What are we to make of today’s rather hysterical press clamour about the so called revelations in a new book by a guy who used to be Andrew Rawnsley. What is there in the stories which would make us believe them, if you were going to believe that the Prime Minister of Great Britain Gordon Brown is a bully and a foul mouthed lout what evidence would you need to convince you of the veracity of the allegations. Who or what would convince you that he shoved a typist from her chair because she wasn’t typing fast enough and took over, are you prepared to accept that this man who is partially blind and needs type to be extra large to read it thinks he can type faster than a professional typist? Rawnsley says so; no one else can be found to back him up, is this enough for you? He (The P.M.) leapt across the room and grabbed an aide by the lapels and bellowed in his face “they are out to get me” this one comes from Rawnsley as well no one else wants to put their name to it apparently, and so on and so on.
Are you prepared to take the word of the ‘on his way down’ journalist Andrew Rawnsley when he can only offer sources such as ‘an aide’ ‘an insider’ ‘a civil servant’ ‘an adviser’ not one Joe or Jenny Bloggs among them! Brown’s opponents saw a chink of light when a bullying hotline project abandoned their proud policy of confidentiality by saying they had taken calls from No. 10 ‘I wonder why’ well, it turns out that the Project’s main patron is Ann Widdicome and the project has links to the Tories, one of its main members has already resigned, a certain Gary Cooper, he’s high tailed it out of there saying he is appalled by their behaviour. Widdicome would be a good advisor on bullying, as Home Secretary she insisted on women prisoners giving birth while chained to their beds, she is also a model Christian what more could you want?
Rawnsley has of course hit on the perfect shake down; he no longer enjoys much respect and is no longer taken seriously but; as the Observer’s chief political reporter he knows he can write a lurid ridiculous book and have it serialised in his own paper, clever eh? Meanwhile Labour in the last poll were 6 points behind the Tories who are reeling, I think that this manufactured attack on Brown will have the same effect as the fake outrage over the PM’s letter to the dead soldier’s mother which the right wing press and the Conservatives so viciously tried to exploit, that rebounded on them and so will this. If it is proved that Gordon Brown punched his desk and dashed his cabinet papers to the floor because of difficult news coming in from the bank failures or the war in Iraq etc. I would say good, that is how I would react and so would most others, it’s because he cares passionately about what he is trying to achieve for his country. The more we see of him the more we realize that he is opposed by political nonentities who enjoy success because of their backgrounds rather than talent. It’s been a bad day for Rawnsley, the once respected Observer and British politics and I warn you there will be more to come as the Tories and their rich privileged friends find it harder to survive the scrutiny which in fact is only just starting.
Monday, February 22, 2010
THE ANTI BROWN CAMPAIGN GROWS MORE AND MORE HYSTERICAL BY THE DAY.
Posted by Cllr Terry Kelly at Monday, February 22, 2010
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Cllr. Kelly, I have asked on this blog if it's you at my blog, and received an answer in the affirmative.
Yet, the comments are becoming more and more extraordinary. Given the existing complaints you have raised with the Police about alleged impersonation, I think it's prudent to double check with you.
Or what goes around comes around.
Karma is a b*tch, isn't it?
(Efrafan Days) 22/02/10
I haven’t a clue what you are trying to say here.
(Jeanne Tomlin) 23/02/10
Your timing is lousy isn’t it; you are now wishing you had waited a little while; at least until after today’s news before joining with the mob. The mob and you are now looking pretty stupid eh?
Is bullying just part of the labour party then? Cllr Sharkey is a bully and when your group leader warns him about his unacceptable and aggressive behaviour, your group reprimand your leader!!!!!!
You couldn't make it up!!!!!!
It’s perfectly clear that you know nothing about these matters; can I suggest that you write to those concerned including the PDE and they will clear it up for you; then you won’t have to tell lies about it.
so your group didnt reprimand your leader?????
The matter to which you refer was dealt with by the Labour Group to the satisfaction of all concerned and it’s really none of you business.
If it isn't Mags business why was it in the press, with quotes from Labour Councillors???
Do you approve of the way your colleague Cllr Sharkey behaves or do you agree with Cllr McMillan??
You will have to ask the PDX why it was in the papers, it is the Labour groups business alone; if you can find anyone who knows how political parties work you could ask them to explain it to you.
The matter is not closed yet and you might get a surprise.
Guardian, 25th Oct:
'Brown's bullying has paralysed Labour.'
'The Forces of Hell were unleashed.'
Has the Guardian, your paper of choice, gone Tory? Is the Chancellor lying?
Your call, Councillor
It’s touching to see that you think there are no journalists at the Guardian with an anti Brown agenda it’s refreshing to come across such innocence or; perhaps you have never read the paper?
Fine, that's disposed of the Guardian.
Now, the Chancellor and his 'Forces of Hell?'
Darling and Brown don’t include me in their discussions but; I understand that Brown has denied any involvement in this and Darling has just declared Brown as his lifelong friend and he will remain so.
I’m not sure why you are sending such a post, have I missed something? is there any chance of you getting to the point?
Are you claiming Darling never said ' the Forces of Hell' had been loosed on him?
Lovely surprise in todays PDE. Thanks Terry!!!!
I don’t know what you mean.
Cllrs sharkeys complaint thrown out!!
I think that the report said that the standards commission ruled that it was not in the public interest to pursue the matter. I doubt whether you are capable of getting your head round this Billy but that means he was telling the truth but they are not pursuing it.
Cllr. Sharkey was still right and Cllr. MacDonald was still wrong; do you find that too complicated?
If councillor McDonald was wrong then why did your group leader write to her telling her that Councillor Sharkey's version of events was the same as hers and that he had warned Councillore Sharkey about his behaviour.
Are you saying that your group leader is telling lies?
I know that Cllr. McDonald was wrong but; the matter was discussed at the Labour Group where a decision was taken to everyone’s satisfaction.
I suggest you contact those involved in this and put your questions to them; political parties hold group meetings ‘in camera’ so I can’t help you.
I’m sure however that you have made your mind up anyway.
Surely if Councillor Sharkey had been telling the truth then it would have been in the public interest to pursue the matter.
You really are dense Mr Kelly.
What the standards commission were saying was that Councillor McDonald followed the correct procedure for the complaint which was reporting the matter to your Labour group leader.
Your Leader, Iain McMillan then wrote back to Councllor McDonald and said that he had given a warning to Jim Sharkey about his aggressive behaviour.
That should have been the end of the matter.
Councillor Sharkey, however, decided to do a u-turn on his story and told the PDE that Councillor McDonald was lying and that his behaviour was impeccable and gentlemanly. This of course is the biggest laugh.
So this leaves us with the situation that either Iain McMillan your group leader is telling lies (what motive would he have for doing so?)or Jim Sharkey is telling lies (every motive for doing so i.e. to try and save face).
It doesn't take a genius to work it out but probably someone a just a little more clever than you.
It does seem to me that Councillor Sharkey likes reporting women to the Standards Commission. It certainly isn't his first. He must think that they are easy targets. The mark of a true bully.
How do you know Councillor McDonald was wrong?
Do you have proof of this?
Please share it and we can clear this whole matter up very easily and we can applaud you for being right.
But then you can't prove it and you aren't right, otherwise you would have done so already
"I doubt whether you are capable of getting your head round this Billy but that means he was telling the truth but they are not pursuing it."
Why does it mean that he was telling the truth. Please explain.
You know nothing about this; you are desperately trying to nail councillor Sharkey but you can’t; maybe you are just not clever enough.
There is a way for you to sort this out but you might not feel brave enough to do it; just simply contact Jim Sharkey and let him know what your thoughts on the matter are and I’m sure he will help you understand it, I can guarantee he will behave with you as he did with Ms. McDonald like a perfect gentleman.
I know Cllr. McDonald was wrong and the proof of this has already been in the public domain. Are you really so ignorant; so stupid that you think Cllr. Sharkey would embark on all this without proof? You aren’t up for this are you? Contact Jim he will put you right; go on he won’t bite he is the perfect gentleman.
If he had been lying the commission would have said ‘we find against Cllr. Sharkey’ or ‘Cllr. Sharkey has failed to prove his accusations’ or more likely ‘we find Ms. McDonald has no case to answer’ that kind of legalese but they didn’t; they said they did not regard it as being in the public interest to pursue the matter further; this means that he was right but they were not pursuing it, this is common among the legal profession. If Cllr. Sharkey was wrong Ms. McDonald would have been admonished but she wasn’t. It’s not that difficult really but; I’ve dealt with Billy before.
Are you denying that your Group Leader went into writing that Jim Sharkey had admitted his aggressive behaviour and had been warned about doing it in future.
Simple question. Simple yes or no answer would suffice!
"If he had been lying the commission would have said ‘we find against Cllr. Sharkey’ or ‘Cllr. Sharkey has failed to prove his accusations’ or more likely ‘we find Ms. McDonald has no case to answer’ that kind of legalese but they didn’t; they said they did not regard it as being in the public interest to pursue the matter further; this means that he was right but they were not pursuing it, this is common among the legal profession. If Cllr. Sharkey was wrong Ms. McDonald would have been admonished but she wasn’t. It’s not that difficult really but; I’ve dealt with Billy before.
Have passed your comments on to the standards commission for verification.
I hope that you will print their rersponse.
I don't understand.
Why would Iain McMillan Lie.
I know him and I don't think he would lie on this.
What would gain to lie on this matter?
I have answered this several times and advised you as I do again to go and speak to Cllr. Sharkey; you could then make the accusations to his face which you make in your post sent at 19:17 but I doubt that you will or you could resend it with a proper identity and it will them be printed.
I now have a theory that you cannot now reveal your identity because of the embarrassment it would cause you; having displayed such cowardice for so long.
While we are waiting for the Standards Commission to adjudicate would you be so kind as to favour us with your appraisal of their statement?
I agree but write to him and he will explain
"you could then make the accusations to his face which you"
These are not accusations.
They are indisputable facts verified in writing.
What does my identity have to do with anything.
I have not bullied any women or brandied the all as thick!
Not good enough Councillor, Even for you.
I need to know why Iain McMillan would lie to have any confidence in your party again.
Pauline I have tried to explain; these matters were discussed at a Labour Group and decisions were taken which are required to stay within the group.
I am at a loss to understand why you are not prepared to speak to Iain McMillan or Jim Sharkey, if you do that you can discuss it with them; they are the people involved; send me your details at firstname.lastname@example.org and I will get them to contact you if you prefer.
“They are indisputable facts verified in writing”
If you really think you are right why are you afraid to face them; that seems rather a weak argument to me.
“What does my identity have to do with anything”
How would you like it if someone was to make serious allegations against you while hiding their identity? That’s what it has to do with it; you will always lack credibility if you do these things and remain in hiding.
“I have not bullied any women or brandied the all as thick!”
Neither has Iain; Jim or me.
"I have not bullied any women or brandied the all as thick!"
Terry Kelly said
"Neither has Iain; Jim or me."
HOWEVER ON 30/12/2007
Patricia Devlin said
"Why are no women allowed to comment here?
You've mentioned one being banned, you've called a black woman a liar for talking about racism but then no others have been allowed to comment.
Councillor are you a sexist?
Terry kelly replied
"You have just perfectly demonstrated why, it’s because they are thick."
Found to be a liar once again.
Well you think that I was serious do you? you believe that I am saying that all women are thick; you believe that right, you don’t think I was joking do you?
It must have been upsetting for you watching the late Les Dawson hurling all those insults at his mother in law because you know he wasn’t joking don’t you; he really meant them didn’t he; do you ever consider wearing a bull’s eye target on your a**e?
Touched a wee nerve councillor?
Don't like it when your squallid past comes back to haunt you do you.
It's funny how your remarks about women suddenly became "a joke" only after they were printed all over the national press and your embarrassment to the Labour party became unacceptable.
I wonder if your party reprimanded you and gave you a written warning.
They are good at that apparently.
You should ask Iain McMillan. he got one for telling the truth.
Incidentally, I don't recall that Les Dawson was a Councillor or any kind of public servant.
In fact he was a comedian.
You are a Councillor and you are also a great comedian(unconscious type of course).
I would particularly congratulate you on your specialist field of self-parody.
Yes you walked into that didn’t you; you truly believe I was serious when I made that remark don’t you; can you answer that for me and others who might be reading this; do you believe that it was a serious remark?
My remarks did not become a joke; they were a joke, anyone who thinks they were serious is a joke but not a funny one. No wonder we don’t get to see who you are; no one wants to be a laughing stock do they?
Post a Comment