Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The final curtain has come down...
I wrote the last two postings " do you remember when you used to play spot the ball " and "The whole thing descends into farce " a couple of days ago but I only decided to post them today.
Please read them both carefully. Because at yesterday's cabinet meeting, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council offered A SEVENTH explanation for not discussing the options for Coatham.
The 'official' version, and I say official because it was the version of things that was given at the cabinet meeting and therefore presumably minuted, was that the options for Coatham weren't going to be discussed because the cabinet, upon the request of opposition councillors, wanted to show opposition councillors from the Lib Dems, Conservatives and Independents the options first so that they could have their opinions taken into consideration and then a special cabinet meeting was to be held in approximately three weeks time, to discuss the options in public.
We were told by the cabinet that items for cabinet meetings change and alter all the time, this may be the case, but the reasons for either including or not including this item is what is in question here and the frequency of the council chopping and changing their minds, over whether or not to discuss these options in public yesterday, clearly shows that there is something that they are very unsure or worried about.
The Coatham issue was discussed at the very start of the meeting with a very bullish chairman George Dunning, appearing to try and provoke comment from myself and other members of our group from the off. He stated that a mistake had been made over the discussion of the Coatham options and that the options item was always going to be discussed in public, just not on that day. He went onto say that the council was prepared to let questions be asked by the public because they wanted to be open and transparent but then made an uncalled for, throw away statement in response to Charles Davis, to the effect that the council "were always prepared to talk to people even if those people didn't want to talk to them". This prompted Charles to ask the question who are you talking about? and say that he hoped that George Dunning wasn't talking about our group because we have never refused to talk to the council over this issue.
George Dunning said that he wasn't talking about us, but he didn't say who he had been referring to either? It was obvious that he was trying to make a snide remark but one can only guess as to why? He handed things over to Councillor Mark Hannon who then told us that there were two options for Coatham and that's when we learned that they weren't going to be discussed because of a request from the opposition to see them first before they were discussed publicly.
I remember thinking at the time that that excuse for not discussing the item yesterday was a bit odd as when did the councils ruling cabinet ever want to defer discussing a subject because the opposition asked them to? More than that, I thought that it was very odd that the ruling Labour/Independent cabinet should want to get the opinions of members of the opposition before making a decision about something? When have members of an opposition group ever been involved in the cabinet decision making process which is controlled by a different political group?
Or do we have a coalition of all parties just for this one issue, then it all goes back to normal again with the opposition having no say and having their opinions totally disregarded?
I stood up to talk.
I started by telling everybody in the room that I didn't want there to be any acrimony between the two groups anymore. I started to say that we had our point of view and the council had theirs over Coatham, but when I went onto say that we had only opposed something that ex MP Vera Baird had described as a disaster and George Dunning had described as tainted, I was immediately interrupted and shouted down by both George Dunning and Mark Hannon who said that and I quote " I was living in the past, I should move on, it was time to move on " and I wasn't able to proceed with what I had wanted to say.
They obviously didn't want these things to be said at a cabinet meeting in front of the press even though they are fact.
I attempted to explain that I had only been trying to set out the background and that I had to do that in order to say that these things aren't relevant now because it's time to move forward and come together. But throughout me even saying this, Mark Hannon was very forcefully asserting that our group had stopped the town having a baths, that there were two fantastic options on the table and that people should get behind them and that, and I quote, "people in Redcar were sick of you ( me )".
I did not rise to these unsubstantiated remarks and responded by saying that what people were sick of in Redcar was being shown a lack of respect by the council and treated with contempt.
I said they were sick of being shown a lack of respect by a Chief Executive Officer who refuses to respond to peoples genuine concerns in emails and letters that they send to her, they're sick of being given seven different versions of one single issue and they are sick of the council blaming other people for their mistakes. I ended by saying to him that the council have always been borrowing the money to build a swimming pool in Redcar, so why did they use it as a carrot to dangle to get people to go along with the houses that no-one wanted? And that if the council are borrowing fourteen million pounds to build a pool, then just get on and build it now, what are they waiting for, infact why have we had to wait for it so long when they're borrowing the money to build it?
At this point the chairman brought in Sheelagh Clarke who told us that she didn't want any acrimony either and that items for meetings change all the time. Another resident, John Wilkinson, had asked to speak and the chair had indicated that he could, but before he brought him in, he brought in councillor Dave McCluckie who moved that the item had been discussed long enough and that the meeting should move on, it was seconded and John wasn't allowed to make his comments or ask his questions.
After the meeting I spoke with the political editor of the Gazette Sandy Mackenzie who had been present throughout, it will be interesting to see his report in the paper.
When I was on my own later on yesterday, I sat and mulled over the last six years and how I felt now. I felt that for all of the highly questionable and exremely dubious things that have taken place over the issue of Coatham, that perhaps it was time to draw a line under things and just accept that no investigation is ever going to be carried out over the issue of the scandal known as the Coatham Enclosure Scheme.
All the main players and protagonists have all but left, the scheme has been abandoned and there are two new options on the table and not only that, the MP who was protecting the council and helping them whitewash the issue, has been ousted by an honest and decent Redcar Man. The will, the momentum to investigate the disgraceful things that have taken place here regarding Coatham has ebbed, and is ebbing still further away so I thought that perhaps it is time to let go?
Councillor Valerie Halton, a Conservative councillor from Guisborough, came to speak with Charlie after the meeting. She re-iterated that there were two options for Coatham and Charlie said so what are they? "Well, if you ask Ian Wardle he will tell you she replied, they're in the public domain" "Thats the thing Charlie responded, he won't". Councillor Halton then told us that the two options for Coatham were either to build a new leisure centre and pool or build a new leisure centre, pool and a new civic centre ( Town Hall ). If they were the options we thought, then why on earth all the secrecy? Why the chopping and changing and the yes the options are being discussed no they arent?
I have never spoken to Valerie Halton before. I have always gotten the feeling, on the odd occasion when we have been in the same room over the last six years, that she most definitely didn't want to. When she had told us what the options were, I spoke to her.
I told her that I had never had the pleasure of talking to her before, but that no matter what had happened in the past, as far as I was concerned it was in the past and that it was time to move on. I told her that they had had their point and we had had ours, that we had been advisaries but we always wanted what was best for Redcar and now that we had a blank canvass in Coatham, it was time to all make sure that we did.
I held out my hand in friendship and she shook it. I said and did the same with Mark Hannon.
For me, yesterday meant that the Coatham Enclosure campaign was over. It felt over. The battle to stop the houses blighting our coastline has been won and a new baths, something that I have wanted since the last one was knocked down in 1997, the same year I streaked at Wembley to save the one we had, is on the way. Our group have been completely vindicated by the Supreme Court, the highest court in England ruling unanimously in our favour. I even had the opportunity of saying things to the councils cabinet, with the CEO and senior officers in attendance, that I have wanted to say for some time, maybe even as long as five years.
What do I hope for the future?
I hope that the council learn lessons and that they never again underestimate the people of our fantastic town and area.
I hope that they are open and transparent and I hope that they consult properly with the public and that more importantly, they listen, because I don't think that the public would allow themselves to be ignored again and I don't think that the council should be foolish enough to ignore that fact.
I hope that the Coatham Bowl is kept. It has one of the finest spring loaded dance floors in the country and I hope that it is regenerated and utilised for dancing and concerts something for which it has always been famous. I also hope, as do thousands of other people, that it is kept because as it was stated in the Nathaniel Lichfield report of 2006, it is one of only three tourist attractions in our town and because as Rachel and I demonstrated in 2005 when we put Walter Trout on at the Bowl, a musician who was voted the sixth best guitarist in the world, we had 1100 people in there and they came from all over the country. Even Sting has fond memories of the Bowl. It should be kept and enhanced as a valuable asset to our town.
I hope that they tidy up the common and make it into a fantastic open area for children and families to use, perhaps even some sort of park?
But most of all, I hope that all parties can work together for what is best for our town and I hope that all things can be done in an open and transparent manner. The public have become so much more aware and so much more prepared to get involved in things that will try and enhance our town since our campaign began, this spirit should be harnessed. There are now two options on the table for Coatham and there is a new initiative that is on the table from Redcarpet Developments, a non profit making organization who want to involve the whole town in trying to regenerate the towns high street itself. It's all really positive and exciting and in order for it to become a reality, we have to all forget our differences.
So to George Dunning, Mark Hannon, Vera Moody, Chris Abbott et all, there's my hand...it's time for us to forgive and forget, time to act responsibly but most importantly of all, time to act like adults.
Please read them both carefully. Because at yesterday's cabinet meeting, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council offered A SEVENTH explanation for not discussing the options for Coatham.
The 'official' version, and I say official because it was the version of things that was given at the cabinet meeting and therefore presumably minuted, was that the options for Coatham weren't going to be discussed because the cabinet, upon the request of opposition councillors, wanted to show opposition councillors from the Lib Dems, Conservatives and Independents the options first so that they could have their opinions taken into consideration and then a special cabinet meeting was to be held in approximately three weeks time, to discuss the options in public.
We were told by the cabinet that items for cabinet meetings change and alter all the time, this may be the case, but the reasons for either including or not including this item is what is in question here and the frequency of the council chopping and changing their minds, over whether or not to discuss these options in public yesterday, clearly shows that there is something that they are very unsure or worried about.
The Coatham issue was discussed at the very start of the meeting with a very bullish chairman George Dunning, appearing to try and provoke comment from myself and other members of our group from the off. He stated that a mistake had been made over the discussion of the Coatham options and that the options item was always going to be discussed in public, just not on that day. He went onto say that the council was prepared to let questions be asked by the public because they wanted to be open and transparent but then made an uncalled for, throw away statement in response to Charles Davis, to the effect that the council "were always prepared to talk to people even if those people didn't want to talk to them". This prompted Charles to ask the question who are you talking about? and say that he hoped that George Dunning wasn't talking about our group because we have never refused to talk to the council over this issue.
George Dunning said that he wasn't talking about us, but he didn't say who he had been referring to either? It was obvious that he was trying to make a snide remark but one can only guess as to why? He handed things over to Councillor Mark Hannon who then told us that there were two options for Coatham and that's when we learned that they weren't going to be discussed because of a request from the opposition to see them first before they were discussed publicly.
I remember thinking at the time that that excuse for not discussing the item yesterday was a bit odd as when did the councils ruling cabinet ever want to defer discussing a subject because the opposition asked them to? More than that, I thought that it was very odd that the ruling Labour/Independent cabinet should want to get the opinions of members of the opposition before making a decision about something? When have members of an opposition group ever been involved in the cabinet decision making process which is controlled by a different political group?
Or do we have a coalition of all parties just for this one issue, then it all goes back to normal again with the opposition having no say and having their opinions totally disregarded?
I stood up to talk.
I started by telling everybody in the room that I didn't want there to be any acrimony between the two groups anymore. I started to say that we had our point of view and the council had theirs over Coatham, but when I went onto say that we had only opposed something that ex MP Vera Baird had described as a disaster and George Dunning had described as tainted, I was immediately interrupted and shouted down by both George Dunning and Mark Hannon who said that and I quote " I was living in the past, I should move on, it was time to move on " and I wasn't able to proceed with what I had wanted to say.
They obviously didn't want these things to be said at a cabinet meeting in front of the press even though they are fact.
I attempted to explain that I had only been trying to set out the background and that I had to do that in order to say that these things aren't relevant now because it's time to move forward and come together. But throughout me even saying this, Mark Hannon was very forcefully asserting that our group had stopped the town having a baths, that there were two fantastic options on the table and that people should get behind them and that, and I quote, "people in Redcar were sick of you ( me )".
I did not rise to these unsubstantiated remarks and responded by saying that what people were sick of in Redcar was being shown a lack of respect by the council and treated with contempt.
I said they were sick of being shown a lack of respect by a Chief Executive Officer who refuses to respond to peoples genuine concerns in emails and letters that they send to her, they're sick of being given seven different versions of one single issue and they are sick of the council blaming other people for their mistakes. I ended by saying to him that the council have always been borrowing the money to build a swimming pool in Redcar, so why did they use it as a carrot to dangle to get people to go along with the houses that no-one wanted? And that if the council are borrowing fourteen million pounds to build a pool, then just get on and build it now, what are they waiting for, infact why have we had to wait for it so long when they're borrowing the money to build it?
At this point the chairman brought in Sheelagh Clarke who told us that she didn't want any acrimony either and that items for meetings change all the time. Another resident, John Wilkinson, had asked to speak and the chair had indicated that he could, but before he brought him in, he brought in councillor Dave McCluckie who moved that the item had been discussed long enough and that the meeting should move on, it was seconded and John wasn't allowed to make his comments or ask his questions.
After the meeting I spoke with the political editor of the Gazette Sandy Mackenzie who had been present throughout, it will be interesting to see his report in the paper.
When I was on my own later on yesterday, I sat and mulled over the last six years and how I felt now. I felt that for all of the highly questionable and exremely dubious things that have taken place over the issue of Coatham, that perhaps it was time to draw a line under things and just accept that no investigation is ever going to be carried out over the issue of the scandal known as the Coatham Enclosure Scheme.
All the main players and protagonists have all but left, the scheme has been abandoned and there are two new options on the table and not only that, the MP who was protecting the council and helping them whitewash the issue, has been ousted by an honest and decent Redcar Man. The will, the momentum to investigate the disgraceful things that have taken place here regarding Coatham has ebbed, and is ebbing still further away so I thought that perhaps it is time to let go?
Councillor Valerie Halton, a Conservative councillor from Guisborough, came to speak with Charlie after the meeting. She re-iterated that there were two options for Coatham and Charlie said so what are they? "Well, if you ask Ian Wardle he will tell you she replied, they're in the public domain" "Thats the thing Charlie responded, he won't". Councillor Halton then told us that the two options for Coatham were either to build a new leisure centre and pool or build a new leisure centre, pool and a new civic centre ( Town Hall ). If they were the options we thought, then why on earth all the secrecy? Why the chopping and changing and the yes the options are being discussed no they arent?
I have never spoken to Valerie Halton before. I have always gotten the feeling, on the odd occasion when we have been in the same room over the last six years, that she most definitely didn't want to. When she had told us what the options were, I spoke to her.
I told her that I had never had the pleasure of talking to her before, but that no matter what had happened in the past, as far as I was concerned it was in the past and that it was time to move on. I told her that they had had their point and we had had ours, that we had been advisaries but we always wanted what was best for Redcar and now that we had a blank canvass in Coatham, it was time to all make sure that we did.
I held out my hand in friendship and she shook it. I said and did the same with Mark Hannon.
For me, yesterday meant that the Coatham Enclosure campaign was over. It felt over. The battle to stop the houses blighting our coastline has been won and a new baths, something that I have wanted since the last one was knocked down in 1997, the same year I streaked at Wembley to save the one we had, is on the way. Our group have been completely vindicated by the Supreme Court, the highest court in England ruling unanimously in our favour. I even had the opportunity of saying things to the councils cabinet, with the CEO and senior officers in attendance, that I have wanted to say for some time, maybe even as long as five years.
What do I hope for the future?
I hope that the council learn lessons and that they never again underestimate the people of our fantastic town and area.
I hope that they are open and transparent and I hope that they consult properly with the public and that more importantly, they listen, because I don't think that the public would allow themselves to be ignored again and I don't think that the council should be foolish enough to ignore that fact.
I hope that the Coatham Bowl is kept. It has one of the finest spring loaded dance floors in the country and I hope that it is regenerated and utilised for dancing and concerts something for which it has always been famous. I also hope, as do thousands of other people, that it is kept because as it was stated in the Nathaniel Lichfield report of 2006, it is one of only three tourist attractions in our town and because as Rachel and I demonstrated in 2005 when we put Walter Trout on at the Bowl, a musician who was voted the sixth best guitarist in the world, we had 1100 people in there and they came from all over the country. Even Sting has fond memories of the Bowl. It should be kept and enhanced as a valuable asset to our town.
I hope that they tidy up the common and make it into a fantastic open area for children and families to use, perhaps even some sort of park?
But most of all, I hope that all parties can work together for what is best for our town and I hope that all things can be done in an open and transparent manner. The public have become so much more aware and so much more prepared to get involved in things that will try and enhance our town since our campaign began, this spirit should be harnessed. There are now two options on the table for Coatham and there is a new initiative that is on the table from Redcarpet Developments, a non profit making organization who want to involve the whole town in trying to regenerate the towns high street itself. It's all really positive and exciting and in order for it to become a reality, we have to all forget our differences.
So to George Dunning, Mark Hannon, Vera Moody, Chris Abbott et all, there's my hand...it's time for us to forgive and forget, time to act responsibly but most importantly of all, time to act like adults.
// posted by Chris McGlade @ 3:51 AM
Monday, May 24, 2010
Remember when you used to play spot the ball?
Do you remember when you used to play spot the ball? You made little crosses all over a picture of a few footballers about to kick a football and hopefully your cross landed on the centre of the ball ( which was invisible ) Well...it seems that Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council adopt the same spot the ball mentality when dealing with items that they really would prefer we didnt ask questions about. Here are six different versions of what they have told different people they were going to do, regarding discussing the options for Coatham at a cabinet meeting to be held today.
Who knows where the real truth lies?
1. The leader of the council told a member of the public by email on the 23rd of April, that the Coatham options section of the cabinet meeting on the 25th of May, would be open to the public because there was nothing confidential to discuss hence all items were on white papers.
2. However a week or so after this, the Coatham options section was omitted from the agenda for the cabinet meeting stating that the press and public would be exluded from these discussions and that it wouldn't be open to them?
3. Senior council officer Alan Logan backed this up by telling a member of our group that the Coatham options section would be discussed behind closed doors because there were commercially sensitive issues to be discussed that were tied into the options and AMAZINGLY that it wasn't in the best interests of the public to know?
4. The Gazettes political editor Sandy Mckenzie told me in an email on Friday last week ( 21st May ) that he had informed by 'the council' that the Coatham options section would be held in public again?
5. A senior councillor and cabinet member told a member of our group on Sunday night ( 23rd May ) that the Coatham options section of the cabinet meeting had been split into two. The options for Coatham were just going to be put forward at a date in the near future and then the confidential items would be discussed at a special meeting of the cabinet in about three weeks time.
6. On Monday the 24th May the head of regeneration and Alan Logans boss, Ian Wardle, then tells a member of our group that the Coatham options won't even be discussed because they haven't had time to prepare the papers for the meeting but that they would be discussed at another cabinet meeting to be held in three weeks time and the press and public will not be excluded?
Which one do you want to pick as being the truth? Does this sort of behaviour really constitute openness and transparency in local government?
Who knows where the real truth lies?
1. The leader of the council told a member of the public by email on the 23rd of April, that the Coatham options section of the cabinet meeting on the 25th of May, would be open to the public because there was nothing confidential to discuss hence all items were on white papers.
2. However a week or so after this, the Coatham options section was omitted from the agenda for the cabinet meeting stating that the press and public would be exluded from these discussions and that it wouldn't be open to them?
3. Senior council officer Alan Logan backed this up by telling a member of our group that the Coatham options section would be discussed behind closed doors because there were commercially sensitive issues to be discussed that were tied into the options and AMAZINGLY that it wasn't in the best interests of the public to know?
4. The Gazettes political editor Sandy Mckenzie told me in an email on Friday last week ( 21st May ) that he had informed by 'the council' that the Coatham options section would be held in public again?
5. A senior councillor and cabinet member told a member of our group on Sunday night ( 23rd May ) that the Coatham options section of the cabinet meeting had been split into two. The options for Coatham were just going to be put forward at a date in the near future and then the confidential items would be discussed at a special meeting of the cabinet in about three weeks time.
6. On Monday the 24th May the head of regeneration and Alan Logans boss, Ian Wardle, then tells a member of our group that the Coatham options won't even be discussed because they haven't had time to prepare the papers for the meeting but that they would be discussed at another cabinet meeting to be held in three weeks time and the press and public will not be excluded?
Which one do you want to pick as being the truth? Does this sort of behaviour really constitute openness and transparency in local government?
// posted by Chris McGlade @ 9:12 PM
The whole issue descends into farce...
I did not think when I made my last entry on this site, that Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council could make themselves look any more contradictory than they have already made themselves look, not only over the issue of Coatham, but over the issue of discussing the options for Coatham at the cabinet meeting yesterday.
How wrong I was.
On Sunday night and then again on Monday morning, we were given another two different versions of what is going to happen and why, along with even more contradictory statements about what has already taken place regarding this scheme, from a senior councillor within the council and the head of regeneration council officer Ian Wardle.
On Sunday night at around 6.00pm, a senior councillor telephoned a member of our group and asked if he could come round to his house to talk. The councillor told the member of our group that the Coatham options section of the meeting had infact, been split into two. The options were going to be put forward at some time in the near future and then the confidential items of the Coatham options was going to be discussed at a cabinet meeting to be arranged at a later date and kept behind closed doors.
When quizzed about why any of it was being kept from the public, the councillor explained that there were confidential matters to sort out and discuss. But as our member pointed out that the councilor, in doing this, were actually going against their own constitution as there were no contracts involved in the options for Coatham because they were only options, and the Coatham scheme was dead and buried.
The councillor agreed that the Coatham scheme was indeed dead although he did say that Persimmon had expressed an interest to build on the car park at Majuba Road. However, he went onto say that the council had resisted this because the council had realised what an asset the car park is and that it was a 'jewel in the crown' as people from all over the country came to that car park to use the fabulous beach there.
Strange that he should make this comment when we have been saying this for nearly six years, and it was demonstrated to great effect in Craig Hornby's film " Coatham a common concern ", yet the council never once listened to us and ignored all the things we were saying about the car park being so vital to the town and to tourism here?
The councillor then went onto say that the council were prepared to meet with the small group of members of our group but that certain councillors weren't prepared to meet with me or John Wilkinson, a man who has done so much research and who has exposed so many facts about the disaster known as the Coatham Enclosure scheme. To this the member of our group told him that John had never been on the list to attend the meeting with the council anyway, but I on the other hand had started the campaign and led from the front all the way to victory in the Supreme Court and that there was no way that he, or anyone else, would meet the council without me being present.
I later said to the member of our group, that if it meant that a way forward could be charted then I would step aside, but he was insistant and said that we would not be divided by these people when we had already won in the Supreme Court and they were the ones who had been found to be wrong. He told me that he had told the senior councillor that I might have gotten up the noses of individuals within the council, but at the end of the day, all of the things that I and our group have said have been true and that the council should accept that.
The meeting finished with the councillor telling our member that he would be back in touch with him on Monday night.
As elected and paid members and officers of a local authority, it is incredible to think that they regard themselves as being so high and mighty? It is incredible to think that they can adopt such a lofty position when their failings have been exposed at every turn and ultimately they have been left with their reputation seriously damaged by the Supreme Courts unanimous ruling and the things that have been brought out into the public domain as a result of our six year campaign.
If Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness can sit round the table with Ian Paisley and laugh and discuss together when each of their communities had been murdering each other for decades, if the US and British governments can befriend Colnel Gadaffi when he has been behind murders that have been committed on British soil and around the world, then why do Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council think that they are above meeting just a normal resident who stood up for what he believed in and with the help of a large number of people, peacefully and democratically and within the law, defeated a councils and the countries largest developers, disastrous plans for his home town?
Once again, shame on them for displaying such arrogance.
But the best was to come on Monday morning.
For some time now, the same member of our group had been trying to contact the head of regeneration, Ian Wardle, to ask him certain questions about the scheme, to ask him when the common would be tidied up and more recently, to ask him about the Coatham part of todays cabinet meeting. This morning Mr Wardle called him. Bearing in mind we had already had four versions of what was happening at the meeting today, Mr Wardle MIRACULOUSLY OFFERED A FIFTH!!!
He told our member that the Coatham options section of the cabinet meeting wasn't now going to be discussed because it wasn't even going to be included!
He said that it wasn't going to be included because the papers for yesterdays cabinet meeting hadn't even been prepared because they hadn't had time? and he told our member that the Coatham options section was going to be discussed at a special cabinet meeting, in public, in approximately three weeks time?
Our member at this point, stopped him and told Mr Wardle that he had had a senior councillor in his house just 18 hours previous to him telephoning, and he had told him that the Coatham options section was being split into two and that part of it was going to be heard at a later date behind closed doors?
He also pointed out to Mr Wardle that another senior officer in his own department Alan Logan, had told him that it was going to be discussed behind closed doors and that it was to be that way because it wasn't in the best interests of the public for them to know. He also told him that as late as last week, the Gazettes political editor Sndy Mackenzie, had been informed by the council that the options for Coatham would be discussed but that they would be discussed in public?
Our member went onto tell Mr Wardle that was it any wonder that the public had such little trust in this council when even in defeat, secrecy and contradiction were so prominent and FIVE different versions had been offered, by different people within the council, about ONE subject?
I believe Mr Wardle was being economical with the truth.
If the papers for yesterdays meeting hadn't even been prepared, then why did George Dunning tell another member of our group in an email, that he had seen nothing confidential to discuss about Coatham, hence the issues for discussion were all on white papers? If the papers hadn't been prepared then why did it say in the councils agenda for the meeting, that the press and public were to be excluded and that the confidential papers were to follow?
Amazingly Mr Wardle, as the head of regeneration and a man whos salary would top approximately £100,000 pa, stated that he had no knowledge about any of the other statements that had been made about this subject? How can he not know about or be responsible for things that someone in his own department has already stated before him? How could these things differ so greatly? All Mr Wardle knew is that the options for Coatham now wouldn't even be a part of the meeting.
It is obvious after we have publicly demonstrated, step by step, every contradiction that these people have made, when we have issued a press release about this level of secrecy, that Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council started to sing the song to suit the tune and that they tried to do all they could to beat a hasty retreat from what had become a very 'hot' subject and were trying to give themselves a bit of breathing space to work out what to do next.
But thats not all.
When asked by our member where Persimmon Homes were in all of this, Mr Wardle told our member that because the development agreement had been rendered useless by the Supreme Courts decision, Persimmon were now no longer involved at any level. Our member, once again told Mr Wardle that his response was strange because it differed completely with what the senior councillor and cabinet member had told him just the night before?
He told Mr Wardle that according to the senior councillor, Persimmon had expressed not only an interest in building on the car park, they also had expressed an interest to build the new leisure centre and pool? Even though it went completely against what he had just said, Mr Wardle then admitted that Persimmon had expressed an interest in these things?
"But you have just said that they weren't in the picture anymore our member replied?" Mr Wardle prevaricated and failed to answer the question adequately.
Our member then went onto voice his disgust that Persimmon have made enough money out of the tax payers of this borough already when they were made 'project mangers' for the refurbishment of the boating lake. Mr Wardle insisted that the refurbishment of the boating lake was a seperate issue but our member once again tore his statements to shreds. He told Mr Wardle that the boating lake was initially part of the masterplan and that both Persimmon and Mcalpines were going to make a contribution to the £60,000 cost of carrying out the necessary work at that time. However, Persimmon had then been made project managers for this refurbishment, theirs and Mcalpines financial contribution to it ceased, Persimmon subcontracted the work to Hellens construction of Newcastle and suddenly, the cost of the refurbishment of the boating lake rocketed from £60,000, to nearly one million pounds. Persimmon would have probably made around £100,000 on the deal as project managers!
Once again, Mr Wardle was silenced.
Our member then asked Mr Wardle why the council spent £75,000 on surveys and plans for the leisure centre in December last year when the village green case was in the hands of the Supreme Court? Mr Wardle told him that they had done this because they had been told that they had a good chance of winning and that they hadn't wanted to waste any time progressing the scheme once they Supreme Court hearing had finished. So where are the plans asked our member? Mr Wardle expected him to believe that they hadn't been finished, SIX MONTHS after they were commissioned by the council and that no money had been paid yet?
It is obvious that the council are wriggling. It would appear that they are desperately looking to offer excuses, no matter how inplausable they may be, because they know that they seriously made an error of judgement here. They monitor this site and other things that we say in public and they know that we have brought this issue into the public domain. They know that they should not have committed public money to such a cost when it was non-refundable, when the village green issue hadn't even been heard by the Supreme Court and they are trying to cover their backs.
Their cynical attempts to conceal the truth in order to save their own skins over this issue, are as ridiculous as when Ian Hopley stated at the Information Tribunal in Newcastle last Novemeber, that on one hand the council did not know if a seadefence in Coatham was needed yet in the very same breath he said that a seadefence in Coatham was "crucial" to the scheme going ahead? He made such a ridiculous, contradictory statement in order to try and wriggle out of admitting the fact that if the scheme went ahead, this council was committed to spending millions of pounds of public money on a seadefence that was the sole responsibility of Persimmon Homes PLC and in so doing admitting the fact that the council had lied under the FOI act!
Mr Wardle told our member that at the special meeting to be held to discuss the options for Coatham, the options would be put forward and then they would be put out for public consultation with the usual procurement procedures being put into motion after that. However, our member pointed out that Mr Wardle had gotten things the wrong way round?
He pointed out to Mr Wardle that what is supposed to happen is that FIRST the council consults with the public, they then draw up options from that consultation and then discuss the best way forward with the cabinet. But when you look at it, how can we trust the council on this issue when after denying that Persimmon were hanging around in the background, Mr Wardle then admitted that they were? What is happening here is akin to the council and Persimmon homes being involved in Coatham a year before the major leisure scheme in Coatham, that somehow became a major housing scheme, was even advertised as a leisure scheme!
How could any involvement with Persimmon now be unbiased? As such they should have no involvement at all. If they are involved in any further procurement procedures for Coatham, as a house builder, major questions would have to be asked if they were given the contract to build a leisure centre and pool, presumably over and above leisure developers, especially in light of the scandal of the boating lake?
Our member told Mr Wardle that he himself had put forward suggestions for the area which involved the refurbishment of the Coatham Bowl and existing leisure centre. Once again, Mr Wardle was backwards in coming forwards with the truth. He told our member that with his background in construction, he knew that the Bowl was structurally unsound and that it had to come down because it wasn't cost effective to carry out work on it.
Upon being told this, that our member then told him that that was rubbish because he was in possession of a council report from just a couple of years ago, which showed that the Bowl and leisure centre weren't structurally unsound, that they only needed a new roof, a new kitchen, decorating and bringing up to date which at that time was going to cost £1,000,000. Taking inflation into account, this figure would have probably risen to £1,500,000 now.
But more than this common sense defeats Mr Wardles inane statement because when you think about it, if the Bowl and Leisure centre are structurally unsound and the council have known this for at least a couple of years, then why have they been happy to put peoples safety at risk and let people continue to use it?
When these facts were brought to Mr Wardles attention he told our member that he had not seen the council report?
How Convenient.
When asked why the council had not been over to cut the grass on the common and tidy it up and why thay hadnt put dog litter bins there, Mr Wardle said that the council didnt have the resources, but I was on the Stray on Thursaday and council workers were cutting the grass there and there were dog litter bins for people who were walking their dogs there?
Some individuals within our council are an absolute disgrace. If I have said this once, I have said it a thousand times. They deliberately misinform the public, they wriggle and they twist and make up far-fetched excuses when they are so blatantly caught out, they continually issue statements that contradict things that they have previously said and they try and cover their tracks and their undemocratic wrongdoing at at every possible opportunity.
The council have become a laughing stock amongst the legal profession. They have brought our council down into disrepute in tribunal after tribunal. They have had a neighbouring MP call for their investigation. They have been damned and downgraded by the audit commission. They have been found guilty of maladministration by the Ombudsman. They have lied to firms of solicitors in order to try and exhonerate themselves. They have lied under the Freedom of Information act too. They have had a unanimous ruling made against them by the highest court in this country.
Yet still, they exude such arrogance and contempt for the public, still they go uninvestigated.
How much longer can this be allowed to continue?
How wrong I was.
On Sunday night and then again on Monday morning, we were given another two different versions of what is going to happen and why, along with even more contradictory statements about what has already taken place regarding this scheme, from a senior councillor within the council and the head of regeneration council officer Ian Wardle.
On Sunday night at around 6.00pm, a senior councillor telephoned a member of our group and asked if he could come round to his house to talk. The councillor told the member of our group that the Coatham options section of the meeting had infact, been split into two. The options were going to be put forward at some time in the near future and then the confidential items of the Coatham options was going to be discussed at a cabinet meeting to be arranged at a later date and kept behind closed doors.
When quizzed about why any of it was being kept from the public, the councillor explained that there were confidential matters to sort out and discuss. But as our member pointed out that the councilor, in doing this, were actually going against their own constitution as there were no contracts involved in the options for Coatham because they were only options, and the Coatham scheme was dead and buried.
The councillor agreed that the Coatham scheme was indeed dead although he did say that Persimmon had expressed an interest to build on the car park at Majuba Road. However, he went onto say that the council had resisted this because the council had realised what an asset the car park is and that it was a 'jewel in the crown' as people from all over the country came to that car park to use the fabulous beach there.
Strange that he should make this comment when we have been saying this for nearly six years, and it was demonstrated to great effect in Craig Hornby's film " Coatham a common concern ", yet the council never once listened to us and ignored all the things we were saying about the car park being so vital to the town and to tourism here?
The councillor then went onto say that the council were prepared to meet with the small group of members of our group but that certain councillors weren't prepared to meet with me or John Wilkinson, a man who has done so much research and who has exposed so many facts about the disaster known as the Coatham Enclosure scheme. To this the member of our group told him that John had never been on the list to attend the meeting with the council anyway, but I on the other hand had started the campaign and led from the front all the way to victory in the Supreme Court and that there was no way that he, or anyone else, would meet the council without me being present.
I later said to the member of our group, that if it meant that a way forward could be charted then I would step aside, but he was insistant and said that we would not be divided by these people when we had already won in the Supreme Court and they were the ones who had been found to be wrong. He told me that he had told the senior councillor that I might have gotten up the noses of individuals within the council, but at the end of the day, all of the things that I and our group have said have been true and that the council should accept that.
The meeting finished with the councillor telling our member that he would be back in touch with him on Monday night.
As elected and paid members and officers of a local authority, it is incredible to think that they regard themselves as being so high and mighty? It is incredible to think that they can adopt such a lofty position when their failings have been exposed at every turn and ultimately they have been left with their reputation seriously damaged by the Supreme Courts unanimous ruling and the things that have been brought out into the public domain as a result of our six year campaign.
If Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness can sit round the table with Ian Paisley and laugh and discuss together when each of their communities had been murdering each other for decades, if the US and British governments can befriend Colnel Gadaffi when he has been behind murders that have been committed on British soil and around the world, then why do Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council think that they are above meeting just a normal resident who stood up for what he believed in and with the help of a large number of people, peacefully and democratically and within the law, defeated a councils and the countries largest developers, disastrous plans for his home town?
Once again, shame on them for displaying such arrogance.
But the best was to come on Monday morning.
For some time now, the same member of our group had been trying to contact the head of regeneration, Ian Wardle, to ask him certain questions about the scheme, to ask him when the common would be tidied up and more recently, to ask him about the Coatham part of todays cabinet meeting. This morning Mr Wardle called him. Bearing in mind we had already had four versions of what was happening at the meeting today, Mr Wardle MIRACULOUSLY OFFERED A FIFTH!!!
He told our member that the Coatham options section of the cabinet meeting wasn't now going to be discussed because it wasn't even going to be included!
He said that it wasn't going to be included because the papers for yesterdays cabinet meeting hadn't even been prepared because they hadn't had time? and he told our member that the Coatham options section was going to be discussed at a special cabinet meeting, in public, in approximately three weeks time?
Our member at this point, stopped him and told Mr Wardle that he had had a senior councillor in his house just 18 hours previous to him telephoning, and he had told him that the Coatham options section was being split into two and that part of it was going to be heard at a later date behind closed doors?
He also pointed out to Mr Wardle that another senior officer in his own department Alan Logan, had told him that it was going to be discussed behind closed doors and that it was to be that way because it wasn't in the best interests of the public for them to know. He also told him that as late as last week, the Gazettes political editor Sndy Mackenzie, had been informed by the council that the options for Coatham would be discussed but that they would be discussed in public?
Our member went onto tell Mr Wardle that was it any wonder that the public had such little trust in this council when even in defeat, secrecy and contradiction were so prominent and FIVE different versions had been offered, by different people within the council, about ONE subject?
I believe Mr Wardle was being economical with the truth.
If the papers for yesterdays meeting hadn't even been prepared, then why did George Dunning tell another member of our group in an email, that he had seen nothing confidential to discuss about Coatham, hence the issues for discussion were all on white papers? If the papers hadn't been prepared then why did it say in the councils agenda for the meeting, that the press and public were to be excluded and that the confidential papers were to follow?
Amazingly Mr Wardle, as the head of regeneration and a man whos salary would top approximately £100,000 pa, stated that he had no knowledge about any of the other statements that had been made about this subject? How can he not know about or be responsible for things that someone in his own department has already stated before him? How could these things differ so greatly? All Mr Wardle knew is that the options for Coatham now wouldn't even be a part of the meeting.
It is obvious after we have publicly demonstrated, step by step, every contradiction that these people have made, when we have issued a press release about this level of secrecy, that Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council started to sing the song to suit the tune and that they tried to do all they could to beat a hasty retreat from what had become a very 'hot' subject and were trying to give themselves a bit of breathing space to work out what to do next.
But thats not all.
When asked by our member where Persimmon Homes were in all of this, Mr Wardle told our member that because the development agreement had been rendered useless by the Supreme Courts decision, Persimmon were now no longer involved at any level. Our member, once again told Mr Wardle that his response was strange because it differed completely with what the senior councillor and cabinet member had told him just the night before?
He told Mr Wardle that according to the senior councillor, Persimmon had expressed not only an interest in building on the car park, they also had expressed an interest to build the new leisure centre and pool? Even though it went completely against what he had just said, Mr Wardle then admitted that Persimmon had expressed an interest in these things?
"But you have just said that they weren't in the picture anymore our member replied?" Mr Wardle prevaricated and failed to answer the question adequately.
Our member then went onto voice his disgust that Persimmon have made enough money out of the tax payers of this borough already when they were made 'project mangers' for the refurbishment of the boating lake. Mr Wardle insisted that the refurbishment of the boating lake was a seperate issue but our member once again tore his statements to shreds. He told Mr Wardle that the boating lake was initially part of the masterplan and that both Persimmon and Mcalpines were going to make a contribution to the £60,000 cost of carrying out the necessary work at that time. However, Persimmon had then been made project managers for this refurbishment, theirs and Mcalpines financial contribution to it ceased, Persimmon subcontracted the work to Hellens construction of Newcastle and suddenly, the cost of the refurbishment of the boating lake rocketed from £60,000, to nearly one million pounds. Persimmon would have probably made around £100,000 on the deal as project managers!
Once again, Mr Wardle was silenced.
Our member then asked Mr Wardle why the council spent £75,000 on surveys and plans for the leisure centre in December last year when the village green case was in the hands of the Supreme Court? Mr Wardle told him that they had done this because they had been told that they had a good chance of winning and that they hadn't wanted to waste any time progressing the scheme once they Supreme Court hearing had finished. So where are the plans asked our member? Mr Wardle expected him to believe that they hadn't been finished, SIX MONTHS after they were commissioned by the council and that no money had been paid yet?
It is obvious that the council are wriggling. It would appear that they are desperately looking to offer excuses, no matter how inplausable they may be, because they know that they seriously made an error of judgement here. They monitor this site and other things that we say in public and they know that we have brought this issue into the public domain. They know that they should not have committed public money to such a cost when it was non-refundable, when the village green issue hadn't even been heard by the Supreme Court and they are trying to cover their backs.
Their cynical attempts to conceal the truth in order to save their own skins over this issue, are as ridiculous as when Ian Hopley stated at the Information Tribunal in Newcastle last Novemeber, that on one hand the council did not know if a seadefence in Coatham was needed yet in the very same breath he said that a seadefence in Coatham was "crucial" to the scheme going ahead? He made such a ridiculous, contradictory statement in order to try and wriggle out of admitting the fact that if the scheme went ahead, this council was committed to spending millions of pounds of public money on a seadefence that was the sole responsibility of Persimmon Homes PLC and in so doing admitting the fact that the council had lied under the FOI act!
Mr Wardle told our member that at the special meeting to be held to discuss the options for Coatham, the options would be put forward and then they would be put out for public consultation with the usual procurement procedures being put into motion after that. However, our member pointed out that Mr Wardle had gotten things the wrong way round?
He pointed out to Mr Wardle that what is supposed to happen is that FIRST the council consults with the public, they then draw up options from that consultation and then discuss the best way forward with the cabinet. But when you look at it, how can we trust the council on this issue when after denying that Persimmon were hanging around in the background, Mr Wardle then admitted that they were? What is happening here is akin to the council and Persimmon homes being involved in Coatham a year before the major leisure scheme in Coatham, that somehow became a major housing scheme, was even advertised as a leisure scheme!
How could any involvement with Persimmon now be unbiased? As such they should have no involvement at all. If they are involved in any further procurement procedures for Coatham, as a house builder, major questions would have to be asked if they were given the contract to build a leisure centre and pool, presumably over and above leisure developers, especially in light of the scandal of the boating lake?
Our member told Mr Wardle that he himself had put forward suggestions for the area which involved the refurbishment of the Coatham Bowl and existing leisure centre. Once again, Mr Wardle was backwards in coming forwards with the truth. He told our member that with his background in construction, he knew that the Bowl was structurally unsound and that it had to come down because it wasn't cost effective to carry out work on it.
Upon being told this, that our member then told him that that was rubbish because he was in possession of a council report from just a couple of years ago, which showed that the Bowl and leisure centre weren't structurally unsound, that they only needed a new roof, a new kitchen, decorating and bringing up to date which at that time was going to cost £1,000,000. Taking inflation into account, this figure would have probably risen to £1,500,000 now.
But more than this common sense defeats Mr Wardles inane statement because when you think about it, if the Bowl and Leisure centre are structurally unsound and the council have known this for at least a couple of years, then why have they been happy to put peoples safety at risk and let people continue to use it?
When these facts were brought to Mr Wardles attention he told our member that he had not seen the council report?
How Convenient.
When asked why the council had not been over to cut the grass on the common and tidy it up and why thay hadnt put dog litter bins there, Mr Wardle said that the council didnt have the resources, but I was on the Stray on Thursaday and council workers were cutting the grass there and there were dog litter bins for people who were walking their dogs there?
Some individuals within our council are an absolute disgrace. If I have said this once, I have said it a thousand times. They deliberately misinform the public, they wriggle and they twist and make up far-fetched excuses when they are so blatantly caught out, they continually issue statements that contradict things that they have previously said and they try and cover their tracks and their undemocratic wrongdoing at at every possible opportunity.
The council have become a laughing stock amongst the legal profession. They have brought our council down into disrepute in tribunal after tribunal. They have had a neighbouring MP call for their investigation. They have been damned and downgraded by the audit commission. They have been found guilty of maladministration by the Ombudsman. They have lied to firms of solicitors in order to try and exhonerate themselves. They have lied under the Freedom of Information act too. They have had a unanimous ruling made against them by the highest court in this country.
Yet still, they exude such arrogance and contempt for the public, still they go uninvestigated.
How much longer can this be allowed to continue?
// posted by Chris McGlade @ 8:31 PM
Saturday, May 22, 2010
What on earth is going on now?
On Thursday, I sent this email to the local press...
PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 20th MAY 2010...
CAMPAIGNERS CALL FOR OPENESS AND TRANSPARENCY OVER COATHAM...
Following the Supreme Courts unanimous ruling in March in favour of the Friends of Coatham Common's application to register part of Coatham Common as a village green which saw the Coatham Enclosure scheme be publicly abandoned and which changed the law on two points regarding the registration of open spaces in this Country, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council are still persisting in holding talks about the options for Coatham, behind closed doors.
Despite Council leader George Dunning telling one of the group in correspondences that the options for Coatham would be discussed at the cabinet meeting on the 25th of May and that the public would be able to be in attendance because there "would be no confidential financial items hence all on white public papers", the council have now done a complete U turn and have decided to hold the Coatham options section of the meeting behind closed doors, excluding the press and public.
Founder of the campaign against the houses in Coatham Chris Mcglade said " The council have failed to learn any lessons even though they have been found wanting by the Supreme Court itself. The Supreme Courts ruling stated that the council "got it wrong from the start" and it would appear that rather than wanting to make a fresh start and do things correctly this time by holding open and transparent discussions about this subject, they would prefer to carry on getting things wrong and by doing everything in secret which does absolutely nothing to instil confidence or trust in the general public".
Mr Charles Davis of the Friends said, "we were told by a senior council officer that the Coatham part of the meeting was infact being held behind closed doors because commercially sensitive issues were tied into the options for Coatham and that it wasn't in the best interests of the public for them to know. But there is no scheme, it has been abandoned, and therefore there can be nothing of any commercially sensitive nature to discuss, this was even stated by the leader of the council in an email to another member of our group? And since when has keeping things secret from the public ever been in their best interests?
The whole thing is an absolute disgrace when you take into consideration the scale of the Supreme Courts landmark ruling, the massive mistrust that the councils reluctance to be open about Coatham has caused in the past, and given that this council have wasted four million pounds of public money by spending it on things which are the sole responsibility of Persimmon homes. Just what have this Council got to hide about Coatham?"
Mr Mcglade concluded "These people are trying to cover up their mistakes regarding Coatham, this is the only reason for the secrecy and we intend to go to the meeting at the Eston Town Hall on May 25th at 10'oclock and ask the questions that still have not been answered. Now is not the time for secrecy and subdifuge, now is the time for honesty and transparency and for everyone to come together to discuss the right way forward and we will not go away until the truth about this scheme that our last MP Vera Baird called a disaster on radio, is known.
PRESS RELEASE ENDS....
It went out just before I posted details of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council's decision to hold the Coatham Options section of their cabinet meeting, behind closed doors next Tuesday, on this site.
However, yesterday after the press release had been in the hands of the press for approximately a day, I was then emailed by the Evening Gazette's Political editor Sandy Mackenzie, who told me that he too had seen that the Coatham options had been omitted from the agenda but when he asked at the council, they told him that the options for Coatham section of the meeting WAS going to be held in public?
So what a situation we have now!!!
Firstly we had the leader of the council telling members of the public by email, that the options section would be open to the public.
But then we had the Coatham options section being omitted from the cabinet papers and stating that the press and public would be exluded from these discussions and that it wouldn't be open to them?
Then we have council officer Alan Logan backing this up by telling a member of our group that the Coatham options section would be discussed behind closed doors because commercially sensitive issues were tied into the options and AMAZINGLY that it wasn't in the best interests of the public to know?
And now finally, we have the Gazettes political editor telling us that just a couple of days ago, he was informed by the council that the Coatham options section would be held in public again?
Who on earth can understand what these people are doing when they seem to chop and change their minds on practically a daily basis depending it seems, on what is made public and what isn't?
I was also interested to see on the BBC news yesterday, that the new coalition Government is now going to force all local authorities to make details of all elements of their spending over the sum of £500.00 public, in the interests of openness and transparency http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/8694584.stm
How that must have come as a swift kick in the doo dahs to those who are running Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council at a time when they were trying to sweep everything under the carpet and attempt to keep everything secret regarding the Coatham scheme...even though it has been abandoned?
I suppose we'll just have to go to the cabinet meeting on Tuesday and see if we are asked to leave, because I honestly haven't got a clue at this moment in time as to what their exact intentions are???
Is this really how a democratic, open, transparent, accountable local authority should leave the public thinking and feeling?
PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 20th MAY 2010...
CAMPAIGNERS CALL FOR OPENESS AND TRANSPARENCY OVER COATHAM...
Following the Supreme Courts unanimous ruling in March in favour of the Friends of Coatham Common's application to register part of Coatham Common as a village green which saw the Coatham Enclosure scheme be publicly abandoned and which changed the law on two points regarding the registration of open spaces in this Country, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council are still persisting in holding talks about the options for Coatham, behind closed doors.
Despite Council leader George Dunning telling one of the group in correspondences that the options for Coatham would be discussed at the cabinet meeting on the 25th of May and that the public would be able to be in attendance because there "would be no confidential financial items hence all on white public papers", the council have now done a complete U turn and have decided to hold the Coatham options section of the meeting behind closed doors, excluding the press and public.
Founder of the campaign against the houses in Coatham Chris Mcglade said " The council have failed to learn any lessons even though they have been found wanting by the Supreme Court itself. The Supreme Courts ruling stated that the council "got it wrong from the start" and it would appear that rather than wanting to make a fresh start and do things correctly this time by holding open and transparent discussions about this subject, they would prefer to carry on getting things wrong and by doing everything in secret which does absolutely nothing to instil confidence or trust in the general public".
Mr Charles Davis of the Friends said, "we were told by a senior council officer that the Coatham part of the meeting was infact being held behind closed doors because commercially sensitive issues were tied into the options for Coatham and that it wasn't in the best interests of the public for them to know. But there is no scheme, it has been abandoned, and therefore there can be nothing of any commercially sensitive nature to discuss, this was even stated by the leader of the council in an email to another member of our group? And since when has keeping things secret from the public ever been in their best interests?
The whole thing is an absolute disgrace when you take into consideration the scale of the Supreme Courts landmark ruling, the massive mistrust that the councils reluctance to be open about Coatham has caused in the past, and given that this council have wasted four million pounds of public money by spending it on things which are the sole responsibility of Persimmon homes. Just what have this Council got to hide about Coatham?"
Mr Mcglade concluded "These people are trying to cover up their mistakes regarding Coatham, this is the only reason for the secrecy and we intend to go to the meeting at the Eston Town Hall on May 25th at 10'oclock and ask the questions that still have not been answered. Now is not the time for secrecy and subdifuge, now is the time for honesty and transparency and for everyone to come together to discuss the right way forward and we will not go away until the truth about this scheme that our last MP Vera Baird called a disaster on radio, is known.
PRESS RELEASE ENDS....
It went out just before I posted details of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council's decision to hold the Coatham Options section of their cabinet meeting, behind closed doors next Tuesday, on this site.
However, yesterday after the press release had been in the hands of the press for approximately a day, I was then emailed by the Evening Gazette's Political editor Sandy Mackenzie, who told me that he too had seen that the Coatham options had been omitted from the agenda but when he asked at the council, they told him that the options for Coatham section of the meeting WAS going to be held in public?
So what a situation we have now!!!
Firstly we had the leader of the council telling members of the public by email, that the options section would be open to the public.
But then we had the Coatham options section being omitted from the cabinet papers and stating that the press and public would be exluded from these discussions and that it wouldn't be open to them?
Then we have council officer Alan Logan backing this up by telling a member of our group that the Coatham options section would be discussed behind closed doors because commercially sensitive issues were tied into the options and AMAZINGLY that it wasn't in the best interests of the public to know?
And now finally, we have the Gazettes political editor telling us that just a couple of days ago, he was informed by the council that the Coatham options section would be held in public again?
Who on earth can understand what these people are doing when they seem to chop and change their minds on practically a daily basis depending it seems, on what is made public and what isn't?
I was also interested to see on the BBC news yesterday, that the new coalition Government is now going to force all local authorities to make details of all elements of their spending over the sum of £500.00 public, in the interests of openness and transparency http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/8694584.stm
How that must have come as a swift kick in the doo dahs to those who are running Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council at a time when they were trying to sweep everything under the carpet and attempt to keep everything secret regarding the Coatham scheme...even though it has been abandoned?
I suppose we'll just have to go to the cabinet meeting on Tuesday and see if we are asked to leave, because I honestly haven't got a clue at this moment in time as to what their exact intentions are???
Is this really how a democratic, open, transparent, accountable local authority should leave the public thinking and feeling?
// posted by Chris McGlade @ 5:05 AM
Friday, May 21, 2010
Even in defeat, the secrecy regarding The Coatham Enclosure Scheme goes on...
Shortly after the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in our favour, the leader of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, George Dunning, sent a letter to a member of our group stating quite clearly that all issues regarding the aftermath of the Coatham scheme being abandoned, were going to be treated in an open and transparent manner.
Soon after this, another member of our group was invited along with a handful of others by council officer Ian Wardle, to a meeting with Mr Wardle and councillor Mark Hannon to discuss the way forward with Coatham.
I sent an email to Amanda Skelton following her disgraceful performance at a meeting of the Redcar Rotary Club, countering the false claims that she had made to the Rotary club about The Coatham Scheme, pointing out the real facts to her and asking her to call for an independent investigation into the issue of FOUR MILLION POUNDS OF PUBLIC MONEY being spent by this council on things which were the sole responsibility of Persimmon Homes PLC in trying to progress a scheme that they knew all along was unlawful and blighted with problems and controversy.
Nearly two months down the line and Mrs Skelton has not yet answered?
But as if that display of arrogant contempt wasn't bad enough, not only is the future of the meeting proposed by Ian Wardle now looking extremely precarious because he is wriggling around and fudging the issue with his secretary telling us that in approximately four weeks they been able to pin a date down for everyone to attend, or Mr Wardle is constantly in meetings, George Dunnings claim, in his letter to a member of our group that the council were going to include the public in meetings about Coatham and that they were going to adopt an open and transparent approach is more akin to absolute myth than it is Councillor Dunnings usual hot air.
Why is that? I hear you say.
Well...you only have to look at the Cabinet papers for the Cabinet meeting planned for the twenty fifth of this month to see that far from being open and transparent over the issue of Coatham Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, even in the wake of the death of it's pet scheme, are still keeping everything regarding the 'botched', 'tainted', 'disaster' completely secret by excluding both the press and public from the cabinet meeting when the options for Coatham are discussed.
There is no scheme left, it has been abandoned, there can be nothing of any commercially sensitive nature to hide behind and yet this council are still keeping everything regarding this scheme under lock and key?
When this bunch of cowboys have WASTED approximately FOUR MILLION POUNDS of PUBLIC MONEY trying to progress this scheme on behalf of the richest builder in the country for it to end up being scrapped not only should there be an open and independent investigation, heads should roll for at least, the sheer incompetence that has led to this mess and waste of public money. And yet instead, these people think that if they say nout and just continue to try and keep everything regarding this most underhanded scheme under wraps and if they continue to treat the public of Redcar and Cleveland with sheer contempt, that everything will be ok.
I've got news for them, it isn't. Now that the election is over and the burden of having a greedy, two faced MP called Vera Baird has been lifted from the shoulders of this area and now that this Labour led council hasn't got the protection that they enjoyed whilst Baird was MP, we are going to do all that we can to expose what has happened here and the cover up that is still being purpotrated even though the scheme has been officially abandoned.
How many schemes do you know of were kept secret even though they have been abandoned?
Let investigation begin, let the unanswered questions be answered and let the guilty and those responsible for the sheer waste of FOUR MILLION POUNDS OF PUBLIC MONEY BE SACKED!
Soon after this, another member of our group was invited along with a handful of others by council officer Ian Wardle, to a meeting with Mr Wardle and councillor Mark Hannon to discuss the way forward with Coatham.
I sent an email to Amanda Skelton following her disgraceful performance at a meeting of the Redcar Rotary Club, countering the false claims that she had made to the Rotary club about The Coatham Scheme, pointing out the real facts to her and asking her to call for an independent investigation into the issue of FOUR MILLION POUNDS OF PUBLIC MONEY being spent by this council on things which were the sole responsibility of Persimmon Homes PLC in trying to progress a scheme that they knew all along was unlawful and blighted with problems and controversy.
Nearly two months down the line and Mrs Skelton has not yet answered?
But as if that display of arrogant contempt wasn't bad enough, not only is the future of the meeting proposed by Ian Wardle now looking extremely precarious because he is wriggling around and fudging the issue with his secretary telling us that in approximately four weeks they been able to pin a date down for everyone to attend, or Mr Wardle is constantly in meetings, George Dunnings claim, in his letter to a member of our group that the council were going to include the public in meetings about Coatham and that they were going to adopt an open and transparent approach is more akin to absolute myth than it is Councillor Dunnings usual hot air.
Why is that? I hear you say.
Well...you only have to look at the Cabinet papers for the Cabinet meeting planned for the twenty fifth of this month to see that far from being open and transparent over the issue of Coatham Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, even in the wake of the death of it's pet scheme, are still keeping everything regarding the 'botched', 'tainted', 'disaster' completely secret by excluding both the press and public from the cabinet meeting when the options for Coatham are discussed.
There is no scheme left, it has been abandoned, there can be nothing of any commercially sensitive nature to hide behind and yet this council are still keeping everything regarding this scheme under lock and key?
When this bunch of cowboys have WASTED approximately FOUR MILLION POUNDS of PUBLIC MONEY trying to progress this scheme on behalf of the richest builder in the country for it to end up being scrapped not only should there be an open and independent investigation, heads should roll for at least, the sheer incompetence that has led to this mess and waste of public money. And yet instead, these people think that if they say nout and just continue to try and keep everything regarding this most underhanded scheme under wraps and if they continue to treat the public of Redcar and Cleveland with sheer contempt, that everything will be ok.
I've got news for them, it isn't. Now that the election is over and the burden of having a greedy, two faced MP called Vera Baird has been lifted from the shoulders of this area and now that this Labour led council hasn't got the protection that they enjoyed whilst Baird was MP, we are going to do all that we can to expose what has happened here and the cover up that is still being purpotrated even though the scheme has been officially abandoned.
How many schemes do you know of were kept secret even though they have been abandoned?
Let investigation begin, let the unanswered questions be answered and let the guilty and those responsible for the sheer waste of FOUR MILLION POUNDS OF PUBLIC MONEY BE SACKED!
// posted by Chris McGlade @ 3:36 AM
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Even in defeat, the secrecy regarding The Coatham Enclosure Scheme goes on...
Shortly after the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in our favour, the leader of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, George Dunning, sent a letter to a member of our group stating quite clearly that all issues regarding the aftermath of the Coatham scheme being abandoned, were going to be treated in an open and transparent manner.
Soon after this, another member of our group was invited along with a handful of others by council officer Ian Wardle, to a meeting with Mr Wardle and councillor Mark Hannon to discuss the way forward with Coatham.
I sent an email to Amanda Skelton following her disgraceful performance at a meeting of the Redcar Rotary Club, countering the false claims that she had made to the Rotary club about The Coatham Scheme, pointing out the real facts to her and asking her to call for an independent investigation into the issue of FOUR MILLION POUNDS OF PUBLIC MONEY being spent by this council on things which were the sole responsibility of Persimmon Homes PLC in trying to progress a scheme that they knew all along was unlawful and blighted with problems and controversy.
Nearly two months down the line and Mrs Skelton has not yet answered?
But as if that display of arrogant contempt wasn't bad enough, not only is the future of the meeting proposed by Ian Wardle now looking extremely precarious, because he is wriggling around and fudging the issue with his secretary telling us that they can't pin a date down for everyone to attend and Mr Wardle is constantly in meetings, George Dunnings claim, in his letter to a member of our group that the council were going to include the public in meetings about Coatham and that they were going to adopt an open and transparent approach is looking as much an absolute myth.
Soon after this, another member of our group was invited along with a handful of others by council officer Ian Wardle, to a meeting with Mr Wardle and councillor Mark Hannon to discuss the way forward with Coatham.
I sent an email to Amanda Skelton following her disgraceful performance at a meeting of the Redcar Rotary Club, countering the false claims that she had made to the Rotary club about The Coatham Scheme, pointing out the real facts to her and asking her to call for an independent investigation into the issue of FOUR MILLION POUNDS OF PUBLIC MONEY being spent by this council on things which were the sole responsibility of Persimmon Homes PLC in trying to progress a scheme that they knew all along was unlawful and blighted with problems and controversy.
Nearly two months down the line and Mrs Skelton has not yet answered?
But as if that display of arrogant contempt wasn't bad enough, not only is the future of the meeting proposed by Ian Wardle now looking extremely precarious, because he is wriggling around and fudging the issue with his secretary telling us that they can't pin a date down for everyone to attend and Mr Wardle is constantly in meetings, George Dunnings claim, in his letter to a member of our group that the council were going to include the public in meetings about Coatham and that they were going to adopt an open and transparent approach is looking as much an absolute myth.
// posted by Chris McGlade @ 6:23 AM
Saturday, April 24, 2010
VICTORY!!! But what happens now?
It has been approximately six weeks since the Supreme Court of England, the highest court in this land, ruled unanimously in our favour so ending the 'disastrous' to quote Vera Baird, Coatham housing scheme and our five and a half year campaign.
All five Supreme Court judges ruled that the land in Coatham should be registered as a village green and all five judges stated that not only had we fulfilled all of the criteria to have the land registered as a village green, we had done so when we first applied to have the land registered in 2005? Five of the most senior judges in this country could not understand why, when we had fulfilled all of the criteria to have the land registered in 2005, had the original village green inspector Mr Vivian Chapman QC, still ruled in the councils favour?
For this the Supreme Court said that Mr Chapman had "seriously misdirected himself".
What is even more surprising to learn is that when the whole village green process was ongoing during 2005/2006, whilst we were allowed absolutely no contact with Mr Chapman whatsoever, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council were direct in contact with Mr Chapman all of the time, even at home?
It has taken me approximately six weeks to think about what I wanted to say and I want to say this...
The Supreme Court ruling unanimously in our favour has now changed the law on two points in this country regarding the registering of open land as village greens and open spaces. Village greens and open spaces will now be registered more easily and The Friends of The Earth, The Environmental Law Foundation, The Open Spaces Society, the legal system, law journals and magazines have all hailed our victory in Coatham as a result of our sustained, peaceful, lawful, democratic campaign, as 'monumental'.
Generations of people in this country will now benefit from areas of land in this country being saved and kept open as a result of our campaign and our struggle and this indeed is monumental. Groups of people from as far away as Brixham in Devon, Morcambe, Sedgefield, Cumbria and York have approached me wanting advice and the knowledge that we have as a result of campaigning for so long. I feel proud and I feel humble and I also feel knackered too!
But I also feel dismayed. Dismayed that despite over four miillion pounds of public money being wasted by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council pushing this housing scheme on behalf of Persimmon Homes PLC and despite me and our group being totally vindicated by the Supreme Courts unanimous ruling, elements of this council assisted by the local press, are still trying to peddle untruths and paint false pictures to the largely misinformed public. Not only that, not one question has been asked about the huge amount of public money that has been wasted.
The Chief Executive of the council, Amanda Skelton, addressed a meeting of the Redcar Rotary club some weeks ago and fed them utter rubbish about all these pie in the sky leisure facilities not now going ahead because the protestors had won and the Coatham Development had been stopped when in truth, the leisure facilities that the council have been touting for five and a half years were never going to happen because they had attracted absolutely no funding whatsoever and that is with the housing scheme having planning permission. I have written a detailed letter to Amanda Skelton outlining her 'mistakes' and over a month down the line, she has not had the courtesy to reply.
The Evening Gazette, faithful to the council to the end, printed the story of the Supreme Courts ruling as it happened but so biased and misinformed was their reporting, that I threatened to take them to the Press Complaints Commission. Their political editor Sandy Mackenzie invited me to send him a press release which wasn't printed for over a week and when it was is was 'coincidentally' tied in with a release from the council which informed us that Persimmon had pulled out of the development?
The Gazette published a letter from someone who basically tried to put our group down with misinformed claims, but refused to print my reply which contained 100% fact which answered those claims? This is particularly galling when you take into consideration that the Gazette then printed, just this week and nearly seven weeks after the Supreme Court ruling, another particularly nasty, untruthful, 'poison pen letter which was obviously written to stir up animosity towards the people who have campaigned against the housing element of the Coatham scheme. What's more they chose to draw more attention to this vitriolic rubbish by putting a picture of the un-necessary fencing which blighted Coatham for two and a half years, piled high on Coatham Common, next to it. I sent two emails to the editor of the Gazette complaining about his newspapers blatant bias and copied the PCC into the second.
Strangely enough, the day after I complained, a letter appeared in the paper countering the most recent poisonous letter?
I and other members of our group on the other hand, have deliberately not said anything and there are lots of things that I could certainly say. I have allowed people to attack our group publicly for stopping this development when I have information that would show those people who have attacked us, that not everyone within the council were as against the scheme as they made out and that our victory in the Supreme Court was as a direct result of their actions, but I haven't.
Why haven't I?
Because now is not the time for arguing, past differences and concentrating on things that have no meaning anymore, now is the time for us all to come together to work out what is best and what is achievable for Coatham. The facts are there, uncovered and made public by our group for five and a half years. The anonymous snipers, Persimmon and elements of the council can continue to try to peddle their untruths and take their pot shots as much as they like but they can't escape the facts and the facts are that there were never going to be any leisure facilities in Coatham save a swimming pool and leisure centre that the the council were going to borrow fourteen million pounds to build and raise council tax to do so.
Our group and I have wanted the best deal for Coatham and now that the houses have been stopped, we can still get it. Now that the houses have been stopped we still have a blank canvass in Coatham, we still have the opportunity, and time, to develop the area solely for leisure purposes something that historically, the area has always been used for. I agree 100% with what Liberal Democrat General Election Candidate Ian Swales said publicly after the Supreme Courts landmark ruling, when he said that the council were going to borrow the money to build a pool so even though the houses have been stopped, the pool should still be built.
Infact, so much do I wish to see no more animosity washing around, so much do I want to see Coatham and the town get the best deal that it can and even though I have been directly against the Liberal Democrats over the issue of Coatham, I have pledged my support to Ians General Election campaign and I would urge every last one of the 2379 people who voted for me in the 2005 General Election, to vote for Ian this time around.
He is a local man who like me, cares passionately about Redcar. He hasn't been drafted in from some other part of the country to contest the seat, he lives here and he listens to local people. My decision isn't based on party politics because I am a socialist at heart. My decision is based on the fact that I believe that he has a real passion and caring for this area and that he would be the best man for the job.
Redcar doesn't need a Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat as MP, what it needs is a local man as MP.
I stood up nearly six years ago to try and stop the housing in Coatham. This council have wasted four million pounds of public money by picking up the tab for things that were the sole responsibility of Persimmon Homes PLC. If the houses had gone ahead, then that sum would have increased by many millions more because this council had pledged themselves to building a sea defence to protect the houses that Persimmon wanted to build and that massive undertaking was the sole responsibility of Persimmon Homes. Thank God we stopped that.
I am proud, not just of myself, but of the hundreds of people from all over Redcar and the wider borough who petitioned, marched, leafletted, researched, attended meetings and who have endured all manner of smears and denegration through fighting this campaign. I am proud of all those people from around the country who have helped us through the five and a half years, overcome against massive odds.
To every last one of them I just simply want to say thankyou and to the people of Coatham and Redcar I want to say lets all come together to now get the very best for Coatham that we possibly can.
Never again let the people of this town and borough, and what they want, be ignored.
Peace,
Chris Mcglade.
All five Supreme Court judges ruled that the land in Coatham should be registered as a village green and all five judges stated that not only had we fulfilled all of the criteria to have the land registered as a village green, we had done so when we first applied to have the land registered in 2005? Five of the most senior judges in this country could not understand why, when we had fulfilled all of the criteria to have the land registered in 2005, had the original village green inspector Mr Vivian Chapman QC, still ruled in the councils favour?
For this the Supreme Court said that Mr Chapman had "seriously misdirected himself".
What is even more surprising to learn is that when the whole village green process was ongoing during 2005/2006, whilst we were allowed absolutely no contact with Mr Chapman whatsoever, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council were direct in contact with Mr Chapman all of the time, even at home?
It has taken me approximately six weeks to think about what I wanted to say and I want to say this...
The Supreme Court ruling unanimously in our favour has now changed the law on two points in this country regarding the registering of open land as village greens and open spaces. Village greens and open spaces will now be registered more easily and The Friends of The Earth, The Environmental Law Foundation, The Open Spaces Society, the legal system, law journals and magazines have all hailed our victory in Coatham as a result of our sustained, peaceful, lawful, democratic campaign, as 'monumental'.
Generations of people in this country will now benefit from areas of land in this country being saved and kept open as a result of our campaign and our struggle and this indeed is monumental. Groups of people from as far away as Brixham in Devon, Morcambe, Sedgefield, Cumbria and York have approached me wanting advice and the knowledge that we have as a result of campaigning for so long. I feel proud and I feel humble and I also feel knackered too!
But I also feel dismayed. Dismayed that despite over four miillion pounds of public money being wasted by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council pushing this housing scheme on behalf of Persimmon Homes PLC and despite me and our group being totally vindicated by the Supreme Courts unanimous ruling, elements of this council assisted by the local press, are still trying to peddle untruths and paint false pictures to the largely misinformed public. Not only that, not one question has been asked about the huge amount of public money that has been wasted.
The Chief Executive of the council, Amanda Skelton, addressed a meeting of the Redcar Rotary club some weeks ago and fed them utter rubbish about all these pie in the sky leisure facilities not now going ahead because the protestors had won and the Coatham Development had been stopped when in truth, the leisure facilities that the council have been touting for five and a half years were never going to happen because they had attracted absolutely no funding whatsoever and that is with the housing scheme having planning permission. I have written a detailed letter to Amanda Skelton outlining her 'mistakes' and over a month down the line, she has not had the courtesy to reply.
The Evening Gazette, faithful to the council to the end, printed the story of the Supreme Courts ruling as it happened but so biased and misinformed was their reporting, that I threatened to take them to the Press Complaints Commission. Their political editor Sandy Mackenzie invited me to send him a press release which wasn't printed for over a week and when it was is was 'coincidentally' tied in with a release from the council which informed us that Persimmon had pulled out of the development?
The Gazette published a letter from someone who basically tried to put our group down with misinformed claims, but refused to print my reply which contained 100% fact which answered those claims? This is particularly galling when you take into consideration that the Gazette then printed, just this week and nearly seven weeks after the Supreme Court ruling, another particularly nasty, untruthful, 'poison pen letter which was obviously written to stir up animosity towards the people who have campaigned against the housing element of the Coatham scheme. What's more they chose to draw more attention to this vitriolic rubbish by putting a picture of the un-necessary fencing which blighted Coatham for two and a half years, piled high on Coatham Common, next to it. I sent two emails to the editor of the Gazette complaining about his newspapers blatant bias and copied the PCC into the second.
Strangely enough, the day after I complained, a letter appeared in the paper countering the most recent poisonous letter?
I and other members of our group on the other hand, have deliberately not said anything and there are lots of things that I could certainly say. I have allowed people to attack our group publicly for stopping this development when I have information that would show those people who have attacked us, that not everyone within the council were as against the scheme as they made out and that our victory in the Supreme Court was as a direct result of their actions, but I haven't.
Why haven't I?
Because now is not the time for arguing, past differences and concentrating on things that have no meaning anymore, now is the time for us all to come together to work out what is best and what is achievable for Coatham. The facts are there, uncovered and made public by our group for five and a half years. The anonymous snipers, Persimmon and elements of the council can continue to try to peddle their untruths and take their pot shots as much as they like but they can't escape the facts and the facts are that there were never going to be any leisure facilities in Coatham save a swimming pool and leisure centre that the the council were going to borrow fourteen million pounds to build and raise council tax to do so.
Our group and I have wanted the best deal for Coatham and now that the houses have been stopped, we can still get it. Now that the houses have been stopped we still have a blank canvass in Coatham, we still have the opportunity, and time, to develop the area solely for leisure purposes something that historically, the area has always been used for. I agree 100% with what Liberal Democrat General Election Candidate Ian Swales said publicly after the Supreme Courts landmark ruling, when he said that the council were going to borrow the money to build a pool so even though the houses have been stopped, the pool should still be built.
Infact, so much do I wish to see no more animosity washing around, so much do I want to see Coatham and the town get the best deal that it can and even though I have been directly against the Liberal Democrats over the issue of Coatham, I have pledged my support to Ians General Election campaign and I would urge every last one of the 2379 people who voted for me in the 2005 General Election, to vote for Ian this time around.
He is a local man who like me, cares passionately about Redcar. He hasn't been drafted in from some other part of the country to contest the seat, he lives here and he listens to local people. My decision isn't based on party politics because I am a socialist at heart. My decision is based on the fact that I believe that he has a real passion and caring for this area and that he would be the best man for the job.
Redcar doesn't need a Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat as MP, what it needs is a local man as MP.
I stood up nearly six years ago to try and stop the housing in Coatham. This council have wasted four million pounds of public money by picking up the tab for things that were the sole responsibility of Persimmon Homes PLC. If the houses had gone ahead, then that sum would have increased by many millions more because this council had pledged themselves to building a sea defence to protect the houses that Persimmon wanted to build and that massive undertaking was the sole responsibility of Persimmon Homes. Thank God we stopped that.
I am proud, not just of myself, but of the hundreds of people from all over Redcar and the wider borough who petitioned, marched, leafletted, researched, attended meetings and who have endured all manner of smears and denegration through fighting this campaign. I am proud of all those people from around the country who have helped us through the five and a half years, overcome against massive odds.
To every last one of them I just simply want to say thankyou and to the people of Coatham and Redcar I want to say lets all come together to now get the very best for Coatham that we possibly can.
Never again let the people of this town and borough, and what they want, be ignored.
Peace,
Chris Mcglade.
// posted by Chris McGlade @ 5:31 AM
Sunday, January 10, 2010
What on earth is going on?
This is an absolute sham. Remember the £19,000,000 fraud case in which Persimmon Homes were found to have been instrumental? Well read this latest episode and prepared to be shocked. The seven men who had all been fingered as being guilty by the crooked accountant, all walked away free? The guilty accountant who admitted that he was guilty and didn't hide from the police what had been going on, was spared prison and given a couple of hundred hours community work? The mastermind behind it all is still on the run in a foreign country? And Persimmon Homes, the developer who was found to have been instrumental in all of this fraud on a multi million pound scale, still have not been investigated?
The crime has been committed, the police know that it has, they know who has done it yet despite knowing it and despite knowing that a thorough investigation of Persimmon Homes would shed even more light on things, nothing has been done by the Police or the courts or even by the Labour MP for the area who I believe was informed, some months ago, of what has taken place.
This is an absolute disgrace.
January 04, 2010
PINNER, MIDDLESEX; DARTFORD, KENT; FOREST GATE, WALTHAMSTOW, EAST LONDON; SOUTH OCKENDON, ILFORD, ESSEX;
A crooked chartered accountant who helped pull off a multi-million pound mortgage con was spared jail today (Mon).
Stuart Joseph, 63, was paid £100 a time to rubber stamp false financial records for clients he had never even met to ensure they would be granted mortgages.
Over seven years the accountant repeatedly helped brokers secure loans from high street lenders by providing false applicant details.
Joseph was caught out following an investigation into a £19million scam which involved the purchase of a block of new flats from Persimmon Homes, one of Britain's biggest homebuilders, before selling them on at huge mark-ups.
It was claimed he was approached by a group of white collar professionals and paid to help them make doshonest mortgage applications.
Joseph admitted his role to police but in November last year seven men accused of the swindle were cleared of any wrongdoing.
He admitted seven counts of false accounting and asked for another 32 similar offences to be taken into consideration against him at Southwark Crown Court.
Richard Mandel QC, prosecuting, said: 'This is something, if you look at it with the other offences to be taken into consideration, Mr Joseph did on a regular basis, starting from 2000 and carrying on well into the middle of 2007.'
Following his arrest in May 2007, Joseph told police he had nothing to do with the conspiracy to defraud mortgage lenders.
'He said what he had done was to provide either certificates or accounts but only in terms of information he had been given by brokers which he believed to be true.
'The only flaw he would acknowledge was that he had failed in his duty of due diligence.'
Joseph signed a deal with police to get a reduced sentence if he gave evidence against seven other men accused of the con.
But following a lengthy trial estate agent Mohammed Barrie, 39, brother Muctaru, 29, mortgage valuers Brad Fisher, 44, George Sourou, 43, and Sofiya Ahmed, 28, accountant Dean Dairo, 48, and solicitor Okwuchukwu Izuchukwu, 45, walked free from court.
The alleged mastermind Alim Barry, a Sierra Leonean property magnate who also owns houses in Leeds and Manchester, has fled abroad.
In early 2006, his shell company Atrex bought a total of 84 flats in the Hill House block in Thamesmead, South East London from Persimmon for £15.25m.
The properties were later sold on for £18.75m - a total profit of £3.5m.
It was claimed in court that Persimmon staff were involved in the fraud but police did not have the resources to investigate the company.
Barry and his alleged accomplices recruited dozens of low-income workers as mortgage applicants, promising them they could move into the luxury apartments for nothing.
It was claimed the defendants used Joseph's accountancy skills to produce a series of fake financial histories to fool banks into handing over the loans.
Handing Joseph a 12 month prison sentence suspended for 12 months, Judge Andrew Goymer said: 'You, as a chartered accountant and a member of the professional body that is the most highly regarded in the accountancy profession, thoroughly abused that position and abused the trust that was placed in you.
'Over a period of some years you produced false sets of accounts in respect of individuals who had never been your clients and for whom you had never acted financially.'
Joseph, of Furham Field, in Pinner, Middx, was also ordered to do 260 hours of unpaid work.
Mohammed Barrie, of (78) Pinewood Ave, Dartford, Kent; Izuchukwu, of (139) Earlham Grove, Forest Gate, East London; Ahmed, of (153) Howard Road, Walthamstow, East London; Dairo, of (20) Eastern Ave, South Ockendon, Essex; Fisher, of (33) Tiptree Crescent, Ilford, Essex; and Sourou, of (21) The Crescent, Ilford, Essex were cleared of a conspiracy to defraud mortgage lenders.
Muctaru Barrie, also of (78) Pinewood Place, Mohammed Barrie and Izuchukwu were cleared of a conspiracy to launder criminal property.
ENDS
P.S...And to think that our council are in bed with Persimmon and that our council have already told me that they don't have a problem with them?
The crime has been committed, the police know that it has, they know who has done it yet despite knowing it and despite knowing that a thorough investigation of Persimmon Homes would shed even more light on things, nothing has been done by the Police or the courts or even by the Labour MP for the area who I believe was informed, some months ago, of what has taken place.
This is an absolute disgrace.
January 04, 2010
PINNER, MIDDLESEX; DARTFORD, KENT; FOREST GATE, WALTHAMSTOW, EAST LONDON; SOUTH OCKENDON, ILFORD, ESSEX;
A crooked chartered accountant who helped pull off a multi-million pound mortgage con was spared jail today (Mon).
Stuart Joseph, 63, was paid £100 a time to rubber stamp false financial records for clients he had never even met to ensure they would be granted mortgages.
Over seven years the accountant repeatedly helped brokers secure loans from high street lenders by providing false applicant details.
Joseph was caught out following an investigation into a £19million scam which involved the purchase of a block of new flats from Persimmon Homes, one of Britain's biggest homebuilders, before selling them on at huge mark-ups.
It was claimed he was approached by a group of white collar professionals and paid to help them make doshonest mortgage applications.
Joseph admitted his role to police but in November last year seven men accused of the swindle were cleared of any wrongdoing.
He admitted seven counts of false accounting and asked for another 32 similar offences to be taken into consideration against him at Southwark Crown Court.
Richard Mandel QC, prosecuting, said: 'This is something, if you look at it with the other offences to be taken into consideration, Mr Joseph did on a regular basis, starting from 2000 and carrying on well into the middle of 2007.'
Following his arrest in May 2007, Joseph told police he had nothing to do with the conspiracy to defraud mortgage lenders.
'He said what he had done was to provide either certificates or accounts but only in terms of information he had been given by brokers which he believed to be true.
'The only flaw he would acknowledge was that he had failed in his duty of due diligence.'
Joseph signed a deal with police to get a reduced sentence if he gave evidence against seven other men accused of the con.
But following a lengthy trial estate agent Mohammed Barrie, 39, brother Muctaru, 29, mortgage valuers Brad Fisher, 44, George Sourou, 43, and Sofiya Ahmed, 28, accountant Dean Dairo, 48, and solicitor Okwuchukwu Izuchukwu, 45, walked free from court.
The alleged mastermind Alim Barry, a Sierra Leonean property magnate who also owns houses in Leeds and Manchester, has fled abroad.
In early 2006, his shell company Atrex bought a total of 84 flats in the Hill House block in Thamesmead, South East London from Persimmon for £15.25m.
The properties were later sold on for £18.75m - a total profit of £3.5m.
It was claimed in court that Persimmon staff were involved in the fraud but police did not have the resources to investigate the company.
Barry and his alleged accomplices recruited dozens of low-income workers as mortgage applicants, promising them they could move into the luxury apartments for nothing.
It was claimed the defendants used Joseph's accountancy skills to produce a series of fake financial histories to fool banks into handing over the loans.
Handing Joseph a 12 month prison sentence suspended for 12 months, Judge Andrew Goymer said: 'You, as a chartered accountant and a member of the professional body that is the most highly regarded in the accountancy profession, thoroughly abused that position and abused the trust that was placed in you.
'Over a period of some years you produced false sets of accounts in respect of individuals who had never been your clients and for whom you had never acted financially.'
Joseph, of Furham Field, in Pinner, Middx, was also ordered to do 260 hours of unpaid work.
Mohammed Barrie, of (78) Pinewood Ave, Dartford, Kent; Izuchukwu, of (139) Earlham Grove, Forest Gate, East London; Ahmed, of (153) Howard Road, Walthamstow, East London; Dairo, of (20) Eastern Ave, South Ockendon, Essex; Fisher, of (33) Tiptree Crescent, Ilford, Essex; and Sourou, of (21) The Crescent, Ilford, Essex were cleared of a conspiracy to defraud mortgage lenders.
Muctaru Barrie, also of (78) Pinewood Place, Mohammed Barrie and Izuchukwu were cleared of a conspiracy to launder criminal property.
ENDS
P.S...And to think that our council are in bed with Persimmon and that our council have already told me that they don't have a problem with them?
// posted by Chris McGlade @ 4:16 AM
