tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.comments2022-07-17T12:23:47.196+01:00The Canvey BeatTed Pughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09412396184135201290noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-19538714061143787812011-12-01T13:13:40.521+00:002011-12-01T13:13:40.521+00:00It's probably for the best, considering how of...It's probably for the best, considering how often fire alarms go off at my workplace for no apparent reason. It'd be a good idea to stop wasting all that fuel and human resources on occasions when there is no actual imminent danger.fire alarmshttp://www.discountfiresupplies.co.uk/category/1/Fire-Alarmsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-91531733842196478242011-11-21T12:31:45.212+00:002011-11-21T12:31:45.212+00:00It is my understanding that Ms Abel's claim fo...It is my understanding that Ms Abel's claim for constructive dismissal will be heard from 12th - 21st December at the East London Employment Tribunal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-3859056711746419422011-05-08T19:12:18.000+01:002011-05-08T19:12:18.000+01:00No, Mac. I'm afraid you are wrong.
If I do po...No, Mac. I'm afraid you are wrong.<br /><br />If I do post in a public forum, it is only ever under my own name.<br /><br />And I would certainly not be congratulating the CIIP on its success - even if it were tongue-in-cheek...Ted Pughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09412396184135201290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-37478140706374668952011-05-08T15:55:14.706+01:002011-05-08T15:55:14.706+01:00I always assumed that 'Upset' and you, Ted...I always assumed that 'Upset' and you, Ted were one and the same.<br /><br />Is my assumption correct?S McLeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-38473436635318683882010-11-29T12:39:25.961+00:002010-11-29T12:39:25.961+00:00The old saying "You only hear from Politicans...The old saying "You only hear from Politicans at Election Time" is certainly true of the Canvey Independents.<br /><br />In the run up to election in May we were treated to a daily update of messages on their blog, message board and facebook pages but since they were re-elected they hibernate for another eleven months until the next campaign comes along!<br /><br />They keep quiet because they have no conistent policy upon any particular issue other than to gauge public feeling and jump behind the popularist view no matter what the economic or social conclusion.<br /><br />They are after all the Party of Protest!<br /><br />That said, the Christmas Lights event was very good and the Town Council events manager, Jeff Rickards deserves praise, he did an excellent job in attracting so many people to the shopping centre.<br /><br />And to be fair to Neville Watson. whilst he was busy collecting rubbish, black sack in hand other Indepedent Councillors were enjoying centre stage or trying to turn a profit running their own stalls!Colin MacLeanhttp://www.canveyisland.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-76028373376441331042010-11-26T14:09:57.101+00:002010-11-26T14:09:57.101+00:00The Canvey Indepedents know only too well the fant...The Canvey Indepedents know only too well the fantastic work Ray Howard does for Canvey Island at all levels of local Government.<br /><br />If they really have the best interests of Canvey at heart then they will not put a candidate in West ward at the next election anyway.<br /><br />From speaking to people on the streets I think the independents have been found out by Islanders, we are fed up with mis-management of our Town Council, the political point scoring from their party and the angry from Canvey pictures in the Echo. <br /><br />Canvey Island deserves decent representation at Kiln Road!Colin MacLeanhttp://www.canvey.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-86173012371726526532010-09-04T06:38:38.518+01:002010-09-04T06:38:38.518+01:00I am beginning to fear for your sanity, Tom - or p...I am beginning to fear for your sanity, Tom - or perhaps you need a strong pair of glasses...<br /><br />You submitted identical posts; so Blogger tagged you as a spammer.<br /><br />I visited this site's spam bin, noted your posts - and marked each one as 'not spam' in order to rescue your account.<br /><br />Blogger then published your posts.<br /><br />Your childish spin does not work here Tom - if you had not wanted to disrupt this site's Recent Comment gadget in a spiteful rage: <i>you would not be having the problem</i>.Ted Pughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09412396184135201290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-6749090842649124072010-09-01T17:53:56.682+01:002010-09-01T17:53:56.682+01:00I’ve apologised several times, and invited you to ...I’ve apologised several times, and invited you to take out the extra postings- now it turns out you knew of the problems I was having posting comments, and it was you putting them ALL up after getting them out of the trash bin. This blog is below low!<br /><br />Also, I think it tells us all something that the most frequent visitor to this blog is someone who only reads it in order to respond to inaccurate slurs against other people.<br /><br />Tom Jea.<br /><br />As the blog is blocking my postings, I’m having to try putting this one up under Anonymous. Wonder if it will ever appear...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-33471763389889627792010-09-01T17:45:43.942+01:002010-09-01T17:45:43.942+01:00Re- Your addition (30/08/2010)
Liar!
You knew it...Re- Your addition (30/08/2010)<br /><br />Liar!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Tom Jea.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-46947491156165444432010-09-01T10:57:18.194+01:002010-09-01T10:57:18.194+01:00Methinks Tom jea doth protest too much - particula...Methinks Tom jea doth protest too much - particularly regarding his being a CIIP puppet.<br /><br />What is it about people who, like Letchford, Swann and Jea himself feel obliged to point out that they are of "no political persuasuion" before launching into a politically biased diatribe?<br /><br />And what gives jea the right to instigate a spam operation on selected CPBC councillors and officers in his leaflet in direct opposition to the democratic process?<br /><br />Councillors can only respond to their constituents and officers can never respond to political matters. And yet jea singles out just a handful of Tory councillors and the CEO as the target of his Canvey Pool protest.<br /><br />The man is either a CIIP puppet or a complete idiot, in fact I favour both. The only way that CPBC could have been influenced to change their decision was to have had concerned residents contact their CPBC councillor about the matter but neither Spink, Blackwell, the CIIP or jea wanted that. That's why they phrased the leaflet in such a way that the protest could be fuelled without the possibility that the matter would come to full council.<br /><br />The stench of Spink and Blackwell is all over Jea's leaflet and his continuous spam on this blog and his childish attempts to disrupt it.Cynical Observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-33670155722740055692010-08-31T17:14:01.662+01:002010-08-31T17:14:01.662+01:00When you get the stupid thing working again, I wil...When you get the stupid thing working again, I will only leave one comment.<br /><br />I've apologised for it, I've asked you to take out the extra comments. And it turns out it is actually the blog causing my posting problems all along!<br /><br />I visit so much for the simple reason that you dishonestly criticise people so often, and I feel such slurs should be answered.<br /><br />I think it tells us all something, that your most frequent site visitor is me, who is doing so only to defend people being maligned on it.<br /><br />Tom Jea.Tom Jeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843848128073110520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-91643901213925341922010-08-31T12:15:02.105+01:002010-08-31T12:15:02.105+01:00Regarding your addition (30/08/2010)
Liar!
You k...Regarding your addition (30/08/2010)<br /><br />Liar!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Of course, your sarky addition is on the bottom of the main post, while this reply is hidden away in the comments.<br /><br />This blog is below low.<br /><br />Tom Jea.Tom Jeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843848128073110520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-36984696792317126712010-08-30T11:30:33.995+01:002010-08-30T11:30:33.995+01:00Damn! I don't know if I'm making this wors...Damn! I don't know if I'm making this worse or better by posting an apology for previous postings!<br /><br />I 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.<br /><br />I assume that with your comment moderation you could discard duplicate postings- please do feel free to remove extra ones.Tom Jeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843848128073110520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-36579557483734915422010-08-29T22:37:38.636+01:002010-08-29T22:37:38.636+01:00Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise...Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise.<br /><br />1. 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!<br />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!<br />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). <br /><br />I was delighted we seem to be in agreement about so much, but then I got to what you said about the flyer. <br /><br />HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST APPROACH- YOU TOOK DOWN YOUR ORIGINAL POST & REPLACED IT.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Tom Jea.<br /><br />PS. Sorry, Google Account wouldn't let me post again, so I had to use Anonymous. Apologies!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-51334212765349330882010-08-29T22:34:43.138+01:002010-08-29T22:34:43.138+01:00Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise...Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise.<br /> 1. 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!<br /> 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!<br /> 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). <br /> I was delighted we seem to be in agreement about so much, but then I got to what you said about the flyer. <br /><br />HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST APPROACH- YOU TOOK DOWN YOUR ORIGINAL POST & REPLACED IT.<br /><br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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 Jeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843848128073110520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-41559704087708048392010-08-29T22:31:34.506+01:002010-08-29T22:31:34.506+01:00Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise...Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise.<br /><br />1. 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!<br />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!<br />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). <br /><br />I was delighted we seem to be in agreement about so much, but then I got to what you said about the flyer. <br /><br />HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST APPROACH- YOU TOOK DOWN YOUR ORIGINAL POST & REPLACED IT.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Tom Jea.Tom Jeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843848128073110520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-91074600546930165512010-08-29T22:28:25.672+01:002010-08-29T22:28:25.672+01:00Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise...Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise.<br /><br />1. 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.<br /> 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!<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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). <br /><br />I was delighted we seem to be in agreement about so much, but then I got to what you said about the flyer. <br /><br />HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST APPROACH- YOU TOOK DOWN YOUR ORIGINAL POST & REPLACED IT.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Tom Jea.Tom Jeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843848128073110520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-32730330944419248492010-08-29T22:25:46.725+01:002010-08-29T22:25:46.725+01:00Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise...Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise.<br /><br />1. 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.<br /> 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!<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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). <br /><br />I was delighted we seem to be in agreement about so much, but then I got to what you said about the flyer. <br /><br />HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST APPROACH- YOU TOOK DOWN YOUR ORIGINAL POST & REPLACED IT.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Tom Jea.Tom Jeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843848128073110520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-76102144106702697902010-08-29T22:10:19.012+01:002010-08-29T22:10:19.012+01:00Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise...Your posting was at first a very pleasant surprise.<br /><br />1. 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.<br /> 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!<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I was delighted we seem to be in agreement about so much, but then I got to what you said about the flyer. <br /><br />HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST APPROACH- YOU TOOK DOWN YOUR ORIGINAL POST & REPLACED IT.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Tom Jea.Tom Jeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843848128073110520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-50944123002359528242010-08-29T18:54:24.749+01:002010-08-29T18:54:24.749+01:00Good grief! You really are obsessional about this,...Good grief! You really are obsessional about this, aren't you?!!<br /><br />As I said, each time I clicked to post my comment a message came up saying my password was incorrect- so I pasted the comment into a new box and tried again under the next of the four options. Did you really work out the exact times I did this?! Weird!<br /><br />Please note I put my name on every comment (even the 'anonymous' ones), and I also wrote that Ted Pugh could take down the extra comments.<br /><br />Still, if you really do think it was a deliberate attempt at internet espionage, to crash the blog's system with a deluge of 4 messages in a 'spam operation'- you go ahead and believe that.<br /><br />Go ahead and have the last word, if you want- I'm losing the will to type, and I won't respond again.<br /><br />Tom Jea.<br /><br />PS. The Google account option seems to be okay now, so hopefully no more multiple submissions.Tom Jeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843848128073110520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-47690150908380627362010-08-29T18:07:34.178+01:002010-08-29T18:07:34.178+01:00"We Are Not Political - We're Not For Or ..."We Are Not Political - We're Not For Or Against Any Party'<br /><br />Perhaps that is why:<br /><br />(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.<br /><br />(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.<br /><br />A 'Non-Political' campaign, do me a favour!Colin MacLeanhttp://www.canveyisland.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-48776333098464121992010-08-29T07:18:35.037+01:002010-08-29T07:18:35.037+01:00“I define ‘slagging off’ as making hurtful and wro...“I define ‘slagging off’ as making hurtful and wrong slurs against people. To give you some examples;<br /><br />1.Saying that Colin Letchford is basing his campaign for an elected Mayor on a lie…”<br /><br />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.’<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Where is the truth in any of those statements?<br /><br />“… 2.Trying to imply that Lea Swann is trying to set up some kind of ‘slush fund’ for herself…”<br /><br />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).<br /><br />“… 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.”<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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:-<br /><br />‘A Few Mainland Councillors Are Trying To DEMOLISH THE PADDLING POOL.’<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />But you were keen to get all that free advertising for your Website, weren’t you, Tom?Ted Pughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09412396184135201290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-78867218537859806552010-08-28T18:42:41.339+01:002010-08-28T18:42:41.339+01:00Far be it for me to think you are stupid, Cynical ...Far be it for me to think you are stupid, Cynical Observer, but I do wonder why, no matter how many times I arguably show your points to be plain wrong, it seems to make no difference. I’ll do it again!!-<br /><br /> Your Para 1: <br /> How can the flyer possibly be a direct attack on the Tory Cabinet, when it never, so much as once, anywhere, in any way, mention which party the people who made the decision belonged to?!! <br /> Incidentally, plenty of Conservative candidates, other Conservative Borough Councillors, and Conservative Rebecca Harris disagreed with the decision, so it just simply makes no sense for the campaign group to be anti-Tory!<br /> Also, the Overview & Scrutiny Committee was meeting for the very first time, was apparently subject to a party whip, and did not as you wrongly say fully back the decision- it was not a unanimous vote. So you got that wrong.<br /><br /> Your Para 2: <br /> Duh, the campaign is to save the old pool, so of course we don’t bring up other things- there are loads of other things not mentioned by the pool campaigners ‘cos they are aren’t anything to do with the campaign.<br /> What on earth makes you say the issue was and is 'which pool should be saved’- where the heck did you get that from?!! The campaign has ALWAYS been to save the ‘old’ pool because it is that one under threat. My own personal opinion for what it is worth is to ask why should we lose EITHER ammenity which has existed since around the 1930’s and been used by countless children over the years?!!<br /><br /> Your Para 3:<br /> How condescending of you to credit us with at least ‘basic intelligence’. The issue (as discussed by all interested groups) isn’t just about finance, it is also about child safety (our Coastguards have stated children are safer in this pool, though they weren’t asked when the decision was made), accurate estimates (the Borough Council keeps adding £25,000 for a lifeguard to the ongoing costs, despite them being the very ones to reduce the depth of water so it doesn’t need one) and liability for accidents (though there haven’t been any at this pool), among other aspects. So, wrong again.<br /> Also, we were not used by ‘Spink and company’- we were offered help to distribute our leaflets and we accepted that help from whoever offered. As you ignore yet again, Labour also circulated them. Wrong again!<br /><br /> Your Para 4: <br /> I keep saying, though it doesn’t seem to get through, that the campaign group is NOT POLITICAL, so why should it affect us whether there is an election on? We have been and still are campaigning through the period of time the pool is under threat. And no, it didn’t seem ‘fishy’ to be offered funding for these particular flyers, because the person funding them has no political affiliation. Plus, funding has been found for other leaflets and posters since then. So again, you just don’t know what you’re going on about!<br /><br /> Your Para 5: <br /> Actually, I am beginning to think I AM a stupid man, because nothing I say ever gets through to you or Ted Pugh the blogger. I draw your attention to the last paragraph of my previous comment “you ignore the answer and just come out with something else”- you just did it again.<br /><br /> Your Para 6:<br /> Can you really be telling us all that we should just sit back and let Councillors decide who the Leader will be- BECAUSE THEY KNOW BEST????!!!!!! Sheesh, I still don’t know if you are an elected official because you keep hiding behind your false name, but with that attitude I really hope you aren’t!!!<br /><br /> It really is pointless answering anything you put here, because as I said last time I can go through each point you make and answer each one- and you just ignore the answers and come up with something else. You will probably do it again now, but I shall not post another comment until I feel I have to respond to another groundless ‘slagging off’.<br /><br /> Tom Jea.<br /><br /> PS. I seem to be able to post properly again now, so hopefully no more multiple posts.Tom Jeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843848128073110520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-12721656823590503822010-08-28T18:32:16.947+01:002010-08-28T18:32:16.947+01:00I define ‘slagging off’ as making hurtful and wron...I define ‘slagging off’ as making hurtful and wrong slurs against people. To give you some examples;<br /><br />1. Saying that Colin Letchford is basing his campaign for an elected Mayor on a lie.<br /><br />2. Trying to imply that Lea Swann is trying to set up some kind of ‘slush fund’ for herself.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Tom Jea.Tom Jeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02843848128073110520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5254680140700661027.post-76430719747622691362010-08-28T13:22:36.517+01:002010-08-28T13:22:36.517+01:00You must have a curious definition of being 's...You must have a curious definition of being 'slagged off,' Tom.<br /><br />No one here has ever 'slagged' anyone off except me.<br /><br />Please confine yourself to the issues raised and do not resort to spurious remarks, which do not do your case or yourself any justice...Ted Pughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09412396184135201290noreply@blogger.com