Author Topic: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite  (Read 3994 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ringer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1802
  • Gender: Female
Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« on: April 01, 2010, 11:10:07 AM »
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/6302673.Stormy_council_meeting_over_wi_fi/

At the meeting leader of the Labour group Derique Montaut said: ?As you all probably know, in the last week the Labour group have been calling for an external inquiry into what some are now calling the ?wi-fiasco?.

?We have been calling for this for a great number of reasons including the fact that there has been widespread public concern about the openness and transparency of council decision making, as a result of this wi-fi deal.

?The fact that this council?s administration simply bypassed local governance by not allowing all 59 councillors to have a say in the wi-fi decision that effects, not some, but all residents of Swindon.


Looks like Labour are not standing for this, where are the LibDems  :-X :-X :-X ?



To qualify for inclusion there is only one rule - something described must have been said to have happened. `If the facts don`t fit the legend, print

Offline komadori

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
    • komadori's green corner
Re: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2010, 11:35:01 AM »
I thought the meeting was relatively calm rather than stormy. I've seen far more bad tempered meetings than that at the Civic. Apart from Mr Bluh's obvious hatred of Mr Montaut, Mr Bluh's arrogant rant at the end when he again attacked both the public and the opposition for daring to ask questions, and the complete inability of Mr Edwards to have a reasoned discussion on anything (he seems only to do political lectures), the standard of debate seemed quite good and well mannered.

Whether you believe the official story that what has been written is not what council officers meant is a another matter.

I found the behaviour of some of the cabinet quite interesting. In particular, Mr Greenhalgh looked a very worried man. He gave the impression of someone whose conscience was praying on him.
If something's worth doing it's worth doing in green. komadori's green c

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
Re: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2010, 11:45:58 AM »
I asked this question last.

''My question is directed to the whole of Cabinet.  If you vote for this loan tonight using public money are you prepared to be financially liable both jointly and severly if the project fails?''

What do you thinkwas the response?

All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Ringer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1802
  • Gender: Female
Re: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« Reply #3 on: April 01, 2010, 11:49:07 AM »
I bet their legal advice was they were fire proof  :2funny:
To qualify for inclusion there is only one rule - something described must have been said to have happened. `If the facts don`t fit the legend, print

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
Re: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2010, 11:50:03 AM »
the complete inability of Mr Edwards to have a reasoned discussion on anything (he seems only to do political lectures), the standard of debate seemed quite good and well mannered.


I find Mark Edwards' demenour fascinating all the more so in that as I understand it he is a Professional Purchasing Officer and I believe Chairman of the Council's Procurement Advisory Group.
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Ringer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1802
  • Gender: Female
Re: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« Reply #5 on: April 01, 2010, 11:52:05 AM »
He has not been a councillor for very long so is feeling his way and going through phases :o
To qualify for inclusion there is only one rule - something described must have been said to have happened. `If the facts don`t fit the legend, print

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
Re: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« Reply #6 on: April 01, 2010, 11:52:56 AM »
I bet thire legal advice was they were fire proof  :2funny:

The only trouble is Ringer that the law is open to interpretation and on that basis the Cabinet jointly and severly could be open to liability if this fails, in my opinion.
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Ringer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1802
  • Gender: Female
Re: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« Reply #7 on: April 01, 2010, 11:54:46 AM »
I agree and as I understand it any one can challenge anything in court if they have an inclination to and a fat wallet.
To qualify for inclusion there is only one rule - something described must have been said to have happened. `If the facts don`t fit the legend, print

Offline komadori

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
    • komadori's green corner
Re: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« Reply #8 on: April 01, 2010, 12:01:06 PM »
He has not been a councillor for very long so is feeling his way and going through phases :o
Well, the sooner Mr Edwards grows out of the arrogant, self-righteous t*sser phase the better.

The only trouble is Ringer that the law is open to interpretation and on that basis the Cabinet jointly and severly could be open to liability if this fails, in my opinion.
Comment made by the borough solicitor last night was that personal surcharge is not applicable in this case. A quick Googling reveals that the Local Government Act 2000 removed the sanction of personal surcharge against councillors.
If something's worth doing it's worth doing in green. komadori's green c

Offline Ringer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1802
  • Gender: Female
Re: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2010, 12:09:32 PM »
Comment made by the borough solicitor last night was that personal surcharge is not applicable in this case. A quick Googling reveals that the Local Government Act 2000 removed the sanction of personal surcharge against councillors.

Yes that is correct, but people can still take action against the council and it's only 10 years since the act so as I understand if a judge wants to set a precedent they can. Making decisions that a court deem are not lawful can open the door to claims or is that wrong?

Judges are known for interpretating the law outside of acts and the law, is that not why we get stated cases? Someone may go for a judicial review on wi-fi at some point. :popcorn:
To qualify for inclusion there is only one rule - something described must have been said to have happened. `If the facts don`t fit the legend, print

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
Re: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2010, 12:10:32 PM »
He has not been a councillor for very long so is feeling his way and going through phases :o
Well, the sooner Mr Edwards grows out of the arrogant, self-righteous t*sser phase the better.

The only trouble is Ringer that the law is open to interpretation and on that basis the Cabinet jointly and severly could be open to liability if this fails, in my opinion.
Comment made by the borough solicitor last night was that personal surcharge is not applicable in this case. A quick Googling reveals that the Local Government Act 2000 removed the sanction of personal surcharge against councillors.

so they can do anything they like and not be accountable for it in any way then?
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline komadori

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
    • komadori's green corner
Re: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2010, 01:25:42 PM »
Someone may go for a judicial review on wi-fi at some point. :popcorn:
I have investigated that option. It's not easy and requires deep pockets. Also, the cost to us as council taxpayers if the council lost would almost certainly exceed the potential lost expenditure on wifi.
If something's worth doing it's worth doing in green. komadori's green c

Offline Bobby Bingo

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1084
  • Gender: Male
Re: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2010, 03:12:03 PM »
I asked this question last.

''My question is directed to the whole of Cabinet.  If you vote for this loan tonight using public money are you prepared to be financially liable both jointly and severly if the project fails?''

What do you thinkwas the response?

I would think their little bums were changing shape by the minute from a 5 pense piece to a £2 coin.!
Bobby

Offline Ringer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1802
  • Gender: Female
Re: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2010, 03:57:51 PM »
Someone may go for a judicial review on wi-fi at some point. :popcorn:
I have investigated that option. It's not easy and requires deep pockets. Also, the cost to us as council taxpayers if the council lost would almost certainly exceed the potential lost expenditure on wifi.

Sensible but at the moment the amount is £450K are you thinking that this is the end of it and no more council tax payers money will be sunk into this innovative and exciting scheme?
To qualify for inclusion there is only one rule - something described must have been said to have happened. `If the facts don`t fit the legend, print

Offline komadori

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1445
    • komadori's green corner
Re: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« Reply #14 on: April 01, 2010, 04:52:30 PM »
Sensible but at the moment the amount is £450K are you thinking that this is the end of it and no more council tax payers money will be sunk into this innovative and exciting scheme?
We have Mr Bluh's word that no more of our money will be put into this scheme.
 :2funny:
If something's worth doing it's worth doing in green. komadori's green c

Offline Trollee

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49
  • Hello !
Re: Wi-fi Pradvertiser has another bite
« Reply #15 on: April 01, 2010, 05:10:04 PM »
I asked this question last.

''My question is directed to the whole of Cabinet.  If you vote for this loan tonight using public money are you prepared to be financially liable both jointly and severly if the project fails?''

What do you thinkwas the response?

I would think their little bums were changing shape by the minute from a 5 pense piece to a £2 coin.!

and a lot shite come out