Internationalist approach at H.B.C.

[gynn]

Originally Posted by Neil

Maybe this is a matter for overview and scrutiny.
I can see a problem with that idea though already.

Well the chair of scrutiny was last seen having tea with Lord Lucan and Shergar.
Nothing has been heard off him on this website since, His voters in Rishton are organising a search party as we speak.

And the minute doesn't have to reflect the original motion. It reflects the final amendment put forward and voted on. The minute book will have all the details.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by gynn

And the minute doesn't have to reflect the original motion. It reflects the final amendment put forward and voted on. The minute book will have all the details.

Thought as much, which only fuels my cynicism, that a little creativity might have been undertaken, when it was pointed out what absolute patsies they've been.

[Tealeaf]

I've just gone over the original twitter feed and it simply does not make sense.

9.01 (Twitter time) A Dad proposes the motion, backed by Britcliffe who is '..proud to support it'.

9.02 Collinge says it ain't balanced (fair enough).

9.04 M Dad proposes amendment

9.10 Amendment passed.

Either this amendment was aleady on the table (in which case it should have been in the agenda) or it was not. If it was not, there is no way such an elaborate amendment could have been put togeather in the space of 8 minutes. Something is sadly wrong here and it stinks of complicity and cover up.

[cashman]

Is that not normal T.?

[Tealeaf]

Originally Posted by cashman

Is that not normal T.?

That may be the case, Cashy, but if so, what a way to run a council! This lot could not run a bubble bath.

[gynn]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Either this amendment was aleady on the table (in which case it should have been in the agenda) or it was not. If it was not, there is no way such an elaborate amendment could have been put togeather in the space of 8 minutes. Something is sadly wrong here and it stinks of complicity and cover up.

According to the minutes, the amendment was tabled at the meeting by Councillor Munsif Dad. This seems to be confirmed by the Observer tweet. As such, it wouldn't have been available with the agenda.

Presumably Councillor Dad read the amendment out at the meeting, slowly enough for everyone present to absorb it, write it down if necessary and give it the due thought and consideration necessary because it was so different to the original motion.....or perhaps Councillor M. Dad had it already written down and was able to circulate it to the assembled throng.....or perhaps there was some hurried exchanges at the meeting, with mumbles and grumbles about being fair to all sides in the conflict, and the final minute was put together in the comfort of Scaitcliffe House in the following days.

Only those present at the meeting can tell us........

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

Oh I agree, minutes 'should' be an accurate record of proceedings.

The cynic in me wonders if they are, in this case.

I curse that night, when I wasn't well enough to be there as planned, because then I'd know.

Plus, unlike others, who were there, I'd be happy to share the information.

I would imagine that meetings of any meeting are not verbatim, what happened at the meeting, they will be written up by an officer recording whats being said and by whom, although it doesn't usually put names in the minutes unless a recorded vote is taken, even then I'm not sure if the names are included. No doubt there will be a draught version put out to scrutiny before they are place for public view

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by walkinman221

Cynical about HBC and their methods and ways in sensitive and emotive subjects how could you G , i would say they are always as straight as a die.

If you look in my eye you can see green too WM