Cllr Matt Kelcher in his first report a Chair of Brent Scrutiny Committee at Full Council tonight referred to the editing of the fly-tipping report LINK which had been raised in the blogosphere and subsequently mentioned to him by colleagues.
He said that he had objected in the strongest terms to the editing of the report in the CEO's paper for Cabinet, whilst also recognising that the full version of the report was also on the agenda.
He said that he hoped such a thing would not happen again without consultation.
The editing of the report had removed a statement critical of the previous Labour administration, a fact that did not escape Cllr John Warren's notice. He launched a barbed side-swipe about 2013 at Cllr Muhammed Butt later in the meeting.
The webcast of the meeting is HERE
He said that he had objected in the strongest terms to the editing of the report in the CEO's paper for Cabinet, whilst also recognising that the full version of the report was also on the agenda.
He said that he hoped such a thing would not happen again without consultation.
The editing of the report had removed a statement critical of the previous Labour administration, a fact that did not escape Cllr John Warren's notice. He launched a barbed side-swipe about 2013 at Cllr Muhammed Butt later in the meeting.
The webcast of the meeting is HERE
10 comments:
Cllr Mashari was apparently furious about how she was portrayed in Cllr Kelcher's speech. Perhaps this will be a lesson to Cabinet that attempting to undermine Scrutiny is likely to backfire...
Couldn't follow a word of Kelchers speech - garbled delivery. Needs to learn to enunciate
How was Cllr Mashari portrayed / or how did she perceive she was portrayed?
Mashari is ten times the politician Kelcher is - it seems like sour grapes.
Well, based upon the reviews here I listened to some of the political reality TV with some good multi-tasking (cough Xbox). I was disapointed that 'objecting in strongest terms' was the actual words used rather than some sort of "You can't handle the truth" interaction ala A Few Good Men over the deleted text (which were the 'strongest terms' I was expecting).
The drama from Labour over Joel's comments on Corbyn was the most theatrical it got. Am unclear why a debate was necessary on fixing potholes. Oh well, New series of X files starts soon.
Scott Bartle
Oh dear. Splits within ruling Labour. Sounds familiar.
You on first name terms with "Joel", are you? What a surprise...
Funnily enough I don't know his second name, but thought it was clear in this context (Labour Cllrs shrieking his name making a show of themselves telling him to sit) who I was referring to. Clearly you've proven that case but if not perhaps you feel he's edging towards first name familiarity like 'Madonna' or 'Adele' whilst you continue lurking nameless making bitter comments in the shadows?
Bw,
Scott Bartle
My view was that Cllr Davidson was deliberately goading Labour and Corbyn to gain a bit of notoriety and gain publicity for his GLA ambitions. I decided not to co-operate except to tweet a plea for Graham Durham to come and deal with him.
She wasn't even mentioned. Nor was the content of the deleted section referred to in Kelcher's speech
Post a Comment