"External solicitors were used to validate the ability of
Wetmore to provide the agreed level of finance, and that a binding legal
agreement was in existence."
The FOI request to Harvey Patterson stated the external solicitors were "Prettys" however it seems someone is being economical.
Further looking at the answer from Dr. Sue I wonder whether what she told the T & F committee is reflected in the letter. Unless of course there is further correspondence still not disclosed to the Councillors.
Further the 2 further letters mentioned " a development appraisal document"
The only correspondence to detail anything to do with finance is from Shaun Keegan who says they have lodged £650K with TDC (£100K for cliff works and £550K for the 3 leases) which completely agrees with the January 2010 accounts which show Assets and liabilities of £1.6M (the £1M being the deposit alluded to.
IT IS TIME FOR AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE COMPETENCE OF COUNCIL OFFICERS AND THEIR ABILITY TO DO THEIR JOBS
If anything changes I will add to the blog
12 comments:
The more documents are revealed about this so-called development agreement the more murky it appears to become. The sooner the development agreement is eneded the better
The big question, and the key reason for needing an independent inquiry, is why the council agreed to this when they didn't have the right paperwork and legal agreements. I can only conceive of two possibilities for doing so and both need to be explored.
They (the officer)believed that their paperwork was insufficient to prove there finances were adequate but were overruled by the leader of the Council. The rest is just smoke and mirrors to hide how poorly "due diligence" was managed
I'm not disagreeing with you Barry. But, a corrupt Leader should not be able to sign off on something of such magnitude, against the advice of officers, without the agreement of the full council. The fact that this was able to happen exposes a deep flaw in the way the council has been run over many years. We are left to wonder just how many other bad decisions have been made without the knowledge of councillors who represent those areas. The fact that unelected officers have demonstrated that they are prepared to flaunt the democratic process by refusing to provide documentation to elected councillors means that the role of officers must also be examined and redefined.
anon your silly comments are frankly libelous so they have been spammed. If you have some shred of evidence from your side of the street then email it and I will look again. Frankly it is rubbish but hey ho your turn
then have the courage to post under your real name and provide proof.
You're funny anon. Post your facts and have the courage to use your real name.
Same time anon, same old rubbish. If you are so sure of your facts then use your real name and email the proof to pleasuramasecrets@yahoo.co.uk
I'm sure anon if it is as you say a man of your calibre can extract the proof from where light never shines. I think by know you could have worked out you will have to provide the evidence bullshit won't cut the mustard.
LTP's post without link
I don't know whether Ramsgate Pleasurama area has got its war museum. It sounds like a good idea. I would point out that the area played a significant role in the Dunkirk evacuation. Research by a local historian seems to indicate that the seafront up to Neros site has never had a service of Rememberance or Blessing.
Which may be something FORS and Ramsgate Town Council might consider. As there were dressing stations and what seems to have been a temporary hospice facility for Dunkirk evacuees (The Neros building)
Link to Gazette report re museum
What was it Shaw Taylor used to say?
Post a Comment