Metalhead
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@Conde 7417 wrote:
This is what I’m saying. They don’t need to be farmed out and in many cases won’t be. The building work probably will need to be farmed out due to the nature of the building etc.
Looking at WCBC’s response today, they will be pushing for that, which I believe is a reasonable move.
That is good news, thanks for the update. Regarding the building work I fully appreciate that specialist contractors must be used for significant parts of the building but I’m slightly at a loss to understand why local contractors could not be used to assist with the many areas where security would not be an issue? (laundry, catering, offices, car park etc.) This is the sort of thing I believe WCBC should be initially looking to push for.
@Conde 7411 wrote:
That sounds about right Shaun, although it’d be silly to guarentee jobs to locals in areas where many of them have never had experience. I think it’d be premature to suggest that there would be 0 jobs coming to locals however.
Surely there are many positions that would not require specialised experience? I would imagine the likes of catering, housekeeping positions would not NEED to be farmed out as surely there are plenty of able and willing local people suitable to fill them. As for the building of this development are there really no suitable Wrexham based contractors capable of being involved in its construction? I think that it should be insisted that a reasonable percentage of this work be put out to local tender TBH.
@Conde 7405 wrote:
I understand that it’s a contentious issue and I think we will be making fantastic gains out of this project. We need employment. Employment will help reduce the number of people who are attracted to a lfie of crime.
According to the BBC website this development will create something in the region of 1000 jobs, perhaps someone could clarify exactly how many of these jobs will made available to LOCAL people. I can appreciate this project will have some commercial benefits to this area and I totally appreciate why there will be differing views on it. I’m all for something that puts Wrexham ‘on the map’ but a maximum security prison the size of the fricken death star isn’t ideally what I would have had in mind!
Any possibility of putting a formal proposal together for this idea to be presented at a forthcoming councillors meeting? Perhaps it could include some suggestions of topics forum members may want to discuss with them, such as the possibility of some communities taking over the running of their community centres or alternative suggestions for cost cutting that should not impact too severely on communities (like not spending ridiculous amounts of public money getting a couple of people off a roof for example!).
No problem, I only knew this because I know the owner. He has had a very long battle to get this passed and he did have at least one previous application refused.
The owner does have planning permission to rebuild it as a bistro with a couple of flats on top, it was passed earlier this year.
Case P/2012/0350
@thewayneinspain 7336 wrote:
meant to ask
anyone think the figures are true?
no helicopter costs for a start. And awfully cheap given how long the protest was (plus debrief time) given there were over 100 staff deployed.
I suspect they were actually higher, when further things such as solicitors/court/jailing costs etc. are taken into account it will make this episode look even more of a joke. When I think of things that I am informed cannot be addressed in our community due to an apparent lack of council funds it’s ridiculous that so much tax payers money was wasted getting a couple of wazzocks off a roof (that’s right I’m bringing the word wazzock back!).
£8,500 to deliver a couple of idiots small cardboard boxes filled with inedible lard….bargain!
…seriously though, why the hell did they feed them? :confused:
@thewayneinspain 7306 wrote:
They will ignore the requests except for phil wynn and arfon jones .
They always ignore awkwards questions, but they don’t care because people vote by party not on the candidate.
I accept that in reality you are very probably correct but is that reason to just give up and not attempt to get this idea off the ground? As I mentioned in my last post it could be a 2 way street as in certain cases it could actually benefit the councilors. Also if there was an issue residents did feel strongly about and their councilor was publicly invited to contribute to an open debate and ignored that request, if that issue was not deemed to have been dealt with in a satisfactory manner would that councilor then be concerned about the possibility of not getting re-elected? (people can have long memories in my experience).
Still think this is a good idea in theory, whether it could be workable in practice is another matter. Personally I would like to see it given some sort of chance.
If this forum idea were to go ahead could it not be of benefit to councilors as well as residents? Are there not times when councilors may actually welcome honest feedback in order to help them make informed decisions on what their communities want?
Is there any possibility of inviting some councilors to comment on the suggestions made so far in this thread?
