IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

55 Pages V  « < 44 45 46 47 48 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Newbury's CCTV
Iommi
post Feb 18 2011, 09:00 AM
Post #901


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



If what you say is true, then Graham Jones is guilty of lying by omission. He's lying. As for quoting user23 and dannyboy, that serves to demonstrate to me the connection between themselves.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 18 2011, 09:56 AM
Post #902


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 09:00 AM) *
If what you say is true, then Graham Jones is guilty of lying by omission. He's lying. As for quoting user23 and dannyboy demonstrates to me the connection between themselves.


He told me that nobody has sent me emails quoting numbers of cameras working. He believes his own hype. He told me that if I have any emails quoting numbers, to publish them. Well, let's just say I have sent an email from the Chief Exec to the paper to see if they will publish it for me.

Here is the "nuts and bolts" of the situation. Graham Jones, Anthony Stansfield, Keith Ullyat, Andy Day, Nick Carter and a few others have all been saying different things at different times, and the FOI document basically means that they have all lied. Read the document and match it up to what they have said in the media at the dates given in the FOI. It might only be small details, but a lie is a lie. Here's the biggy though, if any of the above are telling the truth, that means the FOI is inaccurate, which is technically breaking the law. How can you publish info under an FOI that isn't true???

Listen to the audio from Newbury Sound, read the cuttings from the NWN. Either way, the council are lying through the people named in this post, or they have lied through the information that they published. Graham Jones also broke the code of council meetings by insulting a public questioner, but I'll let him off with that because it made me laugh. What I can't laugh at is the blatant lies and deception of our district council, and I will fight this until we get an apology. It's now got to the stage where action must be taken against those who have lied, and I urge the Lib Dem members to fully go after the council on this too. If they can use their powers in the chamber to force an investigation, that will be a start. I'm also going to formally complain about Councillor Stansfield for issuing false statements to the media.

FAO: Graham Jones. Go on the Newbury Sound Website and listen to the news from last Friday I think it was. Cllr Stansfield says not all cameras are working, and he's not going to say which ones are not working. He then says this project is being delivered in stages. Then get a copy of last weeks paper. Cllr Stansfield is "delighted" that our CCTV network is now fully operational. Which statement is true?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 18 2011, 01:15 PM
Post #903


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,052
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 09:00 AM) *
If what you say is true, then Graham Jones is guilty of lying by omission. He's lying. As for quoting user23 and dannyboy, that serves to demonstrate to me the connection between themselves.

Does it bollocks.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 18 2011, 01:23 PM
Post #904


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 18 2011, 01:15 PM) *
Does it bollocks.


Danny, Graham Jones said last night all cameras were visible before Newbury Control closed. Yet this is the first anyone has heard of that. Have a word with Graham and ask him to clarify his comment, because if eveything was visible before the 17th December, why is everything not visible now?

PS. He seems to have taken your word that no camera numbers were mentioned in the emails published and challenged me to produce evidence. He should have looked closer at the emails he was cc'd on!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 18 2011, 01:24 PM
Post #905


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 18 2011, 01:15 PM) *
Does it bollocks.

It looks that way to me I'm afraid!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 18 2011, 01:37 PM
Post #906


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,052
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 01:24 PM) *
It looks that way to me I'm afraid!

Haven't you retired yet?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 18 2011, 01:40 PM
Post #907


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 18 2011, 01:37 PM) *
Haven't you retired yet?

Because of you and other anti-Richard Garvie/West Berkshire Council apologists, no.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 18 2011, 01:44 PM
Post #908


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,052
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 01:40 PM) *
Because of you and other anti-Richard Garvie/West Berkshire Council apologists, no.

Cool. I do have a use.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Feb 18 2011, 05:39 PM
Post #909


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 01:40 PM) *
Because of you and other anti-Richard Garvie/West Berkshire Council apologists, no.
Which would make you an anti-West Berkshire Council / Richard Garvie apologist.

Of course what you say isn't true as my personal opinion on CCTV differs somewhat from West Berkshire Council, whereas yours seems to be roughly the same as theirs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 18 2011, 06:29 PM
Post #910


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 18 2011, 05:39 PM) *
Which would make you an anti-West Berkshire Council / Richard Garvie apologist.

I am to a degree; although I'm not strictly anti-council, but I object to some of the things they do; which is only normal. I don't come on here seeking merely to denigrate anything they might do or say simply because they are the council. I haven't wholly agreed with Richard Garvie in the past either.

QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 18 2011, 05:39 PM) *
Of course what you say isn't true as my personal opinion on CCTV differs somewhat from West Berkshire Council, whereas yours seems to be roughly the same as theirs.

Having a different opinion to that of the council doesn't negate you being an apologist for them. I haven't heard you criticise the council for their endorsement of the CCTV system, nor the way they have handled both the migration or the PR for the migration. Indeed, some cynics might say that the council's performance over the CCTV system might be construed as being anti-CCTV anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Feb 18 2011, 06:55 PM
Post #911


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 06:29 PM) *
Having a different opinion to that of the council doesn't negate you being an apologist for them.
How can having a totally different personal opinion to the council on this subject make me an apologist for them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 18 2011, 07:02 PM
Post #912


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 18 2011, 06:55 PM) *
How can having a totally different personal opinion to the council on this subject make me an apologist for them?

Does the council have a 'personal opinion' on CCTV? The 'apology' is your defending the council over their performance on the matter, not the policy for supplying CCTV. An apologist for the council doesn't have to agree with every item that a council does, but you have never been critical of them or their policies on this forum (as far as I can remember), so that must say something.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Feb 18 2011, 07:04 PM
Post #913


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 07:02 PM) *
Does the council have a 'personal opinion' on CCTV? The 'apology' is your defending the council over their performance on the matter, not the policy for supplying CCTV. An apologist for the council doesn't have to agree with every item that a council does, but you have never been critical of them or their policies on this forum (as far as I can remember) so that must say something.
I have. In this very thread of their CCTV policy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 18 2011, 07:07 PM
Post #914


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 18 2011, 07:04 PM) *
I have. In this very thread of their CCTV policy.

You have said that CCTV should be removed, that is not being critical of the council.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Feb 18 2011, 07:09 PM
Post #915


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 07:07 PM) *
You have said that CCTV should be removed, that is not being critical of the council.
I'm starting to think you're beyond help. Who put the CCTV in, in the first place?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 18 2011, 07:16 PM
Post #916


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 18 2011, 07:09 PM) *
I'm starting to think you're beyond help. Who put the CCTV in, in the first place?

What difference does that make?

You have been critical of CCTV in general (with little credible evidence to support your argument) but you have not been critical of the council for installing it, or the way they have installed it. That is what I mean by being critical. And even if you have been critical, 'one swallow doesn't make a summer'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Feb 18 2011, 08:04 PM
Post #917


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,451
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 18 2011, 01:15 PM) *
Does it bollocks.


If you gather all the comments and evidence from all the media etc available then I fail to see how any one can say the representatives of WBC, councillors, officers, and certain employees you know the two, they have not all been singing from the same hymn sheet? To be completely pro council you would have to say they have been issuing conflicting statements to say the least? If you take the other extreme you could argue that they have been lying through their teeth? I fail to see how even a Saint could infer that the statements issued were not confusing at least?

We need answers to my questions and others forum members questions in previous posts? Are we going to get them?

User and Dannyboy have lost all credibility as far as I can deduce as they seem to be the only two who cannot see the obvious even when it is staring them in the face? I would even believe they are members of the flat earth society?

How can any taxpayer have any faith in a local authority that shows such contempt for the people who pay their wages? They must be made accountable and we must have transparency or the whole system of local government will collapse.




--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sidney
post Feb 18 2011, 08:42 PM
Post #918


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 161
Joined: 14-February 11
Member No.: 3,006



QUOTE (Cognosco @ Feb 18 2011, 08:04 PM) *
If you gather all the comments and evidence from all the media etc available then I fail to see how any one can say the representatives of WBC, councillors, officers, and certain employees you know the two, they have not all been singing from the same hymn sheet? To be completely pro council you would have to say they have been issuing conflicting statements to say the least? If you take the other extreme you could argue that they have been lying through their teeth? I fail to see how even a Saint could infer that the statements issued were not confusing at least?

We need answers to my questions and others forum members questions in previous posts? Are we going to get them?

User and Dannyboy have lost all credibility as far as I can deduce as they seem to be the only two who cannot see the obvious even when it is staring them in the face? I would even believe they are members of the flat earth society?

How can any taxpayer have any faith in a local authority that shows such contempt for the people who pay their wages? They must be made accountable and we must have transparency or the whole system of local government will collapse.


Cognosco are you from the Tax Payers Alliance laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Feb 18 2011, 09:36 PM
Post #919


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,451
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Sidney @ Feb 18 2011, 08:42 PM) *
Cognosco are you from the Tax Payers Alliance laugh.gif


Watch the pennies and the pounds look after themselves society? laugh.gif

Someone has to ensure WBC are accountable? I am fed up with all politicians and locale authorities of all parties being economic with the truth I just wish they would call a spade a spade that way we could have more respect for them?
It should not be the norm for politicians to mislead the electorate should it? What has happened to our public servants standards when all you get from them is spin or downright lies? sad.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Feb 18 2011, 11:38 PM
Post #920


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,829
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



To be fair to politicians, if they told the whole truth, we wouldn't vote for them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

55 Pages V  « < 44 45 46 47 48 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th November 2018 - 10:20 PM