WALTHAM FOREST: Town hall freesheet loses £150k in two years (From This Is Local London)

What a surprise,these councilors are clueless its only a propaganda stunt for labour and they think we are stupid enough to waste time reading it

"..it turns out the council had been hiding the real costs"

Then why don't you call in the serious fraud sqaud, councillor?

The 'revenue' the council is referring to is mainly money taken from other taxpayer funded programmes at our expense. This is one of those 'town hall pravda's which are a totally bogus exercise in subsidising the Labour Party's propaganda at public expense. It should be shut down immediately.

To be honest I could do without "Waltham Forest News" cluttering up my letterbox once a month. I'd rather have a council who actually DOES something visibly in the local area to improve it rather than wasting cash on printing propaganda.

I never believed for one minute this rag covered its costs. It shuld have been shut down ages ago.

I question the survey results, because the council now slips official information (eg about planning applications) into WFN, instead of publishing it in proper newspapers as councils are supposed to.

So anyone wanting to keep an eye on applications is forced to read WFN, and therefore might tell a survey that they found it useful. Very misleading!

News in WFN is so often incorrect or distorted that I no longer trust anything I read there.

However, I told the person who phoned me for this survey that I always received my copy, so I was satisfied with the distribution.

Depending on how they collated the results, this too could make it look as if I was satisfied with WFN.

Publishing official information in a local newspaper would cost much less.

So the only reason for Waltham Forest council to keep producing WFN is to push propaganda through our doors. And we're paying for this!

We all suspected this, but Council accounts are more flexible even than their interpretations of the law.
It's pretty clear that we have been lied to over a period of years by Councillors and officials whose salaries we pay.
Somebody should be sacked, maybe prosecuted; what is the next step?
It may also fairly be asked, did these suspicions occur to Cllr Sullivan all those years his party was in coalition with Labour?
If the periodical was any good, it could still be justified as an efficient tool for public information, but we all know it exists to feed the egos of the ruling clique, to mislead the public and - almost worst of all - deliberately cause damage to the free press which can provide outside scrutiny of Council activities.
For years the Council has flatly ignored the law requiring publication of planning applications, while it had a periodical going to every home that could have carried them: that is one small measure of their inadequacy.

This fortnightly "newspaper" is a crude propaganda sheet which allows its readers no right of reply.

It indicates the colossal vanity of council leader Chris Robbins as every issue contains glorious colour photographs of our great leader in the style of the North Korean media.

In the pages of this "newspaper" the borough is the best place on the planet, where happy smiling residents can scarcely believe their good fortune to live in such a wonderland.

If the council had to charge 55p a copy then its circulation would rapidly slump to about five readers. Or less.

The Cameron government said it would get tough with councils who put out subsidised propaganda like this, but needless to say this promise was just empty words.

There is also another agenda at work. The council doesn't like criticism and this "newspaper" is trying to damage the sales of the local paper, which now provides the only forum for residents to publicise their dissatisfaction with a wide range of council services, from housing to street cleaning.

letterbox bin in that order.

christine1

I use mine to line the cats litter tray.

The point about council 'newspapers' or 'free sheets' is that they provide a cheaper means of carrying public notices and information about council services than the council (i.e. us as tax payers) would have to pay out if they had to use other papers and publications and produce leaflets and posters for individual campaigns or services/events etc.
Opponents can quite rightly claim they are open to political slant and spin - of course they are - but they actually cost us less than the alternatives. Local papers hate them because they used to get paid for carrying the public notices. All quite simple really. I too could do without it, but them's the facts.

Harry J wrote:
The point about council 'newspapers' or 'free sheets' is that they provide a cheaper means of carrying public notices and information about council services than the council (i.e. us as tax payers) would have to pay out if they had to use other papers and publications and produce leaflets and posters for individual campaigns or services/events etc.
Opponents can quite rightly claim they are open to political slant and spin - of course they are - but they actually cost us less than the alternatives. Local papers hate them because they used to get paid for carrying the public notices. All quite simple really. I too could do without it, but them's the facts.

Hogwash. There are notice boards all over the place. Notices from the council can be placed on those and on the website which the council also runs for far less than £469,000, even if they paid a guy to go round on a bicycle doing it full time.

Perhaps WFG could give us an idea of how much a full page of advertising would cost per week. I don't have a Waltham Forest News on me as I too use it to line the cat's litter tray, but I don't think there are usually many more public notices than that. This would give us and idea of how much it would cost to advertise in a weekly newspaper. Is there anyone in your advertising dept who could tell us that?

Funny how Bob Sullivan only complains now his lot don't get a mention in the town hall Pravda!

"A previous survey in 2011 quizzed 502 residents and found that 66 per cent had seen it within six months, with 71 per cent of those finding it useful."
That means that less than half (46.86%) of those surveyed did find it useful! The clue to this spin is in 71 per cent of those who had seen it found it useful not of the entire sample! Thanks for spending my council tax on a vanity project that less half of the population found usefull. Can you use this money to get my bin collected on a regular basis please!

ShinySue wrote:
christine1

I use mine to line the cats litter tray.

MAGIC

Harry J wrote:
The point about council 'newspapers' or 'free sheets' is that they provide a cheaper means of carrying public notices and information about council services than the council (i.e. us as tax payers) would have to pay out if they had to use other papers and publications and produce leaflets and posters for individual campaigns or services/events etc.
Opponents can quite rightly claim they are open to political slant and spin - of course they are - but they actually cost us less than the alternatives. Local papers hate them because they used to get paid for carrying the public notices. All quite simple really. I too could do without it, but them's the facts.

Stop making excuses for the council.

The council newspaper can be read online. There is no excuse for it existing in a printed version. This is a wanton extravagance at a time when the council claims to be keen to cut costs.

Of course the council knows very well that no one is interested in reading its propaganda, and no one would make the effort to read it online if required to do so. That is why it force feeds all households in the borouigh with this expensive waste paper.

"It indicates the colossal vanity of council leader Chris Robbins as every issue contains glorious colour photographs of our great leader in the style of the North Korean media.

In the pages of this "newspaper" the borough is the best place on the planet, where happy smiling residents can scarcely believe their good fortune to live in such a wonderland."

Another classic observation from 'Tom Thumb'. I'm still smiling as I type. Maybe that's because I live in Waltham Forest though....

Tom Thumb wrote:

Harry J wrote:
The point about council 'newspapers' or 'free sheets' is that they provide a cheaper means of carrying public notices and information about council services than the council (i.e. us as tax payers) would have to pay out if they had to use other papers and publications and produce leaflets and posters for individual campaigns or services/events etc.
Opponents can quite rightly claim they are open to political slant and spin - of course they are - but they actually cost us less than the alternatives. Local papers hate them because they used to get paid for carrying the public notices. All quite simple really. I too could do without it, but them's the facts.

Stop making excuses for the council.

The council newspaper can be read online. There is no excuse for it existing in a printed version. This is a wanton extravagance at a time when the council claims to be keen to cut costs.

Of course the council knows very well that no one is interested in reading its propaganda, and no one would make the effort to read it online if required to do so. That is why it force feeds all households in the borouigh with this expensive waste paper.

I think the public notices have to be physically printed - an archaic requirement that should be updated.

They do. And they are charged individually and more expensively than other 'advertising'. That's why local newspapers were so affected by them moving to council papers - they are very lucrative business. It all comes down to the money. It is rubbish though.

WaltE17 wrote:

Tom Thumb wrote:

Harry J wrote:
The point about council 'newspapers' or 'free sheets' is that they provide a cheaper means of carrying public notices and information about council services than the council (i.e. us as tax payers) would have to pay out if they had to use other papers and publications and produce leaflets and posters for individual campaigns or services/events etc.
Opponents can quite rightly claim they are open to political slant and spin - of course they are - but they actually cost us less than the alternatives. Local papers hate them because they used to get paid for carrying the public notices. All quite simple really. I too could do without it, but them's the facts.

Stop making excuses for the council.

The council newspaper can be read online. There is no excuse for it existing in a printed version. This is a wanton extravagance at a time when the council claims to be keen to cut costs.

Of course the council knows very well that no one is interested in reading its propaganda, and no one would make the effort to read it online if required to do so. That is why it force feeds all households in the borouigh with this expensive waste paper.

I think the public notices have to be physically printed - an archaic requirement that should be updated.

Yes, it is so hard in these modern days to press the button saying 'print'

I wonder if the paper will carry this story somewhere?

It's propaganda pure and simple, I can't imagine there's anyone left who are happy with the council, apart from the one's getting the brown envelopes.

Rotten from the core.
I'd say vote them out, but even that seems rigged.

I wouldnt insult my cat's litter tray by letting that load of rubbish thats done by wasting public money, i truly hope that the public of Waltham Forest turn out in force next Local Elections even if its just to make sure that Chris Robbins and his crooked cronies are voted OUT

....and £75k a year to communicate with the popualtion of Waltham Forest every other month is actually not very much at all - though know nobody on here will agree. The real waste of money are the massive posters and bus shleter ads that the council does for daft campaigns and events nobody's that botheered about.

Harry J wrote:
....and £75k a year to communicate with the popualtion of Waltham Forest every other month is actually not very much at all - though know nobody on here will agree. The real waste of money are the massive posters and bus shleter ads that the council does for daft campaigns and events nobody's that botheered about.

The question is, Harry, WHAT is being communciated.

Also bear in mind that until recent years the council managed its affairs perfectly well without sending out a so-called newspaper.

In any case, how many people bother to read what's in it?

Councillor Robbins destroyed the library stock and turned local libraries into drop-in centres for free computer use, but is strangely reluctant to use the internet when it comes to communicating.

'..I truly hope that the public of Waltham Forest turn out in force next Local Elections..'
They did last time, SpurSupporter1: the turnout in High St Ward was 125%. You can't get much more popular than that.The turnout for the last local election was higher than for the general election counted on the same day; not only here, but in every London borough where Labour increased its majority while losing the general election. The result must therefore be the freely-expressed will of the people, don't you think?

I think it's no secret that there's no love lost between the local Council and the Waltham Forest Guardian. Surely, the best way to break this impasse and secure some positive publicity in future would be for the council to scrap WF News and pay to have its notices etc in the Guardian on the basis that they who pay the piper call the tune.

mdj wrote:
'..I truly hope that the public of Waltham Forest turn out in force next Local Elections..'
They did last time, SpurSupporter1: the turnout in High St Ward was 125%. You can't get much more popular than that.The turnout for the last local election was higher than for the general election counted on the same day; not only here, but in every London borough where Labour increased its majority while losing the general election. The result must therefore be the freely-expressed will of the people, don't you think?

Of course our beloved councillors get more than 100% of the vote. Nothing dodgy about that at all ...

Harry J wrote:
....and £75k a year to communicate with the popualtion of Waltham Forest every other month is actually not very much at all - though know nobody on here will agree. The real waste of money are the massive posters and bus shleter ads that the council does for daft campaigns and events nobody's that botheered about.

Except that it isn't £75K is it, The thing costs £469,000 to produce and operate and only around £44,000 came from external advertisers. The tab for the rest was picked up by the taxpayer: £425,000 a year.

And as others point out, the propaganda department also wastes vast sums on other activities including posters on top of this waste. They employ far more people spreading Labour party spin and half-truths at the council than they do to support activities like scrutinising their expenditure and performance.

Sam Hain wrote:
I think it's no secret that there's no love lost between the local Council and the Waltham Forest Guardian. Surely, the best way to break this impasse and secure some positive publicity in future would be for the council to scrap WF News and pay to have its notices etc in the Guardian on the basis that they who pay the piper call the tune.

I don't understand your first remark, Sam. The local paper does what all good local papers, which is to print stories about matters affecting local residents. If individuals or groups have a complaint about the council and take it to the Waltham Forest Guardian, I see nothing wrong with the paper giving them publicity. I've never felt that the local paper supports any party or cause and it strikes me as being independent. The local paper at least provides insights into what is really going on in this borough.

Your second remark appears to suggest that if the council advertised in the local paper then it would then be duty bound to stifle any criticisms of the council. So much for press freedom then, if you think that advertising revenue should "secure some positive publicity" for the council.

'..Your second remark appears to suggest that if the council advertised in the local paper then it would then be duty bound to stifle any criticisms of the council.'
'Sam' is a committed Labour supporter, possibly a Councillor, so it's a good illustration of the mindset. In the old phrase about politics and the press:'What you can't square you squash, and what you can't squash you square'.
A senior Councillor, recently demoted, said a while back that her task as a Cllr was to 'explain Council policy to the people'. Not much grasp of the idea that the people were supposed to be the ones deciding the policy!

How delightfully naive, Tom Thumb, and if only it were so. But you surely know that our so-called 'free press' is controlled by big business interests which use their influence to assert their owners' political opinions. What do you think the all the News International hoo-ha has been about? It seems perfectly apparent to me that the Guardian group, like most other local and regional papers it must be said, are not natural Labour supporters, being somewhere along the Lib Dem-Tory spectrum politically. As to advertising securing positive publicity, I wouldn't necessarily put it that strongly, but if certainly stifles negative publicity. For example, looking at the amount of estate agents' advertising in this and all other local papers, do you seriously think any editor or journalist is going to feel empowered to pursue an investigative piece on estate agents' signs blighting our environment? This issue has been covered in the latest edition of WF News and I look forward to it being picked up by the Guardian - in a positive rather than negative light.

Realpolitik, mdj. Given that we have a predominantly right-wing press in this country the left is forced to 'buy' positive coverage where and if it can. I quess this is why the council is reluctant to give up on WF News. I'd happily see it go if we could rely on our local press to give the left fair and unbiased coverage.

Could it be that the chickens have now come home to roost and that is why the council took the hint some time ago to change the title of their paper to the WFN as the public had decided the original title of WFM stood for "Waste of F'ing Money"

Sam Hain wrote:
How delightfully naive, Tom Thumb, and if only it were so. But you surely know that our so-called 'free press' is controlled by big business interests which use their influence to assert their owners' political opinions. What do you think the all the News International hoo-ha has been about? It seems perfectly apparent to me that the Guardian group, like most other local and regional papers it must be said, are not natural Labour supporters, being somewhere along the Lib Dem-Tory spectrum politically. As to advertising securing positive publicity, I wouldn't necessarily put it that strongly, but if certainly stifles negative publicity. For example, looking at the amount of estate agents' advertising in this and all other local papers, do you seriously think any editor or journalist is going to feel empowered to pursue an investigative piece on estate agents' signs blighting our environment? This issue has been covered in the latest edition of WF News and I look forward to it being picked up by the Guardian - in a positive rather than negative light.

From experience, I can assure that neither the Guardian staff nor their owners take any particular political line. By and large, they are reporting what other people say rather than presenting their own views. The exceptions are campaigns, though there haven't really been any of those in the last few years.

It just so happens that Labour has been in power, either alone or in coalition, since 1986 and it is in the nature of things that the people who make the decisions take the flak. (The Government is getting it in the neck at the moment, even from many of its natural supporters in the Tory press).

Re estate agents' signs, I can remember the Guardian highlighting very strongly the forests of For Sale and To Let signs, and this within the last ten years. They even went round the borough looking for the places where the displays were at their worst.

Sam, you worry me. I've always thought of you as a pretty rational sort and agree with much of what you write. But these postings do rather suggest you are a councillor in disguise. Do tell all!

Rest assured, Helen, I'm not - though I'd hope that being a councillor wouldn't render me instantly irrational. Although...!

Who in Chingford reads this publication? there is little, usually nothing that appertains to our Town. We have to shop in Loughton, Epping or Enfield, Waltham Forest having no retail outlets of interest to us, so no need to browse the adverts. I do however find it the right thickness for wedging under the garage doors to keep the leaves out although my Mum would have cut it up into 6" squares and hung it up in the outside loo.

Sam Hain wrote:
How delightfully naive, Tom Thumb, and if only it were so. But you surely know that our so-called 'free press' is controlled by big business interests which use their influence to assert their owners' political opinions. What do you think the all the News International hoo-ha has been about? It seems perfectly apparent to me that the Guardian group, like most other local and regional papers it must be said, are not natural Labour supporters, being somewhere along the Lib Dem-Tory spectrum politically. As to advertising securing positive publicity, I wouldn't necessarily put it that strongly, but if certainly stifles negative publicity. For example, looking at the amount of estate agents' advertising in this and all other local papers, do you seriously think any editor or journalist is going to feel empowered to pursue an investigative piece on estate agents' signs blighting our environment? This issue has been covered in the latest edition of WF News and I look forward to it being picked up by the Guardian - in a positive rather than negative light.

I often see your point, Samhain. But I don't share your belief that the local Labour Party can ever now redeem itself - it's much too far gone. And I think your trust in it has misled you.

Opposition to Waltham Forest council comes more often from the left than from the right. I know a great many active local campaigners, and almost all are broadly left-wing, along with some old-style liberals.

But criticism of the council (I mean what people think and say, whether they actively campaign or not) comes from across the board. The unusual element in Waltham Forest is that decent people of every political hue are united in sheer disgust at the council.

Local newspapers operate on a tight budget these days, so I congratulate the Waltham Forest Guardian for what it manages to do with very few resources. Long may it continue to hold this shameless crew up to scrutiny.

Sam Hain wrote:
How delightfully naive, Tom Thumb, and if only it were so. But you surely know that our so-called 'free press' is controlled by big business interests which use their influence to assert their owners' political opinions. What do you think the all the News International hoo-ha has been about? It seems perfectly apparent to me that the Guardian group, like most other local and regional papers it must be said, are not natural Labour supporters, being somewhere along the Lib Dem-Tory spectrum politically. As to advertising securing positive publicity, I wouldn't necessarily put it that strongly, but if certainly stifles negative publicity. For example, looking at the amount of estate agents' advertising in this and all other local papers, do you seriously think any editor or journalist is going to feel empowered to pursue an investigative piece on estate agents' signs blighting our environment? This issue has been covered in the latest edition of WF News and I look forward to it being picked up by the Guardian - in a positive rather than negative light.

I often see your point, Samhain. But I don't share your belief that the local Labour Party can ever now redeem itself - it's much too far gone. And I think your trust in it has misled you.

Opposition to Waltham Forest council comes more often from the left than from the right. I know a great many active local campaigners, and almost all are broadly left-wing, along with some old-style liberals.

But criticism of the council (I mean what people think and say, whether they actively campaign or not) comes from across the board. The unusual element in Waltham Forest is that decent people of every political hue are united in sheer disgust at the council.

Local newspapers operate on a tight budget these days, so I congratulate the Waltham Forest Guardian for what it manages to do with very few resources. Long may it continue to hold this shameless crew up to scrutiny.

I'm sorry you think this, Walthamster. I've not given up hope that the local Labour Party can redeem itself. I see many talented and dedicated young (and not-so-young,) people coming forward and I'm not so jaded and cynical as to have abandoned hope for the future. Sometimes this is difficult to sustain, I admit, but, without hope, what is life? If more people actively engaged in politics (and, yes, sometimes this does entail holding one's nose) I think that things can change for the better. Think of the enormous changes for the better Labour made after the Second World War. Think (if you must!) of the changes Margaret Thatcher made from 1979 onwards. Short of forming a new party (and look where that got us with the Lib Dems) I think I'd rather keep calm and carry on.

Sam Hain wrote:
How delightfully naive, Tom Thumb, and if only it were so. But you surely know that our so-called 'free press' is controlled by big business interests which use their influence to assert their owners' political opinions. What do you think the all the News International hoo-ha has been about? It seems perfectly apparent to me that the Guardian group, like most other local and regional papers it must be said, are not natural Labour supporters, being somewhere along the Lib Dem-Tory spectrum politically. As to advertising securing positive publicity, I wouldn't necessarily put it that strongly, but if certainly stifles negative publicity. For example, looking at the amount of estate agents' advertising in this and all other local papers, do you seriously think any editor or journalist is going to feel empowered to pursue an investigative piece on estate agents' signs blighting our environment? This issue has been covered in the latest edition of WF News and I look forward to it being picked up by the Guardian - in a positive rather than negative light.

The notion that big business interests lie behind the Waltham Forest Guardian's publication of stories criticising the council strikes me as absurd.

Nor do I believe that the Waltham Forest Guardian is more inclined to favour the Conservative Party or the Lib Dems. I very much doubt that the editorial staff or reporters have ever been told to toe a particular line.

Local newspapers are very different to national ones. They all contain similarly parochial news stories, and they all act as a useful medium for residents to vent their dissatisfaction with their local councils and other institutions, irrespective of their political complexion.

The first duty of a newspaper is to make a profit and to do that it needs a healthy circulation. If the contents of the Waltham Forest Guardian were as anodyne and empty as those of the council's lavishly subsidised vanity sheet, no one would bother to buy it.

As for the local environment being blighted. I suspect for most local residents estate agents signs rank rather low down on the list of vexations. It's hardly surprising if topics such as squatting, prostitution, street cleaning, tower block developments, and the council's handling of derelict sites such as the Arcade site or the greyhound stadium are regarded as more newsworthy and of greater public interest.

And personally I think it's a bit rich of the council which blighted the town square with a monstrous Orwellian "Big Screen" to fuss over a bunch of "For Sale" signs in a front garden.

'Think of the enormous changes for the better Labour made after the Second World War.'

We do, Sam, we do: the Liberal governments of 1906-14 likewise. Then we ask what Labour accomplished in a similar period up to the last election, apart from making its senior figures into millionaires, and throwing everyone else into debt.

mdj wrote:
'Think of the enormous changes for the better Labour made after the Second World War.'

We do, Sam, we do: the Liberal governments of 1906-14 likewise. Then we ask what Labour accomplished in a similar period up to the last election, apart from making its senior figures into millionaires, and throwing everyone else into debt.

You and Sam Hain may think of these past events, but the vast majority of people are far too young to care about a party which is resting on laurels of achievements from over half a century ago. It is ancient history. The party these days is out of date, out of touch, patronising, undemocratic and corrupt.

Techno3 wrote:

mdj wrote:
'Think of the enormous changes for the better Labour made after the Second World War.'

We do, Sam, we do: the Liberal governments of 1906-14 likewise. Then we ask what Labour accomplished in a similar period up to the last election, apart from making its senior figures into millionaires, and throwing everyone else into debt.

You and Sam Hain may think of these past events, but the vast majority of people are far too young to care about a party which is resting on laurels of achievements from over half a century ago. It is ancient history. The party these days is out of date, out of touch, patronising, undemocratic and corrupt.

Interesting points, both. Labour from 1997-2010 had some excellent achievements: Sure Start, Decent Homes, BSF, equalising age of consent etc etc but, yes, a lot of own goals too - the greatest and most disappointing being the disastrous Iraq intervention. As to past achievemnts being ancient history and therefore irrelevant to today, this displays a very reductive view of the importance of knowing one's history. As an old Chinese proverb has it, one should walk into the future backwards.

one suggestion : maybe turn it into an online publication and email to all residents in waltham forest that wished to recieve it i am sure that would save on some of the cost including delivery

deang69 wrote:
one suggestion : maybe turn it into an online publication and email to all residents in waltham forest that wished to recieve it i am sure that would save on some of the cost including delivery

It already exists as an online publication and can be accessed on the council's website.

The council knows perfectly well that hardly anyone would sign up to receive it, which is why they are determined to make every household in the borough receive it, at lavish expense.

Tom Thumb wrote:
This fortnightly "newspaper" is a crude propaganda sheet which allows its readers no right of reply.

It indicates the colossal vanity of council leader Chris Robbins as every issue contains glorious colour photographs of our great leader in the style of the North Korean media.

In the pages of this "newspaper" the borough is the best place on the planet, where happy smiling residents can scarcely believe their good fortune to live in such a wonderland.

If the council had to charge 55p a copy then its circulation would rapidly slump to about five readers. Or less.

The Cameron government said it would get tough with councils who put out subsidised propaganda like this, but needless to say this promise was just empty words.

There is also another agenda at work. The council doesn't like criticism and this "newspaper" is trying to damage the sales of the local paper, which now provides the only forum for residents to publicise their dissatisfaction with a wide range of council services, from housing to street cleaning.

"It indicates the colossal vanity of council leader Chris Robbins as every issue contains glorious colour photographs of our great leader in the style of the North Korean media."

Indeed... and guess who has appointed himself to unveil our new William Morris gallery? Oh glorious leader, shall I feign adoring tears for thee as you cut the red ribbon?

A serious note above about the 125% voter turn out for the High St ward though... A distinction has to be made here that neither Steve Terry nor Clare Coghill were implicated. The finger of corruption pointed squarely at Cllr Liaquat Ali and his 'exceedingly' high postal votes from his multi-occupancy buy-to-let illegally converted slum houses within the ward. Which, as we know, has previously been reported in Private Eye, on more than one occasion.

Cllr Coghill has turned out to be a major asset in revitalising the area and doing the everyday case loads which until now, neither Cllr Ali nor Cllr Hussain had ever bothered to take up. Proof that new blood is needed when long-standing Councillors are allowed to go unchallenged.

Incidentally, I've long stopped perusing the WFN for fear my food might come back up as it nearly did once when I stumbled upon a half page close up image of Cllr Ali appearing under the suitably apt headline: "Enough is Enough".

Maybe the editors at WFN have a sense of humour after all?

"A previous survey in 2011 quizzed 502 residents and found that 66 per cent had seen it within six months, with 71 per cent of those finding it useful.

However the report's authors said its impact was limited, with the freesheet making little difference on people's views of the council. A total of 22 per cent said they thought highly of the authority"

I'm sorry, 502 people? Don't we have a population of 250,000?

Where did they find these 502 people? Where they all in one road? Was the survey actually IN WFN? ;)

fabster wrote:

Tom Thumb wrote:
This fortnightly "newspaper" is a crude propaganda sheet which allows its readers no right of reply.

It indicates the colossal vanity of council leader Chris Robbins as every issue contains glorious colour photographs of our great leader in the style of the North Korean media.

In the pages of this "newspaper" the borough is the best place on the planet, where happy smiling residents can scarcely believe their good fortune to live in such a wonderland.

If the council had to charge 55p a copy then its circulation would rapidly slump to about five readers. Or less.

The Cameron government said it would get tough with councils who put out subsidised propaganda like this, but needless to say this promise was just empty words.

There is also another agenda at work. The council doesn't like criticism and this "newspaper" is trying to damage the sales of the local paper, which now provides the only forum for residents to publicise their dissatisfaction with a wide range of council services, from housing to street cleaning.

"It indicates the colossal vanity of council leader Chris Robbins as every issue contains glorious colour photographs of our great leader in the style of the North Korean media."

Indeed... and guess who has appointed himself to unveil our new William Morris gallery? Oh glorious leader, shall I feign adoring tears for thee as you cut the red ribbon?

A serious note above about the 125% voter turn out for the High St ward though... A distinction has to be made here that neither Steve Terry nor Clare Coghill were implicated. The finger of corruption pointed squarely at Cllr Liaquat Ali and his 'exceedingly' high postal votes from his multi-occupancy buy-to-let illegally converted slum houses within the ward. Which, as we know, has previously been reported in Private Eye, on more than one occasion.

Cllr Coghill has turned out to be a major asset in revitalising the area and doing the everyday case loads which until now, neither Cllr Ali nor Cllr Hussain had ever bothered to take up. Proof that new blood is needed when long-standing Councillors are allowed to go unchallenged.

Incidentally, I've long stopped perusing the WFN for fear my food might come back up as it nearly did once when I stumbled upon a half page close up image of Cllr Ali appearing under the suitably apt headline: "Enough is Enough".

Maybe the editors at WFN have a sense of humour after all?

Yes, Clare Coghill has surprised me by being a genuinely good and hard-working Labour councillor - something I never thought I'd see in Waltham Forest.

My personal Ali Overload moment came when he got an MBE. Shows what a farce these honours are. That is a shame, as they should be for people who've genuinely served their community (which means all the people, not just your friends and relatives).

'A serious note above about the 125% voter turn out for the High St ward though..'
While there are huge concerns about postal and proxy voting, and the bizarre fact that across East London the local elections had a higher turnout than the general election, we must make clear that the High St boondoggle or blunder took place actually at the count: the turnout of paper votes was accurately noted, but then mysteriously a thousand extra votes were awarded to each Labour candidate. What was remarkable was that none of the candidates for the ward, or any other of the 'professional' politicians there, with all their clipboards, swing predictions, tellers' reports &c, raised any concern. Perhaps numeracy isn't their strong point: it would explain a lot about our financial plight.
Ms Coghill is indeed an intelligent and zealous Councillor, but I saw her stand up, state her name and vote for the closure of two libraries - as she surely would have done over St James St, had she been elected four years previously. That is what the whip tells them to do, and they do it: they will always put their party career before their electorate .Had they voted to cut their allowances by the extent they cut the libraries, no library need have closed.
As for Mr Terry, it is hard to mourn the loss of the services of a candidate who was offering his undying loyalty and diligence to the people of High St and Hertfordshire simultaneously.
Readers baffled by Mr Ali's honour may care to Google a company called Awards Intelligence, whose basic sales pitch is that money can greatly improve your chances, if paid to them: nothing at all corrupt there, obviously.

I can't believe I'm about to say this - I rarely find something good to say about this Council. But if they scrap it, how long till we all start complaining that they don't tell us anything!! (Oh, and at least the people who write it can actually spell, which is more than I can say for some local newspaper and their journalists ...).