From council
You wait a decade for statements“On Behalf of South Ayrshire Council”- and along come two in row!
I like this initiative. My only query is how much of SAC it’s actually“on behalf of”?
Will the Commander on Chief herself, Eileen Howat, take full responsibility for the contents of these statements?
My name is at the top of what I write. Whose name is at the top of“on behalf of”?
But even as early as the second missive in row from SAC – I can already see a pattern forming.
I publish my column - with what I think should be in it.
Then SAC come back with what they think should be in it.
And call them“facts”. Apparently, I“bypassed the fact that only two sites in Girvan can accommodate a 3G pitch”.
Conveniently, SAC bypass the fact that Victory Park is Common Good land and should never have been a“site”in the first place.
I have also“omitted the fact that the proposed site is water-logged”.
Conveniently, SAC omit the fact that it’s been water-logged for years through a lack of interest.
And here’s another wee‘fact’. SAC could build a smaller 7-a-side 3G pitch at Girvan Academy, install the field drain that Victory Park is crying out for ... and still have change out the £850,000 budget for a bag of wine gums at Alec Clark’s sweetie shop!
But it’s the hypocrisy in the final section about court costs that has a real stench.
SAC write:“It would be very unusual for a local authority to seek an award of expenses against private individuals.” But - it’s there - in black and white. It’s followed by“It was not anticipated in this case”.
Those weasel words are hardly a guarantee that the objectors would not have been hit with a bill for thousands of pounds.
The shocking bottom line here is that the objectors were forced to withdraw for fear of costs.
It’s a“fact”- no matter how SAC pretend otherwise.
SAC say“There has been no intimidation, oppression or bullying by the council”.
So, Ms Howat, what do YOU think made the objectors withdraw?
An answer to that one in next week’s “On behalf of”would be appreciated!