Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Rude and Abusive

I see that Cllr Worrow popped-up on BBC's Southeast Today on Monday evening, as they gave further coverage to the homophobia allegations which have plagued the council in recent months, with inappropriate and unacceptable comments from councillors from both of the main political parties.

There are times when I think we are stuck in some ghastly 1970's political sitcom, given the crude nature of the remarks that have been flying around the internet this year. The subject has been covered in great detail across the local weblogs and so I won't add much further comment, other than remark that with only weeks before a local by-election, councillors are supposed to refrain from media appearances and political comment under the 'Purdah' guidelines. As a consequence, I'm somewhat surprised that the BBC, who know the rules asked Cllr Worrow for an interview.

Other than announcing a 'Protest' against Cllr Ken Gregory outside the Council offices at the next meeting - let me guess, organised by Thanet Watch? - what was interesting is that our 'Diversity Champion', Cllr Worrow and his TIG party, failed to mention or condemn Labour's derisory 'One month' suspension of Cllr Mike Harrison at all for his equally well-publicised 'shirt-lifting' comments directed at Cllr Driver on Facebook. It's also worth noting that they are calling for a new council code of conduct which outlaws offensive remarks and 'Rude and abusive behaviour.'

In the aftermath of the infamous 'Minnis bay of Pigs' affair, Birchington's Cllr Worrow, quite possibly now holds the local record for standards code complaints, from both the public and his political colleagues. How his introduction of a tighter code of conduct for councillors and perhaps even diversity blog wardens, will actually work in practice, I don't know. However, as Clive Hart's struggling minority Labour administration depends on TIG for their survival, I'm prepared to bet that anything that is put before the Council by the independent Cllr's Driver and Worrow, will be carried on the nod by Labour, regardless of whether it makes any sense or indeed, involves wearing ones underwear on the outside!

Changing the subject completely, is anybody noticing a 'Lost dogs' pattern locally? I'm struck by the apparently growing number of small, microchipped dogs, much loved by their owners, who appear to have gone missing this year. Dogs don't simply run away from home, rather the opposite, which leads me to wonder whether they are being stolen either to re-sell or the more unpleasant thought of being kidnapped to train fighting dogs, which isn't uncommon elsewhere.

If anyone else has noticed the same trend, do let me know.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

*yaaawwwwwwnnn*

Anonymous said...

Can you really blame the guy for being a bit cheesed off with Gregory after he said he hoped he died of aids. The other bloke didnt do anything to him, so of course he is going to be angry at the guy who abused him.

simon moores said...

I think the answer to your question is that nobody can blame Cllr Worrow for being angry with Cllr Gregory for unacceptable behaviour of this kind.

However, Cllr Worrow, having been appointed the Council's diversity champion, at his own request, appeared silent when Clrl Harrison described Clrl Worrow's own TIG colleague as a 'Shirt lifter' on Facebook, which also made the BBC news.

Why only one expression of outrage and not two, people might ask, given his self-appointed role as local champion of Gay rights?

Anonymous said...

Simon you are plain wrong. Cllr Worrow did not remain silent on the Harrison issue. he made a statement condeming Harrison. You have also misrepresented our motion to Council. We are not trying to rewrite the code of conduct for councillors. That as you know full well, is beyond our power. We are simply condeming the actions of Gregory and Harrison. Your comment about underpants is pathetic and suggests to me that you regard equalites and respect as a rather comical issue. Simon you are on the wrong side of history.

Anonymous said...

this brings a little humour to the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4qAY3ruzBI

simon moores said...

Well for starters I think the 'underpant' quip pretty much sums up TIG and the talents therein and I'm hardly alone!

Cllr Worrow had significant opportunity to condemn Cllr Harrison but was hardly vocal on the subject as I'm sure you would agree and it can be found on the TIG archive at www.tigabout.blogspot.com, along with the 'Minis Bay of Pigs' and more.. you must be so proud!

On equalities, it needn't be a comical issue but I'm sorry to say that the bizarre antics of TIG and Mr Fox, has reduced it to a local farce which has drawn attention from a very serious subject

Anonymous said...

Doesn't anonymous 8.04's use of 'our' and 'we' mean that he must be Worrow or Driver?

Anonymous said...

anon again! after a few years silence.
ANYBODY who supports ANYONE who makes such homophobic remarks - is also a homophobic.

simon moores said...

Do you want to try and deconstruct that statement Anon and explain what you mean a little more clearly. How do you define 'Support' for example?

Anonymous said...

Simon, you are trying to reason with morons.
They'll be calling you the pig monster as they can't crack logical argument.

Anonymous said...

Anon Again!
Support
1.
the act or an instance of supporting.

2.
the state of being supported.

3.
something that serves as a foundation, prop, brace, or stay.

4.
maintenance, as of a person or family, with necessaries, means, or funds: to pay for support of an orphan.

5.
a person or thing that supports.

I'd have thought you would have known this. Thus,

Anybody who SUPPORTS a homophobic Councillor must therefore be HOMOPHOBIC also.

I hope they rid us of this Councillor, forever!


Easy, is it not?

Anything else you might need help in understanding, for instance, how a lot of people feel in Thanet about the present Conservative Government and its Local Representation? Just ask.

simon moores said...

Following your line of reasoning, I suppose that anyone who supports an atheist councillor must also be an atheist?

Tom Clarke said...

Or anyone who supports a fat councillor must also be fat and anyone who supports a councillor with a hair piece must also have a hair piece.

Anonymous said...

8.14
Oh God!!!!! I voted for a homosexual councillor so i am now a homosexual,i must tell the wife,she will be most unhappy!!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon Again!
Yep, if you change the subject mid passage.
However, we were not talking about atheism. (reminder) Homophobia, and a rather illiterate Ex-Councillor.

1.
having or demonstrating very little or no education.

2.
showing lack of culture, especially in language and literature. XXXX.

Tim Clark said...

Stunned silence from the moronic Anon

Anonymous said...

Anon Again!

Tom Clarke - one of your silly wet Tory oiks, no doubt.
Obviously a bloke with his gonads Zwischen seinem ohren. Look it up!

If he can attempt silly insults, then so can I.