Is It Your Intention To Continue Misleading The Public, Tom?

I SUPPOSE that no one wishes to spend all that money on producing Concord Pool flyers – only to find that the issue has gone away. And if you are a wannabe online publisher, it is difficult to ditch a story that has thrown your site into the limelight. But Tom Jea still has not updated his Concord pool ‘coverage’ to incorporate the joint statement released by the Borough and Town Councils regarding their discussions.

Instead his site continues to blast the furious message:-

Canvey Island Town Council are asking for Islander’s[sic] support, in a letterwriting[sic] and emailing campaign to local papers (with copies to the Borough Council’s Chief Executive, and peoples’ Councillors[sic].

The page then drops into savaging the Borough Council’s cabinet in a report about a Town Council meeting a month ago – on 25th March.

What Jea is failing to do (for the benefit of all those extra visitors his site is getting on the back of those flyers) is to inform readers that the Town Council will apparently be taking-over the responsibility for Canvey’s Sea Pool, and that both sides have agreed to seek advice about how this might best be managed.

The Borough Council actually distributed the following Press Release on 23 April; but perhaps Tom does not qualify for a copy – or is too busy to monitor their Website. (Notably, the Echo has not carried it – and the Town Council’s Website has not mentioned it either.)

The following Statement is issued on behalf of the Castle Point Borough Council and the Canvey Island Town Council.

‘The Deputy Leader of Castle Point Borough Council – Councillor Jeffrey Stanley and the Chairman of Canvey Island Town Council Town Councillor Nick Harvey said:-

“The first meeting of the Canvey Island Sea Water Pools Working Party took place Wednesday evening  (21st April).

“The meeting was useful. Councillors from both Councils have agreed to commission specialist advice to assist the discussion regarding the Town Council’s wish to take over responsibility for the Canvey Sea Water Pool on Canvey Sea Front.”’

So the Concord pool is apparently about to be taken over by the Town Council, and its precept used to repair, maintain and insure the pool. What is not yet known is just how much precious reserves will be ploughed into the venture. As previously reported, the Town Council will spend in excess of £200,000 more than is raised by islanders’ Council Tax Levy this year, leaving just £160,000 in its coffers for emergencies and schemes like this.

What is your opinion on this issue?..

… (22/02/2010) – If You Are Listening, Ray: Rebecca Has An Idea…

9 Responses

  1. Excuse me but has anyone worked out the figures on this?

    At the moment the cost of maintaining the pool is shared among all the residents of Castle Point. Now the Town Council are proposing that it should just be shared among islanders. And this in the biggest recession since the 20s that is not over yet.

    And Castle Point residents don’t use the pool? (Or should i sya puddle because it is far too shallow to swim in)

    Where is this Town Council leading us? As I understand it it is already taking over from the Borough council on other facilities – that those fewer islanders will be expected to financially support. While our CPBC tax will be kept under control our Town Council levy, that only islanders pay, will be soaring during the hardest times ever.

    Have you “no matter what the cost” people any idea of how much our taxes would rise if, God forbid, the ‘indpendents’ ever got their way to seperate the island from the mainland? Or maybe you are all on Council Tax benefit so the rises wouldnt affect you.

    What islanders should be doing is protesting against this bloody stupid town council!

  2. Oh dear, you really don’t like the e-magazine I edit, do you? I don’t really think there was any need to be so nasty. Without indulging in any snidey personal snipes- I’ll just answer the points you raise:
    1ST- We are not a wannabe online publisher, we publish several titles, some online, some printed. Town Talk itself used to be a glossy colour printed magazine covering Canvey, Benfleet, Rayleigh, Wickford and Basildon.
    2ND- We haven’t updated our pool section for the simple reason that we’ve been trying to find out what happened at the April 21st meeting- it was decided that the discussions would be kept confidential. The press release told us virtually nothing.
    3RD- Everyone involved in the situation (Town Councillors, MPs, etc.) advised the ‘Protect Our Pool’ group that residents sending letters and emails to those concerned would help the campaign to save the pool.
    4TH- What you say; that the Town Council will be taking over responsibility for the pool is plain wrong. They are trying to, but as it stands the vote remains to demolish the pool (although not until talks are finished, it has been promised now).
    5TH- I did see the April 23rd press release, but as I said, it tells us nothing other than that a meeting took place and that it was useful. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know if it was useful or not, and as a journalist I prefer to find out for myself.
    I realize this is only a blogsite, and doesn’t hold itself to any journalistic standard, like getting information right. Still, it might have been nice to check before posting such an inaccurate article.

    • Your magazine does not concern me, Tom. Your coverage of the Canvey sea pool does. In particular the way you have just jumped upon the cabinet’s original decision to close the pool without presenting your readers with any background information.

      You do not provide details of the cabinet’s 19th January agenda which contained a detailed assessment of all available options open to members; neither have you provided details of the two independent reports on the pool’s safety issues.

      In fact, you do not examine the pool’s safety concerns at all.

      Your space is devoted to mustering emotional support for the pool’s retention and rubbishing the council’s estimated expenditure and safety concerns without ever examining them.

      And this, forgive me, from your previous comment, is complete bullshit:-

      “It was just 8 people (the Cabinet) who had the power to decide. The OSC only had the power to vote on whether the Cabinet had reached their decision properly. Also, it has been alleged that the Committee was subjected to a 3 line party whip (although that is not proven, and is refuted).”

      I suggest you acquaint yourself with the wide ranging powers of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee as laid out in Article 7 of the Borough Council’s Constitution.

    • Talking of journalistic standards:

      “Also, it has been alleged that the Committee was subjected to a 3 line party whip (although that is not proven, and is refuted).”

      Anyone who knew anything about politics would know that was a lie because there are only two occasions on which a three line whip is ever employed. What is more ANY whips are only employed for party policy matters.

      You make it sound as though it is completely improper to utilise the whip whereas the fact is one line and two line whips are regularly employed to ensure the majority implements the manifesto it has been elected upon.

      Whips have been a part of party politics since its inception and are all about implementing party commitments in the house or chamber. They sure as hell are not used in committee.

      It has been alleged that Tom Jea is a complete and utter burke (although that is not proven, and is refuted).

  3. First the pool has not had any money spent on it for years (either by Borough or Town) hence the need for work now.

    Secondly Borough and Town are talking and discussing reports. The pool is not as yet saved, it could still go.

    Thirdly the Conservatives did not start the campaign to save the pool and if voted in will have to follow the rule of Pam Challis and Co whether they want to or not.

    And finally, your voting button is a con, I voted once to say it should retained and it told me I had already voted and I hadn’t but if I voted for any other item on the list is accepted my vote.

    Shame on you

  4. Cynical Observer, it was actually told to Lea Swann by a Conservative Cabinet Councillor in front of one of Conservatives own who is above reproach.

    • Then you won’t mind telling us when that conversation took place and who that “Conservative Councillor” and the “Conservatives own who is above reproach” are will you Liz?

    • I didn’t think so.

  5. Ted-
    I honestly don’t think you’re in any position to criticise, after the mass of totally wrong information you have put on this blog. The reports you refer to were 2 years out of date. You weren’t at the Overview meeting, I was.
    Anyway, I’ve seen how these blog things go- on and on, with everyone descending into personal abuse, so this will by my last comment.

    Cynical Observer-
    Isn’t it easy to hand out snide insults from behind a nice anonymous pseuodonym? Much easier and safer than saying them to somebody’s face, eh? I don’t take offence at insults not said to my face- I think its low.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: