The recent press release from Labour cabinet member Cllr Michelle
Fenner gives the misleading impression that efforts to stop live animal exports
through Ramsgate was a Labour initiative. It was not.
This unpleasant trade started during the time when TDC was
Conservative led. Immediately all avenues to stop the trade were explored. At
the time of Labour's motion, this initiative was underway, so council was
already doing what the motion called for, hence the unanimous support for it.
Councillor Bayford says “My administration took legal
advice, consulted DEFRA and researched what had happened to other local
authorities when they had tried to stop live animal export activity in their
areas. I also had a meeting with the then Agriculture minister, Jim Paice. All
the intelligence we obtained made it clear that, given the legal 'open' status
of Ramsgate Port, the council could not lawfully stop the trade. Further, the
other councils who had tried before found themselves unable to do so and
ultimately saddled with considerable cost.
As a result, despite being under considerable pressure from
both the animal rights lobby and political opponents and having ourselves a
real desire to see an end to the harrowing sights of animals in distress, we
believed that the responsible course of action was to continue our lobby for a
change in Government but not to ban the trade, as we were certain that this
would lead to TDC facing massive costs.
Unfortunately, our view has been proven correct. Thanet
District Council has been deemed to have acted unlawfully, has already incurred
legal costs of £80,000 and has a damages claim against it of £1 million.
Cllr Fenner calls on 'like minded people to keep a united
front'. That is a fair sentiment but a local authority has no business putting
over a million pounds of residents’ money at risk in support of a cause,
however worthy”
That's Labour for you, overspend, deny it and then pretend it never happened or was all down to the bankers. The only bankers around Thanet are the merchant ones making up the TDC Labour administration.
ReplyDeleteWith the KCC elections containing TDC doublehatter councillors, and senior TDC staff on £80-£130k: Prime Minister wages for one of Britain's worst councils. We need more P45's issued for reform.
ReplyDeleteIf TDC own the Port and can't stop animal cruelty with the RSPCA and Police, and a Port that's sub-standard, then they should be sacked and the hauliers jailed.
And if we're paying for TDC lawyers in-house why does it cost us extra? TDC has done almost nothing as usual except for bickering and pointless buck-passing statements such as this.
Ramsgate and Thanet are viewed as awful because of our incompetent and spineless council not despite it whether it's animal exports, faeces on the beach, councillor bickering, Manston overflights and late flights, missing fines and air pollution and EKO, ChinaGate and the Labour £25k donation and 0% salaries.
Hiring more clerks won't improve things. Sacking more of them will.
You forgot, Anon 20:09, that TDC has a leader who has been claiming disability benefits for years, yet he is fit enough to lead the council, go out street canvassing, delivering leaflets, enjoying a full social life, attending council, cabinet and Labour party meetings regularly and belonging to a fitness club. Hardly an example to set the minnions.
DeleteTDC will remain silent on the Chinagate donation and 0% salaries as long as possible to retain their salaries as long as possible. And hope their pensions won't be cancelled or a police investigation and arrests.
DeleteCouncillors do not get pensions. Check out your facts before you spout 22:22.
DeleteI must set the record straight Anon of 1800, I believe Cllr Hart has never claimed disability benefit, but is on an early pension from his previous employer due to back injury. To state anything other is to the best of my belief, untrue.
DeleteChris, thanks for that for many people have made reference to Cllr Hart's bad back and disability payments over the years on the Thanet blogs. A disability pension is a very different matter, though I might not be so generous in spirit if I were the provi9ding insurer or pension fund manager. 'Tis but a narrow difference between early retirement on medical grounds and disability living allowance, primarily that one is funded privately out of other peoples pension contributions or premiums whilst the other is funded out of other peoples taxes.
DeleteHey the gentleman does enough to be criticised legitimately without anyone adding scurrilous untruth.
Delete22:22 Some of the councillors have joined the TDC pension scheme apparently, and the point included TDC civil servants not just councillors. How much are the pension costs? You didn't mention the ChinaGate bung-donation or 0% which are rather concerning?
DeleteNo, TDC councillors are not permitted to join the pension scheme. Please do forward any evidence you have to the contrary. The pension costs of the local government pension scheme are horrendous, but that is not news, we are all aware of that and the reaction to any government attempts to limit pension benefits for any group of public servants. In the main, the average pensions are for lower paid workers and are not the headline figures quoted. However, public servants as a whole get one of the best pension schemes around - except for Parliamentarians of course!!!!!!
DeletePerhaps this consultation document will provide some of the answers to the pension issue. Clearly in some areas members are in the pension scheme, not here in Thanet or at KCC though.
DeleteDepartment of Communities and Local Government, Department of Health and government bodies: consultations update
Communities and Local Government
Taxpayer-funded pensions for councillors and other elected local office holders
This consultation seeks views on access by councillors and other elected local office holders in England to the taxpayer-funded, Local Government Pension Scheme which will come into effect from 1 April 2014. It also covers the contribution rates that should apply to any such persons that remain active members of the scheme.
Councils should alert their members to this consultation.
Closes: 5 July 2013
Some corrections to Cllr Bayfords statement. Costs for abandoning the challenge to the Judicial Review £180,000.00 Not £80,000.00. TDC's costs have not been reported.
ReplyDeleteFenner claimed to be acting on sound legal advice. Wrong there was none.
Seed was reported in the Local Press as having overseen the decision. Wrong Seed took the decision.
By statute and under the TDC's constitution, key decisions must be recorded. No record has been kept of the decision.
The RSPCA who demanded the animals be unloaded and then shot 45 of them have no legal standing or powers whatsoever.
The £1.4M claim against TDC together with the costs lost to date, could cost TDC £2M not £1M
The current Labour administration is utterly irresponsible and does the cause to stop the evil trade no favours.
And Wells and Gideon were both on the Manston airport committee - what did they do about the pollution and missing fines and removed monitors? Looks like Carter's Puppets.
ReplyDeleteLooks like your record is stuck in the groove again, Aquifer Man.
DeleteI'm not sure if you're saying the aquifer is contaminated or not with your rather pointless comment Aquifer Anon? While removing airport monitors, and covering it up, with the loss of the relevant fines is exactly in keeping with the lies and mismanagement of the Port by TDC.
DeleteSo Lynford you're saying the Manston aquifer is seriously contaminated? What info do you have on ongoing contamination and the cleanup?
DeleteAnything on the MOD Fire Brigade fires/pollution?
I very much doubt that is what Lyndon is saying, more that is what you want him to say because you cannot drag your small cluster of cells onto anything else. Whatever do you do for sex life? The mind boggles, 20:47.
DeleteYou have a go at answering the issues on Manston pollution then Anon 20:09 rather than this non-comment.
DeleteLyndon is saying the aquifer is polluted, certainly from Sericol:
"The Environment Agency response to FOI states that the aquifer contamination from Sericol will be a problem for the foreseeable future"
Are you saying there is no Manston airport pollution given the runway is on top of the aquifer not a few miles awy like Sericol?
Wouldn't want to steal your thunder, old chap, for you are the self proclaimed expert. It is sufficient for me that the Environment Agency, Southern Water and Michael Childs all say that the water from our taps is safe to drink.
DeleteMr Clarke you invariably appear with non-comments on the Manston aquifer. Both the Environment Agency and Southern Water have confirmed it is polluted by the airport. So much so that drinking water is sourced from West Kent rather than our own aquifer. Whether the drinking water is polluted or not is a concern given faeces has been found, the pumps blocked with 20 tons of sand and the drains overflow regularly. And of course last year's 20 tons of sewage discharge, one of many, to sea. Not exactly reassuring.
DeleteSo, my anonymous old friend, once again you demonstrate your intransigent attitude whereby everybody else's comment is a non-one except yours. All I said was that I am content that various sources have confirmed our tap water to be of ascceptable drinking standard, something you will not find in very many countries. However, as you raise the point about our water being sourced from outside, why so much concern about the Manston aquifer. If we are not drinking that water what is your problem?
DeleteThis press release is about appalling mismanagement, hidden decisions, no reporting, and propaganda from the spend spend spend Labour Party who will bankrupt TDC if they keep on making these irresponsible knee jerk decisions. The truth of the matter is they are nothing but a bunch of unemployable scroungers masquerading as a political party and making a complete hash of a multi million pound public business. Meanwhile they are being manipulated by a team of officers with their own agenda's.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying anon 11.30 that there is no record of the decision that could cost us £1 - £2M to suspend exports. What sort administration do we have now under Clive Hart?
ReplyDeleteSurely the exporters/shippers should pay for policing and ALL other oncosts incurred as a result of their trade? If not, why not?
ReplyDeleteThe presence of the Police is required because of the behaviour of the protestors.
ReplyDeleteThese protests are instigated by (partners of) TDC's commitee against live export.
Under IMO -law - it is the port authoritiy's responsability to ensure the safety of it's port.
The Court has been clear with regards to this issue before: It is a legal trade and the law should not bent for mobster behaviour.
So wake up: it is the world up side down to ask the exporters to pay for the police.
It is the protestors behaviour that requires there presence and yet they claim it is costly.
Has anybody ever looked on how these people behave when a load of livestock arrives at the port?
You and I would be taken to mental hospital!
The Court has been clear about it as well: protests are futile - the only place to get a result - is Brussels.
So these protests are costing society a lot of money - but why blame the exporters?
Furthermore failure to ensure the safety (worse: instigating a committee to stop a legal trade) is another way of obstructing and damaging a legal business.
But TDC consider's their goal to allow them act above the law.
If Justice will it's way - it will cost TDC dearly.
Furthermore I am still waiting for a journalist to find out how it was possible that the animals that were put down on 12th of September, were covered with so much blood. Done by a professional, you would only have a drop of blood on the head - job done.
Yet the ones killed by the RSPCA are covered with buckets of blood and you see the blood spraid up the wall as high as 2 meters.
TDC is proud of it's partner - but they don't know the facts..
What a performance!
Because Annon 12:07, whether you like the trade or not, the exporters were carrying on a perfectly legal trade. Defra are the body responsible for policing, not the RSPCA, not Mark Seed and not Clive Hart. The RSPCA certainly had no locus to demand the animals were unloaded into the Councils lorry park or to have killed them. As Cllr Bayford says, the legal advice and previous experience was stop it at your peril. Despite that advice, Mark Seed stopped the trade, probably under pressure from Hart and Johnstone in support of Ian Driver. We all know Hart was desperate to curry favour with Ian Driver at the time, so as to desperately hang on to control in TDC. We are all now going to pay the price of their ill-conceived political maneuverings. These costs could not by any stretch of the imagination be classed as legitimate trade costs. The £180,000 costs to date, not £80,000, are the costs of challenging Mark Seeds stupid decision to throw caution to the wind and risk a legal challenge. Add to that the legitimate claim for damages and we could end up paying up the £2M. If anyone should be paying, it should be Mark Seed for toadying to Hart and making the ridiculous decision in the first place. Why Seed then failed to record the decision and why Fenner claims to have received sound legal advice, are questions that remain to be answered.
ReplyDeleteThe whole incident was engineered to create a politically motivated alarmist story. The Daily Mail and the Telegraph were right.
ReplyDeleteSo what has this latest Labour disaster achieved then?
ReplyDeleteYou can almost taste the bitterness,.. Thank christ for a Thanet Council that actually cares.
ReplyDeleteCares only about trying to be on the crest of public opinion; with no thought or care for the cost to the public purse ie everybody who pays council taxes.
DeleteIt's not bitterness anon 19:49 its the concern that the stupid decision could cost us the ratepayers £1M - £2M, and all it has achieved is to take away the credibility of those trying to stop the appalling trade using the legal route.
ReplyDeleteTo put this in context, many cabinet members, including myself, under the previous conservative administration, were contacted by campaiugners against the trade with suggestions and ideas for tackling it legally. All those I was asked about, I dutifully checked for legality and was able to say no, they did not work and would cost the council tax payer vast sums in compensation if tried (usually retried cos others had tried them before). The Labour administration tell us they had legal advice which encouraged them to order the closure of the port. All they have to do is publish, or even provide the new legal advice confidentially to cllrs, for this criticism to go away. Until then it is legitimate to state their actions were a matter of judgement against a background of advice of the costs of doing it. If the legal advice said unlikely to succeed and they went ahead, there may be personal liability for the cabinet members pursuing a reckless course of action.
ReplyDeleteIf the decision was backed up with proper legal advice, Hart and Co would have made the decision themselves instead of leaning on and then hiding behind an elusive unrecorded officer decision. There would then have been a documented decision notice under the usual procedure. There is no such notice. Come on Clive. Fess up and produce the your claimed legal opinion or admit there isn't one and your claim was false. But of course you cant can you, because there isn't one. As Cllr Wells says, this was a reckless decision which is now costing the taxpayers dearly. As you would expect, Cllr Bayford or any other Cllr could always demand to see this alleged legal opinion.
ReplyDeleteBayford has too much to hide himself.
ReplyDeleteCoward - if you have some proof to accuse someone of something put your name to it
Delete