|
|
 |
| |
Meetings for the sake of having meetings?
• I AGREE with those who rebuked the Liberal Democrat organisers of the first area forum meeting (Low numbers, but a loud rebuke, October 4).
Residents are fed up with endless phony consultations after which the politicians and Town Hall officials do precisely what they intended to do in the first place.
Consultation has become an end in itself.
It was made abundantly clear to the Liberal Democrats why the voters favoured them over Labour in the last local election and subsequent by-elections.
However, party differences fade as spin takes over everything.
Top of the list was the failure of planners under Labour to protect community interests and their propensity to make questionable deals with private developers.
Selling what has come to be known as our ‘family silver’ under Labour, angered many concerned residents.
Secondly, saving the Kentish Town swimming baths and other precious amenities for the community tilted the balance in favour of Lib Dems.
Thirdly, the lack of safety on our streets has grown to be a major issue locally since the last local election. Never more so than for some Haverstock ward residents and businesses who are currently being held under siege by large gatherings of anti-social youths.
Night patrols, when crime and anti-social behaviour occur, have become a necessity.
With this sure list of priorities already on the table, the coalition should have their hands full.
They should stop having meetings for the sake of having meetings and get on with the job of solving existing problems.
Local government is about governing.
We will then look up to them as effective leaders worth voting for at the next local election, as soon as they start delivering.
CELINE LA FRENIERE
Talacre Road, NW5
Opinion ignored!
• CAMDEN promised us detailed consultation about their vision for the new UCL school.
They have even organised another consultation meeting this week.
After the much criticised ‘consultation’ period that took place in May/June, I would have thought that Consultation Camden might have learnt their lesson by now. It seems not. It’s simply not consultation if we don’t know what we are being consulted about or what effect our views will have on the outcome.
So why, only a couple of days before the meeting, are there so many gaps in the UCL plans? And what will happen if the public don’t support the plans, such as they are?
On past record, I can only assume that Consultation Camden will ignore us again and press ahead anyway.
This is a long way from the clear, detailed and open proposal made by the CofE which was – like local opinion – totally ignored. Camden should be ashamed of its record.
TIM FAIRBAIRN
Iverson Road, NW6
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
