Councils turning a blind eye

[Daily Express bot]

It's because of the woke agenda. Or the fact that Local Authority budgets have been stripped down so badly by the Tories, they probably can't afford to send someone out to take down the flags. Probably the first one.

Another silly observation I suggest. Had they been Swatstikas’ or flags depicting Tommy Robinsons face they would be down before you could say ‘Jack Robinson’.

[Proposition Joe]

The current leader of LB Redbridge council is Sikh so I'm not sure what you're getting at?

I didn't mention the leader of the council, I was talking about those in charge - ie the councillors. Perhaps I did not make it clear.

In both Councils, it is not Jews who are running the councils

WTF???

This might be the first time I've seen a reverse conspiracy theory.

"The Jews? They're not in charge of anything, FFS!"

[Wally Banter]

It's because of the woke agenda. Or the fact that Local Authority budgets have been stripped down so badly by the Tories, they probably can't afford to send someone out to take down the flags. Probably the first one.

Another silly observation I suggest. Had they been Swatstikas’ or flags depicting Tommy Robinsons face they would be down before you could say ‘Jack Robinson’.

Are you suggesting that a Palestinian flag is equally offensive as those?

[OyinbO]

It's because of the woke agenda. Or the fact that Local Authority budgets have been stripped down so badly by the Tories, they probably can't afford to send someone out to take down the flags. Probably the first one.

Another silly observation I suggest. Had they been Swatstikas’ or flags depicting Tommy Robinsons face they would be down before you could say ‘Jack Robinson’.

Are you suggesting that a Palestinian flag is equally offensive as those?

Evidently it is to him

[Daily Express bot]

It's because of the woke agenda. Or the fact that Local Authority budgets have been stripped down so badly by the Tories, they probably can't afford to send someone out to take down the flags. Probably the first one.

Another silly observation I suggest. Had they been Swatstikas’ or flags depicting Tommy Robinsons face they would be down before you could say ‘Jack Robinson’.

Are you suggesting that a Palestinian flag is equally offensive as those?

It is the quantity of them , hundreds , in a (still) very Jewish area when some have relatives held hostage still in the current War. Any flag can be offensive. Football shirts can be offensive to some.

[RedDwarf 1881]

It's because of the woke agenda. Or the fact that Local Authority budgets have been stripped down so badly by the Tories, they probably can't afford to send someone out to take down the flags. Probably the first one.

Another silly observation I suggest. Had they been Swatstikas’ or flags depicting Tommy Robinsons face they would be down before you could say ‘Jack Robinson’.

Are you suggesting that a Palestinian flag is equally offensive as those?

I don't know but they might be to Jewish people .

[spen666]

Me, casting mad aspersions on the motives of Councillors on account of them being apparent followers of A Certain Religion.

Also me, isn't it sad that Councillors might be afraid of publishing their home addresses? Why would that be?! *Shrug*

No contradiction at all.

Suggesting people do something for a religious or other motive is not threatening anyone's safety.

We should be able to criticise and comment or even disagree with someone's motives or decisions without it being a National Security Incident


Not quite sure what is going through your mind to suggest commenting on someone's motives is equivalent to a security threat. Do you understand how debating works?

There again, you better not answer if you disagree because you will be making me afraid

[CEB]

This thread is very strange

[CEB]

It's because of the woke agenda. Or the fact that Local Authority budgets have been stripped down so badly by the Tories, they probably can't afford to send someone out to take down the flags. Probably the first one.

Another silly observation I suggest. Had they been Swatstikas’ or flags depicting Tommy Robinsons face they would be down before you could say ‘Jack Robinson’.

He makes a good point. The Tommy Robinson Face Flags get taken down so quickly that I can honestly say that one has never remained up long enough for me to see one

[CEB]

I avoid Ilford like the plaque - even though I live in the Borough.

Have a look at the religion of those in charge in both Redbridge & Tower Hamlets and you may find an answer

I also avoid ilford like the plaque - people there are f***ing dental!

[RedDwarf 1881]

This thread is very strange

Nothing unusual for this messageboard .

[CEB]

If HoddesdonO was here now and posted the stuff he posted, instead of getting a lifelong ban (until the mod got sent to prison) he’d just have a few cry laugh emojis in the replies and a few predictable dullards saying “maybe he just doesn’t like those footballers? Perhaps YOURE the racist for noticing their skin colour!”

[Hoover Attack]

It's because of the woke agenda. Or the fact that Local Authority budgets have been stripped down so badly by the Tories, they probably can't afford to send someone out to take down the flags. Probably the first one.

Another silly observation I suggest. Had they been Swatstikas’ or flags depicting Tommy Robinsons face they would be down before you could say ‘Jack Robinson’.

You're right for once. That is very silly. Some might even say it's f**king stupid.

[CEB]

Not least that his neurons fire so dully that he couldn’t even think of a reference word for “things to say quickly” aside from “Robinson” cos he’d already said it once

[Daily Express bot]

Not least that his neurons fire so dully that he couldn’t even think of a reference word for “things to say quickly” aside from “Robinson” cos he’d already said it once

You do not seem that witty to understand, bless. Then again you cannot stop using foul language for some reason.

[Long slender neck]

I avoid Ilford like the plaque - even though I live in the Borough.

Have a look at the religion of those in charge in both Redbridge & Tower Hamlets and you may find an answer

Thought you lived in Newcastle?

[Long slender neck]

I avoid Ilford like the plaque - even though I live in the Borough.

Have a look at the religion of those in charge in both Redbridge & Tower Hamlets and you may find an answer

The current leader of LB Redbridge council is Sikh so I'm not sure what you're getting at?

I didn't mention the leader of the council, I was talking about those in charge - ie the councillors. Perhaps I did not make it clear.

In both Councils, it is not Jews who are running the councils

Wriggling.

The leader is appointed by the councillors.

[Orient_Man_And_Boy]

To digress slightly... I was looking up the details of councillors on Redbridge Council and it is quite worrying to see that where their home address should be it states either no address or

Address withheld due to National Security Incident, Town Hall, 128-142 High Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 1DD

To be honest I do not see why any councillor should have to provide a home address as long as their contact details are available.

However, it is worrying that on grounds of a National Security Incident people are afraid to give their addresses. People should be entitled to carry out their duties as a councillor ( indeed any duties) without fear for the safety of themselves of their families

Not sure if the situation is same in other councils

Yes, it is regretable that such things must be withheld. This would include their home address, place of work (aside from the Council) and other places they perhaps own.

The 2011 Localism Act allows this:

Section 32 - Sensitive interests
(1)Subsections (2) and (3) apply where—

(a) a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority has an interest (whether or not a disclosable pecuniary interest), and
(b) the nature of the interest is such that the member or co-opted member, and the authority's monitoring officer, consider that disclosure of the details of the interest could lead to the member or co-opted member, or a person connected with the member or co-opted member, being subject to violence or intimidation.

(2)If the interest is entered in the authority's register, copies of the register that are made available for inspection, and any published version of the register, must not include details of the interest (but may state that the member or co-opted member has an interest the details of which are withheld under this subsection).

(3)If section 31(2) applies in relation to the interest, that provision is to be read as requiring the member or co-opted member to disclose not the interest but merely the fact that the member or co-opted member has a disclosable pecuniary interest in the matter concerned.

[Daily Express bot]

To digress slightly... I was looking up the details of councillors on Redbridge Council and it is quite worrying to see that where their home address should be it states either no address or

Address withheld due to National Security Incident, Town Hall, 128-142 High Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 1DD

To be honest I do not see why any councillor should have to provide a home address as long as their contact details are available.

However, it is worrying that on grounds of a National Security Incident people are afraid to give their addresses. People should be entitled to carry out their duties as a councillor ( indeed any duties) without fear for the safety of themselves of their families

Not sure if the situation is same in other councils

Yes, it is regretable that such things must be withheld. This would include their home address, place of work (aside from the Council) and other places they perhaps own.

The 2011 Localism Act allows this:

Section 32 - Sensitive interests
(1)Subsections (2) and (3) apply where—

(a) a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority has an interest (whether or not a disclosable pecuniary interest), and
(b) the nature of the interest is such that the member or co-opted member, and the authority's monitoring officer, consider that disclosure of the details of the interest could lead to the member or co-opted member, or a person connected with the member or co-opted member, being subject to violence or intimidation.

(2)If the interest is entered in the authority's register, copies of the register that are made available for inspection, and any published version of the register, must not include details of the interest (but may state that the member or co-opted member has an interest the details of which are withheld under this subsection).

(3)If section 31(2) applies in relation to the interest, that provision is to be read as requiring the member or co-opted member to disclose not the interest but merely the fact that the member or co-opted member has a disclosable pecuniary interest in the matter concerned.

One can understand why many prefer to withhold especially in light of murders of MP’s and attacks in the past . Sadly this does lead to lack of scrutiny in some matters and probably is music to the ears of some who prefer the privacy. They are duty bound to declare conflicts of interest and so on though.

[Proposition Joe]

Me, casting mad aspersions on the motives of Councillors on account of them being apparent followers of A Certain Religion.

Also me, isn't it sad that Councillors might be afraid of publishing their home addresses? Why would that be?! *Shrug*

No contradiction at all.

Suggesting people do something for a religious or other motive is not threatening anyone's safety.

We should be able to criticise and comment or even disagree with someone's motives or decisions without it being a National Security Incident


Not quite sure what is going through your mind to suggest commenting on someone's motives is equivalent to a security threat. Do you understand how debating works?

There again, you better not answer if you disagree because you will be making me afraid

Among a crowded field of stellar efforts, this is possibly the most disingenuous thing you've ever posted. Bravo!

[spen666]

The current leader of LB Redbridge council is Sikh so I'm not sure what you're getting at?

I didn't mention the leader of the council, I was talking about those in charge - ie the councillors. Perhaps I did not make it clear.

In both Councils, it is not Jews who are running the councils

Wriggling.

The leader is appointed by the councillors.

Exactly, the councillors are those in charge

[spen666]

I avoid Ilford like the plaque - even though I live in the Borough.

Have a look at the religion of those in charge in both Redbridge & Tower Hamlets and you may find an answer

Thought you lived in Newcastle?

Probably just as well that you don't think in future then


I've not lived in the city of Newcastle ever, and not lived in the Newcastle Council area for around 30 years

[spen666]

To digress slightly... I was looking up the details of councillors on Redbridge Council and it is quite worrying to see that where their home address should be it states either no address or



To be honest I do not see why any councillor should have to provide a home address as long as their contact details are available.

However, it is worrying that on grounds of a National Security Incident people are afraid to give their addresses. People should be entitled to carry out their duties as a councillor ( indeed any duties) without fear for the safety of themselves of their families

Not sure if the situation is same in other councils

Yes, it is regrettable that such things must be withheld. This would include their home address, place of work (aside from the Council) and other places they perhaps own.

The 2011 Localism Act allows this:

.....[removed to shorten thread]

One can understand why many prefer to withhold especially in light of murders of MP’s and attacks in the past . Sadly this does lead to lack of scrutiny in some matters and probably is music to the ears of some who prefer the privacy. They are duty bound to declare conflicts of interest and so on though.

We do not need to know the home address of councillors at all to hold them to account.

It is however sad that they are fearful of their safety. We should be able to debate issues and go about our lives without fear of violence

[Long slender neck]

Why all the claims about driving to&from there at speed then?

[Long slender neck]

I didn't mention the leader of the council, I was talking about those in charge - ie the councillors. Perhaps I did not make it clear.

In both Councils, it is not Jews who are running the councils

Wriggling.

The leader is appointed by the councillors.

Exactly, the councillors are those in charge

Of which religion are the councillors then?