Mencap offers to 'educate' former mayor

Former mayor Nick Martin

Former mayor Nick Martin

First published in News
Last updated

A LEADING disability charity has welcomed the decision of the Swindon Mayor to stand down after he was asked to apologise for remarks made last year.

At a meeting last year Coun Martin (Con, Shaw) said: “Are we still letting these Mongols have sex with each other?”

On Tuesday he stood down after a panel found him in breach of the Members’ Code of Conduct. The panel ordered him to apologise, which he has, as well as attending a training course.

Now Mencap has released a statement to the Adver in which it said people who make those remarks should not hold a prestigious position of the mayor.

Ciara Lawrence and Ismail Kaji said: “We, as Mencap spokespeople with a learning disability, welcome the fact the Mayor of Swindon has resigned.

“People like Mr Martin who have these sorts of views about disabled people should not be in those types of positions. Mayors should act as role models for their community, not needlessly insult the people that look up to them.

“People with a learning disability in the community of Swindon will have been deeply affected that their mayor had such disgusting views about them.

“His resignation shows that people are realising that using discriminatory words for disabled people is just as bad as using racist or homophobic words . There is no difference.”

The initial complaint was made last year and there has been criticism from many corners that it took so long for Coun Martin to stand down. The news he had resigned received global coverage, with the story travelling as far as Australia and South America.

In their statement, Ciara and Ismail go on to say it is important people learn that people with disabilities lead fulfilling lives and have invited Coun Martin to talk about the issue.

They said: “We have a learning disability and we have families. “We don’t see any difference in the way our families work and anyone else’s.

“We don’t need anyone’s permission, we are equal citizens and we have the right to live our lives in the way we choose. We have great lives. “We feel sad that Mr Martin’s attitude is so ignorant.

“We would like to invite Mr Martin to meet with people with a learning disability at Mencap. We think we could begin to educate him on why his attitude is so wrong.”

Coun Martin was not available to comment.

Comments (138)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:52am Sat 19 Apr 14

Robh says...

Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's.
Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's. Robh
  • Score: -12

11:14am Sat 19 Apr 14

Always Grumpy says...

Robh wrote:
Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's.
It says everything about his attitude and beliefs.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's.[/p][/quote]It says everything about his attitude and beliefs. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 7

11:21am Sat 19 Apr 14

Robh says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Robh wrote:
Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's.
It says everything about his attitude and beliefs.
I think there are too many priscy dogooders around who are ready to malign someone for something they are reported to have said without knowing or understanding why they said it. Who are the bigots?
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's.[/p][/quote]It says everything about his attitude and beliefs.[/p][/quote]I think there are too many priscy dogooders around who are ready to malign someone for something they are reported to have said without knowing or understanding why they said it. Who are the bigots? Robh
  • Score: -9

11:34am Sat 19 Apr 14

Robh says...

When I see articles that use the following words I am disgusted at how people can assume they know a persons general ideology.


'People like Mr Martin' who are they?
'such disgusting views about them'. A comment does not represent a view.
'as bad as using racist or homophobic words.' This takes it to another level
'Mr Martin’s attitude is so ignorant' Is this a statement of fact?
'educate him on why his attitude is so wrong' Presumption?
When I see articles that use the following words I am disgusted at how people can assume they know a persons general ideology. 'People like Mr Martin' who are they? 'such disgusting views about them'. A comment does not represent a view. 'as bad as using racist or homophobic words.' This takes it to another level 'Mr Martin’s attitude is so ignorant' Is this a statement of fact? 'educate him on why his attitude is so wrong' Presumption? Robh
  • Score: -14

11:49am Sat 19 Apr 14

trolley dolley says...

Please SWINDON ADVERTISER give it a rest.

This is just feeding the subject but not answering the questions.

Cllr Martin has done the right thing so I ask all those who feel hurt by his comment to show some compassion.

Yes you are hurt but you are now behaving very vindictively and your comments are just keeping the wound open.
Please SWINDON ADVERTISER give it a rest. This is just feeding the subject but not answering the questions. Cllr Martin has done the right thing so I ask all those who feel hurt by his comment to show some compassion. Yes you are hurt but you are now behaving very vindictively and your comments are just keeping the wound open. trolley dolley
  • Score: 9

1:01pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Always Grumpy says...

Robh wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Robh wrote:
Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's.
It says everything about his attitude and beliefs.
I think there are too many priscy dogooders around who are ready to malign someone for something they are reported to have said without knowing or understanding why they said it. Who are the bigots?
I'm certainly not a 'prissy do-gooder', but merely commented because I fundamentally disagree with your opinion of Martin!
As to his 'honest Question', you have to be joking? That's all down to his basic ignorance.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's.[/p][/quote]It says everything about his attitude and beliefs.[/p][/quote]I think there are too many priscy dogooders around who are ready to malign someone for something they are reported to have said without knowing or understanding why they said it. Who are the bigots?[/p][/quote]I'm certainly not a 'prissy do-gooder', but merely commented because I fundamentally disagree with your opinion of Martin! As to his 'honest Question', you have to be joking? That's all down to his basic ignorance. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 7

1:28pm Sat 19 Apr 14

MrAngry says...

Nick Martin was a terrible choice for mayor, but he has resigned and it is time to let it drop.

If Mencap want to provide free training perhaps the next mayor should take up the offer. Not much point in closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Nick Martin was a terrible choice for mayor, but he has resigned and it is time to let it drop. If Mencap want to provide free training perhaps the next mayor should take up the offer. Not much point in closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. MrAngry
  • Score: 9

4:06pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Davey Gravey says...

You can't polish turds
You can't polish turds Davey Gravey
  • Score: 8

5:36pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Ollie Dognacky says...

I like Nick Martin.
He is a very pleasant chap.
Besides which, he has been elected.
Critics that think they could do better should see if they are popular enough to get elected.
Then we might see how perfect they are
I like Nick Martin. He is a very pleasant chap. Besides which, he has been elected. Critics that think they could do better should see if they are popular enough to get elected. Then we might see how perfect they are Ollie Dognacky
  • Score: -8

5:53pm Sat 19 Apr 14

Bert of Bassett says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
You can't polish turds
Well you could , but you would still have a shiny turd.
You can't educate pork?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: You can't polish turds[/p][/quote]Well you could , but you would still have a shiny turd. You can't educate pork? Bert of Bassett
  • Score: 4

6:14pm Sat 19 Apr 14

House with no name says...

Buy a cow and milk that instead.

This was a Labour witch hunt - now move on.
Buy a cow and milk that instead. This was a Labour witch hunt - now move on. House with no name
  • Score: -9

7:44pm Sat 19 Apr 14

fuzzey says...

I also like Nick Martin he was a lovely smart happy looking mayor and has done a lot of good work . As was previously said you have been made to feel sad and you are equal citizens .therefore do you really want so many jumping on the band waggon and taking part in a witch hunt in your defence ?? We all have hurtful things said at some times in our lives and as equal citizens we live with it .( live and let live )
I also like Nick Martin he was a lovely smart happy looking mayor and has done a lot of good work . As was previously said you have been made to feel sad and you are equal citizens .therefore do you really want so many jumping on the band waggon and taking part in a witch hunt in your defence ?? We all have hurtful things said at some times in our lives and as equal citizens we live with it .( live and let live ) fuzzey
  • Score: -8

8:58pm Sat 19 Apr 14

ChаnnelX says...

Please *PLEASE* can we move on now, it's embarrassing enough.
Please *PLEASE* can we move on now, it's embarrassing enough. ChаnnelX
  • Score: -2

10:20pm Sat 19 Apr 14

MrAngry says...

Ollie Dognacky wrote:
I like Nick Martin.
He is a very pleasant chap.
Besides which, he has been elected.
Critics that think they could do better should see if they are popular enough to get elected.
Then we might see how perfect they are
He was elected before the comment. That doesn't mean he is popular now. The system doesn't allow the public to vote him out.
[quote][p][bold]Ollie Dognacky[/bold] wrote: I like Nick Martin. He is a very pleasant chap. Besides which, he has been elected. Critics that think they could do better should see if they are popular enough to get elected. Then we might see how perfect they are[/p][/quote]He was elected before the comment. That doesn't mean he is popular now. The system doesn't allow the public to vote him out. MrAngry
  • Score: 3

10:23pm Sat 19 Apr 14

MrAngry says...

House with no name wrote:
Buy a cow and milk that instead.

This was a Labour witch hunt - now move on.
Similar to the tory witch hunt which forced Geoff Reid to stand down a few years ago. Can't have it both ways.
[quote][p][bold]House with no name[/bold] wrote: Buy a cow and milk that instead. This was a Labour witch hunt - now move on.[/p][/quote]Similar to the tory witch hunt which forced Geoff Reid to stand down a few years ago. Can't have it both ways. MrAngry
  • Score: 8

11:16pm Sat 19 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

ChаnnelX wrote:
Please *PLEASE* can we move on now, it's embarrassing enough.
Hello ChannelX, I've missed you...I'm still waiting for an answer - are you a Tory councillor?
[quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: Please *PLEASE* can we move on now, it's embarrassing enough.[/p][/quote]Hello ChannelX, I've missed you...I'm still waiting for an answer - are you a Tory councillor? BeardyBill
  • Score: 3

11:19pm Sat 19 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
You can't polish turds
But you can roll them in glitter.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: You can't polish turds[/p][/quote]But you can roll them in glitter. BeardyBill
  • Score: 9

11:22pm Sat 19 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Robh wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Robh wrote:
Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's.
It says everything about his attitude and beliefs.
I think there are too many priscy dogooders around who are ready to malign someone for something they are reported to have said without knowing or understanding why they said it. Who are the bigots?
The bigots are the people who try and make excuses for the ex-mayors nasty, snide comments.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's.[/p][/quote]It says everything about his attitude and beliefs.[/p][/quote]I think there are too many priscy dogooders around who are ready to malign someone for something they are reported to have said without knowing or understanding why they said it. Who are the bigots?[/p][/quote]The bigots are the people who try and make excuses for the ex-mayors nasty, snide comments. BeardyBill
  • Score: 3

11:27pm Sat 19 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

MrAngry wrote:
Ollie Dognacky wrote:
I like Nick Martin.
He is a very pleasant chap.
Besides which, he has been elected.
Critics that think they could do better should see if they are popular enough to get elected.
Then we might see how perfect they are
He was elected before the comment. That doesn't mean he is popular now. The system doesn't allow the public to vote him out.
He could easily put his popularity and public support to the test by resigning as a Councillor and seeking re-election. That would also effectively silence his critics.

Will he do this? Judging by the way he manoeuvred to try and keep the Mayors job, and only resigned when it was clear his position was untenable, I suspect he won't. Too keen to keep the allowances no doubt.
[quote][p][bold]MrAngry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ollie Dognacky[/bold] wrote: I like Nick Martin. He is a very pleasant chap. Besides which, he has been elected. Critics that think they could do better should see if they are popular enough to get elected. Then we might see how perfect they are[/p][/quote]He was elected before the comment. That doesn't mean he is popular now. The system doesn't allow the public to vote him out.[/p][/quote]He could easily put his popularity and public support to the test by resigning as a Councillor and seeking re-election. That would also effectively silence his critics. Will he do this? Judging by the way he manoeuvred to try and keep the Mayors job, and only resigned when it was clear his position was untenable, I suspect he won't. Too keen to keep the allowances no doubt. BeardyBill
  • Score: 3

11:47pm Sat 19 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Ollie Dognacky wrote:
I like Nick Martin.
He is a very pleasant chap.
Besides which, he has been elected.
Critics that think they could do better should see if they are popular enough to get elected.
Then we might see how perfect they are
I'm sure he is very pleasant Ollie...to your face. Unfortunately, the majority of his supporters on here put forward the defence that he said the unfortunate phrase in private, where it shouldn't have been overheard by the people he was commenting on.

If even his mates say this, you've got to ask yourself can he really be trusted?
[quote][p][bold]Ollie Dognacky[/bold] wrote: I like Nick Martin. He is a very pleasant chap. Besides which, he has been elected. Critics that think they could do better should see if they are popular enough to get elected. Then we might see how perfect they are[/p][/quote]I'm sure he is very pleasant Ollie...to your face. Unfortunately, the majority of his supporters on here put forward the defence that he said the unfortunate phrase in private, where it shouldn't have been overheard by the people he was commenting on. If even his mates say this, you've got to ask yourself can he really be trusted? BeardyBill
  • Score: 2

11:53pm Sat 19 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Robh wrote:
Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's.
Why is the Adver still running this? Perhaps because some of the comments from his supporters are pure comedy gold.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's.[/p][/quote]Why is the Adver still running this? Perhaps because some of the comments from his supporters are pure comedy gold. BeardyBill
  • Score: 6

12:12am Sun 20 Apr 14

Robh says...

BeardyBill at it again. Shame you can never put anything interesting on here other than being abusive and negative about other peoples comments.
BeardyBill at it again. Shame you can never put anything interesting on here other than being abusive and negative about other peoples comments. Robh
  • Score: -3

12:13am Sun 20 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

ChаnnelX wrote:
Please *PLEASE* can we move on now, it's embarrassing enough.
ChannelX I've strongly argued against some of your comments, but to be fair, you are making a valid point here. The fact that you find it embarrassing is a good start - the fact that you find it embarrassing shows that you know and accept the comments were unacceptable and wrong. This at least sets you apart from some of the other posters on here who are still pursuing the angle of McCarthyist witch-hunt paranoia, or even justification of Martin's actions for various spurious reasons.
[quote][p][bold]ChаnnelX[/bold] wrote: Please *PLEASE* can we move on now, it's embarrassing enough.[/p][/quote]ChannelX I've strongly argued against some of your comments, but to be fair, you are making a valid point here. The fact that you find it embarrassing is a good start - the fact that you find it embarrassing shows that you know and accept the comments were unacceptable and wrong. This at least sets you apart from some of the other posters on here who are still pursuing the angle of McCarthyist witch-hunt paranoia, or even justification of Martin's actions for various spurious reasons. BeardyBill
  • Score: 3

12:17am Sun 20 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Robh wrote:
BeardyBill at it again. Shame you can never put anything interesting on here other than being abusive and negative about other peoples comments.
Pot this is kettle....
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: BeardyBill at it again. Shame you can never put anything interesting on here other than being abusive and negative about other peoples comments.[/p][/quote]Pot this is kettle.... BeardyBill
  • Score: 4

12:24am Sun 20 Apr 14

Robh says...

Ha Ha!
Ha Ha! Robh
  • Score: 4

6:44am Sun 20 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
Ha Ha!
Hello Rodders still trying to defend this???

Have you had a chance to check a dictionary? You were having some problems with the definition of a word on the other thread.
At least on this thread you havent made any silly comments defendi....oh sorry no you have.
I believe it is called a follow up story, you see when a story is in the news and it is popular (100+ comments in one of the threads) and a national organisation such as Mencap offer to educate the person the story is about it would seem logical to report on it.

Mr Martin`s comment was an example of the ignorant attitudes of him and his kind I feel that when comments like his are made in a group it is because they know they are in a group that supports the idea. Guilty by association yes that is the case here. Everyone at that meeting and anyone that supported his moronic comments should all go and talk directly to the people they view as sub-human.
Maybe you could explain to them why you feel they are unwanted? or should be treated differently?

Even if I agreed with everything else she said I would never support his wife either on the basis that she must support or share his views.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Ha Ha![/p][/quote]Hello Rodders still trying to defend this??? Have you had a chance to check a dictionary? You were having some problems with the definition of a word on the other thread. At least on this thread you havent made any silly comments defendi....oh sorry no you have. I believe it is called a follow up story, you see when a story is in the news and it is popular (100+ comments in one of the threads) and a national organisation such as Mencap offer to educate the person the story is about it would seem logical to report on it. Mr Martin`s comment was an example of the ignorant attitudes of him and his kind I feel that when comments like his are made in a group it is because they know they are in a group that supports the idea. Guilty by association yes that is the case here. Everyone at that meeting and anyone that supported his moronic comments should all go and talk directly to the people they view as sub-human. Maybe you could explain to them why you feel they are unwanted? or should be treated differently? Even if I agreed with everything else she said I would never support his wife either on the basis that she must support or share his views. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 2

6:51am Sun 20 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
When I see articles that use the following words I am disgusted at how people can assume they know a persons general ideology.


'People like Mr Martin' who are they?
'such disgusting views about them'. A comment does not represent a view.
'as bad as using racist or homophobic words.' This takes it to another level
'Mr Martin’s attitude is so ignorant' Is this a statement of fact?
'educate him on why his attitude is so wrong' Presumption?
It is exactly the same as racism or homophobia can you explain how it differs from either of these?
People base their opinion on what they see and hear.

Mr Martin did not say his ignorant (and it was) comment and they say wow I am some kind of idiot I really shouldnt hold an office of responsibility, he did not resign until the issue was highlighted as being wrong.

All of the points you make have been explained to you in the other threads on this story which btw you said you were finished commenting on.....typical your word is worthless.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: When I see articles that use the following words I am disgusted at how people can assume they know a persons general ideology. 'People like Mr Martin' who are they? 'such disgusting views about them'. A comment does not represent a view. 'as bad as using racist or homophobic words.' This takes it to another level 'Mr Martin’s attitude is so ignorant' Is this a statement of fact? 'educate him on why his attitude is so wrong' Presumption?[/p][/quote]It is exactly the same as racism or homophobia can you explain how it differs from either of these? People base their opinion on what they see and hear. Mr Martin did not say his ignorant (and it was) comment and they say wow I am some kind of idiot I really shouldnt hold an office of responsibility, he did not resign until the issue was highlighted as being wrong. All of the points you make have been explained to you in the other threads on this story which btw you said you were finished commenting on.....typical your word is worthless. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -1

6:53am Sun 20 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's.
Then please explain exactly what he did mean?
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's.[/p][/quote]Then please explain exactly what he did mean? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

9:21am Sun 20 Apr 14

Robh says...

Badgersgetabadname. Again we get abusive comments. Do you think name calling displays your intelligence.
Badgersgetabadname. Again we get abusive comments. Do you think name calling displays your intelligence. Robh
  • Score: 0

9:24am Sun 20 Apr 14

Robh says...

Mongle in the urban dictionary is derived from the word Mangle. If people don't understand that then tough.
Mongle in the urban dictionary is derived from the word Mangle. If people don't understand that then tough. Robh
  • Score: -1

9:42am Sun 20 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
Badgersgetabadname. Again we get abusive comments. Do you think name calling displays your intelligence.
Being a hypocrite really doesnt bother you does it.
Although it is no sign of intelligence it would appear to be enough to become mayor?
So you have moved on from it being the word to describe the offspring of disabled parents how progressive of you, glad to see something constructive has come from this.

Sooooo what exactly did Mr Martin mean by his comments?
You have stated that he has been misquoted and its not what he said despite admitting it (eventually). I am sure you will be able to clear up this whole misunderstanding by correcting what he actually said........This will be a long wait wont it?
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Badgersgetabadname. Again we get abusive comments. Do you think name calling displays your intelligence.[/p][/quote]Being a hypocrite really doesnt bother you does it. Although it is no sign of intelligence it would appear to be enough to become mayor? So you have moved on from it being the word to describe the offspring of disabled parents how progressive of you, glad to see something constructive has come from this. Sooooo what exactly did Mr Martin mean by his comments? You have stated that he has been misquoted and its not what he said despite admitting it (eventually). I am sure you will be able to clear up this whole misunderstanding by correcting what he actually said........This will be a long wait wont it? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -3

9:47am Sun 20 Apr 14

Robh says...

Sorry have got to go out now have a nice day.
Sorry have got to go out now have a nice day. Robh
  • Score: 2

9:57am Sun 20 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Thats OK Rodders I am sure you will again be presented with an opportunity to prove not only you ignorance but also your arrogant stupidity.

Heading out for some fishing myself I have more respect for the bait than your opinion.
Thats OK Rodders I am sure you will again be presented with an opportunity to prove not only you ignorance but also your arrogant stupidity. Heading out for some fishing myself I have more respect for the bait than your opinion. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 2

10:05am Sun 20 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Councillor Roderick Bluh presenting his well thought out comments there well done.
Councillor Roderick Bluh presenting his well thought out comments there well done. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

10:10am Sun 20 Apr 14

Blackwell 2 says...

Robh wrote:
Sorry have got to go out now have a nice day.
So you had time to print that pointless statement, but couldn't answer the most simple of questions in the same time slot.
Pathetic
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Sorry have got to go out now have a nice day.[/p][/quote]So you had time to print that pointless statement, but couldn't answer the most simple of questions in the same time slot. Pathetic Blackwell 2
  • Score: -1

10:40am Sun 20 Apr 14

sn5 says...

I know Nick, and know the benefits he's brought to west Swindon in the years he's been a councillor.

I am sure he will now return to the back benches and carry on the good work for the people of west Swindon

The hounding out of him as Mayor could back fire on Labour, they are spending a lot of effort on Shaw, where his wife is standing. As Mayor he can't campaign for her and she's having to attend numerous events stopping her campaigning. Now they can both campaign more and have extra motivation to do so making more likely she'll win
I know Nick, and know the benefits he's brought to west Swindon in the years he's been a councillor. I am sure he will now return to the back benches and carry on the good work for the people of west Swindon The hounding out of him as Mayor could back fire on Labour, they are spending a lot of effort on Shaw, where his wife is standing. As Mayor he can't campaign for her and she's having to attend numerous events stopping her campaigning. Now they can both campaign more and have extra motivation to do so making more likely she'll win sn5
  • Score: 1

11:21am Sun 20 Apr 14

Always Grumpy says...

Robh wrote:
Mongle in the urban dictionary is derived from the word Mangle. If people don't understand that then tough.
No, it's you that just doesn't understand.
As for abuse, you really need to read your own posts.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Mongle in the urban dictionary is derived from the word Mangle. If people don't understand that then tough.[/p][/quote]No, it's you that just doesn't understand. As for abuse, you really need to read your own posts. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 1

11:39am Sun 20 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Robh wrote:
Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's.
Up to 37 comments already - this is the story which just keeps on giving, and doesn't look like it's about to run out of steam anytime soon.

Bank Holiday weekend, everyone has time on their hands...will we reach the magic 100 comments by the time everyone is back at work on Tuesday morning?
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Why is the Adver still going on about this. He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's.[/p][/quote]Up to 37 comments already - this is the story which just keeps on giving, and doesn't look like it's about to run out of steam anytime soon. Bank Holiday weekend, everyone has time on their hands...will we reach the magic 100 comments by the time everyone is back at work on Tuesday morning? BeardyBill
  • Score: 1

11:41am Sun 20 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Robh wrote:
Mongle in the urban dictionary is derived from the word Mangle. If people don't understand that then tough.
That's completely different from what you claimed in another thread.....
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Mongle in the urban dictionary is derived from the word Mangle. If people don't understand that then tough.[/p][/quote]That's completely different from what you claimed in another thread..... BeardyBill
  • Score: 0

11:46am Sun 20 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Councillor Roderick Bluh presenting his well thought out comments there well done.
Are you sure? do you have any evidence of this?

Am I the only one who thinks it is wrong, wrong, wrong, for Councillors to be posting under pseudonyms? Surely they should be making public comments in a way which enables the voters to be clear what their views are on things?
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: Councillor Roderick Bluh presenting his well thought out comments there well done.[/p][/quote]Are you sure? do you have any evidence of this? Am I the only one who thinks it is wrong, wrong, wrong, for Councillors to be posting under pseudonyms? Surely they should be making public comments in a way which enables the voters to be clear what their views are on things? BeardyBill
  • Score: 0

11:55am Sun 20 Apr 14

Davey Gravey says...

That blatantly isn't the real CHANNELx, ringer, tim newroman above. He would never conceed it's embarrassing. This is the man that tells us black is white remember. I think he's changed his log in again.
That blatantly isn't the real CHANNELx, ringer, tim newroman above. He would never conceed it's embarrassing. This is the man that tells us black is white remember. I think he's changed his log in again. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 2

11:59am Sun 20 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

sn5 wrote:
I know Nick, and know the benefits he's brought to west Swindon in the years he's been a councillor.

I am sure he will now return to the back benches and carry on the good work for the people of west Swindon

The hounding out of him as Mayor could back fire on Labour, they are spending a lot of effort on Shaw, where his wife is standing. As Mayor he can't campaign for her and she's having to attend numerous events stopping her campaigning. Now they can both campaign more and have extra motivation to do so making more likely she'll win
And look at all the free publicity the Martin's are getting.....be honest, how many other candidates names do you know?

It's good to campaign - get out on the doorsteps and face the questions like:
1) How would you have voted in the no-confidence vote, and why?
2) do you intend to claim allowances, when surely the costs that it's supposed to cover are already being covered by the ex-Mayors allowances?
3) is it really right for a husband and wife to both be Councillors for the same ward & party? How will they guard against unduly influencing each other? Surely the point if having more than 1 councillor per ward is to cover holidays, family commitments etc - how does this work?
4) Are you Swindons answer to the Clintons?
[quote][p][bold]sn5[/bold] wrote: I know Nick, and know the benefits he's brought to west Swindon in the years he's been a councillor. I am sure he will now return to the back benches and carry on the good work for the people of west Swindon The hounding out of him as Mayor could back fire on Labour, they are spending a lot of effort on Shaw, where his wife is standing. As Mayor he can't campaign for her and she's having to attend numerous events stopping her campaigning. Now they can both campaign more and have extra motivation to do so making more likely she'll win[/p][/quote]And look at all the free publicity the Martin's are getting.....be honest, how many other candidates names do you know? It's good to campaign - get out on the doorsteps and face the questions like: 1) How would you have voted in the no-confidence vote, and why? 2) do you intend to claim allowances, when surely the costs that it's supposed to cover are already being covered by the ex-Mayors allowances? 3) is it really right for a husband and wife to both be Councillors for the same ward & party? How will they guard against unduly influencing each other? Surely the point if having more than 1 councillor per ward is to cover holidays, family commitments etc - how does this work? 4) Are you Swindons answer to the Clintons? BeardyBill
  • Score: 3

12:06pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

BeardyBill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Councillor Roderick Bluh presenting his well thought out comments there well done.
Are you sure? do you have any evidence of this?

Am I the only one who thinks it is wrong, wrong, wrong, for Councillors to be posting under pseudonyms? Surely they should be making public comments in a way which enables the voters to be clear what their views are on things?
Yep its him using same email contact as on his councilor contact page.
Arrogant people never think they will be caught out because they are soooo much better than the rest of us.

Bank hol weekend, this is great sat by a lake fishing, watching the football and laughing at this. I think it is a sad story which offers us a glimpse of what many of these "people" actually think.

I have no problem with them being honest just should do it in their own name least we know who it is now.
BTW Rodders I would place money your passwords are all pretty arrogant a well.
Hopefully the fish will start biting soon and I will forget about this till dinner time. Happy weekend folks hope you are all relaxing.
[quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: Councillor Roderick Bluh presenting his well thought out comments there well done.[/p][/quote]Are you sure? do you have any evidence of this? Am I the only one who thinks it is wrong, wrong, wrong, for Councillors to be posting under pseudonyms? Surely they should be making public comments in a way which enables the voters to be clear what their views are on things?[/p][/quote]Yep its him using same email contact as on his councilor contact page. Arrogant people never think they will be caught out because they are soooo much better than the rest of us. Bank hol weekend, this is great sat by a lake fishing, watching the football and laughing at this. I think it is a sad story which offers us a glimpse of what many of these "people" actually think. I have no problem with them being honest just should do it in their own name least we know who it is now. BTW Rodders I would place money your passwords are all pretty arrogant a well. Hopefully the fish will start biting soon and I will forget about this till dinner time. Happy weekend folks hope you are all relaxing. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 1

12:08pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
Mongle in the urban dictionary is derived from the word Mangle. If people don't understand that then tough.
A conservative quoting the "urban" dictionary????
You are a funny little man.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Mongle in the urban dictionary is derived from the word Mangle. If people don't understand that then tough.[/p][/quote]A conservative quoting the "urban" dictionary???? You are a funny little man. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Sun 20 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
BeardyBill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Councillor Roderick Bluh presenting his well thought out comments there well done.
Are you sure? do you have any evidence of this?

Am I the only one who thinks it is wrong, wrong, wrong, for Councillors to be posting under pseudonyms? Surely they should be making public comments in a way which enables the voters to be clear what their views are on things?
Yep its him using same email contact as on his councilor contact page.
Arrogant people never think they will be caught out because they are soooo much better than the rest of us.

Bank hol weekend, this is great sat by a lake fishing, watching the football and laughing at this. I think it is a sad story which offers us a glimpse of what many of these "people" actually think.

I have no problem with them being honest just should do it in their own name least we know who it is now.
BTW Rodders I would place money your passwords are all pretty arrogant a well.
Hopefully the fish will start biting soon and I will forget about this till dinner time. Happy weekend folks hope you are all relaxing.
High-five Mr Badger. Tight lines:o)
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: Councillor Roderick Bluh presenting his well thought out comments there well done.[/p][/quote]Are you sure? do you have any evidence of this? Am I the only one who thinks it is wrong, wrong, wrong, for Councillors to be posting under pseudonyms? Surely they should be making public comments in a way which enables the voters to be clear what their views are on things?[/p][/quote]Yep its him using same email contact as on his councilor contact page. Arrogant people never think they will be caught out because they are soooo much better than the rest of us. Bank hol weekend, this is great sat by a lake fishing, watching the football and laughing at this. I think it is a sad story which offers us a glimpse of what many of these "people" actually think. I have no problem with them being honest just should do it in their own name least we know who it is now. BTW Rodders I would place money your passwords are all pretty arrogant a well. Hopefully the fish will start biting soon and I will forget about this till dinner time. Happy weekend folks hope you are all relaxing.[/p][/quote]High-five Mr Badger. Tight lines:o) BeardyBill
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Sun 20 Apr 14

MrAngry says...

I hope the posters on here aren't councillors in disguise. Swindon Borough Council needs to be more open and transparent. IF councillors are playing silly games on here then it is pretty pathetic.

Why does politics have to be so childish?
I hope the posters on here aren't councillors in disguise. Swindon Borough Council needs to be more open and transparent. IF councillors are playing silly games on here then it is pretty pathetic. Why does politics have to be so childish? MrAngry
  • Score: 7

12:29pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

BeardyBill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
BeardyBill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Councillor Roderick Bluh presenting his well thought out comments there well done.
Are you sure? do you have any evidence of this?

Am I the only one who thinks it is wrong, wrong, wrong, for Councillors to be posting under pseudonyms? Surely they should be making public comments in a way which enables the voters to be clear what their views are on things?
Yep its him using same email contact as on his councilor contact page.
Arrogant people never think they will be caught out because they are soooo much better than the rest of us.

Bank hol weekend, this is great sat by a lake fishing, watching the football and laughing at this. I think it is a sad story which offers us a glimpse of what many of these "people" actually think.

I have no problem with them being honest just should do it in their own name least we know who it is now.
BTW Rodders I would place money your passwords are all pretty arrogant a well.
Hopefully the fish will start biting soon and I will forget about this till dinner time. Happy weekend folks hope you are all relaxing.
High-five Mr Badger. Tight lines:o)
I thank you.....I would never suggest finding conservative or private twitter pages to post this on but its the internet and you can do what you want.

Sadly no,,,not even a nibble. Liverpool havent helped though two early goals = scaring the fish.
[quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: Councillor Roderick Bluh presenting his well thought out comments there well done.[/p][/quote]Are you sure? do you have any evidence of this? Am I the only one who thinks it is wrong, wrong, wrong, for Councillors to be posting under pseudonyms? Surely they should be making public comments in a way which enables the voters to be clear what their views are on things?[/p][/quote]Yep its him using same email contact as on his councilor contact page. Arrogant people never think they will be caught out because they are soooo much better than the rest of us. Bank hol weekend, this is great sat by a lake fishing, watching the football and laughing at this. I think it is a sad story which offers us a glimpse of what many of these "people" actually think. I have no problem with them being honest just should do it in their own name least we know who it is now. BTW Rodders I would place money your passwords are all pretty arrogant a well. Hopefully the fish will start biting soon and I will forget about this till dinner time. Happy weekend folks hope you are all relaxing.[/p][/quote]High-five Mr Badger. Tight lines:o)[/p][/quote]I thank you.....I would never suggest finding conservative or private twitter pages to post this on but its the internet and you can do what you want. Sadly no,,,not even a nibble. Liverpool havent helped though two early goals = scaring the fish. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 2

12:35pm Sun 20 Apr 14

MrAngry says...

Robh wrote:
Mongle in the urban dictionary is derived from the word Mangle. If people don't understand that then tough.
It is too late for lame excuses and poor explanations. You will be arguing that he meant to say muggle next.

Every knows what he said. The sooner you guys stop defending him, it will quieten down and go away. Cllr Martin's supporters are keeping this thread alive.

Perhaps the new Tory slogan and theme tune should be - 'Sorry seems to be the hardest word'
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Mongle in the urban dictionary is derived from the word Mangle. If people don't understand that then tough.[/p][/quote]It is too late for lame excuses and poor explanations. You will be arguing that he meant to say muggle next. Every knows what he said. The sooner you guys stop defending him, it will quieten down and go away. Cllr Martin's supporters are keeping this thread alive. Perhaps the new Tory slogan and theme tune should be - 'Sorry seems to be the hardest word' MrAngry
  • Score: 2

12:36pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

I didnt believe they could be so petty but evidence suggests they are and then some.

Whatever you do do not add to this #
#CouncillorRoderickB
luh
I didnt believe they could be so petty but evidence suggests they are and then some. Whatever you do do not add to this # #CouncillorRoderickB luh Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 2

12:40pm Sun 20 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
BeardyBill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
BeardyBill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Councillor Roderick Bluh presenting his well thought out comments there well done.
Are you sure? do you have any evidence of this?

Am I the only one who thinks it is wrong, wrong, wrong, for Councillors to be posting under pseudonyms? Surely they should be making public comments in a way which enables the voters to be clear what their views are on things?
Yep its him using same email contact as on his councilor contact page.
Arrogant people never think they will be caught out because they are soooo much better than the rest of us.

Bank hol weekend, this is great sat by a lake fishing, watching the football and laughing at this. I think it is a sad story which offers us a glimpse of what many of these "people" actually think.

I have no problem with them being honest just should do it in their own name least we know who it is now.
BTW Rodders I would place money your passwords are all pretty arrogant a well.
Hopefully the fish will start biting soon and I will forget about this till dinner time. Happy weekend folks hope you are all relaxing.
High-five Mr Badger. Tight lines:o)
I thank you.....I would never suggest finding conservative or private twitter pages to post this on but its the internet and you can do what you want.

Sadly no,,,not even a nibble. Liverpool havent helped though two early goals = scaring the fish.
I'm more interested in showing up bad behaviour for what it is, and if possible changing it. What really p*sses me off is that if they were smart enough they could really use these comments! plus other social media in a positive way to engage with voters. Instead, it seems to be a place where they can rant their true views, without being held to account.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: Councillor Roderick Bluh presenting his well thought out comments there well done.[/p][/quote]Are you sure? do you have any evidence of this? Am I the only one who thinks it is wrong, wrong, wrong, for Councillors to be posting under pseudonyms? Surely they should be making public comments in a way which enables the voters to be clear what their views are on things?[/p][/quote]Yep its him using same email contact as on his councilor contact page. Arrogant people never think they will be caught out because they are soooo much better than the rest of us. Bank hol weekend, this is great sat by a lake fishing, watching the football and laughing at this. I think it is a sad story which offers us a glimpse of what many of these "people" actually think. I have no problem with them being honest just should do it in their own name least we know who it is now. BTW Rodders I would place money your passwords are all pretty arrogant a well. Hopefully the fish will start biting soon and I will forget about this till dinner time. Happy weekend folks hope you are all relaxing.[/p][/quote]High-five Mr Badger. Tight lines:o)[/p][/quote]I thank you.....I would never suggest finding conservative or private twitter pages to post this on but its the internet and you can do what you want. Sadly no,,,not even a nibble. Liverpool havent helped though two early goals = scaring the fish.[/p][/quote]I'm more interested in showing up bad behaviour for what it is, and if possible changing it. What really p*sses me off is that if they were smart enough they could really use these comments! plus other social media in a positive way to engage with voters. Instead, it seems to be a place where they can rant their true views, without being held to account. BeardyBill
  • Score: 2

1:02pm Sun 20 Apr 14

trolley dolley says...

Councillors are expected to represent the people of their ward and not project their own views. However they are also human and may have views that some people in their ward would take exception to.

Unlike you "BeardyBill" they cannot express these private views if they in some way fall short of what the Political Correct Brigade would require of them.

If they do then it is off to the Standards Committee.

If any councillor was to take your advice and publish under their true name this is exactly what would happen.

You on the other hand get a free ride.

Just to be absolutely clear, I AM NOT A COUNCILLOR.
Councillors are expected to represent the people of their ward and not project their own views. However they are also human and may have views that some people in their ward would take exception to. Unlike you "BeardyBill" they cannot express these private views if they in some way fall short of what the Political Correct Brigade would require of them. If they do then it is off to the Standards Committee. If any councillor was to take your advice and publish under their true name this is exactly what would happen. You on the other hand get a free ride. Just to be absolutely clear, I AM NOT A COUNCILLOR. trolley dolley
  • Score: 3

2:46pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Blackwell 2 says...

There is absolutely no doubt that councillors try to steer these threads aggressively using pseudonyms.
Some even use multiple logins with the sole intention of harrassing individuals that do not share their politically blinkered views
There is absolutely no doubt that councillors try to steer these threads aggressively using pseudonyms. Some even use multiple logins with the sole intention of harrassing individuals that do not share their politically blinkered views Blackwell 2
  • Score: 1

3:01pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

trolley dolley wrote:
Councillors are expected to represent the people of their ward and not project their own views. However they are also human and may have views that some people in their ward would take exception to.

Unlike you "BeardyBill" they cannot express these private views if they in some way fall short of what the Political Correct Brigade would require of them.

If they do then it is off to the Standards Committee.

If any councillor was to take your advice and publish under their true name this is exactly what would happen.

You on the other hand get a free ride.

Just to be absolutely clear, I AM NOT A COUNCILLOR.
Most people?
Anyone with a level of intelligence should be annoyed by his comments I seriously doubt he reserved his hateful comments for only the disabled this would be an indicator oh his hate to people.

If you have a position of responsibility you should act as such, from your comment "they cannot express these private views if they in some way fall short of what the Political Correct Brigade would require of them. If they do then it is off to the Standards Committee" you agree / condone his words?

As a tax paying member of the public we are allowed to have opinions most of us are not in a position that we can influence the lives of others. Mr Martins comments demonstrate contempt and his actions to attempt to hold onto his position only prove the point more.
His behavior is unacceptable as Mr Beardy says this should be highlighted why should Mr Martin and Co be allowed to make these statements consequence free. I hardly thing being a member of the public constitutes a free ride....do you mean consequence free opinions? Would I swap six figures + to act in a reasonable manner of course anyone would well obviously not everyone.

Trolley you are correct you CANNOT express these opinions when you are a public figure so the question must be why make them?
You also say that if ANY councilor released comments under there own name the same would happen do you know that EVERY councilor shares the same views as Mr Martin?
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Councillors are expected to represent the people of their ward and not project their own views. However they are also human and may have views that some people in their ward would take exception to. Unlike you "BeardyBill" they cannot express these private views if they in some way fall short of what the Political Correct Brigade would require of them. If they do then it is off to the Standards Committee. If any councillor was to take your advice and publish under their true name this is exactly what would happen. You on the other hand get a free ride. Just to be absolutely clear, I AM NOT A COUNCILLOR.[/p][/quote]Most people? Anyone with a level of intelligence should be annoyed by his comments I seriously doubt he reserved his hateful comments for only the disabled this would be an indicator oh his hate to people. If you have a position of responsibility you should act as such, from your comment "they cannot express these private views if they in some way fall short of what the Political Correct Brigade would require of them. If they do then it is off to the Standards Committee" you agree / condone his words? As a tax paying member of the public we are allowed to have opinions most of us are not in a position that we can influence the lives of others. Mr Martins comments demonstrate contempt and his actions to attempt to hold onto his position only prove the point more. His behavior is unacceptable as Mr Beardy says this should be highlighted why should Mr Martin and Co be allowed to make these statements consequence free. I hardly thing being a member of the public constitutes a free ride....do you mean consequence free opinions? Would I swap six figures + to act in a reasonable manner of course anyone would well obviously not everyone. Trolley you are correct you CANNOT express these opinions when you are a public figure so the question must be why make them? You also say that if ANY councilor released comments under there own name the same would happen do you know that EVERY councilor shares the same views as Mr Martin? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Sun 20 Apr 14

sn5 says...

BeardyBill wrote:
sn5 wrote:
I know Nick, and know the benefits he's brought to west Swindon in the years he's been a councillor.

I am sure he will now return to the back benches and carry on the good work for the people of west Swindon

The hounding out of him as Mayor could back fire on Labour, they are spending a lot of effort on Shaw, where his wife is standing. As Mayor he can't campaign for her and she's having to attend numerous events stopping her campaigning. Now they can both campaign more and have extra motivation to do so making more likely she'll win
And look at all the free publicity the Martin's are getting.....be honest, how many other candidates names do you know?

It's good to campaign - get out on the doorsteps and face the questions like:
1) How would you have voted in the no-confidence vote, and why?
2) do you intend to claim allowances, when surely the costs that it's supposed to cover are already being covered by the ex-Mayors allowances?
3) is it really right for a husband and wife to both be Councillors for the same ward & party? How will they guard against unduly influencing each other? Surely the point if having more than 1 councillor per ward is to cover holidays, family commitments etc - how does this work?
4) Are you Swindons answer to the Clintons?
Other candidates, Steph Exell (Labour) has also been putting leaflets out, but doing a bit of research shows she's involved in north Swindon, not west

1, 2 & 4 are aimed at the Martins directly

As for 3, I know there's 3 other wards where this is the case Ballmans in Gorse Hill & Wrights in central. Both Labour & Dave & Nicky in Eastcott, Lib Dems
[quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sn5[/bold] wrote: I know Nick, and know the benefits he's brought to west Swindon in the years he's been a councillor. I am sure he will now return to the back benches and carry on the good work for the people of west Swindon The hounding out of him as Mayor could back fire on Labour, they are spending a lot of effort on Shaw, where his wife is standing. As Mayor he can't campaign for her and she's having to attend numerous events stopping her campaigning. Now they can both campaign more and have extra motivation to do so making more likely she'll win[/p][/quote]And look at all the free publicity the Martin's are getting.....be honest, how many other candidates names do you know? It's good to campaign - get out on the doorsteps and face the questions like: 1) How would you have voted in the no-confidence vote, and why? 2) do you intend to claim allowances, when surely the costs that it's supposed to cover are already being covered by the ex-Mayors allowances? 3) is it really right for a husband and wife to both be Councillors for the same ward & party? How will they guard against unduly influencing each other? Surely the point if having more than 1 councillor per ward is to cover holidays, family commitments etc - how does this work? 4) Are you Swindons answer to the Clintons?[/p][/quote]Other candidates, Steph Exell (Labour) has also been putting leaflets out, but doing a bit of research shows she's involved in north Swindon, not west 1, 2 & 4 are aimed at the Martins directly As for 3, I know there's 3 other wards where this is the case Ballmans in Gorse Hill & Wrights in central. Both Labour & Dave & Nicky in Eastcott, Lib Dems sn5
  • Score: -1

3:37pm Sun 20 Apr 14

Blackwell 2 says...

Looks friendly in the photo don't he
Looks friendly in the photo don't he Blackwell 2
  • Score: -3

8:42pm Sun 20 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

trolley dolley wrote:
Councillors are expected to represent the people of their ward and not project their own views. However they are also human and may have views that some people in their ward would take exception to.

Unlike you "BeardyBill" they cannot express these private views if they in some way fall short of what the Political Correct Brigade would require of them.

If they do then it is off to the Standards Committee.

If any councillor was to take your advice and publish under their true name this is exactly what would happen.

You on the other hand get a free ride.

Just to be absolutely clear, I AM NOT A COUNCILLOR.
So Trolly Dolly, you are quite happy for Councillors to be hypocrites, saying one thing publicly, but something else privately?

This has got nothing to do with the political Correct Brigade as you call them - as an example, a poster on another thread was advocating Eugenics. Is that an acceptable view for an elected representative to have? More importantly, if they do hold that view, don't I as a voter have the right to know that before I chose whether or not to vote for them? The standards committee can only rule on breaches of standards - surely Councillors should maintain those standards in the personal as well as public lives?

The only reason you would not post under your real name is that you know that the views you express are not acceptable. I expect my elected representatives from any party to maintain the highest standards, and to be held accountable for their actions.

Do I get a free ride? I make my opinions clear and posters are welcome to agree or argue. The difference is I am not seeking to represent anyone other than myself. That is the game changer. As I've said before, any Councillor who feels their freedom of speech is somehow curtailed can always resign.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Councillors are expected to represent the people of their ward and not project their own views. However they are also human and may have views that some people in their ward would take exception to. Unlike you "BeardyBill" they cannot express these private views if they in some way fall short of what the Political Correct Brigade would require of them. If they do then it is off to the Standards Committee. If any councillor was to take your advice and publish under their true name this is exactly what would happen. You on the other hand get a free ride. Just to be absolutely clear, I AM NOT A COUNCILLOR.[/p][/quote]So Trolly Dolly, you are quite happy for Councillors to be hypocrites, saying one thing publicly, but something else privately? This has got nothing to do with the political Correct Brigade as you call them - as an example, a poster on another thread was advocating Eugenics. Is that an acceptable view for an elected representative to have? More importantly, if they do hold that view, don't I as a voter have the right to know that before I chose whether or not to vote for them? The standards committee can only rule on breaches of standards - surely Councillors should maintain those standards in the personal as well as public lives? The only reason you would not post under your real name is that you know that the views you express are not acceptable. I expect my elected representatives from any party to maintain the highest standards, and to be held accountable for their actions. Do I get a free ride? I make my opinions clear and posters are welcome to agree or argue. The difference is I am not seeking to represent anyone other than myself. That is the game changer. As I've said before, any Councillor who feels their freedom of speech is somehow curtailed can always resign. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. BeardyBill
  • Score: 1

8:50pm Sun 20 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

sn5 wrote:
BeardyBill wrote:
sn5 wrote:
I know Nick, and know the benefits he's brought to west Swindon in the years he's been a councillor.

I am sure he will now return to the back benches and carry on the good work for the people of west Swindon

The hounding out of him as Mayor could back fire on Labour, they are spending a lot of effort on Shaw, where his wife is standing. As Mayor he can't campaign for her and she's having to attend numerous events stopping her campaigning. Now they can both campaign more and have extra motivation to do so making more likely she'll win
And look at all the free publicity the Martin's are getting.....be honest, how many other candidates names do you know?

It's good to campaign - get out on the doorsteps and face the questions like:
1) How would you have voted in the no-confidence vote, and why?
2) do you intend to claim allowances, when surely the costs that it's supposed to cover are already being covered by the ex-Mayors allowances?
3) is it really right for a husband and wife to both be Councillors for the same ward & party? How will they guard against unduly influencing each other? Surely the point if having more than 1 councillor per ward is to cover holidays, family commitments etc - how does this work?
4) Are you Swindons answer to the Clintons?
Other candidates, Steph Exell (Labour) has also been putting leaflets out, but doing a bit of research shows she's involved in north Swindon, not west

1, 2 & 4 are aimed at the Martins directly

As for 3, I know there's 3 other wards where this is the case Ballmans in Gorse Hill & Wrights in central. Both Labour & Dave & Nicky in Eastcott, Lib Dems
An absolutely fair point - I was using the Martin's as as example, but it equally applies to other with an eye on building political dynasties.

As for the questions, 1. Could be asked of any candidate, and 2,3&4 could equally be applied to any of the examples you give.

This isn't about party politics, it's about reclaiming politics from the self-selecting groups that control parties, and putting the focus back on the voters, rather than self-interest.
[quote][p][bold]sn5[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sn5[/bold] wrote: I know Nick, and know the benefits he's brought to west Swindon in the years he's been a councillor. I am sure he will now return to the back benches and carry on the good work for the people of west Swindon The hounding out of him as Mayor could back fire on Labour, they are spending a lot of effort on Shaw, where his wife is standing. As Mayor he can't campaign for her and she's having to attend numerous events stopping her campaigning. Now they can both campaign more and have extra motivation to do so making more likely she'll win[/p][/quote]And look at all the free publicity the Martin's are getting.....be honest, how many other candidates names do you know? It's good to campaign - get out on the doorsteps and face the questions like: 1) How would you have voted in the no-confidence vote, and why? 2) do you intend to claim allowances, when surely the costs that it's supposed to cover are already being covered by the ex-Mayors allowances? 3) is it really right for a husband and wife to both be Councillors for the same ward & party? How will they guard against unduly influencing each other? Surely the point if having more than 1 councillor per ward is to cover holidays, family commitments etc - how does this work? 4) Are you Swindons answer to the Clintons?[/p][/quote]Other candidates, Steph Exell (Labour) has also been putting leaflets out, but doing a bit of research shows she's involved in north Swindon, not west 1, 2 & 4 are aimed at the Martins directly As for 3, I know there's 3 other wards where this is the case Ballmans in Gorse Hill & Wrights in central. Both Labour & Dave & Nicky in Eastcott, Lib Dems[/p][/quote]An absolutely fair point - I was using the Martin's as as example, but it equally applies to other with an eye on building political dynasties. As for the questions, 1. Could be asked of any candidate, and 2,3&4 could equally be applied to any of the examples you give. This isn't about party politics, it's about reclaiming politics from the self-selecting groups that control parties, and putting the focus back on the voters, rather than self-interest. BeardyBill
  • Score: 5

9:06am Mon 21 Apr 14

Ollie Dognacky says...

Nick Martin WILL retain his seat on the council.
If people vote otherwise they will end up with a lefty socialist or a wishy washy libdem.
They won't want that
Nick Martin WILL retain his seat on the council. If people vote otherwise they will end up with a lefty socialist or a wishy washy libdem. They won't want that Ollie Dognacky
  • Score: 1

9:15am Mon 21 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Ollie Dognacky wrote:
Nick Martin WILL retain his seat on the council.
If people vote otherwise they will end up with a lefty socialist or a wishy washy libdem.
They won't want that
That is exactly the problem....all your descriptions are along party lines, rather than the quality of the candidate. You haven't made any comment about Martin's virtues, all you are giving is the choice between Martin, a lefty socialist and a wishy-washy liberal. Would you vote for a donkey wearing a blue rosette?
[quote][p][bold]Ollie Dognacky[/bold] wrote: Nick Martin WILL retain his seat on the council. If people vote otherwise they will end up with a lefty socialist or a wishy washy libdem. They won't want that[/p][/quote]That is exactly the problem....all your descriptions are along party lines, rather than the quality of the candidate. You haven't made any comment about Martin's virtues, all you are giving is the choice between Martin, a lefty socialist and a wishy-washy liberal. Would you vote for a donkey wearing a blue rosette? BeardyBill
  • Score: 1

9:29am Mon 21 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

So nice of you to tell people what they want Ollie.
I do hope not attitudes like his should of died out years ago.

Complete lack of sincerity in his "apology" he only resigned when the position became untenable thanks to it being highlighted. There are many other points listed in the various threads as to why he should NOT be voted for.
Vote for anyone but a Martin,,,thats quite a good slogan.
Poor excuse for a man.
So nice of you to tell people what they want Ollie. I do hope not attitudes like his should of died out years ago. Complete lack of sincerity in his "apology" he only resigned when the position became untenable thanks to it being highlighted. There are many other points listed in the various threads as to why he should NOT be voted for. Vote for anyone but a Martin,,,thats quite a good slogan. Poor excuse for a man. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

9:50am Mon 21 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

BeardyBill wrote:
Ollie Dognacky wrote:
Nick Martin WILL retain his seat on the council.
If people vote otherwise they will end up with a lefty socialist or a wishy washy libdem.
They won't want that
That is exactly the problem....all your descriptions are along party lines, rather than the quality of the candidate. You haven't made any comment about Martin's virtues, all you are giving is the choice between Martin, a lefty socialist and a wishy-washy liberal. Would you vote for a donkey wearing a blue rosette?
More attempts to vote bully make up your own mind would I rather have a first time councilor or what I view as a disgusting human being......
I do enjoy the limited thought process though,,,,,,you must vote left or right nothing else occurs to these people.
[quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ollie Dognacky[/bold] wrote: Nick Martin WILL retain his seat on the council. If people vote otherwise they will end up with a lefty socialist or a wishy washy libdem. They won't want that[/p][/quote]That is exactly the problem....all your descriptions are along party lines, rather than the quality of the candidate. You haven't made any comment about Martin's virtues, all you are giving is the choice between Martin, a lefty socialist and a wishy-washy liberal. Would you vote for a donkey wearing a blue rosette?[/p][/quote]More attempts to vote bully make up your own mind would I rather have a first time councilor or what I view as a disgusting human being...... I do enjoy the limited thought process though,,,,,,you must vote left or right nothing else occurs to these people. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

10:49am Mon 21 Apr 14

MrAngry says...

Ollie Dognacky wrote:
Nick Martin WILL retain his seat on the council.
If people vote otherwise they will end up with a lefty socialist or a wishy washy libdem.
They won't want that
Alternatively the tories could get rid of Martin and put up a more respectable candidate in his place.

Arguing the case that our tw4t is less of a tw4t than your tw4t is hardly a positive campaign strategy.
[quote][p][bold]Ollie Dognacky[/bold] wrote: Nick Martin WILL retain his seat on the council. If people vote otherwise they will end up with a lefty socialist or a wishy washy libdem. They won't want that[/p][/quote]Alternatively the tories could get rid of Martin and put up a more respectable candidate in his place. Arguing the case that our tw4t is less of a tw4t than your tw4t is hardly a positive campaign strategy. MrAngry
  • Score: 4

11:12am Mon 21 Apr 14

trolley dolley says...

BeardyBill, if candidates have to have views matching yours before you would vote for them, can I assume that all VOTERS would have to produce a mandate for the candidates to agree to before the candidates put their names forward for election.

That would be an impossible task and is clearly silly.

As I have said before, the councillors are there to represent the people who voted for them. Not individuals like yourself but the majority.

You BeardyBill are an individual and as such should be listened to but you do not have a veto.

Lastly, if you are so against people using a pseudonym why do you not lead by example.

Answer, "because it gives you greater freedom of speech".
BeardyBill, if candidates have to have views matching yours before you would vote for them, can I assume that all VOTERS would have to produce a mandate for the candidates to agree to before the candidates put their names forward for election. That would be an impossible task and is clearly silly. As I have said before, the councillors are there to represent the people who voted for them. Not individuals like yourself but the majority. You BeardyBill are an individual and as such should be listened to but you do not have a veto. Lastly, if you are so against people using a pseudonym why do you not lead by example. Answer, "because it gives you greater freedom of speech". trolley dolley
  • Score: 2

11:20am Mon 21 Apr 14

MrAngry says...

trolley dolley wrote:
BeardyBill, if candidates have to have views matching yours before you would vote for them, can I assume that all VOTERS would have to produce a mandate for the candidates to agree to before the candidates put their names forward for election.

That would be an impossible task and is clearly silly.

As I have said before, the councillors are there to represent the people who voted for them. Not individuals like yourself but the majority.

You BeardyBill are an individual and as such should be listened to but you do not have a veto.

Lastly, if you are so against people using a pseudonym why do you not lead by example.

Answer, "because it gives you greater freedom of speech".
Once elected, councillors are there to represent the WHOLE ward and not just the people who voted them.

Tory councillors are not there to represent tory voters or labour councillors to represent labour voters. I think they sometimes forget this.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: BeardyBill, if candidates have to have views matching yours before you would vote for them, can I assume that all VOTERS would have to produce a mandate for the candidates to agree to before the candidates put their names forward for election. That would be an impossible task and is clearly silly. As I have said before, the councillors are there to represent the people who voted for them. Not individuals like yourself but the majority. You BeardyBill are an individual and as such should be listened to but you do not have a veto. Lastly, if you are so against people using a pseudonym why do you not lead by example. Answer, "because it gives you greater freedom of speech".[/p][/quote]Once elected, councillors are there to represent the WHOLE ward and not just the people who voted them. Tory councillors are not there to represent tory voters or labour councillors to represent labour voters. I think they sometimes forget this. MrAngry
  • Score: 3

11:43am Mon 21 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

trolley dolley wrote:
BeardyBill, if candidates have to have views matching yours before you would vote for them, can I assume that all VOTERS would have to produce a mandate for the candidates to agree to before the candidates put their names forward for election.

That would be an impossible task and is clearly silly.

As I have said before, the councillors are there to represent the people who voted for them. Not individuals like yourself but the majority.

You BeardyBill are an individual and as such should be listened to but you do not have a veto.

Lastly, if you are so against people using a pseudonym why do you not lead by example.

Answer, "because it gives you greater freedom of speech".
Trolly Dolly, are you seriously bewildered? It would appear that you are incapable of grasping some quite simple concepts that I've explained a number of times. Perhaps try reading and understanding, rather than just blindly using your own prejudiced views to decide what I mean. Let's try again:

I don't necessarily want a candidates views to match mine, but I do want to know what their views are. Your comment on mandates is a nonsense. All I want is for the candidate to say "This is me, this is what I think about stuff", and for privately expressed views to match publicly expressed ones. It is not difficult.

Councillors are there to represent all the electorate - that is why if a candidate has, for example a particular view on the disabled, or eugenics, that they think is acceptable to voice in private, then they should have the courage of their convictions to voice it in public. That way people can exercise their choice. Please tell me what is wrong with expecting politicians to have some honesty and integrity?

You are dead wrong when you say they are there to represent the majority, not individuals. They are there to represent everyone, regardless of who or what they are, and to do it without fear or favour. You obviously don't appreciate the difference between mob rule and democracy.

And for about the twentieth time, my name is irrelevant as I am not seeking to represent anyone other than myself. Again, what part if this do you not understand? IF I was a councillor, I would post using an appropriate name, for example "Cllr Smith, Old Town (Ind)". And I would be as accountable for my words and views as in any other public forum. Again, what is your problem with this?
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: BeardyBill, if candidates have to have views matching yours before you would vote for them, can I assume that all VOTERS would have to produce a mandate for the candidates to agree to before the candidates put their names forward for election. That would be an impossible task and is clearly silly. As I have said before, the councillors are there to represent the people who voted for them. Not individuals like yourself but the majority. You BeardyBill are an individual and as such should be listened to but you do not have a veto. Lastly, if you are so against people using a pseudonym why do you not lead by example. Answer, "because it gives you greater freedom of speech".[/p][/quote]Trolly Dolly, are you seriously bewildered? It would appear that you are incapable of grasping some quite simple concepts that I've explained a number of times. Perhaps try reading and understanding, rather than just blindly using your own prejudiced views to decide what I mean. Let's try again: I don't necessarily want a candidates views to match mine, but I do want to know what their views are. Your comment on mandates is a nonsense. All I want is for the candidate to say "This is me, this is what I think about stuff", and for privately expressed views to match publicly expressed ones. It is not difficult. Councillors are there to represent all the electorate - that is why if a candidate has, for example a particular view on the disabled, or eugenics, that they think is acceptable to voice in private, then they should have the courage of their convictions to voice it in public. That way people can exercise their choice. Please tell me what is wrong with expecting politicians to have some honesty and integrity? You are dead wrong when you say they are there to represent the majority, not individuals. They are there to represent everyone, regardless of who or what they are, and to do it without fear or favour. You obviously don't appreciate the difference between mob rule and democracy. And for about the twentieth time, my name is irrelevant as I am not seeking to represent anyone other than myself. Again, what part if this do you not understand? IF I was a councillor, I would post using an appropriate name, for example "Cllr Smith, Old Town (Ind)". And I would be as accountable for my words and views as in any other public forum. Again, what is your problem with this? BeardyBill
  • Score: 1

12:03pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

trolley dolley wrote:
BeardyBill, if candidates have to have views matching yours before you would vote for them, can I assume that all VOTERS would have to produce a mandate for the candidates to agree to before the candidates put their names forward for election.

That would be an impossible task and is clearly silly.

As I have said before, the councillors are there to represent the people who voted for them. Not individuals like yourself but the majority.

You BeardyBill are an individual and as such should be listened to but you do not have a veto.

Lastly, if you are so against people using a pseudonym why do you not lead by example.

Answer, "because it gives you greater freedom of speech".
Is it that you dont understand the topic or just not read the comments? (I`d say you and ChanX would be great friends).
People that have been elected to positions of responsibility are there to serve the people not the other way around.

I dont think he was suggesting a veto in any shape or form maybe I am wrong could you show where that was stated.
As voters people look for traits they would respect and value clearly that would not be the case with the Martin`s.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: BeardyBill, if candidates have to have views matching yours before you would vote for them, can I assume that all VOTERS would have to produce a mandate for the candidates to agree to before the candidates put their names forward for election. That would be an impossible task and is clearly silly. As I have said before, the councillors are there to represent the people who voted for them. Not individuals like yourself but the majority. You BeardyBill are an individual and as such should be listened to but you do not have a veto. Lastly, if you are so against people using a pseudonym why do you not lead by example. Answer, "because it gives you greater freedom of speech".[/p][/quote]Is it that you dont understand the topic or just not read the comments? (I`d say you and ChanX would be great friends). People that have been elected to positions of responsibility are there to serve the people not the other way around. I dont think he was suggesting a veto in any shape or form maybe I am wrong could you show where that was stated. As voters people look for traits they would respect and value clearly that would not be the case with the Martin`s. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 1

12:37pm Mon 21 Apr 14

trolley dolley says...

BeardyBill, I understand fully what it is you are saying it is just that I disagree with most of your comments.

I fully understand the way politics work and you are correct in saying that a councillor is there to look after the welfare of everyone in their ward. This does not however mean that they have to agree with everyone.

As for their private thoughts on a subject, they should remain private so long as they do not try to impose them on the people they represent. If they want to incorporate them into something then they must declare them.

Just like I don't agree with you.

lastly if you are against the use of a pseudonym, why do you continue to use one. Would it not be more creditable to do so or are you maybe hiding something.
BeardyBill, I understand fully what it is you are saying it is just that I disagree with most of your comments. I fully understand the way politics work and you are correct in saying that a councillor is there to look after the welfare of everyone in their ward. This does not however mean that they have to agree with everyone. As for their private thoughts on a subject, they should remain private so long as they do not try to impose them on the people they represent. If they want to incorporate them into something then they must declare them. Just like I don't agree with you. lastly if you are against the use of a pseudonym, why do you continue to use one. Would it not be more creditable to do so or are you maybe hiding something. trolley dolley
  • Score: 2

1:08pm Mon 21 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

trolley dolley wrote:
BeardyBill, I understand fully what it is you are saying it is just that I disagree with most of your comments.

I fully understand the way politics work and you are correct in saying that a councillor is there to look after the welfare of everyone in their ward. This does not however mean that they have to agree with everyone.

As for their private thoughts on a subject, they should remain private so long as they do not try to impose them on the people they represent. If they want to incorporate them into something then they must declare them.

Just like I don't agree with you.

lastly if you are against the use of a pseudonym, why do you continue to use one. Would it not be more creditable to do so or are you maybe hiding something.
Trolly Dolly, it's pointless arguing with you - it's not that you disagree with me, but you are incapable of putting any sort of rational reasoning behind your position, simply adopting an attitude of something is the way it is, because you say it is.

You do not even understand the words you type....private THOUGHTS are exactly that, but as soon as you speak them, they are no longer thoughts. In ex-Mayor Martin's case, they were also no longer private, as he made the comments to someone else. As soon as those words are out there, they become public property - and it is entirely right that he was held accountable for them.

If Councillors want to spout their views on here, that is not private thoughts - this is a public forum, and as such they should be subject to accountability. WHY DO YOU HAVE. PROBLEM WITH THAT?

I pity you your blinkered perspective. You really should get your head out of your arse and open your mind.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: BeardyBill, I understand fully what it is you are saying it is just that I disagree with most of your comments. I fully understand the way politics work and you are correct in saying that a councillor is there to look after the welfare of everyone in their ward. This does not however mean that they have to agree with everyone. As for their private thoughts on a subject, they should remain private so long as they do not try to impose them on the people they represent. If they want to incorporate them into something then they must declare them. Just like I don't agree with you. lastly if you are against the use of a pseudonym, why do you continue to use one. Would it not be more creditable to do so or are you maybe hiding something.[/p][/quote]Trolly Dolly, it's pointless arguing with you - it's not that you disagree with me, but you are incapable of putting any sort of rational reasoning behind your position, simply adopting an attitude of something is the way it is, because you say it is. You do not even understand the words you type....private THOUGHTS are exactly that, but as soon as you speak them, they are no longer thoughts. In ex-Mayor Martin's case, they were also no longer private, as he made the comments to someone else. As soon as those words are out there, they become public property - and it is entirely right that he was held accountable for them. If Councillors want to spout their views on here, that is not private thoughts - this is a public forum, and as such they should be subject to accountability. WHY DO YOU HAVE. PROBLEM WITH THAT? I pity you your blinkered perspective. You really should get your head out of your arse and open your mind. BeardyBill
  • Score: 1

1:12pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Correct, it would be dull if we all agreed wouldnt it.
However his opinions on the disabled are on par with racism and homophobia they have no place in a civil society.

As a councilor and mayor surely his opinions would of influenced his choices and how he works, to suggest otherwise is just a short cut to thinking.
By your example you can be a murderer, racist and or drug dealer in private as long as you dont let anyone else find out?

You havent read any of Beardy`s comments have you or have you just skipped his valid points on using pseudonyms.
Correct, it would be dull if we all agreed wouldnt it. However his opinions on the disabled are on par with racism and homophobia they have no place in a civil society. As a councilor and mayor surely his opinions would of influenced his choices and how he works, to suggest otherwise is just a short cut to thinking. By your example you can be a murderer, racist and or drug dealer in private as long as you dont let anyone else find out? You havent read any of Beardy`s comments have you or have you just skipped his valid points on using pseudonyms. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -2

2:04pm Mon 21 Apr 14

trolley dolley says...

Badgersgetabadnam, private thoughts are just that PRIVATE and they are THOUGHTS not ACTIONS.

I qualified that by saying "they should remain private so long as they do not try to impose them on the people they represent".

Your reference to murderers, drug dealers etc. hardly falls into that category.

As for comments on what Beardy has to say, I have read all of them and I do not agree with him but he is entitled to his opinion just as you are.

Personal attacks and smears do not strengthen your arguments.
Badgersgetabadnam, private thoughts are just that PRIVATE and they are THOUGHTS not ACTIONS. I qualified that by saying "they should remain private so long as they do not try to impose them on the people they represent". Your reference to murderers, drug dealers etc. hardly falls into that category. As for comments on what Beardy has to say, I have read all of them and I do not agree with him but he is entitled to his opinion just as you are. Personal attacks and smears do not strengthen your arguments. trolley dolley
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Mon 21 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

trolley dolley wrote:
Badgersgetabadnam, private thoughts are just that PRIVATE and they are THOUGHTS not ACTIONS.

I qualified that by saying "they should remain private so long as they do not try to impose them on the people they represent".

Your reference to murderers, drug dealers etc. hardly falls into that category.

As for comments on what Beardy has to say, I have read all of them and I do not agree with him but he is entitled to his opinion just as you are.

Personal attacks and smears do not strengthen your arguments.
Your qualification is a nonsense. So are you saying that Cyril Smith's kiddy-fiddling in the 60s and 70s was ok, provided he did it outside of his constituency?

Would you vote for a candidate who publicly said that they wanted to bring the age of consent down to let's say 5, but stated that they had never actually had sex with someone under 16?

Would you support a candidate who by day was an upright pillar of the community, but posted racist views on the internet under a secret identity?

Actually, I don't know why I'm bothering to ask the question, as by your own twisted logic displayed in your previous posts, you probably would if they were wearing the right colour rosette.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Badgersgetabadnam, private thoughts are just that PRIVATE and they are THOUGHTS not ACTIONS. I qualified that by saying "they should remain private so long as they do not try to impose them on the people they represent". Your reference to murderers, drug dealers etc. hardly falls into that category. As for comments on what Beardy has to say, I have read all of them and I do not agree with him but he is entitled to his opinion just as you are. Personal attacks and smears do not strengthen your arguments.[/p][/quote]Your qualification is a nonsense. So are you saying that Cyril Smith's kiddy-fiddling in the 60s and 70s was ok, provided he did it outside of his constituency? Would you vote for a candidate who publicly said that they wanted to bring the age of consent down to let's say 5, but stated that they had never actually had sex with someone under 16? Would you support a candidate who by day was an upright pillar of the community, but posted racist views on the internet under a secret identity? Actually, I don't know why I'm bothering to ask the question, as by your own twisted logic displayed in your previous posts, you probably would if they were wearing the right colour rosette. BeardyBill
  • Score: -1

3:37pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

trolley dolley wrote:
Badgersgetabadnam, private thoughts are just that PRIVATE and they are THOUGHTS not ACTIONS.

I qualified that by saying "they should remain private so long as they do not try to impose them on the people they represent".

Your reference to murderers, drug dealers etc. hardly falls into that category.

As for comments on what Beardy has to say, I have read all of them and I do not agree with him but he is entitled to his opinion just as you are.

Personal attacks and smears do not strengthen your arguments.
Are you suggesting that your thoughts and opinions do not influence your actions? When a group or committee meet those people discuss topics relevant to the area what do you think these people use to make decisions a dice? Decisions are based on facts and how these elected people THINK they should proceed.
The points I listed are all things that are unwelcome in society.
If you have read them why have you asked the same questions in almost every reply despite him answering your question.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Badgersgetabadnam, private thoughts are just that PRIVATE and they are THOUGHTS not ACTIONS. I qualified that by saying "they should remain private so long as they do not try to impose them on the people they represent". Your reference to murderers, drug dealers etc. hardly falls into that category. As for comments on what Beardy has to say, I have read all of them and I do not agree with him but he is entitled to his opinion just as you are. Personal attacks and smears do not strengthen your arguments.[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that your thoughts and opinions do not influence your actions? When a group or committee meet those people discuss topics relevant to the area what do you think these people use to make decisions a dice? Decisions are based on facts and how these elected people THINK they should proceed. The points I listed are all things that are unwelcome in society. If you have read them why have you asked the same questions in almost every reply despite him answering your question. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -1

4:30pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

BeardyBill wrote:
trolley dolley wrote:
Badgersgetabadnam, private thoughts are just that PRIVATE and they are THOUGHTS not ACTIONS.

I qualified that by saying "they should remain private so long as they do not try to impose them on the people they represent".

Your reference to murderers, drug dealers etc. hardly falls into that category.

As for comments on what Beardy has to say, I have read all of them and I do not agree with him but he is entitled to his opinion just as you are.

Personal attacks and smears do not strengthen your arguments.
Your qualification is a nonsense. So are you saying that Cyril Smith's kiddy-fiddling in the 60s and 70s was ok, provided he did it outside of his constituency?

Would you vote for a candidate who publicly said that they wanted to bring the age of consent down to let's say 5, but stated that they had never actually had sex with someone under 16?

Would you support a candidate who by day was an upright pillar of the community, but posted racist views on the internet under a secret identity?

Actually, I don't know why I'm bothering to ask the question, as by your own twisted logic displayed in your previous posts, you probably would if they were wearing the right colour rosette.
Just to guess the reply,,,that will be totally different Chan`s life experience has taught him all he needs to know and his opinion IS fact.
This covers up the need for any rational debate and he will always be correct he is an excellent example of political debate.
[quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: Badgersgetabadnam, private thoughts are just that PRIVATE and they are THOUGHTS not ACTIONS. I qualified that by saying "they should remain private so long as they do not try to impose them on the people they represent". Your reference to murderers, drug dealers etc. hardly falls into that category. As for comments on what Beardy has to say, I have read all of them and I do not agree with him but he is entitled to his opinion just as you are. Personal attacks and smears do not strengthen your arguments.[/p][/quote]Your qualification is a nonsense. So are you saying that Cyril Smith's kiddy-fiddling in the 60s and 70s was ok, provided he did it outside of his constituency? Would you vote for a candidate who publicly said that they wanted to bring the age of consent down to let's say 5, but stated that they had never actually had sex with someone under 16? Would you support a candidate who by day was an upright pillar of the community, but posted racist views on the internet under a secret identity? Actually, I don't know why I'm bothering to ask the question, as by your own twisted logic displayed in your previous posts, you probably would if they were wearing the right colour rosette.[/p][/quote]Just to guess the reply,,,that will be totally different Chan`s life experience has taught him all he needs to know and his opinion IS fact. This covers up the need for any rational debate and he will always be correct he is an excellent example of political debate. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -1

4:32pm Mon 21 Apr 14

trolley dolley says...

I will say it again;
"Personal attacks and smears do not strengthen your arguments" but at least you are off the topic of Cllr Martin.

As for asking the same question, I do so because I am not satisfied with your answers.

Is it only people like you who can ask questions or make offensive remarks and expect no response.

Before you get back onto the subject of Cllr Martin, yes he was wrong to use such offensive words and yes they did cause hurt to a lot of innocent people.

He has paid the price as set by the standards committee so could we now get on with life.
I will say it again; "Personal attacks and smears do not strengthen your arguments" but at least you are off the topic of Cllr Martin. As for asking the same question, I do so because I am not satisfied with your answers. Is it only people like you who can ask questions or make offensive remarks and expect no response. Before you get back onto the subject of Cllr Martin, yes he was wrong to use such offensive words and yes they did cause hurt to a lot of innocent people. He has paid the price as set by the standards committee so could we now get on with life. trolley dolley
  • Score: 1

4:47pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Robh says...

They don't half come up with some rubbish. It is not arguments but pathetic what if's and complete drivel. They like to make up stories so that they can pat each other on the back and generally be abusive. That is why they use pseudonyms to evade the libel claims.
They don't half come up with some rubbish. It is not arguments but pathetic what if's and complete drivel. They like to make up stories so that they can pat each other on the back and generally be abusive. That is why they use pseudonyms to evade the libel claims. Robh
  • Score: -2

5:00pm Mon 21 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

trolley dolley wrote:
I will say it again;
"Personal attacks and smears do not strengthen your arguments" but at least you are off the topic of Cllr Martin.

As for asking the same question, I do so because I am not satisfied with your answers.

Is it only people like you who can ask questions or make offensive remarks and expect no response.

Before you get back onto the subject of Cllr Martin, yes he was wrong to use such offensive words and yes they did cause hurt to a lot of innocent people.

He has paid the price as set by the standards committee so could we now get on with life.
Actually the whole sorry Martin affair has lifted the on some pretty nasty attitudes held by those who support him.

So just where have I smeared anyone? Or is this just typical right-wing paranoia - anyone who disagrees with you is demonised, with not a shred of evidence. You expect that because you say something is so, then that's the way it is. That makes you an arrogant and ignorant fool.

Have I made any personal attacks? Not really, I've been quite restrained and my attacks are directed against attitudes and opinions.

I've asked lots of questions, yet you are unable to answer any of them. Instead you rely on repeating the same old tripe. You display a remarkable lack of basic comprehension, and distinctly lacklustre debating skills. While you may not agree with my answers to questions, you cannot deny that at least I answer them.

What price has Martin actually paid? He made a graceless, half arsed apology which completely missed the main point. He only resigned as Mayor following the public outcry, not out of any feeling of genuine regret or contrition. Word on the streets is he only resigned after being leaned on by the local party, as they can see this whole affair is toxic and they want to kill the story before the election - yet they lack the courage and leadership to remove the whip. And worse, despite resigning as Mayor he clings on to his Council seat to keep coining in the allowances, and is apparently going to campaign for his wife to join him at the trough.

If Martin had a shred of human decency, he would resign and seek re-election. If he has the public support you and the other Tory trolls seem to think he has, he would be re-elected, and his critics, myself included, would have no legitimate grouse. But he won't, as I suspect he is a coward.

You really can't help yourself from keeping the thread alive can you? Looking good to hit the 100 before the bank holiday is out xx
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: I will say it again; "Personal attacks and smears do not strengthen your arguments" but at least you are off the topic of Cllr Martin. As for asking the same question, I do so because I am not satisfied with your answers. Is it only people like you who can ask questions or make offensive remarks and expect no response. Before you get back onto the subject of Cllr Martin, yes he was wrong to use such offensive words and yes they did cause hurt to a lot of innocent people. He has paid the price as set by the standards committee so could we now get on with life.[/p][/quote]Actually the whole sorry Martin affair has lifted the on some pretty nasty attitudes held by those who support him. So just where have I smeared anyone? Or is this just typical right-wing paranoia - anyone who disagrees with you is demonised, with not a shred of evidence. You expect that because you say something is so, then that's the way it is. That makes you an arrogant and ignorant fool. Have I made any personal attacks? Not really, I've been quite restrained and my attacks are directed against attitudes and opinions. I've asked lots of questions, yet you are unable to answer any of them. Instead you rely on repeating the same old tripe. You display a remarkable lack of basic comprehension, and distinctly lacklustre debating skills. While you may not agree with my answers to questions, you cannot deny that at least I answer them. What price has Martin actually paid? He made a graceless, half arsed apology which completely missed the main point. He only resigned as Mayor following the public outcry, not out of any feeling of genuine regret or contrition. Word on the streets is he only resigned after being leaned on by the local party, as they can see this whole affair is toxic and they want to kill the story before the election - yet they lack the courage and leadership to remove the whip. And worse, despite resigning as Mayor he clings on to his Council seat to keep coining in the allowances, and is apparently going to campaign for his wife to join him at the trough. If Martin had a shred of human decency, he would resign and seek re-election. If he has the public support you and the other Tory trolls seem to think he has, he would be re-elected, and his critics, myself included, would have no legitimate grouse. But he won't, as I suspect he is a coward. You really can't help yourself from keeping the thread alive can you? Looking good to hit the 100 before the bank holiday is out xx BeardyBill
  • Score: 2

5:02pm Mon 21 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Robh wrote:
They don't half come up with some rubbish. It is not arguments but pathetic what if's and complete drivel. They like to make up stories so that they can pat each other on the back and generally be abusive. That is why they use pseudonyms to evade the libel claims.
And just who has been libelled? Let's see some evidence, rather than paranoia...
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: They don't half come up with some rubbish. It is not arguments but pathetic what if's and complete drivel. They like to make up stories so that they can pat each other on the back and generally be abusive. That is why they use pseudonyms to evade the libel claims.[/p][/quote]And just who has been libelled? Let's see some evidence, rather than paranoia... BeardyBill
  • Score: 2

5:12pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Robh says...

The arrogance and ignorance of some of the posters on here is unbelievable. How you can make comments on other peoples personal ideals and state that they make ignorant comments etc. with out redress is unacceptable in a mature adult world.

that's it in a nutshell perhaps parents should be more aware of their children's activities on the internet.
The arrogance and ignorance of some of the posters on here is unbelievable. How you can make comments on other peoples personal ideals and state that they make ignorant comments etc. with out redress is unacceptable in a mature adult world. that's it in a nutshell perhaps parents should be more aware of their children's activities on the internet. Robh
  • Score: -2

5:15pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Robh says...

PS I doubt if Beardybill is old enough to shave.
PS I doubt if Beardybill is old enough to shave. Robh
  • Score: -3

5:19pm Mon 21 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Robh wrote:
The arrogance and ignorance of some of the posters on here is unbelievable. How you can make comments on other peoples personal ideals and state that they make ignorant comments etc. with out redress is unacceptable in a mature adult world.

that's it in a nutshell perhaps parents should be more aware of their children's activities on the internet.
I completely agree Rob....perhaps Trolly Dollys parents should take away the computer until s/he actually grows up and is able to form coherent posts, rather than the foaming at the mouth ranting we have grown to know and love.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: The arrogance and ignorance of some of the posters on here is unbelievable. How you can make comments on other peoples personal ideals and state that they make ignorant comments etc. with out redress is unacceptable in a mature adult world. that's it in a nutshell perhaps parents should be more aware of their children's activities on the internet.[/p][/quote]I completely agree Rob....perhaps Trolly Dollys parents should take away the computer until s/he actually grows up and is able to form coherent posts, rather than the foaming at the mouth ranting we have grown to know and love. BeardyBill
  • Score: 2

5:24pm Mon 21 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Robh wrote:
PS I doubt if Beardybill is old enough to shave.
Oh how we laughed at Robs attempt at wit and humour....a feeble attempt, but at least is a step away from the usual angry as a tasered badger rants.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: PS I doubt if Beardybill is old enough to shave.[/p][/quote]Oh how we laughed at Robs attempt at wit and humour....a feeble attempt, but at least is a step away from the usual angry as a tasered badger rants. BeardyBill
  • Score: 1

5:28pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Robh says...

I think you and your cohorts should join the BowLocksinSwindon group.as most of you comments are canal talk. Sorry banal talk.
I think you and your cohorts should join the BowLocksinSwindon group.as most of you comments are canal talk. Sorry banal talk. Robh
  • Score: -2

5:41pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
The arrogance and ignorance of some of the posters on here is unbelievable. How you can make comments on other peoples personal ideals and state that they make ignorant comments etc. with out redress is unacceptable in a mature adult world.

that's it in a nutshell perhaps parents should be more aware of their children's activities on the internet.
Hi Rodders welcome back,
Busy on the bank holiday? I guess a councilors work is never done.
I find your comment laughable if it wasnt for the fact the topic is as serious as is is. Your attempts to yet again turn debate into mud slinging is a joke at best.
You have supported and condoned Mr Martin`s words the fact you have offered 3 different versions of what you feel a word means.....anyway now you are back.
Can you answer the question from two days ago?

What exactly did Mr Martin mean by his comments?
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: The arrogance and ignorance of some of the posters on here is unbelievable. How you can make comments on other peoples personal ideals and state that they make ignorant comments etc. with out redress is unacceptable in a mature adult world. that's it in a nutshell perhaps parents should be more aware of their children's activities on the internet.[/p][/quote]Hi Rodders welcome back, Busy on the bank holiday? I guess a councilors work is never done. I find your comment laughable if it wasnt for the fact the topic is as serious as is is. Your attempts to yet again turn debate into mud slinging is a joke at best. You have supported and condoned Mr Martin`s words the fact you have offered 3 different versions of what you feel a word means.....anyway now you are back. Can you answer the question from two days ago? What exactly did Mr Martin mean by his comments? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Mon 21 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Robh wrote:
I think you and your cohorts should join the BowLocksinSwindon group.as most of you comments are canal talk. Sorry banal talk.
Wow, so now I apparently command a tenth if a roman legion? Not bad for someone supposedly not old enough to shave. Still, Alexander the Great had conquered most of the known world by the time he was 23.

Nice to see you so rooted in the past though Rob - that goes a long way to explaining your prehistoric views on disabled rights.

The BowLicks group? is that the local Tory party? Interesting to note you can't just join, you have to send your details and someone will contact you, no doubt to see if you "fit in", before you are allowed to join. Inclusive policy eh?
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: I think you and your cohorts should join the BowLocksinSwindon group.as most of you comments are canal talk. Sorry banal talk.[/p][/quote]Wow, so now I apparently command a tenth if a roman legion? Not bad for someone supposedly not old enough to shave. Still, Alexander the Great had conquered most of the known world by the time he was 23. Nice to see you so rooted in the past though Rob - that goes a long way to explaining your prehistoric views on disabled rights. The BowLicks group? is that the local Tory party? Interesting to note you can't just join, you have to send your details and someone will contact you, no doubt to see if you "fit in", before you are allowed to join. Inclusive policy eh? BeardyBill
  • Score: -1

5:59pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

And once again silence.............
And once again silence............. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

6:18pm Mon 21 Apr 14

trolley dolley says...

BeardyBill says,

"Have I made any personal attacks? Not really, I've been quite restrained and my attacks are directed against attitudes and opinions".

However previously he said, "I pity you your blinkered perspective. You really should get your head out of your arse and open your mind".

I suppose if you swim in a sewer then what do you expect. A clean debate would be out of the question.

I rest my case.
BeardyBill says, "Have I made any personal attacks? Not really, I've been quite restrained and my attacks are directed against attitudes and opinions". However previously he said, "I pity you your blinkered perspective. You really should get your head out of your arse and open your mind". I suppose if you swim in a sewer then what do you expect. A clean debate would be out of the question. I rest my case. trolley dolley
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Are we back to you have been more offensive than me again?????

Any chance of staying on topic????
Are we back to you have been more offensive than me again????? Any chance of staying on topic???? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
They don't half come up with some rubbish. It is not arguments but pathetic what if's and complete drivel. They like to make up stories so that they can pat each other on the back and generally be abusive. That is why they use pseudonyms to evade the libel claims.
Are you aware of digital signatures?
Trace software is easily available and could sort all of this out very easily.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: They don't half come up with some rubbish. It is not arguments but pathetic what if's and complete drivel. They like to make up stories so that they can pat each other on the back and generally be abusive. That is why they use pseudonyms to evade the libel claims.[/p][/quote]Are you aware of digital signatures? Trace software is easily available and could sort all of this out very easily. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 2

6:37pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Always Grumpy says...

Robh wrote:
I think you and your cohorts should join the BowLocksinSwindon group.as most of you comments are canal talk. Sorry banal talk.
I should quit if I were you.
You're neither funny or coming over as anyone with much intelligence and seem to try to develop your arguments with abuse - it doesn't work.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: I think you and your cohorts should join the BowLocksinSwindon group.as most of you comments are canal talk. Sorry banal talk.[/p][/quote]I should quit if I were you. You're neither funny or coming over as anyone with much intelligence and seem to try to develop your arguments with abuse - it doesn't work. Always Grumpy
  • Score: 0

7:13pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Davey Gravey says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Robh wrote:
They don't half come up with some rubbish. It is not arguments but pathetic what if's and complete drivel. They like to make up stories so that they can pat each other on the back and generally be abusive. That is why they use pseudonyms to evade the libel claims.
Are you aware of digital signatures?
Trace software is easily available and could sort all of this out very easily.
Surprised the adver aint done a bit of digging. Would be front page news if councilors are being naughty
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: They don't half come up with some rubbish. It is not arguments but pathetic what if's and complete drivel. They like to make up stories so that they can pat each other on the back and generally be abusive. That is why they use pseudonyms to evade the libel claims.[/p][/quote]Are you aware of digital signatures? Trace software is easily available and could sort all of this out very easily.[/p][/quote]Surprised the adver aint done a bit of digging. Would be front page news if councilors are being naughty Davey Gravey
  • Score: 3

7:32pm Mon 21 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

trolley dolley wrote:
BeardyBill says,

"Have I made any personal attacks? Not really, I've been quite restrained and my attacks are directed against attitudes and opinions".

However previously he said, "I pity you your blinkered perspective. You really should get your head out of your arse and open your mind".

I suppose if you swim in a sewer then what do you expect. A clean debate would be out of the question.

I rest my case.
Blinkered perspective, open your mind - I reckon that comes under the category of fair comment, given your stated views on here.

As for get your head out of your arse - if that's the worst personal attack you've ever suffered, you really should get out more.

Swimming in the sewer? Yet again you have failed to comprehend or understand one of my posts.....I said I'd looked at how to join the Tory party, not that I'd actually joined.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: BeardyBill says, "Have I made any personal attacks? Not really, I've been quite restrained and my attacks are directed against attitudes and opinions". However previously he said, "I pity you your blinkered perspective. You really should get your head out of your arse and open your mind". I suppose if you swim in a sewer then what do you expect. A clean debate would be out of the question. I rest my case.[/p][/quote]Blinkered perspective, open your mind - I reckon that comes under the category of fair comment, given your stated views on here. As for get your head out of your arse - if that's the worst personal attack you've ever suffered, you really should get out more. Swimming in the sewer? Yet again you have failed to comprehend or understand one of my posts.....I said I'd looked at how to join the Tory party, not that I'd actually joined. BeardyBill
  • Score: 0

7:32pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Robh wrote:
They don't half come up with some rubbish. It is not arguments but pathetic what if's and complete drivel. They like to make up stories so that they can pat each other on the back and generally be abusive. That is why they use pseudonyms to evade the libel claims.
Are you aware of digital signatures?
Trace software is easily available and could sort all of this out very easily.
Surprised the adver aint done a bit of digging. Would be front page news if councilors are being naughty
Not always in their interest and site rules forbid it.
However if you could say get their actual email addy and get them to....probably shouldnt finish that sentence.

The software is free to download but be careful as many hacks will use it to get your own pc.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: They don't half come up with some rubbish. It is not arguments but pathetic what if's and complete drivel. They like to make up stories so that they can pat each other on the back and generally be abusive. That is why they use pseudonyms to evade the libel claims.[/p][/quote]Are you aware of digital signatures? Trace software is easily available and could sort all of this out very easily.[/p][/quote]Surprised the adver aint done a bit of digging. Would be front page news if councilors are being naughty[/p][/quote]Not always in their interest and site rules forbid it. However if you could say get their actual email addy and get them to....probably shouldnt finish that sentence. The software is free to download but be careful as many hacks will use it to get your own pc. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 1

8:05pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Robh says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
And once again silence.............
I had dinner and a family to entertain. Haven't got go to bed soon it is school tomorrow.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: And once again silence.............[/p][/quote]I had dinner and a family to entertain. Haven't got go to bed soon it is school tomorrow. Robh
  • Score: 2

8:19pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
And once again silence.............
I had dinner and a family to entertain. Haven't got go to bed soon it is school tomorrow.
But still no answer,,,,,you are pathetic.
Or by your last comment a clown....
Good night Rodders this time next year eh...?
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: And once again silence.............[/p][/quote]I had dinner and a family to entertain. Haven't got go to bed soon it is school tomorrow.[/p][/quote]But still no answer,,,,,you are pathetic. Or by your last comment a clown.... Good night Rodders this time next year eh...? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

10:06pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Always Grumpy says...

Robh wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
And once again silence.............
I had dinner and a family to entertain. Haven't got go to bed soon it is school tomorrow.
Ah, you're still at school - that explains a lot!
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: And once again silence.............[/p][/quote]I had dinner and a family to entertain. Haven't got go to bed soon it is school tomorrow.[/p][/quote]Ah, you're still at school - that explains a lot! Always Grumpy
  • Score: 2

11:31pm Mon 21 Apr 14

Robh says...

I love reading the ramblings of kids. But must admit to being struck by words missing from my comments.
I love reading the ramblings of kids. But must admit to being struck by words missing from my comments. Robh
  • Score: -3

11:52pm Mon 21 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

No doubt anyone under 60 is a kid eh Rob? I guess we can add being patronising to the long list of reasons why you are a bellend.

Nearly at the 100 mark.......
No doubt anyone under 60 is a kid eh Rob? I guess we can add being patronising to the long list of reasons why you are a bellend. Nearly at the 100 mark....... BeardyBill
  • Score: -1

12:26am Tue 22 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
I love reading the ramblings of kids. But must admit to being struck by words missing from my comments.
Havent you said on numerous occasions that "this is my final comment" and then spouted more spurious nonsense (very grown up)
Who in their right mind voted for you anyway...oh sorry thats a secret isnt it?

Been at the sherry tonight have you?
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: I love reading the ramblings of kids. But must admit to being struck by words missing from my comments.[/p][/quote]Havent you said on numerous occasions that "this is my final comment" and then spouted more spurious nonsense (very grown up) Who in their right mind voted for you anyway...oh sorry thats a secret isnt it? Been at the sherry tonight have you? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

12:43am Tue 22 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
I love reading the ramblings of kids. But must admit to being struck by words missing from my comments.
As you are the adult that surely we can all learn from.
What were you saying about the reasoning behind Mr Martin`s comments?
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: I love reading the ramblings of kids. But must admit to being struck by words missing from my comments.[/p][/quote]As you are the adult that surely we can all learn from. What were you saying about the reasoning behind Mr Martin`s comments? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

12:47am Tue 22 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Mr Badger has a valid point.....we're still waiting.....and we're at the magic 100 comments :o)

Will the Martin saga ever end? Nah......
Mr Badger has a valid point.....we're still waiting.....and we're at the magic 100 comments :o) Will the Martin saga ever end? Nah...... BeardyBill
  • Score: 0

9:52am Tue 22 Apr 14

Blackwell 2 says...

Has he gone yet
Has he gone yet Blackwell 2
  • Score: -1

10:01am Tue 22 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

BeardyBill wrote:
Mr Badger has a valid point.....we're still waiting.....and we're at the magic 100 comments :o)

Will the Martin saga ever end? Nah......
Is the real question how many actual councilors use this site?
Rodders was good enough to email me directly and someone else must have his internet log on details as its all sent from same connection.

Only a handful of other mailed me back so harder to check I have sent my findings to some organisations that will probably ignore it as the majority of parties and councilors really dont care unless it effects them directly.
[quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: Mr Badger has a valid point.....we're still waiting.....and we're at the magic 100 comments :o) Will the Martin saga ever end? Nah......[/p][/quote]Is the real question how many actual councilors use this site? Rodders was good enough to email me directly and someone else must have his internet log on details as its all sent from same connection. Only a handful of other mailed me back so harder to check I have sent my findings to some organisations that will probably ignore it as the majority of parties and councilors really dont care unless it effects them directly. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 1

10:21am Tue 22 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Blackwell 2 wrote:
Has he gone yet
Mr Martin?
What other job could you jump before being pushed and still receive all your payments...Well a top flight football manager but that is another topic.
To discriminate against anyone is a disgrace to any position of power and there are laws to protect this.
Yes the standards committee has drawn a line under the situation but policy does not limit the law in anyway and presumably Mr Martin could be taken to court over the incident.
I cant believe he is looking to campaign to "assist" his wife.....Hi I am the wife of the man who has admitted under-representation in an activity or type of work, please vote for me.
The arrogance to think there will be no knock on from this is in the extreme.
[quote][p][bold]Blackwell 2[/bold] wrote: Has he gone yet[/p][/quote]Mr Martin? What other job could you jump before being pushed and still receive all your payments...Well a top flight football manager but that is another topic. To discriminate against anyone is a disgrace to any position of power and there are laws to protect this. Yes the standards committee has drawn a line under the situation but policy does not limit the law in anyway and presumably Mr Martin could be taken to court over the incident. I cant believe he is looking to campaign to "assist" his wife.....Hi I am the wife of the man who has admitted under-representation in an activity or type of work, please vote for me. The arrogance to think there will be no knock on from this is in the extreme. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

10:24am Tue 22 Apr 14

Robh says...

Morning all. Still at it?

My understanding of Mr Martin s comment:

Do we still allow people with severe Downs Syndrome (Mongles) to bear children ( have sex). Not that long ago it was frowned upon by social services and the health workers so much so that there have been several novels written and tv programmes about this subject.

No one is suggesting that handicapped people should not have a fulfilling life but simply that in practical terms it is difficult to cope with things like bringing up children.

This is not back peddling just clarification of my thoughts. At least I don't refer to others as arrogant or ignorant which seems to be in vogue now just because I disagree with them..
Morning all. Still at it? My understanding of Mr Martin s comment: Do we still allow people with severe Downs Syndrome (Mongles) to bear children ( have sex). Not that long ago it was frowned upon by social services and the health workers so much so that there have been several novels written and tv programmes about this subject. No one is suggesting that handicapped people should not have a fulfilling life but simply that in practical terms it is difficult to cope with things like bringing up children. This is not back peddling just clarification of my thoughts. At least I don't refer to others as arrogant or ignorant which seems to be in vogue now just because I disagree with them.. Robh
  • Score: -4

10:57am Tue 22 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Robh wrote:
Morning all. Still at it?

My understanding of Mr Martin s comment:

Do we still allow people with severe Downs Syndrome (Mongles) to bear children ( have sex). Not that long ago it was frowned upon by social services and the health workers so much so that there have been several novels written and tv programmes about this subject.

No one is suggesting that handicapped people should not have a fulfilling life but simply that in practical terms it is difficult to cope with things like bringing up children.

This is not back peddling just clarification of my thoughts. At least I don't refer to others as arrogant or ignorant which seems to be in vogue now just because I disagree with them..
The choice of words is interesting
If you are talking about something in the past, why would you phrase it
"Do we still allow" - this implies the activity has been allowed in the past, but the speaker is questioning whether it is still allowed - the clue being the word still.

This is the exact opposite of Rob's "understanding". Do I detect an attempt at revisionism here?
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Morning all. Still at it? My understanding of Mr Martin s comment: Do we still allow people with severe Downs Syndrome (Mongles) to bear children ( have sex). Not that long ago it was frowned upon by social services and the health workers so much so that there have been several novels written and tv programmes about this subject. No one is suggesting that handicapped people should not have a fulfilling life but simply that in practical terms it is difficult to cope with things like bringing up children. This is not back peddling just clarification of my thoughts. At least I don't refer to others as arrogant or ignorant which seems to be in vogue now just because I disagree with them..[/p][/quote]The choice of words is interesting If you are talking about something in the past, why would you phrase it "Do we still allow" - this implies the activity has been allowed in the past, but the speaker is questioning whether it is still allowed - the clue being the word still. This is the exact opposite of Rob's "understanding". Do I detect an attempt at revisionism here? BeardyBill
  • Score: 1

11:57am Tue 22 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
Morning all. Still at it?

My understanding of Mr Martin s comment:

Do we still allow people with severe Downs Syndrome (Mongles) to bear children ( have sex). Not that long ago it was frowned upon by social services and the health workers so much so that there have been several novels written and tv programmes about this subject.

No one is suggesting that handicapped people should not have a fulfilling life but simply that in practical terms it is difficult to cope with things like bringing up children.

This is not back peddling just clarification of my thoughts. At least I don't refer to others as arrogant or ignorant which seems to be in vogue now just because I disagree with them..
I`m not certain if I feel sorry for you or what but you do seem to be confused wasnt this
"Robh says...

The arrogance and ignorance of some of the posters on here is unbelievable. How you can make comments on other peoples personal ideals and state that they make ignorant comments etc. with out redress is unacceptable in a mature adult world.

that's it in a nutshell perhaps parents should be more aware of their children's activities on the internet"
One of your earlier comments?
Is that the official party line? Interesting that it has taken until after the long weekend for an answer.
"We" as in him / you / the powers that be? "allow" what give you or him the right to decide for anyone?
You have said not so long ago exactly when was this and why was this ok to say?

I would suggest not only are you patronizing, arrogant and ignorant you have also displayed utter contempt for anyone that you do not see as an equal.
You still havent said what the meaning of HIS use of the word was you have made some semi comment with what sort of literal reference I do not know.
Why did Mr Martin deem it ok to infringe on the human rights of people?
Given that it has taken 4 days to get this spurious answer I dont expect an answer from a direct question.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Morning all. Still at it? My understanding of Mr Martin s comment: Do we still allow people with severe Downs Syndrome (Mongles) to bear children ( have sex). Not that long ago it was frowned upon by social services and the health workers so much so that there have been several novels written and tv programmes about this subject. No one is suggesting that handicapped people should not have a fulfilling life but simply that in practical terms it is difficult to cope with things like bringing up children. This is not back peddling just clarification of my thoughts. At least I don't refer to others as arrogant or ignorant which seems to be in vogue now just because I disagree with them..[/p][/quote]I`m not certain if I feel sorry for you or what but you do seem to be confused wasnt this "Robh says... The arrogance and ignorance of some of the posters on here is unbelievable. How you can make comments on other peoples personal ideals and state that they make ignorant comments etc. with out redress is unacceptable in a mature adult world. that's it in a nutshell perhaps parents should be more aware of their children's activities on the internet" One of your earlier comments? Is that the official party line? Interesting that it has taken until after the long weekend for an answer. "We" as in him / you / the powers that be? "allow" what give you or him the right to decide for anyone? You have said not so long ago exactly when was this and why was this ok to say? I would suggest not only are you patronizing, arrogant and ignorant you have also displayed utter contempt for anyone that you do not see as an equal. You still havent said what the meaning of HIS use of the word was you have made some semi comment with what sort of literal reference I do not know. Why did Mr Martin deem it ok to infringe on the human rights of people? Given that it has taken 4 days to get this spurious answer I dont expect an answer from a direct question. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

BeardyBill wrote:
Robh wrote:
Morning all. Still at it?

My understanding of Mr Martin s comment:

Do we still allow people with severe Downs Syndrome (Mongles) to bear children ( have sex). Not that long ago it was frowned upon by social services and the health workers so much so that there have been several novels written and tv programmes about this subject.

No one is suggesting that handicapped people should not have a fulfilling life but simply that in practical terms it is difficult to cope with things like bringing up children.

This is not back peddling just clarification of my thoughts. At least I don't refer to others as arrogant or ignorant which seems to be in vogue now just because I disagree with them..
The choice of words is interesting
If you are talking about something in the past, why would you phrase it
"Do we still allow" - this implies the activity has been allowed in the past, but the speaker is questioning whether it is still allowed - the clue being the word still.

This is the exact opposite of Rob's "understanding". Do I detect an attempt at revisionism here?
And this is the best he could come up with after 4 days?
One would of imagined he would of been more careful with his language but no you still couldnt care less.
Awful attitude from you and yours.
[quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Morning all. Still at it? My understanding of Mr Martin s comment: Do we still allow people with severe Downs Syndrome (Mongles) to bear children ( have sex). Not that long ago it was frowned upon by social services and the health workers so much so that there have been several novels written and tv programmes about this subject. No one is suggesting that handicapped people should not have a fulfilling life but simply that in practical terms it is difficult to cope with things like bringing up children. This is not back peddling just clarification of my thoughts. At least I don't refer to others as arrogant or ignorant which seems to be in vogue now just because I disagree with them..[/p][/quote]The choice of words is interesting If you are talking about something in the past, why would you phrase it "Do we still allow" - this implies the activity has been allowed in the past, but the speaker is questioning whether it is still allowed - the clue being the word still. This is the exact opposite of Rob's "understanding". Do I detect an attempt at revisionism here?[/p][/quote]And this is the best he could come up with after 4 days? One would of imagined he would of been more careful with his language but no you still couldnt care less. Awful attitude from you and yours. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -1

1:17pm Tue 22 Apr 14

brandx says...

Cut to the chase.

Is Nick Martin still a councillor?

If so - why?
Cut to the chase. Is Nick Martin still a councillor? If so - why? brandx
  • Score: 2

3:08pm Tue 22 Apr 14

lisers says...

this isn't the first time this Mayor has been in trouble with his big mouth and all though some on here think he is a jolly nice man who should be left alone , he represents a post that does not give him the right to abuse ,criticize or belittle others for entertainment especially those less fortunate than himself through illness or disability but then his party have not got a good history of looking after the less fortunate have they
this isn't the first time this Mayor has been in trouble with his big mouth and all though some on here think he is a jolly nice man who should be left alone , he represents a post that does not give him the right to abuse ,criticize or belittle others for entertainment especially those less fortunate than himself through illness or disability but then his party have not got a good history of looking after the less fortunate have they lisers
  • Score: -1

3:50pm Tue 22 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

brandx wrote:
Cut to the chase.

Is Nick Martin still a councillor?

If so - why?
In short, yes - and it would also appear that he is still a senior figure in the Swindon Conservative Association.

From this we can deduce two things:
1) He lacks both honour and courage - the correct thing to do would be resign as a Councillor, and if he feels the need, stand for re-election and let the people decide;

2) The local Tory party at worst share, and at best condone his comments. The only Conservative with the decency to condemn his words in a clear, unequivocal way has been Justin Tomlinson MP. I must applaud Mr Tomlinson for both knowing the fundamental difference between right and wrong in this issue, and for having the independence of thought to not blindly follow the party line.
[quote][p][bold]brandx[/bold] wrote: Cut to the chase. Is Nick Martin still a councillor? If so - why?[/p][/quote]In short, yes - and it would also appear that he is still a senior figure in the Swindon Conservative Association. From this we can deduce two things: 1) He lacks both honour and courage - the correct thing to do would be resign as a Councillor, and if he feels the need, stand for re-election and let the people decide; 2) The local Tory party at worst share, and at best condone his comments. The only Conservative with the decency to condemn his words in a clear, unequivocal way has been Justin Tomlinson MP. I must applaud Mr Tomlinson for both knowing the fundamental difference between right and wrong in this issue, and for having the independence of thought to not blindly follow the party line. BeardyBill
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Robh says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Robh wrote:
I love reading the ramblings of kids. But must admit to being struck by words missing from my comments.
Havent you said on numerous occasions that "this is my final comment" and then spouted more spurious nonsense (very grown up)
Who in their right mind voted for you anyway...oh sorry thats a secret isnt it?

Been at the sherry tonight have you?
Can't read eh. What part of 'That is my final comment on this article' said once didn't you understand. Again you put half the story down then argue against it.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: I love reading the ramblings of kids. But must admit to being struck by words missing from my comments.[/p][/quote]Havent you said on numerous occasions that "this is my final comment" and then spouted more spurious nonsense (very grown up) Who in their right mind voted for you anyway...oh sorry thats a secret isnt it? Been at the sherry tonight have you?[/p][/quote]Can't read eh. What part of 'That is my final comment on this article' said once didn't you understand. Again you put half the story down then argue against it. Robh
  • Score: 2

4:23pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Rodders are you hiding again?
I can mail you directly again if you like?
Any chance of a straight answer?
Rodders are you hiding again? I can mail you directly again if you like? Any chance of a straight answer? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -2

4:28pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Robh says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Robh wrote:
Morning all. Still at it?

My understanding of Mr Martin s comment:

Do we still allow people with severe Downs Syndrome (Mongles) to bear children ( have sex). Not that long ago it was frowned upon by social services and the health workers so much so that there have been several novels written and tv programmes about this subject.

No one is suggesting that handicapped people should not have a fulfilling life but simply that in practical terms it is difficult to cope with things like bringing up children.

This is not back peddling just clarification of my thoughts. At least I don't refer to others as arrogant or ignorant which seems to be in vogue now just because I disagree with them..
I`m not certain if I feel sorry for you or what but you do seem to be confused wasnt this
"Robh says...

The arrogance and ignorance of some of the posters on here is unbelievable. How you can make comments on other peoples personal ideals and state that they make ignorant comments etc. with out redress is unacceptable in a mature adult world.

that's it in a nutshell perhaps parents should be more aware of their children's activities on the internet"
One of your earlier comments?
Is that the official party line? Interesting that it has taken until after the long weekend for an answer.
"We" as in him / you / the powers that be? "allow" what give you or him the right to decide for anyone?
You have said not so long ago exactly when was this and why was this ok to say?

I would suggest not only are you patronizing, arrogant and ignorant you have also displayed utter contempt for anyone that you do not see as an equal.
You still havent said what the meaning of HIS use of the word was you have made some semi comment with what sort of literal reference I do not know.
Why did Mr Martin deem it ok to infringe on the human rights of people?
Given that it has taken 4 days to get this spurious answer I dont expect an answer from a direct question.
So you know HIS use of the word do you? Come on tell us. You haven't got a clue have you. The only arrogance and ignorance is shown by those who make his comment out to be officious and demeaning
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Morning all. Still at it? My understanding of Mr Martin s comment: Do we still allow people with severe Downs Syndrome (Mongles) to bear children ( have sex). Not that long ago it was frowned upon by social services and the health workers so much so that there have been several novels written and tv programmes about this subject. No one is suggesting that handicapped people should not have a fulfilling life but simply that in practical terms it is difficult to cope with things like bringing up children. This is not back peddling just clarification of my thoughts. At least I don't refer to others as arrogant or ignorant which seems to be in vogue now just because I disagree with them..[/p][/quote]I`m not certain if I feel sorry for you or what but you do seem to be confused wasnt this "Robh says... The arrogance and ignorance of some of the posters on here is unbelievable. How you can make comments on other peoples personal ideals and state that they make ignorant comments etc. with out redress is unacceptable in a mature adult world. that's it in a nutshell perhaps parents should be more aware of their children's activities on the internet" One of your earlier comments? Is that the official party line? Interesting that it has taken until after the long weekend for an answer. "We" as in him / you / the powers that be? "allow" what give you or him the right to decide for anyone? You have said not so long ago exactly when was this and why was this ok to say? I would suggest not only are you patronizing, arrogant and ignorant you have also displayed utter contempt for anyone that you do not see as an equal. You still havent said what the meaning of HIS use of the word was you have made some semi comment with what sort of literal reference I do not know. Why did Mr Martin deem it ok to infringe on the human rights of people? Given that it has taken 4 days to get this spurious answer I dont expect an answer from a direct question.[/p][/quote]So you know HIS use of the word do you? Come on tell us. You haven't got a clue have you. The only arrogance and ignorance is shown by those who make his comment out to be officious and demeaning Robh
  • Score: 1

4:34pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Robh says...

I bet Rod Bluh is not happy at being accused of commenting on here. I bet you feel very small and stupid don't you. Silly little boy.
I bet Rod Bluh is not happy at being accused of commenting on here. I bet you feel very small and stupid don't you. Silly little boy. Robh
  • Score: 1

4:44pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Robh says...

Cat got your tongue??
Cat got your tongue?? Robh
  • Score: 1

5:33pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Robh wrote:
Morning all. Still at it?

My understanding of Mr Martin s comment:

Do we still allow people with severe Downs Syndrome (Mongles) to bear children ( have sex). Not that long ago it was frowned upon by social services and the health workers so much so that there have been several novels written and tv programmes about this subject.

No one is suggesting that handicapped people should not have a fulfilling life but simply that in practical terms it is difficult to cope with things like bringing up children.

This is not back peddling just clarification of my thoughts. At least I don't refer to others as arrogant or ignorant which seems to be in vogue now just because I disagree with them..
I`m not certain if I feel sorry for you or what but you do seem to be confused wasnt this
"Robh says...

The arrogance and ignorance of some of the posters on here is unbelievable. How you can make comments on other peoples personal ideals and state that they make ignorant comments etc. with out redress is unacceptable in a mature adult world.

that's it in a nutshell perhaps parents should be more aware of their children's activities on the internet"
One of your earlier comments?
Is that the official party line? Interesting that it has taken until after the long weekend for an answer.
"We" as in him / you / the powers that be? "allow" what give you or him the right to decide for anyone?
You have said not so long ago exactly when was this and why was this ok to say?

I would suggest not only are you patronizing, arrogant and ignorant you have also displayed utter contempt for anyone that you do not see as an equal.
You still havent said what the meaning of HIS use of the word was you have made some semi comment with what sort of literal reference I do not know.
Why did Mr Martin deem it ok to infringe on the human rights of people?
Given that it has taken 4 days to get this spurious answer I dont expect an answer from a direct question.
So you know HIS use of the word do you? Come on tell us. You haven't got a clue have you. The only arrogance and ignorance is shown by those who make his comment out to be officious and demeaning
Erm...at no stage did I say I knew what his meaning was you did I have spent 4 days asking you for your version. You failed in this.
I have asked questions and at no stage said anything outright as you have done.
You are saying I havent replied quickly enough for you, is this in response to having to wait for days for your pitiful non-answer.
You are not the only person with family to look after.
Once again you have resorted to insults rather than going anywhere near the topic.
Your first comment on this thread (I wont ask you to explain your vile comments on other threads as I am sure you wont remember) "He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's."
What was honest about his opinionated question?
It is tiresome to constantly walk you through YOUR own comments to remind you of your spurious rants. Then again if you cannot say what you mean, you cannot be expected to mean what you say.
Why is it ok to completely discount human rights? As Mr Martin has done with his comment and for you to condone it?

At a guess you will attempt to answer this question with a question as you seem to be incapable of answering in an adult fashion?
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Morning all. Still at it? My understanding of Mr Martin s comment: Do we still allow people with severe Downs Syndrome (Mongles) to bear children ( have sex). Not that long ago it was frowned upon by social services and the health workers so much so that there have been several novels written and tv programmes about this subject. No one is suggesting that handicapped people should not have a fulfilling life but simply that in practical terms it is difficult to cope with things like bringing up children. This is not back peddling just clarification of my thoughts. At least I don't refer to others as arrogant or ignorant which seems to be in vogue now just because I disagree with them..[/p][/quote]I`m not certain if I feel sorry for you or what but you do seem to be confused wasnt this "Robh says... The arrogance and ignorance of some of the posters on here is unbelievable. How you can make comments on other peoples personal ideals and state that they make ignorant comments etc. with out redress is unacceptable in a mature adult world. that's it in a nutshell perhaps parents should be more aware of their children's activities on the internet" One of your earlier comments? Is that the official party line? Interesting that it has taken until after the long weekend for an answer. "We" as in him / you / the powers that be? "allow" what give you or him the right to decide for anyone? You have said not so long ago exactly when was this and why was this ok to say? I would suggest not only are you patronizing, arrogant and ignorant you have also displayed utter contempt for anyone that you do not see as an equal. You still havent said what the meaning of HIS use of the word was you have made some semi comment with what sort of literal reference I do not know. Why did Mr Martin deem it ok to infringe on the human rights of people? Given that it has taken 4 days to get this spurious answer I dont expect an answer from a direct question.[/p][/quote]So you know HIS use of the word do you? Come on tell us. You haven't got a clue have you. The only arrogance and ignorance is shown by those who make his comment out to be officious and demeaning[/p][/quote]Erm...at no stage did I say I knew what his meaning was you did I have spent 4 days asking you for your version. You failed in this. I have asked questions and at no stage said anything outright as you have done. You are saying I havent replied quickly enough for you, is this in response to having to wait for days for your pitiful non-answer. You are not the only person with family to look after. Once again you have resorted to insults rather than going anywhere near the topic. Your first comment on this thread (I wont ask you to explain your vile comments on other threads as I am sure you wont remember) "He asked an honest question related to the discussion but used outdated language. It has nothing to do with his attitude or belief's." What was honest about his opinionated question? It is tiresome to constantly walk you through YOUR own comments to remind you of your spurious rants. Then again if you cannot say what you mean, you cannot be expected to mean what you say. Why is it ok to completely discount human rights? As Mr Martin has done with his comment and for you to condone it? At a guess you will attempt to answer this question with a question as you seem to be incapable of answering in an adult fashion? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -1

5:55pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Robh says...

So you haven't got an answer then. No would be sufficient.
So you haven't got an answer then. No would be sufficient. Robh
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
So you haven't got an answer then. No would be sufficient.
Yes he used the word an offensive slur demonstrating his contempt for less privileged persons than himself and the group he was sat with condoned it if not supported it.
Now your turn what did he mean?

I would of thought I had made my point of view clear in other comments once again you prove incapable of reading and understanding anything other than your own thoughts.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: So you haven't got an answer then. No would be sufficient.[/p][/quote]Yes he used the word an offensive slur demonstrating his contempt for less privileged persons than himself and the group he was sat with condoned it if not supported it. Now your turn what did he mean? I would of thought I had made my point of view clear in other comments once again you prove incapable of reading and understanding anything other than your own thoughts. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
So you haven't got an answer then. No would be sufficient.
Hypocrisy is just another word you dont understand isnt it?
What kind of moron are you?
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: So you haven't got an answer then. No would be sufficient.[/p][/quote]Hypocrisy is just another word you dont understand isnt it? What kind of moron are you? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -1

7:45pm Tue 22 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Robh wrote:
I bet Rod Bluh is not happy at being accused of commenting on here. I bet you feel very small and stupid don't you. Silly little boy.
Are you categorically denying that you are Rod Bluh? Straight question, same as I asked ChannelX, and to which I have not had a reply - Are you a Swindon Borough Councillor?
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: I bet Rod Bluh is not happy at being accused of commenting on here. I bet you feel very small and stupid don't you. Silly little boy.[/p][/quote]Are you categorically denying that you are Rod Bluh? Straight question, same as I asked ChannelX, and to which I have not had a reply - Are you a Swindon Borough Councillor? BeardyBill
  • Score: 0

9:51pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
So you haven't got an answer then. No would be sufficient.
Thumbs down and still avoiding questions you sir are a cretin.
Do you need any help understanding what these words mean?
Fool is that easier for you.
Its pointless having any kind of debate involving you as you refuse to answer or reply with any level of intelligence or civility.
You can confirm or deny anything you like, it took a year for Mr Martin`s details to see the light of day and I am more than happy to tt your details until we are all aware of exactly who your other backward thinking friends are.

I am sure your kids will have nothing but respect for you then.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: So you haven't got an answer then. No would be sufficient.[/p][/quote]Thumbs down and still avoiding questions you sir are a cretin. Do you need any help understanding what these words mean? Fool is that easier for you. Its pointless having any kind of debate involving you as you refuse to answer or reply with any level of intelligence or civility. You can confirm or deny anything you like, it took a year for Mr Martin`s details to see the light of day and I am more than happy to tt your details until we are all aware of exactly who your other backward thinking friends are. I am sure your kids will have nothing but respect for you then. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

10:00pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

BeardyBill wrote:
Robh wrote:
I bet Rod Bluh is not happy at being accused of commenting on here. I bet you feel very small and stupid don't you. Silly little boy.
Are you categorically denying that you are Rod Bluh? Straight question, same as I asked ChannelX, and to which I have not had a reply - Are you a Swindon Borough Councillor?
All you will get now is thumbs down and no reply. Eventually there will be the usual passive aggressive question back that an answer is demanded to then nothing again.
For someone who constants claims others act in a childish way...well you know the rest
[quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: I bet Rod Bluh is not happy at being accused of commenting on here. I bet you feel very small and stupid don't you. Silly little boy.[/p][/quote]Are you categorically denying that you are Rod Bluh? Straight question, same as I asked ChannelX, and to which I have not had a reply - Are you a Swindon Borough Councillor?[/p][/quote]All you will get now is thumbs down and no reply. Eventually there will be the usual passive aggressive question back that an answer is demanded to then nothing again. For someone who constants claims others act in a childish way...well you know the rest Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -1

10:28pm Tue 22 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
BeardyBill wrote:
Robh wrote:
I bet Rod Bluh is not happy at being accused of commenting on here. I bet you feel very small and stupid don't you. Silly little boy.
Are you categorically denying that you are Rod Bluh? Straight question, same as I asked ChannelX, and to which I have not had a reply - Are you a Swindon Borough Councillor?
All you will get now is thumbs down and no reply. Eventually there will be the usual passive aggressive question back that an answer is demanded to then nothing again.
For someone who constants claims others act in a childish way...well you know the rest
I've got all the time in the world Mr Badger.....and I'm a persistent bugger. Thumbs down are of no relevance, and I've got a pretty thick skin when it comes to abuse. Bring it on I say :o)

What has really heartened me over the last week or so, is that the vast majority of posters are reasonable, rational people who are kind to those less fortunate and obviously have no truck with the misanthropic views expressed by Martin's supporters.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: I bet Rod Bluh is not happy at being accused of commenting on here. I bet you feel very small and stupid don't you. Silly little boy.[/p][/quote]Are you categorically denying that you are Rod Bluh? Straight question, same as I asked ChannelX, and to which I have not had a reply - Are you a Swindon Borough Councillor?[/p][/quote]All you will get now is thumbs down and no reply. Eventually there will be the usual passive aggressive question back that an answer is demanded to then nothing again. For someone who constants claims others act in a childish way...well you know the rest[/p][/quote]I've got all the time in the world Mr Badger.....and I'm a persistent bugger. Thumbs down are of no relevance, and I've got a pretty thick skin when it comes to abuse. Bring it on I say :o) What has really heartened me over the last week or so, is that the vast majority of posters are reasonable, rational people who are kind to those less fortunate and obviously have no truck with the misanthropic views expressed by Martin's supporters. BeardyBill
  • Score: -1

10:48pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

BeardyBill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
BeardyBill wrote:
Robh wrote:
I bet Rod Bluh is not happy at being accused of commenting on here. I bet you feel very small and stupid don't you. Silly little boy.
Are you categorically denying that you are Rod Bluh? Straight question, same as I asked ChannelX, and to which I have not had a reply - Are you a Swindon Borough Councillor?
All you will get now is thumbs down and no reply. Eventually there will be the usual passive aggressive question back that an answer is demanded to then nothing again.
For someone who constants claims others act in a childish way...well you know the rest
I've got all the time in the world Mr Badger.....and I'm a persistent bugger. Thumbs down are of no relevance, and I've got a pretty thick skin when it comes to abuse. Bring it on I say :o)

What has really heartened me over the last week or so, is that the vast majority of posters are reasonable, rational people who are kind to those less fortunate and obviously have no truck with the misanthropic views expressed by Martin's supporters.
Good show chap,
I am often accused of badgering people but only to those who do not respect others.
Most of the people that post on here confirm my belief that my home town is populated by good people however our betters and elected heads (not all) are gibbering self serving idiots who have no idea how modern software programs work its tough to explain without incriminating but as long as you only ask questions everything else is pure speculation.

To say they they lack courage in their conviction is inaccurate but they do need others to put plans to work.
Look how whistle blowers are treated you could give them the correct term of truth tellers....4chan is a good start to start digging.
Its late and I have little people to take out tomorrow fight the good fight beardy.
[quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BeardyBill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: I bet Rod Bluh is not happy at being accused of commenting on here. I bet you feel very small and stupid don't you. Silly little boy.[/p][/quote]Are you categorically denying that you are Rod Bluh? Straight question, same as I asked ChannelX, and to which I have not had a reply - Are you a Swindon Borough Councillor?[/p][/quote]All you will get now is thumbs down and no reply. Eventually there will be the usual passive aggressive question back that an answer is demanded to then nothing again. For someone who constants claims others act in a childish way...well you know the rest[/p][/quote]I've got all the time in the world Mr Badger.....and I'm a persistent bugger. Thumbs down are of no relevance, and I've got a pretty thick skin when it comes to abuse. Bring it on I say :o) What has really heartened me over the last week or so, is that the vast majority of posters are reasonable, rational people who are kind to those less fortunate and obviously have no truck with the misanthropic views expressed by Martin's supporters.[/p][/quote]Good show chap, I am often accused of badgering people but only to those who do not respect others. Most of the people that post on here confirm my belief that my home town is populated by good people however our betters and elected heads (not all) are gibbering self serving idiots who have no idea how modern software programs work its tough to explain without incriminating but as long as you only ask questions everything else is pure speculation. To say they they lack courage in their conviction is inaccurate but they do need others to put plans to work. Look how whistle blowers are treated you could give them the correct term of truth tellers....4chan is a good start to start digging. Its late and I have little people to take out tomorrow fight the good fight beardy. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -1

6:48pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Has there been a meeting of Conservative councilors to say do not post on this thread anymore? I think so......
As has been said in other comments people in positions of power are venting personal opinions of a disgusting nature when they make decisions based on these opinions they effect the human rights of people.
Is this something that needs to be fully investigated?
Yes it probably is, Mr Martin`s comments took a year to be fully understood and he is still supported by his party, does this mean it is the party line?
Has there been a meeting of Conservative councilors to say do not post on this thread anymore? I think so...... As has been said in other comments people in positions of power are venting personal opinions of a disgusting nature when they make decisions based on these opinions they effect the human rights of people. Is this something that needs to be fully investigated? Yes it probably is, Mr Martin`s comments took a year to be fully understood and he is still supported by his party, does this mean it is the party line? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -1

12:32am Thu 24 Apr 14

BeardyBill says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Has there been a meeting of Conservative councilors to say do not post on this thread anymore? I think so......
As has been said in other comments people in positions of power are venting personal opinions of a disgusting nature when they make decisions based on these opinions they effect the human rights of people.
Is this something that needs to be fully investigated?
Yes it probably is, Mr Martin`s comments took a year to be fully understood and he is still supported by his party, does this mean it is the party line?
Curiouser and curiouser.....does the lack of posts show that they are only capable of thinking in a binary on/off way, or is it more sinister in that they realise that some of the views that they have posted so far range from socially unacceptable to completely abhorrent and they fear proper attribution?

My challenge still stands - if Councillors want to express their views, they should absolutely do so, but not under a pseudonym. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: Has there been a meeting of Conservative councilors to say do not post on this thread anymore? I think so...... As has been said in other comments people in positions of power are venting personal opinions of a disgusting nature when they make decisions based on these opinions they effect the human rights of people. Is this something that needs to be fully investigated? Yes it probably is, Mr Martin`s comments took a year to be fully understood and he is still supported by his party, does this mean it is the party line?[/p][/quote]Curiouser and curiouser.....does the lack of posts show that they are only capable of thinking in a binary on/off way, or is it more sinister in that they realise that some of the views that they have posted so far range from socially unacceptable to completely abhorrent and they fear proper attribution? My challenge still stands - if Councillors want to express their views, they should absolutely do so, but not under a pseudonym. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear BeardyBill
  • Score: -1

9:44am Thu 24 Apr 14

Robh says...

well said pseudo BeardyBill.
well said pseudo BeardyBill. Robh
  • Score: 3

11:57am Thu 24 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
well said pseudo BeardyBill.
You have proved to be an idiot time and time again.
Refused to respond in an adult or civil way I say refused you may well be unable.
I am sure you will reply with your usual well thought out reply. It is a shame that you are more of a witless fool than a person capable of debate which attempts to lessen the seriousness of the topic.
Now please feel free to confirm this with your next "thought".

If you need any help with some of the words please let me know.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: well said pseudo BeardyBill.[/p][/quote]You have proved to be an idiot time and time again. Refused to respond in an adult or civil way I say refused you may well be unable. I am sure you will reply with your usual well thought out reply. It is a shame that you are more of a witless fool than a person capable of debate which attempts to lessen the seriousness of the topic. Now please feel free to confirm this with your next "thought". If you need any help with some of the words please let me know. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -2

6:32pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Robh says...

Silly Boy!!!
Silly Boy!!! Robh
  • Score: 2

7:18pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
Silly Boy!!!
And you did...
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Silly Boy!!![/p][/quote]And you did... Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -5

10:31am Fri 25 Apr 14

BonkersBeardedBadgers says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Robh wrote:
Silly Boy!!!
And you did...
You just can't resist being a complete plonker.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Silly Boy!!![/p][/quote]And you did...[/p][/quote]You just can't resist being a complete plonker. BonkersBeardedBadgers
  • Score: 0

11:59am Fri 25 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

BonkersBeardedBadger
s
wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Robh wrote:
Silly Boy!!!
And you did...
You just can't resist being a complete plonker.
Oh thank you,,,
I will cease any of my opinions straight away would you please tell me what to think?
I should respect you because?
[quote][p][bold]BonkersBeardedBadger s[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Silly Boy!!![/p][/quote]And you did...[/p][/quote]You just can't resist being a complete plonker.[/p][/quote]Oh thank you,,, I will cease any of my opinions straight away would you please tell me what to think? I should respect you because? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -3

12:15pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

BonkersBeardedBadger
s
wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Robh wrote:
Silly Boy!!!
And you did...
You just can't resist being a complete plonker.
Feel special though you have set up an account just to have a pop.
Bless......
[quote][p][bold]BonkersBeardedBadger s[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Silly Boy!!![/p][/quote]And you did...[/p][/quote]You just can't resist being a complete plonker.[/p][/quote]Feel special though you have set up an account just to have a pop. Bless...... Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -2

1:00pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Robh says...

Oh no. Not another pseudonym.
Oh no. Not another pseudonym. Robh
  • Score: 2

5:30pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Oh no not the thumbs........
I live for your opinions please give me thumbs up..
Idiot.
Hows the job going fella?
Oh no not the thumbs........ I live for your opinions please give me thumbs up.. Idiot. Hows the job going fella? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

10:16am Sat 26 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Great to see lists for prospective councilors has been released.
Lovely day for a BBQ and some gardening have a great weekend everyone.
Great to see lists for prospective councilors has been released. Lovely day for a BBQ and some gardening have a great weekend everyone. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -1

12:17pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Robh wrote:
Silly Boy!!!
Is it true you are unhappy at being replaced by a woman?
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Silly Boy!!![/p][/quote]Is it true you are unhappy at being replaced by a woman? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -1

8:12am Mon 28 Apr 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Quick mark with thumbs down, it really is important.....ha.
Another day of ex-empire not sure how you cope rodhdders.
Quick mark with thumbs down, it really is important.....ha. Another day of ex-empire not sure how you cope rodhdders. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree