Residents' upset over Bushey Park Councillor Linda Silver's accidental eruv email

Conservative councillor for Bushey Park Linda Silver.

Conservative councillor for Bushey Park Linda Silver.

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

Members of a residents group in Bushey are "upset" they have not received a personal apology from a councillor, who accidentally sent them an email about a controversial planning application.

Conservative councillor for Bushey Park Linda Silver sent the email to fellow councillors about the eruv proposal but, by mistake, copied a Bushey resident into the email.

The comments related to a public meeting held on August 6, 2013, which was not attended by Mrs Silver, who is the chair of planning.

In the e-mail she wrote: "The public meeting was full of Lib Dems and was most damaging to the local Jewish Community. The planning meeting is next week and will be full of the same braying public."

The residents group in Bushey has hit back and said they believe the comments were "contemptuous, misleading, inaccurate, prejudicial and politicised a public meeting about a contentious planning application".

The group said they are upset that they have not received a personal apology for the "unacceptable comments" made by Councillor Silver.

The application to form an eruv includes installing poles connected with fishing wire in 25 locations around Bushey.

The success of the eruv application, which was lodged on behalf of Bushey United Synagogue, in Sparrows Herne, will see a majority of poles 5.5 metres high being erected across the area.

Following complaints to the authority’s Public Standards Committee, who upheld some of the concerns but have no power to take further action, to date no apology has been issued by councillor Silver personally to the residents group.

A spokesperson for the residents association said: "Clearly councillor Silver has failed to appreciate the deep offence felt by her constituents, who she purports to serve as a councillor, with regard to both her comments and her failure to make a personal apology.

"Sadly the residents group has come to accept that such an apology is now unlikely to be forthcoming."

The eruv is now being referred to the local government ombudsman and for legal advice.

Glen Wooldrige, director of environment with responsibility for planning, said: "Regarding the complaint against a councillor, this has been resolved by the standards committee of the council.

"It is not their role to excuse behaviour, rather to understand and explain what happened and then apply a sanction if that is warranted.

"They investigated this complaint and as the councillor in question has apologised for what happened, they believe this is a proportionate response and the matter is now closed."

Councillor Silver said an apology was sent within a letter saying that no offence was ever meant.

She said: "The letter said I apologise if the email did cause offence.

"This matter came about when an application for an Eruv came to Hertsmere Borough Council. I was not present at the planning meeting I was abroad on holiday so I did not chair the meeting or take part in the deliberations.

"I did however receive the most awful emails containing threats and antisemitic comments which were terrible."

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:42pm Mon 3 Feb 14

Cuetip says...

Isn't nice to see their true colours. Unfortunately there too many like that in the system where lip service is paid to engaging with different groups of people.
Isn't nice to see their true colours. Unfortunately there too many like that in the system where lip service is paid to engaging with different groups of people. Cuetip
  • Score: 10

6:55pm Mon 3 Feb 14

phil mitchel says...

Shows how dangerous technology can be in some hands.
Shows how dangerous technology can be in some hands. phil mitchel
  • Score: 10

8:40pm Mon 3 Feb 14

LSC says...

If she did receive threats and anti-semitic e-mails then the police should investigate and prosecutions brought.
And it isn't hard to track people down these days is it? *cough*
Bushey is a wonderful whirlpool of different races, religions and cultures. Long may that continue.
I just think labeling us with a physical boundary towards one particular slant is the wrong thing to do.
And I'm damned if I'll shut up about it.
If she did receive threats and anti-semitic e-mails then the police should investigate and prosecutions brought. And it isn't hard to track people down these days is it? *cough* Bushey is a wonderful whirlpool of different races, religions and cultures. Long may that continue. I just think labeling us with a physical boundary towards one particular slant is the wrong thing to do. And I'm damned if I'll shut up about it. LSC
  • Score: 9

9:07pm Mon 3 Feb 14

LSC says...

I should also add that meeting was chaired by a Conservative Councillor, who did bother to face the public that he represents, rather than treat them with contempt. Fair play to him if we were all braying Lib Dems. (I probably bray, but I'm not Lib Dem)
It was also the only time I have ever seen the police having to do 'crowd control' in Bushey on the people trying to get in to the venue to object but simply couldn't fit in.
Even the meeting about closing the Fire Station didn't have that, but they did get an MP turn up and speak.
He is chairman of what again?
I should also add that meeting was chaired by a Conservative Councillor, who did bother to face the public that he represents, rather than treat them with contempt. Fair play to him if we were all braying Lib Dems. (I probably bray, but I'm not Lib Dem) It was also the only time I have ever seen the police having to do 'crowd control' in Bushey on the people trying to get in to the venue to object but simply couldn't fit in. Even the meeting about closing the Fire Station didn't have that, but they did get an MP turn up and speak. He is chairman of what again? LSC
  • Score: 8

2:27am Tue 4 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

Now - as someone else has said - we see clearly the contemptuous attitude of local councillors towards local residents. Based on her own remarks, the only racist commentator so far on this issue is Linda Silver.
But that, of course, is what an eruv is about - pure and simple racism.
She may not have chaired the planning committee at which the planning application was considered but it has to be questioned if her attitude is not a clear reflection of the attitude of the other councillors who were involved in making the decision; in which case, it seems the decision making process was fatally flawed and should be held again - properly.
Now - as someone else has said - we see clearly the contemptuous attitude of local councillors towards local residents. Based on her own remarks, the only racist commentator so far on this issue is Linda Silver. But that, of course, is what an eruv is about - pure and simple racism. She may not have chaired the planning committee at which the planning application was considered but it has to be questioned if her attitude is not a clear reflection of the attitude of the other councillors who were involved in making the decision; in which case, it seems the decision making process was fatally flawed and should be held again - properly. John Dowdle
  • Score: 5

10:43am Tue 4 Feb 14

CaptainPC says...

Hang on.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the Eruv (Leave it John).

What's she done wrong? She described people as "braying" and "Libdems".

I suppose braying is a bit derogatory, but people openly admit to being Libdems so where's the harm?

If you receive an email that was not intended for you, the ethical thing would be to advise the sender, not the press.....Who has actually caused the "Offence" the one who wrote it or the one who disseminated an accidental message.

People rushing to to claim offence are causing more problems than criminals in my view.
Hang on. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the Eruv (Leave it John). What's she done wrong? She described people as "braying" and "Libdems". I suppose braying is a bit derogatory, but people openly admit to being Libdems so where's the harm? If you receive an email that was not intended for you, the ethical thing would be to advise the sender, not the press.....Who has actually caused the "Offence" the one who wrote it or the one who disseminated an accidental message. People rushing to to claim offence are causing more problems than criminals in my view. CaptainPC
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Angry of Tunbridge Wells says...

It's 2014; Why are we going back into the dark ages with this superstitious nonsense. What people choose to believe inside there own home, church synagogue or mosque is one thing but public displays of what is the equivalent of people afraid to walk on the cracks in the pavement is outdated and unwanted.
It's 2014; Why are we going back into the dark ages with this superstitious nonsense. What people choose to believe inside there own home, church synagogue or mosque is one thing but public displays of what is the equivalent of people afraid to walk on the cracks in the pavement is outdated and unwanted. Angry of Tunbridge Wells
  • Score: 3

12:34pm Tue 4 Feb 14

LSC says...

CaptainPC wrote:
Hang on.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the Eruv (Leave it John).

What's she done wrong? She described people as "braying" and "Libdems".

I suppose braying is a bit derogatory, but people openly admit to being Libdems so where's the harm?

If you receive an email that was not intended for you, the ethical thing would be to advise the sender, not the press.....Who has actually caused the "Offence" the one who wrote it or the one who disseminated an accidental message.

People rushing to to claim offence are causing more problems than criminals in my view.
The offence taken is the apparent contempt for her own constituents, just because they may not belong to the same party and have a differing view of a planning issue.
Her JOB is too do what is best for her ward, but this e-mail implies that she has more interest in just one portion of it, in this case Conservative Jewish people, but I wouldn't feel any different if it had been Socialist Chinese people she was looking out for over others. As chair of the Planning Committee, that is wrong. She might have been away for this meeting, but she makes her opinions clear to her colleagues, and those opinions are based on religous and political grounds, NOT on planning issues, which is what she is paid for.
We were told the issue was purely about planning, so the question is quite simply 'does Bushey, a conservation area, a friendly welcoming village want 5 metre poles put up around it to designate it as an area of special interest to just a few of the inhabitants?'
The answer to that should be an easy no, but she turned it into religion and politics, and that is offensive. It is not in her remit to do so in her official posistion. She is quite welcome to her personal opinions on the matter, as am I.
But I am not paid to be fair and just, she is.
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: Hang on. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the Eruv (Leave it John). What's she done wrong? She described people as "braying" and "Libdems". I suppose braying is a bit derogatory, but people openly admit to being Libdems so where's the harm? If you receive an email that was not intended for you, the ethical thing would be to advise the sender, not the press.....Who has actually caused the "Offence" the one who wrote it or the one who disseminated an accidental message. People rushing to to claim offence are causing more problems than criminals in my view.[/p][/quote]The offence taken is the apparent contempt for her own constituents, just because they may not belong to the same party and have a differing view of a planning issue. Her JOB is too do what is best for her ward, but this e-mail implies that she has more interest in just one portion of it, in this case Conservative Jewish people, but I wouldn't feel any different if it had been Socialist Chinese people she was looking out for over others. As chair of the Planning Committee, that is wrong. She might have been away for this meeting, but she makes her opinions clear to her colleagues, and those opinions are based on religous and political grounds, NOT on planning issues, which is what she is paid for. We were told the issue was purely about planning, so the question is quite simply 'does Bushey, a conservation area, a friendly welcoming village want 5 metre poles put up around it to designate it as an area of special interest to just a few of the inhabitants?' The answer to that should be an easy no, but she turned it into religion and politics, and that is offensive. It is not in her remit to do so in her official posistion. She is quite welcome to her personal opinions on the matter, as am I. But I am not paid to be fair and just, she is. LSC
  • Score: 5

12:53pm Tue 4 Feb 14

LSC says...

I should also state, I am NOT an active member of the residents group and do not speak for them. My opinions are purely my own, and are nothing to do with my employment either.
I should also state, I am NOT an active member of the residents group and do not speak for them. My opinions are purely my own, and are nothing to do with my employment either. LSC
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Tue 4 Feb 14

zed2013 says...

Dear LSC.
I have been making a film about the very issues you talk about for a couple of years and I would like to talk to you.
If you would like to talk and find out more you can contact me on eruvdocumentary@gmai
l.com.
Many thanks
Dear LSC. I have been making a film about the very issues you talk about for a couple of years and I would like to talk to you. If you would like to talk and find out more you can contact me on eruvdocumentary@gmai l.com. Many thanks zed2013
  • Score: 1

1:33pm Tue 4 Feb 14

CaptainPC says...

Angry of Tunbridge Wells wrote:
It's 2014; Why are we going back into the dark ages with this superstitious nonsense. What people choose to believe inside there own home, church synagogue or mosque is one thing but public displays of what is the equivalent of people afraid to walk on the cracks in the pavement is outdated and unwanted.
Not relevant to the thread and boring. Go back to Kent.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Tunbridge Wells[/bold] wrote: It's 2014; Why are we going back into the dark ages with this superstitious nonsense. What people choose to believe inside there own home, church synagogue or mosque is one thing but public displays of what is the equivalent of people afraid to walk on the cracks in the pavement is outdated and unwanted.[/p][/quote]Not relevant to the thread and boring. Go back to Kent. CaptainPC
  • Score: -1

1:39pm Tue 4 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

What sort of so-called democrat talks about a "braying" public?
A truthful insight into a supremacist and racist individual mindset.
What sort of so-called democrat talks about a "braying" public? A truthful insight into a supremacist and racist individual mindset. John Dowdle
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Tue 4 Feb 14

LSC says...

zed2013 wrote:
Dear LSC.
I have been making a film about the very issues you talk about for a couple of years and I would like to talk to you.
If you would like to talk and find out more you can contact me on eruvdocumentary@gmai

l.com.
Many thanks
That would depend on your angle and motives. If it is remotely antisemitic, forget it. I dislike ALL religions and their impact on society, I don't pick and choose or dislike some more than others.
This debate is more about how our Council have dealt with the issue, and whether their personal faith, whatever it might be, has clouded impartial judgement for the good of the population at large, and their legal, and moral obligations.
[quote][p][bold]zed2013[/bold] wrote: Dear LSC. I have been making a film about the very issues you talk about for a couple of years and I would like to talk to you. If you would like to talk and find out more you can contact me on eruvdocumentary@gmai l.com. Many thanks[/p][/quote]That would depend on your angle and motives. If it is remotely antisemitic, forget it. I dislike ALL religions and their impact on society, I don't pick and choose or dislike some more than others. This debate is more about how our Council have dealt with the issue, and whether their personal faith, whatever it might be, has clouded impartial judgement for the good of the population at large, and their legal, and moral obligations. LSC
  • Score: 4

1:51pm Tue 4 Feb 14

CaptainPC says...

LSC wrote:
CaptainPC wrote:
Hang on.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the Eruv (Leave it John).

What's she done wrong? She described people as "braying" and "Libdems".

I suppose braying is a bit derogatory, but people openly admit to being Libdems so where's the harm?

If you receive an email that was not intended for you, the ethical thing would be to advise the sender, not the press.....Who has actually caused the "Offence" the one who wrote it or the one who disseminated an accidental message.

People rushing to to claim offence are causing more problems than criminals in my view.
The offence taken is the apparent contempt for her own constituents, just because they may not belong to the same party and have a differing view of a planning issue.
Her JOB is too do what is best for her ward, but this e-mail implies that she has more interest in just one portion of it, in this case Conservative Jewish people, but I wouldn't feel any different if it had been Socialist Chinese people she was looking out for over others. As chair of the Planning Committee, that is wrong. She might have been away for this meeting, but she makes her opinions clear to her colleagues, and those opinions are based on religous and political grounds, NOT on planning issues, which is what she is paid for.
We were told the issue was purely about planning, so the question is quite simply 'does Bushey, a conservation area, a friendly welcoming village want 5 metre poles put up around it to designate it as an area of special interest to just a few of the inhabitants?'
The answer to that should be an easy no, but she turned it into religion and politics, and that is offensive. It is not in her remit to do so in her official posistion. She is quite welcome to her personal opinions on the matter, as am I.
But I am not paid to be fair and just, she is.
LSC, it may be that you are part of the committee that has seen the full text of this email, if so then your knowledge is obviously greater than mine, but going on the reported text I don't see anything wrong in what she said.

From the previous comments I think the police were called to control the crowds at the previous meeting. This is unusual and to me points to the fact that the behaviour was less than perfect.

Using language such as braying is probably indelicate, but this was an intended as a private mail. Would you always use the PC language of public debate in an email to friends or colleagues? I wouldn't.

If I was in receipt of a private email that was obviously received in error, I would reply saying "I don't think you meant to send this." I would respect to see an email pop up saying "Sorry." That's normal.

Whoever has picked up this email and tried to make capital out of it, is to be the moral equivalent of somebody taking letters out of bins or, dare I say it, listening to other people's voice mail. Hope they are going to put their own name to their slimy attack on Linda Silver. Doubt it though.

You say this should be treated as a planning issue, but there is so much bile aimed at the idea of an Eruv and boring, Dawkins parody added into the mix that it has gone beyond that.

If your nieighbour applied for permission to add a flag pole to the front of their house would you object?

Fair enough if you would, but I think it's petty dog in the manger type stuff, as it harms no one.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: Hang on. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the Eruv (Leave it John). What's she done wrong? She described people as "braying" and "Libdems". I suppose braying is a bit derogatory, but people openly admit to being Libdems so where's the harm? If you receive an email that was not intended for you, the ethical thing would be to advise the sender, not the press.....Who has actually caused the "Offence" the one who wrote it or the one who disseminated an accidental message. People rushing to to claim offence are causing more problems than criminals in my view.[/p][/quote]The offence taken is the apparent contempt for her own constituents, just because they may not belong to the same party and have a differing view of a planning issue. Her JOB is too do what is best for her ward, but this e-mail implies that she has more interest in just one portion of it, in this case Conservative Jewish people, but I wouldn't feel any different if it had been Socialist Chinese people she was looking out for over others. As chair of the Planning Committee, that is wrong. She might have been away for this meeting, but she makes her opinions clear to her colleagues, and those opinions are based on religous and political grounds, NOT on planning issues, which is what she is paid for. We were told the issue was purely about planning, so the question is quite simply 'does Bushey, a conservation area, a friendly welcoming village want 5 metre poles put up around it to designate it as an area of special interest to just a few of the inhabitants?' The answer to that should be an easy no, but she turned it into religion and politics, and that is offensive. It is not in her remit to do so in her official posistion. She is quite welcome to her personal opinions on the matter, as am I. But I am not paid to be fair and just, she is.[/p][/quote]LSC, it may be that you are part of the committee that has seen the full text of this email, if so then your knowledge is obviously greater than mine, but going on the reported text I don't see anything wrong in what she said. From the previous comments I think the police were called to control the crowds at the previous meeting. This is unusual and to me points to the fact that the behaviour was less than perfect. Using language such as braying is probably indelicate, but this was an intended as a private mail. Would you always use the PC language of public debate in an email to friends or colleagues? I wouldn't. If I was in receipt of a private email that was obviously received in error, I would reply saying "I don't think you meant to send this." I would respect to see an email pop up saying "Sorry." That's normal. Whoever has picked up this email and tried to make capital out of it, is to be the moral equivalent of somebody taking letters out of bins or, dare I say it, listening to other people's voice mail. Hope they are going to put their own name to their slimy attack on Linda Silver. Doubt it though. You say this should be treated as a planning issue, but there is so much bile aimed at the idea of an Eruv and boring, Dawkins parody added into the mix that it has gone beyond that. If your nieighbour applied for permission to add a flag pole to the front of their house would you object? Fair enough if you would, but I think it's petty dog in the manger type stuff, as it harms no one. CaptainPC
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Tue 4 Feb 14

garston tony says...

I do agree the email shows a certain contempt for the very people this cllr is supposed to be serving, whether she agrees with their views or not it is her job to listen to them and consider what they say in an unbiased way. The fact she also didnt attend the meeting but had such strong views about it is interesting too, what other opinions and decisions is she forming in such a cavalier way?

Just a couple of questions however, why bring this up what, six months after it was sent? The cllr says a letter of apology was sent out, has anyone seen it? It strikes me the residents group might be trying to manipulate this email to their own ends and that their outrage is therefore rather fake. Just a thought and i'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing if that is indeed the case.

Bushey residents have the ultimate sanction however, at the next elections they get to vote whether she keeps her position or not.
I do agree the email shows a certain contempt for the very people this cllr is supposed to be serving, whether she agrees with their views or not it is her job to listen to them and consider what they say in an unbiased way. The fact she also didnt attend the meeting but had such strong views about it is interesting too, what other opinions and decisions is she forming in such a cavalier way? Just a couple of questions however, why bring this up what, six months after it was sent? The cllr says a letter of apology was sent out, has anyone seen it? It strikes me the residents group might be trying to manipulate this email to their own ends and that their outrage is therefore rather fake. Just a thought and i'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing if that is indeed the case. Bushey residents have the ultimate sanction however, at the next elections they get to vote whether she keeps her position or not. garston tony
  • Score: 5

2:19pm Tue 4 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

It seems Captain PC - or should that more correctly be Captain non-PC? - has got his facts wrong - again.
The original email was not retrieved from someone else's bin - as s/he claims - but was delivered through someone else's email in-box.
The fact that the head of the planning committee was so stupid as to send the message to someone for who - on reflection - she should not have sent it to, is down to Silver and no one else.
At a time when social media has presented many contemporary problems, we are entitled to expect a higher standard of conduct and behaviour from people who put themselves forward for election to public office.
If Silver had stated in her election manifesto that she would take no notice of the "braying" public and that she would put the interests of only a small faction of the local population into account when making decisions and recommendations, then that would be honest.
However, she did not do either of these things. She put herself forward as someone who supports local democracy and has subsequently been found to be contemptuous towards the majority of the local electorate.
I hope Bushey Ward voters remember this next time she puts herself forward for election to public office.
It seems Captain PC - or should that more correctly be Captain non-PC? - has got his facts wrong - again. The original email was not retrieved from someone else's bin - as s/he claims - but was delivered through someone else's email in-box. The fact that the head of the planning committee was so stupid as to send the message to someone for who - on reflection - she should not have sent it to, is down to Silver and no one else. At a time when social media has presented many contemporary problems, we are entitled to expect a higher standard of conduct and behaviour from people who put themselves forward for election to public office. If Silver had stated in her election manifesto that she would take no notice of the "braying" public and that she would put the interests of only a small faction of the local population into account when making decisions and recommendations, then that would be honest. However, she did not do either of these things. She put herself forward as someone who supports local democracy and has subsequently been found to be contemptuous towards the majority of the local electorate. I hope Bushey Ward voters remember this next time she puts herself forward for election to public office. John Dowdle
  • Score: 1

2:23pm Tue 4 Feb 14

LSC says...

@CaptainPC.
No, I have no official capacity at all. I did see the e-mail, and I did attend the public meeting. The police weren't having to put down riots, just a lot of frustrated residents refused entry to the venue because fire regulations said it was full. The organisers didn't realise the level of local interest this issue raised.

I generally talk to everyone the same, if I'm honest, but of course there are exceptions. This does sometimes get me into trouble, and is one of the reasons I have never sought work as a counsellor, or indeed a Councillor.
Both require a level of 'engage brain before mouth' that I do not possess.

Somebody tracked me down on this issue and used my personal e-mails against me, approaching my employer and claiming I was prejudiced. I think that is pretty low too, so I have real no sympathy on the leak issue.
Somebody tried to get me fired. (I know who, but it is water under the bridge).

If a neighbour wanted to erect a flagpole on the public pavement, which is what is happening here, not their house, yes, I'd object.
I would object even more if they intended to fly the flag of Australia on it, to show Bushey's solidarity with that country. I have no solidarity with Australia! How dare they suggest I do with their gesture on public land?

That doesn't mean I dislike Australia or Australians. Bushey has it's own identity and while Australians are very welcome, we don't need to be singled out as an area of special interest to them.

Does that make sense?
@CaptainPC. No, I have no official capacity at all. I did see the e-mail, and I did attend the public meeting. The police weren't having to put down riots, just a lot of frustrated residents refused entry to the venue because fire regulations said it was full. The organisers didn't realise the level of local interest this issue raised. I generally talk to everyone the same, if I'm honest, but of course there are exceptions. This does sometimes get me into trouble, and is one of the reasons I have never sought work as a counsellor, or indeed a Councillor. Both require a level of 'engage brain before mouth' that I do not possess. Somebody tracked me down on this issue and used my personal e-mails against me, approaching my employer and claiming I was prejudiced. I think that is pretty low too, so I have real no sympathy on the leak issue. Somebody tried to get me fired. (I know who, but it is water under the bridge). If a neighbour wanted to erect a flagpole on the public pavement, which is what is happening here, not their house, yes, I'd object. I would object even more if they intended to fly the flag of Australia on it, to show Bushey's solidarity with that country. I have no solidarity with Australia! How dare they suggest I do with their gesture on public land? That doesn't mean I dislike Australia or Australians. Bushey has it's own identity and while Australians are very welcome, we don't need to be singled out as an area of special interest to them. Does that make sense? LSC
  • Score: 2

2:32pm Tue 4 Feb 14

garston tony says...

Just an aside about a comment captain PC made, nothing really to do with this story but we do seem to be living in a society where people dont take responsibility for their own actions and where people are ready to take offence at the slightest thing and blame everyone else when they do something wrong.

I think this started before the rise of the internet and social media but those things are certainly helping fuel this abhorant attitude. We now have a soft, glutanous uncaring society and the ever improving technology often helps bring out the worst traits in us.

Or am I wrong, has it always been this way but the fact it is more readily reported makes it seems worse than it is?

Its been a long day
Just an aside about a comment captain PC made, nothing really to do with this story but we do seem to be living in a society where people dont take responsibility for their own actions and where people are ready to take offence at the slightest thing and blame everyone else when they do something wrong. I think this started before the rise of the internet and social media but those things are certainly helping fuel this abhorant attitude. We now have a soft, glutanous uncaring society and the ever improving technology often helps bring out the worst traits in us. Or am I wrong, has it always been this way but the fact it is more readily reported makes it seems worse than it is? Its been a long day garston tony
  • Score: 2

2:39pm Tue 4 Feb 14

CaptainPC says...

John Dowdle wrote:
It seems Captain PC - or should that more correctly be Captain non-PC? - has got his facts wrong - again.
The original email was not retrieved from someone else's bin - as s/he claims - but was delivered through someone else's email in-box.
The fact that the head of the planning committee was so stupid as to send the message to someone for who - on reflection - she should not have sent it to, is down to Silver and no one else.
At a time when social media has presented many contemporary problems, we are entitled to expect a higher standard of conduct and behaviour from people who put themselves forward for election to public office.
If Silver had stated in her election manifesto that she would take no notice of the "braying" public and that she would put the interests of only a small faction of the local population into account when making decisions and recommendations, then that would be honest.
However, she did not do either of these things. She put herself forward as someone who supports local democracy and has subsequently been found to be contemptuous towards the majority of the local electorate.
I hope Bushey Ward voters remember this next time she puts herself forward for election to public office.
John,

I did not say that the letter was found in someone's bin. I did say that publishing something that was sent in error was the moral equivalent of using something you had found in someones bin. It's not compliacated and I would expect someone who purports to be intelligient to appreciate the difference.

Please could you apologise for saying that I had my facts wrong. You may not agree with my POV but the facts I have based it on are as reported.

Also I think it is a bit strong for someone who throws around allegations of racism with such impunity to getb all sensitive about the slightly derogatory adjective "Braying".

You obviously have an agenda that goes beyond this issue, and that is fine but you can't cover the intellectual high ground and hurl insults at the same time.

The Eruv would make no material difference to anyone non-jewish living in Bushey.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: It seems Captain PC - or should that more correctly be Captain non-PC? - has got his facts wrong - again. The original email was not retrieved from someone else's bin - as s/he claims - but was delivered through someone else's email in-box. The fact that the head of the planning committee was so stupid as to send the message to someone for who - on reflection - she should not have sent it to, is down to Silver and no one else. At a time when social media has presented many contemporary problems, we are entitled to expect a higher standard of conduct and behaviour from people who put themselves forward for election to public office. If Silver had stated in her election manifesto that she would take no notice of the "braying" public and that she would put the interests of only a small faction of the local population into account when making decisions and recommendations, then that would be honest. However, she did not do either of these things. She put herself forward as someone who supports local democracy and has subsequently been found to be contemptuous towards the majority of the local electorate. I hope Bushey Ward voters remember this next time she puts herself forward for election to public office.[/p][/quote]John, I did not say that the letter was found in someone's bin. I did say that publishing something that was sent in error was the moral equivalent of using something you had found in someones bin. It's not compliacated and I would expect someone who purports to be intelligient to appreciate the difference. Please could you apologise for saying that I had my facts wrong. You may not agree with my POV but the facts I have based it on are as reported. Also I think it is a bit strong for someone who throws around allegations of racism with such impunity to getb all sensitive about the slightly derogatory adjective "Braying". You obviously have an agenda that goes beyond this issue, and that is fine but you can't cover the intellectual high ground and hurl insults at the same time. The Eruv would make no material difference to anyone non-jewish living in Bushey. CaptainPC
  • Score: -2

2:40pm Tue 4 Feb 14

LSC says...

@Tony
I have no idea about the timing either. I don't think I saw the so called apology letter but my understanding is it was far more 'sorry I got caught' than 'sorry for what I did'.

I hope the electorate react too, but I have a feeling this sort of thing just puts everyday people off the whole process.
@Tony I have no idea about the timing either. I don't think I saw the so called apology letter but my understanding is it was far more 'sorry I got caught' than 'sorry for what I did'. I hope the electorate react too, but I have a feeling this sort of thing just puts everyday people off the whole process. LSC
  • Score: 1

2:47pm Tue 4 Feb 14

zed2013 says...

LSC wrote:
zed2013 wrote:
Dear LSC.
I have been making a film about the very issues you talk about for a couple of years and I would like to talk to you.
If you would like to talk and find out more you can contact me on eruvdocumentary@gmai


l.com.
Many thanks
That would depend on your angle and motives. If it is remotely antisemitic, forget it. I dislike ALL religions and their impact on society, I don't pick and choose or dislike some more than others.
This debate is more about how our Council have dealt with the issue, and whether their personal faith, whatever it might be, has clouded impartial judgement for the good of the population at large, and their legal, and moral obligations.
The film has got nothing to do antisemitism.

It is about the planning processes with regard to the eruv applications not only in Bushey Village, but in Woodside Park, Barnet, Edgware (Hendon, Hampstead Garden Suburbs etc) Stanmore, Borehamwood, Camden, Maida Vale, St Johns Wood, Chigwell and Manchester.
It would be great to talk on.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]zed2013[/bold] wrote: Dear LSC. I have been making a film about the very issues you talk about for a couple of years and I would like to talk to you. If you would like to talk and find out more you can contact me on eruvdocumentary@gmai l.com. Many thanks[/p][/quote]That would depend on your angle and motives. If it is remotely antisemitic, forget it. I dislike ALL religions and their impact on society, I don't pick and choose or dislike some more than others. This debate is more about how our Council have dealt with the issue, and whether their personal faith, whatever it might be, has clouded impartial judgement for the good of the population at large, and their legal, and moral obligations.[/p][/quote]The film has got nothing to do antisemitism. It is about the planning processes with regard to the eruv applications not only in Bushey Village, but in Woodside Park, Barnet, Edgware (Hendon, Hampstead Garden Suburbs etc) Stanmore, Borehamwood, Camden, Maida Vale, St Johns Wood, Chigwell and Manchester. It would be great to talk on. zed2013
  • Score: 1

2:51pm Tue 4 Feb 14

LSC says...

"The Eruv would make no material difference to anyone non-jewish living in Bushey."

Yes it would. There will be poles in the pavements, that is, by defenition, a material difference. Was no pole- is now a pole. You can't get more material than that.

There will be other differences too. For good or bad? I don't know. I would imagine the eruv would make the area more attractive to certain people, and therefore less attractive to others. Will it be worth the local shop stocking halal meat, or just kosher? Would there ever be planning permission granted for a mosque inside an eruv?

Don't get me wrong, I don't much want a mosque in Bushey, but on paper right now we could have one, like the rest of the country can. In five years time? No chance, and that makes us different, and it makes us different for religous reasons and that is WRONG.
"The Eruv would make no material difference to anyone non-jewish living in Bushey." Yes it would. There will be poles in the pavements, that is, by defenition, a material difference. Was no pole- is now a pole. You can't get more material than that. There will be other differences too. For good or bad? I don't know. I would imagine the eruv would make the area more attractive to certain people, and therefore less attractive to others. Will it be worth the local shop stocking halal meat, or just kosher? Would there ever be planning permission granted for a mosque inside an eruv? Don't get me wrong, I don't much want a mosque in Bushey, but on paper right now we could have one, like the rest of the country can. In five years time? No chance, and that makes us different, and it makes us different for religous reasons and that is WRONG. LSC
  • Score: 2

2:55pm Tue 4 Feb 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
@Tony I have no idea about the timing either. I don't think I saw the so called apology letter but my understanding is it was far more 'sorry I got caught' than 'sorry for what I did'. I hope the electorate react too, but I have a feeling this sort of thing just puts everyday people off the whole process.
Yes, I did note the apology was 'sorry if you took offence' not 'sorry for offending you'.

And yes this may turn people off politics, but darn it it should want to make people want and demand change. We're too lazy in this country, too willing to give up and accept the status quo (whilst moaning about it). All around the world people have and are and will fight and die to have the political rights and freedoms we have, yet we happily give up those rights through apathy.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: @Tony I have no idea about the timing either. I don't think I saw the so called apology letter but my understanding is it was far more 'sorry I got caught' than 'sorry for what I did'. I hope the electorate react too, but I have a feeling this sort of thing just puts everyday people off the whole process.[/p][/quote]Yes, I did note the apology was 'sorry if you took offence' not 'sorry for offending you'. And yes this may turn people off politics, but darn it it should want to make people want and demand change. We're too lazy in this country, too willing to give up and accept the status quo (whilst moaning about it). All around the world people have and are and will fight and die to have the political rights and freedoms we have, yet we happily give up those rights through apathy. garston tony
  • Score: 2

2:57pm Tue 4 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

I think Tony's point is right. LSC mentioned the problem of people not thinking before speaking. One could add - in this day and age - that people fail to think before hitting the "Send" button on their keyboards.
I have tried to impress upon a number of my younger relatives that they need to think carefully before committing their thoughts in a permanent way on social media such as Facebook, twitter and even newspaper online comment columns. They seem to feel that they are engaged in purely personal communications with just a small group of "friends" when, in actuality, they are sending out messages and communications not just to a few people they may know but to the entirety of the global internet community. There are stories about people failing to obtain employment because prospective employers have checked online for any statements they have previously made - and found examples which put them off of the idea of offering them employment.
There was a case fairly recently of a young woman who had to turn down a position as a junior Police and Crime Commissioner (in Kent, I think) due to some of her previous social media postings.
It is perhaps understandable that a very young person can make these kinds of simple mistakes but we expect a much higher standard of understanding and behaviour from elected representatives like Silver.
Captain non-PC: this is what you actually said: 'Whoever has picked up this email and tried to make capital out of it, is to be the moral equivalent of somebody taking letters out of bins or, dare I say it, listening to other people's voice mail. Hope they are going to put their own name to their slimy attack on Linda Silver. Doubt it though.' Reflect on it.
I think Tony's point is right. LSC mentioned the problem of people not thinking before speaking. One could add - in this day and age - that people fail to think before hitting the "Send" button on their keyboards. I have tried to impress upon a number of my younger relatives that they need to think carefully before committing their thoughts in a permanent way on social media such as Facebook, twitter and even newspaper online comment columns. They seem to feel that they are engaged in purely personal communications with just a small group of "friends" when, in actuality, they are sending out messages and communications not just to a few people they may know but to the entirety of the global internet community. There are stories about people failing to obtain employment because prospective employers have checked online for any statements they have previously made - and found examples which put them off of the idea of offering them employment. There was a case fairly recently of a young woman who had to turn down a position as a junior Police and Crime Commissioner (in Kent, I think) due to some of her previous social media postings. It is perhaps understandable that a very young person can make these kinds of simple mistakes but we expect a much higher standard of understanding and behaviour from elected representatives like Silver. Captain non-PC: this is what you actually said: 'Whoever has picked up this email and tried to make capital out of it, is to be the moral equivalent of somebody taking letters out of bins or, dare I say it, listening to other people's voice mail. Hope they are going to put their own name to their slimy attack on Linda Silver. Doubt it though.' Reflect on it. John Dowdle
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Tue 4 Feb 14

LSC says...

garston tony wrote:
LSC wrote:
@Tony I have no idea about the timing either. I don't think I saw the so called apology letter but my understanding is it was far more 'sorry I got caught' than 'sorry for what I did'. I hope the electorate react too, but I have a feeling this sort of thing just puts everyday people off the whole process.
Yes, I did note the apology was 'sorry if you took offence' not 'sorry for offending you'.

And yes this may turn people off politics, but darn it it should want to make people want and demand change. We're too lazy in this country, too willing to give up and accept the status quo (whilst moaning about it). All around the world people have and are and will fight and die to have the political rights and freedoms we have, yet we happily give up those rights through apathy.
I did 'tut' loudly and rustle my copy of the Times :D
You are right, but we ARE British, old sport!
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: @Tony I have no idea about the timing either. I don't think I saw the so called apology letter but my understanding is it was far more 'sorry I got caught' than 'sorry for what I did'. I hope the electorate react too, but I have a feeling this sort of thing just puts everyday people off the whole process.[/p][/quote]Yes, I did note the apology was 'sorry if you took offence' not 'sorry for offending you'. And yes this may turn people off politics, but darn it it should want to make people want and demand change. We're too lazy in this country, too willing to give up and accept the status quo (whilst moaning about it). All around the world people have and are and will fight and die to have the political rights and freedoms we have, yet we happily give up those rights through apathy.[/p][/quote]I did 'tut' loudly and rustle my copy of the Times :D You are right, but we ARE British, old sport! LSC
  • Score: 1

3:27pm Tue 4 Feb 14

CaptainPC says...

LSC wrote:
"The Eruv would make no material difference to anyone non-jewish living in Bushey."

Yes it would. There will be poles in the pavements, that is, by defenition, a material difference. Was no pole- is now a pole. You can't get more material than that.

There will be other differences too. For good or bad? I don't know. I would imagine the eruv would make the area more attractive to certain people, and therefore less attractive to others. Will it be worth the local shop stocking halal meat, or just kosher? Would there ever be planning permission granted for a mosque inside an eruv?

Don't get me wrong, I don't much want a mosque in Bushey, but on paper right now we could have one, like the rest of the country can. In five years time? No chance, and that makes us different, and it makes us different for religous reasons and that is WRONG.
Sorry LSC, you are right a pole being there would make a material diiference. I should have said very little material difference.

Can you now answer the question, would you object if your neighbour put up a flag pole?

Different areas vary in attractiveness due to all sorts of factors, school catchment areas have a massive effect for example.

From what you say you have a strong interst in Bushey and you will be staying put, so what difference would it make to you?

Is it that you are concerned you will have Jewish neighbours? I honestly doubt that it is as you seem a reasonable guy.

As to what type of So what's the problem? Neighbourhoods evolve....Bushey is a very middle class area and those with the most money will move in....
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "The Eruv would make no material difference to anyone non-jewish living in Bushey." Yes it would. There will be poles in the pavements, that is, by defenition, a material difference. Was no pole- is now a pole. You can't get more material than that. There will be other differences too. For good or bad? I don't know. I would imagine the eruv would make the area more attractive to certain people, and therefore less attractive to others. Will it be worth the local shop stocking halal meat, or just kosher? Would there ever be planning permission granted for a mosque inside an eruv? Don't get me wrong, I don't much want a mosque in Bushey, but on paper right now we could have one, like the rest of the country can. In five years time? No chance, and that makes us different, and it makes us different for religous reasons and that is WRONG.[/p][/quote]Sorry LSC, you are right a pole being there would make a material diiference. I should have said very little material difference. Can you now answer the question, would you object if your neighbour put up a flag pole? Different areas vary in attractiveness due to all sorts of factors, school catchment areas have a massive effect for example. From what you say you have a strong interst in Bushey and you will be staying put, so what difference would it make to you? Is it that you are concerned you will have Jewish neighbours? I honestly doubt that it is as you seem a reasonable guy. As to what type of So what's the problem? Neighbourhoods evolve....Bushey is a very middle class area and those with the most money will move in.... CaptainPC
  • Score: 1

3:34pm Tue 4 Feb 14

CaptainPC says...

John Dowdle wrote:
I think Tony's point is right. LSC mentioned the problem of people not thinking before speaking. One could add - in this day and age - that people fail to think before hitting the "Send" button on their keyboards.
I have tried to impress upon a number of my younger relatives that they need to think carefully before committing their thoughts in a permanent way on social media such as Facebook, twitter and even newspaper online comment columns. They seem to feel that they are engaged in purely personal communications with just a small group of "friends" when, in actuality, they are sending out messages and communications not just to a few people they may know but to the entirety of the global internet community. There are stories about people failing to obtain employment because prospective employers have checked online for any statements they have previously made - and found examples which put them off of the idea of offering them employment.
There was a case fairly recently of a young woman who had to turn down a position as a junior Police and Crime Commissioner (in Kent, I think) due to some of her previous social media postings.
It is perhaps understandable that a very young person can make these kinds of simple mistakes but we expect a much higher standard of understanding and behaviour from elected representatives like Silver.
Captain non-PC: this is what you actually said: 'Whoever has picked up this email and tried to make capital out of it, is to be the moral equivalent of somebody taking letters out of bins or, dare I say it, listening to other people's voice mail. Hope they are going to put their own name to their slimy attack on Linda Silver. Doubt it though.' Reflect on it.
John, I know I said that and I stand by it. Whoever used the mail wasn't the intended recipient and they had no right to use it. Postings on social media are public to an extent and anyone can see them. Can't explain any simpler than that.

Incidentally the misguided young Lady you speak of, Paris Brown, was in a publicly funded role.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: I think Tony's point is right. LSC mentioned the problem of people not thinking before speaking. One could add - in this day and age - that people fail to think before hitting the "Send" button on their keyboards. I have tried to impress upon a number of my younger relatives that they need to think carefully before committing their thoughts in a permanent way on social media such as Facebook, twitter and even newspaper online comment columns. They seem to feel that they are engaged in purely personal communications with just a small group of "friends" when, in actuality, they are sending out messages and communications not just to a few people they may know but to the entirety of the global internet community. There are stories about people failing to obtain employment because prospective employers have checked online for any statements they have previously made - and found examples which put them off of the idea of offering them employment. There was a case fairly recently of a young woman who had to turn down a position as a junior Police and Crime Commissioner (in Kent, I think) due to some of her previous social media postings. It is perhaps understandable that a very young person can make these kinds of simple mistakes but we expect a much higher standard of understanding and behaviour from elected representatives like Silver. Captain non-PC: this is what you actually said: 'Whoever has picked up this email and tried to make capital out of it, is to be the moral equivalent of somebody taking letters out of bins or, dare I say it, listening to other people's voice mail. Hope they are going to put their own name to their slimy attack on Linda Silver. Doubt it though.' Reflect on it.[/p][/quote]John, I know I said that and I stand by it. Whoever used the mail wasn't the intended recipient and they had no right to use it. Postings on social media are public to an extent and anyone can see them. Can't explain any simpler than that. Incidentally the misguided young Lady you speak of, Paris Brown, was in a publicly funded role. CaptainPC
  • Score: -1

3:56pm Tue 4 Feb 14

LSC says...

I did answer the flagpole question up there^^^^

I would object to a flagpole on public land, and more so if it flew a flag of cultural, religous, political or geographical significance not in keeping with the area.

I'm not concerned in the slightest about Jewish neighbours. For all I know or care about that side of their lives, they might be already. Never asked them, to be honest. They are just good neighbours, and I live and let live. However, they have never wanted to paint the pavement pink outside their house for religous purposes. A pink pavement would not stop me from walking on it. In reality, it wouldn't effect me in any way, shape or form.
But it would be pretty stupid, don't you think?
It is also not their pavement to paint.
In the same way, Bushey belongs to the residents of Bushey. All of them. Within 500 yards of me there are Thais, 2 Chinese outlets, loads of Sri Lankans at the supermarket, Afghans up at the offie and East Europeans running the car washes.
None lay claim to Bushey. None have the right to.
To put a physical boundary, no matter how unobtrusive around an area is laying claim.

You can do it with your garden, or your allotment. But you paid for the right to own or rent those. Bushey is not for sale and never has been.
I did answer the flagpole question up there^^^^ I would object to a flagpole on public land, and more so if it flew a flag of cultural, religous, political or geographical significance not in keeping with the area. I'm not concerned in the slightest about Jewish neighbours. For all I know or care about that side of their lives, they might be already. Never asked them, to be honest. They are just good neighbours, and I live and let live. However, they have never wanted to paint the pavement pink outside their house for religous purposes. A pink pavement would not stop me from walking on it. In reality, it wouldn't effect me in any way, shape or form. But it would be pretty stupid, don't you think? It is also not their pavement to paint. In the same way, Bushey belongs to the residents of Bushey. All of them. Within 500 yards of me there are Thais, 2 Chinese outlets, loads of Sri Lankans at the supermarket, Afghans up at the offie and East Europeans running the car washes. None lay claim to Bushey. None have the right to. To put a physical boundary, no matter how unobtrusive around an area is laying claim. You can do it with your garden, or your allotment. But you paid for the right to own or rent those. Bushey is not for sale and never has been. LSC
  • Score: 3

4:11pm Tue 4 Feb 14

CaptainPC says...

LSC wrote:
I did answer the flagpole question up there^^^^

I would object to a flagpole on public land, and more so if it flew a flag of cultural, religous, political or geographical significance not in keeping with the area.

I'm not concerned in the slightest about Jewish neighbours. For all I know or care about that side of their lives, they might be already. Never asked them, to be honest. They are just good neighbours, and I live and let live. However, they have never wanted to paint the pavement pink outside their house for religous purposes. A pink pavement would not stop me from walking on it. In reality, it wouldn't effect me in any way, shape or form.
But it would be pretty stupid, don't you think?
It is also not their pavement to paint.
In the same way, Bushey belongs to the residents of Bushey. All of them. Within 500 yards of me there are Thais, 2 Chinese outlets, loads of Sri Lankans at the supermarket, Afghans up at the offie and East Europeans running the car washes.
None lay claim to Bushey. None have the right to.
To put a physical boundary, no matter how unobtrusive around an area is laying claim.

You can do it with your garden, or your allotment. But you paid for the right to own or rent those. Bushey is not for sale and never has been.
Alright on the Eruv, already. We disagree. I don't see the harm, you do. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours.

Thank you for having a sensible and reasoned dialogue.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I did answer the flagpole question up there^^^^ I would object to a flagpole on public land, and more so if it flew a flag of cultural, religous, political or geographical significance not in keeping with the area. I'm not concerned in the slightest about Jewish neighbours. For all I know or care about that side of their lives, they might be already. Never asked them, to be honest. They are just good neighbours, and I live and let live. However, they have never wanted to paint the pavement pink outside their house for religous purposes. A pink pavement would not stop me from walking on it. In reality, it wouldn't effect me in any way, shape or form. But it would be pretty stupid, don't you think? It is also not their pavement to paint. In the same way, Bushey belongs to the residents of Bushey. All of them. Within 500 yards of me there are Thais, 2 Chinese outlets, loads of Sri Lankans at the supermarket, Afghans up at the offie and East Europeans running the car washes. None lay claim to Bushey. None have the right to. To put a physical boundary, no matter how unobtrusive around an area is laying claim. You can do it with your garden, or your allotment. But you paid for the right to own or rent those. Bushey is not for sale and never has been.[/p][/quote]Alright on the Eruv, already. We disagree. I don't see the harm, you do. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours. Thank you for having a sensible and reasoned dialogue. CaptainPC
  • Score: -1

4:20pm Tue 4 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

What Captain non-PC seems to have lost sight of is his comment '...Hope they are going to put their own name to their slimy attack...'
Is his/her name truthfully the one used for comment posts?
Mine is.
What Captain non-PC seems to have lost sight of is his comment '...Hope they are going to put their own name to their slimy attack...' Is his/her name truthfully the one used for comment posts? Mine is. John Dowdle
  • Score: 0

4:34pm Tue 4 Feb 14

LSC says...

"Alright on the Eruv, already. We disagree. I don't see the harm, you do. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours.

Thank you for having a sensible and reasoned dialogue."

Agreed, and I respect your reasoned dialogue in return. However, what many of us are shouting about is that this kind of debate didn't go on at Council level, where it should have. As you can see from the e-mail, minds were certainly made up before the debate was had.
This demeans politics and politicians, which in turn is shown at the ballot box, which is a shame, and a loss, for us all.
"Alright on the Eruv, already. We disagree. I don't see the harm, you do. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours. Thank you for having a sensible and reasoned dialogue." Agreed, and I respect your reasoned dialogue in return. However, what many of us are shouting about is that this kind of debate didn't go on at Council level, where it should have. As you can see from the e-mail, minds were certainly made up before the debate was had. This demeans politics and politicians, which in turn is shown at the ballot box, which is a shame, and a loss, for us all. LSC
  • Score: 3

4:40pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Angry of Tunbridge Wells says...

CaptainPC wrote:
Angry of Tunbridge Wells wrote:
It's 2014; Why are we going back into the dark ages with this superstitious nonsense. What people choose to believe inside there own home, church synagogue or mosque is one thing but public displays of what is the equivalent of people afraid to walk on the cracks in the pavement is outdated and unwanted.
Not relevant to the thread and boring. Go back to Kent.
No not boring and I don't come from Kent. I just don't like the idea of rational people the world over laughing at us because we allowed a few non representive representives to hoist this on us.
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Tunbridge Wells[/bold] wrote: It's 2014; Why are we going back into the dark ages with this superstitious nonsense. What people choose to believe inside there own home, church synagogue or mosque is one thing but public displays of what is the equivalent of people afraid to walk on the cracks in the pavement is outdated and unwanted.[/p][/quote]Not relevant to the thread and boring. Go back to Kent.[/p][/quote]No not boring and I don't come from Kent. I just don't like the idea of rational people the world over laughing at us because we allowed a few non representive representives to hoist this on us. Angry of Tunbridge Wells
  • Score: 2

11:47am Wed 5 Feb 14

CaptainPC says...

It is boring to me. I'm so tired this dogmatic anti faith pose that's repeated endlessly by people who think science is fimite and absolute.

I assumed from your user name that you were a Kentish man. Apologies for that.
It is boring to me. I'm so tired this dogmatic anti faith pose that's repeated endlessly by people who think science is fimite and absolute. I assumed from your user name that you were a Kentish man. Apologies for that. CaptainPC
  • Score: 0

11:49am Wed 5 Feb 14

CaptainPC says...

LSC wrote:
"Alright on the Eruv, already. We disagree. I don't see the harm, you do. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours.

Thank you for having a sensible and reasoned dialogue."

Agreed, and I respect your reasoned dialogue in return. However, what many of us are shouting about is that this kind of debate didn't go on at Council level, where it should have. As you can see from the e-mail, minds were certainly made up before the debate was had.
This demeans politics and politicians, which in turn is shown at the ballot box, which is a shame, and a loss, for us all.
I don't think that it's possible to demean politics.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: "Alright on the Eruv, already. We disagree. I don't see the harm, you do. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours. Thank you for having a sensible and reasoned dialogue." Agreed, and I respect your reasoned dialogue in return. However, what many of us are shouting about is that this kind of debate didn't go on at Council level, where it should have. As you can see from the e-mail, minds were certainly made up before the debate was had. This demeans politics and politicians, which in turn is shown at the ballot box, which is a shame, and a loss, for us all.[/p][/quote]I don't think that it's possible to demean politics. CaptainPC
  • Score: -1

12:40pm Wed 5 Feb 14

Angry of Tunbridge Wells says...

CaptainPC wrote:
It is boring to me. I'm so tired this dogmatic anti faith pose that's repeated endlessly by people who think science is fimite and absolute.

I assumed from your user name that you were a Kentish man. Apologies for that.
Science is far from infallible, but peer review makes it a lot more rigorous than blind faith.
[quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: It is boring to me. I'm so tired this dogmatic anti faith pose that's repeated endlessly by people who think science is fimite and absolute. I assumed from your user name that you were a Kentish man. Apologies for that.[/p][/quote]Science is far from infallible, but peer review makes it a lot more rigorous than blind faith. Angry of Tunbridge Wells
  • Score: 2

4:35pm Wed 5 Feb 14

CaptainPC says...

Angry of Tunbridge Wells wrote:
CaptainPC wrote:
It is boring to me. I'm so tired this dogmatic anti faith pose that's repeated endlessly by people who think science is fimite and absolute.

I assumed from your user name that you were a Kentish man. Apologies for that.
Science is far from infallible, but peer review makes it a lot more rigorous than blind faith.
Fair enough, there's certain amount of logic in that, but why do you have to mock people for their beliefs? It is facile and boring.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Tunbridge Wells[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaptainPC[/bold] wrote: It is boring to me. I'm so tired this dogmatic anti faith pose that's repeated endlessly by people who think science is fimite and absolute. I assumed from your user name that you were a Kentish man. Apologies for that.[/p][/quote]Science is far from infallible, but peer review makes it a lot more rigorous than blind faith.[/p][/quote]Fair enough, there's certain amount of logic in that, but why do you have to mock people for their beliefs? It is facile and boring. CaptainPC
  • Score: -1

5:59pm Wed 5 Feb 14

John Dowdle says...

It is religious belief which is infantile and boring, and a definite factor in holding back the progress of humankind. This ridiculous eruv idea - of extending someone's living room out into the community - is probably one of the least absurd of them, yet look at how much time and other resources have been consumed by this ludicrous idiocy. The sooner people leave these stupid religious ideas behind, the better it will be for all human- and other- kind.
It is religious belief which is infantile and boring, and a definite factor in holding back the progress of humankind. This ridiculous eruv idea - of extending someone's living room out into the community - is probably one of the least absurd of them, yet look at how much time and other resources have been consumed by this ludicrous idiocy. The sooner people leave these stupid religious ideas behind, the better it will be for all human- and other- kind. John Dowdle
  • Score: -3

7:32pm Wed 5 Feb 14

LSC says...

John Dowdle wrote:
It is religious belief which is infantile and boring, and a definite factor in holding back the progress of humankind. This ridiculous eruv idea - of extending someone's living room out into the community - is probably one of the least absurd of them, yet look at how much time and other resources have been consumed by this ludicrous idiocy. The sooner people leave these stupid religious ideas behind, the better it will be for all human- and other- kind.
I wouldn't say it was boring; the more I hear about it, the more I am astonished! Did you see the news today where the vatican accused the United Nations of being 'intrusive' when the UN asked them to look at their sexual abuse policy? Amazing, but not boring.

The eruv is interesting too. The main rule is that it must be an enclosed area. Absolutely, totally, a full boundary. That is the point of it. It must NOT have gaps.

Except where there are gaps, and that's ok.
[quote][p][bold]John Dowdle[/bold] wrote: It is religious belief which is infantile and boring, and a definite factor in holding back the progress of humankind. This ridiculous eruv idea - of extending someone's living room out into the community - is probably one of the least absurd of them, yet look at how much time and other resources have been consumed by this ludicrous idiocy. The sooner people leave these stupid religious ideas behind, the better it will be for all human- and other- kind.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't say it was boring; the more I hear about it, the more I am astonished! Did you see the news today where the vatican accused the United Nations of being 'intrusive' when the UN asked them to look at their sexual abuse policy? Amazing, but not boring. The eruv is interesting too. The main rule is that it must be an enclosed area. Absolutely, totally, a full boundary. That is the point of it. It must NOT have gaps. Except where there are gaps, and that's ok. LSC
  • Score: 1

2:51pm Wed 12 Feb 14

zed2013 says...

Does anyone in Bushey Village have anything to say about the possible lack of consultation, information or debate surrounding applications for an eruv?
If so, I would love to hear from you. eruvdocumentary@gmai
l.com.
Does anyone in Bushey Village have anything to say about the possible lack of consultation, information or debate surrounding applications for an eruv? If so, I would love to hear from you. eruvdocumentary@gmai l.com. zed2013
  • Score: 0

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