Council tax

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 16 Feb 23 1.32pm
Originally posted by cryrst Tbh you should re read your posts if you don’t know. The bit where you mention factors. This point happens to be one of them. Employing people to hit quotas regardless of whether they can do the job, then maybe not considering replacing them during the legal probationary period with some one who can do the job regardless of the minority/diversity etc mould. in plain English this is clearly a FACTOR, your word, which has put Croydon council where it is. Not the only one granted but spending your constituents money in a sensible way, whether on wages for useless employees or renaming streets should be at least a consideration. Does that join the dots for you ? Firstly I totally agree that there are multiple factors (or FACTORS?) rather than just one cause here so great. What needs a bit more qualification is how big a factor this is – you're suggesting its a 'big enough elephant' whatever that means. Significant contributing factor, let's say, in your opinion. Can you qualify that? Did you use to work there, reference a report... just helps tip it away from I think it's this and I hate diversity quotas therefore it is (personally not a massive fan of positive discrimination myself) into more credible territory. If there's evidence of this being the single most important criteria when hiring people within the council please do share. Because I'd be surprised, and I think this would break quite a few employment and discrimination laws. It would also be obviously disadvantaging managers hiring to the point where it would become silly. I would imagine there are diversity guidelines and quotas to aim for when hiring, but I'd be extremely surprised if those were 100% of the workforce and hire at all costs, regardless of ability. I do know that these quotas are there to try and counteract bias in the hiring process, but it's not a requirement to hire someone of a minority background if there are no good candidates for that role (I know a bit about HR and recruitment from experience). I would also be extremely surprised if said diversity guidelines have meant that everyone that is incompetent or underperforming in their roles at the council are doing so because of those guidelines. I'm pretty sure that non-diversity candidates are doing an excellent job of being rubbish at their jobs. In fact this is already proven out by the likes of Newman, Negrini etc. Plus, isn't Croydon one of the most ethnically diverse boroughs anyway? Would it not be the case that this is then reflected in the makeup of the council employees? Also the last bit about 'spending in a sensible way/wages for useless employees' etc. Agreed, but are you also trying to suggest diversity quotas are the only reason behind not spending money a sensible way? With a bit more qualification it could well be one of the factors, but it sure sounds like it's a lesser one and certainly not a 'big elephant'. Happy to read more factually referenced counter arguments to the contrary though. It almost sounds like ideological backdoor rightspeak polluting what could be a balanced debate by attempting to place more weighting on diversity being the major cause (and therefore by extension immigration, minorities etc.) But I'm probably wrong. Also a reminder, correlation does not imply causation. Just because someone who cold be considered to be from a minority background is s* at their job, it doesn't mean ALL people of similar backgrounds are. People are just s* at their jobs, regardless. But maybe that wouldn't fit neatly with the predetermined narrative? Edited by SW19 CPFC (16 Feb 2023 1.33pm) Edited by SW19 CPFC (16 Feb 2023 1.34pm) Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 16 Feb 23 1.32pm

Originally posted by cryrst

Tbh you should re read your posts if you don’t know. The bit where you mention factors. This point happens to be one of them. Employing people to hit quotas regardless of whether they can do the job, then maybe not considering replacing them during the legal probationary period with some one who can do the job regardless of the minority/diversity etc mould. in plain English this is clearly a FACTOR, your word, which has put Croydon council where it is. Not the only one granted but spending your constituents money in a sensible way, whether on wages for useless employees or renaming streets should be at least a consideration. Does that join the dots for you ?

Firstly I totally agree that there are multiple factors (or FACTORS?) rather than just one cause here so great.

What needs a bit more qualification is how big a factor this is – you're suggesting its a 'big enough elephant' whatever that means. Significant contributing factor, let's say, in your opinion.

Can you qualify that? Did you use to work there, reference a report... just helps tip it away from I think it's this and I hate diversity quotas therefore it is (personally not a massive fan of positive discrimination myself) into more credible territory.

If there's evidence of this being the single most important criteria when hiring people within the council please do share. Because I'd be surprised, and I think this would break quite a few employment and discrimination laws. It would also be obviously disadvantaging managers hiring to the point where it would become silly.

I would imagine there are diversity guidelines and quotas to aim for when hiring, but I'd be extremely surprised if those were 100% of the workforce and hire at all costs, regardless of ability. I do know that these quotas are there to try and counteract bias in the hiring process, but it's not a requirement to hire someone of a minority background if there are no good candidates for that role (I know a bit about HR and recruitment from experience).

I would also be extremely surprised if said diversity guidelines have meant that everyone that is incompetent or underperforming in their roles at the council are doing so because of those guidelines. I'm pretty sure that non-diversity candidates are doing an excellent job of being rubbish at their jobs. In fact this is already proven out by the likes of Newman, Negrini etc. Plus, isn't Croydon one of the most ethnically diverse boroughs anyway? Would it not be the case that this is then reflected in the makeup of the council employees?

Also the last bit about 'spending in a sensible way/wages for useless employees' etc. Agreed, but are you also trying to suggest diversity quotas are the only reason behind not spending money a sensible way?

With a bit more qualification it could well be one of the factors, but it sure sounds like it's a lesser one and certainly not a 'big elephant'. Happy to read more factually referenced counter arguments to the contrary though.

It almost sounds like ideological backdoor rightspeak polluting what could be a balanced debate by attempting to place more weighting on diversity being the major cause (and therefore by extension immigration, minorities etc.) But I'm probably wrong.

Also a reminder, correlation does not imply causation. Just because someone who cold be considered to be from a minority background is s*** at their job, it doesn't mean ALL people of similar backgrounds are. People are just s*** at their jobs, regardless. But maybe that wouldn't fit neatly with the predetermined narrative?

Edited by SW19 CPFC (16 Feb 2023 1.33pm)

Edited by SW19 CPFC (16 Feb 2023 1.34pm)

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 16 Feb 23 1.36pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle You take the level up and I'll bring it down but fair enough let's all play by your rules. Do what you want, it's an open forum Just don't start whining when you get called out for poorly crafted attempts at wit or antagonism Edited by SW19 CPFC (16 Feb 2023 1.36pm) Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 16 Feb 23 1.36pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

You take the level up and I'll bring it down but fair enough let's all play by your rules.

Do what you want, it's an open forum

Just don't start whining when you get called out for poorly crafted attempts at wit or antagonism

Edited by SW19 CPFC (16 Feb 2023 1.36pm)

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 16 Feb 23 1.50pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC Do what you want, it's an open forum Just don't start whining when you get called out for poorly crafted attempts at wit or antagonism Edited by SW19 CPFC (16 Feb 2023 1.36pm) Phew. That's a load off even though being "called out" on a football site is obviously an intolerably heavy burden to carry I'll try to endure in silence.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

16 Feb 23 1.50pm

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Do what you want, it's an open forum

Just don't start whining when you get called out for poorly crafted attempts at wit or antagonism

Edited by SW19 CPFC (16 Feb 2023 1.36pm)

Phew. That's a load off even though being "called out" on a football site is obviously an intolerably heavy burden to carry I'll try to endure in silence.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 16 Feb 23 2.02pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC Firstly I totally agree that there are multiple factors (or FACTORS?) rather than just one cause here so great. What needs a bit more qualification is how big a factor this is – you're suggesting its a 'big enough elephant' whatever that means. Significant contributing factor, let's say, in your opinion. Can you qualify that? Did you use to work there, reference a report... just helps tip it away from I think it's this and I hate diversity quotas therefore it is (personally not a massive fan of positive discrimination myself) into more credible territory. If there's evidence of this being the single most important criteria when hiring people within the council please do share. Because I'd be surprised, and I think this would break quite a few employment and discrimination laws. It would also be obviously disadvantaging managers hiring to the point where it would become silly. I would imagine there are diversity guidelines and quotas to aim for when hiring, but I'd be extremely surprised if those were 100% of the workforce and hire at all costs, regardless of ability. I do know that these quotas are there to try and counteract bias in the hiring process, but it's not a requirement to hire someone of a minority background if there are no good candidates for that role (I know a bit about HR and recruitment from experience). I would also be extremely surprised if said diversity guidelines have meant that everyone that is incompetent or underperforming in their roles at the council are doing so because of those guidelines. I'm pretty sure that non-diversity candidates are doing an excellent job of being rubbish at their jobs. In fact this is already proven out by the likes of Newman, Negrini etc. Plus, isn't Croydon one of the most ethnically diverse boroughs anyway? Would it not be the case that this is then reflected in the makeup of the council employees? Also the last bit about 'spending in a sensible way/wages for useless employees' etc. Agreed, but are you also trying to suggest diversity quotas are the only reason behind not spending money a sensible way? With a bit more qualification it could well be one of the factors, but it sure sounds like it's a lesser one and certainly not a 'big elephant'. Happy to read more factually referenced counter arguments to the contrary though. It almost sounds like ideological backdoor rightspeak polluting what could be a balanced debate by attempting to place more weighting on diversity being the major cause (and therefore by extension immigration, minorities etc.) But I'm probably wrong. Also a reminder, correlation does not imply causation. Just because someone who cold be considered to be from a minority background is s* at their job, it doesn't mean ALL people of similar backgrounds are. People are just s* at their jobs, regardless. But maybe that wouldn't fit neatly with the predetermined narrative? Edited by SW19 CPFC (16 Feb 2023 1.33pm) Edited by SW19 CPFC (16 Feb 2023 1.34pm) Whoa wind back. Where have I said it’s the biggest factor and where have I said it’s all employees. Geez don’t twist everything. If you look for reports on the failings it’s mentioned as one of the wrong decisions the council has made/ implemented. No I can’t show you before you throw that curved ball. I’m not totally against positive discrimination IF the candidate can do the job. Of course it’s sensible to have say black employees looking after black clients etc. the client might feel more comfortable. Not in all cases but in some I would hazard a guess. This is one factor and probably quite a small one in and of itself wages wise but the knock on from a lack of experience and knowledge in the required field could create a multiple times loss financially. Mighty oaks from tiny acorns springs to mind !!! Edited by cryrst (16 Feb 2023 2.02pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 16 Feb 23 2.02pm

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Firstly I totally agree that there are multiple factors (or FACTORS?) rather than just one cause here so great.

What needs a bit more qualification is how big a factor this is – you're suggesting its a 'big enough elephant' whatever that means. Significant contributing factor, let's say, in your opinion.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (16 Feb 2023 1.33pm)

Edited by SW19 CPFC (16 Feb 2023 1.34pm)

Whoa wind back. Where have I said it’s the biggest factor and where have I said it’s all employees. Geez don’t twist everything. If you look for reports on the failings it’s mentioned as one of the wrong decisions the council has made/ implemented. No I can’t show you before you throw that curved ball. I’m not totally against positive discrimination IF the candidate can do the job. Of course it’s sensible to have say black employees looking after black clients etc. the client might feel more comfortable. Not in all cases but in some I would hazard a guess. This is one factor and probably quite a small one in and of itself wages wise but the knock on from a lack of experience and knowledge in the required field could create a multiple times loss financially.
Mighty oaks from tiny acorns springs to mind !!!

Edited by cryrst (16 Feb 2023 2.02pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 16 Feb 23 2.08pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Phew. That's a load off even though being "called out" on a football site is obviously an intolerably heavy burden to carry I'll try to endure in silence. Sure Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 16 Feb 23 2.08pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Phew. That's a load off even though being "called out" on a football site is obviously an intolerably heavy burden to carry I'll try to endure in silence.

Sure

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 16 Feb 23 2.13pm
Originally posted by cryrst Whoa wind back. Where have I said it’s the biggest factor and where have I said it’s all employees. Geez don’t twist everything. If you look for reports on the failings it’s mentioned as one of the wrong decisions the council has made/ implemented. No I can’t show you before you throw that curved ball. I’m not totally against positive discrimination IF the candidate can do the job. Of course it’s sensible to have say black employees looking after black clients etc. the client might feel more comfortable. Not in all cases but in some I would hazard a guess. This is one factor and probably quite a small one in and of itself wages wise but the knock on from a lack of experience and knowledge in the required field could create a multiple times loss financially. Mighty oaks from tiny acorns springs to mind !!! Edited by cryrst (16 Feb 2023 2.02pm) 'Big elephant' implies you view it as a big factor... I didn't say all employees, I was extending your hypothesis to its logical conclusion, that of diversity quotas = poor hires, poor hires = big contributing factor to current malaise, poor hires = disproportionally diversity hires. in other words only diversity candidates are to blame, and a major contributing factor here (big elephant) Feel free to dispute that analysis, but that's how you've put it across. Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 16 Feb 23 2.13pm

Originally posted by cryrst

Edited by cryrst (16 Feb 2023 2.02pm)

'Big elephant' implies you view it as a big factor...

I didn't say all employees, I was extending your hypothesis to its logical conclusion, that of diversity quotas = poor hires, poor hires = big contributing factor to current malaise, poor hires = disproportionally diversity hires.

in other words only diversity candidates are to blame, and a major contributing factor here (big elephant)

Feel free to dispute that analysis, but that's how you've put it across.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 16 Feb 23 2.35pm
Some information on Croydon's current situation. [Link] [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

16 Feb 23 2.35pm

Some information on Croydon's current situation.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 16 Feb 23 3.11pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Some information on Croydon's current situation. [Link] [Link] Thanks. Seeing as I live here, I'm more than aware of the situation. Bankruptcy and mismanagement already covered in my previous posts – certainly a major contributing factor. Must have been all those diversity hires Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 16 Feb 23 3.11pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Some information on Croydon's current situation.

[Link]

Thanks. Seeing as I live here, I'm more than aware of the situation.

Bankruptcy and mismanagement already covered in my previous posts – certainly a major contributing factor. Must have been all those diversity hires

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

crystal-purley Purley 16 Feb 23 4.45pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC Soooo I actually live in central Croydon, so unlike a lot of the posters on threads re. UK or Croydon centric affairs on here (some of whom don't even live in the UK) therefore I'll offer my more relevant view from the ground. Objectively, I can also understand why a 15% raise has been proposed. I don't think there is any other option at this point. I hardly think this raise has been decided upon without trying to find a viable alternative... such a massive hike so early in the mayors tenure is tantamount to career suicide. The alternative is massive cuts to core services and they've clearly decided that would be even worse. However, Croydon has been chronically underfunded for years, when compared with other councils (per resident) considering its size and more importantly its role in taking the lions share of London centric immigration, whether that be through asylum or otherwise, compared with any other council. If this had been appreciated and properly funded, there would be less of an issue – services would be able to keep pace. It is in fact the largest borough by population in London and has one of the fastest rates of population growth out of any London borough. It is the fall guy and should be adequately compensated as a result. Instead, it is expected to take the population hit at the expense of other councils and its residents suffer as a result. Granted most boroughs have seen their funding reduced drastically since 2010, but Croydon has suffered more than most. It is also worth noting that the debt pile of some £1.5bn is a legacy that dates back further than the previous Labour administration. I believe it was something in the region of £700m at the time Labour took over. It probably goes back even further than that. That's not to excuse how some of it has been fuelled by chronic mismanagement, but to suggest that it is all the fault of one term is simply not true. In fact, even if it had been managed properly throughout the labour tenure the debt pile would still have grown significantly due to the massive reduction in central funding and government treating it as a population dumping ground. I have no issue with a growing population in this borough – it's the largest and has one of the most aggressive planning and building strategies in London, so it makes sense. But it only works if it is reclassified and correctly funded in line with the role it plays (to the benefit of a lot of other boroughs) – and treated like the 'city within a city' that it actually is. Those other better funded councils should also start taking their share of the population growth burden. This is clearly not something the government are prepared to do in the near term, hence the 15% increase. It's going to be debated on March 1 in the council meeting but I'm not sure anything is going to change, if they've decided things are so bad that the nuclear option is the only option I can't see them rowing it back. Residents voices will rightly be heard but a reduction won't be forthcoming. So I understand the pushback, but it needs to happen. It's going to destroy a lot of people and that's not right... but the origins of this raise go a lot further back and spread a lot wider than the last council administration. Edited by SW19 CPFC (15 Feb 2023 5.18pm) I too live in Purley which is part of Croydon and I agree with what you say. I am not looking forward to a 15% increase but the other option is the Government putting their hands in their pockets and that will not happen. Enjoying getting up later and not having someone who knows better than me (apart from the missus of course).
Alert a moderator to this post

crystal-purley

Purley 16 Feb 23 4.45pm

Send a Private Message to crystal-purley

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Soooo

I actually live in central Croydon, so unlike a lot of the posters on threads re. UK or Croydon centric affairs on here (some of whom don't even live in the UK) therefore I'll offer my more relevant view from the ground.

Objectively, I can also understand why a 15% raise has been proposed.

I don't think there is any other option at this point. I hardly think this raise has been decided upon without trying to find a viable alternative... such a massive hike so early in the mayors tenure is tantamount to career suicide. The alternative is massive cuts to core services and they've clearly decided that would be even worse.

However, Croydon has been chronically underfunded for years, when compared with other councils (per resident) considering its size and more importantly its role in taking the lions share of London centric immigration, whether that be through asylum or otherwise, compared with any other council.

If this had been appreciated and properly funded, there would be less of an issue – services would be able to keep pace. It is in fact the largest borough by population in London and has one of the fastest rates of population growth out of any London borough. It is the fall guy and should be adequately compensated as a result.

Instead, it is expected to take the population hit at the expense of other councils and its residents suffer as a result. Granted most boroughs have seen their funding reduced drastically since 2010, but Croydon has suffered more than most.

It is also worth noting that the debt pile of some £1.5bn is a legacy that dates back further than the previous Labour administration. I believe it was something in the region of £700m at the time Labour took over. It probably goes back even further than that. That's not to excuse how some of it has been fuelled by chronic mismanagement, but to suggest that it is all the fault of one term is simply not true. In fact, even if it had been managed properly throughout the labour tenure the debt pile would still have grown significantly due to the massive reduction in central funding and government treating it as a population dumping ground.

I have no issue with a growing population in this borough – it's the largest and has one of the most aggressive planning and building strategies in London, so it makes sense.

But it only works if it is reclassified and correctly funded in line with the role it plays (to the benefit of a lot of other boroughs) – and treated like the 'city within a city' that it actually is. Those other better funded councils should also start taking their share of the population growth burden.

This is clearly not something the government are prepared to do in the near term, hence the 15% increase. It's going to be debated on March 1 in the council meeting but I'm not sure anything is going to change, if they've decided things are so bad that the nuclear option is the only option I can't see them rowing it back. Residents voices will rightly be heard but a reduction won't be forthcoming.

So I understand the pushback, but it needs to happen. It's going to destroy a lot of people and that's not right... but the origins of this raise go a lot further back and spread a lot wider than the last council administration.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (15 Feb 2023 5.18pm)

I too live in Purley which is part of Croydon and I agree with what you say. I am not looking forward to a 15% increase but the other option is the Government putting their hands in their pockets and that will not happen.

Enjoying getting up later and not having someone who knows better than me (apart from the missus of course).

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 16 Feb 23 6.00pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC 'Big elephant' implies you view it as a big factor... I didn't say all employees, I was extending your hypothesis to its logical conclusion, that of diversity quotas = poor hires, poor hires = big contributing factor to current malaise, poor hires = disproportionally diversity hires. in other words only diversity candidates are to blame, and a major contributing factor here (big elephant) Feel free to dispute that analysis, but that's how you've put it across. It’s clear that you need new spectacles as your tunnel vision is quite bad ! You could have a fight if you were in a room on your own I reckon.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 16 Feb 23 6.00pm

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

'Big elephant' implies you view it as a big factor...

in other words only diversity candidates are to blame, and a major contributing factor here (big elephant)

Feel free to dispute that analysis, but that's how you've put it across.

It’s clear that you need new spectacles as your tunnel vision is quite bad !
You could have a fight if you were in a room on your own I reckon.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 16 Feb 23 6.10pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC Thanks. Seeing as I live here, I'm more than aware of the situation. Bankruptcy and mismanagement already covered in my previous posts – certainly a major contributing factor. Must have been all those diversity hires There is also the ongoing corruption investigation.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

16 Feb 23 6.10pm

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Thanks. Seeing as I live here, I'm more than aware of the situation.

Bankruptcy and mismanagement already covered in my previous posts – certainly a major contributing factor. Must have been all those diversity hires

There is also the ongoing corruption investigation.

Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops CR3 16 Feb 23 6.23pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC Please do show me where my post was in any way related to backing Labour. Constant spinning away from the subject and back into labour vs tories It's not a great trait 'I don't care what has gone on in the past' I mean, says it all really. Utterly illogical Where did I say or suggest that I was either a tory or labour supporter. You are the one with the party issues. I merely pointed out that the party in control are absolutely incompetent and couldn’t understand how you could possibly support them in any way. It just so happens they are labour. You talk about a lack of intelligence on here but you are the one who appears to have pigeon holed everyone into political parties. I couldn’t give a damn which party they are in if they can resolve the problems.The current shambles in control clearly cannot. I also fail to comprehend what you don’t understand by “I don’t care what has gone on in the past” (which was a nod to previous tenures of both parties). It’s a simple statement that those currently in office should be trying to turn it around not drive it further into the ground whilst blaming previous tenures for all their problems. It’s really not that difficult to understand.
Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglecoops

CR3 16 Feb 23 6.23pm

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Please do show me where my post was in any way related to backing Labour.

Constant spinning away from the subject and back into labour vs tories

It's not a great trait

'I don't care what has gone on in the past' I mean, says it all really. Utterly illogical

Where did I say or suggest that I was either a tory or labour supporter. You are the one with the party issues. I merely pointed out that the party in control are absolutely incompetent and couldn’t understand how you could possibly support them in any way. It just so happens they are labour.

You talk about a lack of intelligence on here but you are the one who appears to have pigeon holed everyone into political parties. I couldn’t give a damn which party they are in if they can resolve the problems.The current shambles in control clearly cannot.

I also fail to comprehend what you don’t understand by “I don’t care what has gone on in the past” (which was a nod to previous tenures of both parties). It’s a simple statement that those currently in office should be trying to turn it around not drive it further into the ground whilst blaming previous tenures for all their problems. It’s really not that difficult to understand.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Council tax

Site Map

Sponsors