Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#131
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Andrew Heenan writes Councillors, on the other hand, seem to be held to account by this Orwellian-sounding "Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors". That "code of conduct" sounds a bit like an employer's disciplinary procedure to me. What's wrong with disciplining a power-hungry ******* who has betrayed those who bothered to vote - That is the job of the electorate; not a non-elected body of officials. The gaping hole in this i dea is that the electorate only get a chance to do this every few years. Are you really saying that if an elected official does something dreadful, then there should be no way of getting rid of them, we should just have to wait until the next election? I think that sounds like a really bad idea. In some places, they have such things as recall elections, whereby if the public are unhappy with an elected official, they can depose him before his term expires. If we had a mechanism like that, which worked effectively, then i'd be fairly happy with not having a bureaucratic disciplinary procedure, since the employers (the public) could hire and fire directly. But in the absence of such a mechanism, we need a procedure to keep elected officials in line on our behalf. Note that i'm not saying here that i think the process that was in action in the case we've been discussing is a good example of this - it might or might not be, i really don't know. And obviously i'm also not passing comment on Colin's case either. tom -- never mind your fingers, i've got blisters on my brain |
#132
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
MIG wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:53 am, "Brian Watson" wrote: wrote in message ... Can I make it clear that this was no power-hungry grab. It was a (totally screwed up admittedly) attempt to deal with a problem that constituents have complained about vehemently and repeatedly for many years. I would never have met the ambulance driver if a constituent hadn't rung me up and told me that the gate had been broken open. If he had correctly reported that the gate had been left open by someone entitled to open it I wouldn't even have gone to look. I'd just have called the council officers and left them to it. That was where things went wrong and I lost it in frustration for the failure of people to do their jobs as promised. I'd say (as someone who doesn't actually live in the city and has no political or personal beef with Colin) that that looks like a perfectly reasonable statement about why he was there and why he did what he did. He got it wrong, but was not fully-acquainted with the facts. It doesn't excuse it but it explains it. I spot a parallel with the way in which people posting to this group, not acquainted with any facts, have behaved rather badly. The difference is that, rather than having been misinformed, they know that they have no facts and decide to make judgements nevertheless. (Or are simply pursuing an attempt at a wind-up and spectacularly failing to get the response they hoped for, which indicates an appropriate degree of restraint from the Councillor concerned.) Or is it that in a case of Usenet, being wrong doesn't actually risk peoples lives? Still, Colin is in good company really. No one, it appears, is actually responsible for anything these days. Not in politics. Of course its different in aviation, where someone is alway to blame for a crash. And people do extensive studies to understand them and issue warnings. In light of the crash IN NY state a few days ago a friend passed me this link. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...23060735779946 Let's hope Colin is never a pilot on a plane with a passenger. Where awareness of subtler clues than blue flashing lights, are necessary to avoid killing people. |
#133
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 14, 10:03*pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
MIG wrote: On Feb 14, 11:53 am, "Brian Watson" wrote: wrote in message om... Can I make it clear that this was no power-hungry grab. It was a (totally screwed up admittedly) attempt to deal with a problem that constituents have complained about vehemently and repeatedly for many years. I would never have met the ambulance driver if a constituent hadn't rung me up and told me that the gate had been broken open. If he had correctly reported that the gate had been left open by someone entitled to open it I wouldn't even have gone to look. I'd just have called the council officers and left them to it. *That was where things went wrong and I lost it in frustration for the failure of people to do their jobs as promised. I'd say (as someone who doesn't actually live in the city and has no political or personal beef with Colin) that that looks like a perfectly reasonable statement about why he was there and why he did what he did.. He got it wrong, but was not fully-acquainted with the facts. It doesn't excuse it but it explains it. I spot a parallel with the way in which people posting to this group, not acquainted with any facts, have behaved rather badly. The difference is that, rather than having been misinformed, they know that they have no facts and decide to make judgements nevertheless. (Or are simply pursuing an attempt at a wind-up and spectacularly failing to get the response they hoped for, which indicates an appropriate degree of restraint from the Councillor concerned.) Or is it that in a case of Usenet, being wrong doesn't actually risk peoples lives? Despite knowing nothing about the situation, apart from a newspaper report which was clearly nosensical and full of misleading hints which weren't backed up, you've decided that someone's life was risked. Where did you get this information? Still, Colin is in good company really. No one, it appears, is actually responsible for anything these days. Not in politics. Of course its different in aviation, where someone is alway to blame for a crash. And people do extensive studies to understand them and issue warnings. In light of the crash IN NY state a few days ago a friend passed me this link. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...23060735779946 Let's hope Colin is never a pilot on a plane with a passenger. *Where awareness of subtler clues than blue flashing lights, are necessary to avoid killing people.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#134
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
MIG wrote:
On Feb 14, 10:03 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: MIG wrote: On Feb 14, 11:53 am, "Brian Watson" wrote: wrote in message ... Can I make it clear that this was no power-hungry grab. It was a (totally screwed up admittedly) attempt to deal with a problem that constituents have complained about vehemently and repeatedly for many years. I would never have met the ambulance driver if a constituent hadn't rung me up and told me that the gate had been broken open. If he had correctly reported that the gate had been left open by someone entitled to open it I wouldn't even have gone to look. I'd just have called the council officers and left them to it. That was where things went wrong and I lost it in frustration for the failure of people to do their jobs as promised. I'd say (as someone who doesn't actually live in the city and has no political or personal beef with Colin) that that looks like a perfectly reasonable statement about why he was there and why he did what he did. He got it wrong, but was not fully-acquainted with the facts. It doesn't excuse it but it explains it. I spot a parallel with the way in which people posting to this group, not acquainted with any facts, have behaved rather badly. The difference is that, rather than having been misinformed, they know that they have no facts and decide to make judgements nevertheless. (Or are simply pursuing an attempt at a wind-up and spectacularly failing to get the response they hoped for, which indicates an appropriate degree of restraint from the Councillor concerned.) Or is it that in a case of Usenet, being wrong doesn't actually risk peoples lives? Despite knowing nothing about the situation, apart from a newspaper report which was clearly nosensical and full of misleading hints which weren't backed up, you've decided that someone's life was risked. Where did you get this information? From the extremely clear and detailed evidence given by both Colin and the driver in the PDF of the hearing whose link was posted by Richard Kettlewell. Unlike the rest of you, I actually downloaded it and read it. |
#135
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message . li, Tom
Anderson writes On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Ian Jelf wrote: In message , Andrew Heenan writes Councillors, on the other hand, seem to be held to account by this Orwellian-sounding "Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors". That "code of conduct" sounds a bit like an employer's disciplinary procedure to me. What's wrong with disciplining a power-hungry ******* who has betrayed those who bothered to vote - That is the job of the electorate; not a non-elected body of officials. The gaping hole in this i dea is that the electorate only get a chance to do this every few years. Are you really saying that if an elected official does something dreadful, then there should be no way of getting rid of them, we should just have to wait until the next election? Yes. I think that sounds like a really bad idea. Well, as I said earlier, this is Usenet and we all tend to differ. I would, though, like to think I do so in an affable manner! :-) In some places, they have such things as recall elections, whereby if the public are unhappy with an elected official, they can depose him before his term expires. If we had a mechanism like that, which worked effectively, then i'd be fairly happy with not having a bureaucratic disciplinary procedure, since the employers (the public) could hire and fire directly. The "gaping hole" in that to borrow Tom's phrase, is that "someone" would have to decide the circumstances under which such a recall would occur. That's where (presumably) unelected officials are able to affect elected ones. But in the absence of such a mechanism, we need a procedure to keep elected officials in line on our behalf. Note that i'm not saying here that i think the process that was in action in the case we've been discussing is a good example of this - it might or might not be, i really don't know. And obviously i'm also not passing comment on Colin's case either. One of the reasons I've posted so much on this (even after vowing not to any more) is that I am much influenced by a case here in Birmingham which has been running for some time. It was the first time I had encountered the idea of councillors being punished by a body other than their electorate. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. There are details and links at http://www.martinmullaney.co.uk/sbe2.html for those interested. As a final contribution and to lighten matters somewhat, I had to clean up after the cat last night (!) and found myself wrapping "it" in part of the mother-in-law's Daily Mail which included an article and photograph of Colin R! -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
#136
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 22:38:21 on
Sat, 14 Feb 2009, The Natural Philosopher remarked: you've decided that someone's life was risked. Where did you get this information? From the extremely clear and detailed evidence given by both Colin and the driver in the PDF of the hearing whose link was posted by Richard Kettlewell. Unlike the rest of you, I actually downloaded it and read it. I read it too - dislocated kneecap iirc. -- Roland Perry |
#138
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Ian Jelf" wrote
But they are "Public Officers" (Holders of a public office) so, eg, liable for "Misconduct in Public Office" and can reasonable be held to higher standards than private persons. Yes, that's what I don't agree with. I want these people held to the *same* standards as everyone else. Nothing more, nothing less. There is a case for a higher standard, but this is niether the time nor the group for it. For the purposes of this thread, I'd be happy with the *same* standard - ie treated like you or I would be if we lost our rag in public and deliberately obstructed an emergency ambulance that *could* have been on a life or death mission. We'd at the very *least* have been prosecuted, not allowed to make a mealy-mouthed apology (while still implying it was someone else's fault), and get back to expenses paid largesse. It stinks ... like most local politics. He's nothing special. Pigs and trough and no prosecutions just about sums up local government. Andrew |
#139
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:38:21 on Sat, 14 Feb 2009, The Natural Philosopher remarked: you've decided that someone's life was risked. Where did you get this information? From the extremely clear and detailed evidence given by both Colin and the driver in the PDF of the hearing whose link was posted by Richard Kettlewell. Unlike the rest of you, I actually downloaded it and read it. I read it too - dislocated kneecap iirc. Yup. clear straightforward info from a professional versus a highly odd account from Our Esteemed Councillor. |
#140
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Andrew Heenan" wrote in message ... "Brian Watson" wrote ... Everyone else here (especially those lining up to have a pop at him) so damn spotless? Of course I'm not spotless, but we're not talking about me, and I'm not his agent. You've missed the point that this was an AMBULANCE - and by some strange coincidence, so does his 'explanation'. Plus your friend's action broke the law. He is not my friend. I don't know him, though I *may* have met him once, to deliver something. Strange that those were the only relevant facts, yet you and your pal have ignored them. As I say, not my pal. And I'm not ignoring anything. re-read what I wrote. It does not address the incident at all; it addresses the reasons why he seems to have got it *wrong* and the subsequent wittering on about it. -- Brian "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Croxley Link news | London Transport | |||
BREAKING NEWS!! Power Cut affecting Railways in the South East | London Transport | |||
BREAKING NEWS!! Power Cut affecting Railways in the South East | London Transport | |||
BREAKING NEWS!! Power Cut affecting Railways in the South East | London Transport | |||
Epping-Ongar news? | London Transport |