That we are in an economic recession, there is no doubt. That right wing politics and politicians come to the fore in times of economic recession is attested to by the History of the Third Reich. There is a laager mentality which ensues; “I’m alright Jack, blow you,” which becomes prevalent during such times. That corruption becomes rife, authorities deliberately wink at sharp practices, is attested to by the lack of political will to regulate the banking sector properly and of course the Andy Coulson debacle; where even our Prime Minister was prepared to wink and give Andy Coulson a ‘second chance.’
Our Government tells us that we all have to bear the burden of the economic recession. However, our Government fails to see the obvious; that the ordinary worker never benefited during the economic boom. Labour imported migrants, which kept profits high and wages down, so playing into the hands of the fat cats who tried to keep wages to £6.00 per hour or below. These workers, many of whom are working for viable business which the banks are refusing to give loans to, are facing redundancy, higher fuel prices and higher VAT on those fuel prices. Can this Government not see that the burden cannot be borne by the poor? They bore poverty during the boom years and have no fat to cut during this recession.
In a rural area, like Rutland, there is no Job Centre at all. It is considered that £65 per week is sufficient to keep body and soul together, whilst trying to heat that body. Those on the poverty line are trying to live on cold food to save electricity, turning off their fridges to save electricity, giving up their televisions to save money and still they are not able to make ends meet. This Government, having decided that the minimum to keep a person alive is £65 per week, rising in April by some £2.00, deliberately winks at the policy of having closed Job Centres, so making the rural poor pay from £6.00 to £10 in travel costs to sign on in order to receive their paltry subsidy. These travel costs are not taken into account by any Government, so each person who has to travel to sign on is surviving on less than the bare minimum the Government considers it possible to live on - of £65 per week.
I joined the Conservative Party under Ted Heath and frankly that Party would now be considered unconscionably Socialist in its care for the poor, its commitment to the National Health Service and a level playing field in education. Our best Universities are embracing academic decline as they raise their fees to £9,000 per annum, so making an education, once more, a privilege for those who can afford it, rather than merit it. It is time those who do have fat to cut are made to acknowledge that too many people are being made to live well below the poverty line, the real poverty line which means that at the end of a fortnight there are three or four days in which even pasta at 28p a packet or stale bread reduced to 30p a packet is beyond their means. It is time we addressed the endemic corruption, which relegates more and more people to the ‘sin of poverty’ and started demanding that we no longer wink at the felonies of capitalism stripped, as it has become, of moral virtue or ethical considerations.
Corruption impoverishes us further and it is time we took action against companies who gain insider information about PFI contracts for say the Air Ambulance Service; ex-military or corrupt police types who set themselves up as ‘private eyes’ and tap our phones and correspondence; banks who pull the rug on viable companies and cricketers who bowl no-balls for profit. These are just the visible tip of a very destructive ice-berg which is holing the Ship of State. We are closing our eyes and ears to all the alarm bells in the hope that the holes won’t sink us.
We are sinking and, whilst the first-class passengers are jumping into the lifeboats, the rest of us are facing a very bleak future.
Showing posts with label Conservative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative. Show all posts
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
Thursday, 6 May 2010
Police called to parish council meeting 5th May 2010 - exclusion of the public.
CONTRARY TO THE RUMOURS WHICH MAY BE CIRCULATING - NO ARRESTS WERE MADE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING ON 5TH MARY 2010.
Report on items 3 – 5
3. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS
To decide whether to exclude the Public and Press during discussions of Items
4 and 5 on the Agenda due to the confidential nature of the business to be
discussed.*
4. DELEGATION TO THE ASSISTANT CLERK
5. STAFFING MATTERS
Martin Brookes has been subjected to merciless bullying over the last year or two and I suspected that the motion to exclude the public was intended to allow some Council members to continue to bully Martin in camera. So, given that Cllr Brookes was of the opinion that omission of the relevant Standing Order on the agenda made exclusion of the public illegal, I remained in my seat and did not leave the Council Chamber. I made it clear that I intended to stay. The meeting waited whilst Cllr Alf Dewis, who is on the police committee, called the police to have me ejected.
When the very delightful and rather nice young P C Ike (2113) attended I greeted him and asked for his name. I then asked if he was related to David Ike.
I was well aware that when P C Ike asked me to leave I would be committing a public order offence if I decided to remain. However, if Councillors are wrong about ejecting the public, their use of the police in ejecting me from the meeting is now an abuse of public office. And anyway the poor P C would not have been up to carrying me bodily from the room, his back would never have recovered and he did seem such a nice young man. I asked him when he finished his shift – 10 pm apparently. He was then invited to join us for a drink in the Hornblower – sadly he didn’t accept the offer. Martin later accused me of shameless flirtation. The lovely Police Constable was far too young; my invitation was merely an overture of amicable hospitality and an attempt at some recompense for having been needlessly summoned to eject me from what should have been a public meeting.
Alf Dewis and Charles Haworth then proposed that since the Town Clerk had alleged that Martin Brookes was bullying him – presumably by asking properly put questions which are a bit awkward to answer, but well within his remit as a local Council representative – that Martin Brookes should be banned from visiting the Council Offices in Victoria Hall and banned from talking to, writing to, emailing or phoning the Town Clerk or the Assistant Clerk.
When Cllr Brookes remonstrated that no complaint had been lodged against him by the Assistant Clerk, both Cllrs Haworth and Dewis said that it was not possible to separate Cllr Brookes from Richard White, the Town Clerk, without banning him from communicating with the Assistant Clerk too!
This was a disingenuous and spurious argument, which was stated again and again by both Cllrs Haworth and Dewis.
The outrageous proposal, proposed and seconded by Cllrs Dewis and Haworth, should bring into question Cllr Alf Dewis professional expertise as an H R Consultant as well as his suitability to hold public office. No doubt the reason for holding this meeting in camera was to escape public scrutiny of an unacceptable, possibly illegal and wholly malicious proposal to exclude Cllr Brookes from the Council offices and make it impossible for him to serve his electors effectively. Surely it would be best to suspend the Clerk rather than insist that a local Council representative be deliberately and maliciously frustrated in carrying out his public duties? I despair. The brainpower of some Councillors is somewhat below par - or at least it was last night.
It seemed to me that this was a gross interference in the democratic process and the proposal itself was illegal and should never have been allowed to be considered. When, after much discussion, the proposal was put to the meeting two Councillors voted in favour of the motion – Cllr Dewis and Cllr Haworth. Two voted against and three abstained. Quite how a Councillor is meant to do his duty as an elected representative by being banned from Council premises, outside public meetings, beats me. Will they try to use this motion to prosecute Martin Brookes, when he continues to serve the people of Oakham, at some future date?
Having reached an impasse the meeting voted on yet another proposal to exclude Martin Brookes from the premises only when the Clerk is back in situ. They have now asked Cllr Brookes to make an appointment to visit the Council offices. Since the Clerk is away ‘ill’ there seems to be no good reason even for this stricture. I firmly believe that Martin Brookes is being treated in an arbitrary and biased manner, and that no other Councillor would be treated the same way in similar circumstances. This amounts to bullying. They also demanded Cllr Brookes attend mediation. Initially it was suggested that this mediation happen under the auspices of the Councillors ‘Staffing Committee.’ Run by Councillors themselves. Since most Councillors refuse to communicate with Martin Brookes this was clearly not acceptable. Finally the meeting agreed to bring ACAS in. Hopefully ACAS will point out to the Clerk that being required to do his job effectively and without bias does not constitute grounds for allegations of bullying.
Things have got to such a pretty pass that Cllr Brookes must surely now appeal to the Electoral or Local Government Commissioners to uphold democracy in the parish of Oakham.
I hope the Council do not intend to drag their heels in providing Cllr Brookes with details of the emails and references to him on their computer system. I have now asked for similar information myself and trust that Councillors realise they cannot just delete references to us and then claim nothing exists. All past records – and those deleted – need to be examined and furnished to both Martin Brookes and to me.
If the evidence is provided, which under the Freedom of Information Act we should properly expect it to be, we may have some arresting times ahead.
THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12TH MAY AT 6 PM IN THE VICTORIA HALL. THIS IS THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.
N.B. *No Act or notice of the relevant Standing Order was given on the Agenda – item proposing exclusion of the public – item 3. It was Cllr Brookes’ contention that this omission made the exclusion of the public illegal. I was keen not to be excluded since I felt a small coterie of Councillors wanted to bully Martin Brookes with false allegations of bullying and I felt that they should not be allowed to do so in camera. The public should attend and hold the Council to account. Particularly since the sole purpose of the meeting was to make unsubstantiated and ill judged allegations of bullying against Cllr Brookes. Cllr Brookes has himself been the target of merciless bullying over the past year or two.
Report on items 3 – 5
3. EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC AND PRESS
To decide whether to exclude the Public and Press during discussions of Items
4 and 5 on the Agenda due to the confidential nature of the business to be
discussed.*
4. DELEGATION TO THE ASSISTANT CLERK
5. STAFFING MATTERS
Martin Brookes has been subjected to merciless bullying over the last year or two and I suspected that the motion to exclude the public was intended to allow some Council members to continue to bully Martin in camera. So, given that Cllr Brookes was of the opinion that omission of the relevant Standing Order on the agenda made exclusion of the public illegal, I remained in my seat and did not leave the Council Chamber. I made it clear that I intended to stay. The meeting waited whilst Cllr Alf Dewis, who is on the police committee, called the police to have me ejected.
When the very delightful and rather nice young P C Ike (2113) attended I greeted him and asked for his name. I then asked if he was related to David Ike.
I was well aware that when P C Ike asked me to leave I would be committing a public order offence if I decided to remain. However, if Councillors are wrong about ejecting the public, their use of the police in ejecting me from the meeting is now an abuse of public office. And anyway the poor P C would not have been up to carrying me bodily from the room, his back would never have recovered and he did seem such a nice young man. I asked him when he finished his shift – 10 pm apparently. He was then invited to join us for a drink in the Hornblower – sadly he didn’t accept the offer. Martin later accused me of shameless flirtation. The lovely Police Constable was far too young; my invitation was merely an overture of amicable hospitality and an attempt at some recompense for having been needlessly summoned to eject me from what should have been a public meeting.
Alf Dewis and Charles Haworth then proposed that since the Town Clerk had alleged that Martin Brookes was bullying him – presumably by asking properly put questions which are a bit awkward to answer, but well within his remit as a local Council representative – that Martin Brookes should be banned from visiting the Council Offices in Victoria Hall and banned from talking to, writing to, emailing or phoning the Town Clerk or the Assistant Clerk.
When Cllr Brookes remonstrated that no complaint had been lodged against him by the Assistant Clerk, both Cllrs Haworth and Dewis said that it was not possible to separate Cllr Brookes from Richard White, the Town Clerk, without banning him from communicating with the Assistant Clerk too!
This was a disingenuous and spurious argument, which was stated again and again by both Cllrs Haworth and Dewis.
The outrageous proposal, proposed and seconded by Cllrs Dewis and Haworth, should bring into question Cllr Alf Dewis professional expertise as an H R Consultant as well as his suitability to hold public office. No doubt the reason for holding this meeting in camera was to escape public scrutiny of an unacceptable, possibly illegal and wholly malicious proposal to exclude Cllr Brookes from the Council offices and make it impossible for him to serve his electors effectively. Surely it would be best to suspend the Clerk rather than insist that a local Council representative be deliberately and maliciously frustrated in carrying out his public duties? I despair. The brainpower of some Councillors is somewhat below par - or at least it was last night.
It seemed to me that this was a gross interference in the democratic process and the proposal itself was illegal and should never have been allowed to be considered. When, after much discussion, the proposal was put to the meeting two Councillors voted in favour of the motion – Cllr Dewis and Cllr Haworth. Two voted against and three abstained. Quite how a Councillor is meant to do his duty as an elected representative by being banned from Council premises, outside public meetings, beats me. Will they try to use this motion to prosecute Martin Brookes, when he continues to serve the people of Oakham, at some future date?
Having reached an impasse the meeting voted on yet another proposal to exclude Martin Brookes from the premises only when the Clerk is back in situ. They have now asked Cllr Brookes to make an appointment to visit the Council offices. Since the Clerk is away ‘ill’ there seems to be no good reason even for this stricture. I firmly believe that Martin Brookes is being treated in an arbitrary and biased manner, and that no other Councillor would be treated the same way in similar circumstances. This amounts to bullying. They also demanded Cllr Brookes attend mediation. Initially it was suggested that this mediation happen under the auspices of the Councillors ‘Staffing Committee.’ Run by Councillors themselves. Since most Councillors refuse to communicate with Martin Brookes this was clearly not acceptable. Finally the meeting agreed to bring ACAS in. Hopefully ACAS will point out to the Clerk that being required to do his job effectively and without bias does not constitute grounds for allegations of bullying.
Things have got to such a pretty pass that Cllr Brookes must surely now appeal to the Electoral or Local Government Commissioners to uphold democracy in the parish of Oakham.
I hope the Council do not intend to drag their heels in providing Cllr Brookes with details of the emails and references to him on their computer system. I have now asked for similar information myself and trust that Councillors realise they cannot just delete references to us and then claim nothing exists. All past records – and those deleted – need to be examined and furnished to both Martin Brookes and to me.
If the evidence is provided, which under the Freedom of Information Act we should properly expect it to be, we may have some arresting times ahead.
THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY 12TH MAY AT 6 PM IN THE VICTORIA HALL. THIS IS THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING.
N.B. *No Act or notice of the relevant Standing Order was given on the Agenda – item proposing exclusion of the public – item 3. It was Cllr Brookes’ contention that this omission made the exclusion of the public illegal. I was keen not to be excluded since I felt a small coterie of Councillors wanted to bully Martin Brookes with false allegations of bullying and I felt that they should not be allowed to do so in camera. The public should attend and hold the Council to account. Particularly since the sole purpose of the meeting was to make unsubstantiated and ill judged allegations of bullying against Cllr Brookes. Cllr Brookes has himself been the target of merciless bullying over the past year or two.
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
MELTON HUSTINGS MEETING 26TH APRIL 2010
MELTON HUSTINGS MEETING 26TH APRIL 2010
COULD IT BE A THREE HORSE RACE: INDEPENDENT, BNP AND UKIP?
The election hustings were held in Melton on Monday 26th April. Curiously only the main three parties were invited to address the public meeting from the platform in Melton.
The Independent candidate, Lee Higgins and the UKIP candidate, Peter Baker, assured me that they had both attended the meeting at Melton Theatre and had not been asked to join Conservative, Labour and Liberal candidates on the platform. Peter Baker came along to the Oakham meeting, held in All Saints’ Church at 7.30 pm, with a dignified leaflet protesting the exclusion of the three minority candidates.
A lady from the Church said that both Lee Higgins and Peter Baker would be welcome on the platform and she had invited them along. However neither knew of this before they turned up to the Oakham meeting.
The fact that both Peter Baker and Lee Higgins attended Melton, and would have been happy to appear and speak as candidates, but were limited to questions from the floor, raises the rather thorny issue of election expenses.
It is my understanding – and I could be wrong, if there are any experts out there please do add a comment – that if candidates do not allow fellow Prospective Parliamentary candidates onto the platform with them, then the candidates who do participate become liable for the cost of the meeting.
I am told there have been other smaller meetings from which the minority parties have also been excluded. If the Labour, Conservative and Liberal candidates do not factor the expenses of these meetings into their limited election expenses allowance it may be that this is indeed a three horse race in Rutland and Melton: a race between the Independent, Lee Higgins, the UKIP candidate Peter Baker and the BNP candidate who is always notable by his absence.
How much do you think it costs to rent Melton Theatre for the evening?
Election expenses are limited to around £7,000. If the candidates considerable printing and campaign costs do not include addressing ‘private’ meetings, such as the meeting in Melton Theatre, then all three major party representatives could be barred from taking office for exceeding their campaign expenses. This is one for the Electoral Commissioner to resolve, provided two of the three minor candidates lodge a complaint in good time.
The danger is that the British National Party has the most exposure to media attention and will come fourth in this election. So if Labour Conservative and Liberal candidates are found to have disqualified themselves by exceeding their expenses allowance then we face a nightmare of being represented by a BNP Member of Parliament. Nick Griffin will not be slow in advising his candidates to question election expenses if they can win seats by default.
Peter Baker’s leaflet read:
Due to the TV debates, well all know about the 3 failed parties.
It is a shame the hosts of this evening haven’t made it more interesting by asking ALL the candidates to answer your questions. That at least would have been democratic.
Peter Baker your UK Indpendence Party Candidate is here. Ask him to answer your questions.
Peter immediately withdrew these leaflets when invited onto the platform in Oakham.
However Peter does make a good point and it is still relevant to Melton and any other venue from which he has been excluded.
Surely it is time we turned to candidates who are not trying to climb the greasy pole to a political hierarchy, willing to do the bidding of the party whips? If we want MPs to represent their constituents it is surely time to vote outside the Party Political monopoly? There does appear to be an enormous saving on printing and mailing costs beyond the realms of ordinary business. Martin Brookes said he’d had a personally addressed communication from a Party candidate. How this was possible without using the electoral roll, which candidates are expressly forbidden to use for mailing shots, is a bit of a mystery.
We are told by the press, and by the three main parties, that a vote for any other candidate is a wasted vote. We’ve been brain washed into thinking that a coalition Parliament would be disastrous for the country. Coalition governments in Germany seem to do a better job financially than our tyrannic three party system has so far delivered to us.
What, may I ask, is wrong with having to appeal to our representatives’ consciences? What is wrong with having to win arguments in Parliament by debate, rather than by the shenanigans of the whips? The current three party system is a lazy, indolent and corrupt system. Whips know they can manipulate, bully and blackmail MPs into doing what they are told to do by the party machinery – and stuff the constituents. When it comes to voting, the Whips all whip their votes in under a stringent disciplinary control, which precludes MPs representing their constituents and makes them mere lobby fodder for an elite group of men who would wield all the strings of power. This is not a democracy – it is an oligarchy of self-interested individuals, wielding far too much power for the preferment of their pals, chums and conspirators in crime.
Well in Melton and Rutland this may not be true. It may just be that all three main political party candidates have just ruled themselves out of the race by accruing expenses over and above those allowed in any General Election.
Isn’t it time we stopped being brain washed into kissing toads, who never turn into princes, or voting for the same old losers, who all seem to have the same old agenda. In 97 we had cash for questions; in 2009 we’ve had MPs expenses, bankers for bonuses, Lord Ashcroft’s disingenuous non-dom status and MPs, subjected to fraud charges, using the 1689 Bill of Rights in order to escape prosecution. Berlusconi eat your heart out. Since when were political representatives above the law?
Your vote for a minority candidate might just count for a great deal more than you realise. Don’t let BNP win this constituency by default, vote for an Independent candidate.
1,033 words.
COULD IT BE A THREE HORSE RACE: INDEPENDENT, BNP AND UKIP?
The election hustings were held in Melton on Monday 26th April. Curiously only the main three parties were invited to address the public meeting from the platform in Melton.
The Independent candidate, Lee Higgins and the UKIP candidate, Peter Baker, assured me that they had both attended the meeting at Melton Theatre and had not been asked to join Conservative, Labour and Liberal candidates on the platform. Peter Baker came along to the Oakham meeting, held in All Saints’ Church at 7.30 pm, with a dignified leaflet protesting the exclusion of the three minority candidates.
A lady from the Church said that both Lee Higgins and Peter Baker would be welcome on the platform and she had invited them along. However neither knew of this before they turned up to the Oakham meeting.
The fact that both Peter Baker and Lee Higgins attended Melton, and would have been happy to appear and speak as candidates, but were limited to questions from the floor, raises the rather thorny issue of election expenses.
It is my understanding – and I could be wrong, if there are any experts out there please do add a comment – that if candidates do not allow fellow Prospective Parliamentary candidates onto the platform with them, then the candidates who do participate become liable for the cost of the meeting.
I am told there have been other smaller meetings from which the minority parties have also been excluded. If the Labour, Conservative and Liberal candidates do not factor the expenses of these meetings into their limited election expenses allowance it may be that this is indeed a three horse race in Rutland and Melton: a race between the Independent, Lee Higgins, the UKIP candidate Peter Baker and the BNP candidate who is always notable by his absence.
How much do you think it costs to rent Melton Theatre for the evening?
Election expenses are limited to around £7,000. If the candidates considerable printing and campaign costs do not include addressing ‘private’ meetings, such as the meeting in Melton Theatre, then all three major party representatives could be barred from taking office for exceeding their campaign expenses. This is one for the Electoral Commissioner to resolve, provided two of the three minor candidates lodge a complaint in good time.
The danger is that the British National Party has the most exposure to media attention and will come fourth in this election. So if Labour Conservative and Liberal candidates are found to have disqualified themselves by exceeding their expenses allowance then we face a nightmare of being represented by a BNP Member of Parliament. Nick Griffin will not be slow in advising his candidates to question election expenses if they can win seats by default.
Peter Baker’s leaflet read:
Due to the TV debates, well all know about the 3 failed parties.
It is a shame the hosts of this evening haven’t made it more interesting by asking ALL the candidates to answer your questions. That at least would have been democratic.
Peter Baker your UK Indpendence Party Candidate is here. Ask him to answer your questions.
Peter immediately withdrew these leaflets when invited onto the platform in Oakham.
However Peter does make a good point and it is still relevant to Melton and any other venue from which he has been excluded.
Surely it is time we turned to candidates who are not trying to climb the greasy pole to a political hierarchy, willing to do the bidding of the party whips? If we want MPs to represent their constituents it is surely time to vote outside the Party Political monopoly? There does appear to be an enormous saving on printing and mailing costs beyond the realms of ordinary business. Martin Brookes said he’d had a personally addressed communication from a Party candidate. How this was possible without using the electoral roll, which candidates are expressly forbidden to use for mailing shots, is a bit of a mystery.
We are told by the press, and by the three main parties, that a vote for any other candidate is a wasted vote. We’ve been brain washed into thinking that a coalition Parliament would be disastrous for the country. Coalition governments in Germany seem to do a better job financially than our tyrannic three party system has so far delivered to us.
What, may I ask, is wrong with having to appeal to our representatives’ consciences? What is wrong with having to win arguments in Parliament by debate, rather than by the shenanigans of the whips? The current three party system is a lazy, indolent and corrupt system. Whips know they can manipulate, bully and blackmail MPs into doing what they are told to do by the party machinery – and stuff the constituents. When it comes to voting, the Whips all whip their votes in under a stringent disciplinary control, which precludes MPs representing their constituents and makes them mere lobby fodder for an elite group of men who would wield all the strings of power. This is not a democracy – it is an oligarchy of self-interested individuals, wielding far too much power for the preferment of their pals, chums and conspirators in crime.
Well in Melton and Rutland this may not be true. It may just be that all three main political party candidates have just ruled themselves out of the race by accruing expenses over and above those allowed in any General Election.
Isn’t it time we stopped being brain washed into kissing toads, who never turn into princes, or voting for the same old losers, who all seem to have the same old agenda. In 97 we had cash for questions; in 2009 we’ve had MPs expenses, bankers for bonuses, Lord Ashcroft’s disingenuous non-dom status and MPs, subjected to fraud charges, using the 1689 Bill of Rights in order to escape prosecution. Berlusconi eat your heart out. Since when were political representatives above the law?
Your vote for a minority candidate might just count for a great deal more than you realise. Don’t let BNP win this constituency by default, vote for an Independent candidate.
1,033 words.
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
General Election Hustings meeting 27 April 2010 - 7 pm Oakham
A meeting will be held in the Parish church tonight at 7.00 under, I am told, the Chairmanship of the cuddly Rector. 26/4/10
The Rector is always keen to ensure the public are well mannered. Whilst the Rector tries to give no opportunity to hecklers, Alan Duncan himself has repeatedly said he 'enjoys' hecklers.
Bit of a problem heckling in All Saints Church if you're at all religious, but I suppose even those who do believe can forget they are in a church for one evening. Well let's try to forget. Always good to test some heavy mettle.
The meeting is usually stuffed full of the main three parties members and very little real testing of our candidates will be allowed.
Questions have to be submitted before hand - too late now. What the procedure was for doing so I'm not sure, but no doubt if you are known to favoured candidates you might be asked to put a question which will show them and their policies in the best possible light.
Candidates from Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties will, I've read in the local paper, be attending. Whether the BNP, UKIP and the Independent have also been invited I'm not sure.
This is the nearest Oakham residents will get to holding our candidates to account.
It is a ritual steeped in tradition that everyone behaves and no one says anything which might not be in the best possible taste. How one discerns the goats from the sheep on that basis I'm not sure.
I've always found tradition to be a bit of a strait-jacket. What do you think?
The Rector is always keen to ensure the public are well mannered. Whilst the Rector tries to give no opportunity to hecklers, Alan Duncan himself has repeatedly said he 'enjoys' hecklers.
Bit of a problem heckling in All Saints Church if you're at all religious, but I suppose even those who do believe can forget they are in a church for one evening. Well let's try to forget. Always good to test some heavy mettle.
The meeting is usually stuffed full of the main three parties members and very little real testing of our candidates will be allowed.
Questions have to be submitted before hand - too late now. What the procedure was for doing so I'm not sure, but no doubt if you are known to favoured candidates you might be asked to put a question which will show them and their policies in the best possible light.
Candidates from Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties will, I've read in the local paper, be attending. Whether the BNP, UKIP and the Independent have also been invited I'm not sure.
This is the nearest Oakham residents will get to holding our candidates to account.
It is a ritual steeped in tradition that everyone behaves and no one says anything which might not be in the best possible taste. How one discerns the goats from the sheep on that basis I'm not sure.
I've always found tradition to be a bit of a strait-jacket. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
