You can't beat scurrilous gossip....
Gossip always livens up the day and we've certainly been hearing some. Amongst our recent mails it seems that Chris Roberts - the leader of the Council for those that don't know - is not universally liked.
Now, obviously we realise we only receive mail from people with an axe to grind (political, professional or otherwise), but some of the stories we've heard have still made the office chuckle even with that disclaimer understood.
As such, we're really curious to know more about a mysterious incident at Charlton House in 2005 involving a cup flying in the direction of senior female ethnic minority cabinet member.
Any takers?
Now, obviously we realise we only receive mail from people with an axe to grind (political, professional or otherwise), but some of the stories we've heard have still made the office chuckle even with that disclaimer understood.
As such, we're really curious to know more about a mysterious incident at Charlton House in 2005 involving a cup flying in the direction of senior female ethnic minority cabinet member.
Any takers?
posted by greenwich.watch at 8:54 pm
20 Comments:
This is just pathetic innuendo. If you've got something to say, why not just say it? You claim to be running this site to cut through spin, but how does this sort of poisonous smoke and mirrors do that?
We're not quite sure what you mean, by "poisonous smoke and mirrors"? We're trying to find out what happened in an incident in which the only knowns are what we wrote above.
We were told something that we think may form part of a much wider whole. What other way can we find out it than to ask our growing readership for help?
The front page of the site also makes it abundantly clear that we're happy to hear gossip as well. Alhough we would like to point out that for the one bit of gossip there are over 50 other articles that are not gossip.
On a more technical note, you do not have to submit the same comment more than once. We moderate all our comments and they will appear as soon as we get a chance to publish them. Can we ask as well that you pick some sort of handle or name as, for example you could have called yourself "Cllr X" instead of anonymous.
A bit harsh Greenwich watch, you have to bear in mind that the people we employ at Greenwich council are not used to being accountable to the electorate so its no wonder they get a bit edgy when they are called to account for their actions. They're also happy to hide behind a veil of secrecy and an inability to embrace anything new. As for Cllr X the previous 9 didn't impress me!
If you have any new, rumours or gossip about Greenwich Council, its work and its councillors then let us know. We'll do our best to publish what the local press can't.
Does what it says on the tin, can't say fairer than that. It's like municipal Popbitch! These people deserve a medal.
Apologies for submitting more than once - not impatience but inexperience. I appreciate that this is a moderated forum.
Now then, you can't really expect us to buy the line that all you know is that the victim was a "senior female ethnic minority cabinet member". This appears to me to be a "teaser" and information is being deliberately rationed. If you have something to say, go on and say it. Don't hide behind your anonymity.
Greezy Pimp - we do not "employ" Cllr Roberts. He is "elected". A subtle distinction, no? As for not being accountable to the electorate, Roberts and the whole Greenwich administration was held accountable in the elections in May, and held onto power against a strong anti-Labour swing elsewhere.
"Now then, you can't really expect us to buy the line that all you know is that the victim was a "senior female ethnic minority cabinet member". "
We do because it's the truth. It's all we've been told.
Very well then, I accept your word.
But aren't you a bit uncomfortable - just a little - with throwing around really quite serious accusations with no evidence whatsoever (by your own admission)? This particular piece of gossip concerns what sounds like a potentially criminal assault, and your reporting also has racial overtones. This is what I meant by "innuendo" in my first post.
Roberts and all the other councillors are giving their free time and in many cases the best years of their life to trying to regenerate this very deprived part of London. Backbench councillors get very modest expense-based allowances for their endeavours.
There are good reasons why the press can't publish this stuff. It's because there are restrictions on publishing unsubstantiated smears.
I understand there is a need for scrutiny, and I applaude the fact that this blog is likely to get people to take an interest in local affairs.
But I suggest there's a big difference between holding people to account and engaging in reasoned debate and this kind of feeble (and anonymous) Private Eye pastiche.
We've not made any accusations, you've inferred them. There is - to quote your good self - a "subtle dinstinction" between the two. As for the suggestion there are "racial overtones" to the report, that is, frankly, absurd and we imagine that you know it too.
We also understand very well that many Councillors want to do good for the area, and we're sure that the "modest" £10K a year helps greatly toward funding their childrens' education outside of the Borough remit - we don't blame them of course.
Thank you for the Private Eye comparison, we take it as a compliment even though it was meant as an insult.
The Pioneer is the newsletter of Eltham Labour Party. Can you check the IP address doesn't lead back to 132 Westmount Road?
Can anyone tell me why we live in a very deprived part of london, as previously stated, I am old enough to remember when Woolwich was the major shopping area of the borough, I have heard the blame placed on closures of major employers such a the Dockyard siemans and the Coop, but places like Bexleyheath which had none of these have thrived. I even remember when Lakedale Road could cater for the needs of the locals.
I blame colour television, myself.
Bexleyheath, thrived? In what way?
Oh, and hold on, who's "we", and which part of London - or which part of Greenwich borough - is deprived?
To clarify, I'm not a member of Eltham Labour Party. "Pioneer" is a title that has been used at various times by progressives in this part of London for the best part of 100 years. That others don't know that speaks volumes for their credentials.
Woolwichpioneer I beg to differ they are there to work for us, ergo we "employ" them to represent us on the council, with me so far, good. We could debate the pros and cons of our electoral system for hours but the thing you fail to realise is this, an elected public servant regardless of their majority do not stop being accountable ever! By the way not a single candidate came to my house or sent literature to my address during the election campaign. Thanks to the likes of Greenwich watch these contemptible jokers will be called on every decision they make.
"Pioneer" is a title that has been used at various times by progressives in this part of London for the best part of 100 years.
What 'progressives'? The Lib Dems? The Greens? Respect? Be a bit more clearer, after all the Labour Party pretty much had the monopoly on 'progressive' representation in SE London from 1900 onwards.
The Pioneer is the newsletter of the Eltham Labour Party and given your knowledge of councillors' allowances and stock defence of the current leadership I suspect you know that full well.
Inspector had you not noticed that Bexleyheath has a large shopping mall, a well serviced pedestrianised shopping area, ample convenient parking, whereas Woolwich has outlet shops and charity shops, limited parking, and not much more. with regard to deprived, I was refering to the Woolwich pioneers remark, with which I do concur.
Inspector I think if you look you will see that the first mention of deprived area was from Woolwichpioneer, I was just concurring with the comment. As for Bexleyheath, they have a thriving shopping mall, a well supplied shopping precinct, (pedestrianised) ample convenient parking, and a good selection of places to eat. Woolwich has?
I think there's more to life than a clone town shopping centre and "ample parking".
Woolwich has little, but at least there's some character and room for improvement.
Inspector I think on this one we must agree to disagree, my life goes beyond outlet and charity shops, and as previously mentioned I remember when Woolwich really did have character, with stylish old buildings, shops of significance, and theatres and restraunts that were a pleasure to visit. I like yourself am not a lover of clone towns, but this seems to be the modern trend, so what is the future for Woolwich if not to follow the trend, I would love to see it returned to its former glory but alas I have no faith in this council to do it, or at this time any other council for that matter. Good luck friend I am sure we will cross swords again sometime as we both seem to have an interest in our borough albeit for different reasons.
Chris Roberts' remuneration is £36,000/year I seem to remember. Councillors' pay was published in the local newspapers just after the local election.
Great blog, by the way. I think it's going to come in really useful in the next three-four years.
I have heard some stuff about Roberts but it's libellous so can't give it here. But it will come out.
Post a Comment
<< Home