DCSIMG

Further voices added to protest

I wish to voice my protest, over the arrogant treatment of Councillor Blake Pain, by the council leader Michael Rook.

While I accept that the actions of Mr Rook are within the bounds of protocol, it very definitely smacks of failing to agree with Mr Rook’s point of view, leads to being dismissed.

Councillor Blake Pain was reflecting/acting and expressing the views, in the manner for which he was elected, as the councillor for the Lubenham ward, and not toeing the

committee line.

The dismissal of Councillor Pain for this showing of dissent, in my opinion, just goes to show the arrogance and contempt towards the electorate of the Lubenham/Gartree/Foxton wards, which are held by Cllr Rook.

Reading the related reports, and listening to the views of the Lubenham electorate on the decisions

and remarks attributed to the leader, I get the impression that he must be one of the most disliked people acting on our behalf, with the amount of remarks that have been attributed to him, such as “using the toilet before leaving home” when trying to explain away the closing of public toilets, especially the disabled adapted 
ones.

I accept that there are difficult and unwelcome decisions that have to be made by councillors, and these can be accepted, if not liked, when they are carried through, but there have been so many changes, such as the Market Hall closure, the refurbishment of the current council offices not being economically viable yet now they will

be refurbished.

In publishing the council’s decision to ignore the most popular view over the proposed developments,

held by the people of the relevant wards, the Harborough Mail has shown that although the

majority were overwhelmingly in favour of the proposed Option A, this only represented less than one per cent of the MarketHarborough population.

We have been given the impression that the majority of the good people of Harborough had attended and voted at these presentations, when in fact that unless it affected 
them directly, they did not attend the presentations.

The analysis of the vote on Option A should have reflected the percentage of the vote, and not the percentage of the Harborough population, but then this would not have shown the committee’s decision in such a favourable light.

The percentage of the vote shown as a percentage of the Market Harborough population, was, in my opinion, a deliberate attempt to play down the opposition to the other options put forward.

Mr P F Schofield

Westland Close

Lubenham

 

Comments

 
 

Back to the top of the page