Moving onto the Cabinet agenda, it was striking how Standards
complaints still underlay debate. I predict some more may appear now after last
night’s misbehaviour, shouting and talk of stuff that really shouldn’t have
been said. I think Clive Hart may regret announcing that he was threatened in
his office by the official Independent Group. Cabinet was not the place for
that nor was his shouting match with Tom King who was understandably angry
about what he felt was the blocking of his right to speak to Cabinet.
It all kicked off when King questioned whether Worrow was a “fit
and proper person” to be Diversity Champion and mentioned Worrow’s involvement
in the Minnis Pig affair. Harts argument that this motion wasn’t for personal
criticism of Worrow, which when you consider it’s a no confidence vote is bewildering.
King stormed out of the meeting shouting “Shambles” which is pretty much on the
money. Hart then made a speech about how he won’t work with those who make
threats against him and was the reason he worked with TIG instead, though he
denies he’s in coalition with them.
It’s interesting to note that John Worrow’s role of
Diversity Champion is now being described in its proper title of “Member Lead”,
though I must clarify Fenner’s comment about it being a new role. Cllrs Gideon
and Wise have held that position before and I suspect many others have too. Fenner
said that outside information had been sought regarding the remit of this role.
Would be useful to see what direction
this role is going.
Moving on, Cabinet decided to fix up three skateparks rather
than having a single larger one which Fenner described as “elitist”. Johnston
claimed funding for this had already been identified. Too soon to be saying it’s
definitely on which is risky but something which some readers might take from
this. It’s not signed and sealed yet.
Housing Intervention was confirmed though it was never in
doubt. Bit of an argument about the split between private and social housing
but that’s been a bit of a theme through debate elsewhere on it so not a big surprise.
To correct the record though, when OSP asked for the project to look for a
greater proportion of social housing, it was an ambition, not a commitment. The Displacement Strategy will include Westgate.
The Budget update shows a bit of overspending due to Beach
Cleaning but this is only the first quarter and included the sewage leak so it’s
understandable.
Thanet Life is the place to go for comment on the “pink”
motions on Coach House and Royal Sands though again Standards came into the
Coach House issue when Johnston waved her morality wand about declaring
interests. She’s put in a complaint about apparent non declarations in past
years. That’s nice but not really the sort of thing to air in Cabinet. We got
the hint though…subtle…
57 comments:
I think many would agree that Worrow has handled himself, and his TDC responsibilities, poorly over recent months. He should have resigned as a Councillor when he "switched sides" and has courted controversy unnecessarily.
BUT for any Tory, such as Moores over on Thanet Life, to refer to matters "reflect[ing] poorly on the reputation of the council" is a joke and an insult to the intelligence of the local electorate.
This is the Party whose former local leader, Ezekiel, is currently on trial for fraud. When in office, along with his side-kick, Latchford, their disgraceful and thuggish behaviour earned Thanet the lowest of public reputations. Tory Councillor Cameron done for drunk-driving. Tory Councillor Watt-Ruffell done for animal cruelty. Tory Councillor Gregory done for homophobic remarks.
Not once did these antics attract any comment from Moores and his kind about reputational damage. In raising this now, it is a perfect example not of principle, but of cheap, political opportunism and point-scoring.
Moores and his kind in your Party, James, are the reason the electorate are disgusted and turned off by politicians. Just as many are repelled by Worrrow and his campaigns, many others are revolted by the underhand, snide and vindictive activities of his critics.
Finally, it was my turn to speak and I expressed my concern at a role and an individual, surrounded by ever-growing rumour and salacious comment, which reflected poorly on the reputation of the council.
I should have explained that the last paragraph was a lift - Moores's comments - from Thanet Life.
You should have also explained, 10:38, that you in turn have been conducting a snide campaign against councillor Moores, behind your cloak a of anonymity, for years on these blogs.
With you on antics that turn people of politicians, and that goes from Westminster all the way down to Birchington, but you personalise it in the same way as you accuse Moores of doing with Worrow.
I could support your more general assessment of politicians with greater enthusiasm if your own bias was not so evident.
Hear hear Ren. Simon at least tries to be constructive, as far as I can see Worrow is just destruction personified.
There is nothing snide, Ren Wood, in pointing out the bias and hypocrisy on the part of elected politicians like Moores. Nor is it snide to point out how they have fuelled the campaign against Worrow and behaved as questionably as he and his kind believe Worrow has.
I have made the point generally about politicians, as have you. I have criticised Worrow. Will you criticise Moores - or like Tim Clark, do you condone his behaviour and absolve him of any blame?
Anon, I will criticise any politician from Mooores to Cameron or Hart to Cable where it is justified and frequently do. Mine is also not confined to blogs, but backed up with letters to those politicians themselves on issues that concern me.
Your vendetta against Moores, however, is a constant flow where you stick in the odd mild criticism of somebody else just to make yourself appears unbiased. It fools no one.
I promise to blog more about the Portas pilot when I have more information to blog about, Peter.
Not going to deny the facts 10:36, the Tories don't have a great reputation either. Glass houses etc.
The "salacious" comment refers, I'm assuming, to Worrow as Cllr X. If true, he's made a incredibly stupid mistake. However, I firmly believe this is a matter between the people involved and the bar-owner. As far as we know, no complaint has been made to the police or the Council and that's as far as it should go.
Ren Wood, I do not pretend to be unbiased, and nor should you. Your sympathies, from your occasional posts, are obvious. Your inability to acknowledge the bad behaviour on the part of a particular local Tory politician - which relates strictly to his blogging as far as I am concerned - demonstrates your bias perfectly.
James, I agree with you that Moores has made an "incredibly stupid mistake" in persisting with his allusions on his blog to something that allegedly happened in a local bar. He drops continual hints, in the hope that his readers will join the fray, then says that he cannot give any details of course. It is the stuff and behaviour of childrens' playgrounds and does nothing to drag the reputation of local politicians out of the gutter where it currently lies.
Peter, I agree with you entirely. The issues surrounding Worrow are a distraction from the real business that should be occupying the minds and time of local politicians. My point is solely that Tory sympathisers are refusing to acknowledge a) the huge part their elected fellows are playing in promoting the distraction and b) the fact that their own "side's" behaviour is as unacceptable as they are alleging others' to be.
Ren, you are wasting your time with a certain anonymous blogger because he will never forgive Dr Moores for attacking his mate Worrow. Didn't you know they both belong to the same 'boy's' club.
Also with him, because of his left wing bias, everybody else who disagrees with him has to be a Tory. You cannot have apolitical views on issues.
Anon of 26 August, I do not know Worrow. I have never met Worrow. I am not a supporter of his. I belong to relatively few clubs, and as far as I am aware none of them counts Worrow as a member as well. Sorry to disappoint you. I have a left wing bias, and am proud of it, but nowhere have I said that anyone who disagrees with any view that I advance is a Tory. Again, sorry to disappoint you.
Anon 11:08, there are several anonymous posters yet you obviously realised I was referring to you by the content of my comment. If the cap fits would seem to be appropriate in this case.
Your point, Anon of 14.36, makes absolutely no sense.
I authored the comments of 25/8@10.36, 25/8@10.38, 25/8@17.27, 26/8@07.30, 26/8@07.37, and 26/8@11.08. I presumed your 11.02 post was referring to those posts and therefore to me. Hence my reply to you.
My rejection of your claims stands firm.
My, my, you have been a busy little anonymous bee. Anyway, my comment makes sense to me so you stand firm all you like. Still think you suffer from Mooreophobia!
I didn't author any of the comments above. In fact it's my first time here, and I'm lost!
I have been out of circulation for a bit and came into this debate late. Nonetheless I am intrigued by a comment on the 26th from Anon 11:08 that he is proud of his left wing bias. What a strange interpretation of yet another word in a our beautiful language, proud.
Now I always thought that referred to achievement, like I can be proud of my exams results or those of my children. Maybe I can even be proud of my football team on winning the cup, but proud of my political allegiance. I find that bizarre.
Maybe I could understand if someone said they were proud of the achievements of a government they supported, though that would be hard to imagine of any of the pygmy administrations we have had since 1945. Personnally, and particularly in recent times, I would have considered supporting Labour led by Brown or Conservatives led by Cameron as more a cause for shame. Supporting the Lb/Dems led by Clegg is more justification for topping oneself than pride.
Mind you, in a world where people claim pride in their sexual orientation, an accident of birth, I guess anything is possible. Likewise, if you have achieved nothing then maybe one could excuse being proud of reading The Mirror.
"Tom Clarke", what an arrogant person you are, rather overly full of your own sense of self-importance. Announcing your return from wherever and gracing Thanet with your comments once again... Should we touch our forelocks with gratitude?
I am sure most readers of this blog have several personal achievements they can legitimately claim, and you may even be among them.
I know you hate to be exposed to any of the truths surrounding sexual orientation, but the declaration of pride is a positive assertion to combat the hostility and hatred traditionally directed towards those in the LGBT community who are made to feel ashamed and second-class simply because of their sexuality. Many have been beaten and some have been murdered because of their sexuality. You may shrug your shoulders at this, but it is real.
If it makes it easier for you to understand, equate it with those allegedly repressed christians in society who argue that their number should feel proud of their faith. I am sure you will support them because they are a group you like. Your principles have been shown to be based on quick-sand on many previous occasions.
How nice to be greeted back with your usual charm. The sexual orienation was just part of the whole case on the misapplication of words in our language but, rather like the dreaded Worrow, it is the bit you pounce on.
Believe me, I have seen plenty of places where people are victimised for a host of reasons, political, religious, skin colour or tribal grouping, caste and even unfortunate girls forced onto the streets because they have lost their virginity, often at the hands of an older male relative. Hence, don't go looking to me for the sympathy for the poor pink fraternity in this country.
Lots of people get beaten up, Anon, some simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Really find it hard to justify the use of the word pride in being a victim. Having been beaten up, on more than one occassion, I can assure you it is not something I recall with pride, more relief it was not worse.
"Tom Clarke", those who merit charm get it. It is a shame that the worldly experience you bang on about so frequently hasn't made you a worldlier person, but hey...
And as usual, whilst you condemn others for not answering points put to them, straying from the argument, and avoiding uncomfortable truths, you demonstrate your consummate skill at doing just that. I wonder, does that twisting, spinning, manipulation really distinguish you from the average tabloid reader?
Of course you deliberately included the reference to sexual orientation a) because you were aiming to be provocative and b) because you clearly have a real problem keeping step with modern thinking on the subject of sexual orientation.
And please, end your obsessive pre-occupation with Worrow - and work to encourage those who share your "views" to do the shame. It's becoming unhealthy and a tad embarrassing to observe.
"Tom Clarke", those who merit charm get it. It is a shame that the worldly experience you bang on about so frequently hasn't made you a worldlier person, but hey...
And as usual, whilst you condemn others for not answering points put to them, straying from the argument, and avoiding uncomfortable truths, you demonstrate your consummate skill at doing just that. I wonder, does that twisting, spinning, manipulation really distinguish you from the average tabloid reader?
Of course you deliberately included the reference to sexual orientation a) because you were aiming to be provocative and b) because you clearly have a real problem keeping step with modern thinking on the subject of sexual orientation.
And please, end your obsessive pre-occupation with Worrow - and work to encourage those who share your "views" to do the shame. It's becoming unhealthy and a tad embarrassing to observe.
Could one not equally claim that you see something sexually offensive in every comment. Are you not equally obsessed with your vision of equality and so called modern thinking.
Let me explain to you. If I find something offensive to everything I believe in, and have done since childhood, how does it suddenly become OK because of 'modern' thinking or even legislation. I will comply with the law, but I don't have to agree with it.
You make references to my experiences not making me a more worldly person. That, of course, is worldly in your version drawn I think from a very UK sedentary life. How would you know what my experiences have done to me. Most definitely they have made me very wary of some multi everything utopia that the luvvies want for Britain. Just read any day's news and see how mixing works.
You also always introduce Christianity as though that is some flaw in my make up. I have no illusions about such, having stood and faced the hate, the foul abuse, the bricks and the petrol bombs from Christians whose denomination was different, so they thought, to mine. If I have learnt anything it is that people can take secetarian divides to violent extremes and lose all sense of decency and humanity. Others, on more individual basis, can perform acts of bravery and humanity which astound and, in a way, serve to confirm my faith.
I don't profess to have all the answers, just opinions. Sorry if they don't gel with yours.
Oh what a funny old stick you are "Tom Clarke". You do make me smile.
Presumably having no answer to the points raised you resort to humouring the elder gent. Who is patronising now one might ask?
Oh come on, you tease. You invariably fail to address points put to you - when it suits - just as I have pointed out again today. Stop playing tennis and concentrate on making people laugh with your offerings.
Give me one point you have raised in this exchange that I have failed to address. As for laughing, I think it is more you that is funny peculiar. I tend to be straight down the line, no rose tinted specs in my view of society and call a spade a spade.
I bet you do, "Tom", I bet you do... Even this fantasist reply of yours is making me smile.
Yet again you duck out, fail to address the query over your points I am supposed to have ignored and try to treat me as the village idiot. Whatever, but it does you no credit. I suppose, showing gratitude for small mercies, at least this time I escape the usual Tory labelling, your stock in trade for everyone you disagree with.
Anon 06:10, you really are an unpleasant item and I would dearly love to wipe the supercilious smile off your face which I bet, even as a woman, I could do. Just keep your fingers crossed that no one discovers your real identity.
"Ren Wood", dishing out threats like that not only shows you up for what I imagine you are but also puts you perilously close to the wrong side of the Law.
And, "Ren Wood", if you also viewed as "unpleasant items" those who, through their local blogs, persist in posting detrimental personal remarks about fellow local politicians and repeating what appears to be "salacious" gossip, but declining to back up the hints with fact , detail, or source, you may have some of the credit which "Tom Clarke" maintains I lack.
I have simply had another spat with dear "Tom" here. A pointless exchange between two anonymous contributors. I am sure he is grateful to you for riding to his aid, but why it should excite you so much I cannot fathom. And why this excites you but the demeaning of the political scene in Thanet apparently does not again defeats me.
18:33
How do you know what I might view as unpleasant on local blogs. Simply on this occassion I was addressing you. My riding to anyone's aid is but a figment of your over active imagination. I simply found your demeaning of another contributor distasteful. Debate, argue your point but don't dimiss others.
The selectivity of your interventions and attacks "Ren Wood" is very interesting. Just as your chosen silence on other issues is deafening. I see you are even using my own language. I am demeaning, in your view, but others who are debasing political standards locally through their blogs are apparently not. Or if they are - you are being playful about your "principles" - then say so. And don't issue threats - that too has been too much a feature of local blogging here in the past. Oh yes, from the same quarter now pillorying political opponents.
Like I said, this time I was directing my comment at you. From time to time I might comment on other things that interest me. I have no clue what you are on about people pillorying other political opponents but that would not be my scene anyway.
As for threats, I merely said I would like to wipe the supercillious face. Since there is no chance it does not constitute a threat though strange you use the threat of legal infringement yourself. Another well known local character has similar tendencies when it comes to reporting others for percieved infringements. Do you know each other perchance?
"Ren Wood", trying to back away from your earlier contributions just doesn't work. And you know perfectly well what I mean when I refer to the actions of other bloggers and their attacks on fellow politicians. I have set out my views in detail in contributions here. Your inability to see anything wrong in what is being promoted on Thanet Life says much about you and where you come from.
Councillor Moores has issued warnings of legal action against people in the past for alleged breaches of libel laws. Does your last point refer to him? Or are you referring to Councillor Worrow - adopting the usual practice, amongst his critics, of not naming him, but making snide, insidious suggestions instead? Whatever, my answer is the same. I do not know either of them personally; I have never met either of them. I hope that is clear enough for you.
As you rightly say, you cannot enact your threat against me. We are all blogging anonymously. Similarly, you cannot accuse me of demeaning "Tom Clarke" as he is anonymous too. By the way, the "authority" for this concept - that anonymous bloggers cannot claim they have been libelled etc. because they are not "real" named individuals- is the very same Councillor (Moores) you are seeking to protect and defend at all costs
Now why not go and watch the Paralympic coverage, and real people who have fought against the odds to deliver and achieve something really worthwhile.
Homophobic bullying comes in many forms. Only one Thanet Councillor has committed a hate crime, that is Ken Gregory, who belongs to North Thanet Conservative Association. By attacking his victim you are EXPOSED!
Im happy to let you guys carry on and duke it out or we can call it a day and move on. Im hoping to stick a new blog up before the weekend, other commitments considered.
As for Ken Gregory, I look look forward to his return to the Council Chamber.
James, as the Anon (but not the one of 21.14) joining battle with "Ren Wood" and "Tom Clarke", I see no point in continuing this fruitless exchange. There are very different sets of beliefs and principles in play here that will not be reconciled. Everyone should move on.
A pity you ended your intervention on such a sick note, though. A pity that fellow Conservatives will positively welcome someone who has behaved so disgustingly.
Didn't Labour also welcome back Mike Harrison despite his homophobic attack on Ian Driver or doesn't that count. Bit like dear old Elton who wished cancer of the clitoris on some lady photographers. Presumably that wasn't sick either.
It all depends what side of the divide we sit on as to the degree of alleged disgust, in the way that chummy above perpetually attacks Moores and defends Worrow. At least prejudice is alive and kicking ALL ROUND!
Anon, get your facts right, please. I have not defended Worrow. I have pointed out the hypocrisy and bad behaviour on the part of his attackers. That is very different. And I do not condone others' bad behaviour, but neither Harrison nor John were the subjects here - until you introduced them, "Chummy".
What a total hypocrite you are, Anon 11:58. OK for you to attack James over Ken Gregory but somebody else must not mention Mike Harrison's similar poor behaviour.
As you said, this debate will go nowhere, but you are so damn self righteous in your stance making even the slightest meeting of minds impossible.
No wonder an LBGT councillor left the Thanet Con group with Thanet Con candidates like James looking forward to a proven hate crime councillor returning to council. Only one councillor has a record for making an AIDS death wish comment and all the sick lot on here can do is attempt to demonise his victim.. they must think that readers are thick.
To: so-called Tom Clarke
Dialing someones personal telephone number and saying "WITH A BIT OF LUCK YOU'LL GET AIDS" is not similar to making a rude homonphobic remark on a private facebook wall. This is why one is considered a HATE CRIME and the other is not. If you were LGBT you would know that we hear Harrison's comments a lot BUT we do not get ofensive AIDS DEATH WISHES left on our answerphones. You have no idea!
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it a Conservative PM who is trying to introduce equal marriage. Doesn't James, author of this blog, support that move, as does Laura Sandys and several other Thanet Conservatives.
Nonetheless, SOMEONE (and no prizes for guessing who) wants to perpetuate the myth that the nasty Tories are homophobic. Some probably are but then so are some Labour folk.
As for the alleged victim. I think more people despise him for his turncoat behaviour than his sexual orientation, leastways, thats why I stick pins in my voodoo doll of him.
To so called "Anonymous"
Can't help but feel that if the roles had been reversed and the phone call had been Mike, with the shirt lifter bit down to Ken, then there would still be some people making more of the Tory indiscretion.
Anycase, what about Elton John's cancer wish raised by another commentator, was that OK since you do not seem to condemn it.
All in all, the Mike and Ken offences severity have been flogged to death previously and there is really no point in resurrecting it all over again. Perhaps we should all move on.
Sandy Ez, Ken Gregory, the cat loving mayor and the drink drive Cllr were forced "turncoats" yet the sicko above has no problem with them. He digs pins into a doll of an LGBT councillor who it would seem left to escape people like Ken Gregory. . Small group of showing up the party and being supported by like a minded minority.
15:21 Suggest you read through your last comment, amend and correct the grammar and then we might all understand it.
Furthermore, if you cannot see the difference between someone who gets elected under a banner, which he then renounces, and someone forced to resign from their party because of a conduct issue, you have my deepest sympathy.
As for the 'sicko' as you quaintly put it in your lower deck lingo, did he/she not point out that they stick the pins for his renegade conduct, not his sexual persuassion.
Maybe advisable for you to start some night classes in English, by the way.
Its ok to commit homophobic hate crimes as long as you get your grammar right.
No no.... any decent person that was elected under the conservative banner could be excused for resigning the whip when they have colleagues like Ken Gregory who have more in common with Nick Griffin than they do David Cameron.
*You have no problem with Cllr Gregory and his ilk resigning the whip... that says a lot about you!
Are you too thick to understand that it is the "GREGORY ATTITUDE" that put Thanet Cons where they are today- NOT the victims of the Attitude - the victims get stronger the moores you attack them!
Yous mae never makes grammar typos butt in real terms yous is as thick as too stort planks
"Tom Clarke", I suggested to James Maskell that there was no point in perpetuating the exchange with you and "Ren Wood", but your offensive, mischievous and duplicitous post of 14.31 can't pass without comment. Indeed you have attracted quite a lot of (rightly) critical contributions from others during the course of the day.
For you to call anyone else a hypocrite is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black, to coin a very old saying. So let's ignore that bit of demeaning bile on your part and move on.
I did not say that no-one should mention others - Harrison, John or whoever - who have made offensive, homophobic or whatever remarks. Nor did I say I condoned them. I specifically said I do NOT condone such bad behaviour. And I simply explained to the other contributor that Harrison and John had not so far been the subject of any exchanges - which is why they hadn't been mentioned. I did NOT say they should not be.
But you know all this. As ever, you're simply stooping to ever greater depths to cause trouble and to deflect attention from the group of people - certain local elected Tories - whom you have set yourself a personal mission to defend at all costs.
You offer no comment on the tactics of those, like Moores, who have attacked Worrow and continue to do so, printing gossip and smears in the fashion of delinquent children. Your only recourse, aided by others like "Ren Wood" is either to accuse me of being Worrow, or an ally of his, or to draw attention to Worrow's behaviour. I wonder if your entire life has been spent deflecting others from the truth just as you seem to deny it to yourself?
Whatever, I do not care. And if a "meeting of minds" meant coming anywhere close to what occupies yours, then NO THANK YOU.
You should approach the Guinness Book of Records for the longest winded 'no thank you' on record. Enjoy the rest of the evening.
Roger Latchford
Tom Clarke justified apartheid in South Africa
Really, 19:48, when exactly was that or is it all down to your over active imagination. As far as I recall, apartheid in South Africa ended back in the 90's and I was not even blogging then.
It would be much more likely, since most of the world's troubles over the last 50 years stem from difference, that I belief Africa is for Africans in the same way England should be for the English.
19:45
Why would you suddenly write 'Roger Latchford.' Is it that you have to jot down names that come to you lest you forget or do you just enjoy writing names?
Meet all sorts on blogs and some are decidely odd. 'Fred Bloggs.'
'Albert Higginbottom.' 'Frazier Crawdord.' Nope, it does nothing for me at all. Perhaps I'm missing something.
Chris Wells
Sylvester Stallone!
Sylvester Stallone is worth something
Are'nt we all to somebody, 12:28, but I still don't know what your point is unless you want to show us all how many names you can remember. John Worrow's mate Clive.
Post a Comment