SOCM is committed to working with other interested groups and the council to create a memorial piece of the mural HOWEVER we have not had answers to our questions. We would encourage everyone to put in a Freedom of Information request either by letter or email to the council send it to : [email protected] subject: Freedom of Information regards destruction of the Chartist mural. We are sure you have you own questions but here are some pertinant ones you could also ask In a report to the cabinet minister for Leisure and Culture. the author Rob Frowen, Regeneration Manager summarises that it is impossible to preserve the original mural We have been advised by councillors this decision was made following an engineers report is this true . If it is so I request a copy of the report. If it is not true how did the council come to the decision that it was impossible to preserve the original mural? When the report mentions impossible to preserve the original mural does this mean the mural in its original location or does it mean the mural which could have been moved and resited elsewhere ? Why was Oliver Budd not asked to advise on the removal, storing and resiting of the mural in 2012 and again in 2013 ? Why was Oliver Budd not asked to quote on the removal, storing and resiting of the mural in 2012 and again in 2013 ? We know that the council made the decision to destroy the mural in 2012 . However, we want to know who gave the order mobilised and instructed the workmen to destroy the mural on 03/10/13 ? Who in the council knew the mural was going to be destroyed on 03 /10/13 ? Why werent the correct procedures followed to inform the cabinet that the mural was going to be destroyed on 03/10/13 ? On the basis of what written professional advice did you deem the Chartist Mural and such other structure as it may have been attached to to pose a risk such as might attract potential liability under the corporate manslaughter act? No doubt such advice was in writing, could you please disclose this? Which health and safety procedures regards potential liability under the corporate manslaughter act were put in place to protect the council workers destroying the mural? If the building the mural was attached to was considered so unsound and posed a risk such as might attract potential liability under the corporate manslaughter act, why were council staff not adhering to the correct health and safety procedures as clearly shown in the film footage ? If the building the Chartist Mural and such other structure as it may have been attached to posed a risk such as might attract potential liability under the corporate manslaughter act why were council workmen slamming the wall with the bucket of a digger and using an impact drill on the wall? Were these actions against health and safety regulations and misuse of the plant? Why were they allowed to happen? If the mural was integrally attached to another, unsafe carpark wall that posed a clear and present danger to the public, then how/why was the carpark wall impervious to damage sustained from both the digger, and the diggers assault on the attached mural itself, remaining unscathed, and still standing six weeks later? Who is culpable for misinforming the council that the mural was impossible to save and thus damning the mural to destruction. Surely there is a case for liability? Is the council perusing this on behalf of the people of Newport? If not why not? look forward to hearing back the responses
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:32:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015