Friday, June 12, 2009

WHEN DOES HAVING £40,00 NOT BENEFIT YOU? WHEN YOU ARE ALEX (THE SPIV) SALMOND THAT'S WHEN - THE SPIV'S EXPENSES (PART 4)

6 days and 60 Nat. comments later and I still haven’t heard from a single SNP person of any kind who is prepared to discuss Salmond (the spiv) and his food expenses. Just as a reminder, he claimed full food expenses for the 2 months in London when Parliament was in recess, for this claim to be honest my understanding is that he would have had to be in London on 40 days during those two months on political business while Parliament was not in session, what do you believe? Even the large numbers of anonymous SNP fearties are not prepared to go there but; never fear; I will continue to seek the truth if only for the sake of bonnie Scotland’s reputation which is being traduced by these tartan blackguards. Not only are they not prepared to question him; they are not even prepared to defend him against my accusations; they have made him into a non person they have made him disappear like Scotch mist.

This refusal to engage on the issue of course allows me to run with it further and; to that end we can consider the following. Tory Leader Annabelle Goldie to First Minister Alex (the spiv) Salmond; I paraphrase, “to avoid rumour and speculation about his expenses for the period during the Parliamentary recess will the First Minister publish his diary for that period” The First Minister responds thus (remember he claims his expenses are rock solid) and again I paraphrase “ it is outrageous that David Cameron leader of the Tory Party accuses me of benefitting from two salaries when he knows ‘fine well’ that I donate one of them £40,000 to a local charitable trust, I demand an apology” you might well ask what that irrelevant crock of bulldung had to do with his food expenses for the period mentioned and the answer of course is nothing at all, it was a blustering deception; a red herring, isn’t it strange how the media miss such things.

Anyway since Alex (the spiv) chose to wrap this particularly devious protective cloak around him it’s only fair that we examine it. Salmond comes under pressure for having 2 salaries; much as he would like to keep them he realizes that the situation is unsustainable and like Baldrick he comes up with a cunning plan. He could have given the salary back to the exchequer and the tax payer but there is no gain in that for (the spiv) his character is such that he has to get an angle somehow so; he resolves to donate the money to a charitable trust; the rest is blindingly obvious. All you need is the brassiest of brass necks to carry it through and (the spiv) never goes anywhere without his tin of Brasso does he?

Alex (the spiv) wrestles with his conscience (OK I know but just bare with me) and asks himself; where should that charitable trust be? Why in my own constituency of course, what should I call it? well; I’ll give it a name with Salmond in it; just in case anyone misses the point that it’s me who is providing the money right.

If you are a politician who donates £40,000 a year to a charitable trust with your name on it in your own constituency do you benefit from that?

Anyone in politics who suggests that he or she does not benefit from such an arrangement displays breathtaking egotism and arrogance, he once again assumes his party will swallow it and again he is right; he treats them with contempt. He can only continue to behave in this way as long as there is no-one in the SNP with the courage to stand up to him.

Here is another collector’s item coming from me, David Cameron was right and Salmond was wrong and he is still wrong to try to exploit this, who is being deceived here? The electorate; yes, his members; yes, his party yes; there may well be others; too painful to mention.

Maybe some identifiable SNP person will address these points, what do you think?

70 comments:

Alan said...

If Alex salmond is receiving 2 salaries, isn't he quite entitled to keep both of them?

Anonymous said...

Not an SNP party member but a voter. I was disgusted by reports of Salmond's expenses claims and hope that he will be dealt with severely. I think his tactic of highlighting the disgusting fraud of the greedy self serving Labour filth that infest politics these days will backfire in the longer term, given that he has been foolish enough to leave himself wide open. People in glass houses and all that.

In order to protest about this state of affairs I did not cast my usual SNP vote at the european elections but voted instead for the Greens. Whether or not I will vote SNP at the general election will depend very much on what happens over the next twelve months or so.

I know quite a few people who feel much the same, I'm surprised you're having difficulty finding them.

To be honest I think all the major parties would be better making the effort to reform the expenses system, deal with those he need dealt with and then have a good long think about why they have so alienated parts of the country that two facists now sit representing the UK in the European Parliament.

Quite frankly the lot of you SNP, Lib Dem, Tory and Labour make me sick with your petty whining at each other over who's claims are worse. A pox on all your houses.

Anonymous said...

I seen Jim Sheridan in Paisley High Street yesterday. He was with Wendy Alexander.

He looks great.

He is obviously getting a great sleep with that luxury Ivory bed with memory mattress that he got the taxpayer to buy for him at just over £1000.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Alan) 09:46

Alan I am getting fed up having to put you right; he is entitled to keep both and that is what he is doing; the fact that he chooses to donate £4o,ooo to a charity bearing his name in his own constituency thus making him look like a fine fellow does not alter the fact that he is receiving two salaries.

In the Holyrood debate about the calling of an election a Labour MSP stated that his income was approx. £250,000 per annum and she wasn’t challenged.

I asked yet again in my post if he was benefitting from making these donations in any way; can you answer that?

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 13:38

I am not interested in who claimed what but I’m not about to ignore the SNP making references to the cost of a Labour MP’s bed when their own leader’s bed cost more.

I agree that all parties have to agree to clean up the expenses system ; that’s what makes me angry at the SNP; everyone agrees that it is an all party problem except the SNP, that makes me say that the SNP and Salmond (the spiv) are beneath contempt, his arrogance in saying such a thing would make me go for him if he was in the Labour Party but his terrified supporters accept his every word out of fear.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 17:58

I am coming to the conclusion that most if not all SNP members and supporters are pretty dim.
Do you reckon that Alex (the spiv) Salmond sleeps well in his 2nd home bed which was dearer than Jim Sheridans, just how thick are you?

Do you understand that? honestly do you? Salmond (the spiv)sleeps on a bed which cost more than Sheridans, paidd for by the tax payer.

Jeeeeeeesus H Christ do you get it?

Anonymous said...

So, if he's giving one of his two salaries away, he isn't actually benefitting financially then?

Wouldn't last long in Scottish Labour with that attitude to money.

Alan said...

If I was in Alex Salmond's shoes and I received 2 salaries to which I am fully entitled the I would have done the same thing as he has done.

If he hands back one salary to the exchequer then than money will disappear into the Labour vault of never ending borrowing and debt.

Instead, he has ensured (without utilising the money himself to upgrade his lifestyle) that the money stays in Scotland and benefits some very worthy causes instead of disappearing into the black hole of Gordon Brown's recession.

He could quite rightly keep this money and use it to spend on Luxury items such as £200 table lamps and expensive plasma televisions with extended warranties (see Jim Sheridan expenses), however, he has chosen not to.

Three cheers for Alex. A man of integrity unlike the Labour fraudsters

Alan said...

If Alex salmond is entitled to 2 salaries then he could accept both of them and use the 2nd salary for expensive luxuries for him and his family

Instead, he chooses to give that his 2nd salary to charity.

In my book that is very commendable.

I would doubt that many Labour or Tory politicians would do similar.

You only have to look back at Henry McLeish (Labour)who took the full whack in 1999/2000 and did not even attend a solitary vote at Westminster. He was closely followed by the late Donald Dewar (Labour) who only managed 5 attendances in that year.

In the same year Alex Salmond attended 22 times.

More than 5 times that of Donald Dewar (Labour)and 22 times that of lazy Henry McLeish(Labour).

In fact Malcolm Chisolm (Labour) and John Home Robertson (Labour) all attended less than half of the Westminster votes that year than every dual mandate SNP MSP.

It's easy to pull out stats terry but to slag Alex Salmond off for donating a large sum of money that he is quite entitled to keep to himself and his family is just plain stupid.

You really are clutching at straws.

Anonymous said...

talking about sheridan and two salaries

remember two jobs Jim? he lifted both his councillors salary and his Westminster salary for 2 years before he started 'donating' it to charity. fine fellow.

Guess which one he donated ? and which party he belongs to.

Alan said...

Although Alex salmond's bed cost slightly more, it is undeniable that he kitted his flat out for almost a quarter of the money spent by Jim Sheridan.

Why couldn't Jimbo have been a bit more cost conscious when he was spending our hard earned cash.

I can just see him at the John Lewis store shouting "Loadsamoney" whilst whopping his wad on the counter.

Of course it wasn't his wad. It was ours.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 13/06/09
A rather obvious attempt to avoid the question so I will ask it again, is he benefitting from two salaries? If you want people to vote for you and you give them large sums of money, will you benefit from that?

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Alan) 13/06/09

Is it any wonder Salmond (the spiv) wears that trademark sneer; he can hardly contain his laughter at sycophants like you.

“(without utilising the money himself to upgrade his lifestyle)”

He could have done any number of things with the money; he chose to buy votes and good publicity for himself with it.

“Three cheers for Alex. A man of integrity unlike the Labour fraudsters”

Full expenses for 40 days in London when Parliament was in recess, that means Parliament was not sitting in case you are struggling with the word; I can't think of any other explanation.

I think I can hear Alex (the spiv) sniggering behind your back.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Alan) 14/06/09

“In my book that is very commendable”

Yes Alan but let’s not forget your book is Janet & John level 1.

Salmond (the spiv) calculated quite rightly that the bad publicity which would be generated by keeping both salaries would be too damaging; that’s why he donates the money. Anyone who thinks that he is doing this out of common humanity is a naive fool.

His character is such that he can’t pass up an opportunity for personal gain; he could not bring himself to donate anything to anyone without benefit to himself; he has never made a selfless gesture in his fraudulent life.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 14/06/09

You seem to be another one who can’t answer this easy to understand question. Does Salmond (the spiv) gain from donating a large sum of money to a charity bearing his name which is in his constituency?

Please let me know if you are struggling to understand the question and I will try to simplify it further.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Alan) 14/06/09

Who’s wad was Salmond (the spiv) grabbing when he was claiming London food allowances when parliament was in recess (that means closed for your benefit) have you any idea how stupid and pointless your comments are; how long will it take before it dawns on you that you can't win this argument
?
I will ask you again; does Alex (the spiv) benefit from donating large sums of money to a charity bearing his name in his constituency?

Alan said...

Just looked a at Renfrewsire councillors expenses for 08/09.

Quite astonded to see that Iain McMillan's (Labour leader of the opposition) expenses were 10 times that of the Leader of the council Derel.

Does Iain have a moat or something?

Hemmerfru said...

"does Alex (the spiv) benefit from donating large sums of money to a charity bearing his name in his constituency?"

Yes. He benefits indirectly through the positive PR acts of charity generate. Probably even more so right now, when this sort of thing will help garner 'Salmond saves orphans' headlines to combat the 'Salmond screws Scotland for exs' stories you've picked up on.

I have a couple of questions which, not being as knowledgable about this story as you are, you might be able to help me with:

Why does he get two salaries?

Does he take a salary from the charity?

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Alan) 13:05

I have a fair idea why Iain McMillan’s expenses would be higher than most and certainly higher than Derek Mackay’s but I’ll leave it to you to work it out; if you give it your full attention and complete concentration it shouldn’t take you much more than 6 months.

I have now concluded that you won't answer my questions about Salmond (the spiv) because you can't and you would rather run away from them.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Hemmerfru) 14:36

Of course he benefits but; his arrogance is such that he can demand an apology from David Cameron for saying that he does, and he can do so knowing that no-one in his party would dare criticise him, he has never done a thing in his life without calculating what’s in it for him.

He is the MP for the area and the MSP for the same area, he was the MP before being elected as an MSP in a later election, I’m not aware of him being paid by the charity.

Anonymous said...

Terry,

Why is it that Iain McMillans expenses are 10 time that of Derek McKay's

You would automatically presume that the the Leader of the council would incur more expenses than the oppostion, however, the oppostion leader's expenses are 10 times that of Derek Mckay.

This is hard to comprehend when the alender of the Leader of the council must be at least as busy if not twice as busy as the leader of the opposition.

Something stinks here!

pauline said...

Actually interested in this.

Why is ian Mcmillans expenses ten times that of derek mckays

You said you had a reason terry

so what is it.

pauline

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 15/06/09
Iain McMillan’s expenses are accurate; go and check them for yourself; it’s hardly my fault if you are too dumb to work it out.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(pauline) 15/06/09

Since it’s you Pauline I’ll give you the reason; I would have preferred a bit more time to make a fool of the SNP comments but I’ll pass up on that.

I would urge you to read the expenses details on Renfrewshire Councils web site, you might find them interesting.

As far as this SNP attempted smear is concerned the most important statistic is the travel exp. column where you can see that Derek Mackay claims nothing and Iain claims £1,652 .50 so; does this mean that Derek runs or cycles everywhere? Of course not, have you seen the official council car, it’s a Jaguar and costs far more to run that any councillors expenses, some people though just love being chauffeured around.

You will also see that rural councillors have the biggest travel claims; this is because their wards are much bigger in geographical terms than urban wards.

As Labour Group leader Iain also has to attend many meetings outside Renfrewshire, in addition his home to office journey is from Johnstone where mine e.g. is 2 miles.

You might conclude from this episode as I do that the SNP are not oly malignant but they are also thick.

Alan said...

Ok,

Taking travel out of the equation for both Iain and Derek, this leaves Iain's expenses at seventeen times that of Derek's.

What do make of that Pauline?

Anonymous said...

Didn't Labour use the council car when they were in office or is this just a new thing from the new administration.

Anonymous said...

Terry
Re your 9.48am comment on Pauline's post.

Can Councillors claim mileage expenses for home to office journeys?

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Alan) 10:41

Let me see now; under Alan’s new SNP system for arithmetic in our independent Scotland £670 (Iain’s exp. – travel) is 17 times greater than Derek’s at £237.

Outside of Alan’s independent Scottish mathematics system; i.e. the rest of the world; £237 x 17 gives us a figure of £4,029. Not quite £670 but, if its Alan’s new Scottish independent arithmetic system then to hell with the world we are Scottish right; and we don’t make mistakes when “coonting the poonds” right?

Alan you are a great source of comfort to me please keep writing in.

Using your new Scottish independent mathematics system would it be OK for me to say the following – imagine I claimed £1 for my expenses instead of the £0 that me and some other councillorsclaim, Derek Mackay would be claiming 236 times more than me and; why is that, and; I think you owe me an explanation; and; is there a point to all this?

Pauline if you are reading this, I said “not only were the SNP malignant but they were thick as well” now you don’t have to take my word for it do you?

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 10:43
Yes and the SNP spent 27 years criticising Labour for using it but; is this relevant I was asked for an explanation and this is part of it, or do you disagree, does Derek really run and cycle everywhere?

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 10:43
Yes.

Anonymous said...

Councillors should not be claiming for mileage form home to office.

This is strictly disallowable by HMRC.

Check their regualtions if you don't believe me.

No employee can claim mileage for this.

Alan said...

Yes Terry, I have made a mistake here and I hold my hands up and unreservedly apologise.

You see, unlike yourself, I do know when I have made a mistake and I do know when to apologise.

By the way, are you aware that the taxman does not allow the claiming of travel expenses such as car mileage between your house and your place of work.

You seemed to infer that this was why Iain's travel expenses were high or have I got this wrong too?

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Alan) 13:33

“You see, unlike yourself, I do know when I have made a mistake and I do know when to apologise”

There are 2 kinds of apology there is gracious and grudging; this is the latter; you really should learn some manners.
“have I got this wrong too?”

Yes you have; at least you are consistent; you are a serial blunderer.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 13:24

Wow! This could be bigger than Westminstergate; go for it anonymous; get the Harry Margolis in right away. I’m off to see my lawyer.

Alan said...

I said that i "unreservedly" apologised.

How do you rate that as a "grudging apology"

You really are a very bitter person

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Alan) 14:52
Even you could not do anything but put your hands up but; you were unable to do it without including a churlish and unjustified attack on me, a distinct lack of class and display of bad manners.

Anonymous said...

Terry @ 2.30
Dont bother with your lawyers T. You only live 2.5 miles from the office and were probably taken gratis in a sedan chair, borne by grateful voters.

But seems to me your man has a problem! If he was claiming mileage from home to office, he was breaking the law and if he wasn't, why were his expenses so high?

Will you ask him please?

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 16/06/09

The grateful voters have elected me 3 times that’s fine without any parades.

Why don’t you go public and take me on; I’ve claimed home to office before and will do so again, I could get legal advice and when it turns out that you are full of bulldung as it will; I can send you his bill, is that fair enough Mr./Ms. Anonymous?

Anonymous said...

Travel between home and office is not considered to be business travel by HMRC and therfore it is against the law to for any employee to claim for this as a tax free expense.

If you have been claiming for this then you and any other person doing so are evading tax and have therefore broken the law.

There is no exemption for councillors I am afraid.

Whilst I think it is unlikely that HMRC would prosecute(I could be wrong), they are, as I understand, entitled to go back over seven years and tax you on any income derived from such claims along with interest and penalties.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 13:01
This is not complicated; either put up or shut up. Accuse me of breaking the law in public and we will take it from there, get on with it.

Anonymous said...

Terry, Terry, Terry, you dont have to explain yourself to me lad.

But, since you so keen to give an explanation, I've pointed up your comments to the Herald, PDX and HMRC

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 17:08
Which anonymous are you? There’s a whole trembling cowering bunch of you out there who are always ready and eager to throw dirt from under your stones, typical Scottish SNP heroes.

Go public you craven coward. .

Pauline said...

It's difficult to take some of these comments seriously when the people writing them struggle to use capital letters and punctuation, never mind construct a reasonable argumant.

Pauline (With a capital 'P')

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Pauline) 16:19

Pauline – we are dealing with people here who are now strutting around bragging about having huge amounts of money to spend; tens and tens of millions but they can’t explain why they are closing South Primary School or Libraries or Sports facilities.

Spelling is an optimistic hope for such folk.

Pauline said...

Although clearly I should have sought to spell 'argument' correctly!!!!!

Mark said...

Yes, you are correct Pauline.

Before criticising others you should get you own house in order.

It is also poignant to point out that Terry seeks to deceive here again.

He knows fine well that the money that is to be utilised for the new investments comes from a capital expenditure budget which cannot be used for the items that he has mentioned which are paid for out of a revenue budget.

Terry has sunk to an all time low here.

Apologies in advance for any spelling and punctuation mistakes.

I think the body of the comment is more important

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Mark) 09:32

Mark – You have chosen to patronise the wrong woman here; Pauline knows more about this than both of us and she is not about to be intimidated by you; believe me I have watched experts try this and seen her teat them with the contempt they deserved.

If you want to tell her about deception you are too late she knows about it; the SNP said this was not about money and then proceeded to talk about nothing else. Showing clearly that money was more important to them than these children’s educational welfare.

Derek Mackay’s latest squalid intervention sees him accuse the parents of South Primary of wanting to shut their neighbouring school Lochfield; something which they have never suggested and want no part of, a typical SNP low blow.

Here is some more SNP deception for you which the parents exposed. The SNP argued for closure on the cost of educating kids at South being too much compared with other schools, the parents pointed out that there were 3 other schools in Renfrewshire which were dearer, tell her about deception; go on, you really should be ashamed; this is children’s futures you are putting at risk here, what kind of people are you?

Mark said...

My point was that you are making out that the administration have loads of money that they are choosing to spend on other developments that have been highlighted in the Paisley Express last week.

I was merely pointing out that you know fine well that the money for these projects cannot be used on the other items that you mentioned in you comment therfore you are seeking to deceive people.

As far as I was aware the main argument for closing South Primary School was the fact that it was two thirds empty and all the pupils could be accomodated very nearby which seems to make sense.

Pauline said...

Mark, if you want to split hairs then by all accounts let's discuss the difference between a fundamental lack of ability to punctuate a sentence, and a typing error. However, I'm sure we both have better things to do.

We have always argued for a 4 school system in Paisley South. However we make no secret of that fact that, should the Council feel so strongly about reducing the number of schools to 3, it would be far more prudent to retain South primary which is a newer school requiring less work.

When we put the figures to Derek Mackay (yet again), the best response he could muster was to whimper that Glasgow City Council is closing more than 20 schools with a higher occupancy of South. The man is a master of avoiding the issue.

On a seperate note, the Council stooped to a new low today. They emptied the children's school so that, when they arrive for their last day on Friday, the classrooms will be empty. This reinforces the recurring message throughout this debacle that the welfare of the children is of no concern to Robert Naylor et al.

Anonymous said...

"Actually interested in this.

Why is ian Mcmillans expenses ten times that of derek mckays

You said you had a reason terry

so what is it.

pauline"

Dear Pauline,
Please take a moment to reflect before you begin commenting on the solecisms and grammatical blunders of others. "Actually interested in this" is not a proper sentence. You might also want to have a quick search for the proverbial vanishing apostrophe (the punctuation mark not the rhetorical figure), and the invisible question mark. Are you employed in any capacity? I sincerely hope not. If you are still at school then I sincerely apologise.
With all kind regards,
Joseph Erkel

Anonymous said...

"...never mind construct a reasonable argumant."
Pauline your beautiful, or is that 'bootiful'? Do you mean 'argument' or 'arrogate'? Are you the other half by chance, of a low brow comedy duo? Leave the thinking to those with an education and take some evening classes.
Dr Gradus

Anonymous said...

"...sought to spell," really should be '...should have spelt'. The past tense of spell is spelt, or spelled in the US, but both are now acceptable in the UK. If you need any other help with written English then I suggest you enrol on a course at one of the lower grade Glasgow colleges. I would advise you to avoid the universities, you will obviously fail to matriculate.

Sincerely,
Stephen Kirkgard

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Mark) 24/06/09

It’s not surprising that you want to change the subject; the SNP awarded pay rises to senior officers which equalled the money required to save the school; that shows their priorities ; they said that they inherited a bankrupt council and it now turns out they inherited a sum of over £14 Million to spend.

The argument put forward for closing South School was that it would be beneficial for the children’s education; they said it was not about money; that’s how gullible they believe that people like you are; same as cutting music tuition; they said and still do that it will improve the children’s musical abilities, did you volunteer to be an SNP target or what?

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Pauline) 24/06/09

Pauline; you are now witnessing the final capitulation of the SNP goons whom you have been beating up since this thing started; as other comments from them here show, they have given up; they have clearly come to the conclusion that they have lost the argument; and that they are unable to lay a glove on you, well-done.

Mackay’s attack on you and the parents where he accused you of seeking the closure of other schools was scurrilous and smacked of desperation. In addition to the “new low” you mention you would have seen another “new low” in the council chamber today when the SNP displayed arrogance and contempt for the parents by putting forward an insulting amendment which said only “council congratulates parents on their hard work” make no mistake about it Pauline when these morons you are arguing with decide with obvious collusion to attack you personally and avoid the issue you have won hands down.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 24/06/09

Why don’t you just get it over with and say; "Pauline you win; we are now reduced to 'ad hominem' attacks because you have beaten us"

She has taken on the SNP thugs and won; clearly these orchestrated attacks prove that beyond doubt, well done Pauline; keep fighting.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 24/06/09
Yet another confession of defeat by the SNP thugs, attacking the person rather than the persons argument, delicious, complete comprehensive defeat, go Pauline go!

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 24/06/09

Priceless; Pauline complete and total victory is yours; it’s hard to believe that even these SNP clowns would walk into this mess.

Does Stephen want to discuss the school closure; no; does he want to discuss the fabric of the school; no; does he want to discuss the cost of educating children; no; how about the disruption to the kids; no again.
Well; what does “Braveheart Stephen” want to discuss? He wants to discuss spelling; he wants to discuss what is past tense.

Was there ever a more comprehensive admission of defeat? Pompous ‘ad hominem’ attacks are no substitute for argument; this is an embarrassing gubbing for the Nat. mob of bullies and thugs.

Attacking someone like this is fraught with danger; my daughter (BA English hon. Glasgow University) pointed this out as she observed that a semi colon was better than a coma after “universities”

Stephen will you ever be able to make yourself known after this?
P.S. I don’t spend too much time trying to cross the T’s and dot the I’s getting my point across does me.

Anonymous said...

"Attacking someone like this is fraught with danger; my daughter (BA English hon. Glasgow University) pointed this out as she observed that a semi colon was better than a coma after “universities” ."

Aye, 2:2 or third class I bet! Heh heh!

Anonymous said...

When a political crony criticises a person's 'capital letters and punctuation', it's great and she has them on the run. When others do it, they are 'thugs' and simpletons. Enough of this cynicism and shallowness.
Cheerio!

Pauline said...

Joseph, had you bothered to read what was written rather than merely spoiling for an argument, you'd have realised that the post by "pauline" was not written by me.
Stephen, I am very grateful for your advice but I already have a degree. I think you'll find my comment related to the lack of basic ability to use capital letters and punctuation.
My grammar may have raised some valid points, but I notice none of you have anything constructive to add in relation to the disgraceful behaviour of the SNP/Lib Dem administration over South Primary. Perhaps there are some things which cannot be defended.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Ariel) 25/06/09

Things were much simpler in my world when I was younger; my position on private health is clear but; I recall arguing with someone about this who shot me down by asking what I would do if one of my children was ill and I had the money to speed up treatment by going private.

The position is that she would not get my vote and she should not be in her position or indeed in the Party; this also applies to those who educate their children privately; but the best way to do it is to ban these options and you can’t do that without being in power.

Do you think that Alex (the spiv) Salmon should continue in his place following his expedient conversion to the cause of the British Monarchy?

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 25/06/09
It wasn’t difficult to nail you was it? I made up the daughter story you cretin. Beating up Nats. is getting boring; can you not try harder?

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 25/06/09

I tend to agree and it’s not something I do but; they went over the top here and made fools of themselves; they made it an orchestrated bullying attack because she was beating them up.

You are doing the same by introducing a “political crony” who doesn’t exist, I have barely spoken 10 words to Pauline and I barely know the woman, you should learn from her and her parents group they have humiliated the SNP and they aint finished yet; but best of all; they have made it an issue that people will remember.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Pauline) 25/06/09

“My grammar may have raised some valid points, but I notice none of you have anything constructive to add in relation to the disgraceful behaviour of the SNP/Lib Dem administration over South Primary. Perhaps there are some things which cannot be defended”

With one scornful sweep of her pen she once again slaps down the SNP / Lib. Dem. pygmies; if this was a sport it would be banned for cruelty.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Pauline could enlighten us as to why so many Parents that live in the South Primary Catchment area, choose to send their children to Lochfield and other schools.

If South Primary is so good, why don't all of the Parents in the catchment area send their children there automatically.

It seems that a very large percentage of pupils in this area go elsewhere through placement requests.

Anything to say on this Councillor/Terry/Pauline (with a big P of course)

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 11/07/09

Who said this is about education improvement and not about money? Answer = the SNP

Who said that the reason for closure was the cost of educating a child at South Primary was too costly ? answer the SNP.

Who was forced to admit that South Primary was not the most expensive school to educate a child? Answer = the SNP.

Who was forced to admit that there were 3 other schools which are more expensive to educate a child than SouthPrimary? answer = the SNP.

Who refuses to explain why the other 3 are not being subjected to the same fate as South Primary ? answer the SNP.

Perhaps a look at the catchment areas might enlighten you as well;and the age of respective schools and amounts to be spent while knocking down a new school.

You could try asking these questions if you were genuinely interested in the provision of our children’s education rather than an anonymous pathetic SNP plant .

Anonymous said...

Once again you dodge the question Terry.

A very large percentage of parents in the catchment area of South Primary School, choose not to send their children there, leaving the school two thirds empty.

If this is such a good school you would think that parents would be desperate for their kids to go there and yet they choose to send them to Lochfield and others.

And incidentally, Labour are closing several schools in Glasgow and the reason they have cited for some of these is low occupancy.

Guess what? These schools have higher percentage occupancy than South Primary.

You are the party of hypocrisy. Of that there is no doubt.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Anonymous) 12:28

“Once again you dodge the question Terry”

At the last council meeting where South Primary was on the agenda the SNP refused to enter into the debate and simply moved a one line amendment which they voted through to close the school.

If their and your argument is so powerful why did they run away from the argument? Did they dodge the question; did they dodge the question when they had the debate about music tuition cuts abandoned? Who are the dodgers here? You haven’t answered any of my points either; once again the word anonymous is synonymous with the SNP.

Alan said...

Let me put it to you again Terry for avoidance of doubt.

Why do such a high percentage of parents in the South Primary catchment area choose to send their children to other schools on placement requests leaving South Primary two thirds empty.

Why do they not want their kids to go to South Primary?

A good school would normally be inundated with additional placement requests. But not South Primary. Why is this??

Can you answer this without responding with a barrage of other questions to detract from this?. It appears not.

Cllr Terry Kelly said...

(Alan) 13/07/09

“A good school would normally be inundated with additional placement requests”

South Primary received an outstanding HMI report just before its closure was announced.

The fact that 3 other Renfrewshire Primary Schools cost more to educate a child than South Primary makes your argument completely worthless.

The SNP are on record as saying that the closure is not about money, can you explain that?