New Lewisham Council Forum

[mummycat]

j

[Wispy Wonder]

Unless I'm mistaken, you can only reply to their topics rather than post new ones. The site goes under the banner of 'Our Lewisham, our say' but is clearly our Lewisham, their say.

[Robin Orton]

I've just joined and posted some comments. The forum says it has a specific aim, which is to get our views on how the council should respond to the public expenditure crisis: what council services should be protected, which could be cut and what scope there is for voluntary activities to fill the gaps. Worth getting engaged with, I'd have thought.

[mummycat]

j

[bigbadwolf]

I can't see a forum that relies on its creator deciding on the topics of discussion taking off. Frankly, I think you're all wasting your time.

[admin]

I will take issue with you on that BBW. Blogs are essentially one person setting an agenda to which others are allowed to respond provided they stay within the OP's permitted views.

Yet some are remarkably successful. A good subject, a good audience and a deft management of the responses are sufficient. The real test for Lewisham is the amount of freedom they feel appropriate. It is easier for us community forum admins in that there is no one looking over our shoulders into what we ought and ought not to allow. And whether we are strict or relaxed admins we do get it wrong sometimes (or even a lot of times).

People can moan at me - and they do - but I can look into their concerns independently and try and make the best decision I can between conflicting ideas. But I would hate to be the admin of the Lewisham Forum. You have so many looking over your shoulder, some with executive power. Councillors of many hues, council officers (all of whom's jobs may depend on some of the issues involved) plus many council tax payers who think they have a vote on the political correctness of what appears.

That makes it difficult to focus on the one important objective. To make the forum a success. That's hard enough in itself. Compromise with what other people don't want to see and you are dead in the water. So best wishes to the new Forum, may it be a success and I, for one, will reserve any criticism for those that try and inhibit it ...

Admin

[bigbadwolf]

Blogs are essentially one person setting an agenda to which others are allowed to respond provided they stay within the OP's permitted views.

Yes, I know that. Aswell as anyone else who chooses to read a blog. They know before they even take an interest that although they can comment on the content, they're at the mercy of the author with regards to what they read. Perhaps Lewisham council should rename their "forum" and call it Lewisham councils' blog. Because esentially, that's what it is.

But don't get me wrong. I fully understand why Lewisham council have taken such precautionary measures. If it were a free-for-all whereby users could create their own topics of discussion, the site would no doubt be bogged down with complaints from anything to refused planning permission to the lack of available schools in the borough. Which would then take up all of Lewishams time addressing these complaints instead of pursuing the sites' original purpose: to promote and voice the good and productive policies the council have embarked upon.

I think what I'm trying to say, and what I'm sure yourself and Lewisham know, is that to run a successful, local message board the owner/admin must be impartial and not be under constant, official scrutiny. Aswell as being free - to a great extent - of operating under the ever present threat of litigation.

All in all, a borough wide message board is a fantastic idea. And one I'd be genuinely enthusiastic about taking part in. But in my opinion, for it to flourish, it shouldn't be run by the local authority.

[ALIB]

Hear, hear BBW. I think you have cracked it, in that someone independent should be operating it, if the comments were to have real validity.

I would like to ask Lewisham how much expenditure they wasted on producing the new Dog Regulations, issued last year ? Who enforces these Regulations ? How many dog owners have been fined/prosecuted ?
I doubt this will be a topic for discussion on Lewishams Forum

[bigbadwolf]

It's reassuring to see we're on the same page, ALIB.

I'd like to ask the council why they keep filling the preposterous position of the Young Mayor. Call me old fashioned but, for all its flaws, local decision making should be the realm of legally accountable adults. Not the kids who get picked last for the football team.

I also find it bizarre that these juvenile councillors and their 'cabinet' are allocated a £30,000 budget to spend on behalf of their peers. In my opinion, the whole scheme is a grossly negligent misallocation of funds that should be put to better use elsewhere. Fair enough, the amount pales in comparison to what developers pass in brown envolopes to nearby planning officers who are widely acknowledged to be about as bent as a nine bob note. But it's still a stupid, if well intended, policy.

So much so, that when I read an article about the pilot scheme in Lewisham Life several years back, I immediately envisaged myself hidden in a bush in Hilly Fields. Viewing the newly elected young mayor flanked by two plain clothed PCSO's addressing the plebs, through a telescopic sight attached to my air rifle. Ready to take out the jumped-up yougster. Day of The Jackal style. And upon the pellets impact hear s/he shriek:

'Ooow! That really hurt.'

'Ooow! Stop it. That really effin' hurts!'

Whilst his or her previously idle bodyguards jump into action, water pistols drawn, bleating into their radios:

'Chief! Mayor down. Mayor down!'

Chief: 'What's your status?'

'We're under fire. The Mayors been hit. Put us in touch with an appropriate adult!'

But I think Lewisham would be somewhat reluctant to allow that little pastiche onto their message/announcement board.

[LivesNearby]

At least they are using the free version of proboard although I wonder if they got written permission first

The Website, or any portion of the Website, may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, modified, sold, resold, distributed, visited, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without the express written consent of ProBoards

[Sydenham]

I don't see a problem here if they didn't get written consent as there's no "commercial purpose" going on - or am I missing something?

[mummycat]

..

[admin]

I think they need more traffic: http://oursay.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general

Admin

[bigbadwolf]

I think they need more imagination, scandal and intrigue.