"Ian Jelf" wrote ...
But they are not "public servants" (that term applies to employed council
officers). They are elected officials which I consider to be an
important distinction.

It's a linguistic difference; they were elected to serve. There's probably
some correct term that sums this up. Let's not get pedantic about it.

What's wrong with disciplining a power-hungry ******* who has betrayed
those
who bothered to vote -
That is the job of the electorate; not a non-elected body of officials.
If a councillor wants to be a complete ******* then that's their
prerogative. The democratic process should ensure they don't get in next
time.
As has been said before, we get the leaders we deserve.

Yes and no; in a smaller, simpler society, you could get away with that;
indeed, the 'Paris Commune' of 140 years ago was urged by Marx to have a
system of voting 'em in, and democratically throwing them out if they ceased
to do the job.

In our larger, more complex society, we long ago (democratically, via our
elected representatives) chose to have some checks and balances. This
avoided having redo elections if, say, 5% of the electrorate demanded it -
it also avoided having wait until the next election to get the *******s out.

let alone those who didn't, but are still entitled to
be represented by honest men (and women) ?
If they didn't vote, they have no grounds for complaint about who they get
to represent them.

I agree; but the person who won the election, who they failed to elect
(either by not voting or voting for someone else), still has a duty to all
the constituents. And it's him we're talking about.

I really see no reason why we should wait for the full term minus 3.2
seconds, just because the lying ******* conned us at the election. And, in
the UK at least, we don't have to.

Though in practice, the toothless watchdogs usually achieve little - as in
this case; one insincere apology - just like the bankers - when he should
have been charged and kicked out of office. The man's clearly an idiot.

You of course, may disagree.
--

Andrew

"If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein

In article ,
(Ian Jelf) wrote:

What's wrong with disciplining a power-hungry ******* who has betrayed
those who bothered to vote -

That is the job of the electorate; not a non-elected body of officials.

If a councillor wants to be a complete ******* then that's their
prerogative. The democratic process should ensure they don't get in
next time.

As has been said before, we get the leaders we deserve.

Can I make it clear that this was no power-hungry grab. It was a (totally
screwed up admittedly) attempt to deal with a problem that constituents
have complained about vehemently and repeatedly for many years.

I would never have met the ambulance driver if a constituent hadn't rung
me up and told me that the gate had been broken open. If he had correctly
reported that the gate had been left open by someone entitled to open it I
wouldn't even have gone to look. I'd just have called the council officers
and left them to it. That was where things went wrong and I lost it in
frustration for the failure of people to do their jobs as promised.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote in message
...

Can I make it clear that this was no power-hungry grab. It was a (totally
screwed up admittedly) attempt to deal with a problem that constituents
have complained about vehemently and repeatedly for many years.

I would never have met the ambulance driver if a constituent hadn't rung
me up and told me that the gate had been broken open. If he had correctly
reported that the gate had been left open by someone entitled to open it I
wouldn't even have gone to look. I'd just have called the council officers
and left them to it. That was where things went wrong and I lost it in
frustration for the failure of people to do their jobs as promised.

I'd say (as someone who doesn't actually live in the city and has no
political or personal beef with Colin) that that looks like a perfectly
reasonable statement about why he was there and why he did what he did.

He got it wrong, but was not fully-acquainted with the facts. It doesn't
excuse it but it explains it.

I am certainly not in a position to cast the first stone, having got things
wrong myself on several occasions and acted badly in consequence.

Everyone else here (especially those lining up to have a pop at him) so damn
spotless?

--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

In article ,
(Brian Watson) wrote:

He got it wrong, but was not fully-acquainted with the facts. It
doesn't excuse it but it explains it.

That sums it up very well. Thank you. I of course greatly regret my
actions.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Feb 14, 11:53*am, "Brian Watson" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Can I make it clear that this was no power-hungry grab. It was a (totally
screwed up admittedly) attempt to deal with a problem that constituents
have complained about vehemently and repeatedly for many years.

I would never have met the ambulance driver if a constituent hadn't rung
me up and told me that the gate had been broken open. If he had correctly
reported that the gate had been left open by someone entitled to open it I
wouldn't even have gone to look. I'd just have called the council officers
and left them to it. *That was where things went wrong and I lost it in
frustration for the failure of people to do their jobs as promised.

I'd say (as someone who doesn't actually live in the city and has no
political or personal beef with Colin) that that looks like a perfectly
reasonable statement about why he was there and why he did what he did.

He got it wrong, but was not fully-acquainted with the facts. It doesn't
excuse it but it explains it.

I spot a parallel with the way in which people posting to this group,
not acquainted with any facts, have behaved rather badly.

The difference is that, rather than having been misinformed, they know
that they have no facts and decide to make judgements nevertheless.

(Or are simply pursuing an attempt at a wind-up and spectacularly
failing to get the response they hoped for, which indicates an
appropriate degree of restraint from the Councillor concerned.)

"Brian Watson" wrote ...
Can I make it clear that this was no power-hungry grab. It was a (totally
screwed up admittedly) attempt to deal with a problem that constituents
have complained about vehemently and repeatedly for many years.
I would never have met the ambulance driver if a constituent hadn't rung
me up and told me that the gate had been broken open. If he had correctly
reported that the gate had been left open by someone entitled to open it
I
wouldn't even have gone to look. I'd just have called the council
officers
and left them to it. That was where things went wrong and I lost it in
frustration for the failure of people to do their jobs as promised.
I'd say (as someone who doesn't actually live in the city and has no
political or personal beef with Colin) that that looks like a perfectly
reasonable statement about why he was there and why he did what he did.
He got it wrong, but was not fully-acquainted with the facts. It doesn't
excuse it but it explains it.
I am certainly not in a position to cast the first stone, having got
things wrong myself on several occasions and acted badly in consequence.
Everyone else here (especially those lining up to have a pop at him) so
damn spotless?

Of course I'm not spotless, but we're not talking about me, and I'm not his
agent.

You've missed the point that this was an AMBULANCE - and by some strange
coincidence, so does his 'explanation'.

Plus your friend's action broke the law.

Strange that those were the only relevant facts, yet you and your pal have
ignored them.
--

Andrew

Ian Jelf wrote

But they are not "public servants" (that term applies to employed
council officers). They are elected officials which I consider to
be
an important distinction.

But they are "Public Officers" (Holders of a public office) so, eg,
liable for "Misconduct in Public Office" and can reasonable be held to
higher standards than private persons.

The recent House of Lords kerfuffle has drawn attention to the fact
that
MPs and peers are probably not liable under the current "Public"
Bribery & Corruption law but nevertheless holding them to such a
standard (as recommended by the Law Commission) is perfectly
reasonable.


--
Mike D

In message , at 17:51:28 on Sat, 14
Feb 2009, Andrew Heenan remarked:
You've missed the point that this was an AMBULANCE - and by some strange
coincidence, so does his 'explanation'.

Not wishing to go through this all again, it may have had "Ambulance"
written on it somewhere, but it was an estate car, and many people who
have had the opportunity to discuss the incident with people who were
there at the time seem to accept that it was initially mis-identified.
--
Roland Perry

In message , Brian Watson
writes

wrote in message
m...

Can I make it clear that this was no power-hungry grab. It was a (totally
screwed up admittedly) attempt to deal with a problem that constituents
have complained about vehemently and repeatedly for many years.

I would never have met the ambulance driver if a constituent hadn't rung
me up and told me that the gate had been broken open. If he had correctly
reported that the gate had been left open by someone entitled to open it I
wouldn't even have gone to look. I'd just have called the council officers
and left them to it. That was where things went wrong and I lost it in
frustration for the failure of people to do their jobs as promised.

I'd say (as someone who doesn't actually live in the city and has no
political or personal beef with Colin) that that looks like a perfectly
reasonable statement about why he was there and why he did what he did.

He got it wrong, but was not fully-acquainted with the facts. It doesn't
excuse it but it explains it.

I am certainly not in a position to cast the first stone, having got things
wrong myself on several occasions and acted badly in consequence.

Everyone else here (especially those lining up to have a pop at him) so damn
spotless?

I;d go along with every word of Brian's contribution there and leave my
contributions and views as states and as they stand. I don't like
unelected watchdogs dictating to elected individuals. That's my job as
a voter.

As Andrew said a couple of posts back, "you of course may disagree".

:-))
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In message 01c98ecd$584497e0$LocalHost@default, Michael R N Dolbear
writes
Ian Jelf wrote

But they are not "public servants" (that term applies to employed
council officers). They are elected officials which I consider to
be
an important distinction.

But they are "Public Officers" (Holders of a public office) so, eg,
liable for "Misconduct in Public Office" and can reasonable be held to
higher standards than private persons.

Yes, that's what I don't agree with. I want these people held to the
*same* standards as everyone else. Nothing more, nothing less.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk