Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Local organisations unfairly slated - Carole Burns (29th Jun 2012 - 08:09:34) The schoolboy name calling of Liphook in Bloom and The Liphook Day Centre by Mr Young of the Senior Citizens Lunch Club is dispicable. It would appear that Mr. Young did not receive the full amount of his grant application from the Parish Purse so he is hitting out at others that did. Does Mr. Young not realise that Liphook runs on the goodwill of the volunteers of its many organisations? I wonder how, with his unfortunate attitude, Mr. Young finds supporters for his own cause. Does he really think our Parish Council is so spineless that they could be 'bullied' into passing grant applications that weren't truely justified and of great benefit to the local community? One would think that the Herald reporter would know the volunteers concerned in the organisations mentioned in the article and not have been so gullilbe as to be hoodwinked!

Re: Local organisations unfairly slated - Frances (29th Jun 2012 - 11:31:34) Well said Carole. Once again extremely biased reporting on the front page of the Herald - Liphook in Bloom does a fantastic job in Liphook - and surely nobody could begrudge them their grant. All the work is carried out by volunteers and makes such a difference to the village. I am wondering if the last time Age Concern applied for a grant they were supporting the laundry - now this is being run independently perhaps this would make a difference to the amount of money the Parish Council were prepared to allocate?

Re: Local organisations unfairly slated - Katy - Secrectary Community Laundry (29th Jun 2012 - 11:55:11) Hi Frances, I believe Mr Young's lunch club is run totally seperate from Age Concern although he is also the Chairman of Age Concern Liphook so it can be confusing. You are correct that the laundry is totally seperate from Age Concern and I can confirm that it has not received any funding from them either. I believe Age Concern holds funds in excess of £100K so I am not sure why the lunch club could not be assisted by them. It seems Mr Young would prefer the tax payers of Liphook to keep supporting them. I think it is great they have been given a grant, and also free hire of the Millennium Centre too, to help give the elderly a lovely lunch facility each week, it's just a shame he has made such an outburst despite the support. I personally believe it is great that Liphook in Bloom, The Day Centre and The Lunch Club have all been supported by our Parish Council and hope they all continue to flourish for the good of the community.

Re: Local organisations unfairly slated - Mandy (29th Jun 2012 - 18:35:19) This is obviously sour grapes from someone who considers he did not receive the amount of money he feels is due for his organisation. As a family member of a couple who are active workers for Liphook In Bloom I can honestly say the hours that the VOLUNTEERS give Liphook residents to improve our village deserves much praise, acknowledgement and reward. As I understand it, this is why they received the donation they did. I am sure there is not one person who drives through Liphook who has not noticed the beautiful flower beds each summer, over 100 displays and baskets on lamp posts etc, the hours spent picking up litter, cleaning signs and generally making this a nicer place to live and thus putting a smile on people\'s faces! Why does the local newspaper not bring to everybody\'s attention the hard work put in by many local volunteers to help Liphook become a better place, not only Liphook in Bloom but many more too numerous to mention, instead of publishing one man\'s petty opinion! Well done Liphook In Bloom and thank you for all you do to make Liphook a nicer place.

Re: Local organisations unfairly slated - Bill (30th Jun 2012 - 10:04:55) Having read the article it seems to me that no one is critising any of the groups involved only the disgusting way the Parish Council is acting. For a councillor to bully his way through the process and defraud the public purse by including wages to volunteers. This councillor was one of the previous lot who were involved in many scams of the previous Parish Council. so it seems we have not made any progress. The original application for the grant was on true accounts showing a turnover of £9K, this obviously was not enough to comply with the Copuncil rule of 10% grant to figures were inflated fraudulently to ensure that they showed £26K. Thats what the compaint is all about. Liphook in bloom do do a marvelloue job, but its chairman the councillor manipulated the committee and forced his way on them, by breaking the code of conduct in not leaving the meeting and voting. So all you whinges, try seeing the true picture. This is NOT Bill Mouland, I have removed the incorrect assumption from the following post.

Re: Local organisations unfairly slated - Jean (1st Jul 2012 - 17:56:35) I think [Bill] has "the right sow by the ear" and he has spearheaded the heart of the matter, but I would replace the word "disgusting" which he used to describe how the Parish Council is acting with the word "undemocratic". Cllr Jordan should have left the room when discussion regarding funding for Liphook In Bloom was taking place and certainly should not have been able to vote. He is Chairman of Liphook in Bloom and he must have been well aware that he should have left the room, let alone making bad worse, by voting. If Cllr Croucher who was Chairman of this Committe had been doing his job correctly he have should have insisted that Cllr Jordan left the room. Cllr Jordan's behaviour was appalling and my stating this fact has no reflection on the worthiness of any charity or funding, particularly as I happen to think that Liphook in Bloom is a great charity and has many hardworkers who make Liphook look superb. This is all about the democratic process and I am relieved that the matter is being referred to the Standards Board. However, is anyone really surprised, given the track record of this council, particularly in the last year? Liphook & Bramshott Parish Council must be one of the most undemocratic councils of all time manipulated and driven by one power crazy, deranged councillor. If anyone who reads this posting is in any doubt as to whom I am referring then please read the posting dated 8 December, 2011 namely Bramshott & Liphook By Election - 8 December, 2011 and Mary's reply dated 19 December, 2011. Those two postings say it all.

Re: Local organisations unfairly slated - Philip Jordan (2nd Jul 2012 - 11:24:28) I have just returned from a vacation and note the incorrect and very misleading reporting in the Liphook Herald. I note that the article is not attributed to a reporter. No reporter attended the meeting in question. In summary I DID NOT SPEAK OR VOTE on the grant application by Liphook in Bloom. To put the facts straight. At the meeting of the Finance and Policy committee I declared that I had a “personal but not prejudicial interest” so far as concerned a grant application from “Liphook in Bloom” of which I am Team Chairman. “Liphook in Bloom” has received a grant as a “core client” over a number of years. The Code of Conduct guide for members, May 2007 in answering the question “What is a prejudicial interest”, states Your personal interest will also be a prejudicial interest in a matter if ALL of the following conditions are met. a) A matter does not fall within one of the exempt categories of decision (see below) b) The matter affects your financial interests or relates to a licensing or regulatory matter. c) A member of the public, who knows the relevant facts, would reasonably think your personal interest is so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest. Exempt categories of decisions relate to housing, school meals or transport, statutory sick pay, an allowance, payment or indemnity for members, any ceremonial honour and setting council tax or precept In my judgement and reading of the code I did not have a prejudicial interest. If a councillor’s interest is only personal then they may remain in the meeting, speak and vote on the matter. A Councillor on the committee suggested I should leave the room; as my interest was only personal there was no need for me to do so. I was not requested to leave the meeting. I STAYED IN THE MEETING BUT I DID NOT SPEAK OR VOTE ON THE GRANT APPLICATION FROM LIPHOOK IN BLOOM other than to give an initial explanation as requested of me, as would any representative of an application. I recommend visiting the Councils website to read the minutes. Should the article be correct in that a member of the public has taken the matter up with the Standards Board then I am happy to provide explanation of my judgement and understanding of the Code of Conduct to them. I also note that “spin” has been given in the article to the inclusion by “Liphook in Bloom” of the notional cost of volunteers time. We understand that it’s inclusion is standard practise on applications to grant awarding bodies, presumable to ensure that all applications, whether they be voluntary organisations or employing organisations, are viewed on a level playing field. I would appreciate Liphook Herald articles more if they took the time to check their facts, sought to produce a balanced article and were willing to state who provides such article for publication. As it stands they would appear to be following their own, or some other persons agenda. Philip Jordan

Re: Local organisations unfairly slated - Editor (2nd Jul 2012 - 11:44:32) Extract from Finance & Planning 11th June Minutes 48/12 APPROVAL OF GRANTS 2012/13 Home Start £250 The Peak Centre (aka Liphook Day Centre) £3,750 Royal British Legion Canada Day £250 Liphook in Bloom £2,300 Liphook Youth Club £1,500 - deferred Bramshott War Memorial Trust £250

Re: Local organisations unfairly slated - Jane G (2nd Jul 2012 - 12:22:38) I've just read the full minutes from the Editor's link above, and the facts speak for themselves. Mr Jordan did not vote and the Herald was wrong to suggest he did. Interesting how our local rag has yet again blown up a story to be something it's not! Those organisations, like Mr Young's Lunch Club, have been given permission to resubmit their grant applications using the same criteria used by Liphook in Bloom and Liphook Day Centre - this seems entirely fair to me, so I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about. Yet again someone with an axe to grind!?

Re: Local organisations unfairly slated - jean (2nd Jul 2012 - 17:05:39) Cllr Jordan would you please clarify the desciption "Team Chairman" Does this title mean that you are Chairman of a Team as in Working Party Team or are you Chairman of Liphook in Bloom. If you are the former then your interest would I think be personal. If however you are Chairman of Liphook in Bloom as stated in the Herald's article published Friday 29 June then your interest would be prejudicial. In the interest of clarity could you please elucidate. I would add that if you did not vote at the meeting you should take this matter up with the editor of the Herald as its report headed "Charities blooming great row is at best misleading and unhelpful and at worst inflamatory.

Re: Local organisations unfairly slated - Jane G (2nd Jul 2012 - 17:40:19) Jean, I can see where you are coming from on this, and I had to read the description of personal/prejudicial a couple of times to really understand it. I felt initially that Cllr Jordan's interest may be prejudicial according to the terms of item (c). However, on a second read the first paragraph states: "Your personal interest will also be a prejudicial interest in a matter if ALL of the following conditions are met" The vital word here is ALL. One would therefore assume that because this matter does not affect Cllr Jordan's own financial interest (item b) then it is not prejudicial. Putting all this aside, the fact that he did not speak or vote on the matter means that there was no wrong doing, and, according to the minutes, at the start of the meeting he did declare a personal interest. I agree Jean that the Herald should be approached as clearly they have reported incorrectly, without a reporter even being at the meeting from what Cllr Jordan has said!!

Re: Local organisations unfairly slated - Robert Douglas (2nd Jul 2012 - 20:06:38) I thought Age Concern had renamed itself Age UK? So what is this organisation that seems to be involved in some form of charity identity theft? And why on earth does it need to amass assets of over £100,000? What are the trustees plans for this money? How can the Charity Commission stop them trousering it, should they (like the senior management of Barclays) be so inclined? And how come the Herald (gosh - like the senior management of Barclays) can't count? It seems to me that Philip Jordan has been seriously maligned. I wouldn't know him from Adam, but he seems a good person, willing to put himself out for the community. Shame the Herald seems increasingly to plunge depths of shabby journalism even lower than the Murdoch stable - and that's saying something. I think Philip Jordan should be asked to give evidence to the Leveson inquiry. Pip, pip.

Re: Local organisations unfairly slated - Dawn Hoskins (5th Jul 2012 - 11:50:23) I have read the article in full for the first time today. I used to have the paper delivered but the awful, prejudicial and bias reporting whenever the Parish Council was mentioned got so bad that in the end I cancelled my delivery. I felt that the journalists involved in presenting the stories were just out to belittle certain councillors and it seems that this is what they will continue to do at any cost. I attended both meetings [the Finance and Policy meeting at which the whole system of the way in which we deal with grants was discussed, and also the Full Council meeting when it was raised again]. At the first meeting, I assumed that Councillor Jordon would leave the table while we discussed the Liphook in Bloom grant. He declared a personal interest but not a prejudicial interest. A lengthy discussion took place in relation to all grant applications and the way we [the Parish Council] deal with them. All councillors took place in this discussion and it was felt that our application forms needed to be updated. However, when it came to the Liphook in Bloom vote, only four of us voted. That was me, Councillor Easton, Councillor Poole and Councillor Croucher. The vote was split 2 – 2. The Chairperson of Finance and Policy then used his additional casting vote and made it 2 – 3 in favour of the grant. That was clear and is recorded clearly in the minutes. None of the councillors around the table felt bullied or intimidated – we all spoke as we felt. I thought I would rather allocate money to causes relating to people and their needs, and Councillor Easton felt that a lower amount would be more acceptable. Had we felt intimidated we would not have spoken or voted the way we did. It was awkward (IMO) discussing the grant with Councillor Jordan at the table as when someone has become your friend you don’t want to disappoint them, but nonetheless we spoke as we felt and as we have a duty to as councillors. At the Full Council Meeting, the issue was raised again. It was made very clear to Mr Young (and Gabrielle Pike the ‘journalist’ who was writing it all down), the Councillor Philip Jordon had not voted. Gabrielle Pike even came to the Parish Office to collect the minutes so she had it in writing who had voted. As the journalist had knowledge beforehand that Councillor Jordan had not voted on the matter, it is upsetting to find a front page article saying that he has and that the council were bullied etc. It makes it particularly bad when the Herald knew it was not true before they printed it. The standard of reporting that we have in the area goes from bad to worse – and it was already disgraceful beforehand. I notice that no name was attributed to the article – I wonder if that is because of ‘shame’. Although that would require a conscience before hand – so maybe not. I bet that we won’t get a front page article retracting it!

Re: Local organisations unfairly slated - Dawn Hoskins (5th Jul 2012 - 16:41:20) I would also state that although I agreed that it was awkward to discuss a grant application with a fellow councillor I did not report to the Herald or any other person that Phil Jordan had voted on the item. They already knew at the full meeting that he had not voted. Indeed, if a paper is 'allegedly' directly quoting a person who has given comment to them - I would presume it normal practice to contact that person before hand?

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home