Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Parish Council Meeting - Malc (26th Jun 2007 - 21:13:16) Hi, Does anyone know what happened at the Parish Council meeting last night (Monday) and who got on the council to fill the vacancies M

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Paul Robinson (28th Jun 2007 - 06:55:16) Have checked out the Parish Council's own web site using the link from this site http://www.bramshottandliphookpc.gov.uk and can find no mention of the minutes or election of new members at this meeting. So . . . no change there then.

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Mike Grimes (29th Jun 2007 - 00:55:27) We have had responses to to a few issues from a couple of retired parish councillors but a deathly silence from those who are currently on the council. Those who stood to represent us as parish councillors should communicate with us a bit better, preferably via this website, but at least through their own.

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Barry Hope (29th Jun 2007 - 23:03:42) Mike, I agree with you, there should be more communication and if people find it difficult to get to the parish or district offices then this, or their, website should be used to the full to communicate. I was at the parish council meeting as a member of the public on Monday when a question was asked about the public questions slot on the agenda. The questioner asked if it would be more beneficial to the public if the agenda item were moved to a later slot. The reason being was that the public could hear what councillors said in their debates on various topics so that they were better informed if they wanted to ask a subsequent question. The reply given by the clerk (not the chairman) was effectively that it had always been that way and in fact the public were lucky to have a question item on the agenda as there was not a statutory requirement to include it. I found this a strange reply as I have always believed in public accountability, transparency and openness in government at all levels wherever possible. It was almost as if the council were doing the public a favour and not providing it as their right. There wasn't really a cohesive answer from any of the council members either, which I find disturbing. The service to the public must improve and become more responsive and those who take an interest in council affairs should be given due respect and responded to appropriately. Best wishes Barry

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Candyfloss (30th Jun 2007 - 10:31:50) Barry I totally agree with you. Much more information should be freely GIVEN, not only when one or two individuals ask for it. I find the problem is with secrecy and silence only makes people THINK something untoward is happening. Also, on another topic an answer to one of my questions was to request copies of documents from Penns Place and personally trawl through forests of paperwork - not something an individual should do, but a statement, or an honest appraisal of the situation by those who were involved would suffice!! We also know that on certain subjects, descretion must be upheld, and we are all intelligent enough to realise that!!. Why oh why isn't their web site used - a must have accessory for the modern world of business. They can hold 'dinner functions' for loads of dignitaries and coucil members from other areas, but cant write a few words to the public!!

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Paul Robinson (30th Jun 2007 - 15:02:25) I note from the front page of this week's Liphook Herald that the Parish Council are to appeal for help from the public in formulating a parish appraisal. A survey form is to be sent out next April to every member of the community to find out what requirements the village has. Hmm, its clear that the P C does not read this site or they would be well aware of some of the concerns that the village has and the strength of feeling about such things as traffic congestion, speed limits, retail decay, old people care homes, litter, parking, school access. By all means canvass everybody in April, I predict that they will get less than 15% of the forms returned, and I also predict that some if not most of the above points will be mentioned. So why not start to do something about it now.

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Steve Read (30th Jun 2007 - 17:25:57) I must write to extend my agreement with all the posters on this subject. There seems to be a complete and utter silence on any issue from our PC. Since the debacle of the Scouts episode it seems to me nobody is prepared to stick their neck out and put their name to any information about any subject. Those of us on here who have raised points, especially about the worthiness of their new web site have been proved correct in our assumptions. I raised the issue of an update on the Youth Forum months ago, nothing! The most expensive crossing point ever constructed (probably in Hampshire if not the country) still has a lolipop lady working in all weathers. Why? The Headley Rd, got to be the worst road surface for miles around. For those on the PC who are not sure where that is, its the one that was resurfaced and then promptly dug up from start to finish about three times for the services. Mind you as the average speed on the Headley Rd is about 2-3 miles per hour during the morning and evening rush no worries there then. The school parking fiasco is well sorted now, all the way down the Longmoor Rd, anywhere you like up the Avenue and if you get really stuck the car park in Alldays. As Paul has rightly stated do we need a survey for these and many more issues which concern us as residents of Liphook. I think not.

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Niall (30th Jun 2007 - 18:16:08) I've got to observe that getting information out of the PC hasn't always been easy, and I have said as much at the few opporunities we have had to discuss planning aplications and the like. It isn't always possible to call into the Parish Office when you work away from Liphook, although the staff were supportive when I managed to call in recently - but haven't replied to any emails since; although I can't help wondering what will be done with the comments from the surveys with the current track record on communications...

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Candyfloss (30th Jun 2007 - 22:54:32) Why wait to send out forms?. A simple form on their web site could be filled in by ALL reading this site at least, I would presume, and no fears of 'losing' any, or the hastle of posting them (depending on the PO situation!!) Seems easy peasy? then they can start to complie alterations, that otherwise would take another lifetime to implement if the current situation is anything to go by!!

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Eneida (1st Jul 2007 - 11:18:23) I've often wondered why the PC, with the exception of Freddie and Barry, have always been so reluctant to get involved with this website or even now with their own. Perhaps they're uncomfortable with the technology and feel it's a new fangled gimmick that will never catch on...I believe someone said that about television once!! Whatever the reason, it does seem that they're missing a great opportunity to be really in touch with their parishioners and I agree with Candy that this proposed survey should be posted on this website or their own...makes much more sense than just using snail-mail and probably would work out cheaper. Eneida

Re: Parish Council Meeting - MARY ARBER (2nd Jul 2007 - 08:58:17) Going back to Malc's original question, who did get on the PC last Monday ? I put myself forward for one of the co-opted places, as I believe the youth (of which I am not one - but have two teenage girls) of the village are not listened to or represented fairly on the pc. I was unable to attend on Monday evening, but received a letter on Friday saying that they had eleven applicants and only four places and I was unsuccessful. There is no indication of who got in, but according to the letter, the experience and skills were wide ranging. Maybe somewhere, sometime, we will get to hear who did get in and what skills etc they bring to the pc. Personally, I will not hold my breath for the information, again, sadly. more secrecy. Mary Arber

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Eneida (2nd Jul 2007 - 11:31:51) If 11 people put their names forward to be co-opted I wonder why they didn't come forward sooner....then we could have had a proper, democratic election!! On the other point about who's on the PC aren't they obliged to publish a list? I don't know the rules, but perhaps Barry or Freddie could tell us? Eneida [editor, the last update we have had (last year) can seen here committeesreps.pdf

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Mike Grimes (2nd Jul 2007 - 12:17:26) I agree Enieda, Maybe it was because the system does not allow us to be notified that some current members were standing down until after nominations have been closed. New candiates may have been wary of standing against the current incumbents. Sad, I would have like to have seen a fight.

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Freddie Dawkins (2nd Jul 2007 - 14:55:27) Hi, Mike, Eneida, all here - The successful candidates - whoever they are - will be publicised. I would have expected the Herald to run a story on Friday but there was virtually no Liphook coverage at all. I don't know if the PC has written a press release - they normally would send an announcement out. Barry and I have tried to get as much PC info on this website as possible ever since we joined the Council, 4 years ago. The editor has always been really good at accepting messages from us - but we always did it informally and not officially. At one stage we were advised that it would be better if we refrained - we decided to ignore that suggestion! There's certainly no technophobic issue - more a case of Councillors probably not having enough time. A decision was taken some time back (I was not around) to set up a PC website. I have to say the progress has been incredibly slow and the editor of this site did offer to help the PC. For whatever reasons, this offer was never taken up. On the Village Appraisal: just so you know, this should have been done a loooong time ago. Special software was purchased to do it - and some preliminary work was done. Then it all fell into a black hole. I know there were distribution problems with the Post office etc etc. Anyway, it's something that's way behind schedule and hopefully it will finally get done. Shame of it is that one or two councillors who were trying to get it done have since left the PC. That's why the new Council is asking for volunteers to get the whole project moving again. regards to all.

Re: Parish Council Meeting - L. (2nd Jul 2007 - 16:01:36) I don't really want to write this post as I have always believed that I should be supportive of local people who are prepared to give their time and energy voluntarily to serve on the Parish Council, but I am sorry to say that in the past few years, I have lost all faith in some of our Parish Coucillors, and, as a result, in the Council itself. I never thought I would say that, but I feel the time has come. The more I have seen, the more I feel we are being badly represented. I think the problem is that many of us feel that if we are not prepare to stand for election ourselves, we do not have a right to comment, and there is a certain logic to that, but on the other hand, should we just stand back and let the council behave as they please? No of course not. I am pleased that the problem does not appear to be that members join the council with just one issue or grievance to air, nor that they have party political motives. But unfortunately, it's a more subtle, insidious and hidden problem. Although most of the Councillors over the past few years have stood and served for the right reasons, and have done their best with purely the interests of the village at heart, I belive that now there are a very small number who I will not name for fear of being accused of libel, who wield unwarranted and strong power and influence over the others. They have turned our Parish Council into a body that people do not admire or support. These powerful and admittedly clever few, appear to have formed a small clique and they work together to ensure that only the issues which fit in with their views and aims are actioned. Priority number one appears to be making money even at the expense of quality of village life, but their efforts on this seem to frequently go hideously wrong. They seem to spend more time discussing and arguing against proposals than being positive and proactive and making things better. I feel they and we should question their motives and their agendas.......have they taken on the Councillor role to fulfil their need for power? Are they in the laps of the District Council who are always pressurising them to reduce costs and raise more income? Do they care more about their own public persona than the needs of the villagers? Are they merely hoping to cover themselves in glory and looking for praise from us all for their prudent management of village affairs? I'm sure they would deny these accusations vehemently, but in that case, they should come out in the open and tell us what they do stand for. Conspiracy theorists will always fill in the gaps when there is a lack of information. Few people seemed to question why such an unusually large number of Councillors chose to stand down at the last election. It would be useful to hear frank opinions from more of them now they are free to speak. I believe the rot started a number of years ago with the disgraceful treatment of the Millennium Hall Committee when the Council forcibly ousted them (I believe while the Chairman was on holiday). Soon after that they cast their eye around to see where else they could make money and focussed on the Scouts and Guides. The latter were thankfully not as easy a target as these few Councillors had hoped, but unfortunately it cost the taxpayers lots of money to cover the Council's legal fees, quite apart from all the time wasted. There have been numerous other issues where the council has either opposed or just not supported villagers over the past few years. They are brilliant at talking about issues and looking busy but nothing substantial ever comes of their deliberations. He may not be universally liked, but at least Andrew Ellis a councillor from previous era, tried to do something positive for the youth of the village, and he achieved his aims. Also we clearly knew what he stood for and why he had volunteered. This Council has over several years had numerous meetings and consultations. fine talk and promises about providing facilities for young people, but nothing has changed. Same with other issues such as school parking etc. In common with others I would like to know not only who has recently been co-opted onto the council, but also exactly how the choice was made from the eleven applicants. I want to know that Mary Arber's application was not turned down just because the Councillors knew that, being a dynamic individual, she would not fit in to their cosy little clique and would make feathers fly. Regarding communication with Parishioners, I do not believe the Council can hide behind the excuse of not being familiar with technology. I recall the Editor offering to assist them to use this website a good while ago, but that was not taken up. And how hard is it to write a summary of the minutes of council decisions and discussions and click ??? If they are serious about wanting to communicate with us, but have genuine good reasons for not using this site, let them spend some of our tax on getting technical help for their own site. I'd rather they spent it on that than on yet another expensive paper PR exercise finding out what they should already know we all want. Lastly, and this is a general statement of fact, not an accusation, I would like to comment simply that it should be remembered that the role of the Parish Clerk is just that, a clerk. His or her job is not to be in charge of the council or get involved in decision making, just to look after clerical administration. Enough said. [editor - the update list of council members has just arrived council-2007-2008.pdf]

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Freddie Dawkins (2nd Jul 2007 - 19:47:58) L - Perhaps you should tell us your first name at least? Or your affiliations? I won't go through your posting in detail, and much of it is reasonable enough. But you are promulgating a myth about what really happened with the Trustees at the Millennium Centre. And it''s also a bit pointless having a go at the PC when you obviously are not fully aware of the Scouts and Guides long history. I know what's been published in the Herald over the past few years has been given the credence of complete truth by some - but for those on both sides who have been involved in the two sets of disputes, there's a lot that has not been said and probably never will be. I do know the whole story on the S&G, I wasn't on the PC for the Trustees saga - and glad I wasn't. But if you take the time to go and read the documents, it tells you a lot about what really happened. I think the judge got it right on the Scouts and Guides - he advised and recommended that there should be no further public comment by the PC or the S&G. Pity that some ignored that advice at the last Scouts annual meeting and used it as a public platform to peddle their own propaganda. To their credit, some of the leaders did say afterwards that what had been said was poorly judged - and only keeping a very selective history of the saga alive. I would totally support you in what you say about Andy Ellis. It's a great pity Andy had to leave the PC for personal reasons. But good news is that Greg Amey has been able to rejoin the PC. Anyone who cares about our community will be delighted to see Greg back.

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Candyfloss (2nd Jul 2007 - 21:04:06) Having read 'L's' post phew!!. One point raised was the parish Clerk. I may be wrong here but are they paid officers? and in the Haskell Centre most of the time? If so, should it not be part of the remit to post details of meetings etc on their web site? I fully understand that councillors can lead busy lives themselves so mundane tasks should fall to one person only. Then you would not get mix impressions of how one viewed the situation to another. Too simple? I am also surprised that when councillors 'get it right' mountains of praise is bestowed upon them, but when wrong - total silence.

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Barry Hope (2nd Jul 2007 - 22:09:44) Hi L I agree with Freddie, there are always two sides to every story but I can honestly say that the council (or most of them) as it was then, did what it thought right (some of it under my chairmanship) and that, if all information were to be in the public domain, this could be seen to be the case. Councillors did not always agree and often debated strongly on the desired outcomes for a number of issues. This is good but it meant that sometimes a point of view was unsuccessful at turning the decisions around. But I really don’t want to turn this into a S&G debate (I am just so pleased that they are still there in the Millennium Hall and that they can look forward to a long future) but instead I think you were closer to the problem when you talk about the council’s internal operations. It’s good to see someone (despite remaining anonymous) having their say about their very real fears. I am sure others also feel the same way but do not wish to put their heads above water. As you may or may not know I resigned from the council for a number of reasons. One of which was to pursue a district council seat which I was unsuccessful in getting (hey, that’s democracy for you). I then thought I would put my name forward to be co-opted back onto the parish council. The result was that I was not considered experienced enough or in possession of enough skills to take on the role !!! Could it be I rattled too many cages when I was there? Keep on asking questions and probing, as I will, now that I am a humble member of the public, it leads to healthy debate and scrutiny and aids democracy. It is high time accountability was taken seriously by all elected (or co-opted) council members at whatever level. Regards to all Barry

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Freddie Dawkins (2nd Jul 2007 - 23:11:24) CandyF - We have three staff in the Parish Office at the Haskell Centre - the Parish Clerk, an Assistant Clerk and an Information Officer. Having been a Councillor and a volunteer in the Parish Office at various times, I can assure you that the people there work hard and for the community. It's not an easy job, serving in the office. One minute you are deadling with residents, the next with councillors, and the next with other government officials. Our clerk also gives a lot of his time, for free, to cover duties at the Millennium Centre and very often does unpaid, out of hours work at weekends and in the evenings. Unless more people get involved in local issues and are prepared to give of their time, then it's all too easy to lay the blame on a few who have been prepared to stick their heads above the parapets. I found it interesting that so few people were prepared to stand for election, yet lots came forward to be co-opted after the non-election. Yet so much talk here is of them and us - as if the councillors are somehow different and don't actually live in the community. I'd say the biggest motivator to stand for election at Parish level is of concern for the community. Thank goodness, at PC level, politics does not really play a part. I'm sure there will be some in the Parish who will never accept what happened with regard to the Trustees or the S&G. But Barry makes the most valid point - now that the S&G have assured tenancy by way of leases, they can stay in the halls and carry on with their good work. And that has to a real community benefit.

Re: Parish Council Meeting - L. (3rd Jul 2007 - 04:03:28) Thank you Freddie and Barry for your replies, which were interesting in part for the points you didn't comment on as well as those you did. However, whatever your respective virtues (and weaknesses?), at least we hear from you on this site and know you by your words and deeds, which is more than can be said for most if not all existing Councillors and we all respect and appreciate you both for that. I hope someone can answer Candyfloss's question because it is something I and others would like to know too. Both Freddie and Barry touched on a point which encapsulates the heart of my worries over the workings of our council............. Freddie said, talking of past disputes: "there's a lot that has not been said and probably never will be." , and Barry wrote: "I can honestly say that the council (or most of them) as it was then, did what it thought right (some of it under my chairmanship) and that, if all information were to be in the public domain, this could be seen to be the case." Barry, Freddie or anyone, can you PLEASE explain in straightforward layman's terms WHY information cannot be in the public domain so that we can then see what you want us to see, ie, that the Council are acting in our best interests? Who is being protected by not telling? Please note that this is a general point as I very definitely don't wish to get involved with the rights and wrongs of specific issues, particularly those now past, but I am asking this as it relates to local democracy and accountability. If the Council is dealing with a personal or judicial matter or issues of security, I can accept the need for discretion and a certain degree of secrecy, but, with the exception of matters relating to an individual or family, once problems have been resolved, I do not understand why the full facts cannot then come out. Imagine a wife who suspects her husband may be having an affair, but when she asks him about it, he says he is above board but refuses to talk about his behaviour, and says she must accept that he keeps secrets from her. How is she going to feel? Secrecy means distrust simmers under the surface, and that is what I see is happening in our village. I accept that it makes people uneasy that I do not feel able to publish my name, and am unwilling to explain my (genuine and in my view justifiable!) reasons for not doing so. But this in itself is an ironic illustration of the very point of my post: lack of full disclosure creates mistrust, (in this case of me). However, I am only one individual (I am simply a concerned local resident, nothing more), so I'm not that important, but when it comes to our elected and co-opted representatives, openness is highly important, in fact crucial if we are to trust them, and if they wish to earn our respect. Freddie suggests taking "the time to read all the documents", but in my experience, notes of meetings which are written with the knowledge that they will be available for public scrutiny do not always reflect the whole story. But more importantly, the public do not expect to have to go to the Parish office and trawl through documents to learn the truth, we expect to be told and to feel that the Council is really keen to communicate openly with us. At present it doesn't feel as if the Council are on our side, it feels like an uphill struggle to find out where to get information, followed by a battle where we have to plead, demand and beg for the facts. Although few people trust the press to be unbiased, local papers are currently the only regular source we have to turn to for information. In the 21st century, an annual Parish meeting and a paragraph or two in the Community Magazine is not an adequate way to connect with local people. I am not asking for every tiny item of dirty washing (and no doubt there is some) to be hung on the washing line, especially on issues that are now past. But for the future we Parishioners want to know more about our Councillors, their backgrounds and beliefs and what they are passionate about. We want to hear their opinions and plans on any substantial issues that the Council debates. We want to know in advance what is on the Council's agenda and how we can get issues that matter to us onto it. When there is a big or important project, we want to be given an idea of how much money is being spent on our behalf at the time, rather than having to wait to see the audited accounts by which time it is too late to comment. If communication was well managed, local people would be less apathetic when it came to local elections and would feel that they knew who to vote for (I voted unenthusiastically and out of duty in District Elections in May, but had little or no idea what those people stood for, it's not just here there is a problem). Maybe some people would be more willing to get involved in Parish affairs if they knew more about what is involved, but at the very least, if Councillors made genuine efforts to reach out to those they serve, more people would feel that they wanted to support the Council and work with it to make our great Parish even greater.

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Candyfloss (3rd Jul 2007 - 10:30:30) Freddie, When ever did I say that people dont work hard enough!!! The point was in answer to why no-one post on their website information due to most councillors being too busy. My point was well if they are too busy why can't someone else do it - perhaps the administrators for the council - that was all. Now it seems they are all to busy and have to give up their time for free - and cant do it either - what is the point of the web site, just close it down and forget it. Someone MUST be found to do this job - as you have been serving the community for 4 years who do you think should do it? and should it be a paid position or one given freely by someone else!!

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Candyfloss (3rd Jul 2007 - 10:41:14) Barry, Your comment of not being accepted on the PC for the reasons stated, Mary saying(or someone on her behalf) almost the same thing - are our PC only co-opting those that they can mould into THEIR way of thinking? Not a criticism but an observation?

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Freddie Dawkins (3rd Jul 2007 - 11:07:47) CandyF - Calm down, dear. It's only a chat board! Maybe it's the weather getting you down?

Re: Parish Council Meeting - liz (3rd Jul 2007 - 11:25:14) Freddie - could your condescending attitude be symptomatic of a wider problem with the PC generally? Surely not!

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Eneida (3rd Jul 2007 - 12:14:25) I've just been looking at the new list of Parish Councillors....am I right in thinking 'B. Easton' stands for Barbara, who used to post on here?? And if so, does that add up to TWO women and TEN men...WOW Eneida

Re: Parish Council Meeting - anon (3rd Jul 2007 - 12:51:09) 3 women!

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Candyfloss (3rd Jul 2007 - 19:20:39) Freddie Where ever did that come from??? I am not at all upset, and stand totally by my comment. Unfortunatley if that is how you deal with questions in an open chat situation, having been a councillor really doesn't surprise me in the least. To blame the weather is just avoiding the question, Who do you think is best suited to post on their website?? Candyfloss - and not your dear!!

Re: Parish Council Meeting - nigel newman (3rd Jul 2007 - 19:21:16) Hi All, Barry, I was some what surprised to read your response to Mike regarding last Monday night’s parish council meeting in the interests of transparency and openness, which you believe in where ever possible (as stated in your reply.) I feel that it is only fair that you should have mentioned that the member of public who asked the question was in fact your wife and district councillor Eve Hope. I wonder why she had never chosen to ask you the same question while you were serving as chairman of the Parish Council. Further more why if you felt it needed to be addressed did you not do so in your time as Chairman. I felt that the answer’s given by Councillor James, the chairman John Tough, and the additional information given by our very able Clerk was more than sufficient. Unlike Mrs Hope’s answer on procedure at district level, when she had to seek help from a fellow district councillor. I was most disappointed to see a possible influence in your position along with that of “L’S” that the Clerk may in some way be involved in “decision making”. The Clerk is there to advise and help, and to run the parish Office, which he does very well. Lastly with regard again to “ L ‘s” posting I am delighted with all of those who are on the present council. I believe we are open and you should be aware of what I stand for as I have been that way from the start. Comments like yours on conspirasy, and inaccurate statement on other issued only inflame old wounds and divisions. We are in exciting times for Liphook , lets all work together to make an even better place to live for all of us. Ps Eve I would be interested to know how many time’s as a district councillor you have attended the parish office, in order to acquaint yourself with the parish staff and local issues. PPs L Your whole approach seems to be one which is secretive, divisive and inflammatory. Maybe if you are sincere in your statements about openness and accountability, then you should put a name to ‘L’ . Rather than allowing the rest of us to believe that you are part of a conspiracy and well be having you string’s pulled by others. Cheers Nigel

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Steve Read (3rd Jul 2007 - 21:33:24) Blimey! Keep this up we could have the whole PC on here shortly, old and new.

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Freddie Dawkins (3rd Jul 2007 - 21:57:54) Especially for Liz and CandyF - Ha Ha! Somehow I thought I might tease a reaction out of you both. Why not own up then and admit who you really are? And what your vested interests are. Shall we start with the sometimes hypocritical postings of CandyFloss? Playing it both ways when she has the opportunity to promote herself and her business - and then asking questions to deliberately provoke more publicity for her other persona? All our IP addresses are logged by the editor on this site - perhaps it's time to say no more postimgs unless you use your real name. It's certainly time to stop you two masquerading as different people when it suits you. What about it editor - time to clean up the users?

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Barry Hope (3rd Jul 2007 - 22:46:42) • Nigel • WHAT !!!! • When are you ever going to wake up and smell the coffee and accept that two people can be married but share different views. My wife and myself are separate and distinctively different people when it comes to our approach to council matters. What on earth has the fact that she is my wife got to do with her right to ask a perfectly straight forward public question in her own right? Does it in any way make a difference to the question, no matter what it was about? Why do you consider that I should always mention this? I fail to understand your logic and reason for this. • I don’t know why she chose not to ask me when I was Chairman, I did not know she was going to ask it! I am sure she would have done if she wanted to. Do you always think of everything in one day? • I think you ought to get your facts right. Just where in my posts did I mention that I thought that the issue of public questions on the agenda should be addressed? Have you checked? That’s right, I didn’t. What I did state was that I thought the manner of the clerks reply was strange given that he said that the public were lucky that they had the item on the agenda at all as there was no statutory requirement for it. Not the best way to win friends for the council was it, or do you think his reply was perfectly acceptable. If you do then I really do worry about the future of the council. • Again Nigel, please get the facts right. It was the clerk who answered first and then the councillors chipped in with advice. Funny that, I thought you said; and I quote “The Clerk is there to advise and help, and to run the parish office” end quote. The clerk was there to advise, not to answer public questions on behalf of the council, unless invited by the chairman to confirm the facts. Not one councillor even thought of saying that the council could consider such a change, that would have been too easy and helpful. • I do not understand what you are saying when you said you were disappointed to see a possible influence in my position along with L’s. Where on earth does that come from, I don’t know L and even if I did my views are my own and no one else’s. I think you need to be careful about suggesting what you don’t know to be true. • You said there were old wounds and divisions that I was in danger of inflaming if I made comments as a member of the public. Is there something you are not telling everybody then ???? • Yes at last I agree with you (surprise), Liphook is a very good place to live in and it has an exciting future. But in order to do that you (and the council) need to carry people with you and the only way to do that is to be open to accountability in all your actions and deeds and, most importantly, there must be no hidden agendas for any decisions taken, whether on Parish matters or internal affairs. • As I said earlier, my wife and myself are totally independent people when it comes to council matters and I will not answer your question about her visits to the Parish Office. What I will ask however, is How many times did you attend the parish office, in order to acquaint yourself with the parish staff and local issues like the S&G for example, before becoming a councillor. That’s right, not once. I certainly cannot remember ever seeing you at even one meeting, and I was there for at least five years. Yet you made a lot of public comment prior to your election which was certainly not based on fact as you well know. The words Kettle and Pot come to mind. • I will not comment on your words addressed to L as that is for him or her to answer. Enough said Nigel, unless of course you know better. Barry

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Nikki (3rd Jul 2007 - 22:48:10) As 1 of the new co opted Councillors for Bramshott & Liphook,I look forward to meeting you all and serving the Parish to the best of my ability. Regards, Nikki Young

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Mike Grimes (3rd Jul 2007 - 22:50:25) Well that clears that up then. You're right Nigel, it's not rocket science. It's merely a compliant defence of what we all see as the problem. L. Tell us your name, then we will know who to vote for next time.

Re: Parish Council Meeting - liz (4th Jul 2007 - 08:21:18) What are you scared of, Freddie?

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Candyfloss (4th Jul 2007 - 09:16:14) To all you 'we must know who you are' people. WHY?? Surely the questions asked are far more important than who is asking them!! Freddie, I will start on saying that if you want honesty, why when we have spoken many times over the past few years and in particular recently have you never mentioned you were also a councillor!!. I only ever knew you as Freddie and never anything more. Many people feel it necessary to air opinions but not disclose their name - rather like the parish office, when people make suggestion, mistakes etc, we never get to know who they are!!. If you are hell bent on people being honest and open in who they are - then you must and other councillors be prepared for more postings revealing information that some would rather the public did not know. There are many converstation had with councillors, who express their own opinions and would cause excessive embarrassment to all. So please stop trying to offset the PC problems with individuals who raise legimate questions. Sometimes people find them selves in situations not of their making - get my point. I am sure there are those who would not like details of those posted here!! There is only 2 people who know who I am and if you choose to disclose it yourself your total discretion is blown apart!! Nothing I have said on this site is to raise awareness of my professional standing, but much more of a personal comment! You still have managed not to answer the question of who do you think should do the job of being open and honest by posting informtation to the public on their web site? Which in it self was exceedingly low key and mundane request - but I have the feeling it is now something much more. I am glad that you find posting such flipant words gives you entertainment and if you want ruffled you haven't even got to first base!! To Councillors, Do you really believe that these postings are part of a larger conspiricy plot to achieve what exactly?. Or just concerned individuals with questions?

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Freddie Dawkins (4th Jul 2007 - 09:57:09) Liz - A straight answer from you, now that would be scary! Come on, Liz - you're always quick to jump on selective bandwagons - why not tell us who you are?

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Freddie Dawkins (4th Jul 2007 - 10:44:38) CandyF - Crikey - if you didn't know I was a parish councillor, after all the messaging here, I am just a little baffled! You can't accuse me of being shy when I was a councillor! You can't have it both ways - on the one hand sending messages under one name, then even sending replies to yourself to further your cause. Come on, be honest if you are going to continue posting here. A lot of what you have said, I would totally support and have done here, in relation to development of Station Road, the fabric of the business community, making sure Sainsburys play by the rules, etc etc. As to accountability and the PC - it seems to me that some people here are only too quick to have a go at the PC, then moan when they are given info to help them. Like: "I haven't got the time to read paperwork", or "Why should I have to go to Penns Place". In all honesty, how many times have you attended a PC meeting? You live locally, so why not? They are normally at 8pm in the evening, mostly on Mondays or Thursdays. Hardly inconvenient to most people. If it's all too much effort - what can I say? All councillors have their home addresses and telephone numbers listed. You can always write to them or telephone them. If you find that too much trouble, call the Parish Office and they'll give you all the details. And I see that Nigel and Nikki have posted in the last couple of days and they are serving councillors, speak to them at least. Councillors want to know what people think - that's why Bramshott & Liphook organises extra public forums, to gather info on views and concerns. An Ex-Parish Councillor!

Re: Parish Council Meeting - liz (4th Jul 2007 - 11:56:24) Freddie Your insinuations have annoyed me intensely which no doubt was your aim. Firstly, Liz is my real name and if I told you my second name I doubt it would mean anything to you. Secondly I have never, ever posted on this site under another identity (so you can put your paranoia back under wraps) and as far as I'm aware everything attributable to 'liz' (not liza or L) has been written by me. (The editor does a good job.) Thirdly I am a very straightforward person and my answers/comments have always been my own opinion and as straightforward as I can make them. As for 'jumping on the bandwagon' as far as I'm aware this is a site for anyone who is interested in what goes on in the village and is an open forum - if people don't join in it seems a bit pointless. Most members of the PC do an excellent job and but some seem to be just running around trying to manage what people think, stem any genuine criticism and wouldn't recognise an honest opinion if it fell on them. Its up to you to decide which you are. liz

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Candyfloss (4th Jul 2007 - 11:56:44) pardon me for breathing!! You still haven't answered the simple question - but instead chose to fulfill your committment to unvail anyone that has an opinion and even dresses it up with further references - not at all what I would have expected from you!! I remember you having a conversation on the disclosure of another poster a while ago, who obvoiusly rattled your cage, and even tried easing it out of the Editor and cunningly tried to make him slip up (makes you rather dangerous to know)- why can't you accept what people are saying rather than naming them. You have done yourself no favours here as far as I can tell. I told you who I was in the strictest of confidence, not for you to go and blab it around and post such thing as anyone with an mm of a briain cell couldn't work out. It's not that people cant be bothered to do mountings of readings - why should we when there are people who already know the answers chose to remain silent. Much of what is said, has already been watered down according to another poster, Yes I have attended a Council Meeting - very strange affair that is, as most people were hurried along and some never got the chance to speak. You were not there, otherwise I would have realised you were a councillor. I find it most unacceptable when a councillor specifically tells you that something, after given permission to extend whould NOT effect any businessess, and have personally made sure businesses in liphook were safe, that it turns out they were not. I know this would have been seen to have been the case from the information given to them, but it highlights the need for a professional team of people dealing with such plans throught Hampshire - something that is already being call for elsewhere. A crack team who know all the angles and more importantly know that the informtaion withheld is far more important than that given!!. I was passing a group of people outside a local shop, when the S & G issue was at a head, and there was one councillor there holding court with the public, some of the suggestion uttered there would cause immence hurt to those concerned but was according to him a view held widely by the PC. I would not say what that was becuase it would serve no purpose to upset anyone else, but if councillors can freely say what they like in an open discussion on a street corner, why cant they write some words to everyone. I also find it most strange that other councillors commented on other statistics relating to the case - were completely wrong too. I have never established whether they were mis-informed or what. What ever the outcome people have suffered and have every right in what ever way to find out why - definately through no fault of their own!!. If i had posted under my name - what do you think would have happened - a leat this way some will take it more seriously. And YOU know who I am so why ask - unless to provoke trouble. If you think you are clever in doing this good on you. You just made this site less attractive for anyone having a good read or expressing a controversial opinion. Your form of selection i suppose - your right as an individual to have your say. One to the secrecy of the PC and its members'former or otherwise - nil to the public Adios PS There are so many posters using their real names who mean nothing to me I do not know them. And some I would suspect who aren't, we will never know will we. Strange as it may be to you I have only used this site since March, and have rarely seen your postings, and as I said I never knew your surname - so it meant nothing to me at all. There just a simple sole who took someone on face value and has been totally shocked at the outcome! Bring in Rosie, at least she is honest in why she likes to see me - I just may have some food.!! Ha Ha

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Barbara (4th Jul 2007 - 12:01:54) Hi yes Barbara from this website is indeed a councillor, and I have not got access at home to the internet so I rely on the library to use the internet. There was no shenanigans at the co option meeting, as I was present. There were 11 applicants for 4 places, not aLL APPLICANTS TURNED UP TO THE CO-OPTION MEETING WHY NOT?

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Freddie Dawkins (4th Jul 2007 - 14:03:49) CandyF and Liz - Well, if you want to disguise your real identity (CF), that's up to you. I'll not name names but anyone who reads this site regularly will work it out for themselves. There have been a few others in the recent past. As the editor has not responded to my question, I'll assume he's going to allow people to carry on - in my opinion - to abuse the trust of everyone who uses this site. (Thanks, Eneida. I know we don't always agree, so I appreciate your support). I do think it's totally wrong to post messages under more than one name - especially when you deliberately support a point you have made under another name!! Liz (and I'll accept you have not double-messaged under aliases) - I'm not a councillor. I chose to stand down last May. CandyF - if you can't be bothered to do a bit of work yourself and actually read or check facts for yourself - as I said before - that's your decision. As for trying to control what info is available - sorry, but | was the first councillor, as far as I know, to contribute to this website more than 4 years ago. I wrote the original PC description, did a report on the local elections, tabled all the new councillors names and what they did, when meetings were coming up, reports from Forums etc etc. I did this as an individual who does believe in freedom of information and because I wanted to support the site as it was building - and it was pretty obvious the PC at that time did not have the resources to officially contribute on a regular basis. I'm not saying this PC is perfect. But I know all the people (apart from some new councillors) and they do work very hard to get it right. I'd support any moves to transfer more power to the PC from the District and County level. PCs don't have enough power to make decisions - especially on matters like planning and highways locally. Oh well - I enjoyed being a councillor for most of my four years and can say a lot more these days. Good luck to Nigel, Nikki and the other members of our new Parish council who've already messaged here. [editor - we understand that some people do not wish to be identified by their real name, for various reasons, like the nature of their employment.]

Re: Parish Council Meeting - liz (4th Jul 2007 - 15:14:37) Freddie Not a councillor anymore? Thank heaven for small mercies. And thanks also to the editor - at least HIS IQ appears to be significantly higher than the room temperature.

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Freddie Dawkins (4th Jul 2007 - 16:54:03) Mr Editor - But what about stopping misuse of anonymity with people posting under more than one name? You can see the IPs and would know very quickly who's doing this. Surely it is a misuse of this free facility, if people post in one name, then in another on the same threads?

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Candyfloss (4th Jul 2007 - 17:42:43) Freddie, freddie, Oh I am bothered with what happens to me - greatly and have tried exceedingly hard to get to the bottom of it. Do you know that every time I move a step further its back to the people on the PC. Every one - including Lesley Wells in Planning at Penns Place sends me straight back there. I even asked her about products being sold in a particular store, and she told me it is not a planning issue but an Enviromental Health one. Asked a councillor the same question and was told its not an enviromental one but planning. Having found myself on the merry-go-round of decision making have been left with very little options. Reading reams of paperwork would not I suspect give me the answers, as some probably are not there!!. I am still trying to establish exactly what the circumstances of the extensions where, and if at all the council officers have been 'out played' by others, or if the documents they have at their disposal means that they can use them to their advantage and try to correct the status quo. Do you really have problems with that. Never have I done anything more than to seek to disclose the proceedings. You may think this is an entirely one person view point - again your judgement is very off track - every single day, for at least 4 weeks people were comming in asking me the same questions, and I could not give them answers - but would refer them to the parish council - i would hate to tell you what the vast majority said. Respect for some decision over some developments was lost many moons ago. Interestingly if i had used the Business name, would you have treated it any better - probably NO. So what was the point. I have stated on here that as far as a business is concerned I would not mention it again on this site, I am a person of my word and have not done so. Trawl through the postings if you care - there will not be any metion of it and never will be!!

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Candyfloss (4th Jul 2007 - 18:10:37) Freddie Are you cluthching at straws - to try to achieve your wish. Do you not think that other people get their family, friends, partners etc to endorse their views and solidify their point. I can remember a few who have done this. Do we stop that too. They probably even use the same e-mail address. You are making out that by doing this is some terrible crime and you seem to be taking it upon yourself to be judge and executioner. For a chat forum you seem exceedingly serious. Many posters on here haven't a serious comment to make on anything. Are you going to stop them too, as they are not contributing 'in a reasonable manner'. I have nothing to lose anymore - how about you?

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Candyfloss (4th Jul 2007 - 20:35:01) Sorry to be posting again, but something particularly funny just leapt to mind. Is Mr Freddie Dawkings trying to audition for the comedy series 'Please Sir' - if so tell him it finished rather a long time ago!!

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Fredie Dawkins (5th Jul 2007 - 08:29:20) CandyF - Lesley Wells used to be the Enforcement Officer at EHDC. It was Lesley Wells who handled the case of Aneshka and her stables. Enough said. It's not a Parish matter. Any enforcement can only be dealt with by the District Council - because they are the ones who grant planning permission. Now, how is that trying to hold back information? If you really want to know more about the Sainsburys applications and restrictions, just ask for the file - as I've said before.

Re: Parish Council Meeting - liz (5th Jul 2007 - 09:58:27) Fredie? Is that an alias or an imposter? I think we should be told!!

Re: Parish Council Meeting - candyfloss (5th Jul 2007 - 10:33:23) Fredie I do not know what role lesley had, but she is now in the Planning Office at penns place and is The planning officer i was told to contact- is that not where you say i should go?. She is the one in charge of the measuring of the store way back end April, and we still do not have the facts. Does anyone? One comment made to me was a five year old with a calculator should have been able to have worked it out by now - what is the hold up?? I keep asking the Horses mouth, but as I have said nothing=nothing=nothing. You try if you like or use your previous influences or underhand tactics if you must, but information is important. If this information is on the file in Penns Place, why has she not written to me as promised? You keep on about papers - do you not know the facts fully to comment - and is that why no other councillor comments correctly or otherwise too?? I am fully aware that for some the matter is out of their hands, but If recommendations given were not followed up, outline applications different to that applied, the parish council have powers to raise questions? Is that not the case? what exactly do you mean about the Stables affair - another snippet of yours I suppose - please enlighten me further - I am now interested? To be open an honest I know only that from the Papers - but somehow your post suggest much more - openness and honest postings should follow!! I am trying very hard to agree with you and make the committment to totally agree with every posting, from now on. I will not be contavertial, spell correctly, or infact have any opinion other than the poster. We should all then have a very agreeable talkback site! Oh you are so awfully wonderful Fredie, and we in Liphook truely miss your wonderful achievements made on our humble behalf. truely meant. Still posting and will continue to do so candyfloss

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Freddie Dawkins (5th Jul 2007 - 13:16:28) CandyF - I'm not sure who I am any more. Must be reading this website too much! Anyway, I would suggest you speak to one of our District Councillors: Anna James, Eve Hope or Sam James. They will have very fast access at Penns Place, if you feel you are not getting the info from the planning dept officials. I'm surprised you don't know the case of Aneshka and her stables, as it was a very, very controversial cause celebre not so long ago. It went on for quite a few years - many would say quite needlessly. In the end, Aneshka had to spend quite a bit of her own money, defending enforcements orders, threats of action, attending court hearings etc etc. Upshot was that she had to make a few changes but the District Council came out of it very badly - in my opinion. The good news is that Aneshka came through it, kept her horses and still, as far as I know, does tremendous work saving birds that are injured and getting them back to good health. Freddie - phew, managed to type it right this time!

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Barbara (5th Jul 2007 - 13:44:34) All the PC meetings are open to the public public debate is good and without it councillors will not know what people want. Sadly not enough people attend meetings and want to get involved. We are all too busy, but why leave everything like that to the few who commit themselves?

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Malc (5th Jul 2007 - 15:31:12) WOW,, I ask a question about who got on the council, check back a couple of times after to see if any news and nothing. I go away for a while and when I check back in there are 50 replies all of which havent answered my question but seem to have started ww3. What a hornets nest Liphook is?? Not sure I should have bothered asking M

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Grahame (5th Jul 2007 - 15:55:17) Barbara, The last council meeting I attended I was in the room about 15 minutes before we were asked to leave, because the council members wanted to talk about subjects the general public shouldn't know about. I haven't been back since as it seems to be a waste of time. Grahame

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Barry Hope (5th Jul 2007 - 16:36:10) Barbara I agree, and have stated as much on this site and elsewhere that more people should take an interest and attend meetings. The only other comment I would make is that the Parish Council meeting does not allow public debate, it simply gives the public the opportunity to ask questions but they then cannot enter into a debate on any topic. But this is thesame as every other council in the land unfortunately. Debates can and do take place in public forum meetings like some planning issues and matters relating to local policing etc. These meetings are usually well attended. Best wishes Barry

Re: Parish Council Meeting - Candyfloss (5th Jul 2007 - 18:06:03) to all posters You are all so correct in your postings, everyone has agreed with every one else - what a change. excellent - the Herald seems to be the place to read now!! I know of those people mentioned Freddie and well they are also tremendous, very helpful and have given clear and precise details of how they are going to make Sainsburys abide by the plans - somewhen, they are so good at it, they too prefer to say things to the lovelly press and hey what, the world is ok. why stress take my advise, chill out, agree, drink a tea (or beer) and leave the more than capable parish clerk to clear up the mess. We as women, should also learn to do our husbands bidding, never have an opinion, and certainly let the men run the world, and once again we have total agreement with every one else Love to you all Candyfloss

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home