| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Another one bites the dust | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 19/08/19 21:52:00 |
| It's all about how questions are articulated Raymond. And I squashed the 'rumours' in my very first post on this thread but rather than just saying "right, thanks for that clarification" you're still going on about it. My fundamental point is simple. In any aspect of life, if I believe an individual or an organisation is behaving improperly, I'll collect evidence to support my beliefs and I raise it through the appropriate channels. In my view, Councils don't do enough to protect their staff from accusations made by the public. I've been on the receiving end of a fabricated complaint from a member of the public which if true would have certainly got me the sack. It will always nark me that, even when that complaint was investigated and the evidence showed that the allegation was a complete fabrication, my boss at the time wrote back to the complainant and apologised that they had felt the need to complain. Time and time again there are instances of Joe Public making wild accusations and claims whilst sat behind the safely of a computer screen, and without any evidence to back up those claims. A good recent example of that is the outcome of the Pissarro's appeal in Chiswick, which immediately led to allegations of corruption. It's pathetic, it's damaging to any credible objections the objectors may have had, and it's also potentially career ending for the individuals who are involved, be they a Council officer, a planning consultant like myself, or an Inspector acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. And it's also entirely counter-productive, because as we all know if people continually cry wolf then when there really is a wolf no-one takes notice, and furthermore it certainly doesn't facilitate better dialogue/relationships between the public and developers/people acting on behalf of developers. Perfect example - I was at committee not long ago and a neighbour, in his address to committee, made a similar inference about some kind of collusion between the Case Officer and myself/my client. Until then I'd had a amicable relationship with that neighbour. When permission was granted, he subsequently rang me up and said "oh well, you've won, now would you do me a favour ?". As I said to him, why would I or my client consider "doing him a favour" when he'd publicly inferred that something underhand had gone on ?. |