twowheelsgood

Come on megilleland, when did this Council ever stick to the rules?

Having singularly failed to attract any businesses, I guess they have to look like they're doing something, anything, to justify the expense package.

The headline is misleading - I thought this proposal (which has been around for a while) was about celebrating the munitions workers at Rotherwas, which is an excellent idea.

Of course another reason for endless restructuring is to avoid any traceability and/or responsibility for actions - with new job titles, management are off  scot free for a few months as well as being completely inaccessible to the hapless council tax payers who had been dealing with them and who have to start all over again.

Oh god, you're not using an iProduct are you?  :Cha ching: heh.

Maybe try clearing the cache, somewhere in the tools/settings.

Sussed it I think - I was using the IP Board theme - if I switch back to Social, it seems to work. And yes, only apple juice has ever coursed through my veins, well for the last 26 years anyway. 

I came to the conclusion some while ago that the only reason for Council's being is to constantly reinvent and reorganise themselves. Without this, the whole caboodle could be run with just a few dozen people (as indeed the older district councils were). Look at todays story in the HT on payouts and specifically the department names - carefully crafted to disguise their real purpose of not much at all really. What on earth does the 'Inclusion & Improvement' department do? No wonder the assistant director of 'Customer Services and Communications' left. And why indeed 'Director'? The Council isn't a limited company (yet) although parts of it are run like the FBI ...

My favourite idiotic departmental name is 'Place Based Commissioning' (because Highways was just too, well, obvious) - HC actually employed consultants to come up with that one. Money well spent, don't you think?

As for Environment (again too obvious), its had more name changes than I can keep up with - the latest being 'Economy, Communities and Corporate'. Nice and oblique that one - who'd have thought it was the planning department??

To quote the much missed bobby47 - we're all doomed.

I don't use that anyway, just copy paste the text, highlight and click the quote icon (speech bubble) - as I tend to only quote partials

 

Are you sure you just haven't typed in the quote box? All working for me as usual :P

Nope - I've now clicked on the multi-quote and that looks like it might work ... lets click and see.

Edit - no it doesn't. The preview is different to the posted version. Still needs fixing.

Jim, it’s a fact that posters on internet forums use aliases - its always been thus. Posters on here, on the HT site, on WIHAHC and other sites are local people responding to local issues. For their own safety or job security or for other reasons they want to remain anonymous. That doesn't stop them raising valid points and asking you to deal with things where they are within your remit. It hasn't stopped at least one other councillor here dealing with issues and nor should it stop you. It is noted that you are one of the few who've responded to Colin's invitation to join this forum, and that it to be applauded - the majority are noticeable by their absence. Don't spoil it by throwing your toys out of the pram.

Colin - can you fix the quoting issue - it's not working as you can see. All of the quoted post should be in a grey box, not just the poster )or somehow selected). It makes it hard to decipher the posts.

Hmmm, quotes doesn't seem to work properly Colin ...

My experience of the current administration is none of them can take criticism. 

See for yourselves.

 

http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/letters/10685351.Letter_from_Tony_Johnson__Leader__Herefordshire_Council_says_prudent_borrowing_is_best_for_future/

Still pedalling the myth that the 'Rotherwas Relief Road is creating jobs' I see.

I suggested a committee lead system - I don't claim to have all the answers, but we all know the cabinet system has been tried, tested and found severely wanting and open to horrible abuse. It has to go.

Perhaps we consider reverting to a two tier committee system, such as when we had the district and county system. This at least provided for some checks and balances. Perhaps we should consider merging with Worcestershire, perhaps Hereford City could become a District Authority again - there are many options to explore.

Why wait two years? The council can be petitioned to hold a referendum on whether our district should change to a different form of governance ie to scrap the closed door crony cabinet system and replace it with something else eg a committee lead system.

Great idea - a massive amount of work (having been involved in a community magazine before, albeit a printed one).

Are you asking us because you don't know or feeling smug that you know and we don't? Either way, a little less hubris and a bit more information wouldn't go amiss.

Given the Council's disgraceful and unforgivable actions in Edgar St today, I'm not sure the council should be put in charge of anything anymore, let alone people's health. Need I mention this weeks dismal report to Cabinet on safeguarding and Jo Davidson's admission that "If we were inspected tomorrow we would not be judged as adequate." This 12 months on from the last damning report. What are councillors doing about it?

What Cllr Kenyon should have clarified is that the Hereford City Council is a Parish Council. It has few powers and little money - an income of £0.75m pa from a precept on the Council Tax. It is largely ceremonial eg the Mayor, looks after the City's history and co-ordinates at a community level. It was a District Council, before we came a Unitary Authority (and it all went pear shaped) when there was also Leominster, Malvern Hills and South Herefordshire District Councils, all then merged. It is consulted by the District Council in the same way that all Parishes are. Many would say that the City would be a much better place if it could revert to being a District ...

One councillor we can be sure won't pitch up here is Cllr Philip Price, Cabinet Member Highways & Transportation. At a meeting last week with two of the Edgar St lime tree campaigners, they were slightly stunned to be told that he didn't "give a sh1t" what local people thought because he's 65 and not standing for re-election. Just coasting then, happy to take the coin. Staggering that he was offered the position, took the position and intends to keep it, despite his deplorable attitude.

Cllr Price is a Non Executive director of Hoople Ltd.

Easter Sunday is Sunday, April 20.

Just 4 posts in and he's nicking bobby's consonants - its not cricket.

Colin I do find this forum slow loading when I arrive - and I'm on fibre broadband - I usually click away to another window and come back a minute or two later. It doesn't worry me unduly, but for someone on a slower connection it's probably quite discouraging. 

Wholeheartedly agree with magicroundabout. However, its nothing to do with planning as such - the highways dept have responsibility for our safety on road and pavement. Oh wait - that was Amey, now Balfour Butter ... but the Council do have half a dozen staff - the ridiculously nomenclatured 'client side'  - who are supposed to call the shots to the 'preferred partner' - suggest you email boss Clive Hall direct with your/our concerns cwhall@herefordshire.gov.uk and update us on any response.

Mr Chappell's first post doesn't exactly put him in a good light - the usual sniping and blaming. Can't believe its taken him 20 years to realise that Labour doesn't support the common man (any more).

They're not for sale - it's supported residential accommodation for adults with learning disabilities, so they probably don't have a lot of say in the matter.

Colin, I hate to disagree with you, but I fear you're wasting your time. Firstly, Maylords has its own car park - the multi-storey wasn't built to serve it. Secondly, the span from the multi-storey to some landing point in Maylords is massive - a bridge would cost tens of millions (look at the Greenway bridge - £3m and rising and no roof!). Thirdly, it would fly over the City Wall - English Heritage would never allow it. Fourthly, Maylords - privately owned - wouldn't have it as it could draw shoppers away from them. Fifthly, who would pay for it? OLM have got their cosy deal and all they want for next to nothing. Maylords is struggling. Council ain't got a bean - gave the last 0.5m of them to OLM. Forget it folks, it ain't never going to happen. Concentrate on making the streets safer and more attractive to walk through. IF they follow through with Blueschool Street traffic calming that will go a long way, but that relies on the road to nowhere that’s probably never going to be fully built ...

Where did this £2.4m saving come from? Is it just a random figure thrown in to make us think this is a good deal? Saving over what? Amey? Why wasn't a non-profit arrangement with the existing staff put together? I'm told by a councillor it was wanted by many staff, it would have been easy to do and would have resulted in real savings back to the council tax payer, rather than profit going to a limited companies share holders. The Jarvis deal was an unmitigated disaster, as was the Amey deal - they cost us millions - doesn't anyone learn in cabinet? 

If they want to do happy clappy, get thee up onto Hay Bluff, preferably when its blowing a gale, and thee'll be closer to the Lord. Otherwise, keep the noise down, or better silent - I'm with bobby47 as usual - ain't no reason for this 3 chord rock'n roll (aka the devil's music) at 11pm in a tin shed when honest folks are trying to sleep.