Our Council leader, the sheep
We realise that we've returned to the issue of rental time changes for the Public Hall a number of times in the past few months already, however we've just spotted something we'd missed previously.
On June 14th - according to the agreed minutes - Cllr Fletcher put forward a supplementary question about the Public Hall which asked "why" the policy regarding its use had changed. In response, the Council leader, Chris Roberts, said that it was because it had to "operate in the manner [the Council] demands of any other licensed premises in the borough". No mention of complaints from the self-important in his original response we note.
However, on the basis that it's all about licensing, how come the Director General and the nightclub opposite still have licenses? Presumably the Council has been filming in order to establish which premises the urinators and vomiters come out? Or maybe, Chris Roberts was just making it all up as he went along? would it be the first time? - ed
The best part of Chris Roberts' response came at the end though. In an absurd act of contradiction, he said it was important the "users of the Hall do not abuse the amenities of residents". What amenities Chris? You're denying access to them. Here's a radical idea from us to you Chris. How about you start leading and stop following?
On June 14th - according to the agreed minutes - Cllr Fletcher put forward a supplementary question about the Public Hall which asked "why" the policy regarding its use had changed. In response, the Council leader, Chris Roberts, said that it was because it had to "operate in the manner [the Council] demands of any other licensed premises in the borough". No mention of complaints from the self-important in his original response we note.
However, on the basis that it's all about licensing, how come the Director General and the nightclub opposite still have licenses? Presumably the Council has been filming in order to establish which premises the urinators and vomiters come out? Or maybe, Chris Roberts was just making it all up as he went along? would it be the first time? - ed
The best part of Chris Roberts' response came at the end though. In an absurd act of contradiction, he said it was important the "users of the Hall do not abuse the amenities of residents". What amenities Chris? You're denying access to them. Here's a radical idea from us to you Chris. How about you start leading and stop following?
Labels: Chris Roberts, scouts, town hall
posted by greenwich.watch at 3:14 pm
11 Comments:
Would this be the same Chris Roberts who is known for throwing stuff around when he doesn't get his way?
That is according to this site; see (july): You can't beat scurrilous gossip....
We did not say he threw stuff around.
Are we allowed to say that Chris Roberts has all the charisma of a dead rat?
That's a bit unfair to dead rats isn't it? What did they do to deserve such an insult?
Now now people, no need to get too personal. Our sheep reference was merely used in relation to our view that he is following people rather than leading them. Comparing him to a dead rat is going a little too far we think.
my mistake on interrupting “cup flying”
Wouldn't you prefer a leader with at least some sort of personality?
does anyone we know live near the dome, sorry the casino
anonymous (9:23), does anyone we know live near the dome, sorry the casino
Why do you ask?
Re indigo:- Just wondered if, as with the public hall, it may influence procedures in some way
Just had a horrible thought: if a mega-casino opens on the Peninsula, it would very likely kill off the Pilot Inn. I'd rather have the Pilot Inn, for all sorts of reasons.
Post a Comment
<< Home