Showing posts with label sociopathy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sociopathy. Show all posts

Thursday, 8 May 2014

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 6


Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 6



May 8  2014

On Day 6 of the Public Enquiry the cross examination of Dave Haskins, Project Director for NGT, continued apace with sessions of questioning from several private objectors as well as groups.  Cllr Barry Anderson (C. Adel), Dr John Dickinson and Emeritus Professor of Transport Studies, Peter Bonsall, Mr Haig, retired chartered engineer, and Chris Longley of the Federation of Small Businesses, and Dawn Carey Jones, Secretary of the A660 Joint Council.


 


While a wide variety of topics were covered throughout the day, the subject of the limited nature of the consultations that had taken place was a matter that was returned to by most of the questioners.  Chris Longley brought expertise from the Sheffield Supertram which challenged the position of Mr Haskins.  The subjects of prioritisation of trolleybuses over other traffic and the uncompetitive nature of this prioritisation were sore points of contention.


 


To follow all these in detail it is necessary to listen to the audio recordings which our team of objectors has been putting together and


which I am privileged to compile on my www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire   site.


 


Today’s recordings


 















 


A major feature of the Enquiry which is emerging is that the amount of questions is vast, and while the Inspector is quick to limit anyone who questioning is not focussed or if it is in danger of becoming repetitive, clearly the fact that an almost endless stream of new questions on each subject just keep emerging is of interest.  Mr Haskins seems to be another big picture man like Martin Farrington last week, as we have become accustomed to his stating that such and such a question would be able to be answered by another gentlemen who would come after him.  I heard someone joke that it would be fascinating to wait until the final day when all the questions which had been passed down the line would be answered by the last witness!


 


There seems a strong prospect that the Enquiry will run beyond the initially proposed 30 days over six weeks.  Mr Whitehead the Inspector hinted today in something he said about the matter that this was becoming a stronger possibility by the day.


 


Another matter relating to the administration of the Enquiry is something I am slightly speculative about, but which seems a reasonable ground for such speculation.  The Programme Officers have a little office just over the hallway in which they have computers, printers etc and an audio feed from the microphone system in the Enquiry room.  It may just have been rumour, but someone suggested to me that the Programme Officers were recording that audio feed.  I would be surprised if they were not, and in my view the Inspector would be unwise not to take the opportunity to do so for his own reference.  This is only right and proper and I believe he should do so. However the Council has done nothing to take advantage of this and request use of it for public information.  But now it is too late ~ it would be a loss of face for them to do it now, a repeat of the consultation responses release climb down which they had so strongly resisted. It would be a poisoned chalice for the Inspector to allow his own copy to be used as it might be interpreted either way ~ on the one hand he could be accused of favouring the objectors in assisting us with our request for official audio recordings, and on the other of deliberately trying to defuse the situation and getting the Council off the hook.


 


This should be dealt with cleanly and openly by the Council, but it is not, and probably will not, so we the people have to do their job as they are negligent of their duties of transparency to the citizens.


 


The entire Enquiry is a fascinating battle of wills and it is very interesting to rub shoulders with so many erudite and learned people.  We on the objector’s side are trying not to get over confident, but it is hard not to when the questions are so sharp and so many, and the answers all seem to be so evasive or complacent.  Mr Haskins seems to assume that we will all accept and bow to his expertise, but there are a host of experts who challenge his assessment of his own skills and his suggestion that some of these matters were simply not worth consulting about and that he was quite justified to go ahead with the trolleybus scheme rather than seeking a wider consensus on what might be acceptable to the citizens of Leeds.


 


These are just my own views.  I would urge anyone with any interest in the future of our beautiful city to spend some time listening to the audio recordings so as to be able to reach their own conclusions as to the pros and cons of the whole affair.

  




Saturday, 3 May 2014

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 4


Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 4


May 2  2014

 

Friday May 2 2014 was the last day of the first week of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry and the witness in the hot seat was Dave Haskins, Project Director for NGT.

 

The morning was spent with his own statement, followed by a cross examination from Neil Cameron QC for the Applicant (NGT).

 

Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry Day 4: May 2 2014 First Morning Session.

 

Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry Day 4: May 2 2014 Late Morning Session.

 

The cross examination from Objectors began after lunch with Gregory Jones QC for First West Yorkshire.

Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry Day 4: May 2 2014 Afternoon Session.

A major part of Mr Jones cross examination is focussing on the relation to the Supertram project which was cancelled some years ago.  My own memory of this is a bit hazy, so it is extremely helpful for me, and doubtless many of those following this enquiry, to have some very detailed examination of it.  (I  used to watch Look North in those days, and I really don’t recall much coverage if any of that very important matter other than someone occasionally sounding excited about it.)


A major fact which emerged was that the costs of Supertram were underpredicted by a massive 40% in the opinion of the then Secretary of State.  However Mr Haskins would not agree, even after being repeatedly asked the same question, that extreme caution had to be exercised in managing the predicted costs of such an infrastructure project and claimed that he believed that he had effectively done so.  He referred to a letter which his team had apparently written to the then Secretary of State in November 2005 contesting the suggestion that the costs had been underpredicted.  This assessment of underprediction was based on the bids that were made for the project, which were in the region of almost 40% higher than the cost claims made by the then promoters.  The letter in response to the Secretary of State has not been included in the evidence as yet, and will be produced later, probably when the questioning resumes on Wednesday 7th May.  There does not appear to have been a reply from the Secretary of State to Metro at the time.

This was quite a complex cross examination to follow and I was really glad of being able to listen back to my audio recording to be able to properly understand it in order to write this blog.  (It can be found from about five minutes onwards on the audio from the afternoon session linked above.)

Two matters from this immediately come to mind.  Firstly the obvious one that while Mr Haskins does at least appear to have some knowledge of the Supertram, unlike his boss Mr Farrington who had made no review of it, he seems complacently overconfident that he can bring this £250 million pound infrastructure project in on budget, and will not make a concession to humility and acknowledge that extreme caution must be applied on budgets of such an immense size.  (I’m looking into when this figure dates from, as it may be some years old.)

The second is that this is a debate which it seems Leeds City Council and Metro would rather was not made in public, since they have refused to put in place any audio or video recording or streaming facilities, despite that request being made by Cllr John Illingworth (Lab, Kirkstall), amongst others.

The BBC too have almost entirely ignored the Leeds Public Enquiry into the Transport and Works Act Order for the NGT Trolleybus.  Clearly the tragic incident which occurred at a Leeds College at the beginning of the week has had a lot to do with this.  While that is a major occurrence for the City, the trolleybus scheme is the largest potential infrastructure project since the late sixties and would have an immense impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

One can’t help being reminded of that assistant in the Labour Party who suggested in an email on September 11, 2001, that it might be a good day to bury some bad news

Even the Yorkshire Evening Post, which has given more coverage to this than the BBC, has not to our knowledge had a reporter down to the Enquiry.

When I began making recording of the Public Enquiry it was just as a kind of personal project, but it is now emerging as an important document which is in the public domain.  Council members may well have their own stealth recording going on as I have heard rumour that the project management team are taking a feed from the microphone system.  I don’t object to this for the management team, as it would primarily be for the Inspector’s use I should imagine, and I think it essential that he should have such a copy.  But there should be multiple sources, and one of those should be from the Council as the drivers for this exercise and responsible to the citizens of Leeds for openness of information.  I am most grateful to the Inspector, Mr Martin Whitehead for not standing in the way of objectors picking up this responsibility.

The cross examination continued in much detail, raising issues such as the massive overrun on the costs of Edinburgh tram and the Atkins report.  I am presently somewhat impressed by the encyclopaedic knowledge of the subject which Gregory Jones QC is demonstrating of the subject and his ability to take apart the pretensions of the NGT project.  I shall have to write a piece on the way the Enquiry is working at some point, as it is a fascinating experience to see such skill at work.

The Enquiry continues on Wed 7th May at 10am in the Regus Suite at Wellington Place in the city centre.

Thursday, 1 May 2014

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 3


Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 3

May 1  2014



On the third day of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry we found out more about Mr Martin Farrington’s value systems, and how little research he has put into the areas which would be affected by the proposed trolley system.  I would urge you to listen to some of the audio recordings of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry that I have been making with the assistance of the gentlemen of the North West Leeds Transport Forum.

Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry Day 3: May 1 2014 First Morning Session.

Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry Day 3: May 1 2014 Late Morning Session.

Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry Day 3: May 1 2014 Early Afternoon Session.

Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry Day 3: May 1 2014 Late Afternoon Session.

The most extraordinary moment of the day for me was when Mr Farrington said that he couldn’t bring the fields of Headingley Hill to his mind.  The largest and most complex green site that would be lost, of the entire route, and he can’t bring it into his mind.  As if it was some little detail that is beneath his consideration.  Well, he does see himself as a big  picture man, and he does like to delegate to his subordinates, like getting them to write parts of his statement, for instance.

Rather than detail a list of things that Mr Farrington doesn’t know or hasn’t looked into, I’d like to examine the psychology of someone who would promote a plan which involves destroying green areas of great character, in an area that he is forced to acknowledge is very short on green space, and not even be able to bring to mind the places which he intends to destroy.  This is arrogance and complacency of a fairly extreme kind.  It is fascinating to see the deadpan way in which he explains his beliefs that the local community has been weighed in the balance of his judgement and found wanting compared to the big businesses and shopping malls of the city centre which he seeks to promote. 

He was unmoved by the introduction of ideas by Chris Foren (Chair of the A660 Joint Council) in his cross examination about how there is an emerging view that in already developed countries such as the UK, further perpetual economic development beyond a certain level fails to serve the benefit of the people.  Indeed it is becoming clear to many that such over development serves only the limitless appetites of corporate expansion and domination of our culture.  Which, incidentally, many now recognise as being the source of the ecological catastrophe we are currently facing on out planet.

At its best, Utilitarianism devalues the individual human being in its insistence that the happiness of the greater number is the basis of good, and that therefore those who do not conform to this should be subject to the influence and domination of that great number.  But the present scenario goes well beyond even this travesty of ethics.  Entire communities and landscapes are to be engineered for the benefit of those who see themselves as the elites and worthy of directing the path of social development.

Just as Africa and the Middle East were carved up both before and after the Great War (WW I) by Whitehall mandarins with rulers on maps of places that they would never even consider visiting, we see our modern Leeds City Council mandarins such as Mr Farrington carving up the map of Leeds without any actual reference to the landscape or communities which have evolved there over centuries.  They are simply to be deleted and overwritten like some memory card whose files are no longer required.

I would suggest that this it is actually a pathological state of mind that the steersmen behind Leeds City Council are in and are attempting to inflict on its citizens.  They see themselves as knowing what is best for us and ignore the citizens responses as I discussed on the blog for the first day of the Enquiry.  It is quite fascinating to me to listen to how people like Farrington and Cllr Richard Lewis dismiss the opposition to the trolleybus by saying that they expect to only hear the activists and that really this is only a small part of the population.  The absurdity of this position is exposed by Chris Foren when he suggests that you can only count those who vote or express an opinion and that you cannot attribute anything to those who express none.  I have already discussed the immense obstacles, both practical and psychological, to be overcome in the process of negotiating the bureaucratic assault course of participating in the Public Enquiry on my blog for Day 1.

These people will do anything to ignore or deny the voices of those who speak against them.  And we must remember that Mr Farrington is an appointed civil servant, not an elected representative.  He is a servant of the city and its citizens, that is what the words ‘civil servant’ mean.  And yet he takes the view that he can exercise complete influence and domination of the citizenry without even knowing those parts of the city which he wants to change.  It is a form of sociopathy to have the desire and intention of doing things to people and the way they live their lives without any concern or feeling about how they would be affected by one’s actions.

Some may feel that I couch my analysis in strong terms ~ pathological states of mind, sociopathy and the like.  But what terms are available to us when these people seek to exercise a condition of complete influence or domination upon us? 

Such conditions can only be imposed through immoral disregard of human rights.  Fortunately there is still some backbone of liberty left in our nation and it has been heartwarming to meet others who are motivated to stand against this tyranny, and to hear the denunciations of this sham.  I am beginning to feel that the Public Enquiry may not only roundly see off this trolleybus nonsense (which as Cllr Richard Lewis said last year, is ‘more of a highways scheme than one of public transport’) but that in the process we may gain a closer awareness of the dark underbelly of Leeds City Council and the network of those who seem to have hijacked the administration of our beautiful city and have been steering it into troubled waters with their grandiose schemes and petty ambitions.

Please share the links to the recordings of the Public Enquiry with your friends on social media.  If you don’t have the time to follow the audios in full and you just want to hear one which will give you a good understanding of what is going on, listen to this, starting about eight or nine minutes in.  Gregory Jones QC working on Mr Farrington and exposing the whole nonsense as a house built on sand.  It’s also a jolly good laugh.  I posted it to a friend last night and said ‘If you start listening to this you won’t be able to stop until it’s over’ and he tried to listen to only ten minutes before going to bed, but he couldn’t tear himself away from it and listened to the whole thing just short of an hour and a half.  The session following is almost as good!