Arms and fists all up in the air again?

Last night was again the Council's AGM, we wouldn't have bothered to write a post as apparently it was very similar to last years. With councillors awarding themselves different jobs which have already been decided in closed door discussions. The Tories and Lib Dems made their usual plea for a more impartial mayor as it is constitutionally supposed to be an unbiased position, and not the former Labour Deputy Whip as the Council administration got.

Like we said we wouldn't normally bother to write about this, as it is about as regular as the tides in the Thames. However at the very end of the meeting we are led to believe that the often outspoken half of the dynamic duo, Cllr Paul Webbewood managed to lose control of his senses again. By all accounts he got up at the end of the meeting, marched over to the Labour front bench and threatened the Labour Councillor and Chair of Licensing Cllr Ray Walker. Why you may ask? Was it because his local watering hole was refused a late license? No, apparently it because Cllr Ray Walker wouldn't let Tory Councillor Eileen Glover be on the licensing committee.

So let's just go over that again, a Lib Dem Councillor tried to get into a fight with a Labour Councillor over the views of a Tory Councillor. An all-party Royal Rumble!

Room on your horse for three?

Would two little boys make room on their horse for one more?
We ask because we recently came across the following links and it looks like one of the Conservative Councillors, Cllr Truss, may be eyeing up the job of becoming the Lib Dem Whip. The Dynamic Duo must too be getting all exited at the prospect of increasing their numbers by 50%.

But let's face it as she used to be one of the fence sitters before moving over to the Tories to get elected its hardly surprising she's trying to keep close links with the Lib Dems.

See here;

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-the-academy-model-should-underpin-the-next-stage-of-education-reform-2225.html

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-the-budget-an-opportunity-for-a-new-approach-to-fiscal-policy-2326.html

Some answers on "Green, Blue, Black"

After finally getting our hands on the members questions from last months Council meeting it would like there were only 7,162 properties which did not have there bins emptied because they contained the wrong sort of rubbish in them. But that's not all, as there were also "2,000 green bins, 600 black bags and 400 nappies not collected in error." So at least now we know. These figures were just for the first week of the new rubbish collection plans. So who knows what it is up to now.

If anyone had problems getting though to Cleansweep to complain about the uncollected nappies smelling we the reason would be that there were over 20,665 calls to Cleansweep in January, Decembers was 7,306 for the whole month. So it looks like they were busy.

From what we've heard the only only thing of interest was the presentation by the NHS of the new service (cuts), that are being made to the hospitals that Greenwich people use.

Apparently the only thing of amusement was the Dynamic Duo attempting to justify the motion about nappies, or should that be motions in nappies? Either way one of the Councillors apparently asked them if they would like to collect their child's used nappies, as a sort of Lib Dem trial, to show everyone how it would work, before the Council took a proper decision on it. Well perhaps they wouldn't leave 400 nappy bags uncollected?

Former parliamentary and council candidate banned from casino meeting

It's been brought to our attention that the Council effectively banned a former council and parliamentary candidate from a meeting which was discussing the Casino. In October 2005, Chris Le Breton was asked to attend a Greenwich Pennisual Partnership meeting by the Bellot Street Tenants Association. At the meeting we've been told that Mr Le Breton asked a question about the casino to the Anscutz representation.

Following his attendance he was contacted by Andrew Parry, who works for the partnership and council. Mr Parry informed him that the meetings, which discuss the future of Greenwich as well as just the Casino, are not open to the public. He was then told he could not attend again.

According to its brief, the Greenwich Penninsula Partnership "works very closely with local communities and runs a consultative forum". Perhaps that ought to read that it "works very closely with the people it wants to and bans local resident group representatives who disagree with it"?

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?