Comments

DAMESATHOME@YAHOO.CO.UK
send the Dame your information, discretion assured.
Comments are welcome but do not necessarily reflect the view of the Dame.
Offensive/inappropriate comments will be deleted and the poster banned.

Tuesday, 20 December 2011

Rowley Roll Over And Resign

Left: The Boy Councillor praying for forgiveness for lack of  veracity

The Dame will always interest herself in Westminster parking issues: we are, after all, affected by unilateral decisions taken by 12 year old Cllr Lee Rowley.
Also being part of the Tri Borough we are 'all in this mess together'.
A comment posted below made the Dame prick up her ears. The link takes you to a meeting at St George's, Hanover Square. In the Dame's day young Lee would have his mouth washed out with salt water for telling such 'Phibbs".  

A reader writes.....
"In my opinion, Lee Rowley, you should be grown up about this and resign. Click here to see yourself  being economic with the truth and digging your own political grave with this tripe. This is London, not a third world banana republic where people do as they're told. Also, while we're at it, let's not forget Rosemarie MacQueen in this. How did she compile a report so supportive of these charges, when 95% of people and businesses don't want them? I mean, Goebbels would have been proud of her! These two, and Colin Barrow, should go in my opinion. They've worked harder to weaken the Conservative Party vote in London than Ken Livingstone."

As one commentator said, "If Cllr Rowley is prepared to stand up in Church and be so disingenuous before a Church congregation just how much credibility can ever be given to anything that Cllr Rowley says in future. Of course, it must be noted that when Cllr Rowley admitted to revenue generation from parking he was not then the Cabinet member for parking and transportation."

Rowley may just have his claims that Westminster Council is not using the almost universally unwanted parking charges to fill a £7million black hole in the parking budget proved wrong.
Documents recently discovered show that Councillor Lee Rowley is not only aware of his parking department using enforcement to raise revenue but it is also part of a businesses case to do so.
















23 comments:

  1. This high-profile case has shocked London, and here you are in the thick of it, revealing the lies of elected members.

    Dame, you are truly awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Dame always likes praise-she is, when all said and done-only human!
    She is just waiting for a pat on the back from Sir Pooter Cockell.
    The Dame's Private Office

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Tri Borough badly needs the efforts of the Dame to winkle out the truth and expose the shoddy behaviour of the likes of Cllr Rowley.

    Rowley of course is not yet in the same class as Cllr Cockell who has achieved great heights of profligacy (£24 million for pink marble from China to spruce up Exhibition Road)and depths of expense abuse ($416 to buy dinner for disgraced Cllr Ian Clement in New York).

    As Cockell has found to his cost, the Freedom of Information Act means that all this nonsense will always be found out.

    Cllr Rowley, be warned.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cllr Rowley is supposed to be a politician. Which means he should have some political judgement.

    What an own goal he scored with his latest parking proposals! And what huge damage he has done to the Conservative cause.

    Time for Cllr Barrow to get a grip on things and be careful who he appoints to his Cabinet. Simon Milton is a hard act to follow - but there are depths of stupidity that even a dumbo should be able to avoid

    Wake up Barrow. Sort out your administration

    ReplyDelete
  5. Easier said than done 15.50.

    Barrow and his crowd have been running a monopoly in Westminster for years and the Labour opposition is weak. It is not residents that count in the Borough of Westminster, its the personal greed of Tory councillors

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tri Borough residents need to understand that the the $416 expense that Cllr Cocckell charged up to entertain disgraced Cllr Clement to dinner in New York was paid by London Councils ie the bill was footed by all London council tax payers, not just Kensington and Chelsea.

    Cllr Cockell of course was in the habit of ripping off tax payers until Freedom of Information caught up with him. He spent another $190 of tax payers money to entertain a "friend" to dinner at the Four Seasons Restaurant in New York on a Saturday night. When challenged by K&C tax payers he said that he "forgot" the name of his guest.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Westminster is still behind the curve where spending and perks abuse by councilors is concerned, compared with K&C.

    Cllr Cockell liked to use the Mayor's Bentley to drive him around until residents caught up with the scam. The Leader told the local newspaper that "I never use the Mayor's Bentley alone". But Freedom of Information showed that he used it alone seventeen times in one year to help him feel important.

    When reported to the Standards Committee (stuffed with supporters of Cockell) they reported that his porky to the newspaper was "political rhetoric". And the Chief Executive (Derek Myers, now joint Chief Executive of Hammersmith) chimed in that "I authorised the Leader to use the Bentley to save taxi fares"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kensington Resident21 December 2011 at 08:44

    As a person who pays for the Bentley through my council tax, perhaps Derek Myers would send it over to me so that I can save some taxi fares

    I am a VERY important person

    ReplyDelete
  9. $416 is insignificant compared to the £2 billion plus which the Tri Partit spends every year.

    Pathetic bloggers should concentrate on the big issues. Sir Merrick Cockell is an inspiration

    ReplyDelete
  10. Up Yours. It is so long since we have heard from you, that I was really concerned that you had gone to that Great Blog in the Sky, like the Dear Leader Kim Jong II who I know you admired so much. And you are of course absolutely right, as always. Sir Dear Leader Pooter, The Gordon Brown of Chelsea, is an inspiration to all those who suplement their income with their expense accounts. Long may he inspire you and others like you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sir Merrick Cockell is a none too bright little chap whose two business no longer function.That says it all!!
    Using taxpayers money to entertain crooks is symptomatic of severe character flaws. Up Yours do you not understand that your your semi literate posts do nothing but embarrass your sad little hero? Bloggers can small a fraud when they see one

    ReplyDelete
  12. Retired Chief Executive21 December 2011 at 13:00

    "By their little actions and sayings shall you know them"

    Salesmen in business who fiddle their accounts always get found out by their small acts - eg submitting bogus taxi fares

    Wake up "Up Yours", a crook is a crook. Small stealing and big stealing are the same when you have to make the judgement "Can I trust this person"

    ReplyDelete
  13. In business and public life the test that needs to be applied is "has there been personal gain?"

    A person who takes a friend to dinner on Saturday night in New York and then charges it up to the public purse is clearly in possession of personal gain and requires to be disciplined.

    It is wrong. It is an abuse of expenses. It is a betrayal of trust. When it is done by the Leader of K&C (thinking that he will not be found out) this is as bad as it gets. It opens the door for every minion and colleague to follow his example.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Up Yours, you are a very muddled fellow.

    $416 is also insignificant to Cllr Cockell who takes £150k per annum from the public purse. He can easily afford to entertain a friend to dinner.

    The point is that a mentality of "if it is there I will take it if I am not found out" is not right for a person in a leadership position

    ReplyDelete
  15. You should take a look at Cockell's travel expenses! Yes, he does take the tube, to and from the LGA, but we pay for that. But we also pay for taxis between the Town Hall and the LGA if he's a bit late or feeling too important.

    Why should we pay for travel between the Town Hall and his day job at LGA? I don't see other Cllrs charging expenses just to get to Council meetings from their everyday jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mosquito, your information is an outrage.

    Cllr Cockell should not be charging K&C ratepayers for taxi fares to the LGA. He does not represent K&C at the LGA - it is his second job, his place of work, where he is double jobbing. The LGA should pay the taxi fares!

    And why should K&C pay for his annual tube ticket which he uses in part for his LGA job? The cost should be split between K&C and the LGA.

    And are we sure that Cockell is not double claiming taxi fares and his tube fares? Who is checking this? The man needs to be carefully watched.

    He flies first class Virgin on council jollies to the USA and keeps the air miles to fund his holidays. And we know about his entertainment expenses

    ReplyDelete
  17. There is a strong flavour of Hypochrisy and Envy in most of these comments!
    For all of us 'opportunity would be a fine thing'and would be quickly seized upon if we thought we 'could get away with it'

    ReplyDelete
  18. T1154
    Are you really suggesting that most people would do dishonest things if they thought they 'could get away with it'.
    Thank Goodness most of us have sufficient moral compass to know that your thinking is as corrupt as your friend!

    ReplyDelete
  19. There is a strong flavour of Hypochrisy and Envy in most of these comments!
    For all of us 'opportunity would be a fine thing'and would be quickly seized upon if we thought we 'could get away with it'

    ReplyDelete
  20. T1154
    Hi Anonymous,
    You really want us sinners to believe that you wouldn't!????
    Then, alas, I can assure you that you are one of the very few !!

    In my 87th year, my outlook is best summed up by the following statement,'Put not your trust in Princes ,nor in any child of man'!!

    Many years ago I applied for a post at one of the Top Industrials with a reference that included the words integrity and morality.

    I got the job,but my interviewer commented,in respect of the reference, 'Keep it and frame it but don't show anyone else,they would be afraid to employ you'

    ReplyDelete
  21. T1154
    I think you are missing the point. It matters not in the least whether or not whether I would abuse a position of trust. Cockell used his expenses wrongly and abused his position of trust. I pay for his allowance thus have a right to complain about his abuses of power. I hope that makes it clear to you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Whether You or any other appointee would abuse a position of trust matter's a great deal,in the Scheme of things . And since we are all flawed creatures ,in pointed of fact, there really is no basis on which we can be trusted .
    Hence until the position of trust is abused we do not know what to expect of the individual concerned although we may have suspicions.

    Consequently if the position is one in which abuse will have serious consequences,one should make use of effective vetting procedures during recruitment ,which I suspect is not carried out often enough .

    Additionally it is important to be able to detect abuse at the earliest possible moment . This will enable damage limitation to be initiated .

    But we should never be surprised that even individuals with apparently the 'highest moral compass' let us down !!

    ReplyDelete
  23. T1154
    Makes a very interesting point.Merrick Cockell has not only never been 'vetted', but has organised the Scrutiny and Standards committees so that he has control and influence over membership and decisions. This is why there is always a whiff of corruption over the Rotten Borough.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are your responsibility. Anyone posting inappropriate comments shall have their comment removed and will be banned from posting in future. Your IP address may also be recorded and reported. Persistent abuse shall mean comments will be severely restricted in future.