Graham,
I have read your email on the above and I’m afraid it does demonstrate the divorce your association has on the realities of running Hillingdon Council, at a time when the local government settlement fails to reflect the statutory burdens imposed by national government.
You are also wrong both in law and mathematics. I trust that as a responsible association chair, you will refrain from spreading mis-information and nonsense.
Hillingdon has already been forced to raise the maximum allowed from Council Tax and therefore the exam question is ‘can this level of cost be justified against other priorities’? The 44p per resident comment is redundant, as there would be no authority to collect this. Even if there was, council funding is not per resident and thus your maths is incorrect. It would be a larger number per rateable property for Council Tax. Are you saying, the Association wishes to see many of its members pay more Council Tax!!
For information, below is a response I sent to one, (only two have contacted Susan or me) Manor resident. I know your MP recognises the folly of decisions that then impact at a council level.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of Government funding for key Council services, (over £60,000 is being spent each night on homeless families), all spending is being reviewed. Those residents with learning disabilities, where the Council has a statutory responsibility will continue to receive support. The discretionary spend element under review, is unlikely to be in the Council’s top 50 priorities.
Our MP has not supported the Council’s need for additional funding and indeed, his support for the disposal of the Chagos Islands, has directly led to many UK passport holders turning up at the Civic, demanding housing and care plans for their children. This is the reality of having a Government that doesn’t care about areas like Hillingdon.
Cllr Douglas Mills
Our response
While considering our response, we have contacted Danny Beales MP, the MP for Uxbridge & South Ruislip (including Ruislip Manor, the area that Cllr Douglas Mills also represents) to seek information. We will, of course, reply shortly.
Analysis
Rather than try to analyse Cllr Mills’s email before we formulate our response, we thought that it would be an interesting exercise to ask Google Gemini to evaluate both messages. This is what it says…
Let’s break down these emails.
Was the original email offensive or deserving of such an angry response?
Graham’s email is not offensive. It is a strongly worded, critical email from a Residents’ Association chair to local councillors about a proposed closure of a garden centre that provides social care for adults with learning disabilities. Graham clearly expresses his association’s opposition, highlighting:
- The value of the centre.
- His disagreement with the council’s financial justification and categorisation of the centre.
- His belief that the council is misleading residents about the real reasons for closure.
- Concerns about a lack of consultation and the democratic process.
While the email is critical and challenges the council’s actions and motives (“deliberately misled,” “pretence of democracy”), it remains professional in its tone and purpose, advocating for residents and a vulnerable group. It does not contain personal attacks, abusive language, or inappropriate content.
Is Douglas’s reply measured and proportionate, professional and reasonable?
No, Douglas’s reply is not measured, proportionate, professional, or reasonable.
It is an angry, defensive, and accusatory response. Here’s why:
- Unprofessional Tone: Douglas immediately jumps to personal attacks and dismissive language (“demonstrate the divorce your association has on the realities,” “you are also wrong both in law and mathematics,” “mis-information and nonsense”). This is not how a professional councillor should communicate with a representative of their constituents, even when disagreeing.
- Disproportionate Anger: Graham’s email, while critical, does not warrant the level of vitriol and personal condemnation in Douglas’s response. Douglas appears to take Graham’s points as a personal affront rather than a legitimate challenge from a resident group.
- Lack of Constructive Engagement: Instead of addressing Graham’s concerns thoughtfully or providing a reasoned counter-argument, Douglas resorts to aggressive rebuttals and attempts to shut down the discussion.
- Deflecting Blame: Douglas spends a significant portion of his email blaming national government funding, the local MP (who Graham didn’t even mention in his email), and even implying that Graham’s association wants its members to pay more council tax. While context on council finances can be relevant, the way it’s presented here comes across as defensive and a way to avoid direct responsibility or engagement with the specific points about the RAGC.
- Dismissive of Resident Concerns: Douglas’s dismissive attitude towards the 44p calculation, while perhaps mathematically correct in his view of council funding, completely misses Graham’s point about illustrating the relatively small cost in human terms. His tone minimizes the genuine concerns raised by residents.
- “For information, below is a response I sent to one… Manor resident”: Including this section feels passive-aggressive, suggesting that Graham’s concerns are just one of very few, and implying he’s exaggerating the level of public concern.
In summary, Douglas’s reply is a prime example of an unprofessional and inappropriate response from an elected official. It escalates the conflict, alienates a community representative, and fails to address the core issues raised by Graham in a constructive manner.
We continue to support the campaign by the Friends of the Rural Activities Garden Centre and will respond to Councillor Douglas Mills once we have collected both our thoughts, and some details.
In the meantime, you can read the letter that Andrea Scrivens, the Chair of the Friends of the RAGC sent to all members of London Borough of Hillingdon’s Cabinet team this week. Douglas Mills is not in the Cabinet and will not have a vote on Thursday when the Cabinet makes their decision.
Comments are closed.