lying councillors

burt wrote on 07/12/2006 22:51 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Now I wouldn't trust one as far
as I could throw the Swamp monster and Fat Eric together in a box.

Given the opportunity I could be motivated to throw them quite a long
way ;-)

Quoted message said:

Seven weeks after my local councillor asked the head of Transport Planning
for answers to questions about why the design was changed, he hasn't had a
reply, and he isn't particularly bothered.

There is no reason you shouldn't ask the question yourself under an FoI
request

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

"burt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Does anyone else have the problem that councillors seem incapable of
telling the truth? I've lost count of the number of times our executive
member for transport has said things which aren't true, the latest being
Tuesday night, when she said that a road junction wasn't suitable for
traffic lights, even though that was how it was originally designed by the
council, and nothing had changed since it was designed, and the design was
accepted by all those involved! The design was changed to a
miniroundabout with no consultation and no warning.

I've been trying to deal with these people (some of the other councillors
are no less honest, I'm taking one to the Standards Board for England for
lying about me) for ten years, and it isn't getting any better. When I
was ten years younger and more niaive (or is that just less cynical?) I
thought councillors were basically honest people. Now I wouldn't trust
one as far as I could throw the Swamp monster and Fat Eric together in a
box.

Seven weeks after my local councillor asked the head of Transport Planning
for answers to questions about why the design was changed, he hasn't had a
reply, and he isn't particularly bothered. In the council I work for, if
a councillor doesn't have a reply within seven days, heads roll.

Is my council the crappiest in the land? Or just in the top three?

IIRC there is some strangeness about mini roundabouts. Something like the HA
pay for mini roundabouts but the council pays for traffic lights, or the
other way round. Anyway, they can be better in some situations, in others
they can be worse (ie, where it's not obvious that you're approaching a mini
roundabout because it still looks a hell of a lot like a T junction).

"Doki" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"burt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Does anyone else have the problem that councillors seem incapable of
telling the truth? I've lost count of the number of times our executive
member for transport has said things which aren't true, the latest being
Tuesday night, when she said that a road junction wasn't suitable for
traffic lights, even though that was how it was originally designed by
the council, and nothing had changed since it was designed, and the
design was accepted by all those involved! The design was changed to a
miniroundabout with no consultation and no warning.

I've been trying to deal with these people (some of the other councillors
are no less honest, I'm taking one to the Standards Board for England for
lying about me) for ten years, and it isn't getting any better. When I
was ten years younger and more niaive (or is that just less cynical?) I
thought councillors were basically honest people. Now I wouldn't trust
one as far as I could throw the Swamp monster and Fat Eric together in a
box.

Seven weeks after my local councillor asked the head of Transport
Planning for answers to questions about why the design was changed, he
hasn't had a reply, and he isn't particularly bothered. In the council I
work for, if a councillor doesn't have a reply within seven days, heads
roll.

Is my council the crappiest in the land? Or just in the top three?

IIRC there is some strangeness about mini roundabouts. Something like the
HA pay for mini roundabouts but the council pays for traffic lights, or
the other way round. Anyway, they can be better in some situations, in
others they can be worse (ie, where it's not obvious that you're
approaching a mini roundabout because it still looks a hell of a lot like
a T junction).

Just googled - it's the other way round, which explains why you see so many
more traffic lights than mini roundabouts. Is the junction particularly
bothersome?

"Doki" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IIRC there is some strangeness about mini roundabouts. Something like the
HA pay for mini roundabouts but the council pays for traffic lights, or
the other way round. Anyway, they can be better in some situations, in
others they can be worse (ie, where it's not obvious that you're
approaching a mini roundabout because it still looks a hell of a lot like
a T junction).

Just googled - it's the other way round, which explains why you see so
many more traffic lights than mini roundabouts. Is the junction
particularly bothersome?

Yes it is, it might as well have been designed to be dangerous to cyclists.
But you're missing the point - that councillors lie and there seems to be
nothing that can be done about it.

Quoted message said:

"burt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Doki" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IIRC there is some strangeness about mini roundabouts. Something like
the HA pay for mini roundabouts but the council pays for traffic lights,
or the other way round. Anyway, they can be better in some situations,
in others they can be worse (ie, where it's not obvious that you're
approaching a mini roundabout because it still looks a hell of a lot
like a T junction).

Just googled - it's the other way round, which explains why you see so
many more traffic lights than mini roundabouts. Is the junction
particularly bothersome?

Yes it is, it might as well have been designed to be dangerous to
cyclists. But you're missing the point - that councillors lie and there
seems to be nothing that can be done about it.

Quoted message said:

I think that you will find, should you ever manage to bring one to book,
that in the end they will be found to be economical with the truth as
opposed to actually lying.
It is a common trait in politicians and that they tend to tell the
ruth --- but by no means the whole truth!

Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Following on from burt's message. . .

Quoted message said:

Does anyone else have the problem that councillors seem incapable of telling
the truth? I've lost count of the number of times our executive member for
transport has said things which aren't true, the latest being Tuesday night,
when she said that a road junction wasn't suitable for traffic lights, even
though that was how it was originally designed by the council, and nothing
had changed since it was designed, and the design was accepted by all those
involved! The design was changed to a miniroundabout with no consultation
and no warning.

I've been trying to deal with these people (some of the other councillors
are no less honest, I'm taking one to the Standards Board for England for
lying about me) for ten years, and it isn't getting any better. When I was
ten years younger and more niaive (or is that just less cynical?) I thought
councillors were basically honest people. Now I wouldn't trust one as far
as I could throw the Swamp monster and Fat Eric together in a box.

Seven weeks after my local councillor asked the head of Transport Planning
for answers to questions about why the design was changed, he hasn't had a
reply, and he isn't particularly bothered. In the council I work for, if a
councillor doesn't have a reply within seven days, heads roll.

Is my council the crappiest in the land? Or just in the top three?

Complete and utter lying, Masonic, [and other expletives] the lot of
them. Slime that's been rejected by the swamp.

If it is a FOUR-WAY mini then that's DANGER without even seeing it.
Ask (FOI - it's easy) to see the Safety audits (nb ALL) for the junction
in all configurations. These will blandly say no problem whatsoever.
At that point you come back here where the "oh yes there is".

Also, just for completeness ask to see the "STATS 19" for the area for
last 3 years peds & cycles. This may not be directly useful to this
case but gives good background to what is actually /reported/ as
happening on the ground.

Make sure you get involved with the local press. Send them similar
details to your post here. Name names - Councillors hate that sort of
coverage. Use some emotive epithets such as "This will kill someone
sooner or later" "Incompetence from top to bottom" "Excuse for saving
a penny costs lives"

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the borehole business dried up
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

In article <[email hidden]>
Pinky <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

I think that you will find, should you ever manage to bring one to book,
that in the end they will be found to be economical with the truth as
opposed to actually lying.
It is a common trait in politicians and that they tend to tell the
ruth --- but by no means the whole truth!

The thing is that some[1] local councillors aren't actually very good
politicians (otherwise they'd be cabinet members on one side or the
other[2]) so it's quite possible that their political spin goes beyond
economy with the truth.

[1] The ones who are doing it to further their political ambitions
rather than for altruistic reasons.

[2] Of course this doesn't mean that senior politicians don't venture
beyond the pale, as Blunkett, Archer, Mandelson et al. have
demonstrated, just that they get further before they are called to
account.

"Peter Fox" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is my council the crappiest in the land? Or just in the top three?

Complete and utter lying, Masonic, [and other expletives] the lot of them.
Slime that's been rejected by the swamp.

If it is a FOUR-WAY mini then that's DANGER without even seeing it.
Ask (FOI - it's easy) to see the Safety audits (nb ALL) for the junction
in all configurations. These will blandly say no problem whatsoever. At
that point you come back here where the "oh yes there is".

Also, just for completeness ask to see the "STATS 19" for the area for
last 3 years peds & cycles. This may not be directly useful to this case
but gives good background to what is actually /reported/ as happening on
the ground.

Make sure you get involved with the local press. Send them similar
details to your post here. Name names - Councillors hate that sort of
coverage. Use some emotive epithets such as "This will kill someone
sooner or later" "Incompetence from top to bottom" "Excuse for saving a
penny costs lives"

Peter, many thanks, some useful stuff there!