Title: Are We Now Going To Cough Up For An Appeal?
Description: re:the 4 proposals at meeting tomorrow
Description: re:the 4 proposals at meeting tomorrow
lemon squeezer - October 14, 2007 09:46 PM (GMT)
I cannot believe that they are seriously considering going to appeal at the same time playing down the costs already incurred.
Then again the money is not out of their own pockets. :angry:
Then again the money is not out of their own pockets. :angry:
the old codger - October 15, 2007 12:18 AM (GMT)
As I understand it, the Council were advised by their lawyers down in London that they had a very good case and so they went for a judicial review. It's very clear from the council's website that they were confident that the judge would find in their favour. He didn't. I have read the judgement on the council's website. Now those lawyers down in London are saying that the matter could be taken to the Court of Appeal.
The actual costs of the process so far aren't known but on top of the fees for the lawyers will be a claim for costs from the government. If the matter goes to the Court of Appeal the costs will escalate. It is a bit unfair to expect councillors to make a decision without knowing the costs involved.
The actual costs of the process so far aren't known but on top of the fees for the lawyers will be a claim for costs from the government. If the matter goes to the Court of Appeal the costs will escalate. It is a bit unfair to expect councillors to make a decision without knowing the costs involved.
lemon squeezer - October 15, 2007 07:51 PM (GMT)
On the SABC forum, Robin's Blog, comments section a certain Richard Robinson, who I cannot believe is not the very same chap who was some years ago Principal Planning Officer for SABC, has put his views on this whole sorry tale very succinctly.
| QUOTE |
| I have watched this organisational and financial drama unfold over the last 2 years and I have been appalled at the belligerance of the Borough’s leader in pouring hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money down the toilet and consistently, it seems, pursuing a policy of non-cooperation with the county council. Bizzarely, he was all for abolition on the previous occasion it was being pursued. Mr Hooper, the leader of the borough has demonstrated remarkedly poor judgement in his handling of this important matter and I therefore ask you, as paid of head of service, to advise him to submit his resignation as leader and councillor with immediate effect. |
Andy Cooke - October 15, 2007 08:32 PM (GMT)
cant you respond to his blog n tell him ;)
lemon squeezer - October 16, 2007 02:10 PM (GMT)
Apparently if Congleton council do it first then SABC will too, so there!
| QUOTE |
| Unitary fight may continue Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council will appeal against the judicial review decision in the bid to prevent a unitary authority running Shropshire - but only if another council makes the first move. If Congleton Borough Council - the authority’s partner in the fight against unitary - decide to go forward, Shrewsbury and Atcham will back them. Congleton Borough Council is due to hold a full council meeting tomorrow night when members will decide whether or not to appeal. |
:rolleyes:
the old codger - October 16, 2007 05:48 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (lemon squeezer @ Oct 16 2007, 02:10 PM) | ||
Apparently if Congleton council do it first then SABC will too, so there!
:rolleyes: |
No further defence or legal action is to be taken to ensure that there are no further liabilities for Shrewsbury & Atcham. So are they saying that if Congleton do appeal then they will support them but not contribute to the costs?
Proud Salopian - October 16, 2007 06:13 PM (GMT)
Andy Cooke - October 16, 2007 06:17 PM (GMT)
Can I have that David?
Proud Salopian - October 16, 2007 06:30 PM (GMT)
Not unless you are a lawyer, no.
lemon squeezer - October 16, 2007 06:52 PM (GMT)
Nice one PS ! :D :D :D
SABC councillors think money grows on trees!
So that's why we have a new nursery at Weeping Cross!
SABC councillors think money grows on trees!
So that's why we have a new nursery at Weeping Cross!
lemon squeezer - October 18, 2007 10:04 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| More misinformation from'BOB's BLOG'! |
eva land
Posted October 17, 2007 at 9:36 am | Permalink
They challenged SABC’s right to hold a poll.
The County Council were not alone making this challenge, tax payers in Shrewsbury questioned the decision to hold an expensive poll also.
Many did not vote as they did not understand the issues and many did not vote as it was felt it was a pointless exercise. SABC then assumed those who did not vote should be counted alongside those who voted for continuing the two tier system!
Posted October 17, 2007 at 9:36 am | Permalink
They challenged SABC’s right to hold a poll.
The County Council were not alone making this challenge, tax payers in Shrewsbury questioned the decision to hold an expensive poll also.
Many did not vote as they did not understand the issues and many did not vote as it was felt it was a pointless exercise. SABC then assumed those who did not vote should be counted alongside those who voted for continuing the two tier system!
| QUOTE |
Robin Hooper
Posted October 18, 2007 at 7:51 am | Permalink
I refer to item 12 from Eva. I do not reply to all entries but this is one that needs examination. The Council has never used non voting people to say they supported the vote against unitary. It is with regret that some individuals have said publicly those who did not vote against unitary were therefore in favour of it. The legal voting democratic system in this country says you have to vote for it to count and long may that democratic principal remain. The fact is the people voted against the unitary option. The Government has not accepted that vote not just in Shropshire but in other counties as well. The Judge in the High Court said that the Secretary of State could decide as she considers appropriate in terms of broad cross section of support. Please read the judgment on that point for more information.
Posted October 18, 2007 at 7:51 am | Permalink
I refer to item 12 from Eva. I do not reply to all entries but this is one that needs examination. The Council has never used non voting people to say they supported the vote against unitary. It is with regret that some individuals have said publicly those who did not vote against unitary were therefore in favour of it. The legal voting democratic system in this country says you have to vote for it to count and long may that democratic principal remain. The fact is the people voted against the unitary option. The Government has not accepted that vote not just in Shropshire but in other counties as well. The Judge in the High Court said that the Secretary of State could decide as she considers appropriate in terms of broad cross section of support. Please read the judgment on that point for more information.
| QUOTE |
B Wright
Posted October 18, 2007 at 10:18 am | Permalink
Dear Mr Hooper
I question your response in posting number 14 on the question of counting non-voters. The SABC website carried the following headline on the home page for many months this year :-
“The Unitary Debate
In January over two-thirds of Shrewsbury & Atcham residents voted to retain both of their excellent councils, however the government has decided to take the Unitary proposal to the next stage.”
It was therefore the SABC which started the issue of counting non-voters in its arguments by claiming that two-thirds of all residents supported retention of the existing two-tier system.
The actual poll results from the referendum, posted by yourself, showed a totally different outcome. See
http://robinhooper.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/facts-on-poll/
The results showed that just under a quarter of the electorate (who number much fewer than residents) voted to retain the existing two-tier structure.
The truth is that 75% of the electorate either did not vote or abstained, which amounts to an even higher percentage when SABC residents not eligible to vote are added.
My response is not intending the reignite the many arguments over statistic but the words kettle and black come to mind. Eva Land’s observations are borne out by what you clearly said on your own website.
Posted October 18, 2007 at 10:18 am | Permalink
Dear Mr Hooper
I question your response in posting number 14 on the question of counting non-voters. The SABC website carried the following headline on the home page for many months this year :-
“The Unitary Debate
In January over two-thirds of Shrewsbury & Atcham residents voted to retain both of their excellent councils, however the government has decided to take the Unitary proposal to the next stage.”
It was therefore the SABC which started the issue of counting non-voters in its arguments by claiming that two-thirds of all residents supported retention of the existing two-tier system.
The actual poll results from the referendum, posted by yourself, showed a totally different outcome. See
http://robinhooper.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/facts-on-poll/
The results showed that just under a quarter of the electorate (who number much fewer than residents) voted to retain the existing two-tier structure.
The truth is that 75% of the electorate either did not vote or abstained, which amounts to an even higher percentage when SABC residents not eligible to vote are added.
My response is not intending the reignite the many arguments over statistic but the words kettle and black come to mind. Eva Land’s observations are borne out by what you clearly said on your own website.
| QUOTE |
B Wright
Posted October 18, 2007 at 7:24 pm | Permalink
Apologies, I pressed submit before proof reading this and should correct an error -
the penultimate paragraph should read,”… 75% of the electorate either did not vote for retention or abstained …”
[QUOTE]
Posted October 18, 2007 at 7:24 pm | Permalink
Apologies, I pressed submit before proof reading this and should correct an error -
the penultimate paragraph should read,”… 75% of the electorate either did not vote for retention or abstained …”
[QUOTE]
lemon squeezer - November 8, 2007 02:41 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| On the SABC forum, Robin's Blog, comments section a certain Richard Robinson, who I cannot believe is not the very same chap who was some years ago Principal Planning Officer for SABC, has put his views on this whole sorry tale very succinctly. |
I read today that Richard Robinson who had been working as a planning consultant since leaving the council died on 29 th October after a long battle with cancer.
I only ever heard good things about him, when he was Principal Planning Officer and subsequently as a consultant.