THERE are lots of buzz words in local government. Jargon leads the way while action trails in behind.
Best practice and core values, empowerment and governance, stakeholder and functionality; words which usually have two main objectives: a) Keep the punters guessing, and b) Maintain the illusion that they are brighter than us.
My favourite bit of jargon is "consultation". The object here is to give the impression that what we think matters to them and that it might actually make a difference.
advertisement
Elderly hacks are a cynical mob. We've seen it all before and aren't easily impressed. We are especially unimpressed with "con-sul-tay-shun".
It rears its head in Darwen tomorrow when BwD Council's Neighbourhood Voices programme comes to town.
It's been hawked around several areas of Blackburn and now it's our turn "to explore openly the specific challenges and opportunities ... and to agree priority areas for action..."
No one has Darwen's interests more at heart than me.
But I won't be there. Another cynic summed it up at one of the Blackburn meetings.
He said he'd been coming to this sort of chat show for 10 years without seeing any action.
I had thought about it, but then I looked closely at the form to register an interest and came across the line: "When all the forms have been returned we will contact those selected."
So, no room for a local reporter who might be less than supportive of another expensive "consultation" exercise? Awkward questions? Not today...
What do we want for Darwen? What every community wants, of course.
A town centre with retail outlets to fill all the empty shops; more facilities for youngsters to keep them off the streets (and more police on them); inexpensive housing; good schools; a council that doesn't throw our money away; and litter-free streets where we can walk around at night without looking over our shoulders for rampaging hoodies and staggering drunks.
In the hands of weekend amateurs and kids, alcohol causes problems.
I thought the proposed borough-wide ban on street drinking was an excellent idea.
David Mallaby, the divisional police commander, thought so although he had some mild reservations about the possible speed of implementation.
I was surprised the recent council meeting didn't force through the issue.
The Coalition was for it and they have a narrow majority.
But it didn't help when the two For Darwen Party members who turned up left before the vote.
Their third member wasn't too well, apparently.
The Labour group wanted a closer look at the proposal and won narrowly. Opportunity lost.
On Wednesday at 7pm there's another "consultation", a youth PACT meeting between community police and youngsters in the church hall in Spring Vale.
The previous one in the area went well last October and no doubt the youngsters - much less cynical that me - will be expecting to hear that some of their ideas will soon be up and running.
Well done Harry, must have been difficult for you to admit that Labour voted against stopping drinking on our streets, knowing what a labour stallwart you are. A typical case of playing party politics at a local level, instead of caring for the community.
Well done Harry, must have been difficult for you to admit that Labour voted against stopping drinking on our streets, knowing what a labour stallwart you are. A typical case of playing party politics at a local level, instead of caring for the community.
Posted by: Unconvinced, Darwen on 12:38pm Mon 25 Feb 08
Consultation has two main problems. The first is that there is an assumption that the 'community' has one view. This is not normally the case, there are usually several views in the community. The second is that whoever is doing the consultation does not have infinite resources. All views in the community cannot be met because there isn't enough money.
Imagine a proposal for a new road. There are three possible routes and then there is the option for not building the road at all. What are the chance of the 'community' agreeing? Some people will not want the road built at all and people who would be affecting by one option or the other will not want it to be built on the route close to them.
Whichever option the Council chose, the supporters of the other options will complain that their views were ignored. Even if the Council chose the option favoured by most people, this would still be the view of a minority.
Consultation has two main problems. The first is that there is an assumption that the 'community' has one view. This is not normally the case, there are usually several views in the community. The second is that whoever is doing the consultation does not have infinite resources. All views in the community cannot be met because there isn't enough money.
Imagine a proposal for a new road. There are three possible routes and then there is the option for not building the road at all. What are the chance of the 'community' agreeing? Some people will not want the road built at all and people who would be affecting by one option or the other will not want it to be built on the route close to them.
Whichever option the Council chose, the supporters of the other options will complain that their views were ignored. Even if the Council chose the option favoured by most people, this would still be the view of a minority.
Posted by: David Wild, darwen on 12:41pm Mon 25 Feb 08
The Coalition would still have lost even if they hadf stoped. Labour voted against this and other thing on the night just face it they had more people there.
[bold]The bottom line is Labour voted against stopping drinking on our streets.
Shame on them.[/bold]
The Coalition would still have lost even if they hadf stoped. Labour voted against this and other thing on the night just face it they had more people there.
The bottom line is Labour voted against stopping drinking on our streets.
David Wild is talking nonsense.[bold] The police already have the powers[/bold] to stop people drinking on the streets. Has he not seen pictures of the police throwing the booze away confiscated from kids ? The police themselves have some reservations about this scheme - for example, it is a hot day and David Wild is walking down the street, annoying nobody, enjoying a refreshing can of cold lager. I'm sure he would be delighted to be a potential victim of this drinking on the streets ban ?
Labour were quite right to want to examine the proposals in more detail and how they would work in practice. The police welcome this approach too. David Wilde is against common sense !
David Wild is talking nonsense. The police already have the powers to stop people drinking on the streets. Has he not seen pictures of the police throwing the booze away confiscated from kids ? The police themselves have some reservations about this scheme - for example, it is a hot day and David Wild is walking down the street, annoying nobody, enjoying a refreshing can of cold lager. I'm sure he would be delighted to be a potential victim of this drinking on the streets ban ?
Labour were quite right to want to examine the proposals in more detail and how they would work in practice. The police welcome this approach too. David Wilde is against common sense !
Posted by: Grandma, Darwen on 10:35pm Mon 25 Feb 08
Harry Nuttall obviously knows more than most about what goes on behind the scenes in Darwen. Anybody out there throw a light on his line about one of the FD members, presumably Cllr Johnson, being, er, [italic]unwell[/italic] ?
Harry Nuttall obviously knows more than most about what goes on behind the scenes in Darwen. Anybody out there throw a light on his line about one of the FD members, presumably Cllr Johnson, being, er, unwell ?
[quote][bold]Dave[/bold] wrote:
David Wild is talking nonsense.[bold] The police already have the powers[/bold] to stop people drinking on the streets. Has he not seen pictures of the police throwing the booze away confiscated from kids ? The police themselves have some reservations about this scheme - for example, it is a hot day and David Wild is walking down the street, annoying nobody, enjoying a refreshing can of cold lager. I'm sure he would be delighted to be a potential victim of this drinking on the streets ban ? Labour were quite right to want to examine the proposals in more detail and how they would work in practice. The police welcome this approach too. David Wilde is against common sense ! [/quote] Dave, exactly right, they could use "behaviuor likely to cause a breach of the peace", (your example) this would allow the discretion to ignore someone enjoying his cold lager, but deal with the others who either are really drunk or getting that way. There are also many other, old fashioned sounding laws that could be used.
Similar to Harry's comments in his column, this seems to a an excercise by some councillors and staff to justify their existance, without realising we already have the mechanisms in place.
Dave wrote:
David Wild is talking nonsense. The police already have the powers to stop people drinking on the streets. Has he not seen pictures of the police throwing the booze away confiscated from kids ? The police themselves have some reservations about this scheme - for example, it is a hot day and David Wild is walking down the street, annoying nobody, enjoying a refreshing can of cold lager. I'm sure he would be delighted to be a potential victim of this drinking on the streets ban ? Labour were quite right to want to examine the proposals in more detail and how they would work in practice. The police welcome this approach too. David Wilde is against common sense !
Dave, exactly right, they could use "behaviuor likely to cause a breach of the peace", (your example) this would allow the discretion to ignore someone enjoying his cold lager, but deal with the others who either are really drunk or getting that way. There are also many other, old fashioned sounding laws that could be used.
Similar to Harry's comments in his column, this seems to a an excercise by some councillors and staff to justify their existance, without realising we already have the mechanisms in place.
[quote][bold]IanK[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Dave[/bold] wrote: David Wild is talking nonsense.[bold] The police already have the powers[/bold] to stop people drinking on the streets. Has he not seen pictures of the police throwing the booze away confiscated from kids ? The police themselves have some reservations about this scheme - for example, it is a hot day and David Wild is walking down the street, annoying nobody, enjoying a refreshing can of cold lager. I'm sure he would be delighted to be a potential victim of this drinking on the streets ban ? Labour were quite right to want to examine the proposals in more detail and how they would work in practice. The police welcome this approach too. David Wilde is against common sense ! [/quote] Dave, exactly right, they could use "behaviuor likely to cause a breach of the peace", (your example) this would allow the discretion to ignore someone enjoying his cold lager, but deal with the others who either are really drunk or getting that way. There are also many other, old fashioned sounding laws that could be used. Similar to Harry's comments in his column, this seems to a an excercise by some councillors and staff to justify their existance, without realising we already have the mechanisms in place.[/quote] You two cant honestly be trying to defend this dereliction of duty from Labour. Even Harry Nuttall who wrote this article states - "opportunity lost". To try and blame another party is to try and deflect from Labours failings. If either of you attended PACT meetings and talked face to face with the Police you would know that they too are dissapointed at losing what would have been [bold]extended powers[/bold] to reduce unacceptable behaviour on our streets. Trying to defend this action is even worse!
IanK wrote:
Dave wrote: David Wild is talking nonsense. The police already have the powers to stop people drinking on the streets. Has he not seen pictures of the police throwing the booze away confiscated from kids ? The police themselves have some reservations about this scheme - for example, it is a hot day and David Wild is walking down the street, annoying nobody, enjoying a refreshing can of cold lager. I'm sure he would be delighted to be a potential victim of this drinking on the streets ban ? Labour were quite right to want to examine the proposals in more detail and how they would work in practice. The police welcome this approach too. David Wilde is against common sense !
Dave, exactly right, they could use "behaviuor likely to cause a breach of the peace", (your example) this would allow the discretion to ignore someone enjoying his cold lager, but deal with the others who either are really drunk or getting that way. There are also many other, old fashioned sounding laws that could be used. Similar to Harry's comments in his column, this seems to a an excercise by some councillors and staff to justify their existance, without realising we already have the mechanisms in place.
You two cant honestly be trying to defend this dereliction of duty from Labour. Even Harry Nuttall who wrote this article states - "opportunity lost". To try and blame another party is to try and deflect from Labours failings. If either of you attended PACT meetings and talked face to face with the Police you would know that they too are dissapointed at losing what would have been extended powers to reduce unacceptable behaviour on our streets. Trying to defend this action is even worse!
Why did the two For Darwen Party leave early?Did I make a HUGE mistake voting for one of those clowns ? YES.Will I make the same mistake again?NO CHANCE.
Why did the two For Darwen Party leave early?Did I make a HUGE mistake voting for one of those clowns ? YES.Will I make the same mistake again?NO CHANCE.
I have attended every PACT meeting held in the Sudellside area over the last 2 years, and brought up the same views at the meeting on 11/02/08. I beleive that the police should be allowed and encouraged to use the powers they already have rather than fudging the issue with extra ones introduced by a council,. The way we are heading, we with have different laws in different towns, helpful to no-one, especially the police.
I have attended every PACT meeting held in the Sudellside area over the last 2 years, and brought up the same views at the meeting on 11/02/08. I beleive that the police should be allowed and encouraged to use the powers they already have rather than fudging the issue with extra ones introduced by a council,. The way we are heading, we with have different laws in different towns, helpful to no-one, especially the police.
Posted by: James Cronshaw, burnley on 2:34pm Sun 2 Mar 08
I don't understand why People think the Police would want to solve the crime problem. They are paid money to react to problems. Not solve their way out of a job.
Politics is more or less the same thing. A lot of meetings and discussions and expenses. I Listen to Politicians talk about the benefit system. When it is they who get the biggest benefit from being on the system.
I don't understand why People think the Police would want to solve the crime problem. They are paid money to react to problems. Not solve their way out of a job.
Politics is more or less the same thing. A lot of meetings and discussions and expenses. I Listen to Politicians talk about the benefit system. When it is they who get the biggest benefit from being on the system.
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
Print
Email this
Comment
