to other things; this is not a blog for endlessly fighting your own battles. Moan on occasion, sure, but not every opportunity that comes your way.
19.29 I`m obliged to TGC.
When one makes a vague accusation upon some notion of law, it is reasonable to ask upon what basis of law...please cite it ?
I think we know which is the more irritating !
TGC. As part of the Alliance, If you have read the Terms of Engagement and you still have to ask which Article of the Human Rights Act has been breached then there isn't any point in telling you just for you to use the Blog as a platform for argument.
However. Any Local Authority which publicly condemns anyone without a proven reason adjudged by an independent jury/Tribunal is in breach of Article 8
Now are you saying they have not?
I though this Blog was about Plaid and the unacceptable Terms of Engagement, which certainly does contains breaches of the Human Rights Act and is ripping Plaid, at National and Local level to pieces.
So why is The Great Councillini so upset is it because he is a member of the Alliance?
Thanks to the couple of contributors for their views on the Human Rights Act. Defiant though they are, they don't show an understanding of the HRA and specifically Article 8. A number of the principles set out in the HRA have not been fully tested at court, so such certainty is almost always misplaced.
Why?
Consider the wording of Article 8:, which is the article cited as being of relevance to the aggrieved (and that this is a post about the Council):
"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence."
The aim of A8 is to protect *private* and *family* life. This is very different from *public* life and any activities which are not private or family-related. Being at work or being a councillor is not your private life, for example. Posting things on a public forum is also not your private life.
That is not to say other articles might cover whatever situation is aggrieving you, but that is not the point being made.
You also refer (obliquely) to the right to 'justice' in its broadest sense. That is covered by Article 6 (and 7 in the case of criminal justice.)
I'm sure you could cobble together a good case for your situation based on possibly several other of the articles, though; maybe Articles 9 and 10?
Member of the Alliance? Me? Nice try...
TGC at 04:38.
You must have sat up all night working that one out, but is interesting.
20:54 said, Article (8), when in fact and sorry for that, it should have read Article (6).
NO CONFIDENCE IN COUNCIL LEADER?
Cllr John Chorlton in supporting the campaign for an elected mayor say's in today Holyhead and Anglesey Mail:
"The Council needs strong leadership. We need a leader who can deliver a manifesto which will provide a degree of much-needed stability both to the electorate and our staff support services"
This is clearly a vote of no confidence in Clive McGregor as leader of the Council.
As a leading member of the Alliance, Cllr Chorlton shows that there is dissatisfaction within the Alliance and that it is not working.
Saw today in the H&A mail a list of expenses paid to Councillors - even the basic is far too high in my opinion. Maybe they should be on performance related pay, many of them would go home with nothing.
So the oleaginous Cllr Chorlton is backing up Bland Albert MP in trying to get an elected mayor for the island. How predictable that Cllr Chorlton would want such a post established with Albert pointing him in the right direction for the post. Let's never forget that Cllr Chorlton in one of the original leapords who never change their spots and in any clearout of this council would be one of three names first on the list for the order of the boot.
"You must have sat up all night working that one out, but is interesting."
Thanks. Unlike the Council, I know my law. They just try to reinvent reality for their own ends...
From 05:15. To TGC at 12:02.
Your so right. but that's all coming to an end. It contributions such as yours that will help us achieve that.
Ground-hog Day. Your spot on .
But you don't know the half of it. His armagedon comes to mind.
As plaid will have to leave the Alliance if the Terms of Engagement aren't "revised". When are they going to be changed to make them lawful?
Yes,
But do they both share the same div card?
INSIDER ??
What became of your prediction last week that several senior officers were about to be sacked...........waiting ??
08:00
Sacked. what date and time was that at ANON.
9.42 I can`t recall, but it appeared all right.....sounds a bit hollow by now though...not having transpired...so much for inside knowledge eh, allegedly ?
14:36.You asked the question (Still Waiting??)
If you can't recall, what made you ask the Question...?? Or is it you muck racking again...??
INSIDER made a bold and unequivacaltatement earlier, based on claimed inside informationan...of senior sackings, the simple qusetion, not muckraking...is what happened.....still waiting ??
Still waiting. Where and when was this unequivocal claim made by "Insider"? Time and date please.
Anon at 20:05
We are still waiting!
WE ARE STILL WAITING.
NOT LETTING GO.
Still waiting for Councillor Durkin to explain the anomolies of the Penrhyn Point planning, it was on his patch but there is no record of any involvement by that elected member...The Planning Guru
so why all this fuss about Lyn Ball ?
No anomalies at Penrhyn point, just your malicious, venomous, brain working over time again.
If you think there is something wrong with the Penrhyn Point Planning Application, then complain to the right authority,then come back with their findings we would love to read them here, until then, and not until then.........
Anon at 16:59.
Can you put the response you mention from the Council's Legal Department?
I'm sure we would all be interested.
An Insider 18.57
Ballderdash!
Anomaly 1. Why was this given a 26/C designation
Anomaly 2. Why was this not made available to the Llanfair M E Community Council
Anomaly 3. Why were public notices put up in the wron area ?
So, Insider please give us your insider knowledge based answers.
Insider 18.57
There was absolutely NOTHING WRONG with the Planning Application. It was true and honest, the wrongness
occured once it was in the CC hands.
22:19.and the same Blogger at 22:22
So go ask CC, or is that to much to ask of your intelligence?
Hello Insider are you there?
The elected member for the Penrhyn oint patch is our 'Planning Specialist' but has made no reference, other than perhaps by anonymous comment. to this matter. The member was elected to serve the community, why not Get On With it???
But your not even one of his Constituents.
Go get the info from the Council Then come back and shows us all the facts.
Instead of being abusive and making scurrilous comments. Is the Community Councillor Blogger trying to make some sort of allegation against the Elected Member for the Penrhyn Point area, who just happens to be Cllr Durkin. If so, say so and spell the allegation out now. or shut up once and for all.
The ball is in your court Councillor get on with it.
Post a Comment