Thursday, 23 March 2017

Councillor Cecile Biant on Fly-Tipping

Rochdale Councillor Biant representing Spotland & Falign Ward!
FOLLOWING the report in Northern Voices on the Rochdale Township Committeee Meeting at the Riverside building in Rochdale town centre, one of the Labour councillors for Spotland & Falinge ward, Cecile Biante, sent the response below.  Spotand & Falinge ward is where Spodden Valey is situated. (Editor)
Hello Brian,
What a lot of nonsense! We already had a paper in front of us with the answers to the questions which the officer read out, and the ward councillors knew anyway. The Head of Public Protection had been on leave for 2 weeks, that is why Mick Coates did not get a specific response from Wendy Cocks, a fellow Councillor, as she wanted to check for any updates beforehand. We discuss TBA frequently informally.
Mick proclaimed that he is an expert, and I am familiar with his employment over many years, but he apparently failed to notice that the illegal tipping was mainly inert material which did not pose an immediate health risk. The Environment Agency are dealing with this, not the Council. Mick Coates has been sent the answers to his questions  which I would have thought he would have shared with you by now.
The Councillors are all positive, friendly, knowledgeable, relaxed and diligent. We always try to respond to emails which are brief, civil, genuine requests, but not to those who are hell bent on nastiness or self-indulgence. Life is too short for that.
Most of us have a great deal of common sense, wisdom and experience. We are neither sullen nor were we sitting stiffly.
Please send me a photograph of how you sit, as I am curious to know how it compares with the Councillors present last night.
With best wishes,
Cecile Biant


Carl Faulkner said...

Is it really too much to expect, that after more than 2100 days as an elected member for Spotland and Falinge, Councillor C Biant can offer nothing more than the fact that TBA is discussed frequently but informally?

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't 'discussions' about TBA be formally minuted if they are as a councillor ?

Otherwise its just having a 'natter' and never happened if not recorded on the official record - like so much in Rochdale that 'never happened'

phacineago said...

I was watching a repeat of "Yes Minister" recently called "The Greasy Pole". The plot revolves around wether a chemical due for manufacture is hazardous or not, and all the political moves for and against. Civil servant Humphrey Appleby is defending its manufacture. The following exchange takes place...

Joan Littler: "What I insist on knowing is what is the actual difference between dioxin and metadioxin."
Sir Humphrey: "Well, that's quite simple. Metadioxin is an inert compound of dioxin."
Jim Hacker: "I think I follow that, Humphrey, but could you explain it a little more clearly?"
Sir Humphrey: "In what sense, Minister?"
Joan Littler: "What does inert mean?"
Sir Humphrey: "It means it is not......ert."

I wonder if this is where a certain local councillor got the idea of something being "mainly inert" from? The dictionary definition of inert says chemically inactive. Does she therefore mean that some of that rubbish, on her investigation IS chemically active? If so, what chemicals and how active? I think we need to know.