Would it not be fairer to say that Mr Meacock, having run out of steam elsewhere, is pressing his agenda, which is not supported by evidence but only the hope that "one day someone will trip up or events catch up with them" and that indeed there is something to "trip over" or "catch them up".
The assertions littered here that the council and its members and officers operate or have operated corruptly or dishonestly are not supported by evidence, and are all based on the false logic that because there is no evidence, the worst construction possible must be put on events.
When this is pointed out, I am invited to visit hell, which may be very pleasant at this time of year but holds no immediate attraction.
I do sympathise and agree with one of the theses behind this site: that things need to be "got to the bottom of". But getting to the bottom of things does not mean starting off with a presumption that things must be wrong, and then ignoring or sidelining anything which doesn't support that conclusion, giving rumour and gossip the status of irrefragable fact, and building speculation upon speculation to support that initial presumption. That is the kind of process which leads people to believe that they have been kidnapped by aliens, or that they are the legitimate heir to the throne.
Investigating something means finding out all of the facts and drawing reasonable conclusions from those facts, preferably uncoloured by prior prejudice.
I am opposed to the idea that Mr Meacock s a "mad maverick". He's definitely a maverick, which I do not take to be an insult. We need mavericks to pudsh away at complacency and to generate ideas. But much as I personally respect his enthusiasm to bring back an ice rink, there can be no question that he has allowed this enthusiasm to undermine his judgement when it comes to drawing inferences from circumstances. I doubt very much if the same processes as I have described above are used by him and others who use them when conducting personal business transactions.
People who indulge in politics are not all saints, and not all sinners. There are good and bad people in this field as with every other. But I know of no research to ascertain whether the percentage of wayward politicians his higher or lower than wayward insurance salesmen, builders, office clerks, lawyers, estate agents, doctors, etc. What is clear to me is that it is just as unfair to assume that all politicians are corrupt because a few are found to be, as it is to assume that all doctors are murderers because of Mr Shipman.
|
