Front Page Of Today's Chron

[Guest M_OAFC]

Not about Latics but it is another dose of council bashing!

[garcon]

And a good one at that.

 

Looking at the letters page, for those who don't know Jill Read was a Labour councillor in Royton South until 2006. So one would expect her to defend her buddies Bashforth and Harrison. She thinks we're "petulant".

[Amsterdam_Blue]

And a good one at that.

 

Looking at the letters page, for those who don't know Jill Read was a Labour councillor in Royton South until 2006. So one would expect her to defend her buddies Bashforth and Harrison. She thinks we're "petulant".

 

"petulant"?

 

The cheeky mare.

[fleetwood Blue]

Water feature ‘the butt of jokes’ at town’s expense

Water fountain on High Street, Oldham town centre.

 

A LOCAL councillor has hit out at Oldham Council for allowing itself to become the butt of jokes by visitors to the town.

Councillor Howard Sykes, leader of the Liberal Democrat group, said that the musical water feature “Time Wash”, in High Street, Oldham, has never worked since its installation in 2005 — and has become a symbol of the “perceived inability of the council to deliver projects”.

The 7m-high stainless steel pipe and water sculpture is part of the Made in Oldham scheme — a £600,000 project designed to celebrate the borough’s creativity and manufacturing heritage.

 

Water is supposed to shoot up each of the metal columns to produce a whistle.

 

Councillor Sykes said: “It is over two years since this prominent feature was erected in the town centre and, to my knowledge, it has never worked properly.

 

“I, for one, have never heard the feature do what it is supposed to do, which is to whistle.

 

“Apart from the odd occasion when it has released some soapy bubbles, I and almost everybody else have never seen it work at all.”

 

In a letter to the cabinet member for regeneration, Councillor Dave Hibbert, Councillor Sykes said: “You know as well as I do that this feature has become the butt of many jokes and one liners from visitors to Oldham and cannot possibly be a good advert for the town as it seeks to sell itself and revamp its image.

 

“The perception of the council is never likely to improve unless we develop a reputation for delivery of quality structures — on time, on budget and for them to actually work.”

 

The water feature has been dogged with problems since it was built and has been discussed at length in various meetings of the Town Centre Partnership.

 

In December last year, the partnership was told Time Wash would be working again when new drainage covers were installed. And there were further hopes in February that once work, costing £800, was completed, the feature could be switched on in April.

 

Councillor Sykes added: “This feature remains a monument to the perceived inability of the council to deliver projects and, whether we like it or not, structures such as the water feature become part of local folklore for all the wrong reasons.”

 

Councillor Hibbert agreed with Councillor Sykes, saying: “I totally agree that this has gone on too long.

 

“I am arranging for a meeting with a council officer and have invited Councillor Sykes to come along with me.

 

“We need to find a solution once and for all because the water feature has never been a success.”

[garcon]

Howard doesn't mince his words.

 

For those that don't know him - imagine a younger Cyril Smith.

 

 

(And if you don't know who Cyril Smith is, please move along - there's nothing to see here... )

[Amsterdam_Blue]

Howard doesn't mince his words.

 

For those that don't know him - imagine a younger Cyril Smith.

(And if you don't know who Cyril Smith is, please move along - there's nothing to see here... )

 

Cyril Smith, what a legend. I used to get my hair cut at the same barbers as him in Newbold, Rochdale.

 

I'm sure he would have simply ate Councillor Bashforth and the other 6 for this injustice.

 

BRING BACK CYRIL! (i know he's dead before anyone points out).

[Inspiral_Carpet]

Posted on the "Keep it on the Front Page topic:-

 

In a letter to David R Jones, Leader of Oldham Council, while he is supportive of the Application and is working with Latics to see the plans approved, I promised that we would cpntinue make his Council a laughing stock until the plans were signed-off.

 

Everyday in The Chron, there are ridiculous articles with people complaining about such and such. Usually pathetic stories but I am amazed they get so much coverage.

 

If you live in Oldham, I bet there are hundreds of tales that people can tell where they have been let down by The Council or where the Council is a fault for an everyday problem.

 

Why not get in touch with The Chron and have your two-pennarth?

 

Make the Council a laughing stock.

 

 

Glad to see that people are listening!

 

[boboafc]

Feedback in todays cron

 

 

 

Dying town

 

 

 

Oldham Council wants people to be proud of their town but by not giving Latics planning permission to build a new stand and hotels etc, Oldham is a dying town as no-one will save our club.

 

 

 

BOB ISAACS, Tel Aviv

 

AS a group of ex-Oldhamers (12) and still keen Latics fans who go to Boundary Park whenever visiting, as well as away games when in other parts of England, we are appalled by the rejection of the ground development plans. Sadly, it reminds us yet again about the deterioration of the town — and some of the reasons we left.

 

ALAN DAVIES, Lanzarote

 

 

Time to go

 

 

 

SO Councillor Salamat has been convicted for claiming benefits he knew he was not entitled to. All the time he says did nothing wrong and he now says that he will put this all behind him and carry on. What a disgrace — he should resign as a councillor, but for Labour to say we will stand by him until the standards board comes to a decision beggars belief.

 

JOE SHORT

 

 

Fraud farce

 

 

 

IT is a great shame to find that following years of accusation it turns out that the case against Councillor Salamat was a farce and a waste of other taxpayers’ money. It has come to light that it has cost over £10,000 to resolve this matter, which the council could easily have avoided. I strongly believe that Aqeel has been hard done by and the biggest losers were the taxpayers of Oldham.

 

SALEEM AKHTAR

[Inspiral_Carpet]

Today's Editorial says in a 3 pronged attack on The Council that "....Oldham Council's decision to reject Oldham Athletic's plans for redevelopment - a decision that will surely be reversed at the earliest opportunity"

 

They didn't say that in their Editorial on Friday.

 

The Council is being made to look a laughing stock. And that doesn't even take into account today's Front Page headline.

 

The rest of the Editorial talks about the need for new Council Housing. 7500 families are on the waiting list. Not only that, the private Sector cannot cope.

 

Not surprising is it bearing in mind the "just say no" attitude of the Planning Committee who seem to be against any kind of new development in case it leads to Traffic problems.

[boboafc]

well we all know what the councillers look like

[Inspiral_Carpet]

And a good one at that.

 

Looking at the letters page, for those who don't know Jill Read was a Labour councillor in Royton South until 2006. So one would expect her to defend her buddies Bashforth and Harrison. She thinks we're "petulant".

 

I'll look forward to reading her defence of "Steve" in The Advertiser. I suspect that one may be a little more hard-hitting love.

 

Is that petulant or patronising?

 

Sorry but her letter is garbage. "Steve" shouldn't have been there giving his opinion and it is clear that he and the other Councillor's hadn't read the background paperwork.

 

I was told on Saturday night that if you kick a Labour Councillor in Oldham, then they all cry "ouch". We are seeing that in action and they try to tell us they are independent and don't follow Party lines!

 

Time for another "P". Pathetic.

[garcon]

That's her.

[BigfinLatic]

Today's Editorial says in a 3 pronged attack on The Council that "....Oldham Council's decision to reject Oldham Athletic's plans for redevelopment - a decision that will surely be reversed at the earliest opportunity"

 

They didn't say that in their Editorial on Friday.

 

The Council is being made to look a laughing stock. And that doesn't even take into account today's Front Page headline.

 

The rest of the Editorial talks about the need for new Council Housing. 7500 families are on the waiting list. Not only that, the private Sector cannot cope.

 

Is that a positive or negative comment about the Chron then???

 

Seems as always, they cant win.... I havent read this editorial as my e-chron link is sodded, but perhaps they are starting to nail their colours to the mast in favour of the Club???

 

Or perhaps they use the rotation policy for the editorial as well as their reporters.. wouldnt surprise me!

[Inspiral_Carpet]

Is that a positive or negative comment about the Chron then???

 

Seems as always, they cant win.... I havent read this editorial as my e-chron link is sodded, but perhaps they are starting to nail their colours to the mast in favour of the Club???

 

Or perhaps they use the rotation policy for the editorial as well as their reporters.. wouldnt surprise me!

 

I suppose my point is they have changed their tune but got the message across through the back door. So both positive and negative! Probably more negative to be honest though as I'm still frustrated with their lack of forthright opinion. Even Jill Read referred to last Friday's Editorial as "a model of common sense and moderation". Bearing in mind her biased views, then it really does show that the Editor on Friday wasn't critical in any way of the decision and was doing as I said at the time - admonishing a spoilt child. Like I say, that opinion seems to have changed and slipped out now in a round-about way and without any explanation. Not good journalism in my view and it looks like they are blowing in the wind.

 

To me, they are being spoon-fed ammo to have a real inquest into The Council (possible vote of no confidence?) but still are holding back from really getting their teeth into a story and showing their colours.

 

They aren't really getting their teeth into anything. It really is a case of sitting on the fence so far.

 

At least Mike Yarwood showed his support and opinion about it all in his Match report.

[leeslover]

They are trying to be all things to all men. It’s not just the BP area residents, an awful lot of their readership will have an inner NIMBY, so they aren’t going to come out all for us. They are looking to please football fans by allowing the sports pages to be 100% behind us, they are happy to give the Council some grief over standing in the way, but it suits them to call for compromise. It is never going to do them a lot of good in terms of popularity to go all out for the development unless it enters the public mind that the rejection was entirely unreasonable, not just an argument about fine detail. IMO that’s why we need to focus on the procedural errors, conflict of interest and sheer incompetency issues rather than the emotional response about the threat to the club.

[BigfinLatic]

I suppose my point is they have changed their tune but got the message across through the back door. So both positive and negative! Probably more negative to be honest though as I'm still frustrated with their lack of forthright opinion. Even Jill Read referred to last Friday's Editorial as "a model of common sense and moderation". Bearing in mind her biased views, then it really does show that the Editor on Friday wasn't critical in any way of the decision and was doing as I said at the time - admonishing a spoilt child. Like I say, that opinion seems to have changed and slipped out now in a round-about way and without any explanation. Not good journalism in my view and it looks like they are blowing in the wind.

 

To me, they are being spoon-fed ammo to have a real inquest into The Council (possible vote of no confidence?) but still are holding back from really getting their teeth into a story and showing their colours.

 

They aren't really getting their teeth into anything. It really is a case of sitting on the fence so far.

 

At least Mike Yarwood showed his support and opinion about it all in his Match report.

 

Totally agree - I can see their strategy in slowly phasing in a blanced (but heavily in our favour) viewpoint... and i can imagine their dilemma - we want to support the club, but we cant burn our bridges with the Council or The Local residents... so lets try to slip in some positive comments round the back... as you say, and I have said before.. this is not consistent journalism... Mike can consistently say what he wants as he knows he will always be on the same story (latics..) the same should be of the editorial/journalism side - they should have picked a lead reporter for this and stuck with them!

 

.... From what I have experienced with the decision making there, I think you may find that if the advertiser do come out all guns blazing tomorrow the chron may follow suit... there are 2 things that really annoy them - the advertiser getting a story ahead of them, and the advertiser doing something they are not!

 

Again - not cutting edge reporting... but they may get there in the end!

[Inspiral_Carpet]

They are trying to be all things to all men. It’s not just the BP area residents, an awful lot of their readership will have an inner NIMBY, so they aren’t going to come out all for us. They are looking to please football fans by allowing the sports pages to be 100% behind us, they are happy to give the Council some grief over standing in the way, but it suits them to call for compromise. It is never going to do them a lot of good in terms of popularity to go all out for the development unless it enters the public mind that the rejection was entirely unreasonable, not just an argument about fine detail. IMO that’s why we need to focus on the procedural errors, conflict of interest and sheer incompetency issues rather than the emotional response about the threat to the club.

 

I know what you are saying but I don't agree at all.

 

They should want what is best for the whole Town and not tread on eggshells because of a relative minority who may be affected. The Nimby-element had its say and even The Chron now knows the decision was wrong. It was wrong because the Council used anecdotal evidence and not proper Transport studies, they hadn't read the planning paperwork; they ignored proper professional advice and they used other smoke screens before and after to justify their decision.

 

They also have been given information about impropriety on the night and in particular by Bashforth. There are loads of great stories there but they ignore them. Worst of all, they don't share an opinion or in this case, explain why they changed their mind. They are like a little schoolboy at the back of a class, shuffling his feet as he contemplates what to spend his pocket money on.

 

On top of that, there is the expensive non-working fountains, the Oldham Theatre Workshop budgetdecision and the closure of The Barn Owl. These affect everyone in the Town as they show that Public money is being wasted and then chopped from important projects.

 

My comment wasn't just about Football although my interest is there because of it.

 

The Chron has a duty in my opinion to hold the Council to Account. Instead, it runs a story, gives a lukewarm wishy-washy opinion in the Editorial and then sits and waits for the next story to fall into its lap.

 

Oldham is being failed by its Council and the voice of the people in the Town hasn't got the balls to write a decent story about it.

[BigfinLatic]

I know what you are saying but I don't agree at all.

 

They should want what is best for the whole Town and not tread on eggshells because of a relative minority who may be affected. The Nimby-element had its say and even The Chron now knows the decision was wrong. It was wrong because the Council used anecdotal evidence and not proper Transport studies, they hadn't read the planning paperwork; they ignored proper professional advice and they used other smoke screens before and after to justify their decision.

.............................................

 

Oldham is being failed by its Council and the voice of the people in the Town hasn't got the balls to write a decent story about it.

 

There is some truth in there mate, and as an Oldham fan my heart views it in exactly the same position as you..... but my head doesnt and I wholheatedly disagree with you on that one highlighted sentence, as it would compromise anything that any news organisation should be about.... I still cant help but thinking that fair enough, latics fans, Theatre workshop goers, people who want a cinema, a working fountain, or pretty much 99% of the town out there want the councillors head on a stick... however I bet there are a few local residents to BP out there who believe (rightly or wrongly) that the council have just proved themselves to be a just, righteous and virtuous organisation - and stood up forwhat they as a minority group wanted...

 

I am going to stress again that this is not my viewpoint - you know that, i think the council should be layed into as much as they possibly can be - but as a genuine local paper, who are going to report for all the people who live in theie geography, and respect everyones viwpoint, then the chronicle cannot act as a melting pot...

 

The problem is as you rightfully say, if they have evidence of corrupt happenings then they have a duty to report it - and if hey had a consistent reporter on the story then maybe these corruptions could be worked through and revealed as we would all like to see.... it is no use just skimming subjects then passing on to the next person in the office, which is what the chron have always done and what they are doing now...

 

As I say, I'm sure as you have said the advertiser will come out all guns blazing tomorrow - and this will do some damage to the chron as people will hail it as the proper way to report this story... but as i say, it is sooo much easier to be outspoken when you dont have to care about buying a paper...

[LeylandLatic]

"petulant"?

 

The cheeky mare.

 

Interesting quote from Jill Read talking about Phil Woolas backing of the plans:

 

"he would perhaps have been less forthright with his views had they been his voters"

 

Doesn't this confirm what many have been saying, that the planning refusal was partly on the fear for losing votes from the residents?

[garcon]

Interesting quote from Jill Read talking about Phil Woolas backing of the plans:

 

"he would perhaps have been less forthright with his views had they been his voters"

 

Doesn't this confirm what many have been saying, that the planning refusal was partly on the fear for losing votes from the residents?

 

Yep. Well spotted. Be sure to mention that...

[Inspiral_Carpet]

There is some truth in there mate, and as an Oldham fan my heart views it in exactly the same position as you..... but my head doesnt and I wholheatedly disagree with you on that one highlighted sentence, as it would compromise anything that any news organisation should be about.... I still cant help but thinking that fair enough, latics fans, Theatre workshop goers, people who want a cinema, a working fountain, or pretty much 99% of the town out there want the councillors head on a stick... however I bet there are a few local residents to BP out there who believe (rightly or wrongly) that the council have just proved themselves to be a just, righteous and virtuous organisation - and stood up forwhat they as a minority group wanted...

 

I am going to stress again that this is not my viewpoint - you know that, i think the council should be layed into as much as they possibly can be - but as a genuine local paper, who are going to report for all the people who live in theie geography, and respect everyones viwpoint, then the chronicle cannot act as a melting pot...

 

The problem is as you rightfully say, if they have evidence of corrupt happenings then they have a duty to report it - and if hey had a consistent reporter on the story then maybe these corruptions could be worked through and revealed as we would all like to see.... it is no use just skimming subjects then passing on to the next person in the office, which is what the chron have always done and what they are doing now...

 

As I say, I'm sure as you have said the advertiser will come out all guns blazing tomorrow - and this will do some damage to the chron as people will hail it as the proper way to report this story... but as i say, it is sooo much easier to be outspoken when you dont have to care about buying a paper...

 

It's all about balance though.

 

On one side, you have a massive £80m development which will regenerate a dilapidated area and improve the locality.

 

On the otherside, you have rumour and rhetoric about the area becoming grid-locked and some fears that the flats will be populated by "bad people".

 

Ok, that is extreme. I mean it to be.

 

Yes the Residents have justifiable concerns. Those are being worked on. Yes the Council had worries about the Roads - that is why they pay a Travel expert who used facts to disprove their concerns. Let us not forget that the main reason that they said "no" was because they had a few minutes of anecdotal conversation and ludicrous discussion, which lead to them dismissing Travel Reports that had been undertaken; tested; re-taken and re-tested to the satisfaction of the Highways Agency and their very own expert.

 

Perhaps the Chron's Reporter in The Civic Centre didn't understand that. Lots of people have given them "advice" subsequently and still the penny hasn't really dropped otherwise there would be a meaningful story about it. Maybe people do think the Council made the right decision and we know there are going to be many. That's why someone needs to be cutting to the chase and explaining it in black and white.

 

There are arguments both ways. Life isn't easy and sometimes, difficult decisions need to be taken. In this instance, the Council opted out knowing full well it would get over-turned at Appeal. They did that to save/ secure votes and that looks scandalous. They did not act for the good of the Town and voted against professional advice. They would have opted out on the night but for their Legal Team saying they had to accept the Traffic Reports as correct. And still they said "no"! I wonder what the Local Government Ombudsman is going to make of that.

 

The Chronicle should see through the rhetoric and argument. It needs to look at the wider picture and see the greater good. It needs to understand why the Council said "no" and challenge them because they are wrong. It's bloody simple really and that in itself gives a story which could lead to something massive.

 

This is a massive piece of urban regeneration and improvement of facilities (one of the biggest in Oldham's history) which will cost the general public in the Town nothing. In due course, it will provide the Council with much needed income in terms of Council Tax and stimulating the surrounding economy. It will attract people from outside the area to spend money in Oldham as opposed to Rochdale; Manchester; Tameside etc.

 

The Chronicle is failing badly to separate the wood from the trees and the more I think about it, the more annoyed I get.