11 of the 22 candidates selected by party members in the nine ward branches are sitting councillors, with the other half either replacing retiring or de-selected councillors, or contesting seats not currently held by the Conservatives.

The candidates for the full council elections on May 5, 2011, are:

Cuxton and Halling
Cllr Ray Maisey

Peninsula
Cllr Phil Filmer
Mr Chris Irvine
Mr Tony Watson

River
Cllr Craig Mackinlay
Mr Andrew Mackness

Rochester East
Mr Brian Griffin
Mr Jim Nugent

Rochester South and Horsted
Cllr Trevor Clarke
Cllr Sylvia Griffin
Mr Rupert Turpin

Rochester West
Cllr Ted Baker
Miss Kelly Tolhurst

Strood North
Cllr Jane Etheridge
Mr Paul Rai
Cllr Les Wicks

Strood Rural
Cllr Peter Hicks
Cllr Tom Mason
Mr Peter Rodberg

Strood South
Cllr John Avey
Mrs Josie Iles
Mrs Ann Sheppard

Though not a member of R&S CCA, this author was invited, along with the local media, to attend the event and take photographs, which will follow once this author has access to a full Internet connection again.

Related posts

1. Chatham Labour candidates for 2011 announced
2. RSH: The “personal” vote
3. Tony Lit for Rochester and Strood?

In a statement released today, Cllr MacKinlay stated that “[h]aving confirmed to David that a serving special constable could stand for election, and could become a local councillor, Kent Police force then put pressure on David to resign, telling him that a special constable could not serve as an elected councillor.”

The statement follows former Conservative Councillor David Craggs’ shock resignation less than two weeks after his victory in the by-election brought about by the resignation of former Labour Councillor Bill Esterson.

Medway Council have confirmed to Alan W Collins that a Notice of Vacancy has been published, but that the required two signatures requesting a by-election have not yet been received.

Meanwhile, the Labour and Liberal Democrat agents have rounded their attack on the Rochester and Strood Conservative Association. Liberal Democrat Sue Hannant said “”I am seriously considering sending our invoices for the last election to Rochester and Strood Conservatives. I am disgusted that they have wasted public money like this”.

Labour agent Cllr Vince Maple added “I think it’s an absolutely disgraceful situation. The Rochester and Strood Conservative Association have treated the voters of River ward with total contempt. Someone has not done their job properly. They should have checked the eligibility of their candidate. This has cost taxpayers thousands of pounds. The Rochester and Strood Conservative Association is responsible and they should pick up the tab.”

Cllr MacKinlay told Yourmedway that “We are entirely vindicated on all counts – it is Kent Police who are spectacularly wrong. As regards costs of another election, let us not forget it was Labour who forced this election by the resignation of Bill Esterson and they who petitioned for it, local Conservatives did not cause the election.”

Cllr MacKinlay’s statement today continues: “Before the election [Kent Police] had confirmed that there were no rules to preclude a volunteer special constable from being a local councillor, indeed there are two Conservative MPs and one Labour MP who serve as special constables, whilst being at the heart of the law making process at Westminster. Philip Hollobone, Conservative MP for Kettering is also a SITTING COUNCILLOR on Kettering Borough Council. Magistrates are similarly allowed to become local councillors and vice versa, there are no restrictions.

“Such was the intense pressure put on David that he felt he had to resign from the post of a paid councillor in order to carry on as an unpaid and volunteer police officer, a position he has held for 17 years. That letter of resignation was delivered to the Acting Chief Executive of Medway Council yesterday at 11.00am. Acting upon the resignation letter, an appropriate ‘Notice of vacancy’ in River Ward was issued by Medway Council, in accordance with electoral law. Within hours, and subsequent to legal advice already obtained by Rochester and Strood Conservative Association, the Kent Police Authority confirmed that there is no restriction in a special constable being a councillor.

“Kent Police were incorrect, and arguably unlawful. They had even threatened disciplinary action against David Craggs. Because the statutory ‘Notice of vacancy’ has now been issued, acting upon David Craggs resignation letter, the electoral cycle is started and cannot be retracted, despite the resignation now clearly being unnecessary, based on wrong advice and arguably extracted under duress.

“This means that another election may need to be held, because Kent Police got the law wrong. The situation is virtually unbelievable. Kent Police must bear full responsibility for this situation, and for the extra costs to be borne by the council, candidates and political parties. No explanation or apology has been forthcoming.”

Cllr MacKinlay now asks “with the aim of redressing a clear wrong, for the other political parties to allow an uncontested election in River, which would cost nothing to administer and would reflect the clear will of the electorate given just a few days ago. Alternatively, there need not be another election at all; I have been the sole councillor in River, effectively so since Bill Esterson’s adoption as a parliamentary candidate in March, and absolutely so since his election as an MP in May and subsequent resignation as the second ward councillor”.

A Kent Police spokesman said: “We recognise the decision David Craggs has made. It is very important that policing is politically impartial and seen to be impartial, and we are pleased that Mr Craggs will now be able to continue to serve the community in his role as a Special Constable.”

Related posts

1. River: Conservative David Craggs gains seat from Labour by 70 votes
2. River: Bill Esterson MP resigns as ward councillor
3. Analysis: All change, please

News broke today that a driver of the Vulture, who (to protect the moron’s identity) has not been named, was sacked after parking illegally in Rochester back in February.

Amateur photographer Alan Bourne photographed the car parked at the junction of Castle Hill and the Esplanade on 18 February. Following an investigation, the driver was sacked, with Medway Council saying:

Our Smart car is allowed to park on double yellow lines when carrying out its duty to photograph illegally parked drivers as long as there is no alternative place to do so and that it is safe.

This driver has not complied with this and has been dismissed from their post with immediate effect.

We would like to thank the member of the public that brought this to our attention.

The money maker (sorry, camera operator), had also faced the prospect of being sacked, but had already seen the light before the council had been notified of their stupidity.

Some of the opposition commentators are calling the Vulture a “tax” on Medway motorists, and perhaps the fact that it made Medway Council £455,000 last year provides some evidence of this.

However, as much as I despise the Vulture (and it’s newer twin brother), in 99% of cases the only people who have to pay fines are those who have parked illegally in the first place. There is no excuse for dangerous parking – especially when there are large numbers of children around.

That point stands, as well, with the Vulture and its drivers. Noble though their cause may be, there is no excuse for the moron Vulture drivers to park anywhere but safely, otherwise they are adding to the problem, not helping to solve it!

Medway Council can quote statistics and passages from statute all it likes, but the fact remains. As long as this abomination and its drivers are allowed to flout the same rules it is supposed to enforce, it will be met with no respect from the taxpayers who fund it.

Related posts

1. White Vulture spotted in Twydall Green
2. Friday, January 23, 2009
3. Thursday, January 29, 2009

With just 25.3% of River Ward’s 5,484 voters either turning out, appointing a proxy or posting their vote, David Craggs secured a 73-vote majority over Labour’s John Jones when votes were declared less than 90 minutes after polls were closed.

The other 4 candidates, Liberal Democrat Garry Harrison, Green Steven Keevil, British National Brian Ravenscroft and English Democrat Ron Sands, failed to poll anywhere near the two front-runners, even with their votes combined.

The result increases the Conservative majority on Medway Council to 12 seats, with 34 seats in total. Labour now hold just 9 seats, the Liberal Democrats 7 and the Independents 4, with 1 other independent member.

School Headteacher and Special Constable Mr Craggs joins fellow Conservative Craig MacKinlay, who was elected alongside Labour’s Bill Esterson in May 2007, as River Ward’s elected representative on Medway Council.

The full results (courtesy of Democracy in Practice) were:

</p> <p>Your browser does not support iframes.</p> <p>

Related posts

1. River: “Kent Police must answer for their interference in the democratic process”
2. River: Six by-election candidates confirmed today
3. Analysis: All change, please

Since then, however, it has been all change on the council “benches”, as three councillors have resigned and four councillors have “defected” or been expelled by their party group.

There (will) have been three by-elections. The first in May 2008 was triggered by the resignation of a Conservative councillor for “offensive comments” made on his weblog. The subsequent by-election returned a Conservative councillor.

The second in September 2009 was triggered by the resignation of a Labour councillor for “benefit irregularities”, after failing to declare his member’s allowance whilst claiming benefits. Before the by-election, however, two further Labour councillors resigned the group whip and joined the newly-re-formed Independent group. The subsequent by-election returned a Conservative councillor.

In January 2010, a Conservative councillor had the whip withdrawn after it came to light that he had been cautioned by police for kerb-crawling. He now sits as an independent member.

In June 2010, a Liberal Democrat councillor resigned the group whip for reasons which still remain unclear. He joined the Independent group.

And in August 2010, a by-election was triggered by the resignation of a Labour councillor who had been elected as a Member of Parliament in Merseyside. The subsequent by-election will be held tomorrow.

Since May 2007, the composition of Medway Council has changed, strengthening the Conservative administration’s mandate with successive by-election wins (even in Labour’s “safest ward in Kent”) and creating a brand new council group and class of councillor.

The council now consists of 33 Conservatives (no change), 9 Labour (down 4), 7 Liberal Democrats (down 1), 4 Independents (up three) and 1 Independent Member (new class, up 1), with 1 vacancy.

The by-election tomorrow is widely accepted as being a two-horse race between the Conservative candidate David Craggs and Labour’s John Jones. This would mean either the Conservative majority would increase on the council, or Labour’s crumbling group will begin its fightback, and restore morale in time for the next council-wide elections next May.

Or a third horse may gallop from the back of the pack and surprise everyone with a win against the odds. Nothing would be surprising anymore with the events Gun Wharf (and its predecessors) has seen over the past three years.

Now, though, it is up to the residents of River ward to dictate the next chapter in this fascinating story.

Related posts

1. Former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate resigns from the Lib Dem group
2. LW: Luton and Wayfield councillors resign the Labour Whip
3. River: Bill Esterson MP resigns as ward councillor

I also know that things can go terribly wrong if instructions are not carried through correctly, which is why I was horrified, but not surprised, by Monday night’s Panorama (iPlayer).

The financial sector is regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Solicitors are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Will writers are regulated by … no-one.

That’s right, if you go to an independent will writer, be careful to read the small print very carefully, especially if they are offering to act as executors once you have passed on.

For example, WDS Associates (featured in Panorama) had a clause in their terms and conditions stating that their fee for acting as executor would be 1% of the estate. Except they were proven to have been neglecting to tell customers this, and, in fact, their sales pitch glossed over this fact by making customers (not my use of the word “customers”, rather than “clients”) believe that the sum they paid for their wills included probate fees.

Now, I don’t for a second believe that full-on regulation of the will writing industry should be adopted, as the majority of independent will writers are reputable and trustworthy, but I do believe that those offering services beyond drafting wills and Lasting Powers of Attorney (e.g. probate, tax advice, etc.) should be, because it is not the will itself that attracts the majority of hidden charges and problems.

For example, if I were to set out to be an independent will writer, I would never promise to do something that I couldn’t achieve. I would charge a fixed fee of say £30 for a single will and £50 for a pair of joint mirror wills, or £75 per LPA (not including the fee charged by the Office of the Public Guardian).

I would make clear that I had no facilities to store their signed wills, but advise them to keep them in a safe place (and to inform their executor(s) where the said safe place was). I would offer no advice as to ways of avoiding inheritance tax, and would suggest that, upon death, they visit a qualified solicitor to deal with the probate (or, as I helped my father and grandmother do with my grandfather and if they felt comfortable, to deal with it themselves).

I wouldn’t offer anything else, and, if asked, would decline, and instead suggest that they visit their solicitor for professional advice. Solicitors are, after all, regulated and insured.

If an unregulated person or organisation approached me for anything more, then I wouldn’t trust them. Nor would I expect anyone else to.

Related posts

1. Solicitors ‘declare war’ on estate agents
2. David Cameron discusses Blair’s final PMQs
3. David Cameron discovers why police are not on the streets

Someone, obviously not content with causing untold misery and chaos to the lives of thousands of motorists passing through Chatham everyday, decided to aggravate a few more people tonight (Monday) with no word of explanation nor warning.

Now I can understand phased regeneration works. I can understand phased essential maintenance. But I cannot understand, nor accept, the closure of an entire car park for no reason!

Perhaps I should explain. Tonight, as per usual for a Monday night, I was enjoying a few (non-alcoholic) drinks at the RAFA Club in Chatham (River ward, of all places!), and (again as per usual) some of my friends from cadets were coming down to join in the fun.

In fact, it was a special occasion, so most people of age 18 and over were coming down – or so they thought.

After about half had turned up, we received a phone call from another member of the group, saying that the car park (Riverside, in case you were wondering) had been closed. And that was it – that was the extent of our warning.

The blindingly obvious fact that there were a dozen or more cars parked in the car park – and two buildings still blatantly open – mattered not to whichever brain ache decided to close the entire car park. And why?

So that they could do some work in a tiny corner of the car park, away from the open buildings, and away from the through route to them!

Now, I’m not going to pretend that trade on a Monday night is brilliant by any account – partially because of the extortionate parking charges imposed by Medway Council until 10pm – but some bright spark clearly had a common sense failure.

Fortunately, one of the workmen receiving our tax money for preparing the area for the construction of the new bus station (which I agree with, by the way, and whose construction I am thoroughly looking forward to) was standing around doing nothing (aside from puffing on a fag) and was able to let me out – though he was rather rude about the process, not understanding how, with my car windows wound up, I couldn’t hear him ask which way I wanted to go; and then barely leaving me enough room to exit the car park.

Even so, the whole exercise was a pointless waste of resources. There was no reason why the route to the RAFA Club and Command House could not have remained open, and just the corner by the library and Riverside One be sealed off.

At  the very least some warning would have been nice, not just for those using the buildings, but for those who may have intended to go there (or were on their way). Instead, one would find out when one reached the car park entrance, and cause more chaos trying to navigate through the traffic lights constructed once again for the overnight work.

But, apparently, even that was too much work for the brain ache who took the stupid decision to close the car park in the first place.

I hate to say it, as I don’t very often, but for a blatant disregard for council taxpayers, council officers’ heads should roll…

Related posts

1. Medway Council agrees to buy the Tardis
2. Fancy buying the Municipal Buildings?
3. Parking restrictions in Twydall Green

Suddenly, an angel appears, and tells him that, if he follows her to a new site, then he could catch 100,000 more fish during his lifetime. But, she would keep almost 54,000 for the privilege.

The fisherman is 21. Assuming he continues fishing until he is 65, how many extra fish per year would he catch? And, for extra credit, how many of them would he be able to keep?

No conferring! And, whilst you work that out, here’s some light entertainment from Mr Conway Twitty:

All done?

Okay, so, over the course of 44 years, our fisherman friend would catch an extra 2,273 (rounded) fish per year, of which the angel would take almost 1,273 (rounded) and he would keep just over 1,000.

What the fisherman decides to do is up to your own imagination, but it is a dilemma that will soon be facing a whole generation of university students, with grateful thanks to Liberal Democrat pressure in the coalition, and our friend the Business Secretary, Dr Vince Cable.

The question is, if after a graduate tax is introduced the average increase in annual wage is just £1,000, are people really going to want to go to university and burden themselves with so much debt? And if not, how is Britain’s productivity going to cope as a result.

The Chief Executive of Pizza Hut, Jans Hofma, wrote an article in The Times today (online for subscribers), claiming, rightly, that people who perform menial jobs, such as cleaners, and people who work on the “front line” at home, such as waiters, are just as valuable to our economy as the big earners in the City – for who else would keep their offices clean and serve them their coffee to keep them working? And who else would ensure that tourists, whether domestic or international, are looked after to the extent whereby they want to keep coming back?

But what Britain can seldom afford is a new generation of McDonald’s workers. We need scientists and surgeons as much as cleaners and cooks. Bankers and lawyers, though often derided as the scourge of the British public, all started at the same place – university.

Can the next generation really afford to be deterred by a new “graduate tax” (though not referred to as such by the higher education minister, grudgingly forced to accept the idea after staunch opposition), sucking away over half the financial incentive driving students into universities in the first place?

If I were the fisherman, and extra 83 fish per month would not be enough to persuade me to leave the environment I felt most comfortable in.

I just hope that the coalition, in the end, does the right thing when Lord Browne’s Higher Education Review Panel report concludes.

Related posts

1. University of Kent ranked higher than Cambridge on research
2. Failure to get straight As does not make a failed student
3. We must continue this shift to the right

The article, given front page coverage in Saturday’s paper with the headline “Don’t preach to me about terrorists, says Zardari — terrorists killed my wife” (online for Times subscribers), reveals that he took Cameron’s statement that Pakistan was looking both ways on terror personally.

And why shouldn’t he? In December 2007, his wife, then Chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party and likely candidate for President Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated by terrorists while out campaigning (as I covered here).

President Zardari told Bronwen Maddox: “Everybody is sensitive, as we have lost so many people, including my late wife. So to have your credentials questioned does hurt sometimes. No matter how brave you are, it hurts.”

I had the pleasure of meeting Ms Bhutto only a few months before her murder, if only for a few minutes, which followed a passionate speech at the Corn Exchange about democracy and freeing “her” people. A threat to the then incumbent government, and to terrorist organisations in the regions of Pakistan then (and, still, now) beyond the reach of the lawful authorities, she became a natural target as she insisted on meeting supporters.

David Cameron’s remarks have been called into question by many, and perhaps there is a modicum of truth to the assertion that they may have been a touch insensitive to the people of Pakistan who are trying to fight the tyranny of terrorism. But he hasn’t apologised, and nor should he.

The politics of Pakistan is a world away from the politics of the West. I tried to understand it during my time covering the bigger political stories there, but fell well short, and (admittedly) gave up.

To merely assert that they look both ways is short-sighted, and I do not believe for a second that David Cameron truly believes that that is the definitive. It was just a sound-bite, picked up by the left-leaning media and governmental opposition. It was not a command to fix their ways, but a warning that, as things stand, the way Pakistan handles the terrorist threat, and terrorists hiding in the country, will be the deciding factor in the short- and long-term futures of the war against terrorists.

I believe that David Cameron was right to make the comments he made. But I am but a humble blogger, and in international diplomacy, my opinions are nothing more than the annoying squiggly floater that occasionally appears in your eyes.

What matters is the bigger picture, and the way in which Pakistan responds to the comments. Which brings me back to the interview in The Times:

In spite of the clash, the leaders said that they had put their differences behind them. Mr Zardari described the discussion as “very good, very nice”. He added: “I think politicians can always come together and find a light in all darknesses.”

Related posts

1. Bhutto’s legacy: President Zardari?
2. Musharraf resigns
3. Are Musharraf’s days numbered?

Tonight, I pulled out of the bottom of Milton Road and, instead of turning right to head towards Canterbury Street as I would usually do, I turned left to wait at the red traffic light to turn left again into Rock Avenue.

Except, the green light never came. And I’m not just saying that because I am an impatient sod.

I waited at the junction for about ten minutes and watched as the lights turned red in Rock Avenue and the lights on the opposite side of Montgomery Road turned green. Patiently, I waited for my turn.

Imagine my horror, then, when the Montgomery Road lights turned red and the Rock Avenue lights turned green again. Thinking that the sensors may not have picked me up, I edged closer up to (and, admittedly, very slightly over) the line, only for the same thing to happen again. A couple of times.

Not wanting to drive through the red light for both reasons of law and reasons of safety (though, no doubt, someone equally as frustrated as I was may have done), I reversed slightly and, after checking that it was safe, performed a u-turn, and went the long way round via Canterbury Street and the A2.

All I can say is that it was fortunate that it was almost midnight, as the congestion resulting would have potentially become horrendous.

That notwithstanding, there is clearly a problem with the traffic lights that needs to be addressed by Medway Council.

Rather than seem like I am just getting on my soapbox and having a moan, I have forwarded the contents of this post to the three relevant ward councillors, and the Portfolio Holder for Frontline Services, Cllr Phil Filmer.

Update 07/08/2010 @ 02:10

I finished work last night to find a voicemail message waiting for me from someone from Medway Council. He said that they have been to the site, done some work there and believe that they have rectified the problem.

Related posts

1. Update on the Eastcourt Lane lights
2. Now that’s what I call irony (apologies to Darland residents)
3. Eastcourt Lane lights back on