Will Medway Tory councillor Alan ("we can call ourselves whatever we like") Jarrett's latest gaff cost council tax payers ££££££ ?

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) have recently ruled that Medway can't "call ourselves whatever we like" as Deputy Leader Alan Jarrett has stated in defence of his "City of Medway, rich heritage, great future" logo. If this WERE the case it could lead to all sorts of confusion - I could, for instance, call myself "Lord Blogger of Rochester", Mr Jarrett could call himself "The Royal Keeper of The Emporer's Invisible Clothes" or "Brad Pitt" - it would be mayhem!

The recent ruling by the ASA states: "The ad must not appear again in its current form".

Imagine then my surprise, whilst perusing pamphlets at the tourist centre in Rochester High street, to find the items shown below, flaunting the forbidden logo! I have suggested (also shown below) a means of complying with the ASA ruling at the cost of a couple of felt tips - no doubt this and the staff time involved could be taken from the Medway city bid budget! I have included this cunning design suggestion as I am sure that Medway Council (or even Mr "call ourselves whatever we like" Jarrett himself) will not want to incur the costs of pulping (or re-cycling?) the thousands of pamphlets and the re-design and re-printing required in these difficult times when cuts to council staff are being made.

I am currently searching for an equally brilliant and cost-effective solution to the ARRIVA bus and the VEIOLA dustcarts that are currently displaying the "misleading" logo.

Medway - City of Culture or City of Incompetence?

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/2010/december/17/regeneration.aspx

Medway Council destroy gardens without warning - more vandalism in your name!

This week the Medway towns lost another green space. These gardens, in front of Chatham Town Hall have just been bulldozed - anybody care?

Email your local councillor if you do. 

Medway borough council say "Medway has come a long way since the devastation caused by the closure of the naval dockyard in Chatham in the 1980s" - I wonder if they have included the devestation they have caused?

1. Loss of city status for Rochester Upon Medway through administrative error further compounded by an unsuccessful bid for city status some years later – now there is a third bid using the name “Medway” (nobody likes or wants this name and few outsiders know where it is!) putting paid to the proud names of Strood, Gillingham, Chatham, Rainham and all the outlying villages. Vandalism on a vast scale! Without adequate consultation!
2. Closure of the centuries-old Rochester Market to provide income generating car parking
3. CCTV Car(s)
4. Destruction of Aveling and Porter building to provide income generating car parking
5. Destruction of riverside wharves to provide thusfar non-existant development
6. Vandalism (tree felling etc) of The Paddock for "Dynamic" Bus Station
7. Vandalism of Riverside Gardens (tree felling etc) for "Dynamic" Bus Station
8. Vandalism of Great Lines (tree felling, destruction of wildlife habitat)
9. Changes to Black Lion Sports Centre (including renaming as Medway Park!)
10. Closure of college to sell off land opposite Rochester Airport for development
11. Relocation of Age Concern/Help the Aged from central Chatham to Hopewell Drive Business Estate, Luton
12. Failure to ensure the refurbishment of Pentagon toilets despite allegedly wasting £200,000 earmarked.
13. Selling off parts of Watts Meadow for development
14. Selling off Copperfield Green Space for development
15. Failing to provide public parking at Gun Wharf Council offices
16. Publishing and distributing "Medway Matters" (a blatant piece of propaganda) using our money
17. Failing to consult effectively and/or failing to listen to consultation on almost every issue
18. The "Elephant in The Room" preventing any regeneration of Chatham is THE PENTAGON - demolish it!
19. Merger of Chatham South School & Medway Community College to form the vast Chatham Academy
20. Proposed closure of St John's C of E Infants causing uncertainty and distress)
21. Proposed closure of Ridge Meadow Primary school

22.Axing of jobs - loss of park wardens at Maidstone Road Sports Ground the only sports ground in Chatham Central!

23. Loss of loos at Maidstone Rd Sports Ground - Council voted to demolish [ & have demolished them ] & will not be re-instating.

24. Queen St/Slicketts Hill car parks which are allegedly to be sold off & potentially developed into blocks of flats.

25, Failure years ago to back the campaigners to save the Theatre Royal in Chatham.

26. Allegedly selling off car park in King Street, Rochester for redevelopment.

I could go on but I am beginning to feel ill!

Please add your own favourites at will.

This is what happens when you don't consult your residents!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liSNLeWPcNg

City status - need I say more! - Memorandum from City of Rochester Society on Medway Council's proposal to apply for city status.

Memorandum from the City of Rochester Society on Medway Council's proposal to apply for city status

Background

Rochester's historic city status was allowed to lapse when Medway Unitary Authority was formed.Since this decision was discovered, the City of  Rochester Society has been investigating whether, and if so how,  city status  can be regained. Medway Council has also endeavoured  to reverse the decision made by its predecessors, making  approaches to central government's Constitution Unit, so far without success. Now, in anticipation that new cities may be created as part  of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations in 2012, Medway  Council has  announced its intention of making an application in  respect of the entire borough which, if successful, would become  the City of Medway. The Society's findings For centuries it was accepted that a town which was the seat of a bishopric, and so contained a cathedral, would have the status of  a city. This stemmed from the fact that the earliest bishoprics were settled upon the most important and well-established towns in the  kingdom, usually those of Roman or pre-Roman origin.There  are no records of city status having been formally bestowed upon  these towns at any time, though their status was accepted and  reaffirmed by Royal charters through the centuries. In the course  of a local government review in 1927 these towns, including  Rochester, were described as cities 'by ancient prescriptive right'. In addition to these historic cities, large new industrial towns  developed in the 19th century some of which sought, and were  granted, city status. Other towns became the seats of newly  created bishoprics and cathedrals were built (e.g. in Guildford  and Chelmsford) but as yet they do not have city status.  The automatic link between city and diocese was broken. Local government boundary changes in the 1970s created a  requirement to maintain the status for cities which were being  incorporated into the newly formed, larger districts. Initially  Rochester's status was upheld by 'Special Letters Patent'  granted by the Queen at the request of the outgoing city council.  When, in 1982, Medway Borough Council expressed an interest  in obtaining city status for itself, a compromise was reached  with a name change to Rochester upon Medway. A further  application was then made to the Queen and Rochester's  historic status was extended to the whole of the Borough.  However, when the unitary authority was formed in 1997   Rochester was not included in the title and no other action was taken - such as the appointment of charter trustees - to  uphold city status. City status is granted very sparingly and there are no hard and fast rules; applicants have to make the best case they can citing  the attributes of their particular town or, in some cases, group of towns (e.g. Stoke on Trent, a city of six towns). The one fact,  however, which does emerge is that city status has,to date,  only been granted in the name of established towns. Unless  there is a change of policy, it is unlikely that city status would be granted under a name otherwise borne only by a river and a recently created local government district, such as Medway.   It is also worth bearing in mind that the Yorkshire city generally  known as Hull has the formal title of the City of Kingston-upon-Hull.  This suggests that if a formal title of, say, Rochester upon  Medway, were adopted for the Authority itself - upon which an  application for city status could be based - there would be nothing to preclude the continued marketing/promotion of the area as  'Medway' in line with the Council's existing policy. The Society's recommendation The Society strongly recommends that in order to give an  application for city status the best  possible chance of success,  the Council considers altering the name of the  Unitary Authority to 'ROCHESTER UPON MEDWAY'.

City status for Medway Borough Council - Answers on a piece of bunting please!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/10499037.stm