Coming to the conclusion that no amount of reasoned argument will persuade Cllr John Gray to reflect on some of his comments, hopefully sparking a brief flicker of realisation (somewhere deep within the great yawning chasm that passes as his mind) that the very sins he accuses others of committing are, in fact, his own, I planned to leave things as they are and not to respond to his latest diatribes.
But his recent contributions to the thread on his blog-post of 18 February have goaded me into one final attempt to wake him up to the fact that lies, repeated ad nauseum, do not become truths and to highlight, yet again, his “do as I say, not as I do” philosophy. I also want to address the comment made by “Newham Tory”.
Dealing with Newham Tory first, I’d like to know, what was my “own way”? I crossed the floor from Labour to the Conservatives for a number of reasons. First and foremost because there was no one in the Labour Party who was prepared to address the disastrous mismanagement of Newham’s then Parks Constabulary.
Another contributing factor was the introduction of performance monitoring of councillors within the Council. My view is that the only bodies that have any right to monitor the performance of elected members are their constituents and the political organisations that sponsor them. In fact, it is the councillor’s role to monitor the performance of the Council and the ruling executive, not the other way around.
Whether or not joining the Conservatives was a good or bad thing is open to debate and I have mixed views about it. Although the local Conservative Party members were very receptive and eager to publicise the more controversial of the current mayor’s policy decisions, those that were higher up in the Party’s pecking order were less keen. I remember being given Steve Norris’ direct number and being told that he’d help with advice on how to deal with the problems in Newham. I called him only to find that he didn’t want to know as he has “a great deal of respect for Sir Robin”. A political officer for the Conservatives on the then London Councils organisation told me that “We have a good relationship with Sir Robin. He is someone we are confident we can do business with”.
I stood for the Conservatives in the 2006 locals because I’d promised I would do so. I was given the choice on where I could stand. I had no stomach for another four years on the Council so I decided to stand in the ward where the mayor and a number of his friends live just for the “wind up” factor; puerile maybe, but it did amuse me at the time. I left the Conservatives soon after, but I remain on very good terms with a number of them. I cannot for the life of me think what it could have been that I wanted from the Conservatives (and Labour) that I didn’t get. Maybe Newham Tory might be a little more specific next time.
Gray is right in that I have used pseudonyms to get letters printed in the Newham Recorder. This was during the time when I was trying to get information regarding the wrongful deployment of the parks constabulary out to the wider public and it became evident that the Recorder would not print a good number of my letters on the subject. Interestingly, the Labour Party members who knew about this at that time (and I didn’t keep it a secret) thought my method was justified – or so they said to my face.
I have never written under the guise of a pseudonym praising myself: what would be the point?
The only time I have used a pseudonym on Gray’s blog was when I wrote as “Socrates”. As Gray was waffling on about “truth” It amused me and, as I have stated elsewhere, I thought that, if Gray didn't know it was me, I might just strike up a half decent dialogue. Unfortunately for Gray, the anonymous commentator of February 29th isn’t me.
It is more than a little hypocritical that Gray should berate the anonymous contributor for not submitting his/her comments under his or her own name, yet allow “NewhamTory” free rein to lie about me from behind a pseudonym.
Gray says I can dish out criticism but cannot take it. If that is true (he’s not very specific), so what? How does that prevent him or any other councillor answering the questions I’ve put forward? He also claims that my criticism of the current Council administration is “not of actual decisions or examples of inadequate scrutiny, it is based on personal abuse”. The £110 million spent on Building 1000? The £40 million proposed “investment” in the Olympic Stadium? The merits of going with the Aspers casino as opposed to the other bids? Full Council meetings that last for less than 30 minutes? The lack of scrutiny of mayoral decisions? Yes, all personal abuse.
Gray forgets, he and his Council colleagues are in positions of power, I’m just an ordinary member of the public with no power asking questions. If my scrutiny is abuse, how would he fair if he had to face up to the scrutiny of a decent opposition.
I’ve been told that the smart money is on Gray getting a promotion at this year’s Council AGM. Now, that will be fun. Until then...
Friday, 2 March 2012
Saturday, 25 February 2012
Shades of Gray: "The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time." ~ Richard Nixon
I see former Lib-Dem activist Councillor John Gray’s blog-post of 18 February has generated a degree of speculation about my assumed “agenda” and has been used as sounding board for supposed anonymous commentators to throw bizarre accusations my way, culminating in Gray running through his well worn repertoire of my failings. I cannot let that stand without comment.
I’ll address the more trivial points first.
One commentator accuses me of “ripping off and stealing from working class people while exploiting addictions”. I imagine this refers to my working as a manager for a number of bookmakers. It may come as some surprise to this particular incarnation of a councillor that any money taken over the counter in betting shops doesn’t go into the pocket of the shop manager.
I imagine that it must have required some strength of will to put the comment on Gray’s blog as Gray is a councillor on an authority that has openly welcomed one of the largest casinos in the country into the borough and has assisted local residents to get employment “ripping off and stealing from working class people while exploiting addictions”.
As stated, Gray has set forth with his usual list of things about me that make him angry. The more popular themes are that I’m foul mouthed and I have no politics as I attack the person not the policies.
I admit that, from time-to-time, I have used colourful language – I think it has been contextually valid. If it has offended anyone other than Gray, I apologise. But, to-date, he’s the only person to have mentioned it.
On politics, correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t politics all about people? This is more so at a local level. As we live in a borough that is run by a mayor and his cabal of close friends, with other councillors having little to no say in the decision making process (and how can they when Council meetings last a matter of minutes?), then any attempt to address - and to critique - policy must go to the man and his motivations.
If Gray and his colleagues cannot see this they must walk the Town Hall corridors and meeting rooms either blissfully ignorant or negligently blinkered.
However, if Gray is all about the politics, why hasn’t he lobbied for a more equal society in the microcosm that is Newham Council? That would be a start.
If politics to Gray is Labour Party policy, I think there are three questions that should be put to all Newham councillors: To what extent would you, as a Labour Party member and a Labour councillor, agree that Newham Council is run in accordance with Labour Party policies? Would you agree that mayoral policies are subjected to the same vigorous debate and scrutiny by all Labour councillors that the Labour Party would expect of its elected members on other councils? And, what is it about Newham’s Labour administration’s current policies that differentiate it from Conservative run authorities?
But, whatever my failings, none of them negate the validity of the questions I’ve raised; a point supported by a number of commentators on Gray’s blog.
On my “agenda”, when I read that it is potentially anti-Labour and/or anti-Newham and that I may be a closet saboteur, I was taken aback as I didn’t think I had an agenda (for the record I’m not anti-Labour nor anti-Newham - whatever that may be - and if I was a saboteur I’d be out and proud). But, on reflection, I realise I do have an agenda so I’ll outline it here:
To lobby for fair and robust scrutiny of mayoral decisions;
To argue for full and open disclosure of all Council business and finances; and,
To prompt back-bench councillors into taking a more proactive role regarding the above.
There must be some politics in there somewhere.
Addendum 26 February 2012: I see Gray responded today much as I expected, doing the very thing that he’s berated others for doing – that Lib Dem attack dog training obviously sinks in and he’s pretty good at it. But if I am all the things he says I am, why does that stop him answering questions about the Council?
His anonymous friend is right, I did cross the floor from Labour to the Conservatives, it’s common knowledge, and I’ve written about my reasons for doing so elsewhere. I’m not ashamed of having done so (although had I joined the Lib Dems that may have been a different matter), and, as I’m not going to rejoin the Labour Party and have no plans to stand in any forthcoming elections, I’m not at all worried that Labour supporters are aware of the fact.
On the “parking fines” issue, I must apologise to “anon”; I should have explained why I posted the YouTube footage of a £50,000 a year councillor acting, dare I say, like a yob. Whether or not the person complaining to the councillor was right or wrong, I would have thought it much more in keeping with Newham Labour councillors’ collective claims that they are representatives of the people and are ready to listen to their woes, if he had explained that he was busy and asked for the person’s contact details so that he could get back to him and try to help him out. But then again, it is nothing to do with him.
I’ll address the more trivial points first.
One commentator accuses me of “ripping off and stealing from working class people while exploiting addictions”. I imagine this refers to my working as a manager for a number of bookmakers. It may come as some surprise to this particular incarnation of a councillor that any money taken over the counter in betting shops doesn’t go into the pocket of the shop manager.
I imagine that it must have required some strength of will to put the comment on Gray’s blog as Gray is a councillor on an authority that has openly welcomed one of the largest casinos in the country into the borough and has assisted local residents to get employment “ripping off and stealing from working class people while exploiting addictions”.
As stated, Gray has set forth with his usual list of things about me that make him angry. The more popular themes are that I’m foul mouthed and I have no politics as I attack the person not the policies.
I admit that, from time-to-time, I have used colourful language – I think it has been contextually valid. If it has offended anyone other than Gray, I apologise. But, to-date, he’s the only person to have mentioned it.
On politics, correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t politics all about people? This is more so at a local level. As we live in a borough that is run by a mayor and his cabal of close friends, with other councillors having little to no say in the decision making process (and how can they when Council meetings last a matter of minutes?), then any attempt to address - and to critique - policy must go to the man and his motivations.
If Gray and his colleagues cannot see this they must walk the Town Hall corridors and meeting rooms either blissfully ignorant or negligently blinkered.
However, if Gray is all about the politics, why hasn’t he lobbied for a more equal society in the microcosm that is Newham Council? That would be a start.
If politics to Gray is Labour Party policy, I think there are three questions that should be put to all Newham councillors: To what extent would you, as a Labour Party member and a Labour councillor, agree that Newham Council is run in accordance with Labour Party policies? Would you agree that mayoral policies are subjected to the same vigorous debate and scrutiny by all Labour councillors that the Labour Party would expect of its elected members on other councils? And, what is it about Newham’s Labour administration’s current policies that differentiate it from Conservative run authorities?
But, whatever my failings, none of them negate the validity of the questions I’ve raised; a point supported by a number of commentators on Gray’s blog.
On my “agenda”, when I read that it is potentially anti-Labour and/or anti-Newham and that I may be a closet saboteur, I was taken aback as I didn’t think I had an agenda (for the record I’m not anti-Labour nor anti-Newham - whatever that may be - and if I was a saboteur I’d be out and proud). But, on reflection, I realise I do have an agenda so I’ll outline it here:
To lobby for fair and robust scrutiny of mayoral decisions;
To argue for full and open disclosure of all Council business and finances; and,
To prompt back-bench councillors into taking a more proactive role regarding the above.
There must be some politics in there somewhere.
Addendum 26 February 2012: I see Gray responded today much as I expected, doing the very thing that he’s berated others for doing – that Lib Dem attack dog training obviously sinks in and he’s pretty good at it. But if I am all the things he says I am, why does that stop him answering questions about the Council?
His anonymous friend is right, I did cross the floor from Labour to the Conservatives, it’s common knowledge, and I’ve written about my reasons for doing so elsewhere. I’m not ashamed of having done so (although had I joined the Lib Dems that may have been a different matter), and, as I’m not going to rejoin the Labour Party and have no plans to stand in any forthcoming elections, I’m not at all worried that Labour supporters are aware of the fact.
On the “parking fines” issue, I must apologise to “anon”; I should have explained why I posted the YouTube footage of a £50,000 a year councillor acting, dare I say, like a yob. Whether or not the person complaining to the councillor was right or wrong, I would have thought it much more in keeping with Newham Labour councillors’ collective claims that they are representatives of the people and are ready to listen to their woes, if he had explained that he was busy and asked for the person’s contact details so that he could get back to him and try to help him out. But then again, it is nothing to do with him.
Friday, 24 February 2012
Now or never?
It seems some people want to know when the £987,916 Olympic Stadium bid spend by Newham Council was first made public.
I understand that Sky News submitted a Freedom of Information request to the authority asking for the total bid spend on 3rd November last year. Newham responded on 1st December.
On the 26th January I read a Sky Sports article on the Internet that was posted that day. It was regarding the total cost of the Olympics to all the authorities and public bodies involved in the games. It stated that Newham refused to give much of the information requested.
Having read that, I decided to send in a FOI request, which unbeknown to me at the time, was almost identical to Sky’s FOI. I got my response on Wednesday.
The figure is currently on the original Sky article and I have to say, if it was on it back in January I missed it. If I had noticed it, I wouldn't have wasted my time. Interestingly, in the past when I have submitted a FOI request to Newham that is identical to one submitted by another person or organisation, the Council has pointed me to the response they had already given.
In any event, the figure is now out there, who put it out first is unimportant, there’s still an argument for the spend to be subjected to Overview and Scrutiny.
I understand that Sky News submitted a Freedom of Information request to the authority asking for the total bid spend on 3rd November last year. Newham responded on 1st December.
On the 26th January I read a Sky Sports article on the Internet that was posted that day. It was regarding the total cost of the Olympics to all the authorities and public bodies involved in the games. It stated that Newham refused to give much of the information requested.
Having read that, I decided to send in a FOI request, which unbeknown to me at the time, was almost identical to Sky’s FOI. I got my response on Wednesday.
The figure is currently on the original Sky article and I have to say, if it was on it back in January I missed it. If I had noticed it, I wouldn't have wasted my time. Interestingly, in the past when I have submitted a FOI request to Newham that is identical to one submitted by another person or organisation, the Council has pointed me to the response they had already given.
In any event, the figure is now out there, who put it out first is unimportant, there’s still an argument for the spend to be subjected to Overview and Scrutiny.
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
987,916 arguments for more robust scrutiny (or ANY kind of scrutiny).
Newham Council’s total spend for the failed Olympic Stadium bid comes to £987,916 (as of 1 March last year the spend was just £103,980.20 - giving an 800% plus increase in under a year). The final costs include all financial, legal and technical advice. West Ham United’s owners claim the club also spent approximately £1 million on the bid.
Almost £2 million (5%) on a bid valued at £40 million doesn’t appear to be a prudent spend. So the big question is: what was the money actually spent on?
Even though Newham Council and WHU were partners in the bid, I can understand why each entity would need to employ the services of separate counsel regarding the legal challenges made by Tottenham Hotspur and Leyton Orient to the OPLC’s decision to award the stadium to the partnership. But I imagine that any other costs would have been shared between the two partners.
In the very worst case scenario, if legal costs came to 50% of the total spend that still leaves a million spent on the actual bid. Were all the bid documents gold-plated and delivered to the OPLC by Lear Jet?
And what does this say about legacy promises? If one of the most deprived boroughs in the country can fritter away almost a million on one man’s fantasy, who’s taking stock of the value this brings to the lives of the people of Newham? What are the real day-to-day benefits for the men and women struggling with the very real threat of redundancy and long-term unemployment?
I’m inviting all and any to comment on what jobs and/or services they think the £987,916 should have saved.
N.B. A reliable Town Hall source informs me that no back-bench Newham Councillor was aware (until now) of the total amount spent on the bid. If you are a Newham resident, ask your ward councillors when they knew about the £900k spend to test that information. Please let me know the response you get.
Almost £2 million (5%) on a bid valued at £40 million doesn’t appear to be a prudent spend. So the big question is: what was the money actually spent on?
Even though Newham Council and WHU were partners in the bid, I can understand why each entity would need to employ the services of separate counsel regarding the legal challenges made by Tottenham Hotspur and Leyton Orient to the OPLC’s decision to award the stadium to the partnership. But I imagine that any other costs would have been shared between the two partners.
In the very worst case scenario, if legal costs came to 50% of the total spend that still leaves a million spent on the actual bid. Were all the bid documents gold-plated and delivered to the OPLC by Lear Jet?
And what does this say about legacy promises? If one of the most deprived boroughs in the country can fritter away almost a million on one man’s fantasy, who’s taking stock of the value this brings to the lives of the people of Newham? What are the real day-to-day benefits for the men and women struggling with the very real threat of redundancy and long-term unemployment?
I’m inviting all and any to comment on what jobs and/or services they think the £987,916 should have saved.
N.B. A reliable Town Hall source informs me that no back-bench Newham Councillor was aware (until now) of the total amount spent on the bid. If you are a Newham resident, ask your ward councillors when they knew about the £900k spend to test that information. Please let me know the response you get.
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Nothing to do with me Guv, I just take a grand of your money each week... Gawd bless ya!
I like the way the police are used as a threat... bear in mind Newham is now paying for 60 additional officers.
[Lifted from YouTube]
It must be a quiet month for Newham Councillors.
I missed this one. I was totally unaware that the Town Hall had passed an edict that obliged Newham bloggers to give notice to Newham councillors regarding any administrative functions carried out on their respective blogs. At least, that’s the impression given by former Lib-Dem local government candidate and current Labour councillor John Gray in a recent post on his blog.
It appears that, in keeping with his usual self-centred delusions, he thinks that I closed my blog down back in December as a result of his imagined influence. He should have read my post of 20 December explaining why I shut down the blog (although he is right about one thing, he did have some influence on my decision to revive it).
The more recent closure was undertaken because I was getting an exceptionally large amount of spam as comments in the older posts. Taking the blog off-line gave me a chance to restrict access to those posts (admittedly, I’ve not got anywhere near to completing the task). Hopefully, this will serve as an explanation to those who have been in touch asking why access to the blog had been restricted. Apologies to those people I didn’t respond to directly regarding this matter. Nothing to do with Gray; on the contrary, I toyed with the idea of keeping the blog open in the slim chance that he’d have a change of heart and set about answering the fairly innocuous questions I posted on the first of this month.
I don’t understand why he hasn’t answered my questions. If he’s anything like the champion of democratic accountability he passes himself off to be, then answering questions about the body he’s been democratically elected to should be second nature.
But it seems that the old Lib-Dem spirit is still there, bubbling under the thin veneer of a Labour convert. Anyone who has campaigned against the Lib-Dems will be aware that in constituencies with a Conservative demographic they present as more Tory than Maggie; in Labour strongholds they’re a deeper shade of red than Ken. A quick skim of Gray’s blog and it becomes apparent that Lib-Dem training sets down deep roots.
And like any Lib-Dem activist worth his salt, when a thoughtful, reasoned response to criticism is beyond him, he resorts to vitriol, adhering to the fraud's credo that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.
I find it laughable that many Labour members in Newham loath the coalition government while at the same time endorsing the covert coalition of a Tory Mayor and at least one Lib-Dem councillor holding office under Labour’s colours.
I see Gray claims that his continual reference to me as a “skinhead” has nothing to do with any attempt to infer I’m a racist (and a thug… “Big Bad Mikey”?!). Bollocks. We are both of a generation that knows only too well of the prejudices of many skinheads of the seventies and eighties – of the composition of organisations such as the National Front and Combat 18. And I’m sure he’s well aware of the associations people from the Black and Minority Ethnic communities make with the label “skinhead”.
Were he just a common-or-garden Newham blogger, I’d take the view that he should be left to fester in his own bile. But he’s not, he’s a blogging councillor and thereby his posts warrant some examination. I hope for the sake of the other new Newham councillors Newham residents don’t read his blog and use it as any kind of benchmark of the standard of representation to be expected.
It appears that, in keeping with his usual self-centred delusions, he thinks that I closed my blog down back in December as a result of his imagined influence. He should have read my post of 20 December explaining why I shut down the blog (although he is right about one thing, he did have some influence on my decision to revive it).
The more recent closure was undertaken because I was getting an exceptionally large amount of spam as comments in the older posts. Taking the blog off-line gave me a chance to restrict access to those posts (admittedly, I’ve not got anywhere near to completing the task). Hopefully, this will serve as an explanation to those who have been in touch asking why access to the blog had been restricted. Apologies to those people I didn’t respond to directly regarding this matter. Nothing to do with Gray; on the contrary, I toyed with the idea of keeping the blog open in the slim chance that he’d have a change of heart and set about answering the fairly innocuous questions I posted on the first of this month.
I don’t understand why he hasn’t answered my questions. If he’s anything like the champion of democratic accountability he passes himself off to be, then answering questions about the body he’s been democratically elected to should be second nature.
But it seems that the old Lib-Dem spirit is still there, bubbling under the thin veneer of a Labour convert. Anyone who has campaigned against the Lib-Dems will be aware that in constituencies with a Conservative demographic they present as more Tory than Maggie; in Labour strongholds they’re a deeper shade of red than Ken. A quick skim of Gray’s blog and it becomes apparent that Lib-Dem training sets down deep roots.
And like any Lib-Dem activist worth his salt, when a thoughtful, reasoned response to criticism is beyond him, he resorts to vitriol, adhering to the fraud's credo that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.
I find it laughable that many Labour members in Newham loath the coalition government while at the same time endorsing the covert coalition of a Tory Mayor and at least one Lib-Dem councillor holding office under Labour’s colours.
I see Gray claims that his continual reference to me as a “skinhead” has nothing to do with any attempt to infer I’m a racist (and a thug… “Big Bad Mikey”?!). Bollocks. We are both of a generation that knows only too well of the prejudices of many skinheads of the seventies and eighties – of the composition of organisations such as the National Front and Combat 18. And I’m sure he’s well aware of the associations people from the Black and Minority Ethnic communities make with the label “skinhead”.
Were he just a common-or-garden Newham blogger, I’d take the view that he should be left to fester in his own bile. But he’s not, he’s a blogging councillor and thereby his posts warrant some examination. I hope for the sake of the other new Newham councillors Newham residents don’t read his blog and use it as any kind of benchmark of the standard of representation to be expected.
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
Truth: a guide for relativists.
Newham Councillor John Gray (Labour, formerly Liberal Democrat) deserves credit for being the authority’s only blogging elected member. His blog allows us some insight into the inner workings of Newham Council’s administration (albeit in a very limited sense) other than the sanitised and heavily edited Town Hall propaganda that is churned out in the Newham Mag and Newham Recorder editorials. As such, on the rare occasions when he does mention Council/Mayoral decisions, his posts warrant some comment.
Blogging gives a voice to those who have no power and who wish to hold those that do to account. To achieve this bloggers should be allowed the freedom of expression. Sadly for Gray, although he is a champion of free speech, that freedom corresponds to the limits of his own tolerances.
Gray doesn’t like the language I use when I blog about the oddities of some of the Mayor of Newham’s decisions and the ineffectiveness of Newham’s councillors. His view is that I can dish it out but I cannot take it: if someone takes a “pop” at me I rant and sulk. I thought I was just responding.
Gray refers to me as “Big Bad Mikey” and likes to bring up the fact that my hair is cut short. I have responded to this, not because it offends me (as he’d like to believe), but to highlight the not-so-subtle inference he tries to make: big and bad, short hair = skinhead = thug (a term he has used to describe me) = racist.
I’ve written on this blog about the mayor and councillors and I have referred to them as idiots and buffoons. I’ve called councillors lazy. I’ve highlighted where the truth has been bent out of shape and I’ve shown how some councillors get preferential treatment when the mayor dishes out allowances. I leave it to the few souls who take the time to read this blog to draw their own conclusions. And, as I’ve stated before, should anyone highlight what they think is a specific mistake in anything I have written here, I’m more than willing to revisit it to make it clearer or correct it should it be wrong.
In any event, all that addresses how Gray obfuscates to avoid answering questions, so I’ll put some simple questions to him again in the hope they get answered (incidentally, any sitting councillor may answer these questions – in name or anonymously; I’m not fussy as long as we get answers, as long as we get the truth):
Why has the number of scrutiny chairs been cut from six to four during this current term?
How many Mayoral decisions have been the subject of scrutiny since May 2010?
Will the Newham Council/West Ham United Olympic Stadium bid be subject to (public) scrutiny?
What are the benefits of Newham Council investing £40,000,000 into the Olympic Stadium as Newham Councillors understand them?
Councillor Gray, the floor is yours.
Blogging gives a voice to those who have no power and who wish to hold those that do to account. To achieve this bloggers should be allowed the freedom of expression. Sadly for Gray, although he is a champion of free speech, that freedom corresponds to the limits of his own tolerances.
Gray doesn’t like the language I use when I blog about the oddities of some of the Mayor of Newham’s decisions and the ineffectiveness of Newham’s councillors. His view is that I can dish it out but I cannot take it: if someone takes a “pop” at me I rant and sulk. I thought I was just responding.
Gray refers to me as “Big Bad Mikey” and likes to bring up the fact that my hair is cut short. I have responded to this, not because it offends me (as he’d like to believe), but to highlight the not-so-subtle inference he tries to make: big and bad, short hair = skinhead = thug (a term he has used to describe me) = racist.
I’ve written on this blog about the mayor and councillors and I have referred to them as idiots and buffoons. I’ve called councillors lazy. I’ve highlighted where the truth has been bent out of shape and I’ve shown how some councillors get preferential treatment when the mayor dishes out allowances. I leave it to the few souls who take the time to read this blog to draw their own conclusions. And, as I’ve stated before, should anyone highlight what they think is a specific mistake in anything I have written here, I’m more than willing to revisit it to make it clearer or correct it should it be wrong.
In any event, all that addresses how Gray obfuscates to avoid answering questions, so I’ll put some simple questions to him again in the hope they get answered (incidentally, any sitting councillor may answer these questions – in name or anonymously; I’m not fussy as long as we get answers, as long as we get the truth):
Why has the number of scrutiny chairs been cut from six to four during this current term?
How many Mayoral decisions have been the subject of scrutiny since May 2010?
Will the Newham Council/West Ham United Olympic Stadium bid be subject to (public) scrutiny?
What are the benefits of Newham Council investing £40,000,000 into the Olympic Stadium as Newham Councillors understand them?
Councillor Gray, the floor is yours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
