Recently the Corridor of Contention has checked Mr Bannell’s text and found it lacking not only journalistic integrity, but also any rigour in evidence supporting his view.
Mr Bannell, standing as a candidate for Cambridge city council, claims he has a ‘solution for all’ to address traffic issues on Mill Road. A summary of claims made in his book The Battle for Mill Road Bridge: the controversial history & the case for judicial review make it hard to see how he can propose any credible policy should he gain office.
So far the flyer is the closest thing to a policy statement from Bannell, it lacks credence because:
- he has not published any kind of a plan for Mill Road other than ‘no change’
- he cannot provide a ‘solution that works for everyone’ as this does not exist.
- he has stoked division in the community by publishing misinformation about traffic filtering. He is incapable of ‘ending divisive politics’ when he is abusive toward those with views that differ from his own and disregards any evidence that supports traffic reduction measures.
- he is standing for the city council which has no power over highways, this is a County matter.
- the council is audited already and the accounts are public.
In his book Bannell insults those supporting traffic reduction measures, ignores factual rebuttal, accuses the cycling charity Camcycle of corrupt practice and disrespects the duly elected city councilor for Romsey as ‘a borderline abusive character’. This is hardly a basis for ‘ending divisive politics’ as his election flyer promises.
Bannell’s book makes many false claims. Thankfully Corridor of Contention have waded through the 160 pages of it so I didn’t have to. All the following is based on Bannell’s text, the source material being here.
In no particular order his claims are:
1. nearly 5000 petition signatures support keeping the bridge ‘open’. The sum of 3 separate petitions requesting the County consider 3 different aspects of the proposal does indeed reach almost 5000 but, this does not amount to anywhere near 5000 people rejecting it. The petition to allow taxis, for example, did not seek to open the bridge to all traffic. Similarly supporters of the petition for a Blue Badge holder exception cannot be said to reject filtering. It is also probable the 3 petitions received signatures from the same person in each one, further making the aggregation deceptive. Mr Bannell makes much play of ‘democratic deficit’ but is happy to rely on very questionable use of petition data if it supports his cause.
‘2. Camcycle are ‘funded by government grants‘. They are not and their accounts are open for public inspection. As a registered charity this is a legal requirement. Camcycle are majority funded by membership fees and donations. Camcycle does not use government grants as ‘how they pay themselves their salaries’.’
3. There is no record of traffic issues on Mill Rd before 2018. There is. Archival research by the Corridor of Contention didn’t have to look far to find this, from the Cambridge News published in 1973:
4. Mill Road Traders were excluded from consultation, this is repeated from Bannell’s letter to the Cambridge Independent in November 2023. Despite a clear rebuttal prior to publication this claim is made again in his book. Mill Rd Traders were not excluded from the consultation and are listed as key stakeholders in the report. Note that membership of Mill Road Traders Association represents only about 30 of the near 200 trading premises on Mill Rd so relative to the population of Romsey & Petersfield are a small number.
5. Campaigners in support of traffic reduction ‘don’t have to work for a living’ A curious statement but an obvious smear which has no journalistic merit or basis.
6. Local campaigning group Mill Rd for People (MR4P) are in collusion with the County Council . It is impossible for MR4P or anyone, other than elected councillors to vote, let alone form a ‘voting bloc’ at the County Council Transport & Highways Committee. Bannell is suggesting MR4P have somehow subverted the process of the Council, this is a serious allegation and is not the case. Yes a local pressure group may seek to get councillors to vote one way or another but they cannot ‘create a voting bloc’.
7. Highways & Transport committee March 2023 data ‘is not true’. As a prospective councillor Mr Bannell shows an extraordinary disregard for the body he wishes to be elected to. He holds the very process of local governance in contempt: “what happened to data supporting the decisions?” he asks when all the data is in the agenda report (para 1.5 p2). The report findings contradict his view, so rather than offer evidence to support an alternate finding, Bannell decides the process is just plan wrong. He states “it isn’t true. how can people call it true when the very numbers show that it is not?” He does not say which numbers or how they show the opposite to the report findings and so his ‘stop the steal’ approach to the consultation result begins.
8. The County Council Highways & Transport Committee ‘imposing its will without consent.’ Representative democracy is legitimised by the process of election. Consent comes from the ballot box. Bannell states ‘we are dealing with a form of power which is intent on imposing its will without consent, no matter what. That is a form of tyranny’. Except it isn’t, its membership is subject to the electoral process and it operates within the constraints of budget, national government policy and a legal framework (which Mr Bannell has recourse to). A tyranny? No, but to Bannell who disagrees with the decision of the Committee it can’t be anything else. The very same Committee abandoned plans for a congestion charge but Bannell didn’t find that tyrannical.
Bannell is utterly convinced it must be wrong for a consultation on filtering traffic on Mill Rd to show support from the general public. To him, because he disagrees with the proposal this must be an imposition by a corrupt cabal who are too stupid to see the world as he does. Bannell was an activist in the successful campaign against the Cambridge congestion charge and no doubt believes he can achieve similar success on Mill Road. Should his ‘Friends of Mill Road Bridge’ group lose their court action expect further claims of foul play.
- He has no plan for Mill Road
- He has alienated supporters of traffic reduction
- He has racked up costs to the council which we will all pay in council tax increases
- He has held up safety works on Mill Road with his court action
- He wants voters to believe he has answers but only has accusations and insults
- He has no manifesto and no ability to work in coalition with any party other than the Conservatives.
B
Billboyheritagesurvey's Blog 