Very Meal?Stargazing

	Wednesday, 11 January 2012
	The ICHC Challenge
	by Fran Oborski

The real out of touch hypocrites on the Travellers Sites issue are ICHC. Last month Richard Taylor informed me in a letter that their party policy was that gypsy sites should be dispersed around the district.

Today I publicly challenged ICHC Leader, Cllr. Nigel Thomas to say, (1) if that was still their Policy and, if so (2) which sites in Kidderminster, Bewdley and the villages they would be proposing instead of Sandy Lane. Surprise, Surprise! I have NOT had the courtesy of a reply BUT he has told The Shuttle that, YES that IS still their policy. Unfortunately he has not been willing to tell anyone which sites ICHC propose to use.

The Local Development Framework Panel meeting which will finalise the recommendations to Scrutiny, takes place in January, the last date for documents for the agenda of that meeting to arrive with the Council's Committee Section is January 5th. If ICHC are to have ANY credibility they MUST submit their alternative proposals to that agenda. Somehow I doubt if they will as that would involve taking a decision which, since the departure of Howard Martin, that shower seem incapable of doing!

Campaigns:

Comments:

Tav 22 Dec 2011

Fran you need to understand what democracy is. I think you have been so much involved in the current dictatorial environment of both councils that you have forgotten. There are compromises everywhere on this issue, Mark Garnier MP wanted no sites allocated - he hasn't achieved that; the Tories wanted to take control of this but instead balls it up getting bad PR; you Fran and I wanted all the sites go to consultation but the Cabal didn't listen; ICHC wanted sites to be spread across the district, and they haven't got that; Colin Morton wanted the whole thing called off (like Mark Garnier); and, a guy I once heard say 'if one site is placed in Stourport I will never vote Tory again' has lost out. At the end of the day we are all winners (the whole community) regardless of political or lifestyle choice, because we have come together and worked a consensus (well actually that hopefully will happen).

Jonathan Cooper 21 Dec 2011

Regarding ICHC's behaviour in not telling residents where they would like to see potential sites across the district - I ask this: "Isn't it completely correct to assume that the Wyre Forest taxpayer paid a significant amount of money to an independent group to do this location of sites on the behalf of the council"? Well not completely of course; I forgot to mention The Gatehouse Site on Sandy Lane Stourport, which was not on the original Baker Report, but was solely an edition on the behalf of WFDC! Naylor's Field - which was part of the original consultation - was then thrown out as unfeasible by the sitting Sutton Park Conservatives. Councillor's Hart, Onslow and Campion supported The Cabinet's decision about dismissing Naylor's Field as unsuitable - which means in reality THEY SUPPORTED THEMSELVES!

Fran Oborski 22 Dec 2011

It simply is not acceptable to brush off Health Concern's behaviour by saying that they haven't got what they wanted; the point is that they have made NO proposals and apparently want gypsy sites in Kidderminster, Bewdley and the villages but do not have the good manners to tell residents WHERE they want them! I am getting very tired of the apologists for ICHC on this blog who are never prepared to challenge that so-called political party!

Fran Oborski 29 Dec 2011

Now, thanks to The Shuttle we now know where Health Concern favour putting Gypsy sites, Lea Castle and Bewdley Rd Stourport, that's according to their Leader, Nigel Thomas. I am sure the residents of Cookley, Broadwaters and Bewdley will be delighted to be given this news! They want to blight a huge regeneration opportunity at Lea Castle and use an environmentally sensitive site in Bewdley!

Jon D 29 Dec 2011

I don't know about the sites but Nigel Thomas is plumbing new depths with his rabble rousing language in the article. A 'volcano' would be created; there would be conflict between the travellers & the "people who are making a living" (how extreme does the great white hope want to go?); 'I can see it leading to fatalities' - clearly sees himself as Wyre Forest's own Enoch Powell. I will have absolutely no hesitation in voting Tory, except for Stephen Clee obviously, if I had to if it means keeping Health Concern from power. It's about time The Labour Party found some backbone & made a stronger stand against them too.

Graham Ballinger 23 Dec 2011

@Tav: I am pleased you are going to introduce a separate thread on the stirring that one Member is keen to pursue against my honourable colleagues in ICHC - I shall be pleased to comment on that in due course but suffice to say I thought her full allocation of "sour grapes" had been used up earlier in 2011 but clearly some stock still remains so I guess that we shall all look forward to tasting her 2012 bottles.

FlipC 13 Jan 2012

Fran you're still not getting it - it's not up to ICHC to state where they want the sites it's up to us the public. I would say that meant the 5+10 sites being put up for public consultation, but consider that it seems they failed to ask any of the residents hence the addition of 3 extra sites that don't appear even as rejected and perhaps that's not the better option. A new survey perhaps given that of the 5+10 the Cabinet only put forward 1+6 which has dropped to 1+2+4. It's also difficult to state exactly given the vague nature of the descriptions, but the remaining one listed as "Land off Wilden Lane" appears as a rejected site (STO0003 or WR106461) due to "unacceptable impact on landscape character, and would be inconsistent with Green Belt purposes". Then again they rejected the "Land opposite the Gatehouse" (STO0020) as "This site is subject to flooding and objections have been received from the Environment Agency" and the Council saw fit to allow building on it.

Medussa 13 Jan 2012

I think Graham is absolutely right. Fran Oborski is not criticising Health Concern per se but it is because Graham is their Parliamentary spokesperson. It's not about Gypsy sites, ITS ALL ABOUT HER AS USUAL. For God's sake Fran grow up - you are a washed up has been and there is a new political force waiting in the wings - we are fed up with your dictatorial attitude. You'd be better working as a politician in North Korea than in a democracy - take your Tory pals with you.

FlipC 17 Jan 2012

Jon D: "It is not up to the people to allocate the sites it is the Council" Odd to say that Jon given that we the public were consulted on this and apparently our decision is to have them at Sandy Lane and that the four additional sites were ones suggested by the public. If all the 5+10 (+4 had the report talked to the public) were consulted on then perhaps the Council would have been presented with a wider "dispersal" pattern of sites at which point then sure it would have been up to ICHC to nominate their preferred sites.

Fran Oborski 13 Jan 2012

I AM criticising ICHC because they say they have a policy of dispersal but refuse to say where. This is typical of that dishonourable shower! If they claim to be equal to other political groups then they have to be honest!

Jon D 13 Jan 2012

Fran is absolutely right. It is not up to the people to allocate the sites it is the Council, unless we've become a Socialist utopia overnight which I seemed to have missed out on. Whether we like it or not this is our system. ICHC is a political party (ha ha ha ha - sorry) so if it wants to gain votes on the anti-traveller bandwagon it should say where it thinks they should go. It doesn't have to of course but as everything is political the voter can interpret that the way he/she sees fit. So I would take it that Health Concern want traveller sites in Bewdley or Kidderminster. If I was to live in one of those towns and I didn't want a traveller site next to me then I would think I should be voting for anyone except Health Concern, which obviously includes the Tories (except Stephen Clee of course). So that's a dyed-in-the-wool Labour voter urging people to vote Tory (except for Stephen Clee of course) if necessary - it must be serious. ...and I haven't even used my used car salesman and Fred West analogies yet, but judging by the intemperate ICHC apologist 'Medusa' I don't think it'll be long

walkerno5 16 Jan 2012

ICHC has screwed the pooch on this one. It's shot their credibility into a billion sad little pieces, and exposed some pretty vile and possibly racist opinions amongst some of their representatives. I'll never vote for them again, which is sad as I like the concept of a party not beholden to the Westminster machine.

Howard Martin 18 Jan 2012

It was a change of leadership and a change of direction for ICHC walkerno5 - some of us worked hard in our time to keep them left of centre and provide an alternative to the traditional in politics. To no long term avail it seems. Onward and upward.

walkerno5 19 Jan 2012

Your departure from ICHC does seem to have precipitated a pretty horrid turn. However did you keep them in check?

Howard Martin 20 Jan 2012

Yes walkerno5 it was often a battle but achieved without mirrors and whips! Eventually though I ran out of stream and lost the will to live - you can only try and convince some people of the obvious when they don't want to listen so many times.

Jon D 13 Jan 2012

What is worrying is that 'Medussa' thinks that ICHC is a 'new political force'.

Medussa 14 Jan 2012

I wasn't talking about ICHC - I was talking about the new generation of political minds more into thinking with the problems facing the area, not an old has been who has to be centre of attention all the time!

Howard Martin 16 Jan 2012

The trouble with the otherwise informative and often entertaining ICHC site is that it offers no opportunity to respond to any opinion they offer. If they added a blog facility to respond it would be very helpful. Presumably now that some of their "policies" are so "off the wall", they don't want anyone adding an alternative view. However on the suggestion from their Leadership that Stourport Road, Bewdley was a good site they never asked ICHC Bewdley Town Councillors what they thought. Surprise, surprise they are collectively against the suggestion - so ICHC public pronouncements on this don't even reflect the preferred grass root supporters line.

Howard Martin 16 Jan 2012

The "site" I was referring to was of course the ICHC web site - where most of their public observations begin - this site "endorsed" the recommendations of cross district dispersal of gypsy sites and gave (seriously flawed) reasons why. Medusa? Wasn't that the gorgon with snakes for hair who if you looked at her face you turned to stone? She was ultimately beheaded! I await more postings to see how this develops - .

Share:
Tweet

Blurfers: