Matt
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well it’s not a nuclear fall-out but there was MDF contained in it, which whilst I agree is unlikely to cause any long-term harm if exposure is outside and short term, is still not good.
HSE has guidelines here:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/woodworking/faq-mdf.htm
So there shouldn’t be major consequences but steps should be taken to ensure an incident like this isn’t repeated. Otherwise where do you draw a line on corporate responsibility in industry?
If a resident of Chirk had carried out a much smaller scale incident from their home that had affected neighbouring properties they would have been fined.
[quote quote=137204]Mat do you seriously think that this is Mark Pritchard putting this block in place – I think you need to look further along the Executive table! Also who are the legal advisors that are putting forward such spurious reasons. Mark P may be the deliverer of the message but the originator – I don’t think so..
A report to the Council Standards Committee should be made
[/quote]
No more so than Theresa May being in charge of the country, but with leadership comes responsibility and his portrayal of his part of said running of Wrexham Council comes across in the manner which I described. I am not the only one who has been critical of his political style and perceived actions.
Just read Wrexham.com’s latest article on the lengthy explanation on the absence of the questions and Mark Pritchard’s shocking use of bureaucracy to dismiss the questions on technicalities is bordering on passive aggressive and shows extreme contempt for the general public.
I can now see how this talent has him firmly planted as Exec Board Leader. Shameless, blame shifting bureaucracy that pretty much stifles and prevents anything from happening in Wrexham unless on his say so.
If you take what he says about the petition you can see what ridiculousness we have all been forced to deal with when people’s welfare and the public’s very real concern gets dismissed in such a shameful manner.
“Referencing the petition Cllr Mark Pritchard said: “We have received the petition but it did not contain any signatures, and some of the names listed were clearly fictitious, and postcodes outside of the area were also listed.”
1. It did not contain any signatures – come on Mark it’s an online petition, the person’s entry represents a digital signature. Is he a councillor from the 1700s? Fetch me the fastest rider who can read and get the signatures from the discontented villagers with this here quill & parchment.
2. Some of the names were clearly fictitious – is he saying he scoured the entire list of 600 names and decided beyond reasonable doubt that there definitely is no-one in the UK with these names. This is where he is bordering on Donald Trump logic & dismissing something as Fake News.
3. Postcodes outside the area were also listed – Sorry I didn’t read the specific rules of this free country where people from outside of an area are banned from having any level of opinion or concern about elsewhere. Ever heard of people who might commute to work in Wrexham? Students? People concerned for their relatives who live in Wrexham? People just concerned about homelessness? Sorry guys, Mark says no.
Seriously needs to climb down from his Ivory Tower and treat the people of Wrexham with the respect they deserve.
#RantOver
Just need to keep making more noise about this until the council listens. I’ve just tweeted a link to this open letter on the forum and did summary tweets of the 5 questions so everyone gets a rough idea of what people want answers about.
Read on my Facebook tonight that Hugh Jones wasn’t even able to resolve a parking in a cul-de-sac (the new piss up in a brewery) issue in Rossett. Leaving a number of residents alienated and annoyed.
Needless to say, he finds it perfectly at his liberty to annoy the rest of the town too. Moral of the story, never leave a Tory in charge of the homeless.
As for Mark Pritchard telling lies, now that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. Thick as thieves.
Waiting for a sign, any sign from the Exec Board that they are not pushing wilful neglect on the whole site and therefore as a result adversely impacting on the community across the whole town centre.
Is it just this council that seeks to frustrate the local public? Or is this a general trend across the country. The person who left the meeting in disgust yesterday pretty much sums up how quite a lot of people feel. By carrying out that act, they made a bigger and more resounding point than fully paid-up councillors squabbling but not being able to do so effectively due to a farcical microphone set-up.
There should be a much better set-up for public participation rather than the system you described, if people felt like they could at least voice concerns at meetings, the council would not get so publicly trashed on social media and this disconnect between the Exec Board (I’m not doubting individual councillors provide assistance in their local wards) and the rest of the townsfolk would perhaps become less severe.
As it stands public unhappiness and alienation is only going to keep rising, but due to an apathetic voting public the status quo is not going to change for years.
[quote quote=136887]Is this good use of Public Money?
[/quote]
Absolutely not. Already ranted on Facebook about the £30,000 earmarked in the business plan for a launch event.
Thirty Big Ones.
Of course you only need to see the huge comments thread to see what the Facebook Intelligentsia make of it all. A real bang your head against the wall read.
As much as I respect that Travellers have the right to live the way they choose, it is bad publicity for Wrexham that they can just come smack bang in the middle of town and cause disruption.
It would never be agreed to due to any given Nimby within a 5 mile radius, but some kind of short stay traveller ground that they could come to when they visit Wrexham would avoid this rigmarole every time of them popping up on fields outside schools and church car parks.
That way it would show that Wrexham was welcoming but at the same time leave the Police with the option to point out that they were creating a nuisance by setting up any illegal camp elsewhere and encourage them to relocate there rather than act like they were being run out of town.
I’m sure there are several legal & local council feasibility issues as to why this is not an easy option. But if we’ve got a tolerated homeless camp we should have a designated traveller site – treating this as a separate issue to the permanent & full traveller site we already have.
