Taxpayer-funded council magazine attacked as 'misleading' by UKIP

Phil Cox

Taxpayer-funded council magazine attacked as "misleading" by UKIP

First published in News
Last updated
Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Chief Reporter

A taxpayer-funded council magazine distributed to homes in Watford has been attacked as "misleading" and an "advert" for the ruling Liberal Democrats.

Phil Cox, the UK Independence Party candidate in the May mayoral elections, accused the Look Back magazine of lauding political decisions that help the re-election bid of the current mayor, Dorothy Thornhill.

Mayor Thornhill agreed the magazine was an advert for the ruling Lib Dems but rejected Mr Cox’s criticism as "specious".

She said the council was not a neutral organisation but run by a political party and it was important residents were informed about how their money was being spent.

The dispute centres round the Look Back magazine, which Watford Council publishes once a year. This year’s edition came through residents’ front doors in recent weeks.

The publication includes an introduction penned by Mayor Thornhill, who is seeking her fourth term in charge of town hall, saying "I believe this council spends your money wisely".

Watford Observer:

Mayor Dorothy Thornhill

She also highlights what she sees at the council’s achievements.

The rest of the magazine covers how much council services cost residents and also changes to areas such as recycling and Watford Market.

Mr Cox described the leaflet as "blatantly political" literature published at taxpayers’ expense in the run up to the local and mayoral elections on May 22.

He said: "The council is producing a political leaflet and it is going to every house in the borough.

"If you take the front page, it is about ‘keeping Council Tax on track’. That is an electoral thing, not a council thing. It is a political decision.

"Then it says we have improved recycling. That’s not the council that is the Lib Dems. It’s an advert for the Lib Dems.

"I think this council has been Lib Dem for so long they have gone native. I think the council is in cahoots with the Lib Dems and should be above politics."

Watford Observer:

Responding to the criticism, Mayor Thornhill said: "Of course it is a Lib Dem advert. The town is run by a mayor and the mayor is a Lib Dem. It would be the same if it was a UKIP, Labour, or Tory mayor.

"People must know these things are a direct result of the mayor.

"The council is not neutral - it is run by a mayor. And whether it is a UKIP or a Tory, residents deserve to know how they money is being spent. Most councils do this and it is deemed good practice. If people don’t like it they can vote against it. For me this whole argument is specious. It is about democracy."

Mr Cox also criticised the mayor’s introduction to Looking Back as "misleading" as it said that residents pay "£4 to £6 a week" to Watford Council, depending on the band.

He pointed out that the highest band paid more than £9 a week and added: "It is deliberately misleading every household in Watford."

This week Watford Borough Council issued a statement saying: "We have checked the figures in the document and it is indeed the case that the overwhelming majority of households pay £4 to £6 a week in Council Tax to Watford Borough Council and this was intended as an general statement.

"While a small proportion of higher band properties will pay over £6, a greater number pay even less than the £4 a week stated.

"We would also like to point out that this does not affect residents' bills and the fact that the amount they pay to Watford Borough Council has remained the same for the past three years."

The council added: "We take the utmost care to ensure that everything we produce complies with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity and our Annual Report, Look Back, is no exception.

"We have a responsibility to inform residents and council taxpayers about what the Council has been doing with the money it receives from them.

"While all council officers are politically neutral, we are run by a Liberal Democrat administration with a Liberal Democrat Elected Mayor. Therefore, the policies of the council are bound to reflect their intentions."

 

Comments (64)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:01pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Cuetip says...

In terms of being a little more informative and balanced from a residents’ angle, it could include contributions by residents who want to play a role in shaping our town when they complete consultation forms eg
the successful campaigns by residents and shopkeepers to resist parking restrictions and insensitive planning developments that did nothing to solve their parking issues in the St Albans Rd area

hopefully some news on a shift in policy from building 90% flats as in recent years

more news on enforcement statistics eg littering, planning breaches.
In terms of being a little more informative and balanced from a residents’ angle, it could include contributions by residents who want to play a role in shaping our town when they complete consultation forms eg the successful campaigns by residents and shopkeepers to resist parking restrictions and insensitive planning developments that did nothing to solve their parking issues in the St Albans Rd area hopefully some news on a shift in policy from building 90% flats as in recent years more news on enforcement statistics eg littering, planning breaches. Cuetip
  • Score: 7

7:02pm Tue 8 Apr 14

The Not-so-enlightened one says...

"The town is run by a mayor". Careful Dotty, I can smell a whiff of hubris in there and you know what comes before a fall......
"The town is run by a mayor". Careful Dotty, I can smell a whiff of hubris in there and you know what comes before a fall...... The Not-so-enlightened one
  • Score: 11

7:35pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Retlas says...

I am so glad I moved away from the place where I grew up and loved!

It is now a place that I don't frequent - unfortunately!
I am so glad I moved away from the place where I grew up and loved! It is now a place that I don't frequent - unfortunately! Retlas
  • Score: 9

7:54pm Tue 8 Apr 14

ramage1996 says...

All those that believe that it is a disgrace that David Penn (D_Penn) who is Cox's election agent gets whole comment sections removed and individual comments he does not like deleted, please email the author of this article if you think this is wrong so near to an election.

mwright@london.newsq
uest.co.uk

This has been going on every week and shows that Cox and Penn are anti free speech.
All those that believe that it is a disgrace that David Penn (D_Penn) who is Cox's election agent gets whole comment sections removed and individual comments he does not like deleted, please email the author of this article if you think this is wrong so near to an election. mwright@london.newsq uest.co.uk This has been going on every week and shows that Cox and Penn are anti free speech. ramage1996
  • Score: -13

8:47pm Tue 8 Apr 14

bushey10 says...

Nothing neutral about the mayor - liberals need to be sent packing!

Look at the hospital and so called health campus

That said UKIP policy on health would dismantle the NHS
Nothing neutral about the mayor - liberals need to be sent packing! Look at the hospital and so called health campus That said UKIP policy on health would dismantle the NHS bushey10
  • Score: -6

8:53pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Wacko Jacko says...

The irony of Cox complaining about the mayor's report being too political won't be lost on readers of the WOBS comments threads which are riddled with politically charged propaganda from Cox and his henchman Penn
The irony of Cox complaining about the mayor's report being too political won't be lost on readers of the WOBS comments threads which are riddled with politically charged propaganda from Cox and his henchman Penn Wacko Jacko
  • Score: -8

8:59pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

bushey10 wrote:
Nothing neutral about the mayor - liberals need to be sent packing!

Look at the hospital and so called health campus

That said UKIP policy on health would dismantle the NHS
We don't have a current policy on the NHS as it is being rewritten and I don't know what the new one will say.

That said I would be very surprised if it had anything to do with dismantling the NHS as we are firm supporters of keeping the NHS and providing NHS treatments free to those in need of them.

The difference you might well notice with a UKIP NHS policy is the commitment to cut waste and deliver more and better treatment for every pound invested in the NHS.

In effect, we would deliver a better NHS to the people where it counts.

Common sense goes a long way in delivering better value for money. That's why more and more people are voting UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]bushey10[/bold] wrote: Nothing neutral about the mayor - liberals need to be sent packing! Look at the hospital and so called health campus That said UKIP policy on health would dismantle the NHS[/p][/quote]We don't have a current policy on the NHS as it is being rewritten and I don't know what the new one will say. That said I would be very surprised if it had anything to do with dismantling the NHS as we are firm supporters of keeping the NHS and providing NHS treatments free to those in need of them. The difference you might well notice with a UKIP NHS policy is the commitment to cut waste and deliver more and better treatment for every pound invested in the NHS. In effect, we would deliver a better NHS to the people where it counts. Common sense goes a long way in delivering better value for money. That's why more and more people are voting UKIP. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 1

9:15pm Tue 8 Apr 14

ramage1996 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
bushey10 wrote:
Nothing neutral about the mayor - liberals need to be sent packing!

Look at the hospital and so called health campus

That said UKIP policy on health would dismantle the NHS
We don't have a current policy on the NHS as it is being rewritten and I don't know what the new one will say.

That said I would be very surprised if it had anything to do with dismantling the NHS as we are firm supporters of keeping the NHS and providing NHS treatments free to those in need of them.

The difference you might well notice with a UKIP NHS policy is the commitment to cut waste and deliver more and better treatment for every pound invested in the NHS.

In effect, we would deliver a better NHS to the people where it counts.

Common sense goes a long way in delivering better value for money. That's why more and more people are voting UKIP.
Well as David Penn says in his article on the UKIP website, he is a libertarian who do not believe in big state, sounds like a further sell off of services in the NHS and social services if UKIP get in.

Thats done so well with the utility companies and railways hasn't it Cox?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bushey10[/bold] wrote: Nothing neutral about the mayor - liberals need to be sent packing! Look at the hospital and so called health campus That said UKIP policy on health would dismantle the NHS[/p][/quote]We don't have a current policy on the NHS as it is being rewritten and I don't know what the new one will say. That said I would be very surprised if it had anything to do with dismantling the NHS as we are firm supporters of keeping the NHS and providing NHS treatments free to those in need of them. The difference you might well notice with a UKIP NHS policy is the commitment to cut waste and deliver more and better treatment for every pound invested in the NHS. In effect, we would deliver a better NHS to the people where it counts. Common sense goes a long way in delivering better value for money. That's why more and more people are voting UKIP.[/p][/quote]Well as David Penn says in his article on the UKIP website, he is a libertarian who do not believe in big state, sounds like a further sell off of services in the NHS and social services if UKIP get in. Thats done so well with the utility companies and railways hasn't it Cox? ramage1996
  • Score: -3

9:24pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
The irony of Cox complaining about the mayor's report being too political won't be lost on readers of the WOBS comments threads which are riddled with politically charged propaganda from Cox and his henchman Penn
You seem to miss the key difference Wacko - where is your sense of balance?

We pay taxes to the council, not the LibDem party.

We pay those taxes for services for the town and the people of the town, not for the benefit of the LibDem party.

The council use our taxes on, amongst other things, this booklet "Look Back" which is meant to be an official council publication. It is full of LibDem propaganda and contains a deliberate lie.

I would estimate that the LibDems have recieved many thousands of pounds free advertising from this booklet, paid for by the taxpayer.

What has happened to Watford Borough Council, has it twinned with a Banana Republic?
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: The irony of Cox complaining about the mayor's report being too political won't be lost on readers of the WOBS comments threads which are riddled with politically charged propaganda from Cox and his henchman Penn[/p][/quote]You seem to miss the key difference Wacko - where is your sense of balance? We pay taxes to the council, not the LibDem party. We pay those taxes for services for the town and the people of the town, not for the benefit of the LibDem party. The council use our taxes on, amongst other things, this booklet "Look Back" which is meant to be an official council publication. It is full of LibDem propaganda and contains a deliberate lie. I would estimate that the LibDems have recieved many thousands of pounds free advertising from this booklet, paid for by the taxpayer. What has happened to Watford Borough Council, has it twinned with a Banana Republic? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 3

9:33pm Tue 8 Apr 14

ramage1996 says...

'A banana republic'?

Is that in 'bongo bongo land' Mr Cox?
'A banana republic'? Is that in 'bongo bongo land' Mr Cox? ramage1996
  • Score: -8

9:45pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

A "banana republic" is a well-understood term of political science.

The definition is available on Wikipedia and other sources of reference.
A "banana republic" is a well-understood term of political science. The definition is available on Wikipedia and other sources of reference. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 8

9:54pm Tue 8 Apr 14

ramage1996 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
A "banana republic" is a well-understood term of political science.

The definition is available on Wikipedia and other sources of reference.
mmm I do not like it myself, each to their own.

As the Mayor representing us, I would not want you using that term.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: A "banana republic" is a well-understood term of political science. The definition is available on Wikipedia and other sources of reference.[/p][/quote]mmm I do not like it myself, each to their own. As the Mayor representing us, I would not want you using that term. ramage1996
  • Score: -9

10:09pm Tue 8 Apr 14

bushey10 says...

Well one wonders if the 2014 UKIP health policy will look like the 2010 one?

• Franchise out key services including hospitals and GP surgeries to companies and charities.

• Create voucher system to allow people to opt out of NHS system entirely.

• Matrons to run hospitals, not non-clinically trained managers.

• Smoking rooms in pubs.

All the above would have had a real impact on the nhs , in fact if those policy's happened they would have done real damage to the service - don't trust UKIP there not much better than the Liberals, - let's not forget the big con or should I say the health campus
Well one wonders if the 2014 UKIP health policy will look like the 2010 one? • Franchise out key services including hospitals and GP surgeries to companies and charities. • Create voucher system to allow people to opt out of NHS system entirely. • Matrons to run hospitals, not non-clinically trained managers. • Smoking rooms in pubs. All the above would have had a real impact on the nhs , in fact if those policy's happened they would have done real damage to the service - don't trust UKIP there not much better than the Liberals, - let's not forget the big con or should I say the health campus bushey10
  • Score: -5

10:10pm Tue 8 Apr 14

D_Penn says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
bushey10 wrote: Nothing neutral about the mayor - liberals need to be sent packing! Look at the hospital and so called health campus That said UKIP policy on health would dismantle the NHS
We don't have a current policy on the NHS as it is being rewritten and I don't know what the new one will say. That said I would be very surprised if it had anything to do with dismantling the NHS as we are firm supporters of keeping the NHS and providing NHS treatments free to those in need of them. The difference you might well notice with a UKIP NHS policy is the commitment to cut waste and deliver more and better treatment for every pound invested in the NHS. In effect, we would deliver a better NHS to the people where it counts. Common sense goes a long way in delivering better value for money. That's why more and more people are voting UKIP.
Well as David Penn says in his article on the UKIP website, he is a libertarian who do not believe in big state, sounds like a further sell off of services in the NHS and social services if UKIP get in. Thats done so well with the utility companies and railways hasn't it Cox?
Sounds like you are trying to make political capital by making it up as you go along. Seen as you need clarity over guesswork, let me help you.

No, I don't believe in a big wasteful state. That does not mean you can jump to the conclusion that I must want to sell off bits of the NHS or Social Services. There are many effective ways of reducing the government budget and providing a better service. The problem for this country is that recent governments, Labour in particular, don't have a clue how to manage anything without throwing our money at it and just expecting everything to turn out fine.

For example, we all saw how Labour's attempt to sort out doctors' contracts ended up with their salary's soaring. What did the public get for the extra money? Absolute diddly-squat. Nothing. In fact everyone's worse off. Doctors new contracts gave them shed loads more money whilst allowing them to stop doing vital work such as vital out of hours visits. Result? Now a visit to A&E sees waiting queues through the roof once the surgeries are closed.

Given the power, I'd tear up every doctor's contract and put it back to where it used to be before Labour created chaos. That would save a small fortune on its own.

Labour, what a joke. Their leadership is so utterly useleass they couldn't even find their way from the bottom of an escalator to the top without a bucket load of taxpayers' cash to pay someone for directions.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bushey10[/bold] wrote: Nothing neutral about the mayor - liberals need to be sent packing! Look at the hospital and so called health campus That said UKIP policy on health would dismantle the NHS[/p][/quote]We don't have a current policy on the NHS as it is being rewritten and I don't know what the new one will say. That said I would be very surprised if it had anything to do with dismantling the NHS as we are firm supporters of keeping the NHS and providing NHS treatments free to those in need of them. The difference you might well notice with a UKIP NHS policy is the commitment to cut waste and deliver more and better treatment for every pound invested in the NHS. In effect, we would deliver a better NHS to the people where it counts. Common sense goes a long way in delivering better value for money. That's why more and more people are voting UKIP.[/p][/quote]Well as David Penn says in his article on the UKIP website, he is a libertarian who do not believe in big state, sounds like a further sell off of services in the NHS and social services if UKIP get in. Thats done so well with the utility companies and railways hasn't it Cox?[/p][/quote]Sounds like you are trying to make political capital by making it up as you go along. Seen as you need clarity over guesswork, let me help you. No, I don't believe in a big wasteful state. That does not mean you can jump to the conclusion that I must want to sell off bits of the NHS or Social Services. There are many effective ways of reducing the government budget and providing a better service. The problem for this country is that recent governments, Labour in particular, don't have a clue how to manage anything without throwing our money at it and just expecting everything to turn out fine. For example, we all saw how Labour's attempt to sort out doctors' contracts ended up with their salary's soaring. What did the public get for the extra money? Absolute diddly-squat. Nothing. In fact everyone's worse off. Doctors new contracts gave them shed loads more money whilst allowing them to stop doing vital work such as vital out of hours visits. Result? Now a visit to A&E sees waiting queues through the roof once the surgeries are closed. Given the power, I'd tear up every doctor's contract and put it back to where it used to be before Labour created chaos. That would save a small fortune on its own. Labour, what a joke. Their leadership is so utterly useleass they couldn't even find their way from the bottom of an escalator to the top without a bucket load of taxpayers' cash to pay someone for directions. D_Penn
  • Score: 4

10:13pm Tue 8 Apr 14

ramage1996 says...

bushey10 wrote:
Well one wonders if the 2014 UKIP health policy will look like the 2010 one?

• Franchise out key services including hospitals and GP surgeries to companies and charities.

• Create voucher system to allow people to opt out of NHS system entirely.

• Matrons to run hospitals, not non-clinically trained managers.

• Smoking rooms in pubs.

All the above would have had a real impact on the nhs , in fact if those policy's happened they would have done real damage to the service - don't trust UKIP there not much better than the Liberals, - let's not forget the big con or should I say the health campus
I have got to say as well Bushey10, I am scared about the Ukip policy of the gays causing the global warming floods!!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-oxf
ordshire-25793358
[quote][p][bold]bushey10[/bold] wrote: Well one wonders if the 2014 UKIP health policy will look like the 2010 one? • Franchise out key services including hospitals and GP surgeries to companies and charities. • Create voucher system to allow people to opt out of NHS system entirely. • Matrons to run hospitals, not non-clinically trained managers. • Smoking rooms in pubs. All the above would have had a real impact on the nhs , in fact if those policy's happened they would have done real damage to the service - don't trust UKIP there not much better than the Liberals, - let's not forget the big con or should I say the health campus[/p][/quote]I have got to say as well Bushey10, I am scared about the Ukip policy of the gays causing the global warming floods!!!!! http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-oxf ordshire-25793358 ramage1996
  • Score: -8

10:17pm Tue 8 Apr 14

ramage1996 says...

D_Penn wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
bushey10 wrote: Nothing neutral about the mayor - liberals need to be sent packing! Look at the hospital and so called health campus That said UKIP policy on health would dismantle the NHS
We don't have a current policy on the NHS as it is being rewritten and I don't know what the new one will say. That said I would be very surprised if it had anything to do with dismantling the NHS as we are firm supporters of keeping the NHS and providing NHS treatments free to those in need of them. The difference you might well notice with a UKIP NHS policy is the commitment to cut waste and deliver more and better treatment for every pound invested in the NHS. In effect, we would deliver a better NHS to the people where it counts. Common sense goes a long way in delivering better value for money. That's why more and more people are voting UKIP.
Well as David Penn says in his article on the UKIP website, he is a libertarian who do not believe in big state, sounds like a further sell off of services in the NHS and social services if UKIP get in. Thats done so well with the utility companies and railways hasn't it Cox?
Sounds like you are trying to make political capital by making it up as you go along. Seen as you need clarity over guesswork, let me help you.

No, I don't believe in a big wasteful state. That does not mean you can jump to the conclusion that I must want to sell off bits of the NHS or Social Services. There are many effective ways of reducing the government budget and providing a better service. The problem for this country is that recent governments, Labour in particular, don't have a clue how to manage anything without throwing our money at it and just expecting everything to turn out fine.

For example, we all saw how Labour's attempt to sort out doctors' contracts ended up with their salary's soaring. What did the public get for the extra money? Absolute diddly-squat. Nothing. In fact everyone's worse off. Doctors new contracts gave them shed loads more money whilst allowing them to stop doing vital work such as vital out of hours visits. Result? Now a visit to A&E sees waiting queues through the roof once the surgeries are closed.

Given the power, I'd tear up every doctor's contract and put it back to where it used to be before Labour created chaos. That would save a small fortune on its own.

Labour, what a joke. Their leadership is so utterly useleass they couldn't even find their way from the bottom of an escalator to the top without a bucket load of taxpayers' cash to pay someone for directions.
You cannot 'tear up a contract'

The whole point of a contract is that you agree to the terms of the contract until the contract runs out.

If you try yo tear the contract up the employees involved would take the employee to a employee tribunal.

So you are the 'election agent' behind Cox?!


blimey
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bushey10[/bold] wrote: Nothing neutral about the mayor - liberals need to be sent packing! Look at the hospital and so called health campus That said UKIP policy on health would dismantle the NHS[/p][/quote]We don't have a current policy on the NHS as it is being rewritten and I don't know what the new one will say. That said I would be very surprised if it had anything to do with dismantling the NHS as we are firm supporters of keeping the NHS and providing NHS treatments free to those in need of them. The difference you might well notice with a UKIP NHS policy is the commitment to cut waste and deliver more and better treatment for every pound invested in the NHS. In effect, we would deliver a better NHS to the people where it counts. Common sense goes a long way in delivering better value for money. That's why more and more people are voting UKIP.[/p][/quote]Well as David Penn says in his article on the UKIP website, he is a libertarian who do not believe in big state, sounds like a further sell off of services in the NHS and social services if UKIP get in. Thats done so well with the utility companies and railways hasn't it Cox?[/p][/quote]Sounds like you are trying to make political capital by making it up as you go along. Seen as you need clarity over guesswork, let me help you. No, I don't believe in a big wasteful state. That does not mean you can jump to the conclusion that I must want to sell off bits of the NHS or Social Services. There are many effective ways of reducing the government budget and providing a better service. The problem for this country is that recent governments, Labour in particular, don't have a clue how to manage anything without throwing our money at it and just expecting everything to turn out fine. For example, we all saw how Labour's attempt to sort out doctors' contracts ended up with their salary's soaring. What did the public get for the extra money? Absolute diddly-squat. Nothing. In fact everyone's worse off. Doctors new contracts gave them shed loads more money whilst allowing them to stop doing vital work such as vital out of hours visits. Result? Now a visit to A&E sees waiting queues through the roof once the surgeries are closed. Given the power, I'd tear up every doctor's contract and put it back to where it used to be before Labour created chaos. That would save a small fortune on its own. Labour, what a joke. Their leadership is so utterly useleass they couldn't even find their way from the bottom of an escalator to the top without a bucket load of taxpayers' cash to pay someone for directions.[/p][/quote]You cannot 'tear up a contract' The whole point of a contract is that you agree to the terms of the contract until the contract runs out. If you try yo tear the contract up the employees involved would take the employee to a employee tribunal. So you are the 'election agent' behind Cox?! blimey ramage1996
  • Score: -7

10:44pm Tue 8 Apr 14

ramage1996 says...

Vote Ukip and maybe all public sector workers could be on minimum wage zero contract hour contracts that have been outsourced?
Vote Ukip and maybe all public sector workers could be on minimum wage zero contract hour contracts that have been outsourced? ramage1996
  • Score: -8

11:42pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Cuetip says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
The irony of Cox complaining about the mayor's report being too political won't be lost on readers of the WOBS comments threads which are riddled with politically charged propaganda from Cox and his henchman Penn
Earlier Wacko Jacko wrote:'Can we please keep the debate at a more civilised level and deal with party politics and policies rather than these lame attempts at character assassination?......
. but still let's all play the ball, not the man (or woman)'.

No wonder politics is reduced to a moronic level with your inconsistent comments which fits with so many inconsistencies in policies summed up by do as I say and not as I do.

Your support for someone who will not answer a questions about whether she was the Fund Raiser or her involvement with BACL -British Asian Conservative Link - banned by Cameron for selling his phone no for £10,000 smacks of 'the means always justifies the ends' and that is why a one party state is bad for democracy and you lose your soul as you sell it to the highest bidder.

Look up "Fair is foul and foul is fair" and you might win some votes.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: The irony of Cox complaining about the mayor's report being too political won't be lost on readers of the WOBS comments threads which are riddled with politically charged propaganda from Cox and his henchman Penn[/p][/quote]Earlier Wacko Jacko wrote:'Can we please keep the debate at a more civilised level and deal with party politics and policies rather than these lame attempts at character assassination?...... . but still let's all play the ball, not the man (or woman)'. No wonder politics is reduced to a moronic level with your inconsistent comments which fits with so many inconsistencies in policies summed up by do as I say and not as I do. Your support for someone who will not answer a questions about whether she was the Fund Raiser or her involvement with BACL -British Asian Conservative Link - banned by Cameron for selling his phone no for £10,000 smacks of 'the means always justifies the ends' and that is why a one party state is bad for democracy and you lose your soul as you sell it to the highest bidder. Look up "Fair is foul and foul is fair" and you might win some votes. Cuetip
  • Score: 8

12:17am Wed 9 Apr 14

D_Penn says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Vote Ukip and maybe all public sector workers could be on minimum wage zero contract hour contracts that have been outsourced?
Don't be daft. You really do talk utter rubbish when you want to scaremonger.

I (like every other UKIP person I have spoken to on this subject) am against zero hours contracts except where an employee agrees to one under no duress. (There are actually many cases where it suits someone to offer their services on this basis.)

For society to function though, it is important that the vast majority of families can can calculate what their minimum income will be. If zero hours contracts became common place, not only would it make it impossible for people to live and work happily, the uncertainty would stop people spending and drive the country into recession or even depression.

For that reason it may become necessary to generally legislate against zero hours contracts to stop the greedy taking advantage in areas where unemployment is high. However, an outright ban must be avoided so that those who wish to have such a contract can still do so.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Vote Ukip and maybe all public sector workers could be on minimum wage zero contract hour contracts that have been outsourced?[/p][/quote]Don't be daft. You really do talk utter rubbish when you want to scaremonger. I (like every other UKIP person I have spoken to on this subject) am against zero hours contracts except where an employee agrees to one under no duress. (There are actually many cases where it suits someone to offer their services on this basis.) For society to function though, it is important that the vast majority of families can can calculate what their minimum income will be. If zero hours contracts became common place, not only would it make it impossible for people to live and work happily, the uncertainty would stop people spending and drive the country into recession or even depression. For that reason it may become necessary to generally legislate against zero hours contracts to stop the greedy taking advantage in areas where unemployment is high. However, an outright ban must be avoided so that those who wish to have such a contract can still do so. D_Penn
  • Score: 8

12:18am Wed 9 Apr 14

Nascot says...

I used to have some leanings to UKIP policies until Cox started spouting off about how he, single handedly without any other elected councilors, would run Watford,. Sort of reminds you of an African dictatorship doesn't it.Cox says so, it will be done. Wake up an smell the coffee, it doesn't work that way
I used to have some leanings to UKIP policies until Cox started spouting off about how he, single handedly without any other elected councilors, would run Watford,. Sort of reminds you of an African dictatorship doesn't it.Cox says so, it will be done. Wake up an smell the coffee, it doesn't work that way Nascot
  • Score: -4

7:26am Wed 9 Apr 14

cgpc Rob says...

Council mags are always run by those in charge and favoring the content to suit themselves, it happens at parish/district/coun
ty levels.
Council mags are always run by those in charge and favoring the content to suit themselves, it happens at parish/district/coun ty levels. cgpc Rob
  • Score: 13

7:29am Wed 9 Apr 14

enlightened one says...

Phil,you and your sidekick really ought to find yourselves some gainful employment, the amount of time the pair of you spend on this website is laughable as are most of your comments.
I hope to god that your not selected as ukip ppc for watford,don't think I could take another 12 months of your tripe.
Phil,you and your sidekick really ought to find yourselves some gainful employment, the amount of time the pair of you spend on this website is laughable as are most of your comments. I hope to god that your not selected as ukip ppc for watford,don't think I could take another 12 months of your tripe. enlightened one
  • Score: -4

8:37am Wed 9 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Nascot wrote:
I used to have some leanings to UKIP policies until Cox started spouting off about how he, single handedly without any other elected councilors, would run Watford,. Sort of reminds you of an African dictatorship doesn't it.Cox says so, it will be done. Wake up an smell the coffee, it doesn't work that way
Not at all.

I will run Watford for the benefit of the residents and businesses of Watford.

I have no doubt I would have the support of all councillors from all parties in trying to achieve that goal. I will need their support and I will work with them as they will work with me in the interests of Watford..

I have a good track record of bringing harmony to disparate factions. I will do the same on the council.
[quote][p][bold]Nascot[/bold] wrote: I used to have some leanings to UKIP policies until Cox started spouting off about how he, single handedly without any other elected councilors, would run Watford,. Sort of reminds you of an African dictatorship doesn't it.Cox says so, it will be done. Wake up an smell the coffee, it doesn't work that way[/p][/quote]Not at all. I will run Watford for the benefit of the residents and businesses of Watford. I have no doubt I would have the support of all councillors from all parties in trying to achieve that goal. I will need their support and I will work with them as they will work with me in the interests of Watford.. I have a good track record of bringing harmony to disparate factions. I will do the same on the council. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 2

8:38am Wed 9 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

cgpc Rob wrote:
Council mags are always run by those in charge and favoring the content to suit themselves, it happens at parish/district/coun

ty levels.
Anyone who has a strong sense of right and wrong will know that this is plain wrong.
[quote][p][bold]cgpc Rob[/bold] wrote: Council mags are always run by those in charge and favoring the content to suit themselves, it happens at parish/district/coun ty levels.[/p][/quote]Anyone who has a strong sense of right and wrong will know that this is plain wrong. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 4

8:42am Wed 9 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

enlightened one wrote:
Phil,you and your sidekick really ought to find yourselves some gainful employment, the amount of time the pair of you spend on this website is laughable as are most of your comments.
I hope to god that your not selected as ukip ppc for watford,don't think I could take another 12 months of your tripe.
As Mayor I will not stand down to stand for parliament in 2015. Dotty would, but I wouldn't.

There's an important job to do sorting out the LibDem Watford Borough Council and that will be the focus for me for the next 4 years.

This story shows there is more work to be done at WBC than even I had imiagined. The council must be made non-political.
[quote][p][bold]enlightened one[/bold] wrote: Phil,you and your sidekick really ought to find yourselves some gainful employment, the amount of time the pair of you spend on this website is laughable as are most of your comments. I hope to god that your not selected as ukip ppc for watford,don't think I could take another 12 months of your tripe.[/p][/quote]As Mayor I will not stand down to stand for parliament in 2015. Dotty would, but I wouldn't. There's an important job to do sorting out the LibDem Watford Borough Council and that will be the focus for me for the next 4 years. This story shows there is more work to be done at WBC than even I had imiagined. The council must be made non-political. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 0

9:03am Wed 9 Apr 14

enlightened one says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
enlightened one wrote:
Phil,you and your sidekick really ought to find yourselves some gainful employment, the amount of time the pair of you spend on this website is laughable as are most of your comments.
I hope to god that your not selected as ukip ppc for watford,don't think I could take another 12 months of your tripe.
As Mayor I will not stand down to stand for parliament in 2015. Dotty would, but I wouldn't.

There's an important job to do sorting out the LibDem Watford Borough Council and that will be the focus for me for the next 4 years.

This story shows there is more work to be done at WBC than even I had imiagined. The council must be made non-political.
Four years of you and Penn ??? Could you imagine it,like being nagged by another wife !! (Apologies to all nagging wives).
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]enlightened one[/bold] wrote: Phil,you and your sidekick really ought to find yourselves some gainful employment, the amount of time the pair of you spend on this website is laughable as are most of your comments. I hope to god that your not selected as ukip ppc for watford,don't think I could take another 12 months of your tripe.[/p][/quote]As Mayor I will not stand down to stand for parliament in 2015. Dotty would, but I wouldn't. There's an important job to do sorting out the LibDem Watford Borough Council and that will be the focus for me for the next 4 years. This story shows there is more work to be done at WBC than even I had imiagined. The council must be made non-political.[/p][/quote]Four years of you and Penn ??? Could you imagine it,like being nagged by another wife !! (Apologies to all nagging wives). enlightened one
  • Score: -3

9:24am Wed 9 Apr 14

Cuetip says...

cgpc Rob wrote:
Council mags are always run by those in charge and favoring the content to suit themselves, it happens at parish/district/coun

ty levels.
Any objective discussion on the WBC council’s magazine seems to be arrogantly frowned upon as with public calls for Maria Miller to resign.

At a time when many are struggling with the cost of living, isn’t wonderful see that according to the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson ‘the public viewed Mrs Miller as, at best, overclaiming thousands of pounds - at worst, tens of thousands - and if the rules had applied to them they would have been sacked or put in prison.’

Can you imagine the abuse heaped on benefit scroungers and this lady who voters should be asking of Cameron "What on earth were you doing?" backing Mrs Miller.

The problem with ruling political cliques is that they view themselves as a race apart as shown by the way gov’t ministers childishly rushed to sit beside her when she made that hollow apology.

.Revelations about Cllrs Dhindsa, Khan and Taj suggest a degree of bias by Wacko Jacko as he gaily supports someone who will not publicise her role in BACL especially at a time when many are sensitive about having leaders who will not be corrupted by money.

Wicked Jacko should play ball and answer whether the office of mayor at the very least requires people to be open about their membership of organisations for money as any discussion on this magazine merely reflect an inability to be objective which is bad for good government.
[quote][p][bold]cgpc Rob[/bold] wrote: Council mags are always run by those in charge and favoring the content to suit themselves, it happens at parish/district/coun ty levels.[/p][/quote]Any objective discussion on the WBC council’s magazine seems to be arrogantly frowned upon as with public calls for Maria Miller to resign. At a time when many are struggling with the cost of living, isn’t wonderful see that according to the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson ‘the public viewed Mrs Miller as, at best, overclaiming thousands of pounds - at worst, tens of thousands - and if the rules had applied to them they would have been sacked or put in prison.’ Can you imagine the abuse heaped on benefit scroungers and this lady who voters should be asking of Cameron "What on earth were you doing?" backing Mrs Miller. The problem with ruling political cliques is that they view themselves as a race apart as shown by the way gov’t ministers childishly rushed to sit beside her when she made that hollow apology. .Revelations about Cllrs Dhindsa, Khan and Taj suggest a degree of bias by Wacko Jacko as he gaily supports someone who will not publicise her role in BACL especially at a time when many are sensitive about having leaders who will not be corrupted by money. Wicked Jacko should play ball and answer whether the office of mayor at the very least requires people to be open about their membership of organisations for money as any discussion on this magazine merely reflect an inability to be objective which is bad for good government. Cuetip
  • Score: 10

9:53am Wed 9 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Nascot wrote:
I used to have some leanings to UKIP policies until Cox started spouting off about how he, single handedly without any other elected councilors, would run Watford,. Sort of reminds you of an African dictatorship doesn't it.Cox says so, it will be done. Wake up an smell the coffee, it doesn't work that way
Not at all.

I will run Watford for the benefit of the residents and businesses of Watford.

I have no doubt I would have the support of all councillors from all parties in trying to achieve that goal. I will need their support and I will work with them as they will work with me in the interests of Watford..

I have a good track record of bringing harmony to disparate factions. I will do the same on the council.
really harmony Phil, I hear that there is a fungus that can grow on rye bread that is remarkably similar to LSD, I reckon you should check your bread or seek professional help, you are standing for UKIP it is not a party of harmony!
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nascot[/bold] wrote: I used to have some leanings to UKIP policies until Cox started spouting off about how he, single handedly without any other elected councilors, would run Watford,. Sort of reminds you of an African dictatorship doesn't it.Cox says so, it will be done. Wake up an smell the coffee, it doesn't work that way[/p][/quote]Not at all. I will run Watford for the benefit of the residents and businesses of Watford. I have no doubt I would have the support of all councillors from all parties in trying to achieve that goal. I will need their support and I will work with them as they will work with me in the interests of Watford.. I have a good track record of bringing harmony to disparate factions. I will do the same on the council.[/p][/quote]really harmony Phil, I hear that there is a fungus that can grow on rye bread that is remarkably similar to LSD, I reckon you should check your bread or seek professional help, you are standing for UKIP it is not a party of harmony! ancientandageing
  • Score: -8

11:12am Wed 9 Apr 14

D_Penn says...

enlightened one wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
enlightened one wrote: Phil,you and your sidekick really ought to find yourselves some gainful employment, the amount of time the pair of you spend on this website is laughable as are most of your comments. I hope to god that your not selected as ukip ppc for watford,don't think I could take another 12 months of your tripe.
As Mayor I will not stand down to stand for parliament in 2015. Dotty would, but I wouldn't. There's an important job to do sorting out the LibDem Watford Borough Council and that will be the focus for me for the next 4 years. This story shows there is more work to be done at WBC than even I had imiagined. The council must be made non-political.
Four years of you and Penn ??? Could you imagine it,like being nagged by another wife !! (Apologies to all nagging wives).
Nobody's been nagging you.

I have put comments on here so that anyone who wants to know what I think on a variety of important topics can read it for themselves. Then, when I stand for council in May, they can use that knowledge to make a decision on whether they wish to vote for me or not.

The nature of putting your name in print these days is that you set yourself up as a target for those who do not want a fair debate, but simply to throw lies and insults at you hoping that mud will stick. (Incidentally, I don't include you in that noxious group on here as your comments so far are no more than mild criticism - fair enough - though I would prefer to debate actual issues with you.)

What I find most strange though is why those that keep using lies and twists of the truth on here have never stopped to ask themselves a simple question. If their political philosophy is so correct, why can they not use simple debate to win the arguments? If you need to lie and insult people to try to win, it should be obvious that there is something seriously flawed with your political view of the world.

Some of the left-wingers on here are the absolute worst. They are so full of hate and bitterness that they cannot accept that anyone else but them actually wants to make life better for other people. They vent their bile at anyone who points out that their extreme socialism has failed ordinary people all around the globe wherever it has been tried.

They spit the word 'racist' at anyone who attempts to question their rose-tinted view that uncontrolled immigration is a good thing. They have not the slightest care for the welfare of people living here or that of the immigrant families who have to compete for resources in an already overcrowded island as long as their philosphy goes unchallenged. So they don't want reasoned debate on the subject, they simply want to shout down any discussion or argument because in their extreme arrogance they believe themseleves to be better and smarter than anyone else. The trouble comes when they suddenly cannot bully others who do want to discuss these difficult issues into silence. Then they revert to type, attacking and defaming anyone who dares to challenge them.

There is a part of me that pities these people. It must be difficult spending your life in constant anger, yet so blinkered that you never listen and debate other peoples' points of view and learn from them. To be destined to spend your life fixated with one view and one opinion to the exclusion of all else must be so hard to bear day after day when being so inflexible it's inevitable that most people will disagree with you.
[quote][p][bold]enlightened one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]enlightened one[/bold] wrote: Phil,you and your sidekick really ought to find yourselves some gainful employment, the amount of time the pair of you spend on this website is laughable as are most of your comments. I hope to god that your not selected as ukip ppc for watford,don't think I could take another 12 months of your tripe.[/p][/quote]As Mayor I will not stand down to stand for parliament in 2015. Dotty would, but I wouldn't. There's an important job to do sorting out the LibDem Watford Borough Council and that will be the focus for me for the next 4 years. This story shows there is more work to be done at WBC than even I had imiagined. The council must be made non-political.[/p][/quote]Four years of you and Penn ??? Could you imagine it,like being nagged by another wife !! (Apologies to all nagging wives).[/p][/quote]Nobody's been nagging you. I have put comments on here so that anyone who wants to know what I think on a variety of important topics can read it for themselves. Then, when I stand for council in May, they can use that knowledge to make a decision on whether they wish to vote for me or not. The nature of putting your name in print these days is that you set yourself up as a target for those who do not want a fair debate, but simply to throw lies and insults at you hoping that mud will stick. (Incidentally, I don't include you in that noxious group on here as your comments so far are no more than mild criticism - fair enough - though I would prefer to debate actual issues with you.) What I find most strange though is why those that keep using lies and twists of the truth on here have never stopped to ask themselves a simple question. If their political philosophy is so correct, why can they not use simple debate to win the arguments? If you need to lie and insult people to try to win, it should be obvious that there is something seriously flawed with your political view of the world. Some of the left-wingers on here are the absolute worst. They are so full of hate and bitterness that they cannot accept that anyone else but them actually wants to make life better for other people. They vent their bile at anyone who points out that their extreme socialism has failed ordinary people all around the globe wherever it has been tried. They spit the word 'racist' at anyone who attempts to question their rose-tinted view that uncontrolled immigration is a good thing. They have not the slightest care for the welfare of people living here or that of the immigrant families who have to compete for resources in an already overcrowded island as long as their philosphy goes unchallenged. So they don't want reasoned debate on the subject, they simply want to shout down any discussion or argument because in their extreme arrogance they believe themseleves to be better and smarter than anyone else. The trouble comes when they suddenly cannot bully others who do want to discuss these difficult issues into silence. Then they revert to type, attacking and defaming anyone who dares to challenge them. There is a part of me that pities these people. It must be difficult spending your life in constant anger, yet so blinkered that you never listen and debate other peoples' points of view and learn from them. To be destined to spend your life fixated with one view and one opinion to the exclusion of all else must be so hard to bear day after day when being so inflexible it's inevitable that most people will disagree with you. D_Penn
  • Score: 2

11:40am Wed 9 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ancientandageing wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Nascot wrote:
I used to have some leanings to UKIP policies until Cox started spouting off about how he, single handedly without any other elected councilors, would run Watford,. Sort of reminds you of an African dictatorship doesn't it.Cox says so, it will be done. Wake up an smell the coffee, it doesn't work that way
Not at all.

I will run Watford for the benefit of the residents and businesses of Watford.

I have no doubt I would have the support of all councillors from all parties in trying to achieve that goal. I will need their support and I will work with them as they will work with me in the interests of Watford..

I have a good track record of bringing harmony to disparate factions. I will do the same on the council.
really harmony Phil, I hear that there is a fungus that can grow on rye bread that is remarkably similar to LSD, I reckon you should check your bread or seek professional help, you are standing for UKIP it is not a party of harmony!
I will bring harmony to the council and get people to work together for the good of the people of the town.

UKIP really is a different way of doing business.

I would be horrified if in four years time, having been Mayor, a charge of using taxpayers money for party political ends and party political publicity could be levied at me.

The council should be above party politics, not in the pocket of one party.

I find the actions of the Mayor and the council quite distasteful.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nascot[/bold] wrote: I used to have some leanings to UKIP policies until Cox started spouting off about how he, single handedly without any other elected councilors, would run Watford,. Sort of reminds you of an African dictatorship doesn't it.Cox says so, it will be done. Wake up an smell the coffee, it doesn't work that way[/p][/quote]Not at all. I will run Watford for the benefit of the residents and businesses of Watford. I have no doubt I would have the support of all councillors from all parties in trying to achieve that goal. I will need their support and I will work with them as they will work with me in the interests of Watford.. I have a good track record of bringing harmony to disparate factions. I will do the same on the council.[/p][/quote]really harmony Phil, I hear that there is a fungus that can grow on rye bread that is remarkably similar to LSD, I reckon you should check your bread or seek professional help, you are standing for UKIP it is not a party of harmony![/p][/quote]I will bring harmony to the council and get people to work together for the good of the people of the town. UKIP really is a different way of doing business. I would be horrified if in four years time, having been Mayor, a charge of using taxpayers money for party political ends and party political publicity could be levied at me. The council should be above party politics, not in the pocket of one party. I find the actions of the Mayor and the council quite distasteful. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 7

12:07pm Wed 9 Apr 14

LocalBoy1 says...

"She also highlights what she sees at the council’s achievements". Pre election trumpet blowing in an attempt to be re-elected as Mayor. So politics is a dirty game!. It always has been.
"She also highlights what she sees at the council’s achievements". Pre election trumpet blowing in an attempt to be re-elected as Mayor. So politics is a dirty game!. It always has been. LocalBoy1
  • Score: 11

12:38pm Wed 9 Apr 14

enlightened one says...

D_Penn wrote:
enlightened one wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
enlightened one wrote: Phil,you and your sidekick really ought to find yourselves some gainful employment, the amount of time the pair of you spend on this website is laughable as are most of your comments. I hope to god that your not selected as ukip ppc for watford,don't think I could take another 12 months of your tripe.
As Mayor I will not stand down to stand for parliament in 2015. Dotty would, but I wouldn't. There's an important job to do sorting out the LibDem Watford Borough Council and that will be the focus for me for the next 4 years. This story shows there is more work to be done at WBC than even I had imiagined. The council must be made non-political.
Four years of you and Penn ??? Could you imagine it,like being nagged by another wife !! (Apologies to all nagging wives).
Nobody's been nagging you.

I have put comments on here so that anyone who wants to know what I think on a variety of important topics can read it for themselves. Then, when I stand for council in May, they can use that knowledge to make a decision on whether they wish to vote for me or not.

The nature of putting your name in print these days is that you set yourself up as a target for those who do not want a fair debate, but simply to throw lies and insults at you hoping that mud will stick. (Incidentally, I don't include you in that noxious group on here as your comments so far are no more than mild criticism - fair enough - though I would prefer to debate actual issues with you.)

What I find most strange though is why those that keep using lies and twists of the truth on here have never stopped to ask themselves a simple question. If their political philosophy is so correct, why can they not use simple debate to win the arguments? If you need to lie and insult people to try to win, it should be obvious that there is something seriously flawed with your political view of the world.

Some of the left-wingers on here are the absolute worst. They are so full of hate and bitterness that they cannot accept that anyone else but them actually wants to make life better for other people. They vent their bile at anyone who points out that their extreme socialism has failed ordinary people all around the globe wherever it has been tried.

They spit the word 'racist' at anyone who attempts to question their rose-tinted view that uncontrolled immigration is a good thing. They have not the slightest care for the welfare of people living here or that of the immigrant families who have to compete for resources in an already overcrowded island as long as their philosphy goes unchallenged. So they don't want reasoned debate on the subject, they simply want to shout down any discussion or argument because in their extreme arrogance they believe themseleves to be better and smarter than anyone else. The trouble comes when they suddenly cannot bully others who do want to discuss these difficult issues into silence. Then they revert to type, attacking and defaming anyone who dares to challenge them.

There is a part of me that pities these people. It must be difficult spending your life in constant anger, yet so blinkered that you never listen and debate other peoples' points of view and learn from them. To be destined to spend your life fixated with one view and one opinion to the exclusion of all else must be so hard to bear day after day when being so inflexible it's inevitable that most people will disagree with you.
I rest my case.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]enlightened one[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]enlightened one[/bold] wrote: Phil,you and your sidekick really ought to find yourselves some gainful employment, the amount of time the pair of you spend on this website is laughable as are most of your comments. I hope to god that your not selected as ukip ppc for watford,don't think I could take another 12 months of your tripe.[/p][/quote]As Mayor I will not stand down to stand for parliament in 2015. Dotty would, but I wouldn't. There's an important job to do sorting out the LibDem Watford Borough Council and that will be the focus for me for the next 4 years. This story shows there is more work to be done at WBC than even I had imiagined. The council must be made non-political.[/p][/quote]Four years of you and Penn ??? Could you imagine it,like being nagged by another wife !! (Apologies to all nagging wives).[/p][/quote]Nobody's been nagging you. I have put comments on here so that anyone who wants to know what I think on a variety of important topics can read it for themselves. Then, when I stand for council in May, they can use that knowledge to make a decision on whether they wish to vote for me or not. The nature of putting your name in print these days is that you set yourself up as a target for those who do not want a fair debate, but simply to throw lies and insults at you hoping that mud will stick. (Incidentally, I don't include you in that noxious group on here as your comments so far are no more than mild criticism - fair enough - though I would prefer to debate actual issues with you.) What I find most strange though is why those that keep using lies and twists of the truth on here have never stopped to ask themselves a simple question. If their political philosophy is so correct, why can they not use simple debate to win the arguments? If you need to lie and insult people to try to win, it should be obvious that there is something seriously flawed with your political view of the world. Some of the left-wingers on here are the absolute worst. They are so full of hate and bitterness that they cannot accept that anyone else but them actually wants to make life better for other people. They vent their bile at anyone who points out that their extreme socialism has failed ordinary people all around the globe wherever it has been tried. They spit the word 'racist' at anyone who attempts to question their rose-tinted view that uncontrolled immigration is a good thing. They have not the slightest care for the welfare of people living here or that of the immigrant families who have to compete for resources in an already overcrowded island as long as their philosphy goes unchallenged. So they don't want reasoned debate on the subject, they simply want to shout down any discussion or argument because in their extreme arrogance they believe themseleves to be better and smarter than anyone else. The trouble comes when they suddenly cannot bully others who do want to discuss these difficult issues into silence. Then they revert to type, attacking and defaming anyone who dares to challenge them. There is a part of me that pities these people. It must be difficult spending your life in constant anger, yet so blinkered that you never listen and debate other peoples' points of view and learn from them. To be destined to spend your life fixated with one view and one opinion to the exclusion of all else must be so hard to bear day after day when being so inflexible it's inevitable that most people will disagree with you.[/p][/quote]I rest my case. enlightened one
  • Score: -5

12:42pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

LocalBoy1 wrote:
"She also highlights what she sees at the council’s achievements". Pre election trumpet blowing in an attempt to be re-elected as Mayor. So politics is a dirty game!. It always has been.
True, but I didn't realise the Mayor had the council working for the LibDems.

I thought they worked for us, the people. - After all, we pay their wages.

If I become Mayor, I will make sure the council works only for the people of Watford, never the political parties.

I am surprised what is happening is even legal.
[quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: "She also highlights what she sees at the council’s achievements". Pre election trumpet blowing in an attempt to be re-elected as Mayor. So politics is a dirty game!. It always has been.[/p][/quote]True, but I didn't realise the Mayor had the council working for the LibDems. I thought they worked for us, the people. - After all, we pay their wages. If I become Mayor, I will make sure the council works only for the people of Watford, never the political parties. I am surprised what is happening is even legal. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 1

2:04pm Wed 9 Apr 14

jimbo26 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
LocalBoy1 wrote:
"She also highlights what she sees at the council’s achievements". Pre election trumpet blowing in an attempt to be re-elected as Mayor. So politics is a dirty game!. It always has been.
True, but I didn't realise the Mayor had the council working for the LibDems.

I thought they worked for us, the people. - After all, we pay their wages.

If I become Mayor, I will make sure the council works only for the people of Watford, never the political parties.

I am surprised what is happening is even legal.
So what you are saying is:
If you were elected and the 'look back' magazine was published there would be no mention on UKIP in it? On top of this your agenda would not be influenced by UKIP at all?
I find this hard to believe
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: "She also highlights what she sees at the council’s achievements". Pre election trumpet blowing in an attempt to be re-elected as Mayor. So politics is a dirty game!. It always has been.[/p][/quote]True, but I didn't realise the Mayor had the council working for the LibDems. I thought they worked for us, the people. - After all, we pay their wages. If I become Mayor, I will make sure the council works only for the people of Watford, never the political parties. I am surprised what is happening is even legal.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is: If you were elected and the 'look back' magazine was published there would be no mention on UKIP in it? On top of this your agenda would not be influenced by UKIP at all? I find this hard to believe jimbo26
  • Score: -1

2:06pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Nascot says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Nascot wrote:
I used to have some leanings to UKIP policies until Cox started spouting off about how he, single handedly without any other elected councilors, would run Watford,. Sort of reminds you of an African dictatorship doesn't it.Cox says so, it will be done. Wake up an smell the coffee, it doesn't work that way
Not at all.

I will run Watford for the benefit of the residents and businesses of Watford.

I have no doubt I would have the support of all councillors from all parties in trying to achieve that goal. I will need their support and I will work with them as they will work with me in the interests of Watford..

I have a good track record of bringing harmony to disparate factions. I will do the same on the council.
'I have a good track record of bringing harmony to disparate factions. I will do the same on the council'

Perhaps you could, in your as yet unseen manifesto, give us some examples of your achievements in this area
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nascot[/bold] wrote: I used to have some leanings to UKIP policies until Cox started spouting off about how he, single handedly without any other elected councilors, would run Watford,. Sort of reminds you of an African dictatorship doesn't it.Cox says so, it will be done. Wake up an smell the coffee, it doesn't work that way[/p][/quote]Not at all. I will run Watford for the benefit of the residents and businesses of Watford. I have no doubt I would have the support of all councillors from all parties in trying to achieve that goal. I will need their support and I will work with them as they will work with me in the interests of Watford.. I have a good track record of bringing harmony to disparate factions. I will do the same on the council.[/p][/quote]'I have a good track record of bringing harmony to disparate factions. I will do the same on the council' Perhaps you could, in your as yet unseen manifesto, give us some examples of your achievements in this area Nascot
  • Score: 2

2:45pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Andrew1963 says...

Surely the thing for Mr Cox to do is if he believes the publication is in breach of the regulations to report it to the District auditor who can investigate the appropriateness of it. If he simply thinks it is unfair that the council puts a positive spin on its activities, well that is an opionion, but not evidence of wrongdoing. All organisations tend to put things about themselves in the best light - businesses; political parties and candidates; churches; schools; etc. How many residents will have even read it? A better argument would be to say that in future such publications will be posted on the official website for people to read if they are interested, thus saving the costs of printing and distribution. If the facts are wrong (for example the Watford observer could find out how Watford council performs on recycling compared to its neighbours - Three Rivers; Dacorum and Hertsmere and possibly Haroow borough) then he may have a point. but if it is just a subjective comment, we have improved it but not quantitified what that means then again he may have a point. As I said he could raise this with the council spending regulator.
Surely the thing for Mr Cox to do is if he believes the publication is in breach of the regulations to report it to the District auditor who can investigate the appropriateness of it. If he simply thinks it is unfair that the council puts a positive spin on its activities, well that is an opionion, but not evidence of wrongdoing. All organisations tend to put things about themselves in the best light - businesses; political parties and candidates; churches; schools; etc. How many residents will have even read it? A better argument would be to say that in future such publications will be posted on the official website for people to read if they are interested, thus saving the costs of printing and distribution. If the facts are wrong (for example the Watford observer could find out how Watford council performs on recycling compared to its neighbours - Three Rivers; Dacorum and Hertsmere and possibly Haroow borough) then he may have a point. but if it is just a subjective comment, we have improved it but not quantitified what that means then again he may have a point. As I said he could raise this with the council spending regulator. Andrew1963
  • Score: 14

5:35pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

jimbo26 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
LocalBoy1 wrote:
"She also highlights what she sees at the council’s achievements". Pre election trumpet blowing in an attempt to be re-elected as Mayor. So politics is a dirty game!. It always has been.
True, but I didn't realise the Mayor had the council working for the LibDems.

I thought they worked for us, the people. - After all, we pay their wages.

If I become Mayor, I will make sure the council works only for the people of Watford, never the political parties.

I am surprised what is happening is even legal.
So what you are saying is:
If you were elected and the 'look back' magazine was published there would be no mention on UKIP in it? On top of this your agenda would not be influenced by UKIP at all?
I find this hard to believe
It would not be a ukip fan mag in any way. If I did an introduction page like the Mayor did then I would have no objection to identifying myself as a member of the UKIP party, but that should be that.

Any council publication should be political party neutral. The people must be able to regain trust in the council as an independent body that acts with integrity towards the people it serves.

At the moment the council acts as an organ of the LibDems and that is wrong, wrong, wrong.

There should be no more party politics than that in any council magazine. I believe in playing fair.

As Mayor I would have a set of policies and aims. As they are all in the direct interests of the people and town of Watford the rest of the councillors should want to support them, no matter what party they are from, and to add their own good ideas into the mix for a better Watford.

At the end of the day, a referendum could be called if the people of Watford disagree with any council policy, UKIP or otherwise. For instance the LibDem Farm Terrace land grab would be open to a referendum and would likely be defeated, and the council would then have to heed the wishes of the people.

So much better than the dictatorship we have now where the Mayor cannot be challenged.

Democracy, openness, fairness and decency have been the victims of the LibDems in Watford.

I will fight as Mayor to right that wrong.
[quote][p][bold]jimbo26[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LocalBoy1[/bold] wrote: "She also highlights what she sees at the council’s achievements". Pre election trumpet blowing in an attempt to be re-elected as Mayor. So politics is a dirty game!. It always has been.[/p][/quote]True, but I didn't realise the Mayor had the council working for the LibDems. I thought they worked for us, the people. - After all, we pay their wages. If I become Mayor, I will make sure the council works only for the people of Watford, never the political parties. I am surprised what is happening is even legal.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying is: If you were elected and the 'look back' magazine was published there would be no mention on UKIP in it? On top of this your agenda would not be influenced by UKIP at all? I find this hard to believe[/p][/quote]It would not be a ukip fan mag in any way. If I did an introduction page like the Mayor did then I would have no objection to identifying myself as a member of the UKIP party, but that should be that. Any council publication should be political party neutral. The people must be able to regain trust in the council as an independent body that acts with integrity towards the people it serves. At the moment the council acts as an organ of the LibDems and that is wrong, wrong, wrong. There should be no more party politics than that in any council magazine. I believe in playing fair. As Mayor I would have a set of policies and aims. As they are all in the direct interests of the people and town of Watford the rest of the councillors should want to support them, no matter what party they are from, and to add their own good ideas into the mix for a better Watford. At the end of the day, a referendum could be called if the people of Watford disagree with any council policy, UKIP or otherwise. For instance the LibDem Farm Terrace land grab would be open to a referendum and would likely be defeated, and the council would then have to heed the wishes of the people. So much better than the dictatorship we have now where the Mayor cannot be challenged. Democracy, openness, fairness and decency have been the victims of the LibDems in Watford. I will fight as Mayor to right that wrong. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 2

6:44pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Nascot wrote:
I used to have some leanings to UKIP policies until Cox started spouting off about how he, single handedly without any other elected councilors, would run Watford,. Sort of reminds you of an African dictatorship doesn't it.Cox says so, it will be done. Wake up an smell the coffee, it doesn't work that way
Not at all.

I will run Watford for the benefit of the residents and businesses of Watford.

I have no doubt I would have the support of all councillors from all parties in trying to achieve that goal. I will need their support and I will work with them as they will work with me in the interests of Watford..

I have a good track record of bringing harmony to disparate factions. I will do the same on the council.
really harmony Phil, I hear that there is a fungus that can grow on rye bread that is remarkably similar to LSD, I reckon you should check your bread or seek professional help, you are standing for UKIP it is not a party of harmony!
I will bring harmony to the council and get people to work together for the good of the people of the town.

UKIP really is a different way of doing business.

I would be horrified if in four years time, having been Mayor, a charge of using taxpayers money for party political ends and party political publicity could be levied at me.

The council should be above party politics, not in the pocket of one party.

I find the actions of the Mayor and the council quite distasteful.
You work for yourself in IT
You are in a party that is opposed to Gay Marrage
Your local MP is Blooms apprentice in the Misogynistic states
Your party is anti immigration
Your leader seeks to appeal to "white working class"
Another of your MEP's wants a special register of Muslims
You have a prospective cllr David Penn who seems to mistake Fred Hill who never cited the "Sikh exception" with NF BNP and World Union of National Socialists member Robert Relf who did.
You and your local party /supporters have not acted in a way that demonstrates any tendency to "harmony"
Your party is at odds with Labour Libdems and Greens on climate change/wind farms and fracking.
The idea that you could bring harmony is frankly absurd
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nascot[/bold] wrote: I used to have some leanings to UKIP policies until Cox started spouting off about how he, single handedly without any other elected councilors, would run Watford,. Sort of reminds you of an African dictatorship doesn't it.Cox says so, it will be done. Wake up an smell the coffee, it doesn't work that way[/p][/quote]Not at all. I will run Watford for the benefit of the residents and businesses of Watford. I have no doubt I would have the support of all councillors from all parties in trying to achieve that goal. I will need their support and I will work with them as they will work with me in the interests of Watford.. I have a good track record of bringing harmony to disparate factions. I will do the same on the council.[/p][/quote]really harmony Phil, I hear that there is a fungus that can grow on rye bread that is remarkably similar to LSD, I reckon you should check your bread or seek professional help, you are standing for UKIP it is not a party of harmony![/p][/quote]I will bring harmony to the council and get people to work together for the good of the people of the town. UKIP really is a different way of doing business. I would be horrified if in four years time, having been Mayor, a charge of using taxpayers money for party political ends and party political publicity could be levied at me. The council should be above party politics, not in the pocket of one party. I find the actions of the Mayor and the council quite distasteful.[/p][/quote]You work for yourself in IT You are in a party that is opposed to Gay Marrage Your local MP is Blooms apprentice in the Misogynistic states Your party is anti immigration Your leader seeks to appeal to "white working class" Another of your MEP's wants a special register of Muslims You have a prospective cllr David Penn who seems to mistake Fred Hill who never cited the "Sikh exception" with NF BNP and World Union of National Socialists member Robert Relf who did. You and your local party /supporters have not acted in a way that demonstrates any tendency to "harmony" Your party is at odds with Labour Libdems and Greens on climate change/wind farms and fracking. The idea that you could bring harmony is frankly absurd ancientandageing
  • Score: 1

9:47pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ramage1996 says...

Yet again today David Penn and Phill Cox have had comments deleted after contacting the WO.

If you think them doing this on a daily basis just before an election is wrong and anti free speech, contact the author of this article on.

mwright@london.newsq
uest.co.uk
Yet again today David Penn and Phill Cox have had comments deleted after contacting the WO. If you think them doing this on a daily basis just before an election is wrong and anti free speech, contact the author of this article on. mwright@london.newsq uest.co.uk ramage1996
  • Score: 4

10:34pm Wed 9 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Yet again today David Penn and Phill Cox have had comments deleted after contacting the WO.

If you think them doing this on a daily basis just before an election is wrong and anti free speech, contact the author of this article on.

mwright@london.newsq

uest.co.uk
carefull Ramage, my understanding is they got shot of DKYN
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Yet again today David Penn and Phill Cox have had comments deleted after contacting the WO. If you think them doing this on a daily basis just before an election is wrong and anti free speech, contact the author of this article on. mwright@london.newsq uest.co.uk[/p][/quote]carefull Ramage, my understanding is they got shot of DKYN ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

11:24pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Sara says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Yet again today David Penn and Phill Cox have had comments deleted after contacting the WO. If you think them doing this on a daily basis just before an election is wrong and anti free speech, contact the author of this article on. mwright@london.newsq uest.co.uk
If comments are made which are malicious or defamatory, that is one thing. If they are simply making a point in a strong manner, then they should remain.

Could you tell us the nature of the comments removed?
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Yet again today David Penn and Phill Cox have had comments deleted after contacting the WO. If you think them doing this on a daily basis just before an election is wrong and anti free speech, contact the author of this article on. mwright@london.newsq uest.co.uk[/p][/quote]If comments are made which are malicious or defamatory, that is one thing. If they are simply making a point in a strong manner, then they should remain. Could you tell us the nature of the comments removed? Sara
  • Score: 1

7:14am Thu 10 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

@sara

They would be with the ;potential to be defamatory if they were not true, therefore technically within the rules to be removed.
On other threads I have seen worse, however as the board is not moderated they remain, so the issue is not with the WO as much as with UKIP with there manipulation of the rules to produce a biased board.
@sara They would be with the ;potential to be defamatory if they were not true, therefore technically within the rules to be removed. On other threads I have seen worse, however as the board is not moderated they remain, so the issue is not with the WO as much as with UKIP with there manipulation of the rules to produce a biased board. ancientandageing
  • Score: 2

8:02am Thu 10 Apr 14

jimbo26 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says.

At the end of the day, a referendum could be called if the people of Watford disagree with any council policy, UKIP or otherwise. For instance the LibDem Farm Terrace land grab would be open to a referendum and would likely be defeated, and the council would then have to heed the wishes of the people.

And how much would this cost the public?
You have spoken of cutting costs to bring down council tax, then on the other hand have spoken of investigations into fraud in the council books and referendums - what would the cost of these be and where would the funding come from?

This article states that the majority of people pay between £4-£6 a week to WBC, how much would this go to under your leadership?
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says. At the end of the day, a referendum could be called if the people of Watford disagree with any council policy, UKIP or otherwise. For instance the LibDem Farm Terrace land grab would be open to a referendum and would likely be defeated, and the council would then have to heed the wishes of the people. And how much would this cost the public? You have spoken of cutting costs to bring down council tax, then on the other hand have spoken of investigations into fraud in the council books and referendums - what would the cost of these be and where would the funding come from? This article states that the majority of people pay between £4-£6 a week to WBC, how much would this go to under your leadership? jimbo26
  • Score: -1

8:09am Thu 10 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

jimbo26 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says.

At the end of the day, a referendum could be called if the people of Watford disagree with any council policy, UKIP or otherwise. For instance the LibDem Farm Terrace land grab would be open to a referendum and would likely be defeated, and the council would then have to heed the wishes of the people.

And how much would this cost the public?
You have spoken of cutting costs to bring down council tax, then on the other hand have spoken of investigations into fraud in the council books and referendums - what would the cost of these be and where would the funding come from?

This article states that the majority of people pay between £4-£6 a week to WBC, how much would this go to under your leadership?
Costs would go down under a UKIP administration.
[quote][p][bold]jimbo26[/bold] wrote: Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says. At the end of the day, a referendum could be called if the people of Watford disagree with any council policy, UKIP or otherwise. For instance the LibDem Farm Terrace land grab would be open to a referendum and would likely be defeated, and the council would then have to heed the wishes of the people. And how much would this cost the public? You have spoken of cutting costs to bring down council tax, then on the other hand have spoken of investigations into fraud in the council books and referendums - what would the cost of these be and where would the funding come from? This article states that the majority of people pay between £4-£6 a week to WBC, how much would this go to under your leadership?[/p][/quote]Costs would go down under a UKIP administration. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -2

8:32am Thu 10 Apr 14

jimbo26 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
jimbo26 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says.

At the end of the day, a referendum could be called if the people of Watford disagree with any council policy, UKIP or otherwise. For instance the LibDem Farm Terrace land grab would be open to a referendum and would likely be defeated, and the council would then have to heed the wishes of the people.

And how much would this cost the public?
You have spoken of cutting costs to bring down council tax, then on the other hand have spoken of investigations into fraud in the council books and referendums - what would the cost of these be and where would the funding come from?

This article states that the majority of people pay between £4-£6 a week to WBC, how much would this go to under your leadership?
Costs would go down under a UKIP administration.
How would they Phil if you are talking of the referendums and hiring in experts to investigate the books?
Where would the money come from to fund these?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbo26[/bold] wrote: Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says. At the end of the day, a referendum could be called if the people of Watford disagree with any council policy, UKIP or otherwise. For instance the LibDem Farm Terrace land grab would be open to a referendum and would likely be defeated, and the council would then have to heed the wishes of the people. And how much would this cost the public? You have spoken of cutting costs to bring down council tax, then on the other hand have spoken of investigations into fraud in the council books and referendums - what would the cost of these be and where would the funding come from? This article states that the majority of people pay between £4-£6 a week to WBC, how much would this go to under your leadership?[/p][/quote]Costs would go down under a UKIP administration.[/p][/quote]How would they Phil if you are talking of the referendums and hiring in experts to investigate the books? Where would the money come from to fund these? jimbo26
  • Score: 2

9:03am Thu 10 Apr 14

D_Penn says...

ancientandageing wrote:
@sara

They would be with the ;potential to be defamatory if they were not true, therefore technically within the rules to be removed.
On other threads I have seen worse, however as the board is not moderated they remain, so the issue is not with the WO as much as with UKIP with there manipulation of the rules to produce a biased board.
A biased board is created when someone posts lies all over the Watford Observer. It is also illegal and subject to civil penalties as you well know.

Free speech does not extend to making defamatory comments and it is regrettable that some who do not have the ability to engage in civilised debate resort to underhand tactics attacking the person instead of discussing the topic. When their illegal posts are removed they have the utter cheek to complain only because they don't want to abide by basic rules of decency and honesty like everyone else.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: @sara They would be with the ;potential to be defamatory if they were not true, therefore technically within the rules to be removed. On other threads I have seen worse, however as the board is not moderated they remain, so the issue is not with the WO as much as with UKIP with there manipulation of the rules to produce a biased board.[/p][/quote]A biased board is created when someone posts lies all over the Watford Observer. It is also illegal and subject to civil penalties as you well know. Free speech does not extend to making defamatory comments and it is regrettable that some who do not have the ability to engage in civilised debate resort to underhand tactics attacking the person instead of discussing the topic. When their illegal posts are removed they have the utter cheek to complain only because they don't want to abide by basic rules of decency and honesty like everyone else. D_Penn
  • Score: -1

12:41pm Thu 10 Apr 14

D_Penn says...

ancientandageing wrote:
ramage1996 wrote: Yet again today David Penn and Phill Cox have had comments deleted after contacting the WO. If you think them doing this on a daily basis just before an election is wrong and anti free speech, contact the author of this article on. mwright@london.newsq uest.co.uk
carefull Ramage, my understanding is they got shot of DKYN
Interesting comment. Sorry, but I can't resist playing Sherlock Holmes for a moment of fun.

In the first place, nobody got rid of Dontknowynot. Her demise would have been self-inflicted by repeatedly breaking the terms and conditions for posting on this website.

Secondly, the phrase you use above: 'it is my understanding that they got shot of DKYN', is quite telling. Since there is no notification process beyond telling the actual person getting a ban, then I assert that you could only have your so-called 'understanding' if you either know Dontknowynot personally or, much more likely, that you are Dontknowynot.

The evidence is quite strong. Dontknowynot stopped posting and briefly someone registered as Dontknowynot2 appeared and then quickly disappeared again. I think it is safe to assume from the evidence that DKYN was banned and a crude attempt was made to circumvent it. I surmise WO detected and subsequently blocked DKYN2 because it was so obvious.

Immediately after that, a new regular poster appears, ancientandageing, writing in the same style as DKYN used to and with the same political leaning. The new name also fits in with what we know of DKYN in that she got very uppity on an early post saying that someone was against older people like her. There are also a couple of times where ancientandageing refers to older specific posts of DKYN, showing quite intimate knowledge of posts well before ancientandageing even appeared on here.

Anyway, I don't suppose anyone else is interested but a bit of detective work is a nice distraction from the usual arguments. How about it ancientandageing, am I right? I promise not to get you banned if it's true because, apart from anything else, and despite comments on here suggesting the contrary, it is beyond my power to get people banned since it is not my website.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Yet again today David Penn and Phill Cox have had comments deleted after contacting the WO. If you think them doing this on a daily basis just before an election is wrong and anti free speech, contact the author of this article on. mwright@london.newsq uest.co.uk[/p][/quote]carefull Ramage, my understanding is they got shot of DKYN[/p][/quote]Interesting comment. Sorry, but I can't resist playing Sherlock Holmes for a moment of fun. In the first place, nobody got rid of Dontknowynot. Her demise would have been self-inflicted by repeatedly breaking the terms and conditions for posting on this website. Secondly, the phrase you use above: 'it is my understanding that they got shot of DKYN', is quite telling. Since there is no notification process beyond telling the actual person getting a ban, then I assert that you could only have your so-called 'understanding' if you either know Dontknowynot personally or, much more likely, that you are Dontknowynot. The evidence is quite strong. Dontknowynot stopped posting and briefly someone registered as Dontknowynot2 appeared and then quickly disappeared again. I think it is safe to assume from the evidence that DKYN was banned and a crude attempt was made to circumvent it. I surmise WO detected and subsequently blocked DKYN2 because it was so obvious. Immediately after that, a new regular poster appears, ancientandageing, writing in the same style as DKYN used to and with the same political leaning. The new name also fits in with what we know of DKYN in that she got very uppity on an early post saying that someone was against older people like her. There are also a couple of times where ancientandageing refers to older specific posts of DKYN, showing quite intimate knowledge of posts well before ancientandageing even appeared on here. Anyway, I don't suppose anyone else is interested but a bit of detective work is a nice distraction from the usual arguments. How about it ancientandageing, am I right? I promise not to get you banned if it's true because, apart from anything else, and despite comments on here suggesting the contrary, it is beyond my power to get people banned since it is not my website. D_Penn
  • Score: -3

1:30pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

jimbo26 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
jimbo26 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says.

At the end of the day, a referendum could be called if the people of Watford disagree with any council policy, UKIP or otherwise. For instance the LibDem Farm Terrace land grab would be open to a referendum and would likely be defeated, and the council would then have to heed the wishes of the people.

And how much would this cost the public?
You have spoken of cutting costs to bring down council tax, then on the other hand have spoken of investigations into fraud in the council books and referendums - what would the cost of these be and where would the funding come from?

This article states that the majority of people pay between £4-£6 a week to WBC, how much would this go to under your leadership?
Costs would go down under a UKIP administration.
How would they Phil if you are talking of the referendums and hiring in experts to investigate the books?
Where would the money come from to fund these?
There would be savings elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]jimbo26[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbo26[/bold] wrote: Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says. At the end of the day, a referendum could be called if the people of Watford disagree with any council policy, UKIP or otherwise. For instance the LibDem Farm Terrace land grab would be open to a referendum and would likely be defeated, and the council would then have to heed the wishes of the people. And how much would this cost the public? You have spoken of cutting costs to bring down council tax, then on the other hand have spoken of investigations into fraud in the council books and referendums - what would the cost of these be and where would the funding come from? This article states that the majority of people pay between £4-£6 a week to WBC, how much would this go to under your leadership?[/p][/quote]Costs would go down under a UKIP administration.[/p][/quote]How would they Phil if you are talking of the referendums and hiring in experts to investigate the books? Where would the money come from to fund these?[/p][/quote]There would be savings elsewhere. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -1

1:31pm Thu 10 Apr 14

jimbo26 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
jimbo26 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
jimbo26 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says.

At the end of the day, a referendum could be called if the people of Watford disagree with any council policy, UKIP or otherwise. For instance the LibDem Farm Terrace land grab would be open to a referendum and would likely be defeated, and the council would then have to heed the wishes of the people.

And how much would this cost the public?
You have spoken of cutting costs to bring down council tax, then on the other hand have spoken of investigations into fraud in the council books and referendums - what would the cost of these be and where would the funding come from?

This article states that the majority of people pay between £4-£6 a week to WBC, how much would this go to under your leadership?
Costs would go down under a UKIP administration.
How would they Phil if you are talking of the referendums and hiring in experts to investigate the books?
Where would the money come from to fund these?
There would be savings elsewhere.
Please elaborate.
For someone who has been so vocal on this site there are few words now.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbo26[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbo26[/bold] wrote: Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says. At the end of the day, a referendum could be called if the people of Watford disagree with any council policy, UKIP or otherwise. For instance the LibDem Farm Terrace land grab would be open to a referendum and would likely be defeated, and the council would then have to heed the wishes of the people. And how much would this cost the public? You have spoken of cutting costs to bring down council tax, then on the other hand have spoken of investigations into fraud in the council books and referendums - what would the cost of these be and where would the funding come from? This article states that the majority of people pay between £4-£6 a week to WBC, how much would this go to under your leadership?[/p][/quote]Costs would go down under a UKIP administration.[/p][/quote]How would they Phil if you are talking of the referendums and hiring in experts to investigate the books? Where would the money come from to fund these?[/p][/quote]There would be savings elsewhere.[/p][/quote]Please elaborate. For someone who has been so vocal on this site there are few words now. jimbo26
  • Score: 2

1:35pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

There will be savings elsewhere in council.

I will want to see the books first before making any further comments.

UKIP will cut the cost of running local government.
There will be savings elsewhere in council. I will want to see the books first before making any further comments. UKIP will cut the cost of running local government. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -2

8:34pm Thu 10 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
There will be savings elsewhere in council.

I will want to see the books first before making any further comments.

UKIP will cut the cost of running local government.
this is nonsense you have not got a clue about your own policies, and in accordance with UKIP local media manipulation are fishing for answers.
The books are already in the public Domain so it might be an idea to look at then before the election. Kind of would make sense if you want to make a manifesto commitment. Yes I have not forgotten that non promise that looked exactly like one; how is that going by the way Now the election looms and UKIP loons look to make progress, we shall see.

As for the puppet master David Penn you are mistaking me for a female well you seem to have confused Fred Hill with a Nazi, nothing new there just getting it wrong.

as for the rest of the ukipers Take it easy boys, there's plenty for all
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: There will be savings elsewhere in council. I will want to see the books first before making any further comments. UKIP will cut the cost of running local government.[/p][/quote]this is nonsense you have not got a clue about your own policies, and in accordance with UKIP local media manipulation are fishing for answers. The books are already in the public Domain so it might be an idea to look at then before the election. Kind of would make sense if you want to make a manifesto commitment. Yes I have not forgotten that non promise that looked exactly like one; how is that going by the way Now the election looms and UKIP loons look to make progress, we shall see. As for the puppet master David Penn you are mistaking me for a female well you seem to have confused Fred Hill with a Nazi, nothing new there just getting it wrong. as for the rest of the ukipers Take it easy boys, there's plenty for all ancientandageing
  • Score: 4

9:11am Fri 11 Apr 14

D_Penn says...

@ancientandageing

I suspect you just made a Freudian slip. You claim above that I mistook you for a female, but I only talked about DKYN in gender terms, not your 'ancientandageing' pseudonym. I think that confirms your acceptance that you and DKYN are indeed one and the same.

I had hoped that we could have more honest debate under your new name, but the Fred Hill comment, totally incorrect as you well know, does not fill me with confidence that you are not already going back to your old self. So I'll ask politely. Please try to stick to the topic and debate just the facts. Is that too much to ask?
@ancientandageing I suspect you just made a Freudian slip. You claim above that I mistook you for a female, but I only talked about DKYN in gender terms, not your 'ancientandageing' pseudonym. I think that confirms your acceptance that you and DKYN are indeed one and the same. I had hoped that we could have more honest debate under your new name, but the Fred Hill comment, totally incorrect as you well know, does not fill me with confidence that you are not already going back to your old self. So I'll ask politely. Please try to stick to the topic and debate just the facts. Is that too much to ask? D_Penn
  • Score: -1

9:47am Fri 11 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

D_Penn wrote:
@ancientandageing

I suspect you just made a Freudian slip. You claim above that I mistook you for a female, but I only talked about DKYN in gender terms, not your 'ancientandageing' pseudonym. I think that confirms your acceptance that you and DKYN are indeed one and the same.

I had hoped that we could have more honest debate under your new name, but the Fred Hill comment, totally incorrect as you well know, does not fill me with confidence that you are not already going back to your old self. So I'll ask politely. Please try to stick to the topic and debate just the facts. Is that too much to ask?
you are accusing me /(directly and indirectly) of being someone you say is a female, that is a fact, so it is not aslip
On a number of internet searches I have found refrence to Fred Hill and yours is the only one that asserts his motivation being the Sikh exception, I find reference to him explicitly not using it in any of his court cases. On the other hand NF BNP and World Union of National Socialists member Robert Relf did refuse to pay the fine in protest at the Sikh Exception. as a member of the "World Union of National Socialists" Robert Relf was Tautologically a Nazi,

Now I don't know Fred Hills motivation or timing, it might be that it was to do with the Sikh Exception,it might be that this was a cause he believed in and having retired felt free to advance, I don't know why, and I don't know why not either.

I do find it at the very least misleading to say he was motivated by the Sikh Exception unless you can back it up that is, now you can't libel the idea but you can smear them, I believe that you are smearing Fred Hill by associating him with the motivation and ideas of a Nazi.

As to Your Phil Cox and his non promise that he "should" have the manefesto ready by such and such a date, well I found that misleading as well as did many other people.

The topic is about Misleading politicians is it not so I am sticking to the topic am I not???
Now on topic again just what makes you think that you have a roll to play in directing this or any other thread on the WO?
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @ancientandageing I suspect you just made a Freudian slip. You claim above that I mistook you for a female, but I only talked about DKYN in gender terms, not your 'ancientandageing' pseudonym. I think that confirms your acceptance that you and DKYN are indeed one and the same. I had hoped that we could have more honest debate under your new name, but the Fred Hill comment, totally incorrect as you well know, does not fill me with confidence that you are not already going back to your old self. So I'll ask politely. Please try to stick to the topic and debate just the facts. Is that too much to ask?[/p][/quote]you are accusing me /(directly and indirectly) of being someone you say is a female, that is a fact, so it is not aslip On a number of internet searches I have found refrence to Fred Hill and yours is the only one that asserts his motivation being the Sikh exception, I find reference to him explicitly not using it in any of his court cases. On the other hand NF BNP and World Union of National Socialists member Robert Relf did refuse to pay the fine in protest at the Sikh Exception. as a member of the "World Union of National Socialists" Robert Relf was Tautologically a Nazi, Now I don't know Fred Hills motivation or timing, it might be that it was to do with the Sikh Exception,it might be that this was a cause he believed in and having retired felt free to advance, I don't know why, and I don't know why not either. I do find it at the very least misleading to say he was motivated by the Sikh Exception unless you can back it up that is, now you can't libel the idea but you can smear them, I believe that you are smearing Fred Hill by associating him with the motivation and ideas of a Nazi. As to Your Phil Cox and his non promise that he "should" have the manefesto ready by such and such a date, well I found that misleading as well as did many other people. The topic is about Misleading politicians is it not so I am sticking to the topic am I not??? Now on topic again just what makes you think that you have a roll to play in directing this or any other thread on the WO? ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

10:38am Fri 11 Apr 14

D_Penn says...

@ancientandageing

If you bothered to read my article properly, you will note that I said the Fred Hill began his quest to oppose motorbike helmet law only when the Sikh exception was granted, which is a fact. I also stated that Fred "...did this, but not because he was a racist...". So how can you possibly accuse me of smearing him as a Nazi when I specifically stated the opposite? I also stated that he believed in personal freedom and was a true libertarian. How on earth can you square my comments as equating him to a Nazi when fascism is the antithesis of libertarianism?

Yet again you simply want to mislead people who have not read the article into believing that it says something it does not in order to try to smear me. Why are you like that? Why can you not have a simple honest debate without constantly trying to twist facts?
@ancientandageing If you bothered to read my article properly, you will note that I said the Fred Hill began his quest to oppose motorbike helmet law only when the Sikh exception was granted, which is a fact. I also stated that Fred "...did this, but not because he was a racist...". So how can you possibly accuse me of smearing him as a Nazi when I specifically stated the opposite? I also stated that he believed in personal freedom and was a true libertarian. How on earth can you square my comments as equating him to a Nazi when fascism is the antithesis of libertarianism? Yet again you simply want to mislead people who have not read the article into believing that it says something it does not in order to try to smear me. Why are you like that? Why can you not have a simple honest debate without constantly trying to twist facts? D_Penn
  • Score: 0

10:51am Fri 11 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

D_Penn wrote:
@ancientandageing

If you bothered to read my article properly, you will note that I said the Fred Hill began his quest to oppose motorbike helmet law only when the Sikh exception was granted, which is a fact. I also stated that Fred "...did this, but not because he was a racist...". So how can you possibly accuse me of smearing him as a Nazi when I specifically stated the opposite? I also stated that he believed in personal freedom and was a true libertarian. How on earth can you square my comments as equating him to a Nazi when fascism is the antithesis of libertarianism?

Yet again you simply want to mislead people who have not read the article into believing that it says something it does not in order to try to smear me. Why are you like that? Why can you not have a simple honest debate without constantly trying to twist facts?
Why do other parties resort to dirty tricks?

Because they are very worried about the growing success of UKIP.

When you have to resort to personal attacks or twist the facts you have already lost the argument. DKYN lost the argument long ago, long before she changed her name or was forced to change her name.

We will prove that at the ballot box. Doorstep responses so far have been very positive for UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @ancientandageing If you bothered to read my article properly, you will note that I said the Fred Hill began his quest to oppose motorbike helmet law only when the Sikh exception was granted, which is a fact. I also stated that Fred "...did this, but not because he was a racist...". So how can you possibly accuse me of smearing him as a Nazi when I specifically stated the opposite? I also stated that he believed in personal freedom and was a true libertarian. How on earth can you square my comments as equating him to a Nazi when fascism is the antithesis of libertarianism? Yet again you simply want to mislead people who have not read the article into believing that it says something it does not in order to try to smear me. Why are you like that? Why can you not have a simple honest debate without constantly trying to twist facts?[/p][/quote]Why do other parties resort to dirty tricks? Because they are very worried about the growing success of UKIP. When you have to resort to personal attacks or twist the facts you have already lost the argument. DKYN lost the argument long ago, long before she changed her name or was forced to change her name. We will prove that at the ballot box. Doorstep responses so far have been very positive for UKIP. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -2

6:12pm Fri 11 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

D_Penn wrote:
@ancientandageing

If you bothered to read my article properly, you will note that I said the Fred Hill began his quest to oppose motorbike helmet law only when the Sikh exception was granted, which is a fact. I also stated that Fred "...did this, but not because he was a racist...". So how can you possibly accuse me of smearing him as a Nazi when I specifically stated the opposite? I also stated that he believed in personal freedom and was a true libertarian. How on earth can you square my comments as equating him to a Nazi when fascism is the antithesis of libertarianism?

Yet again you simply want to mislead people who have not read the article into believing that it says something it does not in order to try to smear me. Why are you like that? Why can you not have a simple honest debate without constantly trying to twist facts?
Of course you are smearing him by linking him to anti Sikh exception, something he, Fred Hill expressly did not do in his lifetime.
It is also a fact that white supremacists, Nazi, BNP and NF all campaigned on in the 1970's and 80's
I have given an example, now can you please give me an example of when Fred hill said it was due to him being enraged by the Sikh exception as you state.

As for being an old woman well as Barry Humphries might say, David Penn "Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, you could be missing out on the joke of the century".
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @ancientandageing If you bothered to read my article properly, you will note that I said the Fred Hill began his quest to oppose motorbike helmet law only when the Sikh exception was granted, which is a fact. I also stated that Fred "...did this, but not because he was a racist...". So how can you possibly accuse me of smearing him as a Nazi when I specifically stated the opposite? I also stated that he believed in personal freedom and was a true libertarian. How on earth can you square my comments as equating him to a Nazi when fascism is the antithesis of libertarianism? Yet again you simply want to mislead people who have not read the article into believing that it says something it does not in order to try to smear me. Why are you like that? Why can you not have a simple honest debate without constantly trying to twist facts?[/p][/quote]Of course you are smearing him by linking him to anti Sikh exception, something he, Fred Hill expressly did not do in his lifetime. It is also a fact that white supremacists, Nazi, BNP and NF all campaigned on in the 1970's and 80's I have given an example, now can you please give me an example of when Fred hill said it was due to him being enraged by the Sikh exception as you state. As for being an old woman well as Barry Humphries might say, David Penn "Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, you could be missing out on the joke of the century". ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Fri 11 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
@ancientandageing

If you bothered to read my article properly, you will note that I said the Fred Hill began his quest to oppose motorbike helmet law only when the Sikh exception was granted, which is a fact. I also stated that Fred "...did this, but not because he was a racist...". So how can you possibly accuse me of smearing him as a Nazi when I specifically stated the opposite? I also stated that he believed in personal freedom and was a true libertarian. How on earth can you square my comments as equating him to a Nazi when fascism is the antithesis of libertarianism?

Yet again you simply want to mislead people who have not read the article into believing that it says something it does not in order to try to smear me. Why are you like that? Why can you not have a simple honest debate without constantly trying to twist facts?
Why do other parties resort to dirty tricks?

Because they are very worried about the growing success of UKIP.

When you have to resort to personal attacks or twist the facts you have already lost the argument. DKYN lost the argument long ago, long before she changed her name or was forced to change her name.

We will prove that at the ballot box. Doorstep responses so far have been very positive for UKIP.
So prey tell just exactly what is or was DKYN, or are you Phil Cox to much of a Coward to say???

BTW I don't know about the fridge but "Life's too short to clean an oven" Lilly Savage
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @ancientandageing If you bothered to read my article properly, you will note that I said the Fred Hill began his quest to oppose motorbike helmet law only when the Sikh exception was granted, which is a fact. I also stated that Fred "...did this, but not because he was a racist...". So how can you possibly accuse me of smearing him as a Nazi when I specifically stated the opposite? I also stated that he believed in personal freedom and was a true libertarian. How on earth can you square my comments as equating him to a Nazi when fascism is the antithesis of libertarianism? Yet again you simply want to mislead people who have not read the article into believing that it says something it does not in order to try to smear me. Why are you like that? Why can you not have a simple honest debate without constantly trying to twist facts?[/p][/quote]Why do other parties resort to dirty tricks? Because they are very worried about the growing success of UKIP. When you have to resort to personal attacks or twist the facts you have already lost the argument. DKYN lost the argument long ago, long before she changed her name or was forced to change her name. We will prove that at the ballot box. Doorstep responses so far have been very positive for UKIP.[/p][/quote]So prey tell just exactly what is or was DKYN, or are you Phil Cox to much of a Coward to say??? BTW I don't know about the fridge but "Life's too short to clean an oven" Lilly Savage ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

6:53pm Fri 11 Apr 14

LocalBoy1 says...

WOW, 57 comments and this clap trap is still going on!
WOW, 57 comments and this clap trap is still going on! LocalBoy1
  • Score: -1

6:53pm Fri 11 Apr 14

D_Penn says...

@ancientandageing

Read the article again. As I made absolutely clear, Fred objected not to the Sikh excepion per se, but to the fact that all must be treated equally before the law. If one person can refuse to wear a helmet based on belief then that option should be available to all. He was fighting a libertarian principle to do with law and nothing to do with either race or religion which was incidental.

It couldn't be much clearer in my article. How can you keep getting it so wrong??
@ancientandageing Read the article again. As I made absolutely clear, Fred objected not to the Sikh excepion per se, but to the fact that all must be treated equally before the law. If one person can refuse to wear a helmet based on belief then that option should be available to all. He was fighting a libertarian principle to do with law and nothing to do with either race or religion which was incidental. It couldn't be much clearer in my article. How can you keep getting it so wrong?? D_Penn
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Fri 11 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

D_Penn wrote:
@ancientandageing

Read the article again. As I made absolutely clear, Fred objected not to the Sikh excepion per se, but to the fact that all must be treated equally before the law. If one person can refuse to wear a helmet based on belief then that option should be available to all. He was fighting a libertarian principle to do with law and nothing to do with either race or religion which was incidental.

It couldn't be much clearer in my article. How can you keep getting it so wrong??
As clear and shrill as a dog whistle gets in my opinion.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @ancientandageing Read the article again. As I made absolutely clear, Fred objected not to the Sikh excepion per se, but to the fact that all must be treated equally before the law. If one person can refuse to wear a helmet based on belief then that option should be available to all. He was fighting a libertarian principle to do with law and nothing to do with either race or religion which was incidental. It couldn't be much clearer in my article. How can you keep getting it so wrong??[/p][/quote]As clear and shrill as a dog whistle gets in my opinion. ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

10:36am Sun 13 Apr 14

#UKMum says...

What IS the Mayor's relationship with BACL then? What Furtive Funding has she undertaken?
What IS the Mayor's relationship with BACL then? What Furtive Funding has she undertaken? #UKMum
  • Score: 0

7:38pm Sun 13 Apr 14

D_Penn says...

The Liberal Democrats win in Watford because they are very good at self-promotion and are well funded. Unfortunately, because of voter apathy, that formula is what is most likely to generates electoral success these days and has helped them to hold on to power up till now.

As we have all seen around the democratic world, career politicians muliply, increasingly resembling smiling clones of each other. They live in a world where image and political correctness is everything. Then they get elected and we all discover that there is no substance and often very little in the way of morality either.

Locally the problem is less so, but there is still the question of competence. The Liberal Democrats in Watford have been in power too long and have lost persepective. Spending millions of taxpayers money is now routine. Ignoring local opinion has become second nature.

I believe that voters are sick to the back teeth of all the old parties nationally and locally treating them with contempt and desperately want a new and fresh approach. As a result, we have seen UKIP soar in the polls as more and more recognise that at last there is a real alternative - a party who is not frightened to talk straight and act decisively. UKIP's popularity with ordinary people will inevitably be translated into bucket loads of votes for UKIP right across Watford this May and happily, it terrifies other parties. Good!

Vote UKIP - Get UKIP.
The Liberal Democrats win in Watford because they are very good at self-promotion and are well funded. Unfortunately, because of voter apathy, that formula is what is most likely to generates electoral success these days and has helped them to hold on to power up till now. As we have all seen around the democratic world, career politicians muliply, increasingly resembling smiling clones of each other. They live in a world where image and political correctness is everything. Then they get elected and we all discover that there is no substance and often very little in the way of morality either. Locally the problem is less so, but there is still the question of competence. The Liberal Democrats in Watford have been in power too long and have lost persepective. Spending millions of taxpayers money is now routine. Ignoring local opinion has become second nature. I believe that voters are sick to the back teeth of all the old parties nationally and locally treating them with contempt and desperately want a new and fresh approach. As a result, we have seen UKIP soar in the polls as more and more recognise that at last there is a real alternative - a party who is not frightened to talk straight and act decisively. UKIP's popularity with ordinary people will inevitably be translated into bucket loads of votes for UKIP right across Watford this May and happily, it terrifies other parties. Good! Vote UKIP - Get UKIP. D_Penn
  • Score: -1

10:19pm Sun 13 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

oh my it is the misleading Mr David Penn
Misleading in that whilst the Libdems do use their control of the council to stay in control it really is a very small part of the local Libdem machine, they are very well organized and get their vote out very effectively, they know who their supporters are and mobilize them effectively. They will have personalized letters going out to their voters in all wards will out leaflet everyone and will get the billboards out, they are a lean mean election fighting machine locally and whist thkis has been dented by their record in gov it is still true.
Just as you are misleading in linking Fred Hill to the Sikh exception, it was the NF , BNP and Nazi that "martyred" themselves over the Sikh Exception not Fred Hill as you stated in your article.
Worse still you are misleading in that you state Vote UKIP get UKIP you will not locally you will ensure the Libdems stay in power

Vote UKIP get Libdem
oh my it is the misleading Mr David Penn Misleading in that whilst the Libdems do use their control of the council to stay in control it really is a very small part of the local Libdem machine, they are very well organized and get their vote out very effectively, they know who their supporters are and mobilize them effectively. They will have personalized letters going out to their voters in all wards will out leaflet everyone and will get the billboards out, they are a lean mean election fighting machine locally and whist thkis has been dented by their record in gov it is still true. Just as you are misleading in linking Fred Hill to the Sikh exception, it was the NF , BNP and Nazi that "martyred" themselves over the Sikh Exception not Fred Hill as you stated in your article. Worse still you are misleading in that you state Vote UKIP get UKIP you will not locally you will ensure the Libdems stay in power Vote UKIP get Libdem ancientandageing
  • Score: 1

11:31am Mon 14 Apr 14

Cuetip says...

cgpc Rob wrote:
Council mags are always run by those in charge and favoring the content to suit themselves, it happens at parish/district/coun

ty levels.
The council magazines certainly needs to be read with a pinch of salt .

Much worse are the political leaflets that promote paper deadwood candidates that have little interest in local issues but a slavish tribal party mentality that at a drop of a hat would ride rough shod over local opinions once the elections are out of the way.
[quote][p][bold]cgpc Rob[/bold] wrote: Council mags are always run by those in charge and favoring the content to suit themselves, it happens at parish/district/coun ty levels.[/p][/quote]The council magazines certainly needs to be read with a pinch of salt . Much worse are the political leaflets that promote paper deadwood candidates that have little interest in local issues but a slavish tribal party mentality that at a drop of a hat would ride rough shod over local opinions once the elections are out of the way. Cuetip
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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