Councillors in Hyndburn - Are they fit for purpose?

[gondola]

All,

I find it remarkable that others are obsessed with my identity. I think it is not my identity that is important, but the information I submit.

Thus far, I have not seen Mr Jones suggest anything I have submitted is wrong.

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by Gayle

I suspect Gondola is unable to reveal his/her true identity as it would probably jeopardise his/her job.

Ah right, the old diplomatic immunity stuff. Even excuses them going round local community message boards calling people pond life and numpties ? I tend to think it's cowardice but call it what you will

[Mancie]

Maybe gondola (deep throat) has been watching to many spy films.. next thing we know he/she will be wanting to meet up in some unlit carpark!

[cashman]

Originally Posted by gondola

All,

I find it remarkable that others are obsessed with my identity. I think it is not my identity that is important, but the information I submit.

Thus far, I have not seen Mr Jones suggest anything I have submitted is wrong.

as you submitted personal insults to complete strangers i find it remarkable you are so NAIVE.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by gondola

I find it remarkable that others are obsessed with my identity. I think it is not my identity that is important, but the information I submit.

I could not agree more with you on that. Yes your identity is of interest to us all, we humans are nosy animals and like to know who is who and what everyone else is doing.

I suspect that you can't say who you are and I for one respect that. There are things that I won't discus on here for reasons I don't intend to explain and you should not have too either.

I think you got off on the wrong foot with this forum. We are a fairly close knit group and don't like new members coming on insulting us. You have to have been a member for a few weeks at least to get away with that .

[Acrylic-bob]

Originally Posted by gondola

All,

I think it is not my identity that is important, but the information I submit.

What a strange little thread this is. Wading through the otiose revelations submitted by "gondola" I am struck by the lack of any real meat to this story. So Councillor Jones took his eye of the ball for a moment and failed to disbar a potentially disloyal candidate from standing at an internal selection poll - none of us are perfect, a fact I feel sure Graham will agree applies as equally to himself as to others. As it happens no harm was done since, if I read the story correctly, the offending candidate was not successful.

I am a little puzzled by the motive behind this somewhat squalid attempt to paint Graham as either inept or deliberately disingenuous.

If, as I and other forum members suspect, "gondola" is an employee of HBC, then I would have thought that the time spent ferreting out and reporting on this non-story would have been better spent doing the job he or she is paid to do. That council employees appear to have little better to do with their time than indulge in pointless mud slinging should give us all cause for concern and is perhaps one of the main reasons why the borough is in such a complete and utter mess.

To be fair however, I do agree that the Taxi Licensing issue is something that could do with a pretty sharp bit of sorting out, if the council is not to loose the trust and respect of the vast majority of the electorate.

[gondola]

''So Councillor Jones took his eye of the ball for a moment and failed to disbar a potentially disloyal candidate from standing at an internal selection poll''

It is not a case of taking your eye off the ball. I am not suggesting Councillor Jones is to blame for this. But it was his comments in the press that made me raise the question. Here is my point, in simple terms:

1) The Labour Party were aware that Mr Safdar (then a Labour Party member) had held discussions with the Conservative Party. Apparently, someone had spoken to Councillor Jones about it.
2) The basis for the discussions was that Mr Safdar would seek to stand as a Labour Councillor, and that if he failed he would move to the Tories. Thus, according to Councillor Jones, he was not interested in assisiting his party, but becoming a Councillor irrespective of whom he stood for.
3) Knowing his 'dalliances' with the Conservative Party, the Labour Party still put him forward as a potential candidate. I appreciate he did not win, but potentially he could have, and the decision was a close one.
4) The net import is therefore, that had he won, doubtless the Labour Party would have been distributing leaflets saying what a wonderful candidate he was and why people should vote for him. When he did'nt win, they turn round and say 'Oh by the way, he is in it for himself, and we realised 3 months ago that he did not give two hoots about which party he stood for as long as he became a councillor'

My point is this. If three months ago they realised that he was not a suitable candidate because of his integrity, then they should have told him in no uncertain terms then.

It strikes me as being a little hypocritical to do it now.

But my view remains the same. Mr Safdar is not someone I would vote for in a million years.

[Acrylic-bob]

You may have a point. But then the same or similar accusation could be made regarding the Conservative group when the Idiot in Chief decided to chuck his hat into the ring. But I don't hear anyone berating them for not telling the monstrously rapacious and imbecilic Britcliffe where to go and what to do when he got there.

Speaking personally, I wouldn't vote for any of them, irrespective of their political affiliations. HBC and it's officers lost my trust years ago. It strikes me that this is a council that makes a virtue of hypocrisy.

[gondola]

Acrylic Bob,

I am not here to defend the Conservatives. I have already stated my views in relation to some of their Councillors.

You suggest Britcliffe was not lambasted for something he did, but I know not quite what you are referring to. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

It is obvious however that you do not care much for Mr Britcliffe. You may well have your reasons, though as a newcomer to this site I am certainly not aware of what these reasons may be.

So far as regards the role of the Lic. Committee, I think you are right. Something needs to be done. I would rather cheerfully recommend that to start the process rolling Mr Dad, Chair of the Lic. Committee resign from his role as member of the Community Safety and Wellbeing Committee. Surely, since he voted in favour in relation to the matter reported in the press last week, his idea of 'safety' is one that is in contrast to what everyone else thinks. Just what issues does he think are important in terms of community safety?

It is akin to having Ken Dodd in charge of the Inland Revenue.

[Acrylic-bob]

Originally Posted by gondola

I am not here to defend the Conservatives.

I am pleased to hear that. I cannot see any right thinking individual mounting much of a defence of such a pack of clowns.

If we are discussing recommendations for action, I would be happy to recommend that the whole council be held responsible for the lax and clearly partial way in which the Licensing Committee has operated. Why has the Idiot in Chief, who pretends to be so sensitive to the wishes of the electorate, not fallen upon the heads of the said committee in the manner of the proverbial ton of bricks? Why is Councillor Jones so silent upon the issue? Why are other Taxi Drivers not demonstrating their outrage at the decision to return the licence? Presumably they are all staunch adherants of Islam, and as such, one would naturally expect that they must be mortified at the prospect of being compelled to work with someone convicted of such a shameful offence.

But, of course, nothing will happen. Because HBC is institutionally incapable of self examination and pathologically immune to criticism.

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by lancsdave

Ah right, the old diplomatic immunity stuff. Even excuses them going round local community message boards calling people pond life and numpties ? I tend to think it's cowardice but call it what you will

No, there's no excuse for rudeness at all and I, along with others, pointed out that the behaviour was not acceptable. I told him/her so in a post and I also, in a pm to Gondola suggested that he/she be aware that all the bad karma he was getting was likely to get him barred.

I don't think it is cowardice to remain incognito regarding the subject matter that he's publishing - there is always the possibility that he will be found out. As Neil said, we are a curious bunch and unless Gondola is the most discreet person in the world I'll bet that at some point he/she lets slip to someone.

[gondola]

''that the whole council be held responsible for the lax and clearly partial way in which the Licensing Committee has operated. Why has the Idiot in Chief, who pretends to be so sensitive to the wishes of the electorate, not fallen upon the heads of the said committee in the manner of the proverbial ton of bricks? Why is Councillor Jones so silent upon the issue?''

Some very salient points. Someone has to take responsibility for this. It is imperative that the reason for failing to implement the rules is ascertained. Those that have shown a complete disregard for them need to explain as to why they felt it right so to do.

Unless there was clear justification (which frankly I cannot see), then heads need to roll.

In defence of Councillor Jones, he has at least shown some tenacity in appearing on these threads and expressing his disenchantment at the whole affair.

[Less]

Originally Posted by gondola

All,

I find it remarkable that others are obsessed with my identity. I think it is not my identity that is important, but the information I submit.

I for one am not interested in who you are, but I am curious as to what you are, for someone with a reasonable way with words you do seem to have thrown together a variety of sentences that are not so much informative as provocative, you take the art of the simple insult to a level that I could be proud of, if it had been needed.

However all I can see from these pathetic outbursts of yours is a frustrated human who thinks, (falsely), for some reason he/she is far superior to we, mere mortals and that we need to be shown the error of our ways.

Or do you see yourself as some form of Agent Provocateur? Hoping that in your own simple mind you can get some mileage that will boost your ego a little bit more, (lets face it the whole of your posts drips of an over-inflated ego so it couldn't get much bigger).

Maybe you have a really wild plan to tempt one of our members to say something that could be used in a court of law somewhere thus removing accyweb? Perhaps it has become a thorn in the side of someone you hold very dear?

Please excuse these ramblings, I like you have an over active imagination and often read sinister plots where there aren't any.

However, I have jumped to one very crucial conclusion and that is:-

I don't trust you, I do not believe you are here on accyweb for either the good of the site or any of it's members and I would recommend that until you prove yourself different to the first impressions you have given that all members be very wary of what they say to you.

This one talks with forked tongue!

[gondola]

Your unjustified abuse towards me is noted. It is often said that less is more. That certainly applies in your case. I strongly recommend to you, less abuse, more facts.

You do not have to read this thread if it agitates you. I suggest you calm down and grab yourself a hot cup of soup or some such.

It appears to me that you are seeking to defend those who are clearly deserving of criticism here. Are you from the Britcliffe Brigade?

[gondola]

Less remarked 'I don't trust you'

Well, I certainly would not expect you to trust anyone you clearly do not know. That assertion is palpably absurd.

However, rather than doubt my integirty, answer the following:

Is there anything I havbe posted that you, or any other poster on here including some of the councillors, have found to be incorrect? No, thought not.