Labour bluster over Medway LibDems

Some years ago I saw the last Deutsche wöchenschau, the Third Reich's newsreel dated March 1945. Whilst Messerschmitt fighters took off from waterlogged agricultural fields and streams of exhausted boys and old men in a mixture of uniforms marched past the camera the narrator pronounced ultimate victory would be theres. The Luftwaffe were blasting American planes from the air and the Russians were being turned back at the Oder. Whether the German people took anything from it is debatable but we know it was just noise.

Medway Labour have a lot riding on this election. The Coalition has not always been popular in low income areas where Tory led cuts have injured local services. The normally unassailable Medway Conservatives suddenly look vulnerable, especially as the locals are on the same day as the General election. These marginal seats could swing red again and I believe Gillingham & Rainham will.

Ever since tuition fees Medway Labour have been predicting the death of the Medway Libdems with an alarming frequency but I can assure you that there is still life in them. There are regular Focus deliveries, canvassing, street letters and campaigning just in a smaller area than Labour. Our membership is up and hardly flocking to Labour as they have suggested - I'm aware of only one in the last two years.

That is their weakness. They are pressing on all fronts to get the Tories out locally and in Westminster. Across Gillingham & Rainham, Rochester & Strood and Chatham & Aylesford. Even with Union funding their resources are not endless and they are stretching themselves thin. Although an all out offensive in Gillingham South may turn it red (I'll be moving) they will not get Watling ward. An all out offensive in Gillingham south would come at a cost of taking other fronts like Chatham & Aylesford where a strong MP might do enoug on personal performance over the popularity of Coalition policy.

The other problem Labour are facing is UKIP.

The common opinion is that UKIP are the bane electoral bane of the Tories but we've found that Labour are losing just as much support where as LibDem supporters are less likely to go Purple. Farrage is seen to be more in touch with the common person and their concerns rather than the Tory lite esq Milibamd led Labour. Seats in urban areas like Chatham central, Luton and Wayfield and even Gillingham North are fairly undecided and require shoring up before the election - further blunting their offensive capability. They also have to worry about their own seats from the weirdly popular Medway Tories. Rumour has it that Chris Irvine is on the offensive to take Labour's bulwark Cllr Murray's seat!

Labour, although set to gain ground along with UKIP who are becoming rapid favourites following unparalleled support across the estuary but it may be tempered and not the sure victory they are hoping and predicting. They'll also find the last bastions of LibDem seats a hard nut to crack and the red tide may be halted.

Let's just hope that come May I don't look like King Canute!!!

Gills Ladies - great game, great day out

I have been a fan of Gillingham Football club for as long as I remember. It wasn't until I was a student that I paid any real attention to their results and squad though and I took more of an interest in football in general.

I even started attending games when I could get up from Winchester to see them and visit my Granddad who lived nearby. I even travelled to Plymouth to watch Argyle beat us 2-1 in a stand full of Plymouth fans.

I've seen us win and lose, even going to Wembley for the Second Division playoff final (Which was the last game I went to see) and taking Sam to see her first game and my friend Caroline to see her home team Lincoln City vs. Gillingham (she wore her Lincoln shirt under a blue fleece but was still paranoid that the stewards and other Gills knew she wasn't "One of us"!!!)

I haven't been in quite some time though. I may live near enough on top of the ground but a combination of working two weekends in three, the fact that if I am off I have both of my children who... well I didn't think they would enjoy a game... and more importantly, it is bloody expensive for a day out when the park or swimming are so much more affordable.

This has never slowed my support though and I continue to watch them from afar. I also have kept an eye on the Ladies team.

There has always been a stigma attached to Women's teams and football. Lad culture always portrays it as half a sport or painfully amateur. Of course for those who have seen Women's games will know this is bollocks.

I first got into women's football watching the German Women's National team play on-line. I'd been meaning to go and see the Gills ladies play for some time but, like I said, taking my kids was always going to be a challenge, I can't get them to sit down long enough to eat their food or watch a movie let alone 90 minutes of game.

Last week I wandered into the Gills store on the off chance with the idea of buying my kids football shirts, whilst in the queue I was telling Sophie that Ollie was going to grow up playing professional football and would one day lift the World Cup so Daddy could retire. A very indignant Sophie announced that she would play football for Gillingham and win the World cup. Any way as a proud parent I duly posted this little story on Twitter and a picture of Sophie in her Pink Gills Shirt. Later that day we were invited to bring Sophie to watch one of the Lady's teams home games and for her to be a mascot!

Thankfully due to a paperwork error I found myself off this Sunday and the whole family went up to the Chatham town ground on Maidstone road to watch the Gills play Cardiff City in the league (they are placed first and third respectively!).

Despite the weather, which was attrocious, the game was fantastic and fast paced with Gillingham going up 2-0 by half time. Within five minutes of the Second half it was 3-1 and finished at 4-2 despite the torrential rain.

Sophie in the stands cheering on the Blues

I've watched a lot of football over the years of varying quality and I must say that this game ranks amongst the top games I've seen and hand over fist many times better than I've ever seen the Gillingham Men's team play. There was a lot of personal skill, team work, tactics and a will to win. Don't let the score line fool you, Cardiff were a determined opponent and didn't take stop trying to equalise and played some fantastic football as well.

The club were wonderful as well. Sophie was treated to a signed programme, a trip into the locker room to meet the team and manager, got a personal photo with her favourite player (Bonnie Long) and she even went to high-five the team as they ran onto the pitch for luck. We were also allowed into the club house to keep warm before and after the game as well which was most welcome! She had a great time and has announced that she does want to play for the team one day (fingers crossed!).

Getting to the ground is fairly easy, there is a car park, a 101 bus stop just outside and the train station is all of twenty minutes walk. Ticket prices are £3s (yes, £3!!!!) or £1.50 if you have a Medway City card and under 16s are free. Programs are £1 too. The cafe is small but inexpensive with Hot chocolate being £1, Chips £1.60, Burger or Hotdog about £2.50 but they do other beverages and food at similar prices right next to the pitch so that when you're queueing up you don't miss the game!

If you have never seen the Gills ladies play - you really have to! It is a great day out and both my kids had a fantastic time, Sophie was up in the stands cheering on the blues and shouting encouragement with her little lungs and the boy clapped and cheered everytime we did and Sam and I enjoyed a really cracking game!

They have two upcoming games that desperately need your support. The final of the Ryman Cup is being played at Chatham FC on 8th may at 7.45pm against Haverhill Rangers and the final League game is being played on the 18th May at home at 2pm against Coventry city which could be the title decider!

If you want to see a dynamic Gillingham team win a league with flare and skill then get up to Chatham on the 18th and watch the Ladies team, I certainly will be doing all I can to get there with the family to watch.
You can check out there website at: http://glfc2013.wordpress.com/

Tracey Crouch on the Mesothelioma Bill

I have written before on the problems of Asbestosis and Mesothelioma that has affected the people of Medway in particular Tracey Crouch's campaign and outspoken work on the subject.

These conditions cause severe health issues and death and Medway is one of the highest registered areas in the South behind Portsmouth and possibly Southampton (from memory - I can't find my original chart!!!). Statistics stated here show that an estimated 100,000 will die from Mesothelioma nation wide and 1.4% of all ship yard workers will contract the condition. Unknown amounts will suffer from Asbestosis.

The heavy industrial works at Chatham Dockyard and even in the Short Brother's factories building Stirling Bombers and Sunderland seaplanes meant that many of the Towns' residents who were employed at these facilities were exposed and in later life they are suffering from their employers not taking enough care. (Asbestosis was published in Medical journals in the early 1930s)

Tracey has been speaking out on this issue for sometime and rebelled over the legal aid bill and she has consistently fought for the rights of the sufferers, who have given so much to this country's war effort as well as peace time industry. On Monday she gave a speech on Mesothelioma Bill which, according to the post on Facebook says;

 This is a welcome piece of legislation that will compensate victims of this horrific and fatal disease caused only by exposure to asbestos, and one that sadly is prev...alent in the Medway Towns due to its heavy industry and shipbuilding legacy. The Bill makes it possible for sufferers who cannot trace their former employer or employer’s insurer to receive some form of payment, but there are a few shortcomings in the Bill that need to be addressed. Unfortunately I am not now on the Bill Committee but will do all I can to continue to fight for a fair outcome for victims.

I can only hope that this bill does go through relatively unmolested and that aid can be provided to those who have been exposed to this toxic substance and help those who have slipped through the holes and more importantly that money gets to those who deserve it and not soaked up by Lawyers and insurance companies.

Here's Tracey's speech (including the first question from Rochester & Strood's Mark Reckless MP) for the original link and the rest of the questions you can see it all on Hansard


Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con): It is a pleasure to speak on this issue, on which I have a great deal of knowledge from working in the insurance industry for five years before I became a Member of Parliament and from representing a constituency with very high levels of mesothelioma. Britain has the highest rate of mesothelioma in the world and sadly that rate is rising. In the past five years, the south-east of England has had the highest rates of deaths from mesothelioma compared with anywhere else in the UK. Medway, with its heavy industry and dockyard history, is a particular hot spot.
Mesothelioma is a horrific disease that is contracted exclusively by exposure to asbestos. Those who are diagnosed are often dead within a year. For many years, lawyers and insurers have taken their time to settle claims through civil procedures, leaving great financial uncertainty for sufferers and their families. A great deal has been done to speed up civil claims for victims and tribute ought to be paid to the work of Senior Master Whitaker for making that happen. However, there remains a small yet significant group of people who contracted mesothelioma but could not be compensated either because of poor record keeping by their employer or their employer’s insurer, or because neither existed any more.

The Bill will help to rectify that and is therefore welcome, but it still contains shortcomings that, if Ministers, insurers and lawyers were open-minded, could be rectified at little extra cost to them. Before going into detail, I congratulate Lord Freud on his sterling efforts to introduce the Bill. From my own experience of working in the insurance industry and alongside lawyers, I know that the negotiations would have been very difficult. He deserved the praise he received from peers on both sides of the House as the Bill progressed through the other place, but it still lacks fair compensation for victims of this dreadful disease.

In my preliminary discussions with interested parties, there was consensus on one point: the Bill will give sufferers something. That is true and something might be better than nothing, but the Bill puts the something squarely in the pockets of the insurers and lawyers, and not as much as there should be in the hands of the victim. The victim is the one who turned up to work and was exposed to asbestos. The victim is the one who happened to work for a company that kept shoddy records. The victim is the one who will die through no fault of his own. The Bill has room for improvement, based on further compromise.
Their lordships debated the Bill on a set of assumptions that have been revised since it has progressed to this place. The goalposts have moved. It is a shame that what should be a simple piece of legislation has become so mired in suspicion and confusion regarding what is and is not included in the levy. When the Bill was discussed in the Lords, Lord Freud made it clear that the levy could not be more than 3% gross written premium. That was to ensure that insurers financing the scheme would not incur additional costs that would be passed on to their existing customers. At that point, the levy agreed with the insurance industry was 75% and equated to, as illustrated in the Department for Work and Pensions’ own analysis in support of the Bill, 2.79% GWP in the first four years of the scheme and 2.27% GWP in the first 10 years of the scheme.
Since the debate in the Lords, the assumptions relating to legal costs have changed. Their lordships debated a fixed legal fee of £2,000, but we are now debating a fee of £7,000. In truth, there is total confusion about who will pay the fee. As the Association of British Insurers understands it, it will be paid by claimants out of their compensation which the Government will uplift accordingly.

Not only is it unclear what precisely the fee is for, but what the other 25% is paying to administer. It would be helpful if the Government clarified who pays the legal fees. Is it the claimants out of their compensation or the insurance companies out of the administration fee? If it is the claimants, we need to be absolutely clear that when they are awarded £57,000 of compensation, £7,000 of legal fees will have to be deducted from that award.

Lawyers, insurers and the Government are, unsurprisingly, at loggerheads on the fixed fee, presumably because if it is acceptable for this scheme, why could it not be applied to civil claims? Where would it fit into the LASPO review that the Ministry of Justice is expected to complete and report on next year? At the heart of the Bill is supposed to be the fact that the victim is coming into the scheme at last resort. A lot of what is required will have already been done, so lawyers in a civil claim might not be as necessary as they would be in this scheme. Senior Master Whitaker has helped a great deal and the Department is clear that in some circumstances a medical report would be enough. The underlying point, however, is that because of the revised estimates, about which I remain sceptical, there is no room to raise the compensation limit from 75% to 80%—a much fairer level of financial recompense for victims of the disease. In his introduction, the Minister said that 75% is not the important figure and that the 3% levy is. With the greatest respect to the Minister, it is the level of compensation that is important to the victim, not what the level of GWP is to the insurance industry.

Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con): My hon. Friend mentioned that Medway is a hot spot for the disease. There have been 42 deaths in my constituency in the past five years—a greater number even than in her constituency, and about three times the national average. She mentioned the 3% and 75% figures. Is it not the case that the changes to which she referred will affect the sums relating to the 3% cap? If that is so, will it not be open to Ministers to show some compromise or movement in the direction that she is so ably arguing for?

Tracey Crouch: My hon. Friend is right that our constituencies are particularly affected and I am delighted to see him in his place to debate this important issue. He makes an important point. The Government have set a cap of 3% and there is no room for manoeuvre unless they are willing to stand up to the insurance industry and say that there is a firm view on both sides of the House that the 75% they have currently negotiated is not good enough. They need to agree on another figure. I believe that 80% would be appropriate as a good compromise between the 90% being called for by the lawyers—they cite the financial services compensation scheme as a useful comparator—and the 70% the insurers were originally willing to accept. Furthermore, with the previous assumptions under which their lordships debated the Bill, 80% would have been 2.98% GWP over the first four years and 2.42% over 10 years. Now, with the 3% cap, under the new legal costs associated with the scheme, there is no room for manoeuvre. I find that disappointing, unless the Minister is willing to stand up to the insurance industry and discuss this.

Medway Council and unfair taxes

On the day the Liberal Democrats across the country are campaigning for fairer taxes we are faced with silly and unfair taxes here in Medway as this press release shows;

It was disappointing to learn from the Council, in response to my question last Thursday, that they are intent on pursuing a council tax policy which will result in an enormous waste of taxpayers money.  Charging council tax to the poorest in our community, and then pursuing those who cannot pay with the resultant magistrates court costs and officers time, may result in those who have low paid jobs, and stay put, being sent to prison, and those without jobs simply ‘disappearing’.


The Tories don’t seem to have learnt the lesson from the days of the iniquitous

 ‘Poll Tax’ when large numbers of ordinary citizens were sent to prison for short periods, thus gaining a criminal record, and councils still had the costs of trying to collect arrears which could paid off at the princely rate of 50p a week!


The councils own reports freely admit that the cost of collection will probably be more than the monies collected, so the council tax for the rest of us will have to increase to make up the deficit.  Mickey Mouse economics or what?  There are other options, such as raising tax on second homes and empty properties – this could not only increase revenue but bring back into use many of  the empty, neglected properties which blight our towns and deprive families of much needed homes.  Why can’t the council pursue this ‘win-win’ option rather than using time and resources to make the situation worse?

This was a matter raised at Full council the other week by Vivienne Parker of Rochester South and Horsted Liberal Democrats who posed a question on the night.

With the Cut from central government coming down to the local authorities many councils will have to look at raising the local taxes. According to a report in the Medway Messenger there could be as many as 14,000 households across the towns will have to cough up 25% of the new bill even though they were exempt due to low earnings in the past - 700 homes will have an extra £400 a year just to fill the void of the £4million hole.

I understand that the Council needs money but to strike the poor like this seems somewhat uncaring and ill thought out. Surely there must be another way?

Cllr Stamp (Ind) said For someone on a fixed low income it will just plunge them further into debt and they will have to make difficult decisions whether to buy food or put the heating on.

Made even more poignant when you realise the average reported (To the CAB) debt in the Medway towns is around £40k!!!!

It wouldn't seem so bad if the council weren't seen to be wasting money on vanity projects and overspends with poor planning - money just poured down the drain with the knowledge that there would come cuts one day from central government. It all seems very Victorian.

What did Conservative Councillor Jarrett portfolio holder for Finance have to say?

He began by blaming Labour's economic mess, which frankly is an over used argument considering the fact that this council has been wasteful and could have seen this cut on the horizon for years - I know I have and I'm just some bloke on the street!

Also the courts have the right to write off debts people can't pay for... Great! So we have to take people to court to find they can't pay and then let them off.
Let me get this straight... we spend money to get money out of people we already know don't have it and then write off the original debt... but still spending money on taking them to court... Brilliance!

To the concerns of rising poverty he said;
I do share some of the concerns but we are where we are. - Thanks Al.

Nick Clegg stands up for common sense for Chatham

Yes that's right.

Nick Clegg is fighting for common sense in Chatham and many places like it by standing against Boundary reforms.

How can Chatham railway station not be in Chatham & Aylesford constituency?

How can Luton & Wayfield, in the heartland of Chatham be part of Gillingham & Rainham?

These arbitrary moves have been carried out without many people being consulted based on current population size.

On the up side, it cuts some 60 odd MPs from Parliament and mean each MP is equal meaning in net terms each voter is now equal.

But the price is splitting up communities just to make up the numbers, it is like creative accountancy that by estimates will leave David Cameron's Conservatives twenty seats better off. How is that fair?

Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats have seen this arbitrary carve up and its effect on Communities and ---

Sorry as much as I want to continue in this vein I cannot. Although the arbitrary splitting of communities is an excellent argument against reform the main reason for Libdem opposition is in retaliation for the Tory rebellion against Lords reform.

OK, Lords reform doesn't seem like an essential reform but neither is boundary reform. Both are in the name of change, change that is supposed to make Britain fairer. Lords reform has and will be exceptionally important to us, it's something the Conservatives (and World War One) stopped us last time and now a handful of Tory rebels have blocked one of our key policies, one of the key agreements in the Coalition negotiations.

So maybe Clegg and the party are arguably being childish but they're also standing up for places like Chatham and surely that is worth at least a "thanks"?

Captured U-boat sails up the Medway?

U-570 as HMS Graph undergoing sea trials

I was reading on the Medway Memories website the other day about the possibility of a German U-boat being captured in August 1941 and being escorted by a Short Sunderland up the Medway to Chatham dockyard. This immediatly caught my attention and I went beavering away to Wikipedia and Uboat.net to look into the possibility and to follow up on the lead that the site gave me U-570.

Eureka, I have an answer.

The short answer to whether a captured German U-boat came up the Medway (namely U-570) is no.... The long answer is Yes she did....

Now bear with me on this one as I prepare to weave you a narrative about the ill fated U-570.

On April 15th 1941 the type VIIC U-boat U 570 was launched and commissioned at the Blohm and Voss ship yards in Hamburg where she immediatly began her shake down cruises and tests before reassignment to Norway where she took on her new crew and began training excercises with her inexperienced crew. She was then assigned to Trondheimsfjord and the Lofjord Naval base where she was part of the 3rd Flotilla.

Her Commanding officer Kapitanleutnant Hans-Jurgen Rahmlow was a seasoned naval officer with a history of commanding Coastal batteries and had only recently transferred to U-boats (although having briefly commanded the training vessel U-58), her First officer Bernhard Brandt had only been serving on U-boats for a few months, the Second watch officer had only just been commissioned and most of the crew were new recruits. The only man onboard who really had any experience was the Chief Engineer and three of the Petty officers!

German Naval intelligence picked up a sypher that there was a large convoy of Allied vessels passing to the South of Iceland and the Third Flotilla were assigned to attack them. U-570 slipped out of base on 24th August with orders to patrol the area South of Iceland before turning towards La Pallice base in France with provision for four weeks.

By the 27th August, her Captain ordered her to surface to give the crew some restbite as many were suffering from accute seasickness and a couple had become incapacitated. They were immediatly picked up on radar by an RAF Hudson of 269 sqdn flown by Sqdn ldr Thompson. Rahmlow heard the approaching bomber from the observation deck and immediatly orderred a crash dive. It was too late as four depth charges were quickly dropped and one exploded a mere ten yards from the U-boat.
The resulting explosion nearly rolled the vessel, shattered her instruments, she lost all power and sprang several leaks. The smell that was generated made the inexperienced crew think that water was getting on the batteries and filling the hull with noxious Chlorine gas. The order was given to surface and ten crew raced onto the deck, under machine gun fire, unable to man the Flak guns because of the rough seas they quickly hoisted the white flag of surrender.

The officers quickly reported what had happened to Navy command and calmly destroyed their radio equipment and code books. Donitz orderred U-82 to the area to assist but was kept at bay by Allied air patrols.

The crew were kept onboard, save for the wounded (from the first attack and the subsequent attacks mistakenly made by the Royal Navy warning shots and an aircraft of 330 sqdn) so that the Germans wouldn't sink her on purpose. She was taken to Iceland and beached.

By the 31st August Lieutenant Colvin RN and his team of engineers had restored power and bouyancy and the boat was sailed to Hvalfjorour where she spent three weeks under repair. It was discovered that the damage was not critical and that a more experienced crew would have been able to repair the damage and evade the attack - further compounded by the fact that the Hudson bomber had used all its depth charges in the attack and so would have lost the U-boat had she stayed submerged.

Along with her escorts HMS Saladin and HMS Kingston Agate sailed for Barrow-Foreness and arrived on the 3rd October 1941. There she was renamed and ceased to be U-570. She was rechristened HMS Graph.

HMS Graph went under extensive tests in Scotland to test her capabilities and also for training for boarding crews so that they could become acclimatised to finding their way around U-boats looking for enigma machines and reversing any scuttling damage.

On 25th April 1942 she sailed South to Portsmouth before departing for Sheerness. Then from there she sailed up the River Medway. Whether she sailed under the escort of a Sunderland or other aircraft for her own protection in case any errant gunner feared a U-boat was repeating Prien's attack on Scappa flow, is open to conjecture.

She finished her refit in Chatham on 14th August 1942 and is taken over by Lieutenant Marriot RN before sailing for Sheerness, Portsmouth (under escort of HMS Vesper) and on to Holy loch for training.

On 8th October 1942 she left Holy loch for her first war patrol to the bay of Biscay and on 21st she sighted the German U-boat U-333 and fired four torpedoes. Four explosions were heard and "breaking up noises"
According to the U-333's log she didn't even see Graph only a torpedo track go past her and she dived to avoid any further attack but remained unscathed.

Graph's other two patrols were fairly uneventful, though she was ordered on 29th November to intercept the Italian blockade runner Cortellazzo along with HMS Sealion and HMS Clyde and all three failed to sight her. On her final patrol she fired at a German destroyer and explosions were heard. This destroyer was part of the escort of the Cruisers Hipper and Lutzow however none of the vessels were sunk by Graph, and I've not so far been able to see if they were damaged.

After her final patrol she returned to Scotland. She sailed south once more to Chatham and arrived on 13th June 1943 before finally being handed over to Dockyard control on 21st June and used for training duties.

Sadly, with a lack of parts available (seeing as they were produced in Germany), the short life of the engines and the need to replace the batteries annually the Graph was no longer sustainable and in 1944 she was used for target practise and for tests to see what damage depth charges do, having survived all of this she was assigned for breaking up, towed by HMS Allegiance to Clyde for breaking up. The tow rope broke and the vessel beached near Coul Point. She has been partially scrapped in 1947 but parts were still visible in 1977 at low tide.

Thus ends the tale of HMS Graph/ U-570 and here brief tour up the Medway.

There is, however one last footnote that, personally I find interesting so will bore you all with now. After her capture Officers was taken to Grizedale Hall, a POW camp for German U-boat officers, where they were put on trial in an Honour court by the senior Germans present, including Otto Kretschnerr the U-boat ace. They were charged with cowardice in the face of the enemy and Rahmlow (en absentia) and Berndt were found guilty of cowardice. On the 18th October 1941 Berndt escaped the camp and was supposedly making his way towards Barrow (22 miles away) to destroy U-570 to redeem himself. He was caught by the Homeguard but refused to be taken, even ignoring warning shots and was unfortunately shot dead.
The British then put Rahmlow into a camp with Airmen and Soldiers for his own protection.

Thieves strike Naval memorial.

It is one of the most striking landmarks in the Medway towns resting on the top of the Great lines visible from as far away as Strood and Rochester. The Navy memorial commemorates the fallen sailors of Chatham based warships and the towns lost sons, husbands and fathers who gave their lives at sea for Britain and her Empire. There is even a plaque on the tragic loss of the crew of HMS Bulwark killed in an accident off the isle of Sheppy.

There are 1800 names on the memorial and it is the only place that most of these men are to be remembered.

Then just over a week ago thieves struck and stole the Copper and Lead from the roof of one of the covered annexes. Metal theft is on the rise and is a quick way to make money. Old memorials, churches and even the signalling cables outside London Bridge have been attacked!
The Government is clamping down upon this to make sure that metal dealers are only buying legitimate metal but it is a long road and there will always be those who are more than happy to turn a blind eye to the source of their metal.

Although the Commonwealth Graves Commission has promised to repair the damage as a priority they shouldn't have to. After all this is a memorial to the fallen who gave their lives for this country. It is fundamentally wrong to steal from the dead or to vandalise graves but for me, personally,acts against war memorials and graves are far worse.

To fight and die for your country is one of the finest things a person can do. I know I sound like one of those old Kitchener-esq dinosaurs who holds firm to Dulce et decorum est but if you are willing to lay down your life for something you should be remembered. I wrote a while ago about the Death of history and how society is slowly forgetting what has happened as memories and generations fade. The First World war is almost a century ago now and the Second war is 70 years ago. Why should people care?

Because these men died to protect Democracy, our way of life, our nation, homes and families. A German occupation in World War Two would have been an ugly affair and many would have been killed in Nacht und Nabel decrees, anti-Semitic policy and even under the Military Government's reign for partisan activities. A First World War occupation would have been more lenient but still strict, as Grandson of Queen Victoria, Kaiser Wilhelm had a claim on the throne and could have easily taken over and drastically altered our nation even making German one of our national languages!

These men fell preserving our nation and society and now a handful of thieves have desecrated their only memorial, a truly terrible act.

 I would urge anyone who has any information about this case, however small to contact the Police on 101 quoting reference: 04-0094 or Crimestoppers on:  0800555111

These people need to be brought to justice for this heinous act of vandalism.

Crouch rebels over Legal aid but where is Reh?

A serious work related health problem that blights the country, especially the older generations is the Mesothelioma from exposure to Asbestos dust. Those of you, like me, who work in old buildings will know of the lengthy procedures to verify the presence of of the substance and then an even lengthier procedure to remove it by experts in protective clothing. Also, as I work in a Museum filled with World War Two equipment we have on site staff who specialise in safety checks.

Unfortunately the effect of Asbestos dust on workers was not known at the time and the substance was widely used everywhere including Gas Masks, insulation in Lancaster bombers and also more relevantly to Medway in the lining of ships engines, wrapping of pipes, wrapping turbine parts and engines. Indeed in the USA, especially in the Hampton Roads Mesothelioma and Asbestosis are incredibly virulent. It is estimated that out of the 4.3 million ship workers some 14 out of every 1000 died of Mesotelioma (it is estimated that 100,000 have or will die from Mesohelioma.) and an unknown amount of Asbestosis. This is despite the fact that the condition and the danger of Asbestos was first used in Medical journals in 1931 and the Asbestos Industry regulations coming into affect in March 1932.

So what has this got to do with Medway and her MPs? Well Chatham dockyards was a hub of activity until the 1980's and many Royal Navy vessels were built and refitted in the docks including the construction of two U-class Submarines (HMS Umpire and HMS Una) HMS Ajax, of River Plate fame, was refitted in 1940 as well as countless others. Exposure to Asbestos was unavoidable and as time has gone by victims have begun to appear.

It was reported in the Medway Messenger (30th March Victims' Court victory in fight for compensation) that the Supreme Court had granted a landmark victory that means that any Insurance company that insured you (the claimant) at the time of your exposure must pay out rather than wait for the symptoms to appear to be diagnosed.

At the time Tracey Crouch MP said; It has taken a long time coming, but it is obvious that compensation should be made when workers are exposed and not when they have been diagnosed. It is an illness which catches up quickly. The earlier compensation the better for financial peace of mind.

However Tracey has had to continue fighting the cause in Parliament and has rebelled against the Government's position on the Legal Aid bill. The bill, as I understand it, will block legal aid to those involved in civil cases, such as this but still allow those facing a criminal conviction legal aid. This would mean that sufferers of Asbestosis or Mesothelioma would have to fund the cases themselves and thus lose a majority of their compensation to lawyers.
Speaking in Parliament: Anecdotal evidence shows that sufferers often pass away long before their claim has been settled, leaving their grieving families to settle the claim. Sometimes, the stress of doing so is too much and the claim is no longer pursued.
I want to see meso victims receive a fair package of compensation and I am concerned that the Bill as drafted will cause a significant sum of the compensation package to be lost in success fees paid to lawyers.

This conditions can be localised to certain areas and unfortunately Medway is one of them because of the Docks. You would hope, considering the geography, that the other two MPs for Medway would also support Miss Crouch on this. Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) voted with the Government and Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) was absent. It is especially interesting considering the fact that a large body of Gillingham residents worked in the docks, as did those of Chatham and yet Mr Chishti failed to turn up. I can understand voting for the Government if that is where your convictions lie but to be absent on a debate that has implications to your constituents like this... I hope that he had a good reason.

We, as a nation, talk a lot about looking after our servicemen and women post war and the Veterans of the Second World War who fought for this country but those who worked for the Dockyards in a civilian capacity also did very essential war and military work. How can we let them down and leave their families without monetary compensation?

Councillor Jarrett's Waterloo

The Bus station is Jarrett's Waterloo

During last month's preamble and budget Statement Councillor Alan Jarrett, deputy leader of the Conservative group and the portfolio holder for Finance within the council stated that he was lied to about the costs involved in Medway's "Dynamic Water front Bus facility" by Medway Renaissance and that he was unaware, until it was too late, that the Council would have to pour more money into the project to complete it.

This move has been welcomed by some members of the Council who have said that it is about time that officers face the music as well as portfolio holders. The example of Cllr Wicks and the failed "Medway Test" fiasco in which he bore the brunt of the blame even though an equal if not greater share could have been passed down to his lead officer who had a significant part in the organising of the test.

However, for blame one must look to the top. After the fateful day in 1815, who was considered to have lost the Battle of Waterloo? Was it Marshall Ney for squandering the cavalry on a ridiculous charge against Maitland's infantry formations? Was it Marshall Grouchy for failing to march his 30,000 men to the sound of the guns and appearing on Wellington's flank? No... the blame fell squarely upon Napoleon Bonaparte himself and so must it fall upon Councillor Jarrett.

If he was not informed he is to blame for not finding out. He IS the head of finance in the council, should he not have taken a greater look, paid more of an interest in this project?
In fact, some of Medway Renaissance (which conveniently no longer exists) argued that he did know and was kept informed by regular meetings and emails.

I must apologise for this, regular readers will know that I normally site my sources of information but this time I am forced to use an anonymous source and ask my readers to trust me on the reliability of it. I cannot name my source but I trust them implicitly and they have no reason to lie so please - trust me as I trust them.

I have been reliably informed by a source that those on the planning committee  for the Bus station (including Councillor Jarrett) were informed that the glass sections would go from floor to ceiling and that each enclosed passenger area would have automatic doors. They were also told that it was going to go over budget.

Indeed, Brian Weddell former head of Medway Renaissance has argued that Medway Renaissance did a lot of  good work and was monitored by elected members quite closely and indeed;

The Question is, against this background, why would anyone on the Medway Renaissance team lie? It is worth noting that the team was disbanded in March 2011. It seems odd that questions over the building programme have come to light one year later as the accounts should have been settled by the end of the summer 2011.
(sited in the Letters page from Medway Messenger 9-3-12)

This is a very good question. Councillor Jarrett has said that he is considering legal action against the group but it has taken a year for this to come to light - why not when the bus station so spectacularly failed to launch?

Other problems with his recent budget is the claims that they are having to deal with the cuts from central Government that have occurred over the past two years. My question is;

Why has the council not seen this coming? After all we knew in 2009 that there was going to be a financial storm approaching and that money was going to be short. This was confirmed when the Coalition was formed in May 2010 and the "No more Money" note was found.
Surely the time to start making savings and looking at the future was then.

No, Medway Council, like the proverbial cricket failed to put anything away for the winter and carried on spending money hand over fist and have suddenly found themselves without the money to maintain services as they should be. In fact, with poor planning they have cost the Medway tax payer more money with the cockups over photocopiers, Woodlands School rebuild, contested fines over the dubious practises of the CCTV car, the list goes on.

This lack of foresight has cost us, the Medway residents and we should see something for it.

Councillor Jarrett may have done a fantastic job in the past but he has failed spectacularly over the bus station, spending and forecasting and like Napoleon he should be forced to stand down.

First World War wrecks to be salvaged - disturbing graves

At 6.20 AM on the 21st of September 1914 Leutnant Weddigen of the Kaiser's Imperial Navy gave the order to fire the first torpedo from U-boat U9.

HMS Cressy

The torpedo struck HMS Aboukir and she came full stop and began her 35 minute futile struggle to stay afloat, the order was given to abandon ship as her sister ships HMS Cressy and HMS Hogue, the other two vessels in the patrol fleet, moved to assist and launched boats believing the flagship (under the command of Captain Drummond. Rear Admiral Christian who had commanded the flotilla had been force to take his flag ship HMS Euryalus back to Harwich to recoal).

At 6.55 Hogue was struck by a further two torpedoes and began to sink as well finally disappearing at 7.10am. U9 quickly submerged into the darkness but fired again at 7.20. The crew of Cressy spotted torpedo trails and the order "All ahead full!" was passed but to no avail. The blast from the torpedoes impact was so hard that it lifted her high enough in the water for a second torpedo to pass under her!
A third struck at 7.30 rupturing tanks in the boiler rooms and sending white hot steam out onto the men working in the engine rooms. She began to slide into the water before rolling onto her back where she remained for twenty minutes before slipping beneath the waves.

U9 post war in Dover

In under two hours the German Navy had cost the Royal Navy three Cruisers and 1397 officers and men with 837 saved by Dutch fishing vessels and Royal Navy destroyers who arrived late to the scene - more than the British losses at the battle of Trafalgar! Of those lost 85 were from the Medway Towns.

These vessels lay undisturbed for some forty years resting twenty two miles from the Dutch coast until Winston Churchill's Conservative government of 1954 sold the salvage rights to a German company however a Dutch company has now applied to search the wrecks for Copper, Bronze and other rare or precious metals and this has angered Naval Associations.

Mr Murray of the Chatham branch of the RNA has stated;

They are war graves and should remain so. They have been down there for damn near 100 years. Why do they want the scrap metal? Somebody's trying to make money. It is nothing to do with the families of the people who fought for their country.

Also, in October of last year Navy associations from Germany, France, Holland, Italy, Begium, Britain and Austria wrote to a national Newspaper to decry the salvage;
[We] suggest that no such desecration would take place in graves on land.
We urge that our sailors should be allowed to rest in peace.

I agree. I know that, by law, you can remove a grave stone from a church yard or Grave yard after 100 years as it is considered that no one in living memory is alive - though I am sure that with current life spans that can be contested, and I'm sure salvagers would argue that case now but it does not remove the fact that those hulks are in fact tombs.

As the Association states, should a German army grave be found deep in the woods of France, or a Spitfire found in a laying in a bay it would be left be, so why should the a sunken vessel be any different?

The same goes for the wrecks of Titanic and Lusitania. As interesting as the artifacts brought up by they should remain taking things from the "Debris field" that lies between the two halves of Titanic and leave the actual wreck alone.

When a vessel is lost at sea and the crew and passengers hit the water they are often sucked down by the vessel, die of exposure, drowning, injuries sustained or even to Shark attack well before recovery. In rare occasions there will be recovery operations for the dead but that is usually in peace time, the Navy cannot put other vessels into danger to collect the dead and know the dead who was ashore will be buried properly but to those that don't have no memorial to mark their loss except for the vessel itself.

When HMS Bulwark exploded (killing 736 officers and men) in Sheerness, 26th November 1914,some of her dead were buried in Woodlands Cemetery in Gillingham where vast lines of white graves marked HMS Bulwark and even sadly "Crewman unknown" HMS Bulwark, but the wreck remains untouched as it is a grave and is protected by the "Protection of Military remains act"

Unfortunatly Cressy, Hogue and Aboukir are out of British controlled waters and have already had salvage carried out upon them so are exempt from the act.

The disturbance of these vessels is a violation of the last resting place and memorial to those 1400 odd men who died early one September morning and are all but forgotten. They should be allowed to continue to rest in peace.


Sources:

Salvage firm urged to leave Sailors' war graves alone Medway Messenger, 2nd December 2011, A McGuinness

Wikipedia entries for HMS Cressy, Hogue, Aboukir, Bulwark and Protection of Military remains act.

Response to criticism to Lib dem stance against City Status

At the end of January the Medway Liberal Democrats wrote to Nick Clegg regarding Medway Council’s application for City status – the Letter is (here) and the Press statement (here) and other articles on the subject (here)

Councillor Jarrett was quite scathing in Dan Bloom’s article that appeared in the Medway Messenger stating the following;

Cllr. Alan Jarrett (Con) said there was support from most parties and residents claiming, the letter was by “a couple of local activists” who “want to do Medway down.”

After reading the comments in the article, editorial comment and the odd letter in the KM’s letter page I decided to write a response to defend one of the accusations. Tony Jeacock, our Group Chair wrote to defend the accusation that this was a “couple of activists” two weeks prior to that and I've attached that after mine.

Just a quick note on the letter itself. Italicised text was edited out and Bold text was added or reworded text by the Messenger – I’ve left in the original text for comparison.

I am writing in response to Cllr Jarrett’s comments regarding the Liberal Democrat’s letter to Nick Clegg regarding City Status. (Article appeared 27^th January.) FOR MEDWAY

Councillor Jarrett says that the Liberal Democrats are “doing Medway down”  I can assure the Councillor that considering my family’s (edited to MY FAMILY HAS A STRONG) involvement with the towns; My great-great Grandfather is commemorated on the Boer War memorial, my Grandfather built defences here and my Great Uncle worked in the dockyards. I am proud to be from Gillingham and the thought of “doing Medway down” has never entered my mind.

Unlike Councillor Brake’s account, times have changed and in this time of austerity and cuts, including the possibility of Care homes and other front line services facing severe cuts, how can we justify the cost for “potential gains”?

The brass tacks of the matter is that the Council will lose it’s Central Government grant for 2013/4, Council tax may have to rise and there will be a deficit and shortfall resulting in service cuts and pay freezes but they will need to pay out hefty sums for rebranding road signs, uniforms, stationary, this really can’t be another Council overspend.

As a father with a mortgage and Council tax to pay I’d like “Value for my money”. When I see services being cut and my taxes going up and money being wasted I, and many residents don’t see it.  Local Government must do what they have to do before they can do what they want to do and City status is a want rather than a have when spending from the Public purse.

Edited to Read as:

As a father with a mortgage and Council tax to pay, I’d like value for my money. Local councils must do what they have to do before they can do what  they want to do and City status is a want rather than a must-have when spending from the public purse.

(I should state that the letter was not written with the knowledge of the Executive Committee, neither was this article so all criticism should be directed to me alone.)

Tony's response;

Councillor Jarrett, in his response to the Lib Dems opposition to the city-status bid, couldn’t be further from the truth when he suggests the letter was by “a couple of local activists” who “want to do Medway down”. On the contrary, we hold the people of the Medway Towns very much at heart. The decision to take such a stance and submit the said letter to the DPM was as a result of a democratic vote taken by the whole of the Medway Lib Dem executive committee and ordinary voting members in attendance, which whilst not unanimous was nonetheless decisive.

Councillor Jarrett says we have no evidence to support our claims. The fact is, the issue of city-status featured prominently in our local government election campaign on the doorstep last May, further evidenced within our campaign literature. On the doorstep in each of the wards in which we campaigned, we found lamentably little support at all for city status and such that we did find was rather less than robust. The negatives far outweighed the positives, but an even greater majority expressed their total disinterest, which is hardly an endorsement for the local council to proceed when there are far more urgent needs to address.

And where is the evidence that the Tory council secured an overwhelming level of support from the local populace for city status? I would suggest they have become blinded by their own propaganda.

Finally, as a group, we have not said that we should not ever again consider city-status in some form. We simply do not believe it to be appropriate at this time when there are far more important issues at stake, such as saving our residential care homes and day centres caring for our elderly who are no longer able to safely look after themselves, instead of selling them off to the private sector where their future cannot be assured. To refer to our democratically elected course of action as “cynical” is a bit rich coming from a group that goes through the motions of conducting a so-called “consultation” on the proposed closure or sell-off of these establishments, knowing full-well in advance that their decision has already been established.

Tony Jeacock (Chairman) Medway Liberal Democrats

Dear Nick... Letter of protest over Medway City status bid

RE Request to reject the City Status bid by the Medway Towns.

                                                                                                                        17^th January 2012

Dear Deputy Prime Minister,

We write to you in your capacity as final arbiter regarding the City-status bids to plead the case for not granting Medway City Status. The reasons for this are three-fold: 

Firstly, the cost: Medway Council has played down the cost saying it will only cost 8 pence per resident. We do not believe this is a fair reflection of the cost when considering changes to signage alone, in all its forms and applications, which would be numerous. This comes at a time when the Council is trying to save £15m by 2015, having already overspent by £2m on the unpopular new Bus station’s original budget and wasted a further £2.3m as a result of other examples of poor planning.

Additionally, with the Council’s proposed selling off and closure of day care centres for the elderly, along with residential care homes; making redundancies; cutting other services, we believe that the City-Status bid is another unnecessary burden for the Medway Town’s council-tax-payer.

Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that City Status would be of any benefit to the towns. We understand that Brighton and Hove believe the only thing that city status brought them was a great deal of debt. We are concerned that city status would only add to the financial squeeze in Medway with no benefits. The Medway towns already has great potential with plenty of space for new business; a large work force; good transport connections to London, the rest of the country and Europe. City Status will not change that.

Thirdly, this is not something the people of the Medway Towns want or even care about, not that Medway Council would know, as the consultation process has been woeful. Our activists reported that on the doorstep, very few people expressed support; many more expressed their rejection, but most were apathetic towards the whole concept.

The Leader of the Council, Rodney Chambers OBE, admitted after the second failed attempt, a third bid would not be in the best interests of the Conservative group or the people  of the Medway Towns, yet here they are doing it all again.

Each one of the Medway Towns has a rich heritage of its’ own and historically, they have achieved much by themselves. Labelling the towns as one, i.e. the City of Medway, will see each town slowly lose its' individuality. They each have their own cultures, their own communities and a City of Medway would be an artificial construct. Most residents are proud that they live in Gillingham, Rainham, Chatham, Rochester or Strood…. we all live in the unitary authority of Medway Council, but none would say they live in Medway.

The whole bid for City status for the Medway towns is undemocratic, unwanted and unaffordable. Please consider our petition accordingly.

Yours faithfully,          

Chris Sams (Secretary)

Tony Jeacock (Chairman)

(On behalf of the Medway LibDems Executive Committee)

Medway LibDems Fight City Status (press release)

The Medway Liberal Democrats have written to the Deputy Prime Minister, the final arbiter in the decision of which town will gain City status, asking him to ignore and deny a bid for "The city of Medway"

The Council has forged ahead with the wasteful third attempt without the backing of the people of Medway. In fact we've found that on the door step the majority of people didn't know or care about the bid, which suggests yet again the Council is not carrying out the will of the people?

City Status will be a lot more expensive than the 8p per resident that the Conservatives are predicting. The entirety of the Medway Towns will need re-branding including road signs, Civic vehicles, Civic buildings, stationary, uniforms, publicity - the list is endless! Just like the Bus Station, you the tax payer will pick up the tab for something you don't really want so that the Councilors can call themselves "City Councilors" which is the only guaranteed outcome. We do not believe you should have your public services cut so they can afford City Status?

The Medway towns have their own individual identities and cultures and they will be lost in a city with time. Unlike other towns that are applying the Medway Towns is a conurbation of separate towns forced together under the Unitary-authority. Rochester has its Medieval Castle and Cathedral as well as its Dickensian heritage, Chatham has its' Dockyard, Gillingham has been home to the Royal Engineers for over a century, Rainham has one of the busy Commuter hub. In a City of Medway the names and individuality will be lost. How long before Gillingham FC becomes Medway City FC?

The Conservatives and Labour haven't listened to you before and they are still not listening. We've listened but they have ignored us too so we've taken this step to represent you and the Town's best interests.

High Streets lose £200 Million this year

Chatham High Street

As people charge to do battle in our town centres this time of year and manners and courtesy are forgotten in a frenzy of last minute shopping, £200 Million business will be lost nationwide from town centres.

This isn't directly due to the deficit and crunch times and people not spending money - it's people like me who have taken their money to the Internet.

As I have mentioned in previous blog posts I cannot abide shopping - except for book shopping which up until I got a kindle for my birthday, was a major vice. I can't resist the pull of a book shop, the feel or smell of a new book that - any way moving away from that...
I don't like fighting through crowds and being jostled. I've made two trips to Chatham and that was more than enough for me.

Clearly others feel the same way and been estimated, according to the Metro, £200 Million has been sent on line with companies such as Amazon offering up to 70% off!
Not only is the Internet quick, quiet it's incredibly cheap and gets delivered to my door!
There's also the added bonus of not having to use public transport and car parking, in themselves painfully expensive and awkward. I hear nothing but bad things from drivers trying to navigate or park in Chatham. I must report that I used the Dynamic Waterfront Bus Facility yesterday for the first time and was fairly non-plussed but can see what people mean by walls ending short of the ceiling and it being exposed to the elements.

Internet companies can afford massive deals because they don't have the overheads that shop keepers have. A warehouse with a massive stock can be run with limited power, few staff and postage is paid by you. A shop holder has to buy stock, pay utilities, rents and taxes and live on the profits.

So what does this loss for the High Streets mean?

Well the bad thing is for small businesses who aren't part of a chain and cannot set up an Internet company. They tend to make money from overflow and people drifting in looking for bargains but if people aren't in the streets spending money they won't get any business.


Some of the models that I've painted



No where makes this more apparent than the Trafalgar Centre at the far end of the High Street. My favourite shop Maynes has closed down so now I have to go to Maidstone or Bluewater to get my Games Workshop fix. The rest of the centre is devoid of other shops, short of a newsagent, Tattoo parlour, Medway financing, a couple of random units and an Airfix model shop. The rest is a lifeless shell, even the toilets are out of order. It holds so much potential but there is nothing going on and no money coming in. The climate is not right for start up businesses and no one wants to risk their money, understandably.

The other people who make money from the Shopping season, food outlets, coffee shops, fast food eateries will also lose out on trade.

Is this a natural shift though? As I postulated before people don't have time, nor the desire to battle through towns to spend money when the with Amazon et. al. you can place your orders on your lunch hour at your desk rather than doing what I had to do on my Lunch hour- power walk from Lambeth to Westminster to get a Mug from the Parliamentary bookshop and then power back.

Needless to say though that Chatham High Street was rammed yesterday with a lot of Primark bags being carried and Debenams, Card Factory, MacDonald's, KFC, the Pentagon all very busy- even a queue to see Santa!

Medway Lib Dems AGM - Brighter things to come!

As the out going Chair of Sue Hannant summed up the last year the more I began toquestion the future our party in Medway, this was echoed by comments from Maureen Ruparel the out

going secretary;

We'd lost several Councillors, including Cathy Sutton and Stephen Kearney and the replacements for those who had stood down and we recorded the lowest votes in a long long time. In fact we had been set back to the 1980's!

In 2015 there would be no point in running an MP in the General election and that we would be lucky to hold on to the Council seats we already hold.

The future, it seems, looks bleak.

Then further bad news, we have 95 members and had lost 20% of our members from 2010 and little hope of attracting more.

So... should I pack up and leave? Is it worth even being an active member? If the Medway public are so unreceptive to the Liberal Democrats and the ideals of Liberalism then is it worth just closing down the association or joining with Chatham and Aylesford and fighting with them? (even though they are struggling even more!)

Indeed if you had sat there with me you may have felt the same as I, that the party would all, to the ruin of us all...

But Hope there remains, whilst company remains true.

Geoff Juby, leader of the Council group gave a very rousing speech about issues that faced the group in Council. Pointing out that there was only Dianne Smith, Shelia Kearney and himself were stretched ridiculously thin and couldn't be on every committee or fight every battle, nor be at the council's beck and call for emergency meetings. However there was scope for us, the party members, to get out there and campaign on their behalf be it on train fare rises, the shutting of Nelson Road care
home, cuts to public services etc...

Then came the election of the exec for next year.

Tony Jeacock was appointed as Chair, and this is something I am excited about. Tony has a lot of energy and enthusiasm, we have already spoken in the past and every time I have come away energised and enthusiastic about the party's role and the future.

Already we are talking about working with the grass roots, pushing people forward and campaigning on the doorsteps, finding out what vexes the people of Medway, becoming vocal about issues and not just leave the opposition to Labour. Indeed in Gillingham there is only a small Labour opposition, for the moment, and if we want to keep it that way we need to be the opposition to the Conservatives, we need to be on door steps providing the alternative and supporting our council team.

Within two days he has released an internal Memo for all of the local Lib Dems encouraging them to help the exec and Council teams to go forward and even to turn up at the Exec meetings as the more voices that are heard, the more ideas and possible directions can be taken.

Wednesday night felt like a pivotal occasion, I really felt that we were on the brink of a very exciting time.

Yes, the party is at a low.

Yes, recovery looks like a distant shot,

but it is possible!

When discussing one issue, a member urged us to do nothing rather than risk losing more votes and support and being eviscerated by the Tories in Council.

I responded; "As was stated earlier, when 2015 comes we're already damned... What have we got to lose in standing up for what we believe in and fighting?"

This is the shape of things to come I hope. We won't fade away, eclipsed by the inevitable Blue but continue to fight and be energized and I really believe that Tony, backed up by his new Exec team is the one to lead us to it. I, for my part as the new group Secretary, will do all that I can to assist in this.

It really feels like this could be the beginning of an amazing year where the foundations will truly be laid for greater electoral success.

An Appeal to Reason - No to City Status

Five towns, not One city.

Before I start this I should make clear that I am not writing this as a Liberal Democrat party member or on behalf of the party. I know as a group the Medway Lib Dems are opposed to city status but I have arrived at this position by myself and just happen to agree with them. I am instead writing this Appeal to Reason as a citizen of Gillingham who was born here, lived the first few years of my life here and the last four years, whose family lived here for at least a century, the Great grandson of Cpl G W Bone whose death is commemorated on the Boer war memorial in Brompton Barracks and Grandson of  (the then) Corp A J Pullen who helped build the defences in Chatham town centre and along the Great Lines in 1940-41 to stave off invasion.

I am writing to urge Medway Council to rethink their plans and bid for uniting the Medway towns into one Medway City.

The Medway towns, as I'm sure many know have long historic Individual identities and have slowly, since the Second World War, been pulled together until eventually formed a Unitary authority but maintained their individual names. This bid would see the last buttresses collapse and see their amalgamation and eventual disappearance.

The five towns have their own individual character, communities and up until the twentieth century boarders. With the growth of the towns the villages of Brompton, Luton, Horsted, Borstal, Wayfield, Hempstead... I could go on! These villages now exist as nothing more than names on a map if not borough's within the larger Chatham, Rainham and Gillingham areas. Is there not a danger that within fifty, sixty years the same would happen to the other Medway towns? How long before I'm supporting Medway City FC instead of Gillingham?

Any city that was created out of the towns would be an artificial construct like the formation of Great Britain from the four original states with their own separate identities and community and that has begun the slow unwind to separation. History shows us artificial unions cannot stay together.

Unlike other City contenders there is a NO campaign based on this. I cannot imagine the people of Reading saying;

"No thanks, we'd rather stay as a town."

I am saying; "No thanks I'd rather be a town rather than several towns masquerading as a city."

So what of Rochester? That was a city and that was OK.

Yes, it was part of the Medway towns, a cooperative group.

But the area is known as Medway anyway.

Yeah, but as a short name. I live in Gillingham, my Grandfather in Chatham, I have a friend who lives in Strood and ministers the Rochester baptist Church. Medway is the umbrella term, a shorthand if you will but we live in individual areas that should remain thus.

It is a glorious waste of money. Medway Council have to save £5 million over the next five years, they have overspent on their original budget for the new bus station, spent an extra 500k on a straight path into Medway park, other finances have been mismanaged and now they want to pay for the City of Medway?

I know we've been promised that it costs no more than 8p each but on a quick stats check;

Rochester pop. 27,000

Gillingham Pop. 99,773
Chatham pop. 70,540
Strood Pop.33,182
Rainham pop.6,394

= 236889 X 8 = 18,952.12 (on 2001's figures.)

This cannot be accurate. I've been through three Company rebrandings in my working life and all of them have vast amounts of hidden costs.

Uniforms, signs, advertisement, leaflets, maps, stationary, motifs, sponsorship etc all need replacing.
Sure some will continue to be used until they need replacement which is fine and relatively inexpensive.

BUT you can't tell me that the road signs, office stationary at Gunwharf and the Council's vehicles won't immediately get re branded? How many man hours will have to go into this? Time is money and wages for someone. Is this an expense that the people of Medway can afford to take on?

I'm all for the betterment of Medway which is why I would love see this money put into the regeneration of Chatham and Gillingham town centres and make them nicer than the current Eastern Bloc-esq ruins they seem to have become rather than pump the money into a massive White elephant. There have been No concrete bonuses for being a city. There is the promise of better business opportunities and investment but there is nothing yet on the books. Also why are these companies not already investing in the Medway Towns? What is truly in the name and is it not the same area? The only plus that I have seen so far is that Councillors will get to call themselves City councillors.

The people of the Medway towns haven't been consulted about this and I sincerely doubt they want it, or are even that bothered.

Yes I know there was a phone survey that spoke to all of 0.01%  of the Medway population (and only found 65% of them were in favour!) but what about the rest of us?
The people of the towns have followed blindly as the Council has taken us by the hand and led us or even dragged us into things we've not agreed to or wanted in the past, like the tunnel purchase, the Medway test, etc.. but now the people need to stand up and say "NO".

Of course if I am wrong and I am the minority I will shut up, stop my campaigning and sit silently in the corner keeping my opinions to myself and let the democracy rule as it should. But who knows if I am the minority?

I know referendum's are expensive, and although it is one option, a cheaper one would be a survey through the door or ask councillors to as their constituents at their surgeries over the upcoming months? That's almost free - a price Medway Council can afford!

So please consult the people and think long and hard about this! It is a big issue, something that needs addressing and local Conservative and Labour Groups to think about... Stop- Listen and think again.

As I said, if it is truly the will of the people then yeah I'll be quiet and go away but until the Council can turn around and demonstrate that I will continue to fight and kick up a stink about this.