10 July (Part 2) - A cut and dried decision?
While the News Shopper continues its steady decline - no attendance at council meetings, reprinting press releases with no added value, losing its senior reporters to the nationals and moving its headquarters to Sutton, the Bexley Times occasionally shows signs of recovery with in depth reports on local issues.
This week the paper version which I never see but is available on line, carries a
couple of good reports on local issues. The saving of the Old Manor Way playground (Pages 12 and 13) and
the latest Splash Park developments (Pages 16 and 17), all pretty
accurately reported too.
It’s true that most of the latter could be written by carefully studying the
consultant’s technical report but journalists often have no time for that degree
of detail any more, but Sarah Linney did.
Those who read
the Bonkers’ report may not
learn a lot that is new about the Splash Park developments, except that the
Bexley Times has been able to extend its report to cover the last few days.
It concludes with the most recent comments by Faye Ockleford, the Save the
Splash Park campaign secretary. The mains-fed water solution is not viable because it
would impede supplies (at the top of a steep hill) to residential premises.
There is no consideration of the commercial options
to which Anna Firth laid
claim during the election campaign and cabinet member Peter Craske has refused a meeting.
That is very different to cabinet member Alex Sawyer’s
reaction, he was always ready to
meet anyone at a moment’s notice from
the initial protest meeting to Anna
Firth’s called within two days of the election.
I have known about Craske’s intransigence for several days but decided that
making his words public might do the campaign no good at all. Craske is
well
known for acts of spite, however the Bexley Times report has to some extent let
the cat out of the bag.
So with the permission of the Splash Park people I can report that Craske said,
among other things…
A report will be presented to the Cabinet shortly for consideration. Until that
time, I won't be meeting anyone, on either side of the arguments.
That is to ensure we have approached the matter with fairness and without one
group getting an advantage over any other.
I think the campaigners are mystified by that; I certainly am.
What can be meant by “either side”? I was under the impression that there were
indeed two sides. The one comprised of mums and dads and children and the one made
up of people who share councillor Tandy’s views. “The Splash Park has got to go”.
If councillor Craske does not propose speaking to either side it could mean he
is going to make the decision entirely alone.
A charade he pulled of fairly
successfully when claiming credit for saving Old Manor Way.
It was a clever stunt but it was a decision made on financial and practical
grounds, not just dene holes and mine shafts but also Old Manor Way being in a
marginally Conservative ward. I would guess that a strongly Labour ward
(Belvedere) is at a serious disadvantage on top of which the monetary sums
involved are frighteningly large.
The Bexley Times reports that campaigners are beginning to think Bexley council
is intent on ‘cut and dry’. I’m tempted to say, ‘twas always thus.