Attempts to control what public can say say at council meetings is blocked

York Press: . .

ATTEMPTS by York’s city leaders to place tighter controls on what the public can say at council meetings have been blocked.

A report brought before City of York Council’s audit and governance committee at the request of leader Coun James Alexander and his deputy, Coun Tracey Simpson-Laing, this week recommended speakers should not criticise the authority’s officials, should avoid “party political” and “frivolous” points and should ensure anything they say is “factually correct”.

However, the committee ruled the report, written by assistant director for governance Andy Docherty, should be deferred ahead of a wider consultation on the council’s constitution, because it could restrict democracy.

Committee member Coun Nigel Ayre said the paper, originally due be discussed at last night’s full council meeting, was “an embarrassment” and questioned why it had ever been produced.

The committee agreed defamatory and discriminatory comments should be restricted, as should the disclosure of confidential information, but queried how “frivolous” and “factually correct” comments would be judged.

Committee chairwoman Labour councillor Ruth Potter, said: “A public participation scheme should enable the public to participate, not disable them – almost any decision in life is political.”

Fellow councillor Neil Barnes, who represents Labour in Hull Road, said the report was not his party’s policy and had not been discussed at its group meetings, but said: “We have a duty as councillors to listen to what people have to say.”

Coun Ayre said a rule preventing party political points being made was “nonsense”, saying: “Members of parties and trade unionists speak at council meetings – do we expect people to wear badges?

“We’re basically asking people to go away and do copious amounts of research before they’re allowed to speak to councillors. If somebody stops us in the street, we can’t ask them if what they want to say is factually correct. We have a duty to be accountable as elected members. Council officials are employed by the people of this city, and while we may not always like what people say, we have a duty to listen.”

Comments (80)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:14am Fri 13 Dec 13

Knavesmire view says...

Just sums Alexander up doesn't it?! Get this man out of office now!!
Just sums Alexander up doesn't it?! Get this man out of office now!! Knavesmire view

11:18am Fri 13 Dec 13

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

What's next ?, internment…!.
What's next ?, internment…!. YOUWILLDOASISAY

11:24am Fri 13 Dec 13

Guthred says...

Perhaps the most irresponsible, arrogant and patronising statements I've ever seen made at a York Council meeting. Why on earth did James Alexander and Tracey Simpson-Laing think that the report was appropriate for a Council meeting?
Perhaps the most irresponsible, arrogant and patronising statements I've ever seen made at a York Council meeting. Why on earth did James Alexander and Tracey Simpson-Laing think that the report was appropriate for a Council meeting? Guthred

11:28am Fri 13 Dec 13

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

"Hi-diddly-dee, a redactor's life for me..."
"Hi-diddly-dee, a redactor's life for me..." Ignatius Lumpopo

11:39am Fri 13 Dec 13

again says...

I wish I'd known to sign the petition against the King's Square vandalism.
I wish I'd known to sign the petition against the King's Square vandalism. again

11:40am Fri 13 Dec 13

Tom6187 says...

It's not like Twitter where he just blocks anybody who doesn't kiss his sphincter. Also you will notice that when you see him in the street he always has headphones in so that he can't hear people voicing their opinions. He is the biggest narcissist I've ever come across.
It's not like Twitter where he just blocks anybody who doesn't kiss his sphincter. Also you will notice that when you see him in the street he always has headphones in so that he can't hear people voicing their opinions. He is the biggest narcissist I've ever come across. Tom6187

11:48am Fri 13 Dec 13

Kevin Turvey says...

If these individual councillors do not think that their actions should not be able to be scrutinised by the public that they purport to represent perhaps they should leave the public office and public trust they presently hold behind and go and be politicians in North Korea!

The whole point of politics is to have the debate for the benefit of the public that you represent for the benefit of all.

Obviously they do not have the correct character and behavioural attributes to be in a public position that is paid for handsomely by us.
It really is a shame that we as voters let individuals run on our behalf public services and have sway over issues that affect us daily when in reality they have nothing but have nothing but contempt for the voters that placed them there!

They should be removed either by a vote of no confidence within their own party or if they will still not go if it is required by a torch lit lynch mob of the general public they are supposed to represent!

James Alexander and Tracey Simpson-Laing you should be ashamed of your lack of respect for the voters, free speech and the responsibilities of public office.

James Alexander and Tracey Simpson-Laing resign now!
If these individual councillors do not think that their actions should not be able to be scrutinised by the public that they purport to represent perhaps they should leave the public office and public trust they presently hold behind and go and be politicians in North Korea! The whole point of politics is to have the debate for the benefit of the public that you represent for the benefit of all. Obviously they do not have the correct character and behavioural attributes to be in a public position that is paid for handsomely by us. It really is a shame that we as voters let individuals run on our behalf public services and have sway over issues that affect us daily when in reality they have nothing but have nothing but contempt for the voters that placed them there! They should be removed either by a vote of no confidence within their own party or if they will still not go if it is required by a torch lit lynch mob of the general public they are supposed to represent! James Alexander and Tracey Simpson-Laing you should be ashamed of your lack of respect for the voters, free speech and the responsibilities of public office. James Alexander and Tracey Simpson-Laing resign now! Kevin Turvey

11:49am Fri 13 Dec 13

TheTruthHurts says...

I suspect there might be a custard pie or too on the number 10
I suspect there might be a custard pie or too on the number 10 TheTruthHurts

11:49am Fri 13 Dec 13

TheTruthHurts says...

two even whoops :-)
two even whoops :-) TheTruthHurts

11:51am Fri 13 Dec 13

BL2 says...

A report brought before City of York Council’s audit and governance committee at the request of leader Coun James Alexander and his deputy, Coun Tracey Simpson-Laing, this week recommended speakers should not criticise the authority’s officials, should avoid “party political” and “frivolous” points and should ensure anything they say is “factually correct”.


I think this should apply to the councillors first - very little they spout is "factually correct"!
[quote]A report brought before City of York Council’s audit and governance committee at the request of leader Coun James Alexander and his deputy, Coun Tracey Simpson-Laing, this week recommended speakers should not criticise the authority’s officials, should avoid “party political” and “frivolous” points and should ensure anything they say is “factually correct”. [/quote] I think this should apply to the councillors first - very little they spout is "factually correct"! BL2

11:52am Fri 13 Dec 13

Kevin Turvey says...

By case law it is impossible to defame a council as they are not a person.

Fill your boots defaming York City Council but not individuals in the actual posts.
By case law it is impossible to defame a council as they are not a person. Fill your boots defaming York City Council but not individuals in the actual posts. Kevin Turvey

12:05pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Osbaldwick Lad says...

Could they be trying to set ground rules for when the York local television station becomes live?
Could they be trying to set ground rules for when the York local television station becomes live? Osbaldwick Lad

12:12pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Kevin Turvey says...

It would seem things have changed counter to my earlier post.

http://www.lawgazett
e.co.uk/68961.articl
e
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-lei
cestershire-20909851


So now the change in the law means that the public will struggle to challenge their elected or otherwise officials.

It is now time for a huge regime change within this country by political or other means
or time to leg it to somewhere less of a totalitarian state.

Unlike what David Camoron thinks being a patriot does not mean I have to like the political system merely that I like the country I live in.

The political situation in this country absolutely stinks at the minute. It will change soon by either fair means or fowl, there is a huge undercurrent of pressure swelling up and it will burst out in an unpleasant manner when the right dominoes line up.
It would seem things have changed counter to my earlier post. http://www.lawgazett e.co.uk/68961.articl e http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-lei cestershire-20909851 So now the change in the law means that the public will struggle to challenge their elected or otherwise officials. It is now time for a huge regime change within this country by political or other means or time to leg it to somewhere less of a totalitarian state. Unlike what David Camoron thinks being a patriot does not mean I have to like the political system merely that I like the country I live in. The political situation in this country absolutely stinks at the minute. It will change soon by either fair means or fowl, there is a huge undercurrent of pressure swelling up and it will burst out in an unpleasant manner when the right dominoes line up. Kevin Turvey

12:40pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Eric Olthwaite says...

‘Tom6187 says...
Also you will notice that when you see him in the street he always has headphones in so that he can't hear people voicing their opinions. He is the biggest narcissist I've ever come across.’

No I think he listening to his own speeches on his ipod which consist of: "


Yes that is correct ..... nothing!
‘Tom6187 says... Also you will notice that when you see him in the street he always has headphones in so that he can't hear people voicing their opinions. He is the biggest narcissist I've ever come across.’ No I think he listening to his own speeches on his ipod which consist of: " “ Yes that is correct ..... nothing! Eric Olthwaite

1:07pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Buzzz Light-year says...

Has someone been executed?
Has someone been executed? Buzzz Light-year

1:23pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Dave Ruddock says...

It now seems tht YCC are as a whole, flaughting thier electors in every form, I havent notices a "Lenin" Poster around te city, thouit seems its turning Comunist.
Dont forget who tall councilors answer back to (US THE GENERAL PUBLIC,their electors. I also believe these 2 have been under the public gaze for awhile, best they tred very very carefully.........
It now seems tht YCC are as a whole, flaughting thier electors in every form, I havent notices a "Lenin" Poster around te city, thouit seems its turning Comunist. Dont forget who tall councilors answer back to (US THE GENERAL PUBLIC,their electors. I also believe these 2 have been under the public gaze for awhile, best they tred very very carefully......... Dave Ruddock

1:26pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Ichabod76 says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Has someone been executed?
only democracy
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: Has someone been executed?[/p][/quote]only democracy Ichabod76

1:36pm Fri 13 Dec 13

BKKYorkshireboy says...

It sounds like a very sensible suggestion from JA & TSL to me. How are they supposed to do their jobs properly with everyone (most of whom do not understand the argument in question) baying for their blood and constantly bringing up frivolous and factually incorrect matters? They are doing their best in a (next to!) impossible situation. If they say they want the public toilets painting black everyone else says they must be white. Its ridiculous!
It sounds like a very sensible suggestion from JA & TSL to me. How are they supposed to do their jobs properly with everyone (most of whom do not understand the argument in question) baying for their blood and constantly bringing up frivolous and factually incorrect matters? They are doing their best in a (next to!) impossible situation. If they say they want the public toilets painting black everyone else says they must be white. Its ridiculous! BKKYorkshireboy

1:40pm Fri 13 Dec 13

meme says...

How long before ANYONE criticising the Council is given an trial and summarily shot as attempting to overthrow the council by all sorts of intrigues and despicable methods with a wild ambition to grab the supreme power of our party and council".
misquote from North Korean leader
How long before ANYONE criticising the Council is given an trial and summarily shot as attempting to overthrow the council by all sorts of intrigues and despicable methods with a wild ambition to grab the supreme power of our party and council". misquote from North Korean leader meme

2:01pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

Osbaldwick Lad wrote:
Could they be trying to set ground rules for when the York local television station becomes live?
You mean the York TV station rum by the council's buddies ?

Here's an interesting link/connection...

Science City York, have received £670k funding from CYC without a SLA (Service Level Agreement) being in place until governance expert, Gwen Swinburn pointed this out, and the deficiency being rectified, but, still with no performance metrics, SCY Chief Exec is Nicola Spence, and CYC Chief Exec is a Director. Nicola Spence is also a Director of the York TV station. The TV station is to be based at the Guildhall media centre.

Can anyone spot the cosy connections with the council ?

The York TV station's MD is also the MD of internet magazine 'One&Other', who seem to report on lots of CYC stories including the Labour members. Apparently the TV station will also run reports on the council etc.

It's not hard to see the obvious relationship between the Council and the TV station is it - more than a bit of you rub my back and I'll massage yours (and the news stories) for you !!!!

More control of the media from Alexander & Co ? Definitely !
[quote][p][bold]Osbaldwick Lad[/bold] wrote: Could they be trying to set ground rules for when the York local television station becomes live?[/p][/quote]You mean the York TV station rum by the council's buddies ? Here's an interesting link/connection... Science City York, have received £670k funding from CYC without a SLA (Service Level Agreement) being in place until governance expert, Gwen Swinburn pointed this out, and the deficiency being rectified, but, still with no performance metrics, SCY Chief Exec is Nicola Spence, and CYC Chief Exec is a Director. Nicola Spence is also a Director of the York TV station. The TV station is to be based at the Guildhall media centre. Can anyone spot the cosy connections with the council ? The York TV station's MD is also the MD of internet magazine 'One&Other', who seem to report on lots of CYC stories including the Labour members. Apparently the TV station will also run reports on the council etc. It's not hard to see the obvious relationship between the Council and the TV station is it - more than a bit of you rub my back and I'll massage yours (and the news stories) for you !!!! More control of the media from Alexander & Co ? Definitely ! Rocking Horse

2:11pm Fri 13 Dec 13

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

BKKYorkshireboy wrote:
It sounds like a very sensible suggestion from JA & TSL to me. How are they supposed to do their jobs properly with everyone (most of whom do not understand the argument in question) baying for their blood and constantly bringing up frivolous and factually incorrect matters? They are doing their best in a (next to!) impossible situation. If they say they want the public toilets painting black everyone else says they must be white. Its ridiculous!
Pretty sure Germany tried similar tactics in the early 1930's.
Does anyone know how these turned out?
[quote][p][bold]BKKYorkshireboy[/bold] wrote: It sounds like a very sensible suggestion from JA & TSL to me. How are they supposed to do their jobs properly with everyone (most of whom do not understand the argument in question) baying for their blood and constantly bringing up frivolous and factually incorrect matters? They are doing their best in a (next to!) impossible situation. If they say they want the public toilets painting black everyone else says they must be white. Its ridiculous![/p][/quote]Pretty sure Germany tried similar tactics in the early 1930's. Does anyone know how these turned out? NoNewsIsGoodNews

2:16pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

Does our Labour MP have any thoughts on how our current Labour council's behaviour might affect the Labour vote at the next election?
Does our Labour MP have any thoughts on how our current Labour council's behaviour might affect the Labour vote at the next election? Ignatius Lumpopo

2:20pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

meme wrote:
How long before ANYONE criticising the Council is given an trial and summarily shot as attempting to overthrow the council by all sorts of intrigues and despicable methods with a wild ambition to grab the supreme power of our party and council". misquote from North Korean leader
Since Alexander became dictator.... oops, sorry, I meant 'leader' of York Council, there has been an incremental erosion of democracy and civil liberties, here's some of JA's plan for domination:-

1. Blocking emails from citizens who expose policy failures by using factual evidence, the ostensible excuse being that they were being 'abusive'
2. Blocking citizens on Twitter for asking questions or criticising the council, councillors or officers for policy failures, the ostensible excuse being that they were being abusive and offensive.
3. Criticising the Press for being negative, and pressuring them to talk up York, and ignore bad news.
4. For a while the comments fascility was disallowed on any story or letter which involved James Alexander !
5. The latest attempt above by JA & TSL to gag citizens from public participation at council meetings.

Where is the leading us to ? A totalitarian council run by an ideologically driven group of closet marxists, thats where !!!
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: How long before ANYONE criticising the Council is given an trial and summarily shot as attempting to overthrow the council by all sorts of intrigues and despicable methods with a wild ambition to grab the supreme power of our party and council". misquote from North Korean leader[/p][/quote]Since Alexander became dictator.... oops, sorry, I meant 'leader' of York Council, there has been an incremental erosion of democracy and civil liberties, here's some of JA's plan for domination:- 1. Blocking emails from citizens who expose policy failures by using factual evidence, the ostensible excuse being that they were being 'abusive' 2. Blocking citizens on Twitter for asking questions or criticising the council, councillors or officers for policy failures, the ostensible excuse being that they were being abusive and offensive. 3. Criticising the Press for being negative, and pressuring them to talk up York, and ignore bad news. 4. For a while the comments fascility was disallowed on any story or letter which involved James Alexander ! 5. The latest attempt above by JA & TSL to gag citizens from public participation at council meetings. Where is the leading us to ? A totalitarian council run by an ideologically driven group of closet marxists, thats where !!! Rocking Horse

2:28pm Fri 13 Dec 13

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

If you have no critics you'll likely have no real success.

If you have no real success you'll likely want no critics.
If you have no critics you'll likely have no real success. If you have no real success you'll likely want no critics. YOUWILLDOASISAY

2:48pm Fri 13 Dec 13

MorkofYork says...

Bad move James. No way are these lot getting elected again.
Good riddance.
Bad move James. No way are these lot getting elected again. Good riddance. MorkofYork

2:49pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Kevin Turvey says...

I may have missed this one! Due to having a life, however.

So what I think Rocking Horse & Osbaldwick Lad are suggesting is that the City of York Council is setting up a TV station within the council for its own broadcasting use with our money?

Can somebody enlighten us to whom it will be broadcast /rammed down throat * (*delete as required).

Just internal to the council or external as well?

If external who, how? Through cable, freeview etc?

Can someone from the council when they get home log on and enlighten us on the ‘facts’ by whistleblowing on this forum so we can challenge these numpties with ‘facts’ in the chambers!

So the day of the Orwellian 1984 implementation of the Telescreen and the so called ruling elite’s propaganda direct into your home is nigh.

I must brush up with a re-read of animal farm as well just to make sure!

I am looking forward to seeing Jimmy lend me a tenner Alexander’s mug shot on billboards advertising the TV show. I can only imagine the graffiti…….

Perhaps the Council TV show could be called:

‘Pointless’ – I know that already exists but Jimmy really is pointless.

‘I’m a councillor get the public out of here’ - Their opinions are not tolerated by us. Camps are being set up as we speak for the dissenters at Monks Cross 2.

‘Ever considered Financial Suicide?’ - The show where we show you how to waste millions of the public’s money and still smile.

‘Grand Resigns’ –where members of the council have to resign over poor development decisions – evidence presented and hosted by Kevin Mcloud. 1st Show covers expensive and needless cycle lanes and the conflicts of interest of the Machiavellian figure of Councillor Dave Merrett.

Feel free to add to the list!
I may have missed this one! Due to having a life, however. So what I think Rocking Horse & Osbaldwick Lad are suggesting is that the City of York Council is setting up a TV station within the council for its own broadcasting use with our money? Can somebody enlighten us to whom it will be broadcast /rammed down throat * (*delete as required). Just internal to the council or external as well? If external who, how? Through cable, freeview etc? Can someone from the council when they get home log on and enlighten us on the ‘facts’ by whistleblowing on this forum so we can challenge these numpties with ‘facts’ in the chambers! So the day of the Orwellian 1984 implementation of the Telescreen and the so called ruling elite’s propaganda direct into your home is nigh. I must brush up with a re-read of animal farm as well just to make sure! I am looking forward to seeing Jimmy lend me a tenner Alexander’s mug shot on billboards advertising the TV show. I can only imagine the graffiti……. Perhaps the Council TV show could be called: ‘Pointless’ – I know that already exists but Jimmy really is pointless. ‘I’m a councillor get the public out of here’ - Their opinions are not tolerated by us. Camps are being set up as we speak for the dissenters at Monks Cross 2. ‘Ever considered Financial Suicide?’ - The show where we show you how to waste millions of the public’s money and still smile. ‘Grand Resigns’ –where members of the council have to resign over poor development decisions – evidence presented and hosted by Kevin Mcloud. 1st Show covers expensive and needless cycle lanes and the conflicts of interest of the Machiavellian figure of Councillor Dave Merrett. Feel free to add to the list! Kevin Turvey

3:13pm Fri 13 Dec 13

yorkandproud says...

What do the long standing COY councillors like Horton and King etc think of the people running the Labour Party in York ? If they are not thoroughly ashamed of these twopence halfpenny characters like Alexander and Simpson -Laing and their cronies, they bl oody well should be. They aren't giving their party a chance at the next election. Vote of no confidence couple be one way.
What do the long standing COY councillors like Horton and King etc think of the people running the Labour Party in York ? If they are not thoroughly ashamed of these twopence halfpenny characters like Alexander and Simpson -Laing and their cronies, they bl oody well should be. They aren't giving their party a chance at the next election. Vote of no confidence couple be one way. yorkandproud

3:35pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Caecilius says...

People addressing Council meetings should ensure that anything they say is "factually correct", eh? So tell me, Coun Alexander - where, exactly, in your group's manifesto for the last election, do I find the commitment to remove the Water End cycle lane that you claimed in a radio interview to have included in it? Because I read the manifesto, and I'm hanged if I can find any such thing.
People addressing Council meetings should ensure that anything they say is "factually correct", eh? So tell me, Coun Alexander - where, exactly, in your group's manifesto for the last election, do I find the commitment to remove the Water End cycle lane that you claimed in a radio interview to have included in it? Because I read the manifesto, and I'm hanged if I can find any such thing. Caecilius

3:35pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

yorkandproud wrote:
What do the long standing COY councillors like Horton and King etc think of the people running the Labour Party in York ? If they are not thoroughly ashamed of these twopence halfpenny characters like Alexander and Simpson -Laing and their cronies, they bl oody well should be. They aren't giving their party a chance at the next election. Vote of no confidence couple be one way.
Unfortunately they are all peas in a pod !

Get them all (York Labour) out in 2015 !
[quote][p][bold]yorkandproud[/bold] wrote: What do the long standing COY councillors like Horton and King etc think of the people running the Labour Party in York ? If they are not thoroughly ashamed of these twopence halfpenny characters like Alexander and Simpson -Laing and their cronies, they bl oody well should be. They aren't giving their party a chance at the next election. Vote of no confidence couple be one way.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately they are all peas in a pod ! Get them all (York Labour) out in 2015 ! Rocking Horse

3:35pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

yorkandproud wrote:
What do the long standing COY councillors like Horton and King etc think of the people running the Labour Party in York ? If they are not thoroughly ashamed of these twopence halfpenny characters like Alexander and Simpson -Laing and their cronies, they bl oody well should be. They aren't giving their party a chance at the next election. Vote of no confidence couple be one way.
Unfortunately they are all peas in a pod !

Get them all (York Labour) out in 2015 !
[quote][p][bold]yorkandproud[/bold] wrote: What do the long standing COY councillors like Horton and King etc think of the people running the Labour Party in York ? If they are not thoroughly ashamed of these twopence halfpenny characters like Alexander and Simpson -Laing and their cronies, they bl oody well should be. They aren't giving their party a chance at the next election. Vote of no confidence couple be one way.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately they are all peas in a pod ! Get them all (York Labour) out in 2015 ! Rocking Horse

4:02pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Guthred says...

Kevin Turvey wrote:
It would seem things have changed counter to my earlier post.

http://www.lawgazett

e.co.uk/68961.articl

e
http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-england-lei

cestershire-20909851



So now the change in the law means that the public will struggle to challenge their elected or otherwise officials.

It is now time for a huge regime change within this country by political or other means
or time to leg it to somewhere less of a totalitarian state.

Unlike what David Camoron thinks being a patriot does not mean I have to like the political system merely that I like the country I live in.

The political situation in this country absolutely stinks at the minute. It will change soon by either fair means or fowl, there is a huge undercurrent of pressure swelling up and it will burst out in an unpleasant manner when the right dominoes line up.
Well tough. If you don't like the history or culture that created the political system we have today then I suggest you move to another country. Our system was born from our history and culture, not the other way round. As for the Rutland 3 UKIP councillors, they aggressively accused the council of corruption and fraud, without offering any credible evidence. I'm sure if somebody did the same to you, you would also persue legal action. UKIP are hoping that Rutland will be their first run council, but judging by the UKIP councillors behaviour, the electorate will offer them a kiss goodbye.

Everybody is free to ask the council and councillors questions, no matter how awkward they may seem, and the council should feel oblidged to respond and answer them. It is not unreasonable to criticise Council policy, especially if the policy seems lack detail. It's certainly not "against the law" to do so.
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Turvey[/bold] wrote: It would seem things have changed counter to my earlier post. http://www.lawgazett e.co.uk/68961.articl e http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-lei cestershire-20909851 So now the change in the law means that the public will struggle to challenge their elected or otherwise officials. It is now time for a huge regime change within this country by political or other means or time to leg it to somewhere less of a totalitarian state. Unlike what David Camoron thinks being a patriot does not mean I have to like the political system merely that I like the country I live in. The political situation in this country absolutely stinks at the minute. It will change soon by either fair means or fowl, there is a huge undercurrent of pressure swelling up and it will burst out in an unpleasant manner when the right dominoes line up.[/p][/quote]Well tough. If you don't like the history or culture that created the political system we have today then I suggest you move to another country. Our system was born from our history and culture, not the other way round. As for the Rutland 3 UKIP councillors, they aggressively accused the council of corruption and fraud, without offering any credible evidence. I'm sure if somebody did the same to you, you would also persue legal action. UKIP are hoping that Rutland will be their first run council, but judging by the UKIP councillors behaviour, the electorate will offer them a kiss goodbye. Everybody is free to ask the council and councillors questions, no matter how awkward they may seem, and the council should feel oblidged to respond and answer them. It is not unreasonable to criticise Council policy, especially if the policy seems lack detail. It's certainly not "against the law" to do so. Guthred

4:09pm Fri 13 Dec 13

binsysmith says...

Did Paul McCartney write this headline?? Say say say
Did Paul McCartney write this headline?? Say say say binsysmith

4:10pm Fri 13 Dec 13

acomblass says...

Caecilius wrote:
People addressing Council meetings should ensure that anything they say is "factually correct", eh? So tell me, Coun Alexander - where, exactly, in your group's manifesto for the last election, do I find the commitment to remove the Water End cycle lane that you claimed in a radio interview to have included in it? Because I read the manifesto, and I'm hanged if I can find any such thing.
Nor is there anything about removing funding to community centres, closing Lendal Bridge, spending half a million quid on 20mph signs, half a million quid on Kings Square not to mention their pledge to "scrap expensive schemes that York doesn't need", "will freeze council tax and Respark charges to help hard pressed residents" and "will have full and proper consultation" and "invest more in road repairs" - all in their Labour manifesto and all abandoned once they got their hands on the levers of power.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: People addressing Council meetings should ensure that anything they say is "factually correct", eh? So tell me, Coun Alexander - where, exactly, in your group's manifesto for the last election, do I find the commitment to remove the Water End cycle lane that you claimed in a radio interview to have included in it? Because I read the manifesto, and I'm hanged if I can find any such thing.[/p][/quote]Nor is there anything about removing funding to community centres, closing Lendal Bridge, spending half a million quid on 20mph signs, half a million quid on Kings Square not to mention their pledge to "scrap expensive schemes that York doesn't need", "will freeze council tax and Respark charges to help hard pressed residents" and "will have full and proper consultation" and "invest more in road repairs" - all in their Labour manifesto and all abandoned once they got their hands on the levers of power. acomblass

4:12pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Fulfordian says...

BKKYorkshireboy wrote:
It sounds like a very sensible suggestion from JA & TSL to me. How are they supposed to do their jobs properly with everyone (most of whom do not understand the argument in question) baying for their blood and constantly bringing up frivolous and factually incorrect matters? They are doing their best in a (next to!) impossible situation. If they say they want the public toilets painting black everyone else says they must be white. Its ridiculous!
But that's the point... They're *supposed* to represent what everyone wants!
[quote][p][bold]BKKYorkshireboy[/bold] wrote: It sounds like a very sensible suggestion from JA & TSL to me. How are they supposed to do their jobs properly with everyone (most of whom do not understand the argument in question) baying for their blood and constantly bringing up frivolous and factually incorrect matters? They are doing their best in a (next to!) impossible situation. If they say they want the public toilets painting black everyone else says they must be white. Its ridiculous![/p][/quote]But that's the point... They're *supposed* to represent what everyone wants! Fulfordian

4:24pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

Rocking Horse wrote:
Osbaldwick Lad wrote:
Could they be trying to set ground rules for when the York local television station becomes live?
You mean the York TV station rum by the council's buddies ?

Here's an interesting link/connection...

Science City York, have received £670k funding from CYC without a SLA (Service Level Agreement) being in place until governance expert, Gwen Swinburn pointed this out, and the deficiency being rectified, but, still with no performance metrics, SCY Chief Exec is Nicola Spence, and CYC Chief Exec is a Director. Nicola Spence is also a Director of the York TV station. The TV station is to be based at the Guildhall media centre.

Can anyone spot the cosy connections with the council ?

The York TV station's MD is also the MD of internet magazine 'One&Other', who seem to report on lots of CYC stories including the Labour members. Apparently the TV station will also run reports on the council etc.

It's not hard to see the obvious relationship between the Council and the TV station is it - more than a bit of you rub my back and I'll massage yours (and the news stories) for you !!!!

More control of the media from Alexander & Co ? Definitely !
I'm very unhappy about this, too. I ran this problem by Ofcom when the franchise was awarded (York being unusual in that unlike elsewhere there was only one applicant) but it said that they were happy with the application.

I'd love to see the business plan. It won't be on cable; it'll only be available to people who get their signal from Bilsdale; the Leeds station WILL be on cable... and where is the funding coming from? Not what I pay to the council, I hope!

Under Ofcom's rules for application, (L-DTPS 2.42) a licence "cannot be granted to a local authority or a political body" . The service "must engage with local democratic processes" (L-DTPS 1.33) and "facilitate civic understanding and fair and well-informed debate through coverage of local news and current affairs" (L-DTPS 3.71). "Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service" (UK Broadcasting Code 5.5)

Yeah, well, I can't wait.
[quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Osbaldwick Lad[/bold] wrote: Could they be trying to set ground rules for when the York local television station becomes live?[/p][/quote]You mean the York TV station rum by the council's buddies ? Here's an interesting link/connection... Science City York, have received £670k funding from CYC without a SLA (Service Level Agreement) being in place until governance expert, Gwen Swinburn pointed this out, and the deficiency being rectified, but, still with no performance metrics, SCY Chief Exec is Nicola Spence, and CYC Chief Exec is a Director. Nicola Spence is also a Director of the York TV station. The TV station is to be based at the Guildhall media centre. Can anyone spot the cosy connections with the council ? The York TV station's MD is also the MD of internet magazine 'One&Other', who seem to report on lots of CYC stories including the Labour members. Apparently the TV station will also run reports on the council etc. It's not hard to see the obvious relationship between the Council and the TV station is it - more than a bit of you rub my back and I'll massage yours (and the news stories) for you !!!! More control of the media from Alexander & Co ? Definitely ![/p][/quote]I'm very unhappy about this, too. I ran this problem by Ofcom when the franchise was awarded (York being unusual in that unlike elsewhere there was only one applicant) but it said that they were happy with the application. I'd love to see the business plan. It won't be on cable; it'll only be available to people who get their signal from Bilsdale; the Leeds station WILL be on cable... and where is the funding coming from? Not what I pay to the council, I hope! Under Ofcom's rules for application, (L-DTPS 2.42) a licence "cannot be granted to a local authority or a political body" . The service "must engage with local democratic processes" (L-DTPS 1.33) and "facilitate civic understanding and fair and well-informed debate through coverage of local news and current affairs" (L-DTPS 3.71). "Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service" (UK Broadcasting Code 5.5) Yeah, well, I can't wait. Ignatius Lumpopo

4:42pm Fri 13 Dec 13

acomblass says...

I had thought that Marcus Romer of Pilot Theatre who secured the Council's internet beaming contract earlier this year and who is involved with the York TV Channel was also a friend of the Chief Executive of CYC but maybe I am mistaken!
I had thought that Marcus Romer of Pilot Theatre who secured the Council's internet beaming contract earlier this year and who is involved with the York TV Channel was also a friend of the Chief Executive of CYC but maybe I am mistaken! acomblass

5:13pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

acomblass wrote:
I had thought that Marcus Romer of Pilot Theatre who secured the Council's internet beaming contract earlier this year and who is involved with the York TV Channel was also a friend of the Chief Executive of CYC but maybe I am mistaken!
Two different matters but yet more conflict....

Marcus Romer (Artistic Director of Pilot Theatre)
Pilot Theatre have Council webcast contract and are 'sponsored' by Council.
Marcus Romer is also a Director of Science City York, with Kersten England (CYC's Chief Exec) and Nicola Spence who is Chief Exec, and also Business Development Director of York TV Station !!!

All a bit too incestuous, eh ?

York bid in 2011 for UNESCO membership as a Creative City of Media Arts and both Marcus Romer and Kersten England visited Seoul (South Korea) for the bid. See Marcus Romer's blog...

http://marcusromer.w
ordpress.com/2011/10
/30/york-unesco-bid-
next-stop-korea/

The bid failed ostensibly because of the withdrawal of funding (of UNESCO) by the USA, but, other cities subsequently obtained membership.

York is bidding again next year, but, they have gone quiet about the failed bid, which was supposed to be still under consideration.

Jobs and trips abroad for the Council and their SCY/TEDx buddies !!!

,
[quote][p][bold]acomblass[/bold] wrote: I had thought that Marcus Romer of Pilot Theatre who secured the Council's internet beaming contract earlier this year and who is involved with the York TV Channel was also a friend of the Chief Executive of CYC but maybe I am mistaken![/p][/quote]Two different matters but yet more conflict.... Marcus Romer (Artistic Director of Pilot Theatre) Pilot Theatre have Council webcast contract and are 'sponsored' by Council. Marcus Romer is also a Director of Science City York, with Kersten England (CYC's Chief Exec) and Nicola Spence who is Chief Exec, and also Business Development Director of York TV Station !!! All a bit too incestuous, eh ? York bid in 2011 for UNESCO membership as a Creative City of Media Arts and both Marcus Romer and Kersten England visited Seoul (South Korea) for the bid. See Marcus Romer's blog... http://marcusromer.w ordpress.com/2011/10 /30/york-unesco-bid- next-stop-korea/ The bid failed ostensibly because of the withdrawal of funding (of UNESCO) by the USA, but, other cities subsequently obtained membership. York is bidding again next year, but, they have gone quiet about the failed bid, which was supposed to be still under consideration. Jobs and trips abroad for the Council and their SCY/TEDx buddies !!! , Rocking Horse

5:29pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Dr Brian says...

Obviously the only reason Alexander wants to do this is because he is probably the most unliked Council leader in living history and any adverse comments will almost certainly be aimed at him. When democracy is tested next time he seeks re-election I do hope that people will remember that Cllr Alexander is anti democracy and is against free speech Can somebody stand as an Anti James Alexander candidate - he will get my and I am sure many other people's vote.
Obviously the only reason Alexander wants to do this is because he is probably the most unliked Council leader in living history and any adverse comments will almost certainly be aimed at him. When democracy is tested next time he seeks re-election I do hope that people will remember that Cllr Alexander is anti democracy and is against free speech Can somebody stand as an Anti James Alexander candidate - he will get my and I am sure many other people's vote. Dr Brian

5:40pm Fri 13 Dec 13

chelk says...

This lot of idiots just do not like Criticism. The Muppet Show continues
This lot of idiots just do not like Criticism. The Muppet Show continues chelk

5:41pm Fri 13 Dec 13

chelk says...

This lot just do not like criticism. The Muppet Show continues
This lot just do not like criticism. The Muppet Show continues chelk

5:49pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Dr Brian says...

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
Does our Labour MP have any thoughts on how our current Labour council's behaviour might affect the Labour vote at the next election?
I think sensible people look at national elections and council elections in a very different way. I would call myself a Labour voter and as it stands if there was a general election tomorrow I would vote Labour to rid us of Cameron and Clegg but if there was a local council election I would vote ANYBODY to rid York of James Alexander.
[quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: Does our Labour MP have any thoughts on how our current Labour council's behaviour might affect the Labour vote at the next election?[/p][/quote]I think sensible people look at national elections and council elections in a very different way. I would call myself a Labour voter and as it stands if there was a general election tomorrow I would vote Labour to rid us of Cameron and Clegg but if there was a local council election I would vote ANYBODY to rid York of James Alexander. Dr Brian

6:00pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Silver says...

I would comment but I'm catching up on the reading to fully understand my own comment
I would comment but I'm catching up on the reading to fully understand my own comment Silver

6:32pm Fri 13 Dec 13

ak7274 says...

I wonder if James Alexander's uncle is still alive?
North Korea has supporters in some very strange places.
I wonder if James Alexander's uncle is still alive? North Korea has supporters in some very strange places. ak7274

7:07pm Fri 13 Dec 13

velvetdixie says...

It would seem Joseph Stalin is alive and living in York.
It would seem Joseph Stalin is alive and living in York. velvetdixie

7:23pm Fri 13 Dec 13

ouseswimmer says...

Its a Dystopian Orwellian nightmare. How quickly voters are bypassed by those who know better then we the people.
Its a Dystopian Orwellian nightmare. How quickly voters are bypassed by those who know better then we the people. ouseswimmer

7:23pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Guthred says...

Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
Rocking Horse wrote:
Osbaldwick Lad wrote:
Could they be trying to set ground rules for when the York local television station becomes live?
You mean the York TV station rum by the council's buddies ?

Here's an interesting link/connection...

Science City York, have received £670k funding from CYC without a SLA (Service Level Agreement) being in place until governance expert, Gwen Swinburn pointed this out, and the deficiency being rectified, but, still with no performance metrics, SCY Chief Exec is Nicola Spence, and CYC Chief Exec is a Director. Nicola Spence is also a Director of the York TV station. The TV station is to be based at the Guildhall media centre.

Can anyone spot the cosy connections with the council ?

The York TV station's MD is also the MD of internet magazine 'One&Other', who seem to report on lots of CYC stories including the Labour members. Apparently the TV station will also run reports on the council etc.

It's not hard to see the obvious relationship between the Council and the TV station is it - more than a bit of you rub my back and I'll massage yours (and the news stories) for you !!!!

More control of the media from Alexander & Co ? Definitely !
I'm very unhappy about this, too. I ran this problem by Ofcom when the franchise was awarded (York being unusual in that unlike elsewhere there was only one applicant) but it said that they were happy with the application.

I'd love to see the business plan. It won't be on cable; it'll only be available to people who get their signal from Bilsdale; the Leeds station WILL be on cable... and where is the funding coming from? Not what I pay to the council, I hope!

Under Ofcom's rules for application, (L-DTPS 2.42) a licence "cannot be granted to a local authority or a political body" . The service "must engage with local democratic processes" (L-DTPS 1.33) and "facilitate civic understanding and fair and well-informed debate through coverage of local news and current affairs" (L-DTPS 3.71). "Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service" (UK Broadcasting Code 5.5)

Yeah, well, I can't wait.
This seems a pretty "cosy" relationship, especially as these Directors appointments were only made this September. One&Other TV is a CIC Community Interest Group). Which are regulated and two main principles apply to them:

1. That CICs should not be formed for political purposes, or have engagement in political activities among their main objectives; and

2. That any political activities in which CICs do engage should be closely related to the non-political community benefit activities which they are set up to carry out.

So the TV station cannot carry any local interest programmes about local governance issues. No campaigns, no debates, just a local "information" channel. Is it really appropriate to set up a TV station as a CIC?
[quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Osbaldwick Lad[/bold] wrote: Could they be trying to set ground rules for when the York local television station becomes live?[/p][/quote]You mean the York TV station rum by the council's buddies ? Here's an interesting link/connection... Science City York, have received £670k funding from CYC without a SLA (Service Level Agreement) being in place until governance expert, Gwen Swinburn pointed this out, and the deficiency being rectified, but, still with no performance metrics, SCY Chief Exec is Nicola Spence, and CYC Chief Exec is a Director. Nicola Spence is also a Director of the York TV station. The TV station is to be based at the Guildhall media centre. Can anyone spot the cosy connections with the council ? The York TV station's MD is also the MD of internet magazine 'One&Other', who seem to report on lots of CYC stories including the Labour members. Apparently the TV station will also run reports on the council etc. It's not hard to see the obvious relationship between the Council and the TV station is it - more than a bit of you rub my back and I'll massage yours (and the news stories) for you !!!! More control of the media from Alexander & Co ? Definitely ![/p][/quote]I'm very unhappy about this, too. I ran this problem by Ofcom when the franchise was awarded (York being unusual in that unlike elsewhere there was only one applicant) but it said that they were happy with the application. I'd love to see the business plan. It won't be on cable; it'll only be available to people who get their signal from Bilsdale; the Leeds station WILL be on cable... and where is the funding coming from? Not what I pay to the council, I hope! Under Ofcom's rules for application, (L-DTPS 2.42) a licence "cannot be granted to a local authority or a political body" . The service "must engage with local democratic processes" (L-DTPS 1.33) and "facilitate civic understanding and fair and well-informed debate through coverage of local news and current affairs" (L-DTPS 3.71). "Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service" (UK Broadcasting Code 5.5) Yeah, well, I can't wait.[/p][/quote]This seems a pretty "cosy" relationship, especially as these Directors appointments were only made this September. One&Other TV is a CIC Community Interest Group). Which are regulated and two main principles apply to them: 1. That CICs should not be formed for political purposes, or have engagement in political activities among their main objectives; and 2. That any political activities in which CICs do engage should be closely related to the non-political community benefit activities which they are set up to carry out. So the TV station cannot carry any local interest programmes about local governance issues. No campaigns, no debates, just a local "information" channel. Is it really appropriate to set up a TV station as a CIC? Guthred

10:14pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Can't all be wrong says...

Shame on you Alexandra.
The history books of these islands are littered with examples of people who gave everything to preserve the concept of free speech. You and you idiotic collogues represent everything that is wrong with British politics . You are an employee of the citizens of this city, how dare you try to exclude us from the business of local government.
Shame on you Alexandra. The history books of these islands are littered with examples of people who gave everything to preserve the concept of free speech. You and you idiotic collogues represent everything that is wrong with British politics . You are an employee of the citizens of this city, how dare you try to exclude us from the business of local government. Can't all be wrong

10:55pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Blythespirit says...

BKKYorkshireboy wrote:
It sounds like a very sensible suggestion from JA & TSL to me. How are they supposed to do their jobs properly with everyone (most of whom do not understand the argument in question) baying for their blood and constantly bringing up frivolous and factually incorrect matters? They are doing their best in a (next to!) impossible situation. If they say they want the public toilets painting black everyone else says they must be white. Its ridiculous!
Ha ha... Is this a joke?
[quote][p][bold]BKKYorkshireboy[/bold] wrote: It sounds like a very sensible suggestion from JA & TSL to me. How are they supposed to do their jobs properly with everyone (most of whom do not understand the argument in question) baying for their blood and constantly bringing up frivolous and factually incorrect matters? They are doing their best in a (next to!) impossible situation. If they say they want the public toilets painting black everyone else says they must be white. Its ridiculous![/p][/quote]Ha ha... Is this a joke? Blythespirit

3:28pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Guthred says...

Dr Brian wrote:
Ignatius Lumpopo wrote:
Does our Labour MP have any thoughts on how our current Labour council's behaviour might affect the Labour vote at the next election?
I think sensible people look at national elections and council elections in a very different way. I would call myself a Labour voter and as it stands if there was a general election tomorrow I would vote Labour to rid us of Cameron and Clegg but if there was a local council election I would vote ANYBODY to rid York of James Alexander.
To be fair, chilling effects like this know no political ideology. In democracies they arise from egotism, vanity and misplaced ambition by individuals rather than political groups. If you listen to the meeting will hear that Labour councillors are just as scathing as all the other political groups and made it clear that the document had nothing to do with the York Labour Group. I think Cllr Chris Steward invoking Godwins Law was a bit frivolous, but that's just my opinion. I understand that JA is now saying that he never read the document before it was presented (even though he asked for it to be produced).
[quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: Does our Labour MP have any thoughts on how our current Labour council's behaviour might affect the Labour vote at the next election?[/p][/quote]I think sensible people look at national elections and council elections in a very different way. I would call myself a Labour voter and as it stands if there was a general election tomorrow I would vote Labour to rid us of Cameron and Clegg but if there was a local council election I would vote ANYBODY to rid York of James Alexander.[/p][/quote]To be fair, chilling effects like this know no political ideology. In democracies they arise from egotism, vanity and misplaced ambition by individuals rather than political groups. If you listen to the meeting will hear that Labour councillors are just as scathing as all the other political groups and made it clear that the document had nothing to do with the York Labour Group. I think Cllr Chris Steward invoking Godwins Law was a bit frivolous, but that's just my opinion. I understand that JA is now saying that he never read the document before it was presented (even though he asked for it to be produced). Guthred

3:56pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Kelvar says...

Quote - "We have a duty to be accountable as elected members. Council officials are employed by the people of this city, and while we may not always like what people say, we have a duty to listen.”

SOME of the 'ELECTED' Council Members seem to have forgotten this little fact.....It's about time they remembered it.....
Quote - "We have a duty to be accountable as elected members. Council officials are employed by the people of this city, and while we may not always like what people say, we have a duty to listen.” SOME of the 'ELECTED' Council Members seem to have forgotten this little fact.....It's about time they remembered it..... Kelvar

5:41pm Sat 14 Dec 13

AntMcM says...

TSL made an anti-Catholic remark about "smells and bells" at a Council meeting once, I don't think that was "factually accurate"...
TSL made an anti-Catholic remark about "smells and bells" at a Council meeting once, I don't think that was "factually accurate"... AntMcM

6:57pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Kandro says...

When they can accurately represent our wishes and ideas in their debates & discussions, we in the public wont have to speak. So we public people may not be accurate but they are not having accurate discussions either...which is why a 3rd party (the public) has to come in and try to help raise the points that are not being sorted.
The real way to silence the public is to create a public contentment and confidence in the chamber & its councillors. This can only be achieved by developing the quality of discussion & debate.
When I presented my public 3 min talk some of councillors were a bit rude and het up in their replies. One suggested my information was false & fabricated. I didnt take it personally because I know its was that persons job to defend their party and it showed their passion about their party. They may have been defending someone they care about. When there is passion and rudeness its for a reason. If your hurt someone and then tell them they are not allowed to be emotional that is insanity. its far better to help people channel that energy than saying to repress it. For example me on Kings Square. Why do the council not say...if you 2130 people care so much then here is an activity you can do to help the situation?
When they can accurately represent our wishes and ideas in their debates & discussions, we in the public wont have to speak. So we public people may not be accurate but they are not having accurate discussions either...which is why a 3rd party (the public) has to come in and try to help raise the points that are not being sorted. The real way to silence the public is to create a public contentment and confidence in the chamber & its councillors. This can only be achieved by developing the quality of discussion & debate. When I presented my public 3 min talk some of councillors were a bit rude and het up in their replies. One suggested my information was false & fabricated. I didnt take it personally because I know its was that persons job to defend their party and it showed their passion about their party. They may have been defending someone they care about. When there is passion and rudeness its for a reason. If your hurt someone and then tell them they are not allowed to be emotional that is insanity. its far better to help people channel that energy than saying to repress it. For example me on Kings Square. Why do the council not say...if you 2130 people care so much then here is an activity you can do to help the situation? Kandro

8:16pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

Guthred wrote:
Dr Brian wrote:
Ignatius Lumpopo wrote: Does our Labour MP have any thoughts on how our current Labour council's behaviour might affect the Labour vote at the next election?
I think sensible people look at national elections and council elections in a very different way. I would call myself a Labour voter and as it stands if there was a general election tomorrow I would vote Labour to rid us of Cameron and Clegg but if there was a local council election I would vote ANYBODY to rid York of James Alexander.
To be fair, chilling effects like this know no political ideology. In democracies they arise from egotism, vanity and misplaced ambition by individuals rather than political groups. If you listen to the meeting will hear that Labour councillors are just as scathing as all the other political groups and made it clear that the document had nothing to do with the York Labour Group. I think Cllr Chris Steward invoking Godwins Law was a bit frivolous, but that's just my opinion. I understand that JA is now saying that he never read the document before it was presented (even though he asked for it to be produced).
JA has said on twitter that he was advised to have the report written, by the writer !!! This is the monitoring officer, Andrew Docherty, the Assistant Director responsible for governance.

So who is running the show ?

I think there is more to this fiasco. Where is the justification ? Where are all the incidents of abuse of officers by the public at meetings, that has brought this about ? The truth is there hasn't been any, but, is it possible that there has been some controversial wrongdoing by officers which has yet to be exposed ? Was this 'gagging order' intended to protect the culprits ? Lets see........

#GaggingGate
[quote][p][bold]Guthred[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ignatius Lumpopo[/bold] wrote: Does our Labour MP have any thoughts on how our current Labour council's behaviour might affect the Labour vote at the next election?[/p][/quote]I think sensible people look at national elections and council elections in a very different way. I would call myself a Labour voter and as it stands if there was a general election tomorrow I would vote Labour to rid us of Cameron and Clegg but if there was a local council election I would vote ANYBODY to rid York of James Alexander.[/p][/quote]To be fair, chilling effects like this know no political ideology. In democracies they arise from egotism, vanity and misplaced ambition by individuals rather than political groups. If you listen to the meeting will hear that Labour councillors are just as scathing as all the other political groups and made it clear that the document had nothing to do with the York Labour Group. I think Cllr Chris Steward invoking Godwins Law was a bit frivolous, but that's just my opinion. I understand that JA is now saying that he never read the document before it was presented (even though he asked for it to be produced).[/p][/quote]JA has said on twitter that he was advised to have the report written, by the writer !!! This is the monitoring officer, Andrew Docherty, the Assistant Director responsible for governance. So who is running the show ? I think there is more to this fiasco. Where is the justification ? Where are all the incidents of abuse of officers by the public at meetings, that has brought this about ? The truth is there hasn't been any, but, is it possible that there has been some controversial wrongdoing by officers which has yet to be exposed ? Was this 'gagging order' intended to protect the culprits ? Lets see........ #GaggingGate Rocking Horse

10:34pm Sat 14 Dec 13

inthesticks says...

Rocking Horse wrote:
inthesticks wrote:
Does anyone else not think that the Assistant Director for legal and democratic stuff, who`s job it is to advise Cllrs and oversee that laws are adhered to and who is paid over 73k a year to do so, should have done a bit better with this report? I sometimes wonder if there are ulterior motives behind the scenes, maybe, maybe not. http://democracy.yor k.gov.uk/documents/s 86013/Public%20Parti cipation%20Scheme.pd f
Not sure what you mean by a 'better job' ?

This officer seems to spend a lot of time interpreting (bending ?) the rules to enable the council to hide information by making documents 'confidential' or 'drafts' in breach of Statutory Instrument No 2089 (2012), and giving councillors excuses for blocking/ignoring and gagging the public.

He's certainly doing a good job of destroying democracy, that's for sure, but, I doubt that the York tax-payers who are paying his £73k salary will appreciate what they are getting for their money from him !
Yea, i`m being subtle. You are on the same track as me I think with your post at 8:16pm Sat. My honest opinion is the Directors are running the show here. The Cllrs are the face of the council but people dont get paid 50- 150k to do admin. Cllrs are very naive and uneducated compared to the big boys and girls running the show and pulling the strings.
Next time round, Libdems or Cons get in and same old same old, because if KE & the rest of the cronies want to keep their standard of living they will make sure heads roll at the coalface not the back office. How to keep your job and influence people - write a report that p****s off the electorate and make it look like somebody else`s fault. Easy when the public are already baying for blood.
Who are they answering to behind the scenes? No one. They must be laughing all the way to the next `business trip` that you and I are paying for.
[quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: Does anyone else not think that the Assistant Director for legal and democratic stuff, who`s job it is to advise Cllrs and oversee that laws are adhered to and who is paid over 73k a year to do so, should have done a bit better with this report? I sometimes wonder if there are ulterior motives behind the scenes, maybe, maybe not. http://democracy.yor k.gov.uk/documents/s 86013/Public%20Parti cipation%20Scheme.pd f[/p][/quote]Not sure what you mean by a 'better job' ? This officer seems to spend a lot of time interpreting (bending ?) the rules to enable the council to hide information by making documents 'confidential' or 'drafts' in breach of Statutory Instrument No 2089 (2012), and giving councillors excuses for blocking/ignoring and gagging the public. He's certainly doing a good job of destroying democracy, that's for sure, but, I doubt that the York tax-payers who are paying his £73k salary will appreciate what they are getting for their money from him ![/p][/quote]Yea, i`m being subtle. You are on the same track as me I think with your post at 8:16pm Sat. My honest opinion is the Directors are running the show here. The Cllrs are the face of the council but people dont get paid 50- 150k to do admin. Cllrs are very naive and uneducated compared to the big boys and girls running the show and pulling the strings. Next time round, Libdems or Cons get in and same old same old, because if KE & the rest of the cronies want to keep their standard of living they will make sure heads roll at the coalface not the back office. How to keep your job and influence people - write a report that p****s off the electorate and make it look like somebody else`s fault. Easy when the public are already baying for blood. Who are they answering to behind the scenes? No one. They must be laughing all the way to the next `business trip` that you and I are paying for. inthesticks

11:33pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Guthred says...

"JA has said on twitter that he was advised to have the report written, by the writer !!! This is the monitoring officer, Andrew Docherty, the Assistant Director responsible for governance. "

Sounds sinister if senior council staff wrote it and then pushed for it to be put onto the agenda. I would assume, and hope that JA is just passing the buck. Whichever the case an apology would be the prudent and dignified thing to do.
"JA has said on twitter that he was advised to have the report written, by the writer !!! This is the monitoring officer, Andrew Docherty, the Assistant Director responsible for governance. " Sounds sinister if senior council staff wrote it and then pushed for it to be put onto the agenda. I would assume, and hope that JA is just passing the buck. Whichever the case an apology would be the prudent and dignified thing to do. Guthred

12:21pm Sun 15 Dec 13

Eborwatch says...

Cllr. Simpson-Laing has now lost my vote at the next election. To support such a set of proposals is absurd, disgraceful and highlights, yet again, the type of some of the councillors we have. Time for a change .... a big change!
Cllr. Simpson-Laing has now lost my vote at the next election. To support such a set of proposals is absurd, disgraceful and highlights, yet again, the type of some of the councillors we have. Time for a change .... a big change! Eborwatch

3:31pm Sun 15 Dec 13

gmsgop says...

What simply amazes me is that no one except the author,apparently, saw this report before it was sent out with the audit and governance agenda.
The second thing is Council reports should have two sign offs in this case only the author the Monitoring 'officer' but no other.
The Chair of the committee had not seen this, it is her committee, not the staffers- why hadn't she and the deputy been briefed and reviewed the agenda?
May I politely suggest as I did at the Council before last, that Kersten England gathers her Management Team and the Cabinet and have a retreat to focus on the differences between your respective roles. In doing so focus on core priorities and deliver. In fact just do as the York council peer review advised- you have an extra £500,000.00 to deliver transformation- seems it ain't working yet.
What simply amazes me is that no one except the author,apparently, saw this report before it was sent out with the audit and governance agenda. The second thing is Council reports should have two sign offs in this case only the author the Monitoring 'officer' but no other. The Chair of the committee had not seen this, it is her committee, not the staffers- why hadn't she and the deputy been briefed and reviewed the agenda? May I politely suggest as I did at the Council before last, that Kersten England gathers her Management Team and the Cabinet and have a retreat to focus on the differences between your respective roles. In doing so focus on core priorities and deliver. In fact just do as the York council peer review advised- you have an extra £500,000.00 to deliver transformation- seems it ain't working yet. gmsgop

3:44pm Sun 15 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

inthesticks wrote:
Rocking Horse wrote:
inthesticks wrote: Does anyone else not think that the Assistant Director for legal and democratic stuff, who`s job it is to advise Cllrs and oversee that laws are adhered to and who is paid over 73k a year to do so, should have done a bit better with this report? I sometimes wonder if there are ulterior motives behind the scenes, maybe, maybe not. http://democracy.yor k.gov.uk/documents/s 86013/Public%20Parti cipation%20Scheme.pd f
Not sure what you mean by a 'better job' ? This officer seems to spend a lot of time interpreting (bending ?) the rules to enable the council to hide information by making documents 'confidential' or 'drafts' in breach of Statutory Instrument No 2089 (2012), and giving councillors excuses for blocking/ignoring and gagging the public. He's certainly doing a good job of destroying democracy, that's for sure, but, I doubt that the York tax-payers who are paying his £73k salary will appreciate what they are getting for their money from him !
Yea, i`m being subtle. You are on the same track as me I think with your post at 8:16pm Sat. My honest opinion is the Directors are running the show here. The Cllrs are the face of the council but people dont get paid 50- 150k to do admin. Cllrs are very naive and uneducated compared to the big boys and girls running the show and pulling the strings. Next time round, Libdems or Cons get in and same old same old, because if KE & the rest of the cronies want to keep their standard of living they will make sure heads roll at the coalface not the back office. How to keep your job and influence people - write a report that p****s off the electorate and make it look like somebody else`s fault. Easy when the public are already baying for blood. Who are they answering to behind the scenes? No one. They must be laughing all the way to the next `business trip` that you and I are paying for.
I agree, but it's not just senior officers from Assistant Director level upwards who are politicised and doing more than 'advising'. Lower level officers are complicit in the manipulation of the policy-making process, by skewing reports and consultation to achieve the decisions they want. 'Preferred Options' are often supported by misinformation, and are designed to lead to decisions that officers personally prefer based on dogma not pragmatism.

Councillors have little control over officers, but Labour are aligned politically with them so they get what they want. The other parties are afraid to rock the boat, so officers get away with unacceptable wrongdoing. There is only one councillor who has the balls to stand up to them, and that is Mark Warters. If York wasa controlled by independants with Coun Warters' tenacity and intelligence, it would be a better place. Officers need to be brought into line, and many, frankly, should be kicked out. There are much more serious abuses by officers than the alleged twitter abuse by citizens which has been massively exaggerated by York's Labour members. This is a distraction tactic which takes attention away from the real misdemeanours committed by the public servants.
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: Does anyone else not think that the Assistant Director for legal and democratic stuff, who`s job it is to advise Cllrs and oversee that laws are adhered to and who is paid over 73k a year to do so, should have done a bit better with this report? I sometimes wonder if there are ulterior motives behind the scenes, maybe, maybe not. http://democracy.yor k.gov.uk/documents/s 86013/Public%20Parti cipation%20Scheme.pd f[/p][/quote]Not sure what you mean by a 'better job' ? This officer seems to spend a lot of time interpreting (bending ?) the rules to enable the council to hide information by making documents 'confidential' or 'drafts' in breach of Statutory Instrument No 2089 (2012), and giving councillors excuses for blocking/ignoring and gagging the public. He's certainly doing a good job of destroying democracy, that's for sure, but, I doubt that the York tax-payers who are paying his £73k salary will appreciate what they are getting for their money from him ![/p][/quote]Yea, i`m being subtle. You are on the same track as me I think with your post at 8:16pm Sat. My honest opinion is the Directors are running the show here. The Cllrs are the face of the council but people dont get paid 50- 150k to do admin. Cllrs are very naive and uneducated compared to the big boys and girls running the show and pulling the strings. Next time round, Libdems or Cons get in and same old same old, because if KE & the rest of the cronies want to keep their standard of living they will make sure heads roll at the coalface not the back office. How to keep your job and influence people - write a report that p****s off the electorate and make it look like somebody else`s fault. Easy when the public are already baying for blood. Who are they answering to behind the scenes? No one. They must be laughing all the way to the next `business trip` that you and I are paying for.[/p][/quote]I agree, but it's not just senior officers from Assistant Director level upwards who are politicised and doing more than 'advising'. Lower level officers are complicit in the manipulation of the policy-making process, by skewing reports and consultation to achieve the decisions they want. 'Preferred Options' are often supported by misinformation, and are designed to lead to decisions that officers personally prefer based on dogma not pragmatism. Councillors have little control over officers, but Labour are aligned politically with them so they get what they want. The other parties are afraid to rock the boat, so officers get away with unacceptable wrongdoing. There is only one councillor who has the balls to stand up to them, and that is Mark Warters. If York wasa controlled by independants with Coun Warters' tenacity and intelligence, it would be a better place. Officers need to be brought into line, and many, frankly, should be kicked out. There are much more serious abuses by officers than the alleged twitter abuse by citizens which has been massively exaggerated by York's Labour members. This is a distraction tactic which takes attention away from the real misdemeanours committed by the public servants. Rocking Horse

3:51pm Sun 15 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

gmsgop wrote:
What simply amazes me is that no one except the author,apparently, saw this report before it was sent out with the audit and governance agenda. The second thing is Council reports should have two sign offs in this case only the author the Monitoring 'officer' but no other. The Chair of the committee had not seen this, it is her committee, not the staffers- why hadn't she and the deputy been briefed and reviewed the agenda? May I politely suggest as I did at the Council before last, that Kersten England gathers her Management Team and the Cabinet and have a retreat to focus on the differences between your respective roles. In doing so focus on core priorities and deliver. In fact just do as the York council peer review advised- you have an extra £500,000.00 to deliver transformation- seems it ain't working yet.
Clearly, there has been abuse of the rules by the officer responsible for governance. If his report was not signed off by another, he has broken the rules that he is there to police. Surely this needs a serious review/inquiry, and those guilty of any wrongdoing should be held to account ?
[quote][p][bold]gmsgop[/bold] wrote: What simply amazes me is that no one except the author,apparently, saw this report before it was sent out with the audit and governance agenda. The second thing is Council reports should have two sign offs in this case only the author the Monitoring 'officer' but no other. The Chair of the committee had not seen this, it is her committee, not the staffers- why hadn't she and the deputy been briefed and reviewed the agenda? May I politely suggest as I did at the Council before last, that Kersten England gathers her Management Team and the Cabinet and have a retreat to focus on the differences between your respective roles. In doing so focus on core priorities and deliver. In fact just do as the York council peer review advised- you have an extra £500,000.00 to deliver transformation- seems it ain't working yet.[/p][/quote]Clearly, there has been abuse of the rules by the officer responsible for governance. If his report was not signed off by another, he has broken the rules that he is there to police. Surely this needs a serious review/inquiry, and those guilty of any wrongdoing should be held to account ? Rocking Horse

4:19pm Sun 15 Dec 13

gmsgop says...

(Ok this may sound sad!!)
For someone who reads quite a few council reports, there seems to be what would appear to be a standard sign off protocol, which looks quite good. But it seems that , especially the centre, regularly falls short- the gagging report was worst because no one (apparently) cleared it ( or would admit to it on the report).
This sloppiness and not adhering to York Council internal procedures is not unusual, and hopefully the terrible #fail, at every level, will hopefully ensure the staff as well as the councillors will be very much more careful in the future. I am sure Kersten England will initiate an internal review to find out how such an embarasding situation occurred and if she doesn't I am sure others will.
The cabinet are quite inexperienced and should also have been receiving better guidance, I agree.
(Ok this may sound sad!!) For someone who reads quite a few council reports, there seems to be what would appear to be a standard sign off protocol, which looks quite good. But it seems that , especially the centre, regularly falls short- the gagging report was worst because no one (apparently) cleared it ( or would admit to it on the report). This sloppiness and not adhering to York Council internal procedures is not unusual, and hopefully the terrible #fail, at every level, will hopefully ensure the staff as well as the councillors will be very much more careful in the future. I am sure Kersten England will initiate an internal review to find out how such an embarasding situation occurred and if she doesn't I am sure others will. The cabinet are quite inexperienced and should also have been receiving better guidance, I agree. gmsgop

5:10pm Sun 15 Dec 13

Guthred says...

"This sloppiness and not adhering to York Council internal procedures is not unusual, and hopefully the terrible #fail, at every level..."

This worries me, especially if large sums of public money are involved in a decision making process.

On this occassion the councillors have done their job at the very last stage. However perhaps it is time for few more independents to stand in the next election.
"This sloppiness and not adhering to York Council internal procedures is not unusual, and hopefully the terrible #fail, at every level..." This worries me, especially if large sums of public money are involved in a decision making process. On this occassion the councillors have done their job at the very last stage. However perhaps it is time for few more independents to stand in the next election. Guthred

6:15pm Sun 15 Dec 13

gmsgop says...

Guthred wrote:
"This sloppiness and not adhering to York Council internal procedures is not unusual, and hopefully the terrible #fail, at every level..."

This worries me, especially if large sums of public money are involved in a decision making process.

On this occassion the councillors have done their job at the very last stage. However perhaps it is time for few more independents to stand in the next election.
I agree with your worries Guthred- small and large protocol sloppiness, breaking the law on democratic governance issues, local government ombudsman public interest investigations, the blocking of citizens from the Council Twitter account, failed attempts to gag citizens as well in council meetings - the way massive sums of money are committed and spent without cost benefit or risk analysis or proper metrics or consultation.

yes I'm worried, very worried - the more I see the more I worry. I think that applies to anyone who takes more than a cursory look at the Council. Some parts are fine and there are many great council workers but the central functions, the top level worries me deeply. The Councillors must for our sakes please recognise what their role is and is not - then proper accountability can happen - councillors are responsible for policy, kersten England and her staff for implementation- lets all pause to really think where the problems really are......
There I have said it, not offensive, entirely true .
[quote][p][bold]Guthred[/bold] wrote: "This sloppiness and not adhering to York Council internal procedures is not unusual, and hopefully the terrible #fail, at every level..." This worries me, especially if large sums of public money are involved in a decision making process. On this occassion the councillors have done their job at the very last stage. However perhaps it is time for few more independents to stand in the next election.[/p][/quote]I agree with your worries Guthred- small and large protocol sloppiness, breaking the law on democratic governance issues, local government ombudsman public interest investigations, the blocking of citizens from the Council Twitter account, failed attempts to gag citizens as well in council meetings - the way massive sums of money are committed and spent without cost benefit or risk analysis or proper metrics or consultation. yes I'm worried, very worried - the more I see the more I worry. I think that applies to anyone who takes more than a cursory look at the Council. Some parts are fine and there are many great council workers but the central functions, the top level worries me deeply. The Councillors must for our sakes please recognise what their role is and is not - then proper accountability can happen - councillors are responsible for policy, kersten England and her staff for implementation- lets all pause to really think where the problems really are...... There I have said it, not offensive, entirely true . gmsgop

6:21pm Sun 15 Dec 13

gmsgop says...

Guthred wrote:
"This sloppiness and not adhering to York Council internal procedures is not unusual, and hopefully the terrible #fail, at every level..."

This worries me, especially if large sums of public money are involved in a decision making process.

On this occassion the councillors have done their job at the very last stage. However perhaps it is time for few more independents to stand in the next election.
I agree with your worries Guthred- small and large protocol sloppiness, breaking the law on democratic governance issues, local government ombudsman public interest investigations, the blocking of citizens from the Council Twitter account, failed attempts to gag citizens as well in council meetings - the way massive sums of money are committed and spent without cost benefit or risk analysis or proper metrics or consultation.

yes I'm worried, very worried - the more I see the more I worry. I think that applies to anyone who takes more than a cursory look at the Council. Some parts are fine and there are many great council workers but the central functions, the top level worries me deeply. The Councillors must for our sakes please recognise what their role is and is not - then proper accountability can happen - councillors are responsible for policy, kersten England and her staff for implementation- lets all pause to really think where the problems really are......
There I have said it, not offensive, entirely true .
[quote][p][bold]Guthred[/bold] wrote: "This sloppiness and not adhering to York Council internal procedures is not unusual, and hopefully the terrible #fail, at every level..." This worries me, especially if large sums of public money are involved in a decision making process. On this occassion the councillors have done their job at the very last stage. However perhaps it is time for few more independents to stand in the next election.[/p][/quote]I agree with your worries Guthred- small and large protocol sloppiness, breaking the law on democratic governance issues, local government ombudsman public interest investigations, the blocking of citizens from the Council Twitter account, failed attempts to gag citizens as well in council meetings - the way massive sums of money are committed and spent without cost benefit or risk analysis or proper metrics or consultation. yes I'm worried, very worried - the more I see the more I worry. I think that applies to anyone who takes more than a cursory look at the Council. Some parts are fine and there are many great council workers but the central functions, the top level worries me deeply. The Councillors must for our sakes please recognise what their role is and is not - then proper accountability can happen - councillors are responsible for policy, kersten England and her staff for implementation- lets all pause to really think where the problems really are...... There I have said it, not offensive, entirely true . gmsgop

11:30pm Sun 15 Dec 13

inthesticks says...

I really hope Kersten England and other officers have read these comments. There have been some very intelligent and constructive points made (by people who care about their city).
The council are really making themselves look poor at the moment and it is looking more like the paid directors are not justifying their huge salaries.
Can I also say that blocking people from the COYC twitter account is noticed on twitter by many hundreds of people and really is embarrassing so stop doing it - the latest I have read is from someone who drew attention to a litter problem. Really, get a grip and behave a bit more professionally.
I really hope Kersten England and other officers have read these comments. There have been some very intelligent and constructive points made (by people who care about their city). The council are really making themselves look poor at the moment and it is looking more like the paid directors are not justifying their huge salaries. Can I also say that blocking people from the COYC twitter account is noticed on twitter by many hundreds of people and really is embarrassing so stop doing it - the latest I have read is from someone who drew attention to a litter problem. Really, get a grip and behave a bit more professionally. inthesticks

12:29pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

inthesticks wrote:
I really hope Kersten England and other officers have read these comments. There have been some very intelligent and constructive points made (by people who care about their city). The council are really making themselves look poor at the moment and it is looking more like the paid directors are not justifying their huge salaries. Can I also say that blocking people from the COYC twitter account is noticed on twitter by many hundreds of people and really is embarrassing so stop doing it - the latest I have read is from someone who drew attention to a litter problem. Really, get a grip and behave a bit more professionally.
Blocking of York citizens on Twitter has been carried out by the council, Coun Alexander, Coun Simpson-Laing, Coun Crisp, Kersten England, Paul Edmondson-Jones and Sally Burns.

The Council apparently gave the reason that they will not allow the criticism of council officers in name. If the criticism is untrue, personal, abusive and persistent, then this is valid, but, if not, then the criticism is fair, and as the tweets cannot be stopped, it seems ridiculous that a citizen is denied access to the council's twitter page. Citizens who pay their council tax are in effect being denied access to an information service that they have paid for.

In respect of the blocking by the councillors and officers, it is obvious that many who have been blocked are York citizens with valid concerns and criticisms, who raise issues based on facts and evidence. If these public servants truly want to engage, then they need to listen to not only those who agree with policies and decisions, but, also to those who don't. Making the ostensible excuse that they block because of abuse/offence will not wash, people aren't daft, and it justifies the allegations that the council being run as a dictatorship which seeks to control the freedom of speech.

The behaviour of these twitter blockers is yet another act of political vandalism against many York citizens, and against democracy !
[quote][p][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: I really hope Kersten England and other officers have read these comments. There have been some very intelligent and constructive points made (by people who care about their city). The council are really making themselves look poor at the moment and it is looking more like the paid directors are not justifying their huge salaries. Can I also say that blocking people from the COYC twitter account is noticed on twitter by many hundreds of people and really is embarrassing so stop doing it - the latest I have read is from someone who drew attention to a litter problem. Really, get a grip and behave a bit more professionally.[/p][/quote]Blocking of York citizens on Twitter has been carried out by the council, Coun Alexander, Coun Simpson-Laing, Coun Crisp, Kersten England, Paul Edmondson-Jones and Sally Burns. The Council apparently gave the reason that they will not allow the criticism of council officers in name. If the criticism is untrue, personal, abusive and persistent, then this is valid, but, if not, then the criticism is fair, and as the tweets cannot be stopped, it seems ridiculous that a citizen is denied access to the council's twitter page. Citizens who pay their council tax are in effect being denied access to an information service that they have paid for. In respect of the blocking by the councillors and officers, it is obvious that many who have been blocked are York citizens with valid concerns and criticisms, who raise issues based on facts and evidence. If these public servants truly want to engage, then they need to listen to not only those who agree with policies and decisions, but, also to those who don't. Making the ostensible excuse that they block because of abuse/offence will not wash, people aren't daft, and it justifies the allegations that the council being run as a dictatorship which seeks to control the freedom of speech. The behaviour of these twitter blockers is yet another act of political vandalism against many York citizens, and against democracy ! Rocking Horse

12:30pm Mon 16 Dec 13

acomblass says...

Surely this cannot be the same James Alexander who tried to gag the press when he was a student at York University by bringing in a media charter. see Evening Press archive of 14 April 2005.
A pattern is certainly emerging here.
Surely this cannot be the same James Alexander who tried to gag the press when he was a student at York University by bringing in a media charter. see Evening Press archive of 14 April 2005. A pattern is certainly emerging here. acomblass

1:39pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Guthred says...

acomblass wrote:
Surely this cannot be the same James Alexander who tried to gag the press when he was a student at York University by bringing in a media charter. see Evening Press archive of 14 April 2005.
A pattern is certainly emerging here.
Is it? Surely not?! That James Alexander said of the press gag:

"If they (the student journalists) don't like it, they can become independent,"

Charming.
[quote][p][bold]acomblass[/bold] wrote: Surely this cannot be the same James Alexander who tried to gag the press when he was a student at York University by bringing in a media charter. see Evening Press archive of 14 April 2005. A pattern is certainly emerging here.[/p][/quote]Is it? Surely not?! That James Alexander said of the press gag: "If they (the student journalists) don't like it, they can become independent," Charming. Guthred

2:39pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

acomblass wrote:
Surely this cannot be the same James Alexander who tried to gag the press when he was a student at York University by bringing in a media charter. see Evening Press archive of 14 April 2005. A pattern is certainly emerging here.
Alexander is a dangerous man, self/power-obsessed, with an agenda.

That agenda is to promote himself, and the Labour party, using York, and riding roughshod over all who disagree. His actions have made their mark on York; causing destruction to the landscape and democratic principles, and wasting millions. Egged on by Merrett and Simpson-Laing and supported/assisted by Kersten England and her #teamyork gang of politicised officers.

They will never change, are bad for York, and need to be removed. I urge York citizens to remove the lot in 2015.

Vote for those who promise to overturn their policies and who vow to get rid of any officers who are part of the problem.

The stain on York caused by Alexander needs to be washed away !
[quote][p][bold]acomblass[/bold] wrote: Surely this cannot be the same James Alexander who tried to gag the press when he was a student at York University by bringing in a media charter. see Evening Press archive of 14 April 2005. A pattern is certainly emerging here.[/p][/quote]Alexander is a dangerous man, self/power-obsessed, with an agenda. That agenda is to promote himself, and the Labour party, using York, and riding roughshod over all who disagree. His actions have made their mark on York; causing destruction to the landscape and democratic principles, and wasting millions. Egged on by Merrett and Simpson-Laing and supported/assisted by Kersten England and her #teamyork gang of politicised officers. They will never change, are bad for York, and need to be removed. I urge York citizens to remove the lot in 2015. Vote for those who promise to overturn their policies and who vow to get rid of any officers who are part of the problem. The stain on York caused by Alexander needs to be washed away ! Rocking Horse

5:59pm Mon 16 Dec 13

nowthen says...

The purge continues !!!!!! my comment ,with 157 likes , has been removed !!!!!! be careful what you say fellow posters , there are some very fragile and sensitive egos out there; a further indication of the instability of this administration.
The purge continues !!!!!! my comment ,with 157 likes , has been removed !!!!!! be careful what you say fellow posters , there are some very fragile and sensitive egos out there; a further indication of the instability of this administration. nowthen

7:53pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

nowthen wrote:
The purge continues !!!!!! my comment ,with 157 likes , has been removed !!!!!! be careful what you say fellow posters , there are some very fragile and sensitive egos out there; a further indication of the instability of this administration.
Yet more control of our freedom of speech ?

They obviously don't want readers to see how many York residents are voting for comments which are critical of the Council.

Keep up the good work 'nowthen', they cannot silence (gag or block) everybody all of the time.

I expect that comments against this council will continue to grow, until 2015 !
[quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: The purge continues !!!!!! my comment ,with 157 likes , has been removed !!!!!! be careful what you say fellow posters , there are some very fragile and sensitive egos out there; a further indication of the instability of this administration.[/p][/quote]Yet more control of our freedom of speech ? They obviously don't want readers to see how many York residents are voting for comments which are critical of the Council. Keep up the good work 'nowthen', they cannot silence (gag or block) everybody all of the time. I expect that comments against this council will continue to grow, until 2015 ! Rocking Horse

10:45pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Guthred says...

Rocking Horse wrote:
nowthen wrote:
The purge continues !!!!!! my comment ,with 157 likes , has been removed !!!!!! be careful what you say fellow posters , there are some very fragile and sensitive egos out there; a further indication of the instability of this administration.
Yet more control of our freedom of speech ?

They obviously don't want readers to see how many York residents are voting for comments which are critical of the Council.

Keep up the good work 'nowthen', they cannot silence (gag or block) everybody all of the time.

I expect that comments against this council will continue to grow, until 2015 !
*sigh* Internet censorship/gagging, it's happening all the time. Remember Susan Wade-Weeks (prospective Conservative MP, candidate for York Central 2010) and her facebook post election comment?

"Number crunching:
Number of people who admitted to York Citizens Advice in 2009 that they did not want to work but wanted to stay on benefits: 18,000
Number of people in York Central who voted Labour in 2010: 18,000"

Well, more than TWO YEARS after the Press published articles that reported on her comments she went to the Press Complaints Commission claiming that the two articles were not "accurate" (sound familiar)? The Press kindly removed them, stating:

"As the complaint was submitted more than two years after publication, the newspaper said it was unable to respond in detail to the concerns raised. However, as a gesture of goodwill it arranged for both online articles to be deleted and the complaint was resolved on that basis."
[quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nowthen[/bold] wrote: The purge continues !!!!!! my comment ,with 157 likes , has been removed !!!!!! be careful what you say fellow posters , there are some very fragile and sensitive egos out there; a further indication of the instability of this administration.[/p][/quote]Yet more control of our freedom of speech ? They obviously don't want readers to see how many York residents are voting for comments which are critical of the Council. Keep up the good work 'nowthen', they cannot silence (gag or block) everybody all of the time. I expect that comments against this council will continue to grow, until 2015 ![/p][/quote]*sigh* Internet censorship/gagging, it's happening all the time. Remember Susan Wade-Weeks (prospective Conservative MP, candidate for York Central 2010) and her facebook post election comment? "Number crunching: Number of people who admitted to York Citizens Advice in 2009 that they did not want to work but wanted to stay on benefits: 18,000 Number of people in York Central who voted Labour in 2010: 18,000" Well, more than TWO YEARS after the Press published articles that reported on her comments she went to the Press Complaints Commission claiming that the two articles were not "accurate" (sound familiar)? The Press kindly removed them, stating: "As the complaint was submitted more than two years after publication, the newspaper said it was unable to respond in detail to the concerns raised. However, as a gesture of goodwill it arranged for both online articles to be deleted and the complaint was resolved on that basis." Guthred

11:13pm Mon 16 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

On twitter today the council have tweeted that they have only blocked two people (on Twitter), and that they warned and notified both as to why they were blocked.

City of York Council‏@CityofYor
k6h
We have blocked just two users as per our policy: http://www.york.gov.
uk/downloads/file/10
166/social_media_pol
icy …. Both users have been informed why

There are three York citizens on twitter who say they have been blocked, and all three say that they were not warned or notified. One has been unblocked as the council say it was 'unintentional'...

City of York Council‏@CityofYor
k6h
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.Entirely unintentional.We have unblocked you - our sincere apologies.

Can you believe how shoddy and inconsistent the council are being with this ?

It's time that they acted more professionally, more fairly, and more honestly !
On twitter today the council have tweeted that they have only blocked two people (on Twitter), and that they warned and notified both as to why they were blocked. City of York Council‏@CityofYor k6h We have blocked just two users as per our policy: http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/file/10 166/social_media_pol icy …. Both users have been informed why There are three York citizens on twitter who say they have been blocked, and all three say that they were not warned or notified. One has been unblocked as the council say it was 'unintentional'... City of York Council‏@CityofYor k6h Thanks for bringing this to our attention.Entirely unintentional.We have unblocked you - our sincere apologies. Can you believe how shoddy and inconsistent the council are being with this ? It's time that they acted more professionally, more fairly, and more honestly ! Rocking Horse

1:51pm Tue 17 Dec 13

AntMcM says...

Shouldn't the contract for York TV have gone to tender?
Shouldn't the contract for York TV have gone to tender? AntMcM

3:23pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Guthred says...

AntMcM wrote:
Shouldn't the contract for York TV have gone to tender?
It did, you can read the tender document here:

http://licensing.ofc
om.org.uk/binaries/t
v/local-tv/applicant
s/localtv/TheYork.pd
f

There is a introduction as to what we can expect ("The York Channel") here: http://vimeo.com/224
42550#at=0

It's all very methodical, transparent and dare I say this, but it looks very good. Except for the financial aspects, which the applicant asks not to be disclosed. The only mention of a secured revenue stream is a "3 year contract with the council"
[quote][p][bold]AntMcM[/bold] wrote: Shouldn't the contract for York TV have gone to tender?[/p][/quote]It did, you can read the tender document here: http://licensing.ofc om.org.uk/binaries/t v/local-tv/applicant s/localtv/TheYork.pd f There is a introduction as to what we can expect ("The York Channel") here: http://vimeo.com/224 42550#at=0 It's all very methodical, transparent and dare I say this, but it looks very good. Except for the financial aspects, which the applicant asks not to be disclosed. The only mention of a secured revenue stream is a "3 year contract with the council" Guthred

4:07pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

Guthred wrote:
AntMcM wrote: Shouldn't the contract for York TV have gone to tender?
It did, you can read the tender document here: http://licensing.ofc om.org.uk/binaries/t v/local-tv/applicant s/localtv/TheYork.pd f There is a introduction as to what we can expect ("The York Channel") here: http://vimeo.com/224 42550#at=0 It's all very methodical, transparent and dare I say this, but it looks very good. Except for the financial aspects, which the applicant asks not to be disclosed. The only mention of a secured revenue stream is a "3 year contract with the council"
The FOI request for the cost of this 3-year contract that the Council have awarded will no doubt have been submitted to 'What do they know'.

I look forward to reading about it in the Press in about a months time, provided that the Council respond within the 20 working-day time limit.
[quote][p][bold]Guthred[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AntMcM[/bold] wrote: Shouldn't the contract for York TV have gone to tender?[/p][/quote]It did, you can read the tender document here: http://licensing.ofc om.org.uk/binaries/t v/local-tv/applicant s/localtv/TheYork.pd f There is a introduction as to what we can expect ("The York Channel") here: http://vimeo.com/224 42550#at=0 It's all very methodical, transparent and dare I say this, but it looks very good. Except for the financial aspects, which the applicant asks not to be disclosed. The only mention of a secured revenue stream is a "3 year contract with the council"[/p][/quote]The FOI request for the cost of this 3-year contract that the Council have awarded will no doubt have been submitted to 'What do they know'. I look forward to reading about it in the Press in about a months time, provided that the Council respond within the 20 working-day time limit. Rocking Horse

5:31pm Tue 17 Dec 13

CaroleBaines says...

Rocking Horse wrote:
On twitter today the council have tweeted that they have only blocked two people (on Twitter), and that they warned and notified both as to why they were blocked.

City of York Council‏@CityofYor

k6h
We have blocked just two users as per our policy: http://www.york.gov.

uk/downloads/file/10

166/social_media_pol

icy …. Both users have been informed why

There are three York citizens on twitter who say they have been blocked, and all three say that they were not warned or notified. One has been unblocked as the council say it was 'unintentional'...

City of York Council‏@CityofYor

k6h
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.Entirely unintentional.We have unblocked you - our sincere apologies.

Can you believe how shoddy and inconsistent the council are being with this ?

It's time that they acted more professionally, more fairly, and more honestly !
Why would someone be blocked? Who were they and what were they doing or saying? Sounds most interesting!
[quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: On twitter today the council have tweeted that they have only blocked two people (on Twitter), and that they warned and notified both as to why they were blocked. City of York Council‏@CityofYor k6h We have blocked just two users as per our policy: http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/file/10 166/social_media_pol icy …. Both users have been informed why There are three York citizens on twitter who say they have been blocked, and all three say that they were not warned or notified. One has been unblocked as the council say it was 'unintentional'... City of York Council‏@CityofYor k6h Thanks for bringing this to our attention.Entirely unintentional.We have unblocked you - our sincere apologies. Can you believe how shoddy and inconsistent the council are being with this ? It's time that they acted more professionally, more fairly, and more honestly ![/p][/quote]Why would someone be blocked? Who were they and what were they doing or saying? Sounds most interesting! CaroleBaines

8:34pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Just_My_Twopenneth says...

My oh my...

We can't have folks using 'freedom of speech'

That will never do...

How draconian.

If the council head down that road, then they are going to be on slippery ground. People lost their lives, so others could have a say.

Have you ever heard of anyone that the council are actually a 'listening' council in the first place? In which case, initiatives such as what is being proposed here (i.e. controlling what the public can say at council meetings) isn't going to help gain any faith in the council.
My oh my... We can't have folks using 'freedom of speech' That will never do... How draconian. If the council head down that road, then they are going to be on slippery ground. People lost their lives, so others could have a say. Have you ever heard of anyone that the council are actually a 'listening' council in the first place? In which case, initiatives such as what is being proposed here (i.e. controlling what the public can say at council meetings) isn't going to help gain any faith in the council. Just_My_Twopenneth

1:15am Wed 18 Dec 13

Rocking Horse says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
Rocking Horse wrote: On twitter today the council have tweeted that they have only blocked two people (on Twitter), and that they warned and notified both as to why they were blocked. City of York Council‏@CityofYor k6h We have blocked just two users as per our policy: http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/file/10 166/social_media_pol icy …. Both users have been informed why There are three York citizens on twitter who say they have been blocked, and all three say that they were not warned or notified. One has been unblocked as the council say it was 'unintentional'... City of York Council‏@CityofYor k6h Thanks for bringing this to our attention.Entirely unintentional.We have unblocked you - our sincere apologies. Can you believe how shoddy and inconsistent the council are being with this ? It's time that they acted more professionally, more fairly, and more honestly !
Why would someone be blocked? Who were they and what were they doing or saying? Sounds most interesting!
Apparently they criticised officers by name, but, what they were critical of was not in dispute.

It seems that officers are immune to public criticism via the councils corporate twitter page, and the public participation report in this article was extending this immunity. By using tenuous excuses, meeting chairs would have the power to silence a speaker.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: On twitter today the council have tweeted that they have only blocked two people (on Twitter), and that they warned and notified both as to why they were blocked. City of York Council‏@CityofYor k6h We have blocked just two users as per our policy: http://www.york.gov. uk/downloads/file/10 166/social_media_pol icy …. Both users have been informed why There are three York citizens on twitter who say they have been blocked, and all three say that they were not warned or notified. One has been unblocked as the council say it was 'unintentional'... City of York Council‏@CityofYor k6h Thanks for bringing this to our attention.Entirely unintentional.We have unblocked you - our sincere apologies. Can you believe how shoddy and inconsistent the council are being with this ? It's time that they acted more professionally, more fairly, and more honestly ![/p][/quote]Why would someone be blocked? Who were they and what were they doing or saying? Sounds most interesting![/p][/quote]Apparently they criticised officers by name, but, what they were critical of was not in dispute. It seems that officers are immune to public criticism via the councils corporate twitter page, and the public participation report in this article was extending this immunity. By using tenuous excuses, meeting chairs would have the power to silence a speaker. Rocking Horse

2:22am Wed 18 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

Seems as though a lot of comments have dissappeared off this article, particularly the "Kim Jon Alexander" type comments. Makes me wonder who got those comments removed.....
Seems as though a lot of comments have dissappeared off this article, particularly the "Kim Jon Alexander" type comments. Makes me wonder who got those comments removed..... Magicman!

10:33am Thu 19 Dec 13

asd says...

Anyone entering politics, public office are going to be scrutinised its in the title. It seems a bit of big brother to me from Thatcher, Blair using anti-terrisom laws to stop freedom of speech. It seems to have now entered local politics now. Politicians the majority of which are so up them selfs its unreal.
Anyone entering politics, public office are going to be scrutinised its in the title. It seems a bit of big brother to me from Thatcher, Blair using anti-terrisom laws to stop freedom of speech. It seems to have now entered local politics now. Politicians the majority of which are so up them selfs its unreal. asd

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