Author Topic: Jimmy Saville.  (Read 2484 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Terry Reynolds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Jimmy Saville.
« on: October 17, 2012, 03:42:17 PM »
After reading the adver today, have we a Jimmy in our midst? :wink: :wink:



Offline Terry Reynolds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Re: Jimmy Saville.
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2012, 08:20:48 PM »
Did anybody go to the council meeting at 9.30 this morning, with reference to the said 'problem'? :wink:

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
Re: Jimmy Saville.
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2012, 09:10:26 PM »
Did anybody go to the council meeting at 9.30 this morning, with reference to the said 'problem'? :wink:

Closed meeting T isn't it?
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Terry Reynolds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Re: Jimmy Saville.
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2012, 09:29:34 PM »
Rich, said in the adver, it was an open and public meeting, with other bits about what he could or couldnt do aboutit..

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
Re: Jimmy Saville.
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2012, 09:07:39 AM »
Did anyone go then? 

I think it would have been interesting to attend. 

I understand the Chairman was not looking forward to it, but then is it right for Councillors of a different political persuasion to judge other Councillors? 

I think not and just like the Croft Enquiry it should be handled completely independently of any interested parties!!   :idiot2:

All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Tobes

  • Regents
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4951
Re: Jimmy Saville.
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2012, 11:13:43 AM »
Quote
is it right for Councillors of a different political persuasion to judge other Councillors?

... if it isn't, then the entire process of democracy will have to be re-thought. YOU are a prime example of someone who constantly refers to political allegiance and badge. Perhaps you shouldn't judge other people by your standards...?

Don't you think you're MORE likely to end up with a biased result if the judgement was made by members of the same political sty?

As for a case like this - the rules and guidelines are clear. The judgement can be made regardless of political tribalism as the RULES are the rules.

Who sat on this panel? If there was a divide in the judgement according to political allegiance, then perhaps you have a point. If the votes didn't divide according to party, then you're speculating and implying that the judgement was either unfair or biased.

Be clear. If you think the judgement was unfair and politically biased, state so and say why.
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it - [attributed to] Voltaire... 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessita' - William of Occam.... 'You have a right to feel offended, but just cos you are offended doesn't mean you are right'

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
Re: Jimmy Saville.
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2012, 09:19:18 PM »
So Tobes are you entirely satisfied that people who know the person who is under scrutiny are the best to decide the facts and impose sanctions accordingly?

If I were the person concerned and felt I had been treated unfairly I would take whatever action was necessary to clear my name.  If this means taking it away from anyone who knew the parties concerned and have the case heard outside the Borough then that in my opinion would be the fairest and only way to proceed.

It is not about Democracy it is about being fair and reasonable.  Now if an Independent body decides that the defendant is guilty I would have absolutely no quarrel with that decision whatsover.
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Tobes

  • Regents
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4951
Re: Jimmy Saville.
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2012, 09:31:20 PM »
Quote
So Tobes are you entirely satisfied that people who know the person who is under scrutiny are the best to decide the facts and impose sanctions accordingly?

How TF would I know? I didn't witness the alleged incident, I wasn't present at the hearing. You've asked another pointless rhetorical question, (implying something unfair has happened?) which begs the flip side - who better to decide the facts and impose sanctions than people who know all of the parties concerned...?!

If you have any evidence or reason to believe that the facts were misconstrued or the judgement unfair or biased, then sing-out with some evidence and I might be convinced. In the meantime, SBC is A PLACE OF WORK. The way this was handled was no different than the way any other disciplinery process would have been handled by any other employer... or do you think that internal disciplinary procedures should always be run at the expense of bringing in external panels?! And who would pay for the extra thousands of hearings in Symond's World? I guess in your parallel universe, the increase in taxation to cover this would be the fault of the tories and libs, wouldn't it...?

Quote
If I were the person concerned and felt I had been treated unfairly I would take whatever action was necessary to clear my name.

If I was the person feeling that I'd been clearly treated unfairly, (and I was honestly convinced of the rectitude of my case)  I would believe that the ordinary process and the facts ought to be enough. The fact that councillor Martin had no faith in his own case to the extent that he hired an expensive barrister and STILL lost makes this judgement look far more conclusive and convincing to me. Quite the opposite of what he intended, no doubt.

« Last Edit: October 20, 2012, 10:12:50 PM by Tobes »
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it - [attributed to] Voltaire... 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessita' - William of Occam.... 'You have a right to feel offended, but just cos you are offended doesn't mean you are right'

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
Re: Jimmy Saville.
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2012, 10:40:54 PM »
Well Tobes it looks as though we have found something more on which we disagree.

I make the assumption that you were not present at the hearing and therefore unable to state without reservation as to whether or not it was fair and reasonable?  We all should know where the individual concerned fits with the present leadership but it will be interesting to see if he is left outside the proverbial tent on what comes forth.  What intrigues me is the relevance or otherwise of what he was allegedly investigating in terms of the work of the plaintiff.  What better way is there to stifle any interest from Councillors in the work of Officers than make a complaint about them?

Let's see what happens now then.

And who would pay for the extra thousands of hearings in Symond's World?

Incidentally the name is Symonds with an S so my opinion should be stated as being Symonds' not apostrophe S, but you already knew that didn't you?
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Mart

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5249
  • Where's my cow?
Re: Jimmy Saville.
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2012, 10:44:49 PM »
Why is there no apostrophe in Symonds Yat?

It concerns me.
Sometimes I think you have to march right in and demand your rights, even if you don’t know what your rights are, or who the person is you’re talking to. Then, on the way out, slam the door.

Offline Terry Reynolds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Re: Jimmy Saville.
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2012, 07:38:06 PM »
nice place that orthough the foreign alde who used to run the centre, is abit of a nutter..  :wink:

Offline Richard Beale

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 494
  • Hello !
Re: Jimmy Saville.
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2012, 08:10:06 PM »
Symonds Yat... Is it still wrong to mention 'the bears'....

Offline Tobes

  • Regents
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4951
Re: Jimmy Saville.
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2012, 11:58:20 PM »
Quote
I make the assumption that you were not present at the hearing and therefore unable to state without reservation as to whether or not it was fair and reasonable?

So only those at the hearing are qualified to pass judgement as to whether it was fair? You apply the strangest logic to issues in order to bend the argument your way. Can YOU state without reservation as to whether it was unfair or not?  :-\ Errr - no, you can't (or won't?) either... so it's just more rhetoric (as well as deeply unfair) to imply it.

Quote
What better way is there to stifle any interest from Councillors in the work of Officers than make a complaint about them?

Rhetorical speculation - again illustrating the illogical leaps you'rte prepared to make. One minute you're stating that anyone not present at the meeting can't comment on what was fair - then within a sentence or two, you're by implication rhetorically speculating that the motive of the plaintiff may have been influenced by Martin's interest in her office. THAT'S unfair. Even handedness and consistency is obviously not your forte...

....Besides which - none of what you're saying goes anyway towards explaining if or why a highly expensive independent panel would have arrived at any different conclusion (apart from presenting a huge bill....)
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it - [attributed to] Voltaire... 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessita' - William of Occam.... 'You have a right to feel offended, but just cos you are offended doesn't mean you are right'