|
TeresaW, what a sad reflection on society that you've posted such a cynical response as to suggest that the councillor only visted because he thought it could become a scandal.
As I understand it, Maggie e-mailed him on Sunday and he replied on Monday. He has then apologised for not properly understanding the problem. This is quite easy if you don't see it for yourself and he has gone out at 10pm on Tuesday night to see for himself. He now seems to be talking to council officers about what can be done to resolve the problem.
That, to me, is perfectly normal and natural behaviour.
We had a recent similar situation where a pedestrian crossing was installed at resident's requests. No-one realised, on paper, just how close to the bedroom window the flashing beacon would be and it was only after installation that the problem came to light (pardon the pun).
A "Baffle" was immediately installed to stop the light shining into the windows and lessons were learned for future installations.
I went to visit a couple of residents last week, not because I thought there was a scandal brewing but because that is what being a councillor involves, trying to find solutions to their problems, listening to their complaints and acting as a "go between" with council officials.
Yes, I know that there are some poor MP's and councillors out there but please don't tar us all with the same brush. Some of us do it simply because we care.
|
|
Lady in Red, cycnical it may be but it is my view. I will apologise for appearing to tar all councillors with the same brush.
I do wonder however, how many people would not have bothered to write a second time following the first reply from the councillor, therefore how many people that councillor has failed to visit because he has not understood what they are trying to say? If Maggie hadn't taken the time to explain a second time, nothing would have been done.
It's also evident from the TV programme that some councils would rather quietly do something or sweep it under the carpet than negotiate with the very people who vote them in. Were the people in Winchester asked about their street lighting, after all they pay for it.
But, I will also agree that if there were a questionnaire sent around, 90% probably wouldn't bother filling it in and sending it back...so it works both ways.
As for the scandal, that was following on from my suggestion to maggie last night, and not plucked from thin air. It was a tongue-in-cheek remark. Sorry it didn't come across that way.
|
|
I have to admit my reply was rather ironic, but there is the 'scandal' point to bear in mind - not that I would bother going to the press over a light!!
What egged me on to write to him, was his 'waxing lyrical' about 'character lighting' remaining in a particular road - in a more affluent area, right next to where I live, where hardly anyone lives - and then agreeing to the installation of what are close to industrial spotlights in areas where houses are close together, roads are narrow - and it's a council estate - some could see this as implying that we need watching!!!
To my mind, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Personally, I'd like the original 1920's style lights back here - but I expect they were moved to 'pastures new' when bathrooms were installed in the 1960's.
|
