Play your part (From Malvern Gazette)

Good to see a statement from the council.

Can we have another stating the facts of what the actual changes are because a lot of resdents for eaxmple think and write that it is stanadard rubbish collection being changes rather than recycling.

Something simple and straight forward will help this issue.

I find it very odd that this offiver is writing to the gaxette,critisizing councillors.and the public and telling us all that OUR views have no right to be heard .
If theofficers do not like their jobs or feel unhappy about treatment then thry should undertake a greivance against those they hold t fault or LEAVE. Option 2 would be cheaper for us.
The deputy leader of the council,swinburn and the leader of the liberal democrats tom Wells both said on Tuesday night that a full investigation is neededinto how this process of the wheelie bins was carried out. 14councilors ,but not thise two voted for an open public debate on the matter .
This council is in a mess,but the officers need to remember they are our emplyoyees. If their is nothing to file a greivance about why are you airing your dirty washing in public.

FACT: Ivor Pumfrey has used the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as a reason for having to have kerbside collections of glass. This is completely wrong. The Act gives Councils a free choice of how they collect waste. Malvern has chosen various methods of collection, including kerbside and recycling points.
FACT: The Act also says Councils can choose the containers in which they collect waste. Malvern has chosen sacks fir kerbside collection, so how come Mr Pumfrey believes he can change from sacks to wheelie bins?
FACT: There is no requirement under either UK or EU law for kerbside collections of glass. Mr Bocock should be aware of this so why did he allow Mr Pumfrey to make such a misleading remark.
FACT: David Hughes stated at council that comingled collections have been "sanctioned." This is incorrect. DEFRA stated something similar in their Guidance a year ago, but, as a result of legal action have been forced to remove that "sanction." Mr Bocock should have known this, so why did he not explain it to David Hughes, and indeed all Councillors, at the meeting.
FACT: The Campaign for Real Recycling is continuing with their court action as They believe DEFRA's guidance is still not in line with the EU Directive. This could result in comingled collections being declared illegal. Mr Bocock should be aware of this, so why did he not warn Councillors?
FACT: WRAP - the organisation funded by the four UK governments and the EU state quite clearly that comingled collections are not the cheapest method of collecting recyclable materials. Both separate stream and twin stream collections are cheaper. Mr Bocock should know this, so why was council told that comingled collections were the most cost effective method?
I am not defending The Councillors, but I am aware of just how busy all Councillors are. Many have to work as well as deal with the welter of paperwork. They do not all have time to carry out the sort of in-depth research that is needed to ferret out the truth. It has taken me around two weeks of googling, checking websites, sifting through Acts, Directives and Guidance and e-mailing the organisations and Departments concerned. Councillors, therefore rely on officers to give them accurate and timely information. This is what they are paid for. In this case they have been badly let down by the officers.
I am not angry about wheelie bins. I am angry that officers have been giving out misleading information and councillors have not been able to make properly informed decisions.
All I have said is verifiable, Mr Bocock, so how can you be proud of officers that give out in print such misleading and inaccurate information?

Casmal that is all true. I too can viuch for these facts.
I beleive what we are seeing here is an attempt to paper over reality.
We have all grown used to public officials denying any wrongdoing (I was not speeding,I did not swear at the police officer and my own personal favorite I did noy have sexual relations with that woman ) which is then closely followed by an investigation . A retraction of any previous statement and then a resignation......I am expecting this all too happen here

I wonder whether Mr Bocock would also care to comment on the performance of the council officers in the production of the SWDP which seems to have taken rather a long time. Or maybe on his own participation (or rather lack of it) in the farce of a council meeting at the Bank House in November? No?

Funnily enough chrism I have had letters from Mr.Bocock,they are not usually as well written as this one which says nothing whilst using lots of words !! I believe this is some attempt at a master plan to confuse us simple residents into feeling sorry for two men ,one earning £133 000 /year the other on £82 000 a year.... not working for me.

Ca we rephrase "earning" to "being paid" please?
It is now ten days since I had an automatic acknowledgemt of a letter to Mr Pumfrey but no actual reply . The same letter copied to our local councillors was answered by return
It is time that standardfs were applied to coucil officers , as they have been by some utilities , requiring a reply within a reasonable period , say 5 working days , or a financial penalty
I've worked under those conditions , it serves to focus the mind and prevents "slippage"
I still want to know how a "consultation" carried out in six small , mainly level ,areas can be extrapolated to the whole District and seen to override the practical experiences of the past . Prople may have changed , the topography hasn't

I immediately find it somewhat bemusing when a Senior Chief Officer of the Council, makes comments about moral. If he is defending, his officers because they have been criticise by their employers’ “The General Public” Why has this task been left to him. Is the Chief Executive, now saying that the public are correct, that the council officers have made decisions that should have been made by the elected members?
Surely, if the public are in error, then it should be those elected members who should be defending the council as a whole with all elected members leaders signing a statement that the officer have only done what they have been instructed to do by the Elected members with a vote on controversial matters being recorded those for those against. When a Chief Executive steps into the public political arena then they are making rods for their own backs.

logicalN wrote:
Ca we rephrase "earning" to "being paid" please?
It is now ten days since I had an automatic acknowledgemt of a letter to Mr Pumfrey but no actual reply . The same letter copied to our local councillors was answered by return
It is time that standardfs were applied to coucil officers , as they have been by some utilities , requiring a reply within a reasonable period , say 5 working days , or a financial penalty
I've worked under those conditions , it serves to focus the mind and prevents "slippage"
I still want to know how a "consultation" carried out in six small , mainly level ,areas can be extrapolated to the whole District and seen to override the practical experiences of the past . Prople may have changed , the topography hasn't

Interesting. I wrote to Mr Pumfrey ten days ago. I got an immediate acknowledgement. The full reply was sent 45 minutes before the council meeting at which he knew I was going to speak! Similar game to the ones he appears to play with Councillors - throw things at them at the last minute and it will either put them off or confuse them. He clearly doesn't know me very well!! What it actually did was reinforce the fact that he had got his facts wrong, so he has played right into my hands.
And yes, I totally agree about the "survey" - it's a case of make sure you ask the right questions of the right people and you will get the answers you want. Not only does it override past practical experience, it also overrides the 2009 survey, in which residents overwhelmingly expressed their opposition to wheelie bins. But as David Hughes knows, if you don't get the answer you want the first time, keep going until you do.

Oh yes sorry they are paid they do NOT earn their money. Seeing as how we are the only district in worcestershire to put up the council tax they are indeed failing us on many fronts .
It is time for a full inquiry into why we pay them so much whilst they fail in their duty to us.

If they hadn't messed about with the parking charges, thereby losing around £7,000 in the full year it might have helped.

Yes casmal . Not to mention the £1500/day we pay to have 39 miles of road swept !!!!
I cannot see how that can be viable when they say we must pay more tax.
Can anyone come up with anything positive Mr. Bocock and co have done??

Casmal wrote:
FACT: Ivor Pumfrey has used the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as a reason for having to have kerbside collections of glass. This is completely wrong. The Act gives Councils a free choice of how they collect waste. Malvern has chosen various methods of collection, including kerbside and recycling points.
FACT: The Act also says Councils can choose the containers in which they collect waste. Malvern has chosen sacks fir kerbside collection, so how come Mr Pumfrey believes he can change from sacks to wheelie bins?
FACT: There is no requirement under either UK or EU law for kerbside collections of glass. Mr Bocock should be aware of this so why did he allow Mr Pumfrey to make such a misleading remark.
FACT: David Hughes stated at council that comingled collections have been "sanctioned." This is incorrect. DEFRA stated something similar in their Guidance a year ago, but, as a result of legal action have been forced to remove that "sanction." Mr Bocock should have known this, so why did he not explain it to David Hughes, and indeed all Councillors, at the meeting.
FACT: The Campaign for Real Recycling is continuing with their court action as They believe DEFRA's guidance is still not in line with the EU Directive. This could result in comingled collections being declared illegal. Mr Bocock should be aware of this, so why did he not warn Councillors?
FACT: WRAP - the organisation funded by the four UK governments and the EU state quite clearly that comingled collections are not the cheapest method of collecting recyclable materials. Both separate stream and twin stream collections are cheaper. Mr Bocock should know this, so why was council told that comingled collections were the most cost effective method?
I am not defending The Councillors, but I am aware of just how busy all Councillors are. Many have to work as well as deal with the welter of paperwork. They do not all have time to carry out the sort of in-depth research that is needed to ferret out the truth. It has taken me around two weeks of googling, checking websites, sifting through Acts, Directives and Guidance and e-mailing the organisations and Departments concerned. Councillors, therefore rely on officers to give them accurate and timely information. This is what they are paid for. In this case they have been badly let down by the officers.
I am not angry about wheelie bins. I am angry that officers have been giving out misleading information and councillors have not been able to make properly informed decisions.
All I have said is verifiable, Mr Bocock, so how can you be proud of officers that give out in print such misleading and inaccurate information?

Casmal, Sir/Madam,
When one quotes facts, they should be quoted in full so as not to confuse or create a misunderstanding.
Kerb side collection actually means outside the residents perimeter on to an accessible collection area.
I am sure you will find that a terraced row of houses which fronts on to a public street, road, or main road. Which can be serviced via a private common rear passage, and is used for all those properties whose rear yard gate is accessed by this common passage?
You will most likely find that this is the reason why the owner of the property has to bring their own bin to a point outside their own area that they are responsible for. Previously when refuse collectors entered your property area if an accident occurred the council had to insure their employee in case they caused damage within your curtilage. If there is someone who unable because of infirmity, or due to the geographical situation. Then the council must provide assistance when it is genuinely required.
Yet, I must agree with you that Malvern Hills Officers appear to be wagging the dog Instead of the Dog wagging the tail. Until your Elected members realize they are the real managers of the Council, on behalf of the residents, then the situation will only improve if the residents ( who are the real Managers) remove councillors who are not doing what the public elected them to do, and replace them with either completely new blood, or at least with someone who will.

Allan Whitehead wrote:

Casmal wrote:
FACT: Ivor Pumfrey has used the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as a reason for having to have kerbside collections of glass. This is completely wrong. The Act gives Councils a free choice of how they collect waste. Malvern has chosen various methods of collection, including kerbside and recycling points.
FACT: The Act also says Councils can choose the containers in which they collect waste. Malvern has chosen sacks fir kerbside collection, so how come Mr Pumfrey believes he can change from sacks to wheelie bins?
FACT: There is no requirement under either UK or EU law for kerbside collections of glass. Mr Bocock should be aware of this so why did he allow Mr Pumfrey to make such a misleading remark.
FACT: David Hughes stated at council that comingled collections have been "sanctioned." This is incorrect. DEFRA stated something similar in their Guidance a year ago, but, as a result of legal action have been forced to remove that "sanction." Mr Bocock should have known this, so why did he not explain it to David Hughes, and indeed all Councillors, at the meeting.
FACT: The Campaign for Real Recycling is continuing with their court action as They believe DEFRA's guidance is still not in line with the EU Directive. This could result in comingled collections being declared illegal. Mr Bocock should be aware of this, so why did he not warn Councillors?
FACT: WRAP - the organisation funded by the four UK governments and the EU state quite clearly that comingled collections are not the cheapest method of collecting recyclable materials. Both separate stream and twin stream collections are cheaper. Mr Bocock should know this, so why was council told that comingled collections were the most cost effective method?
I am not defending The Councillors, but I am aware of just how busy all Councillors are. Many have to work as well as deal with the welter of paperwork. They do not all have time to carry out the sort of in-depth research that is needed to ferret out the truth. It has taken me around two weeks of googling, checking websites, sifting through Acts, Directives and Guidance and e-mailing the organisations and Departments concerned. Councillors, therefore rely on officers to give them accurate and timely information. This is what they are paid for. In this case they have been badly let down by the officers.
I am not angry about wheelie bins. I am angry that officers have been giving out misleading information and councillors have not been able to make properly informed decisions.
All I have said is verifiable, Mr Bocock, so how can you be proud of officers that give out in print such misleading and inaccurate information?

Casmal, Sir/Madam,
When one quotes facts, they should be quoted in full so as not to confuse or create a misunderstanding.
Kerb side collection actually means outside the residents perimeter on to an accessible collection area.
I am sure you will find that a terraced row of houses which fronts on to a public street, road, or main road. Which can be serviced via a private common rear passage, and is used for all those properties whose rear yard gate is accessed by this common passage?
You will most likely find that this is the reason why the owner of the property has to bring their own bin to a point outside their own area that they are responsible for. Previously when refuse collectors entered your property area if an accident occurred the council had to insure their employee in case they caused damage within your curtilage. If there is someone who unable because of infirmity, or due to the geographical situation. Then the council must provide assistance when it is genuinely required.
Yet, I must agree with you that Malvern Hills Officers appear to be wagging the dog Instead of the Dog wagging the tail. Until your Elected members realize they are the real managers of the Council, on behalf of the residents, then the situation will only improve if the residents ( who are the real Managers) remove councillors who are not doing what the public elected them to do, and replace them with either completely new blood, or at least with someone who will.

My apology, Allan, it was not my intention to mislead. The term kerbside collections has come to mean collecting from residents at or near their property, as opposed to residents having to take their waste to a central point, for example glass being taken to a recycling point. Mr Pumfrey told me that, due to the Environmental Pprotection Act, and the choices that Malvern has made as a result, glass will have to be collected from the householder, rather than it being taken to a recycling point by the householder. This is not true as Malvern is free to choose their place of collection and container.
Yes, I totally agree with you with regard to the elected members. They have been given the facts I stated above, but chose not to listen. Unfortunately, we have another two years before we can remove the ones who are not doing what they were elected to do. I worry about the damage they can do in the meantime, if they do not come to understand the true meaning of democracy and their part in it.

Casmal,
There is no need to apologise it is my own fault for taking Kerbside Collection Literally.
What you say is perfectly true, they cannot force you to use their respective container for recycling glass. If the person wishes to dispose of the glass at say a supermarket collection area they are quite at liberty to do so.
When our recycling first started, we had a blue bag for paper & cardboard, a green container for bottles, with blue container for tins. After about three months of fortnightly collections.
One week they took only none recyclables (household rubbish) the following week they collected waste paper/cardboard/tins Glass (which also included) Plastic bottles 7 containers.
Now we have four wheelie bins.
Dark Green for non-recyclables, Light Green for all types of tins. Bottles glass and plastic, also we can place all types of plastics there is one exception All bottled must have no screw caps on, but they are placed in the same bin. We then have light blue Wheelie bin for all types of paper and cardboard.
Finally we come to our B ROWN wheelie bin which is for all garden refuse (NO soil) grass cuttings, tree clippings (no larger than 6/10 mm. in diameter, plus now we are allowed to place waste food in the same bin provided it is in a bio degradable bag. I have capitalised “BROWN BIN” because we have some Percy Throwers, Alan Titchmarsh Monty Don John Noakes Lesley Judd and
Charlie Dimmock type neighbours who never have any garden waste, so the now have wheelie water butts.
Originally, I was totally opposed both for political reason and it was something different and when it is different it usually became worse. However, if they tried to take any of my wheelie bins away I would fight tooth and nail to resist.