Rotten Boroughs : Waveney

Councillor are pillars of the community; outstanding examples of how we should all behave; people who can be relied on to do the right thing...

Well, not it seems in Waveney District Council where Conservative councillor Andrew Draper was arrested and convicted of drink driving and kicking a police officer. He was convicted at Lowestoft Magistrates Court , fined £800 and banned from driving for 2 years.

Now of course the Conservative Party is quite big on law and order, so it's a bit surprising that after Draper resigned from the council’s cabinet, he was backed to remain as a Conservative councillor by group leader Colin Law. It could perhaps have something to do with the fact that the balance of power on the council is on a knife edge?

But, following calls for him to resign or for the Tories to take stronger action, Draper announced last week he had resigned from the Conservative group – although he would remain on the council as an Independent member.

Here's part of what he had to say for himself : "It is not in my character to wilfully attack police officers. I was not resisting arrest, or in any way acting violently. I had been pepper sprayed at close range whilst in the back of the police vehicle. My hitting out was an involuntary act of self defence. I have always and will continue to respect the work of the police in Suffolk.

“In all, this is a deeply regrettable incident, which I want to put behind me and move on from. I intend to remain as a councillor on Waveney District Council, now as an Independent representing my ward. I see it as an opportunity to put something back into the community."

A perfectly natural reaction to brutal police officers needlessly pepper spraying an innocent member of the public, no doubt...

Now you might well think that he should have resigned altogether in disgrace, but none of it! You might also think that Draper's resignation is a bit of a damp squib as although he is no longer a Conservative member he will undoubtedly continue to vote with them. You might well be right!

And just a postscript to this story, Draper was again in trouble just the day after his court appearance when his 'dangerous dog' bit a postman. Apparently, the police had 'strong words' with him about the incident.

"Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime..."

( You can read more about this story here and here )

Rotten Boroughs : Waveney

Councillor are pillars of the community; outstanding examples of how we should all behave; people who can be relied on to do the right thing...

Well, not it seems in Waveney District Council where Conservative councillor Andrew Draper was arrested and convicted of drink driving and kicking a police officer. He was convicted at Lowestoft Magistrates Court , fined £800 and banned from driving for 2 years.

Now of course the Conservative Party is quite big on law and order, so it's a bit surprising that after Draper resigned from the council’s cabinet, he was backed to remain as a Conservative councillor by group leader Colin Law. It could perhaps have something to do with the fact that the balance of power on the council is on a knife edge?

But, following calls for him to resign or for the Tories to take stronger action, Draper announced last week he had resigned from the Conservative group – although he would remain on the council as an Independent member.

Here's part of what he had to say for himself : "It is not in my character to wilfully attack police officers. I was not resisting arrest, or in any way acting violently. I had been pepper sprayed at close range whilst in the back of the police vehicle. My hitting out was an involuntary act of self defence. I have always and will continue to respect the work of the police in Suffolk.

“In all, this is a deeply regrettable incident, which I want to put behind me and move on from. I intend to remain as a councillor on Waveney District Council, now as an Independent representing my ward. I see it as an opportunity to put something back into the community."

A perfectly natural reaction to brutal police officers needlessly pepper spraying an innocent member of the public, no doubt...

Now you might well think that he should have resigned altogether in disgrace, but none of it! You might also think that Draper's resignation is a bit of a damp squib as although he is no longer a Conservative member he will undoubtedly continue to vote with them. You might well be right!

And just a postscript to this story, Draper was again in trouble just the day after his court appearance when his 'dangerous dog' bit a postman. Apparently, the police had 'strong words' with him about the incident.

"Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime..."

( You can read more about this story here and here )

Rotten Boroughs : Camden

A family of asylum seekers on “every kind of benefit available” have been granted a move to a £2million London mansion that rents out at £8,000 a month just to be nearer their friends.

Jobless Somali Saeed Khaliif, 49, and wife Sayida use benefits to pay the rent on the six-bedroom home in West Hampstead, north London. It was claimed the family moved from Coventry to be closer to friends and relatives in London. While it is not known exactly how many children the Khaliifs have, up to eight youngsters have been seen at the house, including two in wheelchairs.

The house was on the market for £2million. It has six bedrooms, three bathrooms and three receptions. It was recently advertised locally at a rent of £1,500 per week.

Apparently, neither Khalif nor his wife have worked since moving their family to this country three years ago. He commented "This is my house. We have every right to live here."

The Department for Work and Pensions refused to comment other than to be quick to point out that housing benefit is administered by local councils. Camden council avoided commenting by hiding behind data protection rules.

( You can read mre about this story in the Daily Express by clicking here )

Rotten Boroughs : Camden

A family of asylum seekers on “every kind of benefit available” have been granted a move to a £2million London mansion that rents out at £8,000 a month just to be nearer their friends.

Jobless Somali Saeed Khaliif, 49, and wife Sayida use benefits to pay the rent on the six-bedroom home in West Hampstead, north London. It was claimed the family moved from Coventry to be closer to friends and relatives in London. While it is not known exactly how many children the Khaliifs have, up to eight youngsters have been seen at the house, including two in wheelchairs.

The house was on the market for £2million. It has six bedrooms, three bathrooms and three receptions. It was recently advertised locally at a rent of £1,500 per week.

Apparently, neither Khalif nor his wife have worked since moving their family to this country three years ago. He commented "This is my house. We have every right to live here."

The Department for Work and Pensions refused to comment other than to be quick to point out that housing benefit is administered by local councils. Camden council avoided commenting by hiding behind data protection rules.

( You can read mre about this story in the Daily Express by clicking here )

Rotten Boroughs : Royston, Hertfordshire

For once it's the police and not the council that is the subject of this blog's vented spleen...

In an action that can only be regarded as the thin end of an extremely dangerous wedge, the Hertfordshire Constabulary are installing a 'ring of steel' around the Hertfordshire town of Royston. Nine Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are to be set up on all the access roads to the town to record the movements of every car that enters or leaves, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.

Privacy International, No CCTV and Big Brother Watch are all concerned about the severe invasion of pubic privacy. Several civil liberties groups have already contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), concerned about the legality of the operation.

Charles Farrier, of No CCTV, said: “The national ANPR network is the biggest surveillance network that the public has never heard of. The use of ANPR as a mass surveillance tool constitutes a major assault on our common law foundations and the Rule of Law. It is a system of automated checkpoints that ought to have no place in a democratic society. We believe the public have a right to go about their daily business without central government essentially logging every single journey they make. This kind of system isn’t about preventing crime, it’s about building up a database which can be used at a later stage.” I am inclined to agree.

On the other side of the fence, Hertfordshire Constabulary has dismissed the complaint and said the cameras, funded by North Herts District Council and local businesses, “are entirely lawful”.

ANPR manager inspector Andy Piper said: “As I’m sure the majority of Royston residents are already aware, the cameras are entirely lawful, have been funded by local businesses and the town council and are welcomed locally. " Apparently, there is a claim that 91% of residents in Royston support the scheme - which is surprising as they have set up a web site as a focus for protest and are calling for a local referendum on the issue.

Inspector Piper goes on "We use ANPR to target criminals and unsafe drivers, not law-abiding motorists, and have caught hundreds of burglars, robbers, uninsured drivers, drug dealers and other serious criminals. For law-abiding drivers, the numberplate details are kept, under strict guidelines, for two years before being deleted. We won’t access this information unless the registration is linked to crime, disorder or an unsafe vehicle.”

How long before we have these cameras tracking every major road in the country? And who will be footing the bill?

The big issue for me is where will this stop. The Police are already calling for a change in the law to allow wider use of these data. You have to ask why?

Rotten Boroughs : Royston, Hertfordshire

For once it's the police and not the council that is the subject of this blog's vented spleen...

In an action that can only be regarded as the thin end of an extremely dangerous wedge, the Hertfordshire Constabulary are installing a 'ring of steel' around the Hertfordshire town of Royston. Nine Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are to be set up on all the access roads to the town to record the movements of every car that enters or leaves, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.

Privacy International, No CCTV and Big Brother Watch are all concerned about the severe invasion of pubic privacy. Several civil liberties groups have already contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), concerned about the legality of the operation.

Charles Farrier, of No CCTV, said: “The national ANPR network is the biggest surveillance network that the public has never heard of. The use of ANPR as a mass surveillance tool constitutes a major assault on our common law foundations and the Rule of Law. It is a system of automated checkpoints that ought to have no place in a democratic society. We believe the public have a right to go about their daily business without central government essentially logging every single journey they make. This kind of system isn’t about preventing crime, it’s about building up a database which can be used at a later stage.” I am inclined to agree.

On the other side of the fence, Hertfordshire Constabulary has dismissed the complaint and said the cameras, funded by North Herts District Council and local businesses, “are entirely lawful”.

ANPR manager inspector Andy Piper said: “As I’m sure the majority of Royston residents are already aware, the cameras are entirely lawful, have been funded by local businesses and the town council and are welcomed locally. " Apparently, there is a claim that 91% of residents in Royston support the scheme - which is surprising as they have set up a web site as a focus for protest and are calling for a local referendum on the issue.

Inspector Piper goes on "We use ANPR to target criminals and unsafe drivers, not law-abiding motorists, and have caught hundreds of burglars, robbers, uninsured drivers, drug dealers and other serious criminals. For law-abiding drivers, the numberplate details are kept, under strict guidelines, for two years before being deleted. We won’t access this information unless the registration is linked to crime, disorder or an unsafe vehicle.”

How long before we have these cameras tracking every major road in the country? And who will be footing the bill?

The big issue for me is where will this stop. The Police are already calling for a change in the law to allow wider use of these data. You have to ask why?

FFS Pickles! Get a grip...

Eric Pickles would seem to be in desperate need of a little divine inspiration judging from the above picture!

Earlier this month, we were blessed with the news that Suffolk County Council's completely useless Chief Executive had finally been kicked out - albeit with a £220,000 golden goodbye. What was Pickles comment? "The new appointee's salary needs to be more in tune with the times".

So what does that mean? Well according to sources in Suffolk this week, that actually means that the cash strapped authority will be looking to pay around £160,000 per annum which is still more than the £142,000 David Cameron gets for running the entire country!

Andrea Hill has now been on garden leave or plain simply gone for some ten weeks and apparently the appointment of a new chief executive is likely to take several months. During this time, the budget setting process for next year will be under way.

Perhaps the Council should be asking itself exactly who has been running the council since Mrs Hill's suspension? It seems to me to have been running quite satisfactorily - indeed, some sources inside the council say it has been running better - so exactly why do they need to replace her at all. It seems to me that the position has been operationally proven to be redundant.

Coming back to Pickles, one has to ask what sort of authority and grip on reality this man has to allow this fiasco to run on and on? Grow a pair, Eric, and get some legislation on the books that allows the salaries of these fat cat piss takers to be pegged at a sensible level. Why are you allowing this obscene abuse of ratepayers money to roll on and on!

And at the end of the day , why the hell are Suffolk proposing to offer the job at around £160,000 per annum. There are no end of competent managers out there who would be more than willing and able to do the job for half of that...

...and in the meantime, this week they have appointed a temporary manager for 6 months - at £150,000 a year! FFS!

FFS Pickles! Get a grip...

Eric Pickles would seem to be in desperate need of a little divine inspiration judging from the above picture!

Earlier this month, we were blessed with the news that Suffolk County Council's completely useless Chief Executive had finally been kicked out - albeit with a £220,000 golden goodbye. What was Pickles comment? "The new appointee's salary needs to be more in tune with the times".

So what does that mean? Well according to sources in Suffolk this week, that actually means that the cash strapped authority will be looking to pay around £160,000 per annum which is still more than the £142,000 David Cameron gets for running the entire country!

Andrea Hill has now been on garden leave or plain simply gone for some ten weeks and apparently the appointment of a new chief executive is likely to take several months. During this time, the budget setting process for next year will be under way.

Perhaps the Council should be asking itself exactly who has been running the council since Mrs Hill's suspension? It seems to me to have been running quite satisfactorily - indeed, some sources inside the council say it has been running better - so exactly why do they need to replace her at all. It seems to me that the position has been operationally proven to be redundant.

Coming back to Pickles, one has to ask what sort of authority and grip on reality this man has to allow this fiasco to run on and on? Grow a pair, Eric, and get some legislation on the books that allows the salaries of these fat cat piss takers to be pegged at a sensible level. Why are you allowing this obscene abuse of ratepayers money to roll on and on!

And at the end of the day , why the hell are Suffolk proposing to offer the job at around £160,000 per annum. There are no end of competent managers out there who would be more than willing and able to do the job for half of that...

...and in the meantime, this week they have appointed a temporary manager for 6 months - at £150,000 a year! FFS!

Rotten Boroughs : South Tyneside

It has to be said that there are some real idiots out there masquerading as Councillors like, for example, Cllr Bartlett of Stony Stratford of whom I wrote recently. But if you really want to scrape the bottom of the barrel, there is unlikely to be anywhere better to look than South Tyneside.

Cllr David Potts is a controversial figure in South Tyneside, often accused by the Tyneside Independent Alliance - a coalition of independent councillors and candidates - of being an ineffective local councillor. He came under fire in November last year when he spent three months in South Africa while still claiming £1,003 a month in expenses - without giving a clear reason for the trip. He said at the time: 'I'm here on a mixture of business and pleasure' - so you would be justified in asking exactly why he was being funded by ratepayers?

But more recenty, Cllr Potts decided to have a jolly good rant when his local MP - none other than David Miliband - was offered a job a non-executive role at Sunderland football club with a reported salary of £50,000 a year.

So incensed was Cllr Potts at this move that he launched forth with a tirade of abuse on Twitter. I quote : "Miliband takes on Sunderland football role. If I knew he was that cheap I'd have offered him 50K years ago. What a wanker!"

Not content to stop there, he went on to offer Miliband £1,000 to teach his girlfriend to cook. Now Miliband might have been on the look out for a job or two since losing the Labout leadership election to his brother, but I doubt even he is that desperate!

A Conservative Party spokesman said: "Football often raises strong emotions, but language like this is clearly unacceptable in political debate." In his own party, leader of South Tyneside Council Iain Malcom said last night: "The comments are clearly outrageous from a senior public figure like Cllr Potts, he should withdraw them from his Twitter account and apologise to David Miliband."

Now you might think that this is a little hypocritical of me as I am about to declare that I think they are both a couple of wankers - but then, I'm not a holder of public office....

....and if I was, then I'd know better!

Rotten Boroughs : South Tyneside

It has to be said that there are some real idiots out there masquerading as Councillors like, for example, Cllr Bartlett of Stony Stratford of whom I wrote recently. But if you really want to scrape the bottom of the barrel, there is unlikely to be anywhere better to look than South Tyneside.

Cllr David Potts is a controversial figure in South Tyneside, often accused by the Tyneside Independent Alliance - a coalition of independent councillors and candidates - of being an ineffective local councillor. He came under fire in November last year when he spent three months in South Africa while still claiming £1,003 a month in expenses - without giving a clear reason for the trip. He said at the time: 'I'm here on a mixture of business and pleasure' - so you would be justified in asking exactly why he was being funded by ratepayers?

But more recenty, Cllr Potts decided to have a jolly good rant when his local MP - none other than David Miliband - was offered a job a non-executive role at Sunderland football club with a reported salary of £50,000 a year.

So incensed was Cllr Potts at this move that he launched forth with a tirade of abuse on Twitter. I quote : "Miliband takes on Sunderland football role. If I knew he was that cheap I'd have offered him 50K years ago. What a wanker!"

Not content to stop there, he went on to offer Miliband £1,000 to teach his girlfriend to cook. Now Miliband might have been on the look out for a job or two since losing the Labout leadership election to his brother, but I doubt even he is that desperate!

A Conservative Party spokesman said: "Football often raises strong emotions, but language like this is clearly unacceptable in political debate." In his own party, leader of South Tyneside Council Iain Malcom said last night: "The comments are clearly outrageous from a senior public figure like Cllr Potts, he should withdraw them from his Twitter account and apologise to David Miliband."

Now you might think that this is a little hypocritical of me as I am about to declare that I think they are both a couple of wankers - but then, I'm not a holder of public office....

....and if I was, then I'd know better!

Rotten Boroughs : Essex County Council

Dear, oh dear! Poor old Essex council seems to be having a rough time of it lately...

You might remember Lord Hanningfield, the peer who was jailed fraud? Well it seems that whilst he was in prison, Essex County Council has been continuing to pay him his expenses allowance as a councillor - until a public uproar put a stop to it.

The excuse was that they were obliged to keep paying him while he was appealing against his conviction and now that the appeal has been held, they have stopped. You might think that this was piss poor and showed a distinct lack of backbone.

Anyway, Essex is also coming under criticism for its fleet of three chaffeur driven Jaguars - now cut to just one mainly used by the chairman, Rodney Bass - which it uses as a 'cost effective way of conveying councillors about their duties'. Ironically, it was Hanningfield's use of the car to ferry him between Essex and the House of Lords that focused attention on the fleet. A Freedom of Information request revelaed that the council spent over £677,000 on the cars over the past five years - and that's a lot of taxi fares!

Mike Mackrory, Liberal Democrat deputy opposition leader, said: "I find it quite extraordinary and one really wonders what on earth the journeys were and how that could be justified?" Mr Bass on the other hand commented that if the prime minister could have a car, so should he, because of the number of functions he attends.

Peter Martin, its new leader, said: "We're certainly not a profligate council. We are extremely tight with our money. We are offering extremely good value for money to our residents."

You might like to form your own opinions - especially if you are an Essex ratepayer...

Rotten Boroughs : Essex County Council

Dear, oh dear! Poor old Essex council seems to be having a rough time of it lately...

You might remember Lord Hanningfield, the peer who was jailed fraud? Well it seems that whilst he was in prison, Essex County Council has been continuing to pay him his expenses allowance as a councillor - until a public uproar put a stop to it.

The excuse was that they were obliged to keep paying him while he was appealing against his conviction and now that the appeal has been held, they have stopped. You might think that this was piss poor and showed a distinct lack of backbone.

Anyway, Essex is also coming under criticism for its fleet of three chaffeur driven Jaguars - now cut to just one mainly used by the chairman, Rodney Bass - which it uses as a 'cost effective way of conveying councillors about their duties'. Ironically, it was Hanningfield's use of the car to ferry him between Essex and the House of Lords that focused attention on the fleet. A Freedom of Information request revelaed that the council spent over £677,000 on the cars over the past five years - and that's a lot of taxi fares!

Mike Mackrory, Liberal Democrat deputy opposition leader, said: "I find it quite extraordinary and one really wonders what on earth the journeys were and how that could be justified?" Mr Bass on the other hand commented that if the prime minister could have a car, so should he, because of the number of functions he attends.

Peter Martin, its new leader, said: "We're certainly not a profligate council. We are extremely tight with our money. We are offering extremely good value for money to our residents."

You might like to form your own opinions - especially if you are an Essex ratepayer...

Rotten Boroughs : Stony Stratford

I am a great believer in free speech - which is why reserve the right to tell Councillor Paul Bartlett, independant town councillor of Stony Stratford and alderman of Milton Keynes, that's he's totally out of order!

Cllr Bartlett is defying the wishes of his electorate to push through his personal vision of a smoke free Stony Stratford. It's already illegal to smoke in the shops, bars and cafes. Fifteen years ago he was instrumental in pushing through a smoking ban in Milton Keynes shopping centre. Clearly he is a man on a mission...

Under Bartlett's plan it will be illegal to smoke in any public area in Stony Stratford, even though these areas are in the open air. So now not only will it be illegal to smoke inside the pub, but it will be illegal to smoke outside as well. And if you do, you could be fined up to £100.

Cllr Bartlett comments ‘It’s a health thing. You walk up and down the High Street and the Market Square and you get nicotine in your face — children in buggies get smoke in their eyes. It leaves a nasty smell, as well as the litter and germs.

‘Most people think it’s disgusting to spit in the street but when you throw away a cigarette end, you’re really doing the same, throwing your spit on the street. How wonderful it would be if Stony Stratford became a world leader in health issues — beating Tokyo and New York [where they have limited public smoking bans, but nothing as stringent as Bartlett’s blanket proposal]. People will come to smoke-free Stony Stratford just because of it.’

Bartlett, who has never smoked himself, goes on 'We should change the mores of society, and see smoking for the anti-social activity that it is.'

The point, Cllr Bartlett, is that there is a big difference between antisocial and illegal.

The residents of Stony Stratford are so pissed off with Cllr Bartlett's plan that there is a major rally taking place this morning to show the strength of public feeling. It kicks off at 11:00 with guest speakers from 12:00 onwards. The speakers include Bill Etheridge of The Freedom Association; David Odell, Head of Stony Stratford Chamber of Commerce; Patrick Hayes, Journalist at the Institute of Ideas and columnist at Spiked and UKIP's Nigel Farage.

If I were Cllr Bartlett, I would remember that I was elected to carry out the wishes of my electorate, not for them to carry out mine.

I urge you to support this mini-revolution as it could well be the thin edge of the wedge...

(You can read more about this issue here and here. I declare my position as a heavy ex-smoker - 80 a day - who gave up but supports your right to do what you like with your own body!)

Rotten Boroughs : Stony Stratford

I am a great believer in free speech - which is why reserve the right to tell Councillor Paul Bartlett, independant town councillor of Stony Stratford and alderman of Milton Keynes, that's he's totally out of order!

Cllr Bartlett is defying the wishes of his electorate to push through his personal vision of a smoke free Stony Stratford. It's already illegal to smoke in the shops, bars and cafes. Fifteen years ago he was instrumental in pushing through a smoking ban in Milton Keynes shopping centre. Clearly he is a man on a mission...

Under Bartlett's plan it will be illegal to smoke in any public area in Stony Stratford, even though these areas are in the open air. So now not only will it be illegal to smoke inside the pub, but it will be illegal to smoke outside as well. And if you do, you could be fined up to £100.

Cllr Bartlett comments ‘It’s a health thing. You walk up and down the High Street and the Market Square and you get nicotine in your face — children in buggies get smoke in their eyes. It leaves a nasty smell, as well as the litter and germs.

‘Most people think it’s disgusting to spit in the street but when you throw away a cigarette end, you’re really doing the same, throwing your spit on the street. How wonderful it would be if Stony Stratford became a world leader in health issues — beating Tokyo and New York [where they have limited public smoking bans, but nothing as stringent as Bartlett’s blanket proposal]. People will come to smoke-free Stony Stratford just because of it.’

Bartlett, who has never smoked himself, goes on 'We should change the mores of society, and see smoking for the anti-social activity that it is.'

The point, Cllr Bartlett, is that there is a big difference between antisocial and illegal.

The residents of Stony Stratford are so pissed off with Cllr Bartlett's plan that there is a major rally taking place this morning to show the strength of public feeling. It kicks off at 11:00 with guest speakers from 12:00 onwards. The speakers include Bill Etheridge of The Freedom Association; David Odell, Head of Stony Stratford Chamber of Commerce; Patrick Hayes, Journalist at the Institute of Ideas and columnist at Spiked and UKIP's Nigel Farage.

If I were Cllr Bartlett, I would remember that I was elected to carry out the wishes of my electorate, not for them to carry out mine.

I urge you to support this mini-revolution as it could well be the thin edge of the wedge...

(You can read more about this issue here and here. I declare my position as a heavy ex-smoker - 80 a day - who gave up but supports your right to do what you like with your own body!)

Rotten Boroughs : Havering

The London Borough of Havering is joining in with a vengence in the requirement to implement cutbacks. So far the budget has been cut by £19 million and the council is making 300 staff redundant.

In fact the council is so pleased with itself that it feels a need to reward the stalwart councillors .... by offering them each a shiny new iPad.

Needless to say, the local population is not impressed. Figures obtained under the freedom of information act show that so far they have purchased 17 of these nice little toys and could be buying as many as 57.

Council leader Cllr Michael White insists investment in the Apple gadgets will bring long-term reductions in paper, printing and travelling costs, and in other “unquantifiable” areas. Hmmm... 'unquantifiable'? Call me old fashioned, but what happened to the good old days of cost justifaction and viability studies and rates of return on investment and.......

But I digress!

The estimable councillor White went on “Councillors spend around £200,000 in printing and paper a year; these iPads will save tens of thousands. It also increases efficiency, as we can do things like view Google maps rather than visiting sites, saving money in transport and staff time – although these costs are unquantifiable." Hmmm... that word again!

So you would expect the opposition to make much political capital of this, but no. Leader of the opposition Cllr Clarence Barrett said: “The money comes out of the £600 IT allowance members are allocated for their [four-year] term, so I don’t see a problem with councillors using it as they see fit." Well, you might not see a problem, but that's probably because you're busy playing with your iPad?

Anyway, it seems that the council got a great deal. The normal cost of an iPad is around £500-600 but councillor White says that he managed to do a deal on old models at £150. At least that's what he said in the press, but on the ITV 6 o'clock news on 13th June the cost seemed to have risen to £500. Perhaps we didn't realise that what he meant to say isn't what we think we heard?  So which is it, Councillor?

Apparenty, they are great for playing Tetris while waiting for work to arrive...

Rotten Boroughs : Havering

The London Borough of Havering is joining in with a vengence in the requirement to implement cutbacks. So far the budget has been cut by £19 million and the council is making 300 staff redundant.

In fact the council is so pleased with itself that it feels a need to reward the stalwart councillors .... by offering them each a shiny new iPad.

Needless to say, the local population is not impressed. Figures obtained under the freedom of information act show that so far they have purchased 17 of these nice little toys and could be buying as many as 57.

Council leader Cllr Michael White insists investment in the Apple gadgets will bring long-term reductions in paper, printing and travelling costs, and in other “unquantifiable” areas. Hmmm... 'unquantifiable'? Call me old fashioned, but what happened to the good old days of cost justifaction and viability studies and rates of return on investment and.......

But I digress!

The estimable councillor White went on “Councillors spend around £200,000 in printing and paper a year; these iPads will save tens of thousands. It also increases efficiency, as we can do things like view Google maps rather than visiting sites, saving money in transport and staff time – although these costs are unquantifiable." Hmmm... that word again!

So you would expect the opposition to make much political capital of this, but no. Leader of the opposition Cllr Clarence Barrett said: “The money comes out of the £600 IT allowance members are allocated for their [four-year] term, so I don’t see a problem with councillors using it as they see fit." Well, you might not see a problem, but that's probably because you're busy playing with your iPad?

Anyway, it seems that the council got a great deal. The normal cost of an iPad is around £500-600 but councillor White says that he managed to do a deal on old models at £150. At least that's what he said in the press, but on the ITV 6 o'clock news on 13th June the cost seemed to have risen to £500. Perhaps we didn't realise that what he meant to say isn't what we think we heard?  So which is it, Councillor?

Apparenty, they are great for playing Tetris while waiting for work to arrive...

Rotten Boroughs : Suffolk County Council

Small comfort yesterday to learn that the powers that be at Suffolk County Council have finally got rid of the waste of space that was their Chief Executive.

Regular readers will know that I have written about Britain's highest paid council boss before, most recently when we was to be investigated for the effects of her 'management style' in the suicide of David White. This resulted in her being put on gardening leave after her return from holiday some eight weeks ago. You might recall that Ms Hill (pictured above) was paid £218,000 per annum, so the gardening leave in question has already cost the besieged tax payers of Suffolk around £18,000.

The council has reportedly told her to bugger off in exchange for a years salary - so now they are paying for her not to be there just the same as if she was! Many in Suffolk feel that that is a good deal because they are better off without her, her management style and her plans for the county.

The sad side of this story is that the decision appears to have been taken to avoid the 'embarassment and expense' of a long and bitterly disputed disciplinary hearing. Of course, this also effectively means that the possible cause of Mr White's suicide is effectively swept under the carpet. Little consolation then for Mr White's family to see Ms Hill given a big fat wad of money!

And the government's reaction to all this? Eric Pickles might be breathing a hefty sigh of relief that this embarassing woman has departed, but the best he could say about her replacement was that he hoped the salary offered 'would reflect the austerity of the times we are living in'.

If that's the best you can do Eric, then perhaps we should get rid of you as well?....

Rotten Boroughs : Suffolk County Council

Small comfort yesterday to learn that the powers that be at Suffolk County Council have finally got rid of the waste of space that was their Chief Executive.

Regular readers will know that I have written about Britain's highest paid council boss before, most recently when we was to be investigated for the effects of her 'management style' in the suicide of David White. This resulted in her being put on gardening leave after her return from holiday some eight weeks ago. You might recall that Ms Hill (pictured above) was paid £218,000 per annum, so the gardening leave in question has already cost the besieged tax payers of Suffolk around £18,000.

The council has reportedly told her to bugger off in exchange for a years salary - so now they are paying for her not to be there just the same as if she was! Many in Suffolk feel that that is a good deal because they are better off without her, her management style and her plans for the county.

The sad side of this story is that the decision appears to have been taken to avoid the 'embarassment and expense' of a long and bitterly disputed disciplinary hearing. Of course, this also effectively means that the possible cause of Mr White's suicide is effectively swept under the carpet. Little consolation then for Mr White's family to see Ms Hill given a big fat wad of money!

And the government's reaction to all this? Eric Pickles might be breathing a hefty sigh of relief that this embarassing woman has departed, but the best he could say about her replacement was that he hoped the salary offered 'would reflect the austerity of the times we are living in'.

If that's the best you can do Eric, then perhaps we should get rid of you as well?....

Rotten Boroughs : Kent County Council

Kent County Council's £197,000-a- year boss, Katherine Kerswell, has excelled herself by hiring six temps at a cost of up to £1,250 per day.

In a major reorganisation designed to save money, the Council employed three temporary directors. In their first three months, they cost the taxpayers of Kent £205,000 at a time when the council is cutting hundreds of jobs and slashing services in its biggest-ever financial-savings package.

Nine directors have taken redundancy since Mrs Kerswell joined as Managing Director in March last year, which doesn't exactly seem to instil confidence in her leadership. Their top-paid temporary replacement, Malcolm Newsam, earns £1,250 daily to oversee families and care. Alastair Pettigrew, head of specialist children’s services, costs £825, and Andy Roberts, at education and learning skills, £780.

The council expects to cut 1,500 jobs over four years and is trying to shave £165million from its budget over the next two.

Council leader Paul Carter said: “Kent County Council is going about this intelligently and in the best interests of taxpayers. The cost of interim directors, which includes the fees paid to the agencies supplying them, is a completely separate issue."

No, it's not Paul...

(You can read more about this story here)

Rotten Boroughs : Kent County Council

Kent County Council's £197,000-a- year boss, Katherine Kerswell, has excelled herself by hiring six temps at a cost of up to £1,250 per day.

In a major reorganisation designed to save money, the Council employed three temporary directors. In their first three months, they cost the taxpayers of Kent £205,000 at a time when the council is cutting hundreds of jobs and slashing services in its biggest-ever financial-savings package.

Nine directors have taken redundancy since Mrs Kerswell joined as Managing Director in March last year, which doesn't exactly seem to instil confidence in her leadership. Their top-paid temporary replacement, Malcolm Newsam, earns £1,250 daily to oversee families and care. Alastair Pettigrew, head of specialist children’s services, costs £825, and Andy Roberts, at education and learning skills, £780.

The council expects to cut 1,500 jobs over four years and is trying to shave £165million from its budget over the next two.

Council leader Paul Carter said: “Kent County Council is going about this intelligently and in the best interests of taxpayers. The cost of interim directors, which includes the fees paid to the agencies supplying them, is a completely separate issue."

No, it's not Paul...

(You can read more about this story here)