Councillors Claiming expenses - Page 5

cashman · 14-09-2010, 09:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

Be carefully cashy I had a post deleted for calling him that

yeh but offline at the moment, so most will have read it first.

jaysay · 14-09-2010, 09:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

yeh but offline at the moment, so most will have read it first.

accysimon · 14-09-2010, 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

No what you are is a Labour party politico trying somewhat clumsily to score points. If a Labour councillor was the subject of all this, I'm sure we wouldn't have heard a peep from you. However, you don't quite have the bottle to go the whole hog by naming the person, do you? Never mind...carry on skulking in the shadows!

Actually, I don't agree with it whoever claims it, whether they be Labour, Tory, Lib Dem etc..I am just aware of one councillor doing it at the moment, but would willingly expose others if I found out.

Less · 14-09-2010, 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by accysimon

Actually, I don't agree with it whoever claims it, whether they be Labour, Tory, Lib Dem etc..I am just aware of one councillor doing it at the moment, but would willingly expose others if I found out.

But YOU aren't exposing anyone because if you were YOU would mention a name instead of dropping unproven hints hoping some naïve soul will say, "Oh does he mean such & such?", hardly exposing, more hoping someone else will take responsibility for your rumour.
If you have proof then,

Quote:

Publish and be damned,

if you have no proof then shut up until you are brave enough to put it on yourself.

Neil · 14-09-2010, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by accysimon

I have asked for the thread to be deleted twice, but the moderators have refused, so you are just as much to blame for continuing the 'political games'.

You did not ask me

accysimon · 14-09-2010, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

But YOU aren't exposing anyone because if you were YOU would mention a name instead of dropping unproven hints hoping some naïve soul will say, "Oh does he mean such & such?", hardly exposing, more hoping someone else will take responsibility for your rumour.
If you have proof then,

if you have no proof then shut up until you are brave enough to put it on yourself.

Ok

accysimon · 14-09-2010, 17:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

You did not ask me

No, I asked StanleyMad to cancel the thread and my account..neither have been done. Too late now.

Less · 14-09-2010, 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by accysimon

No, I asked StanleyMad to cancel the thread and my account..neither have been done. Too late now.

This is like Hotel California, you can check out but you can never leave, After all, the mods have better things to do than sweep up after you, You irresponsibly spread it, why expect someone else to follow you with a mop & bucket to clean up for you?

garinda · 14-09-2010, 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Less

Just pulling you up on a technicality here rindy, to be St.Malicious, doesn't he have to be dead?

...and I suppose technically 'saintly'.

We'll let it pass.

accysimon · 14-09-2010, 17:42

I have just been re-reading the initial posts on this thread, and, if read properly, all I asked was whether the residents of Hyndburn were happy with the way the 'child care' expenses were being claimed. It's a yes or no answer, so why the hu-ha about naming the individual?

If you are all happy, then fine, end of discussion. I have said no laws were broken as such, it was just an ethical question that has got out of hand.

garinda · 14-09-2010, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by accysimon

Actually, I don't agree with it whoever claims it, whether they be Labour, Tory, Lib Dem etc..I am just aware of one councillor doing it at the moment, but would willingly expose others if I found out.

As Less posted, you haven't exposed anyone.

Just made accusations, and given a few scant details as to who the person is.

Grow a pair of these.

Then either name and shame, and face litigation if no rules have been broken, or shut up, and leave this person, and their child alone.

garinda · 14-09-2010, 17:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by accysimon

I have just been re-reading the initial posts on this thread, and, if read properly, all I asked was whether the residents of Hyndburn were happy with the way the 'child care' expenses were being claimed. It's a yes or no answer, so why the hu-ha about naming the individual?

If you are all happy, then fine, end of discussion. I have said no laws were broken as such, it was just an ethical question that has got out of hand.

You've implicated an individual.

An actual, totally innocent girl.

That is wrong.

accysimon · 14-09-2010, 17:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

You've implicated an individual.

An actual, totally innocent girl.

That is wrong.

How is the girl implicated? She's not done anything wrong.

accysimon · 14-09-2010, 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

As Less posted, you haven't exposed anyone.

Just made accusations, and given a few scant details as to who the person is.

Grow a pair of these.

Then either name and shame, and face litigation if no rules have been broken, or shut up, and leave this person, and their child alone.

How can I shut up when you lot keep stirring it up again?

garinda · 14-09-2010, 17:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by accysimon

How is the girl implicated? She's not done anything wrong.

If your question was theoretical, about child care expenses, and what we think in general, why give clues as to her identity, and her age.

That is wrong.