Originally Posted by katex (Post 802879)

Don't know what you thought of that letter Garinda in the Observer from Marlene Haworth (Conservative St. Oswald's councillor)? I didn't think it did her party any favours.

First of all onslaught of Labour ministers prostituting themselves for up to £5,000 per day comparing it against pensioners' income. Then hitting out at Greg Pope and the expenses. Lastly, reference once again to Graham Jones 'misusing' his position to improve the landscaping on the street where he owns one of his two houses. The last little bit is a bit of a spin. Seemed like she was clutching at a few straws to deride them.

Finishes up by stating "This stinks and we should get rid of the lot of them; Labour is rotten to the core"

Just thought it was a very childish letter .. bit like when Jaysay strikes out with meaningless insults (sorry Jaysay .. luvs ya' really).

Think it did Labour more of a favour, particularly as they had a lovely photograph of Graham looking smart in his suit, holding the mike as if he was going to give us a rendering of The Red Flag .. :D

Originally Posted by katex (Post 802879)

Think it did Labour more of a favour, particularly as they had a lovely photograph of Graham looking smart in his suit, holding the mike as if he was going to give us a rendering of The Red Flag .. :D

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 802883)

It made me howl.



Since she was so keen to mention expenses, perhaps there might be some scathing reply to her letter, asking why she, and the ruling Conservative party on H.B.C., voted in favour of increasing their expenses, beyond the recommended limits, set by an independent body.

:D

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 802888)

Is Graham getting your vote, in the sartorial battle stakes?

(I was going to post that you're such a sucker, when it comes to a well cut pin-stripe, but didn't want that comment to be misconstrued...so I won't say it.)

:D

Originally Posted by katex (Post 802896)

Exactly, left it very open to counter attack.



Not sure which way I am going to vote just yet Garinda ... am hungry to hear what Karen Buckley has to say.. like yourself. At least John Moss (the failed applicant)came on here and posted. I found him quite amusing with a good sense of humour ... thought he would have been great; sad that Karen Buckley is coming across at the moment as dull as dishwater.

Eeew yes, am a sucker for a well cut suit ... particularly if well cut shoulders ... my vote may rest on these at the end of the day .. I am so fickle. :D

Originally Posted by katex (Post 802896)

Eeew yes, am a sucker for a well cut suit ... particularly if well cut shoulders ... my vote may rest on these at the end of the day .. I am so fickle. :D

Originally Posted by katex (Post 802896)

Eeew yes, am a sucker for a well cut suit ... particularly if well cut shoulders ... my vote may rest on these at the end of the day .. I am so fickle. :D

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 802901)

It's time like these I wish I was a techno-wizard, and had the skill to use Photoshop to superimpose one image on to another.

:rolleyes::D

Originally Posted by Less (Post 802900)

Yes, an important couple of points when making your mind up about who to vote for, sadly though we haven't even had a glance of Ms Buckleys under arms never mind a full blown letch at her Scapula, this therefore still leaves me undecided.
:(

Originally Posted by katex (Post 802970)

Have tried Garinda .. not me best, really struggled shrinking the head ... :D

Well, certainly has a little more appeal.

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/a...t-suit-man.jpg

Originally Posted by Less (Post 802978)

Can I just point out the importance of seeing her under arm stubble?

• If she has a full beard under each pit it means she is a full blown follow the frogs EU enthusiast.
• If she is completely bald under these personal areas, obviously she is against the Brussels bosses.
• If however, one arm pit has the full blown 'Continental', look and the other is close shaven, she is undecided.

The thing is, WE NEED TO KNOW!
:confused:

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 803030)

Afraid I can't really add to our knowledge of the candidate, as she didn't seem to make much of an impression at her public school.

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Less (Post 803039)

Wrong shape for using to toast muffins then?

Still, it takes a while against modern radiators compared to the good old open fire, sometimes I feel a real touch of nostalgia for the olden days when a fag was your's to use for any culinary experience.

Come back andrew all is forgiven, (and I've got a tube of your favourite salve cream).
:)

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 803040)

Knowing how well mannered Queen Mary's girls are, my money's on the first post being one of thanks, to myself, and her other campaigners.

Originally Posted by katex (Post 802879)

Don't know what you thought of that letter Garinda in the Observer from Marlene Haworth (Conservative St. Oswald's councillor)? I didn't think it did her party any favours.

First of all onslaught of Labour ministers prostituting themselves for up to £5,000 per day comparing it against pensioners' income. Then hitting out at Greg Pope and the expenses. Lastly, reference once again to Graham Jones 'misusing' his position to improve the landscaping on the street where he owns one of his two houses. The last little bit is a bit of a spin. Seemed like she was clutching at a few straws to deride them.

Finishes up by stating "This stinks and we should get rid of the lot of them; Labour is rotten to the core"

Just thought it was a very childish letter .. bit like when Jaysay strikes out with meaningless insults (sorry Jaysay .. luvs ya' really).

Think it did Labour more of a favour, particularly as they had a lovely photograph of Graham looking smart in his suit, holding the mike as if he was going to give us a rendering of The Red Flag .. :D

Originally Posted by g jones

And the third smear of many...
Last year there co-incidentally there was a Freedom of Information request from a Tory activist about all councillors expenses, and from my perspective particularly my phone bill which was very high. This was due to me being the primarily carer for the last 5 years of her life. I do not know how someone would know to ask for this as it had never been asked for before.

The FOI asked for Mobile Phone expenses but not mileage (mine is £zero) or Carers allowances (£zero again). It also asked for conference allowances for one particular year and no others, the only year I went to a conference. I am amazed how Tory activists can guess just what to ask for to try and cause the maximum damage of personal pain?

The activist concerns has stated to me at the time that this was done without any malice and out of desire for information from all Councillors.

Why would a Tory activist seek this information? It came at a time I was informed people were looking at Council affairs internally for political reasons.

As it was I paid for all personal calls, line by line and met with the Managing Director to make sure everything was satisfactory and he knew fully and clearly my difficulties. My gran had dementia and was dying and being in touch was beyond any cost. She brought me up in later life.

Clearly the headline phone figure would have been damaging information in itself and my suspicion is there was political advantage behind the FOI, possibly at the expense of my grandmother again.