IN response to the news dominating the headlines about Government Adviser, Dominic Cummings’ interpretation of the Corona Virus lockdown rules to move his family out of London, a local resident has written an open letter to John Howell MP. The letter reads:
“Hello John,
“Hope you and your family are keeping healthy and safe during these challenging times.
“I am writing to you regarding Dominic Cummings whose name now covers today’s frontline news of many media websites. The facts are clear: Mr Cummings broke the lockdown rules. This is a situation similar to the behaviour of the Ceausescu family in Romania in the 1960s to late 80s: one rule for them and one rule for the “rats”, as Elena Ceausescu called her own people, Romanians queuing for basic food supplies during the food shortages in the 1980s. (Ed. Mr Ciortan is himself Romanian born)
“Coming back to the UK in 2020 during lockdown:
– Mr Cummings broke the lockdown rules. The facts are documented by the police.
– This makes the job of policemen to enforce the rules much more difficult. Many people, members of the public are no longer motivated to observe the rules.
– I am urging you to please join your fellow MP Steve Baker in publicly calling for Dominic Cummings to resign.
– Everybody must abide by the rules – otherwise UK the UK is at risk of following the destiny of other failed stouts where some people are “more equal” than others.
“Please feel free to give me a ring – should you wish to discuss.
A Thame resident, a leading member of Thame For Europe, who campaign for ‘a Peoples’ Vote’, has written an open letter to Thame’s MP, John Howell, after the MP continued to support the Prime Minister in Tuesday night’s vote against his Brexit plans. (UPDATE BELOW THE LETTER)
Roy Mottram
The letter reads as follow:
Dear John Howell MP,
I note that you voted last night against Parliament taking control of some of the parliamentary agenda. Mr Johnson’s authoritarian attempt to shut Parliament down for long enough to silence opposition to his policy rather forced their hand. I’m disappointed that you put party before parliamentary sovereignty.
The government lost that vote & Parliament now has the opportunity to ensure that the A50 deadline is extended to allow completion of any negotiation that Johnson undertakes.
If you vote against this deadline extension, then I’d like to hear your arguments for why Parliament will be better placed to avoid “No Deal” at the end of October rather than now, when the opportunity is in front of you.
Regards
Roy Motteram
Cheshire Road, Thame
(UPDATE: John Howell voted FOR a general election in Wednesday night’s debate and has since criticised the Speak of the House in an article in the Henley Standard LINK HERE)
MANY people from Thame and the surrounding villages would have read the constituency’s MP, John Howell’s article in the local press or read his latest news letter on his website, expressing his opposition to a People’s Vote. A Thame resident, himself a supporter of a People’s Vote on the final Brexit deal, has now written an open letter to John Howell:
Dear Dr Howell
I have just read your InTouch Newsletter, and believe it needs an immediate and open response, since it will have been seen by a large number of your constituents who may be misled by it.
I can understand, as a UK representative to it, you would hold a high opinion of the Council of Europe, but to dismiss the real role that the EU has had in supporting the democracies that replaced the dictatorships in Europe is surely incorrect. It was the EU (and its previous incarnations as the EEC & EC) that provided the prosperity that enabled the fledgling democracies of Greece, Portugal & Spain to flourish. Human Rights organisations such as the Council of Europe are worthwhile institutions, but they don’t hold much traction with dictators, and to claim that it is the Council of Europe that has enabled us to live in peace and prosperity is preposterous. While you might berate him for not mentioning the Council of Europe, to describe Guy Verhofstadt’s speech as “fundamentally incorrect” is not appropriate.
Your section on Brexit is a perfect example of why 82% of respondents are fed up with politicians claiming to speak for everyone. You regularly cite occasional conversations in the street as signalling widespread support for your position on Brexit, without actually saying what was said. You now seem to be holding up this latest ORB poll as further support. This poll says that 35% of Leave voters hadn’t fully considered the complexity of what they voted for, while 30% would support a “no-deal” Brexit. This nearly 1 in 3 of respondents are still not considering the complexities (and costs) of what they are asking for.
Roy Mottram
Nearly 1 in 3 respondents being happy to crash out of the EU without a deal is an indictment of our press and politicians, yourself included. You have failed to highlight the lies that were told by the Leave campaign, pushing a (false) equivalence argument that “both sides lied” (without any evidence). Your latest newsletter does nothing to try to explain to that nearly 1 in 3 that the government “technical notices” are for real, and not just some extension of “Project Fear”. This government has had over two years to produce a realistic plan, and they have failed. There is now little “time & space” left – just what have they been doing? Perhaps their failure to produce a realistic plan is because as soon as it is written down it will be shown to deliver no benefits.
You say “This is neither the time for rushing around crying betrayal or for trying to frustrate the decision of the referendum.” I agree. It’s the time to finalise the Withdrawal Agreement, and produce as detailed a plan as possible for the future relationship. Having done that, it will be the time to seek a mandate to continue with the process, because it’s clear that the 2016 referendum was unsafe and provides no such mandate.
Anybody who believes that a Peoples Vote would undermine the result of the 2016 referendum must also believe that leaving the EU is no longer “the will of the people”. For any government to continue on such a course, believing that the electorate did not wish it to do so, would surely be undemocratic.
As my MP, I would ask you to support any vote in Parliament that requires the Withdrawal Agreement and proposal for the future relationship with the EU to be put to a Peoples Vote for ratification. I note that there is the second reading of a private members bill to that effect on October 26, and I ask you to both contribute to the debate and vote for the bill.
Sincerely
Roy Motteram
Thame
(full address supplied)
A THAME anti-Brexit group member has challenged the town’s constituency Member of Parliament, John Howell, over an article he wrote for a local paper, in which the MP said that ‘Brexit isn’t high on his constituents’ list of issues,’ and his lack of engagement over the issue. In an open letter Robin Storey of People’s Vote Thame, writes:
Robin Storey of ‘Peoples Vote Thame’ and ‘Open Britain Thame’
Dear Editor, Sadly, John Howell MP couldn’t be more wrong to conclude that Brexit isn’t high on his constituents’ list of issues.
A policy of denial and a few ‘conversations in the street’ with a twitter message to tell us its happened, isn’t really what the constituency deserves.
Here are a few examples of issues Peoples Vote / Open Britain Thame has raised with John Howell MP, to set the record straight. These are real conversations around the constituency and at our many Peoples Vote street stalls – none of which he has attended.
JOBS. BMW Mini have warned publicly of the threat to their supply chain. In fact, they have hundreds of people in Munich working out what they will now do and where future production facilities may be located. That’s from a local conversation with constituents who work in Cowley.
Or a conversation on the platform at Haddenham; where commuters discuss each week’s financial job moves to Frankfurt, Switzerland or Luxembourg, taking with them key parts of our tax base and capability.
NHS. Thame has seen several leaflet campaigns for the Peoples Vote group, seeking a vote on the terms of the final Brexit deal, including one raising the issue of long-term NHS funding issues, if the economy and tax base does less well, as projected by the Treasury, outside of the EU single market and customs union, with less efficient trade arrangements than we currently have.
Already, constituents wonder why there is a cancer ward shut in the John Radcliffe Hospital – due to a lack of nurses. That’s a local conversation.
High tech business around Oxford wonders why they are losing highly qualified EU staff, who no longer feel welcome and why business has been advised to ‘seek advice from a customs agent’, as the Government seems unable to answer what will actually happen if they wish to export.
The local academic community is currently struggling with the loss of EU Horizon funding and a brain drain to other European destinations.
It’s going to be a bad deal, incompetently executed. Constituents wonder why the former Governor of the Bank of England has called preparations “incompetent” this week.
These are the sorts of issues we expect an MP to be engaging in.
John Howell MP
That’s why we’ve been calling on John Howell MP to support the Peoples Vote on the terms of the final Brexit deal. Then we might see concern for constituency, not party survival.
Robin Storey
People’s Vote Campaign
The Open Britain campaign Thame
DEAR EDITOR, The Liberal Democrats are desperate and are trying again (as in 2011) to peddle the untruth that Labour cannot win local elections in Thame. This statement appeared in their so-called annual report delivered to the people of Thame which looks to me like a thinly disguised election leaflet.
Why do they do this? Is it because they are intimidated by the passion and hard work of their fellow Town Councillor Mary Stiles? Or is it because they share the same memory loss of Nick Clegg in relation to his promises made about tuition fees?
In 1995 Labour took all four District Council seats and Mary was elected to serve another four years in 1999. Mary served on the Town Council for twelve years consecutively from 1991 and has now served for another four years. Her achievements in relation to serving the needs of young people are second to none and cannot be ignored, even if this is what the Liberal democrats would like to do. The untruth is so blatant it may be actionable.
The Labour Party is putting forward candidates (Mary Stiles, Tristram Maclean and Sam Juthani) to serve on the Town and District Councils and for the Henley Constituency. These candidates will listen to local people, tell the truth and seek to gain your trust by convincing you of what they have to offer the people of Thame.
Geoff Emerson
Chair – Thame Labour Party
Park Street
Thame
DEAR editor, I would like to express my thanks publicly to my Manager, Mark Green (Carnival Chairman), my staff and the small band of volunteers who helped to make this year?s Thame carnival another great success!
All the entrants in the parade looked amazing and there were broad smiles all around!
Despite popular belief, it is VOLUNTEERS who give up their spare time, often months and months before hand, to organize the many festivals and events that residents so enjoy (and come to expect) in our lovely town, not Thame Town Council although they do a great job facilitating the projects.
Thame Carnival committee, consisting of Mark, Jane, Stuart, Cassie and a few others, have spent countless hours trying to bring another great carnival to the streets of Thame and yes, things will not always go according to plan, like the lack of floats, classic cars overheating, the Great British whether and some very strange decisions by the carnival judges, but the VOLUNTEERS do their best for the good of our town.
Due to lack of support and some unkind comments on the day from some people who should know better, Mark has decided to step down from the committee after three productive years turning the carnival from a loss making event to an event that has raised thousands of pounds for LOCAL good causes.
Once again I am sad that we have lost another hard working, enthusiastic Carnival Chairperson through lack of support and I really hope that next year those people who have expressed negative criticism about the carnival step up to the plate and get involved on the committee.
DEAR Editor, Further to all the correspondnce about the proposed housing on Elms Field (Ed. the Elms), I wonder how many people were puzzled by the accusation of NIMBYism in the circular that Cllr Nichola Dixon had distributed? This mailing was actually billed by MP printers to Cllr Dyer. A smaller, A5, circular was paid for by Cllr Dixon, though it was signed by Cllr Dyer. Strange machinations or just incompetence?
And people might like to be told (but don?t hold your breath) who did the distribution and by what incentive they were pursuaded to do so?
The fact is that everybody is a NIMBY, and there’s nothing wrong with that. This is just an accusatory word used any scheme?s promoters to shout down their opponents. In this case, it seems to me that the biggest NYMBY is Rectory Homes which is not planning to put its new houses behind The Elms, but behind neighbouring properties.
Besides, the petition against the development covered many more issues than simply the impact on the houses which overlook Elms field, as proved by the number of signatures.
There is absolutely no need and no benefit (except to Rectory Homes) in building on this traditional pasture, now nominated for inclusion in the Prince of Wales’ Coronation Meadows initiative and designated as an important open space by South Oxfordshire District Council. Some years ago, SODC took action to extend the Conservation Area to include both Elms Field and the adjoining Elms Park.
Although rectory have not allowed sheep farmers to use the pasture, the annual haymaking has just taken place, and long may that continue. Just bring back the sheep.
Town Councillors need to undo their error. It is very apparent how the situation came about and ‘a fall guy’, always needed in these situations, is available.
Readers can write to Councillors to express their disagreement with the plan to destroy valuable green space and they can remind all Councillors that they are there to represent their constituents.
A full list of Councillor email addresses will be provided to anyone who requests it by emailing: elmspetition@hotmail.co.uk
Support for the already submitted petition, by those asking for the addresses, will be taken as read.
DEAR Editor, We all know the on going ‘complaints’ between users of the Phoenix Trail. I didn’t really have any issues with other users until last weekend. I was walking down the trail with my young son having fun looking and exploring the reminders of the railway as we walked down. That was until my son was almost knocked clean on the floor by a cyclist speeding between me and my son – not the first time this as happened. Naturally my son was very upset and scared. The cyclist just shouted out: “Look where you’re going!” and sounded very angry as he shouted it.
I’m sorry but I don’t see why he was so angry – He didn’t slowed down, nor did he use a bell. It is very clearly marked on the information board that bells should be used by cylists. Half a foot closer and he would have struck my son down with great force. This sort of cyclist is very dangerous on a public footpath and God forbid I hope, that one of them ever hits anyone.
Please can cyclists slow down and use bells. Yes, I know it is only a small number of cyclists acting this way but it is happening too much. I now understand how a small number of dogs get in way of such cyclists.
I urge ALL users to keep the trail safe by following the basic sign posted rules. Maybe asking the Thame PCSO team to patrol the trail more, mainly to ask these dangerous cyclist to slow down, would help, but to also remind everyone to keep it safe for all users.
DEAR Editor, Here are some other defects in the Thame Plan which readers may like to consider. Green space on windfall sites? These latter were defined as unforeseeable opportunities to build the odd house in a large garden, conversion of houses into flats, and the building of houses on any brownfield sites that might become available (e.g. Lower school). The former two would certainly not create open space opportunities, so why mislead? And why does the plan talk about more open space on Lea Park. Have any of the Yes for Thame plan group been there and identified how to achieve the impossible?
Similarly with the promise of more rights of way. The council has no power to create them. South Oxfordshire District Council can require a right of way as part of a Section 106 agreement but this would apply only over land owned by the developer. Continuation of that right of way cannot be enforced over any neighbouring land unless in Council ownership.
Also why pretty maps of footpaths which help pedestrian movement? Look at the map in the plan brochure. The paths are what we call pavements and they mostly already exist. Guff, in other words.
Then, a word about affordable housing. Some Councillors and Planning Departments clearly fail to understand, or to admit publicly, that 40% affordable means, by definition, that 60% are unaffordable; made even more so by section 106 agreements that load costs onto a developer, often relating to money needed for something like a swimming pool, somewhere unrelated to the site concerned.
Now also, a new Capital Investment Levy (CIL) has been invented. More cost to be borne by the buyer of the unaffordable house. To make matters worse, the Thame ‘plan’ is full of even more charges blithely expected to be loaded on developers. The Yes for Thame group need to get real. The developer does not and cannot pay. These are all hidden taxes on people trying to buy a home.
If there is a requirement for rental homes below market rent level, then these should be financed from general taxation, council houses in other words, and not for sale.
Finally, for the moment, plan supporters have found favour with voters with the promise that the new houses will have large gardens and that there will be ‘huge’ open space. Don’t believe it. Land has a cost. That cost is spread over the houses built thereon. The larger the gardens and the greater the open space, the fewer the houses and thus the higher the cost that goes to each.
It’s simple arithmetic. As a guide, land will usually represent about 30% of the cost of a house but, if the ‘plan’ producers have found a way to acquire it below market value then please tell the the secret to the rest of the country.
The plan for Thame was been passed by a majority of voters on a 40% turnout but it is not a plan at all, thus these letters from the A better Plan for Thame Group.
There is more to come, but if our arguments cause anyone to feel that they were coerced or manipulated into saying Yes, why not email abetterplan@hotmail.co.uk with something to the effect that – ?I know the votes have been cast already but as someone who voted Yes, I would like to record that I feel this was probably an error.”
People who didn’t or weren’t able to vote originally might also now like to take a position on the issue but please identify whether emailing as a resident or friend of Thame.
DEAR Editor, It is stated in The Thame Neighbourhood Plan that there is a the need for a new site for the Fire Station. The plan offers nothing to resolve this, only the impractical suggestion that, if the Fire Station moves, the site can be used for shopping. This site is owned by the County Council, who also run the Fire Service, so the property produces no revenue. In that case, very possibly, the County would agree to donate the site for the community centre which people say they want. This of course only if a free or low rent site could be found for the Fire Station. Such a site exists. The ‘plan’ producers have failed to find it and plan for the resolution of, in this case, not one but two objectives.
The ‘plan’ fails to state specifically that no supermarket will be allowed outside the ring road although making much of wanting to encourage town-centre shopping. It suggests specifically that a pharmacy and shop selling white goods are possibilities. This ignores the fact that the town lost at least two pharmacies in recent years. Also, we now learn that Domesco is to close. We wonder what will fill their space? Another non-payer-of-business-rates charity shop? No ‘plan’ can resolve the problem of finding retail business opportunities. This can only be done by individual entrepreneurs.
Mention is made of encouraging residential use over shops. No ‘encouragement’ is needed. Landlords naturally seek to rent out all the space available, if practical. The problem is usually lack of separate entrances to upper floors and also, in some cases like jewellers, a security problem with letting out a floor over a shop.
Then there is the stated desire to attract one or more company HQs to Thame. No plan for how will this be achieved. There may be something that could help, but there is no evidence that the plan makers have considered it.
Are voters aware that the adoption of this ‘plan’, rushed through to be first in the south, actually gives no new powers to anybody. All it is, is guidance for SODC and that could have been given informally, while the ‘plan’ is reassessed and revised to include some specific action plans.
SODC policies exist and continue to be applied as appropriate to any planning application. It is sheer guff to list all those policies in the ‘plan’. And do not voters agree that it would have been best to remove conflicts? For example, having stated, many times, that more green space is required, how is it that the ‘plan’ actually removes some green space which has been defined (by SODC) as Important?
