Councillors vote themselves a 26% rise. - Page 4

park381 · 29-07-2005, 21:29

OK to who ever deducted the karma, may be you don't like my post, but please have the guts to sign your name

Doug · 29-07-2005, 21:38

Your wasting your time Park? Perhaps Roy would consider putting an option in the Store so we could buy the transgressors name for say 250 Ackers a time…..he’d make a bloody fortune.

park381 · 29-07-2005, 21:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

Your properly wasting your time Park? Perhaps Roy would consider putting an option in the Store so we could buy the transgress name for say 250 Ackers a time…..he’d make a bloody fortune.

Would go along with that Doug, a simple post to register disagreement would have done, but still that would have meant showing themselves.............ah simple minds

fireman · 29-07-2005, 21:46

Can't see any reason at all parks why you should have lost karma but people should not hide. I they think your karma should be deducted they should say why and put a name to it.

park381 · 29-07-2005, 21:56

Cheers and thanks for the support, fireman, harwood red, add to that Doug & Margaret

Doug · 29-07-2005, 22:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by park381

Would go along with that Doug, a simple post to register disagreement would have done, but still that would have meant showing themselves.............ah simple minds

It’s a long standing argument Park. It would be nice if people had to give a name when giving negative Karma, but up to now it’s been left as it is…..What really p***** me off is that people deducted it for weak and irresponsible reasons and then spread there own opinions. I think I can recall deducting it once from someone, “I’m not sure if I did or not” but I think if there’s a difference of opinion people should be open and get it out. In fun I called a member a B***h today in fun and was deducted because the individual believed that children read the posts and that my language was morally wrong. I respect the person’s opinion and if they had left their name I would have apologised directly. What really get me is when far worse is written or when a post is insulting to a member or threatening in its content and goes unnoticed…….

harwood red · 29-07-2005, 22:35

oops sorry doug if you calling me a b*tch led to you losing karma (and calling me that was taken in the fun way that you had intended). It is annoying when they don't leave their name but I have to say I would like to see more people leaving their name when they give it too!!!

Doug · 29-07-2005, 23:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by harwood red

oops sorry doug if you calling me a b*tch led to you losing karma (and calling me that was taken in the fun way that you had intended). It is annoying when they don't leave their name but I have to say I would like to see more people leaving their name when they give it too!!!

Don’t be. In this instance I am not that concern. The statement that was left was fair enough, I’m sure we all forget that kids use the site and that some parents will want to control what their children are subjected too. Its the name thing that bugs me. and the fact that far worse goes unnoticed. The only person that deducted form me and left there name was some chap called Peter Britcliffe……I’m sure we can work out who he is…cough, cough..

chav1 · 30-07-2005, 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

The grabbing, incompetent, self-serving, self-satisfied, smug, pompous, inefectual, overpaid, underworked, conceited, sanctimonious..B*ST*RDS!

This has to be the final straw. I cannot believe that they have the nerve or the bare faced cheek!

it must be bad if its got AB swearing

just one more thing to add to the list of things that makes me resent paying my council tax and what makes it worse is that the same idiots will be voted in next time

Gayle · 30-07-2005, 07:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by chav1

it must be bad if its got AB swearing

just one more thing to add to the list of things that makes me resent paying my council tax and what makes it worse is that the same idiots will be voted in next time

Not necessarily - our Council is a split Council 18-17 to the Conservatives. The way the Council is run is a cabinet system which means that the party in power - in this case Conservatives - allocate portfolios to some of their Councillors i.e. Brian Walmsley has the portfolio for Culture and Leisure. This effectively means that the borough is run by only half of the elected Councillors. Yes, the opposition do have a voice and they can work effectively within their own ward but essentially they are unable to actually change decisions and influence policy.

The Labour party isa younger party - not such a retirement party as the Conservatives is. So, you don't have to vote the same idiots in, all you need to do is swing the balance of the Council towards Labour and allow them to manage it effectively.

park381 · 30-07-2005, 12:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug

It’s a long standing argument Park. It would be nice if people had to give a name when giving negative Karma, but up to now it’s been left as it is…..What really p***** me off is that people deducted it for weak and irresponsible reasons and then spread there own opinions. I think I can recall deducting it once from someone, “I’m not sure if I did or not” but I think if there’s a difference of opinion people should be open and get it out. In fun I called a member a B***h today in fun and was deducted because the individual believed that children read the posts and that my language was morally wrong. I respect the person’s opinion and if they had left their name I would have apologised directly. What really get me is when far worse is written or when a post is insulting to a member or threatening in its content and goes unnoticed…….

Correct Doug, if someone don't like a post then they have the option of replying, but then it would be out in the open.One way or the other it does'nt bother me, have always been a person that says what they think.

chav1 · 30-07-2005, 16:03

just out of curiosity how the hell did they justify such a high percentage of a pay rise 26% when most companies i know of give as little as 2% each year to employees who actualy work for a living and in some cases they get nothing at all

if 26% is classed as keeping up with the rate of inflation then a lot of employees are getting shafted by their employers

Gayle · 30-07-2005, 16:16

I know, it's ridiculous isn't it. Most people would be grateful for 2% these day. Although admittedly the basic rate for being a Councillor is only £4,000, after the increase which is not a lot. If you want to attract younger people to become Councillors you have to pay them a decent amount to make up for the loss of other income through going to meetings etc. It is one of the reasons why we have so many ageing Councillors because they've all retired from their day jobs. I'm not defending the 26% hike, just trying to play devils advocate and understand the rationale.

park381 · 30-07-2005, 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gayle Knight

I know, it's ridiculous isn't it. Most people would be grateful for 2% these day. Although admittedly the basic rate for being a Councillor is only £4,000, after the increase which is not a lot. If you want to attract younger people to become Councillors you have to pay them a decent amount to make up for the loss of other income through going to meetings etc. It is one of the reasons why we have so many ageing Councillors because they've all retired from their day jobs. I'm not defending the 26% hike, just trying to play devils advocate and understand the rationale.

On top of the increase, have they not scrapped the rule where they had to attend so many meeting for nothing. Don't they also get out of pocket expenses on top of the £4k.

There seems to be a %age of retired persons on the council, so they are making a nice little living out of getting on as many committees as possible. Are most of the meetings not at night?

At the end of the day, what is the reason for becoming a councillor, to earn a living or to help the community.

Gayle · 30-07-2005, 20:18

I do agree with you that the purpose of being a Councillor is not to make money, it's to work for the community but the point remains that the council is going to be full of people who have money already and time on their hands - retired people - if they don't at least recompense councillors who lose part of their income from their day jobs.