Friday night and two events, first, candidate selection for May elections at the fantastic new St. Benedict's School, a monument to the determination of the Labour Council, despite sneers from my venerable 'china' old Bill Martin, (ex SNP now mighty leader of the Independents, two of, him, and the boay Vassie)who said we would never carry out our promises on education but we are doing it. Linwood now has two excellent council candidates in place Anne Hall & David Lavery who will, with the help of our outstanding MSP Wendy Alexander provide Linwood with honest and hard working representatives.
On to Paisley Town Hall for the Provost's awards ( Provost Burns's last time ) These awards have been a great success and they provide members of our community with recognition for their efforts in helping others. I suspect that most people are, like me, amazed at the way some of these folk manage against the odds to live their lives in such an energetic and confident way. From my own ward of Ferguslie Park we had Margaret Canning sponsored by Maggie McCulloch the chief Elf and the Christmas tree from the photo of the celebrations at the Tannahill centre, printed in a previous blog. These two have the energy of ten and the commitment to match, it was great to see Margaret Canning being awarded for her massive contribution to the people and the area of Ferguslie, I'm proud to be her councillor. The whole evening is a humbling and rewarding experience, well done to our council staff led as always by the able and diligent Drew Gibson ( a benevolent martinet on these occasions ) Previous luminaries, Provosts Nancy Allison and John McDowall were in attendance, drink was taken and a great time was had, as they say by all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
68 comments:
Terry, Can you provide us with the details of the work that Margaret was being recognised for? I am sure we would all like to know.
RFS - No - because I don't trust you, I'm sure you would like nothing better than to pour scorn on how people like her and others in the Ferguslie area work for each other and the neighbourhood. Perhaps you could visit there and ask around, tell them while you are there that they were better off under Thatcher and that they should vote to bring her back, but stay in mufti when you do it, continue to stay in hiding as it were. Unlike you, she is not on an ego trip when she does something charitable.
Why is her work such a secret?
It seems to me that RFS was perfectly polite and it is strange that you should arbitrarily say no.
Unless of course you have something to hide or were merely lying to make the blog sound good?
shotgun - read it again and concentrate really, really hard, right, now see if you can find the bit where I say that I don't trust RFS. Got it? see if you engage your brain first before etc.
Terry,
I worked for many years as a youth volunteer in Paisley. During my time a man I worked with was nominated for these awards at least once (but alas did not receive anything).
I was merely taking an interest in what she did to get herself nominated now the awards have been reminded to me. It never entered my mind to pour scorn on her. I pour scorn on YOU but I have no reason to attack this woman that has only just come to my attention.
I give you my word that I was simply pointing out that your loyal readership may have expected you to list her achievements in support of her nomination and that I was asking if you could correct that omission.
Grow up Terry, this is why we say you stifle debate on your site - you will not even provide further facts on a simple request. Pathetic
RFS - You "give me your word" well, you're not listening, I don't trust you. This is not stifling debate, do your own research.
You worked as a youth volunteer, that makes me shiver, judging by your recent comments I assume that was in the days before disclosure checks.
I think you may have crossed a line... are you suggesting that your political opponents are unfit to work with children or, somehow, predisposed towards paedophillia?
max - go for it. I could just answer no but I can't miss can I ?if you want to see lines getting crossed read some of the stuff written by you and your kind, you all link to each other. If RFS was to apply to work with kids today based on what he writes in his blog, IMO he'd have no chance. Let me know if you disagree and let me know why.
max - since it's you I'll take the utterly pathetic question about my opponents being unfit to work with children and being predisposed to paedophillia as non rhetorical O.K. just for you, you're a special case. The answer is no.
I think that, with me being "special" and all, you're going to have to clarify why RFS would be barred from working with children.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but as far as I can see, his blog contains reasoned coverage of politics from a "right wing" view - but nothing irrational or contorversial.
I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific because, at the moment, it seems to me that you're suggesting that people who do not hold your political views should not be allowed to work with children. Now, such oppression may fly in Cuba, but we still cling to some freedom of speech and thought on these shores.
Cllr Terry Kelly said...
shotgun - read it again and concentrate really, really hard, right, now see if you can find the bit where I say that I don't trust RFS. Got it? see if you engage your brain first before etc.
Prevaricate and disseminate; that should be your new blog name.
So you don't trust him...if that was the case then prove him wrong, unless of course there is something to hide? You want to embarass RFS? Then make the details public...now if you engage brain and be an adult for a change you would see that that would be the best way to deal with RFS if he was as bad as you try and portray him.
Or is that just too simplistic?
I'm glad you retracted that because you've already been in trouble for saying nasty things to political opponents haven't you?
Ooops, sorry, it's only capitalists that are charged and convicted isn't it.....?
That is a disgusting slur. You are unfit to be in public office.
praguetory - go and read what RFS puts on his blog and the blogs he links to, I would be delighted to have this stuff read out in open court.
Terry bends over into his favoured writing-position and fires off what passes for reasoned argument among leftists:
"You worked as a youth volunteer, that makes me shiver, judging by your recent comments I assume that was in the days before disclosure checks."
Terry realises the fact that he quite obviously implied RFS was a paedophile might have repercussions and tries to limit the damage with the following, lame excuse:
"If RFS was to apply to work with kids today based on what he writes in his blog, IMO he'd have no chance."
Terry thinks about this some more. Terry realises this answer sounds about as credible as the prospect of a Dixie Chicks comeback and tries again:
"max - since it's you I'll take the utterly pathetic question about my opponents being unfit to work with children and being predisposed to paedophillia as non rhetorical O.K. just for you, you're a special case. The answer is no."
Terry reasons that maybe, just maybe, this will limit the damage he's done to himself. Terry frets. Terry sweats. Terry really is a total and utter fuckwit, isn't he?
rottweiller puppy - you don't know Terry, Terry would be delighted to have all this stuff read out in court including your contribution.
shotgun - retracted what ?
shotgun - Why would telling people to go and read his and your blog, as well as the others who all link to each other upset you so ?
max - I think that if the disclosure people were to read RFS's blog and some of the others they would not consider them as suitable - you seem to be saying that there is nothing in these blogs which supports this view - even for you max this is stretching things. I tell people to read this disgusting filth and make up their own minds but I won't print it on my blog.
As someone who has recently has a disclosure check, I can assure readers that at no stage do you have to reveal the blogs you write. What planet are you on, Terry?
praguetory - I think you will find that I did not say that you had to declare a blog when having a disclosure - perhaps if you read the things that are written by blogs like RFS, Devils KItchen etc you might conclude, like me that, if they were applying they should have their blogs read, after all they are in the public domain. But I suppose it would mean some of them having to identify themselves. I really find your attitude to this strange, if I was responsible for this and read this filth I would be very uneasy indeed to recommend some of them, for god's sake go and read it.
Terry, I don't have time to trawl through to find the things you don't approve and doubt it would be fruitful anyway. You appear to be (yet another) Leftie who has decided to set themselves up as a blogging policeman and have deemed that you are standing on the morale high ground. Since when did being a policeman mean that you can infer that someone would fail a CRB check? If you were a policeman you'd be out on your ear in no time for this language. I can't believe that you intend to stand your ground on this one.
I still need more help from you Terry - I've looked at the RFS blog again and still see no evidence of "filth". Even the links seem clean... now, I'm no fan of Anne Coulter, but linking to her does not make you unfit to work with children.
Specifics please... you don't even have to reprint the text, just name the articles that offend you and I'll look for them myself.
Terry,
can you point to one or two examples that would disbar me through disclosure?
"go and read what RFS puts on his blog and the blogs he links to, I would be delighted to have this stuff read out in open court."
"Terry would be delighted to have all this stuff read out in court including your contribution."
I'll try this again (since my last two comment seems to have been lost in TK-cyberspace): You keep mentioning courtrooms ... So are you sweating that much about being sued, or is it just that you hope your Nu-Lab pals might close one of the few remaining free-speech loopholes and bring in an anti-sarcasm law?
Cllr Terry Kelly said...
praguetory - go and read what RFS puts on his blog and the blogs he links to, I would be delighted to have this stuff read out in open court.
Your excuse is that someone else did something similiar?
Mind you, you are a New Labour councillor and supporter aren't you, so we shouldn't be surprised.
Cllr Terry Kelly said...
shotgun - Why would telling people to go and read his and your blog, as well as the others who all link to each other upset you so ?
What are you waffling about...again?
According to you it makes you unfi to work with kids if you swear, which is the basis of your argument against others blogs, but it is fine for you to work with them and be a public servant despite being serially censured for thratening behaviour and nasty comments at people because they don't agree with you?
Stop digging.
You can check out the hypocrisy... read the comments to this post
http://brackenworld.blogspot.com/search?q=terry+kelly
shotgun - you've read this stuff and your judgement is that they 'swear' didn't you say somewhere earlier that the army now had brighter soldiers? you must have served a long time ago.
rottweiller puppy - I think you must be getting desperate, going back to this stuff about me not publishing your comments, I think people who read this will decide for themselves, you're pathetic. I can assure you I will continue to direct people to the filth and poison which is written in the blogs of the reactionary right wing thugs who are out there, if the shoe fits !
RFS - I have no intention of climbing into the gutter with you. I am satisfied that your blog, your blog links and your comments to my blog would, if shown to disclosures Scotland render you unsuitable.
max - I can't keep on for ever making allowances for you. If RFS's blog and Devil's Kitchen are 'clean' I'm left to wonder what kind of upbringing you have been subjected to.
prague tory - I find most of this to be drivel. As I mentioned to another of you, I'm one of 8 brothers from a peripheral Paisley housing estate, I have not led a sheltered life. I'm not comfortable with anyone claiming to have the moral high ground but, yes in this instance, yes, me and almost anyone I can think of has the high moral ground over RFS and the squalid bunch that he runs with.
So what you are saying is that you think my writing will disbar me but you cannot cite even one article I have written that would do so.
In other words you cannot backup your accusations. Hmmmm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel
Terry,
Not to labour (boom boom) a point here but you accuse us on the right of being thugs (again with the libel, ever thought of a career in Private Eye?).
DK paints some horrifying images with his prose and a lot of people talk a good fight but the only person here with previous for thuggish behavior is ... you.
Oh, look, here is why the Standards Commission have you on speed-dial:
http://www.standardscommissionscotland.org.uk/04_11_18pr.html
RFS - I've questioned your age before haven't I ?
RFS - Can you show me where I said I couldn't cite one article ? I think I've made it clear but - the examples I've got of your blog, your odious friends blogs and your comments to me would I'm sure, if shown to the relevant authorities make you unsuitable.
So post the examples then.
What I am saying is that you are full of it and you have made an unsubstantiated allegation which I consider to be libellous.
If you can show me one post or one comment I have made that would give the Disclosure people pause for thought then post it here otherwise stop the personal attacks.
Personally I think that any examples you could give would tell us more about you than it would about my suitability to work with children.
RFS - Your blog, the revolting blogs that you advertise and your comments to my blog would IMO have you declared as not suitable by disclosures Scotland. Do you want me to sing it to you ?
RFS - I'm getting tired but, I think you just said "stop the personal attacks" I've read it again, you did say that. You can always console yourself with the thought that you are still running rings round this old socialist and beating him up.
Cllr Terry Kelly said...
shotgun - you've read this stuff and your judgement is that they 'swear' didn't you say somewhere earlier that the army now had brighter soldiers? you must have served a long time ago.
Swearing makes you unintelligent? That view is in and of itself proof positive that you are wrong.
I'm still waiting to be sued BTW for saying, clearly and concisely, that you lie to gain votes..ooops, there I go again.
So to clarify you can't provide any examples of posts that show that I should be in a secure unit or that RFS is unfit to work with children.
Hmmm! Do you think smearing your critics is sufficient to prove them wrong?
What an interesting debating style you have Mr Kelly.
Now go on, put us out our misery will you be standing for election in May or lining your pockets?
clairwil - I know you won't want to hear this but the crack about the secure unit has passed, I have no intention of going over it again, your insistance on still trying to manipulate the mental health issue shows you up as a completely dishonest opportunist, willing to manipulate anything and anyone aren't you. I'm sure that RFS and I know exactly where we are with the other matter.
'Do I think smearing critics makes them wrong' answer no. I can't believe I'm answering this drivel, you are just so bloody awful and thick that I've got to spell everything out. You too have an interesting debating style, christ I'm doing it again. Having been involved in corrupt Labour politics for 40 yrs. I'm already rich, I don't need the money I've stolen enough, so I'm retiring, now crawl back under your stone.
shotgun - you were doing so well to, let me try again for you. I meant that anyone who read this stuff and could only come up with the opinion that 'they swear' is either a fool or is avoiding the issue. I didn't say swearing means you are unintelligent, you're putting years on me, please smarten up, please. Waiting to be sued ? you haven't gone public and accused me of lying have you, and BTW I'm now getting sent email porn.
Oh dear....I would have thought someone of your experience and debating skills** would have understood that ad-hominem arguements and borderline libel based purely on someones political persuasion was absolutely NOT the way to discuss anything.
Accusing someone of being disingenous is one thing, implying that their political beliefs make them unfit to look after children is another thing altogether and if a man in your position doesn't know that...........
Sleep tight with the truth that there are boggle eyed hard line Christian fundamentalists who would regard you as being equally unfit to be present around children.
**Sarcasm
Rottweiler Puppy,
'about as credible as the prospect of a Dixie Chicks comeback'
Really got your finger on the pulse, eh?
ill man - I have no need or desire to 'attack the man' Your middle para. shows you as disingenuous, go back and read what I said and then do your home work and maybe, if you try hard enough, the light will go on, or you could try RFS for an explanation.
Were you describing yourself in your last para ?
I feel a Fisking coming on....
"I have no need or desire to 'attack the man'"
Why the parenthesis? It seems obvious from the thread that you find both a need and a desire to attack the man. Whoever the man is. RFS I assume? For the record, RFS is pretty far from my political stance on most topics. were I to indulge in the lunacy that is online debate, I'd probably be in direct opposition to him. Thing is, I'd maybe do it properly, using rational thought, a bit of wit and the general give and take of reasoned debate. Failing that I'd ignore him and leave him to it. It's amazing how often these approaches work in the crazy world of political sparring. You ought to try it sometime.
"Your middle para. (sic) shows you as disingenuous,"
Consider the following.......
"You worked as a youth volunteer, that makes me shiver, judging by your recent comments I assume that was in the days before disclosure checks." TK
Rather backs up the statement in my middle paragraph does it not? Maybe I am being disingenuous, maybe that's not remotely what you meant at all.......
"or you could try RFS for an explanation."
For an explanation of what? Do tell our Tel. I'm obviously missing so many things here. Can you spell out to me what exactly makes RFS "unfit" for youth volunteer work? Yes, he's a bit of a hawkish curmudgeon and shouldn't be so serious all the time but then you're no bag of giggles either....
"Were you describing yourself in your last para ?"
Now Terry, no need for that. I don't regard you as unfit for anything other than public office.
ILL Man - I don't need to attack the man I'm quite comfortable attacking his opinions.
'If I were to engage in debate, I would etc.' Either we should all be humble in your company or, you're so insecure that you have to tell us all how great you are. Is it me or yourself that you're trying to convince ?
You accuse me of saying that RFS is unfit to look after youths because of his political opinions, absolute rubbish, you are either dishonest or lazy. My remark has nothing at all to do with his politics, he, at least being more honest than you, already knows that.
OK , so you weren't describing yourself in your last paragraph but, you can depend on it that having read your thoughts I'm glad that I've upset you so much.
Point of fact Terry, I do assume that you have said that my political writings have made me unsuitable for youth work.
RFS - Not the case, I doubt if you will fool anyone with this.
Does not matter what "the case is" this is what I took it to mean and in today's glorious world that is all that matters.
It is not the intent, it is the perception.
I freely admit to making an assumption on this one Terry. So, if it's not his politics that makes him unfit, then what is it? I'm sure RFS would love to know as much as the rest of us. What a cryptic little councillor you are.
"If I were to engage in debate, I would etc."
I would hope so.
"Either we should all be humble in your company or, you're so insecure that you have to tell us all how great you are. Is it me or yourself that you're trying to convince ?"
Sorry, teaching Granny to suck eggs again. Can't think why I felt the need to give an elected Councillor tips on debating and social interaction.......
"....you can depend on it that having read your thoughts I'm glad that I've upset you so much."
Ach no, no upset caused at all. The last line of my last comment had been intended somewhat tongue in cheek but these things have a habit of not coming across the way you intend in text form. I'm also impressed that you read my mind. You're wasted in politics Terry, a career in the circus beckons.....
Ill Man - Read RFS's site, read the site's he links to, read his past comments to me and see if you can spot why I said what I did.
RFS is being dishonest and defensive when he says he doesn't know why I made this statement, ask him again, and keep asking until he tells the truth.
The rest of your comment is drivel.
RFS - You are wrong, what matters is the truth and, you are having one helluva time admitting it.
Unfortunately under legislation your party brought in the nature of a comment is always determined by the recipient not the perpetrator.
You say "nice ass" to a lady in the street she can choose to interpret that as admiration of the donkey she is taking for a walk or she can decide it is sexual harassment.
You can say "f*ck off and die" to someone in the office and mean it as a joke but they can still claim bullying behavior because your opinion in the matter does not count.
You handed me the initiative with your comment and I am simply exploiting bad laws your lot drafted to their fullest.
You see in the law the Labour Party has created the truth as little to do with anything.
Just so we are clear Terry this whole thing came about because of this:
;)
Ask anyone what this means at the end of a statement and you will finally realise why you have been played like a fool.
RFS - You are a very bad loser aren't you. What you've done is not difficult, you have shown yourself up, I answered everything sent to me no matter how hostile, because you made that an issue, now it's a joke by you, well done, I really have wandered into the nursery.
RFS - See previous comment at 4.53 pm
I must assume that as you have resorted to personal insults I have won this point?
As a mere voter, albeit the kind of anorak voter who looks at these sites, I lost the will to live about a third of the way through this exchange............but I do wonder how Cllr Kelly has the time to blog so assiduously - and so gratutiously - whilst representing his constituents? and what do wendy, hugh, douglas et al think?
"If you knew me you would know that EVERYONE bows to my superior knowledge of porno ;)"
Is that it? Is that what makes him unfit for volunteer work? Wasn't aware that making jokes about ones imaginary porn collection marked you out as a deviant.
To be honest I have neither the time nor inclination to trawl the pages of your blog for comments made by one person but from what I have read, RFS has probably been one of your better behaved visitors.
As for the links, maybe you have a point.
Ann Coulter is definitely evil ;)
ill man - Ducking and diving, squirming, you are an incestuous bunch, and not very subtle.
I stand by what I said about RFS and who is Ann Coulter ?
You needn't worry about RFS he 'broke my brain' months ago, that's why he writes to me 3/4/5 times a day.
scotto voce - Whisper it, I have a highly paid assistant.
RFS - I'm as contented as I have been for weeks to let others read this stuff, as well as the stuff you and your reactionary friends write in your blogs.
Let them decide who is winning.
Terry,
You will be pleased to know that I now have a poll asking "who is winning?"
It is at the brand new fan site:
TerryWatch
RFS - Let me guess, you are winning aren't you, I still sometimes wonder about your age.
Cllr. Kelly, since Margaret Canning's contribution to local life is an apprent secret, would it be permissible to ask which award she won? You see, accordi8ng to the official Renfrewshire website, the award fro which Margaret was nominated, and I'm sure deservedly, was actually won by Rena Storm (deceased). I stand to be corrected, of course.
The anonymous Jim Lewis
Gomez Jim Lewis - Margaret along with the other nominees won an award, all nominees are given an award, they don't all come top though.
Thank you for providing me with your name, I'd rather know, than not know the name of someone who called me a liar and a weasel.
Post a Comment