paeony

You're kidding?! It wasn't him - it was a female deputy manager. She's done it a number of times I gather. There was an appeal but the manager - must have been PB - supported the female manager. What a git.

No accusation implied or meant. But if it helps I agreed with your post anyway.

Perhaps a better question is what did he get right?

Well, my sons experience was that he was unfairly sacked from a bar there by a Uni manager who appeared to have a grudge against anyone who's face didn't fit. When he posted his comments on a social website it appears there were several others (who came forward with similar stories) who had had the same treatment from this person. I'd say the Uni's choice of staff management leaves a bit to be desired then.

And why not? I can't see how having checks and balances on public bodies are a bad thing in spite of all the PR scaremongering. 25 years ago a LibDem councillor was a close friend. Back then there were indications that under PR we would possibly have had an LD gov't (according to figures he could quote). There are more recent indications that under PR even the Tories would have a much strong(er) presence in Parliament that might have countered some of the excesses of New Labour. I'm hard pressed to see the downside of PR.

Congratulations. My younger son was born there. A more splendid and professional place there is not!

I've been reliably informed now that he gets £181,000PA (or just over if you include expenses etc). And that returning officer is NOT in his job description. You are quite correct.

While I think this is a great campaign - and I'll be there - the LDs will not get PR or remotely close now that they support the Tories.

You're even quicker to assume that I have no information or knowledge. And as usual you resort to sarcasm and derision when the argument doesn't suit you. Grow up.

I'm not sure why any of this is ridiculous. JM receives £180K by your own statement. He was not 'required' to take on this job and it appears not to be part of his JD. If he is CE and a busy person, why take on something that requires time and effort? Why not have someone appointed who has more of both to commit to something so important? If he has time to commit, that begs the question, is he really busy? If he isn't really busy why does he get £180K/can we afford to pay him so much? And why did the polling system go so badly wrong? If he is busy and simply wanted the extra cash, then it can be argued that that says something about him and his morals/principles. Either way it can be argued that it says something about his judgement. Given that, do we want someone like that in charge of our council?

I'm not sure that Blair had any principles to start with.

Cheers - I know a couple of kids who'll be pleased at that.

Ditto.....

While I would normally be the first to criticise the council on this occassion I can't. In fact I think it's to their credit. Installing the digital aerials will remove the need for many elderly, poor and disabled people to have to do it come the switchover. The installation will probably be of a decent/high spec to ensure decent reception (no offence intended to aerial installers on SF). The cost is being partly born - I gather - by CG and possibly other sources. It might go some way to preventing aerials being stuck all over communal buildings by having a central one. I can't see the downside.

...and a guy who can't organise an election. But why you defend him is beyond me. The worst affected place was Ranmoor wasn't it? LD country?