You miss the point again
THE Mercury has missed the point yet again. I was pleased you published my letter concerning the disciplinary action taken against the director of children and young people's services. However, your comment on my letter completely misses the point. Of co
THE Mercury has missed the point yet again. I was pleased you published my letter concerning the disciplinary action taken against the director of children and young people's services. However, your comment on my letter completely misses the point. Of course you should seek to give the public news and current affairs - I don't object to this at all - I object in this case at the way you have done it. There really is a story here - but, as yet, you've missed it. This whole sorry episode reflects the inability of this tiny, backwater authority to get itself above the petty political in-fighting it has 'enjoyed' since its creation from the old Woodspring District Council. Let me remind you please - the emergence of the new directorate was heralded as just about the highest priority for North Somerset - many of us were privy to Graham Turner's impassioned urgency on this matter. And then what? Well, especially after the dissolution of the always false and forced Tory/Lib Dem alliance, there was delay after delay stemming mainly from the political in-fighting between the two main parties. Colin Diamond's own job was not confirmed - but he was expected to do it; other key jobs were delayed and delayed - but these people were expected to get on with this very complicated and difficult task. What, dear editor, would you have done on being asked to do a job - with significantly increased responsibilities - for which you were not being properly remunerated? I don't know the full facts but it is my understanding honoraria were paid to remunerate people during this transition before they were substantively confirmed in these new posts by the elected members - to the cost of about £10,000. Subsequently, an inquiry and an action were set in motion, demanded by the politicians, that has cost, probably, several thousands of pounds - hence the figure bandied about of 'running into tens of thousands of pounds'. Who then has been wasting public money? What was necessary, of course, is that this authority put its money where its mouth is and paid the price of the new directorate - and at the speed demanded by the chief executive. But instead we have had the politicos dragging their feet, playing political games to score points off each other. And who has been leading one of the political groups in all of this...? What is his name...? Have you got the connection yet? Probably not, because you seem not to have done the hard graft of journalism - you simply accepted the easy way out by being 'briefed' - briefed by someone as deep in all of this as anyone else. Oh dear ... is this really the rightful job - even the duty - of the press, to pass on second-hand political opportunism? I think I do know the answer. Your right of reply last week is absolute (and correct) - mine on this occasion relies on your discretion; let's see you use it for the sake of fairness. NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED* EDITOR'S NOTE: We are not willing to take a debate further with someone who does not have the courage of their convictions to reveal their identity to the public. After all, it is very easy to be critical from behind the cloak of anonymity.