War of words throws up conundrum
South Tyneside Council Chaos features strongly in Letters to the Editor
The events of 24th. January in South Shields Town Hall, when supporters of the Independent Alliance opposition group succeeded in having the meeting adjourned through their disruptions, has spawned a massive deluge of letters to the editor of the Shields Gazette with polarised opinions.
Yesterday evening’s paper carried a letter supporting the Alliance group from a young man named David McBride, and it is already drawing wry comments. Alliance opposition Leader Cllr. Jane Branley has a son through a previous marriage named David McBride - now I’m not for one minute suggesting that he and the letter writer are one and the same, but it would be an unusual coincidence!
It’s good to see young people taking an interest!
There is also a letter from the young woman who is an A level student. She happened to just visit the council meeting to aid her studies and has been put off the law as a career by the actions of the Council solicitor. Thank goodness for that!
I am sure she has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the Independent supporters.
Of course all the people who were sat in the public gallery at the Town Hall were also members of the public who had no connection with any party, group or faction and just wanted to see what was happening.
D
Comment by Dee — February 2, 2008 @ 9:16 am
Of course Dee, quite so, well at least three of us had no connections!
Comment by curly — February 2, 2008 @ 9:35 am
Curly I find it embarrassing to see you fawning over the utterances of our elected Labour Council. At one time you could have expected an unbiased opinion from you, but not any more, have you been seduced by the leader of the council with the promise of a job?
The comments by Dee you do not clarify that she was a failed Labour candidate at last Mays election
and of course you would let your readers conclude that she was not biased in any way. Reading last nights Gazette they printed a completely different report of the disruptions at the Council meeting than what you said happended. You stated that the Alliance were 100% to blame for the council running out of time to answer questions from the public, the Gazette say that time was wasted by Labour supporters asking questions to waste the allocated time. Who is the Liar, you or the Gazette.
Comment by Jarrow Pete — February 2, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Jarrow Pete,
whenever have I “fawned” over the utterances of Labour politicians?
I regret your use of the word liar and would ask that you withdraw the insinuation. It is all a question of interpretation of events (clearly I have my own opinion), perhaps you would care to join people at the next full council meeting and consider for yourself how business can be transacted in the face of a growing list of questions designed to attract the focus of attention.
My previous thoughts stand - if opposition councillors were questioning and challenging in all of the available committees there would be little need for the public to have additional questions.
Finally, you are obviously a very clever man to figure out the identity of someone posting under such an assumed name, how do you do it?
Comment by curly — February 2, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Curly of course I apologize for using the word liar, on reflection I should not have used it even though my dictionary defines it as a person who tells untruths. I accept that your interpretation of the events and the Gazettes can be interpreted in different ways.
As regards the identity of Dee, you know fine well who she is, you even mentioned the other day that you had spoken to her lately.
Comment by Jarrow Pete — February 2, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Thank you for the apology Pete.
It must be remembered that I described events as I saw them prior to my leaving the meeting, and even if you spoke to, say, Ahmed Khan, he would admit to interjecting within the first five minutes of the meeting commencing. The Shields Gazette reporter David MacLean focussed more on a larger disturbance which occurred after I had left, and led to the meeting being adjourned and the public gallery being cleared. He too may not have been happy with your comment.
Comment by curly — February 2, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Curly, I am full of admiration for the young woman who is giving up her ambition of following a career in law on the strength of one council meeting! Our Granddaughter, if she gets her finger out, hopes to follow a law based degree in September, but no amount of cajoling by us can persuade her to take any interest in politics, let alone go to a public meeting. Although I’m sure the young person must know, I would suggest that there are plenty of other avenues for her to pursue beyond that of solicitor in Local Government. Go for it!!!!
Comment by Westietoo — February 2, 2008 @ 5:15 pm