I’d also like to give thanks to the lady who was working on
the Rose Garden in Hawley Square Friday afternoon. Lovely job and Hawley Square
looking gorgeous.
Back onto politics where, despite my best efforts, my point
seems to have lost in the ether while debate, which started well enough with
contributions from Cllrs Moores and Wells, reverted suspiciously back to the
issue of Worrow who coincidentally has released another video rambling about
the Conservatives. The video justifies my argument that the Conservatives
must change their strategy towards him.
Continuing to tackle Worrow on the basis it will make
Labour cut ties with TIG will only work for so long. Worrow’s history is well known,
particularly the more controversial aspects, such as his previous two blogs and
indeed his new YouTube Channel which I suspect will end in the same way as the
blogs did but the TIGA site can only do so much before its impact wanes, as it
has. Labour accepted they would be attacked for their link to TIG as part of
the deal in any case. The TIGA site is not the answer to the Worrow problem and
in fact is counter-productive.
There is a wider point to this which is far more important
than the maneuvering within the Chamber. Outside the Chamber, it smacks of an
immature Opposition, lashing out at Worrow for costing it the Council, rather
than moving on, scrutinising the new administration on its policies and actions
and challenging it to improve its proposals. Too much comment
needlessly revolves around him and thus he attracts the publicity and
justification, at least in his own mind, necessary to continue publicly
criticising Conservatives for alleged homophobia or harassment. This is a serious flaw in Conservative strategy which opens it up to TIG attacks. This is why in retrospect the Diversity Champion motion was a bad move. It was only ever going to lead to the events we saw a while ago.
For the Conservatives to make the transition from the position
it held before December to being an effective Opposition, I firmly believe it
must break away from what appears to be a fixation with Worrow. I am not
arguing that the Conservatives forgive him or let him off but to be smarter. By
showing the patience and discipline not to give him what he wants, Worrow will
be deprived the publicity he and the TIG crave and they will be left aside.
Im not saying this approach would be easy. It would be incredibly tough and would need Conservatives to not issue Standards complaints against Worrow. The pay-off is that such discipline would show that the Conservatives are ready to govern again, seeing past the problems of the past to put the public first.
Going back to Streets Ahead Margate, the regeneration of our
High Streets should be something which should motivate and unite Councillors
regardless of affiliation into action. A Portas Pilot shouldn’t have been required
for this to be important. In light of the treatment of the last Budget, it is
evident that both Labour and Conservative Cllrs need to work together in order
for the regenerative effort to work.
I pointed out way back during the Budget debate about the
differing approaches to Council spending by the two main Groups and this
underlines the point I'm making. The Conservatives were looking from the
business side of things, about the opening up for business to grow, with
dropping barriers or looking to business to help the Council perhaps by helping
with events in place of Council funding. Labour on the other hand was looking
for how TDC could by its own efforts and its own monies make it happen. Each
approach in itself isn’t a solution to the economic problems facing Thanet but an
amalgamation of the two could be forged which would be comprehensive enough to
provide such a solution. You can argue the toss about who gets the credit later.
The Conservatives have an opportunity not to be missed where they can show leadership and maturity but they must also consider that their strategy with regard to Worrow has hindered more than helped. The reward to them and the public must surely be worth it.
156 comments:
Excellent article, James, making a lot of good sense. It is time to move on and, particularly for those elected to office, to do the job people want them to do.
Dear old Peter talks of Cllr Moores' fixation with John Worrow, but ignores the fact that he now attacks the good Doctor at every opportunity for banning him from Thanet Life. These little squabbles are often hard to put to bed, but we should try.
Be interested to see how many people respond favourably to your suggestion.
Perhaps I could ask Peter to extend my ban on 'Naked in Thanet' indefinitely? I would feel much more comfortable if he did! In fact I'm pretty sure that others might feel the same way!
No chance of that Peter.
Some salient points there James, I certainly hope there will be a positive movement towards a convincing opposition. I find it very difficult to make any headway on this front without it being perceived as being anti Conservative, rather than a desire for better and more balanced government locally.
Did he have a little tummy trouble at 9:05?
Not quite sure what you mean, James, by your references to the "TIGA" site. Is this a website run by the Independent Councillors, or has it been fabricated by the Conservative Party to make it look as if it is an "official" Thanet Independent Group production. If so, who has carried out the deception?
Thank you, Peter.
Clearly, in "reposting" it, Moores added, deleted, or changed some of the content. I am looking at the disclaimer section in particular.
It looks like a prime example of political dirty tricks, and an attempt to discredit and smear political opponents. No doubt Moores will say it is "humour".
Is that a fair summary, James? Was it a personal, or Conservative Association-approved decision?
No... as explained in some forensic depth to an independent investigator last week. The content of www.tigabout.blogspot.com is authentic!
Satirical additions are to the right of the content, as the 'Look and feel' have been improved ... ie the disclaimer and the photos of the three TIG councillors involved. Everything else is simply a cut and paste from the deleted TIG website.
Some might say that I'm providing a public service by reproducing TOG's lost and deleted website so that people can view their policy platform. Others appear shocked that these three local councillors, Worrow, Driver and Cohen can lend their name to such material.
Which I wonder are you?
While I can vouch for everything that was posted on TIGA as genuinely taken from the Worrows World and TIG blogs prior to their deletion by Worrow, my concern is that while initially it had a point to it, namely preserving the material, the parading it around at Council meetings looked like taking enjoyment in it.
Parading it is one thing however when the Labour opposition and Messrs Worrow and Cohen deny its existence in a public meeting, then I'm afraid they must be prepared to face the evidence. Which they refused to do. However I am pleased to report that an independent council-appointed investigator took a rather different view of its content and I'm looking forward to seeing the associated report in due course
Councillor Moores, if the circumstances surrounding the "Tigabout" blogspot are being investigated independently, then comments about it and your role in adapting it and then parading it are best left to the investigators. As a minor personal observation, I would say that nowhere does it make it absolutely clear that the additions (and deletions?) are not part of the original blog, nor that these additions (not satrirical but clearly intended to lampoon, discredit and smear The Independent Group) were your responsibility. Surprising given how keen you are usually to trumpet your accomplishments.
You ask which view I take on your self-acclaimed "public service". I have no involvement with the Independent Councillors, and do not identify with all of the policies they promote. I can entirely understand your Party's sense of betrayal over Councillor Worrow, and feel strongly that he should have resigned his seat when he "crossed the floor". But your Party would have accepted him with open arms if the defection had gone the other way and would have resisted calls for a by-election. You have done so before, many times, as has the Labour Party. It is part of what is wrong with the political system, which puts Party interest above the electorate's.
I think many of the Independent Group's publicity stunts have been dubious and inappropriate, and I think it runs counter to the wishes of the electorate that the Labour Party should be holding on to power by making concessions to them. But again, your Party would, I am sure, have done the same. And whatever, your behaviour - introducing dirty tricks (Tigabout) and a persistent campaign of hostile, stirring posts and smears on your blog - is a long, long way from a "public service". Even if you deemed it a Party service, it seems to be backfiring.
I asked you a short list of questions under another thread about your blogging activity in relation to Worrow. You refused to answer any of them, opting instead for your usual approach of insult and derision. One or two of your supporters did much the same. I am beginning to see now why the questions are so alarming for you and you have run away from them.
Until this sort of individual behaviour stops, James, you haven't a snowball in hell's chance of seeing a change in your Party's overall conduct.
Probably no more in fact than we have of seeing a change in your biased, biggotted, self righteous rantings, 12:41. Must we forever do things because the other party would do the same in similar circumstances. If one of our local Conservative MPs fiddles their expenses are we going to say it's OK because Labour MPs have done it before? Or maybe if a Labour councillor kills his cat, that will be OK because a Tory did it first.
You complain about not getting your questions answered but when did you ever answer anything asked of you. You ignore any comment you have no response for and just keep coming back on the same old tack time and again.
Frankly you are a crushing bore as well as some kind of infestation that sniffles into blogsites.
How nice to see you once again "Ren Wood". I guess you and your friends must be on the ropes as you've come out of fhe woodwork. I wonder if your offensiveness is directly related to the political difficulties in which y'all find yourselves?
If the localparty would have taken Mr Worrow's early complaints about Ken Gregory style behaviour seriously he would problably still be in the party today.
Nobody should expect an LGBT councillor to keep their mouth shut, be a token minority and allow the abuse to be allowed to continue.
If they are angry because he left, they should also be angry for driving him out!
Thanks John.
16:33 - I fail to see how calling you boring is offensive because that is exactly what you are.
Having regard to your love of questions, why do we never see your comments on thanetonline or any of the other pro-Labour blogsites? Presumably because you derive your pleasure from infested Tory ones.
What sad creature you are, though pleased to see you are already back into Dallas. Quite a little JR on the quiet are you not.
Peter, Bob Bayford has no control over Moores'. If Bayford was any more laid back he would be asleep.
Bayford's weak leadership has allowed Simon's snide nature to dictate the thanet conservative internet agenda. If it were not for Moores' winding everyone up on his blog, Ken Gregory probably would have not made the mistake of exposing the shadow cabinet's mindset. Its the conservative back benchers that I feel sorry for. They have been kept in the dark by the shadow cabinet.Poor old IAN Gregory has be mistaken for Ken.
Peter, you may not be biased against the Tories but you certainly are where Cllr Moores is concerned. It is that obsession which makes you also part of the perpetual swapping of snide remarks which extends from blogs and their following ingo the council chamber.
The whole gist of James' article is to try and draw a line under all this silly inter party feuding and get back to trying to prioperly govern Thanet.
Sadly, looking at some of the characters on the council and their sad lack of leadership, even IQ in some cases, that is not going to be easy. We should at least try though and could start by having intelligent and constructive debate on blogsites.
I want to point out this blog wasn't aimed at the whole Conservative Group as I know from the Full Council meeting recently many have been making a real effort not to attack Worrow.
Going through the complaints process on TIGA will be the very same mistake made via the Diversity Champion motion and the Conservative decision to fight the gay marriage motion, even if the thinking behind the two was understandable. It gives right of reply and opportunity to TIG to outflank the Conservatives. As we've seen, Worrow doesn't care about Standards so what's the point?
As I said before, its about being smarter.
James, Councillor Moores admitted earlier that he did adapt the TIG website, adding what he terms "satirical" content, before reposting it.
Some would argue that the adapted content was not satire, but, especially by not making clear that he was the author, was simply an attempt to lampoon, smear and discredit the Independent Councillors. A dirty trick.
Your own assertion that the content was authentic to the Independent Councillors is therefore wrong. And it would (still) be interesting to know if the Councillor's actions were approved by the wider Conservative Association.
I agree with you that all Parties should concentrate on the social, financial and political issues facing Thanet, but the bickering and feuding won't end until many grow up. That includes several in the Conservative Party, and they show no signs of doing so. Recent behaviours need to be exposed and "resolved" before progress can really be made.
And so to "Ren Wood"... I think your reference to "some kind of infestation..." would generally be held to be offensive, but your selective recall over your rudeness and insults made me smirk. And I am sorry that you have - your earlier rant - failed to understand my points about the behaviour of all Parties, but you are far too unpleasant to merit a further explanation.
So whilst James common sense approach has much to commend it, it does not tell the whole story. Cllr Worrow is not being attacked by the whole Conservative Group by any means, indeed as has been pointed out by others he thrives on being a professional 'victim'. Cllr Gregory did an unbelievably stupid thing by giving Worrow a single slice of provable victimhood. However, I am sure there is more to that story than is heard by us all, I dont know any more than anyone else, but I do find it somewhat convenient that we have a situation where apparantly, on one occasion Cllr Gregory suddenly telephones this famous message, without there being other contextual conversations or exchanges. However, he did what he did, it was incredibly stupid, and is very hard to forgive because he gave a moments traction to the claims of homophobia so liberally sprinkled around by the infamous duo.
Now, ignoring them is an option. And not necessarily a bad one, except that each time one of those famous videos goes out, or the Leader of the Council uses his position to silence criticism of any councillor that suits him (silencing another independent by the way, not Tories as the myth has it) the repeating of half truth, especially when pointed quite deliberately at us all, gains traction as well.
There is the dilemma; anyone, all 98 or so of us, who has stayed awake through the latest u tube sensational video, will notice the various descriptions of the supposed 'enemy' and how loose ohrases are used to eventually encompass any or all who may disagree.
The Diversity Champion thing came originally from the other independent group.
The question is how do we defend ourselves against creeping untruth without speaking out?
And Michael, your recent inputs concerning Pleasurama once agin show your inability to hide your bias clearly and without question. If you were truly interested in decent local government, you would, by now, have accepted that your pre election support for independents now looks pretty shabby and uncomfortable. You are another who edits history and performance to clean yourself of previous mistakes, and when challenged cry like a stuck pig!!!!!
Speaking out is fine, Councillor Wells. Of course. But the subject of much of this thread is not your Party's "speaking out", but a sustained campaign of pot-stirring, hostility, innuendo, smearing and, it now emerges, misinformation, directed towards the Thanet Independent Group and Councillor Worrow in particular. In part, a classic "dirty tricks" campaign.
This has all appeared on Thanet Life, but the fair question is to what extent it has been sanctioned by the Conservative Association or the Conservative Group. Well?
Claiming that this has all been a reaction to the frustrating and bad behaviour of others - who are clearly no saints - is lame and in no way indicative of the mature Party your Conservative Party professes to be. Claiming that Councillor Gregory's outburst should be seen in context is simply staggering. Neither should have happened, or be happening.
I realise why you are all now trying desperately to sweep your antics under the carpet, to draw a line under all of this "squabbling" and move on. You SHOULD all be focussing on more important issues, but I think what has been going on needs to be exposed and acknowledged, it needs to stop, and assurances given that it will not resume, before the line can be drawn.
"Anon 0719" It takes two sides to draw such squabbling to a close but you only attack one. Such bias invalidates your contribution.
Anon 08.06, nice try, but I think most people are more intelligent than you would like to believe and can see past your attempt to subvert the discussion. The issues are clear, however much you may not want to acknowledge them.
There are decent councillors on both Labour and Conservative who just get on with their job. As has been said elsewhere the concern is that these are the ones we want to keep, but I fear these are the ones that will leave. There are already far too many councillors that see the job as easy income - you only have to look at the likes of mr Burgess in county! Those councillors that have intelligence and business skills will just get bored with this pettiness and move on. All of you, let Worrow alone - he's a big enough idiot to mess it up on his own if you give him time.
What a glorious source of amusement some of these Thanet blogs are becoming.
Firstly there is all the fuss over John Worrow who is actually only a person in his own imagination. He does not even exist in his mirror, having no image. Just leave him alone everybody and he will disappear.
Then we have a chap named Peter who keeps attacking Tory councillors whilst reminding us how much he loves our Tory MPs. So that makes it all right then?
Next the sneaky socialist troll who confines his activities to perceived Tory blogs, regularly injecting snide comment designed to outrage the true blues into a response. Ignore the barsteward and he too will also disappear.
Having said that, it is all really rather good fun and makes not one iota of difference to anything. When you read someone saying that Hart displays leadership you realise it is all a pantomine after all.
Carry on you happy bloggers and between you I feel sure you will bring down governments, stop global warming and save the badger. On the other hand, you could be wasting your time other than providing me with amusement when the TV is grim.
You are quite right Anon, it is a waste of time. Nothing will prompt certain Conservative Councillors to behave with decency and integrity. But at least a few bloggers can see them for what they are.
By the way, are there any Tory trolls?
Yes, 15:31, usually to be found on Labour councillors or sympathises sites when they are not removed promptly. Less democracy on that side of the divide.
See old Hart's sister has blown his tough upbringing story in the latest Gazette letters page. Mind you, she is probably a Tory and who wouldn't be having grown up with Clive H.
It seems sources of amusement in Thanet are endless.
Couldn't or could not be bothered, Peter, are two very different things. Yes, Moores is your prime target, I would agree, but at other times you have gone for Gregory, Wells, drink drivers, Panama residents and feline neglect culprits. I was try to spare your blushes.
Doesn't suit his/her argument. Can't let facts get in the way.
What facts were those, 17:49. Peter asked me to name other Tories he had attacked so I did. He did not ask me to name those of other parties so I didn't. That should be simple enough even for you to understand.
This all gets funnier by the entry, so please keep it going as you are making my day.
I shall let you amuse yourself with your own sense of intellectual superiority, Anon. I hope your erist doesn't ache too much, though.
Erist = wrist
20:09 Happy to leave the merchant banker practices to you, 20:06.
Peter
the Thanet Con Back Benchers do not have the same problem with TIG the Moores, Bruce, Wells and Bayford have, this is because they did not loose cabinet expenses. Lets not pretend that its about blind tribal loyalty
At the end of the day it would have made more sense if they would of taken equality issues serious instead of playing lip service.
Look at history; take South Africa for example, Ian Smith's lot came unstuck in the same way MOORES' and Co have.. The ultra right can't swim against the tide of freedom and continue to blame those who speak out against them!
*I mean 'paying' lip service
There is no Tory campaign against Worrow, Peter. Unfortunately its not easy to talk about TDC without making reference to him (some finding this easier than others) and given reaction is overwhelmingly negative from the Tories, it may look like a campaign even when it isn't.
Maybe not, but there's certainly SOME Tories campaigning against him.
The ultra right part of the party will always campaign against those that have exposed them.
When they wake up and realise that the victim can't be blamed for leaving people that have igored complainsts about bullying they will recover but to continue to abuse someone that was driven out by abuse is not very smart!
But if James is right - and perhaps he deserves the benefit of the doubt - that some Conservatives locally are prepared to move on, those like Moores will quickly be left behind and be seen as the dinosaurs and political irrelevances that they clearly are. Yesterday's politicians who will have little future claim to fame.
Anon 22:21, just for the record, Ian Smith was the prime minister of Rhodesia, a former British colony that declared UDI, and absolutely nothing to do with South Africa. Rhodesia never had apartheid and also had an african prime minister, Bishop Abel Muzerawe, before being sold down the river by Thatcher and Carrington. Mugabe took over and the rest is history, but freedom is one thing the unfortunate people of Zimbabwe do not have.
Do please do a little research before you treat us to your historical expertise.
As for the alleged campaign against Worrow. This serves no purpose whatsoever, has gone on too long and damages the Tories because some of them will not let it drop, Labour because they have sold their souls to him and also harms the good governance of Thanet.
Peter, it is good to agree for once though the Worrow question is a vexing one. As you say, some will not let it drop, but he thrives on the notoriety it all brings and so deliberate provokes reaction when things go quiet. I was one who lambasted him on blogs early on, but it eventually dawned on me I was playing his game the way he wanted.
In a way it is easy for me to now ignore him, but it must be much harder when you have to sit in the same council chamber and suffer his taunts and accusations. Put in that position I would probably go much further than Cllr Moores and actually deck him so probaly just as well I am not there.
The victim is problem mind set is what lost them the power. The bigots are paying the price for ignoring the fact that the days of Enoch Powell are over!
Deck the Aids voice mail victim?
There is no hate campaign against him, I know thats the case because Ken and Simon told me!
If Tom thinks gays are a push over I would like to him try to deck John or Ian... Bigoted fool! until the bogots realise that they are the problem, not those that refuse to be bullied them, they won't see power again!
13:52 It is nothing to do with JW being gay but his obnoxious behaviour and his silly shouting across the council chamber and, no, I do not think gays are a pushover. Some probably are and some are not, just like straight blokes. Can't say I am overly impressed with the physique of either Ian or John, but have been around long enough to know you cannot alweays judge by appearances. Even people with large beer bellies can still pack a punch, after all, look at John Prescott.
Oh, and please enlighten me, just what are bogots. Sounds a bit Irish but I am sure it is not.
No campaign against Worrow yet the Tory defence force, led by "Tom Clarke", would like to deck him. What a lovely bunch of thugs - and that doesn't even include those awaiting trial in court.
As for trying to appear even-handed in your earlier post, "Tom", you just can't help letting your blue petticoat show and twisting it all back against Worrow, can you?
Of course, poor old Gregory, so frustrated he just had to ring Worrow and tell him he hoped he would get Aids. And poor embittered, betrayed Moores, he simply has to maintain the campaign of innuendo and smear against TIG, even going so far as to adulterated a blog they once ran and repost it as authentic. Nice.
And the Tories love every minute of it.
13:40 Enoch Powell never had any days. He was sacked by a local lad, Ted Heath, as soon as he made his rivers of blood speech.
See you are back, Mr Comrade Troll, at 14:04. Don't you ever go to work these days or did you get voluntary early retirement.
I do not want to deck anybody, but simply made the point that I probably would attempt to do so if I had to suffer the behaviour that passes for debate in the Thanet District Council. Not that the truth ever has any bearing
on your jaundiced rants or attempts to score points over those you perceive as Tories, basically anyone who does not share your view.
I am deeply offended by Chris Well’s disgusting claim that John Worrow “thrives on being a professional victim”. May I remind Chris Wells and Thanet Conservatives that in 2004 Boris Johnson accused the people of Liverpool of thriving in victimhood following the Hillsborough disaster. I don’t need to remind you that Johnson has been grovelling and apologising ever since and his comments have are still a stain on the honour of the Tory Party.
Let me tell you Chris Well’s that I saw at first hand just how upset and distraught John Worrow was after getting the call form the Ken Gregory. I can say with 100% certainty that John Worrow did not enjoy or thrive on receiving this nasty hateful criminal call. I heard a recording of that call and I felt sick.
Chris Wells you seem to suggest that something sinister provoked Gregory’s call to Worrow. To damn right! It was John Worrow’s active support for my motion to Council supporting equal marriage. It was Roger Gale’s homophobic pronouncements in the local media about equal marriage. It was a majority of Thanet Conservative councillors who opposed or abstained on this motion. It was the snide and downright offensive comments which were published on less-enlightened Thanet blogsites, sometimes by Tory Councillors and ex-Tory Councillors using false names, including a comment suggesting that John Worrow be hung!
All these events gave a very clear signal that it was perfectly alright to victimise, bully and abuse John Worrow for what he was saying. I am also sure that the Tory loss of power and significant income from SRAs may have played a role in this too. That’s what provoked Gregory’s criminal call. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Bearing these issues in mind I find it hard to believe that you Chris Wells seriously believe that John Worrow actively courted and encouraged the sustained and vitriolic attacks upon him, including Gregory’s criminal offense against John.
James Maskell you are much cleverer than I imagined. You might not want it but you have my respect. You are one of the few Tories to have seen the hateful cesspit that your Thanet party is e wallowing in. If the Thanet Tories are ever to win support and respect in Thanet they need to get rid of the some of bigots, homophobes and sundry undesirables who fill their ranks. At least the Thanet Labour Party had the decency to try to arrange an amicable solution to the situation I was in. As far as I know Gregory and the Thanet Conservative Party have not had the decency to apologise to John Worrow for this nasty, bigoted and criminal attack on him.
Chris Wells I once had some respect for you. Not any longer. Sadly your politics., like those of Roger Gale are not very nice.
My goodness, for it would seem that Cllr Driver has realised that politics is not very nice though, for the moment, he seems to think it is just Tories who are not nice.
Some people oppose gay marriage out of firmly held religious believe and that does not make them homophobes. None the less it is OK to call them such. Is that nice.
Is it nice for the leader of the Labour party to claim a humble background when, in fact, he had an upper middle class upbringing and went to Cambridge.
Is it nice for the local Labour leader to claim his alleged tough and poor upbringing only to have it refuted in the local paper by his sister.
Politics is a dirty business where those engaged in it will say anything to get our votes, including Cllr Driver.
Please forget John Worrow the whole lot of you and get on with delivering for the people of Thanet, primarily jobs, clean streets and a safe environment.
Most of us, however much it hurts Cllr Driver, are less concerned about animal exports, gay marriage or night flights.
You are a very foolish person who only sees what they want. My record includes campigning for open goverance, social housing, fighting Southern water pollution of our beaches, defending our NHS in Thanet to name but a few . Feel free to lecture me when you have done as much
Clever move calling members of the public foolish. That should win you lots of support.
Campaigning yes, achieving NO
Agreed, 16:08, though didn't you mean campigning. Presumably that is publishing on your group website an item likening a local lady to a pig.
These people really set themselves up to be shot down!
Peter, in the eyes of the TIGs everybody is homophobic who does not support gay marriage. It is a badge they hand out liberally to anyone they don't like. You will probably get yours now.
Peter utter rubbish. In his time in parliament Roger Gale has voted against virtually every single item of legilsation aimed at promoting equality for LGBT community including LGBT adoption rights, the equalisation of the age of consent, the outlawing of homophobic hate crime and homophobic bullying in workplace. If that does not make Gale a serial homphobe then I am the Archishop of Canterbury. With an MP like Gale is it any wonder Gregory did what he did. Gale's actions legitimise this. Peter I know you have a respect for Gale but I think you need to do your reserach before you defend him.
Thank you for your contribution, John. I have heard you make that speech before.
Anon of 16.24, are you referring to the original TIG blogsite or the version of it that was "doctored" by a Conservative Councillor and then re-posted to discredit and embarrass TIG as part of a dirty tricks campaign?
I have no evidence that Gale is homophobic, and the allegation that he is should not be bandied around. But as Anon of 16.49 points out, he has opposed every single measure introduced to equalise legal treatment for those in the LGBT community. He may be opposed to "gay marriage" because he believes his bible tells him to be, but what about all the other measures over time? He was, of course, also an avid Thatcherite supporter of Section 28. What motivates his absolute opposition to everything pro-LGBT?
All that said, and before James seeks to "draw a line under" all of this again, I'm not sure there is much point in continuing these exchanges.
The attitudes, actions and behaviour of certain elements - the thuggish element - in the local Conservative Party have been exposed very clearly. The scale of the campaign against The Independent Councillors, and John Worrow especially, including dirty tricks, is evident.
The silence that is being maintained by these Conservative protagonists, and their refusal to answer reasonable questions, demonstrates an arrogance and complete lack of accountability that is staggering but has been evidenced so many times before.
It is clear that these thuggish elements have no wish to "clean up their act" or to take account of anything said here, or elsewhere, and change their behaviour, let alone stop their campaign of smear, hostility and innuendo. James's plea for a halt is laudable, but a waste of breath.
As a relative newcomer to Thanet (I am one of those awful DFLs) I am utterly amazed by the backwardness of politcal debate, especially in relation to LGBT issues. I am by inclination and practice a Conservative voter, but I will not be voting for the Thanet Conservative Party in next year's KCC election until you have rid yourself of public representatives such as Cllrs Gregory, Wells and Moores whose actions might be seen by many people as bring the party into disrepute. For your information the London Borough of Southwark Conservative Group voted unanimously in favour of equal marriage without a single hate message being left on anyone's voicemail and without any blogsite vitriol. My advice to Thanet Conservatives is to accept and welcome change instead of fighting against it. I hate to say it but perhaps you should follow the advice of Thanet's Gerorge Galloway, Cllr Driver and smoke several spliffs and relax!!
Does drug use lead to homosexuality or it the other way round?
Anyonewho believes 17:56 is usually a Conservative is lacking a few cells. How tired is the style of debate where one pretends to be an outraged former supporter and then even stipulating the conditions for one's return. Utterly priceless.
17:18
I was referring to the original version about which I was very angry as the lady is a decent person who works hard in the community and a personal friend.
What kind of elected representative so insults a member of the public.
Comrade 17:31 what total arrogance you display. You nip out from under your bridge, launch into one of your typically one sided anti-Tory rants and then seek to close the debate having reached your own conclusions.
One day you will meet your Billy Goat Gruff and then it will be curtains. Meantime at least try to be a bit even handed.
"Tom Clarke" stop being silly and go and fantasise over your wish to "deck" Councillor Worrow.
I read a book to my kids the other day called Where's Wally? Surely we should all be asking "Where's Worrow?" He doesn't come out to defend himself against stuff about the pig
Well, 19:16, that's because his blog editor wrote it without his knowledge so, although he never really existed in the first place, he was sacked conveniently to disappear without trace off the Thanet landscape. In reality, Ian Driver, who has a bit more political savvy, told Worrow to get it off pretty damn quick before it did any more harm.
Would have to say that whenever the name of Worrow is evoked the Thanet bloggers go into overdrive. Mind you, he should remember that not so long ago Mark Nottingham stirred similar passions and got into litigation with sundry Tories. Where is he now, sadly gone with all the flowers from long time ago.
Perhaps it would be helpful to underline what I actually said, not what is assumed, interpreted, or conveniently edited. I said "Cllr Gregory did an unbelievably stupid thing " and " However, he did what he did, it was incredibly stupid, and is very hard to forgive ". I also said "There is the dilemma; anyone, all 98 or so of us, who has stayed awake through the latest u tube sensational video, will notice the various descriptions of the supposed 'enemy' and how loose phrases are used to eventually encompass any or all who may disagree." And that "Cllr Worrow is not being attacked by the whole Conservative Group by any means, indeed as has been pointed out by others he thrives on being a professional 'victim'."
I probably knew, and spent more time with Cllr Worrow when he was a conservative than most other councillors, and was his lightning rod/friend when he was frustrated or upset by events. He knows very well that I supported him when he felt slighted; and offered to come with him to a meeting designed to sort anything he perceived as unfair; as his friend and supporter; a meeting he cancelled if I recall correctly.
I also have a track record of working with, and supporting the gay community, across the country and locally. Using my KCC funds and influence to assist Margate Pride before either Messrs Worrow or Driver had any local awareness; working over the years with Healthy Gay Manchester, and the MyStory Project. I was also around and advising hospices at the time in the late 80's and early 90's when they were getting offers of donations, with conditions that they should not be used to support AIDS patients - and advised the return of these cheques as immoral, and undermining the very concept of hospice care.
How then am I to be singled out as homophobic? Because I have dared to do two things. One is to raise concerns about, and a degree of opposition to the concept of civil marriage equality. I was the only cllr to speak against the motion at TDC, and for the record here are the three resons why:
1) That CME as proposed air brushes children out of the concept of marriage and family - which have always been central tenets of our society and its foundations. I appear to share the concern for children in these situations with EltonJohn.
2) That Civil Partnerships provide the same status to gay couples in law, a view I appear to share with Ben Bradshaw, who wrote of there being no need to move beyond civil partnerships in the middle of the national debate this spring. And celebrated here in Thanet with my son and his partner in 2010.
3) That CME should not happen unless and until the government can guarantee the continuing rite of religious marriage without legal interference; a concern I appear to share with Nigel Farage, who explained it very clearly to Cllr Worrow in that famous video.
And secondly I dare to challenge the integrity and steadfastness of Cllr Worrow, who has previously been a Grey Party candidate; a Conservative candidate; an independent candidate; and now a TIG candidate; only Lib Dems and Labour to go John! But I do so without rancour, or snide attack. I do so simply and straightforwardly by pointing out the anomalies in his situation, as I do with other political opponents, of all across the spectrum. Indeed I believe several labour party members could with some accuracy comment that by comparision to some comments made about them over the years, I give him a fairly easy ride!
So, if any campaigner out there thought I was homophobic because I do not agree with Messrs Worrow and Driver on everything they do, they will appreciate that is far from the truth. And yes, I have some interesting debates with people I know who have different views on CME, but again without rancor or viciousness, or stupid and criminal actions.
One wonders in the end if Messrs Worrow and Driver fear rational debate more than anything else.
For the record, Peter, I have no control over what Cllr Moores puts on his website, I think all of us who have known him since before he entered local politics know that his dedication to blogging is pretty hard wired into his DNA. I sometimes disagree with the line he takes, but as his blog states it is his personal account, and is not an official conservative view, so be it; the risks and rewards are his not mine, as is true of my comments on blogs such as this.
I am neither frightened, nor threatened by the bluster and blow hard views, containing partial truths, which scatter across blogs and newspapers about such matters. I know that many older voters are bemused and concerned by much of this debate, and welcome knowing someone at least is willing to articulate their concerns without fear or favour. I realise that puts me at odds with David Cameron's stated views right now; but actually I doubt he is that bothered to know I have concerns such as these - he has heard them many times from many others much better placed to express the concerns. Settle the concerns, and the barriers melt away; brush them aside with accusation and finger pointing and one wonders what hidden agenda lies beneath.
Neither I, nor John Worrow, nor Ian Driver are, nor should be, above criticism. I do not label them in a homophobic manner, and perhaps thats what really hurts..there has to be proper answer to the questions not megaphone diplomacy.
I realise how difficult it is to distinguish between anonymous contributors, and there are many different ones in this thread, but I for one have never accused you, Councillor Wells, of being homophobic. Indeed, I've not laid that charge at anyone's door. Even in relation to MP Gale, I have merely posed the question why he has always adopted his fiercely anti-LGBT stance; I've never "accused".
I have some sympathy with the sentiment at the end of your penultimate paragraph - "brush them aside with accusation and finger-pointing and one wonders what hidden agenda lies beneath". That should apply to all "sides" of the debate. In my view, Gale particularly would do well to heed the advice.
What your comments do not address is the campaign that has undoubtedly been waged against Councillor Worrow by some within the Conservative Party. You seem to be signalling that this has not been sanctioned by the Party "officially" but it has happened nonetheless. That tends to isolate Councillor Moores, who still has a lot of explaining to do (and questions to answer), and needs also to undertake to stop his campaign. Until he does, or your Party publicly disassociates itself from his actions, you will inevitably be tarnished.
Following on from Cllr Wells well written statement on his views on this whole saga, 07:04, responds in seemingly moderate tones only to finish with his usual attack on the Conservative party.
As ever, not a word in his contribution against Labour yet he conveniently forgets that there were attacks on Cllr. Driver when he resigned the party whip and even an invitation to fisticuffs at a group metting. Cllr Harrisons homophobic utterances against him were well published, but are ignored.
A couple of years ago Cllr Nottingham ran a particularly vitriolic blogsite with regular attacks on opponents. Suddenly he was no longer flavour of the month, some say he threatened Hart's leadership, and he was ousted with much acrimony. The insults and accusations flew around some Thanet blogs for a long time afterwards. Does 07:04 ever mention this or offer any kind on condemnation of the behaviour that went on. No!
When this contributor does adopt a more even and less onesided approach, others of us who follow the blogs might takes his views a bit more seriously. It is not enough to say he has not accused anyone of homophobia, those he seeks to protect and never criticise have and continue to do so on an almost daily basis. That makes him guilty by his denial of their behaviour.
Anon, why are you bandying around loaded terms like "guilty by...denial"? Your "point" here is very similar to one earlier in the thread trying to claim that because of a bias against the Conservative Party my arguments were invalidated. You really need to understand and embrace democracy.
I am not talking about Councillor Driver's actions. I know too little about them but others, mostly those disposed to the Conservative Party, have drawn huge attention to them through this blog. That is fine for them.
I have commented on Councillor Moores's actions, because his blog is out there for all to see. I personally object to dirty tricks and his campaign of smear and innuendo and hostility, and have said so. I object to him, and some of his associates, pointing the finger exclusively at the Independent Councillors and blaming them for behaviour that is the same as their own. I object to that sort of hypocrisy.
Some will agree with me, others will not. Some clearly feel that the Independent Councillors, Worrow in particular, are entirely to blame for the down-turn in political standards locally. I have said several times that I can see a lot that is wrong in their behaviour, but my focus - whether you like it or not is your concern - is on the behaviour of those in the mainstream Conservative Party who are trying to claim some sort of moral high-ground.
I have steadfastly not bandied around the term "homophobe" because a) I have no evidence to support that charge and b) it produces just the sort of mouth-foaming reaction you are demonstrating here. You and those with similar views wait anxiously for the term to appear so you can jump on it and start waving your fingers in hysteria. Well not on my account. Sorry to disappoint.
I have said on several aspects of this whole affair that all the main Parties can be, have been, or will be, guilty of the same flaws in behaviour and argument. Yet this produced a rant from "Ren Wood", who I would guess shares your political views, about the irrelevance of cross-Party comparisons!
Whether you take my comments seriously is a matter for you. But don't try and trump up a charge against me that I am endorsing others' use of the term "homophobe" in your crude attempt to discredit my opinion and contribution.
Despite your diversionary zeal, the focus, as far as I am concerned at least, remains solidly on the behaviour and antics of certain parts - maybe just one part - of the local Conservative Party.
"The focus, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, remains solidily on the behaviour and antics of certain parts - maybe just one part - of the local Conservative Party." That my old colleagues would have regarded as a pretty straight forward cough leaving you guilty as charged 08:17.
Whether you like it or not, your one sided view is evident for all to see as is your usual assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be a Conservative. As it happens I am not.
What a curious line of argument and version of "logic" you choose to pursue, Anon.
I have never disguised that my focus in this affair is on the behaviour and antics of certain Conservative Councillors. It is pretty obvious from my various posts - granted hard to distinguish from other anonymous contributions. I have also said that in no way do I think bad behaviour is exclusive to the Conservative Party. I have also said that I do not support many of the policies or stunts of the Independent Councillors.
Now, compare that with the comments from those defending the Conservative position - regardless of their own political allegiance - who, mostly, will not concede one word of criticism about what the Conservative Party has been doing locally. Now tell me where the bias rests.
And also tell me, do you endorse all that has been done on Thanet Life? Do you endorse the campaign (including the dirty tricks) conducted there against The Independent Councillors, and Worrow in particular?
See this debate goes and, with very few exceptions, comprises of repetitive statements of position with no move towards reconciliation. Is Worrow sinner or saint - we will probably never know.
Similarly over on Thanetonline the pro and anti airport fraternities kick lump out of each other with no sign of reaching any kind of compromise. Has one person been influenced by the arguments of another - I very much doubt it so to what avail.
I suppose it passes the time for some in their dotage. The obviously former clerical bureaucrat, used to his little world of power and importance, pops up every third comment or so still showing that tendency of his calling to be always in the right and always to have the last word. I suppose that helps keep him in his own self important mode.
Literate and not so literate councillors pop in here and there, invariably to be instantly attacked by supporters of their opponents. Then there is he of current councillor role who likes to pretend he is an anonymous member of the public. They are all so obvious to the looker on.
Best of all though are the former Tory or Labour voters who will never vote for the party again because of some misdemeanour they allege. The real leaning is so obvious that their pathetic attempt at disception is laughable.
Still think the best of the week though was Clive Hart's sister's letter to the Gazette. Must have made his day, but, if it didn't, it certainly did mine.
Thank you Simon.
Cllr Harrison and Cllr Driver had a private a meeting facilitated by the Labour Party. it is understood that apologies were made and the 2 agreed to draw a line under the past and move forward. Cllr Gregory on the other hand has made no effort to apologise to Cllr Worrow, nor has the Conservative party. Indeed elements within the Thanet Conservative Party and Cllr Tom King have made a sustained effort to undermine and attack Worrow and bring spurious complaints to the Standards Committee. This is motivated by the fact that Worrrow cost the Tories power and deprived the Tory cabinet members of SRA payments. It is also very clear that Worrows sexuality was an issue for some tories
10:03 Nice try John but my real name is Bill, not Simon. Yet another amusing ploy of the blog dwellers to allege anonymous comment is from a known source.
10.28 don't forget that Cllr Tom King lost £8,000 in SRAs when Worrow and Jack Cohen set up an independnet group with Driver. This might explain his ill-concealed dislike of Worrow
"Amused Bystander" , you might pass yourself as just that if you didn't pepper your contributions with petty insults. Your self-assumed superiority certainly doesn't relate to your contributions here.
10:49 The important little bureaucrat I presume. Just how superior do you consider your one theme contributions to be.
I don't believe myself or my contributions to be superior to anyone. But at least I can deliver my message without resorting to rudeness and insult.
Must step in here as one who has been described both as a liar and a nasty piece of work by Anon at 11:11. Is that not rude or insulting.
For my evident inability to read into contributions the same as you do, where exactly was Amused Bystander resorting to rudeness and insult?
Interested to read in the Thanet Extra that the Labour candidate for the police commissioner role, Harriet Yeo, thinks that a low turnout could let in extremists. Wonder what she consideres extreme.
For me, I would regard, Labour, Green, and if Thanet politics is any example, Independent Group candidates to all be extreme.
See Cllr Driver has dropped out so that's at least one extremist not in contention.
With that interpretation of "extreme", Anon, I have to ask who you vote for now Hitler is dead?
Nigel Farage is a possibility. Maybe Conservatives if David Davies took over leadership. Unfortunately Wellington and Marlborough are also dead so a bit restricted for choice.
Hitler, by the way was a nutter, as were Pol Pot and Stalin, but I guess you knew that.
I bow to your greater familiarity with him/them
anon I do you like your postings
An interesting video this guy has put on a facebook group. He looks pretty angry too! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS9D49ubUjM
PARISH COUNCILLOR YOUTUBE.
VERY SPECIAL OR JUST AN EMBARRASSMENT?
IS THIS A JOKE OR IS HE JUST A BIT ODD?
Its a bit low putting a special person up to this!
An interesting YouTube entry indeed from Josh Coombs who describes himself as "Councillor Josh Coombs" from "Birchington South Ward". He goes on to say he's a member of the North Thanet Conservative Association and challenges what Councillor Worrow has been saying about diversity within the local Party. He says that much of what Councillor Worrow claims could be held to be slanderous and defamatory.
His self-presentation, especially using the term "Ward", might be taken to suggest he is a Ward Councillor on Thanet District Council. Looking at the Thanet Council website, it would appear that Coombs is in fact a Parish Councillor for Birchington South. It would also appear that when he stood for election he did not stand as a Conservative, but as an "other". I wonder why.
People really should be more careful in the way they present themselves and their arguments. A bit like adding material to other people's websites and then re-posting them, it could be seen as an attempt to mislead and deceive.
08:53 Even parish councillors represent wards, often the identical ones that also elect district councillors. Hence he cannot be accused of misleading there.
It is also not uncommon in parish councils to still stand on local personality rather than under a party banner. That does not stop parish councillors having political views or even being members of a party. What it does mean is that they met their own election expenses and are not beholding to some party line on the very local issues they deal with as councillors.
As to your usual dig at Thanet Life, the articles there in the TIG Archive are exactly as published on the original Thanet Independent Group site and all the editor has done is to put some comments in the side bar. Does your daily paper not have editorial comment on issues?
I wait, with not much expectation for the day you criticise something on the left of the political divide. Talking of which, do you not consider it misleading, indeed blatantly dishonest, for Cllr Hart to write an article in the Gazette two weeks ago under his Leader's column, highlighting his poor and under privileged upbringing. A week later, his sister refuted that story and stated that, as children, they grew up in a good home, well fed, well clothed and with regular family outings. Your view on that would be interesting or will you conveniently claim you have no knowledge of it?
You seem to have no problem making accusations against Conservatives based purely on hearsay or supposition. Then you have the audacity to talk of standards.
Where does it say on the adapted and reposted "Tigabout", Anon, that the additions made by Councillor Moores WERE additions? And where does he confirm his authorship of them.
Editorial comment in a newspaper is offered by ghe owners/editors of the paper. Moores did not have that role in relation to that blogsite.
If Councillor Hart has misrepresented his personal history, that is deceitful and shameful, and upu have done the public a service by repeating what was in the press. I hope that's clear enough. Now, to prove you are balanced in a way you fret I am not, will you condemn Councillor Moores's actions in relation to Tigabout?
Finally, thank you for offering a plausible supposition - but be careful, you've attacked me for those! - about why Parish Councillor Coombs did not stand fpr election as a Conservative. I only posed the question. But just to say, his Council is not called the Birchington...WARD Parish Council. Just to be clear on that point.
11.21 A little overly pedenatic on Cllr Coombs definition. In the ward in which I reside we elected two councillors to district and three to town. Usually, and in 15 years I have never known any different result, the two district councillors are also elected to the town council. One is also a county councillor. Nonetheless they represent their ward on each council. That is fact not supposition.
Whatever level they serve at they are entitled to be called councillor. Are you in anyway suggesting Cllr Coombs is less important because he is not part of that shambles in Cecil Street, Margate.
Back to Thanet Life, I repeat the articles are not changed and entries in the side bar are quite clearly by the author. I too can read and there is no attempt to mislead here.
Thank you for at least acknowledging Cllr Hart's public deception though you prefix your comment 'if.' It is in the Gazette under his name and the letter from his sister is published the week later. There is no if about it. The man lied for some cloth cap street cred purpose presumably.
Others have commented frequently that the local press is unreliable, hence my perfectly reasonable "if". But there is nothing equivocal in my criticism of Hart's alleged misrepresentation.
I realise that ypu are simply trying to goad and make mischief, but I have said nothing - positive or negative - about Councillor Coombs' importance or his use of the title "Councillor". I merely queried why he might have chosen not to stand for the Parish Council under the Conservative banner. You have offered a (plausible) theory, but don't be presumptuous and try to pass that theory off as fact. Tut, tut.
As for the adapted Tigabout blogsite, exactly wheredoes it say that it is an adaptation of the originsl and that the adaptations were written by Councillor Moores? Perhaps I'm missing something.
The webcast from North Thanet Conservatives's answer to Frank Spencer from only makes then appear a laughing stock! I guess that BT, Kent Police and BBC all got it wrong lol.
Has thsi bright spark replaced Cllr Bruce?
Taking your last point first, Cllr Moores, announced on Thanet Life that he was recovering the seemingly deleted TIG articles. He also put one or two bits in the side bar which clearly are seperate from the actual articles, which remain in their virgin state. There is no adaption of the original, simply its reproduction in an archive. If those articles had in any way been doctored you can be sure one at least of the TIGs would have sued or gone running off to Standards Committee.
This has particularly reference where some members of TIG seek to claim some articles were never written or are conveniently blamed on their former blog master, no trace of whom can be found anywhere in Thanet, i.e. directories or electoral roll.
On Cllr Coombs I have not offered a theory, but have pointed out that in parishes many people stand as individuals. They may belong to political parties and clearly Cllr Coombs admits to being a North Thanet Conservative. So what for I can see no great significance in it.
As to my attempting to goad or make mischief, nothing could be further from the truth. I am simply offering a view and drawing on some knowledge of the make up of our local tiers of government. For example, were you aware that both Ramsgate and Broadstairs have a town council, and although larger and having more council staff than the likes of Minster and Birchington, they are still, strictly speaking, parish councils.
Finally, on Cllr Hart, his claims were made in his Leader's column, not in a reporter originated article. His sister's letter is published under her name in the letters page. No prospect there of some unfounded newspaper story.
More than happy to agree to differ on opinion, but an acceptance of facts, where they can easily be substantiated, would not go amiss.
16:02 Your spelling and grammar provokes the odd chuckle as well, so careful who you call laughing stocks!
Anon, what you are saying is that the only way any reader of the adapted "Tigabout" would know it had been adapted is if they had by chance seen a distant entry on Thanet Life.
You describe Moores's additions to Tigabout as "separate". They appear on the front page, adjacent to the original content. Given what many have said about the inappropriateness of the original content, how would anyone distinguish the original from the claimed "satire" of Moores additions?
There is reference to Lord Lucan at the foot of the additions, but how would anyone know - again against the rest of the content - that this was an addition? Especially given that the addition refers to "our leader, John Worrow"?
Why not just admit that this was a puerile prank, a dirty trick, that has backfired on fhe perpetrator?
In my view the articles can clearly be seen to be seperate from the additions. You obviously choose, for your own reasons, to see it differently. In the circumstances you can hardly expect me to agree to your interpretation.
I actually think resurrecting and preserving this is a public service though Cllr. Moores would perhaps have been better advised not to add the sidebar comments and cartoons.
As I said, if there was any deliberate misrepresentation the TIGs would have more than happily sued, especially Cllr Moores. That they haven't speaks volumes about the authenticity of this archive.
At 23:53 - To the anon David Fox. How nice of you to rear your UGLY head again. I wonder what brought you out the woodwork? Perhaps its a legit comeback by coombs and moores. It really is true everything with you must go through the back door. HAVE FUN!
A.Harris
Anon (17.07), I've seen some barrel-bottom scraping in my time, but you are up there with the best of them. There is no way anyone reading the re-posted Tigabout would know that the additions were just that, and you know it. If I am wrong, why would Moores have been "better advised", in your view, not to put them there?
And who was advising Moores? I thought he was acting on his own recognisance.
If the intention was, as Moores suggested and you have parroted, to deliver a "public service", why not re-post the blog with a formal statement? Surely, if the original contents were held to be so bad that the public needed to have them put back before them, the person doing it would want to claim credit for that. Whoever heard of a politician hiding their light under a bushel, especially one so devoted to self-promotion like Moores?
And on what grounds would TIG sue? Are dirty tricks of this kind illegal, or are they just dirty? And are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the only test of whether or not there was an intention to mislead is a TIG decision on litigation?
Oh dear, oh dear...oh what a tangled web we weave when ere we venture to deceive...
If you distort the written word of another and present that as from the original sourse to their detriment, they could sue.
Read the actual articles, forget the side bars, and tell me where is the intention to mislead. Everybody around the Thanet blogs, with the exception of you it would seem, knows Cllr Moores resurrected these articles when the TIGs closed their site. No one else, not even the TIGs themselves have accused him of misrepresentation or attempting to mislead.
The term 'might have been better advised' does not imply nor is it intended to so do that Cllr Moores took advice. I think by all accounts he is very much his own person. My personal view is that by the side bar cartoons, obviously intended to amuse, he opens himself up to the kind of accusation from people like you.
If it is your view that this is some kind of dirty trick, so be it, but please respect my right to my opinion. In my view you are just as guilty of the charge you levy against Cllr Moores, that of seeking to mislead.
At 19.20. I do not know councillor moores but it does appear he has provided necessary transparancy and clarity with this. I did see the original website and it is intact with no changes made, except the lighthearted and amusing, comical side bars.
Anon of 19.10, of course I respect your opinion, and your absolute right to express it, however much I may fundamentally disagree with you. I hope you respect mine equally.
You cannot plausibly argue that I, or anyone, should consider the adapted Tigabout blogsite, and the possible intentions behind it, and ignore the parts that were added by Moores. They form part of the blogsite that now sits, as an entity, on the Internet.
There is NOTHING to distinguish Moores's additions from the original content. There is NOTHING to identify him as the author of the additions. Whether those additions are in the sidebar or somewhere else is irrelevant. The material is out there on the "front page".
You say that everybody around the Thanet blogs knew of Moores's actions. I didn't for one, and in any event, it's a very big and dangerous assumption on which to base your defence of Moores.
Let's take a look at two recent entries on Thanet Life, Moores's own blog - his posts of 20 and 25 September.
On 20 September, he wrote "Cllr Worrow was trying...to rewrite history, all or most of what he has attempted to conceal...conveniently saved from deletion and can be found in the TIG archive". The last two words provide a link to Tigabout. He later wrote "referring to my showing her a web-page from the apparently mythical TIG site...". Again the last two words provide a link to Tigabout.
On 25 September, he wrote "I pop up and try and explain to the chair that Cllr Driver is being rather economical with the truth and the record of the Thanet Independent Group and its diversity champion, Cllr Worrow, is available at www.tigabout.blogspot.com.". Obviously the last bit is a link to Tigabout.
No-one looking at these links FROM THANET LIFE, would know that the Tigabout site they were viewing had been adapted by Moores, the person drawing attention to it in public. They would not know that Moores was the "independent" person who had saved, and reposted the site (adapting it in the process).
It is inconceivable that Moores, the habitual self-promoter, would not have claimed full, public credit for his role in bringing Tigabout back to life by declaring it on the blogsite itself, and in all his posted links to it. That is if honourable "public service" had been the objective here.
You may want to believe those were his motives. I don't, and I don't believe the facts support your belief and opinion one jot.
So be it, 08:16, you believe whatever you want to although I do not feel you are too strong on supporting facts either. As so often I guess we will simply have to differ.
Is that idiot boy a north thanet rep, if he is they are making a laughing stock of the party. Hes a cross between Frank Spencer and Benny from Crossroads.
And you must be a bit of a doddery old git yourself if you remember those two, or even Crossroads!
doddery yes, simple no
Well the grammer and punctuation might suggest otherwise. By the way, what is the word 'hes.'
Oh dear, Anon of 14.28, if you are going to snootily comment on another's use of the English language, don't misspell "grammAr".
Good point, 15:02, exceedingly remiss of me, especially after a grammar school education.
Anon 15:02, might I inject my bit here for I do not think it is snooty, as you put it, to point out the spelling and punctuation of someone who is claming to be other than simple.
Such as uncanny resemebelence I must say 23.00 especially when you look at the 3 musketeers.
It would appear one is 'doddery' and a drunk!
The other looks like if he puts on one more pound he will not be able to use the chamber lifts.
And finally the other one looks like he might have to put in or even DECLARE a vested interest for looking like a transvestite gone wrong. I will add that he is an insult to transvestites. He couldent possibly pass for either when it does appear a bus has driven over his face and reversed backwards for good measure. - Gods gift? I beg to differ.
A. Harris
If our Councillors needed any proof that they need to start watching their behaviour it is surely most if not all of the above 130-odd comments. Attitude breeds attitude and by God there's some attitude evident here. Everyone needs to take a step back and read this lot in the cold light of day and then ask themselves if it really appears to be a grown-up debate - if they are being truly honest then the answer has to be "No".
James; your posting was spot on. TIGs are not the issue.
Actually, the debate IS grown-up. It is the behaviour of the politicians giving rise to the debate that is not.
Your sickening hatred of TIG blinds your judement and your actions prove them right... now we see why the bigot empire fell like Rome!
Not quite sure who you're targeting with that comment, Anon 22.05, but I have no hatred of Tig or their Tory critics. But they all need to grow up a bit and stop their feuding.
2107. Quod erat demonstrandum
22:05, were the Romans bigots for I was rather under the impression their empire collapsed more due to the breakdown of their society and its standards. Surely they fell before the sex god, engaging in ever increasing acts of depravity, buggary, sodomy and the violation of adolescent girls by their celebrity classses. In the process they lost all sense of community and became absorbed with self interst and debauchery. They wanted more for nothing with little idea where the more was to come from.
Now doesn't that all remind of somewhere?
Only your troubled mind.
10:42 Like to enlarge on that statement or is that, as I suspect, beyond your capabilities.
No it isn't. Just an observation that you seem to have an unduly negative and pessimistic view about modern society and a misguided fear that anal sex is the route cause of the problems that do exist.
Im not quite sure if the tone should be lowered quite that far down 12:19, nonetheless are you indeed welcoming or in favor of supporting such actions as you infer in our modern [progressive] society? I think we only need to look at Jimmy Saville for ratification..
The use of precise and perfectly proper language does not lower the tone, Anon. I have no problem with sexual activities of any kind that go on between consenting adults and I do not believe they are in any way the cause of modern day social problems. Child abuse, and forcing sexual attentions on an unwilling partner are entirely different.
Not anal sex in isolation, 12:19, but an obsession with sex for self gratification without any meaningful relationship. From TV, to films to magazines our society seemingly highlights sex and displays unhealthy looking stick insects for our adolescents to copy.
Dubious celebrities flit from affair to affair, cheat on partners and proudly proclaim how many people they have bedded whilst over paid footballers have gang bangs in hotel suites. All make our papers.
If you are not ashamed of such a society I certainly am.
I also see much to celebrate in modern society and believe you need to maintain a balanced assessment and view. But it is for you to decide how best to reconcile your sense of shame. Not much more one can add.
Someone describes the debauchery that preceeded the downfall of the Roman empire and somebody else immediately leaps in with an accusation of blaming societies' evils on anal sex.
Says it all about Thanet with a council propped up by a party obsessed with homophobia and even bloggers looking for it at every opportunity.
I am with James and Tim for moving on, but it gets difficult if we cannot even discuss the fall of the Romans with invoking the wrath of the TIG mentality fraternity.
I know you are simply desperate for a "fight", "Tom Clarke", and gagging for someone to say "homophobe" or "gay", but I'm afraid you're totally out of luck.
Firstly, the earlier Anon's point was that modern society is likely to suffer the same fate as Ancient Rome ibecause of "sodomy and buggery". I think both mean anal sex and are acts not restricted to gay men by a long way. Subsequent posts - moderate and sensible until you came along again - simply proffer the view that there is much to be positive about in modern society and what does ail it is not all down to sexual activities and liberation.
And only part of what seems to ail Thanet Council is TIG. The other part is the thuggish, dirty tricks wing of the Conservative Party, but of course you'd choke on your Daily Mail before conceding that.
Completely agree with Tom Clarke's comments. Grow UP and accept that people have views and their own opinions, even if you may feel they are bigoted or not. As for mentioning about Roger Gale and the Militant Homosexual comment, it simply refers to gay activists are people who are determined to force gay/equal marriage on the church.
A.Harris
"A. Harris" - is that "A" for Auntie? - I think you need to calm down a bit, dear. I know that Gale is a dinosaur, but silly "Tom" is talking here about the ROMAN EMPIRE - well he sort of is. They came later than the dinosaurs. No mention of Gale or his "militant homosexual" taunt.
And of course the Romans weren't terribly keen on the christian church, so... you might dislike them more than the LGBTs.
18:50, my how comments get distorted to suit your case. It was not I that started the Romans bit and the person who talked about the reasons for their downfall did not confine to sodomy and buggary, but also referred to the worship of the sex god, debauchery and the abuse of young girls. Someone, for reasons best known to themselves, decide to just pick up on the anal sex bit.
True the Romans were not overly chuffed with Christianity to start with, but ultimately embaced it with Rome becoming the centre of the Christian church.
I made no mention of Gale because before I commented he had not appeared in the debate and I am really not into double guessing what is coming next.
As for the gagging for someone to say homophobe, 17:40, please spare us your vivid imagination. I could not care less whether you call me silly names or not. If it pleases your silly mind please be my guest.
"Tom Clarke", I don't normally have any truck with liars and offensive contributors - all the evidence against you is set out clearly in the previous thread - but on one level, you do make me smirk. You are such a funny old thing.
20:26 After earlier comment I have only just come back into this thread and have confined my contribution to the issues arising out of the Roman downfall. Quite where in that I have lied or been offensive I fail to see.
You on the other hand adopt a superior and condescending attitude attempting to dismiss me as a funny old thing. What exactly does that make you. Well you smirk to your heart's content, but I would not mind betting that I am not much older than you and I am certainly not funnier. To quote Blair, I am a pretty straight forward sort of guy with the emphasis on the straight.
Whatever, "Tom".
18:50 Sir Roger Gale was mentioned in about 10 postings before and I was expressing those points. I am calm, but why of course you can patronise me all you like but it does not enter into the realm of sodomy and anal sex as much as you like to sway the debate into that direction. It would seem you are more anally retentive than you like to believe. Now be good and crawl back under your stoneage rock.
A. Harris
Interesting how the exchanges have strayed from the antics of TIG and the dirty tricks campaign waged against them by certain thuggish elements in the local Conservative Party. I wonder if that's a good sign?
TIG antics continue unabated with the latest video release from JW over on Thanet Press Releases. Seems he is now qualified to solve everything and is calling for an independent Thanet, presumably so he can rule it.
Looks like Anon 18:50 and A. Harris have got a crosssed wire and misunderstood each other. Really enjoyed the bit about 18:50 being anally retentive and would strongly recommend a little black capsule if that is the case.
When the girls fall out it gets much more spiteful than blokes, who just hit each other and then have another beer.
06:40 I genuinely wish you were right, but the characters involved, all round, will not let the TIG issue die just yet I am afraid.
John Worrow himself has released another video, available to view over on Thanet Press Releases, which is sure to provoke reaction. In it he attacks Conservatives at Westminster and Maidstone levels so, whilst you might call them thuggish elements, it is almost inevitable that some within the party will respond. I am sure that is why he does it, to fuel the flames and perpetuate his victimhood stance.
I know you get pleasure at blaming it all on the Tories, but JW himself plays a role.
"Vanity, definitely my favorite sin". John Milton (Al Pacino) in The Devils Advocate (1997)
No, 08.59, I don't blame it all on the Conservative Party. I have said many times that TIG have behaved far from acceptably or appropriately. I have also said that on some issues - like accepting turncoats without forcing by-elections - all Parties are equally flawed. I have simply challenged those who say that TIG are entirely to blame.
Is that a politician's epitaph, Councillor Wells? And anyone particular in mind?
Gosh... James Maskell must hold the local record on blog comments, so well done indeed James. I think this is partly due to the 'usual suspect' insisting on the last word and since I last dropped by over 100 comments have been added.
For clarification... 'Again' the TIG archive is simply that but with a little tongue in cheek satire along the sidebar. An independent council investigator went through this with me last month and appeared quite satisfied that it was authentic.
Agreeing with some earlier comments, if I had manipulated or represented the historical content of the TIG archive, at best I would be open to a standards complaint but at worst, a libel action and I'm really not that dim.
The TIG archive exists to remind any interested observer what these three individuals stand for on our local political scene but obviously some people have very short memories or prefer to think of them as moral crusaders.
So next time I drop-in, perhaps the comment stream will have reached 200... wouldn't that be something!
Cannot wait for you know who's response, Simon. Sure it won't be long coming.
All a long way from James' original posting. Local Conservatives should do their best to ignore the TIGs - it is evident that their leader needs the oxygen of publicity in order to survive. Instead, they should be working towards regaining the trust of the electorate. Believe me, this endless sniping is not the way to do this and is not working. Far better to start putting boots on the pavement and get out amongst the voters. Negative campaigning never wins votes because the British usually see through it. Better by far to come up with alternative policies to those of the present ruling group. The alternative is to let Labour in again.
Tim, whilst I would agree with you, I do think Simon has a right, indeed a duty, to refute the allegations regularly made by one contributor to this thread, that he somehow doctored the TIG blogsite,
Having done that I do agree it is time to move on, but my own greater concern arises out of the performance of central government having a negative effect on Conservative support. Difficult to gets boots on the ground when the boots are marching towards Nigel Farage in desperation at the lack of Tory leadership.
To be fair, the Conservatives should have walked the last election after Brown's performance. What chance would they have under the same leader when policies seem to deliberately antagonise grass roots support.
I do rather agree with Tom. UKIP's appeal is an issue that can't be ignored and if I'm honest, I see rather more people locally lurching to the right of the political spectrum than the left
Interesting for, whiles James has a lively debate going, Tony Flaig has banned further comments on his site unless by email.
Easy to understand why with all the underhand and snide anonymous comments that get slipped it, not to mention the bee in the bonnet merchants, but a stifled debate is a lifeless one. Surely it is worth suffering the odd Deal bombing conspiracy or polluted aquifer fanatic in order to get a flow of ranging points of view.
While its astonishing to see such a long debate on this blog beating the previous record ("Dear TDC Councillors..." back in January) by 60, I'd rather have had 17 comments but the point hit home, something Worrow has taken on board himself. Whether this change happens to the Group remains to be seen, probably come December 6th.
I've never understood this argument that Conservatives have to defend or explain themselves against accusations. If you aren't homophobic, why should you have to defend or explain yourself?
It was pointed out earlier in the thread that the Conservatives didn't make the Diversity Champion motion at Council. That's true, it was Tom King, but we seconded it. There is no justification for Worrow holding that role but I doubt he has a decision making or indeed influencing role so I'm happy to let that pass.
There's a lot of TDC related stuff in the news at the moment and that is where attention should be focused. Thanks to all of you for your comments.
Post a Comment