For those who have not seen it - or trashed their copy - both sides of the offending leaflet are reproduced here. (Click on the inset to see a larger version).
... (30/08/2010) - Tom Jea has apparently taken exception to the original flyer image I posted here. Unknown to me at the time, it contained a blue cast from the method used to produce it. The new image, now placed here, is (with the assistance of Photoshop) a more faithful reproduction of the original.
No, actually I'm not so much 'defending my actions'- more like wasting my time answering a series of unfounded slurs and snidey insinuations, against people who are quite open and honest about what they are trying to do (i.e. save the pool), and get slagged off in this blog.
ReplyDeleteYou must have a curious definition of being 'slagged off,' Tom.
ReplyDeleteNo one here has ever 'slagged' anyone off except me.
Please confine yourself to the issues raised and do not resort to spurious remarks, which do not do your case or yourself any justice...
I define ‘slagging off’ as making hurtful and wrong slurs against people. To give you some examples;
ReplyDelete1. Saying that Colin Letchford is basing his campaign for an elected Mayor on a lie.
2. Trying to imply that Lea Swann is trying to set up some kind of ‘slush fund’ for herself.
3. Writing about full moons and me ‘howling’, suggesting I’m a puppet of the Canvey Island Independent Party and Bob Spink when I have no link to either, being biased against members of the Conservative Party, etc.
So don’t try to tell me to confine myself to what you decide I can comment on- this is either a free discussion forum, or it isn’t.
If I sound a bit annoyed, it is because I dislike the way this blog casts unfounded aspersions against people who are trying to do something positive.
Tom Jea.
“I define ‘slagging off’ as making hurtful and wrong slurs against people. To give you some examples;
ReplyDelete1.Saying that Colin Letchford is basing his campaign for an elected Mayor on a lie…”
On his Website, Colin states: ‘I had no idea what the Cabinet was and on investigation it was just 8 councillors making all the decisions that affected the residents of Castle Point.’
In order to obtain signatures he also said that this Cabinet met in secret; that the public and other councillors could not attend and that the cabinet elected the council leader.
Where is the truth in any of those statements?
“… 2.Trying to imply that Lea Swann is trying to set up some kind of ‘slush fund’ for herself…”
The implication is yours. I used the phrase ‘financial security blanket’ to describe the fact that her business would directly benefit from her fund, the Friends of Concord Beach. (Without the pools, as I pointed out to you previously, Swann would have no viable business and, therefore, no income).
“… 3.Writing about full moons and me ‘howling’, suggesting I’m a puppet of the Canvey Island Independent Party and Bob Spink when I have no link to either, being biased against members of the Conservative Party, etc.”
I thought the metaphor apt; but I did not suggest you were a CIIP puppet – I simply highlighted the fact that you were using the same arguments that the CIIP and Spink used during the election campaign to try and discredit this Blog. Readers can make of that what they will – and I have given you every opportunity here to put your case (just as I did Spink and Blackwell).
As to saying you are biased against the ruling Tory group, I simply point to your flyer, which you sent to residents during the local election campaign. No, you don’t mention the word Tory or Conservative; but that is beside the point. It continues promoting the lie used by Spink and the CIIP during their campaigns:-
‘A Few Mainland Councillors Are Trying To DEMOLISH THE PADDLING POOL.’
The truth was that the decision had been taken by both the Cabinet and Blackwell’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee. That full council was not invited to vote on the decision is down to Blackwell – no one else.
Had your protest group held to the facts; vented your anger at Castle Point Borough Council; and not gone off on a political tangent promoting Spink and CIIP lies, this Blog would have supported you.
But you were keen to get all that free advertising for your Website, weren’t you, Tom?
"We Are Not Political - We're Not For Or Against Any Party'
ReplyDeletePerhaps that is why:
(1) Colin Letchford attempted to disrupt the Conservative Party street stands at Furtherwick Road in the run up to the election by making ridiculous complaints to the Police that we were blocking the public highway whilst ignoring the horde of Bob Spink and Canvey Independent Party members blocking the same highway a few yards away.
(2) Liz Swann worked for Bob Spink & the Canvey Independents at my polling station all day in a 'Save the Paddling Pool t-shirt and Spink/CIIP rosette.
A 'Non-Political' campaign, do me a favour!
Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise.
ReplyDelete1. You were right that Colin Letchford’s website does say the first bit about him originally having no idea what the Cabinet was- which isn’t something that can be a lie.
None of the rest about meeting in secret etc. could be found though (as anyone can see by simply looking it), so what you call lies are simply not there. Therefore, we must be in agreement that Colin Letchford’s campaign for an elected Mayor isn’t based on a lie at all! Great!
2. If the implication is mine then I have misunderstood your words, and it follows that you haven’t made any suggesstion that Lea Swann’s involvement in the paddling pool fund is anything other than beyond reproach. Terrific!
3. I thought your metaphor about full moons and howling (which normally refers to lunatics/werewolves) was a bit nasty, but I’m not really bothered about stuff like that especially when delivered from a distance over the internet (probably best to do it like that rather than face to face). You said I “took up cudgels” for CIIP, and previously (19 August 2010) you referred to my ‘CIIP chums’, but if you didn’t really mean I was connected to the CIIP then that is fine by me.
I was delighted we seem to be in agreement about so much, but then I got to what you said about the flyer.
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST APPROACH- YOU TOOK DOWN YOUR ORIGINAL POST & REPLACED IT.
In the original you wrote; “No, you don’t mention the word Tory or Conservative; but you ensure your flyer is printed on blue paper to ensure the psychological connection is made by anyone reading it.” I had copied it to reply, but then it abruptly changed to what it is now, without explaining that actually YOU HAD PHOTOSHOPPED THE SCAN OR SOMETHING- because it wasn’t blue, it was really printed on white paper.
So, your second to last comment really pleased me, ‘cos I am really really glad your blog isn’t supporting me! It has no credibility- anyone looking back over your posts can see that time after time huge chunks of what you write is shown, point by point, to be utter rubbish. The result? You ignore it, and come out with another batch of spurious untrue rubbish. You accuse people of lying left right and centre but you don’t make even the simplest checks on what you write yourself.
It is a prime example of the not-so-good side of the internet; anyone can set up one of these blogs then put whatever they like on it, without holding themselves to any standards or integrity.
As usual, I shall try to restrain myself from getting drawn into a back-and-forth posting session here, and will only reply to any future inaccurate slur.
Tom Jea.
Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise.
ReplyDelete1. You were right that Colin Letchford’s website does say the first bit about him originally having no idea what the Cabinet was- which isn’t something that can be a lie.
None of the rest about meeting in secret etc. could be found though, so what you call lies are simply not there. Therefore, we must be in agreement that the campaign isn’t based on a lie at all! Great!
2. If the implication is mine then I have misunderstood your words, and it follows that you haven’t made any suggesstion that Lea Swann’s involvement in the paddling pool fund is anything other than beyond reproach. Terrific!
3. I thought your metaphor about full moons (which normally refers to lunatics) was a bit nasty but I’m not really bothered, especially when its delivered from a distance over the internet (probably best to do it like that rather than face to face).
I was delighted we seem to be in agreement about so much, but then I got to what you said about the flyer.
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST APPROACH- YOU TOOK DOWN YOUR ORIGINAL POST & REPLACED IT.
In the original you wrote; “No, you don’t mention the word Tory or Conservative; but you ensure your flyer is printed on blue paper to ensure the psychological connection is made by anyone reading it.” I had copied it to reply, but then it abruptly changed to what it is now, without explaining that actually YOU HAD PHOTOSHOPPED THE SCAN OR SOMETHING- because it wasn’t blue, it was really printed on white paper.
So, your second to last comment really pleased me, ‘cos I am really really glad your blog isn’t supporting me! It has no credibility- anyone looking back over your posts can see that time after time huge chunks of what you write is shown, point by point, to be utter rubbish. The result? You ignore it, and come out with another batch of spurious untrue rubbish. You accuse people of lying left right and centre but you don’t make even the simplest checks on what you write yourself.
It is a prime example of the not-so-good side of the internet; anyone can set up one of these blogs then put whatever they like on it, without holding themselves to any standards or integrity.
As usual, I shall try to restrain myself from getting drawn into a back-and-forth posting session here, and will only reply to the next inaccurate slur.
Tom Jea.
Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise.
ReplyDelete1. You were right that Colin Letchford’s website does say the first bit about him originally having no idea what the Cabinet was- which isn’t something that can be a lie.
None of the rest about meeting in secret etc. could be found though, so what you call lies are simply not there. Therefore, we must be in agreement that the campaign isn’t based on a lie at all! Great!
2. If the implication is mine then I have misunderstood your words, and it follows that you haven’t made any suggesstion that Lea Swann’s involvement in the paddling pool fund is anything other than beyond reproach. Terrific!
3. I thought your metaphor about full moons (which normally refers to lunatics) was a bit nasty but I’m not really bothered, especially when its delivered from a distance over the internet (probably best to do it like that rather than face to face).
I was delighted we seem to be in agreement about so much, but then I got to what you said about the flyer.
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST APPROACH- YOU TOOK DOWN YOUR ORIGINAL POST & REPLACED IT.
In the original you wrote; “No, you don’t mention the word Tory or Conservative; but you ensure your flyer is printed on blue paper to ensure the psychological connection is made by anyone reading it.” I had copied it to reply, but then it abruptly changed to what it is now, without explaining that actually YOU HAD PHOTOSHOPPED THE SCAN OR SOMETHING- because it wasn’t blue, it was really printed on white paper.
So, your second to last comment really pleased me, ‘cos I am really really glad your blog isn’t supporting me! It has no credibility- anyone looking back over your posts can see that time after time huge chunks of what you write is shown, point by point, to be utter rubbish. The result? You ignore it, and come out with another batch of spurious untrue rubbish. You accuse people of lying left right and centre but you don’t make even the simplest checks on what you write yourself.
It is a prime example of the not-so-good side of the internet; anyone can set up one of these blogs then put whatever they like on it, without holding themselves to any standards or integrity.
As usual, I shall try to restrain myself from getting drawn into a back-and-forth posting session here, and will only reply to the next inaccurate slur.
Tom Jea.
Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise.
ReplyDelete1. Colin Letchford’s website does say the bit about him originally having no idea what the Cabinet was. None of the rest about meeting in secret etc. could be found though, so what you call lies are simply not there. Therefore, we must be in agreement that the campaign isn’t based on a lie at all! Great!
2. If the implication is mine then I have misunderstood your words, and it follows that you haven’t made any suggesstion that Lea Swann’s involvement in the paddling pool fund is anything other than beyond reproach. Terrific!
3. I thought your metaphor about full moons (which normally refers to lunatics) was a bit nasty but I’m not really bothered, especially when its delivered from a distance over the internet (probably best to do it like that rather than face to face).
I was delighted we seem to be in agreement about so much, but then I got to what you said about the flyer.
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST APPROACH- YOU TOOK DOWN YOUR ORIGINAL POST & REPLACED IT.
In the original you wrote; “No, you don’t mention the word Tory or Conservative; but you ensure your flyer is printed on blue paper to ensure the psychological connection is made by anyone reading it.” I had copied it to reply, but then it abruptly changed to what it is now, without explaining that actually YOU HAD PHOTOSHOPPED THE SCAN OR SOMETHING- because it was really printed on white paper.
So, your second to last comment really pleased me, ‘cos I am really really glad your blog isn’t supporting me! Anyone looking back over your posts can see that time after time huge chunks of what you write is shown, point by point, to be wrong. The result? You ignore it, and come out with another batch of spurious untrue stuff. You accuse people of lying left right and centre but you don’t make even the simplest checks on what you write yourself.
It is a prime example of the not-so-good side of the internet; anyone can set up one of these blogs then put whatever they like on it, without holding themselves to any standards or integrity.
As usual, I shall try to restrain myself from getting drawn into a back-and-forth posting session here, and will only reply to the next inaccurate slur.
Tom Jea.
Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise.
ReplyDelete1. Colin Letchford’s website does say the bit about him originally having no idea what the Cabinet was. None of the rest about meeting in secret etc. could be found though, so what you call lies are simply not there. Therefore, we must be in agreement that the campaign isn’t based on a lie at all! Great!
2. If the implication is mine then I have misunderstood your words, and it follows that you haven’t made any suggesstion that Lea Swann’s involvement in the paddling pool fund is anything other than beyond reproach. Terrific!
3. I thought your metaphor about full moons (which normally refers to lunatics) was a bit nasty but I’m not really bothered, especially when its delivered from a distance over the internet (probably best to do it like that rather than face to face).
I was delighted we seem to be in agreement about so much, but then I got to what you said about the flyer.
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST APPROACH- YOU TOOK DOWN YOUR ORIGINAL POST & REPLACED IT.
In the original you wrote; “No, you don’t mention the word Tory or Conservative; but you ensure your flyer is printed on blue paper to ensure the psychological connection is made by anyone reading it.” I had copied it to reply, but then it abruptly changed to what it is now, without explaining that actually YOU HAD PHOTOSHOPPED THE SCAN OR SOMETHING- because it was really printed on white paper.
So, your second to last comment really pleased me, ‘cos I am really really glad your blog isn’t supporting me! Anyone looking back over your posts can see that time after time huge chunks of what you write is shown, point by point, to be wrong. The result? You ignore it, and come out with another batch of spurious untrue stuff. You accuse people of lying left right and centre but you don’t make even the simplest checks on what you write yourself.
It is a prime example of the not-so-good side of the internet; anyone can set up one of these blogs then put whatever they like on it, without holding themselves to any standards or integrity.
As usual, I shall try to restrain myself from getting drawn into a back-and-forth posting session here, and will only reply to the next inaccurate slur.
Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise.
ReplyDelete1. Colin Letchford’s website does say the bit about him originally having no idea what the Cabinet was. None of the rest about meeting in secret etc. could be found though, so what you call lies are simply not there. Therefore, we must be in agreement that the campaign isn’t based on a lie at all! Great!
2. If the implication is mine then I have misunderstood your words, and it follows that you haven’t made any suggesstion that Lea Swann’s involvement in the paddling pool fund is anything other than beyond reproach. Terrific!
3. I thought your metaphor about full moons (which normally refers to lunatics) was a bit nasty but I’m not really bothered, especially when its delivered from a distance over the internet (probably best to do it like that rather than face to face).
I was delighted we seem to be in agreement about so much, but then I got to what you said about the flyer.
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST APPROACH- YOU TOOK DOWN YOUR ORIGINAL POST & REPLACED IT.
In the original you wrote; “No, you don’t mention the word Tory or Conservative; but you ensure your flyer is printed on blue paper to ensure the psychological connection is made by anyone reading it.” I had copied it to reply, but then it abruptly changed to what it is now, without explaining that actually YOU HAD PHOTOSHOPPED THE SCAN OR SOMETHING- because it was really printed on white paper.
So, your second to last comment really pleased me, ‘cos I am really really glad your blog isn’t supporting me! Anyone looking back over your posts can see that time after time huge chunks of what you write is shown, point by point, to be wrong. The result? You ignore it, and come out with another batch of spurious untrue stuff. You accuse people of lying left right and centre but you don’t make even the simplest checks on what you write yourself.
It is a prime example of the not-so-good side of the internet; anyone can set up one of these blogs then put whatever they like on it, without holding themselves to any standards or integrity.
As usual, I shall try to restrain myself from getting drawn into a back-and-forth posting session here, and will only reply to the next inaccurate slur.
Tom Jea.
PS. Sorry, Google Account wouldn't let me post again, so I had to use Anonymous. Apologies!
Damn! I don't know if I'm making this worse or better by posting an apology for previous postings!
ReplyDeleteI keep getting messages saying there is a problem, so I assume the post hasn't gone up and try again, then they all go up.
I assume that with your comment moderation you could discard duplicate postings- please do feel free to remove extra ones.
Regarding your addition (30/08/2010)
ReplyDeleteLiar!
You knew- you even wrote "you don’t mention the word Tory or Conservative; but you ensure your flyer is printed on blue paper to ensure the psychological connection is made by anyone reading it." Then you altered the original post.
Of course, your sarky addition is on the bottom of the main post, while this reply is hidden away in the comments.
This blog is below low.
Tom Jea.
Re- Your addition (30/08/2010)
ReplyDeleteLiar!
You knew it was blue, because in your original blog post you wrote “you ensure your flyer is printed on blue paper to ensure the psychological connection is made by anyone reading it.” Then you changed the post.
Tom Jea.
PS: As your blogsite is now blocking my comments (don’t like what I write, eh?), I’m trying to post this as Anonymous. However, as it turns out, despite apologising and inviting the blogger to remove the extra posts- it is actually HIM getting all the posts and putting them up.