Holiday over for another year...

***

Those CCTV mobile spy vans may be Smart cars, but you have to question whether any of it has rubbed off on those responsible for them.

I have kept away from the rows about the cars because I think they are a necessary evil in Medway. Far too many people think a few seconds on the double yellow lines to drop off a letter, pick up a pupil from school, ask directions or greet a friend is perfectly all right. It isn't.

Equally as many believe the only reason for the CCTV cars is to provide the council with a ready-made source of additional cash.

It might be - but it wouldn't be the million pound earner that it is if there was not so much flaunting of the law by drivers.

Having said that, there is a clear lack of customer training for staff and a failure to crack down on the numerous abuses which they inflict.

I know one woman booked by the cars. A reasonable lady, she shrugged, accepted the penalty and got on with her life. Yet she apparently got a lot of abuse when there was a problem passing the CCTV car in the street.

The warden who recently accused a local resident armed with his own CCTV camera of harassment when they dared to turn it on him didn't know one vital bit of law: anyone can take photographs or film in the street, despite what some individual police officers may think in the wake of the anti-terrorism rules. Kent Police recently issued some simple guidelines to its own officers. One says: "The media do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places."

It also says: "In normal circumstances we have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record....Once images are recorded we have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if we think they contain damaging or useful evidence."

The public has exactly the same rights and powers as the press. No more. No less. Given the rapidly improving quality of mobile phone cameras, we will all have to get used to being filmed.

After all, the CCTV car wardens and the 500 CCTV cameras in Medway and Swale monitored by their colleagues in Strood are operating under exactly the same rights and powers. It's just that members of the public are more visible than people sitting in a bunker in Strood, or behind a Smart car windscreen.

(In case anyone thinks I might have a personal axe to grind, I don't. On the other hand, I was booked by one of the ground patrols yesterday while interviewing delighted students who have just completed their education in Medway...)

There is plenty of talk from government ministers about the need for localism. It is a phrase that is going to become increasingly part of the vocabulary in the next few years.

Kent's leaders are talking about creating a local economic partnership (a Cameron alternative to saying localism) consisting of Kent and Medway.

Elsewhere councils are looking at creating partnerships that equate to courses for horses.

One such involves the Thames Gateway councils.

Another is along the A21 from Hastings to Tonbridge. It includes councils with little or no interest in county boundaries.

Several councils are exploring the idea of being in partnership with other authorities facing sporting challenges, for example, but teaming up with different councils to provide, say, housing support services.

Medway, Swale and Gravesham already provide a combined building control department.

There's a Multi Area Agreement over transport and other services. Dartford is added to the Medway/Swale/Gravesham mix.

Some council leaders are looking elsewhere than to KCC for their futures.

Which might reflect why Medway would look extremely carefully before considering a tie-up with KCC. After all, one of the prime reasons for arguing that there should be a unitary authority free of KCC influence was because of the way that Kent dictated to the other authorities, and cash that should have been spent in the Medway Towns on tackling their many problems was milked away to rural areas.

There is a Big Seven that includes Medway, Kent, and Brighton and Hove.

They've successfully teamed up to control costs - something KCC powered through some years ago when it started Kent Top Temps, then diversified into buses, stationary, furniture and gardening.

But these days Kent County Council is only of interest to districts, boroughs and unitaries for what it can offer - not what it controls.

***

Tough times call for tough measures.

There was a time when a bean feast for councillors included caviar, champagne and chauffeur-driven cars.

Not now.

You'll be lucky to get a slice of cake and a squash these days.

I hear that tomorrow the new play area at Capstone Farm country park will be launched by Cllr Howard Doe with a .... cup of tea.

It's tough being a Cabinet member in a recession.

Having said that, I thought it was down to mayors to open things...

***

Seems one of my contacts was wrong.

Cllr Janice Bamber, the portfolio holder for Customer First, is no longer wanted by her ward members after they voted to oust her (and hubby Ken) from their ward seats on the Hoo Peninsula.

Rumour had it she, at least, had found an alternative seat as a candidate for Rainham Central. This time the source was wrong.

Brigita Amey, the Gillingham and Rainham Conservative Association chairman denied the story, saying they have not yet started the selection process for next year's local council election and have not received an expression of interest or any communication from Mrs. Bamber.

Happy to put the record straight, and apologies to readers for getting it wrong.