Tuesday 17 March 2009

'Shreddergate' Breaks

More news emerges of behind-the-scenes goings-on at Reading Civic Centre.

REP reports an 'insider' who claims to have seen evidence of a cover-up operation by staff, which may or may not relate to the investigation into Children's Services in the borough following the death of Child T (and which has uncovered a mass of bad practice and scandal in the local political administration dating back years).

Janestheone has jumped immediately to take the bait and used it as further evidence to condemn her former colleagues.

Oranjepan asks:
Someone has a guilty conscience, but who and why?

-

Update: Cllr Warren Swaine is not surprised, but is still outraged by the news.

Cllr Richard Willis has his say, playing judge, jury and executioner, while stating that investigations remain ongoing.

Howard Thomas has his say.

10 comments:

  1. janestheone17 March 2009 at 22:25

    er, no I haven't actually - I always think it best to wait for EVIDENCE before doing any condemning, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oranjepan17 March 2009 at 22:33

    Your post clearly shows you concluding that Labour should, "In the name of God, go" - ie leave office.

    Doesn't this indicate an implicit condemnation on your behalf?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous18 March 2009 at 08:36

    Certainly they should leave office - they lost the election and they have presided over corruption for years. Those are reasons enough. But they are reasons and not a condemnation. As for children's services, I would like to know what has gone on, as I am sure the people of Reading would. Before making pronouncements.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oranjepan18 March 2009 at 09:52

    OK, that's fair enough - we're really just quibbling over the difference between direct and indirect meanings.

    Whoever it is, someone is in the wrong and the people in the responsible positions bear the blame. Such is responsibility.

    However, whether Labour should or will leave office is a matter for the electorate. If I, you or anybody else believes this for ourselves then we should be actively campaigning to that effect.

    Which councillors would you most like to see unseated to bring this result about (bearing in mind who is up for election in 2010)?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous18 March 2009 at 11:42

    It's not about individuals, and the electorate decided last time against this Labour Group. For corrupt and bullying behaviour in respect of the party I would single out Lovelock and Hartley, for personally corrupt behaviour Merriott - but it doesn't really matter. Their time is over

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous18 March 2009 at 12:04

    Can someone run a Poll for us?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous18 March 2009 at 19:44

    Wow - for once I agree with Jane. There is no evidence of anything here except a lot of hot air and knicker wetting.

    'and which has uncovered a mass of bad practice and scandal in the local political administration dating back years' - really? Which investigation is that, then?

    The so called 'insider' knows nothing other than there are bags of shredded documents - has anyone reported something missing? Why do you assume a 'guilty conscience'? As Jane says, instead of casting doubt, take a cold, hard look at the facts. Ummmm?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oranjepan18 March 2009 at 20:58

    Errr, Anon 19.44, the Ofsted JAR showed a number of problems some of which do date back years.

    Thanks for the contribution all the same and please let me refer you to the house policy on commenting.

    Pseudononymous comments are preferable to anonymous ones, mainly because it reduces confusion. Engagement requires some measure of identification, however minimal, so if you plan to hang around here please choose a nickname and stick to it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous18 March 2009 at 23:24

    Err...the report refers to the many improvements in the service and could not be described in any way as 'a mass of bad practice and scandal in the local political administration dating back years'.

    Your comments are unjustified and undermine the wealth of good work
    being undertaken by staff in this service.

    As for your 'house rules' - well, they are yours and not mine. If you don't want anonymous comments, then remove the facility. I for one will not be told what to do.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oranjepan19 March 2009 at 00:09

    Anon 23.24,
    firstly, the unearthing of problems does not preclude valuable work being undertaken to make improvements, in fact improvements can often only be undertaken if problem areas are identified. If you have interpreted a perceived bias in my tone which was not intended then I can only apologise.

    secondly, my 'house rules' are only advisory; I will not tell you what to do. However, there are a number of advantages to avoiding anonymity - in particular in the creation of dialogue: I can only assume that you are the same anonymous who posted earlier, and if you choose to comment again in the future then there is no way to create the connection and build the trust which comes with familiarity.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)



"Reading List... is fantastic, it could help revolutinise politics in Reading"
Matt Blackall

"Prolific"
Matt Brady

"Irrelevant"
Adrian Windisch

"Bizarre"
Reading Geek Night

"A bloggers digest of the Berkshire blogosphere"
DMOZ

"An easily accessible collection of Berkshire's excellent blogs"
The Cookham Blogger

"An excellent digest of the thoughts of local bloggers"
Reading Guide

...