Sep 262012
 

Voice’s Old Susannah takes a look over the past week’s event’s in the ‘Deen and beyond in her quest to expose the uncovered even at risk of getting under the skin. By Suzanne Kelly. 

Footdee was transformed into an Ibiza foam party this week. Trees and bits of tree were trashed by the wind. Old Susannah wonders how those 89,000 trees planted on Tullos hill are doing.

They may be too small to be toppled by the wind just yet, but that was exactly the kind of weather that will be strong enough to knock them over in a few years’ time. The soil matrix is poor, according to the Forestry Commission’s soil report.

Thankfully it doesn’t rain or get windy in Aberdeen very often, so I’m sure the trees won’t have any problem at all.

The gusts this week knocked over trees and battered cars, but fear not, they weren’t severe enough to spoil Aileen Malone’s hairstyle, which was fetchingly lacquered in place.

Last Saturday she was adding glamour to the 45-minute demo, in a fetching off-white suit. I’d have thought she’d be in a hunting outfit.

They say that ‘size isn’t everything’ and that ‘length doesn’t matter’. Clearly the few at Saturday’s protest against Aberdeen City Council concurred. There were around 70 (I’m being generous) people protesting against Aberdeen City Council for 45 minutes.

You might have thought it was an outdoor rave: ex-councillor Kate Dean was trendily dressed in fetching leggings and a Cove Bay Rangers supporters’ top. I guess this further illustrates that she has no ties to the club which might have remotely prejudiced her handling of the Loirston Loch planning hearing.

Financially or otherwise, someone who might be biased towards one side or another of a hearing isn’t supposed to be the convener, as previously detailed. Anyway, Old Susannah showed up to watch the demo, with a friend and a doggie, and had a chat to some media acquaintances. They were most amused that they’d shown up in the middle of a weekend to cover a demo supposedly by four or five hundred, to find instead between sixty to eighty people, including infants and toddlers.

I learnt a few new vocabulary words from some of these hacked off hacks, but best we don’t define those.

Aileen Malone, councillor, protesting against the council.  Hmm.  Presumably she was protesting against the amiable Martin Greig, Lib Dem, who voted against borrowing £90 million or so for granite walkways. It will be interesting to find out how this move by HoMalone will be viewed by her current party members and by other sitting councillors.  And we shall.

Tom Smith wrote a heart-wrenching, or perhaps ‘stomach-wrenching’, letter to the P&J in response to a letter by one Dr. Howard Gemmell.  Dr Gemmell was disappointed that the city has been split over the UTG situation, and the lack of Wood’s/ACSEF’s willingness to compromise.

There are some absolutely charming comments on the petition which Wood might enjoy

Smith doesn’t seem to agree that there was unwillingness to compromise. I guess he missed all of Sir Ian’s statements to the effect that it was his way or no way, it was the Web or nothing, and if he couldn’t have his Web he’d send the £50 million to help Africans.

Old Susannah started a petition, now with about 175 signatories, asking Wood to honour his February pledge and send the money to do good in Africa instead of getting rid of the city’s lungs.  There are some absolutely charming comments on the petition which Wood might enjoy; it can be found at http://www.gopetition.com/sir-ian-send-your-50m-to-africa

Smith goes on to say ‘there is no strident political campaign by business or Aberdeen City Garden Trust.’  So before getting on to this week’s themes, here is one non-related definition first:

Strident: (Eng. adjective) Characterised by harsh, loud, aggressive noise or commotion.

ACSEF?  Aberdeen City Gardens Trust?  Big Partnership and 300-plus radio adverts?  The letter signed by a hundred businessmen complaining that without a Web we’re doomed?  Strident, these guys?  Never!  I’ve never seen a more refined, elegant polite request to hand control of public, Common Good land over to a private company before.

A member of the royal family playing games in the nude.  A member of the royal family sunbathing in private.  Another royal, Lady Gaga, accused of being ‘fat’.  The naked rambler’s naked ambition.  Kylie’s bottom, again.  A host of issues have made the nude, sorry, news this week.  Here are some relevant definitions to get to the bottom of things.

Right to Privacy: (mod. Eng.; law) The right of an individual not to endure surveillance, be harassed, photographed, recorded, etcetera, as guaranteed by EU Human Rights law, unless there is a legal reason or a journalistic need to expose truth in the public interest.

Apparently, Individuals’ right to privacy is guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights.  Journalists however are able to collect and reveal information if it is in the public interest to do so. Smash criminal gangs? Expose illegal activities? These are the kind of things the old-fashioned investigative reporter used to get up to.

But why risk danger, spend ages researching topics, and wind up with a story buried deep in a newspaper if it’s printed at all? After all, not all papers are interested in exposing truths. I wish I could think of an example or two of this.. All you need is a long, long telephoto lens, a decent camera, some recording equipment, and you’ll be in the tabloids earning lots of dosh with little effort. Result.

A newspaper can print a story if it has not been illegally obtained, and if it is definitely in the public interest to print it. This obviously means we need nude photos of the royal family. What could be more in the public interest than that? Perhaps a certain young man was foolish in the extreme to have had a wild US holiday captured in snapshots.

It’s a pity there weren’t any older, wiser professional people around him to stop photos being taken without spoiling the fun, or at least to ensure that the young man was fully aware of the consequences.  If there had been any such experienced, sober professionals around, this particular upset could easily have been avoided. Good on the Sun for printing the photos.

It’s not as if the Sun is in any way an opportunistic paper that will do anything for money.  Beloved of those caught up in Hillsborough, and celebrities and politicians who may have been hacked, thank goodness we’ve got the Sun.

However, a female member of the Royal family was sunbathing at a private French chateau when she was photographed topless. Who could I be referring to? She was photographed by someone with a long lens who was apparently standing nearly half a mile away. She had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and it was taken away from her. Result!  More public interest photos!

Whether or not you are a fan of the royal family, celebrities, sports people, politicians, all these groups of people are contributing by helping our kindly, intrepid newshounds to make a dignified living.  But the stories wouldn’t be as much fun without photos…

Paparazzi(Italian, plural noun) Packs of journalists and photographers who follow famous people around, looking for photo opportunities and stories to sell to tabloids and cheap magazines.

The paparazzi have done a great job so far, and they couldn’t keep it up without people buying magazines.

Whether it’s a drunk singer getting out of a car showing underwear or skin, whether it’s an ageing Peter Falk aka Colombo in California being literally chased by a pack of news hounds (the poor man was old; he was upset and confused when cornered and photographed), or a celebrity’s child going to school, all are fair game for the paparazzi.

After all, everyone wants their fifteen minutes of fame, or so I am told, and ‘all publicity is good publicity’. The famous should be grateful that the ever-attentive photographers trail their every move, spying on them, their family and friends.

If you’re famous enough, your accidental death may likewise get a good set of photographers recording it. You’ll be most grateful I’m sure. Old Susannah thought that there was a law and a code or two stopping the exploitation and hounding of celebrities, but apparently there aren’t.

So, keep on buying those mags. Find out who’s been seen cheating on whom, who got drunk, what colour underwear they had on. Most importantly, keep buying these worthy news periodicals to find out crucial things like who looks too fat or too skinny.

Body Image(Mod. Eng. psychological term) The mental picture we have of what we look like to ourselves and the rest of the world.

Anorexia, bulimia and other eating disorders were once a comparative rarity confined to teenage girls. However, people of all sexes and ages are suffering these days in increasing numbers.  The problem? Who knows. It’s certainly nothing to do with paparazzi and the celebrity mag. It is mere coincidence that any star in a bikini or ‘revealing outfit’ is immediately deemed to be too thin or more likely too fat by the press.

For one thing, the camera adds ten pounds to us all, or at least that’s my excuse. For another, we’re saturated in images of people who are close to physical perfection, because they’ve been airbrushed. Somehow, when someone doesn’t look quite as tall and thin in real life as in their movie poster, the press is free to speculate whether they have ‘cellulite’.  And ageing is definitely a no-no. Botox to that.

There is obviously no link between the media obsessing over every inch of a celeb’s body and other people wondering if they are beautiful or not. Any link between people binge eating or starving themselves has nothing to do with this tiny societal pressure to be perfect.

Lady Gaga, it is being claimed, has no right to any privacy. So her ex pa claims in a New York law suit. I think Gaga might beg to differ. She has recently posed in a bikini as a response to people saying she’d got fat. As a teenager she suffered eating disorders.

It is almost as if she thinks her music is somehow more important than what she looks like. But here’s the thing: just because someone poses for a photo when there is a photo call or an event on, does it mean they should be photographed in their private time? Of course it does!

Thankfully girls have many positive role models. There is Jordan for instance. Buying quantities of silicone, taking your clothes off, and having a ghost writer are what we want our young girls aspire to.

Exposure: (Eng; crime) exposing oneself wilfully, for instance to young children or in public.

In Aberdeen, a man was spared jail this week. He continues to go out in public and expose himself to young children. What a freedom fighter! Just like our friend, the Naked Rambler.

You might think Old Susannah would rush to defend the Naked Rambler’s right to be naked wherever and whenever he wants. Absolutely!

The thing is, other people’s rights not to be disturbed by the Rambler exposing himself aren’t as important as his right to be naked. He was recently asked to stay clear of a children’s play area when he was naked. He refused. What a hero!

There is a silly old saying ‘your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins’. Surely this doesn’t apply to our naked freedom fighter. So what if something like one in five women can expect to have some kind of sexual assault in their lifetime? Why shouldn’t this nude guy be free to make people wary of a potential attack? Why should anyone have the right to keep their child from seeing him?

An American criminal legal professional I know brought up the subject of crime and nudity once, it was one of those conversations. She said that in her years of court experience there were usually only two reasons a man shows up naked somewhere: one is because they intend a sexual assault; the other is because they are going to kill someone and don’t want to get blood on their clothes. But let’s just let everyone go around naked, shall we? How can that lead to any intimidation or discomfort?

Sadly, we don’t live in an innocent, nice world any more. Some say we never did. By the way, the Naked Rambler has two children by one of his ex-partners. She asked him to keep his clothes on to visit his young children and he refused point blank. Now that’s truly heroic, sacrificing your children’s right to a father so that you can get naked.

Confidential to ‘Forgetful of Bucksburn’:  Sorry you forgot about all the charming posts you put on Facebook extolling the various good points of the EDL. If you need any reminders of what you wrote, just let Old Susannah know. I’ve got screenshots saved and backed up, and I’ll be  happy to refresh your memory.

  •  Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Sep 132012
 

By Bob Smith. 

Baith sides claim they are richt
Fowk snarlin’s nae a bonnie sicht
The jaw aboot UTG nivver eyns
Aneuch tae fair blaw fowk’s myns

Some cooncillors rail aboot democracy
Ithers say we’re nae gyaan tae dee
Fit business billies they did ask
The TIF scheme wis teen tae task

Politics played oot in cooncil chambers
As the local papers stoke the embers
Scottish Parlimint stick in the knife
Tae cause Labour a wee bit strife

Fit’s happenin noo is tit fer tat
Labour an SNP are haein a spat
Fowk staun aroon fair bemused
Lots o them are nae amused

Tam Smith o Acsef is diggin in
“We’ll nae gie up till we win
Tae the suit brigade jist aa kowtow
An the CGP  ye maun allow”

Awa Tam ging an bile yer heid
The Granite Web we dinna need
Tae restore city cinter tae former glory
Needs common sense nae some fairy story

Oor toon cinter wis left tae rot
Fin aa the shoppin malls we got
Raisin the gairdens winna help ae bit
City planners hiv left us in the shit

Tae bring back pride in oor city
Disna need ideas fae a Walter Mitty
Restore the fabric o oor bonnie toon
Dinna aye bliddy teer things doon

©Bob Smith “The Poetry Mannie” 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sep 132012
 

By Andrew Watson.

Where do I start? I have to be frank and say that I’m not particularly knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the City Garden Project and other megabucks initiatives that seem to have been put on ice by the Aberdeen City Council administration.

However, I have an opinion on most of these things, regardless of my sometimes shocking lack of insight.

You see, I voted in favour of the proposal to change irrevocably the landscape of Union Terrace Gardens, and, of course, the city centre itself, because I’m a contrarian by nature.

I was totally fed up with people seeming to bemoan the loss of the heart of Aberdeen, a reference to our great Victorian architectural heritage.  Did anyone ever use the Gardens before Ian Wood came along with his £50m? Alternatively, I suppose, would it not cost more than, say, £100m to bring the Gardens to street level? However, why were the proposals thrown out when a public vote, albeit a narrow one, wanted them to happen?

I could have sworn that it was only at that point that the Gardens, admittedly an island of green amidst a sea of cold, grey granite, had anyone taking notice of them. Now they’re holding placards. Better late than never.

Anyway, I digress.

Friday 7 September, was the day when I was meant to have a rather innocuous look at ACSEF’s AECC conference Securing Investment for Success.

Tom Smith, ACSEF chairman, said:

Our economy continues to punch well above its weight compared to other regional economies in the UK. Yet the public funding we receive is not commensurate with this economic contribution. We are in the process of confirming a strong line-up of public and private speakers and are looking forward to a robust debate and some strong recommendations and potential solutions coming out of this summit.”

Fair enough. A push towards The Big Society? Very nice.

A public consultation? After all, ACSEF is funded by Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire taxpayers.

Not a chance. Just senior managers from the business community, Council officials and local MPs and MSPs.

Despite this, I was told I shouldn’t have too much problem getting in. Well, you’d have thought so. But no, two invited delegates, who couldn’t make it, and from whom I tried to gain delegation, couldn’t help either. One had invited his brother instead. No problem.

“What about you, Iain Richardson?

“Yeah sure, will ping an email to Katrina Dunbar, Events Director with the Big Partnership”

‘Hi Katrina

Thanks, I’d like to pass my place on to Andrew Watson, please.

All the best

Iain’

I have seen this very email, sent to Katrina by Iain Richardson, stating that he was more than willing to pass his invitation on to me.

Katrina responded:

‘Hi Andrew

The communication I had with Iain Richardson, from what I could recall, is that he was planning to send the invite on to other contacts but we are within our rights to restrict entry to those who are not representing business as I previously stated. I’m afraid that I am only stating the guidelines that I have been given in terms of entry to the Summit.’

Concluded with a rather curt ‘trust this settles the matter’. Our only hope, to be honest, is that our business people represent the thoughts and feelings of the general Aberdeen public as best they can, and I have no doubt they will.  However, it doesn’t present the full picture, does it?

Which brings another of Mr Contrary’s bugbears to the forefront

Why were the proposals for my beloved Aberdeen FC chucked out?  Pittodrie’s crumbling, or so I’ve been told. Cue angry responses, including from me. I can’t help but feel, rather flippantly, without our slice of Dubai rock in UTG, and without our modern stadium in Loirston, you know, getting with the times and all that, are we forever to be relegated to provincial town status?

Don’t get me wrong, part of me, a defiance rooted somewhere in Teuchterville, wants this always to be the case. I don’t claim to know all the answers, but I know this cannot go on forever, and it irks me somewhat that not more of a concerted effort is being made towards public consultation, rather than just a yap between businessmen and councillors.

Take the proposed pedestrianisation of Union Street, or even the Loirston proposals.

The hub of our one-street town grinds to a halt most days, never mind when the International Market takes place on Union Terrace. What will divert crowded traffic elsewhere? A bypass, perhaps? Is that going even to happen?  What about surgery for the Haudagain artery? A long-term chronic heart problem for our city, if we’ve ever had one!

Loirston needs serious work. Where is the infrastructure in the area to support the stadium proposals and the crowds, cars, and busloads of fans transferred from King Street to Cove? Would we be not better taking the stadium somewhere else, which already has easy access in, out and away from the city centre? With common sense, would infrastructure projects like these really have the combined cost of £900 million, mooted by ACSEF?

How about asking bus, truck, lorry and taxi drivers what they think should be done? Or hell, have a consultation of commuters, for all I care. Just get it done!

I’m afraid my generation is the one likely to have to pay for this convoluted ‘granite web’, and the £900 million building plan ACSEF has announced is one bitter pill for the heart.

  •  Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Aug 242012
 

Voice’s Old Susannah looks at events over the the last week … and what a week it’s been in the ‘Deen. By Suzanne Kelly.

‘SHATTERED!’ roars the Press & Journal headline following the council’s decision on Wednesday not to pursue a £92 million pound loan to build the Granite Web.  There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth; most of the wailing stemming from Jennifer Craw’s insistence on putting her feet on the back of the seat in front of her as she sat in the public gallery.

What was agreed was the madcap idea of trying to fix the Gardens and our existing facilities.  Surely if that sort of thing worked, people would already be doing it. No, a Granite Web was the only thing that was going to save our town’s economy.

We are apparently doomed to being a ghost town.  Unfortunately no one’s told this to the many companies moving into the area.  Shame.

Without further ado, here are some definitions relevant to this week’s news stories…

Online Bullying: (mod. Eng. noun) the use of electronic media to harass, intimidate or ridicule.

Those on the losing side are quite rightly using Facebook and email to hound, vilify and harass those who voted for the modest independent compromise motion. There has been a Facebook page set up calling Barney Crocket ‘The man who killed democracy’.

Absolutely. He got elected, did what he said he and his party were going to do, and reminded everyone why the referendum was a sham won by a slim margin in favour of those who saturated the public with lovely brochures and endless radio ads.

The content of these ads promised the earth, billions of pounds of income, and 6,500 new jobs. Sadly, some people remained a little sceptical that these were achievable, even though the P&J said they were.

The official campaign organisations didn’t spend as much so they couldn’t win; just because the guidelines told them what their limits were for spending and ad content, there was no reason they couldn’t compete fairly with the wishes of a billionaire and a multimillionaire.

But back to this Facebook page. All those people are queuing up to smear Crockett and his like-minded councillors; well, fair enough.

It was almost as if he were trying to lump all the opposition together and tar them with a very sinister brush.

Obviously the page in question is not in any way connected to the BiG partnership or any of its student interns, Jake the Ghost, or Morris the Monkey – for that would be playing fast and loose with Facebook and PR professional association rules. And that just wouldn’t happen – except for the time that it did, of course, during the referendum.

The important thing for us Aberdonians to remember about online bullying is when it is or is not a good thing. It is perfectly acceptable to use social media and emails to hound people like Crockett and Boulton, who clearly don’t care that businesses are departing Aberdeen in droves and the four horsemen of the apocalypse have been seen near Tillydrone.

But when someone rich and important like Tom Smith is subject to online bullying, then it is a matter for the police. Unfortunately when Tom went to the press, something he now says he didn’t want to do, he mixed online bullying together with people having online conversations which didn’t involve him, as well as with the very illegal crime of computer hacking, which carries a potential jail sentence.

As we since learnt, there was no crime committed, even though he told us there was in a Press & Journal front page article days before the referendum.  It was almost as if he were trying to lump all the opposition together and tar them with a very sinister brush.

How exactly this timid soul was forced to go public with his story remains a mystery. Was he bullied into it?  Anyone with knowledge of the media handling would be welcome to explain it to me.  But as it stands, it seems like Tom was rather left with his foot in his mouth, or something like that.

Olive Branch: (Eng. noun) an offering of peace or conciliation, usually offered after an argument or an altercation.

I’m afraid that a Mr K Flavill has much to answer for. He had the bad humour not to accept the olive branch which was kindly offered to him by the City Gardens Trust supporters, post-referendum. The headline ‘Olive Branch brushed aside’ painted this villainous arts sector worker in his true colours.

However, as the definition of ‘online bullying’ above clearly proves, there are circumstances in which something can either be desirable or not.

Since the City Council has agreed on a measure which will save the Gardens, improve the Gardens, save the businesses on the back of Belmont Street, improve the Lemon Tree and other features of the city’s cultural portfolio, an olive branch is clearly inappropriate.

I do hope no one will suggest that the Granite Web’s supporters should accept an olive branch and work to improve what needs improving, if that is possible without a Web and a £92,000,000 debt.  An olive branch in such circumstances can’t be an option.

Sensory Soundscape: (noun, very very modern English) {NOTE:  definition known only to Prof. Paul Harris of Gray’s School of Art}

Well, along with not getting our bosque, we will not be getting the ‘Sensory Soundscape’ that Prof. Harris spoke of lovingly in his address, as he put in his deposition in favour of the Web.

He was involved for 18 months with the project as well as the ‘cultural working group’. He spoke to us all about the Web giving us an ‘all-embracing sensory experience’, as well as ‘seamless connectivity’ to boot. And we don’t get to have our ‘sound trails’ either. Obviously you can’t have ‘sound trails’ without a ‘sensory soundscape’.

Old Susannah is now done with her excellent diet, although I could really shed another pound or two, but thank you to all at Temple Aesthetics.

Why am I telling you this?  Because as soon as I can get out from under my mounds of UTG-related research papers, I will be heading for my own personal sensory soundscape and sound trails:  YES – I am heading back to BrewDog Aberdeen just as soon as I can manage.

Soundgarden will probably be providing the sensory soundscape as I get a pint of either ‘Dead Pony Club’ or ‘Hello my name is Ingrid’, God willing. You want an all-embracing sensory experience? Brewdog will fix you up on that score AND still give you change from £140 million.

Irony: (Eng. noun).  A  concept of humour which Americans cannot understand. 

Sadly, being American-born I have little sense of irony, and arguably even less sense of satire. However, friends suggest two examples to try and help me.

The first concerns a writer called ‘O Henry’. One of his short stories involved a poor newlywed couple trying to get gifts for each other for Christmas. The wife sells her hair to buy a pocket-watch chain for her husband. Meanwhile, he has sold his watch to get her a set of beautiful hairbrushes.

The second example I am given comes from our very own HoMalone. When the deer cull was first suggested as the only possible way in which the non-existent, arbitrary trees were going to thrive on wind-and arson-swept Tullos Hill, Malone wisely turned cold-hearted ( uncharacteristically of course) and refused to listen to the thousands of petition-signers and the three community councils that told her in no uncertain terms not to kill the deer.

She also prevented myself and Andy Findlayson (now a Councillor) from speaking about the deer to the Housing & Environment Committee which she chaired.   Her reason for not listening to the people was on the important point (or some say technicality) that she had a verbal report on the deer at the meeting, and not a written one.

Yesterday as I sat in the gallery, I listened to Aileen Malone say how important it was to listen to the people and to give them what they wanted.

Perhaps I will eventually learn the definition of irony.  Maybe Councillor Findlayson will have some thoughts on the subject too.

Fudge: 1.  (noun Eng.) a delicious, sweet, rich concoction. 2. (verb, Mod Eng) to try and obscure the truth, evade,  or move the goalposts in some way.

Senior Statesman Callum McCaig accused the Motion to forget TIF, and just fix what we have with far less borrowing, of being a fudge. Surely nothing would ever be ‘fudged’ by the Web devotees?

Aside from changing their minds and not letting the public say no to the whole scheme when the consultation was live, and aside from disregarding the public choice of garden design, I’m sure that’s true.

There was also the little matter of hiding the actual companies who received tens of thousands of pounds from PR and advertising work on the Web by billing the City via the Chamber of  Commerce. No fudge here.

Except for blanking out details from the Garden Project committees’ meetings, apart from hiding the identities of those who spent a fortune on the secretive, unofficial pro-Web campaign – some of whom stood to gain if the thing went through – no fudge going on at all.

Final word of thanks.

None of these long months of fighting to keep our only green city centre space would have been possible but for this one man. This man’s actions brought us 18 months of bitter conflict, and he deserves all of our thanks. Thank you indeed former Provost Peter Stephen.

If you hadn’t used your tie-breaking vote to go against the tradition of keeping to the status quo in tie breaks, we would not have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money pounds on committees, PR, advertising, design shows, ‘stakeholder events’ and so on.

When people today complain that democracy has been killed, it’s good that your conscience is clear. You may or may not have taken a late-night visit from a few rich people before the original vote, but hey, I’m sure you would have been as open to any of us paying you an evening call to discuss the city’s future, too.

Next week:  An Old Susannah column with improved connectivity, forward-looking and dynamic, wholly democratic and transparent, offering value for money and stakeholder engagement, complete with a total sensory soundtrail experience.  Or maybe just a few more definitions.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Aug 242012
 

By Bob Smith.

Faa’s at bawlin an greetin
Oot ower a UTG balustrade?
It’s Sir Ian an aa his cohorts
Faa hiv aa iss wailin made 

The cooncillors are aa numpties
The Freens o UTG are as weel
Fer nae littin the ACSEF lot
Git awa wi iss dodgy deal

Aiberdeen’s nae a bonnie place
Says yon Dutchman Leo Koot
He’ll be up stakes an leavin
An “TAQA” wi him nae doot

Wee Stewartie wis fair fizzin
His phizog wid hae turn’t milk soor
Tam Smith he’ll be jinin in
In  fair kickin up a stoor

Mike Shepherd o Freens o UTG
Wull be weerin a smile richt big
An aa the fowk faa helpit him
Wull be deein an Aiberdeen Jig

Noo we’ll hae tae git crackin
Wi  a  better scheme fer UTG
An bring the gairdens up tae scratch
So’s  the green oasis we’ll still see

©Bob Smith “The Poetry Mannie” 2012

Aug 212012
 

Suzanne Kelly, Chair of campaigning group ‘Democracy Watch’ called upon UK and EU regulatory agencies to investigate details of the proposed City Garden Project today. Citing both past invoices paid by the public worth hundreds of thousands of pounds and the revelation that leading businessmen plan to add £15 million towards the project’s estimated £140 million costs may have conflict of interest issues.  The project is subject to a vote of the Full Aberdeen City Council on Wednesday 22 August.

Sir Ian Wood will ‘give’ £50 million to the City if it agrees to borrow £92 million more via Tax Incremental Funding to build a ‘Granite Web’ over the existing Victorian Union Terrace Gardens.

The subject has been voted down in a previous consultation, but narrowly passed a non-binding referendum exercise.

Labour promised that it came to power it would end the scheme; Labour duly gained a majority in the May elections

In correspondence today to regulatory entities and leading political figures, Kelly writes:-

“I would ask for an investigation into the situation in Aberdeen concerning the potential development of Union Terrace Gardens with regard to procurement issues and potential conflict of interests.

“I am not a legal professional, but it certainly seems to me that people who have or had influential posts on publicly-funded quangos might have used their roles to further their own interests – this should be investigated before any moves to proceed with the ‘City Garden Project’ are approved.  The entire situation needs to be looked at in detail.

“Stewart Milne and Tom Smith have been actively pushing this scheme via their memberships and positions of influence in the publicly-funded Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future quango, ACSEF.  Milne owns the ‘Triple Kirks’ site next to the proposed area of development.  His land at present would be hard to develop or even access.  If the development of UTG goes ahead, the Triple Kirks area could only increase in value; this is obvious. 

“Milne would therefore likely stand to gain financially.  How he has been permitted to act within his ACSEF role to further a scheme which seems set to enrich him – largely at the taxpayer’s cost – should be investigated.  I did ask ACSEF to comment and they replied it was a matter for his conscience.  When millions of pounds of public money and common good land are at stake, this is not nearly good enough.

“Tom Smith likewise has used his position in ACSEF to further the plan to build a ‘granite web’ over the gardens.  He and Colin Crosby were the original directors of an entity set up named Aberdeen City Gardens Trust.  The Trust would apparently wind up managing the garden development and be in a position to handle millions of pounds – yet Smith has been allowed to pursue a role in ACSEF which directly impacts on his ACGT entity. 

“For reasons unclear to me, this Trust has been granted automatic rights to perform these valuable services without any tender exercise whatsoever being done.  I cannot help but think this is against UK and EU procurement policies and laws.

“In the end, we have a situation where common good land, owned by the people of Aberdeen, is being considered for development simply because Sir Ian Wood will ‘give’ the city £50 million towards a building project there.  He will not let us use this ‘gift’ on another site (the now vacant St Nicholas House would be one alternative); he will not entertain alternatives of any kind. 

“This scheme will take a green park and its 250 year-old trees and turn it into a turfed-over concrete jungle – with an outdoor theatre directly in front of another theatre.  The Aberdeen taxpayer is already subsidising two entertainment venues; using public funds to create a third is unacceptable.  Wood may call this a ‘gift’’ I would personally call it ‘coercion.’

“I would also ask the relevant regulators to look at the various personnel overlaps between public and private sector groups influencing this scheme – a scheme which will still cost the taxpayer £92 million at current estimate – a scheme which does not yet have a timetable, actual budget or scope.”

Kelly campaigned as chair of ‘Democracy Watch’ in the local referendum, and had this to say:-

“Labour were sceptical over agreeing to a referendum; and having participated in the exercise, I see they were right.  There was an unofficial group campaigning for the City Garden Project; and they bombarded the public with literature which I personally found misleading.

“I did try to complain to the Electoral Commission and to Advertising Standards, but neither could intervene in a referendum.   There were glossy brochures, newspapers, print and radio advertising placed by this group which far exceeded the value that the official groups were allowed to spend.  There were problems with the official material as well; the Green Party’s statement was cut off in the paper brochures for instance. 

“But to tell the public that the web would create 6,500 new jobs as this literature did seems highly unlikely.  I am told that some of the people behind this ‘unofficial’ group are also members of ACSEF and/or Aberdeen City Gardens Trust – possibly people who stand to gain financially from the project proceeding.  This makes the entire referendum exercise a mere ‘he who spends the most wins’ exercise.  I would ask the authorities which might look into my other concerns to look into this as well.”

Kelly concludes:-

“The vast sums of public money spent on PR, consultants and advertising to push this scheme could have gone on education and community projects.  This city does not need to borrow £92 million to turn its green park into a construction zone and a potential ‘trams fiasco.’  This city does need its existing buildings occupied and unused brownfield put back into use.  Businesses continue to operate here because of our industry. 

“Unnecessary, grandiose building projects detrimental to the environment seem to me designed to enrich the rich at public expense:  this scheme must be scrapped and the roles and actions of its powerful supporters examined.”

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Aug 172012
 

Old Susannah takes a look recent events in the ‘Deen, and tackles tricky terms with a locally topical taste. By Suzanne Kelly.

Tally Ho!  Once again future of our Union Terrace Gardens with its green field, 250-year-old elms, other trees, and wildlife is in the spotlight. The vote of the full council next week on 22 August will be significant to our getting our £140,000,000 granite web, which will fit in situ so naturally that we’ll think the Victorians built it in time.

Sadly, some anti-progress, anti-referendum, nimby tree-huggers are suggesting that the more suitable place for a public square is the St Nicholas site, and our only city centre park should be left as, well, a park. Three independent councillors will suggest an alternative to the web at the 22/8 meeting.

However, Sir Ian has much more money than they do, and will take his ball home if anyone suggests not doing the plan he wants.

We know he’ll give up as he’s said as much four or five times already (but failed to do so).  Sir Ian and Valerie Watts say without a web, we cannot be the City of Culture in 2017!  Well, that’s the argument for the web settled then.  What good are clean air, a healthy environment, heritage, common good land and existing culture when we can try to win an award?

Not surprisingly this issue of Aberdeen Voice will be filled with articles concerning our city’s future, and reasons to keep our common good land out of the hands of the usual suspects (Smith, Crosby, Milne, Wood of course, and the rest of the ACSEF acolytes).  Old Susannah is keen to redress the balance, and ensure that the selfless, apolitical philanthropists behind the £140,000,000 project get the consideration they deserve.

To that end, here are some relevant definitions.

Intellectual property: (modern English phrase) principle that the ownership of an original idea rests with the idea’s creators, and should be protected by law.

Peacock Visual Arts had come up with the original idea of building a new arts centre inside UTG; they were helped by Scottish Enterprise and ACSEF with their original scheme.  This help was kind of like the help that the Fox gave to Jemima Puddleduck.

Magically, the Peacock idea was hijacked (with Scottish Enterprise help) and transformed into the transformational 8th wonder of the world, The Granite Web.  After all their expense and groundwork, Peacock was left out in the cold, irrespective of their moral right to their intellectual property of putting a cultural venue in UTG.

Just as well this wasn’t going on in America; it would still be being fought in the courts now.

Thankfully, such hijackings of intellectual property concerning UTG are very rare, except for the most recent one.  Common Good Aberdeen, a group of people who simply want the gardens enhanced and protected from developers, recently came up with an original idea which they pitched to the City.

They proposed serving drinks and snacks from a temporary structure inside one of the disused central arches in UTG for a year. ALL profits, if the scheme survives a vote to be held today (17/08), are to be diverted to improving UTG.

Thus volunteers will take an unused space, encourage people to use the gardens, and generate money for the gardens’ improvement.  Obviously, we can’t have this kind of thing going on.

While some of the City’s administration and councillors are supporting this fresh, original scheme, other powers that be (one Mr Gordon McIntosh) has written a report saying that the Council must ensure that it gets ‘Value for Money’ for the disused arch if it is put to use.  Good man!  Mind the pennies, and the hundreds of millions of pounds will take care of themselves.

It is almost as if MacIntosh didn’t want the gardens used for social purposes

Gordon wants to take Common Good’s idea, clearly their intellectual property, and turn it into a commercial bidding exercise (which of course will cost the City money to put out to tender and evaluate incoming bids), and presumably charge whomever would want to rent the empty arch out.

If an organisation has to pay rent on the empty space, it is not that likely that they will plough 100% of their profits into fixing the gardens, which is what Common Good Aberdeen proposed.

It is almost as if MacIntosh didn’t want the gardens used for social purposes or for means to be found to generate UTG improvement funds at no cost to the City.  We have an empty space that is making no money, which volunteers want to use as a means of raising money to fix the gardens, while adding a social amenity to the area at no cost to the city.  If I were as clever as he, it would make sense I’m sure.

Much better that the City spend time and money on a bidding exercise to see if anyone wants to steal CGA’s idea for profit rather than any genuine philanthropy happening.  So, if after we spend taxpayer money on a bid to run a small café, some private company comes along to do so, then it’s profit to them and not the gardens.  Result!

That’s the kind of thinking that got us the city administration we’ve been enjoying these past several years.  If any of the councillors who have a chance to vote on the CGA proposal today are reading this column, I am sure they will do the right thing.

Let’s look at this principle Gordon wants to nobly uphold of ensuring Aberdeen City gets ‘Value for Money’.  Since we’ve seen that we can’t let people use a tiny arch for one year to sell snacks for generating improvement funds for the gardens without proper scrutiny, no doubt this important principle would have to apply to any and all schemes, great and small….

Value for Money:  (mod. English phrase) phrase used in public administration to describe the principle of ensuring that any services or products being sourced by government are obtained by the best qualified suppliers at the lowest possible prices.  European Law also dictates that any public services or goods contracts of substantial value be awarded by fair, open tender processes. 

They might even be expected to give the city a performance bond or guarantee

Let’s imagine just for one moment that a big city, somewhere has a park filled with trees, wildlife, and open spaces for people to enjoy.

Such a space might even be owned by the people outright.

Let’s imagine one step further that after years of mismanagement this hypothetical city wants to make a quick buck or two, and decides to develop this park, despite environmental concerns and public outcry.

The city in question would be expected tofirst write up a tender document, describing what it would want a management company to deliver in the gardens in question.  The tender document would describe in detail exactly what structures were to be created, what activities would take place, what everything would cost, and exactly what the management company’s role would be.

Advertisements asking for bidders with sufficient experience would be placed around the world, and the companies with sufficient experience of project management and venue operations would compete in a tender exercise.  If any would-be management companies had existing personal and business ties with any of the city’s officials or entities (maybe like ACSEF), these would have to be declared and scrutinised:  no one with power over the decision-making process would be permitted to be involved in evaluating tenders or giving work out.

Each bid would be evaluated by the city – without the name of the individual bidders being known – based on the company’s experience, financial health, submitted detailed operation and building budgets and so on.  A shortlist of the best companies would then be evaluated, and the best ‘Value for Money’ bidder would be awarded a contract.

They successful bidder might even be expected to give the city a performance bond or guarantee, and a parent company guarantee to ensure they would not simply disappear or sell the contract on to a third party.

Strict performance benchmarks would be drawn up, and the winning bidder would only be paid for each phase of the detailed project as they successfully delivered it.

Crucially, the entire process would be available for public scrutiny after the sensitive pricing and tendering exercise was completed – before any final contracts were signed.

OR, if the city was Aberdeen….

Members of various interlinked public and/or private entities such as ACSEF would talk to their pals, find out how to make money out of the public’s common good land, ‘transform’ an idea from an arts group into a money-spinner for friends in the construction and development sectors, and use their public and private muscle to get the city leaders to bend to their will.

Some of their number would set up a small private, limited ‘charity’ company, perhaps calling it Aberdeen City Gardens Trust.  This company would automatically be appointed by the city to run the multimillion pound construction scheme without any ‘value for money’ tendering exercise, scrutiny or competition.

Audit Scotland might wonder which companies were paid to carry out the expensive PR / advertising jobs

The newly formed Trust would actively influence decisions such as whether to build theatres next to theatres (Brilliant!),  chop down ancient trees and remove habit for protected EU species which live in said park and promise to plant fir trees (which can’t thrive in a city centre – even more brilliant!).

In the process taxpayer money would be spent to convince the city that building an unspecific project based on a few illogical, unworkable architectural flights of fancy was worth the taxpayer borrowing £90,000,000.

The project would be pushed ahead with this Trust at the head of delivering services, without a project scope defined, without a time frame for construction, and crucially without a budget open to public scrutiny.

It is a very good thing that the EU will never want to look into the manner in which the Granite Web is being foisted on the population or what procurement rules may be being ever so slightly bent.

Similarly, Audit Scotland would never decide to look at precisely how ACSEF and Scottish Enterprise ordered tens of thousands of pounds worth of PR, advertising, and ’stakeholder’ events’, then had the Chamber of Commerce submit invoices to the City Council to pay with public funds.

Audit Scotland will not wonder which companies were paid to carry out the expensive PR / advertising jobs – and why these companies did not get named on the Chamber of Commerce invoices, which cover several years. If that happened, then the elected councillors might start to question whether the entire proceedings were valid, examine the role of ACSEF and its members, and whether the EU, UK or Scottish regulatory agencies would come around asking questions.

Other firms with relevant project delivery experience might get slightly cross at the absence of a tender exercise for such a aluable public project; some of these companies might even know as much about multimillion pound schemes and public amenities as Tom Smith does.   It could all get just a little awkward, sticky, embarrassing and litigious.

I’d best keep these potential problems to myself.  I would hate it if any councillor having doubts about the project were to worry unduly about supporting the web on my account.

Final: (Eng adjective) The last of something; the end of something.

Old Susannah is so old that she went to The Who’s ‘farewell’ concert at Shea Stadium, NY, with the Clash as opening act (was it 1981?  Wish I could see The Clash again especially). The Who played, said it was their final tour, and that was that.  Since then, The Who have had about 57 other final tours.

ACGT were given custody of the ballot papers, even though the taxpayer had paid for the vote.

Sir Ian seems to be a fan of finality as well.  Those of us with memories longer than a goldfish’s will remember the first ‘consultation’ – you know, the one in which the voters rejected the garden scheme.  Sir Ian was going to go walk away then if the concept failed to win the public’s hearts and minds.

Well, we did say ‘no’ but as is often the case, ‘no’ must have really meant ‘yes’.  The official line was that those who were against the scheme simply didn’t understand it.  Fair enough.  So Ian didn’t say ‘farewell’ after all, and resurrected the scheme.

The public were going to be given a chance to vote against developing the gardens when the shortlisted 6 were on view.  This option was what councillors on some of the ‘City Garden Project’ committees had asked for.  However, in the end Gerry Brough is quoted in meeting minutes as saying this was not after all ‘appropriate’ during the design show after all.

People most definitely used the exhibition to write on the ballot papers they wanted no part of destroying UTG, which was very naughty of them indeed.

Thankfully, to avoid any embarrassment for Sir Ian, Tom Smith and Colin Crosby of ACGT were given custody of the ballot papers, even though the taxpayer had paid for the vote.

Campaign groups demanded sight of the papers; but brave ACGT held fast.  We will never know for certain what the real public vote was during the shortlist as to scrapping the scheme or not.  We do know however that the giant glass worm, the public’s choice, was turned down by Wood.

When things started looking bad for the scheme yet again, Wood churned out press releases saying he would draw a final line under the project, and walk away and give his £50,000,000 to the third world instead.

When the three independent councillors said they were working on an alternative idea, Wood said he would not compromise.  And that is his final word.  Well, for this week anyway.

Word arrives that early next week Sir Ian will AGAIN meet with individual councillors to make his ‘final’ plea.  Old Susannah is starting to get deja vu.  I do wonder though why Sir Ian gets to make continued visits to the councillors, sit in the ‘press’ box when he attends council meetings and so on.  Anyone would think he were rich or something.  Thankfully this is a democracy.  Word also reaches me that these continuous pleas from Sir Ian are beginning to grate on more than a few councillors’ patience.

What Woody will do if the vote goes against the scheme will be, of course, to make a final farewell, take his money and spend it in Africa….

And if you believe that….

Next week:  a look at who voted how, what’s next, and if common sense and Common Good Aberdeen prevail, lots of Champagne and lots of BrewDog.

  •  Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Aug 102012
 

Aberdeen Voice’s Old Susannah peers past the hot summer haze, smokescreens, and piles of unsold, undistributed P&Js and EEs to define the Deen’s dominant issues.  By Suzanne Kelly.

Tally Ho! The big news this past week is John Swinney: he has come down firmly on the side of the City Gardens Project. Result!

I guess I must have missed the part where we had a sound business case and where we threw out the economist’s assessment of the TIF application; I really must pay more attention.

I’d also have thought that Swinney would need a little time to digest all the evidence – but most of the digestion he did was over ACSEF ‘working lunches’ (see below).

Also on the theme of Union Terrace Gardens, we have a few upstart independent councillors about to launch a different option for the city centre’s future before the crucial 22nd August vote. 

Obviously there is only one solution, and that is the granite web to be put in place of the city’s green lungs.  You couldn’t for instance build a civic square on the site of the fortress of doom, aka St Nicholas House – where’s the fun (or benefit to one Mr Milne) in that?

No, the only answer to permanent economic prosperity, permanent career creation, jobs for the (construction) boys and eternal bliss, is the granite web.  Shame on those indies.  Now if they were part of some of the major parties, they’d just do as they were told and be done with it.

Having said that, a news item tells me the SNP and the Lib Dems are fighting again; apparently over a boundary shake-up.  The SNP wish to make the Lib Dems look bad.  Personally, I think that horse has already bolted.

Before moving on to some timely definitions, I’d like to thank the people in charge of roads at Aberdeen City Council for getting rid of all those pesky wildflowers growing on Wellington Road.  Yes, those gigantic pansies, daisies and other wildflowers have all been mowed over.

It’s good that there is no discrimination between 3 foot high grass and 3 inch high wildflowers – treat them all alike, I say.  So if the bees get even less areas to feed on and if the remaining moths and butterflies are killed, no worries.  Soon all will be covered in concrete anyway, so getting rid of the flowers before they went to seed is irrelevant.

The same anti-nature mentality must be at work in whichever department allows fireworks displays – HMT has been at it again.  In case there were any wild animals left in UTG not already scared off by Milne’s anti peregrine falcon goons, or by the previous fireworks, a brilliant (?) display of daytime fireworks was set off last week.

Someone should tell the city that disturbing the bothersome yet protected by EU legislation animals (bats, birds, etc) is not supposed to happen.

Can we please go back to having fireworks at the beach, and perhaps at night time?  Word has it that fireworks can be seen to be more vibrant and dynamic at night.

Silly Season: (Mod Eng Phrase)
Summer months during which there is a shortage of serious news stories and the media often resort to printing non-news stories, ‘cute’ items and/or tall tales.

Thankfully the ‘silly season’ is something our more serious newspapers are immune to.  While the Evening Express may have endless photo competitions for adorable babies and so on, the mainstream press keeps its sombre, serious course.

Stories such as the 7th August P&J piece on a white witch performing a ritual to raise the Loch Ness Monster are demonstrative of the mindset of the newspaper which wants us to take its word over the best future use for Union Terrace Gardens.

This might seem like a textbook example of ‘silly season journalism’ to you, but I’m sure it’s actually a very important piece on comparative religion and marine biology.  The mythical kelpie is apparently being used by some ‘creationist’ sects in the United States to prove that evolution is wrong and the bible is right about Adam and Eve.  I guess the logic at play there is just a tad over my head.


Working Lunch:
(Mod Eng Phrase)
To combine a social meal occasion with business and/or politics; a form of lobbying.

So – how did John Swinney get so interested in the future of our beloved Granite Web?  It was over a working lunch.   Or two.  After all, it was over a few friendly dinners that Swinney’s higher up, Alex Salmond, met Donald Trump and was convinced that Trump’s needs outweighed Scotland’s only movable sand dune system (a SSI) and a few troublesome Scottish people.  As above, so below.

Who took Swinney to lunch?  Why ACSEF of course – including Colin Crosby (who is a director of Aberdeen City Gardens Trust along with Tom Smith) and Mr Stewart Milne (owner/developer of the adjacent Triple Kirks site).  Any conflict of interest between what these entities stand to gain and their ACSEF roles?  Never!  .  Here is a little taster of what was on the menu back in February, 2010:

ACSEF Working Lunch with Cabinet Secretary John Swinney – 16 February [2010]

“The Chairman [Tom Smith] advised that the presentation to be made to John Swinney had been revised to take account of comments at the special Board meeting on 9 February.  He ran through the format for the presentation and discussion and advised that Stewart Milne would raise the importance of delivery of infrastructure projects and aspirations for the future, Colin Crosby the desire for Government support for TIF’s and need for innovative thinking around funding methods and Dave Blackwood the importance of oil and gas relative to renewables and also its internationalisation.”

– from ACSEF Minutes

I’m sure that over a tasty meal, (although probably not at Nando’s, or Starbucks) Mr Milne and Mr Crosby must have left a clear impression that everyone in Aberdeen wants a granite web.

No doubt over the brandy and cigars the alternative points of view (if any) were also made clear and the importance of the EU protected trees and animals, the web’s probably carbon footprint and that little matter of where to find a spare £90,000,000 were put in perspective.  We should thank all concerned for throwing this little lunch I say.

Who paid for any such working lunches?  Why you and I did:  ACSEF is publicly funded.   Bon appétit!

Smokescreen:  (noun; Eng)
Something that obscures or deflects attention away from another thing in an attempt to mislead, or confuse.

The previous administration made lots of noise about its ‘transparency’ – but most of us saw straight through that.

Callum McCaig has accused the independent councillors of putting up a smokescreen.  McCaig seems to imply that the Indies’ belief in a possible alternative to the Granite Web is just a smokescreen.

Old Susannah has sought local examples of smokescreens to help define this tricky term.  There is, for example, the noble attempt by Council employees who served up smoked deer.  Anonymous ACC operatives gave an ACC letter to the P&J, which became a news story claiming that ‘two deer were found dead ahead of the (Tullos Hill) cull’.

The implication was that the deer were suffering and dying (which all relevant animal charities hotly contested) and shooting the deer dead would help them (a concept I’m still working on).  This story might have successfully deflected attention away from the other issues (there are many), but alas the attempted smokescreen failed.

The deer did die in advance of the cull all right – two years in advance in fact (and of causes unknown).  Deer live about 6-7 years and do actually die, believe it or not.  Smokescreen FAIL.

Searching for further whiffs of smoke, I must thank Mr Tom Smith (of ACSEF, the Aberdeen City Gardens Trust, etc. etc.) for providing me with a recent example.

Just before the referendum (coincidentally), he was on the front page of the P&J with the sad story that he had been the victim of illegal computer hacking as well as harassment.    Tom put the blame for this clearly illegal hacking activity on those who wanted UTG left without a web.

This apparent victimisation of Tom created sympathetic feelings for him (didn’t we all feel his pain?), just in time for the referendum.  Is  there any chance that this allegation of crime being committed against poor Tom, coming to light just before the referendum  as it did, could have been a smokescreen?

A smokescreen might have been useful to sway the vote, deflect attention away from other issues such as the actions of the ‘unofficial’ pro web group, which was free to publish what it wanted and spend as much as it pleased, operating outside of the referendum’s limits ?  Surely not.

There must have been hard, cold, direct evidence proving Smith had been hacked.  Otherwise the Press & Journal would not have run such a story, just like they wouldn’t publish a news story about a kelpie and a white witch without concrete evidence.  Yet when I asked Smith, ACSEF and the police for details of the crime committed, I was told it was ‘private’.  Funny, how this public story quickly went private; just one of those things I guess.

Sadly, Mr Smith, Chair of ACSEF, may be able to influence how public money is spent – but the public are not permitted to send him emails directly.  The public must instead email Rita Stephen of ACC, who acts as intermediary.  Ms Stephen explains that Mr Smith’s email address is ‘personal data’.

I never did find out how a publicly-funded body like ACSEF would have its members’ emails protected by the Data Protection Act.

I had written for info on the allegations of illegal hacking of Smith’s emails.  I eventually received a reply concerning anonymous letters and something to do with pornographic pictures on social network sites (did any of you know there were naughty pictures on the internet?).

Did I get a response to my direct question about email hacking crime?  No.  It was almost as if Mr Smith’s reply to me was a smokescreen covering up the smokescreen of the P&J article alleging a crime.

Shockingly, it seems no illegal hacking has taken place.  I don’t find anything in any subsequent P&J articles on the matter and I can’t find court publications to say anyone had been charged with email hacking.  This crime could carry a custodial sentence and/or a fine (under Computer Misuse legislation).

I think the smoke is clearing.  Should Mr Smith get in touch now to say exactly who was charged with what hacking crime, I’ll get back to you.  But it’s starting to look like some small exaggeration took place with conveniently strategic timing.

One last thought; the smoke may clear completely in the near future.  Audit Scotland has been asked to look at some of the financial intricacies of the interesting way in which work is commissioned, invoiced and then paid for regarding our sparkly granite web.

Audit Scotland may not prove so easy to put off and they seem more than a little interested.

  •   Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.
Jun 142012
 

Aberdeen Voice’s Old Susannah continues her romp through Aberdeen City Council’s A to Z of services, and  considers two very different ‘Mr Smiths’, and dog’s dinners.  By Suzanne Kelly.

Tally Ho!  The burning issues of the past week include Olympic torches and scorching internet debate following Annie Lennox’s article in the Guardian.  In this piece Lennox suggests that Aberdeen might have some issues  and that the City Garden Project is ‘a dog’s dinner.’

In the first place as Mr Tom Smith (ACSEF, City Garden Trust, guru of truth, etc. etc.) points out, Annie doesn’t have all the facts.  Mr Smith will be happy to supply them to her.  This will be a historic first, considering ACSEF’s previous economy with said facts.   But what a result!  Tom Smith’s kindly offered to meet Annie!  I bet she’s wondering what to wear to any such meeting and is all nervous and excited.  Who could blame a girl? (Do I get a meeting invite as well, Tom, seeing as I was head of one of the official referendum campaign groups?).

I’m happy to admit I don’t have all the facts, either –  I keep asking for them, but I still don’t have them.  For one thing, I don’t know what comments people wrote on the voting slips when the six shortlisted designs were on show.  At the time comments and votes were requested (and paid for by the taxpayer).  Somehow, a private company, Aberdeen City Gardens Trust, seems to have the votes.  Tom is one of the people with access to them, and won’t let us see the results.  It wouldn’t be helpful, you see, to release this information.

I also don’t know the concrete web’s final business plan and its financial projections.  I also don’t know what the architectural drawings specify in any detail.  I don’t know what went on at the many meetings held to further the web.  I only  have ‘redacted’ (that’s with the details hidden) minutes of all those City Gardens Projects meetings you and I paid for (we’ve spent at least £600k on consultants and services for the granite web – you know, the project which won’t cost us a penny).  Call me over-cautious, but before I’d agree to borrow £90 million and commit to spending £140 million on a plan with no details, I’d want something a bit more concrete (excuse the expression).

I also don’t know the latest on Mr Smith’s front page P&J story from when he claimed UTG supporters were ‘harassing’ him and his family, and illegally hacking into his email.  You would have thought that had laws been broken, he’d have raced to the papers with the update. Otherwise, it just looks like a cynical manipulation of the press close to the referendum vote.    But all in all, I admit I don’t have these minor little facts.

But never mind the facts (which we’ve been asked to do so far) – once Tom’s had a word with Annie Lennox, she’ll be joining ACSEF, moving to Union Terrace and supporting the web.  Rumours that she has switched PR companies to Aberdeen’s BiG remain unconfirmed.

But Ms Lennox’ calling the Granite Web ‘a dog’s dinner’ in the Guardian was hardly fair.  Firstly, if you tried to feed such slop to a poor dog, it would slink away howling into the night, and the Scottish SPCA would step in, like they did to Dumfries & Galloway’s NHS supremo, one Mr Michael Keggens.  Because of his busy job and busy life, Keggens left his elderly dog without food and water, locked in the house for days.  Easy mistake to make I’m sure.

The Scottish SPCA were alerted to the dog barking, and found the poor thing alone in the house, caked in muck with not even water to drink.  Feeding the dog and returning a day later, the Scottish SPCA found the situation hadn’t changed.  Apparently living things need food and water, but you can’t expect someone high up in the NHS to know details like that.  Remember this the next time you hear of an elderly or infirm patient suffering dehydration. (PS – the Scottish SPCA is desperate for help just now, as are New Arc and Willows – if you can spare anything, please think about it).

Back to Mr Smith, well a Mr Smith anyway.  Old Susannah had a sudden urge this week to re-watch the old Jimmy Stewart film, ‘Mr Smith goes to Washington.’  Yes, it’s heavy on the sentiment and American values.  But the gist of the plot is this:  a corrupt, wealthy circle of small town businessmen and elected officials are milking the taxpayers; they have a crooked construction scheme (for a dam – a granite web would have been too far-fetched even for Hollywood).  These crooks have been sucking up public money, conspiring, and hiding the facts of their self-serving plans from the electorate.  This somehow sounds familiar.

In comes naive, honest Mr Smith, newly elected to the Senate, where people expect he will just do as the villains tell him to do.  He eventually finds out about all the corruption, and fights it (and he wins).  By the way, one of the most powerful weapons which the wealthiest crooked businessman has is his ability to dictate to the local press what to cover, how to cover it, and what to leave out of the news.

In the end ‘people power’ and truth win out over greed, corruption and manipulation.  I guess that’s Hollywood for you.  I’m still stumped as to why I thought of this film and wanted to see it again, but it will come to me.

Before I continue with my search through Aberdeen City Council’s A to Z of ‘services’, I’d like to say that I’m greatly looking forward to next Saturday’s (23 June) party in Union Terrace Gardens, courtesy of Common Good Aberdeen.  Hope to see you there.  And congratulations on the unanimous decision for a cafe in UTG to be run by Common Good Aberdeen volunteers, with 100% of profits going to improving the gardens.  A result in the truest sense.

I would also like to say a sincere thank you to the Guardian for its investigations, and to Ms Lennox (who can’t win – she gets it in the neck if she says anything, and gets it in the neck if she doesn’t.  But I dare say she knows what’s important and what she’s doing, and petty, small-minded criticism can’t stop her.  More power to her, as they say).

Now back to Aberdeen City’s A to Z of services.

M is for Marischal College: – Result!  ACC gutted this building, fitted it out with new furniture for some of the council staff, and boasted widely how wonderful it was – it only cost around £60,000,000 and it ‘came in on time and under budget’.  You can’t say fairer than that, can you?

Of course we never got to see a list of what the alternatives for council office space were (Old Susannah did do a FOI, knowing there is a ton of empty space owned by ACC out there – but was told this information was top secret).  Marischal may have been under budget, but what the budget was for other solutions was never disclosed.

Marischal workers are also under something else, and it’s not budget.  The problem I reported earlier with leaking toilet pipes hasn’t entirely been solved.  It must be kind of stimulating – you never know what’s going to land on your desk if you work at Marischal.

N is for National Fraud Initiative: – No, it’s not an initiative to strip the taxpayer of as much money as possible, it means that:-

“…Aberdeen City Council is required by law to protect the public funds it administers. We may share information provided to us with other bodies responsible for auditing or administering public funds, in order to prevent and detect fraud.”

We’ll have to wait and see if the new administration can do as well as the previous one at preventing fraud.  Let’s see – we had Councillor Cassie and his little financial embarrassment.  We had ‘care’ workers stealing from their elderly clients, we’ve had social workers buying themselves goods with our money;  we’ve had people at the council offices taking their work home with them (in the form of embezzled funds).

There is a saying: steal something small and you’ll go to jail; steal something big and they’ll make you a legend.  Steal an entire Victorian Park and put it into private hands to manage?  They’ll make you an ACSEF member.

O is for Open Data: – As the Council tells us,

“Open data is about increased transparency, about sharing the information we hold with the wider community to build useful applications.”

There is a link to this open data –

“We now have a linked data repository, available at: http://linkeddata.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ which provides a number of data sets as linked data. “

Please do be my guest and visit this link.  But if you’re looking for any controversial data, I’m not sure this will be much help to you.

P is for Package Holidays: – the City is giving us advice on consumer protection regarding package holidays.   Result!

I wonder whether the previous Lord Provost did a package holiday when he went on some of his essential world-wide trips in order to save the city some money.  His visit to Nagasaki clearly worked wonders, and I hear the Japanese want to get rid of some of their tedious green space to build granite webs.

There was a tartan created to commemorate the visit as well.  While we were spending all this money on his designer jeans, clothes, travel, portraits and so on, we sensibly have just auctioned off some of the artefacts from Thomas Glover House.  Glover, you may recall, was for all intents the man who most helped to open up Japan to the outside world, and his house in Aberdeen was a monument to him and his travels.

I wonder if they’ve sold the doorknobs, light bulbs and light switches from the Glover house yet?

Q is for…. nothing:  There are no entries.  Nothing about quality of services, quality of life, nothing.  That’s because things are so good, there’s nothing left to say.  (X has no listings, either, FYI).

R is for Rats:  If any of you have read the previous columns about the city’s A to Z of services, you will suspect correctly that this link takes you back to the city’s exterminator services.  The city will happily kill rats, rodents, insects, and a whole host of critters for you, for a fee.  And as we sadly know, they’ll shoot deer.

Next week:  Expect an update on the Tullos Hill deer slaughter story, the remainder of the alphabet, and a return to definitions as normal.

PS – I have learnt a great deal from the online debate sparked from the Guardian’s Annie Lennox story.  But most importantly, I’ve learnt you are not allowed to criticise a place unless you live in it.  Therefore, let’s have no more carping on about the situations in Syria, Iraq, Tibet, Myanmar, DRC, and so on.  Glad that’s settled.

  •  Have your say in the comments box below. 
Apr 062012
 

If you are of the opinion that the City Garden Project controversy was all about what flavour of city centre park Aberdeen should have – think again. There seems to have been a much bigger picture involved here, and the politics are murky.  Mike Shepherd writes.

The power of the print media in shaping opinion

The public referendum has been held, and the City Garden Project won by the smallest of margins: 52-48%. Feelings are still poisonous in the city, as it is clear that a marginal result was swung by dubious means.

On the City Garden Project side, unregistered groups spent a disproportionately large sum of money on campaign material, whereas the officially registered groups were restricted to spending about £8,000 only.

Some of the claims made by supporters of the City Garden Project were outrageous and substantially misleading. One newspaper advert is now being investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority.

Even Aberdeen Council were responsible for punting a justification for the City Garden Project with the questionable claim that a new park could create 6,500 new jobs in the city.

The local papers showed a bias in favour of Sir Ian Wood’s project and framed their reports to show one side in a much better light than the other (“Yes, vote for change” or “No, don’t vote for change”). Ludicrous claims were accepted uncritically – such as oil companies leaving Aberdeen if the scheme did not go ahead.

I had been advised by an expert that:

 “Newspapers are very powerful at shaping public opinion”

and:

 “You will need the support of a PR company during the campaign.”

It was very good advice, but in practice not something that a campaign group of limited influence and funds could realistically put in place. Yet, it was clear from canvassing in the street that the combined effort of relentless advertising, the glossy brochures and the press bias was having an effect.
Whereas many would stop and give me a considered analysis of how they would vote, a large minority were reflecting City Garden propaganda back at me, phrases recognizable from glossy brochures or Evening Express headlines.

Our society today is witnessing a battle between democracy and political lobbyists / PR companies. Out of this, democracy is not doing that well. It’s a shock to see this writ large in Aberdeen, but at least the Gardens Referendum result has made this crystal clear to any thinking person in the city.

Local politics

After two years of campaigning to keep the Gardens, I have been able to observe how local politics works. It is clear that the current council administration is very business friendly and they will tend to make decisions that primarily favour business interests. At just about every council meeting you will hear the phrase “Aberdeen is open for business.”

Local democracy commonly involves a conflict between what business wants and what is in the interests of the general public. For example, if Aberdeen Airport is allowed to land flights at night, Dyce residents will get woken up by the noise. The conflict between business and public interests came to the fore after the consultation on Sir Ian Wood’s scheme two years ago. Over 50 local businessmen wrote to the council asking for the result to be ignored:

‘due to misunderstanding of the project among the public’

and an ‘inability’ to appreciate its impact. The council – to their shame – did this. The current Council administration (an SNP / Lib Dem coalition) appears to favour business almost every time.

There are a number of reasons why business gets its own way with the council. Many councillors are instinctively business friendly and will tend to support projects that are favoured by local commercial interests. This is certainly true of the Conservatives on the council and of many councillors from the other parties too.

There is also a powerful business lobby. Businessmen make up two thirds of the Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Forum (ACSEF), a “public-private partnership that drives economic development in the region”. Funded by both Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils, ACSEF is a non-elected body that have been given a significant degree of control over local economic policy. There is no doubt that ACSEF exerts power and influence over the activities of both councils.

  advanced societies work by a system of checks and balances between moneyed interests and the public regard

ACSEF were involved with the City Garden Project in the early days and described it as one of their flagship projects. Two of the board members, including the Chairman Tom Smith, are directors of the Aberdeen City Garden Trust, the group that organised the architectural competition and who hope to take the project forward to completion.

Extensive networking appears to go on amongst the “great and the good”. Politicians, local businessmen, council officials and senior figures in local organisations turn up and meet at parties, functions, charity events and business meetings. One Freedom of Information request gives an indication of how much hospitality is provided to council officials for instance:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/76531/response/199821

To the worldly wise, this will not come as a surprise. However, advanced societies work by a system of checks and balances between moneyed interests and the public regard. This does not appear to be working too well in Aberdeen.

The SNP and the City Garden Project

The SNP have been intimately involved with the City Garden Project since its inception. Alex Salmond was present at the project launch  in 2008.
http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/933616

But only recently have both Alex Salmond and Callum McCaig, the SNP leader in the council, explicitly endorsed the City Garden Project.

Yet, the majority of SNP councillors have supported it throughout (the notable exception being Clr. Muriel Jaffray). This is clear from the voting records every time the project has come up for debate in the Council. The SNP support has been instrumental for the progress of the City Garden Project through successive council votes.

  Major businessmen such as David Murray, Brian Souter, Jim McColl and Martin Gilbert have now endorsed the SNP.

The SNP have a reputation for populist politics and it may seem surprising that they have embraced such a controversial project for the city. I believe that there is a much bigger picture here, and one that takes precedent over local politics. The SNP are essentially a single-issue party; they want independence for Scotland. The realpolitik of the SNP is that much of what they do is focussed towards this end.

A key aim for the SNP has been to secure the support of major business figures in Scotland. This is partly financial; the party has no natural source of funds apart from membership fees, but they are also trying to secure influence leading up to and beyond any independence date. Major businessmen such as David Murray, Brian Souter, Jim McColl and Martin Gilbert have now endorsed the SNP.

Sir Brian Souter, founder of the bus company Stagecoach, caused controversy when he donated £500,000 to the SNP in 2007. Shortly afterwards, the SNP dropped an election commitment to bus re-regulation, although they denied that there was any connection to Sir Brian Souter’s donation.

Sir Ian Wood has not given open support to the SNP, yet the SNP continue to court the billionaire’s favour. Not only has Alex Salmond given his own backing to the City Garden Project, the machinery of Government has also been used to bankroll the scheme.

Scottish Enterprise funded the public consultation two years ago and also allowed grant money to be used for the technical feasibility study. Although the public rejected Sir Ian Wood’s project in the consultation, it didn’t stop Scottish Enterprise from giving Aberdeen City Garden Trust £375,000 of public money from its available funds for major infrastructure projects.

Another niggly problem has been the concerns of Audit Scotland

The Scottish Government are keen to provide investment money for the project through TIF funding. Yet it has been established that the initial proposal did not rank very highly by comparison to other investment and infrastructure projects elsewhere in Scotland.

The Scottish Futures Trust, who carried out the ranking, has refused to make their calculations public in spite of Freedom of Information requests to do so. Another niggly problem has been the concerns of Audit Scotland, who have questioned the long term capability of the indebted Aberdeen Council to pay back a risky loan for the project.

The proposed use of valuable investment and infrastructure funds for something as trivial as building a new park is shocking. The business case is dubious and the council can’t afford the risk. Political considerations seem to have taken precedence to a strict business evaluation on the Aberdeen TIF case.

Sir Ian Wood discussed independence recently and gave an indication of what he wants from the Scottish Government:

“The Wood Group will not endorse a Yes or No vote on independence. But Sir Ian added: “What’s key is the extent to which our clients, and to some extent ourselves, anticipate that a Scottish Government would continue with a similar oil and gas policy to the UK.

“The suggestion right now, from the discussions I’ve heard, is that there’s a lot of overlap between the present Scottish Government’s thinking on the development of the oil and gas industry and the UK government’s thinking.”

He went on:

 “What’s important – and I think the First Minister realises this – is that they must provide as much clarity as possible over the next two years towards the vote in 2014, so that we minimise the uncertainty.”
http://www.scotsman.com/captains-of-industry-and-finance-join-clamour-for-clarity

I have no doubt that this will happen.

The SNP are hoping to secure a majority at the council elections on May 3rd. This is possible, but as a one-issue party they tend to do better in national elections than local elections. They are also heavily identified with the Union Terrace Gardens issue and this appeared to have cost them votes in the Scottish elections last year.
https://aberdeenvoice.com/2011/05/the-election-the-utg-effect/

If they do not get a majority, this raises the intriguing possibility of an administration run by a Labour-SNP coalition. The Lib-Dems are likely to see their vote collapse outside the West End of the city. The Labour group are vehemently opposed to the City Garden Project and it could be that a condition for agreeing to form a coalition is that the scheme is dropped.

The “Union” in Union Terrace Gardens refers to the union of the United Kingdom and Ireland in 1800. Perhaps it is ironic that the park has ostensibly become a pawn in the big game of Scottish independence. It would be immensely sad if this was the case. Aberdeen’s heritage could end up sacrificed for the sake of political wheeling and dealing.

This would not bode well for a future Scotland. As Paul Scofield, playing Thomas More, said in A Man For All Seasons:

“I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”