spreads (2).gif

There are no Vendettas here

In response, This week saw the arrival of a comment submitted to a Letter to the Beagle Editor. Of interest was the following line: "Please, would you and this publication's editor wake up, stop your inane, anile vendettas and if you have a problem with council or any other wing of government adopt a more sensible and proper approach to problem solving by engaging and holding responsible those we elect to act on our behalf." The Beagle editor has NO vendetta with Council, inane, anile or otherwise. For all too long those with "a problem with council or any other wing of government" have attempted to " adopt a more sensible and proper approach to problem solving by engaging and holding responsible those we elect to act on our behalf." They have done this by public forum, by petition by writing and writing and writing and writing. There is a long litany of complaints for many years from those who receive NO reply from Council whatsoever. There is a litany of complaints that "adopting a more sensible and proper approach to problem" just doesn't work. The Beagle editor has raised issues on behalf of those who have become exasperated by the "sensible approach" who have sought answers "by engaging and holding responsible those we elect to act on our behalf." - Brou Tip - issued raised by adjacent landowner and recreational fisher raised this issue initiated due to a lack of interest by Council to possible pollution and a disregard for material that appeared "toxic" to such an extent that it was later found, by independent and creditable testing to contain heavy metals and hydrocarbons. There followed revelations of breaches in Council's protocols in their Tip Management Plan. - Broulee leachate was also dealt with within the comments and documents provided by Damien Rodgers appear to substantiate that Council did deposit leachate material at Broulee - Mr Rogers has been openly vilified as a "perpetual nutter" and "sensationalist" and "Council Basher" so often that it would be convenient if the history he presents might be deemed as fictitious by many who would "like to move on". - The Batemans Bay Bowling Club purchase might, it seems, from what we have read in the Beagle be a tad on the nose and those who have asked the questions using the "sensible approach" still remain in the dark as Council continues to stay behind close doors on the matter and to deny any wrong doing in protocols or policy. - Council Illegal dump sites - Once again Damien Rogers cried foul and was written off as being a Chicken Little however he proved that Council had indeed been dumping and that there was due reason to be concerned for the manner in which Council dumped without the correct paper work or the required protocols to such an extent tht they had to be applied retrospectively. - Surfside sand deposits - It appears, from what we have been provided that an informed and concerned resident has raised justifiable questions that have gone unanswered. Having attempted to taking the "sensible approach" "by engaging and holding responsible those we elect to act on our behalf." he found that he was ignored and the questions raised remain valid and of continued concern. - Wharf Road - It appears from the contributions the Beagle has received and published on the issue of Coastal Management Reform remain and the reason they were presented to The Beagle was to ensure the issue and the justifiable questions were in the public domain and that it sought to question whilst "holding responsible those we elect to act on our behalf." - Hunt Fest - to some there remains a problem with the processes around the granting of a licence to Huntfest. Irrespective of the Huntfest content the question remains that the process was flawed and once again, under current EOI's being sought for Council controlled halls and reserves will remain flawed. In the past the editor of the Beagle edited the Tuross Giant. In that publication he openly asked the question of whether the Special Rate Variation sought was justifiable. In the opinion of the editor it was not justifiable, nor was it justifiable in the opinion of the 478 Turossians who signed a petition to Councillors that saw a total of 11,000 signatures. The petition was ignored. The Tuross Giant also asked Council if their spending $30,000 to cut a channel in the sand bar adjacent to the Tuross Boatramp that filled up gain each night and offered NO solution was justifiable, asking also what engineering had been applied to determining this as a possible solution. AS yet no reply. There are many smaller issues that have been raised such as Council reclassifying public land to sell off, recategorising land to satisfy staff agendas that are, without doubt, contrary to the wishes of the community or the fact that Council failed in its duty of care in maintaining a community funded and built building that saw it nearly condemned requiring an injection from the community of $200,000 to assist in the rebuild. These are real issues and each was very poorly dealt with by Council, as admitted by Council. The Beagle has no vendetta with Council. It does however have an expectation that those engaged and holding responsible positions and those we elect to act on our behalf actually do so and that they desist from hiding behind close doors, shutting down access to documents and investigate the many anomalies and grievances held by the community which remain from the past or rise from the present. In the same comment it was stated in regards to the statements specifically provided to The Beagle for publication by both the Eurobodalla Mayor and General Manager: In many ways as could be evidenced by comments here, the local government employees could be forgiven for any reluctance to speak with rabid individuals who appear to be hell bent on bombastically pursuing their own anarchistic agendas. Damning them for not communicating and then damning them when they do is counterproductive to solving a problem to say the very least. Readers did make comments to the above statements and in the main the comments, though often negative, were relevant and published. Many comments offered were not published. The question rises that should a statement from Council be made should it be closed to comment so as to be rhetorical. Isn't that an issue in itself that would not be tolerated by those wishing to offer comment. There are commentors of The Beagle who feel that the statements provided or issues raised, such as the above, are best not presented to the wider community for fear of painting the Council poorly. This however shows a disrepect and disregard for those who have conveyed to Council their very real frustrations, concerns and dissatisfactions having undertaken the "sensible approach" but ... to no avail. It might be best if these commentors choose to now read other publications that either show Council in a rosier light or to not publish the vendetta driven inane, anile text of rabid individuals who appear to be hell bent on bombastically pursuing their own anarchistic agendas as one might find in The Beagle

Note: to those about to comment... off you go, cut and paste past previous comments, denigrate the Beagle as being "fake news" and not a "real" newspaper, ask me what qualifications I have as a journalist, and editor, a human, draw comparisons with crap blog sites and half-baked social media pages, castigate my writing style, grammar and spelling, criticise the contributors, say that the Beagle is just a copy and paste outlet for any media and publicity releases it gleans and that it is sh*it poor. Heard it all. Let's see if there is anything new you can say.... but be sure to stick around as your continued presence here maintains our excellent visitor numbers

#Opinion #LeiParker

COMMENTS : Due to the risks associated with comments from unidentified contributors that expose The Beagle to possible legal actions under the NSW Defamation Act 2005 No 77 anonymous or Nom de Plume comments will not be available unless the author is known to the editor by way of a verified email address or by association.

Others who provide their REAL NAME (first name AND Surname) and a verifiable email address (it won't be published) are invited to comment below. (yes it is a pain but please comply - it would be a  shame to see your comment deleted)

Those contributors KNOWN to us and verified may continue to use their First Name or Nom de plume for ease. The primary need for all of this is due to traceability should a legal action arise.

If you need anonymity email us via our normal or encrypted email accounts

Please note that if you are looking for a previous comment that is no longer visible please contact us.