Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Did the ODPM lean on the Council?

According to a comment posted by former Lib Dem councillor, Mark Pattenden, here, the Council cancelled the Decemebr meeting when the only ietm on the agenda was the Casino question. The Council leadership apparently claimed that discussing rhe casino was a waste of everyone's time and opposition councillors would be allowed a copy of the report they were submitying to the DCMS after it was submitted.

Why would the Council refuse to discuss the installtion of a massive super casino in the Borough with the elected representatives of the Council? Was there pressure from above at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that the report submitted to CAP was not coloured with negative arguments by those opposed to the casino? What role, if any, did Rosa D'alessandro play?

Labels: , , ,


Blogger Indigo said...

Am I the only one who suspects that the Government is stacking the deck? That it does not want Greenwich's candidacy discussed at all until "safely" after the Casino Advisory Panel has made its recommendation at the end of 2006? In case awkward facts emerge, such as the crime surge that always follows the opening of a large casino? It is obvious how the residents of Greenwich would react to that - if they knew ...

There is a pattern emerging, of the dead hand of this over-controlling and overly-fond of mega-corp Government keeping not only Councillors (other than the Government's patsies) in the dark but also failing to keep residents informed of the full facts, and - it would appear - gagging the local press (how do you do that, then, take the editors to lunch on the Terrace at the House of Commons?)

12:58 pm  
Anonymous CllrAWilson said...

I was going to ask some questions surround the number of people who used to work at Greenwich Council and who now work at AEG. And what role did Rosa D'alessandro have, but annoyingly the Council Meeting has been cancelled. Still I’ll just save them up for the next meeting.

2:11 pm  
Anonymous rostock said...

indigo - "such as the crime surge that always follows the opening of a large casino" - are you capable of making a post without trotting out this lie? It's not only repetative, but factually inaccurate.

9:38 am  
Blogger Indigo said...

To rostock (8.38am). If you are connected with the O2 and Anschutz in Germany, you should declare your interest. I assume that you are because only someone with a vested interest here is capable of claiming black is white: not a word of a lie, the evidence that a crime surge always follows the opening of a large casino is all over the web.

Berlin residents reading this might like to reflect on how they will deal with having a supercasino suddenly materialise inside O2/Anschutz's O2 World due to open to the public in 2008. I don't know anything about public consultation legislation in Germany but Anschutz is desperate to get huge US-style casinos into Europe, and forewarned is forearmed.

10:16 am  
Anonymous rostock said...

Indigo - I am not connected with O2 or anshcutz. I am just tired of the doom mongers who claim to speak for everyone in the area. I live in East Greenwich and I have yet to actually meet anyone here who doesn't want the casino.

You are the one who keeps making factually incorrect statements. Look at the real evidence.

The federal National Gambling Impact Study Commission in the USA found that the “casino effect is not statistically significant for any of the crime outcome measures.”

You should declare your interest as a killjoy scaremonger who thrives on unfounded hysteria.

10:42 am  
Blogger greenwich.watch said...

This is of course all very interesting, but surely the questions regarding undue influence remain do they not? Irrespective of ones position on the casino per se, the process by which the "consultation" is clearly questionable.

10:49 am  
Blogger Indigo said...

rostock, you need to become more questioning, less blindly accepting of the propaganda. Four of the 9 members of that Commission REPRESENTED GAMBLING INTERESTS. What other conclusion could they have been expected to come to?

“The NGISC did some good research and certainly compiled a lot of information,” says Earl Grinols, author of Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits. “But it did not fulfill its mission totally, because the commission’s makeup included too many members of the gambling industry, who didn’t want the commission to do any more than they allowed it to do.”

Four of the nine members of the NGISC represented gambling interests, which is not necessarily surprising. The gambling industry ensures its survival by influencing American politics. This is a little troubling, as the commissioners themselves acknowledged: “Virtually every aspect of legalized gambling is shaped by government decisions.” Whether on the state or the local level, these decisions range from the types of gambling allowed to the conditions under which establishments may operate.

As Greenwich Watch has intimated, this is a discussion that the public is not being allowed to have in Greenwich.

Please withdraw your unfounded allegation about "trotting out this lie".

11:17 am  
Anonymous rostock said...

Indigo cites something from a website "Vision.org is sponsored and funded by the Church of God"

Why not actually check the empirical evidence rather than making bland unsupported statements.

What has happened to crime in Melbourne when the supercasino opened there?

What are the crime rates per visitor in Las Vegas compared to other tourist areas of a similar but non-gambling nature?

Or do they not support your rant....?

2:44 pm  
Anonymous andrew said...

Hi Rostock.

I live in east Greenwich and I am profoundly opposed to the casino. Not on the grounds of crime but on the grounds that it will not provide the promised regeneration. I'm tired of our elected representatives failing to address the social deprivation issue properly.

I have set out my arguments here, so you can judge for yourself.

4:45 pm  
Blogger Indigo said...

rostock, you are Chris Roberts, and ICM£5.

I have done a lot of reading around this but I don't think that I have come across your vision org.

5:07 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rostock, I live in Annandale Road, East Greenwich. I dont want the Casino, furthermore, due to the murky going-ons, I would feel ashamed if Greenwich got the Casino.
Strange - I have spoken to a number of people who live in East Greenwich and all are opposed?!

12:04 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home