DAMESATHOME@GMAIL.COM send the Dame your information, discretion assured.
Comments are welcome but do not necessarily reflect the view of the Dame. Offensive/inappropriate comments will be deleted and the poster banned.
Wednesday, 27 March 2019
PUBLIC TO BE ALLOWED SPEAK AT FULL COUNCIL MEETINGS
If the Dame hears this correctly members of the public will be allowed to address the Council. This is a first rate idea. Well done RBK&C You can read about it HERE
This is an excellent and welcome initiative by the (newish) Leader. Cllr Campbell should be congratulated on opening up the Council Chamber to residents and encouraging them to put their point of view. It will be interesting to see how the initiative is taken up and what difference it makes.
I am beginning to think that Campbell-when given responsibility acquits herself rather well. Imagine Dent Toad as council leader....no, don't: it's a nightmare, dystopian vision of divide and rule.
These full council meetings are available to watch on webcast. Some very interesting questions are raised! https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/council-councillors-and-democracy/council-meeting-webcasts
The public has been allowed to speak at council meetings fo quite some time. The current format was introduced shortly after May 2018. Before, you queued up to speak. Now, you register in advance. I myself spoke twice, once under the previous format, once under the current format (6 March 2019).
I have just watched the webcast of the most recent RBKC Full Council Meeting on the 6th March. Bizarre story about this council's waste of hundreds of thousands of pounds of our money on a neighbour dispute about piano playing. This story has been widely published by national newspapers and several times in Private Eye - how come the Dame has never written about it?
The Dame was one of the first to expose the nonsense and lambast Hornton Sreet. She had a big hand in putting a stop to the stupid, unwarranted and ridiculous involvement of the Council in this spat between two rich families who have more money than they know what to do with
Does "Whip It Out" realise that the council funded 100% the complainant and fought this dispute on his, and his now ex-wife's behalf. Why didn't the council tell them to sort out their problems at their expense, not the RBKC taxpayers'! After all - the council told Ms Fouladi to fund her own complaint against the El Kerramis as reported in 2018.
Of course - the nonsense was going on in private. A person of influence nobbled the Council and Officers were paying the legal costs of a private individual. It was the Dame who exposed this and put a stop to it.
I am not sure what fake news you are pedalling here but I am an avid reader of FTHN and I have never read about the piano dispute on this blog. In fact, the Dame seemed to be avoiding the whole thing, probably protecting her friends at the Council. The Dame certainly didn't have anything to do with stopping the nonsense - it was The Grenfell Tower Tragedy
9.41.... How is Grenfell connected to the teenager playing his piano in his parents £12 million house in Scarsdale Villas, W8? And the neighbour taking the kids parents to Court for causing a nuisance? And the Council paying for the legal costs!!!!
The neighbour didn't take the kid's parents to court, the council did on the neighbour's behalf. The neighbour didn't have to spend a penny because we, the RBKC taxpayer, footed the bill. In fact, the neighbour refused to negotiate or submit to mediation and the council still took up the fight on his behalf.
Whatever ended the nonsense, it certainly had nothing to do with the Dame.
There is a big difference between the council simply covering a resident’s legal costs and the council taking action itself. The former suggests passive involvement and a degree of oversight as to how the resident conducts himself. But in this case the council was an unreasonable litigant with unfettered, unquestioned, access to public funds, and officers were accountable to no-one.
Consider the following: The council had six environmental officers in court for 2 days but not one scrap of original officer evidence was ever produced; The council took acoustic recordings and then destroyed them; The boys' parents won in court and the council hired barristers from three different chambers, including a high-priced QC to lead an Appeal of the court judgement to the High Court; The former Leader of the council, Nicholas Paget-Brown, and the then cabinet members fully supported this frivolous Appeal only to drop it two weeks after the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
The Dame has most certainly never blogged about this story. A thorough Google search of every combination of names and buzzwords yields many articles, some national and widespread, some obscure, but not one word from the Dame herself. Why? She serves her own agenda and is probably protecting those former councillors whom she frequently gushes over. If you have something and can prove me wrong, please feel free to attach the link.
Speaking from experience, environmental officers are piece of cr*p. They just push pens over to the other. As long as they are 'in work' they get paid while residents are left going in circle.
The test that needs to be applied to this initiative is to understand what the Council intended when it allowed residents to address the main Council Meeting. Was it a PR stunt to try and trick residents to believe that we are being listened to? Or was it a serious intention to learn and take action?
If it is a serious initiative to learn from residents and take action then the Leader needs to take personal responsibility for listening and ensuring that changes/solutions are implemented (actions, deadlines, resources, reporting back). The Leader's Office has the power to do this. But to be effective it needs to have a limited list of priorities. And if initiatives like this are more than PR then it needs to be one of the priorities.
The Borough needs time to judge the success of this initiative. My impression is that many of the statements put to the Council by residents, which can be seen on the website from live coverage of Council meetings, are impossible for the Leader to take acton. For example, "will the Council ensure that an EEC referendum takes place". But there are other requests, like the plea for the £5 taxi charge initiative for the elderly and infirm, to be simplified, that can be changed.
In the long run, if it is a PR initiative, or if change cannot be demonstrated and experienced by residents (including being talked about), then it will be another failed initiative and resident cynicism will continue to build up.
Ideas like this need to be taken very seriously and they need a disproportionate amount of time from the Leader. Rebuilding confidence in Hornton Street is clearly a political imperative and therefore initiatives like this justify personal involvement by the Leader.
Comments are your responsibility. Anyone posting inappropriate comments shall have their comment removed and will be banned from posting in future. Your IP address may also be recorded and reported. Persistent abuse shall mean comments will be severely restricted in future.
This is an excellent and welcome initiative by the (newish) Leader. Cllr Campbell should be congratulated on opening up the Council Chamber to residents and encouraging them to put their point of view. It will be interesting to see how the initiative is taken up and what difference it makes.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this was a councillor-led initiative. More likely the independent "Democratic Society".
DeleteIf it was the Democratic Society then at least Cllr Campbell had the balls to agree it
DeleteI am beginning to think that Campbell-when given responsibility acquits herself rather well. Imagine Dent Toad as council leader....no, don't: it's a nightmare, dystopian vision of divide and rule.
ReplyDeleteWhat a good idea. Is it a "first" for RBKC?
DeleteMaybe Ms lizzie is not so dizzy
ReplyDeleteThese full council meetings are available to watch on webcast. Some very interesting questions are raised!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.rbkc.gov.uk/council-councillors-and-democracy/council-meeting-webcasts
Don't they edit it out when the content doesn't suit them? At least that's what happened in the past.
DeleteThe public has been allowed to speak at council meetings fo quite some time. The current format was introduced shortly after May 2018. Before, you queued up to speak. Now, you register in advance. I myself spoke twice, once under the previous format, once under the current format (6 March 2019).
ReplyDeleteD Cameron is hopelessly out of date
DeleteI have just watched the webcast of the most recent RBKC Full Council Meeting on the 6th March. Bizarre story about this council's waste of hundreds of thousands of pounds of our money on a neighbour dispute about piano playing. This story has been widely published by national newspapers and several times in Private Eye - how come the Dame has never written about it?
ReplyDeleteThe Dame was one of the first to expose the nonsense and lambast Hornton Sreet. She had a big hand in putting a stop to the stupid, unwarranted and ridiculous involvement of the Council in this spat between two rich families who have more money than they know what to do with
DeleteMy Dear, you clearly are a new reader or just not keeping up. She was the first to pick it up
DeleteWhat date did the Dame write about this?
DeleteDoes "Whip It Out" realise that the council funded 100% the complainant and fought this dispute on his, and his now ex-wife's behalf. Why didn't the council tell them to sort out their problems at their expense, not the RBKC taxpayers'! After all - the council told Ms Fouladi to fund her own complaint against the El Kerramis as reported in 2018.
Of course - the nonsense was going on in private. A person of influence nobbled the Council and Officers were paying the legal costs of a private individual. It was the Dame who exposed this and put a stop to it.
DeleteI am not sure what fake news you are pedalling here but I am an avid reader of FTHN and I have never read about the piano dispute on this blog. In fact, the Dame seemed to be avoiding the whole thing, probably protecting her friends at the Council. The Dame certainly didn't have anything to do with stopping the nonsense - it was The Grenfell Tower Tragedy
Delete9.41....
DeleteHow is Grenfell connected to the teenager playing his piano in his parents £12 million house in Scarsdale Villas, W8? And the neighbour taking the kids parents to Court for causing a nuisance? And the Council paying for the legal costs!!!!
Please see:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/lilyallen/status/921135634198212609?lang=en
The neighbour didn't take the kid's parents to court, the council did on the neighbour's behalf. The neighbour didn't have to spend a penny because we, the RBKC taxpayer, footed the bill. In fact, the neighbour refused to negotiate or submit to mediation and the council still took up the fight on his behalf.
Whatever ended the nonsense, it certainly had nothing to do with the Dame.
er... I think I said that the Council paid the legal costs
Deleteit was also the Dame who put a spotlight on the nonsense and it stopped!
RIP
Dear Whip It Out:
DeleteThere is a big difference between the council simply covering a resident’s legal costs and the council taking action itself. The former suggests passive involvement and a degree of oversight as to how the resident conducts himself. But in this case the council was an unreasonable litigant with unfettered, unquestioned, access to public funds, and officers were accountable to no-one.
Consider the following:
The council had six environmental officers in court for 2 days but not one scrap of original officer evidence was ever produced;
The council took acoustic recordings and then destroyed them;
The boys' parents won in court and the council hired barristers from three different chambers, including a high-priced QC to lead an Appeal of the court judgement to the High Court;
The former Leader of the council, Nicholas Paget-Brown, and the then cabinet members fully supported this frivolous Appeal only to drop it two weeks after the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
The Dame has most certainly never blogged about this story. A thorough Google search of every combination of names and buzzwords yields many articles, some national and widespread, some obscure, but not one word from the Dame herself. Why? She serves her own agenda and is probably protecting those former councillors whom she frequently gushes over. If you have something and can prove me wrong, please feel free to attach the link.
Speaking from experience, environmental officers are piece of cr*p. They just push pens over to the other. As long as they are 'in work' they get paid while residents are left going in circle.
DeleteThe test that needs to be applied to this initiative is to understand what the Council intended when it allowed residents to address the main Council Meeting. Was it a PR stunt to try and trick residents to believe that we are being listened to? Or was it a serious intention to learn and take action?
ReplyDeleteIf it is a serious initiative to learn from residents and take action then the Leader needs to take personal responsibility for listening and ensuring that changes/solutions are implemented (actions, deadlines, resources, reporting back). The Leader's Office has the power to do this. But to be effective it needs to have a limited list of priorities. And if initiatives like this are more than PR then it needs to be one of the priorities.
The Borough needs time to judge the success of this initiative. My impression is that many of the statements put to the Council by residents, which can be seen on the website from live coverage of Council meetings, are impossible for the Leader to take acton. For example, "will the Council ensure that an EEC referendum takes place". But there are other requests, like the plea for the £5 taxi charge initiative for the elderly and infirm, to be simplified, that can be changed.
In the long run, if it is a PR initiative, or if change cannot be demonstrated and experienced by residents (including being talked about), then it will be another failed initiative and resident cynicism will continue to build up.
Ideas like this need to be taken very seriously and they need a disproportionate amount of time from the Leader. Rebuilding confidence in Hornton Street is clearly a political imperative and therefore initiatives like this justify personal involvement by the Leader.