Pete Boggs

In that case can I suggest that Cllr Chappell directs his questions about the consultation, or lack of, to the (Deputy) Solicitor to the Council (Property & Commercial) as they will have advised on the matter. Or should have. Maverick, yes you're right, the monitoring officer is a statutory requirement. From Megilland's post on the Guy Taylor thread it appears that the other Deputy Solicitor has been appointed on an interim basis. If Bill the Bung has been allowed to retire early with a nice big package it's nothing short of a disgrace. An FOI request may be in order perhaps.

Section 151 officer relates to financial matters is more likely to be Peter Robinson I'd have thought. Bill the Bung would have been the Council's monitoring officer and Megilland's recent post on the Guy Taylor thread indicates that one of the deputy solicitors has taken that role over. I wonder if the Bung's redundancy has anything to do with his botched restructuring of legal services which has seen them advertising the same jobs, with increased desperation, at least four times in the last twelve months? Like Denise I hope he hasn't been paid off but that's probably a bit too much to hope for.

In the wake of Cllr Chappell's post on the Blackmarston School thread I obviously stand corrected.

A point Cllr Chappell might like to pursue? i.e. what legal advice was sought and and given re: 1 Ledbury Road. The letter from Cardin's website was really quite something: There was no disability discrimination because the Council was overcharging everybody, disabled or not. Extraordinary. Then again, coming from a man who seems to have spent his entire career defending the indefensible, possibly not.

This is interesting. The Council's Solicitor i.e. Bill Norman would usually be the monitoring officer. Of course it's something of a poisoned chalice in an authority as corrupt as Herefordshire so I'm not surprised to discover that Bill the Bung has given it the swerve.

A very interesting post. I thought the lack of consultation was likely to be illegal because of the provisions of the The Public Services (Social Value) Act which requires consultation with service users and other interested parties by "commissioners" particularly when thinking of ending a service. Also thought there might be an implied duty to consult due to precedent. Didn't know that there was legislation specifically relating to those with special needs and families. Shouldn't the Council's lawyers be advising Mr Baird and colleagues of their legal duty in this situation?

That would be the ideal solution - I suppose transport companies don't want to pay for it though.

I'm not a fan of Corbyn and he's taken plenty of flak for this, but...as Glenda's post amply demonstrates there are a lot of strange blokes about. Ragwert's quoted stats are both frightening and shameful. Possibly we have to be realistic though and accept that society and the legal system isn't going to deal with these people properly (I see the Colwall flasher got bail). If Corbyn's proposal keeps people safe then I guess I'm in favour.

American special forces use them a lot. Perhaps the SAS are trying one out?

It's devilishly difficult to listen to.

More like the remainder bin. Christian rock is quite a niche genre. Besides...the Devil has all the best tunes.

It's already taken a hammering with staff made redundant and services outsourced to contractors of decidedly variable quality. I find it rather curious that the Council pleads poverty when it comes to providing services yet seems to have lots of cash to spend on recruitment consultants only to then appoint the present incumbent to job of Council treasurer (or whatever the new fangled title is these days, chief financial officer is it?). Ditto the refurbishment of Plough Lane. That's got to be a six figure sum I'd have thought.

Sometimes it's not necessarily a case of guillibility. Cults like the Freedom Church are good at finding people's weak spots or approaching them at a time in their life when they are vulnerable. I remember reading somewhere that a lot of people who join cults are of above average intelligence but have been drawn in by organisations that are sophisticated in using psychology. I believe we've already discussed FC's use of profiling - that would be a prime example I'd say.

Perhaps they could give a more prominent role to one or two councillors. After all, politics is showbiz for ugly people, and local politics is uglier than most.

Denise, every other week it seems like - these happy clappers are keen on telling us all about what they're up to. Flyposting is probably the least of their sins.

In some cities it's the Council, or their "partner organisations" doing the advertising. Expect Freedom Church fliers all around town in the very near future.

Herefordshire Council has a dismal reputation when it comes to info breaches. I know personally of one case where highly sensitive data relating to a young person was improperly disclosed to several parties. Think HC might have copped a hefty fine for that one. Re: the Freedom Church issue, I'm wondering if this is more Private Eye Rotten Boroughs material than something for the local rag to mull over and then ignore.

I'll bet the Tories are killing themselves laughing. The again people laughed at Thatcher in the 70s, so who knows?

Tithe money well spent no doubt!

Those banners - they reek of Nuremberg. Even more offensive when you see them carrying on their antics in a country that's had more than its fair share of tragedy thanks to deluded fanatics and ideologues. Shame the Cambodian traffic police don't seem to be on the case.

Why should they help themselves to more of our money? They'll only spaff it up the wall on more useless managers recruited from the dregs of the public sector, paying off employees guilty of manifest wrongdoing (e.g the former head of ICT and the former head of PR/Communications), refurbishing their Plough Lane HQ and jobs for the boys projects like Hereford Failures. There's also a wider point here – the road traffic act which regulates car parking schemes is not meant to be a revenue raising measure. Local authorities are using it to generate cash, not to control parking and traffic which is what it is intended for. Councils are breaking the law. Unfortunately, the Barnet case aside, nobody seems able to take them on.

This bit is interesting, next to the street parking proposal: "It would also provide ongoing revenue to support transport services." This seems to be the very thing that the Barnet case says they can't do. The amounts quoted in Bill Tanner's article also suggest that the money they're already raking in far exceeds the actual cost of the scheme. This is a revenue raising excercise, pure and simple.

No doubt he'll be on Youtube before too long spinning it as yet another victory against the system. Then again, by his standards it probably does qualify as a good result. I gather he's no stranger to the taste of porridge.

I believe this may be illegal. The Barnet case of a couple of years ago would suggest that Councils can not use parking charges to raise revenue: http://www.walkermorris.co.uk/charging-services-%E2%80%93-barnet-parking-permit-case Not that potential illegality has ever deterred Herefordshire Council before. Still, I'm sure the monitoring officer has advised members and senior management on any risks involved.

Comments already being deleted - gutless rag. It beggars belief that the Council can close down a valued, essentia even, service to save money yet can blow tens of thousands of pounds on an executive recruitment search that merely confirms the present incumbent in his post. Beyond satire, you couldn't make it up.