-
Originally Posted by
Username2016
there’s a difference between a document and every document, also regardless of which document, if you read the whole thing it’s not about the “top bosses” but guess it’s all just divisive fodder.
It's a good idea to look at the final version of a document - which you didn't.
Also, maybe you could explain in what way you think it is NOT about "top bosses". Remember what the article said:
"Twice in the last five years, 'exit payments' approved by Sefton Council for departing top Council bosses have amounted to more than £250,000. The Sefton Labour Party wants to bring back these 'big bucks' pay-offs."
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
Your Comments:
-
Originally Posted by
SalusPopuli
It's a good idea to look at the final version of a document - which you didn't.
Also, maybe you could explain in what way you think it is NOT about "top bosses". Remember what the article said:
"Twice in the last five years, 'exit payments' approved by Sefton Council for departing top Council bosses have amounted to more than £250,000. The Sefton Labour Party wants to bring back these 'big bucks' pay-offs."
Why does it sound like Prasnee is back?
if you read the detail, it may be about so called “top bosses” but it may also be about long serving staff members as pension liability is included into the calculation. Either way councillors publishing stories prior to a meeting happening is divisive and unhelpful, just underlines they can’t do anything themselves without needing to create an angry mob by choosing what version/amount of the detail to portray.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by
Username2016
Either way councillors publishing stories prior to a meeting happening is divisive and unhelpful
What a weird attitude. Surely the public are entitled to know what is happening with the council and in their name.
In the good old days when we had decent local newspapers a report (hopefully in advance) that:
Labour councillors have put down a motion for debate at Thursday's virtual council meeting, calling on the Cabinet to seek this limit being lifted - but, peculiarly, they want this to happen only if there is a future Labour government.
is exactly what we would expect to see published - particularly when it is true, as you now acknowledge.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
So what about this story, Username?
https://www.qlocal.co.uk/southport/n...e-55049071.htm
Sounds like another (Conservative) "councillor publishing stories prior to a meeting happening". You may think that is divisive and unhelpful. I thought it was very much the opposite.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by
SalusPopuli
So what about this story, Username?
https://www.qlocal.co.uk/southport/n...e-55049071.htm
Sounds like another (Conservative) "councillor publishing stories prior to a meeting happening". You may think that is divisive and unhelpful. I thought it was very much the opposite.
I don’t think this was unhelpful as it’s not trying to stir up an angry mob by stating another parties intentions before debating the motion. He could however also said what he’d done after he’d done it too.
does feel like Prasnee is back talking to you :-)
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes