Expenses, expenses...

[cashman]

Originally Posted by ClarePritchard

I'm amazed that Tukish Delight, being a fair-minded and unbiased individual, hasn't seen fit to post just how many times I was rudely interupted during my budget speech on Thursday night, so much s that my 11 year old daughter wanted to tell Peter to grow up and stop acting like a 5 year old.

yah forgot to add the sarcastic smiley Clare.

[turkishdelight]

Originally Posted by cashman

given that you seem so hot on people breaking forum rules, why may i ask have you chosen "Not" to comment on my earlier post, demonstrating how i thought andrew had broken them Biased n Hypocritical spring to mind.

Yes good point. I did think about that one and questioned it. I was infact informed that this was not a breech of the forum rules, however i dont know if this is correct. One would have to speak for themselves on that issue.

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by turkishdelight

Yes good point. I did think about that one and questioned it. I was infact informed that this was not a breech of the forum rules, however i dont know if this is correct. One would have to speak for themselves on that issue.

Now I'm totally confused. You are adamant that a rule that doesn't exist does exist, but a rule that was broken doesn't exist ?

[cashman]

Originally Posted by turkishdelight

Yes good point. I did think about that one and questioned it. I was infact informed that this was not a breech of the forum rules, however i dont know if this is correct. One would have to speak for themselves on that issue.

well as i posted the forum rules n since have learned that the party whose number was posted was "NOT" aware, i think it is very very wrong to make assumptions that he would not mind, therefore i stand by my comment,it is a Clear breach of forum rules, n far more implications to it than the one you harp on about.

[Less]

Originally Posted by turkishdelight

One would have to speak for themselves on that issue.

If we were allowed to speak for ourselves there would be no rules and therefore no need for moderators, however we all are human and do get over enthusiastic, which is why we have rules (or as I would prefer to call them guidelines), which should but aren't always adhered to by most of us, however it should be seen that a mod/admin is bending over backwards not only to stick to the rules but also, not be biased when applying them to others.

So would you as a 'sensible' person agree that a mod/admin starting a thread should voluntarily dis-allow themselves from deciding what is correct and incorrect in a thread they have started?

[turkishdelight]

Originally Posted by ClarePritchard

I'm amazed that Tukish Delight, being a fair-minded and unbiased individual, hasn't seen fit to post just how many times I was rudely interupted during my budget speech on Thursday night, so much s that my 11 year old daughter wanted to tell Peter to grow up and stop acting like a 5 year old.

Yes Clare I will only speak the truth no matter what political party is involved you gave a good informative speech that evening, you where indeed rudely interupted and i myself would have taken much offense to this type of behaviour it should not be tolerated by either parties, we are all individuals at the end of the day and have the right to be treated with respect. If i could have spoke on that evening i would have stated that it was out of order and i also didnt like the terms used to another refering to That Women.I would also like to say the idea of gates on the alley ways was brilliant hope you can implement this in the future.

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Graham could have come to me and asked if I had requested the information, but he decided to go ahead anyway and try to drag my name through mud without understanding any of the facts fully. He hates Conservatives so much that he can't see past it to think logically.

And equally, you could have gone to Graham and probably Clare, Joan and Bernard who all post on here to ask your question without going through Freedom of Information.

I hate to point this out but you and Graham are far more alike than either of you would like to think. I know that you're both extremely passionate about what you believe in but the name calling and pettiness on here doesn't do either of you or your causes any favours.

You both seem to want the 'truth' but then can't accept it if someone else's 'truth' doesn't match your version of it.

Two wrongs don't make a right!!!!!

[turkishdelight]

Originally Posted by cashman

well as i posted the forum rules n since have learned that the party whose number was posted was "NOT" aware, i think it is very very wrong to make assumptions that he would not mind, therefore i stand by my comment,it is a Clear breach of forum rules, n far more implications to it than the one you harp on about.

My point is just as important to me.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by turkishdelight

My point is just as important to me.

i never said yer point was not important to you, i said the "implications"were far more, i would have thought you as a "Professional" person would have grasped that.

[derekgas]

Originally Posted by Gayle

And equally, you could have gone to Graham and probably Clare, Joan and Bernard who all post on here to ask your question without going through Freedom of Information.

I hate to point this out but you and Graham are far more alike than either of you would like to think. I know that you're both extremely passionate about what you believe in but the name calling and pettiness on here doesn't do either of you or your causes any favours.

You both seem to want the 'truth' but then can't accept it if someone else's 'truth' doesn't match your version of it.

Two wrongs don't make a right!!!!!

Good post Gayle, i am prohibited from sending karma though!

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by Gayle

And equally, you could have gone to Graham and probably Clare, Joan and Bernard who all post on here to ask your question without going through Freedom of Information.

I hate to point this out but you and Graham are far more alike than either of you would like to think. I know that you're both extremely passionate about what you believe in but the name calling and pettiness on here doesn't do either of you or your causes any favours.

You both seem to want the 'truth' but then can't accept it if someone else's 'truth' doesn't match your version of it.

Two wrongs don't make a right!!!!!

Good point, I think one of the main differences is that I don't hate people for their political beliefs though.

As for PM'ing, as I was one individual he could have done that. For me it would have been silly to message the councillors that use this forum and then single out every other councillor when I went and applied for my FOI. It makes much more sense to do it all at once, and may I add that by doing it through a FOI request or by doing it by PM, it does not launch it into the public in the way that Graham decided to do by posting it on this forum.

[claytonender]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Good point, I think one of the main differences is that I don't hate people for their political beliefs though.

As for PM'ing, as I was one individual he could have done that. For me it would have been silly to message the councillors that use this forum and then single out every other councillor when I went and applied for my FOI. It makes much more sense to do it all at once, and may I add that by doing it through a FOI request or by doing it by PM, it does not launch it into the public in the way that Graham decided to do by posting it on this forum.

You could have emailed each councillor and asked them if they would send you the information. By requesting the information that way, you could have stated that you were asking every councillor for the information for research for your studies. As I was not a councillor in 2007-2008, I only became aware of the FOI from Accyweb, then received a call from another Labour member, who thought that they were the only person you had requested information about and asked if I knew who you were.
You have only added to the "conspiracy" theory by starting this thread-implying that Graham was abusing the use of his HBC provided mobile phone.



Posted via Mobile Device

[Caz]

Originally Posted by claytonender

You could have emailed each councillor and asked them if they would send you the information. By requesting the information that way, you could have stated that you were asking every councillor for the information for research for your studies. As I was not a councillor in 2007-2008, I only became aware of the FOI from Accyweb, then received a call from another Labour member, who thought that they were the only person you had requested information about and asked if I knew who you were.



Posted via Mobile Device

Seem to remember that idea being raised at the beginning of the FOI thread several times?

[Caz]

Am I correct in thinking that Alleygating is something that Labour have been trying to implement for at least 6 years, especially in springhill and Central

[claytonender]

Originally Posted by Caz

Am I correct in thinking that Alleygating is something that Labour have been trying to implement for at least 6 years, especially in springhill and Central

Yes it is - I think there has been aan attempt to get an order implementing it but it was requested under the wrong legislation and turned down . Sounds about right doesn't it