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.

Originally Posted by Less (Post 803135)

and this pile of brown offerings is in a thread you started about Party Funding because....

Why didn't you have a really good sob and start a new 'I think I'll go and eat worms', thread rather than wander all over this one?

Sorry that's a question, you don't do questions do you?

Oops another question, still ignore it, yor good at that!

Plus, not everyone would have recognised the person mentioned as you until somebody let it out of the bag.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 803136)

I was replying to Katex. She brought it up here.. if the mods want to take the posts and make a new thread then so be it.

Anyone who read the thread on Accyweb knows it's me.

Originally Posted by Less (Post 803137)

well sorry to ask a question but where did katex bring this blog of grahams up?

I noticed her talking about a letter, but not his blog.
:confused:

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 803139)

No need to bring it up in this thread.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 803130)

I've now read the letter. I don't think it should have ever been written or published.

Originally Posted by turkishdelight (Post 803189)

Many people own two homes, no big deal. One of my houses has pot holes all over the front road, if i was a councillor i would use my influence to make improvements to the road,who wouldnt for the benefit of other residents too.

Originally Posted by LYNX1 (Post 803187)

It's ridiculous that this was printed without the Observer checking the facts, I think it's even worse that they have made it so prominent, wouldn't be surprised if PB had a hand in it :mad:

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 803228)

It makes it sound like there is some prolonged Conservative smear campaign

Originally Posted by turkishdelight (Post 803189)

Many people own two homes, no big deal. One of my houses has pot holes all over the front road, if i was a councillor i would use my influence to make improvements to the road,who wouldnt for the benefit of other residents too.

Originally Posted by g jones (Post 803233)

What is sickening is that on Wednesday or Tuesday Cllr Howarth stopped me and asked if I was all right, if the family were all right as though she cared.

How can you pretend to be so nice, then so be so callous and calculating at the same time?

Originally Posted by Bernard Dawson (Post 803291)

Having just read the letter,I would be surprised if Marlene Howorth wrote the letter. I've no wish to do Marlene a disservice, but it's pretty obvious whose mucky hands are all over that letter.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 803299)

Since there are procedures in place, to hopefully limit false letters being published, we should be able to read a full retraction in next week's Observer, from the 'real' Marlene.

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by cashman (Post 803303)

if that was the case (very doubtful:D) i would break my rule n actually buy the paper,

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 803299)

Since there are procedures in place, to hopefully limit false letters being published, we should be able to read a full retraction in next week's Observer, from the 'real' Marlene.

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 803299)

Since there are procedures in place, to hopefully limit false letters being published, we should be able to read a full retraction in next week's Observer, from the 'real' Marlene.

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by katex (Post 803310)

Would be embarrassing if not her, however, have looked up the electoral register and doesn't appear to be another Marlene Howarth in Hyndburn.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 803316)

Even if you want to hide your address, as happened in this case, you do have to provide it, plus a contact telephone number, when submitting a letter to the Observer for publication.

Originally Posted by katex (Post 803317)

Yeh, just pointed that out Garinda ... did add to my post .. you are far too quick for me... :D

Originally Posted by Less (Post 803321)

Will the real Marlene please step forward?

Just googled her and look who's alias it is on page 2 of images?
:D

Marelene Haworth - Google Search

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 803349)

PS just noticed that the pic of PB labelled Marlene Haworth comes from the website of the notorious person 'Life'(now banned)

Originally Posted by LYNX1 (Post 803397)

Sorry less, tried to look at the pics on the link but unfortunately there was a rather delicious male torso on the same page so cannot comment on the pic I should have been looking at :D :D :D

Originally Posted by Less (Post 803402)

I'd done belt and braces, I'd put the link and I also put the piccy underneath, yet you still couldn't fettle it!:rolleyes:http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/a...ne-haworth.jpg

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 803228)

As much as I agree that the letter should not have been published.. I think you've been hypocritical.

You've used this to your political advantage and are essentially smearing me, by making things up about me at the end of your blog post regarding this letter. It makes it sound like there is some prolonged Conservative smear campaign, which weakens your argument when half of it is a false, incorrect, made up conspiracy without any shred of evidence.

Neither the letter in the Observer nor your blogpost comments regarding me should have been published. As I said at http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/803130-post49.html they're all as pathetic as each other.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 803820)

The letter should never have been wrote, and neither should the blog comments. I can see why Graham would be angry at the letter, for insinuating falsities. See no Labour members as yet have come out to condemn the blog comments which insinuates falsities. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by g jones (Post 803827)

Andrew. We are dealing with a Tory letter. I know you want thread drift but to most people you are demonstrating evasiveness which is something you do frequently.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 803832)

Don't wish to drift the thread. No evasiveness, have said I condemn the letter. I also brought this up with you privately beforehand asking you to retract, which you refused.

You felt it important enough to insinuate falsehoods about me in your blog post about the letter. I know it has nothing to do with the letter, but you've managed to somehow falsely link it in, so I think it belongs here. I'm still awaiting the retraction of the comments that falsely claim I tried to smear you. I somehow doubt you will retract it though, as it (falsely) adds to your argument against the letter.

Utter hypocrisy that you (rightly) call foul over the letter, but are happy to entirely make up a smear (at my expense) against yourself in order to make it look like you're a target of several attacks. You were the target of the letter, and that's it.

Honesty Graham. You know in your heart of hearts you have no evidence at all to suggest that I smeared you. It's all just make believe.

Do the decent thing and please remove the comments that insinuate falsities please. Your argument against the letter is far stronger when you're not making things up against me in the same breath.

Originally Posted by Ken Moss (Post 803849)

I'll give you your dues, Andrew, you're shaping up to be a fine Hyndburn Tory politician.

You're clearly a bright young lad who likes to think he's got his finger firmly on the pulse but you're full of hypocrisy and never answer a straight question. You may win a bit more respect on here if you started posting in a more concrete way, such as backing up your statements with facts when asked for them. You also need to develop a thicker skin if you think a vague mention in someone's blog is smearing your name, particularly as no one else could give a toss and it's you who keeps bringing it up.

You're spitting feathers about a veiled reference in Graham's blog yet he's having to deal with the local Conservative Party dragging his dead grandmother into a very public and rather nasty political point scoring exercise.

Just take a step back and get some perspective.

Originally Posted by Ken Moss (Post 803849)

I'll give you your dues, Andrew, you're shaping up to be a fine Hyndburn Tory politician.

You're clearly a bright young lad who likes to think he's got his finger firmly on the pulse but you're full of hypocrisy and never answer a straight question. You may win a bit more respect on here if you started posting in a more concrete way, such as backing up your statements with facts when asked for them. You also need to develop a thicker skin if you think a vague mention in someone's blog is smearing your name, particularly as no one else could give a toss and it's you who keeps bringing it up.

You're spitting feathers about a veiled reference in Graham's blog yet he's having to deal with the local Conservative Party dragging his dead grandmother into a very public and rather nasty political point scoring exercise.

Just take a step back and get some perspective.

Originally Posted by andrewb (Post 803906)

Hiddlebit it wasn't interestingly timed, the FOI was more than a year ago.

I think it's quite shameful that Graham has to make things up, without a single shred of evidence. Shameful that not a single Labour member has come out and said 'wait, Graham, there is no evidence, at all, maybe you should re-think'.

All you're interested in is the letter. I put right and wrong before party. Have said the letter is wrong. Seems no Labour member is going to come out and say Graham's comments are wrong. Says it all, so I'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Morecambe Ex Pat (Post 804148)

Thank you for an entertaining thread.
I take it from the tone of some of the posts in this thread that some of you are actually Councillors who represent the residents of Hyndburn in the corridors of spending.
I assume you manage some serious political debate between extended sessions of back stabbing, personal insults and utter chidishness.
I know nothing of your policies and aims for the borough but know plenty about how a number of the local Councilors should not be in a position of power.
This is not a smear coming from any particular political direction but simply an observation from an ex resident of Hyndburn.
It totally defeats me what part, party politics plays in local govenrment apart from being able to say what flavour the Council is.
It appears far more important to bang the drum of a political party and deny that the other lot can ever come up with suggestions which benefit the community, than actually pulling together for the common good.

Originally Posted by Morecambe Ex Pat (Post 635462)

I am a newbie to this site and I can't wait to read a political debate between you folks. Your debates turn to 'pistols at dawn' over something trivial as a funny avatar.
I can't wait for the elections!

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 804260)

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk.../?type=display
UNHAPPY: Coun Marlene Haworth

Tory trio quit Hyndburn executive committee in election row (From Lancashire Telegraph)

Since Cllr. Haworth recently felt compelled to resign from the executive committee of the local Conservative Association, angered that they'd had an imposed candidate list forced upon them, presumably because CCO didn't trust their judgement in choosing their own candidate, perhaps this public spleen venting, aimed at the opposition, was done because she feels powerless to target her anger at the people who now run the Conservative party, so she had to find a handy substitute.

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Morecambe Ex Pat (Post 804148)

Thank you for an entertaining thread.
I take it from the tone of some of the posts in this thread that some of you are actually Councillors

Originally Posted by Morecambe Ex Pat (Post 804321)

As for the shelter - The view of the Lake Districe is fantastic from here.

Originally Posted by Morecambe Ex Pat (Post 804350)

Are you really in a position to take the rip out of Morecambe?

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 804363)

Yes, because my grandparents retired there, and my aunt and uncle lived further round the Bay, so I've known the dreary place for many years.

You are lucky in sometimes having nice sunsets, setting over the Bay and mountains, just as those lucky residents in Grange get to see the sunrise above Morecambe's gasworks.

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Less (Post 804364)

As nice as it is to have the odd day out in a Chara' to visit a town that has had it's sand stolen,

Can we perhaps get back onto the topic of this thread, I for one find it far more interesting and relevant to what is coming up in the near future.
:D

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 804368)

Since Bernard doubted the authenticity of the letter, as not being written by our councillor, I'm eagerly anticipating seeing a full retraction in tomorrow's Observer.

Originally Posted by Ken Moss (Post 804369)

Do please somebody let us know. I'm more of a Telegraph man myself.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 804371)

The editorial content of that august publication has been severely reduced, now they can no longer legally carry ads from prossies.

:D

Originally Posted by Ken Moss (Post 804374)

Yeah, but it is actually printed reasonably close to where I live, reports on matters in Rishton and they do a cracking cryptic crossword:

'In a vehicle with runners, the breeze tricked one' (9)

Classic.

Originally Posted by Less (Post 804380)

You do realise, and I'm assuming here that you mean the 'Daily Telegraph', that as good as the crossword puzzle is, why else would we buy such a paper?
The names of the compilers are as false as allegedly the name of the writer of the 'disgusting letter!
:eek:

Originally Posted by Ken Moss (Post 804383)

subliminally alter the mind

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 804390)

Nice to see that someone else here thinks the way I do:D

Originally Posted by Morecambe Ex Pat (Post 804321)

I don't see any Political debate, only personal slanging matches.
As for the shelter - The view of the Lake Districe is fantastic from here.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 804687)

Well sadly there's no retraction from Cllr. Haworth, or threat of legal action because of false authorship, in this weekend's Observer.

However there are three letter in reply to the attack.

One from someone, who thinks like many of us, that by not using her title of Councillor, she must think the public are plain daft.

There's a letter from Graham Jones, and also a withering retort from his sister, who passionately attacks the smears, aimed at her and Graham's late grandmother, and sets the record straight on that particular matter.

All in all, as an exercise in public relations, Cllr. Marlene Haworth's letter can't be hailed as a great success.

Judging by the backlash, not only in this week's paper, but also what people are saying in the street, just the opposite was achieved.

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control of governments by controlling money and its issuance."
-- President James Madison

Originally Posted by shillelagh (Post 804725)

thing is though it is a success ... its got people talking about her .. you ever heard of negative publicity rindy .. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 805347)

Hopefully, after the letter from Graham Jone's sister, this matter will not be dragged up again, and the subject will finally cease to be political ammunition.

Originally Posted by Less (Post 805372)