Reply To "maltbynews" Propaganda - July 2009
Dear Kevin Hall,
Let’s get a few facts correct here following your “sensational” front page report and patronising editorial in today’s maltbynews.
Firstly, you state the petition to dissolve Maltby Town Council is unlikely to have the effect which it’s supporters are aiming. You also state that Mr Mumford says that it is unclear what the purpose of the petition is. I can assure you that Mr Mumford has been told perfectly clearly what the purpose of the petition is for, but that if he has told you that he is uncertain, then who’s view is it that it is unlikely to have any effect? Contradiction in terms, Mr Hall.
Then you state “ that RMBC are already undertaking a review in Maltby following the upheaval in the Town (sic) over the past six months.”WRONG.
A governance review is taking place but not following or because of any upheaval. It is happening in numerous parishes across Rotherham. Bit of a manipulation of words there, to suit a biased view.
That you have named 2 Maltby residents in your report without their permission is a breach of many rules and regulations, which the National Union of Journalists are already very interested in.
“Having initiated their action on June 1st the group garnered the 30 signatories by the end of the month” WRONG.
A letter was sent to the Assistant Chief Executive dated 1st June with 30 signatures attached. You must have misinterpreted what I said to you when you phoned me Kevin. If you hadn’t been barracking me so much in this conversation you might have remembered that I told you that the letter said that we were committed to provide the necessary petition within the next month so that a Governance Review could be organised. Have your 2 “leakers” of misinformation not told you how many representations there actually are? Apparently not - maybe because they are too busy instigating a petition themselves based on another piece of MIS information.
Your next piece of propaganda says that Mr Mumford says that IF the Town Council were to “disappear” (sic) that the current precept would be retained by RMBC, and that “most likely” the assets would also be transferred to RMBC.
“IF” is the key word here. The petitioners are not intending that to happen at all and as for what will “most likely” happen…. what a shoddy piece of speculative reporting that is !
Your description of a “Community Group” which could administer assets was hardly informative, but suited your purpose of demeaning the prospect. For your information, an option in place of Maltby Town Council is a Community Interest Company http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/ (to understand more)
And finally….
As you were so keen to unethically name members of the public in your paper, perhaps you will enlighten your readers on the “Community Group (that) has helped to facilitate the presentation of the petition”. I am unaware of any such group being involved.
Yours sincerely,
Brenda Abou El Ola
Let’s get a few facts correct here following your “sensational” front page report and patronising editorial in today’s maltbynews.
Firstly, you state the petition to dissolve Maltby Town Council is unlikely to have the effect which it’s supporters are aiming. You also state that Mr Mumford says that it is unclear what the purpose of the petition is. I can assure you that Mr Mumford has been told perfectly clearly what the purpose of the petition is for, but that if he has told you that he is uncertain, then who’s view is it that it is unlikely to have any effect? Contradiction in terms, Mr Hall.
Then you state “ that RMBC are already undertaking a review in Maltby following the upheaval in the Town (sic) over the past six months.”WRONG.
A governance review is taking place but not following or because of any upheaval. It is happening in numerous parishes across Rotherham. Bit of a manipulation of words there, to suit a biased view.
That you have named 2 Maltby residents in your report without their permission is a breach of many rules and regulations, which the National Union of Journalists are already very interested in.
“Having initiated their action on June 1st the group garnered the 30 signatories by the end of the month” WRONG.
A letter was sent to the Assistant Chief Executive dated 1st June with 30 signatures attached. You must have misinterpreted what I said to you when you phoned me Kevin. If you hadn’t been barracking me so much in this conversation you might have remembered that I told you that the letter said that we were committed to provide the necessary petition within the next month so that a Governance Review could be organised. Have your 2 “leakers” of misinformation not told you how many representations there actually are? Apparently not - maybe because they are too busy instigating a petition themselves based on another piece of MIS information.
Your next piece of propaganda says that Mr Mumford says that IF the Town Council were to “disappear” (sic) that the current precept would be retained by RMBC, and that “most likely” the assets would also be transferred to RMBC.
“IF” is the key word here. The petitioners are not intending that to happen at all and as for what will “most likely” happen…. what a shoddy piece of speculative reporting that is !
Your description of a “Community Group” which could administer assets was hardly informative, but suited your purpose of demeaning the prospect. For your information, an option in place of Maltby Town Council is a Community Interest Company http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/ (to understand more)
And finally….
As you were so keen to unethically name members of the public in your paper, perhaps you will enlighten your readers on the “Community Group (that) has helped to facilitate the presentation of the petition”. I am unaware of any such group being involved.
Yours sincerely,
Brenda Abou El Ola
.jpg)
Comments