Pete Boggs

McNeil's a busted flush, probably always has been. It's Geoff Hughes who really runs the Council. While I'd love to see him get the third degree off a pitchfork wielding lynchmob an independent scrutiny panel it ain't gonna happen. Local authorities don't do this type of transparency and I can't imagine Herefordshire with its embedded culture of secrecy, deals behind closed doors and brown envelopes, being a pioneer in that regard.

I'm glad to hear it. Doesn't alter the fact that 4-5 years back HALO were in line for a sizeable subsidy from HC to tart up the leisure centre, amongst other things. It was disguised as a variation to the leisure contract which has legal pitfalls of its own but the council solicitor at the time apparently thought this was the lesser of two evils. There's a fair bit of murkiness around HALO's legal status when founded, and how they came to be awarded the leisure contract in the first place. Par for the course from the authority that brought you Herefordshire Jarvis, the ICT/Crookall report scandal and latterly Blueschool House. Rules are for little people.

I think what they really mean here is Herefordshire Council, the local authority that props them up financially in open defiance of the law on state aid by the public sector. Be interesting to know whether they pay a commercial rent on that 75 year lease.

Anyone expecting Norman to do anything other than trouser another big pay off is destined to be disappointed I fear.

I think you'll find there was never any right to free speech enshrined in UK law until, ironically perhaps, the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights as the Human Rights Act in 1998. Prior to that you were free to say what you wanted provided you didn't infringe any other law - criminal or civil. We had, and possibly still do, some of the most punishing libel courts in the land. Why do you think rich foreigners were so keen to come here and issue a writ every time someone offended them? The situation was something of a mess with the boundaries of free speech being tested in the courts on a fairly frequent basis - remember Mrs Whitehouse and the infamous gay Jesus poem? She won. The gay paper that published it was found guilty of blasphemy. Since 1998 there is a right to freedom expression subject to numerous caveats and qualifications. A British muddle replaced by a European fudge if you like. Is it worse, better, the same? Who knows - personally I suspect the latter. The prosecution of the young girl reported in the Hereford Times was heavy handed in the extreme. Difficult to believe that police and CPS resources were expended in pursuing this. Further evidence that our national institutions have lost all sense of proportion and common sense.

I'd agree with the former, but not the latter. The article had unfounded accusations of paedophilia, plus the usual grandiose claims of superior knowledge over "the sheeple" that one usually gets from people who know the THE TRUTH because they receive it direct by thought transmission from giant space bats living on the far side of the moon. HT were heavy handed closing down the comments section though, they could have just pulled the accounts of the mentalists making all the noise.

I'd hazard a guess it was to silence the frothings of two or three tin hat loons who'd used the article as an excuse to share the benefit of their wisdom regarding the royal family. Republicanism is one thing, barely literate dribbling is quite another, especially when it's actionable. It does seem rather draconian to close the entire comment section though. Deleting the dribblers' accounts would be a more proportional response I'd have thought.

Doesn't Hereford's homegrown version of Al Capone spend most of his time in Costa Rica these days?

Also interesting that HT have only had the story on their site the last couple of hours or so. Compare with the BBC where it was on since early this morning, and with more detail (such as it is at the moment). Had to be Blueschool House didn't it?

This kind of poor practice is endemic within the property department when it comes to construction projects. In fact I'd go so far as to describe it as standard procedure. It's no use Andrew Lovegrove blaming a small group of rogue officers - they've been carrying on like this for years, and they've been allowed to.

Looks like the resident pi*% artists in the Council's property/construction team are to blame, much as I surmised. They've been audited before and told to smarten up their act when it comes to procurement, but old habits die hard. I'm only surprised it's taken this long to come and bite them in the gluteus maximus.

I think that's might be one of those chicken and egg type questions Denise. Personally I think bent authorities like Cheshire East and Herefordshire like to employ bent officers who they know will have the moral flexibility to do things that might give more honest people pause for thought. Incidentally someone wants to know who at East Cheshire is being investigated by Inspector Knacker and Co: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/suspensions_12#incoming-1017392 The Council have responded but have used a bit of sophistry, based on the applicant's slightly clumsy wording, to avoid answering who exactly might be helping the police with their enquiries. If anyone.

Council's property team pissed while on the job again? Surely not - that can't be the explanation for this debacle can it? Unsigned contracts, that's par for the course with this Council - see previous comments re: Butter Market.

Isn't that what we pay our Council Tax for? Why isn't the Council managing the contract effectively? It's no use pleading poverty when we know there's money for £250k websites and massive overspends on Council building improvements.

Translation: You're doing NOTHING. As usual. If Norman goes down it’ll be because of what happened in Cheshire East, not Herefordshire where he was indulged and allowed to run riot. As for getting off this site we could say the same to you. You might fancy yourself as a community leader (see nauseating letter in Hereford Times of a few weeks ago) but you’re not the moderator here. You don't get to tell us what we can and cannot discuss.

Surely not a scandal in the offing? I mean, she did such a good job with the young people portfolio. If her successor ends up taking the flak it could be a case of "Taxi for Rone!"

Not half as much as the members of Council staff he persecuted. Plus you've been waiting rather a long time haven't you? He's been gone over a year. Left it a bit late I would suggest. Otherwise what twowheelsgood said.

That's nice, inciting violence against a woman who appears to be mentally ill. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of her case your post is despicable. Next time you get the urge to speak your brain and share the benefits of your wisdom via keyboard do us all a favour and don't bother.

Not unknown at Hereford - there was never a signed contract for the consultants brought in to revamp the Butter Market. Cue lots of aggro when the Council decided it didn't want to go ahead. I'm told that one of the officers in the estates department who was responsible for the new records office contract is often to be found in a semi-alcoholic coma of an afternoon. Perhaps he dreamed up this latest fiasco in one of his post-lunch reveries?

High time the senile yokel mafia running the county learned a lesson that the law applies to them just the same as everyone else. I fear any judicial review application is probably too late though and will be just beer money for the lawyers. Should have been done a bit sooner after the decision was made. That same old quote from Harry "Al Capone" Bramer has been trotted out in every bloody Council press release for what seems like the last two years now - rings more and more hollow each time.

I don't know about "cost reduction" but old Sex-Dwarf Robinson certainly made a few thousand quid disappear from the Council's budget. As for Norman it's history repeating itself - if things run true to form Cheshire East will pay him off and he go and wreak havoc on another authority's legal department.

I'd have thought that if this election had any lessons to teach us it was of the dangers of hubris and counting one's chickens before they're hatched. That goes both ways. Donnell didn't get much of turn out for his "Day of Rage" did he?

Thanks, just trying to give a bit of context to the misbegotten beast that is Hoople, and perhaps correct some of the myths that may have grown up around it, not least among councillors. Denise, I'm sure you're right. I expect we can all name members for whom being on the Council is a way to advance their own business interests or those of their mates from down the Lodge.

They should do - who's running the Council, them or the officers? That said a lot of members aren't too bright and/or have a tendency not to want to get their hands dirty when it comes to the actual workings of the authority. As evidence we can also point to the appointment of two senior officers with dismal records of corruption and malpractice as heads of legal and finance. You'd think councillors might want to do some background reading, via google if nothing else, on the appointment to such important roles - but apparently they didn't.

Not Gordon Brown in 2010 then?