Not only was she given a job for which she was unsuited, this job was created specifically for her. The fact that the post of Education Officer was dropped in favour of creating the new post of Facilities Officer also tells us which way the project is going, and how it has been subverted from its original purpose. Which then raises the question, why is the Heritage Lottery Fund backing a wedding venue and conference centre, where’s the ‘heritage’ in that?

Having read the detailed job description, what part of Sue Lewis’ previous job as editor of The Tivyside qualified her to fulfil any of the duties of the role?
For example: “To oversee the recruitment, training and deployment of operational staff, including reception, catering, security, interpreting, cleaning and maintenance personnel, both paid and voluntary. To plan for the reception of staying visitors, conferences, function and wedding clients and ensuring that the Castle earns and maintains a reputation for high quality accommodation and service.”
Was Sue doubling up as cleaner at the Tivyside?
As the ability to communicate in Welsh was ‘an advantage’ for applicants, quite how did she get past the first screening out process?
Makes you wonder, eh?

Dyn Deche Rhys mentions three directors, who was the third?

That actually made me chuckle…..to be fair both Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire are run by criminals anyway….Welsh ones….I’d say get your own house in order first….

quite an underwhelming response that from your local Plod – he’s obviously cut out for a quiet life somewhere in darkest Gwynedd or in a discreet suburb of West Cheshire tucked round the back of Wrecsam, certainly not interested in having blood or bollocks spilt on his turf, and as you imply having your nuts removed in Aberteifi would conveniently take the offence outside his patch.

I used to think that this type of jobsworth only existed in County councils, water authority, health boards, welsh assembly, and sundry other bodies providing cushy numbers for as long as you manage to keep your head down. It is now evident that Plod also harbours a high percentage of such inerts, and will only get their arses into gear if the tasty case conforms to certain norms on being reported. So much for the concept of preemptive, preventive actions.

Parry will probably write you up as wasting police time !!!

Also, this type of exit deal normally involves the “input” of 1 or more firms of solicitors, who just love dipping into any kind of public funds.

I believe it is mentioned in the guest post by ‘Dyn Deche Rhys’ I put up this morning. Part of the arrangement was a gagging clause. From what understand of such things, gagging clauses are usually paid for with an enhanced redundancy package. If that is what happened in this case is the Heritage Lottery Fund happy to see its funding used in this way?

Having given the matter some thought, I believe that the best way forward – apart from blogging about what’s going on – is to pressure the funders. So with that in mind I propose to sit down and write a letter to the Heritage Lottery Fund setting out all that’s gone wrong, not least the total deviation from the original objective, the exclusion of locals, and the suspicious way in which jobs and contracts have been allocated. (A new example of the latter was been brought to my attention yesterday.) Then circulate that letter widely among the local media and the local politicians. Seeing as the local Lib Dem MP has nothing else to do he might take an interest.

nothing in there that gives the green light to carpetbaggers and opportunistic “venturers”. Indeed the whole project was based on historic and cultural drivers. Outcomes are deviating from this vision dramatically – so who gets to define “remedial measures ” ?