Yesterday there was a fascinating piece in the Guardian about “civic life” and ethical citizenry. Now this may sound highbrow, but in fact all it said was:

“Should we let free market capitalism continue unabated, or should we take stock, and all take some responsibility for improving our community for all?”

Clearly, the way the piece was written, and the “liberal/social” based newspaper it was written in would give you an indication of the answer they suggested, but I have to say that I tend to agree. And that surprised me a lot!

I thought that earning a good wage, occasionally being able to splash out on something unnecessary, and aiming for the top were core elements in my make-up. I still think that a desire to win is deep in my blood (ask anyone who races me in a go-cart, or plays 5-a-side against me!), but the active participation I have enjoyed in civic life has changed my perceptions about the nature of community and the role we all have to play in it.

Morally, I feel we should almost all engage in a basic understanding of politics. This would involve it as a compulsory subject at primary & secondary school, in prisons, and in public houses. We should all be able to explain why we want to vote in a certain direction, and be able to split this from the way our forebears voted (the number of Labour voters who fail to think for themselves & simply say “My dad did!” is astonishing, and a symptom of poor education).

Do we vote socialist because our wish to see eqaulity outweighs our personal desire for wealth? Do we vote liberal because the need to ensure fairness in a political and social system exceeds all others? Do people vote conservative because their natural tendency is conserving their current advantage over others? 

How many people actually analyse why they vote a certain way? Does anyone other than a philosophy student actually consider what would be in the best interests of the locality, the region, or the nation for the long term?

What role do ethics play in this big debate, and should we strive for increased emphasis on morality (whatever your creed or beliefs), or should we simply enact more laws to prevent people over-stepping the mark? My simplistic answer is that we should use more “soft focus” emphasis to bring people to recognise the importance of their social and physical neighbours.

I mean that there should be more emphasis (in education; social gatherings of all sorts; politics; sport; newspapers and magazines; theatre, tv & the arts etc.) on the way we can altruistically improve the lot of our neighbours by the way we interact. Asking someone their opinion & taking heed of their concerns would be a good start. Less emphasis upon personal wealth, fame & celebrity status would also improve things. More emphasis upon sport for the sake of enjoyment & simply winning (and not the cash/status you get as a result of winning) would be a simple improvement.

Daley Thompson, perhaps the greatest all-round athlete these islands have produced in the modern era, is quoted as saying, “My parents believed in the value of hard work. My generation of sportspeopledidn’t train and work hard because we wanted fame or wealth. We were motivated by the thought of glory, and of doing something for our country.” Compare that view of success to the likes of any well-known Premiership footballer. I know who gets my respect and who has yet to earn it…

I am a football referee. I would ref. a game for free, because I don’t need the money, because we need fair & firm referees, and because I need the exercise. I take the £25 because it pays for my petrol to get to/from a game, because it helps to continue a disciplined mentality in the teams that play (refs. have a quantifiable value to them) and because it doesn’t undermine those refs. who do need the money. My view of football is that it is a game, not a business. Anyone who makes a living from it is lucky, and should expect that luck to change at any moment, and take it with good grace.

The likes of Alex Ferguson, Neil Warnock and all the pundits who criticise refs., but don’t have the guts to get in the middle and do it themselves, should hold their heads in shame at the way they abuse another human (I know Mr warnock does it occasionally for charity, but he still abuses refs. on a regular basis - so he should really know much better!)

I would like to see refs. on televised games stop the game when they are abused, put the microphone on to speakers in the ground and on tv, and rebuke those who abuse them, shaming them to the stands, or better still, outside the grounds (my view is that “the vicinity of the field of play” includes anywhere you can see physically the game). They could also do the same for any player who swears at them, probably reducing many games to abandonment due to fielding insufficient players (you can’t play with less than 7 on the pitch, I think!). Enough ranting - back to the main point:

So do I referee more because they need me than I need them? Not really. My need for exercise and interaction with a bunch of like-minded blokes probably comes close to giving it balance.

What about being a Councillor - is that an ethical or altruistic decision? First of all, it’s not my decision (voters choose), but my willingness to stand and the work I’ve done since being elected is generally motivated by 3 things:

1. I believe in Proportional Representation, and will not cease until this country accepts that it is the only real fair system of voting, and adopts it. The only mainstream party who advocate this are the LibDems. The more Cllrs the LibDems get, the more chance they have of being a power to change in Whitehall. So I stand for that.
2. I have the time and inclination to do the work, and a work ethic to get things done. Whilst this is at the expense of my “soft side” (empathy is not a strong point!) I feel I provide the balance that we need in the Council, which seems full of people with a soft side (including officers of Council but excluding most of the Tories, I must say!)
3. I believe I can do a better job than others. This is not being big-headed, I just feel that others may faff & fiddle, whilst my no-nonsense approach (whilst being a bit “bish-bash-bosh”) is a strength that many others do not have.

 So how do we improve civic life, and make people more “morally accountable” to themselves & others?

The framework is already in place, it’s been around for nearly a hundred years. All we need is the will to implement a sense of natural belonging and pride. The Labour Government has done as much to harm this country by it’s continuance along the Maggie mold as John Major’s before it. What has been missing is a group ideal. A joint view that what is best for all clearly overrides what is best for individuals. Sounds idealistic, I know - ubt if we don’t aim for ideals we’ll only get the pits, in my view.

Those who seek only their own benefit don’t deserve our time or adulation. The Simon Cowell’s of this world - where do they fit in? They benefit a few at the expense of the many, and in the process get hugely wealthy (and whilst he may be helping some instead of none, is this better than the alternative that could be on the tv? I think not). Andrew Lloyd Webber seems no different, simply ripping off the BBC to make his own West End show a success. So let us cut clear of these people and make tv a bit more representative, with a lot fewer “luvvies” and a lot more shows of real worth. The only way to make this happen is to stop watching car crash tv. Unfortunately, with cash pressures on producers, this won’t happen any time soon. Hopefully the internet, iPlayer, cheap books in Charity shops and home-brew beer may help an anti-crass tv resurgence!

So in terms of “Civic Life”, why don’t we all try to think a little more locally, and change what we can around us for the better, and as a combined result we’ll alter the way central govt. (of any persuasion) finances, listens to, and behaves with local govt?

This means supporting local business; attending local theatre; drinking local beer; using local “civic” facilities; demanding more from your local council; asking your national politicians what they have achieved locally, and generally taking an interest in your neighbours. It means taking heed of others’ needs; being a bit more social etc.

I’m not telling you what to do, just giving you ideas, and letting you know that I’ll try to adopt them too.

D

A Fair Start for Children

Posted February 1, 2010

Today at a speech to Barnado’s Nick Clegg announced one of our four key policies for the General Election campaign ahead - A Fair Start for Every Child.

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg today pledged to give every child a fair start in life by investing an extra £2.5bn in schools which could be used to cut class sizes, offer one-on-one tuition and provide catch-up classes.

In a speech to Barnardo’s this morning, Nick Clegg set out the Liberal Democrat manifesto pledge to introduce a Pupil Premium which would raise the poorest children’s school funding to private school levels.

Commenting, Nick Clegg said:

“One of the biggest challenges we face as a country is breaking this link between financial deprivation at home and educational under-achievement in the classroom.

“Despite all the money that has been spent by Labour, schools taking disadvantaged children aren’t getting the money they need to break this link by cutting class sizes and providing them with extra support.

“As we work our way out of this recession and rebuild a country which is fairer, we must ensure our school system gives every child a chance to fulfil their potential irrespective of their background and where they live.”

View a full copy of the speech here.

The Policy in Brief
To give every child a fair start, Liberal Democrats will spend an extra £2.5bn on schools. The money will be targeted at schools taking on children who need more help, but will benefit every child in every school. The cash can be used to cut class sizes and provide one-to-one tuition or catch-up classes, ensuring every child gets the individual attention they need. An average primary school could cut class sizes to 20. An average secondary school could see classes of just 16.

Why is it Necessary?
Performance at school is closely linked to children’s background. The poorest children are only half as likely to get five good GCSEs as other children. Too often, the poorest children start school already struggling and fall further behind as they grow older.

Schools taking disadvantaged children aren’t getting the money they need to cut class sizes and provide them with extra support. The existing methods for distributing deprivation related funding are confusing and inconsistent. Nearly one in three pupils entitled to Free School Meals at secondary school attend relatively affluent secondary schools. Area based targeting therefore misses a large proportion of the poorest pupils – including in many rural areas. As a result, there is a huge gap between poor children in different parts of the country: in Kensington and Chelsea, 59% of poor children get five good GCSEs, while in Rutland, it’s 14%.

Policy Detail
The Pupil Premium would be available to the school which each disadvantaged pupil attended. It would be attached to those children entitled to Free School Meals – the million poorest children. The Pupil Premium would be set nationally and it would top up a national per-pupil base funding figure. It will raise the poorest children’s school funding to private school levels, with the average school receiving around £2500 extra for every child entitled to free school meals on their roll.

Figures are available for the predicted amount of money each local authority will receive, and can be calculated for individual schools.

Costs/Savings
This policy costs £2.5bn a year, and will be introduced in the second year of the Parliament after our jobs stimulus package, paid for from savings in Government such as our proposed reforms to tax credits (which will save £1.5bn) and administrative savings in the Department for Education and quangos (which save an additional £1bn).

Last Chance to Save Heaton Park! On Thursday, 11 February 2010, the Planning Committee of Manchester City Council, will consider the planning application from Goals Soocer Centres UK for a commercial 5-a-side soccer centre at the At Margaret’s side of Heaton Park. Remember that these revised plans include a massive 2.4m perimeter fence around the site, as well as further fenced off car-park, going up towards the reservoir. You can view all the plans at Manchester Council’s Website. This could well be our LAST CHANCE to save Heaton Park - this is the third time that Goals have submitted their plan, but the first that its actually made it to the agenda for a committee meeting. The recommendation from the Planning Officers is to “Approve” the report.   We’ve had a terrific response to the campaign so far: hundreds of people have sent in objection letters and emails; signed the petitions and written to the press. Thank you for everything that people have done so far. We still need help to stop this application: If you are available on THURSDAY afternoon, join us outside Manchester Town Hall (Albert Square side) at 1.30pm. We’ll be going into the Committee meeting (this starts at 2.00pm) together where we’ll be allowed one person to speak on our behalf. Its important that as many people as possible come along and show the strength of feeling against the proposal. Its not too late to apply pressure to your elected representatives - MPs and Councillors. If you live in Manchester please email your councillor telling them how strongly you oppose the application and ask them to represent you. You can automatically email all your councillors by entering your postcode at this website. If you live in either Bury South or Manchester Blakeley Parliamenary constituencies why not email your MP telling them how strongly you feel? Bury South - Ivan Lewis MP (Labour): ivanlewis@burysouth.fsnet.co.uk Manchester Blackley - Graham Stringer MP (Labour): Link to email Carry on keeping up the pressure: - tell your friends - if you’re on facebook copy this message to your friends - if you use twitter - tweet about this! - use any opportunity in the press, or in internet discussion sites to object to the proposals. Follow these links to the Planning Committee agenda and the actual report. Agenda Report  Keep up the campaign! Check the Save Heaton Park website for further updates before Thursday - www.saveheatonpark.org.uk  Best Wishes  Tim Pickstone Local Councillor (Holyrood Ward, Prestwich,  Bury MBC) www.timpickstone.net twitter.com/timpickstone

Questions of interest (to me, anyway!) asked, followed by their proposed answers: 

Question from Mr A Wentworth   

Why is the Executive Council Member responsible for Health and Well-being, making no public attempts to extol the Health and Well-being benefits plus savings to the NHS, the Longfield Suite provides to the residents of Bury. 

 

 

R 

It is widely acknowledged that all our Civic Venues provide a range of activities which foster health and well being, but we cannot ignore the financial realities of using taxpayer’s money to subsidise these venues to the tune of £600,000 a year.  We have to look at what alternatives are available that would retain the strong links with local communities but not require large ongoing unfunded subsidies. 

The Task and Finish Group is currently undertaking a wide-ranging consultation to enable a full range of views as possible to be gathered as part of its work.  The wide range of dance activity, and the benefits of that to the individuals who visit the Civic Venues, is already understood by the Task and Finish Group, and this will be considered as part of its work. 

Q         Could the Leader inform me:- 

i)                    What teething problems were encountered in changing the refuse collection rounds?ii)                  Have they been resolved?iii)                How much money do you anticipate saving in a financial year?iv)               How many fewer staff are involved in collecting?v)                 How much money has been spent so far on agency staff? 

 

A 

         You will all have received the answer that was provided in response to Cllr Smith’s very similar question at the last Council meeting. 

Due to the weather conditions and the need to suspend both residual and recyclate collections in recent weeks, it is not possible to isolate issues solely to the changes in the collection rounds.  Therefore, I cannot provide an answer in respect of the cost of agency staff that can be compared on a like for like basis. 

Q         A series of recommendations for the improved efficiency and use of Civic Halls was made in a Best Value Review in 2007. The Leader is on record as saying that he could not act on these recommendations due to the balanced Council which existed at the time. What are his exact reasons for coming to this view? 

A         As I recall it was clear from the outcome from Scrutiny’s deliberations that more work was to be done on the whole future of Civic Venues.  How could any Member reach any decision in the absence of a clear strategy for Civic Venues?  It was Cllr Connolly as Chair of the scrutiny panel who ordered a further review. 

Under this administration that review has been completed.  I am sure Cllr D’Albert and his Lib Dem colleagues will agree that we cannot continue to ask Council Tax payers to pump in - year on year over £600,000 in subsidies. 

Q         Can the Leader explain what additional and/or emergency provision will be provided for the repairs to the roads of this Borough, following the damage caused by two consecutive snow-bound winters? 

 

A.        To date we have received no additional/emergency financial provision to repair damage to the Councils highways after the recent adverse weather. As we identify the extent of the problem from a financial perspective, consideration may have to be given to reprioritising areas of spend to address the matter.      Remediation work has begun by a specialised team. 

Q         Can the Leader explain to the governors, staff & pupils of Butterstile Primary School their policy in relation to clearing snow around this school, to enable the continuing education of the children, and whether or not said policy was enacted and effective? 

 

A         The access roads to this school are not on the priority gritting routes although the adjacent roads,

Butterstile Lane

and

Sandy Lane

, both are. 

There are over 70 schools within the Borough.  To include all of these on gritting routes would require a significant increase in resource.  It is not within the policy to grit around schools although we are considering options to provide grit bins to all schools for them to have the opportunity to undertake some gritting themselves. 

Q         What lessons have been learned so far from the Council’s           response to the recent severe winter weather? 

 

 

A         As you are aware the Current Winter has been the worst for some 30 years and as such has presented problems for the Winter Gritting Services.  The Economy, Environment and Transport Scrutiny Commission has requested a report to their March meeting detailing actions taken and possible improvements to the current Winter Maintenance Operational Plan.  The Scrutiny Commission may make recommendations on how to deal with weather conditions similar to this in the future but we must not lose sight of the fact there is not a limitless budget for winter maintenance and setting priorities must be an integral part of the decision making process.  I would however commend the staff who have been out undertaking the services in extremely difficult and hazardous conditions. 

Q         Can the Leader advice specifically how many personnel from which departments were involved in clearing snow from which areas on which days. It is the view of many of my constituents that it would appear from the results in Prestwich that the response to specific issues as they arose, for instance around the Longfield Centre, was inadequate.  

A         During the severe weather, many employees from across Highways, Parks and Cleansing were unable to carry out their normal duties. 

They were switched to snow clearance duties on footways, shopping precincts, footways adjacent to health and emergency service facilities, cemeteries and the like, in accordance with areas identified in the Winter Maintenance Plan. 

Unfortunately it is not possible to provide the detail request by Councillor Garner.  More attention was applied to allocating the teams to key areas and managing service requests than to logging numbers, locations and times. 

So basically, they are not willing to admit that they put everyone into

Bury Town Centre or Ramsbottom/Tottington and nobody into Prestwich! Do we have to ask each individual member of staff where they were on each day to get a straight answer?!? 

Q         Could the leader tell us the approximate time for street lights to be repaired after being reported as not working? Is there any preference given to lights on A roads / streets or lights in our local parks? Does the Council’s performance meet government targets for the speed of street light repairs and how do we compare to other Authorities? 

A         There are two different standards for repair of street lights dependant upon whether it is within the Councils control or it is an electricity supply fault.  The former was in the past a national indicator but is now a local one.  The average time for us to repair a fault that is our responsibility last year was 4.82 Days.  Currently this year we are averaging 4.23 Days.  The target in the Street Lighting Code of Practice is 5 days for most types of routine faults.  The electricity is supplied by United Utilities who have a target of 15 working days to repair a supply fault.  However this is not statutory and whilst doing their best, street lighting is a lower priority than house and business faults that need repairing.  Last year they averaged 15.86 days to fix an outage and this year they are averaging 10.03 Days. 

So it appears it has nothing to do with Mr Grosskopf of Sedgley, and a lot to do with the efficiency of our Engineers and Streetcare Inspectors!!! (Oh, and Local Councillors alerting the Council to problems as they pass by whilst delivering their Focus leaflets! 

Q         Will the Leader of the Council please explain why no action was taken to implement changes at the Borough’s Civic Suites following the production of a report by Bury MBC in October 2007 that highlighted the suites needed improvements in advertising, website capability and more modern box office facilities? 

A         As I recall it was clear from the outcome from Scrutiny’s deliberations that more work was to be done on the whole future of Civic Venues.  How could any Member reach any decision in the absence of a clear strategy for Civic Venues?  It was Councillor Connolly as Chair of the scrutiny panel who ordered a further review. 

Under this administration that review has been completed.  I am sure Councillor Shori and his Labour colleagues will agree that we cannot continue to ask Council Tax payers to pump in - year on year over £600,000 in subsidies. 

 

Q         As there is no direct bus route from Bury New Road Prestwich to Bury, is the council going to urge its representatives on the GMITA to lobby the bus companies to provide one? 

 

A         Thank you for your question. As this is an issue that the GMITA should respond to can I ask that Councillor Baum passes his concerns to Councillor Creswell who, as the Councils spokesperson, can forward the issues to the GMITA. 

 

I think this adequately shows Cllr. Bibby’s lack of concern for the electorate, and disproves any idea that he may have an ounce of a clue about how to improve public transport in our communities. But why would it bother him? He had his new Lexus delivered to the town hall car park during the negotiations on employee pay – how sensitive! Oh yes, and he lives in Bacup, so wouldn’t have need of public transport in Bury! 

Q         Can the Leader explain who is responsible for the purchasing and proof-testing of gritting wagons, fitted with sophisticated (& presumably expensive) satellite navigation monitoring, which failed to provide the data promised, and enabled the practice of “ghost gritting” in many areas of this Borough? 

 

A.        At the outset, I would strenuously contest Councillor Garner’s comment about ‘ghost gritting’.  We do not and have not used such a practice. The Department leases its gritting vehicle fleet and this year purchased satellite navigation equipment for each of the vehicles (at a total cost of £3,500). 

Unfortunately the equipment, whilst in place, is still being developed and refined to provide us with accurate feedback on the routes, locations and timing of grit runs.  Once it is up and running, we will have excellent detail and data on which to base future decisions. 

On occasion some of the priority routes were not accessible even to a gritting vehicle either due to the conditions or because of congestion.  It is also important to note that the spreading of grit does not always provide an instant result in improving conditions.  Grit is only effective in certain conditions and changes in temperatures of only a few degrees can render recently spread grit as ineffective. 

So we bought something that doesn’t work, but we’ll have it ready by the summer – very useful on a gritting wagon! This is the kind of clever strategy and operation you get with a Tory Council! And over 4% Council Tax to pay for it too! (Oh – or was that Bob Bibby’s office refurbishment you paid for? He spent nearly four times more on that than he did on the sat-nav equipment for the gritting wagons!) 

GMITA:Cllr Richard BaumA number of people in my ward were forced to walk several miles home from

Manchester during the snow after being let down by Metrolink. The service was frequently disrupted and reduced, and trams were vastly overcrowded if they turned up at all. What measures are  being put in place to ensure this situation will not happen in future years? What gestures of apology are they planning to give to local people? 

A The heavy snow and freezing temperatures experienced during the first two weeks of January caused considerable disruption across the transport network, including on the Metrolink system. On the Bury line, best efforts were made to run a 12 minute service between Bury and Atrincham via Piccadilly, complemented with direct services when sufficient number of trams were available. However, the service was subject to delays and varying frequency. The cold weather led to faults with brakes, suspension and door opening mechanisms rendering some trams unsuitable for operation. As a result an engineer from the supplier was brought on site to assist in the identification and repairing or faults, which led to the fast repair of some vehicles.

To minimise the impact on services, heaters were used to reduce the number of points freezing, and the points themselves were operated every 20 minutes. Technicians were also deployed at key points at peak times in the event that points failed. Staff were also deployed to remove snow and ice from stops, ramps, stairwells and platforms on the Bury line. Access areas were prioritised at each stop to ensure that, as a minimum, one safe access point was provided at each stop. In addition, trams were run throughout the night to ensure that the track and overhead lines were kept clear of snow and ice.

Keeping customers informed was of paramount importance and rolling announcements were made over the public address system informing them of expected delays. However, the number of announcements required to cover the system and the limitations of the PA system resulted in some passengers commenting that the frequency of announcements could be improved. In light of the disruption to services passengers in Bury were able to use their Metrolink tickets on the 135 and 98 bus services, additional Travel Safe officers were deployed in key areas to provide customer care and a temporary Severe Weather homepage was created on the PTE’s website to provide up to date information - it received 92,000 hits - 10 times the normal peak of visitors.

I am satisfied that the PTE and Metrolink did all that they could to keep the network running in extremely difficult circumstances. That said, the PTE will be working with all transport operators, including Metrolink to review the procedures in place to manage the transport network and to take into account the lessons learned over those two weeks.  

So, as you can see, she waffled on and on, and answered part of Cllr. Baum’s question in the last paragraph, but failed to note any form of apology or recompense (how surprising for a Tory!)

 Police Authority:Cllr Donal O’HanlonWhat are the sickness absence statistics for the most recent year, and the mean average age of retirement for serving Officers? 

A Sickness absence - the force has an internal target of 8 days lost per Officer/Staff for the period April 2009 - March 2010. The figures below show how the Force is currently performing against this target year to date. 

For the period April - December 2009 the year to date target for sickness is 5.99 days lost per Officer/Staff 

Officers - 5.99 days lost per Officer (on target)Staff - 7.33 days lost per Staff (currently 22% over target) 

Average retirement age for Officers year to date is currently – 51.  

 

Cllr Richard BaumGreater

Manchester Police have taken the DNA of 5,000 innocent people since the European Court ruled the practice illegal in December 2008. Why have they done this? 

A. In terms of taking DNA/Fingerprints following arrest. It is lawful to take fingerprints and non-intimate and intimate samples from persons who are lawfully arrested in connection with the investigation of an offence.  The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) deals with fingerprints at s61, non-intimate samples at s62 and non-intimate samples at s63.  S63 (2A) PACE provides that non-intimate sample may be taken without consent from a person if that person is in police detention in consequence for his arrest for a recordable offence and either he has not previously had an non-intimate sample taken or a previous sample was taken but was insufficient (for identification purposes).I think it is prudent to point this out since, in effect, if the taking of those samples is Cllr Baum’s point, it is the Government whom he should approach.  

If however Councillor Baum wants a response to the fact that some people who are arrested in connection with an offence but who subsequently are never charged or against whom no further action is taken (and therefore in his eyes are “innocent”) still have their fingerprints and DNA taken and retained, I advise as follows:-  

Simply because an individual is not later charged in connection with the offence with which they were arrested or no further action is taken or indeed is acquitted when the matter goes to court, does not necessarily mean they are “innocent” of that offence and it never occurred.  Innocent is a vague term that does not adequately deal with the various stages in a criminal case.  A simple example could be for instance, where a criminal offence has been committed, but an individual is not charged with that offence since the CPS do not feel that a prosecution would be in the public interest, or indeed where is insufficient evidence to charge.  

As long as an individual is lawfully arrested, their DNA / fingerprints can in the first instance be taken, as set out in PACE above.  S64 PACE deals with the destruction of fingerprints and samples.  In essence, it allows for the retention of fingerprints and DNA taken from those people suspected of being involved in an offence regardless of the outcome of criminal proceedings, so that the same can be used in the prevention and detection of crime.  Primary legislation has not been changed following the decision of Marper.  Therefore, the Force is acting lawfully and in accordance with the direction given by the Director of Information at ACPO who advised that the current retention policy on fingerprints and DNA was unchanged following Marper.  A copy of the letter from Ian Readhead dated 28 July 2009 is attached.  

 Fire Authority:Cllr Tim PickstoneWould the Council’s representative to the GMFRS join me in congratulating all GMFRS staff who have been involved in work in

Haiti following the recent terrible earthquake there.  

A. Following the terrible earthquake in Haiti on the 12 January 2010, 9 of our colleagues travelled down to

Gatwick Airport as part of the UK Fire Service International Search and Rescue Team, preparing to fly out and assist rescuers from other Fire and Rescue Services around the country with the rescue efforts. The team members were;

Deputy Borough Commander Peter Stevenson	Rochdale Borough
WM Simon Cording	Sale
WM Andy Roughley	Eccles
WM Martin Fisher	Training Centre
FF Martin Foran	Chadderton
WM Vic Kopicki	Eccles
SM Dean Nankivell	FSHQ
CM Mick Dewar with Echo	Fire Investigation Unit
FF John Hughes	Salford

Deputy Borough Commander Pete Stevenson, who led our team, was designated as Operations Commander for the

UK contingent. Some of the team members had previous experience of dealing with the aftermath of earthquakes in India, Turkey, Algeria and

Pakistan and will utilise everything they have learned previously. As well as our team members the UK team was made up of personnel from West Sussex, Kent, West Midlands, Lancashire,

Lincolnshire, Hampshire as well as Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Services. A total of 61 personnel were mobilised, assisted by two search dogs, one being Echo from GMFRS, and equipped with 12 tonnes of equipment. The answer goes on for 3 more pages, but suffice to say we all thought they were wonderful!

Yes - it was a bit like “Save our Souls” at Full Council last night, but the SOS above refers to Save Our Suite! More on that later…

Full Council 3.2.10: 

Last night I attended Full Council - mostly boring stuff with the occasional glimmer of hope. The only public question was asked by Alf Wentworth about Civic Suites, the health benefits of dancing, and the importance the Longfield plays in keeping people out of hospital via it’s very frequent dances. The Executive Member for Healthier Communities (Bev Sullivan - she may be up for election this year, hint hint!) gave a fairly bland answer, and on we went (The Tories took away people’s rights to ask additional questions, and ones that hadn’t been scribed in blood and submitted four decades before the meeting!).

There were no recommendations from the Executive, and in the Leader’s statement he referred to the excellent work of the EET Highways Scrutiny Sub-Committee (chaired by yours truly) and mentioned me in despatches four or five times. This was in an attempt to blame me for the failure of his Council to cope adequately during the recent poor weather.

 So - what did my Sub Group do to deserve such praise?

We studied the 127-page “Winter Service Policy & Operational Plan”, and put it forward to the full EET Scrutiny Committee as a sound document. The policy outlines the legislation we must adhere to; a statement of intent; explains the road hierarchy; routes; priorities for keeping clear; salting & snow clearance practice; where we get our weather data from; response times; the decision-making process; performance monitoring; equipment to be used; how many grit bins we have and where; fuel stocks; what the rate of salt spread should be; includes individual route plans; information on treatment of footpaths etc.

The document is sound (given the dire financial state of the Borough announced every year since the year dot!), and we put it forward to the Full EET Committee subject to the proviso that further investigation work be done by taking it to Local LAP’s for the public to add comments about where else they wanted gritting, grit bins etc. and why. This was done in December, and as far as I can tell, absolutely nobody in Prestwich put forward any written recommendations (although I stand to be corrected if someone did - that info. dates from about 15th Jan).

The problem was that most people would say it was not put into practice. So, what specifically can we say did not occur?

Well, to do that we need to review the Operational Plan against the performance data that should have been collected. Unfortunately, the sat-nav units didn’t work, because some edgit located them in the engine bay, and it would seem that nobody checked after installation that a signal was being received! So we can’t tell where the trucks were.

So what about rate of spread - surely that data can be analysed? Again, this would appear not to be the case, as the measurement is based on the moving element of the unit, and does not check the data against the amount in the truck or hopper by weight. This means that the practice I call “Ghost Gritting” (flashing lights, lots of noise, but nothing useful coming out of it - a bit like the Tory Party in Bury who run the Council!), witnessed by so many residents of Prestwich, has no appropriate checks & balances. Thus, we can’t say how much salt was laid, we can only tell that from the fact that the bulk storage nearly ran out.

And the questions we were going to ask about the “winter service plan” (mine was about the area around Butterstile School) were not allowed to be asked because we timed-out once more (my question was eighth on the list). However, they do have to be answered in writing, so I’ll add them when I get them.

Questions that were put and got a response (although I think in NO case did an “answer” appear!) included the following:

1. What went wrong with the refuse collection service & how much cash did we save by this cock-up change?
2. Why did the “balanced council” in 2007 prevent the Leader from taking action on the Civic Suites during 2007?
3. What’s the progress at Whitefield Town Hall?
4. Are we going to get more £ for road repairs as a result of the second consecutive bad winter?
5. What’s the Council doing about gee’ing up the PCT into action about the Whitefield Health Centre?
6. If a General Election is on the same day as the Council Elections, will the count for the latter occur the following day? (we got a straight answer to this, because it is not a decision that can be taken by anyone from a political background - “yes”!)
7. Is the Bury times correct about the “out of court settlement” offer announced in the Bury Times, and why was “Trev the Union Man” informed by this method instead of via an internal email/conversation etc?

There were then 2 motions, one by us about Police Funding, and one by Labour about Employee Pay. Ours succeeded in gaining the full support of all those present (albeit with an amendment by Labour), and the Labour one failed.

Questions to “Joint Authorities” (police/fire/transport etc.) followed a brief report by the Councillor on the police board, but my questions again couldn’t be put because despite the Deputy Leader (Yvonne Creswell) saying she was going to be brief in answering Richard Baum’s question about the failure of the Metrolink during the bad weather, she then blabbed on about “the weather was not confined to us, it was all ‘over the country…” - as if we hadn’t noticed!?! At this point I was bored & fed-up: The football was over, there was nothing of interest being said, and we all wanted to go home. I asked the Mayor to ask Yvonne to get to the point so we could get on, and the Mayor brought proceedings to a close! (Deos that count as another win for us?)

Save Our Suite:

At a meeting this week a few changes were made to the make-up, and decisions about what to do next were made. Labour & us are in accord, and it seems we have support from Cllrs Wiseman & Redstoone from the Tories too.

The “consultation questionnaire” is out, and it is the weakest, most lily-livered piece of crud I’ve seen in ages! There are no clear questions, so how they can draw reasonable conclusions from it are beyond me - I am sure the appropriateness of this will be brought into question. MAKE SURE YOU ALL COMPLETE IT!

HEATON PARK “GOALS SOCCER” ZONE:

I have written an email to the Officer responsible for this process at Manchester Town Hall, and asked for it to be dispersed amongst the Councillors on the Planning Committee there. Some of it can be seen in a previous posting below.

I have had a discussion with St Monica’s Head Teacher about it too, and will be sending him a copy of the full email which goes into more detail. I must repeat - I am not against the facilities, I am against their particular siting (at the furthest edge away from Manchester) where almost all the negative factors will affect the people of Prestwich, and all the positive factors (discounted access etc.) will be for the people of Manchester.

‘Nuff said! D

A letter to the Planning Committee of Manchester Council, considering the Goals Soccer Zone application:

Sir,

 

Please register my comments as a formal objection to this proposal, and forward on to ALL members of your Planning Committee, please.

 

Whilst I am not against the development of a sports facility (I would normally welcome such), the location and layout are incompatible with the surrounding area. My main objections are as follows:

 

• Proximity to neighbouring dwellings is too close for this type of activity
• Noise & light pollution to neighbours
• Increase in demands placed upon adjacent roads will be excessive at peak times (despite the opinions of Highways Officers!)
• Detriment to the visual amenity, due to the introduction of fencing, new buildings and artificial playing surfaces (recent improvements to perimeter wall should be enjoyed by all from both sides)

There was a lot more in the letter, but don’t want to bore you!

D