Media release 18.1.2012


Two fantastic Council documents came out today.

The first one is an internal memo that appeared first on an anti-Laman St chop page on facebook.

You can read it here: Internal Memo about Mike Ellison’s report:

The second is on NCC’s wbsite and disagrees with a lot of the Laman St Tree preservation ideas:

Edit: NCC denies the allegations about how they handled the initial tree root radar report. On the home page close to the top are links to both the original report and the one that was released via FOI.

And here is a post I wrote at the time when I believed NCC when they told me they hadn’t received the radar report.

Cordingley memo sign of desperation and “flat-earth” Defensiveness, say Save Our Figs.

A memo released yesterday by a senior Newcastle Council Director in response to a report critical of the council’s assessment of the risk posed by the Laman St trees was a sure sign of desperation, and an excellent illustration of the council propaganda machine in action, according to Save Our Figs.

The memo, written by council’s Director Liveable City, Frank Cordingley and distributed to councillors, was responding to a report by UK arborist Mike Ellison commissioned by Save Our Figs.

“This memo is just the latest instalment in a stream of misleading and reflexively defensive memos from Mr Cordingley that illustrate how little capacity the council administration has to acknowledge that they may be mistaken about the risk posed by the Laman St trees, and how blinded some councillors have been by the propaganda from council officers,” SOF spokesperson, Ms Fee Mozeley said.

“Mr Cordingley’s response to the mounting body of expert evidence against the council’s case is reminiscent of the attempts by medieval flat-earthers to defend their position, as evidence that confirmed that the earth was round came flooding in.

“As a responsible organisation, Council cannot continue to ignore the evidence of external experts working independently of council that has comprehensively demolished the council’s case for removing the trees on the pretext that they are too risky.

“These external experts have contested or refuted the council’s arboricultural evidence and arguments, its risk assessments, and the research methodologies on which it relies on for its argument about the risk posed by the trees.

Whatever happened to true professionalism, where mistakes are admitted as new knowledge is uncovered.

“SOF will respond in more detail to the specific matters raised in Mr Cordingley’s memo in the next few days,” Ms Mozeley said. Home


Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: