There is a lust in man no charm can tame
Of loudly publishing his neighbour's shame:
On eagles’ wings immortal scandals fly,
While virtuous deeds are merely born and die.
Attributed to the English physician William Harvey, 1578-1657.
Why
readers’ comments and some paragraphs of my own have upset Mr X and caused him
to threaten to sue me
From his lawyer Richard Graham's Notice of Concerns:
“24. The passages [complained
of], in the context that the words appear, meant and were understood to
mean…that [Mr X]:
(a) has indecently exposed himself to female staff at the Shire of
York;
(b) has engaged in acts of sexual harassment in the workplace;
(c) is a criminal in that he has engaged in criminal acts of indecent
exposure;
(d) is a sexual predator;
(e) is a pervert;
(f) is likely to indecently expose himself in his next place of
employment;
(g) is a liar;
(h) has deliberately concealed a decision from the public that might
have attracted adverse criticism if made known to the public; and
(i) is not fit to hold office in local government…
28. My client instructs me
that each of the imputations are totally false, without basis and constitute serious
defamations of my client. [Should
read ‘each…is’—oh, never mind, my New Year’s resolution was to try to stop
being a grammar nazi. JP]
29. My client instructs me
that he resigned from the Shire of York due to personal health reasons.”
The Notice (which unsurprisingly is marked
‘Private and Confidential’ and ‘Not to be republished’) goes on to state that
the harm done to Mr X’s professional reputation by publication of the
imputations complained of will hinder his chance of securing future employment in
his field of work and has caused him to suffer ‘stress, anxiety and depression’.
My
reply to Mr X’s lawyer
Here, bar certain details that might easily
identify his client, is the text of my letter to Mr Graham.
5 January 2018
Richard Graham
Vogt Graham Lawyers
PO Box 102
NORTHBRIDGE WA 6865
By email to rgraham@vogtgraham.com.au
Dear Sir,
RE:
CONCERNS NOTICE—[MR X]
I acknowledge receipt of your letter and enclosure of
13 December 2017.
It appears that your client has been much less than
candid in his instructions.
Comments published on The REAL Voice of York that contain imputations by which he claims
to be ‘seriously aggrieved’ are in my view defensible under section 25 of the
Defamation Act on the basis that they are, at the very least, substantially
true.
However, because I believe your client is more to be
pitied than blamed, I have removed comments identifying him by name or his
former position at the Shire of York. It is not my intention to publish further such
comments.
I have not removed the comment complained of from
‘Roger’ (28 November 2017) because it does not identify your client.
Nor have I removed the reference to your client in the
Shedding Principle section of ‘Notes from Underground’…What I wrote there was
true. Not only did your
client say what I reported him to have said, he did so in the presence of a
witness willing to swear to that in court. Moreover, I believe my words on the topic of the oversized
shed may be subject to qualified privilege.
Your client must understand that any agreement he may
have made with the Shire of York to keep confidential the circumstances of his
departure from the Shire’s employ will not protect him if he elects to take
this matter to court.
Yours faithfully,
James Plumridge
(Dr)
James Plumridge
If I had chosen to be bloody-minded, I
could have mentioned that Mr X assured me in August of last year, again in the
presence of a witness, that the Shire’s environmental health officer possesses
professional qualifications relevant to his job. To put the matter tactfully, I don’t believe that assurance
reflected reality.
However, Mr X should be comforted to know
that any person trawling the Internet for information about him will find
nothing especially alarming in the columns of this blog.
Some
questions for the Shire
1.
According to Suzie Haslehurst’s
response to my email to CEO Martin (see my previous article, ‘Legal Eagle Flies
Undone’), Mr X resigned of his own accord and not under pressure from the
CEO. However, according to
Gary Hamley, Local Government Minister Templeman’s Chief of Staff, CEO Martin ‘took
appropriate action’.
What action, if any, did the CEO take, and if he did
take action, why might it have been considered ‘appropriate’?
2.
Did Mr X behave as alleged
(i.e. ‘inappropriately’, jeez, that feeble and obfuscatory type of language is
more contagious than measles or the pox) towards female members of Shire staff?
3.
Mr X claims to have resigned
for reasons of ill-health. If he
had not thus offered his resignation, would the CEO have felt obliged to sack him? If not, what might the CEO have
done instead?
4.
It is rumoured that the Shire paid
out the balance of Mr X’s contract.
If he did behave ‘inappropriately’ as alleged, wouldn’t such a payout be
tantamount to rewarding improper behaviour?
5.
If a male member of the public
walked into the Shire office one sultry afternoon and behaved towards female
staff as Mr X is alleged to have done, would the Shire react as kindly as it
appears to have done with regard to Mr X?
Or is there one rule for local government employees and another for
everybody else?
6.
Is it the case that the Shire
permitted Mr X to continue for several weeks, after ceasing to work for the
Shire, to drive a Shire vehicle and live in Shire accommodation? If so, why?
7.
To what extent, if any, was
Shire President Wallace informed of Mr X’s alleged ‘inappropriate’ behaviour
towards female staff? If he was so
informed, did he share that information with his fellow councillors, and if he
didn’t, why not?
8.
Is it the case that at least
one oversized shed application was approved last year or earlier under
delegated authority with a view to avoiding public scrutiny and possible
adverse comment?
It appears that CEO Martin and Shire
President Wallace are less than happy about what is being written on this and David
Taylor’s blog. I remind them
and their fellow mugwumps that they are spending our money, not their own. As I’ve argued in the past, no
expenditure of public money unrelated to national security or public safety
should be withheld from public scrutiny.
Considerations of privacy or confidentiality should have no role to play
in the public service, which public money keeps afloat.
If the Shire were committed, as clearly it
is not, to open, honest and accountable government, it would have nothing to
fear from the blogs.
I must admit I was a little disappointed in your response to Mr Graham, refuting the complaints made by Mr X.
ReplyDeleteWhile the contradictions were those expected from a literary doyen such as yourself, the response was far too succinct lacking the vigor and sangfroid your readers have become accustomed to.
With your particular erudite faculties, I ingenuously believed you would rip Mr Graham a new areshole in relation to the veracity of his client’s emphatic denials, scotching any notion of progressing further the matter.
Though the timorousness of your response (unless a beguiled one) is pardonable given your advancing years, I fear that this could be perceived as a flaw in stoicism, hence, don’t be surprised or daunted if Mr X sees this as an invitation to sally against you.
Nice touch parading the ‘Dr’ title in your signature, reminding all that behind the dinky stature there lurks an academic goliath capable of controlled meteoric riposte, and more than well equipped to annihilate adversaries who dare to challenge superior intellect.
While the urbanite metro elite view us rural dwellers as banjo playing tobacco-chawin underprivileged benighted hicks, believing we can be easily fucked over (figuratively speaking) into submission, it better start to think again.
No longer will we be bullied into subservience.
Like it or not, the populist movement is clawing back control from the political masters and the blogs have become a powerful ‘unstoppable’ instrument for political communication and something Big Brother can’t accept.
Now we have the power in political cyberspace and the ability and gusto to expose corruption, our peremptory ruler’s need to wake up by becoming fully transparent.
As you rightly state James, “If the Shire were committed, as clearly it is not, to open, honest and accountable government, it would have nothing to fear from the blogs”.
A new day has dawned, suck it up BB.
I reckon if No. 5, all hell would break loose!
ReplyDeleteThe two sets of rules are alive and well.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAh the truth surfaces, JP’s blog is censored by 'Er Indoors’.
DeleteI don’t know what’s worse, repression by the establishment or repression by the old trouble and strife?
The latter, by a country mile. The worst the establishment can do is throw me in jail, whereas the wife can refuse to wash and iron my shirts and cook my tea.
DeleteAnonymous14 January 2018 at 19:02 - at least the moderator of this blog hasn't allowed it to sink to the same level of crudeness as Trevor's.
DeleteThank you James for your careful assessment of comments.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteDon't be silly, Anonymous 15/1 @ 18:14. There are no beavers in Australia, certainly not on Mount Brown.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeletePlatypusses?
DeleteIts platypi you doofus!
DeleteNo, you gormless twit, 'platypi' is not the plural of 'platypus'. The -i plural suffix is Latin, and the word 'platypus' is of Greek, not Latin, origin (from 'platypous', meaning flat-footed). The correct Greek plural would be 'platypodes', but zoologists either anglicise the plural to 'platypuses' or sometimes just use the singular form to denote the plural. My 'platypusses' was a joke punning on what people had been alleging (no doubt falsely) had occurred on the slopes of Mount Brown. Get it? I thought not. Try saying 'platypusses' out loud.
DeleteSo who's the doofus now?
If we're having a lesson on the English language, remind me, is it dwarfs or dwarves?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJim, can you remember in 1985, one of the best freelance journalists of his time, Avon Lovell, authored a book called ‘The Mickelberg Stitch’ which pointed out weaknesses in the case against the Mickelberg brothers who were convicted of swindling gold bullion from the Perth Mint?
DeleteThe book was an immediate hit and sold well until the State Gendarme sued for defamation.
The then Police Union then imposed a mandatory levy on its members to fund dozens of hopeless legal actions against Mr Lovell, the distributors and booksellers.
Even though Mr Lovell appeared in court hundreds of times over a decade, not one single action ever reached trial.
Only after protracted negotiations between Mr Lovell and his nemesis was a settlement reached allowing the book to be sold openly, however, the desired effect of banning the book for over 10 years until the ‘shit died down’ had been achieved.
Be mindful of this tactic.
Yes, I do remember Avon Lovell, a talented and courageous journalist and very nice man.
DeleteI'm not sure that the present defamation law, uniform across Australia since 2005, would provide scope for those Police Union tactics today.
Where we nowadays see such tactics in operation is in restraint of social and political criticism. In Queensland, the devout Catholic Bernard Gaynor, who upholds his Church's teaching on the subject of homosexuality, is continually harassed through the HREOC by a gay man in NSW on the grounds that Bernard's views (with which I firmly disagree, by the way) offend him. Meanwhile, a prominent Muslim businessman and key promoter of halal certification (a rort if ever there was one) applies similar tactics to critics of his very profitable operations.
Defamation law does not work well to protect reputations. For a start, it prevents dialogue and debate necessary to seek the truth. More speech and more writing is the answer to the problem, not less, and certainly not the threat of defamation, which discourages speech and writing and suppresses information that probably would not be defamatory if tested anyway. Published articles, including allegedly defamatory ones, are openly available to be criticised and refuted. The worst part of defamation law is the chilling effect on free speech. Defamation threats are an effective form of suppression and occur when corrupt government tries to directly or indirectly censor, persecute or oppress the community rather than engage with it by constructively responding to different arguments or viewpoints. The slightest whiff of dissent is perceived as a threat and then action is taken to prevent continuing dissent by penalizing dissidents, as evidenced by the closure of certain businesses in the CBD. Exactly why the current administration has not come clean about the latest debacle is in itself, cause to question its commitment to transparency. I worry the threat has done its job enough to negatively impact on free speech.
ReplyDeleteMr. Graham has no idea who Dr. Plumridge is.
ReplyDeleteSoftly softly catches the monkey, If the issue progresses Mr. X's Lawyer may be in for a bit of a shock.
You must have seen me whizzing through the sky last night wearing my underpants on the outside. I was trying to keep that a secret.
DeleteThe legal eagle is swooping, you better go and hide little man as he has you in his sights! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
DeleteA much more terrifying brake on freedom of expression is political correctness accompanied by the absurd doctrine that feelings aka 'sensitivities' are more important than ideas. This has a great deal to do with so-called 'multiculturalism' i.e. inviting into your country masses of people many of whom despise the way you live and most of whom will never integrate or be able to make a serious contribution to society or the economy. Multiculturalism thus defined is an outcome of cultural relativism, which in practice means that you mustn't be critical on pain of social ostracism and worse of the values and religion of an imported population that is free to say whatever takes its fancy about the culture of the host population that kindly took it in and gave it shelter.
ReplyDeleteWe are now being treated to the gruesome spectacle of Western societies based on European traditions and values conniving at their own rapid demise. In this weird and outrageous process, restrictions on freedom of speech - like section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act - are playing a crucial part.
Way to go Jim, that's more like it.
Delete2017 was definitely the year it became fashionable to be 'offended'.
You have to lighten up snowflake
DeleteYou need to wake up, little lamb - unless you're happy to remain in a fool's paradise along with the millions of other sheep.
DeleteSomeone is taking a swipe Jim referring to you as a snowflake, the word has many connotations, all of which (with the exception of frozen ice crystals) are derogatory.
Delete'Snowflake' is used to describe the kind of hypersensitive individual who shivers and melts or runs to a 'safe space' when encountering a point of view contrary to their own. That hardly applies to me.
DeleteI used the phrase 'lighten up snowflake' a few months ago in response to somebody who took me to task for one of my less successful flashes of humour. Perhaps Anonymous 15/1 2 1:28 is that person trying to get their own back.
Was that you? I thought it was a shooting star!
DeleteI now understand where the term ‘little rocket man’ comes from.
DeleteNo, that's my distant Korean cousin Jim Num-Dong.
DeleteThe gagging of free speech and the suppression of dissidents goes on all the time, more often than not to protecting individual reputations against attack. A few cases like Troy the Boy Buswell, receive widespread attention, but most do not. Free speech will always be a threat to those in power, some of whom will use whatever means possible to squash it.
ReplyDeleteLaws alone cannot protect free speech, uppermost it requires people continually exercising their right to it.
No.3, that’s the question I would be interested in knowing the answer to.
ReplyDeleteMy money is on yes, the CEO would have felt obliged to sack him given the seriousness of the alleged offense and taking into account we’re talking about the public sector.
Whose interests does our CEO protect - the district, the organization, or his own?
I don’t know what you think James, but given the lack of any vested interest in the first two options it would have to be the third.
I suppose as CEO’s go we could be a lot worse off when compared to previous ones, although my initial hope that Mr Martin was a new breed of CEO seem to have been dashed.
Is there any sub judice reason preventing you from putting the eight questions to council?
Sub judice (Latin for 'under a judge') will only apply if and when the alleged defamation comes before a court. My guess is that if I were to put those questions to Council, the Shire President and CEO would refuse to answer on the dubious grounds that staff matters are immune from public questioning and comment.
DeleteI you want to test that hypothesis, feel free to put those questions or any of them to Council yourself.
You might remember that former CEO Hooper and his acolyte former Shire President Pat Hooper went ballistic during PQT some years ago when a local mischief maker asked what qualifications if any were possessed by certain members of staff, now sadly departed. Ray explained (or more correctly expostulated) that the question breached staff privacy.
I have much respect for the CEO, who compared with his predecessors 'shines like a good deed in a naughty world', but it would be astonishing indeed if as a senior bureaucrat he were to allow the interests of ratepayers and residents to prevail over those of the organization. History shows us that bureaucracy inevitably becomes a drag on democracy. A fine modern example of this is the EU, which is one reason why sensible Brits voted for Brexit. I voted against entering the EU, or Common Market as it was then known, back in (I think) 1972. I told everyone who would listen (all three of them) there would be tears before bedtime, and many years later so it has proved. (And don't forget that the doyenne of EU leaders, Frau Kanzlerin Merkel, for all that she leads the Christian Democrat Party, is a product of the East German bureaucratic communist nightmare.)
York is being run by David Wallace, most councillors are not aware of the decisions he makes.
DeleteWhy did Mr. Wallace keep the latest Landfill application from residents? Shire Staff have admitted the Shire President knew about it in August well before the last election!
In fairness to SP Wallace, it must be said that many people in York knew about the Alkina landfill application in August, well before the election. My first article on the topic, OMG Not Another Bloody Landfill, was posted on 2 August and reported on rumours about the landfill that were then circulating in the town.
DeleteSome councillors have complained that SP Wallace keeps them in the dark about important matters, doesn't encourage debate and forbids them to discuss contentious matters with members of the public. If that's true, it may be that the SP just wants to run a tight ship. Let's hope it doesn't turn into the Titanic.
One of the depot guys got done over by the CEO for saying that Suzie H tried to cover up the flashing business like in her email. She was mad as hell about it and the CEO made the guy apologize which he shouldnt have to do seeing he was telling the truth.
ReplyDeleteAre you certain about this? I heard the story last week from somebody I know but didn't want to believe it.
DeleteI worked for the Shire many years ago... I had to apologise to the then CEO for daring to discuss an idea with a Councillor which apparently was forbidden...go figure!!!
DeleteWhy couldn't the CEO accept what happened instead of trying to hide it.
ReplyDeleteIf he made the works employee apologise, he has stepped in the stinking boots of Ray Hooper.
What goes on behind those Shire Office doors? what is it Suzie H does not like to hear about.? The Shire Administration staff have too much time for their show and tells, it is blatantly clear there is not enough work for the senior staff to be kept or to keep themselves gainfully employed.
ReplyDeleteSounds to me like senior staff are only trying hard to do what is required under legislation and good management practices,others should spend more time working and minding their own.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting point of view, Snr. Are you saying that hiding information from the public, obfuscating the truth or actually telling lies are activities required under legislation and count as good management practices?
DeleteAnd are you also saying that the tax- and rate-paying public should turn a blind eye to what senior local government bureaucrats do for their own protection rather than the public good?
It's that kind of authoritarian thinking that keeps dictatorships in power.
And just because something is 'required under legislation' doesn't make it right.
A cover up isn't the right thing to do even under legislation. I just think the matter should be left to those more directly involved. Open discussion on the matter in the workplace surely isn't beneficial to the community or the victims. In saying that I'm not familiar with the e-mail in mention nor of the mind that a mere depot employee should bare the brunt of any reaction more befitting the instigator.
DeleteFair enough, but the workplace and the general community were buzzing with the story before it hit the blogs. How could matters be otherwise in a small country town? My gripe isn't with the unfortunate and foolish perpetrator but with the Shire's refusal to come clean on how it dealt with him and managed the women's complaints. Suzie's emailed response to my message to the CEO is simply insulting - she and the folk who advised her should know better than to try to pull wool over the eyes of a person widely considered to possess that rare commodity, a functioning brain.
DeleteI don't for a moment condone Mr X's alleged behaviour, but haven't enjoyed the outburst of confected moral outrage it gave rise to, bearing in mind that such behaviour is very much at the lower end of the sexual misdemeanour scale. I wouldn't regard the women involved as 'victims' and I doubt that is how they would regard themselves. I'm sorry that Mr X, who in my view needs help rather than hanging, was so easily identified and that he has probably blighted his career prospects for a good while to come. But we are surely entitled to know how much in cash or kind this episode has cost the poor bloody ratepayer, who deserves better than to be taken for a fool by people who appear to strain under the delusion that they are smarter than the rest of us. If that's what they think, believe me, they would do well to think again.
And if it's true that some poor devil in the depot got hauled over hot coals for not toeing the party line - well, he's the one who should get an apology, not Ms Haslehurst.
It would be interesting to know from Snr what the senior staff are trying hard to do and under what legislation they are trying to do it and in the context of the public sector, if you honestly believe that a “matter should be left to those more directly involved”, you need sectioning asap.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe women haven't been named. Details of what occurred were bound to get out and give rise to public discussion. I don't know how far Shire responsibility extends, but I think you're drawing a very long bow.
DeleteYou need to stop using words and phrases like 'bound to get out', 'give rise to' and 'extends', when discussing this topic.
DeleteI can't imagine why, but then, I don't have your dirty mind.
DeleteAnonymous 25 Jan.15:03. Tis a shame those that actually WORK for the shire have to remain so patient and quiet in getting things done to move things forward from a grass roots level, has always been the same and must be incredibly frustrating to those trying to work through the barriers.
ReplyDeleteThank you to those employees who are doing their best to keep things moving forward for the good of our Town.
DeleteAnonymous25 January 2018 at 15:03 you had every right to speak to councillors.
I cannot locate anywhere in the LG Act that states Employees of the Shire cannot have an opinion or speak with councillors. Employees have the same rights as every other ratepayer!
Time the Shire President and CEO realised they would receive more respect if they stopped the secrecy and cover ups. We had enough of that under Hooper.
Thank goodness we have the blogs to keep us informed about what is actually happening.
The Shire Administration Office is overstaffed there is not the work for them all to be kept in gainful employment
ReplyDeleteThe Senior staff job descriptions are just that descriptions created and strategicaly manipulated to suit the gross salaries not the work to be undertaken
The previous CEO Ray Hooper and Gail M. spent most of their time outside the office smoking
What does Suzie H do? the previous CEO worked part time
Gordon Tester and Peter Stevens ceated havoc in the town making nuicences of themselves and it is talk of the town what Mr X did in the office
There was nothing wrong with Gordon Tester he was a lovely man and well qualified for his job. The previous CEO was Mr Darcombe and he was not part time.
DeleteWhy Shouldn't Ray Hooper and Gail M be allowed to smoke outside the office?
Nobody minded Ray and Gail smoking, people were dissapointed that they didn't burst into flames.
DeleteVery disappointed, considering many an hour was spent on bended knee praying for a miracle.
DeleteAnonymous29 January 2018 at 02:00- Great response.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone hears of any ex-government equipment being sold off by the Shire, can they let me know, especially if it includes filing cabinets.
ReplyDeleteYork wouldn't be that lucky.
ReplyDeleteAfter spending most of the day in respite in a darkened room, popping diazepam in an attempt to exorcise my mind of my daybreak ordeal, I now feel strong enough to share my horrific experience with your readers.
ReplyDeleteWith all that’s recently gone on in York regarding over-exposure, I wanted to warn the good people of York of the awful fright I had this morning while walking my pet pooch along the normally uneventful streets of York.
There I was minding my own business, whistling my favourite tune - "I Gotta Get out of This Place” by The Animals, enjoying the spectacular sunrise washing the town with its warmth, when from the corner of my eye, an image materialized, an image that will remain etched into my psyche for the rest of my living days.
At first, I thought the form was a life size Buddha statue, positioned on the windowsill of the grand old York residence, on second glance my perturbation was confirmed, it was a living and breathing mortal (just).
Even viewed in dappled light, it was immediately evident that the figure was a galaxy away from being an Adonis, ‘far far away’ in fact.
Framed by the fashionable shabby chic distressed sash-window, the figure reminded me of the cheaper, bargain basement, cater for anything end of “The Reeperbahn”, a street in Hamburg's St. Pauli district, frequented by soldiers on RnR from manoeuvres.
Through the rippled antique glass, clad in only daggy grey, well worn Target long johns, it peered toward me like a grimacing Hominidae, it was far more freighting than any mythological Greek creature you could imagine, enough to send shivers down my spine, the likes of which I have never experienced before.
I hate to think of the psychological damage such a sight could have caused a person of lesser robustness, chilling enough that it could have proved fatal to anyone of fragile character.
Take care out there.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThe old person in question is in his seventies and only permitted to leave the house under supervision. I was surprised by the allusion to a Buddha statue, because the old gentleman's occasional appearance at his kitchen window is more like the central figure in Edvard Munch's famous painting 'The Scream'. Like many elderly people, he is querulous and obstreperous, especially when he has misbehaved, e.g. by throwing his morning porridge at the dog, and has to be manacled to the verandah. One correction: what Anonymous 1 Feb @ 21:56 describes as 'well-worn Target long johns' were in fact a pair of his wife's Christian Dior shorts.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteNo, different bloke entirely. The phantom prowler is much younger and models underwear.
DeleteNow it transpires Mr Window-dressing wears his wife’s smalls, worse still, he admits it. I really don’t know what the world is coming to.
DeleteBe fair, his plus-fours were at the cleaners, and you wouldn't call his wife's shorts 'smalls'.
DeleteThe phantom prowler better make sure he keeps his day job because the CCTV footage I saw of him in his jocks was not a good look.
DeleteSo you are a peeping Tom, looking at someone inside their own home, through one of their own windows! One would think that it is not permissible to wear what one likes in such circumstances if one decides to wear anything at all that is. How about keeping an eye on your pooch and where you are walking on the uneven footpaths, if you don't then you could fall and injure yourself or your pooch may get accosted by another more macho pooch!
Delete13 February 2018 at 06:02 didn't you mean to write it IS permissible to wear what one likes.
DeleteThere is nothing wrong with the occasional peep. The majority of the time its boring, uneventful or just plain revolting, but every now and again one might cop a tasty eye full making it a worthwhile satisfying activity.
DeleteCan I just comment on the article on the other blog please James.
ReplyDeleteOnce again David makes some good points. So what should happen? Could the shire and council consider some new grand plan to fix (among other things the cemetery) or embody some other recently construed grand plan (a potentially irrelevant and inappreciable spend off cash, organize training for the cultural heritage and community development officer's or hire new and unknown expert's, a survey or community workshop to grasp what participants feel, throw hands up in the air, or maybe invest in a workforce ( one with people on the ground with rakes and shovels in hand ) to build on our past and create a future.
It would be a good start if the Community Development officer was trained.
ReplyDeleteI was really looking forward to the Christmas street party and came away so disappointed. I did enjoy listening to Vince and his family singing when it got under way. Few if any of the shops were open and the closed shops had turned off their lights resulting in a very dingy atmosphere. Surely the organiser could have encouraged more businesses to stay open, or at the very least, leave their lights on so we could see to walk on the footpath until the street lights came on.
Who organised the Christmas street party and how much did it cost ratepayers?
Disapointing to read that the Business Community didn't get involved, they need residents to Shop LOCAL, yet didn't participate on any real level...not the Council's problem this time, that's for sure.
DeleteNot the businesses fault either. They were not happy to see a member of the Shire's Christmas reference group enter the best decorated business competition and awarded second prize. Some businesses put in a big effort and we could see their lights. The second prize winner business was in complete darkness with roller doors shut.
ReplyDelete