Council Watcher
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Steveg- not sure how you have worked out the maths to arrive at 120% increase- Coucnukirs are having a £200 increase which is between 0.25% and 1% depending on what role they hold.
The concentration clearly is on comments but the fact that it was turned down is still the point — the developer will do an appeal and as Cllrs Morris as Chair keeps referring that Council Members have a set criteria on which to reject an application — if the application does not meet the rejection criteria then the project will go through.
I wonder if the Leaders of the respective political Groups have censured any of those making offending comments.
Further to Votethecounillorsout I wonder if ANY Councilor would come out openly and say they would welcome the facility in their area.
Don’t get too excited — when did the WG last buy any land? They are not known for land deals that turn into anything — look at the bomb site on St Giles Way that they have owned for quite a while —
The Cop site is also the wrong side of the railway line for them to use VVP – Vibrant Viable funds.
In the past the WG have totally shyed away from investing money in the ground and facilities..I suggest that the Councillor join a Mental Health Awareness Course or visit Advance Brighter Futures in Belmont Road to actually find out first hand about the issues of mental health and the very wide spectrum that this covers. The type of blanket assertions our Councillors were making.
It is also quite astonishing that Senior Council Officers (was there no one from the Legal Department present) did not to the type of statements – there are a number of comments from individuals that are nothing short of direct discrimination.
The Council could have a case taken against them under two particular pieces of legislation – Equality and Human Rights and Disability Discrimination Act if anyone who could have used the facilities takes this up.
Organisations such as MIND should look very closely at the webcast to assess if there is justification for bringing a case against the Council and potentially individual Councillors.
Containers are certainly not a new idea and have been used for at least 10 years in a number of cities- one of the key issues though is Wrexham Council are buying these in ready-made- delivery mid to late April after the cold weather so may not deal with current issues.
The current issue of additional demand has partly been met by the church community over the past few nights who have opened doors to provide additional accommodation.
The real success stories for containers this is been the homeless themselves do the conversion – this can give them a sense of order and belonging to respect ‘their’ container more.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/new-container-village-created-help-747654Let’s praise the Council- Welsh Government who are actually funding this project (it is not coming from normal rates but as a grant). Next time though look at models that have made a real difference to people’s lives and address some of the social issues other than just accommodation.
The issue is to do with Dat Protection and the regulations governing the use of images collected in a public CCTV system. There are clearly defined regulations about what can be shared depending on the purpose- so basically the Council has their hands tied about any imagery that enables someone to be identified unless released by the Police for the detection if someone they are looking for.
The new GDPR – General Data Protection regulations that comes law in May has some very clear guidance in this use.Good bedtime reading!!
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/cctv/Individual employees may have their car parking free at an industrial site but the car parking is not free to the business as they have to pay Business Rates so they are contributing to the Council. Why should a business pay rates on car parking to subsidise the car parking of Council Employees and Members?
