Topic: A statement issued by the town council

[Sector9]

So does the council have to write an official response every time someone criticises them in the papers? Surely you'd never get anything done...

[Shizzy]

MCM is trying to distance himself from the contents of the statement http://goo.gl/Ry3vI

[Al]

MCM is trying to distance himself from the contents of the statement http://goo.gl/Ry3vI

But he voted for it, did he not? If he wanted to distance himself he should have at least abstained.

[Shizzy]

His quote

"I only posted the  statement, thats all !"

Not quite all, he seconded it as well!

[Sector9]

I just wish councillors would stick to their guns, rather than trying to play some sort of popularity contest game. If Mike seconded it, he should be able to explain why he did so...

[charlie finbow]

I agree S9, I never went into it as a popularity contest but spoke my mind and made some good friends along the way, its really sad to see former colleagues bickering in public, still its their choice and they and they alone must try to justify it.   No doubt some will think it will all blow over and the next election is a long way off.   The ballot box will tell the truth.

[Shizzy]

I hope the local Conservatives keep a dignified silence so this blows over.

[baldy]

I very much doubt it as it was them who started it and who think they have an advantage in keeping the stir going ... because it's them who keep losing their own members and councillors and are trying to make out that the problem is everyone but themselves.
 
The reality is that they keep falling out amongst themselves and then don't like it when they can't get their own way.
 
Also, it's really rather petty to take potshots at less experienced councillors for asking questions or taking up time by trying to change things whe everyone went through the same experience when they started at the council to some degree or another.

[Shizzy]

I very much doubt it

Sadly I think you're right.

[charlie finbow]

I dont blame those who voted, least they had the balls to vote.   I think those who abstained (knowing they had the whip hand by voting against this and it would have been dead in the water), should be held to account.   I think, and I may be wrong, that they wanted it to go through just so Russell and co would have to take the flack, or am I just cynical.   I still feel its sad that a Council Statement should be issued when its not 100% the will of the council.   Why not just reply to the letters section of the WHN.

[Mike Hawkins]

I'm sorry Mike, but you are really starting to talk rubbish.
 
You need to get off your high horse and start acting as someone who has left the council with some dignity intact and the respect of those who are on the council.
 
If you carry on like this, you will lose the respect of those still on the council and be treated as a troublemaker and sniper who left because he could not get his own way, such as a third run as Mayor this side of the elections in May 2013.
 
Russell, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with my not being elected for a third term in office. I was asked by MCM to stand, had already decided not to, when I was told by another Councillor (with almost the experience you have, that I should not stand! Nobody tells me what or what not to do, and so I kept my name in the frame. It was YOU that advised the other Councillors, many of them whom were new, that it was against the rules for anybody to serve a third term. You, with all your experience, had failed to differentiate between serving a third term and serving a third CONSECUTIVE term. As I was not particularly interested in a third term, your inaccurate intervention did not bother me then and it does not bother me now!
 
The statement was debated fully by the majority of the council. The vote was entirely democratic.
 
The fact that it went through narrowly when the majority abstained means that most were happy to allow it through (ie. they did not vote against it) but were not prepared to actually vote to make sure it went through.
 
I laid the motion and said that I realise that if my motion fails that others will want to move a revised statement.
 
In the event, my motion went through after a recount.
 
You know full well that any successful motion at a full town council meeting IS official policy.
 
 
You seem to forget why the statement is being issued. It is in response to an outright attack by several members of the Conservative Party based on lies and misleading nonsense against the majority of the current council.
 
We are entitled to respond with the facts.
 
The idea that the council never gets involved in raw politics is simply a delusional "Alice in Wonderland" ideal that has NEVER been the case. You know full well that council and other Government debates often become political .... and the attacked party or politicians have the full right to respond IN KIND.
 
The real issue is why the Conservatives are trying to stir up trouble in the first place.
 
It's because they keep leaving the council and did not always get their way and are now trying to destroy the reputations of those who are left.
 

One, this was because you were upset by what a Conservative Councillor had said about you. This was NOT town council business, and indicated a total waste of time by councillors who are supposed to be putting the best interests of the town at heart, are instead using this time on party political issues.

Two. Why were you not discussing the proposals to buy the car parks for a £1? This is surely of most interest to the people of Westbury!
You need to be very careful Mike or most of the councillors will turn their fire on you too .... because you too have left the council and are now just behaving as a trouble maker.

Some of your friends on the Council have already turned their fire on me. To be exact, guerilla warfare, where posts have been made but then retracted before the opportunity for response is made. Personally, I could not care less. When they, and you if you so choose, attack me, then you are leaving somebody else alone, and further demonstrating that you are interested in "self glorification" instead of doing your job of representing the people in the real issues that affect the town!

I will continue to express my views as I see fit, and YOU or your friends will not stop me!

PS: I may have left the town council but I am still a council tax payer in Westbury. If you feel that I should just shut up and put up with the cr*p that some of you are coming up, and not dare to argue with you "our elected representatives", please say so publicly.

I, and anybody else in Westbury, have as much right to express our views on ANY issue that faces our town,, especially when, you, as one of our elected representatives seem to feel (with others) more importance should be placed on "in-fighting" ,

You are elected representatives NOT town bosses!!

PS: Please excuse the use of the colour red. This is not a political statement, but just shows my feelings at the arrogance of certain councillors and the way they are completely failing the people of Westbury!

[baldy]

It was YOU that advised the other Councillors, many of them whom were new, that it was against the rules for anybody to serve a third term. You, with all your experience, had failed to differentiate between serving a third term and serving a third CONSECUTIVE term. As I was not particularly interested in a third term, your inaccurate intervention did not bother me then and it does not bother me now!

Mike
 
I see little point in arguing with most of what you are saying as I think you are just transmitting rather than listening.
 
In answer to the selected quote above:
 
 Actually, what I said at the May full town council meeting was that there is a convention that councillors tend to serve up to 2 years as Mayor, and that when there are good candidates available there is no need to get someone to serve a third year, and that Sue Ezra deserved her chance to have a second year. This is entirely true.     I was not talking about consecutive  years, not least because it would not apply to you anyway as your terms were separate and the last one was several years ago.
 
Also, you let the two nominations for Deputy Mayor (you and Sue Ezra) run for 2 months and then there was a vote to elect one from you two at the May meeting.
 
If you are saying that you just wanted to be Deputy Mayor and not run to be Mayor the year after, then you never told us that and that would be unfair to whoever had to go in as Mayor without a year running up to speed as deputy.
 
 

[charlie finbow]

Seems like the old saying of "you cant have an intellectual fight with an unarmed person" is true. 

[Mike Hawkins]

Seems like the old saying of "you cant have an intellectual fight with an unarmed person" is true. 

Am I really unarmed? 

[charlie finbow]

No Mike definately NOT you but I hope you see what I mean.