Why Napoleon was right about Stockton Council...

From controversial parking charges to wonky lines, barely a month seems to pass without the parking arrangements on Yarm High Street hitting the headlines. However, one story regarding the most recent battleground – over the re-location of two signs informing motorists of the extent of the disk zone – caught my eye in particular.

A bit of background. After being issued with a penalty notice for not displaying a valid parking disk, Jason Hadlow – the chairman of Yarm Town Council – appealed to the Parking Adjudicator. After much consideration, the adjudicator found in Mr Hadlow’s favour, ruling the relevant signage to be “inadequate” and “ambiguous”. In the days that followed, two roadsigns were moved from their kerbside location, into the middle of two parking spaces.

 

 

 

Whilst on the face of it this tale is ostensibly another amusing one of Stockton Council’s incompetence, the comments of an unnamed “spokesman for Stockton Council” as reported in today’s Darlington & Stockton Times are altogether more worrying, being so disingenuous as to be downright misleading.

 

The spokesman said, “Two new parking signs have been put up in Yarm High Street. This is a direct consequence of the recent parking adjudicator’s decision. It is unfortunate that we have to reduce the spaces but it is a necessary consequence of the adjudicator’s ruling.”

 

Firstly, no new signs have been put up; instead, two existing signs were relocated. Okay, a trivial point, but not a great start by the spokesman.

 

Secondly, we come to the claim that the change was a direct consequence of the adjudicator’s decision. Whilst there is no doubt that the signs’ previous locations were criticised by the adjudicator, to blame him for their current location is a gross misrepresentation.

 

The parking adjudicator has no powers to direct a council to do anything. His authority starts and finishes with the ability to quash penalty notices; nothing more, nothing less.

 

What he actually said was, “Whilst it is not my place to make recommendations about the signing one obvious step to improve it would be to ensure that the Zone entry signs are placed next to the carriageway where they are more visible”.

 

No mention of where they should be moved to, and certainly no suggestion that there was any need to remove two parking spaces whilst doing so.  The blame for this latest act of lunacy lies squarely with Stockton Council.

 

Could they have been placed, as the adjudicator suggested, next to the carriageway, alongside the existing parking spaces thereby preserving them? Of course they could. Why weren’t they? Draw your own conclusions.

 

I don’t however subscribe to the view of many, that the signs were moved by Stockton Council’s Technical Services out of malice, in some childish act of revenge at Councillor Hadlow’s victory.

 

Instead, I think it far more likely that Napoleon Bonaparte probably hit the nail on the head, when he said, “Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.”

If the Church of England is still ‘the Tory Party at prayer’ is Cameron done for?

There have been many examples of David Cameron ‘doing God’ in recent times, from his speech celebrating the 400^th anniversary of the King James Bible last December to him hosting a reception for Christian leaders at Downing  Street to celebrate Easter (not Holy Week in his words but Easter week, though let us not quibble).

Keen to burnish his Christian credentials, this self-professed ‘committed’ but ‘vaguely practicing’ Anglican stated during his Easter reception that “I think there is something of a Christian fight-back going on in Britain and I think that’s a thoroughly good thing”.  Unfortunately, Dave appears to have neglected to mention this to James Eadie QC, the barrister representing the Government in landmark cases currently being heard before the European Court of Human Rights.

Amongst the human rights challenges being considered, Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida – a nurse and a British Airways worker respectively – argue that their employers’ refusal to allow them to openly wear crucifixes at work contravened Articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion.

However, speaking for the Government, James Eadie QC countered that wearing a cross was not a “generally recognised” act of Christian worship as “a great many Christians do not insist on wearing crosses, still less visibly”.  More ridiculously, he claimed that neither Chaplin nor Eadie had been discriminated against by their employers as they were free to “resign and move to another job”.

So how closely do the Government’s words in Court marry to Cameron’s recent proclamations on faith? Well, not remotely so; not even close.

During his Easter reception, Cameron said, “I think we see this fight-back in this very strong stance that I’ve taken and others have taken in terms of the right to wear a crucifix. I think this is important.”

Such a strong stance in fact that his Government’s lawyers are currently arguing that as there is no ostensible obligation for Christians to wear a crucifix then their ‘rights’ could not have been impinged.

With poll after poll, decade after decade, supporting the 18^th century perception of the Church of England being the ‘Tory Party at prayer’, then Cameron has problems.

Without a party co-Chairman who he can any longer instruct to ‘do Allah’ on the Government’s behalf, Cameron’s ability to ‘do God’ is undoubtedly going to be of more importance come the next general election than it was a week ago.

Based on his, and his Government’s, record so far, he’s in trouble…

Can't provide excellence? Buy a press release...

Stockton Council’s recent bout of self-backslapping is well under way (see here) after having been shortlisted for a third successive year for the “prestigious” Council of the Year Award in the Association of Public Service Excellence (APSE) awards.

What is it that makes these awards so prestigious? Well, pretty much nothing.

To shamelessly steal the words of another (from here), "those councils that can provide excellence do so; those that can’t join APSE".

In order to be a part of this far-from-exclusive club, Stockton Council paid £3,159 in “Membership Fees” to APSE in 2011/12. (This is despite a draft report completed last month which could only name, at a push, three 'benefits' of APSE membership, one of which was involvement in APSE events and awards!)

In addition to the annual subscription to APSE, member organisations have the opportunity to hand over yet more taxpayers’ hard-earned cash to participate in APSE’s award ceremonies.

Sponsored by that bastion of efficiency that is UNISON, these awards ‘celebrate’ the least bad organisations that have duly paid their subs and nominated themselves in such illustrious categories as Best Catering Service, Best Transport & Fleet Servicing, and Most Fatuous Piece of Self Publicity (Okay, I made that last one up, but only the last one!).

I do have some sympathy with Stockton Council though. A press release saying “After handing over thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, Stockton Council has nominated itself multiple times to be considered amongst the least useless organisations that subscribe to APSE” is hardly likely to gain much traction.

That said, being voted Council of the Year from amongst APSE members such as Haringey, Nottingham and South Tyneside councils, is akin to being voted as the least hated ‘celebrity’ on Big Brother.

The lesson to be learned? If you can’t provide excellence, buy a press release.