Expensive role

York Press: Expensive role Expensive role

£700 a day for a temporary officer with no special knowledge or experience of living or working in this city. Obviously worth every penny.

Matthew Laverack, Lord Mayor’s Walk, York.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:31pm Fri 20 Jun 14

The Great Buda says...

Envy does not become you Mathew.
Envy does not become you Mathew. The Great Buda
  • Score: 15

4:43pm Fri 20 Jun 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Do you think this is good value for the Council Tax payer, Buda?

After all, most people think there are quite enough people living in and around York without paying a fortune to someone from outside promoting ever more housing.

PS: Retirement Greetings to the Council's ex score adjuster. You're on your own now!
Do you think this is good value for the Council Tax payer, Buda? After all, most people think there are quite enough people living in and around York without paying a fortune to someone from outside promoting ever more housing. PS: Retirement Greetings to the Council's ex score adjuster. You're on your own now! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -11

7:00pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today.

The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here.
I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack.
Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock.

Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L.
Funny that.
For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical.

Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter?
None.
Time will tell for good or ill.
It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today. The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here. I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack. Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock. Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L. Funny that. For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical. Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter? None. Time will tell for good or ill. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -22

7:24pm Fri 20 Jun 14

oi oi savaloy says...

The Great Buda wrote:
Envy does not become you Mathew.
I think you are the one suffering from envy ,buda! do you sit behind your keyboard just waiting for Matthew to submit a letter to the press?
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: Envy does not become you Mathew.[/p][/quote]I think you are the one suffering from envy ,buda! do you sit behind your keyboard just waiting for Matthew to submit a letter to the press? oi oi savaloy
  • Score: -6

11:35pm Fri 20 Jun 14

wallman says...

buda, buzz light year what a pair of pillocks mr laverack makes a just comment you 2 idoits start to attack him why?
buda, buzz light year what a pair of pillocks mr laverack makes a just comment you 2 idoits start to attack him why? wallman
  • Score: -9

2:01am Sat 21 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today. The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here. I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack. Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock. Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L. Funny that. For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical. Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter? None. Time will tell for good or ill.
The figure was right - it was given by the council in response to an FOI.

A 'history of appearing aggrieved' - who might that also apply to then?!!!

You like naming people, don't you Buzzz, or whatever your real name is?
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today. The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here. I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack. Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock. Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L. Funny that. For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical. Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter? None. Time will tell for good or ill.[/p][/quote]The figure was right - it was given by the council in response to an FOI. A 'history of appearing aggrieved' - who might that also apply to then?!!! You like naming people, don't you Buzzz, or whatever your real name is? Badgers Drift
  • Score: 3

2:05am Sat 21 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

wallman wrote:
buda, buzz light year what a pair of pillocks mr laverack makes a just comment you 2 idoits start to attack him why?
Careful wallman, he (BLY) will start accusing you of being Matthew or Paul next, because, despite the voting, nobody else supports what Matthew says/writes?
[quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: buda, buzz light year what a pair of pillocks mr laverack makes a just comment you 2 idoits start to attack him why?[/p][/quote]Careful wallman, he (BLY) will start accusing you of being Matthew or Paul next, because, despite the voting, nobody else supports what Matthew says/writes? Badgers Drift
  • Score: 20

2:15am Sat 21 Jun 14

Bad magic says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today.

The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here.
I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack.
Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock.

Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L.
Funny that.
For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical.

Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter?
None.
Time will tell for good or ill.
Well, you're so full of something that your eyes are brown. I said it there, and I'll say it here: when the man is right, he's right. He's right.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today. The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here. I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack. Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock. Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L. Funny that. For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical. Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter? None. Time will tell for good or ill.[/p][/quote]Well, you're so full of something that your eyes are brown. I said it there, and I'll say it here: when the man is right, he's right. He's right. Bad magic
  • Score: 10

12:53pm Sun 22 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

wallman wrote:
buda, buzz light year what a pair of pillocks mr laverack makes a just comment you 2 idoits start to attack him why?
Well I would say that calling people "a pair of pillocks" is an attack.
Whereas simply describing what has been happening on various websites isn't.
[quote][p][bold]wallman[/bold] wrote: buda, buzz light year what a pair of pillocks mr laverack makes a just comment you 2 idoits start to attack him why?[/p][/quote]Well I would say that calling people "a pair of pillocks" is an attack. Whereas simply describing what has been happening on various websites isn't. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -30

12:55pm Sun 22 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today. The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here. I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack. Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock. Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L. Funny that. For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical. Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter? None. Time will tell for good or ill.
The figure was right - it was given by the council in response to an FOI.

A 'history of appearing aggrieved' - who might that also apply to then?!!!

You like naming people, don't you Buzzz, or whatever your real name is?
You outed yourself Paul.
Because, apparently, "everyone knows that"
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today. The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here. I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack. Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock. Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L. Funny that. For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical. Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter? None. Time will tell for good or ill.[/p][/quote]The figure was right - it was given by the council in response to an FOI. A 'history of appearing aggrieved' - who might that also apply to then?!!! You like naming people, don't you Buzzz, or whatever your real name is?[/p][/quote]You outed yourself Paul. Because, apparently, "everyone knows that" Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -16

1:02pm Sun 22 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today. The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here. I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack. Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock. Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L. Funny that. For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical. Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter? None. Time will tell for good or ill.
The figure was right - it was given by the council in response to an FOI. A 'history of appearing aggrieved' - who might that also apply to then?!!! You like naming people, don't you Buzzz, or whatever your real name is?
You outed yourself Paul. Because, apparently, "everyone knows that"
Why don't you do the same ?

What or who, are YOU afraid of?
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today. The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here. I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack. Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock. Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L. Funny that. For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical. Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter? None. Time will tell for good or ill.[/p][/quote]The figure was right - it was given by the council in response to an FOI. A 'history of appearing aggrieved' - who might that also apply to then?!!! You like naming people, don't you Buzzz, or whatever your real name is?[/p][/quote]You outed yourself Paul. Because, apparently, "everyone knows that"[/p][/quote]Why don't you do the same ? What or who, are YOU afraid of? Badgers Drift
  • Score: 24

6:44pm Sun 22 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today. The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here. I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack. Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock. Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L. Funny that. For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical. Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter? None. Time will tell for good or ill.
The figure was right - it was given by the council in response to an FOI. A 'history of appearing aggrieved' - who might that also apply to then?!!! You like naming people, don't you Buzzz, or whatever your real name is?
You outed yourself Paul. Because, apparently, "everyone knows that"
Why don't you do the same ?

What or who, are YOU afraid of?
Usual playground goading from you.
I'm not afraid of anything here.

I told you before, it would be of no consequence.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today. The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here. I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack. Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock. Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L. Funny that. For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical. Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter? None. Time will tell for good or ill.[/p][/quote]The figure was right - it was given by the council in response to an FOI. A 'history of appearing aggrieved' - who might that also apply to then?!!! You like naming people, don't you Buzzz, or whatever your real name is?[/p][/quote]You outed yourself Paul. Because, apparently, "everyone knows that"[/p][/quote]Why don't you do the same ? What or who, are YOU afraid of?[/p][/quote]Usual playground goading from you. I'm not afraid of anything here. I told you before, it would be of no consequence. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -8

12:02am Mon 23 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today. The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here. I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack. Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock. Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L. Funny that. For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical. Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter? None. Time will tell for good or ill.
The figure was right - it was given by the council in response to an FOI. A 'history of appearing aggrieved' - who might that also apply to then?!!! You like naming people, don't you Buzzz, or whatever your real name is?
You outed yourself Paul. Because, apparently, "everyone knows that"
Why don't you do the same ? What or who, are YOU afraid of?
Usual playground goading from you. I'm not afraid of anything here. I told you before, it would be of no consequence.
If you're not afraid, and it's of no consquence, then tell me who you are. I'd like to know, and it's only fair as you know who I am, and you like to remind everyone.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today. The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here. I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack. Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock. Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L. Funny that. For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical. Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter? None. Time will tell for good or ill.[/p][/quote]The figure was right - it was given by the council in response to an FOI. A 'history of appearing aggrieved' - who might that also apply to then?!!! You like naming people, don't you Buzzz, or whatever your real name is?[/p][/quote]You outed yourself Paul. Because, apparently, "everyone knows that"[/p][/quote]Why don't you do the same ? What or who, are YOU afraid of?[/p][/quote]Usual playground goading from you. I'm not afraid of anything here. I told you before, it would be of no consequence.[/p][/quote]If you're not afraid, and it's of no consquence, then tell me who you are. I'd like to know, and it's only fair as you know who I am, and you like to remind everyone. Badgers Drift
  • Score: 8

7:25am Mon 23 Jun 14

anistasia says...

This is meant to be posts for views.people have different views its good to read through them but this page is getting at each other not the point in question.if you like a posting thumb's up if not thumbs down.if you want to know why a person thinks a certain way ask can you explain what they mean.no need for having a go at each other and point scoring.
This is meant to be posts for views.people have different views its good to read through them but this page is getting at each other not the point in question.if you like a posting thumb's up if not thumbs down.if you want to know why a person thinks a certain way ask can you explain what they mean.no need for having a go at each other and point scoring. anistasia
  • Score: 1

8:21am Mon 23 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

anistasia wrote:
This is meant to be posts for views.people have different views its good to read through them but this page is getting at each other not the point in question.if you like a posting thumb's up if not thumbs down.if you want to know why a person thinks a certain way ask can you explain what they mean.no need for having a go at each other and point scoring.
Yes good point.
I made my point dispassionately but as usual the ever devoted Paul will stop at nothing to defend his pal, wrong or right.
No insult too personal for him.

See that's the trouble anistasia - I try to make points and observations but the nasty and unscrupulous here jump on it with false accusations, lies, insults and playground goading. They make it personal.
[quote][p][bold]anistasia[/bold] wrote: This is meant to be posts for views.people have different views its good to read through them but this page is getting at each other not the point in question.if you like a posting thumb's up if not thumbs down.if you want to know why a person thinks a certain way ask can you explain what they mean.no need for having a go at each other and point scoring.[/p][/quote]Yes good point. I made my point dispassionately but as usual the ever devoted Paul will stop at nothing to defend his pal, wrong or right. No insult too personal for him. See that's the trouble anistasia - I try to make points and observations but the nasty and unscrupulous here jump on it with false accusations, lies, insults and playground goading. They make it personal. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -5

8:26am Mon 23 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote: It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today. The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here. I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack. Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock. Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L. Funny that. For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical. Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter? None. Time will tell for good or ill.
The figure was right - it was given by the council in response to an FOI. A 'history of appearing aggrieved' - who might that also apply to then?!!! You like naming people, don't you Buzzz, or whatever your real name is?
You outed yourself Paul. Because, apparently, "everyone knows that"
Why don't you do the same ? What or who, are YOU afraid of?
Usual playground goading from you. I'm not afraid of anything here. I told you before, it would be of no consequence.
If you're not afraid, and it's of no consquence, then tell me who you are. I'd like to know, and it's only fair as you know who I am, and you like to remind everyone.
As if.
Only fair, my bum! Since when did "fair" ever figure in your moral code.
I figured out for myself who you are ages ago, it wasn't a concession from you.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: It's funny that the wrong figure was released and so many knee-jerked their ire at it so quickly, so eager were they to believe the worst. A hundred and twenty odd comments on the website and a spread of letters today. The upshot of that, as dangerous as it is to say, is that Mr Laverack is wrong here. I say dangerous because it appears to be becoming unacceptable to disagree with, criticise or even debate with Matthew Laverack. Comments can be shut down or removed. Commentators can face a barrage of abuse and name calling, false accusations and invented crimes and grudges not only from Mr Laverack but also from a Paul S Cordock. Take Mr L's recent article on YorkMix for example. The only article I've ever seen closed for comments on that website. Provoked 80 some comments and many were critical or at least questioning of Mr L. Funny that. For someone who has a history of appearing aggrieved when newspapers and councils seem to be shutting down debate or comment, it does seem a little hypocritical. Anyway, even if the £700 figure was right, what substance to this letter? None. Time will tell for good or ill.[/p][/quote]The figure was right - it was given by the council in response to an FOI. A 'history of appearing aggrieved' - who might that also apply to then?!!! You like naming people, don't you Buzzz, or whatever your real name is?[/p][/quote]You outed yourself Paul. Because, apparently, "everyone knows that"[/p][/quote]Why don't you do the same ? What or who, are YOU afraid of?[/p][/quote]Usual playground goading from you. I'm not afraid of anything here. I told you before, it would be of no consequence.[/p][/quote]If you're not afraid, and it's of no consquence, then tell me who you are. I'd like to know, and it's only fair as you know who I am, and you like to remind everyone.[/p][/quote]As if. Only fair, my bum! Since when did "fair" ever figure in your moral code. I figured out for myself who you are ages ago, it wasn't a concession from you. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -1

10:20am Mon 23 Jun 14

Y.I.P. says...

Why not do a photo copy of the 1960s Esher report on City planning etc,then we wouldn't need our so called ex-spert.
Why not do a photo copy of the 1960s Esher report on City planning etc,then we wouldn't need our so called ex-spert. Y.I.P.
  • Score: -1

2:18pm Mon 23 Jun 14

SpinningJenny says...

I think we've all missed the most important point, which is that he's finally stopped referring to himself as 'Architect of this Parish' - for now anyway. About time.
I think we've all missed the most important point, which is that he's finally stopped referring to himself as 'Architect of this Parish' - for now anyway. About time. SpinningJenny
  • Score: 3

5:43pm Mon 23 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

SpinningJenny wrote:
I think we've all missed the most important point, which is that he's finally stopped referring to himself as 'Architect of this Parish' - for now anyway. About time.
Why is it so important (to you)?

Why is it 'about time'?

Surely the important point is Kersten England giving highly-paid temporary jobs to her pals (with the Demos association), and disallowing opposition councillors any say on the matter?!!!
[quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: I think we've all missed the most important point, which is that he's finally stopped referring to himself as 'Architect of this Parish' - for now anyway. About time.[/p][/quote]Why is it so important (to you)? Why is it 'about time'? Surely the important point is Kersten England giving highly-paid temporary jobs to her pals (with the Demos association), and disallowing opposition councillors any say on the matter?!!! Badgers Drift
  • Score: -2

9:10am Tue 24 Jun 14

SpinningJenny says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
SpinningJenny wrote:
I think we've all missed the most important point, which is that he's finally stopped referring to himself as 'Architect of this Parish' - for now anyway. About time.
Why is it so important (to you)?

Why is it 'about time'?

Surely the important point is Kersten England giving highly-paid temporary jobs to her pals (with the Demos association), and disallowing opposition councillors any say on the matter?!!!
Mostly because it's really effing annoying & pretentious and is a made-up title to trick people into thinking he's more important than other people.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: I think we've all missed the most important point, which is that he's finally stopped referring to himself as 'Architect of this Parish' - for now anyway. About time.[/p][/quote]Why is it so important (to you)? Why is it 'about time'? Surely the important point is Kersten England giving highly-paid temporary jobs to her pals (with the Demos association), and disallowing opposition councillors any say on the matter?!!![/p][/quote]Mostly because it's really effing annoying & pretentious and is a made-up title to trick people into thinking he's more important than other people. SpinningJenny
  • Score: 2

11:38am Tue 24 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

SpinningJenny wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
SpinningJenny wrote: I think we've all missed the most important point, which is that he's finally stopped referring to himself as 'Architect of this Parish' - for now anyway. About time.
Why is it so important (to you)? Why is it 'about time'? Surely the important point is Kersten England giving highly-paid temporary jobs to her pals (with the Demos association), and disallowing opposition councillors any say on the matter?!!!
Mostly because it's really effing annoying & pretentious and is a made-up title to trick people into thinking he's more important than other people.
It's not a trick, or made-up, it's a statement of fact, and a bit of fun.

Even if he doesn't use it, you find reason to make annoying off-topic comments, to show your ignorance and envy.
[quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SpinningJenny[/bold] wrote: I think we've all missed the most important point, which is that he's finally stopped referring to himself as 'Architect of this Parish' - for now anyway. About time.[/p][/quote]Why is it so important (to you)? Why is it 'about time'? Surely the important point is Kersten England giving highly-paid temporary jobs to her pals (with the Demos association), and disallowing opposition councillors any say on the matter?!!![/p][/quote]Mostly because it's really effing annoying & pretentious and is a made-up title to trick people into thinking he's more important than other people.[/p][/quote]It's not a trick, or made-up, it's a statement of fact, and a bit of fun. Even if he doesn't use it, you find reason to make annoying off-topic comments, to show your ignorance and envy. Badgers Drift
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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