Vox populi, vox dei
People have asked me what will happen to the blog now that the shire
elections are over.
Will it continue in its present form or change direction? Will it cease to exist altogether, or
will it no longer be added to but left where it is as an historical curiosity
for future generations to enjoy?
What adds point and poignancy to such questions is that most of York’s
voters, in their bucolic wisdom, cast me unceremoniously on the dungheap of municipal
history, presumably with the intention that I should lie there forever, broken,
bleeding—and mute.
One middle-aged lady who shall remain nameless for the very good reason
that I have no idea who she is said to me sneeringly, ‘See, you only got 270
votes’. A couple of anonymous shire
mathematicians plied me with calculations purporting to demonstrate that my
share of possible votes was infinitesimally small.
It was decisively small, but not much smaller than that of the
successful candidate who took the fifth place. In fact, even the candidate who got the most votes cast
received a very small proportion of possible votes, bearing in mind that the
turnout was less than 30%.
Two things seem pretty obvious to me. The first is that more than 70% of the electors have given
up on democracy in York. Who can
blame them, after the events of the past year or so, including the comic opera
reign of departmental stooge James Best and the hounding to resignation of an
honest, popular and highly respected shire president, Matthew Reid.
Secondly, we can congratulate ourselves on the confirmed presence in
York of 270 highly intelligent electors.
As a dyed-in-the-wool democrat, I subscribe unequivocally to the truth
of Alcuin’s famous aphorism, quoted above, that ‘the voice of the people is the
voice of God’. I wish the new
Council well, and look forward to reporting fairly and accurately in this blog
on its deliberations and decisions.
Meanwhile, we had all better hope that God has something
remarkable up his sleeve.
POSTSCRIPT: Several anonymous individuals have
demanded that the blog be closed. Their reasons for making that demand remain
obscure. I have yet to see a
cogent argument, backed by evidence, to support the assertion some have made that
the blog is ‘harming York’ and ‘causing distress to good people’.
Most people in York are good people, and there is no cause for them to
feel distressed by anything they read on the blog.
This blog has done nothing to harm York. It has never bad-mouthed the shire and its people. There is a distinction to be drawn
between York on the one hand and the Shire of York, as a governing and
administrative body, on the other.
It’s true that the blog has from time to time commented unfavourably on
the Shire of York, but on York—never.
Frankly, I suspect that much—I don’t say all—opposition to the blog
comes from people who have something to fear either from revelations about past
wrongdoing or from public concerns that many thousands of ratepayers’ dollars
are being needlessly frittered away in spades on lawyers, consultants and the
like.
Let me make this clear—the blog will support the new Shire Council, not
uncritically but always respectfully.
At the same time, I will encourage readers to comment on Council affairs
and decisions and to debate relevant issues on the blog. (See, for example, the debate
currently in progress below on the Ashworth Road decision.)
I will happily publish comments, letters, even short articles from
every side of an issue, so long as the authors refrain from obscenity and mere
abuse of those who disagree with them.
The point is to restore the spirit of democracy as it relates to local
government in York.
So for the time being at any rate, I will not be closing down the
blog. It still has work to do.
so shut the blog down .... please
ReplyDeleteNo, but thank you for saying please. It's good to know that some of the blog's detractors have good manners.
DeleteFrom now on, I will be exercising my right to censor rude, threatening, obscene and inane comments. Disagree with me by all means, but give some substance to your remarks.
Pretty please.........?
DeleteOK your blog is detrimental to the town and townsfolk of York, it is defamatory and cause great harm and hurt to good people so please shut it down
ReplyDeleteEvery one of those statements is ignorant nonsense. Where is your evidence for any of them? What exactly do you mean by 'detrimental'? Why, how and to what extent is the blog 'detrimental to the town and townsfolk of York'? What qualifies you to make such pronouncements?
DeleteI don't believe the blog 'harms good people'. If you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to fear from the blog.
Why do you choose to remain anonymous? Is it possible that if we knew who you are we might consider your remarks to be motivated by self interest?
Both Blogs are important.
ReplyDeleteWe can never allow York to sink back into the disgusting behaviour experienced under the Hooper era. The Blogs are our safety net.
The 'first' blog, thankfully, exposed what was happening and the world spot light was shone on the the evil.
Most of the new Councillors are on the side of democracy and want our Town to move forward in a positive way for the first time in a very long time and we have an honest and fair Shire President.
We are on the road to recovery.
Beth, I sincerely hope you are right: but I see problems ahead for the new Council that may not be easy to overcome.
DeleteI agree that the new SP is an honest and fair man. He has the capacity and determination to do a very good job. However, he will only be able to succeed in his position if he has the unqualified support of his fellow councillors. It could be hard for him if he has to contend with the frustrated ambitions of another councillor whose eyes were set on the top job and may have felt entitled to it.
Furthermore, I suspect that as time goes by philosophical/ideological differences among the councillors will become increasingly apparent, especially regarding proposals for economic development of an industrial kind. Much will depend on the motivations and beliefs of the successful candidate in the forthcoming by-election.
Like you, I want to see York on the road to recovery. For that to happen, Council will have to exercise firm fiscal discipline, most obviously in relation to the current outlandish expenditure on lawyers and consultants and the persistent haemorrhage of funds from the YRCC. No more excessive rate increases!
They have already failed giving the green light to the Avon Waste dump on Ashworth Road, we can now all enjoy the fruits of the incredibly dumb and not so legal decison
DeleteAnonymous2 November 2015 at 04:02 -
DeleteThose who consider the decision illegal or wrong have the opportunity to challenge it through the State Administration Tribunal.
Stop whinging and do something.
yes Anonymous 4.02 I went top hear abour chickens but saw it all, they all voted for Avon Waste without even a second thought except one Councillor who tried hard to get some good sense happening, anyone who tried to raise questions was promptly shut down by our new President, pretty poor effort I felt sorry for the ones that were trying to get their questions across and were blocked - back to the good old days of Hooper and Boyle, our way or the highway as they say, bring in the Commissioner before its too late
ReplyDeleteIf you kept yourself informed you'd know Council considered this application long and hard including s site visit. The application has to be approved because it meets all the criteria of planning etc. Council cannot reject an application because the applicant MIGHT apply for another purpose in the future or no business could progress.
DeleteAnd no Im not SITA, Avon Waste or similar. I hate the administration and previous councils but be fair to this one who inhetited this agenda item and under the law had to approve it. If the didn't Avon Waste would have the decision overturned at SAT and we would have legal fees, consultants etc and an ultimate approval anyway.
For petes sake its not a dump its a transport station no different to a farmer having a shed to wash down his equipment it can never be a dump because the zoning of that area under the planning act will not allow it. and before you start No I don't work for Avon Waste, Neither do any of my family, I agree with most its not a good place but hey, the HOOPER HOOPER BOYLE dynasty failed to provide a heavy industrial area, even though it was on the cards several times. the current council has done what they can at this time.
ReplyDeleteAll those jumping up and down about Avon Waste using rural land should have taken more interest in the changes the previous Planner under Ray Hooper made to the Town Planning Scheme. They are the ones to blame for this, not the new Council.
ReplyDeleteThis new Council has inherited a bloody mess, give them go please.
Jan
ReplyDeleteAll fine and well, stating that this new council 'inherited' the Town Planning from the previous bunch of dipstick. However, THEY are the current council and can CHANGE the rules. Can't be that hard. The last lot did it almost every day in a most adhoc manner, because they could and for benefits we can only assume, made it all worthwhile.
Avon Waste are NOT farmers. They remove rubbish from far and wide, carting all sorts of rubbish, household and whatever else people decide to chuck out and that includes nasty stuff. Trucks are going to be washed out on this site - good farm land and on the main drag into York. Don't for a minute think it won't stink, sometimes.
This is an Industrial business.
Forgive me, but that is what I thought we had and Industrial area for. No excuses about trucks and heavy industry stuff. Rubbish. York Shire Council have a large site in the York Industrial area, where they store trucks and general machinery, which is washed down and cleaned, right there in the yard, along with animal pound - also requiring regular cleaning. What possible excuse can Avon Waste have, that they need to go out of town to park their vehicles?
I did hear a rumour (I know you can't rely on rumours, specifically, but in York they tend to have some 'reliability') that when Avon Waste have settled into new site, they are going to sell the business to SITA. Have a think about that.
Same old, same old.
We went down this road with the TREE in Avon Terrace near Smiths' Garage. Tree got knocked down, guy won and then put property on market for a quick quid. Fortunately market has dropped and he has been left holding the property, as I understand it. However, I suspect that this will not be the case for SITA., a world wide conglomerate who makes money hand over fist and then takes proceeds overseas, doesn't give a stuff about the damage they do to OZ ( or any other place they have business) and apparently will do anything to get their own way. Have a think about that, as well. Some people need to grow a brain!
well said Jan your telling it as it is, fools arent listening and don't realize that SITA is behind this and our new council who proport to be a new breath of air to our council have just closed their brains to working it out, the towns buggered we now have a damn dump at our front door all you idiots that think this council is any different to the last one - well it just IS NOT, as for Wallace, he just played the Fisher Fiddle just as every other Councillor did except for Jane. well done council you just lined the Fisher Family inheritance without any thought for the other 1000 or whatever people that live in this town, its an absolute disgrace
ReplyDeleteI suspect the foundation for this move by Avon Waste may have been in the incubator about the same time SITA held those secret meetings with Ray Hooper, Boyle, Duperouzel and Hooper, hoping to keep the residents of York out of the loop as long as they could.
ReplyDeleteThe Town Planner then conveniently changed the Town Planning scheme to suit exactly what Avon Waste required.
Anonymous3 November 2015 at 05:57 - you could not be more wrong. The Council HAD to approve the planning application BECAUSE of the Hooper regime changing the Town Planning Scheme. You should be berating the previous Councillors because they approved all and any changes Ray Hooper put before them because they were all morons!
Jan2 November 2015 at 23:15 - A fisher was on Council when the tree issue happened - they also owned half of the tree!
The Fishers didn't give a dam about the tree in which tells us all just how much they care about the environment.
Delete"It’s true that the blog has from time to time commented unfavourably on the Shire of York, but on York—never. "
ReplyDeleteIs that right? Your post-election hissy fit on this very blog included the line "never underestimate the power of an inbred rural establishment". A sweeping statement bagging pretty much everyone because you didn't get your way. Then you edited the post to remove the "inbred" bit of it.
Yes, it is right. York is not identical with the minority of people who seem to think they should have full control over the shire because their families were here long before the rest of us. That is what I meant by 'rural establishment'.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry about the word 'inbred'. It was rude of me to use it. I'm not really sure now why I did. (I've never approved of jokes about Tasmanians.) Anyway, as you rightly say, I deleted it, and as you strangely neglect to say, I apologised for using it.
I don't have 'hissy fits'. I'm too busy seeing the funny side of everything. 'The world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel.'
As I wrote more than once on the blog, and said to quite a few people, I did not expect to be elected. The important thing so far as I was concerned was to get Heather Saint and Jane Ferro on to Council. I was and am very content with that outcome.
here it is I can say that we will be blessed with a full scale SITA owned regional recycling plant at the entrance to York on Ashworth road, don't ask how I know that but well done to the Council for approving the Fishers application, you have played well into everyone's hands except York people that you are supposed to represent - what a bunch you are, so damn clever - and most of you think the last council was pretty stupid, you guys have won hands down on your first decision
ReplyDeleteAnonymous4 November 2015 at 04:10 - Did you nominate for council? Did you vote at the elections?
ReplyDeleteThe Councillors had no choice - thanks to the previous Boyle/Hooper Council, Ray Hooper and JJ. If you taken an interest and followed what these people were up to, you would have realised the foundations for this were carefully orchestrated during the Hooper, Boyle, Hooper years, as was the SITA proposal!
If you believe you are right about the full scale recycling plant, do something for the Town of York, put your money where your mouth is and lodge an appeal with the State Administration Tribunal.
your obviously a Fisher
DeleteAnonymous5 November 2015 at 05:01 - Your obviously wrong!
DeleteYou are or you're....not your
Deletemaybe one of the employees that were paid to go to the meeting to intimidate the council
Delete
ReplyDeleteWell people, things appear to be looking a little bleak for York at the moment. However there is hope. For those who are not aware of it, there are a couple of ladies within our Community, who have been working their back sides off, on and for the benefit of the York Community and future generations.
Those ladies are ROBYN DAVIES and KAY DAVIES, both of whom, with their husbands, own family farms, v. close to the SITA project.
Robyn and Kay started the original fight, around 4 years ago, trying to prevent damage and degradation to good farmland for decades to come, not to mention the massive health implications, and permanent destruction to the environment and permanent water supplies.
AND all at NO cost to the community. Robyn and Kay have borne any costs, themselves, which apparently have been minimal, with the exception of time, telephone bills, never ending fuel costs to and from the State Administration Tribunal (SAT) and printing costs associated with providing documentation and printoffs to SAT. At NO time have they ever considered the necessity of asking for funding from the Community.
Might also point out, that these properties down the Perth Road do NOT have access to Mains water and rely on rainwater tanks and dams for house and stock water - like a vast majority of farmers in the region who do it tough, every year, when there is not enough rainfall.
Now we have a huge conglomerate prepared to damage everything of value, including the water that you, your family, children, and grandchildren, consume everyday.
To give you all some idea of the success that Robyn and Kay have had, sourcing documentation - from ancient maps, watercourses, info on roads, rainfall, environment and masses more, to present to SAT for consideration to refuse SITA the ' go ahead', the Chairperson at a hearing, approximately 3 weeks ago, stated that he was going to allow Robyn and Kay permission to future provide documentation to SAT. This was called a 'Third Party Intervention'.
The Chairperson also stated the Robyn and Kay had set a PRECEDENT by achieving this goal, in the WHOLE history of SAT!!
Therefore they were required to provide a document outlining all the information to be presented, putting forward their case.
This covered every possible consideration that would present as an adverse effect on the environment, water, land, health, tourism and the Community.
AVRA were given the water aspect, to present as their case.
Robyn and Kay developed a written document, consisting of 48 pages, plus appendices of maps and other items of interest with a major bearing on the outcome of their case. They undertook all of this work and compiled the document in just on two weeks - a massive effort on their behalf.
That document was presented to SAT last week, and another hearing was held, Wednesday (yesterday, 4th) At this point in time,
I don't know what the outcome is.
However, whatever the outcome is determined, by the SAT, these two ladies deserve your admiration and respect for DOING something!
Basically putting their 'money' down instead of just mouthing of.
So, if you see Robyn or Kay around town, take the time to at least, say 'Thankyou' and congratulate on their efforts on OUR behalf.
It is people like this, who can help pull the Town up by its bootlaces and perhaps help put things back on track.. They do indeed deserve all of the Communities' support.
Might I also suggest, that nominations for Citizens of the Year, would NOT go astray.
Thanks, Jan. I would like to echo your comments. Robyn and Kay have done a marvellous job and deserve our thanks as well as our congratulations.
DeleteI deposited $50.00 into the Bendigo account for the Freedom of Information to Department of Local Government, nothing has happened can I have it back?
ReplyDeleteActually, a lot has happened. I'm still waiting for the FOI Commissioner's review of the DLG's decision on a second tranche of documents. I have a heap of stuff from the first tranche external review. I intend to write at length about the results when they are all in.
DeleteYes, of course you may have your money back. Just let me know who you are.
Frankly, I'm not impressed with the FOI process. The legislation seems heavily weighted against the applicant and in favour of officialdom of every stripe. I'm also miffed because the Commissioner rejected my application for the 'minority report', then went into bat for Julian Krieg to get it. (You've probably forgotten, but if I hadn't discovered that the document existed, we'd never have known about it.)
why do you people keep doing this bloody FOI our rates are going through the roof while you idiots have your demented fun at our expense - STOP STOP STOP I cannot afford more rate hikes you fools
DeleteThere is so much ignorance, stupidity and hysteria in your comment that I hardly know how best to rebut it.
DeleteFirst of all, I have never applied to the Shire for information by way of FOI. My only FOI application ever has been to the DLGC. Nothing to do with the rates, you moron.
Secondly, the only reason for a citizen to apply for information to the Shire or any other agency via FOI is that the agency has denied access to that information. Where the Shire is concerned, there is in my opinion no good reason to deny the public access to any information, especially information about how municipal funds are being spent. When the Shire refuses to tell us what it's up to, and where our money is going, you can safely bet that it's trying to hide something - incompetence, corruption, take your pick.
The Shire could save us all a fortune simply by telling people what they want and have a right to know. Instead, because senior admin staff apparently don't understand the FOI Act, the job of telling Joe Public to get stuffed is currently farmed out to pricey consultants (or 'FOI counsel', to use the pretentious designation favoured by James Best, the real mover and shaker behind the latest rates hike). So we're paying twice for a job somebody is already being paid to do. Witless, eh?
Best was the one who came up with the idea of blaming the rates hike on ratepayers making FOI applications. But if you look at the crappy figures he provided to support his case, even you should be able to see (though not without great effort, I'm sure) that expenditure on consultants of various kinds to do work senior staff should be doing far outweighs the cost of processing FOIs. Duh!
Believe me, nitwit, FOI is no fun, demented or otherwise. It's slow, laborious and time consuming.
By now you will have realised, or been told by a smarter friend, that I have responded very discourteously to your remarks. That's because I don't want you to think you can insult and demean your intellectual superiors (that probably means pretty well everybody) without inviting verbal retaliation. It's obvious that you are in no position to refer to other people as 'idiots' and 'fools'.
You seem to have based your prose style on the Facebook lucubrations of one of our councillors. I don't think that's fair to the person in question. Try something a little more grammatical and formal, with correct punctuation. And next time, if there is a next time, be polite, and I will respond, if I do respond, with my customary good manners. OK?
all words James no substance again - if I can spell or not I don't care, my message is clear, you sound like my teacher reprimanding me when I was a child, you arrogant man - to all those nitwits (as you put it) STOP causing our rates to go up, we do not care about Boyle Hooper or Best we just want out town to be normal not smeared in FOI's and accusations
DeleteOur new slogan is STOP the FOI's and STOP THE ROT live in harmony throw out those that don't know how to live with others, England is waiting for you all.
There's plenty of substance in what I wrote. Your response addresses virtually none of it, presumably because you haven't understood most of it.
DeleteA person like you who catcalls his betters from the shadows, calling them 'idiots' and 'fools', has no right to accuse me or anyone else of arrogance. I'm glad I wasn't your teacher. I'd be ashamed of the result.
You have either forgotten or don't know that the right of citizens to apply for information via FOI is enshrined in legislation, namely the Freedom of Information Act 1992. It's the Shire's duty as an agency within the meaning of the Act to appoint somebody to deal with such applications. It's my understanding that the current A/DCEO and subsequently the DCEO were charged with that task. Neither seemed to understand the legislation, which presumably is why the job was farmed out.
As I said previously, I have never sought information from the Shire by way of FOI. You seem to have missed that point altogether. However, I respect the right of others to ask the Shire for information and pursue their requests through FOI as they are legally entitled to do. What does the Shire have to hide? Why doesn't it want to tell people what they want to know?
You make cavalier use of the first person plural pronoun. Well, who are the 'we' you refer to, with your two 'new slogans' - some secret society or local mafia? Or are you in the grip of some kind of multiple personality disorder?
Does 'living with others' mean not exercising the legal right to ask questions and the moral right to complain about how Shire money is being spent?
WE ARE - THE GOOD PEOPLE OF YORK THAT ARE TIRED OF YOU BLOW INS THAT HAVE SCREWED OUR TOWN FOR YOU PERSONAL EGO TRIPS, SEEKING FAME FROM BLOGS AND CONDEMNATION OF GOOD PEOPLE THAT'S WHO WE ARE AND WE HAVE MORE RIGHTS TO SAY THAT THAN YOU WILL EVER HAVE JAMES SO I REPEAT FOR ALL THOSE VOCAL DETRACTORS THAT HAVE CAUSED SO MUCH HARM TO OUR TOWN STOP THE FOI'S STOP THE ROT CLOSE TEH BLOGS AND GO TO ANOTHER TOWN OR COUNTRY TO PLAY YOUR MINDLESS GAMES AND PERSONAL EGO TRIPS. NO MORE FOI'S - NO MORE RATE HIKES.
DeleteWhatever rights you think you have, you also have the obligation to identify yourself (or yourselves, as the word 'we' seems to imply). Do you perhaps hold some position that you believe gives you the right to speak for 'the good people of York' without having first to consult them? Would I recognise you from a photograph?
DeleteExactly what harm have we 'blow-ins' caused York? Examples, please.
Spell it out - what precisely gives you rights that we 'blow ins' don't have?
We 'blow ins' aren't the ones who've 'screwed the town'. It's folk like you who've done that, and are continuing to do it because you've no idea how to apply a measure of fiscal discipline to the Shire. If you want to avoid future rates hikes, push for something to be done about the outlandish salaries plus perks bestowed on some shire staff, the huge amounts paid to consultants and the steady drain of resources associated with the YRCC.
Otherwise, you and others like you will continue to be regarded by the brighter inhabitants of the Shire, including but not only us 'blow-ins', as nothing more than a gigantic embarrassment.
Love the capital letters, by the way - the typographical equivalent of bogan-style shouting to be heard above the hum of intelligent conversation. And you have the brass neck to accuse others of engaging in 'personal ego trips'!
Anonymous 8 November 2015 at 16:38 - By referring to some York Residents as 'blow ins', you have revealed who you are more than you realise.
DeleteAt least three female Senior Staff in the Administration are what you refer to as blow-ins - are you recommending they leave Town also?
'Blow-ins' pay Rates, many have small businesses and are employers, perhaps even yours - if you are employed!
.
Those 'good people of York' you claim to be part of should have considered installing high fences to keep out the 19th Century and democracy!
.
at least the three in Admin are working for the town, they are therefore very welcome
DeleteAnonymous8 November 2015 at 04:54 and Anonymous8 November 2015 at 16:38 suspect this is the ravings of the Chef!
DeleteAnonymous9 November 2015 at 18:33: I think we could manage to find three in the Administration who do a good days work for their pay and none of them are senior staff!
Anonymous 21 November 2015, the Chef would have taken an oath of office precluding such contributions to the blog.
DeleteStill believe they are the ravings of the Chef.
DeleteI don't recall an elected member with the name Anonymous taking the oath of office!
Maybe those 'ravings' came from somebody pretending to be the Chef in order to discredit him by making him seem like a complete tosser.
DeleteSurely no councillor could be as stupid as those ravings suggest?.
Sorry James, yes they could be as stupid. He was before and he still is.
DeleteJames, enough is enough.
ReplyDeleteIn giving these idiots a voice this blog has become a petri dish for York's cerebrally challenged minority, and in doing so, is making an already bad situation worse.
Give the good people of York a break and back off, don't allow the idiots to rant, if they feel a need to exercise their grey cell (singular), then they can both start their own blog.
You are wasting your time attempting to explain egalitarian ideals to the already brain dead.
You know, I should have thought that by now they would have started their own blog, as one of them promised to do a month or two ago.
DeleteI confess that I get real enjoyment from sparring with intellectual and moral primitives like the anonymous author of the latest series of rants. It's a weakness, that's for sure, but sometimes it serves a useful purpose. In this instance, I think I know who the author is; I want him to identify himself so everyone can see what decent, intelligent folk in this lovely town are up against. Of course, he's too much of a coward to do that.
They don't have the intelligence to start a blog James!
DeleteTo Anonymous @ 16.38
ReplyDeleteIs there a part of James' explanation that you DO understand. James has made it perfectly clear for you. FOI applications have absolutely nothing to do with the Shire expenditure OR the 23% rate hikes suffered by ratepayers of the Shire, while James BEST was in charge. (See, I know how to use Capital Letters as well) The only time an FOI would apply to the Shire, is if someone actually applied TO the Shire for information. And a lot of people in town have actually done exactly that. Not James. He applied directly to DLG and the Director for FOI. AND at NO cost to the Shire.
And for the people who have applied to the Shire for information - all the Shire had to do, was provide the public with the info they asked for. It's not hard. And not expensive.
Is that clear enough for you????
As for the "vocal detractors" in town that you like to quote - it appears that you are one of them!
There is absolutely no way in the world that your childish and vicious attacks on the folk of York, who have every right to complain about whatever they chose to - just like you, by the way, is dragging the Town down. Pray tell, how does this happen? When finally a bright light illuminates all those hidden corners of corruption and deceit are exposed, can the Town of York move forward. With luck we might even get some of our funds back.
I might also point out that because people such as James and other good folk have complained loudly about the rates hike, it appears that no rate hikes will be forth coming for at least another 3 years.
Enabling the Public to voice an opinion, and one assumse you are part of the "PUBLIC" , is called living in a DEMOCRACY.
If you don't like it, you go live somewhere, with a dictatorship, where you can be told how to live and what you can and can't say and punish you for mouthing off, at anything. I suspect you would be the first to complain.
GROW UP.
As for blow-ins, I understand where you are coming from and I agree, we have had a few who have stuffed up, big time. Lets see.
Ray Hooper, James Best, just to name a couple. But there have been a few 'old locals' who haven't made a 'good fist' of working for the either the Towns' or communities', benefit. Bet you probably know who they are - don't you???
Back off. If you can't say something positive, don't say anything at all. And learn to live in harmony with the rest of the community. Your nasty and continual attacks on others who have the right to voice an opinion, is hardly harmonious.
And have the guts to put your name on your comments, on the blog you continue to use, 'bagging others' for using it.
You are a classic example of the type of person that does do York, damage. SHUT UP.
Congratulations Jan. I think the majority of the York community will agree with your sentiments.
DeleteAnonymous8 November 2015 at 16:38 : Were you one of Pat Hoopers students by any chance?
ReplyDeleteSo having read all that rubbish I repeat - STOP THE FOI'S STOP THE ROT CLOSE THE BLOGS and I add PROMOTE THE POSITIVES OF YORK NOT THE NEGATIVES
DeleteI'm a student of good sense and humility that wants York to grow and prosper - in your eyes that's a crime but not in mine
DeleteWe all want York to grow and prosper. It's cowards like you who stand in the way. Why not tell us who you are? (Some people seem to have guessed.)
DeleteJames, any level of respect I once had for the plausible content or information provided by you on this particular blog has totally gone. Since the elections you have appeared as a very bad loser and you have discredited yourself with poor writing choices.. Specifically, you have little consideration for anyone other than yourself and you have smeared almost every type of person in the community.
ReplyDeleteI will not bother reading your rubbish again and I suggest others do the same. If you have no audience then this blog will simply fade away.
Sorry to see you go, but I'm sure the blog will manage nicely without you.
Deletenow that's a totally arrogant response James your better than that why not fix the blog content and make it more positive for the town?
DeleteThank you for the implied compliment, if any such was intended.
DeleteMy response wasn't arrogant. The arrogance is all on the side of the schoolmarmish individual who expresses 'surprise at my behaviour' and lectures me on being as she says 'a bad loser'. (In fact, I'm a very good loser with a quirky sense of humour. And as things have turned out, I have good reason to thank providence that my misguided attempt to become a councillor failed as dismally as it did. As Voltaire's Dr Pangloss would say, 'All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds'.)
I loved the inspired silliness of 'you have discredited yourself with poor writing choices'. Now if that's not the wittering of a retired teacher, I don't know what is. So, I venture to guess, is the presumptuous accusation that I 'have little consideration for anyone other than [myself]'. While far from perfect, I don't believe there is any evidence to support such a view; certainly the writer produced none.
(I almost expected the line ‘This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you’, followed by ‘You’ve let the town down, you’ve let your family down, and worst of all, you’ve let yourself down…’)
I have not 'smeared almost every type of person in the community'. Perhaps the writer would kindly tell me which types I have smeared - and more to the point, which types I haven't smeared, because I'm not a man who likes to leave a job unfinished. (In case you're wondering, that last bit was meant as a joke.)
I'm happy for my pedagogical interlocutor to stop reading the blog. However, I can assure her that the blog will never 'simply fade away'. As I've said before, the blog has friends the world over, many of whom, I suspect, might believe there is no such place as 'York, Western Australia', and that they are tuning in to a new kind of fictional enterprise satirising in microcosm the imperfections of antipodean democracy. The blog will end when the story is over. Perhaps the denouement has already begun.
Quote of the day: ‘Cet animal est très méchant; quand on l’attaque, il se défend.’ I’m not better than that, I’m afraid.
Congratulations Robyn and Kay Davies!!
ReplyDeleteTheir latest application for third party intervener status was successful.
Yesterday, they received accolades from a Queens Councillor on their submission - well done Ladies.
Now, there's something positive for the town that I'm only too happy to publish!
DeleteRobyn and Kay, you are a credit to York. I know how hard you've worked to get this outcome. Well done.
On a pedantic note: Roma, 'Q.C.' stands for Queen's Counsel, not 'Queen's Councillor'. (Unless you had someone different in mind.)
James....don't be pedantic, we get what Roma means...
ReplyDeleteFurther to my comment, dated November 5, regarding ROBYN and KAY DAVIES and the massive amount of work they have undertaken on York Communities' behalf, we now have an outcome for that last submission made to SAT, on Wednesday November, 4.
ReplyDeleteSuch has been the enormity and quality of their presentations to SAT, that as ROMA, has pointed out, a Q.C. did congratulated them on their presentation and also made a comment, that he could have happily worked with them, and possibly got a lot more done in a shorter period of time.
Comments such as these are not dropped lightly,
The outcome of the presentation document that Robyn and Kay put forward, has been a positive one, in that their documentation providing factual proof and reasons for denying SITA the go ahead, has been accepted and they are now the CHIEF PROPONENTS in this fight to preserve our environment and stop this dreadful landfill proposal.
AVRA, whilst having a good many, and well meaning members in their group and technically aiming for the same outcome, that being refusal for SITA to develop a landfill site, focused only on the water issue.
SAT have now refused any further, future applications from AVRA, and have declared all previous documentation submitted by the AVRA group, as now ' NULL AND VOID', with the exception of the verbal communications presented at past hearings.
This basically means that documentation presented was insufficient and lacking quality and quantity.
Robyn and Kay Davies now have the 'Floor', so as to speak and are considered to be THE third party interveners, the very first in the history of the STATE ADMINISTRATION TRIBUNAL, in this situation. Congratulations to Robyn and Kay.
Kay and Robyn have now to compile yet another document, containing ALL the information and maps they have gathered, summerise it, and present the work again for another sitting, in just a few weeks' time.
While the AVRA group and the Davies 'girls' have been working for the same outcome on the behalf of the York Community, I was very surprised to read the latest AVRA newsletter, dated November 14. where they have acknowledged the dumping by SAT of any further applications and cancelling out past documentation, but continue to make it sound like they are 'in charge' of any applications, and still have a 'seat' at the table. They do not. And, YES. these are public hearings and anyone can go and listen. It is just a shame, that up until now - no one has bothered!
Further, to my surprise, AVRA have neither acknowledged ROBYN and KAYS' work or success in achieving an almost unachievable goal.
They haven't mentioned them AT ALL, and certainly haven't congratulated them, or offered any help..
At this stage, it is unclear as to what AVRA have done with all the money that they have collected, some considerable sum if the frequently printed a 'barometer 'of funds raised, in the local paper, is to believed. What was the money for.?
It is my understanding, that very little of it has been spent, and one wonders, what was the intended expenditure.
The Davies Ladies seem to have accumulated vast amounts of information at little or no cost.
Robyn and Kay have been working to the same ends as the AVRA group, as previously noted.
To not only ignore them, but to 'pretend' they don't exist, and not be forthcoming with any support, at all, seems to me, to lack grace, good manners and is indeed poor form.
It would be nice, if some of the locals did actually attend a few of the SAT hearings, if nothing else but to find out what is happening, what games SITA have been playing and to give ROBYN and KAY DAVIES, some much needed support. I know it will be appreciated.
Congratulations Kay and Robyn.
ReplyDeleteAVRA should publish a full itemised account of where the $10,000 'community' money was spent.
Opposing groups in York determined to undermine each other. Wow how unusual.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Robyn and Kay ever considered themselves an opposing group to AVRA.
ReplyDeleteThey wanted to make sure everything was done that they could humanly do to stop the Landfill.
We all know if you want a job done how you want it done, the wise thing is to do it yourself and not rely on others to do it for you.
Shame the AVRA newsletter failed to inform the people of York Robyn and Kay are still in the SAT hearing as interveners fighting to stop the Landfill - it would not have hurt them to tell the people of York. After all, most residents are against the Landfill.
Bruised egos amongst the AVRA group maybe?
To Anonymous @ 17.03, November 15.
ReplyDeleteThe fight to stop this dreadful, dangerous and potentially life threatening landfill, is NOT a competition, neither is it a race.
I understand that Robyn and Kay Davies, who were the first to raise the 'alarm' and originally started this fight - NOT AVRA
by the way, were quite pleased when AVRA came on board, some number of months LATER!
They viewed forming of the group, as a major positive in assisting just the two of them, in applying much needed pressure and a louder voice to the objections of the Community in general.
At NO TIME, have Kay and Robyn tried to undermine the AVRA group.
Had AVRA 'hierarchy', not been so self-centred and selfish, the combination of people involved would most certainly have been a force to be reckoned with.
Refusal to acknowledge either the work that Kay and Robyn have done, or even acknowledge them at all, speaks volumes.
The fact that the latest AVRA newsletter, failed to mention that Robyn and Kay are still in fighting for this Community, and comments by AVRA, infer that because they lost the 'fight' at this point, everyone has lost and that the Town is no longer a participant, I'm afraid, smacks soundly of Sour Grapes and does the AVRA group, little credit.
And, some members of the AVRA group, do actually believe that no one has a seat at the table with the SAT commission.
This is evidenced by an abusive tirade by some AVRA members towards some of Robyn and Kays' supporters, witnessed by multiple people, at a v. recent function held last Saturday, at the York Racecourse. This childish and vicious outburst is disgraceful.
How low can you go??
A show of some maturity and some good grace in supporting Robyn and Kay, now would be helpful.
I believe the two handing out that tirade are Committee members. What immature behaviour, they should be ashamed of themselves!
ReplyDeleteI believe one of them was also responsible for providing information to KS a couple of years ago and that resulted in a tirade of accusations being levelled at another person. KS shot his mouth off (via the keyboard in an email) before he checked if the information was true!
Not surprising KS was not big enough to apologise for his accusations.
I believe KS was big noting himself at the SAT, introducing himself to anyone who looked the slightest bit important - and would listen - as the Chair of Avon Valley Residents Association and past President of the York Ratepayers Association.
DeleteBoth sound impressive to those who are unaware the first only has a handful of members and the second was 20 years ago!
Robyn and Kay were in the State Administration Tribunal yesterday as third party interveners from 10 am till 5-30pm.
ReplyDeleteThey will be back in there again today (Thursday) batting for the people of York!
GO GIRLS!!!!
SITA claim the SAT hearing has cost them $3 million - that's petty cash for the multi national company!
DeleteTo Anonymous @ 17.08, November 18.
ReplyDeleteOh, so pleased to hear that. As you say, petty cash to them - hope they end up spending a whole lot more, in a v. short time, as they fail dismally in their chosen area of expertise.
Suspect the 'spending' has been on multiple 'experts' ( like the mob from the E/States - who used old info, based on stuff, in, I think, Victoria?.) Shows what a bunch of lazy dipsticks they really are. Oh course, not to mention the v. expensive Lawyers they also employ.
The old fashioned term for people like this was/is "Spendthrifts". Go SITA. Please, go.
Isn't it nice to know that a large, o/seas Company, is prepared to provide so much work - well, work experience, really, to local businesses and the Legal fraternity in Western Australia, especially as the mining boom, seems to have gone bust.
Jolly nice of them, I thought.
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
ReplyDeleteOnly after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.
Cree Indian Prophecy
When all bread, meat, eggs and milk in the supermarkets is imported from overseas people may then realise they should have fought harder to keep our farms out of the hands of multi national companies.
ReplyDeleteBulk Milk is already coming into W.A. by ship from China!
There is an out of control industrial Landfill fire over East - toxic fumes impacting on the health of nearby residents and the water bombers are struggling to put it out.
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymous @ 17.41, November 19.
ReplyDeleteRe - Bulk milk.
Oh, that is ok. Most of that milk will probably be coming from a good portion of our quality dairy herds that have been sold to them!
So, technically you could say that its' base source is W.A.
All we need now, is to consume meat and grains from all the farming properties the Gov't have allowed them to purchase and exported tax free, out of the country, from the Ports the Gov't has sold to them and drink the water from the Ord that the State Gov't has handed to them for a v. basic peppercorn rental/sales and we can start to call ourselves Chinese derivatives!!!
What really ticks me off is that we couldn't buy anything in their country. There are countries in the world, who refuse to sell any land to the Chinese, Indians, Asians, etc., but will only give them a lease on properties, have to abide by all the laws, rules and regulations, taxes etc.
The Chinese don't seem to have a problem dealing with them. None of this P.C. crap, about 'upsetting them' and continuing to 'do' business with them. It is like the mining industries and similar. If they don't like it and we don't give in, they will go somewhere else. Good. Our stuff will NOT deteriorate. We have a 'clean, green image', a v.stable Gov't, and people who work hard. When everything falls in a heap, elsewhere because unstable Gov'ts, political unrest etc., 'they' will be back in droves...
Meanwhile, while we are exporting livestock to other countries, and not just meat, but breeding stock and milking stock, our livestock numbers are becoming reduced in number. This will end up manifesting as minimal numbers to bred from, or send live, for meat products and all our good breeding stock has gone. To other countries.
How stupid are we?? We are literally doing ourselves out of future export business and increasing costs to ourselves, both farming and food.
When will we get a Gov't who will start seeing the 'big picture' and start working for US? Charity begins at home, as the saying goes.
The sooner someone works it out, or the Public yell loud enough for them to pay attention, will we become more confident in our future.
Then we have the Rail debacle. But, I won't start on that. Yet.
To Anonymous @ 6.08 November 20. _ That landfill has been burning for months and is expected to smoulder and burn away, for years to come.
This is part of the problem that we may have, if SITA get the 'go ahead' and a fire develops. The landfill will be metres deep. They talk about fire control, but all they have is a few thousand litres of water. To control these fires, you need foam and fire retardants - water doesn't work. SITA also expect OUR volunteer firefighters to go into a toxic environment to fight their fires. NOT going to happen.
Our volunteers are not qualified to undertake such a dangerous position, and so will not be allowed on site. Same with paid firefighters.
Which is why they can't put out the fire in the e/states. No one can get close enough and too much dangerous waste, exuding toxic poisons into the atmosphere.
Do consider our EASTERLY WINDS, not to mention the Westerlies or Sea Breezes that come out way on occasion.
HO HUM.
Jan, I cannot agree more.
ReplyDeleteTrouble is, those making the decision have no vision for the future of those who will inherit the bloody mess, they only focus on their bank balance.
Unfortunately, people with the same mentality as Jams Best bubble to the top, they get paid huge $$$ and dribble meaningless words!
IF the Landfill is approved and a fire does occur - lets pray for a bloody strong continuous gale from the East! No 'three wise men', just York residents having the last laugh while those in Government who failed us, choke on toxic fumes!
Can we open the subject of the departed who purchased Chalkies on our behalf...I HEAR IT HAS BEEN CONDEMNED?
ReplyDelete