Thursday, 22 December 2011

Mucho Worrow


The blogsphere has been pretty active with a lot of talk and back and forth action therefore this blog is quite a bit longer than originally planned.

While it’s understandable that the ousted Conservative Group will feel annoyed at what’s happened, the fact is that it is now the Opposition and the sooner they adjust to this new situation the better. The talk on other blogs started off as banter but as the debate post the car parking press release showed, it’s now spilling over into the sort of thing which I’ve complained about in the Council Chamber. This baiting of people is childish and needs to end. It does no one any good apart from Labour who can sit back and enjoy the spectacle. The Conservative press release was fairly light on detail and looking at the resultant debate more facts are needed, so we should really wait to see how Labour’s plans lie alongside its updated budget plans due soon.

Did Cllr Worrow ask for a Cabinet position? Does it really matter? The tone of the denouncing has been OTT and the critics should save their energies for the real battles ahead. Cllr Worrow has rolled his dice and done what he feels is in his best interests. I don’t know him that well but I think it was a big mistake, short term gain for long term mistrust.

Despite what I have said above about saving energies, he posted an entry on his blog accusing the North Thanet Conservative Association of supporting a homophobic Councillor. This entry has since been deleted but the allegation was made nonetheless. Now, I’ve met my fair share of Thanet Cllrs and spoken to most of North Thanet’s Tories. I know Cllr Worrow will come across this blog. I want to know which Cllr he is talking about and which people in the Association supported him. If Cllr Worrow is unable or unwilling to name these people, then he should withdraw his accusations. Given he has now set up a Facebook GroupThanet Campaign Against Homophobia In Politics!" which originally included racism in its title, clearly he has not dropped his allegation, therefore I want to see him come clean about who he is talking about. If what he was talking about is right, he should have no fear in naming these people.

The news emerging today of Flybe’s decision to stop flights from Manston will definitely require some attention from Councillors. With less operators using the airport, more doubts are placed on the requirement of night flights. As Labour has already stated that it will implement its manifesto commitments from earlier this year, this news is surely another nail in the coffin of night flights. Some serious thought is now needed as to the airports future.

There are genuine debates to be had about the change of administration that have nothing to do with Cllr Worrow (really!!). I didn’t report it in the Hart’s Changes post but Cllr Jo Gideon made a very strong point about the fact that the funding streams are being directed to encourage growth rather than to simply spend on deprivation. This debate saw the biggest difference in thinking between Labour and the Conservatives and is something that is worth mulling over. Another similar debate will spring up relating to the reform of the Business Rates regime to allow some local adjustment. These are debates which actually do matter to locals and I hope more attention is paid to these issues rather than the actions of one Councillor.

Earlier today Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet members made their way to Hartsdown Park as part of consideration of leases for the Margate FC plans. I really don’t understand what the problem is. A Council would have to be mad to refuse a lease, so the debate is over the length of it. Again the length matters little because no council would grant a lease for say 25 years but not renew it once that period ends. To the fans this sounds like another barrier being put in front of them and on a base level it’s strange. The Council granted planning consent for development without a sniff of trouble but might refuse a lease? Really??

59 comments:

John Worrow said...

There was no mention of any political party or association, and although I suggested that someone had an outdated attitude to sexuality, no accusations were made. So you need to be very careful what you saying. You have made a false account of what was written!

Anonymous said...

Either come out or stay in & stop being such a drama queen!!!

Peter Checksfield said...

That comment was mine by the way (I forgot to login!). Just fed up with all these riddles & deleting of posts!

Anonymous said...

So is there a relationship between Mr Worrow and and Mr Scobie (Jnr)???

Anonymous said...

Worrow is not a 'queen' they have class!!!!

Will Scobie said...

"So is there a relationship between Mr Worrow and and Mr Scobie (Jnr)???"

Lol sorry to disappoint but no. I am in fact straight.

Chris Wells said...

Ah Will given your current role as labour spin doctor, it entirely depends on how you define the slang usage!!! LoL

Anonymous said...

Homophobic cyber bullying is a crime.

James Maskell said...

As some of you will now know, I’ve been asked by John Worrow to delete comments regarding both him and Will Scobie. Will Scobie has already made it clear he's not offended. I am satisfied that it's merely a joke and therefore I will not be deleting any messages.

As far as Im concerned, that is the end of the matter. Anyone with issues, I can be contacted by email (check the profile) or on Facebook.

Peter Checksfield said...

Good for you James! Only homophobes would find that offensive!

I've been largely supportive of Worrow but he's getting on my wick now...

John Worrow said...

I have taked legal advice. This situation is being monitored, and will be reviewed.

John Worrow said...

*taken

Anonymous said...

Do you know what really annoys me...Some people are meant to be representing the Thanet people as a councillor. Seriously, grow up and act like a politician, not a child that has been told off.

Peter Checksfield said...

John Worrow, I wonder if you could clarify a few things...

(1) You found it offensive that someone could light-heartedly suggest that you're having a relationship with a fine looking man like Will, is that correct?

(2) Would you have found it equally offensive if someone had suggested that you were having a relationship with an equally fine looking FEMALE cllr?

If the answer is "yes" to the first question & "no" to the second question, then isn't your attitude homophobic?

Peter Checksfield said...

PS. I did ask a similar question on your own blog (the post featuring the "Homophobia is a criminal offense" quote from Simon), but for some reason you failed to publish it.

Tom Clarke said...

Every attempt to post a comment I have tried on John Worrow's site, he has failed to publish despite the fact that I am literate and moderate of language. As a pensioner I even objected to his suggestion of some Grey Pride grouping with a designated geriatric minister to look after our interests. Heaven forbid that we should treat our older citizens in such a condescending and demeaming way.

Worrow, I guess, is looking for bandwagons and causes to justify his turncoat behaviour. Now he seems to be getting his knickers in a twist over a tongue in cheek reference. Oh, and before you sue John, I am not suggesting you are a cross dresser, albeit that you are a cross floorer!

Peter Checksfield said...

He hasn't published many of mine either, despite the fact that they've all been polite & non-derogatory. Say what you will about Simon (& he annoys me too occasionally), but at least he's willing to publish comments that oppose his views, as do Tony, Michael & others (including James on here).

Anyway, I do hope John can answer my questions above.

Anonymous said...

Tom Clarke is a fake name!

Anonymous said...

Peter has it one.

No matter what your past is, if you cannot stand up to scrutiny of the public; be it negative, harassing or positive, you certainly do not stand in any form of spotlight.

And if you do, and you decide to have a channel to the public, such as a blog you should respect that others will not always have the same view as you. This does not mean they are out to get you, they are merely letting thier elected representative know thier opinion.

I respect bloggers who allow freedom of speech.

Papa Smurf said...

Quite unbelievable, 22:41, what exactly do you think anonymous is then? Pray tell me, also, how do you know Tom Clarke is a false namne and what difference would it make anyway?

Anyway, you have a smurfing good Christmas.

Tom Clarke said...

PS, 22:41, Papa Smurf is a real name because I have seen him on the TV. He is a little Tory bloke, all blue right down to his tootsies with a white beard.

Peter Checksfield said...

I tried reposting my comment to Worrow's blog, & this time he published it... only to later delete it! I give up.

John Worrow said...

Peter

As I am in a relationship, I would be offended regardless of the councillors gender. Quite frankly its my business, but as you are a decent person I am happy to discuss the issue with you in person.

But you might be missing the bigger picture here and giving the bigots, who are conducting a hate campaign exectly what they want. I am happy to meet James too. I have nothing more to say on the matter.

Peter Checksfield said...

How are people supposed to know whether you're in a relationship or not? For all we know you might be into "casual" relationships, as I am. Lighten up a bit.

Anonymous said...

I shudder to think what a relationship might entail, casual or otherwise. I'm with Islam and the Pope on this issue.

Anonymous said...

John, you seem convinced that "we have j worrow now on our side backs to the wall you know what i mean" is about your sexuality, but it more than likely refers to mistrust (ie backstabbing).

Anonymous said...

My god, the political right really are a nasty, vile, vindictive bunch.

Anonymous said...

The hate comment was made in May 2011- John left the nasty group in December. So work that one out bigot!

Anonymous said...

An abusive campaign seems to be thriving in this blog. Is it true that the admin of this blog is a member of same local association, that that councillor, who made the repugnant comment belongs to?

Anonymous said...

John, you forgot to sign in at 13:08, but the point is that they KNEW you'd stab them in the back as you'd already proven that you were a political turn-coach.

As for your sexuality, no-one cares so get over it!

James Maskell said...

Allowing free speech isn't an "abusive campaign".

I am a member of the North Thanet Conservatives, yes. That said, those posting in support of what I’ve said here aren’t Conservatives.

The reference to North or South Thanet in relation to the Facebook comment was deleted earlier today. Will Cllr Worrow now tell us which Councillor, North or South, authored the comment? Looking objectively, its not offensive. However I can see why it might appear so.

Anonymous said...

The problem, James, is that most LGBT individuals - not all, I stress - do not feel able to trust the Tory Party. It has a great deal of homophobic history to overturn before what some of its leaders say today on LGBT rights and issues can be taken as honest..

I am an out gay man and I certainly do not trust the Party one inch. Clearly at some stage, John Worrow did.

It is always unhelpful to refer to incidents that have happened or things that have been said while withholding certain key facts, such as ownership. Worrow is doing it now and Moores is a master at it.

What is clear is that one lead Tory influence locally, MP Gale, has steadfastly voted against any measure giving equal rights to LGBT individuals. He has refused ever to make a stand against LGBT hate crime. And he has written that he regards gay pride events as "parading sexuality" and as being unacceptable. It is fair to say that he is no friend whatsoever of the LGBT community. Moores defends his record by referring to his popularity as an MP.

We can all draw our own conclusions about both of them, but it would be wrong to accuse either of homophobia. The evidence is not there.

Coupled with the alleged comment from another local Tory, it seems clear that there is a diversity "issue" within the local Tory Party. It's easy to say - as Gale and Moores would - that this aligns with the population at large, but elected representatives are supposed to lead and inform opinion, not merely represent it. And given both would refer to the large "criminal" and "problem" element in the local community, do those behaviours also, by the same token, become a norm?

Peter Checksfield said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Checksfield said...

Can someone tell me what John Worrow did for the gay & lesbian community before coming out? Of course, the supposedly "anti-gay" Tory TDC were sponsors of Thanet Pride (I can't recall seeing cllrs from any party walking along holding hands with their same sex partners though).”

Tom Clarke said...

Peter, you will not see me walking along holding hands or in any other way fondling my opposite sex wife in public. To me that would be disrectful to her and to others around us.

Public displays of physical attraction are for teenagers, not mature adults who should have learnt something about time and place.

Peter Checksfield said...

Holding hands is hardly a "public display of physical affection", but my point is that Thanet Pride (or any other "pride" event) is the time to show everyone that you're gay / lesbian / bisexual & PROUD of the fact.

Personally I like to see middle aged (or older) people walking along holding hands, I find it sweet.

Tom Clarke said...

Sweet, Peter, is dangerously close to condescending. My little Yorkie is sweet but I prefer not to be so regarded.

Also, pray tell me, why would you be proud with being what nature made you. Grateful, perhaps, but proud because you are taller than somebody else, or not so bald, or hetrosexual, or gay! What nonsense, we are not in control of our birth attributes or genes so what is to be proud of.

You can only be proud of what you create or achieve.

Peter Checksfield said...

Proud for the simple reason that many are made to feel ashamed... Much the same reason as the "I'm black & I'm proud" movement in the 60s & 70s.

Peter Checksfield said...

...and I doubt if you're in any way sweet, though undoubtedly bitter.

Tom Clarke said...

My dear, Peter, why do you have to assume that someone who disagrees with you is bitter. In my case, nothing could be further from the truth.

I have had an interesting life with much travel, am happy with my wife, home, family and offspring. I enjoy music, art, sport and literature.

I do not like left wing politics (too much class warfare and hatred for my taste), crude comedians like Russell Brand, overt demonstrations of sexuality and society's seeming obsessession with so called celebrity. I also abhor society's silly labels like racist, homophobic, europhobic when they are attached simply for holding a legitimate opinion.

My dislikes do not make me bitter. I sincerely hope yours do not either for bitterness is something we all better off without.

You have a great New Year.

Peter Checksfield said...

We can agree on Russell Brand! Can't stand him.

Have a great new year too! X

John Worrow said...

A number of progressive Conservatives, from outside of the area, are becoming very concerned about the way that I am being treated.

Its interesting that North Thanet councillor, Simon Moores (DrM), is very quick to poke his nose into this issue, yet he has so far said nothing regarding the following comment made by one his close colleagues.

"we have j worrow now on our side backs to the wall you know what i mean"

James, those that truly know me, are aware that I am a fair minded person, and that I welcome criticism regarding my policies.

For example the motion that I won for half hour free parking; my anti-fox hunting views, or my call for women to be allowed on to Thanet's shadow cabinet.

But what I object to, is that you have refused to remove the comment on your blog,which speaks of a possible relationship between two Councillors, of which I am one.

Are you ignoring my request, in order to take attention away from the offensive comment above?
... After all, like DrM, you are a card-carring member of North Thanet's unique version of the Conservatives.

Anonymous said...

Tom Clarke, I understand your point of view but do not share it.

Pursuing Peter's point a bit, the need for overt statements of pride in being part of the LGBT community arises from the years of criminalisation and demonising - including under the last Tory administration - that community has faced. It remains necessary because social attitudes need to catch up with the legal equality we now have - thanks to the last Labour Government.

You may not want to express affection for your wife overtly in public, but you can if you wish without the risk of being attacked or abused. LGBT individuals run precisely that risk. Many have been beaten up solely because the attacker has presumed them to be gay - often by seeing them leave a gay bar. That has to stop. And that is where - my earlier point - politicians such as Gale should be setting an example to others. One can only be deeply distrustful and suspicious of him for persistently refusing to do so.

Had the black community not pursued exactly the same "programme" of positive action and assertion, they would still be riding on separate buses from whites in the States, for example. Put simply, that is why you are so fundamentally wrong and misguided.

In saying all of this, I am not aligning myself with Worrow's campaign, only with some of the issues that arise from it.

Tom Clarke said...

Anon, too many labels and causes which have largely become unnecessary. Live and let live should be our approach, not deliberately shoving our differences down each others throats.

If we had bars, rather than gay bars, people could not jump to the conclusions you speak of. Think about it, what would happen if I opened a hetrosexual bar and advertised it as such. I would probably be arrested for some PC offence.

Seems one can have a West Indian women's club, but you try setting up an Anglo Saxon white girls association. The PC world is full of hypocrisy. Bit like John Worrows claim that he wanted women on the TDC cabinet. What is wrong with the best people regardless of gender?

Peter Checksfield said...

Tom, try having a slow dance with another man in a "normal" nightclub & see what happens...

Tom Clarke said...

Thanks, but no thanks, Peter, though I do take your point. Nonetheless, it does seem a little unjust that minority groups can have exclusive bars, clubs etc, but the majority are denied such rights.

Peter Checksfield said...

I think you'll find that they're not exclusive, just biased. I've been in gay pubs & clubs (The New Inn, Lesters, etc) with straight friends & there's been no problems. Likewise, my (white) mother met her 2nd (black) husband in a West Indian Club in London during the 70s.

Tom Clarke said...

Again, Peter, you find exceptions to prove a point, but I could take you to clubs in parts of London where you could find yourself most unwelcome because of your white skin or hextrosexual persuassion. That, however, is not my point.

That is, that it seems OK to call a club a West Indian one but not to call it White one for example. We should have the same rules for everyone.

Similarly when did a man win a tribunal case for sexual discrimination or a white person for racial discrimination.

Peter Checksfield said...

A West Indian Club refers to the type of music played. Or maybe we should ban Chinese restaurants too...

Anonymous said...

Tom Clarke (or Guy Lacoste, or any one of the other identities you assume to maintain the pretence there are lots of different commentators with your particular views)...I visit gay pubs quite regularly. None bar non-LGBT individuals. They could not legally, and it would not be worth their while, either financially or in terms of what the LGBT community is seeking to achieve. They welcome a diverse mix of customers

Your "oppressed majority" line is commonly deployed but is rubbish nonetheless. Whenever the going gets tough for you, it's "minorities get away with..." or "christians can't do it but muslims can...". You have said you are a church-goer. Churches organise events that are open to the faithful, but what if a satanist wanted to attend. Would you allow or welcome it? I doubt it. That begins to expose the weakness in your stance.

LGBT venues are not exclusive, but they allow LGBT individuals to be themselves in a way that they cannot be in non-LGBT venues. Earlier this year in the Jon Snow pub in London, two guys kissed. Not a full-blown erotic venture, but a simple kiss. The manager asked them to leave. That would not have happened if a male and female had kissed. You may not want to touch or kiss your wife in public, but others do want such physical closeness. It is precisely the Jon Snow type of discrimination that explains the continued existence of LGBT-focussed pubs and clubs. Like you, I look forward to the day when such places do not have to exist. But they have a real purpose now.

We may remove the need for such "special provision" more quickly if social attitudes change more quickly. That requires the sort of leadership from the likes of Tory MP Gale and others that, at the moment, is completely lacking.

Peter Checksfield said...

On a more practical note, how do you prove that someone is gay / lesbian before allowing them in? ; )

What gay venues do you recommend John Worrow?

Tom Clarke said...

Anon, let us correct a couple of misunderstandings in your comment directed at me. Firstly, I am but one person and other than sometimes posting anonymously, as you do, I use no other name. Your allegation that I do so to give the impression of being part of a group with similar views is flawed for that would only work if done so in the same thread. Not the case.

Secondly I am not opposed to private or exclusive clubs of any kind. Indeed, I strongly support the gathering of peoples of similar backgrounds or interests. After all, one would not expect a cricket hater to join the MCC. What I object to is the tendency for elements within the PC lobby to seek to somehow criminalise such practices.

Again, I abhor the move towards quotas, the calls for more women in boardrooms or any positive discrimination. Let people achieve as people according to ability. Don't engineer it for it simply causes resentment.

Finally, I do not see this as a political issue, but very much a personal one. Yes, some politicians jump on the so called equality bandwagons for electoral purposes, but to suggest any party has a greater leaning towards tolerance is nonsense. That goes back to John Worrow now claiming he wanted women included in the Thanet cabinet and by implication, it was Tory to exclude them.

Perhaps tolerance would be better served if minorities got off their persecution bandwagons. We actually aren't all picking on you 'cos your black or gay. We are largely too busy looking out for ourselves.

Anonymous said...

Tom Clarke, I do not want or accept "tolerance". Those in the LGBT community - as those in other "minorities" - deserve full unequivocal equality. Tolerance is a condescending approach usually adopted and offered by those with your sort of background and credentials. It is typical of the hogwash preached and practised by churches.

And I am sure you are correct; as part of the political right, you are concerned only with your own interests and wellbeing. After all, your one-time leader famously denied the existence of society.

The only persecution in play in this exchange is the spurious claim relating to majority groupings - and that has come from you.

You purport to be an expert on so much. Forgive me, but I have lived with hostility, threats, prejudice, discrimination, and fear throughout my 50 plus years as a gay man. I know rather more about the subject than you. Demanding equality is in your view pleading persecution. That says much about you and your opinions and beliefs.

Peter, no-one seeks to confirm someone's sexuality when they go into a "gay bar". Everyone is welcome.

Anonymous said...

An afterthought, Tom Clarke. What is your attitude to your christian brethren who are fighting discrimination and repression in Eqypt from the muslim majority? Or are you in the usual camp of one person's freedom-fighter being another's terrorist, and switching the definitions when it suits?

Tom Clarke said...

Anon, having fought a hell of a lot more terrorists than you could probably dream of, I know only too well the difference between minorities seeking to overthrow legitimate government and the reasonable fight for rights exercised by others. It is the indiscriminate bombing so frequently adopted by terrorist organisations that I abhor.

I am not going to be drawn by you on Christian beliefs or my attitude to the practices of some within such communities. I live by my own standards.

Nowhere in my earlier comment did I talk of tolerance, but simply of decent acceptance of each other as fellow humans. You want tolerance don't look in my direction for from your twisted perversion of my statement I think I would find you difficult to stomache let alone tolerate.

Tom Clarke said...

By the way, Anon, what is my background and credentials which you seem to know so much about.

As to you living with fear and prejudice, have you ever been sent to the back of a long queue three times over four hours simply because you had a white face or had to cross some petty official's palm with silver for the same reason. Ever trod on a pressure anti-personnel mine knowing it will go off when you lift your foot. That's prejudice and fear my friend so spare me your poor little hard done by gay man bit.

Anonymous said...

Tom Clarke, your refusal (or inability to give you the benefit of the doubt) to address the equality issues facing minorities in the UK speaks volumes, as does your "my experience is bigger/worse than yours" line.

Equally, your refusal to be drawn on the (relevant) issue of religious oppression in Egypt but your willing diversion to your (irrelevant - to this debate) military experience is significant.

And once again you play the card of the "oppression" of the white/christian/male/non-gay majority, just as I forecast earlier. Please...

Returning to the subject of this thread, you seem to be arguing that sexuality, equality, discrimination and related issues are private not political matters. Without the political will demonstrated by the last Government, LGBT individuals would still be facing the vilification, demonisation and bigotry that was openly practised by the Thatcher and Major Governments. I suspect that you rather hope that was still the case. It is very much a political issue.

Sexuality per se IS personal, but the risk of being beaten up or murdered for revealing it, or having it suspected, is most emphatically not. So don't demean the risks and threats that LGBT individuals live with very day in the disgusting, dismissive way you have done in your last comment.

I am sure you have a distinguished military record, but save it for the appropriate time, which is not now. As to whether you could “stomach me”, I could not care less.

Anonymous said...

And before you deny talking of "tolerance" I would suggest you read your own posts!

Tom Clarke said...

The tolerance was whether one political party collectively showed more than another. You drew on your experiences so why shouldn't I. When facing prejudice for the colour of my skin, including unlawful detention and threats of violence, I was in a minority and a very small one at that.

If I gave the impression I was dismissing what you have had to suffer in a demeaning way, I apologise. That was not my intention, but I did seek to illustrate that you are not alone. I have seen all kinds of prejudice in many different countries and it is not the same victim groups world over.

As to the Egyptian Christians, of course, I am appalled at their persecution as I am at religious based persecution any where in the world. I simply was at a loss to know what it has to do with this thread or precisely what you expect me to do about it.

By the way, you did not clarify what you percieve my background and credentials to be.