Wednesday, April 18, 2012

In Correspondence

As time passes, the antics of several of our local councillors no longer surprise me but this week, I was quite frankly appalled at the discourtesy shown by one our independents, in an email reply, sent to a Roman Catholic parish priest. This was in response to the latter's concerns at the heated atmosphere, presently surrounding the gay marriage debate scheduled for full Council tomorrow evening.

The priest, reflecting the concerns of both the Catholic church and his parishioners, the councillor's constituents, sent a polite and well-balanced letter where he wrote:

"People really care about this issue and I'm very worried and disturbed that certain local politicians and councillors are referring to anyone who objects to the proposed changes as 'bigoted' and 'homophobic'. The issue here is not about homosexuality itself or about appropriate rights for individuals or alternative relationships.

These subjects are debated and will continue to be so, however, the matter at hand solely concerns the concept and nature of marriage itself. No new rights or privileges will be gained for same-sex couples by means of this legislation. What is being proposed is quite simply the abolition of the legal and civic recognition of 'conjugal or procreative unions' (which have always been called marriage) as unique and vital for society. The change will replace this time-honoured institution with general love-relationship recognition (which would only be called marriage in name) open to ever broader and vaguer attributions."

Readers may agree or disagree with this but as a priest and constituent, he was exercising his right to communicate with the councillor involved and to receive the reply (verbatim) that followed and was widely circulated is, in my opinion, quite shameful.

"I am afraid the Catholic Chrurch (and many other churches) have a long shameful track record of sexual abuse and sexual oppression and seem to consitently get it badly wrong when it comes to dealing with matters of human love and sexuality. I will not therefore be counselled by you on this issue."

There's more of course which I won't include here but to reply to a priest as 'Mr' is a visible insult and councillors, like myself, have a public duty,where council correspondence is involved, to treat everyone with proper courtesy and respect and this was not the case here.

I have emailed the parish priest in question to apologise on behalf of all councillors here in Thanet who share the same principles I value. I would also have liked to have published his reply to the independent councillor involved, which offered a lesson in reason and Christian patience.

Have we really sunk so low I wonder? Perhaps like me, you believe that in the circumstances, a more formal apology is required to both the priest and parishioners involved? Or maybe not? What do you think?

I may add to this later but have a school assembly to attend now.

Postscript:

Following-on from all of this, the Thanet Conservative Group has just issued a press release that it intends to vote against debating same sex marriage motion:

'The Conservative Group at Thanet District Council will vote against debating the same sex marriage motion at Thursday night’s Council meeting.

Group leader, Cllr Bob Bayford explained: “The consultation document from the Government could not be clearer. It states that ‘this consultation is about how we best remove the ban on same sex couples having a civil marriage, not on whether this should or should not happen.’

“We believe, when family budgets are tight and council services stretched, that there are far more pressing issues for Thanet District Council to be considering.

“This motion is brought about by two independent councillors who are imposing their own agendas on a hung council. The weak, minority Labour administration is allowing itself to be held to ransom by these councillors in order to cling to power.”

Should Council vote in favour of the debate, the Conservative Group will allow a free vote on the main motion.'

64 comments:

Tom Clarke said...

A sad reflection on our modern society in general, Thanet in particular and the appalling qualities, coupled with a total lack of knowledge on how to behave or even address people, demonstrated by some of our councillors.

Perhaps said councillor should invest in a copy of Debrett's Correct Form. Quite sure he likes to be called 'Councillor,' but the priest is probably even more entitled to be addressed as
'Reverend' or 'Father.' At least the latter had to work for his position, not get it on the back of some political party he promptly ratted on.

What I find so disturbing about the antics of two councillors in particular is that they are actually creating hostilitity and division simply to raise their own profile.

Anonymous said...

Utterly shameful - surely something can be done about this disruptive element. Picking up on an earlier thread from James Maskell - unfortunately there was no election in the Birchington parish that got Worrow and Cohen onto the parish council. Birchington if you want them out you're going to have to start putting up some opposition.

Anonymous said...

Was this despicable letter from the councillor who likes to be known as Champion, or from the puppet-master?

Anonymous said...

This is utterly sickening - both Conservative and Labour are to blame for getting this appalling element into the council - but Labour are entirely to blame for giving them air. The gay marriage debate could have been squashed before it got this far and the Diversity post thing should never have been created. Forget the fact that TIGS will never see the light of council day after the next election - if it makes it that far - but Labour you can kiss goodbye to power if you allow this to continue.

Anonymous said...

And this from a group that has a member with a courtesy title only, who had a hissy fit when he was referred to as Mr.

Anonymous said...

Yes it is a little abrupt but without seeing the full details and previous correspondence, this maybe taken in or out context.

The topic itself of a man and man, or woman and woman wanting to be together is how parts of the world are evolving. And the proposed change in the law is recognising this fact, and saying we understand the people and it's ok.

It is there for, down to individuals if they like or dont like. It is there for, down to the different religions ie catholic, christian, muslim, budhism if there faith allows it.

No one is forcing the religous groups to hold the ceremonys or change their belief.

When I have a hard think about it, I've known a few gay and lesbian individuals. But never really thought about them as gay and lesbian, just Sandy, John, Claire etc.

They are all wonderful individuals, and hold nothing against anybody and openly helpful and friendly to everyone they meet.

So this is the reason why I feel strongly against Roger Gale, as the impression I'm getting is he is saying it's right to discriminate, punish and percicuit anyone that is different.

This time it's gay and lesbians, next it will move onto race and ethnic cleansing.

Anonymous said...

Tom, I think you may have identified the route cause of the current problem. Regardless of which Councillor we are talking about, both were selected as candidates by both main parties.

Perhaps the answer is that the selection process by both needs to be tightened up so that we, the public, can have a little more faith in the individual who might bother to knock on our doors every four years.

I appreciate that we do in fact have a few very good representatives, but conversely we also have some useless individuals who are responsible for Thanet maintaining it's reputation as a laughing stock.

Tom Clarke said...

9:41 typically swings the debate onto the perceived persecution of the LGBT community and even suggests there is some link to ethnic cleansing. What utter nonsense and how inflammatory.

This is about a priest expressing the reasonable religious concerns of his congregation and a councillor responding in a rude and off thread manner. Is he seriously suggesting that because there have been some wayward priests that this one's concerns count for nothing. One might just as well claim that because some gay men have a penchant for small boys that all are perverts.

The comments in the councillors response cannot be excused by suggestions of being taken out of context for there can be no context that justifies such remarks in reply to any constituent.

Sadly some people seem to be able to justify and excuse quite appalling behaviour by these apologies for holders of public office.

Tom Clarke said...

Sorry 9:41, for my last comment should have been directed at Anon 9:12. To you I would agree wholeheartedly that the political parties really do need to scrutinise their candidates a lot better.

Why Labour ditched Mark Nottingham for Driver never ceases to amaze me and the wisdom of the Conservatives in choosing a man with a reputation for switching leaves much to be desired.

Anonymous said...

The councillor or his glove puppet wouldn't have dared send such a letter to a Mosque or Synagogue leader even though they hold exactly the same views on Marriage as the Church.
No, his bravery only extends to Christians.
That tells you everything you need to know about the kind of hate-filled man he is.
To him, democracy is only when it agrees with his views.
He is doing more harm to the LBGT cause he claims to represent than any gay-hater could possibly achieve because his personal venom keeps getting in the way.
Next elections he will be in the wilderness ranting without an audience!

Ren Wood said...

Clearly 9:12 fails to appreciate that some of the worst cases of ethnic cleansing in modern times have been black on black. This constant attempt to align the gay marriage debate with other social problems serves no purpose.

This is not about persecution, inequality or homophobia, but simply about whether a union of people other than between man and woman should be called marriage.
Those that support gay marriage do their case no credit with the insinuations of an alliance with racism and now ethnic cleansing.

Anonymous said...

Simon shame you have been selective in what you published. Councillor Driver made some very interesting points about the Coaltion for Marriage and allegations about their petiton being falsified. Councillor Driver is also correct to raise the issues of clerical abuse. Who is the church (christian, muslim or jewish) to give advice on marriage when their record is hardly one to be proud of.

We need more independent mided people like Driver to speak out without fear of favour.

simon moores said...

I did not mention Cllr Driver by name, neither did I see fit to include what I regarded as the remainder of an offensive rant which made a loose connection between adverts on London buses and the catholic church!

The correct level of reply, in my opinion would have been..

Dear Father/Reverend 'N'

Thank you for your email.

While we may disagree on the controversial matter of of gay marriage and civil partnership, I would like to thank you and your parishioners for sharing your views on the subject... etc etc..

Tom Clarke said...

Simon, I think the gay marriage supporters are digging an ever deeper hole for themselves and the justification of rude and obnoxious behaviour by councillors says it all.

The suggestion that a priest is somehow disqualified from having a n opinion because of the behaviour of the odd misfit within the church is ludicrous. Who knows, the wayward priests may even have been gay!

Anonymous said...

With reference to your postscript - that's how it should be done!

Anonymous said...

Now all we need is Labour to follow suit then worrow and driver will be left out in the cold,perfect opportunity coming up for everybody to act together and then the subject could be brought up at a later time and bebated under more civilised and politer circumstances.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but the comments about the Catholic Church and child sex abuse are accurate. Surely no one can argue with that? And why should any toleration be shown to people who believe in the great Sky Pixie? You wouldn't show such deference to people who believe in the Loch Ness Monster, and there is more evidence for Nessie's existence than that of God.

Anonymous said...

Remind us. Was this child abuse in the catholic church and church of England hetero or homosexual in most cases?

Tim Clark said...

Simon
Appalling. My understanding of the Catholic child abuse scandals is that most of them were committed by priests (men by definition) against altar boys. Therefore, taking the simplistic route favoured by some in this debate, all gays are also paedophiles. Now we know that's not true so let's move on. I might add that I suppose it's lucky that the priest didn't fall foul of one of the other TIGs, the one with a penchant for beating up old men. And the Sky Pixie comment is just as offensive.
Anyway. Tomorrow's debate. If the Conservatives move a motion against a debate and this is overturned, then the only logical thing to do is to walk out until the debate is concluded. Staying in will only allow the TIGs to label the Conservatives as homiophobic, and I can already see Rebecca's headline - I suspect it's already written. If for no better reason than to ruin her Thursday night as she has to change her headline story I would suggest that a walkout is the best course of action.

Michael Child said...

Simon, I haven’t yet received the press release, probably due to some IT blip.

I assume here that you agree that the council will be a consultee whether the issue is debated or not.

I also assume that the Conservative group’s position is not to oppose same sex marriages as they are allowing a free vote, is this the case?

I understand that part of this consultation relates to the government’s intention to make it illegal to hold same sex marriages in religious buildings, I assume that this is something you would support and if you don’t debate the issue, I can’t see how you could do this.

Am I to take it that the Conservative group would wish to debate the consultation about how we best remove the ban on same sex couples having a civil marriage?

I am a bit unclear as to whose constituent the unnamed priest is, I guess he can’t be yours as there isn’t a Roman Catholic priest resident in Westgate, is he the unnamed councillors constituent?

Gordon Bennett said...

Well said Tim, you've hit the nail on the head. I must say I am getting thoroughly bored by the Worrow/Driver antics and bullying. It appears you are with them or homophobic - if that's the only choice they may well be pushing a lot of people into the other camp!

simon moores said...

Michael

You should have the release by now. Apologies if it was delayed.

I have annotated your questions in () below with my answers:

I assume here that you agree that the council will be a consultee whether the issue is debated or not.

(To be honest and unless I have an opinion from Harvey to the contrary, I don't yet see the council as aconsultee as the remit lies with KCC)

I also assume that the Conservative group’s position is not to oppose same sex marriages as they are allowing a free vote, is this the case?

(There's no opposition per se as we believe members are entitled to a free vote on the subject should it go that way)

I understand that part of this consultation relates to the government’s intention to make it illegal to hold same sex marriages in religious buildings, I assume that this is something you would support and if you don’t debate the issue, I can’t see how you could do this.

(Again, I personally think this is a matter for a free vote where individual opinion on the subject is respected)

Am I to take it that the Conservative group would wish to debate the consultation about how we best remove the ban on same sex couples having a civil marriage?

(I think the press release states the position)

I am a bit unclear as to whose constituent the unnamed priest is, I guess he can’t be yours as there isn’t a Roman Catholic priest resident in Westgate, is he the unnamed councillors constituent?

(He's not mine and I would be in danger of revealing his name if I added any further comment)

Anonymous said...

http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/March-protest-fuel-cost/story-15848041-detail/story.html

Tim Clark said...

I don't think it is the Government's intention to make same-sex marriages in religious buildings illegal. I think it is the Government's intention not to force religious bodies to perform same-sex marriages. Not the same thing at all.

simon moores said...

I think Michael means in Ramsgate only!!

Anonymous said...

Could someone please state what the blue blistering blazes this all has to do with the running of Thanet?
It may be in poor taste to talk about re-arranging deckchairs on a certain famous ship but ... well surely there are more than enough issues that really do need attention than sexual predilections that are within the individual's freedom of conscience and choice?
Are we REALLY expected to vote for these people?

Michael Child said...

Tim, Simon, I am assuming that you have both read the consultation document and your comments are of a comical nature, only in Ramsgate, dear oh dear.

ISBN: 978-1-84987-706-0 if you missed it.

Here is what it says.

“ii. To make no changes to how religious organisations solemnize marriages i.e. marriages solemnized through a religious ceremony and on religious premises would still only be legally possible between a man and a woman. The Government is not seeking to change how religious organisations define religious marriage and any subsequent legislation would be clear that no religious organisation could conduct a religious marriage ceremony on religious premises for same-sex couples.”

I consider this to be key to the legislation as it goes much further than giving the option, which could be used by the first, turbulent priest, to cause embarrassment for church and state, it actively prevents religious organisations from performing same sex marriages.

I am a bit concerned that the Conservative group are being pedantic over this motion, which from the number of posts here they seem to wish to debate, and have an interest in.

Anonymous said...

3.55 this is what the majority have been saying - but it's being pushed by two individuals. What is sad is that Labour doesn't realise yet that they don't have to pander to the TWITS group. They cannot vote with the Conservatives on principle so they would have to abstain - result sidelined twits!

Anonymous said...

Off Topic

Didn't know council meetings were available as webcasts.

Someone questioned Clive Hearts abilities on Strategic Economic Developement, his response was to read his CV.

I cant seem to find it.

Tom Clarke said...

The government of the day probably did not intend for the Human Rights Act to be used to prevent us from deporting foreign criminals and terrorist, but it has.

The same is true on the same sex marriage debate. Once so called civil marriage is legalised, sooner or later some militant homosexual will take a trial case against a church to the European Courts. No prizes for guessing the outcome.

It is time to draw and stand to the line and I am with Tim in agreeing that the antics of the publicity seeking duo are pushing people to take sides.

As to the Sky Pixie merchant. Don't you think that is just as offensive to a religious person as it might be to use a derogatory gay description for you.

Anonymous said...

What would happen if all the Tories walked out - would they then be accused of being homophobic? How can they ore anyone debate this unless they have gone around and questioned every resident within their wards they would not be speaking for "their constituents". People can give their own personal view but that would not be the view of the people!It is about time people stood up against these 2 (I mean now 3) idiots who tend to call themselves councillors.Perhaps standards would be a solution as surely they are bringing the council down.

Tim Clark said...

I would suggest that it is not within any secular organisations remit to instruct religious organisations how their rites and sacraments should be performed. In this sense the Government are only acknowledging that they have no power to force religious groups to perform same-sex marriages on their premises. If the LGBT community wish this then they will have to take on the Pope, Archbishops, gurus, imams etc.

Anonymous said...

I'm not LGBT, but the thought that a religious group could dictate in any way shape or form what I could or could not do is abhorrent.

The law of the land is what counts, and I'm sure that marriage will be allowed between any couple who wishes to tie the knot.

(and a priest is just another person to a non believer Simon so they are just plain old Mr like you and I)

Anonymous said...

5:55 On that basis Mr Worrow and Mr Driver are just plain old Mister as well so who gives a toss what they spout on about.

I suppose you call your doctor, Mister, in the same way as you go up to a police officer and say "Hey, Mister!"

Don't you realise you sometimes come out with a load of round objects.

Tim Clark said...

1755. So if you want you could pop down to Lords and insist on watching a football match just because football is legal? It's their ball, I guess they can choose what game to play.
Or maybe you'd like to ask Abu Qatada or Abu Hamza their views on same-sex marriages in the local mosque? No, I thought not.
I would suggest that couples that have no religious belief are unlikely to want to get married in a religious establishment. Apart from the dear old CofE most religious establishments have no links to the Government of the day in this country nor do they want it. This surely means that the Government should have no say in their affairs?
You may, or may not wish to believe in a god, but it is surely the height of bad manners to ridicule others who do? They may be, in your perception, naive or childish or deranged but you have no way of proving that they are wrong apart from the tired old method of saying that they can't be proved right. After all, you have no way of proving the theories behind quantum mechanics - I suspect that this is beyond you anyway - but you're quite happy to sit down and use a machine that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for those theories.

Tim Clark said...

Couldn't resist this!

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/quirkies/Rugby_player_woke_up_gay_after_stroke

Anonymous said...

anon 5.55
The Church is not dictating to anyone,they are obeying the word of God as written in the bible.
And whether you are a believer or not,it costs nothing to be polite regardless of how you feel about any given subject or person,which is why i have not written what i really feel about your post.

Michael Child said...

I guess the reason the government asked local authorities to be consultees on this matter was either a mistake and the should have said county councils instead, or because councils own a lot of civil marriage venues, and have a considerable amount to do with social services housing and benefits, also they will have staff who are married.

Obviously we live in a society that is progressing towards equality and it is with equality where the moral imperative lies. I guess this started with slavery, which was mostly supported by Christian leaders up until the 1600s, sexism, racism and now the complex business of homosexuality and gender changes.

I don’t really see that the council could take the view of the Roman Catholic Church on homosexuality and gender changes and remain within the law.

I don’t really think that one countries move towards equality would make that much difference towards how the church adapts to current secular morality, for instance Spain which is a Roman Catholic country in a way that the UK is not, has legalised same sex marriages.

Personally I genuinely think religions and not governments should be taking the moral imperative, especially Christianity where the New Testament has so little to say about homosexuality. In fact sex hardly features in the gospels, the most significant aspect being a general recommendation not to stone to death people who hadn’t complied with the sexual conventions of the period it was written in, which I guess could be taken as Christianity taking the moral imperative.

Tom Clarke said...

Very many thanks for that link, Tim, and I must remember not to do a dive forward roll down a hill. Fancy waking up as a hairdresser!

Mind you I suppose it would be worse to wake up as a member of the TIP.

JB said...

I am concerned that this is being debated at all.

I am a Thanet resident. I have a local council that was elected to:

1. Make sure my bin is emptied.
2. Try to prevent me from slipping in dog excrement whenever I walk up my road
3. Manage the smooth running of my home areas facilities and amenities - such as they are - so that I don't have to worry about them.

As far as I was aware Thanet council was not put in place to make the - incredible - presumption to speak on my behalf on national political topics with which I may - or may not - agree.

If I wanted to 'make my voice heard' I would buy a megaphone - which would be cheaper than council tax - and go and stand on a soapbox in London.

The sheer arrogant presumption made by the council in attempting to issue a political 'pat on the back' to the govenment - is staggering.

If various councellers want to go into 'grown up politics' can they please just run for parliment and get it over with. Don't dare to presume to do it when it could be construed as speaking on my behalf.

It obviously hasn't been iterated enough that this is a 'service' role to the public.

Deeply disgusted and saddened that this was not challenged at the point of inception and shot down then.

If a counceller wants to make a political statement then they are free to do so - individually - but if an elected council wants to make a political statement that a substantial proportion of it's residents may disagree with (ie ANY political statement beyond those required for the running of the island) is another thing completely.

Michael Child said...

JB, here is the link to the government document asking local authorities to respond to the consultation http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2012/DEP2012-0483.pdf

simon moores said...

I have to agree with you JB but we have several individuals who wish to make their mark or at least build their own soap box at local expense.

JB said...

Thank you Michael.

Whilst I still don't like it at least I now know why this has been brought to this particular forum.

I appreciate your taking the time to dig that out for me.

Tom Clarke said...

Well Michael can seemingly justify TDC debating, rather than consulting on, the same sex marriage issue, but if it is all authorities, why just TDC. Why are the Labour controlled Ramsgate Town Council or the Conservartive dominated Broadstairs Town Council not having the same debate.

Could it be that the government call stops at District Councils or maybe, it is because these two other councils don't have a couple of loose cannons running around seeking to raise their own profiles on any bandwagon they can jump on.

Michael Child said...

Tom I don’t think parish councils count as local authorities and at the moment don’t think any of the Thanet ones own marriage venues.


Frankly I think the Thanet Conservatives group are wasting a lot of time and energy over this issue where the independent group have the apparent backing of the Conservative government and the moral imperative of equality.

I think the best route for them in this case was to accept they had been politically outmanoeuvred and go along with the thing, as things are they are repeatedly drawing attention to the fact they were bettered by people who the claim are political inferiors.

Anonymous said...

None of us elected councillors to promote their personal views - be it on the gay marriage or the parking debacle. They are there to represent the publics view - well done the Conservatives for making a stand not to debate on a non existent mandate - Labour you now need to follow suit, it is Thanet that is important not holding on to 3 worthless votes, because as sure as eggs is eggs they will let you down at some point.

James Maskell said...

While it would have been a shock if a free vote wasnt offered (Labour declared a free vote at the open meeting), is there not a danger that by voting against a debate it'll look like the Group has something to hide, giving Worrow and Driver exactly the excuse they desire to accuse Conservatives of homophobia?

If Labour votes with the TIG on this, and my suspicion is they will, the Conservative Group will be dragged into voting on the motion regardless of whether they want to or not.

Better would be voting Yes to debate then moving speedily onto the vote, defusing it. TIG wants conflict, so don't give it any. The TIG itself isn't united on this motion either.

In anycase in 12 hours we can move onto real business of running the Council without this distraction.

Tom Clarke said...

James, what kind of democracy is it where you have to vote for a motion you do not agree with simply to avoid being called homophobic.

There are some Conservative councillors with strong religious views on this topic. Are you seriously suggesting they should vote against their conscience simply to avoid a label. Isn't that exactly what David Cameron is doing?

Please get real, for Labour will still call us the nasty party whatever we do and there are now a lot of our own supporters who think we are not being nasty enough.

Michael, I have answered your point raised here over on Thanet Press Releases. Just love the way you select your authorities to suit your case. It does not stop at county level, but magically does at District. Well, we live and learn, oh master. (Clasps hands together in front of face reverently and bows).

simon moores said...

Quite what Michael's agenda is here, other than being mischievous as usual, I don't know.

His posts are starting to show a rather partisan approach to Labour these days. No surprises there though!

Anonymous said...

"The Church is not dictating to anyone,they are obeying the word of God as written in the bible."

If I told you that I believe everything I am told by my friend Harry the Giant Hamster (who happens to be invisible) you would think I should be carted off to the funny farm. Why should I take people who believe in 'the word of God' any more seriously?

Michael Child said...

Frankly I think the Thanet Conservatives group are wasting a lot of time and energy over this issue where the independent group have the apparent backing of the Conservative government and the moral imperative of equality.

I think the best route for them in this case was to accept they had been politically outmanoeuvred and go along with the thing, as things are they are repeatedly drawing attention to the fact they were bettered by people who the claim are political inferiors.

James Maskell said...

Im suggesting they vote in favour of having the debate. Whichever way they vote afterwards is a matter for them. The debate is pretty certain to happen, especially seeing as both Cllrs Ezekiel and Goodwin look unable to make it. Better to enter the debate willingly and make the case than be pushed into it.

simon moores said...

I'm wondering if Michael is trying to paint the Labour Group with the tag of being 'Politically Inferior' or whether he thinks it happens to be a good soundbyte. I'm sure it will stick though.

Im not John Worrow said...

Westgate WBC Rollout Status.

BT have announced a ready for service date for this exchange. The estimated go live date is between 8th June 2012 and 31st July 2012.

This was last updated 27th February 2012

Wont actually make a huge difference, because there's been a fault on the virtual pathways since December 2011. BT say they plan to fix this in September 2012.
What that actual fault means is it's like the M25 in rush hour. You may have an internet connection speed of 24Mb to the exchange, but the traffic jam in the exchange causes the speed to drop to 0.6Kb at peak times.

BT claim this is acceptable and wont fix the problem as the speed is above their 0.4Kb minimum product definition.

FTTC has no confirmed date, just a question mark for the end of 2012.

All data can be verified at these 2 links.

[url]http://usertools.plus.net/exchanges/?exchange=Westgate&exact=1467[/url]

and

[url]http://www.superfast-openreach.co.uk/where-and-when[/url]

Also like to take the oportunity to remind everyone about the digital switch over for Thanet will be completed in June. If your old enough to remember when we switched over from redifusion which was based up at Pearce Signs, you'l probably be able to get away with a set top box like before. If your not eligible for a free one due to age of disability, the prices of the set top boxes start at around £10.

Tom Clarke said...

Michael is begining to sound like an old 78 rpm with the needle stuck in a groove. Regardless of what counter arguments are presented he still keeps trundling out the same old stuff about the Conservatives being outmanoeuvred.

At least there now can be nobody left who still swallows his apolitical claims. One wonders, in fact, if he has not been appointed by Clive Hart as the Thanet Labour spin doctor in the mould of Alistair Campbell. Incognito, of course!

Michael Child said...

Sorry about that, my day orf today and to all intents and purposes I fought an android and the android won. I have this internet phone thing with an android operating system and tried to comment with it, but managed to put up half my previous comment instead, my needle as you say totally stuck.

Obviously when it comes to councillors they are all far superior to a mere shop assistant like me, although I have detected the view in some councillors that other councillors may be more equal than others.

Frankly I think the council’s consultation on same sex marriages is something where TDC have a very minor input into the whole issue, however because it is an important issue I think that councillors ought to debate it before the council responds to the consultation.

I guess with the BBC announcing on the news that TDC will be the first council to discuss the issue, it may make the council look a bit strange if they deicide not to talk about it.

1 o'clock Rob said...

Will we be seeing comment from Thanet's Diversity Champion regarding the letter to the Roman Catholic Priest?

Diversity encompasses everthing and a religion/faith no matter how large or small is part of the same diversity as the LGBT community.

Hopefully Worrow/Driver will find themselves out on their arses when the next election comes. I wouldn't trust them to run a lollypop crossing.

Anonymous said...

Especially a lollipop crossing I think!

Anonymous said...

excellent result Thanet Council votes for equal marriage. Tory bigots exposed. Well done Driver and Worrow for having the courage to move the resolution. Shame on Tory homophobes for trying to stop the debate

Peter Checksfield said...

And Shame on the poster of that message for not having the courage to use his / her name.

Tom Clarke said...

He didn't really need to, Peter, for I am sure we can both guess who he is. Only an ex-Tory can hate his former colleagues with such intensity.

Anonymous said...

Worrow and Driver shafted you. They have more talent then all of you fools put together. I hear Driver on BBC sayin homophobe Gale resign. He says Gale should be in BNP. Driver is wrong on that Gale makes BNP look like commies. Get a life you losers. You Tory boys is history get it history nobody will vote4 you again hahahaha.

5.55pm said...

6.12pm. I'm not defending any of our councillors nor do I agree with them. It's the thinking behind the posting at 6.38pm is what I have issues with.

Homosexuality was illegal in the country not so along ago, but a minority want us all to follow the doctrine of a 2,000 year old story, which also includes people rising from the dead and miracles.

Tim Clark said...

Still costs nothing to be polite, or is a lack of respect an entry requirement for atheism?
No matter what your personal beliefs the individual clergy fulfill a vital role in the community, helping out many who are often less fortunate than ourselves. (back off all you child abuse trolls, not all the clergy are paedophiles, just as not all gay or straight men are either).