Pages

Sunday, 5 January 2014

Correcting Inaccuracies Part 2

Back in December, I exposed the fib by SKIPP/Friends of Shoebury Common that I refused to attend a debate following questions posed to me by 'Dear Leader' Peter Lovett. Unfortunately, the 'Dear Leader' decided to repeat the same line in an article for the Oracle Newsletter.



Apart from the usual whinge about the lack of democracy when they do not get the answer, response or outcome they desired the article is so factually incorrect I would still be here in 2015 correcting it!

The striking aspect of the article for me is the blatant disregard for the protection of lives, homes and livelihoods which is what the improvement to the improvement of the flood defences at Shoebury Common is all about. There appears to be more concern for Beach Huts. This should not come as any real surprise as the default position of SKIPP/Friends of Shoebury Common is do nothing.

Yesterday afternoon at high tide, there was no storm surge, no extreme high winds yet waves were crashing up against the sea wall breaching existing flood defences.


How the 'Dear Leader' could still possibly believe that Shoebury Common will not flood with the current level of protection is beyond me.

11 comments:

Victoria Currell said...

I do not believe calling your local residents liars is the way I would expect a Councillor to approach a debate.

MLJ said...

The current level of protection has served very well for many years. On the other hand Gunners Park is well known for flooding (since there is a river running beneath it) yet many,many houses have been built on it and a school too ...on stilts! What by the way is the "Dear Leader" reference?

RFT said...

I have voted Conservative, nationally, all my life, but the sooner that you and your local Conservative colleagues are replaced by Independent councillors the better.

Mrs Aistin said...

Yes on this point you are correct it is totally beyond you! I would rather take a chance on mother nature than I would on you Councillor Cox as a representative of the town . Corruption abounds. The 'Dear Leader' as you so sarcastically put it, is worth a hundred of you Peter Lovett acts tirelessly and without any financial gain to himself to do what is right for the town. I am certain the same does not go for you Sir!!!!" disgusted at your latest rude and ridiculous blog.

BAZ said...

Just knew you wouldn't allow my comment too many home truths for you I am sure. You just do not have the b****s to allow others to see what a complete and utter waste of time you are as a Councillor for this ward. Man up take criticism, admit when you are wrong do what is right for the town and not yourself hang your head in shame for being such a coward.

BAZ said...

Still being a tricky character aren't you others will have no idea what my blog (10th January) was about unless you allow my original post regarding Peter Lovetts response to your vitriolic attack still ducking the issue as usual. Print Peter Lovetts comments and be open and honest for once Councillor Cox.

Cllr Tony Cox said...

BAZ, I didn't receive you comment on the 10th January. If you care to send it to me then I will happily publish it.

BAZ said...

Peter Lovett DID respond to this blog however you failed to publish his comments which is unfair as you have ridiculed this gentle man for trying to help his community and called him a liar which is untrue. It doesn't take a genius to attend the public meeting to assess the character of Peter Lovett and what he is trying to achieve tirelessly working for the good and you write the above hoping to discredit him and then do not have the courage of your convictions to print his response to it, and we all know he responded.

mick said...

A seawall should do its job without people knowing that it is there do its job 24/7.
What you and your council mates are building is a Berlin wall, so that you can tell everyone, Look what we have done and its doing its job and boy will we see it!

Please listen to the local people

Jack Reeves said...

They wont listen its a done deal behind closed doors. All that matters is the money the builder will pay the council for flood plain land, a flood plain should always remain thus if we have not learned this lesson of late we will never learn, but how can you sell a house that cannot be insured because it is built on a flood plain Oh yes welcome the Sea wall into the pot absolute misrepresentation of public money and a lot more dubious deals that's what it really amounts to.

BAZ said...

Seems to me you have again chosen to remove a constituents comment J Reeve, too close to the truth was it? Do you understand the word transparency of course not because you fear the truth.