"Tow the line or you will be de-selected. Anybody who doesn't conform will not be selected to run for council at the next election!"
That was the message from one of Scully's lieutenants (who is more commonly known by the above nickname, even by those on his own side) when he addressed the rest of the Sutton Conservative group of Councillors.
It would seem that Paul Scully and Tony Shields gave the authorisation for such an aggressive stance and are slowly tightening the screw and putting the frighteners on any would-be dissenters in the Tory ranks.
Now, usually those who become members of a party do so because they loosely believe in a fundamental set of political ideals.
The party then chooses a selection of candidates to act as ward spokesmen to fight for any vacant seats and then it is off to the polls to see if the public wants those same candidates to select their interests.
Normally Councillors would only find themselves deselected if for instance they could not be bothered to work hard for their local residents or if they ended up involved in some kind of voting fraud. Councillors would only be booted out of their party if they had succeeded in dragging that party's name through the mire and caused damage to the party's reputation.
Not so if you are an elected Councillor in the Sutton Conservatives!
Stuart Gordon-Bullock, a Conservative Councillor for Worcestor Park and one of Sutton Conservative leader Paul Scully's loyal henchmen, read the riot act to the rest of the Conservative Councillors just before the election of May 1st.
Most voters would prefer to see an elected Councillor serving his constituents using his own moral compass and using his electoral mandate/manifesto as a guide. The same voters would surely not wish to see a Councillor blindly pledging allegiance to his party even when he knows that his leaders are wrong.
How many voters felt that it was fair that Conservative Councillor Tony Shields brokered a six thousand a year pay rise with the Lib Dem run council just for being a deputy opposition leader, despite the fact that this is a position which has rightly never received remuneration? Such an award was actually AGAINST the Sutton Conservative manifesto of 2006 and only serves to make the Conservative criticism of pay rises for senior Council Officers sound rather hollow when one of their own has his snout firmly in the taxpayer's trough.
Conservative Councillor Peter Geiringer also failed to speak out against Scully's successful plan to replace Eleanor Pinfold as leader of the local opposition and to have her thrown out of the party. This was despite Councillor Geiringer having had a close friendship with Eleanor Pinfold and having previously been a strong supporter of such a talented group leader and compassionate Councillor. Clearly Councillor Geiringer's desperation at not being deselected was a more powerful incentive than insignificant things such as friendship, loyalty and 'doing the right thing'.
Should voices of dissent be brutally suppressed therefore in situations such as this? Councillor Stuart Gordon-bullock seems to think so and so does his despot of a leader, Councillor Paul Scully.
I have said it before and I will say it again: God help the Sutton taxpayers if the local Conservative hierarchy manage to take full control of the Council...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
103 comments:
im happy to see boris as mayor for the time being as i reckon he will do a pretty good job but no way would i vote for the sutton conservatives. i know too much about how hypocritical they are thanks in part to this blog. scully telling stuart gordon bullock to threaten the tory councillors into being loyal puppets is the straw that broke the camels back. when are we going to see a proper oppostion to the lib dems in sutton. i will not be voting for this conservative shower of gutless stuffed shirts. it is high time that the sutton tory mob did to scully what he did to eleanor and oust him as he dont deserve to be leader.
I'm not sure who you are but having stumpled on this site I am more than slightly surprised by its tone and content.
In this particular case, All sitting Cllrs, MPs and MEPs and Parliamentary candidates have to be positively RESELECTED under Party rules. That will go for Paul Scully and all the other Tory Cllrs you seem to have a grudge against. It is incumbant on every Cllr, at that time of reselection interviews, to convince those interbioewing them that they have worked hard for their constituents AND, *shock, horror* have been working for the Party whose activists worked so hard to get ssaid Cllrs elected in the first place. That is the way things work around the country, not just in Sutton.
So, it may well be that some cllrs do end up not getting reselected. That may be for a number of reasons but is ul;timately down to the ward selection committees or the Assocaitions selection committees at the time. Sometimes people leave. It's the way of the world. And that makes room for others to come in and do the job.
As for the issue of toeing the line or not, the usual and grown up way to conduct business is to be open about differences in Groups meetings or Party meetings but then to accept majority decisions outside of those meetings. It is most definitely NOT to set up a blog dishing dirt, spreading gossip and innuendo and taking comments out of context.
Whoever you may be, you obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder and a paranioa complex Gordon Brown would be proud of!
David Park would have us all believe that he just "stumbled" upon this site but fails to mention that he is a Conservative MP's Office Manager up in the Houses of Parliament and that he also stood as a candidate in the 2006 Local Election for the Sutton Conservatives.
(No vested interest there then!)
Weren't you also the youngest Councillor in London at one point, Parky? If I recall you were also a Conservative Councillor in the London Borough of Sutton when you achieved this most impressive feat.
Your previous achievements aside I must inform you that whilst you may attempt to blind us all with the science behind candidate selection there is a very undemocratic edge to the way that Scully, Shields & Co. have been conducting themselves as they sit atop the Sutton Conservative hierarchy.
Stuart Gordon-Bullock's comments were not words to the effect of 'work hard for your constituents or you will be replaced' but essentially 'tow the line and do not disagree with us or else'.
Instead of fencing with me over the obvious threatening language deployed by Scully the Conservative's cause could be much better served by you not acting as an apologist for Scully's repeatedly acting like Il Duce.
I certainly do not ever recall such oppressive conduct ever taking place when Eleanor Pinfold was leader of the Sutton Conservative group of Councillors.
Even more interesting is that whilst Parky attempts to both condone and explain away such undemocratic practices by Councillor Scully he does not actually deny any of the allegations that I have made. Instead he chooses to sweeten the bitter pill and to window dress the bleedin' obvious.
After I have finished laughing I would be interested to hear just how David Park believes that "Tow the line or you will be de-selected. Anybody who doesn't conform will not be selected to run for council at the next election" can possibly be taken out of context or even be misinterpreted...
looking at the typos he made it does sound like david park has spent his entire sunday in the pub. he would need to be pissed to believe all that guff he just wrote.
I did a fair bit of work for the two sutton labour councillors before they became extinct at the last election. Our group used to hear a lot of the goings on in the sutton tories as they didn't see us as a threat like they did the lib dems. I suppose that made them more willing to talk to us. Their old ppc Richard Willis used to give us some of his literature from time to time as well. From what I remember about the local elections David Park did f*** all work for the sutton tories. I heard from my tory contacts that he was only a paper candidate.
Wow! This is getting rather spicy. In fairness when David Park was a Cheam councillor he was held in pretty high regard, and I remember some good speeches he made. He also spent a year (it may have been two) as chairman down at Benhill Avenue but the workload there was immense at the time and I seem to remember he voluntarily gave up the post. I'm not getting into slanging matches here, there is a lot I could say but won't. What I will say is that this latest thread doesn't surprise me, because in my opinion the local Tory party isn't quite as democratic as it once was. Oh and for those reading this, I was asked last night if I was "Scullduggery Watch" (somebody in the Tory group thought I was), but I have no contact really anymore with them so could not know what is going on. And I have no clue how to set up blogs anyway. So the mystery continues.
I remember Parky years back. He wasn't a bad councillor and did have people's interests at heart, which is more than can be said for the current tory group who only seem to have their own interests at heart.
Rubbish
I was a teller for the Sutton Torys and I'm a member to this day.
Parks did bugger all work for the association back in 2006.
he couldn't have been out delivering or canvassing or telling on may 4 cos he was down at Benhill faffing about on the pollday computer program.
So big deal if he was a cllr for cheam. until recently if you stuck a blue rosette on a donkey the electorate over there would have voted for it
lol @ all you chaps having a tizzy!
i remember park being a local cllr in Cheam. he wasnt a bad councillor but he wasnt the best either. we didn't used to hear that much from him. i guess some people forget all about their voters when they get elected. difference was being a member i did see him up at benhill avenue now and then. he seemed to have an obsession with electoral stats though lol
I have been a lurker so far but after i read the thread topic i had to put my two bobs worth in!
I'm pretty much a floating voter but i did do a bit of delivering for the worcestor park candidates years ago before Stuart Gordon-Bullock won his seat there.
Im not surprised Golden Bollocks (!) is trying to throw his weight around as he came across as arrogant and aloof when i met him just before the london elections.
I had a look on Scullys blog the other day and noticed that he still has moderation on there. Congratulations to 'Scullduggery Watch' for keeping this the only truly democratic political blog for the sutton electorate.
LOL - I love this site, which is now added to my favourites list.
So many comments from so many people (although one or two people under pseudonyms seems a lot more likely). Unfortunately, not particularly well informed comments.
Whoever is leaving posts pretending they worked for the Labour party is obviously unaware there were 3 Labour Cllrs pre 2006, not 2.
I was not based at Benhill on Polling Day in 06 as I was running the committee room in Belmont all day for that Ward, Sutton South and part of Sutton West.
It is correct that I did very little in the 06 elections, partly as I had started a new job but mainly because I had been attempting to take a break from politics ever since 2002 but kept getting dragged back into the fray, firstly to be Association Chairman, then to be agent for Richard Willis' General Election campaign. I did, however, canvass and deliver in 06, mainly in Sutton West, again to help Richard in that target Ward. However, I can only assume that the poster who bemoans my lack of help in 06 wasn't around in the Association from 1995 or helped in previous elections when they would have found me practically camped out in Benhill when I wasn't out leafleting or canvassing.
Yes I love my stats, and I have lots of lovely Mayoral election results to look at over the coming weeks. No doubt I shall be sending several geeky/statty emails to Richard Willis and Charlie Mansell, ruminating about the very interesting results which show the local Conservatives did exceedingly well across the Borough. Looks good for the Tories in the future.
Anyway, not sure why I'm justifying myself to the loons and invented personas on here but we all get bored every now and again!
I look forward to the bilious responses from the ill-informed and invented continuing. I'll check back next time I'm bored at work to see what has been said!
Bye for now,
David
Yes I did do work for the two labour councillors. Theres another who I actively avoided helping as much as poss for I didn't consider them to be what I would call a proper socialist. I am not mentioning any names but you can work out for yourself who I mean. Obviously David Park is on here justifying himself as he feels he has something to explain to loons like me who he must feel a connection with. What puzzles me is why if he was standing for the north ward did he not mentioning doing any work over there. Lots of work for the west ward to appease Willis his old chum but not much else. So the rumours we heard about him doing next to nothing were true. Some conviction politician David Park is.
Aha!
So now the penny drops as to why Councillor Pickles has his tongue immersed up the backside of one David Park!
David Park ran the Belmont committee room for him when he was still a Tory at the local elections in 2006!
Thank you for the memory jolt.
I was wondering why Pickles was busy declaring David Park being an such a good egg and offering him a brown-nosing that even Scully's pet Aardvark would have been proud of!
I can just picture the headline now:
"UKIP in a Pickle as Councillor defects back to Tories"
Remember where you read it first...
(p.s. Don't think I did not spot David Park's vain attempt to avoid commenting on Golden Bollock's saying "Tow the line or you will be de-selected. Anybody who doesn't conform will not be selected to run for council at the next election" and how that declaration can possibly be taken out of context or even be misinterpreted...)
Scullduggery Watch. I take your earlier comments with a pinch of salt, and in fact they are quite unfair. There doesn't have to be a "love affair" between councillors and those who run the committee room. I have known David Park for some years, and he has always been helpful to all. I stand by my earlier comments also that he was a good councillor when he represented Cheam. You obviously don't know the real me as if you did you would know 100% that I am the last person that "brown-noses" to anybody. That's why a lot of what goes on in council sickens me. You may be a good headline writer too, but there will be no truth in the "defects back to the Tories" story either. I made my decision on a matter of principal. Unfortunately there are quite a number in the Tory party who do not speak to me because of it. It is there loss, not mine, and quite frankly if I never saw certain individuals again it would brighten my life.
I enjoy your posturings, but I would advise you to get your facts correct next time you post.
Seeing as we're now talking about previous Sutton North candidates what about that gabbering pansy Darren Marsh?
I wonder what that loser is up to these days.
Loser being the optimum word.
Darren Marsh was another idiot who would have been a perfect addition to the current crop of swaggering Sutton Conservative leaders.
It was most refreshing to see that both David Park and that particular loudmouth did not make it into office in the end. Those elected in power need to be people who work hard for their constituents not opportunists who put their names forward on the chance of a easy route into office.
Ah Mr Marsh! There's a name from the past! Actually although he was rather loud, and I believe upset one or two people, I always found him a bit of laugh. I remember there is a rather unflattering photo of both of us at launch of the 2006 campaign outside Civic Offices. Two things that do come to mind about Darren are (a) his girlfriend, whom Peter G and I thought rather delicious, and (b) the amount of graft that he put in in Sutton North (or was it Central) ward where he was hoping to win.
The last I heard of him he was living in South London somewhere and was involved in medical research. Does anybody know whether he is now a qualified doctor?
Who cares? The only thing that that particular miscreant qualified in was shouting his mouth off.
I see that we are still intent on discussing "Has-Beens" from recent Sutton Tory folklore. I am however most amused to see that Councillor Pickles is brown-nosing yet another former Sutton Conservative candidate! I wonder who will be next on his list?
Perhaps he is attempting to win the coveted Order of the Brown Nose! It will a close call between him and Aardvark for sure.
"I would like to thank the Academy..." said Councillor Pickles as he collected the golden ringpeice for 2008!
Dear Scullduggery Watch - is it a crime to actually think good of someone? I must say your sense of justice here is rather warped. I appreciate that in the past you have been rather supportive of my stance, but just because I have left the Tory party (thankfully), it doesn't mean to say that I have to stick my knife into each and every one of their members, both past and present.
For your information I think there are rather a number of very obnoxious individuals that inhabit the Tory party locally, and it's been well documented why I left and what I think of certain people within it.
Perhaps you would like to now concentrate on those reasons and keep people that I happened to have appreciated out of the equation. For instance you appear to revel in naming both ex-cllr Park and Darren Marsh, so would you be so kind as to name those other individuals within the party you despise or can we take it that it's all of the current flock? Another interesting point I'd like answered is are you actually one of that flock, a Lib-Dem, or just a senior member of the party? I also notice the number of people that actually respond here is very low given your blog has been up and running for a couple of months now. Perhaps if we could concentrate a bit more on the politics and less on the personalities you may find this blog will be more of a success.
The next thing you know Councillor Pickles will be calling me out for a handbag duel at dawn.
I just find it all very amusing the way that UKIP's finest has the urge to commend a number of Conservatives who no doubt were grist to the very same mill that caused him to jump ship in the first place.
I have a great deal of admiration for someone who is currently a serving Councillor in one of the Carshalton wards but I have not spent the last two days broadcasting it to everyone on this blog. There remains a very good case for that same person to have taken control of the local opposition on the council in the event of Eleanor Pinfold standing down but naturally Scully Il Duce had already been busy formulating his divide and rule plan months before for Eleanor's tenure was even up for renewal.
The difference is that I am not on here cheerleading for that particular sitting Councillor as he is in a position to fight his own battles. I just hope that Scully Il Duce does the decent thing and does not try to resist a far better candidate for the job taking over the mantle before the local party sinks any further into the mire.
Furthermore, my ranking within a certain political party is of no particular relevance although I can confirm that I am member of their local outfit once again. I just hope that a certain person and his cronies do not remained atop of their own fetid pile for too much longer.
Now then ladies! I take Cllr Pickles point of view on this, as he speaks about people he knew or knows and is at liberty to speak well of them.
Scullduggery Watch also has a point. It's not obvious by this blog that there are a lot of skeletons in the Tory cupboard, and whoever this character is has helped to expose them.
But I was enjoying tory bashing it should be made an official national passtime. Which one do we bash next.
Bring back Charlie Mansell I say.
I WOULD GUESS SCULLDUGGERY IS HINTING AT JOHN KENNEDY AS CLLR SCULLY HATES HIM. CLLR KENNEDY HAS SHED LOADS OF SUPPORTERS IN CARSHALTON WHICH MAKES SCULLY HATE HIM EVEN MORE LOL
Given the whole point of this thread, I have to ask two questions. 1 - Does Scully have an intense dislike for certain of his own crew (such as Kennedy) because he has his bodyguard (Gordon-Bullock) backing him, or 2 does he intensely dislikes Bullock's style but is too afraid to comment on it?
I am reliably informed that Cllrs Scully and Gordon-Bullock have a sound working relationship.
I hope you are all taking note of what Aardvark writes as he speaks the truth at all times.
I whole-heartedly regret accusing Aardvark of being a compulsive liar and sincerely hope that he can find it within his heart to forgive me for being so very unkind.
I accept that my previous assertions that Aardvark was a sycophantic cheerleader of Councillor Scully as well as being his most dutiful lapdog were complete fabrications and my comments about him were at best libelous. A complete retraction is in order along with a profuse and unreserved apology for my inaccurate remarks.
Oh and I must just add that all the pigs at 48 Benhill Avenue are fed, harnessed and ready to fly.
Hello hello! Wot is all this about a local tory leader being too afraid to comment on the style of Mr Golden Bollocks(!)?
Is cllr Scully wary of cllr Gordon Bullock cause Gordon Bullock is close to Cllr Kennedy? It all seems like a very tangled web.
I did google cllr Kennedy once after someone told me bout his actions in the Yugoslav war. I read he was investigated in the 1990s by the Brit security services cos he helped set up bank accounts for Serbian warlords. So I cant imagine he would need a former government bureaucrat to act as his master at arms
Was this the expose~ in the Sunday Times years gone by? I must say that the Tories have, in the past, accused the Lib-Dems and Labour of harbouring unsavoury individuals, and now it appears the chickens are coming home to roost. So let's get this straight. Does Scully despise Kennedy? Does Kennedy despise Scully? Do they both despise Gordon-Bullock? Where do the electorate stand? Are we to believe that the Tories are an electable band or are they just a corrupt bunch of brigands? I think we should be told. It's a pity that Cllr Scully doesn't look in on this blog. If he had the balls to comment here perhaps he could help clear this mess up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/876084.stm
http://www.interpol.int/public/data
/wanted/notices/data/1995/47/1995_47747.asp
http://findingkaradzic.blogspot.com/
I cannot believe all of what I just read in the above links. Cllr Kennedy's friend Radovan Karadzic has a $6 million reward offered for his arrest and is believed to be hiding out in russia.
How can the sutton conservatives not be the nasty party any more.
The new leader shanks his colleague in the back. Turns many of her colleagues against her. Takes her job. Makes sure she is kicked out of the conservatives.
The dep leader develops his grade listed house to make money in spite of local planning laws and cuts a six thousand pound increase in his council wages against his partys manifesto promise.
The old dep leader tells the local rag paper that he has not got the time to recycle.
Another tory cllr in carshalton was a fundraiser for a serb commander wanted for war crimes by the hague.
Their former parliamentary candidate ends up in the sunday times for making a gushing statement about Ian Smith being a great man even though 30,000 oppressed black rhodesians went missing when he was in power.
The sutton conservatives are clearly a very nasty party.
Jesus! I didn't realise it was that bad. All I heard was that there was a foreign connection somewhere and also about fund-raising. Indeed things need to be looked into. Is Scully keeping quite about things we don't know about? Maybe there should be an enquiry into this, I don't know, but as a tax-paying resident of Carshalton I would like to know more information.
In Councillor John Kennedy's defense I would like to offer that whilst I have been in his presence on many occasions I have never asked him about full the extent of his involvement with Radovan Karadzic.
It could be that Councillor Kennedy is simply a patriot and proud of his Serbian heritage. He may have been informed that setting up accounts and raising finances for the Serbian war effort was in fact the loyal thing to do at a time of war and the way to safeguard Serbia's existence.
Councillor Kennedy may at the time have been completely unaware of the ethnic cleansing and other atrocities commited by Karadzic and his ilk.
If the Tories are serious about law-breakers, then maybe Cllr Geiringer should perform three months public service on the refuse lorries for not recycling.
Just a housekeeping note Mr Scullduggery.
An Aardvark impostor i see has been posting on this site.
I am the only true Aardvark which you can obviously see by my IP address.
Perhaps the other Aardvark is a Norwegian Blue?
Aard
How very interesting that "aardvark" thinks he/she is being impersonated. Perhaps it would help if he/she revealed his/her true identity.
Hey! This is fun! I've just returned from a quiz night, which included an anagram competition. As a Lib-Dem of course, I hate Tories and decided to offer one of the Tory councillors names up for anagramattical purposes.
I'll leave you all to work out who it is, but the anagram is RUDELY FARTS.
Peter
You say you hate Tories.
Why?
Please elaborate?
Not more than 50 words as we are in the exam season.
Are you one of those Lib Dems who keeps harping back to Thatcher/
Suppose you are really.
The real AArd
aardvark (100pct genuine). Yes. Thatcher destroyed this country as would the Tories again given the chance. The Lib-Dems have run Sutton pretty well over the past 22years in my opinion and deserve another go in 2010. I must say though, and perhaps I shouldn't that I do know the LD's are rather worried that they won't do it this time, but there is two years to go so anything could happen. Which is the real aardvark then? This is all rather confusing.
Anyone guessed the anagram RUDELY FARTS yet?
Bearing in mind the councillor concerned, it's aptly titled.
Peter. I wouldn't say Thatcher destroyed the country, she may have changed it, and I think for the better. I too know the Lib-Dems are worried about 2010, they only just escaped in 2006.
Rudely farts?
Hmmm.
Got it!
Could it be Terry Faulds per chance?
Why is Aardfart whining to me about being impersonated???
He was of course the same moron who cloned at least four other legitimate posters right here on this blog at 2am a couple of months ago.
Be quiet now, Aard. Your plight affects me about as much as seeing a bus full of Scully's lieutenants driving off a cliff!
But you see it depends on what Aardvark you get Mr Numbscull.
I am truly flattered by the deception that my doppleganger is using.
I was not that moron at 2am....
Way past my bedtime you see.
Of course morphing can be a useful tool from time to time.
Interesting your defence of a certain Mr Kennedy.
Surely standing by supporting a leadership whilst it takes part in wholesale genocide isnt what one would expect from a really nice person.
Do you really believe Scully has done worse than that?
If you do then readers of this blog can make their own minds up about where your loyalties lie.
Sleep well
Yours truly
Vark
All this talk of tories being involved in some way in mass genocide is disgusting. Why the hell doesnt Scully have Kennedy sacked if what aardvark has just said is true.
Ask Numbscullduggery if its true?
He seems to know everything else...
There was something in the papers a while back, but only Scully and Kennedy can come clean on this.
No, Aardvark let us ask you about the MI6 investigation into Councillor Kennedy. You are the loyal toady to Councillor Scully so one can only deduce that you get to hear Scully's innermost thoughts on matters such as this.
Whilst I feel that Councillor Kennedy would be a vast improvement as leader of the Sutton Conservative group, I would agree that there does need to be a little clarification from either he or Councillor Scully in regards to the Radovan Karadzic investigation by MI6.
Let us hope that either Councillor Scully or Councillor Kennedy will grace us with their presence on this blog to comment on this issue.
I am sure that the majority of the electorate of the London Borough of Sutton and the voters of Carshalton are largely unaware of this matter and would appreciate some clarification now that the subject has been broached.
What has Cllr Scully got to do with it?
I gather that Cllr Kennedy has succesfully bought 2 libel cases on this very subject.
The fact that he personally knew Karadicz and Mladic is not in question.
do you happen to have the internet links to the results of those two libel cases you mentioned. why cant scully or kennedy get on this blog and comment on the issue. there is a case for scully to answer if he is questioned about a tory cllr. scully is their boss after all.
Last post is of course totally inaccurate.
Scully has nothing to answer for when it comes to Cllr Kennedy and his role in the Balkans.
For a start it is more a national matter tkan a local one.
If you are going to attack Scully do so on his own record and local issues not on what a certain cllr may or may not have done in Serbia in the mid 90s.
It is the association and not Scully in C&W who should be called to account as they were the ones who selected Cllr Kennedy to stand at the previous 2 elections
Before this gets out of hand, it might be a good idea for Cllr Kennedy to issue a statement with comments from Cllr Scully also.
Mark,
Why do you keep asking for comments from Cllr Scully?
As i sated earlier he has nothing to do with this thread.
If anything ask Cllr Kennedy for clarification but bringing Scully into it can only muddy the waters not make them clearer.
Very strange analysis that. How an interest can be of national concern but not be a local one.
It also contradicts David Park's earlier assertion that local political leaders are entitled to select and deselect candidates as they see fit. According to him it is common practice.
Given that the leaders of local political groups have a hand in selecting who stands where it does strike me as being a potential serious error of judgement by Scully and the association if they continue to allow cllr Kennedy to stand without offering some explanation to the local voters about this.
This balkan affair smacks of tory sleaze in the first degree.
I hate to admit i am agreeing with a Labour supporter but i concur with the Clunking Fist 100%. Spartacus types like Concerned who also types like Aardvark! If this is true then he has intimate knowledge of the situation then he should tell us what he knows. Why are the Conservatives hiding on this issue if Cllr Kennedy won two libel trials. Why are Scully and Kennedy too afraid to talk about it when Kennedys name was cleared in a British court. I checked the links posted by the Clunking Fist but I could not find any reference to someone called Mladic. Who was he and what role did he have to play
yeah who is mladic?
Ignoramuses - political blog my sacred aunt. Innuendo, falsehoods, lies, supposition and complete rubbish.
And mladic? A simple web search would source you the information or are you one and all complete wasters.
Ratko Mladic was a Serbian general who has also been indicted by The Hague as having commited atrocities. Mladic has been subpoenaed by prosecutor Carla dela Ponte for his role in a massacre in Srebrenica but he is still on the run but apparently suffering from failing health.
It is not the Conservatives hiding anything on this issue.
What is known is in the public domain.
Do a bit of checking.
It is amazing what you might learn?
(p.s. Or Aardfart/pockles could just have coughed up what he and Councillor Scully REALLY know about the MI6 investigation and the litigation that followed to save everyone having to google. Aardfart clearly feels that fencing with the other politicos on this blog in some way insulates Master Scully and makes him more interesting as a person. WRONG on both counts!)
Are you unable to google then Numbscull?
Or perhaps it is politically expedient for you not to do so....
Funny how you have been so quiet since all the above started to hit the blog.
Sleep tight.
Unlike your master I do not stifle debate, Aardfart.
Unlike you I also do not spend all day on someone else's blog conducting a damage limitation exercise.
...AND I seem to recall Scully Il Duce accusing ME of spending an unhealthy length of time other other people's blogs! He obviously omitted to consider his pet rat's scurrilous extra-curricular activities (yes I am still talking about you, Aard).
Instead it was more fun to watch Aardfart do a very good impression of lumpen proliteriate.
The floor is yours, Aard. Please entertain us all some more.
This blog is priceless! Game on!
Aardfart clearly does not like Councillor Kennedy as:
a) Aardfart has accused him of not being a very nice man by saying Kennedy supposedly had links to Serbian mass genocide, despite Aarfart also mentioning that Kennedy did actually win two libel trials on this issue.
b) Aadfart is Scully's loyal pocket rat who barks when told to do so.
So, Aard I have to ask:
Do you think that John Kennedy is a good Counservative Councillor?
Do you think that he would make a better leader of the Conservative group than your master Scully? If so, is that the reason that you dislike Kennedy so very much?
Aardfart brought a friend along who had such a limited volcabulary that he was forced to use profanity without stars for expletives.
Hence the post was removed.
I would be wary of letting the same delightful chappie into 48 Benhill anytime soon as I fear that he may not yet be house broken.
The said idiot may also be astounded to learn that the term 'pocket rat' is another euphemism for a little dog (the kind of pet that Paris Hilton carries around in her handbag- a little like Scully Il Duce does with Aardfart really).
That is quite enough distractions from drunken Scully minions anyway.
Come along Aardfart, it is time you answered the two questions I put to you about an hour ago.
awww diddums, censorship isn't supposed to be your style remember? censoring naughty words is still censorship, hypocritical to the end you silly little man?
(assume pompous mode so aptly deployed by scullduggery watch) fear not avid readers! democracy will triumph, for i posted that rats don't bark but they do write crappy blogs (hope that isn't too course sweetie don't want to offend your sensibilities)
Do you ever feel like the powers that be want to silence the person who runs this blog?
I have just come back from a residents meeting, so am late checking into this blog. In all fairness, from what I have read, I think Cllr Kennedy should now make a full and frank statement on this issue to clear the air. And no - we don't need any sycophants here like aardvark.
Whoops! I have just ruined one alibi by making the mistake of posting whilst Councillor Pickles was out for the evening. He no doubt encountered many a Scully sychophant along the way who could prove that he was not sat in front of a laptop whacking the Sutton Tory hierachy.
There has been many a rumour in circulation as to my true identity with UKIP's Belmont Councillor being routinely blamed and even a certain Lib Dem starting rumours that he is in fact The Watchman.
All highly amusing stuff!
I have to be honest here and admit that it does raise a wry smile when I am attending a Conservative function only to have the nearest person lean over and ask me what I think "about that David Pickles writing stuff on the internet criticising Paul Scully?"
Changing the subject, I think the fact that Aardfart has been prescribed his own personal bodyguard speaks volumes.
Willard: They may very well attempt to silence me as it will not have been the first time they have tried and nor will it be the last, but to be perfectly honest they would have more success in trying to sell ice to an frozen Inuit.
I also notice that Aardfart has neglected to comment on the Councillor Kennedy questions. Aardfart you see is a traditional breed of coward who has made a career from that trait.
Not so long ago Aardfart claimed that he would easily trounce UKIP's David Pickles if he opposed him in his Belmont seat but then REFUSED to offer his name as a concrete intention to stand.
I do love his presence on this blog however as he often inadvertently puts his foot in his mouth and confirms many of the accusations that are laid at the door of the Sutton Tory leadership.
LOL i have just looked in on this blog after being away for a few days. anonymous obviously didnt evolve with the rest of the human race. that was funny about pickles getting the blame. i hope i can sleep cos i am laffing too much! nite all! x
Gordon Brown has just received another bloody nose in Crewe! It seems that the man who stole your old age is on the ropes and looking extremely vunerable. Great stuff!
Rest assured we will be back we just need a decent party leader. My money is on David Milliband succeeding Brown cos he is looking too much like a liability at the mo. They said Tamsin Dunwoody got more hugs than she did votes and I reckon that the national situation messed up the campaign for Gwyneths daughter
Did i get the anagram of RUDELY FARTS correct anyway
I thought it was Terry Faulds
This will make you all laugh. It certainly seems most apt. Here is another funny anagram:
DISHONESTLY
Now which serving Sutton Conservative Councillor's name can we make from this particular word?
Here is a clue; he made an extra six grand by ignoring the Sutton Conservative manifesto pledge and made a pay deal with the Lib Dem run council.
Congratulations to whoever came up with the idea of creating these anagrams because they are really funny!
DISHONESTLY = Tony Shields
Oh yes! Willard is the king of the anagram code crackers!
i thought scullduggery watch asked aardvark a question or two. i was wondering why he run away! i dunno why cllr scully doesnt just sack him he doesnt show the local cons in a very good light thats for sure.
HEAR HEAR
Why did all you Tories go quiet!
If we won a seat like Crewe, say Henley, do ya think we'd let ya hear the last of it!
Sutton Tories come out come out where ever you are
I have been made aware of this topic of conversation with the usual mudslinging turning more serious in unsubstantiated attacks on John Kennedy. Using anonymity to launch political attacks is one thing, but to use it to libel individuals is a serious departure as well as being a criminal offence. It demonstrates that this is not a serious blog but a vehicle for non-attributable and spiteful posts that are not part of any recognised or serious political debate, or based on fact.
Given that 'Willard' and 'The Great Clunking Fist' have now gone far beyond mischievous postings and libelled John Kennedy on this blog, they should reveal their identities and Scullduggerywatch should remove these posts to protect itself from committing the same offence by propagating/repeating a libel.
Apart from the posts of Willard and The Great Clunking Fist on this site, there is no evidence of any claim, anywhere, published or otherwise that John Kennedy opened bank accounts for Serbian warlords. This libellous remark is made for the first time by these two posters.
John Kennedy and I spoke about these posts and the following information that I gleaned seems relevant.
JK first met Radovan Karadzic in 1991 and last met him in September 1993. Karadzic was indicted for War crimes in 1995.
In 1994 Karadzic was still part of the international peace process and attended the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement whose co-attendees and cosignatories were French President Jacques Chirac, U.S. President Bill Clinton, Prime Minister John Major, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin..
JK's first meeting with Karadzic in 1991 was approved by the British Foreign Secretary. His meetings with Karadzic were attended by, British Parliamentarians who included Paddy Ashdown MP, Leader of the Liberal Democrats; Dr David Clark MP (Lab) Shadow Defence Secretary and Dr John Reid MP (Lab) Shadow Armed Forces Minister. Those meetings were approved by the Leader of the Opposition, the late John Smith MP.
Jk never met with Mladic except at the United Nations in Geneva, in a joint political and military session of combatant parties, chaired by Cyrus Vance (former US Secretary of State) and Lord Owen former leader of the SDP and Labour Foreign Secretary, Co-Chairman of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia and on one other occasion at the London Conference of the Former Yugoslavia held in Whitehall, at a meeting chaired by Prime Minister John Major. JK attended, accredited by the British Foreign Office and not accredited to any Bosnian party.
In 1993 John Kennedy was appointed to the British Royal Household, for which he positively vetted —
In 1995 John Kennedy was selected for a Conservative held Parliamentary seat which he fought at the 1997 General Election.
After JK was selected for his marginal Parliamentary seat, the Labour Press Office issued an unauthorised statement, not cleared by the then leader of The Opposition, Tony Blair MP, or the Party leadership. It questioned JK's suitability to hold public office because of his past meeting with Radovan Karadzic. The Labour Party was issued with a writ for libel the same day through Peter Carter Ruck & Partners and were sucessfully sued by JK.
Without offering a defence the Labour Party admitted its libel against JK and agreed to pay a substantial sum in damages and costs with a full apology.
In the action The High Court in London was told, on 19th July 1996:
"In 1992 and 1993 Mr Kennedy had sought in good faith to assist in efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Bosnia and to this end worked with politicians from all the major political parties. Mr Kennedy, together with President Mitterand, had helped to pursuade Dr Karadzic to agree to the unconditional withdrawal of Serbian forces from Sarajevo airport (which was, in that winter, the only supply route for any food into Sarajevo, without which the city's civilians would have starved) and, with Shadow Defence Secretary, Dr David Clark and Shadow Armed Forces Minister, Dr John Reid had helped to pursuaed Radovan Karadzic to surrender Mount Igman and had pressed the Bosnian-Serb leadership to accept the Vance-Owen peace plan. Mr Kennedy had no contact with Radovan Karadzic since meeting him, in the company of Dr Clark and Dr Reid, in September 1993, some eighteen months before charges were made against Dr Karadzic by the UN War Crimes Tribunal."
The Labour Party went on to tell the High Court: "That in his conduct of dialogue with representatives of the Bosnian-Serb leadership, Mr Kennedy had acted at all times with the best of intentions and motives consistent with the wishes of the international community in making a peaceful solution to the conflict. It was accepted that it was wrong to suggest that Mr Kennedy was unsuitable to stand as an MP or unfit to hold office"
The main national broadsheets reported Labour's apology and the award of damages in libel to JK.
John Kennedy was at that time engaged to Princess Lavinia of Yugoslavia, granddaughter of King Alexander I of Yugoslavia; his own forebear was the last Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Montenegro and Ambassador to Washington DC.
You'll be aware that the law recognises online libel following Keith-Smith vs Williams (2006). Therefore since you are happy to censor your blog on the grounds of bad language and off-topic personal attacks, I trust that you will do so again on legal grounds.
Councillor Paul Scully?
Posting on my blog at last?
If I had have known you were about to drop in I would have ensured that the red carpet was back in time from the dry cleaners! Though given the fate of Eleanor should I have ordered plastic sheeting instead? (Or perhaps the scarlet colouring of a rouge Axminster would mask the blood stains from a knife to the back anyhow).
Thank you for clearing that matter up for us at long last, Paul. I did assert right here on this blog that there maybe an entirely innocent explanation to that particular piece of folklore that had been banded around the Sutton Conservative party and beyond. In this regard it does appear that I was correct in my assumption.
Various posters have visited this blog and no doubt repeated what they might possibly have heard on the political grapevine. Now that there is a conclusive statement clearing up the matter I would hope that there will be no need for further speculation on the subject.
I am sure your statement might also have answered any questions the voters of Carshalton may have had in regards to the Balkan affair.
I personally have always been a fan of Councillor John Kennedy and have stated, again right here on this blog, that I believe that he would make a far better leader of the Sutton Conservative council group than you are, Paul. You will understand my reasons for this belief simply by reading through the articles on this domain.
I must say that I am also rather confused as to why you are pointing the finger of blame only at two other posters on this blog when someone inside your own little gang was responsible for making heinous remarks about Councillor Kennedy's role in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s.
Councillor Scully you may once again be suffering from a serious bout of selective amnesia. As a special favour I shall now proceed to remind you of a scurrilous post made by someone you may have conveniently forgotten to mention:
AardMcVark said...
But you see it depends on what Aardvark you get Mr Numbscull.
I am truly flattered by the deception that my doppleganger is using.
I was not that moron at 2am....
Way past my bedtime you see.
Of course morphing can be a useful tool from time to time.
Interesting your defence of a certain Mr Kennedy.
Surely standing by supporting a leadership whilst it takes part in wholesale genocide isnt what one would expect from a really nice person.
Do you really believe Scully has done worse than that?
If you do then readers of this blog can make their own minds up about where your loyalties lie.
Sleep well
Yours truly
Vark
19 May 2008 09:03
I do believe that if anyone has made a libelous statement against Councillor Kennedy then it might have made by Aardvark, your loyal toady and subordinate who posts his bile right here on this blog on a regular basis.
I noticed that true to form you conveniently omitted the name of Aardvark from the list of posters who you claim had made defamatory statements and I have to ask you the reason why you have chosen to do so? Was this also the reason why Aardvark has been so very quiet these last few days? Did he make a mistake in typing that post and has he since been suitably punished for his insolence?
Perhaps you would also like to ask Aardvark to reveal his identity as you have demanded of the two other posters?
Do you not also feel that Aardvark owes Councillor Kennedy an apology as he has after all obviously known the true facts all along? Given that the other posters might only have been repeating a rumour or speculating as to what the true story it would be rather fitting.
Perhaps you also might like to offer Councillor Kennedy your own apology for Aardvark's slanderous remarks, Paul. You could also apologise for not making that belated statement sooner so that any incorrect speculation could have been nipped in the bud as soon as possible.
I am aware that both yourself and your minions sneak-a-peak into this blog on a daily basis and would have been only too aware of what Aardvark typed about Councillor John Kennedy.
In which case I must ask you, Councillor Scully, why neither yourself or one of your cronies did not email me or post a request that Aardvark's defamatory post was deleted forthwith and why you still have not requested that this action be carried out if you are so very concerned about defamations and libel laws?
Nine days had already elapsed from the moment Aardvark made his erroneous offerings to the time you posted the above comment. Why was Aardvark not gagged and muzzled after his posting instead of being allowed to make at least another half a dozen comments? Why was there no hint of an apology or retraction in those six or so comments that Aardwark made after his inaccurate statement?
Please feel free to offer your apology to Councillor Kennedy right here on this blog, Paul.
Even more evidence emerges this week of the "nasty" culture of the Conservative party.
This time, the fireworks have exploded in Banstead and Reigate, where Cllr Lynn Hack (a long-time friend of Cllr Peter Geiringer and twice failed candidate for selection for the Sutton & Cheam seat) has been ousted in a coup reminicent of the knifing in the back of ex-cllr Eleanor Pinfold last year by Cllr Scully and his cohorts.
After a successful tenure as leader of the group, Cllr Hack was spectacularly pushed aside and a previous leader reinstated. Says Cllr Hack "I cannot understand what I have done wrong. Under my watch we have delivered the lowest council tax for a number of years. The knife went in behind my back".
More evidence, if any were needed of the ruthlessness of the Tory party in neighbouring boroughs.
OMG that sounds like a carbon copy of what happened to eleanor pinfold when the torys betrayed her after all she did for them. do the reigate torys have their very own paul scully i wonder! only the conservatives can reward their own side in this way.
Thanks for at last clearing all that up. It would have been easy if someone in the know had set the record straight as soon as the subject was mentioned. Cllr kennedy obviously wasnt guilty of any of the rumours that were goin round. Shame on ardvark for being a tory and no doubt knowing the real story but still having the nerve to run cllr kennedy's name through the mire. Why is there no loyalty in party politics anymore.
Scully seems to be a tad quiet. Was it something I said?
I hate to say I told you all so but I have said before that Aardvark does often put his foot in his mouth and inadvertently proves the very points about the treacherous leadership of the Sutton Conservatives which I have been trying to draw attention to all along. This case appears to be no exception!
I really would like to hear Scully's explanation regarding Aardvark's mischievous propaganda campaign against Councillor John Kennedy. It seems to be glaringly obvious that Aardvark had first hand knowledge of what REALLY transpired as he is evidently a trusted lieutenant and confidante of Councillor Scully himself.
As he is ideally placed within the upper echelons of 48 Benhill Avenue one can only deduce that Aardvark's only intention was to place scurrilous remarks on my blog.
Clearly Aardvark has an anti-Kennedy agenda here. Why else would he demonstrate his intention to create negative speculation as to Councillor Kennedy's role within the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, when Aardvark in fact knew the truth all along?
Wouldn't it be rather fitting if Councillor Scully would have the good grace to slither back out of the murky depths of Danbury Mews and offer an explanation for Aardvark's conduct and tell us why he omitted Aardvark's name from the list of people he wanted censored?
If Scully leads by example and shows some leadership on this issue, ie. holds Aardvark to account by revealing his name and forcing him to both explain and apologise for his actions, then that might place him in a better position to make the demand that the other two posters also lift their masks of anonymity.
Councillor Scully should also reveal to us on this blog as to whether or not Aardvark's posting was sanctioned by him.
Come along now Paul & Aardvark. Isn't it time that you both got the ball rolling?
I must admit to being totally and utterly confused here. I think I'll join the Lib-Dems.
Scully said...
"Despite your fertile mind, I don't ask anyone to post on my blog or yours so you may keep the aardvark games to your own blog. If we stick to the issues like Sutton Scene we might have a chance of serious debate. However I will point out that the fact that your correspondents knew that two successful libel trials had been fought and then repeated those libels is still against the law and you and Google may be jointly responsible."
-Councillor Paul Scully
30 May 2008 05:49:00 GMT
As Scully appears to have gotten cold feet over posting on this domain I decided to follow him over to his own blog. Whilst I was there I attempted to draw out his response by highlighting his refusal to condemn one of his own (Aardvark) for making anti-Kennedy statements despite Aardvark being in full possession of the true facts about the Balkan affair.
True to form Councillor Scully again lambasted the other two posters but failed to offer the same condemnation to Aardvark.
When politicians deliberately avoid talking about a topic you have to stop and ask yourselves why.
Clearly Scully knows full well who Aardvark is and is obviously protecting his identity.
Whilst I cannot say for certain who else knew about the libel trials wins we can say that if Aardvark knows Scully personally then it is extremely likely that he DID in fact know the true facts and should not have made libelous statements against Councillor Kennedy.
Why therefore did Scully not condemn Aardvark for his comments?
Why is Scully protecting Aardvark?
If anyone is playing games here then it is Councillor Scully.
To offer condemnation to two other posters but not criticise someone who is loyal to him not only smacks of double-standards but also proves that Councillor Scully is covering up Aardvark's gross misconduct.
If Councillor Scully cannot be even-handed by condemning Aardvark for his behaviour then he is not fit to lead the Conservative group, let alone the Sutton Council.
Scullduggery Watch. Are you saying that Aardvark is actually the miscreant here? As I said earlier I'm rather confused about all of this. I actually reside in Cllr Kennedy's patch but heard nothing of this until it was posted here. It looks to me as though it's all a storm in a teacup so maybe it's best if it's all finally put to bed.
I quite agree with you, Peter.
This matter should indeed be put to bed as John Kennedy is a good man and a very effective Councillor. The recent explanation of the Balkan affair only serves to further illustrate this point.
However, that does not change the fact that Councillor Scully and Aardvark need to offer us all an explanation as to why the latter made an anti-Kennedy statement despite being in possession of the truth and also why Scully decided to not condemn Aardvark for his inaccurate ramblings.
It would also be very fitting for Scully to let us all know why he neglected to accuse Aardvark of being libelous when he was busy lambasting two other posters for supposedly doing the same.
MAYBE we can then finally let the dust settle on this particular topic. What say you, Councillor Scully?
Scullduggery Watch. I am not only intrigued by this conversation and this topic, but by yourself. Are you an active member of the current Tory administration, are you in fact a Tory councillor, or are you just a member who pontificates on the conduct of the local Tories, and Cllr Scully in particular, with an axe to grind?
I must say here and now that I have an active interest in local politics, but I do not openly support any party nor deliver literature for any of them, but just take a general interest in things local.
Residing in the Carshalton and Wallington part of the borough, the recent posts on Cllr Kennedy caught my eye. Yes, I agree, that he is a very efficient councillor, and I question why Cllr Scully did not, as leader, issue a full statement earlier to quash some of those earlier posts whom I must agree came close to the wire.
This Aardvark character is a mystery to me also. He has appeared on this blog, but also Cllr Scully's official one, so I would agree with you that he must be linked somehow to Cllr Scully and the official Tory line, but the whole number of threads and posts lately have been confusing to me, and as I'm not a "political animal", as you appear to be I just sit back confused.
I am, however, pleased to see that the initial threat of litigation has blown over, and that can only be a good thing. Perhaps now Cllr Scully can re-appear on here with his forward thinking take on how this borough should be governed. All power to your elbow though for running a thread that attempts to tell the truth about what is happening in this borough. If Cllr Scully and the Tories really are not fit to govern, I think that the residents of Sutton will find out about it here.
I really must comment here, although it is off-topic. On Cllr Scully's blog he makes mention of the recent tragic stabbing and killing of two children in Carshalton. Fair enough. But then in reply to me he mentions Lady Philippa Stroud's "work" with the underpriveliged and somehow seems to think that she is the panacea against things like this happening.
I have replied in my own way, but I think to bring her into this to political point score is beyond the pale.
And I must also mention, that "moderation" has now been "enabled" on Scully's blog again. Why?
I am just reading Scully's post on the Carshalton murders and he has started mentioning Philipa Stroud and her work which is to be expected. However, I do not like the way that he is almost patting Councillor Pickles on the head by talking about how the 60s and 70s were not "normal times" and that progressive politics had already started the rot.
I reject such a blanket statement which appears to label any forward thinking of that era as the root of all evil. A lot was being achieved in that time too. Scully cannot slag off the liberal theologians of that period on one hand and then sing the praises of Philipa Stroud's social welfare work on the other. A lot of the very same theologians professed the same need for inclusiveness and and empowerment of those with a smaller stake in society, policies that the Chelsea Tractor driving Sloane Ranger has supposedly embraced as her mission statement.
Scully also claims to despise racism and trumpets to all and sundry that the Conservatives encourage diversity seek to empower everyone, not just the upper echelons of society. Such thinking was very prevalent amongst the so called 60s radicals that Scully so despises therefore he simply can not have this both ways!
...and yes there were murders committed in the 60s and 70s BUT they were the exception rather than the rule. The problem is that the sickening events that were once the minority are now becoming more widespread, more commonplace, more heinous and seemingly more socially acceptable amongst certain sections of the community. If I am incorrect in saying this then why else would there be the need for Philipa and Scully to be crowing on about her outreach program and her potential to help eradicate social ills???
We should also remember that the 1980s when society seemed a much safer place during the supposed "me, me, me" of what our self-appointed literati often like to refer to as the greedy Thatcherite era.
There is a downward spiral and yes there are many social trends that need reversing. It is when you get stupid meddlers in Government who do not have the heart or the stomach to crack down on those who's outlandish behaviour infringes on other's right to enjoy a safe and happy life that you get the kinds of problems that we see in society today. Yet those same bureaucrats will happily prosecute a householder for the "crime" of leaving his bin open despite the Capital being in the grip of an epidemic of stabbings.
Scully's laying the blame for this society's woes at the door of 1960s liberalism is as simplistic an argument as labeling Thatcher an evil woman purely because she abolished the free milk quota for school kids!
"Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author."
The above statement is becoming rather tiresome but we are getting very used to seeing such ridiculous censorship from Councillor Scully.
I predicted that Scully would re-enable moderation three days ago in the following post which I left on his blog under the thread 'K.O. for the P.O.':
Scullduggery Watch said...
"Oh and by the way it is nice to be back posting on your blog again, Paul. Though I am just wondering how long it will be before one of my pearls of wisdom upsets your sensitive disposition and you delete it! I take it that we can look forward to seeing moderation being enabled on your blog (for the third time) very soon."
-29 May 2008 18:24:00 GMT
I hate to say I told you so but alas I have been proven as being correct in my prediction.
The strange thing is that there appeared to be no catalyst for Scully to have MODERATED HIS BLOG FOR THE THIRD TIME IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS. He will of course claim that the current thread is a sensitive topic and that political capital should not be made out of the issue, and he would of course be correct in this regard.
However, there is nothing wrong with a logical and rational debate. The posts appear to be on topic and many condolences have been forthcoming. If the debating of the matter was so very unacceptable then why bother to have posted the thread in the first place???
Councillor Scully is now doing a very good impression of a man attempting to make political capital out of a very tragic incident. Why else would anyone chose to post a subject but moderate the feedback once he receives criticism for how he has chosen to comment on the issue?
That is very interesting. I left a post on Scully's blog some hours ago, mainly criticising the mentioning of Philippa Stroud and her "work" (can she walk on water?), and lo! it has not appeared.
Life never ceases to amaze.
Must correct my post above. My post on Cllr Scully's blog has now appeared, and it seems that "moderation" has now been taken off again!
"Power to the People", what?
I must say I was very confused by the contradictory views expressed by Councillor Paul Scully.
On the one hand he told a political rival that it was "too early to postulate" on the reasons for this tragedy when that same political rival criticised the increasingly violent trends in today's society.
He then bizarrely claimed that this tragedy shows "how the CSJ work of Philippa Stroud is so very important" in addressing the problems in our communities.
Surely if it was too early to postulate then it is also too early to speculate as to what the magical solutions might be?
So confused you posted twice - still, assuming and maintaining all these pseudonyms must be a terribly onerous task and even with the benefit of retirement, spreading your poison here and in other constituencies must rack up the blood pressure points.
Exist the Arrogant Aardvark.
Enter the Cretinous Crushing Judas.
Whoops! I beg your pardon for that over site Mr Crushing. My internet has been on the fritz all day so I have to repeatedly tap the 'post now' button in the hope that the PC eventually gets the idea. I have rectified the problem and removed the extra copy.
Unlike Councillor Scully I do not discourage both he and other vexatious presences from visiting this blog and lambasting me if they so desire. Unlike Scully I do not cry foul nor do I hide behind threats of litigation.
Also unlike Scully I certainly do not hide behind blog moderation in the blinkered belief that residents, politicos and voters should only hear the voices of people who agree with everything I say.
I am sorry to hear that "Crushing Judas" is jealous of the fact that this blog receives a number of hits and that quite a few politicos care to leave comments on this domain.
I am also extremely concerned to hear that Crushing feels that I am a Judas and that he feels that my retirement makes me some kind of muckspreader. Didn't our Mr Cameron pledge not to abandon those in the Autumn of their days? I certainly hope that ageism has not replaced the elitist attitudes of certain Conservative party stalwarts.
Which other constituencies does one stand accused of fouling up anyway?
The next waffling diatribe from Crushing's fingertips will no doubt be priceless so I am just heading off to grab the pringles tin before he posts again.
Perhaps whilst he is busy typing "Crushing" also be so kind as to tell us why there was such a double standard in the approach to Aardvark's negative posts about Councillor Kennedy, despite Aardvark knowing the actual truth about Kennedy's role in the Balkans?
"Crushing Judas"? I bet he couldn't even crush a grape!
With friends like Golden-Bollocks, and Scully, you would not need an enemy.
You'd need to strap a yellow pages to your lumbar region if you stayed in their company to long. Daggers have a funny habit of ending up in peoples backs when they are around. Shows you cant trust the torys
Post a Comment