The following remarks should be considered as being "Without Prejudice" and also protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
I'll admit not the usual preamble to a TV review but then Kent TV* as a subject is something unique.
As you can imagine, being interview by the BBC is a bit of an ego massage, especially for what most people see as an overbearing opinionated middle-aged whinger like myself (and yes that would probably sum me up).
Still you might ask apart from getting your face on the telly, what's the motive, well in my case I believe that there are two main negative aspects to Kent TV* which ought to be exposed, first of course is the incredible cost of this "Kent project"( that's the best description of one of Kent councils lawyers could come up with) a million visits at a cost of not far off a pound each.
A second and perhaps more unsettling aspect came to light in a letter, I received from a contractor for Kent council, now since the major part of the interview I had with Paul Siegert concerned this, I assume that this subject is too sensitive for the BBC, then I myself had better be careful.
Now if that last bit, interests you, I suggest that you contact Paul Carter KCC leader, and ask him questions or Peter Gilroy Chief Exec. KCC since both of these gents had a copy of the letter which caused me so much concern earlier, and I doubt any contractor would suggest defamation proceedings with these gentlemen.
I believe that this post, as all of my posts, is fair comment and to date the only correction I've had to make was a remark, I made about Roger Gale MP, which I was happy to acknowledge and apologise for, however having your right to fair comment impinged upon is something else for which I'm not guilty.
PLEASE CLICK HERE VIEW THE REPORT IN QUESTION
*Please note when referring to Kent TV I am specifically referring to the "Kent Project" and not to any third parties or individual staff members and comments are made in a political context.
** Please note Mrs Me is a bit miffed that I didn't make more of an effort to tidy up the house.
*** More background to Kent TV click here
I'll admit not the usual preamble to a TV review but then Kent TV* as a subject is something unique.
As you can imagine, being interview by the BBC is a bit of an ego massage, especially for what most people see as an overbearing opinionated middle-aged whinger like myself (and yes that would probably sum me up).
Still you might ask apart from getting your face on the telly, what's the motive, well in my case I believe that there are two main negative aspects to Kent TV* which ought to be exposed, first of course is the incredible cost of this "Kent project"( that's the best description of one of Kent councils lawyers could come up with) a million visits at a cost of not far off a pound each.
A second and perhaps more unsettling aspect came to light in a letter, I received from a contractor for Kent council, now since the major part of the interview I had with Paul Siegert concerned this, I assume that this subject is too sensitive for the BBC, then I myself had better be careful.
Now if that last bit, interests you, I suggest that you contact Paul Carter KCC leader, and ask him questions or Peter Gilroy Chief Exec. KCC since both of these gents had a copy of the letter which caused me so much concern earlier, and I doubt any contractor would suggest defamation proceedings with these gentlemen.
I believe that this post, as all of my posts, is fair comment and to date the only correction I've had to make was a remark, I made about Roger Gale MP, which I was happy to acknowledge and apologise for, however having your right to fair comment impinged upon is something else for which I'm not guilty.
PLEASE CLICK HERE VIEW THE REPORT IN QUESTION
*Please note when referring to Kent TV I am specifically referring to the "Kent Project" and not to any third parties or individual staff members and comments are made in a political context.
** Please note Mrs Me is a bit miffed that I didn't make more of an effort to tidy up the house.
*** More background to Kent TV click here
Tony, they only claimed last week that 800,000 visits to Kent TV had taken place and now I see that this has now become 1,000,000! I fully support your position that this is an utter waste of Council Taxpayers money thet could be spent on better projects. In regard to what you are hinting at, put it in the public domain if you feel you can.
ReplyDeleteI agree. KCC's plan to save on printed information does not seem to be working. They spend a fortune on a glossy self promoting magazine for a start.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of promotional paper they produce is mind boggling.
Kent TV is another example of their Tory propaganda machine.
FAMOUS!
ReplyDelete1.4 million over TWO years. 1 million visits in YEAR doesnt = £1 visit. As before I understand peoples issues with Kent TV and I myself have reservations but I really do get annoyed when people get facts wrong, and do see that there is a money saving option here in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThe reason people get the facts wrong is because various KCC council members and staff all make differing claims so you take your pick!
ReplyDeleteAs a Kent tax payer, since Kent TV has arrived I have not noticed any change in the amount of printed output that KCC send me. I have looked at Kent TV every month but most of the output is available on the FREE to me local media web sites. That includes "whats on" sections and sites such as visitkent.co.uk that KCC has a partnership with. So the savings KCC are claiming for "whats on" information is irrelevant, they dont need to get involved in this. Leave it to the existing media coverage and they can actually make the saving and not waste money on duplication with Kent TV.
KCC have made various claims about how much the savings are: At todays (10 dec) KCC cabinet scrutiney committee meeting Cllr Dean asked for an explanation from KCC of these claims that were as much as £2,000,000! (webcast available on KCC site)There has been a lack of information about the true costs other than the value of the 2 year contract. And these savings claims are another example. So if you think that at this point in time KCC should spend this money, whether its a pound or even a penny per visit, think again of the position many Kent residents are in.
John if you are genuinely interested in what these figures mean on an ordinary website, here is a link to the web statistics for one of mine http://www.thanetonline.com/stats/ it is typical of the statistics for ordinary websites, blogs are rather different as far more of the visitors are regulars who stay on the site for longer, I have two ordinary websites at the moment and have had several others over the years, so I am not just guessing here.
ReplyDeleteAs you see the vast majority of visitors arrive by accident somewhere they don’t want to be, about 80% is typical, these leave within 30secs, I see it as a matter of considerable achievement to have got this figure down to under 75% for my bookshop website see http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/stats/ for verification.
So in terms of people who actually look at anything on the site I would expect the cost to be more in the region of £4 per visit. My feelings are that if KCC are going to give out this sort arbitrary figure they should also publish detailed statistics.
You may also be interested to know that when I asked TDC why they didn’t host the video casts of council meetings on Kent TV they said KCC would charge them to do so.
Who cares
ReplyDelete3.41 The people of Kent who are picking up the tab.
ReplyDelete3.41 The people of Kent whose children/parents have needed help from KCC and have been turned away because of lack of funds.
ReplyDeleteAnd what about all those potholes and failed street lights that KCC dont seems to know about and when they do they never seem to fix!
I caught the report last night. Well done. I am yet to visit the Kent TV website and have no desperate wish to visit it. It does seem a waste when theres also the County Council website. Surely the two can be merged/streamlined? I find the current KCC website a little heavy going.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Kent TV has a long way to go to convince, those that matter in this debate, taxpayer rather than Kent's remote "Tory County Set"
ReplyDeleteAnd yes John McMillan the suggestion of a pound per click or visit may seen distant from reality until you factor in the likely £400,000 top up being assemble by our money saving Tory councilors.
Probably the worst aspect of all this is what Trudy Dean of the Liberals had to say.
Which when I made similar statements resulted action which left me with a feeling of utter contempt for some our local politicians.
How sanctimonious you are Tony.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever done anything that could be categorised "positive" in you life, or is your sole reason for existing to knock down the efforts of others?
Tony what quailifications do you have that enable you to comment in such a way? Im sure that millions are wasted left right and centre as with any council, but do you not ever occasionally think "today, i'll have a chill pill'?
ReplyDelete