Damaged trust and the art of justification
“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t trust you” (19th century philosopher).
It won’t be parties, decorating or even COVID rules that will do for the prime minister, but the lack of trust.
With parliament approaching 327 degrees C (the melting point of Teflon), the non-stick will likely be over soon.
In Viewpoint (December 2), Councillor Coppinger, following six months of silence from the Inspector and council, through a public consultation period, announced, not on the official public portal: “The inspector... has decided that the plan is sound.”
He was given, in May 21, without transparent justification, the sole responsibility to liaise with the inspector. Surely, we must trust his statement. There were 533 public representations in the last consultation, but no official questions or communications resulted – surely something must be wrong.
Others and I wrote immediately to the inspector asking for an explanation over her decision being leaked and indeed questioning Its integrity.
I messaged Mr Sharkey, the nonpolitically appointed CEO of RBWM.
He responded ‘it is more accurate to say that the plan has not, at this time, been found unsound’!
Imagine a judge pronouncing ‘you are presumed innocent until found guilty so you must be innocent’.
Cllr Coppinger attempted a wriggle in last week’s Viewpoint (December 9): 'part of the letter (December 2) could be misinterpreted. What I should have said is: The inspector has completed her examination”!
A case of beer for anyone who ‘misinterpreted’, ‘the plan is sound’ (no comments were made on other inaccuracies and scaremongering).
Why, I wonder, was he misleading?
The inspector?
Her assistant responded ‘the council ... have no indication of the plan’s soundness’.
Explanations and apology are in order, why not in the Maidenhead Advertiser, the new plan portal.
The positive news: I will have beer for Christmas.
When trust dies mistrust blossoms.
PAUL STRZELECKI Berries Road Cookham