A profanity filter is employed. Please use a valid e-mail with your message and a valid name if at all possible. Please keep to the posters subject.
RICHMOND WATCHDOG OPEN FORUM
Go to Top  |  New Topic  |  Go to Topic  |  Search 
 Subject: RE: Public scrutiny and standards
 
Author: Cllr Laurence Mann
Date:   11/4/2001 7:37 pm WEDT
First of all let me apologise for spelling your name incorrectly. I will try not to do it again. I hope you will make the same effort to spell other words correctly.

The next thing you should realise is that Chairs of Scrutiny Committees are not beholden to the party leadership in any way. We have all been elected by the entire Group before being nominated to the Council. You must realise from our actions that, despite all of the silly suggestions, we are not led along by a string.

I would also challenge whether the amount of our allowance (and specifically the additional special responsibility allowance) is in any way an amount upon which we could become dependent. After tax it amounts to very little really.

There is an argument that politicians should be paid nothing but expenses, but it is a poor one. It excludes from public service anyone who is unemployed or on a low income.

Given the level of the allowance, it is necessary in most cases to carry on working if you wish to maintain any decent standard of living.
Reply To This Message
 Previous Message  |  Next Message

 Topics Author  Date      
 Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/2/2001 1:06 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Knowledgeable 11/2/2001 1:30 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Richard Meacock 11/2/2001 2:35 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Knowledgeable 11/2/2001 2:50 pm WEDT
 Why?   new  
 R H 11/2/2001 3:14 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/2/2001 3:41 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Solomon Green 11/3/2001 3:59 pm WEDT
 Who?   new  
 R H 11/2/2001 3:25 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/2/2001 9:10 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/3/2001 9:52 am WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 RichardMeacock 11/3/2001 10:43 am WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/3/2001 9:46 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Anthony P Berend 11/3/2001 11:35 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards    
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 7:37 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/4/2001 10:08 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 8:56 am WEDT
 Hypocrisy   new  
 R H 11/5/2001 10:59 am WEDT
 RE: Opposition   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/5/2001 11:43 am WEDT
 RE: Opposition   new  
 R H 11/5/2001 12:19 am WEDT
 RE: Opposition     
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 1:08 pm WEDT
 Rents   new  
 R H 11/5/2001 6:02 pm WEDT
 RE: Rents   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 8:43 pm WEDT
 RE: Opposition   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 1:03 pm WEDT
 RE: Opposition   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/5/2001 9:56 pm WEDT
 RE: Hypocrisy   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 1:00 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Anthony P Berend 11/5/2001 0:13 am WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 9:04 am WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 In the know 11/5/2001 2:51 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 3:37 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Knowledgeable 11/5/2001 3:40 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/5/2001 4:05 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 8:55 pm WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/8/2001 11:38 am WEDT
 RE: Public scrutiny and standards   new  
 RichardMeacock 11/8/2001 12:05 am WEDT
 ????   new  
 R H 11/8/2001 2:23 pm WEDT
 RE: ????   new  
 Trevor Clarke 11/8/2001 4:37 pm WEDT
 RE: ????   new  
 R H 11/8/2001 8:49 pm WEDT
 Previous Topic  |  Next Topic
 Reply To This Message
 Your Name:  
 Your Email:  
 Subject:  
  Submission Validation Question: What is 93 + 87? *  
* indicates required field
     

Sexist, Racist, Rude or unnecessary messages will be removed. Tolerance to anonymous messages will be at the discretion of the administration body. Anyone who insults the owner of this forum will be barred for life. No adverts permitted.