To some extent Alan is right, but I don't believe Christie is a non-issue. I'll return to that later though. Peter H mainly uses the site to vent his frustration (something we all feel to varying extents) about Labour policies that don't deliver exactly what they were meant to, or that don't fit easily in our conscience or ideology.
While that is fair enough, can I suggest that he is doing it in the wrong place. I'm sure there are plenty of websites out there dedicated to criticism of this administration, and perhaps it would be more appropriate to use those to voice opinions on those issues.
This website exists to hold John Leech to account and to praise him where praise is due. Peter H (and others) should use this site to do that. The fact is that there has yet to be a news story (and barely a comment) that featured on this site that praised John Leech for delivering in our community. Why is this? Since 12th April 2006, it has been possible for anyone to add to the blog. Since then, we have published nine stories that have mainly been negative. The only blog entries that have been rejected were two posts that made claims so wild and unsubstantiated that it was unfair to John Leech to publish them without evidence, and a host of entries advertising phentermine, viagra and porn sites.
So why is no one submitting these entries? The website is an open forum for debate - that much is clear. If a blog entry is fair it will be approved. So that either leads us to the conclusion that:
(a) John Leech has done nothing worth mentioning.
(b) No one has noticed him doing things in our communities.
(c) No one can be bothered posting.
Although I've yet to see any evidence that suggests anything other than (a) to be true, perhaps if people like Peter H made more of an effort to explain what John Leech is doing people would appreciate his efforts more.
Finally, on the Christie issue. Let me be very clear on these points:
(a) John Leech (although this is about the 10th iteration of his story) says that his claims that the hospital could close were based solely on the word of the statement signed by 60 doctors.
(b) The statement signed by doctors, which was obtained using the Freedom of Information Act (http://www.johnleechwatch.com/files/Christie-review-staff-statement.doc) does not mention the hospital closing.
(c) Various statements from senior officials in health authority made it clear that the hospital was never under any threat of closure and that statements to that effect were untrue.
It is therefore very clear that John Leech at very best misled people during his election campaign and probably told calculated lies.
That doesn't explain why it is still an issue though. Recently John Leech has been putting out Christmas cards saying (I paraphrase) "I didn't lie, honest guv", and John Leech has received criticism in Parliament for his actions (both from John Prescott and in the form of and EDM).
For some strange reason, John Leech is promoting this issue and as such it is right that it still remains a topic of discussion.
