'Vexatious' Croxley Green councillor banned from property and removed from committee

Watford Observer: 'Vexatious' Croxley Green councillor banned from property and removed from committee 'Vexatious' Croxley Green councillor banned from property and removed from committee

A Croxley Green Parish councillor has been banned from entering council property and removed from a council committee after he was labelled a "habitual and vexatious complainant" by the authority.

Councillor Robert Ridley will continue to represent Croxley Green South. However, he will not be permitted to enter parish council property except to attend meetings.

He has also been removed from Croxley Green’s environment and amenity committee.

The decision follows a meeting of the parish council on Thursday, February 27 in which politicians considered Councillor Ridley’s conduct.

In March 2013, Councillor Ridley was deemed to be "pernicious and pestilent" and was told he could not enter council buildings except for meetings, but the latest decision means he will no longer serve on one of the council’s key committees.

A statement from the council said that Councillor Ridley "was considered to be a habitual and vexatious complainant".

It stated: "His continued disregard for the council’s policies, procedure and protocols continued to bring this council into disrepute and undermine all the good work done by his fellow councillors and the staff.

"There was significant concern that he was continuing to send emails to external third parties in which allegations were made, which, without the necessary correct background, the reader would be ill informed of the true position and would get a totally false impression of the work and workings of this council."

Comments (102)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:44pm Sun 9 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Pity CGPC don't adhere to their own protocols, they had a meeting last March minute below which they failed to observe, also S Halls CEO of TRDC indicates what should happen when cllrs/staff are in breach of their own protocols. The review should have happened in Sept, when asked cllrs and the clerk didn't have an answer!

What sanctions will they impose on themselves?


RESOLVED:
• That Cllr Ridley is restricted to one medium of contact with the Council which is to be in writing only (paper);
• That Cllr Ridley’s point of contact for written correspondence is restricted to
the Chairman and Clerk only;
• That Cllr Ridley is expected to follow the Code of Conduct and the Council’s
Policies, procedures and protocols;

• That a review of the position be undertaken in 6 months time.

• That a simultaneous Press Release be issued with the Minutes and a letter to
Cllr Ridley.

Message Received: Feb 18 2013, 09:18 AM
> From: "Steven Halls"
> To: "Family Ridley" , "TRDC - FOI" , "Elwyn Wilson"
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: Queries/
>
> Dear Councillor Ridley

A motion can only be passed at Council. If it fails at the vote, then nothing more is heard of it. If it is passed, there will be some action that follows - you don't adjust or rescind a motion once it is passed. If it is for the officers to carry out the consequences of a motion, and they don't, there would be a performance sanction at appraisal. If it is for the Councillors to carry out the consequences of a
> motion, and they don't, there is little or no sanction. You will recall the Standards Board and associated regime were abolished through the wisdom of the
> Government via the Localism Act 2011. I hope the above is helpful. Steven Halls, Chief Executive, Three Rivers District Council,Three Rivers House,Northway,
> Rickmansworth,Hertfo
rdshire, WD3 1RL.dd 01923 727281; steven.halls@threeri
vers.gov.uk
Pity CGPC don't adhere to their own protocols, they had a meeting last March minute below which they failed to observe, also S Halls CEO of TRDC indicates what should happen when cllrs/staff are in breach of their own protocols. The review should have happened in Sept, when asked cllrs and the clerk didn't have an answer! What sanctions will they impose on themselves? RESOLVED: • That Cllr Ridley is restricted to one medium of contact with the Council which is to be in writing only (paper); • That Cllr Ridley’s point of contact for written correspondence is restricted to the Chairman and Clerk only; • That Cllr Ridley is expected to follow the Code of Conduct and the Council’s Policies, procedures and protocols; • That a review of the position be undertaken in 6 months time. • That a simultaneous Press Release be issued with the Minutes and a letter to Cllr Ridley. Message Received: Feb 18 2013, 09:18 AM > From: "Steven Halls" > To: "Family Ridley" , "TRDC - FOI" , "Elwyn Wilson" > Cc: > Subject: RE: Queries/ > > Dear Councillor Ridley A motion can only be passed at Council. If it fails at the vote, then nothing more is heard of it. If it is passed, there will be some action that follows - you don't adjust or rescind a motion once it is passed. If it is for the officers to carry out the consequences of a motion, and they don't, there would be a performance sanction at appraisal. If it is for the Councillors to carry out the consequences of a > motion, and they don't, there is little or no sanction. You will recall the Standards Board and associated regime were abolished through the wisdom of the > Government via the Localism Act 2011. I hope the above is helpful. Steven Halls, Chief Executive, Three Rivers District Council,Three Rivers House,Northway, > Rickmansworth,Hertfo rdshire, WD3 1RL.dd 01923 727281; steven.halls@threeri vers.gov.uk cgpc Rob
  • Score: -7

6:14pm Sun 9 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

CGPC were to hold a Local Producers Market and cllrs Mitchell/Martin were organising it, they spent £140 on a full page ad in My Croxley and distributed posters etc, then cancelled it.


Local Producers Market that never was May 2013

How can I be accused of undermining CGPC when they do it so well themselves!

Last May at their Annual General Meeting to choose their chair of the council and committees etc, Cllr Mitchell was elected unopposed as
chair, didn't request a recorded vote but I believe that not all cllrs voted in favour
After the AGM the F&A committee met which consists of all chiara and vice chairs of the council and committees!

Some cllrs left after the AGM which included me and thats when I am informed our newly elected Chair informed those still present which I believe
included a member of that the LPM was cancelled, apparently due to lack of take up of stall holders?

They wanted about 20 but only three had confirmed,s o why did they progress and spend monies on adverts/posters

After the meeting I believe that Amanda then updated the info on the CGPC website.

Question 1 Why didn't Cllr Mitchell between the meetings inform all of those cllrs who had attended the AGM that the LPM was cancelled and explain
why?

Question 2 When did Cllr Mitchell and others know that the LPM might be cancelled due to lack of stall holders uptake, why did they still progress and spend residents monies unneccssarily.

Question 3 Why was a possible member of the public informed prior to cllrs who stood for election.

Many more questions could be asked but I don't believe satisfactory answers would be forthcoming
CGPC were to hold a Local Producers Market and cllrs Mitchell/Martin were organising it, they spent £140 on a full page ad in My Croxley and distributed posters etc, then cancelled it. Local Producers Market that never was May 2013 How can I be accused of undermining CGPC when they do it so well themselves! Last May at their Annual General Meeting to choose their chair of the council and committees etc, Cllr Mitchell was elected unopposed as chair, didn't request a recorded vote but I believe that not all cllrs voted in favour After the AGM the F&A committee met which consists of all chiara and vice chairs of the council and committees! Some cllrs left after the AGM which included me and thats when I am informed our newly elected Chair informed those still present which I believe included a member of [the public M Saxon] that the LPM was cancelled, apparently due to lack of take up of stall holders? They wanted about 20 but only three had confirmed,s o why did they progress and spend monies on adverts/posters After the meeting I believe that Amanda then updated the info on the CGPC website. Question 1 Why didn't Cllr Mitchell between the meetings inform all of those cllrs who had attended the AGM that the LPM was cancelled and explain why? Question 2 When did Cllr Mitchell and others know that the LPM might be cancelled due to lack of stall holders uptake, why did they still progress and spend residents monies unneccssarily. Question 3 Why was a possible member of the public informed prior to cllrs who stood for election. Many more questions could be asked but I don't believe satisfactory answers would be forthcoming cgpc Rob
  • Score: -5

6:25pm Sun 9 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

The E/A meetings normally last about 10 minutes, this weeks was 5 mins
The E/A meetings normally last about 10 minutes, this weeks was 5 mins cgpc Rob
  • Score: -4

6:45pm Sun 9 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

This was in last years External Auditors Report, the part about acting legally etc had also been raised in the 2012 report, normally supporting papers are posted on the CGPC website under supporting info/papers, last years below wasn't. why!


Damning Auditors Report?


Financial Regulations: To Update Financial Regs ASAP as CGPC are at risk of not conducting their business, legally, efficiently and effectively.

Tenders: The council is exposed to criticism that it cannot demonstrate that it is getting best value for services bought, as the tender limit is in the standing orders is higher than general contract expenditure. Also stating that no alternative tenders were sought in the last year to confirm that best value for money was achieved, currently the trigger amount is £25000.

I have constantly strived to get CGPC to adopt a lower amount when getting estimates prices for contracts, when I contacted Abbotts Langley Parish Council this was their clerks reply, which CGPC never adopted.

ALPC could change the amount,

====================
====================

Message Received: Jul 25 2012, 03:39 PM
From: "Tim Perkins"
To: "'Family Ridley'"
Cc:
Subject: RE: Councillors post at the parish office

Currently £1000 and above three quotes, although that is expected to rise to £2,000/£2,500 when financial regulations are re-approved in the autumn.



-----Original Message-----
From: Family Ridley
Sent: 24 July 2012 14:19
To: tim.perkins@abbotsla
ngley-pc.gov.uk
Subject: RE: Councillors post at the parish office

Mr Perkins

Thanks, could you possibly answer the other query on tenders and amounts and how ALPC approach the issue.



Regards

Cllr R J Ridley

In Jan, the clerk stated he is now getting the PUMP, the parish mag, printed for £3400pa some £1600 less than they were paying, so over 7 years CGPC might have saved residents £11200!

Don't forget the fiasco of the Village Hall which residents might have had to pay £100000 to TRDC unnecessarily!
This was in last years External Auditors Report, the part about acting legally etc had also been raised in the 2012 report, normally supporting papers are posted on the CGPC website under supporting info/papers, last years below wasn't. why! Damning Auditors Report? Financial Regulations: To Update Financial Regs ASAP as CGPC are at risk of not conducting their business, legally, efficiently and effectively. Tenders: The council is exposed to criticism that it cannot demonstrate that it is getting best value for services bought, as the tender limit is in the standing orders is higher than general contract expenditure. Also stating that no alternative tenders were sought in the last year to confirm that best value for money was achieved, currently the trigger amount is £25000. I have constantly strived to get CGPC to adopt a lower amount when getting estimates prices for contracts, when I contacted Abbotts Langley Parish Council this was their clerks reply, which CGPC never adopted. ALPC could change the amount, ==================== ==================== Message Received: Jul 25 2012, 03:39 PM From: "Tim Perkins" To: "'Family Ridley'" Cc: Subject: RE: Councillors post at the parish office Currently £1000 and above three quotes, although that is expected to rise to £2,000/£2,500 when financial regulations are re-approved in the autumn. -----Original Message----- From: Family Ridley Sent: 24 July 2012 14:19 To: tim.perkins@abbotsla ngley-pc.gov.uk Subject: RE: Councillors post at the parish office Mr Perkins Thanks, could you possibly answer the other query on tenders and amounts and how ALPC approach the issue. Regards Cllr R J Ridley In Jan, the clerk stated he is now getting the PUMP, the parish mag, printed for £3400pa some £1600 less than they were paying, so over 7 years CGPC might have saved residents £11200! Don't forget the fiasco of the Village Hall which residents might have had to pay £100000 to TRDC unnecessarily! cgpc Rob
  • Score: -8

8:18pm Sun 9 Mar 14

BassZZZZZini says...

Mate. No-one cares, you're talking to yourself...
Mate. No-one cares, you're talking to yourself... BassZZZZZini
  • Score: 11

8:49pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Hairy Hornet says...

BassZZZZZini wrote:
Mate. No-one cares, you're talking to yourself...
Bang on. Get a life.
[quote][p][bold]BassZZZZZini[/bold] wrote: Mate. No-one cares, you're talking to yourself...[/p][/quote]Bang on. Get a life. Hairy Hornet
  • Score: 11

10:44pm Sun 9 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Hairy Hornet wrote:
BassZZZZZini wrote:
Mate. No-one cares, you're talking to yourself...
Bang on. Get a life.
Obviously not
[quote][p][bold]Hairy Hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BassZZZZZini[/bold] wrote: Mate. No-one cares, you're talking to yourself...[/p][/quote]Bang on. Get a life.[/p][/quote]Obviously not cgpc Rob
  • Score: 1

2:22am Mon 10 Mar 14

John Dowdle says...

The unending saga of Croxley Green Parish Council resurrects itself yet again.
The joke of a council that keeps on giving. When will it ever end?
I think Parish Councillor has raised some highly pertinent points about waste and inefficiency at the parish council yet no one seems to want to do anything about it. Why not?
Are his claims correct or not - that is THE question that remains unanswered.
The unending saga of Croxley Green Parish Council resurrects itself yet again. The joke of a council that keeps on giving. When will it ever end? I think Parish Councillor has raised some highly pertinent points about waste and inefficiency at the parish council yet no one seems to want to do anything about it. Why not? Are his claims correct or not - that is THE question that remains unanswered. John Dowdle
  • Score: 6

6:11am Mon 10 Mar 14

S/O man says...

looks like we have found a new Phil Cox in cgpc Rob
looks like we have found a new Phil Cox in cgpc Rob S/O man
  • Score: 4

8:38am Mon 10 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Rob seems far more comprehensible than Phil Cox.
Rob seems far more comprehensible than Phil Cox. yellow hornet
  • Score: 2

8:55am Mon 10 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

yellow hornet wrote:
Rob seems far more comprehensible than Phil Cox.
I try to write clearly, honestly and logically.

What is it you have trouble with understanding?
[quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: Rob seems far more comprehensible than Phil Cox.[/p][/quote]I try to write clearly, honestly and logically. What is it you have trouble with understanding? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 1

9:05am Mon 10 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Rob seems far more comprehensible than Phil Cox.
I try to write clearly, honestly and logically.

What is it you have trouble with understanding?
Well for example, I just don’t understand your policy for common-sense commissioners at the town hall and how they will work.

This week is the unveiling of your local manifesto so let’s see how comprehensible that is.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: Rob seems far more comprehensible than Phil Cox.[/p][/quote]I try to write clearly, honestly and logically. What is it you have trouble with understanding?[/p][/quote]Well for example, I just don’t understand your policy for common-sense commissioners at the town hall and how they will work. This week is the unveiling of your local manifesto so let’s see how comprehensible that is. yellow hornet
  • Score: 1

9:09am Mon 10 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

The Queens Jubilee Tree

Every cllr agreed that CGPC would commemorate with the palnting of an Oak Tree, unfortunately there was hardly any cllr input, you can check the minutes, nothing, three days prior to the planting received an email stating that after the planting anyone who attended could then go to the hall at All Saints Church for tea etc, no one knew, didn't inform the public, it should have all been done and dusted.

Nine months later at a council meeting we were then informed that the tree was dead, mainly due to not being watered, a resident had attempted to help to no avail, CGPC have a bowser which can be filled from the water tanks that I proposed a motion to have installed to collect the rainwater at the offices, didn't happen.

The clerk in My Croxley states that I could have helped, how could i as we had no knowledge that the tree was in distress.

The clerk also wrote to the Queen in asking her to attend the ceremony which took place in Oct 2012

After the clerks statement asked cllrs to supply
Message Received: Feb 20 2014, 04:53 PM
From: "Family Ridley"
To: "CllrChrisMitchell" , "DudleyEdmunds"
Cc: "David Gauke "

Subject: Jubilee Tree

Reading page 10 of the Feb2014 issue of MC, the clerk of CGPC D Allison stated " It was a shame that Cllr Ridley nor Brand offered any assistance with the tree at the time"

As the first of us knew of any difficulties with the QJT, was when we as cllrs were informed it might be dead, at no point to my knowledge did the clerk ask cllrs for any assistance on watering the tree.

As a cllr who was involved in the regime of watering the trough outside of All Saints Church for a number of years, I find the clerks claim astounding, if Cllrs Edmunds as chair of the E/A or Mtchell as chair of CGPC can show me a minuted request for assistance from the clerk/council in maintaining the health of the QJT, then please forward it to me.



For those of you who don't know where the parish council offices are, the offices are next to our depot which backs onto Barton Way Allotments, so i proposed that the guttering was reversed and all the rainwater went into the down pipes on the BWA side, which would then allow their members access to rainwater, thats what happened, they installed large water tanks whcih stopped them having to only use the water tap and use premium cost water, I believe a district cllr also a parish cllr is a member of BWA, but they apparently never thought of that.

Also put forward a motion that we write to all of the churches in CG informing them that we might be able to assist financially to install water storage for watering, have you seen the roofs at All Saints Church and potential rainwater collection!!
One cllr stated, why they have an outside tap.

I rest my case!
The Queens Jubilee Tree Every cllr agreed that CGPC would commemorate with the palnting of an Oak Tree, unfortunately there was hardly any cllr input, you can check the minutes, nothing, three days prior to the planting received an email stating that after the planting anyone who attended could then go to the hall at All Saints Church for tea etc, no one knew, didn't inform the public, it should have all been done and dusted. Nine months later at a council meeting we were then informed that the tree was dead, mainly due to not being watered, a resident had attempted to help to no avail, CGPC have a bowser which can be filled from the water tanks that I proposed a motion to have installed to collect the rainwater at the offices, didn't happen. The clerk in My Croxley states that I could have helped, how could i as we had no knowledge that the tree was in distress. The clerk also wrote to the Queen in asking her to attend the ceremony which took place in Oct 2012 After the clerks statement asked cllrs [below] to supply Message Received: Feb 20 2014, 04:53 PM From: "Family Ridley" To: "CllrChrisMitchell" , "DudleyEdmunds" Cc: "David Gauke [MP]" Subject: Jubilee Tree Reading page 10 of the Feb2014 issue of MC, the clerk of CGPC D Allison stated " It was a shame that Cllr Ridley nor Brand offered any assistance with the tree at the time" As the first of us knew of any difficulties with the QJT, was when we as cllrs were informed it might be dead, at no point to my knowledge did the clerk ask cllrs for any assistance on watering the tree. As a cllr who was involved in the regime of watering the trough outside of All Saints Church for a number of years, I find the clerks claim astounding, if Cllrs Edmunds as chair of the E/A or Mtchell as chair of CGPC can show me a minuted request for assistance from the clerk/council in maintaining the health of the QJT, then please forward it to me. For those of you who don't know where the parish council offices are, the offices are next to our depot which backs onto Barton Way Allotments, so i proposed that the guttering was reversed and all the rainwater went into the down pipes on the BWA side, which would then allow their members access to rainwater, thats what happened, they installed large water tanks whcih stopped them having to only use the water tap and use premium cost water, I believe a district cllr also a parish cllr is a member of BWA, but they apparently never thought of that. Also put forward a motion that we write to all of the churches in CG informing them that we might be able to assist financially to install water storage for watering, have you seen the roofs at All Saints Church and potential rainwater collection!! One cllr stated, why they have an outside tap. I rest my case! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

10:15am Mon 10 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

I asked for this to be put into the Pump, they declined, some years ago a cllr stated that to help cllrs with agenda items CGPCllrs should have supporting papers included with agendas, so that they had three clear days to read what was being proposed and not just get the concept on the night of the meeting,good idea, why then did he vote against supporting papers being placed in the public domain!

I asked for the below to be included in the PUMP

CGPC



As residents are aware I have been a critic of CGPC. Even though elected unopposed I stood on a platform of Stop the Parish Council Wasting Money. Even though I was disappointed that only four candidates stood for the five available places in the south ward which created a further election at a cost of £2500, at least it served democracy as four candidates stood and congratulations to Cllr C Mitchell for being elected, hopefully those candidates who failed will still provide support and ideas for the council as at least two of them had served on the council for a number of years and the other was an experienced district cllr.



On returning to the council I have attempted to initiate greater openness of what the council do, which I attempted in my previous stint. I initiated a motion to create a website committee. This occurred because as a resident I felt that the council failed to provide residents with information and contacted the council on these points and they rewarded me by placing me on their Vexatious and Habitual Complainants Register.

I have been able via a motion to have supporting papers posted on the website and attached to agendas posted in the library so that residents can view and hopefully attend meetings and comment on agenda items, this was to encourage local democracy and create residents participation. I had proposed the same motion in Dec 2005 which was defeated in a recorded vote, those cllrs who voted in favour of attaching supporting papers to agendas for the benefit of residents were myself and cllrs Englefield/Munroe and Vassiliou, those cllrs who didn’t vote for the motion were cllrs Bennett/Bains/Davis/
Duffy/Hearn/ R& C Jefford/Saxon Shafe and Seely

Some two years ago I contacted the office and cllrs including the then chairman and requested that they have a Community Policing page on their website as Chorleywood Parish Council had, I asked should they create alternative email addresses via the office to free up their personal email addresses and gave evidence that Abbots Langley Parish Council already did. I asked had the staff who came into contact with school children during their duties been CRB checked as a precaution. As a blood donor for some 20 years I also requested that the council post blood donor sessions on the events page.

All of the above were ignored and I had to endure a vile and abusive email sent to me by ex cllr Saxon, where he told me to fxxk off because I had word played with the word bloody in an email I sent to all cllrs asking why the CGPC refused to post blood donor sessions at All Saints Church and in my opinion were vital as only 4% of the nation donates blood and the session manager informed me that a pint of blood costs about £130 per pint from arm to usage within the health service. Many residents who I spoke to on this issue agreed with me and couldn’t understand how a cllr could respond in that way, especially as ex cllr Saxon is a blood donor himself.

Only after a costly TRDC Standards Board enquiry and three recommendations from them, which were to create the alternative email addresses, ensure that in the future that when in their capacity as a cllr that they reply in a courteous manner and that ex cllr Saxon should undergo training so that incidents shouldn’t occur again.

The staff only underwent CRB checks this year, in the last month a Community Policing page has been added and all cllrs have been issued with alternative email addresses.

A page explaining what tier of local authorities are responsible for has been added to the website and the website committee has met and are presenting a report with many suggestions of improving the website for the convenience of residents, many which were requests that had me placed on the register.

If you as residents believe that we as a council should have additions to our website , please contact us so that we can consider them.

Finally after a few years of requesting the Pump committee have decided to include in the magazine that information to residents of the times of our meetings are published along with the opportunity for residents to view agendas and their supporting papers on our website.

I have proposed that council should consult residents on possible expensive projects they might undertake and have a consultation period, the results could then be analysed prior to implementing any projects as I do not think that I as a cllr have all the answers and welcome residents input. Hopefully cllrs will progress the suggestion.

Hopefully any council implements on the website will be beneficial to residents and I would appreciate your comments on them, positive or negative are all welcome.

Cllr R J Ridley

Have since contacted the CGRA who advertise Blood Donor Sessions at ASC on their website, still not on CGPC website.
I asked for this to be put into the Pump, they declined, some years ago a cllr stated that to help cllrs with agenda items CGPCllrs should have supporting papers included with agendas, so that they had three clear days to read what was being proposed and not just get the concept on the night of the meeting,good idea, why then did he vote against supporting papers being placed in the public domain! I asked for the below to be included in the PUMP CGPC As residents are aware I have been a critic of CGPC. Even though elected unopposed I stood on a platform of Stop the Parish Council Wasting Money. Even though I was disappointed that only four candidates stood for the five available places in the south ward which created a further election at a cost of £2500, at least it served democracy as four candidates stood and congratulations to Cllr C Mitchell for being elected, hopefully those candidates who failed will still provide support and ideas for the council as at least two of them had served on the council for a number of years and the other was an experienced district cllr. On returning to the council I have attempted to initiate greater openness of what the council do, which I attempted in my previous stint. I initiated a motion to create a website committee. This occurred because as a resident I felt that the council failed to provide residents with information and contacted the council on these points and they rewarded me by placing me on their Vexatious and Habitual Complainants Register. I have been able via a motion to have supporting papers posted on the website and attached to agendas posted in the library [ which wasn’t happening] so that residents can view and hopefully attend meetings and comment on agenda items, this was to encourage local democracy and create residents participation. I had proposed the same motion in Dec 2005 which was defeated in a recorded vote, those cllrs who voted in favour of attaching supporting papers to agendas for the benefit of residents were myself and cllrs Englefield/Munroe and Vassiliou, those cllrs who didn’t vote for the motion were cllrs Bennett/Bains/Davis/ Duffy/Hearn/ R& C Jefford/Saxon [chairman] Shafe and Seely Some two years ago I contacted the office and cllrs including the then chairman and requested that they have a Community Policing page on their website as Chorleywood Parish Council had, I asked should they create alternative email addresses via the office to free up their personal email addresses and gave evidence that Abbots Langley Parish Council already did. I asked had the staff who came into contact with school children during their duties been CRB checked as a precaution. As a blood donor for some 20 years I also requested that the council post blood donor sessions on the events page. All of the above were ignored and I had to endure a vile and abusive email sent to me by ex cllr Saxon, where he told me to fxxk off because I had word played with the word bloody in an email I sent to all cllrs asking why the CGPC refused to post blood donor sessions at All Saints Church and in my opinion were vital as only 4% of the nation donates blood and the session manager informed me that a pint of blood costs about £130 per pint from arm to usage within the health service. Many residents who I spoke to on this issue agreed with me and couldn’t understand how a cllr could respond in that way, especially as ex cllr Saxon is a blood donor himself. Only after a costly TRDC Standards Board enquiry and three recommendations from them, which were to create the alternative email addresses, ensure that in the future that when in their capacity as a cllr that they reply in a courteous manner and that ex cllr Saxon should undergo training so that incidents shouldn’t occur again. The staff only underwent CRB checks this year, in the last month a Community Policing page has been added and all cllrs have been issued with alternative email addresses. A page explaining what tier of local authorities are responsible for has been added to the website and the website committee has met and are presenting a report with many suggestions of improving the website for the convenience of residents, many which were requests that had me placed on the register. If you as residents believe that we as a council should have additions to our website , please contact us so that we can consider them. Finally after a few years of requesting the Pump committee have decided to include in the magazine that information to residents of the times of our meetings are published along with the opportunity for residents to view agendas and their supporting papers on our website. I have proposed that council should consult residents on possible expensive projects they might undertake and have a consultation period, the results could then be analysed prior to implementing any projects as I do not think that I as a cllr have all the answers and welcome residents input. Hopefully cllrs will progress the suggestion. Hopefully any council implements on the website will be beneficial to residents and I would appreciate your comments on them, positive or negative are all welcome. Cllr R J Ridley Have since contacted the CGRA who advertise Blood Donor Sessions at ASC on their website, still not on CGPC website. cgpc Rob
  • Score: -3

12:47pm Mon 10 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Wrote this article which wasn't accepted by the Pump committee, Cllr Martin's reply

Cllr Ridley,
Thank you for spending the time to write these 2 articles for the Parish pump, however I do not feel that we can include them as they are really not suitable, especially with the language used in one which could certainly not be published as I am sure you realised when you wrote it. Neither article fits what Cllr Seeley & I suggested you could write about and they are of a very personal nature. This matter was 4 years ago and was the responsibilty of a completely different committee and council and I don't feel that this is relevant to publish in the pump now.

I will get the notes from the website committee meeting written up as soon as I get a chance and email them to you, Cllrs Getkahn, Bennett & Shafe & the Clerk.
Regards,
Cllr Martin



-----Original Message-----
From: Family Ridley
To: Cllr Hazel Seeley; Cllr Janet Martin; Cllr David Wynne-Jones; Cllr Wendy Shafe
CC: CGPC
Sent: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 11:46
Subject: Pump article.
Pump committee members

You asked for articles for inclusion in the next edition of the Pump, this is mine.

Regards

Cllr R J Ridley

Parish Pump Article.

Returning to the council I would like to put my side of the story.
In the 2007 Autumn/Winter edition of the Pump page 15 a letter was published which caused me consternation, it was presented under what I can only assume was false title and pseudonym Mr I Diot. The letter in my opinion attempted to defame and ridicule me in the eyes of the residents of Croxley Green. What was my crime? In My Croxley I had proposed from an idea of a friend of mine to float and ask if a feasibility study could me made on extending the Green by infilling the road that dissects it. A resident wrote a letter against the idea and My Croxley allowed me the right of reply.
I presume all articles/letters submitted were vetted by the committee for content? I wrote to the council asking for the right of reply, which is common practice and decency and asked cllrs to make representation on my behalf. The right of reply was denied to me. Did the parish council raise it as an agenda item and either accept or reject the idea on its merits, NO!
As some cllrs were also district cllrs and teachers would TRDC or their schools allow in a publicly funded newsletter etc a letter to be published against a parent or resident which could attempt to slur the reputation on the person it was directed against?
I have attempted to raise this as an agenda item on returning to the council and the clerk has refused to include it on an agenda stating that I am abusing my position as an elected cllr by doing so. When in my opinion the abuse of position is the other way.
I can understand that in certain circumstances the name of an author of a letter should be withheld, but if the person writing the letter isn’t prepared to sign off with their name then letters attacking others should not be allowed to be published and even if CGPC have a disclaimer about articles/letters, then was it gross incompetence or another reason that the letter was included?
I would take the same stance on behalf of any resident who contacted me and raised concerns if they felt that they had been maligned in an article or letter that made reference to them in the Pump.
 
Cllr R J Ridley


Cllr Martin informed me that she and cllr Seeley wouldn't allow it to be published, wonder why!

Pump committee members of the edition who allowed the letter to be published in 2007

Chairman
David Allison (Clerk)

Cllr Christine Jefford
Cllr Wendy Shafe
Cllr Hazel Seeley
Cllr Janet Martin
Cllr Jeremy Hollands
Amanda Taft (Admin Asst)
Proof Reader - Leigh Duffy


Cllrs Martin/Seeley both members, funny that they didn't want it included!

Also had unsubstantiated conversation with Cllr Seeley and asked why they had allowed the letter to be published, her reply, "They thought it would be a laugh"
Wrote this article which wasn't accepted by the Pump committee, Cllr Martin's reply Cllr Ridley, Thank you for spending the time to write these 2 articles for the Parish pump, however I do not feel that we can include them as they are really not suitable, especially with the language used in one which could certainly not be published as I am sure you realised when you wrote it. Neither article fits what Cllr Seeley & I suggested you could write about and they are of a very personal nature. This matter was 4 years ago and was the responsibilty of a completely different committee and council and I don't feel that this is relevant to publish in the pump now. I will get the notes from the website committee meeting written up as soon as I get a chance and email them to you, Cllrs Getkahn, Bennett & Shafe & the Clerk. Regards, Cllr Martin -----Original Message----- From: Family Ridley To: Cllr Hazel Seeley; Cllr Janet Martin; Cllr David Wynne-Jones; Cllr Wendy Shafe CC: CGPC Sent: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 11:46 Subject: Pump article. Pump committee members You asked for articles for inclusion in the next edition of the Pump, this is mine. Regards Cllr R J Ridley Parish Pump Article. Returning to the council I would like to put my side of the story. In the 2007 Autumn/Winter edition of the Pump page 15 [ available online] a letter was published which caused me consternation, it was presented under what I can only assume was false title and pseudonym Mr I Diot. The letter in my opinion attempted to defame and ridicule me in the eyes of the residents of Croxley Green. What was my crime? In My Croxley I had proposed from an idea of a friend of mine to float and ask if a feasibility study could me made on extending the Green by infilling the road that dissects it. A resident wrote a letter against the idea and My Croxley allowed me the right of reply. I presume all articles/letters submitted were vetted by the committee for content? I wrote to the council asking for the right of reply, which is common practice and decency and asked cllrs to make representation on my behalf. The right of reply was denied to me. Did the parish council raise it as an agenda item and either accept or reject the idea on its merits, NO! As some cllrs were also district cllrs and teachers would TRDC or their schools allow in a publicly funded newsletter etc a letter to be published against a parent or resident which could attempt to slur the reputation on the person it was directed against? I have attempted to raise this as an agenda item on returning to the council and the clerk has refused to include it on an agenda stating that I am abusing my position as an elected cllr by doing so. When in my opinion the abuse of position is the other way. I can understand that in certain circumstances the name of an author of a letter should be withheld, but if the person writing the letter isn’t prepared to sign off with their name then letters attacking others should not be allowed to be published and even if CGPC have a disclaimer about articles/letters, then was it gross incompetence or another reason that the letter was included? I would take the same stance on behalf of any resident who contacted me and raised concerns if they felt that they had been maligned in an article or letter that made reference to them in the Pump.   Cllr R J Ridley Cllr Martin informed me that she and cllr Seeley wouldn't allow it to be published, wonder why! Pump committee members of the edition who allowed the letter to be published in 2007 Chairman David Allison (Clerk) Cllr Christine Jefford Cllr Wendy Shafe Cllr Hazel Seeley Cllr Janet Martin Cllr Jeremy Hollands Amanda Taft (Admin Asst) Proof Reader - Leigh Duffy Cllrs Martin/Seeley both members, funny that they didn't want it included! Also had unsubstantiated conversation with Cllr Seeley and asked why they had allowed the letter to be published, her reply, "They thought it would be a laugh" cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

2:33pm Mon 10 Mar 14

croxley46 says...

I'm sure Cllr Ridley must be retired as he seems able to spend so much time on writing booklength comments only too frequently on CGPC matters.
Perhaps some of his comments may be valid but who's got time to read them, understand and digest them all and even reply to them as they are so boring and verbose? I certainly haven't and I'm retired too, but have other things to occupy my mind.
As my user-name indicates I am also a Croxley resident but I hasten to add not one of your adversaries hiding under a pen-name.
Bob, you really are an old sour-puss, try and get a life; I'm afraid people have lost interest in your one-man campaign, and WO - any chance of barring him from these pages, please......?!
I'm sure Cllr Ridley must be retired as he seems able to spend so much time on writing booklength comments only too frequently on CGPC matters. Perhaps some of his comments may be valid but who's got time to read them, understand and digest them all and even reply to them as they are so boring and verbose? I certainly haven't and I'm retired too, but have other things to occupy my mind. As my user-name indicates I am also a Croxley resident but I hasten to add not one of your adversaries hiding under a pen-name. Bob, you really are an old sour-puss, try and get a life; I'm afraid people have lost interest in your one-man campaign, and WO - any chance of barring him from these pages, please......?! croxley46
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

croxley46 wrote:
I'm sure Cllr Ridley must be retired as he seems able to spend so much time on writing booklength comments only too frequently on CGPC matters.
Perhaps some of his comments may be valid but who's got time to read them, understand and digest them all and even reply to them as they are so boring and verbose? I certainly haven't and I'm retired too, but have other things to occupy my mind.
As my user-name indicates I am also a Croxley resident but I hasten to add not one of your adversaries hiding under a pen-name.
Bob, you really are an old sour-puss, try and get a life; I'm afraid people have lost interest in your one-man campaign, and WO - any chance of barring him from these pages, please......?!
Banning free speech?

No thank you, that is the last thing anybody should be calling for.

What sort of world would we live in where free speech was banned?

It's the sort of thing a big brother state would call for, but decent and honest people should fight against it. It is a freedom that protects our other freedoms.

If you disagree with Cllr Ridley, you don't have to read his posts, but you have no right whatsoever to call for a ban. You sound rather like what he is complaining about from CGPC.

What's more you are objecting to him in principle without even knowing what he is saying - you admit you don't read what he is saying.

Attacking the messenger? - be careful, you're beginning to sound like a LibDem councillor (no offence intended).
[quote][p][bold]croxley46[/bold] wrote: I'm sure Cllr Ridley must be retired as he seems able to spend so much time on writing booklength comments only too frequently on CGPC matters. Perhaps some of his comments may be valid but who's got time to read them, understand and digest them all and even reply to them as they are so boring and verbose? I certainly haven't and I'm retired too, but have other things to occupy my mind. As my user-name indicates I am also a Croxley resident but I hasten to add not one of your adversaries hiding under a pen-name. Bob, you really are an old sour-puss, try and get a life; I'm afraid people have lost interest in your one-man campaign, and WO - any chance of barring him from these pages, please......?![/p][/quote]Banning free speech? No thank you, that is the last thing anybody should be calling for. What sort of world would we live in where free speech was banned? It's the sort of thing a big brother state would call for, but decent and honest people should fight against it. It is a freedom that protects our other freedoms. If you disagree with Cllr Ridley, you don't have to read his posts, but you have no right whatsoever to call for a ban. You sound rather like what he is complaining about from CGPC. What's more you are objecting to him in principle without even knowing what he is saying - you admit you don't read what he is saying. Attacking the messenger? - be careful, you're beginning to sound like a LibDem councillor (no offence intended). Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 2

3:27pm Mon 10 Mar 14

croxley46 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
croxley46 wrote:
I'm sure Cllr Ridley must be retired as he seems able to spend so much time on writing booklength comments only too frequently on CGPC matters.
Perhaps some of his comments may be valid but who's got time to read them, understand and digest them all and even reply to them as they are so boring and verbose? I certainly haven't and I'm retired too, but have other things to occupy my mind.
As my user-name indicates I am also a Croxley resident but I hasten to add not one of your adversaries hiding under a pen-name.
Bob, you really are an old sour-puss, try and get a life; I'm afraid people have lost interest in your one-man campaign, and WO - any chance of barring him from these pages, please......?!
Banning free speech?

No thank you, that is the last thing anybody should be calling for.

What sort of world would we live in where free speech was banned?

It's the sort of thing a big brother state would call for, but decent and honest people should fight against it. It is a freedom that protects our other freedoms.

If you disagree with Cllr Ridley, you don't have to read his posts, but you have no right whatsoever to call for a ban. You sound rather like what he is complaining about from CGPC.

What's more you are objecting to him in principle without even knowing what he is saying - you admit you don't read what he is saying.

Attacking the messenger? - be careful, you're beginning to sound like a LibDem councillor (no offence intended).
And here's me thinking I'd vote UKIP next time after your previous posts Phil, but not any more I'm afraid.
I used to be a LibDem voter in local elections, but have become very disillusioned, however I can't vote for you as I don't live in Watford.
Personally, I have become very sceptical about all political parties and shan't comment any more.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]croxley46[/bold] wrote: I'm sure Cllr Ridley must be retired as he seems able to spend so much time on writing booklength comments only too frequently on CGPC matters. Perhaps some of his comments may be valid but who's got time to read them, understand and digest them all and even reply to them as they are so boring and verbose? I certainly haven't and I'm retired too, but have other things to occupy my mind. As my user-name indicates I am also a Croxley resident but I hasten to add not one of your adversaries hiding under a pen-name. Bob, you really are an old sour-puss, try and get a life; I'm afraid people have lost interest in your one-man campaign, and WO - any chance of barring him from these pages, please......?![/p][/quote]Banning free speech? No thank you, that is the last thing anybody should be calling for. What sort of world would we live in where free speech was banned? It's the sort of thing a big brother state would call for, but decent and honest people should fight against it. It is a freedom that protects our other freedoms. If you disagree with Cllr Ridley, you don't have to read his posts, but you have no right whatsoever to call for a ban. You sound rather like what he is complaining about from CGPC. What's more you are objecting to him in principle without even knowing what he is saying - you admit you don't read what he is saying. Attacking the messenger? - be careful, you're beginning to sound like a LibDem councillor (no offence intended).[/p][/quote]And here's me thinking I'd vote UKIP next time after your previous posts Phil, but not any more I'm afraid. I used to be a LibDem voter in local elections, but have become very disillusioned, however I can't vote for you as I don't live in Watford. Personally, I have become very sceptical about all political parties and shan't comment any more. croxley46
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Gwyddon says...

Cllr Ridley certainly has a lot to say but I am hoping that some of the Croxley people who elected him will let us know what sort of Cllr he really is. He does seem to complain a lot about things that can be easily checked by people simply by looking at the website of the Council. Much of what he says seems to be his very own version which does not seem to have a lot in common with what is recorded. A man with a bee in his bonnet and little upstairs?
Cllr Ridley certainly has a lot to say but I am hoping that some of the Croxley people who elected him will let us know what sort of Cllr he really is. He does seem to complain a lot about things that can be easily checked by people simply by looking at the website of the Council. Much of what he says seems to be his very own version which does not seem to have a lot in common with what is recorded. A man with a bee in his bonnet and little upstairs? Gwyddon
  • Score: 1

4:40pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Gwyddon says...

Phil,
free speech is fine but when it intentionally changes the facts and seeks to give wrong information then that is not free speech it is lies.
Phil, free speech is fine but when it intentionally changes the facts and seeks to give wrong information then that is not free speech it is lies. Gwyddon
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Mon 10 Mar 14

#luvreadingthesamemuppetscommentingasexperts says...

Jeez...... ever get the feeling they made the correct decision, get a life, or better still get a job!!
Jeez...... ever get the feeling they made the correct decision, get a life, or better still get a job!! #luvreadingthesamemuppetscommentingasexperts
  • Score: -2

5:43pm Mon 10 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Gwyddon wrote:
Phil,
free speech is fine but when it intentionally changes the facts and seeks to give wrong information then that is not free speech it is lies.
Free speech is too important to be suppressed.

The press is full of lies yet we would be a poorer nation without freedom of the press. We in Ukip are only too aware of how the facts can be distorted by the press to give the wrong impression. I still would not want to suppress the freedom of the press. Eventually the truth rises to the surface.

The same with free speech. People lie, well some people do anyway, in fact a lot of people do. Politicians are a fine example, they often try to mislead the electorate for petty political ends. Just look at the misleading statements put out by the LibDems in Watford over the health campus which turns out just to be a housing estate with no new hospital at all. I am sure they would like to suppress freedom of speech on this issue, but they cannot. That's a good thing. People, politicians and the press are now all trying to expose the truth about this scandal.

I don't know enough about CGPC to know who is telling the truth and who is not. There are allegations by Cllr Ridley that if true deserve to be in the public eye.

If Cllr Ridley is exposing waste and the breaking of rules by the parish council then he has my support.

Free speech may not be perfect, but the alternative is far worse.

If someone is distorting the truth then the principle of free speech is also there for others to put their version and hopefully readers or listeners will be able to make up their minds who is more likely to be telling the truth.

The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

So, let Cllr Ridley post all he likes, he is after all an elected official. Let the people decide what sort of councillor he is, that would be democratic.

Democracy and freedom of speech. Not perfect, but it's better than the alternative and I would fight to uphold those principles.

One comment I would make. The personal attacks on here against Cllr Ridley are strange. One might wonder why there are so many personal attacks and so few posts refuting his allegations. Maybe there's more to this than meets the eye.
[quote][p][bold]Gwyddon[/bold] wrote: Phil, free speech is fine but when it intentionally changes the facts and seeks to give wrong information then that is not free speech it is lies.[/p][/quote]Free speech is too important to be suppressed. The press is full of lies yet we would be a poorer nation without freedom of the press. We in Ukip are only too aware of how the facts can be distorted by the press to give the wrong impression. I still would not want to suppress the freedom of the press. Eventually the truth rises to the surface. The same with free speech. People lie, well some people do anyway, in fact a lot of people do. Politicians are a fine example, they often try to mislead the electorate for petty political ends. Just look at the misleading statements put out by the LibDems in Watford over the health campus which turns out just to be a housing estate with no new hospital at all. I am sure they would like to suppress freedom of speech on this issue, but they cannot. That's a good thing. People, politicians and the press are now all trying to expose the truth about this scandal. I don't know enough about CGPC to know who is telling the truth and who is not. There are allegations by Cllr Ridley that if true deserve to be in the public eye. If Cllr Ridley is exposing waste and the breaking of rules by the parish council then he has my support. Free speech may not be perfect, but the alternative is far worse. If someone is distorting the truth then the principle of free speech is also there for others to put their version and hopefully readers or listeners will be able to make up their minds who is more likely to be telling the truth. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about. So, let Cllr Ridley post all he likes, he is after all an elected official. Let the people decide what sort of councillor he is, that would be democratic. Democracy and freedom of speech. Not perfect, but it's better than the alternative and I would fight to uphold those principles. One comment I would make. The personal attacks on here against Cllr Ridley are strange. One might wonder why there are so many personal attacks and so few posts refuting his allegations. Maybe there's more to this than meets the eye. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 1

6:18pm Mon 10 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Proposed that CGPC informed the true cost of implementing the Greens contract when they kept stating that they do it for nothing.

First proposed at an E/A sept 2011, especially as received this from TRDC

“Message Received: Apr 08 2011, 04:56 PM
From: "David Gardner"
To: "Family Ridley"
Cc: "Phil King"
Subject: Stones Orchard & The Green
Dear Mr Ridley,
Further to our recent telephone conversation, I can confirm that £1,600 p.a. was included in the Three Rivers bid for the Environmental & Grounds Maintenance contract in respect of the work carried out by Croxley Green Parish Council at Stones Orchard & The Green, and that this amount has been excluded from this Council’s special expenses charge to the Croxley parishioners.
Yours sincerely
David Gardner
Director of Corporate Resources


Discussion Narrative
Committee to discuss if terminating the contract could release finances that might be better used within Croxley Green.

Recommendation
Committee to request that the clerk presents at the Sept FCM a full breakdown of costs associated with the contract so that council can decide on the appropriate course of action.


Cllr R J Ridley


The E/A committee comprising of these cllrs swerved the motion and passed another instead

Cllr Seeley – In the Chair

David Allison – Clerk to the Council
Amanda Taft – Minute Taker
Cllrs Bennett, Brading, Edmunds, Ridley, Shafe and Vane
Voting Members: 7 (reducing to 6 during EA799/11)
Not Present: Cllr Getkahn
In attendance: Cllr Brand


Represented the motion at the Dec 2011 FCM

The clerk then informed CGPC that it cost£15.003.55, why was that information never disclosed and put to CGPC prior to undertaking the contract.

I believe an ex cllr was reported to the Standards Board for asking that same question in print in My Croxley
Proposed that CGPC informed the true cost of implementing the Greens contract when they kept stating that they do it for nothing. First proposed at an E/A sept 2011, especially as received this from TRDC “Message Received: Apr 08 2011, 04:56 PM From: "David Gardner" To: "Family Ridley" Cc: "Phil King" Subject: Stones Orchard & The Green Dear Mr Ridley, Further to our recent telephone conversation, I can confirm that £1,600 p.a. was included in the Three Rivers bid for the Environmental & Grounds Maintenance contract in respect of the work carried out by Croxley Green Parish Council at Stones Orchard & The Green, and that this amount has been excluded from this Council’s special expenses charge to the Croxley parishioners. Yours sincerely David Gardner Director of Corporate Resources Discussion Narrative Committee to discuss if terminating the contract could release finances that might be better used within Croxley Green. Recommendation Committee to request that the clerk presents at the Sept FCM a full breakdown of costs associated with the contract so that council can decide on the appropriate course of action. Cllr R J Ridley The E/A committee comprising of these cllrs swerved the motion and passed another instead Cllr Seeley – In the Chair David Allison – Clerk to the Council Amanda Taft – Minute Taker Cllrs Bennett, Brading, Edmunds, Ridley, Shafe and Vane Voting Members: 7 (reducing to 6 during EA799/11) Not Present: Cllr Getkahn In attendance: Cllr Brand Represented the motion at the Dec 2011 FCM The clerk then informed CGPC that it cost£15.003.55, why was that information never disclosed and put to CGPC prior to undertaking the contract. I believe an ex cllr was reported to the Standards Board for asking that same question in print in My Croxley cgpc Rob
  • Score: -3

7:48pm Mon 10 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Village Hall motion proposed Supporting Paper Sept 2011, no support

CGPC have been given notice on the agreement with the Community Centre on the provision of a Village Hall, CGPC might have saved thousands if they had taken this approach in the beginning and also supported the churches, scouts etc or any group/association with an adjacent hall, in fact in April 2011 prior to being elected to CGPC, spoke to Miriam vicar at All Saints Church who was very interested in the proposal as a means of additional revenue.



====================
====================

Message Received: Mar 10 2014, 06:43 PM
From: "Joanne Wagstaffe"
To: "'Family Ridley'" , "Elwyn Wilson"
Cc: "Steven Halls" , "Nigel Pollard"
Subject: RE: Village Hall

Hi

I am happy with this approach

Thanks

Jo


Joanne Wagstaffe

Director of Finance Watford Borough Council and Three Rivers District Council

joanne.wagstaffe@wat
ford.gov.uk
joanne.wagstaffe@thr
eerivers.gov.uk

01923 727200

-----Original Message-----
From: Family Ridley
Sent: 05 March 2014 14:50
To: Elwyn Wilson; Family Ridley
Cc: Steven Halls; Nigel Pollard; Joanne Wagstaffe
Subject: RE: Village Hall

Elwyn

Thanks.

So rotating the hall with an annual contribution/payment between churches etc, as long as it is possible if booking space is available to any association/group or individuals who want to hire the hall, if the allocated time is not already booked, is acceptable to TRDC.

If that is acceptable to TRDC and satisfies the Village Hall criteria, I do not need a reply

Regards

Cllr R J Ridley



====================
====================

Message Received: Mar 05 2014, 01:34 PM
From: "Elwyn Wilson"
To: "Family Ridley"
Cc: "Steven Halls" , "Nigel Pollard" , "Joanne Wagstaffe"
Subject: RE: Village Hall


Dear Mr Ridley

Please see the reply below provided by one of the Council's Finance Managers to your question;


'I do not see a problem with the proposal as long as in the agreement with the church/facility it specifies that the contribution is given on the understanding that the hall is made available to the Parish Council for use by the whole community'.


Regards
Elwyn



-----Original Message-----
From: Family Ridley
Sent: 01 March 2014 13:16
To: Steven Halls; Elwyn Wilson
Subject: Village Hall

Mr Halls/Wilson

Just need some clarification, if possible.

At the moment CGPC pay the Community Centre an annual amount for it to be classified as the "Village hall and therefore no special expense charged towards Watersmeet as the Village Hall is charged to the residents of Croxley Green.

If CGPC entered into an agreement with one or more of the facilities/church who have a hall for hire, would that satisfy the criteria of offering a Village Hall to TRDC, or are there any circumstances that would apply.

Could the hall be rotated on an annual basis between the facilities/ churches, so that each venue could be classified as a Village Hall and receive additional income maybe every five years?

Regards

Cllr R J Ridley
Village Hall motion proposed Supporting Paper Sept 2011, no support CGPC have been given notice on the agreement with the Community Centre on the provision of a Village Hall, CGPC might have saved thousands if they had taken this approach in the beginning and also supported the churches, scouts etc or any group/association with an adjacent hall, in fact in April 2011 prior to being elected to CGPC, spoke to Miriam vicar at All Saints Church who was very interested in the proposal as a means of additional revenue. ==================== ==================== Message Received: Mar 10 2014, 06:43 PM From: "Joanne Wagstaffe" To: "'Family Ridley'" , "Elwyn Wilson" Cc: "Steven Halls" , "Nigel Pollard" Subject: RE: Village Hall Hi I am happy with this approach Thanks Jo Joanne Wagstaffe Director of Finance Watford Borough Council and Three Rivers District Council joanne.wagstaffe@wat ford.gov.uk joanne.wagstaffe@thr eerivers.gov.uk 01923 727200 -----Original Message----- From: Family Ridley Sent: 05 March 2014 14:50 To: Elwyn Wilson; Family Ridley Cc: Steven Halls; Nigel Pollard; Joanne Wagstaffe Subject: RE: Village Hall Elwyn Thanks. So rotating the hall with an annual contribution/payment between churches etc, as long as it is possible if booking space is available to any association/group or individuals who want to hire the hall, if the allocated time is not already booked, is acceptable to TRDC. If that is acceptable to TRDC and satisfies the Village Hall criteria, I do not need a reply Regards Cllr R J Ridley ==================== ==================== Message Received: Mar 05 2014, 01:34 PM From: "Elwyn Wilson" To: "Family Ridley" Cc: "Steven Halls" , "Nigel Pollard" , "Joanne Wagstaffe" Subject: RE: Village Hall Dear Mr Ridley Please see the reply below provided by one of the Council's Finance Managers to your question; 'I do not see a problem with the proposal as long as in the agreement with the church/facility it specifies that the contribution is given on the understanding that the hall is made available to the Parish Council for use by the whole community'. Regards Elwyn -----Original Message----- From: Family Ridley Sent: 01 March 2014 13:16 To: Steven Halls; Elwyn Wilson Subject: Village Hall Mr Halls/Wilson Just need some clarification, if possible. At the moment CGPC pay the Community Centre an annual amount for it to be classified as the "Village hall and therefore no special expense charged towards Watersmeet as the Village Hall is charged to the residents of Croxley Green. If CGPC entered into an agreement with one or more of the facilities/church who have a hall for hire, would that satisfy the criteria of offering a Village Hall to TRDC, or are there any circumstances that would apply. Could the hall be rotated on an annual basis between the facilities/ churches, so that each venue could be classified as a Village Hall and receive additional income maybe every five years? Regards Cllr R J Ridley cgpc Rob
  • Score: -3

7:34am Tue 11 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

croxley46 wrote:
I'm sure Cllr Ridley must be retired as he seems able to spend so much time on writing booklength comments only too frequently on CGPC matters.
Perhaps some of his comments may be valid but who's got time to read them, understand and digest them all and even reply to them as they are so boring and verbose? I certainly haven't and I'm retired too, but have other things to occupy my mind.
As my user-name indicates I am also a Croxley resident but I hasten to add not one of your adversaries hiding under a pen-name.
Bob, you really are an old sour-puss, try and get a life; I'm afraid people have lost interest in your one-man campaign, and WO - any chance of barring him from these pages, please......?!
You obviously don't know me, i don't answer to BOB and am not retired, maybe if more residents took an interest!

Failure to obtain estimates for years, 10 in some cases, also all ground works being undertaken can be done by TRDC for a fraction of the price.

CGPC apart from the depot own no land yet cost residents £250000pa,Sarratt our neighbouring parish own /coommons/woods, yet only costs their residents £100000pa, CGPC budget was supplemented by a £12000 TRDC grant and £8000 being taken from reserves.


These are my opinions/allegations
.

CGPC have just passed their budget/precept in which they have agreed to continue with the Friday free of charge bus service to Watford costing some £6900, CGPC have never to my knowledge in the last seven years received a report, either monthly/quarterly informing us of occupancy levels, it might be overloaded, it might run at 50% occupancy, we don't know, so how can CGPC make a financial decision to continue.

Also the Village Hall agreement with the Community Centre, no reports to council on how many groups that had free use of the hall ever used it.

You couldn't run a business like this, paying out public money and not receiving reports on the financial viability!

Have asked before about this, they label me Vexatious, wonder why!

Winton Crescent

Some years ago TRDC issued a traffic parking order on WC in part due to commuter parking, stating No parking mon-Sat 8.30am -5.30pm. I became involved as our TRDCllrs hadn't, arranged a meeting at the parish offices, offered alternatives

Make the road one way FILO
A no parking time zone of between 12-1pm
Replace grass verges with eco car parking bays. hexagon blocks/grass

About 70% of residents attended, Cllr r Seabourne also attended and residents voted for a time restriction during the day, which RS got TRDC to implement, has been working for years now, proposed the same scheme for the Watford Rd by the Red house, its in the supporting papers and a year later another cllr raised it as a concern in My Croxley
[quote][p][bold]croxley46[/bold] wrote: I'm sure Cllr Ridley must be retired as he seems able to spend so much time on writing booklength comments only too frequently on CGPC matters. Perhaps some of his comments may be valid but who's got time to read them, understand and digest them all and even reply to them as they are so boring and verbose? I certainly haven't and I'm retired too, but have other things to occupy my mind. As my user-name indicates I am also a Croxley resident but I hasten to add not one of your adversaries hiding under a pen-name. Bob, you really are an old sour-puss, try and get a life; I'm afraid people have lost interest in your one-man campaign, and WO - any chance of barring him from these pages, please......?![/p][/quote]You obviously don't know me, i don't answer to BOB and am not retired, maybe if more residents took an interest! Failure to obtain estimates for years, 10 in some cases, also all ground works being undertaken can be done by TRDC for a fraction of the price. CGPC apart from the depot own no land yet cost residents £250000pa,Sarratt our neighbouring parish own /coommons/woods, yet only costs their residents £100000pa, CGPC budget was supplemented by a £12000 TRDC grant and £8000 being taken from reserves. These are my opinions/allegations . CGPC have just passed their budget/precept in which they have agreed to continue with the Friday free of charge bus service to Watford costing some £6900, CGPC have never to my knowledge in the last seven years received a report, either monthly/quarterly informing us of occupancy levels, it might be overloaded, it might run at 50% occupancy, we don't know, so how can CGPC make a financial decision to continue. Also the Village Hall agreement with the Community Centre, no reports to council on how many groups that had free use of the hall ever used it. You couldn't run a business like this, paying out public money and not receiving reports on the financial viability! Have asked before about this, they label me Vexatious, wonder why! Winton Crescent Some years ago TRDC issued a traffic parking order on WC in part due to commuter parking, stating No parking mon-Sat 8.30am -5.30pm. I became involved as our TRDCllrs hadn't, arranged a meeting at the parish offices, offered alternatives Make the road one way FILO [first in last out] A no parking time zone of between 12-1pm Replace grass verges with eco car parking bays. hexagon blocks/grass About 70% of residents attended, Cllr r Seabourne also attended and residents voted for a time restriction during the day, which RS got TRDC to implement, has been working for years now, proposed the same scheme for the Watford Rd by the Red house, its in the supporting papers and a year later another cllr raised it as a concern in My Croxley cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

7:53am Tue 11 Mar 14

Croxley Wicketman says...

Gwyddon wrote:
Cllr Ridley certainly has a lot to say but I am hoping that some of the Croxley people who elected him will let us know what sort of Cllr he really is. He does seem to complain a lot about things that can be easily checked by people simply by looking at the website of the Council. Much of what he says seems to be his very own version which does not seem to have a lot in common with what is recorded. A man with a bee in his bonnet and little upstairs?
Well Gwyddon. No one voted for him strangely enough. He was elected by default as there was insufficient number of Councillors to seats to merit an election. So if there are 5 seats available and only 5 people stand for election, they all get elected by default. This is why it's very important that local people take an interest in the politics of their local area and put themselves forward to represent others at this level. I live in Croxley South and Mr Ridley does not represent my views or the views of anyone else I know.
The Parish Council does an excellent job for us here in Croxley generally. We can all criticise but they are all volunteers trying their best to keep Croxley special.
[quote][p][bold]Gwyddon[/bold] wrote: Cllr Ridley certainly has a lot to say but I am hoping that some of the Croxley people who elected him will let us know what sort of Cllr he really is. He does seem to complain a lot about things that can be easily checked by people simply by looking at the website of the Council. Much of what he says seems to be his very own version which does not seem to have a lot in common with what is recorded. A man with a bee in his bonnet and little upstairs?[/p][/quote]Well Gwyddon. No one voted for him strangely enough. He was elected by default as there was insufficient number of Councillors to seats to merit an election. So if there are 5 seats available and only 5 people stand for election, they all get elected by default. This is why it's very important that local people take an interest in the politics of their local area and put themselves forward to represent others at this level. I live in Croxley South and Mr Ridley does not represent my views or the views of anyone else I know. The Parish Council does an excellent job for us here in Croxley generally. We can all criticise but they are all volunteers trying their best to keep Croxley special. Croxley Wicketman
  • Score: 1

8:17am Tue 11 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Cllr Ridley makes some excellent points about spending by CGPC.

If they are true, and I have no reason to suspect they are not, then there is much to worry about at CGPC.
Cllr Ridley makes some excellent points about spending by CGPC. If they are true, and I have no reason to suspect they are not, then there is much to worry about at CGPC. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 1

9:33am Tue 11 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Croxley Wicketman wrote:
Gwyddon wrote:
Cllr Ridley certainly has a lot to say but I am hoping that some of the Croxley people who elected him will let us know what sort of Cllr he really is. He does seem to complain a lot about things that can be easily checked by people simply by looking at the website of the Council. Much of what he says seems to be his very own version which does not seem to have a lot in common with what is recorded. A man with a bee in his bonnet and little upstairs?
Well Gwyddon. No one voted for him strangely enough. He was elected by default as there was insufficient number of Councillors to seats to merit an election. So if there are 5 seats available and only 5 people stand for election, they all get elected by default. This is why it's very important that local people take an interest in the politics of their local area and put themselves forward to represent others at this level. I live in Croxley South and Mr Ridley does not represent my views or the views of anyone else I know.
The Parish Council does an excellent job for us here in Croxley generally. We can all criticise but they are all volunteers trying their best to keep Croxley special.
Unfortunately if not enough residents do not stand, don't attempt to blame those who do, who is Croxley Wicketman!

What are your views then, air them!

Are you an ex cllr by any chance!

Do you not agree that to ensure best value CGPC should obtain annual estimates on contracts, which they haven't for years and that if they are sub contracting for TRDC, prior to undertaking the contract they should obtain the difference of charges!
[quote][p][bold]Croxley Wicketman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gwyddon[/bold] wrote: Cllr Ridley certainly has a lot to say but I am hoping that some of the Croxley people who elected him will let us know what sort of Cllr he really is. He does seem to complain a lot about things that can be easily checked by people simply by looking at the website of the Council. Much of what he says seems to be his very own version which does not seem to have a lot in common with what is recorded. A man with a bee in his bonnet and little upstairs?[/p][/quote]Well Gwyddon. No one voted for him strangely enough. He was elected by default as there was insufficient number of Councillors to seats to merit an election. So if there are 5 seats available and only 5 people stand for election, they all get elected by default. This is why it's very important that local people take an interest in the politics of their local area and put themselves forward to represent others at this level. I live in Croxley South and Mr Ridley does not represent my views or the views of anyone else I know. The Parish Council does an excellent job for us here in Croxley generally. We can all criticise but they are all volunteers trying their best to keep Croxley special.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately if not enough residents do not stand, don't attempt to blame those who do, who is Croxley Wicketman! What are your views then, air them! Are you an ex cllr by any chance! Do you not agree that to ensure best value CGPC should obtain annual estimates on contracts, which they haven't for years and that if they are sub contracting for TRDC, prior to undertaking the contract they should obtain the difference of charges! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

10:19am Tue 11 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Value for money? Who could object to that?
Value for money? Who could object to that? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 3

12:13pm Tue 11 Mar 14

LocalBoy1 says...

Oh dear, they have chucked Cllr Ridley out of the Parish Council and now he has found the WO as a new sounding board. Don't you realise Cllr Ridley how limited the audience on here is? You sure do have a lot to say. Too much!
Oh dear, they have chucked Cllr Ridley out of the Parish Council and now he has found the WO as a new sounding board. Don't you realise Cllr Ridley how limited the audience on here is? You sure do have a lot to say. Too much! LocalBoy1
  • Score: -1

12:35pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Some people are still attacking the messenger and not the message. Typical politicians tactics under false names.

Cllr Ridley has raised some serious points of possible financial maladministration and his opponents are all attacking him for saying things rather than for what he is saying.

If I were a Croxley taxpayer I would be wanting to find out the truth of the matter. If Cllr Ridley is right then it really is quite worrying.

If I were a Croxley resident then on balance I would be pleased a councillor is highlighting issues of possible financial misdeeds. CGPC probably needs investigating.
Some people are still attacking the messenger and not the message. Typical politicians tactics under false names. Cllr Ridley has raised some serious points of possible financial maladministration and his opponents are all attacking him for saying things rather than for what he is saying. If I were a Croxley taxpayer I would be wanting to find out the truth of the matter. If Cllr Ridley is right then it really is quite worrying. If I were a Croxley resident then on balance I would be pleased a councillor is highlighting issues of possible financial misdeeds. CGPC probably needs investigating. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 1

12:42pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Incidentally, of all the posters on this story, three are calling for the truth tocome out and all use their real names (Cllr Ridley, John Dowdle and myself) and all the others, those who are trying to shoot the messenger, are posting under false names.

Here in Watford a number of councillors from all three other main parties post under false names. I do hope the same is not happening in Three Rivers though I suspect that may be the case because the pattern is the same. False names, criticise the person, try to divert attention from the issues.
Incidentally, of all the posters on this story, three are calling for the truth tocome out and all use their real names (Cllr Ridley, John Dowdle and myself) and all the others, those who are trying to shoot the messenger, are posting under false names. Here in Watford a number of councillors from all three other main parties post under false names. I do hope the same is not happening in Three Rivers though I suspect that may be the case because the pattern is the same. False names, criticise the person, try to divert attention from the issues. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 2

2:04pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Hikari Warrior says...

I would respectfully suggest that Phil Cox does a little more background investigation before any more silly statements are made! If you are planning on standing in the mayoral elections you are currently making Dotty appear like a Mastermind champion.
Cllr Ridley is very well known in Croxley. He is also very well known on these very comment columns - and known by a number of different names. His issues are very well known in the village. The Parish Council does a very good job and the vast majority of Croxley residents appreciate what is done, and how CGPC goes about doing it. For as long as I can remember Cllr Ridley has gone on, and on, and on.....
He seems to have found an ally in Phil Cox who is setting about demonstrating how UKIP will jump on any passing bandwagon without any regard for the facts! It must be true - Cllr Ridley said so......
Pffft!
I would respectfully suggest that Phil Cox does a little more background investigation before any more silly statements are made! If you are planning on standing in the mayoral elections you are currently making Dotty appear like a Mastermind champion. Cllr Ridley is very well known in Croxley. He is also very well known on these very comment columns - and known by a number of different names. His issues are very well known in the village. The Parish Council does a very good job and the vast majority of Croxley residents appreciate what is done, and how CGPC goes about doing it. For as long as I can remember Cllr Ridley has gone on, and on, and on..... He seems to have found an ally in Phil Cox who is setting about demonstrating how UKIP will jump on any passing bandwagon without any regard for the facts! It must be true - Cllr Ridley said so...... Pffft! Hikari Warrior
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Tue 11 Mar 14

LocalBoy1 says...

Hikari Warrior wrote:
I would respectfully suggest that Phil Cox does a little more background investigation before any more silly statements are made! If you are planning on standing in the mayoral elections you are currently making Dotty appear like a Mastermind champion.
Cllr Ridley is very well known in Croxley. He is also very well known on these very comment columns - and known by a number of different names. His issues are very well known in the village. The Parish Council does a very good job and the vast majority of Croxley residents appreciate what is done, and how CGPC goes about doing it. For as long as I can remember Cllr Ridley has gone on, and on, and on.....
He seems to have found an ally in Phil Cox who is setting about demonstrating how UKIP will jump on any passing bandwagon without any regard for the facts! It must be true - Cllr Ridley said so......
Pffft!
Now we are getting to the nitty gritty about Cllr Ridley. There is quite a bit about Cllr Ridley on Google.
[quote][p][bold]Hikari Warrior[/bold] wrote: I would respectfully suggest that Phil Cox does a little more background investigation before any more silly statements are made! If you are planning on standing in the mayoral elections you are currently making Dotty appear like a Mastermind champion. Cllr Ridley is very well known in Croxley. He is also very well known on these very comment columns - and known by a number of different names. His issues are very well known in the village. The Parish Council does a very good job and the vast majority of Croxley residents appreciate what is done, and how CGPC goes about doing it. For as long as I can remember Cllr Ridley has gone on, and on, and on..... He seems to have found an ally in Phil Cox who is setting about demonstrating how UKIP will jump on any passing bandwagon without any regard for the facts! It must be true - Cllr Ridley said so...... Pffft![/p][/quote]Now we are getting to the nitty gritty about Cllr Ridley. There is quite a bit about Cllr Ridley on Google. LocalBoy1
  • Score: -1

2:56pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Croxley Wicketman says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Some people are still attacking the messenger and not the message. Typical politicians tactics under false names.

Cllr Ridley has raised some serious points of possible financial maladministration and his opponents are all attacking him for saying things rather than for what he is saying.

If I were a Croxley taxpayer I would be wanting to find out the truth of the matter. If Cllr Ridley is right then it really is quite worrying.

If I were a Croxley resident then on balance I would be pleased a councillor is highlighting issues of possible financial misdeeds. CGPC probably needs investigating.
Dear Mr Cox, like other local authorities the Parish Council is both audited by internal and external independent auditors and has been for many many years. If, as you suggest, there is or was financial irregularities, then these would have been raised by the auditors and would have been dealt with.
But they haven't so there isn't!
Now, just because someone raises matters that they consider to be 'malpractice or maladministration' does not necessarily mean they have any grounding in truth.
So please stop asserting that Mr Ridley may be raising points that need investigation because, had there been any cause for concern, the auditors would have raised them.
The Council also abides by a set of Standing Orders and once again, had the Council been making decisions or spending money outside of these Standing Orders the auditors would have picked up on this as well.
But they haven't, so they didn't.
It is important in our democracy that local people get involved with their local area without the threat of their names being splattered all over the media. Mr Ridley is of course entitled to his views but as a Councillor he should abide by the decisions of the Council even if he disagrees with them.
I am certain in his own mind he believes the Councillors and the Council are profligate wasters of public money. But is this view factually correct? I think not and neither do the auditors.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Some people are still attacking the messenger and not the message. Typical politicians tactics under false names. Cllr Ridley has raised some serious points of possible financial maladministration and his opponents are all attacking him for saying things rather than for what he is saying. If I were a Croxley taxpayer I would be wanting to find out the truth of the matter. If Cllr Ridley is right then it really is quite worrying. If I were a Croxley resident then on balance I would be pleased a councillor is highlighting issues of possible financial misdeeds. CGPC probably needs investigating.[/p][/quote]Dear Mr Cox, like other local authorities the Parish Council is both audited by internal and external independent auditors and has been for many many years. If, as you suggest, there is or was financial irregularities, then these would have been raised by the auditors and would have been dealt with. But they haven't so there isn't! Now, just because someone raises matters that they consider to be 'malpractice or maladministration' does not necessarily mean they have any grounding in truth. So please stop asserting that Mr Ridley may be raising points that need investigation because, had there been any cause for concern, the auditors would have raised them. The Council also abides by a set of Standing Orders and once again, had the Council been making decisions or spending money outside of these Standing Orders the auditors would have picked up on this as well. But they haven't, so they didn't. It is important in our democracy that local people get involved with their local area without the threat of their names being splattered all over the media. Mr Ridley is of course entitled to his views but as a Councillor he should abide by the decisions of the Council even if he disagrees with them. I am certain in his own mind he believes the Councillors and the Council are profligate wasters of public money. But is this view factually correct? I think not and neither do the auditors. Croxley Wicketman
  • Score: -1

3:16pm Tue 11 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
Hikari Warrior wrote:
I would respectfully suggest that Phil Cox does a little more background investigation before any more silly statements are made! If you are planning on standing in the mayoral elections you are currently making Dotty appear like a Mastermind champion.
Cllr Ridley is very well known in Croxley. He is also very well known on these very comment columns - and known by a number of different names. His issues are very well known in the village. The Parish Council does a very good job and the vast majority of Croxley residents appreciate what is done, and how CGPC goes about doing it. For as long as I can remember Cllr Ridley has gone on, and on, and on.....
He seems to have found an ally in Phil Cox who is setting about demonstrating how UKIP will jump on any passing bandwagon without any regard for the facts! It must be true - Cllr Ridley said so......
Pffft!
Now we are getting to the nitty gritty about Cllr Ridley. There is quite a bit about Cllr Ridley on Google.
As stated, reveal yourselves, does it state on google that I and another cllr instigated the skate park in Baldwins Lane, wouldn't have agreed to the token 3ft fence that was put up, then replaced at a cost of some £20000.

Does it state, proposed and had cooperation from TRDC to install the Multi Use Sports Area in Barton Way to replace the broken down tennis court.

Does it state, got guttering reversed at Depot so the Barton Way Allotments could use the rainwater collected.

Does it state, did the same at the parish offices.

Does it state objected to M Saxon as chair, putting forward an edict prior to a parish council meeting stating he would limit all cllrs to speaking only once in a debate.

At the next FCM I am proposing that all back issues of then Pump are scanned and placed on the website, CGRA goes back to the fifties, also that all agendas/minutes starting from 2000 are also scanned for residents ease.

Whose against that!

Also why has CGPC ignored another motion/Standing Order

Read Standing Order 7.2.2

July FCM 2011 CC957/11 Parish Pump Editorial Committee
To discuss and agree as appropriate the membership of the Parish Pump Editorial Committee.

CC957/11 Parish Pump Editorial Committee
The Clerk advised that the current Committee comprised of Cllrs Martin, Seeley and Shafe as well as both office staff. In addition to the existing members, Cllrs Brand and
Wynne-Jones asked to be included on the Editorial Committee. Contributions for the magazine were requested.

No agendas ever issued, last year only one issue, but residents charged for two.

It is stated my opinion are well known, what are they!
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hikari Warrior[/bold] wrote: I would respectfully suggest that Phil Cox does a little more background investigation before any more silly statements are made! If you are planning on standing in the mayoral elections you are currently making Dotty appear like a Mastermind champion. Cllr Ridley is very well known in Croxley. He is also very well known on these very comment columns - and known by a number of different names. His issues are very well known in the village. The Parish Council does a very good job and the vast majority of Croxley residents appreciate what is done, and how CGPC goes about doing it. For as long as I can remember Cllr Ridley has gone on, and on, and on..... He seems to have found an ally in Phil Cox who is setting about demonstrating how UKIP will jump on any passing bandwagon without any regard for the facts! It must be true - Cllr Ridley said so...... Pffft![/p][/quote]Now we are getting to the nitty gritty about Cllr Ridley. There is quite a bit about Cllr Ridley on Google.[/p][/quote]As stated, reveal yourselves, does it state on google that I and another cllr instigated the skate park in Baldwins Lane, wouldn't have agreed to the token 3ft fence that was put up, then replaced at a cost of some £20000. Does it state, proposed and had cooperation from TRDC to install the Multi Use Sports Area in Barton Way to replace the broken down tennis court. Does it state, got guttering reversed at Depot so the Barton Way Allotments could use the rainwater collected. Does it state, did the same at the parish offices. Does it state objected to M Saxon as chair, putting forward an edict prior to a parish council meeting stating he would limit all cllrs to speaking only once in a debate. At the next FCM I am proposing that all back issues of then Pump are scanned and placed on the website, CGRA goes back to the fifties, also that all agendas/minutes starting from 2000 are also scanned for residents ease. Whose against that! Also why has CGPC ignored another motion/Standing Order Read Standing Order 7.2.2 July FCM 2011 CC957/11 Parish Pump Editorial Committee To discuss and agree as appropriate the membership of the Parish Pump Editorial Committee. CC957/11 Parish Pump Editorial Committee The Clerk advised that the current Committee comprised of Cllrs Martin, Seeley and Shafe as well as both office staff. In addition to the existing members, Cllrs Brand and Wynne-Jones asked to be included on the Editorial Committee. Contributions for the magazine were requested. No agendas ever issued, last year only one issue, but residents charged for two. It is stated my opinion are well known, what are they! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 3

3:16pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Croxley Wicketman says...

I also have to say, it's a bit ripe coming from you talking about financial maladministration, especially as the beaten UKIP candidate for Croxley Division in the County Council election held on the 2nd May 2013 is a convicted benefit fraudster. Enough said!
I also have to say, it's a bit ripe coming from you talking about financial maladministration, especially as the beaten UKIP candidate for Croxley Division in the County Council election held on the 2nd May 2013 is a convicted benefit fraudster. Enough said! Croxley Wicketman
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Hikari Warrior wrote:
I would respectfully suggest that Phil Cox does a little more background investigation before any more silly statements are made! If you are planning on standing in the mayoral elections you are currently making Dotty appear like a Mastermind champion.
Cllr Ridley is very well known in Croxley. He is also very well known on these very comment columns - and known by a number of different names. His issues are very well known in the village. The Parish Council does a very good job and the vast majority of Croxley residents appreciate what is done, and how CGPC goes about doing it. For as long as I can remember Cllr Ridley has gone on, and on, and on.....
He seems to have found an ally in Phil Cox who is setting about demonstrating how UKIP will jump on any passing bandwagon without any regard for the facts! It must be true - Cllr Ridley said so......
Pffft!
Why not post under a real name if you want to be taken seriously?

Cllr Ridley I have never met nor spoken to. I have however read his posts on this forum and I know he ruffles feathers at CGPC. Beyond that, I know nothing about him.

I am going by what he says here. He is raising serious issues of concern if they are true.

If he is right about what he says, then feathers deserve to be ruffled at CGPC and TRDC as well.
[quote][p][bold]Hikari Warrior[/bold] wrote: I would respectfully suggest that Phil Cox does a little more background investigation before any more silly statements are made! If you are planning on standing in the mayoral elections you are currently making Dotty appear like a Mastermind champion. Cllr Ridley is very well known in Croxley. He is also very well known on these very comment columns - and known by a number of different names. His issues are very well known in the village. The Parish Council does a very good job and the vast majority of Croxley residents appreciate what is done, and how CGPC goes about doing it. For as long as I can remember Cllr Ridley has gone on, and on, and on..... He seems to have found an ally in Phil Cox who is setting about demonstrating how UKIP will jump on any passing bandwagon without any regard for the facts! It must be true - Cllr Ridley said so...... Pffft![/p][/quote]Why not post under a real name if you want to be taken seriously? Cllr Ridley I have never met nor spoken to. I have however read his posts on this forum and I know he ruffles feathers at CGPC. Beyond that, I know nothing about him. I am going by what he says here. He is raising serious issues of concern if they are true. If he is right about what he says, then feathers deserve to be ruffled at CGPC and TRDC as well. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 1

3:30pm Tue 11 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
Oh dear, they have chucked Cllr Ridley out of the Parish Council and now he has found the WO as a new sounding board. Don't you realise Cllr Ridley how limited the audience on here is? You sure do have a lot to say. Too much!
Not chucked out of CGPC, banned from the E/A committee, get it right!

Why are worried about the size of the audience.


CGPC possibly not acting efficiently, effectively or legally and that the trigger amount of £25000 was too high, not exactly a clean bill of health.

The External auditorsmade the comment, not me and they stated twice about effectively, efficiently, legally.

Must have caused them some concern, otherwise why comment.

Ex Auditors can only recommend and can't act for three years if their recommendations are not acted on.
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, they have chucked Cllr Ridley out of the Parish Council and now he has found the WO as a new sounding board. Don't you realise Cllr Ridley how limited the audience on here is? You sure do have a lot to say. Too much![/p][/quote]Not chucked out of CGPC, banned from the E/A committee, get it right! Why are worried about the size of the audience. CGPC possibly not acting efficiently, effectively or legally and that the trigger amount of £25000 was too high, not exactly a clean bill of health. The External auditorsmade the comment, not me and they stated twice about effectively, efficiently, legally. Must have caused them some concern, otherwise why comment. Ex Auditors can only recommend and can't act for three years if their recommendations are not acted on. cgpc Rob
  • Score: 4

3:41pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Hikari Warrior says...

What exactly has my name got to do with the content? For all you know, that may be my name.... As it happens, it isn't but that doesn't detract from the common sense which I speak. Typical politician - divert the attention.

The only people using their real names are the ones spouting the drivel.
And, in answer to your point Cllr Ridley, some good suggestions and good actions are sadly marred by the volume of vitriol you constantly direct at CGPC and the Cllrs.

Also, whilst on the point of 'usernames' the last time Cllr Ridley involved himself in prolific comment writing, he used a plethora of various names. It's all in the WO archive - go look!
What exactly has my name got to do with the content? For all you know, that may be my name.... As it happens, it isn't but that doesn't detract from the common sense which I speak. Typical politician - divert the attention. The only people using their real names are the ones spouting the drivel. And, in answer to your point Cllr Ridley, some good suggestions and good actions are sadly marred by the volume of vitriol you constantly direct at CGPC and the Cllrs. Also, whilst on the point of 'usernames' the last time Cllr Ridley involved himself in prolific comment writing, he used a plethora of various names. It's all in the WO archive - go look! Hikari Warrior
  • Score: -2

4:15pm Tue 11 Mar 14

LocalBoy1 says...

Hikari Warrior wrote:
What exactly has my name got to do with the content? For all you know, that may be my name.... As it happens, it isn't but that doesn't detract from the common sense which I speak. Typical politician - divert the attention.

The only people using their real names are the ones spouting the drivel.
And, in answer to your point Cllr Ridley, some good suggestions and good actions are sadly marred by the volume of vitriol you constantly direct at CGPC and the Cllrs.

Also, whilst on the point of 'usernames' the last time Cllr Ridley involved himself in prolific comment writing, he used a plethora of various names. It's all in the WO archive - go look!
Best comment on here! Makes more sense than anything else. "The only people using their real names are the ones spouting the drivel". That's it in a nutshell, I'm off, enough already! No wonder this Ridley fellow was chucked out, banned, whatever??? Thank you Hikari Warrior.
[quote][p][bold]Hikari Warrior[/bold] wrote: What exactly has my name got to do with the content? For all you know, that may be my name.... As it happens, it isn't but that doesn't detract from the common sense which I speak. Typical politician - divert the attention. The only people using their real names are the ones spouting the drivel. And, in answer to your point Cllr Ridley, some good suggestions and good actions are sadly marred by the volume of vitriol you constantly direct at CGPC and the Cllrs. Also, whilst on the point of 'usernames' the last time Cllr Ridley involved himself in prolific comment writing, he used a plethora of various names. It's all in the WO archive - go look![/p][/quote]Best comment on here! Makes more sense than anything else. "The only people using their real names are the ones spouting the drivel". That's it in a nutshell, I'm off, enough already! No wonder this Ridley fellow was chucked out, banned, whatever??? Thank you Hikari Warrior. LocalBoy1
  • Score: -1

6:54pm Tue 11 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Why haven't CGPC complied with updating cllrs on the Village Centre Project as resolved every two months, in submitted motions log, last update I believe was July 2013.

Anyone know about a CGPCllr signing a rescinding motion to overturn the wage increase awarded by CGPC to a family member, with the intention of increasing it above the NALC settlement, were they reported to the Standards Board?
Why haven't CGPC complied with updating cllrs on the Village Centre Project as resolved every two months, in submitted motions log, last update I believe was July 2013. Anyone know about a CGPCllr signing a rescinding motion to overturn the wage increase awarded by CGPC to a family member, with the intention of increasing it above the NALC settlement, were they reported to the Standards Board? cgpc Rob
  • Score: 1

7:31pm Tue 11 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

This worries me, especially as in Cllr Mitchells article in My Croxley he states that due to a reduction in Council Tax Base we received a grant, which appears to be refuted by TRDC, so was it just a ruse, also £8000 taken out of reserves, so £20000 needed to balance the budget, more like 4% not 1%

Councillor Ridley


The Council's Head of Finance has answered your questions below.

Regards

Phil King

Freedom of Information Officer

Three Rivers District Council

Ref: 2233-0314


-----Original Message-----
From: Family Ridley
Sent: 05 March 2014 07:32
To: TRDC - FOI; Steven Halls
Subject: RE: Parkour/grant

Thanks phil

Again under FOI and a Yes or no answer if possible

If there was no grant from TRDC, would TRDC be able to stop CGPC putting that amount of money in a charge to CG residents, what reduction in council tax base? NO


Are CGPC linked to a ratio of residencies to budget/precept charge related to council tax base, NO or can they charge what they want irrespective without being capped? YES

Regards

Cllr R J Ridley

Not being capped, charge what they like,
This worries me, especially as in Cllr Mitchells article in My Croxley he states that due to a reduction in Council Tax Base we received a grant, which appears to be refuted by TRDC, so was it just a ruse, also £8000 taken out of reserves, so £20000 needed to balance the budget, more like 4% not 1% Councillor Ridley The Council's Head of Finance has answered your questions below. Regards Phil King Freedom of Information Officer Three Rivers District Council Ref: 2233-0314 -----Original Message----- From: Family Ridley Sent: 05 March 2014 07:32 To: TRDC - FOI; Steven Halls Subject: RE: Parkour/grant Thanks phil Again under FOI and a Yes or no answer if possible If there was no grant from TRDC, would TRDC be able to stop CGPC putting that amount of money in a charge to CG residents, what reduction in council tax base? NO Are CGPC linked to a ratio of residencies to budget/precept charge related to council tax base, NO or can they charge what they want irrespective without being capped? YES Regards Cllr R J Ridley Not being capped, charge what they like, cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

9:12pm Tue 11 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

In an attempt to secure a return on residents monies that had been invested in the Village Map , the clerk states, in the submitted motions log, business exploitation, has he ever run a business!!

Also another cllr stated but not minuted, why would a they buy something and then give it away for nothing, the clerk also stated it would be a burden on the office staff,

How would it, as CGPC collect cheques from local businesses for advertising in the Pump and the clerk agreed to sell eco litter bin bags for cash from the offices!

CGPC by refusing to even consider the motion have possibly lost income of between £420-£600, unbelievable for the residents, read below

From:
"Grosvenor Estates"
Save Addresses
To:
"'Family Ridley'"
Date: Feb 27 2014, 03:29 PM
Subject:
RE: RE: June FCM welcome
Show full header
Hi Robert,

My thinking was to give one to everyone moving into one of our properties either sold or let in Croxley Green, which would be in the region of 70/100 per year.

I am happy to supply addresses to the PC is they want to send them a free map, subject to data protection.

Regards

Tony

grosvenor estate agents
www.grosvenorestates
.co.uk

163 new rd
croxley green
herts
WD3 3HB

01923 711651
-----Original Message-----
From: Family Ridley
Sent: 27 February 2014 13:00
To: Grosvenor Estates
Subject: RE: RE: June FCM welcome

Tony

Could you estimate as a ball park figure how many additional Village maps you might have purchased as gifts for residents moving into Croxley Greeen if you had been
able to purchase the initial 30, would it be an additional 80/90/100?

So ball park figure 120?

Cheers
Rob


====================
====================

Message Received: Oct 03 2011, 09:43 AM
From: "Grosvenor Estates"
To: "'Family Ridley'"
Cc:
Subject: RE: RE: June FCM welcome

Hi Robert,



Crazy !!



Tony



grosvenor estate agents

www.grosvenorestates
.co.uk



163 new rd

croxley green

herts

WD3 3HB



01923 711651

_____

From: Family Ridley
Sent: 03 October 2011 07:20
To: Grosvenor Estates
Subject: RE: RE: June FCM welcome



Tony.

Put forward the proposal, council rejected it and don't wont to sell the maps at £2 each instead the clerk stated that they are giving them away free and a cllr stated why
would a business buy something and then give it away for free?

Obviously never heard of a loss leader or incentive for the customer to remember.
Is that the difference between the public and private sector.

If you contact the clerk 710250 he should be able to supply you with the maps, free of charge.

Thanks for your offer.

Regards

Rob





====================
====================

Message Received: Sep 19 2011, 11:22 AM
From: "Grosvenor Estates"
To: "'Family Ridley'"
Cc:
Subject: RE: RE: June FCM welcome




Hi Robert, Confirming the purchase of 30 maps at £2 each. Regards Tony

grosvenor estate agentswww.grosvenore
states.co.uk 163 new rdcroxley greenhertsWD3 3HB 01923 711651

_____

From: Family Ridley
Sent: 15 September 2011 16:48
To: Tony Bennett
Subject: FW: RE: June FCM welcome

Tony

Could you confirm that you would like 30 parish maps at £2each £60 in total.

Regards

Rob



====================
====================

Message Received: Sep 12 2011, 07:27 AM
From: "Family Ridley"
To: "Grosvenor Estates"
Cc:
Subject: RE: June FCM welcome


Tony.

I will find out how many maps we have in stock, if they are £3, how many would you take,20? If £2, 30?

Regards

Rob


====================
====================

Message Received: Sep 08 2011, 09:19 AM
From: "Grosvenor Estates"
To: "'Family Ridley'"
Cc:
Subject: RE: June FCM welcome




You wish !! you were trying to get rid of those when I was on the council !! I’ll run it by the office and come back to you about the maps. Regards Tony grosvenor estate
agentswww.grosvenore
states.co.uk 163 new rdcroxley greenhertsWD3 3HB 01923 711651

_____

From: Family Ridley Sent: 07 September 2011 17:21
To: Grosvenor Estates
Subject: RE: June FCM welcome
Tony.

I believe about £3.

Can I put you down for 1000?

Cheers
Rob




====================
====================

Message Received: Sep 07 2011, 05:12 PM
From: "Grosvenor Estates"
To: "'Family Ridley'"
Cc:
Subject: RE: June FCM welcome




Hi Rob, No problem with addresses. How much are the maps ? Tony grosvenor estate agentswww.grosvenore
states.co.uk 163 new rdcroxley greenhertsWD3 3HB
01923 711651

_____

From: Family Ridley
Sent: 07 September 2011 16:48
To:
Subject: June FCM welcome



Tony.

As per our conversation, would you as a company be able to comply with the parish council obtaining addresses only of residents who move into Croxley Green so that
we could hand deliver a welcome letter. Would you be interested in purchasing the Village Map at cost so that you could give as a present yourselves?

Regards

Rob     
CROXLEY GREEN PARISH COUNCILTHE COUNCIL OFFICES Community Way Croxley Green Rickmansworth Herts WD3 3SU


info@croxleygreen-pc
.gov.ukwww.croxleygr
een-pc.gov.uk



Tel: 01923 710250Fax: 01923 896425

  FCM meeting June 30 2011 Agenda Item ….. /11 HeadingWelcome to Croxley Green letter   Introduction or Background People are forever moving house and
Croxley Green is no exception as people come and go. Some with young families etc. Sometimes it can take a while to become familiar with the layout of an area including
what’s on, where it is, who does it etc. Discussion Narrative Council to request from local Estate Agents and TRDC
if a property has been sold and to send the resident a welcoming letter with information about Croxley Green, pointing them towards our website and all its features, to
assist anyone new to the area to find there feet. Council to inform local estate agents that they can purchase the Croxley Green Map at cost price to give to residents
moving into Croxley Green, this would bring in revenue. Council to develop a welcoming letter, see attachment. Recommendation(s) Council request from local estate
agents addresses of properties recently sold within CG.Council to inform local estate agents that the Croxley Map can be purchased at cost price to give to residents
who complete a house purchase within Croxley GreenCouncil to hand deliver a welcoming letter to any property within Croxley Green that has been recently moved into..
Cllr R J Ridley
In an attempt to secure a return on residents monies that had been invested in the Village Map , the clerk states, in the submitted motions log, business exploitation, has he ever run a business!! Also another cllr stated but not minuted, why would a they buy something and then give it away for nothing, the clerk also stated it would be a burden on the office staff, How would it, as CGPC collect cheques from local businesses for advertising in the Pump and the clerk agreed to sell eco litter bin bags for cash from the offices! CGPC by refusing to even consider the motion have possibly lost income of between £420-£600, unbelievable for the residents, read below From: "Grosvenor Estates" Save Addresses To: "'Family Ridley'" Date: Feb 27 2014, 03:29 PM Subject: RE: RE: June FCM welcome Show full header Hi Robert, My thinking was to give one to everyone moving into one of our properties either sold or let in Croxley Green, which would be in the region of 70/100 per year. I am happy to supply addresses to the PC is they want to send them a free map, subject to data protection. Regards Tony grosvenor estate agents www.grosvenorestates .co.uk 163 new rd croxley green herts WD3 3HB 01923 711651 -----Original Message----- From: Family Ridley Sent: 27 February 2014 13:00 To: Grosvenor Estates Subject: RE: RE: June FCM welcome Tony Could you estimate as a ball park figure how many additional Village maps you might have purchased as gifts for residents moving into Croxley Greeen if you had been able to purchase the initial 30, would it be an additional 80/90/100? So ball park figure 120? Cheers Rob ==================== ==================== Message Received: Oct 03 2011, 09:43 AM From: "Grosvenor Estates" To: "'Family Ridley'" Cc: Subject: RE: RE: June FCM welcome Hi Robert, Crazy !! Tony grosvenor estate agents www.grosvenorestates .co.uk 163 new rd croxley green herts WD3 3HB 01923 711651 _____ From: Family Ridley Sent: 03 October 2011 07:20 To: Grosvenor Estates Subject: RE: RE: June FCM welcome Tony. Put forward the proposal, council rejected it and don't wont to sell the maps at £2 each instead the clerk stated that they are giving them away free and a cllr stated why would a business buy something and then give it away for free? Obviously never heard of a loss leader or incentive for the customer to remember. Is that the difference between the public and private sector. If you contact the clerk 710250 he should be able to supply you with the maps, free of charge. Thanks for your offer. Regards Rob ==================== ==================== Message Received: Sep 19 2011, 11:22 AM From: "Grosvenor Estates" To: "'Family Ridley'" Cc: Subject: RE: RE: June FCM welcome Hi Robert, Confirming the purchase of 30 maps at £2 each. Regards Tony grosvenor estate agentswww.grosvenore states.co.uk 163 new rdcroxley greenhertsWD3 3HB 01923 711651 _____ From: Family Ridley Sent: 15 September 2011 16:48 To: Tony Bennett Subject: FW: RE: June FCM welcome Tony Could you confirm that you would like 30 parish maps at £2each £60 in total. Regards Rob ==================== ==================== Message Received: Sep 12 2011, 07:27 AM From: "Family Ridley" To: "Grosvenor Estates" Cc: Subject: RE: June FCM welcome Tony. I will find out how many maps we have in stock, if they are £3, how many would you take,20? If £2, 30? Regards Rob ==================== ==================== Message Received: Sep 08 2011, 09:19 AM From: "Grosvenor Estates" To: "'Family Ridley'" Cc: Subject: RE: June FCM welcome You wish !! you were trying to get rid of those when I was on the council !! I’ll run it by the office and come back to you about the maps. Regards Tony grosvenor estate agentswww.grosvenore states.co.uk 163 new rdcroxley greenhertsWD3 3HB 01923 711651 _____ From: Family Ridley Sent: 07 September 2011 17:21 To: Grosvenor Estates Subject: RE: June FCM welcome Tony. I believe about £3. Can I put you down for 1000? Cheers Rob ==================== ==================== Message Received: Sep 07 2011, 05:12 PM From: "Grosvenor Estates" To: "'Family Ridley'" Cc: Subject: RE: June FCM welcome Hi Rob, No problem with addresses. How much are the maps ? Tony grosvenor estate agentswww.grosvenore states.co.uk 163 new rdcroxley greenhertsWD3 3HB 01923 711651 _____ From: Family Ridley Sent: 07 September 2011 16:48 To: Subject: June FCM welcome Tony. As per our conversation, would you as a company be able to comply with the parish council obtaining addresses only of residents who move into Croxley Green so that we could hand deliver a welcome letter. Would you be interested in purchasing the Village Map at cost so that you could give as a present yourselves? Regards Rob      CROXLEY GREEN PARISH COUNCILTHE COUNCIL OFFICES Community Way Croxley Green Rickmansworth Herts WD3 3SU info@croxleygreen-pc .gov.ukwww.croxleygr een-pc.gov.uk Tel: 01923 710250Fax: 01923 896425   FCM meeting June 30 2011 Agenda Item ….. /11 HeadingWelcome to Croxley Green letter   Introduction or Background People are forever moving house and Croxley Green is no exception as people come and go. Some with young families etc. Sometimes it can take a while to become familiar with the layout of an area including what’s on, where it is, who does it etc. Discussion Narrative Council to request from local Estate Agents and TRDC [ check that it is legal for the data to be given to CGPC] if a property has been sold and to send the resident[s] a welcoming letter with information about Croxley Green, pointing them towards our website and all its features, to assist anyone new to the area to find there feet. Council to inform local estate agents that they can purchase the Croxley Green Map at cost price to give to residents moving into Croxley Green, this would bring in revenue. Council to develop a welcoming letter, see attachment. Recommendation(s) Council request from local estate agents addresses of properties recently sold within CG.Council to inform local estate agents that the Croxley Map can be purchased at cost price to give to residents who complete a house purchase within Croxley GreenCouncil to hand deliver a welcoming letter to any property within Croxley Green that has been recently moved into.. Cllr R J Ridley cgpc Rob
  • Score: 1

10:55pm Tue 11 Mar 14

martin grant says...

Anyone know of a secure `nut house` in the area.

I`m more than willing to take cgpc Rob,

For God`s sake Rob shut up. We have heard enough of the CGRA run Parish Council for this year.
Anyone know of a secure `nut house` in the area. I`m more than willing to take cgpc Rob, For God`s sake Rob shut up. We have heard enough of the CGRA run Parish Council for this year. martin grant
  • Score: -1

4:39am Wed 12 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

martin grant wrote:
Anyone know of a secure `nut house` in the area.

I`m more than willing to take cgpc Rob,

For God`s sake Rob shut up. We have heard enough of the CGRA run Parish Council for this year.
What do you mean about CGRA run Parish Council!

CGPC costs a lot, duplicates TRDC in the main, most articles from chairs in My Croxley are only about parish council events, website fails to publicise events by local organisations who pay for it as CG residents, you may name call all you want, but this is a public forum and I'm as anyone else entitled to post.

Many residents aren't happy with the way CGPC runs, a Community Questionnaire was put out by CGPC/CGRA where they state a response of 285, as it was open to all residents and there are nearly 110000 on the electoral register, the percentage is more like 13%, but they are trying to convince residents that they have a mandate!

Attend the APM on April 24, details will be on the CGPC website about the venue.
[quote][p][bold]martin grant[/bold] wrote: Anyone know of a secure `nut house` in the area. I`m more than willing to take cgpc Rob, For God`s sake Rob shut up. We have heard enough of the CGRA run Parish Council for this year.[/p][/quote]What do you mean about CGRA run Parish Council! CGPC costs a lot, duplicates TRDC in the main, most articles from chairs in My Croxley are only about parish council events, website fails to publicise events by local organisations who pay for it as CG residents, you may name call all you want, but this is a public forum and I'm as anyone else entitled to post. Many residents aren't happy with the way CGPC runs, a Community Questionnaire was put out by CGPC/CGRA where they state a response of 285, as it was open to all residents and there are nearly 110000 on the electoral register, the percentage is more like 13%, but they are trying to convince residents that they have a mandate! Attend the APM on April 24, details will be on the CGPC website about the venue. cgpc Rob
  • Score: 0

7:46am Wed 12 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Response to CQ should be 28% as being spouted by the CGRA/CGPC
Response to CQ should be 28% as being spouted by the CGRA/CGPC cgpc Rob
  • Score: 1

8:53am Wed 12 Mar 14

Hikari Warrior says...

cgpc Rob wrote:
martin grant wrote: Anyone know of a secure `nut house` in the area. I`m more than willing to take cgpc Rob, For God`s sake Rob shut up. We have heard enough of the CGRA run Parish Council for this year.
What do you mean about CGRA run Parish Council! CGPC costs a lot, duplicates TRDC in the main, most articles from chairs in My Croxley are only about parish council events, website fails to publicise events by local organisations who pay for it as CG residents, you may name call all you want, but this is a public forum and I'm as anyone else entitled to post. Many residents aren't happy with the way CGPC runs, a Community Questionnaire was put out by CGPC/CGRA where they state a response of 285, as it was open to all residents and there are nearly 110000 on the electoral register, the percentage is more like 13%, but they are trying to convince residents that they have a mandate! Attend the APM on April 24, details will be on the CGPC website about the venue.
Who gets up at 4:39am to post a comment on the WO website for gawd's sake....
I really think it's time to stop now Cllr. Either the whole world is out of step with you, or you are out of step with the world. I know where my money is!
[quote][p][bold]cgpc Rob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]martin grant[/bold] wrote: Anyone know of a secure `nut house` in the area. I`m more than willing to take cgpc Rob, For God`s sake Rob shut up. We have heard enough of the CGRA run Parish Council for this year.[/p][/quote]What do you mean about CGRA run Parish Council! CGPC costs a lot, duplicates TRDC in the main, most articles from chairs in My Croxley are only about parish council events, website fails to publicise events by local organisations who pay for it as CG residents, you may name call all you want, but this is a public forum and I'm as anyone else entitled to post. Many residents aren't happy with the way CGPC runs, a Community Questionnaire was put out by CGPC/CGRA where they state a response of 285, as it was open to all residents and there are nearly 110000 on the electoral register, the percentage is more like 13%, but they are trying to convince residents that they have a mandate! Attend the APM on April 24, details will be on the CGPC website about the venue.[/p][/quote]Who gets up at 4:39am to post a comment on the WO website for gawd's sake.... I really think it's time to stop now Cllr. Either the whole world is out of step with you, or you are out of step with the world. I know where my money is! Hikari Warrior
  • Score: -1

9:05am Wed 12 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Hikari Warrior wrote:
cgpc Rob wrote:
martin grant wrote: Anyone know of a secure `nut house` in the area. I`m more than willing to take cgpc Rob, For God`s sake Rob shut up. We have heard enough of the CGRA run Parish Council for this year.
What do you mean about CGRA run Parish Council! CGPC costs a lot, duplicates TRDC in the main, most articles from chairs in My Croxley are only about parish council events, website fails to publicise events by local organisations who pay for it as CG residents, you may name call all you want, but this is a public forum and I'm as anyone else entitled to post. Many residents aren't happy with the way CGPC runs, a Community Questionnaire was put out by CGPC/CGRA where they state a response of 285, as it was open to all residents and there are nearly 110000 on the electoral register, the percentage is more like 13%, but they are trying to convince residents that they have a mandate! Attend the APM on April 24, details will be on the CGPC website about the venue.
Who gets up at 4:39am to post a comment on the WO website for gawd's sake....
I really think it's time to stop now Cllr. Either the whole world is out of step with you, or you are out of step with the world. I know where my money is!
The more I see of this attempt by anonymous posters to ridicule and stifle Cllr Ridley, the more I wonder why this is.

Mr Warrior above now implies he speaks for the whole world. Quite an achievement.
[quote][p][bold]Hikari Warrior[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cgpc Rob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]martin grant[/bold] wrote: Anyone know of a secure `nut house` in the area. I`m more than willing to take cgpc Rob, For God`s sake Rob shut up. We have heard enough of the CGRA run Parish Council for this year.[/p][/quote]What do you mean about CGRA run Parish Council! CGPC costs a lot, duplicates TRDC in the main, most articles from chairs in My Croxley are only about parish council events, website fails to publicise events by local organisations who pay for it as CG residents, you may name call all you want, but this is a public forum and I'm as anyone else entitled to post. Many residents aren't happy with the way CGPC runs, a Community Questionnaire was put out by CGPC/CGRA where they state a response of 285, as it was open to all residents and there are nearly 110000 on the electoral register, the percentage is more like 13%, but they are trying to convince residents that they have a mandate! Attend the APM on April 24, details will be on the CGPC website about the venue.[/p][/quote]Who gets up at 4:39am to post a comment on the WO website for gawd's sake.... I really think it's time to stop now Cllr. Either the whole world is out of step with you, or you are out of step with the world. I know where my money is![/p][/quote]The more I see of this attempt by anonymous posters to ridicule and stifle Cllr Ridley, the more I wonder why this is. Mr Warrior above now implies he speaks for the whole world. Quite an achievement. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 2

9:43am Wed 12 Mar 14

Hikari Warrior says...

Well, like any mediocre politician it is very clear you have still not done any research, even though you have been signposted on a number of ocassions. But, hey ho.....

I don't speak for the whole world - it's a figure of speech. My apologies; I didn't realise I would have to explain. A wiser man than me once said "Never enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed man". I think that point is proven. Or, could it be you only have half a one.
Well, like any mediocre politician it is very clear you have still not done any research, even though you have been signposted on a number of ocassions. But, hey ho..... I don't speak for the whole world - it's a figure of speech. My apologies; I didn't realise I would have to explain. A wiser man than me once said "Never enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed man". I think that point is proven. Or, could it be you only have half a one. Hikari Warrior
  • Score: -1

10:15am Wed 12 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

I have an election to fight in Watford so no, I'm not going to research CGPC issues at this time.

I do however have concerns if a council is wasting taxpayers money or worse. It is a matter of principle. Tax money, money from our pockets, should be spent efficiently or not spent at all if it doesn't need to be spent.

Cllr Ridley raises a number of issues of concern on the finances and practices of CGPC. From what I have seen on these pages there are potential areas of concern.

If you think he is wrong and if you know so much, put your information on here, as Cllr Ridley has done, for everyone to see but you do yourself no favours by continually evading the issues and attacking the messenger, Cllr Ridley or myself.

That is the failed politics of the other three parties, and people are now coming to see it, and them, for what they are.

Let's shed a little light into the corners that the other parties would rather keep dark. Join the revolution. Let's get the truth out into the open, for better or for worse. Only then can we make things better for all concerned.
I have an election to fight in Watford so no, I'm not going to research CGPC issues at this time. I do however have concerns if a council is wasting taxpayers money or worse. It is a matter of principle. Tax money, money from our pockets, should be spent efficiently or not spent at all if it doesn't need to be spent. Cllr Ridley raises a number of issues of concern on the finances and practices of CGPC. From what I have seen on these pages there are potential areas of concern. If you think he is wrong and if you know so much, put your information on here, as Cllr Ridley has done, for everyone to see but you do yourself no favours by continually evading the issues and attacking the messenger, Cllr Ridley or myself. That is the failed politics of the other three parties, and people are now coming to see it, and them, for what they are. Let's shed a little light into the corners that the other parties would rather keep dark. Join the revolution. Let's get the truth out into the open, for better or for worse. Only then can we make things better for all concerned. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 2

12:18pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Hikari Warrior says...

I'm not evading any issues. I merely suggested you do a bit of reasearch and you will then realise this is all smoke and mirrors. Google and the Watford Observer archive. That's all you need.....

I certainly don't have the time to type tome after tome to "put the information on here". I'm not attacking anyone - you appear to be attacking yourselves quite adequately.

As an aside, you wouldn't wouldn't ever get my vote if you are not prepared to do a little research and make sure your campaign has some merit.
I'm not evading any issues. I merely suggested you do a bit of reasearch and you will then realise this is all smoke and mirrors. Google and the Watford Observer archive. That's all you need..... I certainly don't have the time to type tome after tome to "put the information on here". I'm not attacking anyone - you appear to be attacking yourselves quite adequately. As an aside, you wouldn't wouldn't ever get my vote if you are not prepared to do a little research and make sure your campaign has some merit. Hikari Warrior
  • Score: -5

12:29pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Hikari Warrior wrote:
I'm not evading any issues. I merely suggested you do a bit of reasearch and you will then realise this is all smoke and mirrors. Google and the Watford Observer archive. That's all you need.....

I certainly don't have the time to type tome after tome to "put the information on here". I'm not attacking anyone - you appear to be attacking yourselves quite adequately.

As an aside, you wouldn't wouldn't ever get my vote if you are not prepared to do a little research and make sure your campaign has some merit.
I'm campaigning and working hard in Watford, not Croxley, as I said in my last post.

If you don't have the time or inclination to put down what you already know then I fail to see how you think I have the time to spend looking it all up in Google and WO archives either, running a business and standing for Mayor.

I also believe you urged people to look in the WO archives for previous postings from Cllr Ridley which he posted under a false name or names. All I can say is good luck with that one. The closest I ever got to fathoming out who anonymous posters were was when they were outed by others in the know.

So far, only Cllr Ridley has put down any evidence on this page. That says something in my book.
[quote][p][bold]Hikari Warrior[/bold] wrote: I'm not evading any issues. I merely suggested you do a bit of reasearch and you will then realise this is all smoke and mirrors. Google and the Watford Observer archive. That's all you need..... I certainly don't have the time to type tome after tome to "put the information on here". I'm not attacking anyone - you appear to be attacking yourselves quite adequately. As an aside, you wouldn't wouldn't ever get my vote if you are not prepared to do a little research and make sure your campaign has some merit.[/p][/quote]I'm campaigning and working hard in Watford, not Croxley, as I said in my last post. If you don't have the time or inclination to put down what you already know then I fail to see how you think I have the time to spend looking it all up in Google and WO archives either, running a business and standing for Mayor. I also believe you urged people to look in the WO archives for previous postings from Cllr Ridley which he posted under a false name or names. All I can say is good luck with that one. The closest I ever got to fathoming out who anonymous posters were was when they were outed by others in the know. So far, only Cllr Ridley has put down any evidence on this page. That says something in my book. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 1

3:27pm Wed 12 Mar 14

CaptainPC says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Some people are still attacking the messenger and not the message. Typical politicians tactics under false names.

Cllr Ridley has raised some serious points of possible financial maladministration and his opponents are all attacking him for saying things rather than for what he is saying.

If I were a Croxley taxpayer I would be wanting to find out the truth of the matter. If Cllr Ridley is right then it really is quite worrying.

If I were a Croxley resident then on balance I would be pleased a councillor is highlighting issues of possible financial misdeeds. CGPC probably needs investigating.
Oh turn it in mate. You're boring.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Some people are still attacking the messenger and not the message. Typical politicians tactics under false names. Cllr Ridley has raised some serious points of possible financial maladministration and his opponents are all attacking him for saying things rather than for what he is saying. If I were a Croxley taxpayer I would be wanting to find out the truth of the matter. If Cllr Ridley is right then it really is quite worrying. If I were a Croxley resident then on balance I would be pleased a councillor is highlighting issues of possible financial misdeeds. CGPC probably needs investigating.[/p][/quote]Oh turn it in mate. You're boring. CaptainPC
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Wed 12 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

What difference does it make when I post, do the wO operate a time limit or are we in a 24 hour society, in fact I posted at that time to see if you would bite and you did!



To enable best value and that contractors who wished to submit estimates for works that CGPC might undertake, painting the offices/fireworks, xmas lights/printing for example. I proposed that CGPC establish a contractors list and inform contractors via the chairman's article in My Croxley, the Pump and on our website and when the contracts were up for renewal CGPC could contact them as a first call and also publicise it again in the above, MC,Pump etc

Not interested.

Also submitted in July 2012 four contractors listed below who wanted to submit an estimate for the NYE fireworks display to ensure best value, because not once had CGPC sought any other than the contractor that Cllr Bennett had submitted some ten years ago.

Allstar Fireworks
M Jupp
The Stables, Gould Green, Middx, UB8 3DG Tel: 01895 435000
Fantastic Fireworks
Hayley Madden
Fantastic Fireworks, Rocket Park, Pepperstock, Hertfordshire LU1 4LL
Telephone 01582 485555
Gala Fireworks
Danny
The Boston, College St Northampton NN7 2QP Tel: 01604 926001
Harlequin fireworks
Mr Roy Penrose
Sunnyhill, Style Croft Rd, Chalfont St. Giles, HP8 4HY Tel: 01494 413613

Not interested
What difference does it make when I post, do the wO operate a time limit or are we in a 24 hour society, in fact I posted at that time to see if you would bite and you did! To enable best value and that contractors who wished to submit estimates for works that CGPC might undertake, painting the offices/fireworks, xmas lights/printing for example. I proposed that CGPC establish a contractors list and inform contractors via the chairman's article in My Croxley, the Pump and on our website and when the contracts were up for renewal CGPC could contact them as a first call and also publicise it again in the above, MC,Pump etc Not interested. Also submitted in July 2012 four contractors listed below who wanted to submit an estimate for the NYE fireworks display to ensure best value, because not once had CGPC sought any other than the contractor that Cllr Bennett had submitted some ten years ago. Allstar Fireworks M Jupp The Stables, Gould Green, Middx, UB8 3DG Tel: 01895 435000 Fantastic Fireworks Hayley Madden Fantastic Fireworks, Rocket Park, Pepperstock, Hertfordshire LU1 4LL Telephone 01582 485555 Gala Fireworks Danny The Boston, College St Northampton NN7 2QP Tel: 01604 926001 Harlequin fireworks Mr Roy Penrose Sunnyhill, Style Croft Rd, Chalfont St. Giles, HP8 4HY Tel: 01494 413613 Not interested cgpc Rob
  • Score: 3

7:17pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Metroland says...

What a whole load of drivel this all is. It seems facts and fiction, or more to the point, skewed facts and fiction have no connection to reality. If you actually read minutes of meetings decisions are made in a democratic way, by majority. Fortunately, the Parish Council is not a dictatorship. Get a life Bob.
What a whole load of drivel this all is. It seems facts and fiction, or more to the point, skewed facts and fiction have no connection to reality. If you actually read minutes of meetings decisions are made in a democratic way, by majority. Fortunately, the Parish Council is not a dictatorship. Get a life Bob. Metroland
  • Score: -1

7:41am Thu 13 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Metroland wrote:
What a whole load of drivel this all is. It seems facts and fiction, or more to the point, skewed facts and fiction have no connection to reality. If you actually read minutes of meetings decisions are made in a democratic way, by majority. Fortunately, the Parish Council is not a dictatorship. Get a life Bob.
Another mysterious poster!!!!!!

Minutes aren't verbatim and lots are left out, fact not fiction.

If any of you have a problem, contact me, details on the website and use a real name!
[quote][p][bold]Metroland[/bold] wrote: What a whole load of drivel this all is. It seems facts and fiction, or more to the point, skewed facts and fiction have no connection to reality. If you actually read minutes of meetings decisions are made in a democratic way, by majority. Fortunately, the Parish Council is not a dictatorship. Get a life Bob.[/p][/quote]Another mysterious poster!!!!!! Minutes aren't verbatim and lots are left out, fact not fiction. If any of you have a problem, contact me, details on the website and use a real name! cgpc Rob
  • Score: -1

11:34am Thu 13 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

A M Saxon contacted me by email as did another resident about their concerns on a local issue.

M Saxons concern, the removal of a litter bin at a lock and the area becoming overflowing with rubbish, the other residents concern, parking on grass verges in Baldwins Lane, made representation on their behalf to have E/A committee discuss their concerns, the clerk wouldn't allow it stating
"it could be done by officers, him and TRDC/HCC.

No debate, no chance to raise residents concerns and have them minuted.

Reminds me of when a resident contacted all cllrs who had an email address about their concern of back garden development in their road and that TRDC were discussing it three days later at their Planning Meeting, informed them that they could attend the meeting and have three minutes to state their objections, photos being distributed to the committee members might help, as possibly would local residents signing a petition.

Cllr Mitchell, then vice chair of CGPC P/D complained about my involvement in a motion, when I asked the resident which cllrs had bothered to respond, replied only I had and thanked me for my assistance!
A M Saxon contacted me by email as did another resident about their concerns on a local issue. M Saxons concern, the removal of a litter bin at a lock and the area becoming overflowing with rubbish, the other residents concern, parking on grass verges in Baldwins Lane, made representation on their behalf to have E/A committee discuss their concerns, the clerk wouldn't allow it stating "it could be done by officers, him and TRDC/HCC. No debate, no chance to raise residents concerns and have them minuted. Reminds me of when a resident contacted all cllrs who had an email address about their concern of back garden development in their road and that TRDC were discussing it three days later at their Planning Meeting, informed them that they could attend the meeting and have three minutes to state their objections, photos being distributed to the committee members might help, as possibly would local residents signing a petition. Cllr Mitchell, then vice chair of CGPC P/D complained about my involvement in a motion, when I asked the resident which cllrs had bothered to respond, replied only I had and thanked me for my assistance! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

11:48am Thu 13 Mar 14

CaptainPC says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Hikari Warrior wrote:
I'm not evading any issues. I merely suggested you do a bit of reasearch and you will then realise this is all smoke and mirrors. Google and the Watford Observer archive. That's all you need.....

I certainly don't have the time to type tome after tome to "put the information on here". I'm not attacking anyone - you appear to be attacking yourselves quite adequately.

As an aside, you wouldn't wouldn't ever get my vote if you are not prepared to do a little research and make sure your campaign has some merit.
I'm campaigning and working hard in Watford, not Croxley, as I said in my last post.

If you don't have the time or inclination to put down what you already know then I fail to see how you think I have the time to spend looking it all up in Google and WO archives either, running a business and standing for Mayor.

I also believe you urged people to look in the WO archives for previous postings from Cllr Ridley which he posted under a false name or names. All I can say is good luck with that one. The closest I ever got to fathoming out who anonymous posters were was when they were outed by others in the know.

So far, only Cllr Ridley has put down any evidence on this page. That says something in my book.
What if Mr Ridley turned out to be Belgian? Would you support him then?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hikari Warrior[/bold] wrote: I'm not evading any issues. I merely suggested you do a bit of reasearch and you will then realise this is all smoke and mirrors. Google and the Watford Observer archive. That's all you need..... I certainly don't have the time to type tome after tome to "put the information on here". I'm not attacking anyone - you appear to be attacking yourselves quite adequately. As an aside, you wouldn't wouldn't ever get my vote if you are not prepared to do a little research and make sure your campaign has some merit.[/p][/quote]I'm campaigning and working hard in Watford, not Croxley, as I said in my last post. If you don't have the time or inclination to put down what you already know then I fail to see how you think I have the time to spend looking it all up in Google and WO archives either, running a business and standing for Mayor. I also believe you urged people to look in the WO archives for previous postings from Cllr Ridley which he posted under a false name or names. All I can say is good luck with that one. The closest I ever got to fathoming out who anonymous posters were was when they were outed by others in the know. So far, only Cllr Ridley has put down any evidence on this page. That says something in my book.[/p][/quote]What if Mr Ridley turned out to be Belgian? Would you support him then? CaptainPC
  • Score: -1

7:20am Fri 14 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

I'm sure Phil cox would support anyone legally residing in this country, paying taxes and benefiting our society! Your attempt at trivializing is a cheap shot, that doesn't work. Never met Phil Cox or spoken to him, either!

I don't live in Frankland Road, not a member of or have family connections to the Croxley Green Residents Association/Croxley Green society/Keep Croxley Green Group, anyone know who their members are?

Are any members with a connection or family connection to these groups, CGPCcllrs?
I'm sure Phil cox would support anyone legally residing in this country, paying taxes and benefiting our society! Your attempt at trivializing is a cheap shot, that doesn't work. Never met Phil Cox or spoken to him, either! I don't live in Frankland Road, not a member of or have family connections to the Croxley Green Residents Association/Croxley Green society/Keep Croxley Green Group, anyone know who their members are? Are any members with a connection or family connection to these groups, CGPCcllrs? cgpc Rob
  • Score: 1

7:21am Fri 14 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Also not a member of UKIP, so no link there!
Also not a member of UKIP, so no link there! cgpc Rob
  • Score: -1

7:30am Fri 14 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Why want three estimates for a group that you are the Treasurer for but not apparently for CGPC and the residents on contracts that they undertake with the residents money!

From:
CllrNBennett@croxley
green-pc.gov.uk
Save Addresses
To:
"Family Ridley"
Why want three estimates for a group that you are the Treasurer for but not apparently for CGPC and the residents on contracts that they undertake with the residents money! From: CllrNBennett@croxley green-pc.gov.uk Save Addresses To: "Family Ridley" cgpc Rob
  • Score: 0

7:34am Fri 14 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

From:
CllrNBennett@croxley
green-pc.gov.uk
Save Addresses
To:
"Family Ridley"
CC:
"Ken Baldwin"
Date: Dec 19 2013, 12:10 PM
Subject:
Re: FW: Accounts
Show full header


Cllr Ridley,

Yes we do.

Regards

Cllr B



On 15.12.2013 17:17, Family Ridley wrote:

Cllr Bennett

Thanks and do the CGS obtain three tenders to ensure best value on stage hire etc for the money that is paid from residents to the CGS, if not why?

Regards

Cllr R J Ridley

====================
====================

Message Received: Dec 15 2013, 12:29 PM
From: CllrNBennett@croxley
green-pc.gov.ukTo: "Family Ridley"
Cc: "Ken Baldwin"
Subject: Re: FW: Accounts



Cllr Ridley,

The companies that have supplied the stage for Croxfest have been as
follows:-

2011 - Smile Events Limited, Hemel Hempstead

2012 - Eclipse Sound And Light Limited, Ipswich

2013 - Eclipse Sound And Light Limited, Ipswich

Regards

Cllr B

On 14.12.2013 18:23, Family Ridley wrote:
====================
==================== Message Received: Dec 13 2013, 03:04 PM From: "Family Ridley" To: "bennett" Cc: Subject: Accounts Cllr Bennett Could you inform me/council of which company has supplied the stage for Croxfest since its inception, including this years, as there is no info in the accounts
supplied.
Regards Cllr R J Ridley
From: CllrNBennett@croxley green-pc.gov.uk Save Addresses To: "Family Ridley" CC: "Ken Baldwin" Date: Dec 19 2013, 12:10 PM Subject: Re: FW: Accounts Show full header Cllr Ridley, Yes we do. Regards Cllr B On 15.12.2013 17:17, Family Ridley wrote: Cllr Bennett Thanks and do the CGS obtain three tenders to ensure best value on stage hire etc for the money that is paid from residents to the CGS, if not why? Regards Cllr R J Ridley ==================== ==================== Message Received: Dec 15 2013, 12:29 PM From: CllrNBennett@croxley green-pc.gov.ukTo: "Family Ridley" Cc: "Ken Baldwin" Subject: Re: FW: Accounts Cllr Ridley, The companies that have supplied the stage for Croxfest have been as follows:- 2011 - Smile Events Limited, Hemel Hempstead 2012 - Eclipse Sound And Light Limited, Ipswich 2013 - Eclipse Sound And Light Limited, Ipswich Regards Cllr B On 14.12.2013 18:23, Family Ridley wrote: ==================== ==================== Message Received: Dec 13 2013, 03:04 PM From: "Family Ridley" To: "bennett" Cc: Subject: Accounts Cllr Bennett Could you inform me/council of which company has supplied the stage for Croxfest since its inception, including this years, as there is no info in the accounts supplied. Regards Cllr R J Ridley cgpc Rob
  • Score: 1

8:18am Fri 14 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Some years ago to encourage fitness/youth activities CGPC decided to explore whether a sports wall/tennis wall could be installed in the recreation areas, an ideal spot being incorporating a wall into the existing boundary in Baldwins Lane which faced the park.

On one side it tennis players could practice serving/rebounds etc and the other side to incorporate a goal area/cricket stumps/baseball sq, the cost £10000.

CGPC approved the idea which I proposed, at a later date M Saxon and it is minuted stated I cost the residents £10000, which at the next meeting I had to explain as the chair Cllr Bennett or the clerk as Responsible Financial Officer hadn't, that if monies are not spent on projects they go into reserves, I personally didn't gain!

Surprised as M Saxon as a cllr voted for it!

This is the link, so look if you want?

http://www.serveacet
ennis.co.uk/default.
asp
Some years ago to encourage fitness/youth activities CGPC decided to explore whether a sports wall/tennis wall could be installed in the recreation areas, an ideal spot being incorporating a wall into the existing boundary in Baldwins Lane which faced the park. On one side it tennis players could practice serving/rebounds etc and the other side to incorporate a goal area/cricket stumps/baseball sq, the cost £10000. CGPC approved the idea which I proposed, at a later date M Saxon and it is minuted stated I cost the residents £10000, which at the next meeting I had to explain as the chair Cllr Bennett or the clerk as Responsible Financial Officer hadn't, that if monies are not spent on projects they go into reserves, I personally didn't gain! Surprised as M Saxon as a cllr voted for it! This is the link, so look if you want? http://www.serveacet ennis.co.uk/default. asp cgpc Rob
  • Score: 3

8:33am Fri 14 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

CaptainPC wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Hikari Warrior wrote:
I'm not evading any issues. I merely suggested you do a bit of reasearch and you will then realise this is all smoke and mirrors. Google and the Watford Observer archive. That's all you need.....

I certainly don't have the time to type tome after tome to "put the information on here". I'm not attacking anyone - you appear to be attacking yourselves quite adequately.

As an aside, you wouldn't wouldn't ever get my vote if you are not prepared to do a little research and make sure your campaign has some merit.
I'm campaigning and working hard in Watford, not Croxley, as I said in my last post.

If you don't have the time or inclination to put down what you already know then I fail to see how you think I have the time to spend looking it all up in Google and WO archives either, running a business and standing for Mayor.

I also believe you urged people to look in the WO archives for previous postings from Cllr Ridley which he posted under a false name or names. All I can say is good luck with that one. The closest I ever got to fathoming out who anonymous posters were was when they were outed by others in the know.

So far, only Cllr Ridley has put down any evidence on this page. That says something in my book.
What if Mr Ridley turned out to be Belgian? Would you support him then?
Of course I would. No difference.
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hikari Warrior[/bold] wrote: I'm not evading any issues. I merely suggested you do a bit of reasearch and you will then realise this is all smoke and mirrors. Google and the Watford Observer archive. That's all you need..... I certainly don't have the time to type tome after tome to "put the information on here". I'm not attacking anyone - you appear to be attacking yourselves quite adequately. As an aside, you wouldn't wouldn't ever get my vote if you are not prepared to do a little research and make sure your campaign has some merit.[/p][/quote]I'm campaigning and working hard in Watford, not Croxley, as I said in my last post. If you don't have the time or inclination to put down what you already know then I fail to see how you think I have the time to spend looking it all up in Google and WO archives either, running a business and standing for Mayor. I also believe you urged people to look in the WO archives for previous postings from Cllr Ridley which he posted under a false name or names. All I can say is good luck with that one. The closest I ever got to fathoming out who anonymous posters were was when they were outed by others in the know. So far, only Cllr Ridley has put down any evidence on this page. That says something in my book.[/p][/quote]What if Mr Ridley turned out to be Belgian? Would you support him then?[/p][/quote]Of course I would. No difference. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 3

11:22am Fri 14 Mar 14

CaptainPC says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
CaptainPC wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Hikari Warrior wrote:
I'm not evading any issues. I merely suggested you do a bit of reasearch and you will then realise this is all smoke and mirrors. Google and the Watford Observer archive. That's all you need.....

I certainly don't have the time to type tome after tome to "put the information on here". I'm not attacking anyone - you appear to be attacking yourselves quite adequately.

As an aside, you wouldn't wouldn't ever get my vote if you are not prepared to do a little research and make sure your campaign has some merit.
I'm campaigning and working hard in Watford, not Croxley, as I said in my last post.

If you don't have the time or inclination to put down what you already know then I fail to see how you think I have the time to spend looking it all up in Google and WO archives either, running a business and standing for Mayor.

I also believe you urged people to look in the WO archives for previous postings from Cllr Ridley which he posted under a false name or names. All I can say is good luck with that one. The closest I ever got to fathoming out who anonymous posters were was when they were outed by others in the know.

So far, only Cllr Ridley has put down any evidence on this page. That says something in my book.
What if Mr Ridley turned out to be Belgian? Would you support him then?
Of course I would. No difference.
Romanian?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hikari Warrior[/bold] wrote: I'm not evading any issues. I merely suggested you do a bit of reasearch and you will then realise this is all smoke and mirrors. Google and the Watford Observer archive. That's all you need..... I certainly don't have the time to type tome after tome to "put the information on here". I'm not attacking anyone - you appear to be attacking yourselves quite adequately. As an aside, you wouldn't wouldn't ever get my vote if you are not prepared to do a little research and make sure your campaign has some merit.[/p][/quote]I'm campaigning and working hard in Watford, not Croxley, as I said in my last post. If you don't have the time or inclination to put down what you already know then I fail to see how you think I have the time to spend looking it all up in Google and WO archives either, running a business and standing for Mayor. I also believe you urged people to look in the WO archives for previous postings from Cllr Ridley which he posted under a false name or names. All I can say is good luck with that one. The closest I ever got to fathoming out who anonymous posters were was when they were outed by others in the know. So far, only Cllr Ridley has put down any evidence on this page. That says something in my book.[/p][/quote]What if Mr Ridley turned out to be Belgian? Would you support him then?[/p][/quote]Of course I would. No difference.[/p][/quote]Romanian? CaptainPC
  • Score: -3

11:30am Fri 14 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

CaptainPC wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
CaptainPC wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Hikari Warrior wrote:
I'm not evading any issues. I merely suggested you do a bit of reasearch and you will then realise this is all smoke and mirrors. Google and the Watford Observer archive. That's all you need.....

I certainly don't have the time to type tome after tome to "put the information on here". I'm not attacking anyone - you appear to be attacking yourselves quite adequately.

As an aside, you wouldn't wouldn't ever get my vote if you are not prepared to do a little research and make sure your campaign has some merit.
I'm campaigning and working hard in Watford, not Croxley, as I said in my last post.

If you don't have the time or inclination to put down what you already know then I fail to see how you think I have the time to spend looking it all up in Google and WO archives either, running a business and standing for Mayor.

I also believe you urged people to look in the WO archives for previous postings from Cllr Ridley which he posted under a false name or names. All I can say is good luck with that one. The closest I ever got to fathoming out who anonymous posters were was when they were outed by others in the know.

So far, only Cllr Ridley has put down any evidence on this page. That says something in my book.
What if Mr Ridley turned out to be Belgian? Would you support him then?
Of course I would. No difference.
Romanian?
Race has no bearing on me. I see people as people and treat them equally.

Sorry if I do not fit your stereotype.

I gave money to a rough-sleeping homeless man and had a quick chat with him in Watford High street yesterday. That probably doesn't fit your image of Ukip people either.
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hikari Warrior[/bold] wrote: I'm not evading any issues. I merely suggested you do a bit of reasearch and you will then realise this is all smoke and mirrors. Google and the Watford Observer archive. That's all you need..... I certainly don't have the time to type tome after tome to "put the information on here". I'm not attacking anyone - you appear to be attacking yourselves quite adequately. As an aside, you wouldn't wouldn't ever get my vote if you are not prepared to do a little research and make sure your campaign has some merit.[/p][/quote]I'm campaigning and working hard in Watford, not Croxley, as I said in my last post. If you don't have the time or inclination to put down what you already know then I fail to see how you think I have the time to spend looking it all up in Google and WO archives either, running a business and standing for Mayor. I also believe you urged people to look in the WO archives for previous postings from Cllr Ridley which he posted under a false name or names. All I can say is good luck with that one. The closest I ever got to fathoming out who anonymous posters were was when they were outed by others in the know. So far, only Cllr Ridley has put down any evidence on this page. That says something in my book.[/p][/quote]What if Mr Ridley turned out to be Belgian? Would you support him then?[/p][/quote]Of course I would. No difference.[/p][/quote]Romanian?[/p][/quote]Race has no bearing on me. I see people as people and treat them equally. Sorry if I do not fit your stereotype. I gave money to a rough-sleeping homeless man and had a quick chat with him in Watford High street yesterday. That probably doesn't fit your image of Ukip people either. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 3

8:31am Sun 16 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Does CGPC employ GHOST employees?

In Sept 2012 one of the rangers left, a wage deficit/gap of some £10000 not being paid in wages. In the 2013/14 budget the wage was resubmitted as CGPC expected to employ a new ranger, that didn't occur until Feb 2014, so practically the whole wag of @£21000? wasn't paid out, in total some £30000?

The figure for the rangers wage has been included yet again in the 2014/15 budget, so are residents being double charged for an employee who never existed, why was the charge reasserted for the 2014/15 budget, if this came to light in a business, HMRC would be asking questions, why aren't CGPCllrs!
Does CGPC employ GHOST employees? In Sept 2012 one of the rangers left, a wage deficit/gap of some £10000 not being paid in wages. In the 2013/14 budget the wage was resubmitted as CGPC expected to employ a new ranger, that didn't occur until Feb 2014, so practically the whole wag of @£21000? wasn't paid out, in total some £30000? The figure for the rangers wage has been included yet again in the 2014/15 budget, so are residents being double charged for an employee who never existed, why was the charge reasserted for the 2014/15 budget, if this came to light in a business, HMRC would be asking questions, why aren't CGPCllrs! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 3

3:56pm Sun 16 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Should CGPC attempt to offset costs by getting direct funding or even sponsorship for events/activities they undertake, forgot proposed that especially as a local business were prepared to give £500 towards costs.

M Saxon spoke against it and CGPC listened to him, why!
Should CGPC attempt to offset costs by getting direct funding or even sponsorship for events/activities they undertake, forgot proposed that especially as a local business were prepared to give £500 towards costs. M Saxon spoke against it and CGPC listened to him, why! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

10:30am Mon 17 Mar 14

Gwyddon says...

Regardless of whether they know each other it is not hard to see why Ridley and Cox get on so well. As a UKIP supporter I despair at the nonsense comments from Cox and very much hope that Farage will continue to keep this sort of loose cannon out of the party. Mr Ridley's emails are just mad. I have looked at the auditors report and can only assume that Mr Ridley either does not want to understand what is written or does not have the sense to do so. I guess it is probably the second one. Perhaps it is time for the WO to remember its own terms
Regardless of whether they know each other it is not hard to see why Ridley and Cox get on so well. As a UKIP supporter I despair at the nonsense comments from Cox and very much hope that Farage will continue to keep this sort of loose cannon out of the party. Mr Ridley's emails are just mad. I have looked at the auditors report and can only assume that Mr Ridley either does not want to understand what is written or does not have the sense to do so. I guess it is probably the second one. Perhaps it is time for the WO to remember its own terms Gwyddon
  • Score: -2

10:39am Mon 17 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Gwyddon wrote:
Regardless of whether they know each other it is not hard to see why Ridley and Cox get on so well. As a UKIP supporter I despair at the nonsense comments from Cox and very much hope that Farage will continue to keep this sort of loose cannon out of the party. Mr Ridley's emails are just mad. I have looked at the auditors report and can only assume that Mr Ridley either does not want to understand what is written or does not have the sense to do so. I guess it is probably the second one. Perhaps it is time for the WO to remember its own terms
Spoken like a true LibDem hiding behind a false name.

We get a lot of it so no offence taken.
[quote][p][bold]Gwyddon[/bold] wrote: Regardless of whether they know each other it is not hard to see why Ridley and Cox get on so well. As a UKIP supporter I despair at the nonsense comments from Cox and very much hope that Farage will continue to keep this sort of loose cannon out of the party. Mr Ridley's emails are just mad. I have looked at the auditors report and can only assume that Mr Ridley either does not want to understand what is written or does not have the sense to do so. I guess it is probably the second one. Perhaps it is time for the WO to remember its own terms[/p][/quote]Spoken like a true LibDem hiding behind a false name. We get a lot of it so no offence taken. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 2

11:31am Mon 17 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Gwyddon wrote:
Regardless of whether they know each other it is not hard to see why Ridley and Cox get on so well. As a UKIP supporter I despair at the nonsense comments from Cox and very much hope that Farage will continue to keep this sort of loose cannon out of the party. Mr Ridley's emails are just mad. I have looked at the auditors report and can only assume that Mr Ridley either does not want to understand what is written or does not have the sense to do so. I guess it is probably the second one. Perhaps it is time for the WO to remember its own terms
The auditors reports states what I have stated, I understand it do you? Not possibly acting legally,efficiently, effectively and the trigger amount too high at £25000 on contracts, which they allowed to stand for years, what's not to understand, maybe its you with your head in the sand.

Prove what I've posted isn't correct or even reveal yourself

CGPC could post this something like this on their website and the chairman's article in My Croxley and in the PUMP, they choose not to, why!

This is copied from Carrickfergus Borough Council, others also do it NOT CGPC!

Sponsorship Opportunities.
Across Carrickfergus’ range of services there are a number of opportunities for local business, partners and stakeholders to reach thousands of potential
customers by placing their business name in highly visible locations for exposure throughout the Borough, or aligning it alongside community events or activity. For local business especially, sponsorship offers an opportunity to communicate to the target audience of local residents and visitors and can create a borrowed association with community based activity in addition to raising the business’ profile.

We are looking for a corporate partners to financially contribute towards the running of the Borough wide initiatives and to work with us to ensure that we meet
the following aims, which are:

to make Carrickfergus a more pleasant place in which to work, live and visit.
to stimulate civic pride and hence care of the environment by the residents of the Borough.
to create opportunities for involvement at Community level.
Sponsorship Opportunities - Key Areas

The three key areas that Carrickfergus Borough Council can offer sponsorship opportunities within are:

Public Art
Green Space
Events
Public Art enhances its surrounding area and is often crafted to leave its meaning open to interpretation leaving it accessible for all to enjoy. By sponsoring a piece
of art with Carrickfergus Borough Council a business may make a statement, grab attention and provide a feature for the local community and visitors alike.

Commissioning

Sponsorship may include a bespoke piece of public art commissioned for the enjoyment of the entire community that will reflect the ethos of the business within
Carrickfergus Borough.

Green Space

Commercial success and future growth is built on understanding people, not simply as consumers who buy products, but as citizens with shared concerns about
society’s issues. By engaging with these concerns organisations learn how they can best help communities in ways that are practical and sustainable. Community
involvement offers benefits for your business as well as for the community you are supporting. It offers new ways for your employees and brands to connect
with your consumers
[quote][p][bold]Gwyddon[/bold] wrote: Regardless of whether they know each other it is not hard to see why Ridley and Cox get on so well. As a UKIP supporter I despair at the nonsense comments from Cox and very much hope that Farage will continue to keep this sort of loose cannon out of the party. Mr Ridley's emails are just mad. I have looked at the auditors report and can only assume that Mr Ridley either does not want to understand what is written or does not have the sense to do so. I guess it is probably the second one. Perhaps it is time for the WO to remember its own terms[/p][/quote]The auditors reports states what I have stated, I understand it do you? Not possibly acting legally,efficiently, effectively and the trigger amount too high at £25000 on contracts, which they allowed to stand for years, what's not to understand, maybe its you with your head in the sand. Prove what I've posted isn't correct or even reveal yourself CGPC could post this something like this on their website and the chairman's article in My Croxley and in the PUMP, they choose not to, why! This is copied from Carrickfergus Borough Council, others also do it NOT CGPC! Sponsorship Opportunities. Across Carrickfergus’ range of services there are a number of opportunities for local business, partners and stakeholders to reach thousands of potential customers by placing their business name in highly visible locations for exposure throughout the Borough, or aligning it alongside community events or activity. For local business especially, sponsorship offers an opportunity to communicate to the target audience of local residents and visitors and can create a borrowed association with community based activity in addition to raising the business’ profile. We are looking for a corporate partners to financially contribute towards the running of the Borough wide initiatives and to work with us to ensure that we meet the following aims, which are: to make Carrickfergus a more pleasant place in which to work, live and visit. to stimulate civic pride and hence care of the environment by the residents of the Borough. to create opportunities for involvement at Community level. Sponsorship Opportunities - Key Areas The three key areas that Carrickfergus Borough Council can offer sponsorship opportunities within are: Public Art Green Space Events Public Art enhances its surrounding area and is often crafted to leave its meaning open to interpretation leaving it accessible for all to enjoy. By sponsoring a piece of art with Carrickfergus Borough Council a business may make a statement, grab attention and provide a feature for the local community and visitors alike. Commissioning Sponsorship may include a bespoke piece of public art commissioned for the enjoyment of the entire community that will reflect the ethos of the business within Carrickfergus Borough. Green Space Commercial success and future growth is built on understanding people, not simply as consumers who buy products, but as citizens with shared concerns about society’s issues. By engaging with these concerns organisations learn how they can best help communities in ways that are practical and sustainable. Community involvement offers benefits for your business as well as for the community you are supporting. It offers new ways for your employees and brands to connect with your consumers cgpc Rob
  • Score: 3

7:34pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Gwyddon says...

Well then Bonkers Bob I am sure that if you have the time to go round all the various councils in the UK you will probably find some that do things differently and then you can add them to your very one-sided argument. A few post back someone said that you were not elected but got there by a sort of default. That I guess explains a lot. So you were not actually voted for (it seems) and you failed (according to WO reports) to get the Council disbanded in fact, i am told, you were shouted down at the village meeting. Does this not tell you something?
Well then Bonkers Bob I am sure that if you have the time to go round all the various councils in the UK you will probably find some that do things differently and then you can add them to your very one-sided argument. A few post back someone said that you were not elected but got there by a sort of default. That I guess explains a lot. So you were not actually voted for (it seems) and you failed (according to WO reports) to get the Council disbanded in fact, i am told, you were shouted down at the village meeting. Does this not tell you something? Gwyddon
  • Score: -2

8:09pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Gwyddon says...

I have been looking at the auditors report that is filed on the Council's website, There seem to be a lot of ticks in all the right places! There are some recommendations but it is CLEAR that the auditor is not accusing the PC of acting illegally or unlawfully and is simply making a suggestion (that is seems the PC followed up on). I can quite see why BB is regarded as a nuisance and in fact, i am surprised that he has not yet ended up in court for defamation (or whatever).
I have been looking at the auditors report that is filed on the Council's website, There seem to be a lot of ticks in all the right places! There are some recommendations but it is CLEAR that the auditor is not accusing the PC of acting illegally or unlawfully and is simply making a suggestion (that is seems the PC followed up on). I can quite see why BB is regarded as a nuisance and in fact, i am surprised that he has not yet ended up in court for defamation (or whatever). Gwyddon
  • Score: -2

7:43am Tue 18 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Gwyddon wrote:
I have been looking at the auditors report that is filed on the Council's website, There seem to be a lot of ticks in all the right places! There are some recommendations but it is CLEAR that the auditor is not accusing the PC of acting illegally or unlawfully and is simply making a suggestion (that is seems the PC followed up on). I can quite see why BB is regarded as a nuisance and in fact, i am surprised that he has not yet ended up in court for defamation (or whatever).
The auditors highlighted not possibly acting legally etc twice, CGPC didn't act , so the Ex Auditors had to bring it to the attention of council yet again and also comment as would any like minded person, that a trigger amount of £25k was far too high on contracts, would cllrs be so free and easy with their own money!

Ensuring best practice might be achieved is easy, look/seek how others do something, then incorporate it is possible, something you don't want to do, other councils had a website, CGPC copied them, its how it works, absorb good practices!

Why didn't the clerk post the Ex Auditors report in the Supporting Papers section, instead he posted them in another, when previously the report has been in the Supporting Papers section.

I believe you can't defame a council!

In a previous post from Crxoley wackyman the person alleging to be him stated they were M Saxon, the WO had to delete his abusive post,who are you!
[quote][p][bold]Gwyddon[/bold] wrote: I have been looking at the auditors report that is filed on the Council's website, There seem to be a lot of ticks in all the right places! There are some recommendations but it is CLEAR that the auditor is not accusing the PC of acting illegally or unlawfully and is simply making a suggestion (that is seems the PC followed up on). I can quite see why BB is regarded as a nuisance and in fact, i am surprised that he has not yet ended up in court for defamation (or whatever).[/p][/quote]The auditors highlighted not possibly acting legally etc twice, CGPC didn't act , so the Ex Auditors had to bring it to the attention of council yet again and also comment as would any like minded person, that a trigger amount of £25k was far too high on contracts, would cllrs be so free and easy with their own money! Ensuring best practice might be achieved is easy, look/seek how others do something, then incorporate it is possible, something you don't want to do, other councils had a website, CGPC copied them, its how it works, absorb good practices! Why didn't the clerk post the Ex Auditors report in the Supporting Papers section, instead he posted them in another, when previously the report has been in the Supporting Papers section. I believe you can't defame a council! In a previous post from Crxoley wackyman the person alleging to be him stated they were M Saxon, the WO had to delete his abusive post,who are you! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

8:03am Tue 18 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Gwyddon wrote:
Well then Bonkers Bob I am sure that if you have the time to go round all the various councils in the UK you will probably find some that do things differently and then you can add them to your very one-sided argument. A few post back someone said that you were not elected but got there by a sort of default. That I guess explains a lot. So you were not actually voted for (it seems) and you failed (according to WO reports) to get the Council disbanded in fact, i am told, you were shouted down at the village meeting. Does this not tell you something?
Democracy works by allowing residents who pay for something to know their rights, informing residents who allow CGPC to exist that they have the right to hold a referendum is Democracy.

Not shouted down, outvoted on that occasion, why wouldn't CGPCllrs vote to allow the residents the right.

Communism works in that fashion as does Dictatorships!

North Korea

CGPC has only existed and I believe was only created with a 51%-49% majority when residents were first asked, wonder how they vote now, if given the chance!
[quote][p][bold]Gwyddon[/bold] wrote: Well then Bonkers Bob I am sure that if you have the time to go round all the various councils in the UK you will probably find some that do things differently and then you can add them to your very one-sided argument. A few post back someone said that you were not elected but got there by a sort of default. That I guess explains a lot. So you were not actually voted for (it seems) and you failed (according to WO reports) to get the Council disbanded in fact, i am told, you were shouted down at the village meeting. Does this not tell you something?[/p][/quote]Democracy works by allowing residents who pay for something to know their rights, informing residents who allow CGPC to exist that they have the right to hold a referendum is Democracy. Not shouted down, outvoted on that occasion, why wouldn't CGPCllrs vote to allow the residents the right. Communism works in that fashion as does Dictatorships! North Korea CGPC has only existed and I believe was only created with a 51%-49% majority when residents were first asked, wonder how they vote now, if given the chance! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

8:35am Tue 18 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

I'm sure some years ago certain persons which might have included serving CGPCllrs of that time had a petition to abolish CGPC, anyone know anything about it!

I beieve the petition was left at the Sportsman, the same as when some residents about 800 signed a petition for CGPC to keep the greens/stones orchard contract. about 8% and inferred it had a mandate, 92% of residents didn't mind TRDC taking it over!

Thats why I proposed that non sensitive info such as the specs of the Greens contract be posted on the website so residents could read and know, no support, a simple scan and post operation, would take about 2 mins!

Info in the public domain, whose against that!
I'm sure some years ago certain persons which might have included serving CGPCllrs of that time had a petition to abolish CGPC, anyone know anything about it! I beieve the petition was left at the Sportsman, the same as when some residents about 800 signed a petition for CGPC to keep the greens/stones orchard contract. about 8% and inferred it had a mandate, 92% of residents didn't mind TRDC taking it over! Thats why I proposed that non sensitive info such as the specs of the Greens contract be posted on the website so residents could read and know, no support, a simple scan and post operation, would take about 2 mins! Info in the public domain, whose against that! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

7:24am Wed 19 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

CGPC according to TRDC kept monies rightly belonging to them, they even advertised the fact in the PUMP, extract below

In May, Stones Orchard was used as the venue forshooting a commercial for a new mains powered Black and Decker strimmer.
With no electricity readily available and the nearestsocket probably being the Parish office, a portable generator was used to power up the strimmer.

The 4 man crew were on site for some time as they waited patiently for the sun to decide whether it was going to stay out or go in so they could get
their lighting consistent for filming.
Also what a result for the Parish Chairman’s charity fund raising—a donation of £200 from Hammonds AVS,

Chairman was Saxon,vice chair Bennett

When TRDCllrs found out they were enraged, as CGPC had no legal right to allow the land owned by TRDC to be used without their knowledge and no right to accept any monies deriving from the use of TRDC land, the clerk stated he would be seeking legal redress!























.
CGPC according to TRDC kept monies rightly belonging to them, they even advertised the fact in the PUMP, extract below In May, Stones Orchard was used as the venue forshooting a commercial for a new mains powered Black and Decker strimmer. With no electricity readily available and the nearestsocket probably being the Parish office, a portable generator was used to power up the strimmer. The 4 man crew were on site for some time as they waited patiently for the sun to decide whether it was going to stay out or go in so they could get their lighting consistent for filming. Also what a result for the Parish Chairman’s charity fund raising—a donation of £200 from Hammonds AVS, Chairman was Saxon,vice chair Bennett When TRDCllrs found out they were enraged, as CGPC had no legal right to allow the land owned by TRDC to be used without their knowledge and no right to accept any monies deriving from the use of TRDC land, the clerk stated he would be seeking legal redress! . cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

7:34am Fri 21 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Then there's the problem that ex cllr saxon had when he according to the TRDC legal dept/officers, he kept monies rightly belonging to them,!

If a resident owed council tax toTRDC, they would prosecute, according to TRDC, CGPC kept monies rightly belonging to TRDC, S Halls dropped it, is it one rule for residents, TRDC prosecution, another for local authorities that breach contracts!


The clerk stated he would be seeking legal redress, until he received this!

====================
====================

Message Received: May 01 2007, 05:13 PM
From: "brading"

To: "'mark saxon'"
Cc: "'Peter Brooker'"
, "'Steven Halls'" , "'Anne Morgan'" ,
"'Ann Shaw'" , "'Cllr Brian Norman'"
, "'Cllr Brian White'"
, "'Cllr
Chris Lloyd'" , "'Cllr Leighton Dann'" , "'Cllr Roger Seabourne'" , "'Cllr
Steve Drury'" , "'Croxley PC'" , "'Cllr David Bains'" , "'Cllr David Wynne-
Jones'" , "'Cllr Mark Englefield'" , "'Cllr Nik Bennett'" , "'Cllr Robert Ridley'"
, "'Cllr Tim Davis'" , "'Cllr Tony Munroe'" , "'Cllr Wendy
Shafe'" , "'Kathryn Duffy'"
Subject: Use of Land in Ownership of the District Council and Charitable Donations

Dear Mark



Thank you for your e-mail. By way of a reply, I would refer you to the
following letters sent by officers of Three Rivers District Council to The
Clerk of Croxley Green Parish Council:



(i) The letter dated 20 December 2006 from Mr James Baldwin, Legal
Department



"I wish to make it plain that the Parish Council is not authorised to give
and should not give, whether directly or indirectly, any permission on
behalf of the district council to use its land, nor to receive any payment
on its behalf arising out of such use. Any proceeds received by the Parish
Council from a permission or authorisation given or purported to be given on
behalf of the District Council are held on trust for it.



May I respectfully suggest that Officers of this Council be contacted
immediately if a request for use of its land is received by the Parish
Council and the matter can be taken forward from there."



(ii) The letter dated 1 February 2007 from Mr James Baldwin, Legal
Department



"I refer to my letter of 20th December and since I have had neither a reply
nor an acknowledgement, assume that its contents have been accepted and that
this Council will be approached concerning any future requests for the use
of it's land.



I shall be pleased if you will now confirm to me whether your Council has
indeed received any monies in respect of the use of the Green (whether on
its own behalf or on anyone else's behalf) and if it has, refund it to my
Council. Would you also kindly let me have an account of any monies donated
to or otherwise received by your Council arising out of the use of The Green
or any other land of the District Council. This is to enable me to
reconcile permissions to use the Green with monies or donations received. I
would suggest that we limit this to the last three years.



It is unfortunate that I have to write to you again concerning use of the
Green. For the avoidance of doubt, your Council has not been given authority
to receive any money donated for use of the Green. My letter of 20th
December, a further copy of which I attach, made the position clear and I
will be pleased if you will acknowledge accordingly."



(iii) The letter dated 24 April 2007 from Mr Peter Brooker, Director of
Leisure and Environment



"I refer to our correspondence on the above mentioned matter, particularly
your letter dated 5 February 2007.



I agree with your point that it is inappropriate to ask the charities
involved for a refund. However, the fact remains that you have knowingly
accepted donations for those charities at a time when, from your letter
dated 5 February 2007, you were clear that the Parish Council knew it did
not own or have rights to use the land concerned. Accordingly, the use of
these monies was not in the gift of the Parish Council.



I must, therefore, reiterate the point made in our letter dated 1 February
2007 that the appropriate monies be refunded to this Council by the Parish
Council. I look forward to hearing from you."



It seems to me that we would not be in this situation if The Clerk had
responded fully to the request - set out in Mr Baldwin's letter of 1
February - to provide an account of the monies paid or donated to the Parish
Council in respect of use of land owned by the District Council. If such an
account had been provided as requested, it is my personal belief that any
request to retain these monies as donations to the (Parish) Council
Chairman's chosen charities would have been considered sympathetically.



I have discussed this matter at length with my fellow District Councillors
Leighton Dann and Roger Seabourne. Regrettably it appears to us that,
instead of providing the requested information, The Clerk replied in a
manner which merely added to the obfuscation. Indeed, we are given to
understand that, having accepted as long ago as May 2005 that the Parish
Council was not entitled to retain moneys from such activities, he then
proceeded to do so again on two further occasions, the last one being banked
even AFTER the letter from Mr Baldwin dated 20 December 2006. We therefore
remain of the view that the statements contained in our recent election
leaflets are justified, and indeed are relatively moderate when compared
with the tone of the officers' letters. Consequently, we see no reason or
cause to retract them, and will not be doing so.



Mark, as Chairman of the Parish Council you are in a unique position to
bring closure to this unfortunate saga by ensuring a proper response to the
questions posed by the District Council officers. Will you, even now,
provide a list of commercial entities which have used The Green or Stones
Orchard with the consent and/or knowledge of the Parish Council, the nature
and dates of those activities, and the amounts of any payments or charitable
donations received?



Yours truly



Phil Brading

Leighton Dann

Roger Seabourne
Then there's the problem that ex cllr saxon had when he according to the TRDC legal dept/officers, he kept monies rightly belonging to them,! If a resident owed council tax toTRDC, they would prosecute, according to TRDC, CGPC kept monies rightly belonging to TRDC, S Halls dropped it, is it one rule for residents, TRDC prosecution, another for local authorities that breach contracts! The clerk stated he would be seeking legal redress, until he received this! ==================== ==================== Message Received: May 01 2007, 05:13 PM From: "brading" To: "'mark saxon'" Cc: "'Peter Brooker'" , "'Steven Halls'" , "'Anne Morgan'" , "'Ann Shaw'" , "'Cllr Brian Norman'" , "'Cllr Brian White'" , "'Cllr Chris Lloyd'" , "'Cllr Leighton Dann'" , "'Cllr Roger Seabourne'" , "'Cllr Steve Drury'" , "'Croxley PC'" , "'Cllr David Bains'" , "'Cllr David Wynne- Jones'" , "'Cllr Mark Englefield'" , "'Cllr Nik Bennett'" , "'Cllr Robert Ridley'" , "'Cllr Tim Davis'" , "'Cllr Tony Munroe'" , "'Cllr Wendy Shafe'" , "'Kathryn Duffy'" Subject: Use of Land in Ownership of the District Council and Charitable Donations Dear Mark Thank you for your e-mail. By way of a reply, I would refer you to the following letters sent by officers of Three Rivers District Council to The Clerk of Croxley Green Parish Council: (i) The letter dated 20 December 2006 from Mr James Baldwin, Legal Department "I wish to make it plain that the Parish Council is not authorised to give and should not give, whether directly or indirectly, any permission on behalf of the district council to use its land, nor to receive any payment on its behalf arising out of such use. Any proceeds received by the Parish Council from a permission or authorisation given or purported to be given on behalf of the District Council are held on trust for it. May I respectfully suggest that Officers of this Council be contacted immediately if a request for use of its land is received by the Parish Council and the matter can be taken forward from there." (ii) The letter dated 1 February 2007 from Mr James Baldwin, Legal Department "I refer to my letter of 20th December and since I have had neither a reply nor an acknowledgement, assume that its contents have been accepted and that this Council will be approached concerning any future requests for the use of it's land. I shall be pleased if you will now confirm to me whether your Council has indeed received any monies in respect of the use of the Green (whether on its own behalf or on anyone else's behalf) and if it has, refund it to my Council. Would you also kindly let me have an account of any monies donated to or otherwise received by your Council arising out of the use of The Green or any other land of the District Council. This is to enable me to reconcile permissions to use the Green with monies or donations received. I would suggest that we limit this to the last three years. It is unfortunate that I have to write to you again concerning use of the Green. For the avoidance of doubt, your Council has not been given authority to receive any money donated for use of the Green. My letter of 20th December, a further copy of which I attach, made the position clear and I will be pleased if you will acknowledge accordingly." (iii) The letter dated 24 April 2007 from Mr Peter Brooker, Director of Leisure and Environment "I refer to our correspondence on the above mentioned matter, particularly your letter dated 5 February 2007. I agree with your point that it is inappropriate to ask the charities involved for a refund. However, the fact remains that you have knowingly accepted donations for those charities at a time when, from your letter dated 5 February 2007, you were clear that the Parish Council knew it did not own or have rights to use the land concerned. Accordingly, the use of these monies was not in the gift of the Parish Council. I must, therefore, reiterate the point made in our letter dated 1 February 2007 that the appropriate monies be refunded to this Council by the Parish Council. I look forward to hearing from you." It seems to me that we would not be in this situation if The Clerk had responded fully to the request - set out in Mr Baldwin's letter of 1 February - to provide an account of the monies paid or donated to the Parish Council in respect of use of land owned by the District Council. If such an account had been provided as requested, it is my personal belief that any request to retain these monies as donations to the (Parish) Council Chairman's chosen charities would have been considered sympathetically. I have discussed this matter at length with my fellow District Councillors Leighton Dann and Roger Seabourne. Regrettably it appears to us that, instead of providing the requested information, The Clerk replied in a manner which merely added to the obfuscation. Indeed, we are given to understand that, having accepted as long ago as May 2005 that the Parish Council was not entitled to retain moneys from such activities, he then proceeded to do so again on two further occasions, the last one being banked even AFTER the letter from Mr Baldwin dated 20 December 2006. We therefore remain of the view that the statements contained in our recent election leaflets are justified, and indeed are relatively moderate when compared with the tone of the officers' letters. Consequently, we see no reason or cause to retract them, and will not be doing so. Mark, as Chairman of the Parish Council you are in a unique position to bring closure to this unfortunate saga by ensuring a proper response to the questions posed by the District Council officers. Will you, even now, provide a list of commercial entities which have used The Green or Stones Orchard with the consent and/or knowledge of the Parish Council, the nature and dates of those activities, and the amounts of any payments or charitable donations received? Yours truly Phil Brading Leighton Dann Roger Seabourne cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

12:00pm Fri 21 Mar 14

LocalBoy1 says...

Good heavens!. Is this cgpc Rob still being given a WO platform to constantly rant? No wonder he was banned/removed.
Good heavens!. Is this cgpc Rob still being given a WO platform to constantly rant? No wonder he was banned/removed. LocalBoy1
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Fri 21 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
Good heavens!. Is this cgpc Rob still being given a WO platform to constantly rant? No wonder he was banned/removed.
whats wrong locodoy1, don;t want info in the public domain, you weren't a cllr at the time were you!
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: Good heavens!. Is this cgpc Rob still being given a WO platform to constantly rant? No wonder he was banned/removed.[/p][/quote]whats wrong locodoy1, don;t want info in the public domain, you weren't a cllr at the time were you! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 1

7:08pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Lord Huck says...

I too am totally against people writing in under pseudonames.

Mr Rob, I wiil be grateful if you could give us your 4 first names in full, or is it simply pronounced cugpuk?
I too am totally against people writing in under pseudonames. Mr Rob, I wiil be grateful if you could give us your 4 first names in full, or is it simply pronounced cugpuk? Lord Huck
  • Score: -1

7:33am Sat 22 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Lord Huck wrote:
I too am totally against people writing in under pseudonames.

Mr Rob, I wiil be grateful if you could give us your 4 first names in full, or is it simply pronounced cugpuk?
0h another mysterious poster, not using a different name than before on these posts, maybe!

CGPC could have allowed the parish offices to be classified as the Village Hall,unfortunately for residents some cllrs didn't understand that, I believe one cllr Davis at the time wrote a letter to the WO stating that the offices weren't suitable for a Village Hall and criticised TRDCllr R Seabourne for implying such, you couldn't make it up, I don't think he and other cllrs understood, he didn't stand again! Was that a lucky break for residents!

CGPC persisted with this policy for another year, which again I believe cost residents another £30000 unecessarily, so in total nearly some £100000, I believe Saxon/Bennett were the chair/vice chair and I believe it was one of the many reasons that three TRDCllrs stood and were elected, Saxon/Bennett were chair/vc, after the election whether they wantd to stay in position didn't matter, new chair/vc were elected!

TRDCllr R Seabournes letter in WO

Parish Council

A campaign of underhand tricks and misinformation? I am sorry Mr. Davis, just a clash of dates, which happens when you have 5 or more meetings a week to attend, you and the Parish Council just do not warrant excluding. However, without wanting to “make much of it”, I think the world would have gone on if the Parish Council had delayed the start of their meeting by an hour in order to attend the Local Area Forum.

Perhaps also the residents of Chalmers Court thought as the Parish Council did not bother to comment on the planning application when it was brought to their committee, they were not particularly interested?

Despite the Parish Council’s attempt to prevent me doing so, I did explain to them it matters not whether the Parish offices can hold “community based events” it matters that it has been classified as providing village hall facilities. As he rightly quotes me, it is not what most sensible people would consider community village hall type use, but people’s opinion here is not relevant, the Local Government Finance Act is and the decision that the Parish building IS classed as being able to provide Village Hall Facilities had already been made. So, I am pragmatic in trying to save the Council Tax payers £68,000 they need not have paid, guilty as charged!

Why does he think legal challenges might follow? None were made in the 10 years it was classed as a Village Hall Facility. Is the Parish Council
planning to waste yet more of our money by mounting one themselves? I know of no one else who would consider it.
£5.50 (and £8 last year) may be a small price to pay for Mr. Davis but not paying anything, with INCREASED access to community facilities, albeit minimal, was a win-win situation the Parish Council rejected. If they had any consideration at all for the residents they would have at least agreed to it for this year, avoiding the extra, unnecessary charge, while they had sufficient time to perhaps sort out a better arrangement.

A number of us have become so concerned at the lack of understanding, repeated irresponsible and unaccountable decisions such as this we, as concerned residents, decided to stand for election in order to ensure there WAS an election. Given I am particularly critical of people who stand as “independents” in Parish elections while standing as party political candidates in others, it would be inconsistent not to declare our well known political allegiances.

I agree with Mr. Davis, who writes “the majority of Parish Councillors do not have a political axe to grind”, unfortunately, as he so strongly implies, a minority do! I do not have a problem
with them doing this, it is the secretive, deceitful, covert way they do it while still claiming to be “non political” I object to so strongly. I am not ashamed of my
political beliefs or affiliation, one has to ask why they are.
To put Mr. Englefield’s mind at rest, the Liberal Democrats will not be nominating a large contingent of candidates for the Parish Council, perhaps 5 of us competing
for 16 seats. Hardly sufficient to take over the Parish Council if even if all were elected. No party whip or block voting, just sufficient representation to ensure the
Parish Council is accountable, properly run for the benefit of the residents, and, that next year, the residents don’t pay extra tax they need not pay.

I cannot begin to imagine the relevance to this debate of the allowance I receive as a District Councillor but, and it is a matter of public record, I do not receive an
attendance allowance, my expenses this and previous years have been zero and in order to have time to carry out my representative responsibilities properly, I
now work part-time, my salary being £15,014 pa less than if I were still full time.

Yes, I think you should be bothered to stand for re-election. The residents can then have their say if they think £68,000 they had to pay, totally unnecessarily, is
the “good value for money” you thought it was, and then voted for THEM to pay it!

Cllr. Roger Seabourne
[quote][p][bold]Lord Huck[/bold] wrote: I too am totally against people writing in under pseudonames. Mr Rob, I wiil be grateful if you could give us your 4 first names in full, or is it simply pronounced cugpuk?[/p][/quote]0h another mysterious poster, not using a different name than before on these posts, maybe! CGPC could have allowed the parish offices to be classified as the Village Hall,unfortunately for residents some cllrs didn't understand that, I believe one cllr Davis at the time wrote a letter to the WO stating that the offices weren't suitable for a Village Hall and criticised TRDCllr R Seabourne for implying such, you couldn't make it up, I don't think he and other cllrs understood, he didn't stand again! Was that a lucky break for residents! CGPC persisted with this policy for another year, which again I believe cost residents another £30000 unecessarily, so in total nearly some £100000, I believe Saxon/Bennett were the chair/vice chair and I believe it was one of the many reasons that three TRDCllrs stood and were elected, Saxon/Bennett were chair/vc, after the election whether they wantd to stay in position didn't matter, new chair/vc were elected! TRDCllr R Seabournes letter in WO Parish Council A campaign of underhand tricks and misinformation? I am sorry Mr. Davis, just a clash of dates, which happens when you have 5 or more meetings a week to attend, you and the Parish Council just do not warrant excluding. However, without wanting to “make much of it”, I think the world would have gone on if the Parish Council had delayed the start of their meeting by an hour in order to attend the Local Area Forum. Perhaps also the residents of Chalmers Court thought as the Parish Council did not bother to comment on the planning application when it was brought to their committee, they were not particularly interested? Despite the Parish Council’s attempt to prevent me doing so, I did explain to them it matters not whether the Parish offices can hold “community based events” it matters that it has been classified as providing village hall facilities. As he rightly quotes me, it is not what most sensible people would consider community village hall type use, but people’s opinion here is not relevant, the Local Government Finance Act is and the decision that the Parish building IS classed as being able to provide Village Hall Facilities had already been made. So, I am pragmatic in trying to save the Council Tax payers £68,000 they need not have paid, guilty as charged! Why does he think legal challenges might follow? None were made in the 10 years it was classed as a Village Hall Facility. Is the Parish Council planning to waste yet more of our money by mounting one themselves? I know of no one else who would consider it. £5.50 (and £8 last year) may be a small price to pay for Mr. Davis but not paying anything, with INCREASED access to community facilities, albeit minimal, was a win-win situation the Parish Council rejected. If they had any consideration at all for the residents they would have at least agreed to it for this year, avoiding the extra, unnecessary charge, while they had sufficient time to perhaps sort out a better arrangement. A number of us have become so concerned at the lack of understanding, repeated irresponsible and unaccountable decisions such as this we, as concerned residents, decided to stand for election in order to ensure there WAS an election. Given I am particularly critical of people who stand as “independents” in Parish elections while standing as party political candidates in others, it would be inconsistent not to declare our well known political allegiances. I agree with Mr. Davis, who writes “the majority of Parish Councillors do not have a political axe to grind”, unfortunately, as he so strongly implies, a minority do! I do not have a problem with them doing this, it is the secretive, deceitful, covert way they do it while still claiming to be “non political” I object to so strongly. I am not ashamed of my political beliefs or affiliation, one has to ask why they are. To put Mr. Englefield’s mind at rest, the Liberal Democrats will not be nominating a large contingent of candidates for the Parish Council, perhaps 5 of us competing for 16 seats. Hardly sufficient to take over the Parish Council if even if all were elected. No party whip or block voting, just sufficient representation to ensure the Parish Council is accountable, properly run for the benefit of the residents, and, that next year, the residents don’t pay extra tax they need not pay. I cannot begin to imagine the relevance to this debate of the allowance I receive as a District Councillor but, and it is a matter of public record, I do not receive an attendance allowance, my expenses this and previous years have been zero and in order to have time to carry out my representative responsibilities properly, I now work part-time, my salary being £15,014 pa less than if I were still full time. Yes, I think you should be bothered to stand for re-election. The residents can then have their say if they think £68,000 they had to pay, totally unnecessarily, is the “good value for money” you thought it was, and then voted for THEM to pay it! Cllr. Roger Seabourne cgpc Rob
  • Score: 1

11:18am Sat 22 Mar 14

Lord Huck says...

Good Lord, Cugpuk Rob, a truly wonderful answer to my simple question. By the way it was me who pressed the little hand to give my question a better rating than your answer.
Good Lord, Cugpuk Rob, a truly wonderful answer to my simple question. By the way it was me who pressed the little hand to give my question a better rating than your answer. Lord Huck
  • Score: -2

1:29am Sun 23 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Lord Huck wrote:
Good Lord, Cugpuk Rob, a truly wonderful answer to my simple question. By the way it was me who pressed the little hand to give my question a better rating than your answer.
WOW you are a wag, a mysterious poster, are you that sad, you can't reveal yourself!


Until you do, don't! bother!
[quote][p][bold]Lord Huck[/bold] wrote: Good Lord, Cugpuk Rob, a truly wonderful answer to my simple question. By the way it was me who pressed the little hand to give my question a better rating than your answer.[/p][/quote]WOW you are a wag, a mysterious poster, are you that sad, you can't reveal yourself! Until you do, don't! bother! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

7:43am Tue 25 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Ateempted to get blood donor sessions at all Saints Church on the CGPC website and got told to FOFF by saxon, residents pay for the website not just the clerk and 16 cllrs, CGRA have link to BDS on their website after I contacted them, also are CGPC incompotent, they have large A3 posters of local group held events advertised on A3 posters on their inside office partition, yet fail to post them on their website, do cllrs walk past them and didn't even see them,

Message Received: May 06 2010, 01:38 PM
From: customer.services@nh
sbt.nhs.uk
To:Ridley
Cc:
Subject: Response From The National Blood Service

Our ref: PD/JL/AP/178078 Dear Mr Ridley Thank you for your recent email to Alan McDermott, which was passed on to me so that I could respond to your concerns. I hope you will please accept my apologies for the delay in replying before today, but the email string between Croxley Green Councillors and yourself was initially quarantined by our system, due to some of the language contained within the email chain. May I take this opportunity to thank you for your commitment with promoting blood donation, and also for letting us know of your sterling efforts with encouraging your local parish council to publicise donor sessions being held in your area. As you are aware, we rely entirely on the generosity and goodwill of our donors, as well as other individuals and organisations, so that we can continue to meet the demand for blood from hospitals and patients. However, there is no requirement for councils to publicise information about blood donation sessions, so therefore, I'm afraid we are unable to take any action regarding the response you received from Croxley Green Councillors. This includes what you proposed which might compel the council to act upon your suggestions. Many thanks for your very impressive donation record and obvious commitment to save and improve patients' lives. I hope that we can continue to rely upon your excellent support and commendable efforts to promote our donor sessions locally. Yours sincerely Andrew Pearce
Head of Donor Advocacy
E-mail: customer.services@nb
s.nhs.uk
Ateempted to get blood donor sessions at all Saints Church on the CGPC website and got told to FOFF by saxon, residents pay for the website not just the clerk and 16 cllrs, CGRA have link to BDS on their website after I contacted them, also are CGPC incompotent, they have large A3 posters of local group held events advertised on A3 posters on their inside office partition, yet fail to post them on their website, do cllrs walk past them and didn't even see them, Message Received: May 06 2010, 01:38 PM From: customer.services@nh sbt.nhs.uk To:Ridley Cc: Subject: Response From The National Blood Service Our ref: PD/JL/AP/178078 Dear Mr Ridley Thank you for your recent email to Alan McDermott, which was passed on to me so that I could respond to your concerns. I hope you will please accept my apologies for the delay in replying before today, but the email string between Croxley Green Councillors and yourself was initially quarantined by our system, due to some of the language contained within the email chain. May I take this opportunity to thank you for your commitment with promoting blood donation, and also for letting us know of your sterling efforts with encouraging your local parish council to publicise donor sessions being held in your area. As you are aware, we rely entirely on the generosity and goodwill of our donors, as well as other individuals and organisations, so that we can continue to meet the demand for blood from hospitals and patients. However, there is no requirement for councils to publicise information about blood donation sessions, so therefore, I'm afraid we are unable to take any action regarding the response you received from Croxley Green Councillors. This includes what you proposed which might compel the council to act upon your suggestions. Many thanks for your very impressive donation record and obvious commitment to save and improve patients' lives. I hope that we can continue to rely upon your excellent support and commendable efforts to promote our donor sessions locally. Yours sincerely Andrew Pearce Head of Donor Advocacy E-mail: customer.services@nb s.nhs.uk cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

7:50am Tue 25 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Edict from saxon, challenged the part about only allowing us to speak once in a debate, he capitulated, funny how the other cllrs were going to allow it, they now speak more than once wonder why Bennett,Shafe,Seely,
W-Jones etc all cllrs at the time never spoke out at the time, one more possible reason district cllrs stood as in their opinion, CGPC were unaccountable, still are as for years they have failed to implement best practice by ensuring all contract have more than one price obtained. the only recent one being when the clerk obtained and then chose the contractor to paint the offices,without obtaining councils consent, that was two year later than it should have been!

INFORMATION TO COUNCILLORS
28TH SEPTEMBER 2006


Fellow Councillors.

I have decided to change the way that we conduct our business for the meeting tonight and for a trial period. This change does not affect Standing orders but
procedurally brings us more in line with other Councils. I have discussed this matter with The Clerk.

Matters Arising.

At the start of ‘matters arising’, I will call on The Clerk first of all to update the meeting with any matters he believes are outstanding from previous meetings. I will
then call on Councillors to ask any questions on matters not covered by the clerk. If there are any matters arising can you please consider informing The Clerk prior
to the meeting in order for him to research the reply.

Other Agenda Items

At the start of other agenda items, I shall call on the mover of the proposal / motion to officially propose it. I will then call for a seconder. Should there be no
seconder for the proposal/motion, the agenda item will fall.

If there is both a proposer and seconder, the debate will tale place with me calling on the proposer and seconder to speak first if they require, BUT I will limit the number of times each councillor is allowed to speak on any one proposal/motion to ONCE other that the proposer and seconder will have a right to reply at the end of the debate. Any counter proposal will be taken at the end of the debate but it may NOT have the effect of negating the original proposal.

I hope these changes bring about a more business like approach to our debates and would recommend these changes to the Chairman of our sub committees.

Mark Saxon
Chairman
Edict from saxon, challenged the part about only allowing us to speak once in a debate, he capitulated, funny how the other cllrs were going to allow it, they now speak more than once wonder why Bennett,Shafe,Seely, W-Jones etc all cllrs at the time never spoke out at the time, one more possible reason district cllrs stood as in their opinion, CGPC were unaccountable, still are as for years they have failed to implement best practice by ensuring all contract have more than one price obtained. the only recent one being when the clerk obtained and then chose the contractor to paint the offices,without obtaining councils consent, that was two year later than it should have been! INFORMATION TO COUNCILLORS 28TH SEPTEMBER 2006 Fellow Councillors. I have decided to change the way that we conduct our business for the meeting tonight and for a trial period. This change does not affect Standing orders but procedurally brings us more in line with other Councils. I have discussed this matter with The Clerk. Matters Arising. At the start of ‘matters arising’, I will call on The Clerk first of all to update the meeting with any matters he believes are outstanding from previous meetings. I will then call on Councillors to ask any questions on matters not covered by the clerk. If there are any matters arising can you please consider informing The Clerk prior to the meeting in order for him to research the reply. Other Agenda Items At the start of other agenda items, I shall call on the mover of the proposal / motion to officially propose it. I will then call for a seconder. Should there be no seconder for the proposal/motion, the agenda item will fall. If there is both a proposer and seconder, the debate will tale place with me calling on the proposer and seconder to speak first if they require, BUT I will limit the number of times each councillor is allowed to speak on any one proposal/motion to ONCE other that the proposer and seconder will have a right to reply at the end of the debate. Any counter proposal will be taken at the end of the debate but it may NOT have the effect of negating the original proposal. I hope these changes bring about a more business like approach to our debates and would recommend these changes to the Chairman of our sub committees. Mark Saxon Chairman cgpc Rob
  • Score: 1

9:30am Thu 27 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Another CGPC debacle, we empty a litter bin that TRDC should and also an uneccesary charge for posts on the Green, which still haven't been replaced some three years later!



====================
====================

Message Received: Mar 16 2011, 11:42 AM
From: "Robin Barber"
To: "Family Ridley"
Cc:
Subject: RE: Posts replacement on the Green


Dear Mr Ridley
I can confirm the following:-
The bollards are costing £800 and TRDC are contributing £400
CGPC will be installing 170 wooden post bollards
Unparished areas would be out of our general fund - 100%
Regards
Robin Barber




From: Family Ridley
Sent: 15 March 2011 18:24
To: Robin Barber
Subject: RE: Posts replacement on the Green


Dear Mr Barber.

Thanks for your reply.
Can you inform me of how mant posts need replacement, the amount that the replacement posts will cost, how much CGPC are contributing and who will install
them. Will it be the workfprce of TRDC or CGPC.

Also as in my original email.

If posts needed replacing in the unparished areas of TRDC, who would pay for them, would it be 100% via general expenses or would it be charged to them via
special expenses?

Yoyrs sincerely

R J Ridley







====================
====================

Message Received: Mar 11 2011, 09:34 AM
From: "Robin Barber"
To: "Family Ridley"
Cc:
Subject: RE: Posts replacement on the Green


Dear Mr Ridley
All Parks and Open Spaces were tendered for in 2009 and was successfully won by in-house Waste Services Team. No work is sub-contracted out. the Green
and Stones Orchard are currently done by CPC and our grounds team do a once per annum cut and collect of the top section of The Green e.g. Triangular section
and in front of Croxley House.
The litter bin near Windmill Drive/shops is TRDC, however, the one on the opposite side near the Church/slip road is CPC.
Regards
Robin Barber



From: Family Ridley
Sent: 11 March 2011 09:11
To: Robin Barber
Subject: RE: Posts replacement on the Green


Dear Mr Barber.

Thanks for the attachments, which I can open. Apart from the Green and Stones Orchard, are all the other open areas within CG tendered by TRDC or are any of
those areas sub contracted to other authorities or companies and if so, which areas, to whom and how much is paid if they are sub contracted?

Is the street litter bin at the entrance of the left hand side to Windmill Drive, some 30 yards away from the litter bin by the bus stop outside of the shops on the
Green, one of the litter bins that CGPC empty?

Regards

R J Ridley
Another CGPC debacle, we empty a litter bin that TRDC should and also an uneccesary charge for posts on the Green, which still haven't been replaced some three years later! ==================== ==================== Message Received: Mar 16 2011, 11:42 AM From: "Robin Barber" To: "Family Ridley" Cc: Subject: RE: Posts replacement on the Green Dear Mr Ridley I can confirm the following:- The bollards are costing £800 and TRDC are contributing £400 CGPC will be installing 170 wooden post bollards Unparished areas would be out of our general fund - 100% Regards Robin Barber From: Family Ridley [mailto:emailus@famr id12.wanadoo.co.uk] Sent: 15 March 2011 18:24 To: Robin Barber Subject: RE: Posts replacement on the Green Dear Mr Barber. Thanks for your reply. Can you inform me of how mant posts need replacement, the amount that the replacement posts will cost, how much CGPC are contributing and who will install them. Will it be the workfprce of TRDC or CGPC. Also as in my original email. If posts needed replacing in the unparished areas of TRDC, who would pay for them, would it be 100% via general expenses or would it be charged to them via special expenses? Yoyrs sincerely R J Ridley ==================== ==================== Message Received: Mar 11 2011, 09:34 AM From: "Robin Barber" To: "Family Ridley" Cc: Subject: RE: Posts replacement on the Green Dear Mr Ridley All Parks and Open Spaces were tendered for in 2009 and was successfully won by in-house Waste Services Team. No work is sub-contracted out. the Green and Stones Orchard are currently done by CPC and our grounds team do a once per annum cut and collect of the top section of The Green e.g. Triangular section and in front of Croxley House. The litter bin near Windmill Drive/shops is TRDC, however, the one on the opposite side near the Church/slip road is CPC. Regards Robin Barber From: Family Ridley [mailto:emailus@famr id12.wanadoo.co.uk] Sent: 11 March 2011 09:11 To: Robin Barber Subject: RE: Posts replacement on the Green Dear Mr Barber. Thanks for the attachments, which I can open. Apart from the Green and Stones Orchard, are all the other open areas within CG tendered by TRDC or are any of those areas sub contracted to other authorities or companies and if so, which areas, to whom and how much is paid if they are sub contracted? Is the street litter bin at the entrance of the left hand side to Windmill Drive, some 30 yards away from the litter bin by the bus stop outside of the shops on the Green, one of the litter bins that CGPC empty? Regards R J Ridley cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

7:56am Fri 28 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Anyone understand this from the clerk, I had submitted contractors listed in previous post as alternatives

Message Received: Oct 27 2009, 03:13 PM
From: "Croxley Parish Council"
To: "'Family Ridley'"
Cc:
Subject: RE: FOI fireworks contract?


Mr Ridley,
Thank you for your email.
The Freedom of Information Form on the web site is a file and requires printing to facilitate completion by hand. Once completed the form should be returned to the Parish Council offices, as explained in the procedures.
The Budget for the Firework display is agreed annually by Council at their budget meetings. At their meeting on 26 January 2006 (at which you were present) Minute CC189/06 unanimously agreed to include £3,000 for the display for 31 December 2006.
The Budget, including provision for fireworks, was agreed by Council on 25 January 2007 (Minute CC358/07). Also at their meeting on 25 January 2007 (Minute CC363/07) you put forward a proposal, seconded by Cllr Vassiliou, that the fireworks on the Green for 2007 should be subject to a minimum of 3 tenders and contract details presented to Council for approval. The proposal was defeated.
The Firework Budget was agreed by Council on 31 January 2008 and on 29 January 2009.
A copy of the relevant Minutes is attached.
It should also be noted that the cost of the fireworks is under £5,000 and is therefore subject only to obtaining best value (Croxley Green Finance Regulations 10.3). It should also be appreciated that there is no other local source for professional firework displays other than our existing supplier. The Financial Regulations (11.1(v)) also provides for this contingency – goods/materials which are proprietary articles.
David Allison
Clerk to the Council
Croxley Green Parish Council
The Council Offices
Community Way
Croxley Green
Rickmansworth
Herts, WD3 3BN
Tel: 01923 710250
Fax: 01923 896425
Email: info@croxleygreen-pc
.gov.uk
Web: http://www.croxleygr
een-pc.gov.uk


How can you obtain best value when you don't get other estimates, why were saxon/bennett and the others so against it!

CGPC are the only council I have encountered who require Freedom Of Information requests in hard copy, all the rest, send an email stating FOI request, get answer, why are they so behind, also last night they defeated scanning all past PUMPS/agendas/minute
s and posting them on the website, have they something to hide!
Anyone understand this from the clerk, I had submitted contractors listed in previous post as alternatives Message Received: Oct 27 2009, 03:13 PM From: "Croxley Parish Council" To: "'Family Ridley'" Cc: Subject: RE: FOI fireworks contract? Mr Ridley, Thank you for your email. The Freedom of Information Form on the web site is a file and requires printing to facilitate completion by hand. Once completed the form should be returned to the Parish Council offices, as explained in the procedures. The Budget for the Firework display is agreed annually by Council at their budget meetings. At their meeting on 26 January 2006 (at which you were present) Minute CC189/06 unanimously agreed to include £3,000 for the display for 31 December 2006. The Budget, including provision for fireworks, was agreed by Council on 25 January 2007 (Minute CC358/07). Also at their meeting on 25 January 2007 (Minute CC363/07) you put forward a proposal, seconded by Cllr Vassiliou, that the fireworks on the Green for 2007 should be subject to a minimum of 3 tenders and contract details presented to Council for approval. The proposal was defeated. The Firework Budget was agreed by Council on 31 January 2008 and on 29 January 2009. A copy of the relevant Minutes is attached. It should also be noted that the cost of the fireworks is under £5,000 and is therefore subject only to obtaining best value (Croxley Green Finance Regulations 10.3). It should also be appreciated that there is no other local source for professional firework displays other than our existing supplier. The Financial Regulations (11.1(v)) also provides for this contingency – goods/materials which are proprietary articles. David Allison Clerk to the Council Croxley Green Parish Council The Council Offices Community Way Croxley Green Rickmansworth Herts, WD3 3BN Tel: 01923 710250 Fax: 01923 896425 Email: info@croxleygreen-pc .gov.uk Web: http://www.croxleygr een-pc.gov.uk How can you obtain best value when you don't get other estimates, why were saxon/bennett and the others so against it! CGPC are the only council I have encountered who require Freedom Of Information requests in hard copy, all the rest, send an email stating FOI request, get answer, why are they so behind, also last night they defeated scanning all past PUMPS/agendas/minute s and posting them on the website, have they something to hide! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

8:36am Fri 28 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Anyone know who this idiot is!

Dear Parish Pump,
MAKING THE GREEN BIGGER
I read with interest a recent article
on making The Green bigger in a
magazine called ‘My Croxley’.
What a splendid idea. The side
road could be made wider with a
very large roundabout at its
junction with Baldwins Lane, so
that in the mornings and evenings
there would be complete traffic
chaos for us all to enjoy!
But why stop there with this half
baked idea? Let’s go for an
underpass from New Road to
Sarratt Lane, with the tunnel
boring soil used to fill in the road
across The Green, never mind
access to/from other side roads
and houses fronting The Green.
All I can say is that no wonder the
person suggesting this is an ex-Councillor

Mr I Diot ,Flat Green Society

October 2007
Anyone know who this idiot is! Dear Parish Pump, MAKING THE GREEN BIGGER I read with interest a recent article on making The Green bigger in a magazine called ‘My Croxley’. What a splendid idea. The side road could be made wider with a very large roundabout at its junction with Baldwins Lane, so that in the mornings and evenings there would be complete traffic chaos for us all to enjoy! But why stop there with this half baked idea? Let’s go for an underpass from New Road to Sarratt Lane, with the tunnel boring soil used to fill in the road across The Green, never mind access to/from other side roads and houses fronting The Green. All I can say is that no wonder the person suggesting this is an ex-Councillor Mr I Diot ,Flat Green Society October 2007 cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

8:40am Fri 28 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Can understand why this resident asked not to be named, taken from the same letters page, why did the clerk and cllrs shafe/martin/seely allow the nother letter without the right of reply

B Norman, TRDCllr was chair, he also denied me the right of reply!





Dear Parish Pump,
A BIG THANK YOU!
I am one of the residents of The
Green - and I would like to
express my thanks to all the
mindless young vandals who
provide us with such fascinating
entertainment. We do so enjoy
being kept awake by the
screaming, shouting and crashing
which accompany your
demolishing of litter bins, benches
etc when you roam around
Croxley Green at all hours of the
night - and early morning! Your
parents must be so proud of you,
in the knowledge that you are
putting your acquired skills to such
good use, and they must be
thankful too that they don't have to
worry at night as to your
whereabouts; you never seem to
travel far from home, possibly due
to the fact that not all of you have
the benefit of bikes, although one
supposes that it would prove
difficult at times to both ride and
brandish all the 'trophies' you
collect on your rounds. In fact, we
are so impressed by your
dedication to 'duty' that we are in
the process of compiling an album
of photographs of you all in action;
should you wish to browse
through it when it is complete you
will be able to do so at Watford
Police Station. If anyone reading
this would like to contribute to this
memorable album, please send
your photographs to the Parish
Council Offices, I am sure they will
be happy to pass them on to us.
Name withheld for fear of reprisal
(July 2007
Can understand why this resident asked not to be named, taken from the same letters page, why did the clerk and cllrs shafe/martin/seely allow the nother letter without the right of reply B Norman, TRDCllr was chair, he also denied me the right of reply! Dear Parish Pump, A BIG THANK YOU! I am one of the residents of The Green - and I would like to express my thanks to all the mindless young vandals who provide us with such fascinating entertainment. We do so enjoy being kept awake by the screaming, shouting and crashing which accompany your demolishing of litter bins, benches etc when you roam around Croxley Green at all hours of the night - and early morning! Your parents must be so proud of you, in the knowledge that you are putting your acquired skills to such good use, and they must be thankful too that they don't have to worry at night as to your whereabouts; you never seem to travel far from home, possibly due to the fact that not all of you have the benefit of bikes, although one supposes that it would prove difficult at times to both ride and brandish all the 'trophies' you collect on your rounds. In fact, we are so impressed by your dedication to 'duty' that we are in the process of compiling an album of photographs of you all in action; should you wish to browse through it when it is complete you will be able to do so at Watford Police Station. If anyone reading this would like to contribute to this memorable album, please send your photographs to the Parish Council Offices, I am sure they will be happy to pass them on to us. Name withheld for fear of reprisal (July 2007 cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

8:42am Fri 28 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

In PUMP, not on website, you couldn't make it up, last night BIG A3 POSTER ON OFFICE WALL ADVERTISING LOCAL EVENT, also not on website

Whilst writing, I am a leader with
the Countryside Management
Service (CMS) and I agree with
the “Try Walking in 2007!” article.
Readers may like to know that
there is a walk every Friday
morning at 10am come rain or
shine! We meet at The Artichoke
Public House or The Two Bridges
Harvester Pub on alternate
weeks. The CMS can be
contacted on 01727 848168 or
pick up a leaflet at the library.
Irene Waterman (July 2007)
In PUMP, not on website, you couldn't make it up, last night BIG A3 POSTER ON OFFICE WALL ADVERTISING LOCAL EVENT, also not on website Whilst writing, I am a leader with the Countryside Management Service (CMS) and I agree with the “Try Walking in 2007!” article. Readers may like to know that there is a walk every Friday morning at 10am come rain or shine! We meet at The Artichoke Public House or The Two Bridges Harvester Pub on alternate weeks. The CMS can be contacted on 01727 848168 or pick up a leaflet at the library. Irene Waterman (July 2007) cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

7:46am Sat 29 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Why hasn't the clerk implemented this, it's been three years now, it was meant to assist, there are some people you just can't help!

In fact we use rangers to sit in the office, instead of being outside!

The clerk has stated he would progress it, never happened!


Can this motion be included on the July F/A agenda.

Regards

Cllr R J Ridley

CROXLEY GREEN PARISH COUNCILTHE COUNCIL OFFICES Community Way Croxley Green Rickmansworth Herts WD3 3SU
info@croxleygreen-pc
.gov.ukwww.croxleygr
een-pc.gov.uk

Tel: 01923 710250Fax: 01923 896425
 F/A meeting July 2011 Agenda Item ….. /11 HeadingContingency Rota Introduction or Background The office is open to the public Mon-Fri and staff are entitled to take annual leave and also are sometimes away on illness, lunch breaks etc. If one or both of the office staff are absent then the offices could remain closed. It appears that if either the clerk or the admin assistant is absent for a lunch break one of the rangers are taking off their duties and requested to deputise in the office, is this the best way of utilising the rangers time.

Discussion NarrativeCommittee to discuss implementing a contingency rota so that in the case of staff absences due to illness, holidays, lunch breaks etc that councillors can deputise in the office. Committee to discuss if taking rangers off their duties to deputising in the office is only used as a last resort.Committee to discuss if the setting up of a password protected rota calendar on the website where the office staffs annual leave etc are posted, not by name, so that cllrs can infill themselves the dates that they can deputise

. Recommendation(sComm
ittee to recommend to full council that a contingency rota is implemented and that councillors inform the clerk of any dates or hours that they can deputise in the office.  Cllr R J Ridley

Why does our motion submitted log only go back a few years, is there something CGPC want to hide from the public!
Why hasn't the clerk implemented this, it's been three years now, it was meant to assist, there are some people you just can't help! In fact we use rangers to sit in the office, instead of being outside! The clerk has stated he would progress it, never happened! Can this motion be included on the July F/A agenda. Regards Cllr R J Ridley CROXLEY GREEN PARISH COUNCILTHE COUNCIL OFFICES Community Way Croxley Green Rickmansworth Herts WD3 3SU info@croxleygreen-pc .gov.ukwww.croxleygr een-pc.gov.uk Tel: 01923 710250Fax: 01923 896425  F/A meeting July 2011 Agenda Item ….. /11 HeadingContingency Rota Introduction or Background The office is open to the public Mon-Fri and staff are entitled to take annual leave and also are sometimes away on illness, lunch breaks etc. If one or both of the office staff are absent then the offices could remain closed. It appears that if either the clerk or the admin assistant is absent for a lunch break one of the rangers are taking off their duties and requested to deputise in the office, is this the best way of utilising the rangers time. Discussion NarrativeCommittee to discuss implementing a contingency rota so that in the case of staff absences due to illness, holidays, lunch breaks etc that councillors can deputise in the office. Committee to discuss if taking rangers off their duties to deputising in the office is only used as a last resort.Committee to discuss if the setting up of a password protected rota calendar on the website [google calendar might suffice] where the office staffs annual leave etc are posted, not by name, so that cllrs can infill themselves the dates that they can deputise . Recommendation(sComm ittee to recommend to full council that a contingency rota [ including password protected] is implemented and that councillors inform the clerk of any dates or hours that they can deputise in the office.  Cllr R J Ridley Why does our motion submitted log only go back a few years, is there something CGPC want to hide from the public! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 2

11:20am Sun 30 Mar 14

Lord Huck says...

Mystical ice creatures, fire-breathing dragons, and the people caught in between return to the small screen come April 6, when HBO’s Game of Thrones unsheathes a fourth season that could see it crowned as the cable network’s most watched series in history.

The medieval fantasy drama’s fan base has grown substantially over its first three seasons, with sizable followings among both men and women thanks to its wrenching interpersonal relationships and complex plotting.

The show is based on the A Song of Ice and Fire series of novels by George R.R. Martin, of which five of an expected seven have been published. It takes place in the fictional world of Westeros, following more than two dozen regular characters amid a war for dominion between noble houses.

In addition to the squabbling between regions and families, the characters also face external threats, including dragons and the ‘White Walkers’, nearly unkillable creatures from the far northern part of the world who can animate the dead.

Are you getting warm?
Mystical ice creatures, fire-breathing dragons, and the people caught in between return to the small screen come April 6, when HBO’s Game of Thrones unsheathes a fourth season that could see it crowned as the cable network’s most watched series in history. The medieval fantasy drama’s fan base has grown substantially over its first three seasons, with sizable followings among both men and women thanks to its wrenching interpersonal relationships and complex plotting. The show is based on the A Song of Ice and Fire series of novels by George R.R. Martin, of which five of an expected seven have been published. It takes place in the fictional world of Westeros, following more than two dozen regular characters amid a war for dominion between noble houses. In addition to the squabbling between regions and families, the characters also face external threats, including dragons and the ‘White Walkers’, nearly unkillable creatures from the far northern part of the world who can animate the dead. Are you getting warm? Lord Huck
  • Score: -1

5:32pm Sun 30 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Lord Huck, more like Lord HAHA!
Lord Huck, more like Lord HAHA! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 1

6:58am Mon 31 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

Last Thurs March 27, our esteemed chairman cllr mitchell proposed a motion that the residents monies annually granted to the position of chair of CGPC was to be used to purchase 6 x £75 INTU vouchers for persons who he alone determined had assisted Croxley Green in a voluntary position, we as cllrs weren't to know, who they were, their supposed contribution, another example in my opinion of abuse of position by the chair of CGPC!

We would only be informed after the vote, the clerk had been informed of the nominees but not cllrs! Is that democracy, it appears to be mitchells and the other cllrs, if we as cllrs were informed and the reason why certain persons were to be awarded residents monies, I might have been supportive, is mitchell abusing his position, are CGPCllrs failing residents by complying!

Why have cllrs!

The usual suspects all voted for the motion, I couldn't as without prior know;edge of whom and why persons were being awarded residents monies!
Last Thurs March 27, our esteemed chairman cllr mitchell proposed a motion that the residents monies annually granted to the position of chair of CGPC was to be used to purchase 6 x £75 INTU vouchers for persons who he alone determined had assisted Croxley Green in a voluntary position, we as cllrs weren't to know, who they were, their supposed contribution, another example in my opinion of abuse of position by the chair of CGPC! We would only be informed after the vote, the clerk had been informed of the nominees but not cllrs! Is that democracy, it appears to be mitchells and the other cllrs, if we as cllrs were informed and the reason why certain persons were to be awarded residents monies, I might have been supportive, is mitchell abusing his position, are CGPCllrs failing residents by complying! Why have cllrs! The usual suspects all voted for the motion, I couldn't as without prior know;edge of whom and why persons were being awarded residents monies! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 1

4:38pm Mon 31 Mar 14

cgpc Rob says...

When saxons brother was the clerk and he signed a rescinding resolution to overturn the agreed wage increase from CGPC for his brother, his brother had asked for a sum of £1000 I believe to have a 5K fun run in CG, funny how when it never occurred, saxon never accused his brother of costing CGPC residents the money!
When saxons brother was the clerk and he signed a rescinding resolution to overturn the agreed wage increase from CGPC for his brother, his brother had asked for a sum of £1000 I believe to have a 5K fun run in CG, funny how when it never occurred, saxon never accused his brother of costing CGPC residents the money! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 0

7:49am Tue 1 Apr 14

cgpc Rob says...

I believe there are six current cllrs and four ex cllrs to my knowledge who have association to groups that regularly request funding
from CGPC for activities/events.

CGPC Standing Order 11.4 states that cllrs should declare a Prejudicial Interest and leave the chamber until a vote is taken on the issue, cllrs currently do not declare a PI and leave the chamber when committees/council debate issues involving financial funding to groups that they might have any connection to.

Why do Cllrs Mitchell,Bennett etc not declare they belong to the Croxley Green Society

I personally would leave the council chamber prior to any debate especially with a financial funding request that involved any association/group that I or a family member was associated with, so there could be no doubting by residents of any prejudicial interest, either way. Which would be in my opinion, best practice.

Mr Saxon stated, residents can stand as a cllr every four years, that's only a vote on cllrs, not CGPC. How many residents actually know the cllrs standing for election and what they stand for?

Scotland are holding a referendum. D Cameron/tories are promising a referendum on Europe. As apparently UKIP will if elected.

Croxley Green can hold a referendum. If ten residents attend the APM on April 24, which is their right as it is a meeting held by CGPC for the residents and at which questions can be asked of council and not be restricted to the three minute rule, details will be on the website and request that CGPC hold the referendum, a referendum will be called and if 10% of residents then vote for the abolition of CGPC, it goes forward and could be abolished.

The residents of Byfleet held a referendum and 80% of their residents voted for the abolition of their parish council and Woking Council complied with their wishes,

Hertsmere Council offered a referendum to the residents of Bushey a few years ago of creating a parish council, I believe a resounding NO vote of about 70% won the day.

25 years ago a narrow victory of about 51%-49% created CGPC

If we as residents of CG were now offered a referendum, how would you vote!

I believe that if residents voted for the abolition of CGPC, that PCSOs should be kept and the charge be made by TRDC to keep this services for residents via Special
Expenses. Also Village Hall arrangements hopefully could be made and consideration to be given to the Friday Bus via special expenses!
I believe there are six current cllrs and four ex cllrs to my knowledge who have association to groups that regularly request funding from CGPC for activities/events. CGPC Standing Order 11.4 states that cllrs should declare a Prejudicial Interest and leave the chamber until a vote is taken on the issue, cllrs currently do not declare a PI and leave the chamber when committees/council debate issues involving financial funding to groups that they might have any connection to. Why do Cllrs Mitchell,Bennett etc not declare they belong to the Croxley Green Society I personally would leave the council chamber prior to any debate especially with a financial funding request that involved any association/group that I or a family member was associated with, so there could be no doubting by residents of any prejudicial interest, either way. Which would be in my opinion, best practice. Mr Saxon stated, residents can stand as a cllr every four years, that's only a vote on cllrs, not CGPC. How many residents actually know the cllrs standing for election and what they stand for? Scotland are holding a referendum. D Cameron/tories are promising a referendum on Europe. As apparently UKIP will if elected. Croxley Green can hold a referendum. If ten residents attend the APM on April 24, which is their right as it is a meeting held by CGPC for the residents and at which questions can be asked of council and not be restricted to the three minute rule, details will be on the website [meetings/calender] and request that CGPC hold the referendum, a referendum will be called and if 10% of residents then vote for the abolition of CGPC, it goes forward and could be abolished. The residents of Byfleet held a referendum and 80% of their residents voted for the abolition of their parish council and Woking Council complied with their wishes, Hertsmere Council offered a referendum to the residents of Bushey a few years ago of creating a parish council, I believe a resounding NO vote of about 70% won the day. 25 years ago a narrow victory of about 51%-49% created CGPC If we as residents of CG were now offered a referendum, how would you vote! I believe that if residents voted for the abolition of CGPC, that PCSOs should be kept and the charge be made by TRDC to keep this services for residents via Special Expenses. Also Village Hall arrangements hopefully could be made and consideration to be given to the Friday Bus via special expenses! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 1

9:43am Tue 1 Apr 14

cgpc Rob says...

CGPC have given £35000 of residents monies to TRDC without any formal agreements, an audit/paper trail should exist, CGPC didn't even discuss the layout and equipment of baldwins Lane play area, yet gave away monies, now two cllrs have put £7000 of our money into the budget as they are unhappy with the design, why did cllr martin state this at a CGRA meeting, but not at a CGPC meeting prior to giving away our money!

From:
"TRDC - FOI"
Save Addresses
To:
Family Ridley
Date: Nov 01 2013, 04:34 PM
Subject:
RE: RE: Baldwins Lane play area refurbishment cost
Show full header

Councillor Ridley

I apologise for the delay in responding to you.

I have now liaised with colleagues in the Leisure, Legal and Finance departments and can confirm that there are no legal documents/contracts regarding the contributions made by Croxley Green Parish Council to Three Rivers District Council for the development of playgrounds at Barton Way and Baldwins Lane.

The Finance department have confirmed that £20,000 was received in September 2009 for the Barton Way development and £15,000 was received in April 2013 for the Baldwins Lane development.


Regards

Phil King
Freedom of Information Officer
Three Rivers District Council



-----Original Message-----
From: Family Ridley
Sent: 03 October 2013 08:15
To: TRDC - FOI; Emma Prince
Cc: David Gauke ; Eric Pickles; Ty Harris
Subject: FW: RE: Baldwins Lane play area refurbishment cost


Mr King

Have TRDC found any signed legal agreement/document/c
ontract between both parties TRDC/CGPC on this issue, where CGPC have taken through precept and
given £15.000 of residents monies to TRDC. for the redevelopment of the Barton Way playground?

Also does a legal document signed by both parties exist on the redevelopment on the Barton Way playground development some three years ago, which also
included CGPC giving £20.000, I believe in a joint venture?

I've seen no proof of any documentation at CGPC or at least none has been presented to council to be verified in their minutes that I can find.

I've included the CGPC External Auditors and MPs D Gauke and E Pickles in this trail, also TRDCllr Ty Harris.


Regards

Rob

Mr Gauke/Pickles

If there is no document in existence, can a parish council enter into an apparent adhoc agreement with a higher tiered authority in which they can give away residents monies?

Do government have to have inter department documents when transferring of monies occurs, so that a paper trail exists?

====================
====================

Message Received: Sep 02 2013, 06:20 PM
From: "Family Ridley"
To: "TRDC - FOI"
Cc:
Subject: RE: Baldwins Lane play area refurbishment cost

Phil

Thanks, still under FOI, can you confirm that a contract or a legally binding agreement/arrangemen
t was made between TRDC and CGPC on this issue and the date it was signed by both parties, can you send me a copy of the relevant document?

Did the document state, that CGPC will release the £15.000 of residents money when they are satisfied with the work/equipment at the Baldwins Lane play area redevelopment/refurb
ishment and after it has been presented to CGPC for ratification.

There is a document signed by both TRDC/CGPC on this issue,isn't there?

Rob
CGPC have given £35000 of residents monies to TRDC without any formal agreements, an audit/paper trail should exist, CGPC didn't even discuss the layout and equipment of baldwins Lane play area, yet gave away monies, now two cllrs have put £7000 of our money into the budget as they are unhappy with the design, why did cllr martin state this at a CGRA meeting, but not at a CGPC meeting prior to giving away our money! From: "TRDC - FOI" Save Addresses To: Family Ridley Date: Nov 01 2013, 04:34 PM Subject: RE: RE: Baldwins Lane play area refurbishment cost Show full header Councillor Ridley I apologise for the delay in responding to you. I have now liaised with colleagues in the Leisure, Legal and Finance departments and can confirm that there are no legal documents/contracts regarding the contributions made by Croxley Green Parish Council to Three Rivers District Council for the development of playgrounds at Barton Way and Baldwins Lane. The Finance department have confirmed that £20,000 was received in September 2009 for the Barton Way development and £15,000 was received in April 2013 for the Baldwins Lane development. Regards Phil King Freedom of Information Officer Three Rivers District Council -----Original Message----- From: Family Ridley Sent: 03 October 2013 08:15 To: TRDC - FOI; Emma Prince Cc: David Gauke [MP]; Eric Pickles; Ty Harris Subject: FW: RE: Baldwins Lane play area refurbishment cost Mr King Have TRDC found any signed legal agreement/document/c ontract between both parties TRDC/CGPC on this issue, where CGPC have taken through precept and given £15.000 of residents monies to TRDC. for the redevelopment of the Barton Way playground? Also does a legal document signed by both parties exist on the redevelopment on the Barton Way playground development some three years ago, which also included CGPC giving £20.000, I believe in a joint venture? I've seen no proof of any documentation at CGPC or at least none has been presented to council to be verified in their minutes that I can find. I've included the CGPC External Auditors and MPs D Gauke and E Pickles in this trail, also TRDCllr Ty Harris. Regards Rob Mr Gauke/Pickles If there is no document in existence, can a parish council enter into an apparent adhoc agreement with a higher tiered authority in which they can give away residents monies? Do government have to have inter department documents when transferring of monies occurs, so that a paper trail exists? ==================== ==================== Message Received: Sep 02 2013, 06:20 PM From: "Family Ridley" To: "TRDC - FOI" Cc: Subject: RE: Baldwins Lane play area refurbishment cost Phil Thanks, still under FOI, can you confirm that a contract or a legally binding agreement/arrangemen t was made between TRDC and CGPC on this issue and the date it was signed by both parties, can you send me a copy of the relevant document? Did the document state, that CGPC will release the £15.000 of residents money when they are satisfied with the work/equipment at the Baldwins Lane play area redevelopment/refurb ishment and after it has been presented to CGPC for ratification. There is a document signed by both TRDC/CGPC on this issue,isn't there? Rob cgpc Rob
  • Score: 1

7:21am Wed 2 Apr 14

cgpc Rob says...

Section 15 of LGA 1972

(5)A parish council may pay the chairman for the purpose of enabling him to meet the expenses of his office such allowance as the council think reasonable.

Meeting legitimate costs, such as phone, travel etc if presented to council, who are all volunteers as well is what most people would think as proper spending of an allowance!
Section 15[5] of LGA 1972 (5)A parish council may pay the chairman for the purpose of enabling him to meet the expenses of his office such allowance as the council think reasonable. Meeting legitimate costs, such as phone, travel etc if presented to council, who are all volunteers as well is what most people would think as proper spending of an allowance! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 1

10:08pm Wed 2 Apr 14

cgpc Rob says...

After removing me from this important committee, not enough cllrs could be bothered to turn up last night and the important meeting which agenda items included dog fouling etc was cancelled, Carry On Croxley!
After removing me from this important committee, not enough cllrs could be bothered to turn up last night and the important meeting which agenda items included dog fouling etc was cancelled, Carry On Croxley! cgpc Rob
  • Score: 0

8:04am Thu 3 Apr 14

cgpc Rob says...

Length of E/A meetings since new council sat in 2011, usually nothing happens!

June 2011EA774/11 Closure
There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 8.29pm.
July 2011 EA788/11 Closure
There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 9.25pm
Sept 2011 EA802/11 Closure
There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 9.41pm.
Oct 2011 EA811/11 Closure
There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 8.18pm.
Nov 2011EA822/11 Closure
There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 8.46pm.
Dec 2011 EA832/11 Closure
There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 9.23pm.
Jan 2012 EA842/12 Closure
There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 8.35pm.
Feb 2012 8.53pm
March 2012 8.10pm
April 2012 8.41pm
June 2012 9.33pm
July 2012 8.25pm
Sept 2012 8.26pm
Oct2012 8.13pm
Nov 2012 8.08pm
Dec 2012 cancelled, but the clerk forgot but put the minutes to be agreed on the Jan 2013 agenda
EA935/13 Minutes
To approve as correct and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 4 December
2012.
Jan 2013 8.31pm
Feb 2013 8.25pm
March 2013 8.04pm
April 2013 April cancelled
June 2013 8.12pm
July 2013 8.07pm
Sept 2013 8.35pm
Oct 2013 cancelled
Nov 2013 8.34pm
Dec 2013 9.05pm
Jan 2014 8.40pm
Feb 2014 8.19pm
March 2014 8.05pm
April cancelled as not enough members turned up, which is why most committee meetings are cancelled
Length of E/A meetings since new council sat in 2011, usually nothing happens! June 2011EA774/11 Closure There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 8.29pm. July 2011 EA788/11 Closure There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 9.25pm Sept 2011 EA802/11 Closure There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 9.41pm. Oct 2011 EA811/11 Closure There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 8.18pm. Nov 2011EA822/11 Closure There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 8.46pm. Dec 2011 EA832/11 Closure There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 9.23pm. Jan 2012 EA842/12 Closure There being no further business the Chairman closed the meeting at 8.35pm. Feb 2012 8.53pm March 2012 8.10pm April 2012 8.41pm June 2012 9.33pm July 2012 8.25pm Sept 2012 8.26pm Oct2012 8.13pm Nov 2012 8.08pm Dec 2012 cancelled, but the clerk forgot but put the minutes to be agreed on the Jan 2013 agenda EA935/13 Minutes To approve as correct and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 4 December 2012. Jan 2013 8.31pm Feb 2013 8.25pm March 2013 8.04pm April 2013 April cancelled June 2013 8.12pm July 2013 8.07pm Sept 2013 8.35pm Oct 2013 cancelled Nov 2013 8.34pm Dec 2013 9.05pm Jan 2014 8.40pm Feb 2014 8.19pm March 2014 8.05pm April cancelled as not enough members turned up, which is why most committee meetings are cancelled cgpc Rob
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree