Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey Mayor Sheila Peacock says riots "best thing that's happened in Tottenham for a while".
Interviewed for a video, Haringey Mayor, Cllr Sheila Peacock is shown saying that:
"The second riots that we’ve just had was the best thing that’s happened in Tottenham for a while. My reason for saying that is, all of a sudden, the Government is now starting to pump money into Tottenham. Because Tottenham - Haringey is an outer London Borough so we don't get as much money as Islington or Hackney. And we've been struggling for years."
"— Cllr Sheila Peacock, http://bit.ly/11R2JxI
Tags for Forum Posts: Cllr Sheila Peacock, Haringey, Sheila Peacock, Tottenham, gaffe, riot
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I had an email this afternoon from a reporter from the Daily Mail. Apparently they picked up on this post and the reporter has filed a short story on Sheila Peacock's comment.
-
Permalink Reply by PAM on
-
Sheila Peacock had the cheek to boast to me recently that she was now Mayor!... Well Madam as you are greedily rubbing your hands together gushing about how much money is now coming in to Tottenham, I remain unable to forget how frightened and distressed I felt as I sat alone with no power, in the darkness, only illuminated by burning embers blowing in the smoke stenched air, the deafening engine noise of the police helicopter only feet away, the burning pavements and buildings and the terrifying fear of what may happen next, how my blood still runs cold if I hear shouting in the street...and my heartbreaking memory of my 90 year old neighbour who sat at the bus stop crying because he could not collect his pension! - SHEILA PEACOCK YOU HAVE MY VOTE ...OF NO CONFIDENCE!!! ....Lets all get a campaign together and de-mayor her?
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
My understanding was that some residents in flats above the (later, gutted) Carpetright store came close to losing their lives when the fire took hold.
When for several days the initial police response seemed to falter, I remember thinking that if this continues for much longer, consideration might need to be given to deploying the army.
I don't doubt that money is being pumped into Tottenham, as indeed happened under the last government. However, who was responsible for spending it, what was it spent on and what is there to show for the huge sums spent on Tottenham regeneration since about 2000?
-
-
I'm a reporter at the Evening Standard and am working on a story about Sheila Peacock's comments. Would you be willing to speak to me about what happened? My number is 020 3615 2425.
-
-
Robert, the riots were not a good thing, let alone the 'best' thing and the Mayor's description was insensitive at best. Comments like those tend to bring the council into disrepute. However, there are other aspects that require comment.
- Benefit or advancement for Tottenham is seen solely in terms of cash injection from external bodies.
- However, massive cash injection from external bodies into Tottenham has come for many years, including £50,000,000 – plus matched funding – during the term of the previous government, who appear to come in for oblique criticism. An audit part way through the Bridge NDC, shows that some of these monies were unaccounted for. For a period, multiple amounts of up to £25,000 were being handed out without any documentation.
- Who was responsible for spending that money? What was it spent on? Where did the money go? What is there to show for it?
- It has been suggested elsewhere, that the more recent 'riot money' was paid over to a private company (Tottenham Football Club), in order to encourage them not to re-locate their business. You might care to research that assertion for your story.
- Tottenham has been represented by the same political party for 40 years.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
You rang my home and left a message, Mr Fisk. I have left a message on your phone. You are welcome to phone me again though I have little to add to what's on this thread.
As you probably know if you have spoken to her, Sheila Peacock refused to apologise and insists "that sentence was taken completely out of context". She was apparently unable to understand how at least some people who live in Tottenham might not have understood the "context" - whatever it was.
My main feeling now, a couple of weeks later, is sadness that after a lifetime of service to this community and the excellent causes she champions tirelessly, Sheila may be remembered as the Mayor of Haringey who was quoted almost exactly two years after the 2011 riot, as saying on video, something so hurtful and insensitive - especially for those who were victims of the riot.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
It would appear from this report from LBC that Mayor Peacock has now apologised for her comments
-
-
Thanks Liz.
Sheila is quoted as saying: "
As many people know, I have lived all of my life in Tottenham and am very proud to be an ambassador for the area I love."
"It was certainly not my intention for my comments to cause any offence, and I'm very sorry if they did."
This is a classic non-apology. It's in effect, saying: "I'm sorry if people feel offended". Or "I'm sorry you felt upset".
This type of "faux apology" does not admit there was anything wrong with the remarks made or actions taken.
There's a Wikipedia page about this. (Of course!)
One reporter who phoned me said that politicians don't like to apologise. I suggested that on the contrary, many have learned to do precisely this. Whether or not we believe them is another matter. At least they're big and brave enough to try.
-
-
She has apologised for any offence caused. As she knows offence was caused, that counts as an apology, surely? What more can you expect? If she apologised any further, people would just jump on her further still and attack her for somehow admitting that she did in fact believe that the riots were a good thing. It was pretty obvious that that's not what she originally meant, so I can see why she doesn't want to apologise for that.
Perhaps it would be better if Haringey politicians all politely and civilly asked each other to explain what they really meant when there is ambiguity or oddness in remarks rather than attacking on internet boards etc. It might lead to a more constructive environment for getting things done in the borough.
-
-
Dear anonymous poster on an internet board, why do you assume I didn't contact Sheila Peacock politely and civilly and explain why I thought she should apologise?
I suggest it's quite important that we understand the difference between an apology and a false or fauxpology. Not because of Sheila Peacock, but because this crops up all the time in public discussions.
As I understand the linguistic argument, a genuine apology requires two parts. One is expression of contrition or regret: "I'm sorry". The second is acceptance of responsibility: "... for what I said/did."
This isn't some minor quibble. Compare:
- "I understand why you are upset. I was wrong to say what I said and I apologise."
- "I understand why you are upset about what I said and I'm really sorry you feel that way."
The second is a fauxpology which shifts the focus to the person complaining. Their feeling of upset becomes the problem. I've heard a former Chief Executive use this device with a senior councillor saying something like: "I can see you feel very strongly about this and I'm sorry you feel that way."
If we can't spot the difference we'll continue to be misled.
-
-
hi Alan - it seems to me that if you contacted Sheila Peacock initially you might have simply asked her if she really felt the riots were a good thing (as I assume this statement would have surprised you). She probably would have said no, of course not, explained herself and then end of story! Asking someone politely to apologise rarely works, means that judgment has already been cast, and usually makes people defensive.
As for the apology issue (and apologies for late night pedantry): she didn't say she was sorry that people felt a certain way. She said that she was sorry if her comments caused offence. That's slightly different, surely, and an acceptance of slightly more responsibility for her words than your fauxpology example.
-
-
I did contact Sheila. I emailed and said what I felt and what I thought she should do.
But okay, let's start by accepting that it was simply a silly gaffe. That Sheila doesn't actually think the riot was a good thing.
We all make gaffes. Say things we wish we hadn't said. The problem with being a councillor or the Mayor is that people may record what you say. And with the internet it's far easier to look up something you said - without for instance, spending days in a newspaper library in Colindale.
With a video posted on the internet everyone can see and hear you. Possibly indefinitely. The media world has changed.
Bear in mind that this wasn't someone secretly recording Alan Duncan making a daft comment in what he thought was a private conversation about the Parliamentary expenses scandal. Or Presidential candidate Mitt Romney in a private meeting disparaging 47% of U.S. voters. Sheila spoke to a man with a video camera who asked her to make a comment on camera about the riot.
I've mulled over your point about the "slight difference" implying "slightly more responsibility" . But I'm not persuaded.
Look, there are ways for people to apologise sincerely for making a gaffe. I've had to use them. Maybe you have too?
"I'm really sorry for what I said. I didn't mean it." ; "I was wrong to say that." ; "It came out all wrong and I regret saying it."
But for me, "It was not my intention to cause any offence", doesn't really do it.
-
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
