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: Opposition
 
Author: R H
Date:   11/5/2001 12:19 am WEDT

It is not so easy for opposition Councillors. They have to cover a lot of ground.

Electors fondly imagine that elected members enjoy special privileges to get at information, if not to have an actual effect. This is not necessarily the case. The elected do get to see 'pink papers' but what's the use of that once they've sworn not to discuss them in public? The extra material occasionally 'leaks' in any case.

Officers know a pathetic jerk or an arrogant slob when they see one. It's a game. If members are too aggressive, or otherwise fail to play their cards right, a wall of silence descends the same as it would with anybody else. A large number of appeals for Judicial review are brought by members of Councils against their own executives.

Officers are sometimes discernibly sympathetic to democratic causes (often more so than members) but their hands are tied and quite rightly so. The greatest travesty of the housing transfer was that a political issue was thereby shifted from the proper place, the electoral arena, into the hands of consultants and executive officers. What chance does anybody else then have against their intense and prolonged one sided propaganda campaigns, considerably resource at our expense?
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   new  
 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    
 R H 11/5/2001 12:19 am WEDT
 RE: Opposition   new  
 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 2 + 77? *  
* 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.