Step forward Bristol City Council’s Kate Hartas …
As the only person in Bristol who’s seemingly oblivious to the longstanding antipathy between motorists and cyclists in the city, Kate was handed the job of spinning the council’s controversial plan to close one lane of Prince Street Bridge to motor traffic.
And what a top job the communications expert did by deciding to heavily brand the long-planned move as part of the new multi-million pound ‘Cycling City’ initiative to popularise cycling despite its impact on cyclists apparently being marginal and the whole project actually being far more advantageous to Labour’s unpopular, cut-price Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) plans.
Cue a series of immediate and bitter recriminations between the motoring lobby and the cycling lobby across the Evening Cancer website, dividing the city once again along predictable lines and turning a small controversy into nothing short of open warfare between cyclists and motorists
In a further brilliant tactical move, Kate also decided to provide access to the frothingly pro-car Evening Cancer and even went to the trouble of arranging a photo-op for the paper on the bridge featuring Labour Transport boss, Mark Bradshaw.
Come Friday and the story is launched on the front page of the Cancer with a gormless-looking Bradshaw leering out at us from Prince Street accompanied by the headline ‘FARCICAL’ in 250 point bold type.
Let’s hope Ms Hartas and her boss, city council PR supremo and self-styled Nobel laureate Simon Caplan, are fully paid-up members of the “all publicity is good publicity” school of thought.
In a final coup de grâce Hartas then spent Friday engaging in some rapid rebuttal on the Cancer website. “The story is competely inaccurate in the printed version of the paper. The bridge is not to be closed to cars,” thundered the PR before encouraging readers to see what her press release actually said.
And what a treat for those of us that did. Because it was, er … Completely inaccurate! “[The] narrow swing bridge over the historic Floating Harbour has a slim pavement on one side only,” Ms Hartas writes of a bridge that quite clearly has two pavements. Oh dear.
Move over Max Clifford. There’s a new kid on the block.
One must presume that when Ms Hartas said the bridge only had one pavement , she accidentally used the wrong tense, or set the embargo on the press release too early. That is, the bridge will only have one pavement, so we will then proceed to be grateful when we get a new one.
Remarkable isn’t it how Simon “Carole” Caplan’s propaganda machine can make such a complete and utter balls up of what is a pretty sensible idea.
It’s as if a, Carole and Kate have never heard of the Evening Cancer and b, they’ve never been to Bristol before.
Kind of sums up the general chaos that exists in that big brick building on College Green.
Would this Ms Hartas be related to Ms Gee of Interface by any chance?
There seem to be remarkable similarities between their two PR styles… an ability to eat ones own foot not being being the least of these.
The paper gets it wrong – so what’s new – about their commenters. As usual 45% are in favour, 45% are against and the other 10% are sufficiently equivocal or even so downright incoherent in their fury or confusion that you can’t actually work out whether they’re for or against. You’ve got to wonder which comes off worst in the end – the heads or the wall?
Once again the Blogger misses the point – and misses his target. Instead of focusing on the rights or wrongs of the issue, he chooses to make an unwarranted and nasty personal attack on a individual employee of the city council, who is simply doing her job and carrying out instructions given her by others.
Firstly, the decision to focus on the proposals for Prince Street Bridge in this piece of publicity was taken elsewhere in the council and not by Ms Hartas. The focus on the bridge proposal was deliberate and designed to ensure that the council were open and honest with the public about the scheme, given previous widespread debate. No doubt if we hadn’t focused on it, we would have been accused of hiding things by the Blogger and others. Secondly, the news release itself was actually drafted by me and if there were any errors about the number or position of pavements, then those errors were down to me – and not Kate Hartas. We have updated the information on our website to clarify matters.
However, the real point here is that the space for pedestrians and cyclists on Prince Street Bridge is very limited. The safety risk for all road users, including motorists, is significant. Anyone who has tried to walk across the bridge at busy times will know that. The proposal is NOT to ban vehicles at all – but to provide more space for pedestrians and cyclists, who are the majority of peak time road users. We would then control the flow of vehicles through one-way working in either direction, using traffic lights. This would initially be for a three month experimental period and if there were any significant issues they could be considered when reviewing the scheme at the end of that initial period.
Please can you stick to the issues and not hide behind your anonymity to slander employees at the council who are doing their best to communicate information to the public and playing their part in promoting road safety.
Slander (or even libel), is it, Simon? Guess Kate’s writ must have been lost in the post 🙂
Not the most convincing outburst of pique on your part, though, is it? ‘Don’t blame my lackey for putting out a blatantly inaccurate press release without even a cursory bit of fact-checking, she vos only obeyink orders! And besides, we’re the council and you can’t doubt that we have your best interests at heart, little people, so stop whining! And you’re all rotters, because you don’t sign off your blogs with your postcode, date of birth, National Insurance number and mother’s maiden name, you cowardly bastards!’
By the way, which nugget at the council decided on the partial introduction of the killer puffin crossings? Whilst I’m sure they didn’t receive any benefits in kind or other such tax-freebies, it would be nice to see a little of that ‘openness and honesty’ which you seem so keen on talking about applied to a move so potentially calamitous to the health of pedestrians.
PS Any comment on the perception of a conflict of interest that Kate’s Janus-like role as PR flack for both BCC and WEP might throw up?
Toodle pip!
Yeah… what’s all this “hiding behind anonymity” crap Simon? You know as well as I do that since our glorious NuLabour government gave councils (along with a wide variety of other “agencies”) the power to initiate tapping of our telephone and email communications, there is no such thing as anonymity as far as you lot are concerned… care to tell us how often Bristol City Council have used these powers Simon? The citizens of Bristol should be told!
Simon, you criticise the Bristol Blogger for not putting his real name to his blog piece while at the same time admitting that you yourself declined to put your own name to the press release that you wrote. What’s the difference?
Q:
A:
Simon Caplan has paid flunkeys to dive in front of the machine-gun chatter, whereas TBB doesn’t!
Carole’s more than welcome to get his legal team to email me at bristol_citizens@yahoo.co.uk and I’ll supply the name address for the serving of any writ if they can explain what’s slanderous.
Athough I suspect he may be using the term slanderous in the same sense he used the term “I can win the nobel prize”.
Is there a Nobel available for not being able to work out how many pavements there are on a small bridge?
“However, the real point here is that the space for pedestrians and cyclists on Prince Street Bridge is very limited. ”
Cycling across Prince Street Bridge is fine just as it is. The road is plenty wide enough for several bikes at a time.
There’s not enough space for a car to safely pass a bicycle, but that’s a problem for the car drivers not cyclists – as long as you ride wide enough to make it clear there’s no overtaking.
The problem, and what the proposed changes will solve, is that the pedestrian footways are narrow and busy, so pedestrians routinely step into the roadway.
It’s great that this is going to be solved, but it’s nothing to do with cycling.
And Simon, if you’re going to post here complaining about character attacks on council staff it’s best not to start your post with a string of ad hom attacks on the Bristol Blogger. Just a thought.
Carole,
1, It’s your job to get ensure press releases are accurate. The number of pavements on Princes Street Bridge most definitely does have an important bearing on this initiative and it’s patently absurd that you got it 50% wrong.
2, “An unwarranted and nasty personal attack”? What??? I can’t see anything unwarranted or nasty in the original post whatsoever. Calling you a fat, pompous egomaniac is a bit more personal, but hardly unwarranted.
3, The Blogger’s hardly missing the point, is he? The point wasn’t about the Princes Street Bridge redesign, which many people think is a very sensible proposal, the point was about Corporate Communications making such a pig’s ear of communicating it. I mean, that’s what you do all day, communicate stuff, and you’ve managed to make an almighty fuck up of this one.
4, Are you still a “rock and pop nut”?
……..and 5, Are we paying you to surf the internet during Tuesday afternoons?
Fair dos Bluebaldee, Simon’s responsible for Corporate Relations and TBB is one of the most credible media outlets in Bristol, so it’s quite legitimate for him to spend taxpayers’ time checking it out.
But Simon, there’s a few more “mistakes” in the press release that you might like to correct.
1. “Plans …. include two new major ‘off-road’ commuter routes”
Wrong. The off-road routes proposed are not new but upgrades of existing routes and not even major ones at that.
2. “Councillor Mark Bradshaw… said: Our city already has a tremendous range of facilities and routes for cycling”
Wrong. With the exception of the Railway Path, facilities and routes for cyclists are widely regarded as poor quality and ill-thought out.
3. “The city council is prepared to take some tough decisions, such as tackling safety concerns on Prince Street Bridge”
Wrong. The tough decision would have been to close the bridge entirely to cars and assign one half to walkers and the other to cyclists. As it is you’ve opted for the easy option of keeping it open to cars and forcing cyclists and walkers to share an inadequate width.
4. “One of the new ‘off-road’ routes proposed …. will link the city centre with Lockleaze …. via a new path between Hopetown Road in St Werburgh’s and Muller Road, Horfield.”
Wrong. The path from Hopetoun (spelling) Road to Muller Road already exists and has been used by cyclists for 20 years or more.
5. “The other new ‘off road’ route ….. will enable cyclists to travel into the city centre from south Bristol via Hartcliffe Way and an improved Malago Greenway”
Wrong. Cyclists can already cycle this route and have been doing so for 20 years. Upgrading the route does not make it “new”.
6. “The first phase of Cycling City work also proposes to deliver an improved route for cyclists and pedestrians alike across the city’s Prince Street bridge.”
Wrong. There is no evidence that the route will be improved for cyclists who will find themselves forced onto half the width they currently enjoy and probably into conflict with pedestrians.
7. “This narrow swing bridge over the historic Floating Harbour has a slim pavement on one side only and poses a danger for cyclists…”
Wrong. There are pavements on both sides and, whilst there is no evidence of danger from this to cyclists.
8. “The Cycling City proposal will see the introduction of more space for cyclists …”-
Wrong. Cyclists will have less space than they enjoy at present.
9. “Initial improvements … will include new direction and information signs for the popular Bristol to Bath ‘Railway’ Path through eastern and central Bristol”
Wrong. The Railway Path does not go “through” central Bristol, just east Bristol.
Sadly I couldn’t find a tenth “mistake” but nine’s pretty good going in just one press release.
don’t you just love it!!!
& all of this could have been avoided with a little simple research.
[quote]The focus on the bridge proposal was deliberate and designed to ensure that the council were open and honest with the public about the scheme, given previous widespread debate.[/quote]
& that is definately a first from BCC!!!!!
That “focus” claim could be the tenth ‘mistake’, since the news about Prince Street Bridge is hardly the focus of the press release, that being Cycling City. It would be closer to the truth to say that the Prince Street Bridge news was ‘buried away’ inside the Cycling City news.
The press release has 16 paragraphs. Prince Street Bridge doesn’t get a mention until the 7th para and isn’t dealt with until 12th para. That doesn’t sound like a “focus on the bridge” to me, given that they knew very well that it was easily the most contentious element.
And it really is stooping low to try to ‘blame’ the Prince Street Bridge restrictions on cyclists so we get the flak in the Evil Post. Cyclists, rightly or wrongly, get a lot of resentment from motorists and pedestrians. Fanning the flames by saying the traffic restrictions are required to benefit cyclists is hardly consistent with the objectives of Cycling City.
Well,Well,Well this is how our highly paid council people spend their days, not working but flittering through independent blog sites no wonder our great city is falling apart at the seams.
Getting on with what one is paid to do should be the work ethic not whiling away the hour skipping around the internet.
Simon Caplan wrote: “… the decision to focus on the proposals for Prince Street Bridge in this piece of publicity was taken elsewhere in the council and not by Ms Hartas … the news release itself was actually drafted by me and if there were any errors about the number or position of pavements, then those errors were down to me – and not Kate Hartas.”
Ms Hartas clearly has an even lower profile than Gulnara Karimova (another Rothschild friend). Mr Caplan’s statement leaves hanging the question as to what, if anything, Ms Hartas IS actually responsible for doing in return for her, no doubt handsome “remuneration”? The unfortunate impression given is that she’s just a pretty face.
b/b hasn’t missed the point, nor the target for that matter.
in fact it’s another bullseye!!!
even the picture on the front page of the post clearly shows pedestrians using both pavements lol
i think mr caplan should think about employing staff that are prepared to actually do some thorough research before releasing the report.
isn’t that what they’re excessively overpaid to do & is it to much to ask??
& please, stop making pathetic excuses for what is yet more incompetence from BCC. 😕
“However, the real point here is that the space for pedestrians and cyclists on Prince Street Bridge is very limited.”
Or rather, it will be, once cyclists are limited to a shared space instead of a lovely road.
Pingback: Simon Caplan’s slander watch: day 1 « The Bristol Blogger
I just noticed that the press release http://www.bristol.gov.uk/redirect?oid=PressRelease-id-28475020 now has Simon Caplan as the author. The release date is still given as 23rd October and there’s no note to explain that the document has been altered.
Only a minor change but it’s bad form to change history like that, let’s hope BCC staff don’t make a habit of it.
Meanwhile, is there a plan of the new bridge layout available?
I’ve been thinking about it a bit.
I can’t see that just one lane of the current bridge is going to be wide enough for two separate cycle lanes, one in each direction, plus a separate pedestrian lane.
I’m guessing that the current Anolfini / Industrial Museum side of the bridge will be split into two lanes, one for cyclists and one for pedestrians. Hopefully with a proper fence to prevent pedestrians spilling across.
In the worst case the whole lane will simply be designated for pedestrians and cyclists with no separation. I hope not because at busy times that would be impossible to cycle safely. Even at quiet times it would be a right pain.
Assuming we get a separate cycling lane that means we’ll be cycling in different directions in the same lane, not ideal and a bit worse than the current arrangement but manageable.
I can see the bit where the cyclists heading out of town have to cross a line of incoming traffic before getting to their bit of the bridge being tricky though. And then back again after crossing.
It’s a dodgy bit of road at the best of times currently, not because of the bridge but the Grove / Prince Street junction is tricky and with cars parked along the section by the Industrial Museum it’s all a bit too tight for comfort.
Now add in cars waiting for their time to cross, cars crossing lanes to get on and off the bridge heading in either direction, cyclists crossing lanes to get to their bit of the bridge.
It sounds worse than the current arrangements from the cyclists point of view. Chances are there’ll have to be a traffic light system just for cyclists, so we’ll get a slower crossing than currently. Which will suck and be widely ignored.
It’s worth noting that the whole bridge was recently closed for a refurb for several months and Bristol didn’t collapse as a result.
from inks “Chances are there’ll have to be a traffic light system just for cyclists, so we’ll get a slower crossing than currently. Which will suck and be widely ignored.”
pretty much the same as the majority of traffic light systems in the city, that most cyclists seem to widely ignore 😀
I manged the first two words of the press release …”Detailed proposals”…….yawn yawn yawn, I’m bored already.
[Eeek! This is good … and I don’t want any ASDA value cheese for this one!
It seems that the Bristol Blogger (again) has got under the skin of the Bristol City Council’s press department.
A recent BB post has elicited the following response from Simon Caplin (Head of PR for the Bristol CC).
“Please can you stick to the issues and not hide behind your anonymity to slander employees at the council who are doing their best to communicate information to the public and playing their part in promoting road safety.”
I’ll let you make you own mind up as to who is right or wrong … but it makes great viewing from the PRBristol cage!]
KateWatch continues!
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Bristol-sandwich-bar-refused-permission-hot-food-takeaway/article-493291-detail/article.html
Could this be the beginning of Buttiegate?
😮