This is a case of now you see it, now you don’t. After the elected leader consultation debacle I have been looking out for the webcast of the extraordinary meeting that came at the end of the council’s meeting on 16th of December.
As things stood the webcast of the council meeting is just cut off when you get to that bit at the end of the meeting, now the link to the webcast has vanished altogether from the council’s homepage, the webcast is till there at http://www.thanet.gov.uk/council_meeting_webcast.aspx
This raises a few questions:
Are the so ashamed of the way that the rode over democracy and produced a result that was opposite to the findings of the public consultation, that they are never going to webcast of the extraordinary meeting that they did this at?
Are they ashamed of the main council meeting and have removed all links to the webcast to prevent us from watching it?
Are they hoping that as there is no link to the webcast people won't watch it, so that they can use the public's lack of interest to justify not webcasting future meetings?
Strangely the consultation hasn’t appeared on their, “Recently closed consultation - results and follow up” page at http://www.thanet.gov.uk/council__democracy/consultation.aspx
This raises a few questions:
Will the results of the publication ever be published?
Is there something about this consultation that the council wants to hide?
Now that the council have changed the result of May elections away from the consulted and expressed wishes of the electorate and have effectively left the only course of action open to rectify the situation as one that will cost us the taxpayer £100,000 I have to admit to not really knowing how to proceed.
I could try initiating an E-petition, see http://www.thanet.gov.uk/council---democracy/cllrs-democracy---elections/epetitions.aspx but as the council has already decided to ignore the public view on this subject I think it would probably be a waste of time.
As things stood the webcast of the council meeting is just cut off when you get to that bit at the end of the meeting, now the link to the webcast has vanished altogether from the council’s homepage, the webcast is till there at http://www.thanet.gov.uk/council_meeting_webcast.aspx
This raises a few questions:
Are the so ashamed of the way that the rode over democracy and produced a result that was opposite to the findings of the public consultation, that they are never going to webcast of the extraordinary meeting that they did this at?
Are they ashamed of the main council meeting and have removed all links to the webcast to prevent us from watching it?
Are they hoping that as there is no link to the webcast people won't watch it, so that they can use the public's lack of interest to justify not webcasting future meetings?
Strangely the consultation hasn’t appeared on their, “Recently closed consultation - results and follow up” page at http://www.thanet.gov.uk/council__democracy/consultation.aspx
This raises a few questions:
Will the results of the publication ever be published?
Is there something about this consultation that the council wants to hide?
Now that the council have changed the result of May elections away from the consulted and expressed wishes of the electorate and have effectively left the only course of action open to rectify the situation as one that will cost us the taxpayer £100,000 I have to admit to not really knowing how to proceed.
I could try initiating an E-petition, see http://www.thanet.gov.uk/council---democracy/cllrs-democracy---elections/epetitions.aspx but as the council has already decided to ignore the public view on this subject I think it would probably be a waste of time.
Update, the link has reappeared on the council’s homepage and the council have updated their webcast page.
Now you can watch the extraordinary meeting and the top left hand corner of the full council meeting, this is mostly a movie of a curtain.
Ive heard that an out going right wing councillor in a village is so angry that a gay candidate has been selected to suceed him, he has said that he might stand against his own party, as an independent candidate unless they find a straight candidate. Can anyone tell me if this is true?
ReplyDeleteMaybe its being swept under the carpet because his colleagues are affraid to confront the extremist about it?
ReplyDeleteGoodness me 13.16 and 17.21 of all the off thread comment I have received recently this one tries me sorely. On wonders at what point councillors sexual preferences come into the selection process and how the other councillors go about discovering them. Oh to be a fly on the wall at member exercising sessions, when councillor A is trying to work out if councillor B prefers to use the feather or the whole chicken.
ReplyDeleteWith at least 6% of the population reliably identified as gay or bisexual, surely we must already have several gay councillors, so how this can be an issue is beyond me. Are you perhaps suggesting the deselected candidate is going to stand as champion of homophobia? Perhaps you are suggesting that one can’t be right wing and gay, or that councillors need to be straight.
I don't remember anyone writting that anyone was deselected. Try reading it again, and think about what it actually says.
ReplyDeletethe true figure is 20%
ReplyDeleteI can imagine circumstances where sexuality might be an issue for me when I vote. An example would be a married MP who parades his wife and family in front of the camera to gain votes whilst having an illicit affair with a gay rent boy. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think I would wish to vote for such a person.
ReplyDeleteFirst a question, are all you anonymouses the same person? I will reply assuming that you are.
ReplyDelete14.39 Outgoing and angry suggests some sort of involuntary removal, you request here some sort of truth but your tone and content suggests something else.
14.41 You obviously have better sources that the rest of the world, but you may wish to consider that sexually orientation is best seen in terms of increment, so the percentage is by definition where you draw the line.
17.30 I think you miss the point which is in this sort of circumstance the sex of the third party isn’t really relevant. Unless you are old fashioned enough to accept an illicit affair with female prostitute but not accept an illicit affair with a gay rent boy.
Hi Michael,
ReplyDeleteI'm 17:30 but I'm not any of the others. It isn't the person's sexuality that bothers me, but the lying and deception that is practiced in order to cover it up. This applies to affairs of any sort.
As far as I am concerned, a person who is prepared to lie and deceive people is not someone I wish to vote for. If they lie and deceive those closest to them, this suggests to me that they will have no hesitation in lying to someone they have never even met.
In this respect, I draw no distinction whatsoever between the person's personal and public life. As far as I am concerned, you cannot be a liar and cheat in your personal life, but expect people to trust you in your public role.
Politicians who are found to have lied and cheated should be obliged to give the electorate the opportunity to decide whether they wish that person to remain as their representative. If their colleagues and parties had any standards they would ensure that this happened, immediately the misdemeanour came to light.
1, nobody said that the candiate has a wife or husband, or indeed hides their sexuality.
ReplyDelete2, You seem to ignore the point that is being made about someone being predudice towards another due to their private life.
3, It has not been suggested that anyone has been forced out, only that they wanted retire but tried to change their mind about retiring when they learned that the new candidate was an openly gay man or woman.
4, Nobody has confirmed where country this is happening in, if at all.
17.30 For me it depends on the lie, covering up being gay to save aged parents having a hear attack seems reasonable, for instance and how gays deal with religion is a pretty tricky subject too.
ReplyDeleteI am afraid a politician who tells the truth all the time is a mythological beast, unless of course you can name one.
I am all for reasonable standard in public life, but to try and make gayness a factor in this just aint going to work.
12.45 I can neither work out which of the previous commentators you are or who you are responding to, perhaps you could explain what you are saying and what it is you don’t like.
17:30 Here. Once you accept that politicians will lie you are on a very slippery slope. For you must then decide when a lie is serious and when it is not. As we have learned to our cost in recent years, there are politicians who are able to convince themselves that going to war on the back of a lie is justified. Mark my words, if you accept lying you are on the road to ruin.
ReplyDelete