|
Facts residents should hear [paper's title] I JUDGE from your report that the explanation given by the Council and the police for being unable to address a recent public meeting contains at least two telling discrepancies (Residents' fury after safety meeting snub', Times, February 8). Like other residents, I attended both public meetings in question. At the first meeting (organised by Elmwood neighbourhood watch on 28 Jan) representatives of the Council and the Met did indeed speak, but many residents were left exasperated after being prevented by the chair from speaking freely about the murder of Mr ap Rhys Pryce. Thus, this first meeting did not satisfy the stated aim of the second meeting, contrary to what the Council claims. Furthermore, Mr Fernandez (organiser of the second meeting on 3 Feb) announced his initiative from the floor of the first meeting and indicated his intention to have the Council and the Met police represented there. Is it not therefore surprising that, prior to their formal invitation, neither body could anticipate having to send somebody to that meeting for lack of notice? Is not the reality that Council representatives have put their perceived political advantage ahead of the genuine public interest by seeking to monopolise all initiative-taking on this issue? A recent piece of political literature from New Labour even made it sound like the ap Rhys Pryce charity fund was set up by themselves. Fortunately, I think residents will understand that the public interest is not best served by our Council staying away from a public meeting set up to discuss our legitimate concerns. Credit-seeking in politics, as in life, is so often inversely proportional to credit-worthiness. Shahrar Ali |
|
Letter published in |