My local council

3 Sep 2010

Quote by foxylady2209
In the private sector he would have been sacked.
But not in the job for life councils...........perish the thought, what about his pension?

He is a councillor lol

. It is not a job but politics.
Do keep up Kenny and try to read the links that you are getting irked about
Dave_Notts
If he gets any money whatsoever for it - it's a job. Even expenses - cos if he wasn't doing the 'job' he wouldn't be incurring the expenses. biggrin

Councillors get paid an allowance plus expenses but it is not a job, it is an office, and as such is not subject to normal employment law.
However, all councillors are required to treat people with respect - it's part of the standards regime introduced by the last government, which this government wants to abolish. Wonder why that is?

3 Sep 2010

Hmmmmm..........it is a job no matter what anyone says.
" Each Councillor receives an annual basic Allowance of £7,610 , which is paid in monthly instalments and is subject to tax and National Insurance deductions ".

If you pay tax and National Insurance contributions, it is a job.
Mind you that figure above is only a BASIC allowance.... " The Council pays an additional allowance to Councillors who are office holders and who have special responsibilities ".
Additional eh? That is obviously more money to add to the figure above, including deductions of course.
It is playing with words to say it is not a job....of course it is. They get paid for it ffs.

3 Sep 2010

Councils may well have to show respect, but as I stated already they show contempt in large bucket loads....

Are these numpties really worth these kind of obscene ammounts? Even though councils are having to make cut backs and lay off staff?
Maybe there should be another commandment added but this time for high flying council officials...
Look after oneself and fuck all the little men and women, as I am alright Jack.
Sort of has a ring to it.
This paragraph sums it up....
" 'In the last ten years council tax has more than doubled, but instead of this money going on better services for households, it's being paid out to senior officers in over-generous salaries ".
And lovely high gold plated pensions too let us not forget.

4 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
However, all councillors are required to treat people with respect - it's part of the standards regime introduced by the last government, which this government wants to abolish. Wonder why that is?

Because it quite simply oppresses the freedom of individuals who wish to serve their communities. It created a whole new layer of unaccountable faceless individuals hell bent on Councillor bashing putting them in fear of having to go on a course to learn respect when engaged in heated debate with fellow councillors trying to negotiate the best deal for the community.
It also meant signing your life away; Local Councillors had a much more rigid regime than MP's did and there was little if any right to appeal.
Many Councillors I knew, including myself, resigned on the introduction of these draconian measures. It was a typical knee jerk reaction sledge hammer to crack a very tiny nut. The majority of local Councillors were dedicated people, never claimed a penny in expenses and did it simply for the love of the their community, as I did.
Guess who paid for these draconian measures?
The local tax payer, every time and it did no more than encourage many of those Councillors who remained (and those elected since) to bleed the system for every penny they can get to compensate them for the imposition.

4 Sep 2010

Fill ones boots.

4 Sep 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob

only for waving a Canadian flag

That was a strange thing. If foreign nationals cannot vote........how can a Canadian become a Councillor?
Dave_Notts
so you didn't read the link either................................ tuts
he had duel nationality flipa

I didn't realise that dual nationality allowed you to run for MP or Councillor. I thought you had to be British. Well you live and learn..........and yes I read that bit, thats why I asked the question :silly:
A bit like Arnie in America where he had to have full USA nationalization to be Govenor.......even though he was barred from running for president as he was not first generation American
Dave_Notts

4 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Hmmmmm..........it is a job no matter what anyone says.
" Each Councillor receives an annual basic Allowance of £7,610 , which is paid in monthly instalments and is subject to tax and National Insurance deductions ".

If you pay tax and National Insurance contributions, it is a job.
Mind you that figure above is only a BASIC allowance.... " The Council pays an additional allowance to Councillors who are office holders and who have special responsibilities ".
Additional eh? That is obviously more money to add to the figure above, including deductions of course.
It is playing with words to say it is not a job....of course it is. They get paid for it ffs.

Don't matter how many "ffs" or "no matter whatever anybody says" you are simply wrong.
It is an office that they are elected to. You can believe or think it is a job but you are wrong. They are not held responsible as the employer. This is down to the CEO.
Dave_Notts

4 Sep 2010

Quote by GnV

However, all councillors are required to treat people with respect - it's part of the standards regime introduced by the last government, which this government wants to abolish. Wonder why that is?

Because it quite simply oppresses the freedom of individuals who wish to serve their communities. It created a whole new layer of unaccountable faceless individuals hell bent on Councillor bashing putting them in fear of having to go on a course to learn respect when engaged in heated debate with fellow councillors trying to negotiate the best deal for the community.
It also meant signing your life away; Local Councillors had a much more rigid regime than MP's did and there was little if any right to appeal.
Many Councillors I knew, including myself, resigned on the introduction of these draconian measures. It was a typical knee jerk reaction sledge hammer to crack a very tiny nut. The majority of local Councillors were dedicated people, never claimed a penny in expenses and did it simply for the love of the their community, as I did.
Guess who paid for these draconian measures?
The local tax payer, every time and it did no more than encourage many of those Councillors who remained (and those elected since) to bleed the system for every penny they can get to compensate them for the imposition.
The taxpayer wanted openess and transparency, and not the little man or woman behind closed doors being able to call favours for their mates. So you may think it is a sledgehammer but I look at it as progression.
Does it still happen? Of course it does as there is still greed out there.....just look at the google links or even the Pakistan Cricket team affair.......greed is human. I believe though that those in office are being caught out more now than in the "good old days" when it was run by a load of "mates". This has happened because of the "Draconian" measures brought in......and if it gets rid of a couple of dodgy ones then good riddance.
Dave_Notts

4 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

However, all councillors are required to treat people with respect - it's part of the standards regime introduced by the last government, which this government wants to abolish. Wonder why that is?

Because it quite simply oppresses the freedom of individuals who wish to serve their communities. It created a whole new layer of unaccountable faceless individuals hell bent on Councillor bashing putting them in fear of having to go on a course to learn respect when engaged in heated debate with fellow councillors trying to negotiate the best deal for the community.
It also meant signing your life away; Local Councillors had a much more rigid regime than MP's did and there was little if any right to appeal.
Many Councillors I knew, including myself, resigned on the introduction of these draconian measures. It was a typical knee jerk reaction sledge hammer to crack a very tiny nut. The majority of local Councillors were dedicated people, never claimed a penny in expenses and did it simply for the love of the their community, as I did.
Guess who paid for these draconian measures?
The local tax payer, every time and it did no more than encourage many of those Councillors who remained (and those elected since) to bleed the system for every penny they can get to compensate them for the imposition.
The taxpayer wanted openess and transparency, and not the little man or woman behind closed doors being able to call favours for their mates. So you may think it is a sledgehammer but I look at it as progression.
Does it still happen? Of course it does as there is still greed out there.....just look at the google links or even the Pakistan Cricket team affair.......greed is human. I believe though that those in office are being caught out more now than in the "good old days" when it was run by a load of "mates". This has happened because of the "Draconian" measures brought in......and if it gets rid of a couple of dodgy ones then good riddance.
Dave_Notts
What about the loss of the perfectly honest and above board ones which was the point of my posting which you cared to quote?

4 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Hmmmmm..........it is a job no matter what anyone says.
" Each Councillor receives an annual basic Allowance of £7,610 , which is paid in monthly instalments and is subject to tax and National Insurance deductions ".

If you pay tax and National Insurance contributions, it is a job.
Mind you that figure above is only a BASIC allowance.... " The Council pays an additional allowance to Councillors who are office holders and who have special responsibilities ".
Additional eh? That is obviously more money to add to the figure above, including deductions of course.
It is playing with words to say it is not a job....of course it is. They get paid for it ffs.

Don't matter how many "ffs" or "no matter whatever anybody says" you are simply wrong.
It is an office that they are elected to. You can believe or think it is a job but you are wrong. They are not held responsible as the employer. This is down to the CEO.
Dave_Notts
Ok Davey you have it your way....
So somebody gets paid to do a job,whether elected or not....pays tax and National insurance contributions, but it is not a job?
I think others may well see different as a job is... " A regular activity performed in exchange for payment ".
I can see how you would not label it a job.
Is it only council officials who can have such strange job titles, and then it is actually not a job because they were elected.
Union officials are elected, is that not a JOB of work either?
I bet an allowance has tax perks attached to it.
It still seems a nice sum of money for an " allowance ".

4 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Hmmmmm..........it is a job no matter what anyone says.
" Each Councillor receives an annual basic Allowance of £7,610 , which is paid in monthly instalments and is subject to tax and National Insurance deductions ".

If you pay tax and National Insurance contributions, it is a job.
Mind you that figure above is only a BASIC allowance.... " The Council pays an additional allowance to Councillors who are office holders and who have special responsibilities ".
Additional eh? That is obviously more money to add to the figure above, including deductions of course.
It is playing with words to say it is not a job....of course it is. They get paid for it ffs.

Don't matter how many "ffs" or "no matter whatever anybody says" you are simply wrong.
It is an office that they are elected to. You can believe or think it is a job but you are wrong. They are not held responsible as the employer. This is down to the CEO.
Dave_Notts
Ok Davey you have it your way....
So somebody gets paid to do a job,whether elected or not....pays tax and National insurance contributions, but it is not a job?
I think others may well see different as a job is... " A regular activity performed in exchange for payment ".
I can see how you would not label it a job.
Is it only council officials who can have such strange job titles, and then it is actually not a job because they were elected.
Union officials are elected, is that not a JOB of work either?
I bet an allowance has tax perks attached to it.
It still seems a nice sum of money for an " allowance ".
Go do it then? And like the chap from Rotherham, he tried to change it from the inside and not just whinge on the outside. His first action was to cut the salary of his post.
I am arguing that it is not classed as a job. How much their allownaces are is another matter. You seem to confuse the two. I have made my stance on how much senior officers get.....but you seem to not comprehend what I am saying. dunno

If you do not know then just ask, instead of going off on a confetti argument.
Dave_Notts

4 Sep 2010

Quote by GnV
What about the loss of the perfectly honest and above board ones which was the point of my posting which you cared to quote?

You get some who can not face change I am afraid and they have their principals that they want to follow so fall on the sword instead of doing what they should be........doing the best for their community.
If they were above board and honest then they have nothing to fear from more open and transparent government. As a taxpayer this is what I want. Accountability by those elected. This will bring a cost, but if it is not open how do we know it is not costing us more?
Dave_Notts

4 Sep 2010

Yes I take your points Davey.

4 Sep 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

What about the loss of the perfectly honest and above board ones which was the point of my posting which you cared to quote?

You get some who can not face change I am afraid and they have their principals that they want to follow so fall on the sword instead of doing what they should be........doing the best for their community.
If they were above board and honest then they have nothing to fear from more open and transparent government. As a taxpayer this is what I want. Accountability by those elected. This will bring a cost, but if it is not open how do we know it is not costing us more?
Dave_Notts
Bilge!
I decided to "fall on my sword" as you eloquently put it but not without first weighing up the pro's and con's carefully.
I didn't resign as such, I decided not to seek re-election. I did so on the basis that my private life is and should remain so - private - but the new regulations would have changed all that at a time when MP's private lives would not be similarly placed in the public domain.

4 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Councils may well have to show respect, but as I stated already they show contempt in large bucket loads....

Are these numpties really worth these kind of obscene ammounts? Even though councils are having to make cut backs and lay off staff?
Maybe there should be another commandment added but this time for high flying council officials...
Look after oneself and fuck all the little men and women, as I am alright Jack.
Sort of has a ring to it.
This paragraph sums it up....
" 'In the last ten years council tax has more than doubled, but instead of this money going on better services for households, it's being paid out to senior officers in over-generous salaries ".
And lovely high gold plated pensions too let us not forget.

Instead of peppering your posts with insulting phrases such as "numpties", perhaps you could suggest what you believe is a sensible salary for being the CEO of a public sector business employing thousands of staff and responsible for a budget of hundreds of millions of pounds?
You forever go on about the private sector, but the situation that has arisen regarding executive pay is largely because councils and other public sector bodies have been advised for many years that they need to learn lessons from the private sector and pay the best to attract the best. That is combined with the fact that Chief Executives now have more responsibility than ever before. It's not just about delivering services any more. It's about attracting inward investment, developing the economy, increasing business start ups, tourism - the list goes on and on and would make your eyes water. The CEO often leads the local community safety partnership tasked with reducing crime. And also takes the lead on local area agreements where all public sector organisations in an area work together on a series of targets. I don't expect you to know any of this because most lay people don't, but to just criticise a salary because it is large without taking into account the vast, vast range of roles and responsibilities is absolute folly. The basic premise of any job is that the more responsibility you have, the larger the salary. To condemn them as "numpties" when you have probably never, ever worked or even met a Chief Executive is naive. Once again your view of the issue is solely framed through what you read in the papers rather than any practical experience. A good Chief Executive who inspires their staff and can work well with the private sector to attract investment and jobs is worth every single penny in my book. The number of people on six figure salaries in any council is very small in comparison with the size of the overall workforce. Look behind the headlines at the overall context.

4 Sep 2010

Quote by GnV
Bilge!
I decided to "fall on my sword" as you eloquently put it but not without first weighing up the pro's and con's carefully.
I didn't resign as such, I decided not to seek re-election. I did so on the basis that my private life is and should remain so - private - but the new regulations would have changed all that at a time when MP's private lives would not be similarly placed in the public domain.

Thats your choice, as an individual, to not stand.
As a taxpayer I expect to see what "private" jobs or interests the councillor has so I know that no funny things are happening on a local scale. That kind of "interference" is justified in my books. The days of a mate of a mate should be gone, and accountability and openess should fill its void.
As far as MPs are concerned, they should be in the same position as local councillors and the same rules apply to them.
If people don't like it then they shouldn't apply to be a local politician.
Dave_Notts

4 Sep 2010

Quote by Stevie J
Instead of peppering your posts with insulting phrases such as "numpties", perhaps you could suggest what you believe is a sensible salary for being the CEO of a public sector business employing thousands of staff and responsible for a budget of hundreds of millions of pounds?
You forever go on about the private sector, but the situation that has arisen regarding executive pay is largely because councils and other public sector bodies have been advised for many years that they need to learn lessons from the private sector and pay the best to attract the best. That is combined with the fact that Chief Executives now have more responsibility than ever before. It's not just about delivering services any more. It's about attracting inward investment, developing the economy, increasing business start ups, tourism - the list goes on and on and would make your eyes water. The CEO often leads the local community safety partnership tasked with reducing crime. And also takes the lead on local area agreements where all public sector organisations in an area work together on a series of targets. I don't expect you to know any of this because most lay people don't, but to just criticise a salary because it is large without taking into account the vast, vast range of roles and responsibilities is absolute folly. The basic premise of any job is that the more responsibility you have, the larger the salary. To condemn them as "numpties" when you have probably never, ever worked or even met a Chief Executive is naive. Once again your view of the issue is solely framed through what you read in the papers rather than any practical experience. A good Chief Executive who inspires their staff and can work well with the private sector to attract investment and jobs is worth every single penny in my book. The number of people on six figure salaries in any council is very small in comparison with the size of the overall workforce. Look behind the headlines at the overall context.

I kind of agree with you about the job they do but I still cannot justify the wages that some senior officers get. Especially when it is more than certain Ministers.
These people do not have to make a profit, they just have to balance the books and make the decision of what service is not going to be given. The last is the hardest thing they have to do as they have to justify it to the community.
Dave_Notts

4 Sep 2010

Quote by Stevie J
To condemn them as "numpties" when you have probably never, ever worked or even met a Chief Executive is naive

I have actually through my years of playing golf, and he was a big numpty.
How he ever got into the position he did I find baffling, as he could not even add his scorecard up, and I would have thought figures and adding up was part of the job. dunno

He used to say a lot of his work was mindless and endless meetings with other numpties.
As has been said before...how can you have these people earning 350 grand upwards, far in excess of what the PM earns?
Not all of them are obviously numpties, but if the one I knew was anything to go by then there are certainly some right numpties working in councils being paid vast sums of money from the public purse.

4 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
To condemn them as "numpties" when you have probably never, ever worked or even met a Chief Executive is naive

I have actually through my years of playing golf, and he was a big numpty.
How he ever got into the position he did I find baffling, as he could not even add his scorecard up, and I would have thought figures and adding up was part of the job. dunno

He used to say a lot of his work was mindless and endless meetings with other numpties.
As has been said before...how can you have these people earning 350 grand upwards, far in excess of what the PM earns?
Not all of them are obviously numpties, but if the one I knew was anything to go by then there are certainly some right numpties working in councils being paid vast sums of money from the public purse.
That's a bit like me presuming that everyone in Kent is like you. You can't judge an entire profession on your experiences of one person.
On the subject of the PM, contrary to popular opinion, he doesn't actually run any public services. His job is similar to that of a council leader - setting overall policy and making decisions based on advice from civil servants. The equivalent job of a council Chief Executive in Whitehall is the Head of the Civil Service which is Sir Gus O'Donnell. He too earns more than the PM...£240k is the latest figure I can find. And unlike the PM, Chief Executives don't get two homes while in office - number 10 and Chequers - and virtually everything paid for.

4 Sep 2010

For a long time the biggest employer in Bexley was the local authority. The second biggest employer was a big company. From memory the CEO of the company was paid about 3 times what the council chap was.

4 Sep 2010

Quote by Stevie J
That's a bit like me presuming that everyone in Kent is like you

I do not know to take that as a compliment, or a piss take.
I think I will take it as the first, as I know a lot of people in Kent far worse than me......loud mouthed right wing tossers that they are.:grin:

4 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
That's a bit like me presuming that everyone in Kent is like you

I do not know to take that as a compliment, or a piss take.
I think I will take it as the first, as I know a lot of people in Kent far worse than me......loud mouthed right wing tossers that they are.:grin:
the others moved west.... wink

4 Sep 2010

Whether it's called a job or not - they certainly shouldn't have the power to set their own wages - even if it is to reduce it. The next one can just come in and raise it again.
And the mps and civil 'servants' (misnomer if ever there was one) should be the same. Since they are our servants, we should set their wages - how about setting it at 0.8 times the average (legitimately paid and taxed) salary of their constituency? That would give them an incentive to improve the standard of living of the people who voted them in.

5 Sep 2010

Quote by foxylady2209
Whether it's called a job or not - they certainly shouldn't have the power to set their own wages - even if it is to reduce it. The next one can just come in and raise it again.
And the mps and civil 'servants' (misnomer if ever there was one) should be the same. Since they are our servants, we should set their wages - how about setting it at 0.8 times the average (legitimately paid and taxed) salary of their constituency? That would give them an incentive to improve the standard of living of the people who voted them in.

I like that idea
:thumbup:

5 Sep 2010

In this council the " allowance " is over ten grand.
Plus there can be additional " allowances " on top though I cannot find a scale of these.
Lichfield District Council pays a basic allowance of per year, with extra special responsibility allowances for those who hold certain posts within the council.
Just like with everything councils do, why can they not just have a " allowance " that is the same in every council?
Why does one pay over ten grand and the other pay 2,500 year?
Is there a sliding scale in what one councilor does at one council, and what another does at another council?
Does the one getting an " allowance " of ten grand do any more work than the one earning a 1/4 of that figure?
As with most councils nothing is ever the same at the next council or the next.

5 Sep 2010

Quote by kentswingers777

In this council the " allowance " is over ten grand.
Plus there can be additional " allowances " on top though I cannot find a scale of these.
Lichfield District Council pays a basic allowance of per year, with extra special responsibility allowances for those who hold certain posts within the council.
Just like with everything councils do, why can they not just have a " allowance " that is the same in every council?
Why does one pay over ten grand and the other pay 2,500 year?
Is there a sliding scale in what one councilor does at one council, and what another does at another council?
Does the one getting an " allowance " of ten grand do any more work than the one earning a 1/4 of that figure?
As with most councils nothing is ever the same at the next council or the next.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
Do you not actually absorb anything that has been explained to you previously?!
You are comparing a district council with a county council.
They are NOT the same thing!
A county council is responsible for major services across a large area.
A district council is responsible for a much smaller patch, with each councillor serving a much smaller number of electors.
It is like comparing a tiny printing firm employing five people with a large multi national employing several thousand. The large firm will invariably pay its staff far more because of the additional responsibility and larger budgets.
Can I suggest you approach your local councillor and ask them to spend a day or a week shadowing them to see that they do and what they are responsible for?
Instead of making a complete fool of yourself by posting comments that expose your great ignorance in all matters relating to public service.
But we all know you won't.
Because time after time you demonstrate you're not interested in the truth - much prefering to base your "wisdom" on ill judged presumptions and misinterpretations.

5 Sep 2010

Quote by GnV

However, all councillors are required to treat people with respect - it's part of the standards regime introduced by the last government, which this government wants to abolish. Wonder why that is?

Because it quite simply oppresses the freedom of individuals who wish to serve their communities. It created a whole new layer of unaccountable faceless individuals hell bent on Councillor bashing putting them in fear of having to go on a course to learn respect when engaged in heated debate with fellow councillors trying to negotiate the best deal for the community.
It also meant signing your life away; Local Councillors had a much more rigid regime than MP's did and there was little if any right to appeal.
Many Councillors I knew, including myself, resigned on the introduction of these draconian measures. It was a typical knee jerk reaction sledge hammer to crack a very tiny nut. The majority of local Councillors were dedicated people, never claimed a penny in expenses and did it simply for the love of the their community, as I did.
Guess who paid for these draconian measures?
The local tax payer, every time and it did no more than encourage many of those Councillors who remained (and those elected since) to bleed the system for every penny they can get to compensate them for the imposition.
I haven't read such tosh for years.
Standards panels on councils, who do the bulk of the work under the Standards code, aren't faceless; they're made up of council members!
The idea that council members should be free to be racist, violent or offensive is simply nonsense; councils had failed to regulate themselves, so along came the Standards Board.
I'm sorry you resigned as a councillor rather than live under the Standards regime, but, frankly, your misunderstanding and misrepsentation of it isn't much of an advert for your skills.

5 Sep 2010

Quote by foxylady2209
Whether it's called a job or not - they certainly shouldn't have the power to set their own wages - even if it is to reduce it. The next one can just come in and raise it again.
And the mps and civil 'servants' (misnomer if ever there was one) should be the same. Since they are our servants, we should set their wages - how about setting it at 0.8 times the average (legitimately paid and taxed) salary of their constituency? That would give them an incentive to improve the standard of living of the people who voted them in.

Run that past me again. So every civil servant should have their salary set at 0.8 times the average salary of the parliamentary constituency where they live? Did you really just say that?

5 Sep 2010

Quote by Stevie J
Do you not actually absorb anything that has been explained to you previously?!
You are comparing a district council with a county council.
They are NOT the same thing!

I am aware they are not the same thing, but are you telling me that they all exercise the same wage structures because of that point?

Quote by Stevie J
A county council is responsible for major services across a large area.
A district council is responsible for a much smaller patch, with each councillor serving a much smaller number of electors.

Yes am aware of that also, so are you saying that in every case because one is smaller than the other, that the smaller one will always pay less??

Quote by Stevie J
It is like comparing a tiny printing firm employing five people with a large multi national employing several thousand. The large firm will invariably pay its staff far more because of the additional responsibility and larger budgets.

Not always the case and certainly not in the print business, unless you can prove otherwise. Things are not always that black and white!

Quote by Stevie J
Can I suggest you approach your local councillor and ask them to spend a day or a week shadowing them to see that they do and what they are responsible for?

I would rather eat worms actually.

Quote by Stevie J
Instead of making a complete fool of yourself by posting comments that expose your great ignorance in all matters relating to public service.

I think it could be you that are a fool if you believe that one.

Quote by Stevie J
But we all know you won't.
Because time after time you demonstrate you're not interested in the truth - much prefering to base your "wisdom" on ill judged presumptions and misinterpretations.

Is that your final word on the matter? I do hope so as sometimes you do post some drivel.

5 Sep 2010

Quote by awayman
The idea that council members should be free to be racist, violent or offensive is simply nonsense; councils had failed to regulate themselves, so along came the Standards Board.
I'm sorry you resigned as a councillor rather than live under the Standards regime, but, frankly, your misunderstanding and misrepsentation of it isn't much of an advert for your skills.

Let's get one or two bits in correct perspective.
Nowhere in my piece did I for once say directly or otherwise that council members should be free to be racist, violent or offensive. My view then as now is quite the contrary.
As I did not serve in public office under the Standards regime, I merely reported the facts behind my decision not to seek re-election before it came into play as did a number of other Councillors up and down the Country at the time. You therefore have no basis to say that I misunderstood or misrepresented it and that it in some way calls my skills into question. You do not know me, had no experience of my time in local government or my achievements and are therefore completely unqualified to make such a judgement.