6 June (Part 1) -
They’ve mastered all devices entertaining and rhetorical,
From strict, anaphoristic speech to highly metaphorical. (But you will need Patience)
(With apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan *)
How does Bexley council respond to questions? I think we know by now. I have
seen them lost and delayed well beyond target and lawful response times. I’ve
seen them dodged and I’ve seen them unacknowledged. I’ve seen repeats of what
has previously been discredited and I’ve seen non-answers and
I have seen untruthful answers aplenty. I’ve many times seen answers to entirely
different questions. I thought I had seen the lot but I hadn’t.
After Nigel Wise forced Richmond council’s CCTV cars off the road with his
persistent and incisive questions he turned his sights on Bexley. I warned him
that their standard practice was no answers and evasive answers but undaunted he asked the
difficult questions that brought Richmond council to nationwide attention.
Craske immediately
dodged the issue and did a disappearing trick, the parking management team followed him
and the Chief Executive at first pretended he wasn’t at home; then decided he
had better twist the Parking Manager’s arm for
she has a track record of
muddying the waters sufficiently to silence an MP. In the event she passed
the buck to her assistant, Greg Tippett. The questions were pretty much
unanswerable unless he incriminated the council, so he came up with an entirely
new evasion technique I hadn’t come across before. Maybe it will earn him a
bonus. He said that the questions were “rhetorical” and he saw “no benefit in
entering into protracted correspondence”. So a full month goes by and we get get
three lines to say that Bexley council won’t answer the questions because it
regards them as “rhetorical” and not needing an answer. Is that better or worse
than the “vexatious” label which has always been Bexley council’s favoured ‘Get out of jail
free card’ until now?
It was the same with the actual licensing of the CCTV equipped vehicles. If everything was
in perfect order Mr. Tippett and Co. should have been only too pleased to provide the
proof and send Nigel Wise away with his tail between his legs. We now have much the same response
over the matter of Mr. Peaple,
his warning notice and the unjustified visit by the police.
Mr. Wise has written again. In five working days he should have his answer but
don’t hold your breath…
Mr. Tippett,
Further to your accusation of “Rhetorical Questions” Please answer
the direct questions below:
1. Do you agree that Mr. Peaple acted completely within the law?
2. Do you maintain that Mr. Peaple deserved the attention of the Police?
3. Do you agree that Mr. Peaple and any other member of the public has the right
to assist the council, in a lawful manner, with its stated parking enforcement
aim of 100% compliance with zero penalties?
4.Would you prefer that members of the public desist from volunteering their
assistance, free of charge and in the spirit of David Cameron’s "Big Society" to the council?
A simple yes or no answer to these questions will suffice, but if you wish to
qualify your answers I would welcome a fuller explanation.
Yours sincerely,
There is already an FOI answer available which confirms that Mr. Peaple
didn’t break any bye-laws.
* From ‘Pirates’ appropriately enough.