{"id":877,"date":"2015-11-15T11:33:29","date_gmt":"2015-11-15T11:33:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/saveoursandwellcanadageese.org.uk\/?p=877"},"modified":"2016-08-19T09:25:48","modified_gmt":"2016-08-19T09:25:48","slug":"revealing-scrutiny","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/saveoursandwellcanadageese.org.uk\/?p=877","title":{"rendered":"Revealing “Scrutiny”"},"content":{"rendered":"

We have now posted the full and unedited filming of the Sandwell joint neighbourhoods\/health scrutiny meeting of 25\/2\/15 held at Sandwell council house. As we await whatever fate geese in the future face in Sandwell from what appears to be on the basis of a biased and flawed questionnaire which the council failed to advertise either publicly or on its own website, here is an opportunity to see how their woeful councillors deal with tackling the executives decision about another issue where they failed to consult on a change of policy.<\/p>\n

Bizarrely it appears that the scrutiny committee annual report for 2014-15 <\/a>appears to believe that it did “hold the executive to account in its annual report- which unfortunately shows up the committee for what it is- a head nod without any. Page 18 refers.<\/p>\n

\"scrut\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

On this point\u00a0 we would reiterate that Head of Neighbourhoods Adrian Scarrott at the time of this meeting was in full knowledge of John Satchwell and other parks and Countryside staff’s lies concerning the goose cull, but deliberately chose not to release the independent report to me until after the farce of the scrutiny meeting. Questions would have of course been asked if we had had this information, so it was deliberately withheld by this director.<\/p>\n

That he chose to allow\u00a0the unmasked\u00a0liar to provide commentary on Sandwell council’s actions is indeed a case of poor integrity on his part which reflects badly on his professional judgement. We have noted this to the Local Government Ombudsman in a wide ranging complaint.<\/p>\n

We have chronicled OUR CASE HERE.<\/a><\/p>\n

Analysis of the meeting and the council’s decision to take “NO ACTION” is given HERE.<\/a><\/p>\n

Just a few pointers to key questions\/ statements made in the youtube video.<\/p>\n

27.44<\/strong> Councillor Webb questions John Satchwell over any reported injuries suffered by members of the public concerning goose faeces in Sandwell.<\/p>\n

Councillor Webb: \u201cThank you Chair. Question to the officers- Have there been any reported injuries of members of the public slipping on this faecal matter?\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

John Satchwell : \u201cNOT THAT I AM AWARE OF.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

28.53<\/strong> question asked about any studies that SMBC have carried out regards laboratory evidence\/proof of pathogens on the two parks in question.<\/p>\n

IAN CARROLL: \u201cI would like to again stress, and I can\u2019t stress this fundamentally enough, this general licence was applied for by the council; only allows them to\u00a0 do this method \u201cto preserve public health and public safety\u201d. Any issues regarding unsightliness, nothing to do with\u00a0it whatsoever. Can I ask the officers, what laboratory evidence and analysis have Sandwell council undertaken of geese faeces on these two parks of pathogens present? Can you produce any factual evidence of pathogens in a laboratory report rather than just theoretical studies that you have found off the internet?\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

John Satchwell: \u201cTHE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION CHAIR IS \u201cNO\u201d.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

30.47<\/strong> question about biosecurity at\u00a0Forge Mill\u00a0farm where birds the council claim carry certain pathogens were introduced onto a site which breeds turkeys for public consumption which it sells as meat.<\/p>\n

Ian Carroll<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

“If you didn’t screen the birds for any of the public health risks that you state (the geese) are capable of carrying, why did you introduce them onto a farm where you are actually rearing turkeys for the table to be sold at Christmas? Isn’t that a public health risk, isn’t it a biodiversity risk, and isn’t it a bio-security risk?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

John Satchwell<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

“I would say no to that.”<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Ian Carroll<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

“Well you’ve identified all of these pathogens present, but you are introducing them onto a farm \u00a0by relocating them where there are birds present for the human table, I would have thought that that is defeating your own argument there because if they are not harmful, you haven’t undertaken any laboratory evidence that they are harmful so therefore there isn’t any harm is there; that you’ve taken these birds to “preserve public health and pubic safety”, yet you’ve taken them to a farm where you’re serving birds for the table, for the public to buy and that strikes me as rather odd.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

John Satchwell<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

“It is fair to say chair that the turkeys were bred in a controlled, a controlled, way that’s quite clear.”<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

WELL IS IT CLEAR?- DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE TURKEYS ARE BATTERY FARMED AND NOT FREE RANGE?<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n