What a fiasco this matter has been. Dave Blackwell, at the beginning of this year, could not believe his luck when CPBC’s Tory Cabinet voted to close the pool, citing funding and safety grounds. Immediately he went on the political offensive, using his position as Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to ‘call the decision in.’ He arranged press interviews; accused the Borough Council of being anti-Canvey; and, with Bob Spink’s help, began building the local issue which the Canvey Island Independent Party, and Bob Spink, so badly needed for their election campaigns in May.
The Scrutiny Committee assembled under the public’s gaze; but Blackwell made himself scarce. Despite his vocal criticism in the press, the matter was not to interfere with his holiday (and it was not possible to pend the issue until he got back). Dave did not want to be around when, surprisingly, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee backed the Cabinet’s decision in record time amid protests from the public gallery.
Blackwell and Spink rubbed their hands together in glee. It was the very result they were waiting for – and the only decision the committee could have taken, given the known facts. No one, outside the inner CIIP circle of the Town Council (TC), was then aware that the TC was sitting on over £291,000 of unallocated resident funds – and was perfectly able to provide a solution to CPBC’s financial problems if they had wished to.
This whole matter could have easily been solved by Blackwell in January: by simply offering to assist CPBC, from residents’ funds, in the constrained financial situation that it found itself.
The reason he made no such offer; and the reason he made himself scarce at the committee meeting is clear. He could not be seen agreeing with the Cabinet’s decision if he was to pursue his own political agenda of using the Canvey pool issue to embarrass Castle Point Borough Council and effect a means of winning CIIP seats at the local election. (Helping his close friend Spink to retain his Parliamentary seat at the same time.)
The scene was set for another island protest, stoked into flames by Tom Jea’s campaign coverage and Lea Swann’s frequent appearances in the Echo.
Jea even ensured a leaflet, advertising his protest site, accompanied CIIP and Spink leaflets on their way to residents’ doormats at the outset of May’s election campaigns. It is still not clear who actually paid for those flyers.
But this issue may yet bite Blackwell back. The £291,000 of residents' funds, which the TC was sitting on at the beginning of the year, has now been spent on Canvey Lake and Town Council Administration. If the TC is to find the money to take-on the island’s old paddling pool, it can only come from next year’s annual precept.
And that means a rise in Council Tax for you, me, and everyone else on this island.
The calculation, which CIIP Town Council members will be making on the 13th, is just how much they can push residents’ contributions to – without creating a new public protest, which, this time, is directed against them.
... (28/08/2010) - In this post's comment section, Tom Jea announces that the Town Council meeting will now take place on Wednesday, 1st September; but there is no mention of this change on the Town Council's Website.
... (28/08/2010) - In Order To Aid The Discussion
... (02/09/2010) - CITC Press Release (Concord Pool)
The leaflets were paid for by a private individual (out of their personal money- no public money involved), and were kindly printed at a special discounted rate by local printing company Design 4 Print.
ReplyDeleteThey were initially circulated by several supporters of the pool, then the distributors of the Labour Party election leaflets offered to circulate them alongside their own leaflets, and some of the Canvey Island Independent candidates followed suite, and so did then MP Bob Spink.
The pool campaigners were grateful for the assistence and were happy to accept it from whoever made an offer. They did not feel it appropriate to make an approach to anyone themselves.
Tom jea.
PS: Apologies, the blogsite seems to reject my password so I am obliged to use the 'anonymous' option which does seem to work.
Hi Tom: if you are already signed-in to your Google account, you should find the Google ID option is selected for you automatically. If you are not, you will need to sign-in to your account, which is unlikely to be 'Tom Jea.'
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, Google IDs are all issued against a verified email address to avoid duplication.
What a spinmaster Tom Jea is and what generous benefactors he finds just when a local election is in the offing and the Design4Print presses are running at full stretch!
ReplyDeleteOf course Bob Spink was a private individual at the time as he restood for Parliament - perhaps Tom will clearly state whether it was Spink's money or not and who actually made the donation. Though I doubt it.
And i love the way he spins the reason that his flyer accompanied Spinks and the CIIPs -- it wasn't Jae supporting Spink and the CIIP -- it was Spink and the CIIP supporting him!
And like his flyer wasn't biased against the tories and contained the same lying theme that he tried to repeat here.
Now where is it? Oh yes. "JUST EIGHT PEOPLE HAD THE POWER TO DECIDE THIS" No mention of the fact the decision had been called in and agreed by Blackwell's committee who had the power to overrule it and have it put to full council.
What an absolute load of b*****ks!!!!!
Cynical Observer- there's no need to get all het up and abusive, is there?!
ReplyDeleteI don't quite get what your 1st paragraph was getting at. Yes, it was very nice of Design 4 Print to fit the leaflet printing in- they are always busy, because they are a very good company.
Yes, I will state categorically that it was not Bob Spink who financed the leaflets. So, do I get an apology for your baseless insinuation? I won't say who did pay for them, until I have asked their permission (it wasn't me, incidentally). By the way, how come you're so free to start flinging out demands for openness, when you hide behind a pseudonym?!
The leaflet was distributed with Bob Spink's, some of the Independent's- AND Labour's. That isn't spin, its just how it was.
The leaflet was NOT biased- It referred only to 'some mainland councillors' and on the other side named the individuals who made the initial decision to demolish the pool. Both completely accurate statements! Nowhere did it so much as mention membership of any political party! Please try to get what you say right, for goodness sake!!! All you have to to is look at the leaflet and you’ll see what it said.
As I've said before, I think it is pathetic to hurl accusations of someone being a liar, from behind a false name.
Cynical Observer, you can rant on and swear as much as you like- but every point you or Ted Pugh make gets answered. And every time it happens you ignore the answer and just come out with something else. Pointless!!!
Tom Jea.
PS: The date for the meeting given here is wrong- it is September 1st (I checked with the Town Council), and it will be open to the public.
You continue to pick and spin Tom but the fact is that your flyer was a direct attack on the Tory Cabinet for making a decision that was fully backed by Blackwell's oposition committee and the fact was that the pool was dangerous and CPBC were facing stringent cutbacks which are now coming to the fore.
ReplyDeleteEven Letchford's report pointed out the dangers in the old as well as the new pool but at no time have you or your campaign group ever cited those issues. Like i said, you pick and you spin. The issue then was and is now 'which pool should be saved.' Personally i believe CL has it right and the older pool should be restored at the new pool's expense but you and your group have never addressed that issue.
Are we to believe that your group lacks the basic intelligence to see that this issue is basically about finance. And are we also supposed to believe that your were all just naive campaigners who were used as a political tool by Spink and company?
Did it not occur to you that because Spink and the CIIP were campaigning on the pool issue that your leaflet, apparently from an unbiased source, would assist their campaign? And did it not once occur to you that there was something fishy about being offered funding for flyers to go in every Castle point residents home just as the short campaign had started?
You are not a stupid man Tom you knew precisely what you were doing. Just as you knew what you were doing by backing Letchford's campaign for an elected mayor and repeating his untruths that residents have no say in who leads the Council.
Residents elect councillors who then decide who their leader will be (based on far better information and knowledge than any resident will glean from a soundbite campaign in the press).
Like i said before, you must think we are all stupid here...............
Far be it for me to think you are stupid, Cynical Observer, but I do wonder why, no matter how many times I arguably show your points to be plain wrong, it seems to make no difference. I’ll do it again!!-
ReplyDeleteYour Para 1:
How can the flyer possibly be a direct attack on the Tory Cabinet, when it never, so much as once, anywhere, in any way, mention which party the people who made the decision belonged to?!!
Incidentally, plenty of Conservative candidates, other Conservative Borough Councillors, and Conservative Rebecca Harris disagreed with the decision, so it just simply makes no sense for the campaign group to be anti-Tory!
Also, the Overview & Scrutiny Committee was meeting for the very first time, was apparently subject to a party whip, and did not as you wrongly say fully back the decision- it was not a unanimous vote. So you got that wrong.
Your Para 2:
Duh, the campaign is to save the old pool, so of course we don’t bring up other things- there are loads of other things not mentioned by the pool campaigners ‘cos they are aren’t anything to do with the campaign.
What on earth makes you say the issue was and is 'which pool should be saved’- where the heck did you get that from?!! The campaign has ALWAYS been to save the ‘old’ pool because it is that one under threat. My own personal opinion for what it is worth is to ask why should we lose EITHER ammenity which has existed since around the 1930’s and been used by countless children over the years?!!
Your Para 3:
How condescending of you to credit us with at least ‘basic intelligence’. The issue (as discussed by all interested groups) isn’t just about finance, it is also about child safety (our Coastguards have stated children are safer in this pool, though they weren’t asked when the decision was made), accurate estimates (the Borough Council keeps adding £25,000 for a lifeguard to the ongoing costs, despite them being the very ones to reduce the depth of water so it doesn’t need one) and liability for accidents (though there haven’t been any at this pool), among other aspects. So, wrong again.
Also, we were not used by ‘Spink and company’- we were offered help to distribute our leaflets and we accepted that help from whoever offered. As you ignore yet again, Labour also circulated them. Wrong again!
Your Para 4:
I keep saying, though it doesn’t seem to get through, that the campaign group is NOT POLITICAL, so why should it affect us whether there is an election on? We have been and still are campaigning through the period of time the pool is under threat. And no, it didn’t seem ‘fishy’ to be offered funding for these particular flyers, because the person funding them has no political affiliation. Plus, funding has been found for other leaflets and posters since then. So again, you just don’t know what you’re going on about!
Your Para 5:
Actually, I am beginning to think I AM a stupid man, because nothing I say ever gets through to you or Ted Pugh the blogger. I draw your attention to the last paragraph of my previous comment “you ignore the answer and just come out with something else”- you just did it again.
Your Para 6:
Can you really be telling us all that we should just sit back and let Councillors decide who the Leader will be- BECAUSE THEY KNOW BEST????!!!!!! Sheesh, I still don’t know if you are an elected official because you keep hiding behind your false name, but with that attitude I really hope you aren’t!!!
It really is pointless answering anything you put here, because as I said last time I can go through each point you make and answer each one- and you just ignore the answers and come up with something else. You will probably do it again now, but I shall not post another comment until I feel I have to respond to another groundless ‘slagging off’.
Tom Jea.
PS. I seem to be able to post properly again now, so hopefully no more multiple posts.