The ugly ginger minger who "decanted" old aged pensioners from their bungalows and then arranged for herself and her colleagues to move in on cheap rents has been sacked.
Excellent News.
Except that as with the Shoesmith creature in Haringey this will probably lead to more money for m'learned friends and higher council taxes for the poor benighted taxpayer.
I expect she'll move on to some other overpaid appointment in due course, being an imcompetent shit doesn't seem to stop these oxygen thieves getting jobs in quango land. Make a note of the name, Kristine Reeves, with a K for fuck's sake - and if your local authority are fool enough to announce her employment, have a word with them.
The Penguin
10 comments:
I believe the correct term is that she has been "decanted" from her position of non-job employment.
I shall hoist a beer later at her being "decanted"...
Thank fuck for that
It's very rare that we hear these people have actually got the sack.. what this woman did was really low but is that it?
Hasn't she broken some sort of law that she should be prosecuted for? Fraud for instance?
She should be prosecuted for wearing an ugly face in a built up area - bang to rights!
This is a really interesting case.
All over the country, housing authorities are emptying this kind of bungalow housing scheme, because it occupies lots of square metres of council owned land, and the councils want to free up the land to develop social housing, so that they can rent more homes to more homeless and needy people.
The bungalows in my area were put up at least 50 years ago and the condition is "substandard" by todays standards, but for people who have lived through the war they are quite acceptable and it's not suprising that a lot of elderly people like living in them. They often have large gardens and good neighbourly communities.
What really interests me is that this story (and the exit of Ms Reeves from her job) comes because two decisions were made. First, empty the bungalows (which as I've explained is a policy decision in councils all over the UK). Second, because it takes quite a long time to empty out a whole estate of houses, there is the risk of high proportion of empty properties attracting vandalism. So let them out to council employees on short term licence agreements which are tied to their employment (less legal protection, quicker to get the tenants back out when the developers are ready to come in and demolish).
Both of these decisions are "sensible" in economic terms and Ms Reeves was probably doing her job properly. However, Ms Reeves mistake is not to think of PR issues when she's deciding that it might be worthwhile renting one of the bungalows herself.
In my opinion, the problem with council officers is not that they make decisions to empty and redevelop estates, or that they decide to find ways to prevent swathes of short term empty properties, but that they suffer from a lack of imagination and can't recognise that the juxtaposition of these actions will be found deeply offensive by members of the public.
I cannot believe Anon above is trying to excuse this behaviour,nor that this woman cannot realise what she done.
These people that were decanted from their homes, had probably spent a substantial proportion of their lives there. Perhaps they even expected to die there. It was not a property to them it was their home.
The forcing out of their own homes may have even speeded the end of some.
Many had spent their entire lives here in this country, paying their dues, even fighting for it. Quite likely some had spent there lives helping other people.
Then the state comes along in all its wisdom, (or self serving) and decides it knows best. So it can get a better return on the land it decides to turf them out.
Just to add insult to a very profound injury the people who were responsible for those ejections decided to move in and take over the homes, it does'nt matter how long for. How very USSR. or how very Dickensian
Mr.Penguin can I bring your attention to this article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/jan/10/identity-cards-id-henry-porter-jacqui-smith
It's a reasoned argument from Anon, but a number of things bother me.
Firstly: Whilst it may be 'sensible' in economic terms, the insinuation is that the councils should seek to make a profit on this land. Councils should not seek to make such a profit. There is a difference between 'sensible' spending and waste. Given the Public Sector's record on waste reduction, I am not confident that they could turn a profit selling Guinness on St. Pat's Day.
Secondly: It is understandable that these properties once empty need protecting from vandals, but what is wrong with letting them to Joe Public who would qualify four council housing on very clear, inflexible short term contracts? Someone needing a short term hand up could have reaped the benefit. To let them to council employees, and at a rate below what the OAPs were paying just downright stinks.
Thirdly: Assuming that the land was to be redeveloped for 'social housing' they have evicted a group of vulnerable, needy people in order to house some, errrm, vulnerable, needly housing. If the vast majority of the residents were OAPs, all they had to do was wait. That may sound a little heard-hearted, but when the occupant is dead or has had to move into palliative care, no-one has been 'kicked out'.
Fourthly: Am I the only person who finds the term 'social housing' unsettling? I can only imagine the most disruptive people in council houses would be first on the list to move into an estate with no history as it would keep the residents' committees in the more established estates happy/quiet.
Fifthly: One of the reasons this place was desirable to live is exactly because these are proper houses with proper gardens. Build high density accommodation on the same area and all we're doing is repeating the same mistakes during the creation of the 60's High Rise utopia.
Finally, a question, Wherefore the collection of Norfolk Police's finest knocking on her door, rifling through her personal effects and feeling her collar under suspicion of conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office? It was good enough for Damian Green.
A Local view.
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=NewsSplash&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=NewsSplash&itemid=NOED10%20Jan%202009%2008%3A39%3A25%3A600
Good news.
Although I expect, like Shoesmith, she'll wait a few weeks and then sue for a wad of cash.
Still, I'm going to break my two-hour stretch of puritanism and open a bottle of beer.
Hmmmm, thanks for the links, particularly the EDP one.
Labour Council - why am I not surprised?
Post a Comment