Monday, August 04, 2008

No Smoke without Fire

Little MonkhamsThe Evening Standard report on suspicious goings-on in the leafy part of Redbridge known as Woodford.

Local Barkingside resident Anne Sevant responds:

Dear Sir,
In last night’s edition of the Evening Standard (01-08-08), you published an article, on page 21, highlighting the plight of Redbridge Council faced with a series of ‘acts of God’ helping property developers to gain planning permission despite strong local opposition.
The same Council is also facing opposition from allotment holders (and their many supporters) who want to retain their well-established allotments and have no wish to go to the middle of nowhere to free land for developers.
However, ordinary people are much easier to handle than property developers: at the last Cabinet meeting, an elderly gentleman, well into his seventies, expressed his concerns at the loss of green spaces in an already overcrowded borough. A member of the Cabinet, well known for his strong tactics, simply asked: Were you born in this Borough? The answer was: No. ‘In that case, what business have you got to protest about other people moving in?’ was the reply.
At Cabinet meetings, only Cabinet members can talk. None of them objected!
I am lost for words that such a statement remained unchallenged. (I suppose all Cabinet members were born in the Borough so it did not concern them!)
Anne Sevant


Note: When I moved into the borough, the people from whom I bought the house moved out of the borough! - Ed

28 comments:

  1. Under those circumstances we should now discount all those "You Choose" returns from people who work in the borough, and all those not born in the borough.

    Dopeyf

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think we are entitled to know who this boorish character in the Cabinet was......

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe this double-barrelled councillor lost his Hainault seat in 2002.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Judith! I never said he was boorish!
    Other things did happen as well: another,very prominent, councillor commented on part 2 of the resident's address to the Cabinet.
    This because the resident was very concerned that a selection of Ilford cab drivers had been chosen for their learned opinions re the Big Conversation and he (the resident) thought other people, perhaps better qualified, should have been asked instead.
    Was this resident insulting every cab driver in the borough, as irately suggested? No, because the resident is still a qualified, practising, black cab driver and he would not want to insult his many friends.
    If I can go on: the deputy leader then asked if the resident had used the wonderful opportunity to fill in a 'you choose' leaflet: Answer: he tried but could not work it out. To which he was told that Cllr Huggett is not cleverer than anybody else in the borough but she filled in the questionaire.
    I wanted to ask, online or on paper? but, of course, no such opportunity. A Cabinet meeting is not a morning coffee.
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  5. So the Conversation should have been open only to people born in the Borough. What about those born in Redbridge, moved away, but still has links with LBR??

    ReplyDelete
  6. Judging by some of Cllr Huggett's actions whilst Deputy Leader, she is being absolutely truthful about not being cleverer than anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In reply to anonymous my comment was in context of

    "A member of the Cabinet, well known for his strong tactics, simply asked: Were you born in this Borough? The answer was: No. ‘In that case, what business have you got to protest about other people moving in?’ was the reply".

    hence what business have those working or not born in the borough doing completing "You Choose"

    dopeyf

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear dopeyf,
    You, obviously, have heard of logical thinking and you apply it pretty well.
    I try to deal in facts and I, too, come across a great deal of annoyance. Proving untruth is so very easy: one fact wrong and the whole lot is unsafe, but who cares? Us, of course, but not 'them'!
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  9. If the £70 million difference is of no consequence, and will not alter the result, then the same £70million for Olympic Swimming Pools and Schools is of no consequence, and we dont need to spend it.Or is this a case of its alright to ignore your £70 million, but we have spend ours by selling allotments.

    dopeyf

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry dopeyf, I know what you are saying. I meant would those that were born in the borough, but moved away still have business to complete you choose?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Only if you give the correct answer?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Waldorf,
    Are we assuming that there was a correct answer, or are we cheeky?
    If the council had thought this through, they could have attached a reward for whoever provided the correct answer rather than simply giving a gismo to one 'lucky' online answerer, who is not going to be me since I chose the paper version and only provided my more anonymous postcode, which, I know, can be checked but is not as distinctive as my online details.
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is quite a lot of coincidences. Houses burnt down, allotments vandalised and crops stolen.

    ReplyDelete
  14. What the lastest, anonymous, comment suggests is spine chilling.
    I did put the euphemism 'acts of God' in my remarks and, yes, I knew what I was saying, if I am honest about it.
    Accidents do happen and can be made to happen and carelessness can be rewarded but, to think that ruthless, faceless, persons (companies) might want to deter us, allotment holders, and make us 'want to give up' seems too gross to be contemplated. But, it is not impossible.
    At Cabinet, we are faced with a stony determination to stick to 'wrong' information. The Cabinet member on the receiving end of our questions is changed on a regular basis and the officers are too!
    Are we ready to give up?
    Don't think so. Numbers are up, up, up and any new member is informed of the fight ahead.
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  15. anonymous, in reply,as nobody knows who fills in the paper versions, fill your boots, why not,as I am sure you already have.
    All this makes even more of a mockery.We await the results of cpcp deliberations, with not a lot of hope,however the sale of allotments still has to go through 2 more processes, G.o.L and the Secretary of State.I think thats where the campaign should now go,It is significant that Fulwell Avenue has been graded CR1 and Hainault has been graded CR2, could this be because there is not enough room to contain both allotments at Fairlop Farm?
    and Hainault is the one more likely to be sold

    dopeyf

    ReplyDelete
  16. I suppose we might as well hijack B21!
    There is no way the whole of New North Road can be relocated at Forest Farm and there is very little room left at at Fullwell Avenue.(The overgrown areas, visible from the bus are ear-marked and will be utilised soon.)
    The Glade seems to be a potential site for relocating us but is far from offering proper access wich is a requirement these days.( And I don't think the ten or so plots available would satisfy the demand!)
    So, GOL, Secretary of State, not forgetting the European Laws if necessary. Years!
    Redbridge has never had an 'opposed' loss of allotment. Every change of use has been plain sailing.
    We will all learn together.
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dopeyf -
    "in reply,as nobody knows who fills in the paper versions, fill your boots, why not,as I am sure you already have."
    what are you suggesting sir?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Lots of people, trying to inject a bit of sense in the Cabinet, were told time and time again, by the Cabinet councillors, that the best way to express their opinion, right now, was to use that wonderful gift to the people of Redbridge: the Big Conversation. What other borough ever had the magnanimity to ask every soul in sight to formulate their humble opinions and be listened to?
    Now, this well rehearsed response is not available anymore. The unsolvable problems will not have been solved, since magic wands are not readily available.
    What is going to happen? Back to square one and a few pounds lighter?
    This sarky remark would not translate in French but
    I suppose Judith will have a go anyway!
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am suggesting that there was never any real control as to whom could fill in a paper version, but how many would want to from outside the borough, not enough to make any real difference.

    dopeyf

    ReplyDelete
  20. Out of interest, how many people on here and participated in the Big Conversation: One of many farce; Episode IV, were born in Redbridge?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'd still like to know which foolish Councillor made the 'born in Redbridge' comment, please.

    There is an argument here for saying that if you can't contribute your views as a Redbridge resident if you weren't born in the Borough, then you can't participate in the governance of the Borough (as a Councillor) on the same basis.

    And of course, many of us 'little folk' and many councillors were born before Redbridge was formed, when there was a Borough of Ilford, and a Borough of Woodford ........

    I'll get me coat.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Interesting point Judith. I understand that there are some Cllrs who still do not have their main abode in the borough.

    There is only one double-barrelled named Cllr is'nt there?

    Obviously this Councillor is for getting rid of valuable land to facilitate "affordable housing".

    Spoof

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well I was born at the old King George Hospital,that probably means that I was born "in the middle of July" and it has now been moved to Tilbury, (I do have fond memories of Tilbury, nearly falling in the Thames when joining my first ship anchored in the middle)

    dopeyf

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dopeyf - you'd have been born in the Ilford Maternity Home next door to the old KGH, surely.

    I gave birth there in 1971, and would have been better served using the memorial gardens next door for helpful care, decent food and cleanliness.

    ps. It is quite legal for a councillor to be domiciled outside the Borough, provided that at the time of his/her FIRST nomination for office s/he fulfills one of 3 qualifications of connection to the Borough in question. After having served a term on Council, that in itself is a qualification for nomination.

    What is not permissible is to lie about one's address, whether one lives in Redbridge or the Outer Hebrides.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Judith, thanks, as it was in the forties, I dont really know, I did not take much interest at the time.

    dopeyf

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ah the good old days. Shame, NHS crippled for over 20 yrs, with little sign of improvement. "No somke without fire again" Corrupt springs to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dear Editor

    A comment on your footnote: I'm sure it was no more than coincidence. Please do not take it personally.

    Kindest possible regards

    ReplyDelete