Thursday, August 31, 2006

Where were the Peninsula Councillors?

Watching NewsNight last night we couldn't help but notice that none of the three ward councillors for Peninsula appeared to be present. We can understand a couple of them perhaps not attending, but one of them's the Leader of the Council. Surely Chris Roberts should have been present at such a significant event?

After all, it's supposedly the Council that is putting the bid for the license forward, it's political leader ought to be present for such thing shouldn't he? Was he having a bathroom break when NewsNight were filiming?


Anonymous andrew said...

The woman they focussed on at the start was, I think, Mary Ney, our Chief Executive.

Perhaps the councillors weren't there because this was 'executive' stuff, not 'governance' stuff?

9:28 am  
Blogger said...

Yep, that was Mary Ney looking rather annoyed.

9:34 am  
Anonymous gmt said...

Is your spelling of this ward Freudian?

2:35 pm  
Blogger said...

We've fired the fool that wrote the post. Rest assured they have been beaten to within an inch of their life and sent packing.

2:46 pm  
Anonymous Paul Webbewood said...

Deputy Leader Peter Brooks led the Greenwich delegation, backed up by Mary Ney and what seemed a coachload of council officers and assorted quangocrats.

Almost all the examinees supported siting the regional casino in Greenwich. There were two exceptions, firstly an academic who argued that the effect of a casino could be better assessed if it were a stand-alone attraction (eg the Rainham Marshes in Havering) rather than part of a large entertainment complex at the Dome and secondly the misquoted chaplain Rev Malcolm Torry.

He put his case rather well but I thought overdid the cheek-turning by suggesting that the misrepresentation of the chaplaincy's views by AEG was just a minor misunderstanding exaggerated by the media.

The Panel chairman, Prof Stephen Crow had trouble speaking into his microphone but otherwise seemed a wily old bird, probing the Council on points where it may have exaggerated its case such as whether jobs really would go to local people and why was the estimate for job creation higher than that of any of the other bidders.

The excuse for holding the hearing in Central London rather than Greenwich was that they had expected to assess two London bids from Brent and Greenwich and had looked for a venue midway between the two.

3:09 pm  
Blogger Indigo said...

I have just watched last night's (Wednesday) "Newsnight" on the BBC web site.

I would just like to say to David Campbell: AEG DID misrepresent the views of the Greenwich Peninsula Chaplaincy. Anyone with an IQ of over 6 points (to borrow a phrase) can see that for themselves by comparing the two documents.

I would like to ask Gavin Esler: why didn't you remind David Campbell of what is actually in the planning permission document - and what is not, viz there is no mention of a casino in the original planning documents.

11:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home