Keighley MP welcomes council audit

Keighley’s MP has welcomed the appointment of external auditors to go through the books of the town council following a series of complaints about the way it is being run.

Kris Hopkins, who has been highly critical of the local authority’s financial management, told the Keighley News: “I have said many times before that Keighley Town Council’s accounts need to be properly audited, and it is welcome news this will now happen. The true facts of what has been going on need to be understood so that a plan to put the council back on a sustainable footing can be drawn up.

“Equally, if evidence of any wrongdoing is found, those responsible must be made accountable for their actions.”

The town council, which has an annual budget of slightly more than half-a-million pounds, caused controversy last year by raising its council tax precept by a record 72 per cent, and it has warned ratepayers another substantial rise will be needed this year.

The auditors – London-based PKF Littlejohn – have now written to objectors, who include some town councillors, to confirm details of its probe, and they intend to carry out face-to-face interviews as evidence is gathered.

A letter to one complainant states: “We have received notices of objection from eight persons relating to a total of 21 matters. We have carefully analysed the information received, and are committed to determining the objections and considering the other information received as quickly and efficiently as possible.”

The letter goes on to explain the auditors will be “requesting documentation and explanations from the council”.

Meetings will take place over two weeks, and PKF Littlejohn aims to decide on any objections no later than April 30.

One objector is town councillor Brian Hudson, who said a failure by the authority to respond fully to genuine concerns by the public had forced what would be a costly inquiry by the government-appointed auditors.

“The council should never have let it get to this stage,” he said.

Campaign group Cavetown Council has actively challenged the town council’s spending, and member Elizabeth Mitchell said she and others had been forced to make the formal objections.

“We have all had high-handed or disapproving responses from the council in answer to serious questions about spending, and this was the only way to get to the truth,” said the retired accountant.

Keighley mayor, Councillor Sally Walker, said the town council would not comment on or disclose any communications it has with its auditors, but she pledged it would work with them.

The auditors are dealing with complaints relating to five areas of Keighley Town Council’s affairs, which are: the basis for determining the precept; alleged unlawful grants/loans in respect of establishing the Police Experience attraction at Keighley Civic Centre; alleged omissions from the council’s asset register; alleged unlawful trading concerning the civic centre; and alleged non-compliance with financial regulations relating to the payments for goods, services and cash takings.

Comments (174)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:07am Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Here are some notes provided by the Audit Commission regarding Inspection and Objections to the Accounts.

"Council accounts’ are the financial statements that most organisations have to produce at the end of the year – a balance sheet and summary of income and expenditure. But the term also covers all related documents used to make up the council’s accounts and any report by the
external auditor about how the council organises itself to conduct its business.

As a local resident, or interested party, you have legal rights which let you inspect your council’s accounts and related documents. If you are also a local elector (a person who has the right to vote in a local election or for members of a national parliament) you also have rights to:
■ ask questions about the accounts, and
■ object to them.

You do not have to pay directly for exercising your rights – but there is a cost, which will be
added to the costs of running your council. And therefore, indirectly, the cost of exercising your rights is added to your council tax.

Q: What is an objection to the accounts?
A: It is a legal right for any local government elector to ask the external auditor to apply to the High Court for a declaration that an item of account is unlawful, or to issue an immediate report in the public interest.
You can only object to a specific item in the accounts.

You must tell the external auditor which item in the accounts you object to and why you think the item is unlawful, or why you think that a public interest report should be made about it.

You must provide the external auditor with the evidence you have to support your objection. "


As you can see from the above it is not simply a matter of shouting or making wild accusations which gets the attention of the External Auditors.

It is a matter of examining specific items and these items then meeting the relevant criteria for the Auditors to investigate.
As the Audit Commission clearly state-
"Simply disagreeing with income or spending does not make it unlawful. An unlawful item of account is one, for example, that records spending or income that the council:
■ had no right to spend or receive;
■ spent or received without powers to do so;
■ took from, or added to, the wrong fund or account; or
■ spent on something that they had the power to spend on, but the decision to spend the money was unreasonable or irrational.

'Unreasonable' has a special meaning in law. A council acts 'unreasonably' or 'irrationally' when its actions are so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made that decision. "


Hope this clarifies the situation for some readers, particularly the ex councillor Newton who seems to be under some misguided illusion that she can somehow claim money from an informal group such as Cavetown Council.
As a founding member of the group ex councillor Newton, if you have any issues about the legal actions which have been undertaken by Cavetown in the last 11 months why not contact me directly.
Your lies printed in the Keighley News about the group along with your ill informed opinions only serve to highlight the desperation of the council and do nothing to help solve the issue.
If you do wish to contact me you can find me on facebook or ask one of your councillor friends for my email address.
Several of them know it as they often send abusive correspondence to me.
If you do contact me, I may well be able to help you get your facts straight before you proceed to make a fool of yourself by writing anymore ill informed letters to the press.

Cavendo Tutus

Simon Mitchell
Here are some notes provided by the Audit Commission regarding Inspection and Objections to the Accounts. "Council accounts’ are the financial statements that most organisations have to produce at the end of the year – a balance sheet and summary of income and expenditure. But the term also covers all related documents used to make up the council’s accounts and any report by the external auditor about how the council organises itself to conduct its business. As a local resident, or interested party, you have legal rights which let you inspect your council’s accounts and related documents. If you are also a local elector (a person who has the right to vote in a local election or for members of a national parliament) you also have rights to: ■ ask questions about the accounts, and ■ object to them. You do not have to pay directly for exercising your rights – but there is a cost, which will be added to the costs of running your council. And therefore, indirectly, the cost of exercising your rights is added to your council tax. Q: What is an objection to the accounts? A: It is a legal right for any local government elector to ask the external auditor to apply to the High Court for a declaration that an item of account is unlawful, or to issue an immediate report in the public interest. You can only object to a specific item in the accounts. You must tell the external auditor which item in the accounts you object to and why you think the item is unlawful, or why you think that a public interest report should be made about it. You must provide the external auditor with the evidence you have to support your objection. " As you can see from the above it is not simply a matter of shouting or making wild accusations which gets the attention of the External Auditors. It is a matter of examining specific items and these items then meeting the relevant criteria for the Auditors to investigate. As the Audit Commission clearly state- "Simply disagreeing with income or spending does not make it unlawful. An unlawful item of account is one, for example, that records spending or income that the council: ■ had no right to spend or receive; ■ spent or received without powers to do so; ■ took from, or added to, the wrong fund or account; or ■ spent on something that they had the power to spend on, but the decision to spend the money was unreasonable or irrational. 'Unreasonable' has a special meaning in law. A council acts 'unreasonably' or 'irrationally' when its actions are so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made that decision. " Hope this clarifies the situation for some readers, particularly the ex councillor Newton who seems to be under some misguided illusion that she can somehow claim money from an informal group such as Cavetown Council. As a founding member of the group ex councillor Newton, if you have any issues about the legal actions which have been undertaken by Cavetown in the last 11 months why not contact me directly. Your lies printed in the Keighley News about the group along with your ill informed opinions only serve to highlight the desperation of the council and do nothing to help solve the issue. If you do wish to contact me you can find me on facebook or ask one of your councillor friends for my email address. Several of them know it as they often send abusive correspondence to me. If you do contact me, I may well be able to help you get your facts straight before you proceed to make a fool of yourself by writing anymore ill informed letters to the press. Cavendo Tutus Simon Mitchell Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 4

12:10am Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

PS- Well done Kris Hopkins on the stand you have taken with all this.
PS- Well done Kris Hopkins on the stand you have taken with all this. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

12:33am Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Some readers might be interested in seeing how the councils spending has spiralled out of control in the past couple of years.
The following are the figures for the recent history of the Precept rise by Keighley Town council-

2007/08
Increase 14.1 %
Revenue £294,700
.
2008/09
Increase 15.0%
Revenue £341,500

2009/10
Increase 8.8%
Revenue £371,552

2010/11
Increase 3.4%
Revenue £386,250

2011/12
Increase 0.0%
Revenue £392,750

2012/13.
Increase 72.6%
Revenue £682,351
Some readers might be interested in seeing how the councils spending has spiralled out of control in the past couple of years. The following are the figures for the recent history of the Precept rise by Keighley Town council- 2007/08 Increase 14.1 % Revenue £294,700 . 2008/09 Increase 15.0% Revenue £341,500 2009/10 Increase 8.8% Revenue £371,552 2010/11 Increase 3.4% Revenue £386,250 2011/12 Increase 0.0% Revenue £392,750 2012/13. Increase 72.6% Revenue £682,351 Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

12:38am Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

More from the Audit Commission-

Q: What will the external auditor do with my written objection?
A: The external auditor will consider whether your objection complies with the law.
Before the external auditor can deal with your objection, he or she must confirm:
■ you are a local elector of the area to which the accounts relate; and
■ the objection relates to an item in the year of account for which the audit is still open.

An external auditor will look at the substance of your objection. Neither the external auditor, nor
a court, can question a council’s policies or decisions unless they are unlawful.

The external auditor must reach a decision on your objection. This may mean not taking any
further action. In that event, the external auditor usually provides a ‘statement of reasons’ that
explains how and why they reached their decision.
More from the Audit Commission- Q: What will the external auditor do with my written objection? A: The external auditor will consider whether your objection complies with the law. Before the external auditor can deal with your objection, he or she must confirm: ■ you are a local elector of the area to which the accounts relate; and ■ the objection relates to an item in the year of account for which the audit is still open. An external auditor will look at the substance of your objection. Neither the external auditor, nor a court, can question a council’s policies or decisions unless they are unlawful. The external auditor must reach a decision on your objection. This may mean not taking any further action. In that event, the external auditor usually provides a ‘statement of reasons’ that explains how and why they reached their decision. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

12:41am Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Q: How does the auditor consider my objection?
A: In everything they do, external auditors must follow the Code of Audit Practice. Under the Code, the external auditor must take a balanced approach in deciding how much time and money to spend in examining an objection.
The external auditor will consider:
■ how significant the matter is;
■ whether there is wider public interest in the issues you have raised;

■ whether they, or another external auditor, have previously considered the matter;
■ the costs of dealing with the matter; and
■ your rights as well as the rights of the council, individual councillors and council officers.
■ The auditor will usually write to you and let you know how your objection has been dealt with and the outcome.
Q: How does the auditor consider my objection? A: In everything they do, external auditors must follow the Code of Audit Practice. Under the Code, the external auditor must take a balanced approach in deciding how much time and money to spend in examining an objection. The external auditor will consider: ■ how significant the matter is; ■ whether there is wider public interest in the issues you have raised; ■ whether they, or another external auditor, have previously considered the matter; ■ the costs of dealing with the matter; and ■ your rights as well as the rights of the council, individual councillors and council officers. ■ The auditor will usually write to you and let you know how your objection has been dealt with and the outcome. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

12:48am Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

For people such as ex councillor Newton it is worth highlighting the comments made by on of the Objectors in the above article- those made by a current councillor who has felt the need to raise his objectiions-

"One objector is town councillor Brian Hudson, who said a failure by the authority to respond fully to genuine concerns by the public had forced what would be a costly inquiry by the government-appointed auditors.

“The council should never have let it get to this stage,” he said."


They most certainly shouldn't ex councillor Newton. I wonder if your own attempts to push the blame of any costs on to Cavetown is in anyway a reaction to any concerns you may have about your own actions as a councillor and just how far the investigation might delve?

Hmmm. I wonder. Your outright lie regarding the existence of Cavetown does display a worrying trait which is shared with some who still serve on the council.
For people such as ex councillor Newton it is worth highlighting the comments made by on of the Objectors in the above article- those made by a current councillor who has felt the need to raise his objectiions- "One objector is town councillor Brian Hudson, who said a failure by the authority to respond fully to genuine concerns by the public had forced what would be a costly inquiry by the government-appointed auditors. “The council should never have let it get to this stage,” he said." They most certainly shouldn't ex councillor Newton. I wonder if your own attempts to push the blame of any costs on to Cavetown is in anyway a reaction to any concerns you may have about your own actions as a councillor and just how far the investigation might delve? Hmmm. I wonder. Your outright lie regarding the existence of Cavetown does display a worrying trait which is shared with some who still serve on the council. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 4

1:04am Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

The Council is holding an Extraordinary General Meeting on the 16th Jan 2014.

AGENDA


1 Apologies for absence

2 Disclosures of Interest
(Members Code of Conduct)
To receive disclosures of personal and prejudicial interests from members and co-opted members on matters to be considered at the meeting. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest.

An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it only becomes apparent to the member during the meeting.

Note:

Members may remain in the meeting and take part fully in discussion and voting unless the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an interest which the Member feels would call into question their compliance with the wider principles set out in the Code of Conduct. Disclosable pecuniary interests relate to the Member concerned or their spouse/partner.

Members must withdraw from the meeting if the interest is a prejudicial interest unless a dispensation has been obtained from the Town Clerk.

Members are reminded that under the Members Code of Conduct they must register within 28 days changes to their financial and other interest and notify the Monitoring Office of any gifts and hospitality received.


3 To discuss the possible splitting of the roles of the Town Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer and the way forward.

That in view of the nature of the business about to be transacted, it is advisable in the public interest that the press and public be temporarily excluded. Public Bodies Act 1960.

4 To consider the draft budget for 2014/2015.

5 To note the vacancies on the following committees:-

• 2 vacancies Allotments & Landscapes
• 2 vacancies Events & Leisure
• 2 vacancies Finance & Audit
• 3 vacancies Planning
• 2 vacancies Policies & Governance
• 2 vacancies Management & Staffing (1 to be filled by Policies & Governance Committee)

6 To note the date of the next meeting of the Town Council – Thursday 6 February 2013.


Anybody interested in hearing what the council has to say regarding the Precept increase may well wish to attend.
The Council is holding an Extraordinary General Meeting on the 16th Jan 2014. AGENDA 1 Apologies for absence 2 Disclosures of Interest (Members Code of Conduct) To receive disclosures of personal and prejudicial interests from members and co-opted members on matters to be considered at the meeting. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest. An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it only becomes apparent to the member during the meeting. Note: Members may remain in the meeting and take part fully in discussion and voting unless the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an interest which the Member feels would call into question their compliance with the wider principles set out in the Code of Conduct. Disclosable pecuniary interests relate to the Member concerned or their spouse/partner. Members must withdraw from the meeting if the interest is a prejudicial interest unless a dispensation has been obtained from the Town Clerk. Members are reminded that under the Members Code of Conduct they must register within 28 days changes to their financial and other interest and notify the Monitoring Office of any gifts and hospitality received. 3 To discuss the possible splitting of the roles of the Town Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer and the way forward. That in view of the [confidential] nature of the business about to be transacted, it is advisable in the public interest that the press and public be temporarily excluded. Public Bodies [Admissions to Meetings] Act 1960. 4 To consider the draft budget for 2014/2015. 5 To note the vacancies on the following committees:- • 2 vacancies Allotments & Landscapes • 2 vacancies Events & Leisure • 2 vacancies Finance & Audit • 3 vacancies Planning • 2 vacancies Policies & Governance • 2 vacancies Management & Staffing (1 to be filled by Policies & Governance Committee) 6 To note the date of the next meeting of the Town Council – Thursday 6 February 2013. Anybody interested in hearing what the council has to say regarding the Precept increase may well wish to attend. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 4

7:13am Fri 10 Jan 14

Little Green Man says...

It's the Bruce Almighty Show!!!!
It's the Bruce Almighty Show!!!! Little Green Man
  • Score: -5

8:25am Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Some readers might be interested in seeing how the councils spending has spiralled out of control in the past couple of years.
The following are the figures for the recent history of the Precept rise by Keighley Town council-

2007/08
Increase 14.1 %
Revenue £294,700
.
2008/09
Increase 15.0%
Revenue £341,500

2009/10
Increase 8.8%
Revenue £371,552

2010/11
Increase 3.4%
Revenue £386,250

2011/12
Increase 0.0%
Revenue £392,750

2012/13.
Increase 72.6%
Revenue £682,351
Is the increase in revenue due to an increase in precept each year or in the number of households contributing?
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Some readers might be interested in seeing how the councils spending has spiralled out of control in the past couple of years. The following are the figures for the recent history of the Precept rise by Keighley Town council- 2007/08 Increase 14.1 % Revenue £294,700 . 2008/09 Increase 15.0% Revenue £341,500 2009/10 Increase 8.8% Revenue £371,552 2010/11 Increase 3.4% Revenue £386,250 2011/12 Increase 0.0% Revenue £392,750 2012/13. Increase 72.6% Revenue £682,351[/p][/quote]Is the increase in revenue due to an increase in precept each year or in the number of households contributing? MarkPullen
  • Score: -4

8:37am Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

MarkPullen wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Some readers might be interested in seeing how the councils spending has spiralled out of control in the past couple of years.
The following are the figures for the recent history of the Precept rise by Keighley Town council-

2007/08
Increase 14.1 %
Revenue £294,700
.
2008/09
Increase 15.0%
Revenue £341,500

2009/10
Increase 8.8%
Revenue £371,552

2010/11
Increase 3.4%
Revenue £386,250

2011/12
Increase 0.0%
Revenue £392,750

2012/13.
Increase 72.6%
Revenue £682,351
Is the increase in revenue due to an increase in precept each year or in the number of households contributing?
The increase is the predicted % to be added to the previous years Precept amount.
The revenue is the predicted amount generated by the council by this percentage increase as a total amount.
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Some readers might be interested in seeing how the councils spending has spiralled out of control in the past couple of years. The following are the figures for the recent history of the Precept rise by Keighley Town council- 2007/08 Increase 14.1 % Revenue £294,700 . 2008/09 Increase 15.0% Revenue £341,500 2009/10 Increase 8.8% Revenue £371,552 2010/11 Increase 3.4% Revenue £386,250 2011/12 Increase 0.0% Revenue £392,750 2012/13. Increase 72.6% Revenue £682,351[/p][/quote]Is the increase in revenue due to an increase in precept each year or in the number of households contributing?[/p][/quote]The increase is the predicted % to be added to the previous years Precept amount. The revenue is the predicted amount generated by the council by this percentage increase as a total amount. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 8

9:03am Fri 10 Jan 14

Graham Forsyth says...

Recall this. K.N. Thursday 30th May 2013

“Keighley’s MP is demanding action by the town council as controversy continues to rage over its finances.
Kris Hopkins is calling on the local authority to open up its books for scrutiny by an independent accountant, to verify the current financial position and liabilities.”
“Mr Hopkins said the ongoing negative publicity surrounding the town council’s finances was “causing great damage to the reputation of Keighley and must be brought to a swift and satisfactory conclusion”.
“Mr Hopkins said he was happy to work alongside the council to achieve the aims, but is awaiting a full response. “

And how did KTC respond? K.N. Thursday 13th June 2013
“Controversy raging over Keighley Town Council’s finances has been incited by “politically-motiv
ated misinformation” generated by “mad, swivel-eyed loons”, according to one elected member.
Councillor Graham Mitchell was replying to MP Kris Hopkins, who – as revealed in the Keighley News last month – wrote a letter urging the local authority to allow an independent accountant to verify its accounts.”

The councils accounts are now going to be investigated, and since the mad swivel-eyed loons comment from cllr Graham Mitchell, the investigative report into Financial and Staffing Irregularities has surfaced, and the sworn statement from Mr Grant Doyle which contains serious allegations.

How much bigger may this become?

Tick Tock
Recall this. K.N. Thursday 30th May 2013 “Keighley’s MP is demanding action by the town council as controversy continues to rage over its finances. Kris Hopkins is calling on the local authority to open up its books for scrutiny by an independent accountant, to verify the current financial position and liabilities.” “Mr Hopkins said the ongoing negative publicity surrounding the town council’s finances was “causing great damage to the reputation of Keighley and must be brought to a swift and satisfactory conclusion”. “Mr Hopkins said he was happy to work alongside the council to achieve the aims, but is awaiting a full response. “ And how did KTC respond? K.N. Thursday 13th June 2013 “Controversy raging over Keighley Town Council’s finances has been incited by “politically-motiv ated misinformation” generated by “mad, swivel-eyed loons”, according to one elected member. Councillor Graham Mitchell was replying to MP Kris Hopkins, who – as revealed in the Keighley News last month – wrote a letter urging the local authority to allow an independent accountant to verify its accounts.” The councils accounts are now going to be investigated, and since the mad swivel-eyed loons comment from cllr Graham Mitchell, the investigative report into Financial and Staffing Irregularities has surfaced, and the sworn statement from Mr Grant Doyle which contains serious allegations. How much bigger may this become? Tick Tock Graham Forsyth
  • Score: 8

9:40am Fri 10 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
For people such as ex councillor Newton it is worth highlighting the comments made by on of the Objectors in the above article- those made by a current councillor who has felt the need to raise his objectiions-

"One objector is town councillor Brian Hudson, who said a failure by the authority to respond fully to genuine concerns by the public had forced what would be a costly inquiry by the government-appointed auditors.

“The council should never have let it get to this stage,” he said."


They most certainly shouldn't ex councillor Newton. I wonder if your own attempts to push the blame of any costs on to Cavetown is in anyway a reaction to any concerns you may have about your own actions as a councillor and just how far the investigation might delve?

Hmmm. I wonder. Your outright lie regarding the existence of Cavetown does display a worrying trait which is shared with some who still serve on the council.
Obviously hurt by somebody stating the obvious!.Ex Councillor Newton should be congratulated on her thoughts regarding Cavetown paying for their vindictive personnel vendettas.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: For people such as ex councillor Newton it is worth highlighting the comments made by on of the Objectors in the above article- those made by a current councillor who has felt the need to raise his objectiions- "One objector is town councillor Brian Hudson, who said a failure by the authority to respond fully to genuine concerns by the public had forced what would be a costly inquiry by the government-appointed auditors. “The council should never have let it get to this stage,” he said." They most certainly shouldn't ex councillor Newton. I wonder if your own attempts to push the blame of any costs on to Cavetown is in anyway a reaction to any concerns you may have about your own actions as a councillor and just how far the investigation might delve? Hmmm. I wonder. Your outright lie regarding the existence of Cavetown does display a worrying trait which is shared with some who still serve on the council.[/p][/quote]Obviously hurt by somebody stating the obvious!.Ex Councillor Newton should be congratulated on her thoughts regarding Cavetown paying for their vindictive personnel vendettas. badgergate
  • Score: -4

10:00am Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Congratulated by who councillor Badgergate?
Her ex collegues at KTC who have cost the People of Keighley Millions by way of their ego driven foolish fantasies in regards to the Civic Centre?

Her ex collegues at KTC who she still maintains regular contact with via her work with the Historical Society based at the Civic Centre?

Surely you don't mean congratulated by the thousands who will be paying excessive amounts for the next 48 years due to the incompetence of the council?
Congratulated by who councillor Badgergate? Her ex collegues at KTC who have cost the People of Keighley Millions by way of their ego driven foolish fantasies in regards to the Civic Centre? Her ex collegues at KTC who she still maintains regular contact with via her work with the Historical Society based at the Civic Centre? Surely you don't mean congratulated by the thousands who will be paying excessive amounts for the next 48 years due to the incompetence of the council? Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 6

10:13am Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

badgergate wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
For people such as ex councillor Newton it is worth highlighting the comments made by on of the Objectors in the above article- those made by a current councillor who has felt the need to raise his objectiions-

"One objector is town councillor Brian Hudson, who said a failure by the authority to respond fully to genuine concerns by the public had forced what would be a costly inquiry by the government-appointed auditors.

“The council should never have let it get to this stage,” he said."


They most certainly shouldn't ex councillor Newton. I wonder if your own attempts to push the blame of any costs on to Cavetown is in anyway a reaction to any concerns you may have about your own actions as a councillor and just how far the investigation might delve?

Hmmm. I wonder. Your outright lie regarding the existence of Cavetown does display a worrying trait which is shared with some who still serve on the council.
Obviously hurt by somebody stating the obvious!.Ex Councillor Newton should be congratulated on her thoughts regarding Cavetown paying for their vindictive personnel vendettas.
Badgergate - I genuinely have no idea of your real persona and whilst others attribute your posts to that of a serving KTC Councillor I am prepared to avoid labelling you.

What does come through in your posts is the sheer energy that you dedicate to attempting to shift the burden of guilt onto the Cavetown "Gang" members and there campaign.

You will know that whilst not a massive fan of their methods or actions of some individuals, the underlying crusade to bring to the public domain alleged mismanagement is commendable.

All councillors, when elected, "swear" to serve the public that elected them. If co-opted then this isn't diminished as they are still representing their local population.

If any councillor(s) have made errors of judgement with decision making then it is only right and proper that they accept the human failing and do "the right thing" - make amends and/or step away from the situation.

What is totally unacceptable, and may be seen to be happening once the audit is complete, is when the "guilty parties" continue to provide smoke and mirrors to attempt to exonerate themselves.

As a believe in localism and government at this level it leaves a very bitter taste to think that there are some individuals who might be operating within the KTC chamber (or meeting rooms) to further their own ambitions or goals.

I accept that without the Cavetown campaign there are some costs that wouldn't have been borne by KTC - but these are only arising due to the alleged mismanagement and unwillingness for certain parties to be transparent and co-operative.

If, Badgergate, you are a member of the chamber then I would respectfully suggest that your time and efforts would be better spent redirecting your focus on making amends. If you are not a councillor then you might want to consider the content of your many posts as they do seem to provide readers with that impression.

Let's ensure that the blame for alleged mismanagement is placed on the doorstep of those who made the decisions and knowingly covered it up.

KTC should be a valuable and positive resource for the town - let's focus on making this so again.
[quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: For people such as ex councillor Newton it is worth highlighting the comments made by on of the Objectors in the above article- those made by a current councillor who has felt the need to raise his objectiions- "One objector is town councillor Brian Hudson, who said a failure by the authority to respond fully to genuine concerns by the public had forced what would be a costly inquiry by the government-appointed auditors. “The council should never have let it get to this stage,” he said." They most certainly shouldn't ex councillor Newton. I wonder if your own attempts to push the blame of any costs on to Cavetown is in anyway a reaction to any concerns you may have about your own actions as a councillor and just how far the investigation might delve? Hmmm. I wonder. Your outright lie regarding the existence of Cavetown does display a worrying trait which is shared with some who still serve on the council.[/p][/quote]Obviously hurt by somebody stating the obvious!.Ex Councillor Newton should be congratulated on her thoughts regarding Cavetown paying for their vindictive personnel vendettas.[/p][/quote]Badgergate - I genuinely have no idea of your real persona and whilst others attribute your posts to that of a serving KTC Councillor I am prepared to avoid labelling you. What does come through in your posts is the sheer energy that you dedicate to attempting to shift the burden of guilt onto the Cavetown "Gang" members and there campaign. You will know that whilst not a massive fan of their methods or actions of some individuals, the underlying crusade to bring to the public domain alleged mismanagement is commendable. All councillors, when elected, "swear" to serve the public that elected them. If co-opted then this isn't diminished as they are still representing their local population. If any councillor(s) have made errors of judgement with decision making then it is only right and proper that they accept the human failing and do "the right thing" - make amends and/or step away from the situation. What is totally unacceptable, and may be seen to be happening once the audit is complete, is when the "guilty parties" continue to provide smoke and mirrors to attempt to exonerate themselves. As a believe in localism and government at this level it leaves a very bitter taste to think that there are some individuals who might be operating within the KTC chamber (or meeting rooms) to further their own ambitions or goals. I accept that without the Cavetown campaign there are some costs that wouldn't have been borne by KTC - but these are only arising due to the alleged mismanagement and unwillingness for certain parties to be transparent and co-operative. If, Badgergate, you are a member of the chamber then I would respectfully suggest that your time and efforts would be better spent redirecting your focus on making amends. If you are not a councillor then you might want to consider the content of your many posts as they do seem to provide readers with that impression. Let's ensure that the blame for alleged mismanagement is placed on the doorstep of those who made the decisions and knowingly covered it up. KTC should be a valuable and positive resource for the town - let's focus on making this so again. MarkPullen
  • Score: 9

10:50am Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Here is some more useful information which both cllr Badgergate and ex cllr Newton may wish to expand on.
It is taken from the Report into Financial Irregularities undertaken by cllr Pedley and date 23 Nov 2012- almost 3 months before the existence of Cavetown Council as a group.

6.4 There is good reason to believe that AP failed to deliver the expected outcomes that were tasked for the Civic Centre. KTC made a considerable financial committed on the understanding that the SPC would ensure that the centre’s running cost were fully covered. This has not been accomplished and has left KTC in a precarious position. The current financial deficit stands at £64.000

So as you can see councillor Badgergate and ex councillor Newton- the council was well aware that the Civic Centre was failing long before Cavetown came into existence.
So no negative press from Cavetown at that stage was there you fools?

The fact that this report was then concealed from the Full Council only serves to highlight the need for a full investigation to take place by a body with the Authority to do so unimpeded.

Hope that clears things up for you both a little more.

Tick Tock
Cavendo Tutus

Simon Mitchell
Here is some more useful information which both cllr Badgergate and ex cllr Newton may wish to expand on. It is taken from the Report into Financial Irregularities undertaken by cllr Pedley and date 23 Nov 2012- almost 3 months before the existence of Cavetown Council as a group. 6.4 There is good reason to believe that AP failed to deliver the expected outcomes that were tasked for the Civic Centre. KTC made a considerable financial committed on the understanding that the SPC would ensure that the centre’s running cost were fully covered. This has not been accomplished and has left KTC in a precarious position. The current financial deficit stands at £64.000 So as you can see councillor Badgergate and ex councillor Newton- the council was well aware that the Civic Centre was failing long before Cavetown came into existence. So no negative press from Cavetown at that stage was there you fools? The fact that this report was then concealed from the Full Council only serves to highlight the need for a full investigation to take place by a body with the Authority to do so unimpeded. Hope that clears things up for you both a little more. Tick Tock Cavendo Tutus Simon Mitchell Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

11:01am Fri 10 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Mark Pullen,
I do not know who first labelled me with being a KTC Councillor but i can assure you i have never been and never will be .
Whilst i agree with " What does come through in your posts is the sheer energy that you dedicate to attempting to shift the burden of guilt onto the Cavetown "Gang" members and there campaign."
My thoughts however are completely different ,without the actions of Cavetown , which they should be wholeheartedly congratulated ,most of these revelations would not have come to the fore.
However i have asked questions of the Cavetowners and their motives and methods and have often been lambasted and ridiculed .WHY , yes some of posts have been Troll like !, the reason in the hope of a response ,often these responses in part gave the answer i was seeking.
Mark Pullen, I do not know who first labelled me with being a KTC Councillor but i can assure you i have never been and never will be . Whilst i agree with " What does come through in your posts is the sheer energy that you dedicate to attempting to shift the burden of guilt onto the Cavetown "Gang" members and there campaign." My thoughts however are completely different ,without the actions of Cavetown , which they should be wholeheartedly congratulated ,most of these revelations would not have come to the fore. However i have asked questions of the Cavetowners and their motives and methods and have often been lambasted and ridiculed .WHY , yes some of posts have been Troll like !, the reason in the hope of a response ,often these responses in part gave the answer i was seeking. badgergate
  • Score: -4

11:07am Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

badgergate wrote:
Mark Pullen,
I do not know who first labelled me with being a KTC Councillor but i can assure you i have never been and never will be .
Whilst i agree with " What does come through in your posts is the sheer energy that you dedicate to attempting to shift the burden of guilt onto the Cavetown "Gang" members and there campaign."
My thoughts however are completely different ,without the actions of Cavetown , which they should be wholeheartedly congratulated ,most of these revelations would not have come to the fore.
However i have asked questions of the Cavetowners and their motives and methods and have often been lambasted and ridiculed .WHY , yes some of posts have been Troll like !, the reason in the hope of a response ,often these responses in part gave the answer i was seeking.
I fully agree that with the comments regarding the responses received by some members of Cavetown.

Many will recognise my often shared concerns that no matter what the focus of revelations about alleged mismanagement I feel that those 'digging' and 'revealing' must ensure that their motives (perceived or actual) are unquestionable.

Leaving questions unanswered, for whatever reasons, leads to doubt and assumption.

If those involved have personal or commercial motives then it's better to be frank and honest to allow others to take this into account.

Whilst we should allow this issue to detract from the KTC investigation, it is still an underlying concern that the amount of energy and time being taken to fuel this campaign may be fed by something other than 'the public have a right to know'.

All information being presented is, we are told, in the public domain anyway and much was available prior to the formation of Cavetown.

Honesty is the best policy - by all parties.
[quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen, I do not know who first labelled me with being a KTC Councillor but i can assure you i have never been and never will be . Whilst i agree with " What does come through in your posts is the sheer energy that you dedicate to attempting to shift the burden of guilt onto the Cavetown "Gang" members and there campaign." My thoughts however are completely different ,without the actions of Cavetown , which they should be wholeheartedly congratulated ,most of these revelations would not have come to the fore. However i have asked questions of the Cavetowners and their motives and methods and have often been lambasted and ridiculed .WHY , yes some of posts have been Troll like !, the reason in the hope of a response ,often these responses in part gave the answer i was seeking.[/p][/quote]I fully agree that with the comments regarding the responses received by some members of Cavetown. Many will recognise my often shared concerns that no matter what the focus of revelations about alleged mismanagement I feel that those 'digging' and 'revealing' must ensure that their motives (perceived or actual) are unquestionable. Leaving questions unanswered, for whatever reasons, leads to doubt and assumption. If those involved have personal or commercial motives then it's better to be frank and honest to allow others to take this into account. Whilst we should allow this issue to detract from the KTC investigation, it is still an underlying concern that the amount of energy and time being taken to fuel this campaign may be fed by something other than 'the public have a right to know'. All information being presented is, we are told, in the public domain anyway and much was available prior to the formation of Cavetown. Honesty is the best policy - by all parties. MarkPullen
  • Score: 2

11:09am Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

MarkPullen wrote:
badgergate wrote:
Mark Pullen,
I do not know who first labelled me with being a KTC Councillor but i can assure you i have never been and never will be .
Whilst i agree with " What does come through in your posts is the sheer energy that you dedicate to attempting to shift the burden of guilt onto the Cavetown "Gang" members and there campaign."
My thoughts however are completely different ,without the actions of Cavetown , which they should be wholeheartedly congratulated ,most of these revelations would not have come to the fore.
However i have asked questions of the Cavetowners and their motives and methods and have often been lambasted and ridiculed .WHY , yes some of posts have been Troll like !, the reason in the hope of a response ,often these responses in part gave the answer i was seeking.
I fully agree that with the comments regarding the responses received by some members of Cavetown.

Many will recognise my often shared concerns that no matter what the focus of revelations about alleged mismanagement I feel that those 'digging' and 'revealing' must ensure that their motives (perceived or actual) are unquestionable.

Leaving questions unanswered, for whatever reasons, leads to doubt and assumption.

If those involved have personal or commercial motives then it's better to be frank and honest to allow others to take this into account.

Whilst we should allow this issue to detract from the KTC investigation, it is still an underlying concern that the amount of energy and time being taken to fuel this campaign may be fed by something other than 'the public have a right to know'.

All information being presented is, we are told, in the public domain anyway and much was available prior to the formation of Cavetown.

Honesty is the best policy - by all parties.
Should read "Whilst we shouldn't allow this issue to detract from the KTC investigation"

Note to self - reread before clicking "post comment"
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen, I do not know who first labelled me with being a KTC Councillor but i can assure you i have never been and never will be . Whilst i agree with " What does come through in your posts is the sheer energy that you dedicate to attempting to shift the burden of guilt onto the Cavetown "Gang" members and there campaign." My thoughts however are completely different ,without the actions of Cavetown , which they should be wholeheartedly congratulated ,most of these revelations would not have come to the fore. However i have asked questions of the Cavetowners and their motives and methods and have often been lambasted and ridiculed .WHY , yes some of posts have been Troll like !, the reason in the hope of a response ,often these responses in part gave the answer i was seeking.[/p][/quote]I fully agree that with the comments regarding the responses received by some members of Cavetown. Many will recognise my often shared concerns that no matter what the focus of revelations about alleged mismanagement I feel that those 'digging' and 'revealing' must ensure that their motives (perceived or actual) are unquestionable. Leaving questions unanswered, for whatever reasons, leads to doubt and assumption. If those involved have personal or commercial motives then it's better to be frank and honest to allow others to take this into account. Whilst we should allow this issue to detract from the KTC investigation, it is still an underlying concern that the amount of energy and time being taken to fuel this campaign may be fed by something other than 'the public have a right to know'. All information being presented is, we are told, in the public domain anyway and much was available prior to the formation of Cavetown. Honesty is the best policy - by all parties.[/p][/quote]Should read "Whilst we shouldn't allow this issue to detract from the KTC investigation" Note to self - reread before clicking "post comment" MarkPullen
  • Score: 1

11:39am Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Mr Pullen and councillor Badgergate- what utter nonsense you both write on these threads.

Firstly Badgergate- your sole purpose on these threads has been to spread lies and false information about members of Cavetown.
Your pathetic attempts to discredit the group only serve to highlight your own personal interests in posting comments here.

You have repeatedly made vague accusations and false statements without presenting evidence or records to substantiate your claims.

The fact that you have been either answered fully or asked for further information on your incoherent drivel seems to elude you.

As for you Mr Pullen, as a long time commentator on these KN threads and one who I am sure has followed the regular contributions from Cavetown members since it's inception in Feb 2013, why is that it is only in recent months, when it has become abundantly obvious that the comments made by our members are indeed factual and accurate, that it is now that you have taken it upon yourself to criticise the methods and actions of our group?
Stately loudly and often that you find our website amatuerish, our words are "harming the cause" and an ever increasing urge to join our group and add your own" improvements" to it do beg the question- "why now Mr Pullen. why have you not made you feelings clear before now? Why didn't you look at joining our group much earlier in it's short history?
As you have openly admitted a personal vendetta against a Mr Samuels, someone who has attempted to notify the public about his concerns with regards to KTC for much longer than Cavetown, it does make your self righteous questioning of our motives sound increasingly hollow.

It is obvious that there are people on these threads who have their own agenda's, but it isn't members of Cavetown who the Public need to be wary of.

Don't get me wrong, I have no wish to silence either of you.
You both serve a purpose in the pursuit of your own aims and it is ultimately one which is indeed in the Public's Best Interests even if it does not actually fulfill your own desires.

Keep it up Boys

Tick Tock
Mr Pullen and councillor Badgergate- what utter nonsense you both write on these threads. Firstly Badgergate- your sole purpose on these threads has been to spread lies and false information about members of Cavetown. Your pathetic attempts to discredit the group only serve to highlight your own personal interests in posting comments here. You have repeatedly made vague accusations and false statements without presenting evidence or records to substantiate your claims. The fact that you have been either answered fully or asked for further information on your incoherent drivel seems to elude you. As for you Mr Pullen, as a long time commentator on these KN threads and one who I am sure has followed the regular contributions from Cavetown members since it's inception in Feb 2013, why is that it is only in recent months, when it has become abundantly obvious that the comments made by our members are indeed factual and accurate, that it is now that you have taken it upon yourself to criticise the methods and actions of our group? Stately loudly and often that you find our website amatuerish, our words are "harming the cause" and an ever increasing urge to join our group and add your own" improvements" to it do beg the question- "why now Mr Pullen. why have you not made you feelings clear before now? Why didn't you look at joining our group much earlier in it's short history? As you have openly admitted a personal vendetta against a Mr Samuels, someone who has attempted to notify the public about his concerns with regards to KTC for much longer than Cavetown, it does make your self righteous questioning of our motives sound increasingly hollow. It is obvious that there are people on these threads who have their own agenda's, but it isn't members of Cavetown who the Public need to be wary of. Don't get me wrong, I have no wish to silence either of you. You both serve a purpose in the pursuit of your own aims and it is ultimately one which is indeed in the Public's Best Interests even if it does not actually fulfill your own desires. Keep it up Boys Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 7

11:48am Fri 10 Jan 14

Graham Forsyth says...

Badgergate says..

“.Ex Councillor Newton should be congratulated on her thoughts regarding Cavetown paying for their vindictive personnel vendettas.”

That would be the same Cllr Joyce Newton who when a councillor voted for the 1.1. million pound loan to purchase the old police station.

As to the personnel vendettas.
Audit Commissions.
As a local resident you have legal rights which let you inspect your council’s accounts and related documents. If you are also a council taxpayer you also have rights to:
ask questions about the accounts, and
object to them.


Note the wording badgergate,` legal rights.` Therefore the exercising of ones legal rights to raise objections regarding a council's accounts is a legal and correct procedure. 21 objections will now be investigated by the external auditors. Why are there 21 objections that the external auditors see the need to investigate further?

Could this have anything to do with it?

K.N Thursday 24th March 2011.Police warning for former councillor in emails dispute.
“Mrs Bailey
I see you neglected as expected to mention in the minutes that you and Cllr Mitchell were in favour of disregarding standing orders to have me removed from the committee. One day you will all be brought to task for the things you have done, this day can’t come soon enough for me and I suspect others in the council. You need to be aware of the saying what comes around goes around.
Just a warning to others don’t use regular saying in emails or you may have the Police on your door step.
Brian Morris”

Why would a former councillor place that statement in the public domain, and later go back and sit on the same council. What do you think he meant badgergate by the words: “One day you will all be brought to task for the things you have done.” Being a councillor before making this statement, is it possible that Cllr Brian Morris may know something which could be of help to the external auditors? I am sure you can see why a question of that nature may be asked. Who knows, maybe questions of a similar nature may be asked during the investigation.

Tick Tock
Badgergate says.. “.Ex Councillor Newton should be congratulated on her thoughts regarding Cavetown paying for their vindictive personnel vendettas.” That would be the same Cllr Joyce Newton who when a councillor voted for the 1.1. million pound loan to purchase the old police station. As to the personnel vendettas. Audit Commissions. As a local resident you have legal rights which let you inspect your council’s accounts and related documents. If you are also a council taxpayer you also have rights to: ask questions about the accounts, and object to them. Note the wording badgergate,` legal rights.` Therefore the exercising of ones legal rights to raise objections regarding a council's accounts is a legal and correct procedure. 21 objections will now be investigated by the external auditors. Why are there 21 objections that the external auditors see the need to investigate further? Could this have anything to do with it? K.N Thursday 24th March 2011.Police warning for former councillor in emails dispute. “Mrs Bailey I see you neglected as expected to mention in the minutes that you and Cllr Mitchell were in favour of disregarding standing orders to have me removed from the committee. One day you will all be brought to task for the things you have done, this day can’t come soon enough for me and I suspect others in the council. You need to be aware of the saying what comes around goes around. Just a warning to others don’t use regular saying in emails or you may have the Police on your door step. Brian Morris” Why would a former councillor place that statement in the public domain, and later go back and sit on the same council. What do you think he meant badgergate by the words: “One day you will all be brought to task for the things you have done.” Being a councillor before making this statement, is it possible that Cllr Brian Morris may know something which could be of help to the external auditors? I am sure you can see why a question of that nature may be asked. Who knows, maybe questions of a similar nature may be asked during the investigation. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth
  • Score: 7

12:03pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Mr Pullen and councillor Badgergate- what utter nonsense you both write on these threads.

Firstly Badgergate- your sole purpose on these threads has been to spread lies and false information about members of Cavetown.
Your pathetic attempts to discredit the group only serve to highlight your own personal interests in posting comments here.

You have repeatedly made vague accusations and false statements without presenting evidence or records to substantiate your claims.

The fact that you have been either answered fully or asked for further information on your incoherent drivel seems to elude you.

As for you Mr Pullen, as a long time commentator on these KN threads and one who I am sure has followed the regular contributions from Cavetown members since it's inception in Feb 2013, why is that it is only in recent months, when it has become abundantly obvious that the comments made by our members are indeed factual and accurate, that it is now that you have taken it upon yourself to criticise the methods and actions of our group?
Stately loudly and often that you find our website amatuerish, our words are "harming the cause" and an ever increasing urge to join our group and add your own" improvements" to it do beg the question- "why now Mr Pullen. why have you not made you feelings clear before now? Why didn't you look at joining our group much earlier in it's short history?
As you have openly admitted a personal vendetta against a Mr Samuels, someone who has attempted to notify the public about his concerns with regards to KTC for much longer than Cavetown, it does make your self righteous questioning of our motives sound increasingly hollow.

It is obvious that there are people on these threads who have their own agenda's, but it isn't members of Cavetown who the Public need to be wary of.

Don't get me wrong, I have no wish to silence either of you.
You both serve a purpose in the pursuit of your own aims and it is ultimately one which is indeed in the Public's Best Interests even if it does not actually fulfill your own desires.

Keep it up Boys

Tick Tock
Again, Almighty Simon, you once more prove my point precisely!

Whilst I've often questioned the tone and format I haven't dismissed the cause.

"Why now?" you might ask - well it's only in recent months that I've also seen the evidence that has been put forward which leads me to believe that Cavetown has a point. Surely convincing others is what Cavetown are all about?
"Why not earlier?" you ask - I wasn't aware that it had a recruitment policy and you actually stated elsewhere that Cavetown wasn't looking for new members! Close shop and private FB group seems all very transparent. I've never wanted to be a "Gang" member but was (a still am) interested in supporting the overall message - I believe in accountability to the electorate.

Vendettas aren't my speciality (though I'm sure you can continue to provide evidence on how to operate one) but Councillor Dave and myself have exchanged virtual slaps for a number of years - probably whilst you were still sucking on your Mummy's apron strings. I do note though that the fiction writer is staying clear of publicly responding to my posts - no doubt he'll claim that I'm not worth it....maybe you should listen to him?

What are my aims that you refer to?
- Destroying Cavetown? Undermining Cavetown? Irritating Cavetown? None of the above?
What is my ulterior motive for taking critical abuse and bull from somebody who is prepared to put himself on a pedestal?
- Personal glory? Global recognition? Keep me off the streets? None of the above?
Why would I make comments about Councillor Dave (or Saint Dave as you have now bestowed upon his wide shoulders - next to the large chips)?
- Cause personal upset? Make enemies? Learn new words? None of the above?
What are my desires?
- Global peace? Eradicate famine? Pick up litter? None of the above?

You have no idea! You ain't got a clue Cobber!

Maybe you've got KTC banged to rights but in so many other ways you're taking a lonely walkabout in the Outback.

Keep jumping to conclusions like a 'roo with the runs Sport!
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Mr Pullen and councillor Badgergate- what utter nonsense you both write on these threads. Firstly Badgergate- your sole purpose on these threads has been to spread lies and false information about members of Cavetown. Your pathetic attempts to discredit the group only serve to highlight your own personal interests in posting comments here. You have repeatedly made vague accusations and false statements without presenting evidence or records to substantiate your claims. The fact that you have been either answered fully or asked for further information on your incoherent drivel seems to elude you. As for you Mr Pullen, as a long time commentator on these KN threads and one who I am sure has followed the regular contributions from Cavetown members since it's inception in Feb 2013, why is that it is only in recent months, when it has become abundantly obvious that the comments made by our members are indeed factual and accurate, that it is now that you have taken it upon yourself to criticise the methods and actions of our group? Stately loudly and often that you find our website amatuerish, our words are "harming the cause" and an ever increasing urge to join our group and add your own" improvements" to it do beg the question- "why now Mr Pullen. why have you not made you feelings clear before now? Why didn't you look at joining our group much earlier in it's short history? As you have openly admitted a personal vendetta against a Mr Samuels, someone who has attempted to notify the public about his concerns with regards to KTC for much longer than Cavetown, it does make your self righteous questioning of our motives sound increasingly hollow. It is obvious that there are people on these threads who have their own agenda's, but it isn't members of Cavetown who the Public need to be wary of. Don't get me wrong, I have no wish to silence either of you. You both serve a purpose in the pursuit of your own aims and it is ultimately one which is indeed in the Public's Best Interests even if it does not actually fulfill your own desires. Keep it up Boys Tick Tock[/p][/quote]Again, Almighty Simon, you once more prove my point precisely! Whilst I've often questioned the tone and format I haven't dismissed the cause. "Why now?" you might ask - well it's only in recent months that I've also seen the evidence that has been put forward which leads me to believe that Cavetown has a point. Surely convincing others is what Cavetown are all about? "Why not earlier?" you ask - I wasn't aware that it had a recruitment policy and you actually stated elsewhere that Cavetown wasn't looking for new members! Close shop and private FB group seems all very transparent. I've never wanted to be a "Gang" member but was (a still am) interested in supporting the overall message - I believe in accountability to the electorate. Vendettas aren't my speciality (though I'm sure you can continue to provide evidence on how to operate one) but Councillor Dave and myself have exchanged virtual slaps for a number of years - probably whilst you were still sucking on your Mummy's apron strings. I do note though that the fiction writer is staying clear of publicly responding to my posts - no doubt he'll claim that I'm not worth it....maybe you should listen to him? What are my aims that you refer to? - Destroying Cavetown? Undermining Cavetown? Irritating Cavetown? None of the above? What is my ulterior motive for taking critical abuse and bull from somebody who is prepared to put himself on a pedestal? - Personal glory? Global recognition? Keep me off the streets? None of the above? Why would I make comments about Councillor Dave (or Saint Dave as you have now bestowed upon his wide shoulders - next to the large chips)? - Cause personal upset? Make enemies? Learn new words? None of the above? What are my desires? - Global peace? Eradicate famine? Pick up litter? None of the above? You have no idea! You ain't got a clue Cobber! Maybe you've got KTC banged to rights but in so many other ways you're taking a lonely walkabout in the Outback. Keep jumping to conclusions like a 'roo with the runs Sport! MarkPullen
  • Score: -7

12:08pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Gobbag Vooar says...

Mr Pullen, I can give you a " thumbs up " for your last posting, but why are you still harping on about method's and trying to find some personal motives or vendettas regarding Cavetown, who you still insult by using the word " Gang " What Gang "?
You question the motives. That question has already been answered both in the K.N. and on these sites by Mrs Mitchell, How many More Times ?
If this lady had a vendetta against the council, then it has taken a long time for it to surface, what rubbish, as any fool can see.
Mr Forsyth explained how he got involved on these sites only a short time ago, for goodness sake Mr Pullen, How many more times ?
As for me, believe it or not " I will say this only once " as I have made my own position clear when I first started to post.
I wanted to find out more about what my council was doing, these sites are just one avenue, as a parishioner, I looked at these sites for a two sided debate, Cavetown were the only partners in this presenting any facts to consider, all we got from those who tried to support this council was abuse,

Mr Pullen, with due respect, over twenty objections have been considered valid by the auditors, so whatever methods were employed, they seem to have borne fruit.
Yes your post was good, but do stop asking questions that have already been answered.
Mr Pullen, I can give you a " thumbs up " for your last posting, but why are you still harping on about method's and trying to find some personal motives or vendettas regarding Cavetown, who you still insult by using the word " Gang " What Gang "? You question the motives. That question has already been answered both in the K.N. and on these sites by Mrs Mitchell, How many More Times ? If this lady had a vendetta against the council, then it has taken a long time for it to surface, what rubbish, as any fool can see. Mr Forsyth explained how he got involved on these sites only a short time ago, for goodness sake Mr Pullen, How many more times ? As for me, believe it or not " I will say this only once " as I have made my own position clear when I first started to post. I wanted to find out more about what my council was doing, these sites are just one avenue, as a parishioner, I looked at these sites for a two sided debate, Cavetown were the only partners in this presenting any facts to consider, all we got from those who tried to support this council was abuse, Mr Pullen, with due respect, over twenty objections have been considered valid by the auditors, so whatever methods were employed, they seem to have borne fruit. Yes your post was good, but do stop asking questions that have already been answered. Gobbag Vooar
  • Score: 6

12:10pm Fri 10 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Mr Pullen and councillor Badgergate- what utter nonsense you both write on these threads.

Firstly Badgergate- your sole purpose on these threads has been to spread lies and false information about members of Cavetown.
Your pathetic attempts to discredit the group only serve to highlight your own personal interests in posting comments here.

You have repeatedly made vague accusations and false statements without presenting evidence or records to substantiate your claims.

The fact that you have been either answered fully or asked for further information on your incoherent drivel seems to elude you.

As for you Mr Pullen, as a long time commentator on these KN threads and one who I am sure has followed the regular contributions from Cavetown members since it's inception in Feb 2013, why is that it is only in recent months, when it has become abundantly obvious that the comments made by our members are indeed factual and accurate, that it is now that you have taken it upon yourself to criticise the methods and actions of our group?
Stately loudly and often that you find our website amatuerish, our words are "harming the cause" and an ever increasing urge to join our group and add your own" improvements" to it do beg the question- "why now Mr Pullen. why have you not made you feelings clear before now? Why didn't you look at joining our group much earlier in it's short history?
As you have openly admitted a personal vendetta against a Mr Samuels, someone who has attempted to notify the public about his concerns with regards to KTC for much longer than Cavetown, it does make your self righteous questioning of our motives sound increasingly hollow.

It is obvious that there are people on these threads who have their own agenda's, but it isn't members of Cavetown who the Public need to be wary of.

Don't get me wrong, I have no wish to silence either of you.
You both serve a purpose in the pursuit of your own aims and it is ultimately one which is indeed in the Public's Best Interests even if it does not actually fulfill your own desires.

Keep it up Boys

Tick Tock
Lies and false information about members of Cavetown?. Stalking,harassment,
Cavetown leading members involvement with KTC,Whistleblowing ,all lies and false .Personal spiteful vendettas ,all lies and false.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Mr Pullen and councillor Badgergate- what utter nonsense you both write on these threads. Firstly Badgergate- your sole purpose on these threads has been to spread lies and false information about members of Cavetown. Your pathetic attempts to discredit the group only serve to highlight your own personal interests in posting comments here. You have repeatedly made vague accusations and false statements without presenting evidence or records to substantiate your claims. The fact that you have been either answered fully or asked for further information on your incoherent drivel seems to elude you. As for you Mr Pullen, as a long time commentator on these KN threads and one who I am sure has followed the regular contributions from Cavetown members since it's inception in Feb 2013, why is that it is only in recent months, when it has become abundantly obvious that the comments made by our members are indeed factual and accurate, that it is now that you have taken it upon yourself to criticise the methods and actions of our group? Stately loudly and often that you find our website amatuerish, our words are "harming the cause" and an ever increasing urge to join our group and add your own" improvements" to it do beg the question- "why now Mr Pullen. why have you not made you feelings clear before now? Why didn't you look at joining our group much earlier in it's short history? As you have openly admitted a personal vendetta against a Mr Samuels, someone who has attempted to notify the public about his concerns with regards to KTC for much longer than Cavetown, it does make your self righteous questioning of our motives sound increasingly hollow. It is obvious that there are people on these threads who have their own agenda's, but it isn't members of Cavetown who the Public need to be wary of. Don't get me wrong, I have no wish to silence either of you. You both serve a purpose in the pursuit of your own aims and it is ultimately one which is indeed in the Public's Best Interests even if it does not actually fulfill your own desires. Keep it up Boys Tick Tock[/p][/quote]Lies and false information about members of Cavetown?. Stalking,harassment, Cavetown leading members involvement with KTC,Whistleblowing ,all lies and false .Personal spiteful vendettas ,all lies and false. badgergate
  • Score: -5

12:12pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Wasn't aware I posted any conclusions Mr Pullen, just observations.
You do however make several of your own, and in such a manner that should you re read your comments I am sure you will see they reflect your own persona on these threads much more than my own.,

As for your multiple choice questionnairre Mr Pullen, I don't do surveys.
Keep guessing as to what my thoughts are regarding yourself, who knows, one day you may just stumble blindly onto the right answer.

Cavendo Tutus

Simon
Wasn't aware I posted any conclusions Mr Pullen, just observations. You do however make several of your own, and in such a manner that should you re read your comments I am sure you will see they reflect your own persona on these threads much more than my own., As for your multiple choice questionnairre Mr Pullen, I don't do surveys. Keep guessing as to what my thoughts are regarding yourself, who knows, one day you may just stumble blindly onto the right answer. Cavendo Tutus Simon Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

12:21pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Gobbag Vooar wrote:
Mr Pullen, I can give you a " thumbs up " for your last posting, but why are you still harping on about method's and trying to find some personal motives or vendettas regarding Cavetown, who you still insult by using the word " Gang " What Gang "?
You question the motives. That question has already been answered both in the K.N. and on these sites by Mrs Mitchell, How many More Times ?
If this lady had a vendetta against the council, then it has taken a long time for it to surface, what rubbish, as any fool can see.
Mr Forsyth explained how he got involved on these sites only a short time ago, for goodness sake Mr Pullen, How many more times ?
As for me, believe it or not " I will say this only once " as I have made my own position clear when I first started to post.
I wanted to find out more about what my council was doing, these sites are just one avenue, as a parishioner, I looked at these sites for a two sided debate, Cavetown were the only partners in this presenting any facts to consider, all we got from those who tried to support this council was abuse,

Mr Pullen, with due respect, over twenty objections have been considered valid by the auditors, so whatever methods were employed, they seem to have borne fruit.
Yes your post was good, but do stop asking questions that have already been answered.
With all due respect, the "Gang" label is taken directly from the Cavetown website - http://cavetowncounc
il.moonfruit.com/con
tact/4575722885

My continual usage could be seen as provocative and unnecessary but I can't be blamed for using their own terminology to differentiate between the main players and supporters of the campaign.

I'm not questioning the motives of Cavetown Council - but some of those spearheading the campaign have been asked questions regarding past connections with the KTC.

Always a 708 Skinhead seems determined to manufacture some fictional motives or ambitions that I may have in this matter. Whilst it's all very pretty and keeps the posts flowing it lacks substance and evidence.

Since I became aware of Cavetown I have expressed concerns about exactly how much the electorate really care. I'm not saying that KTC should avoid repercussions if the alleged mismanagement is proven but will the public actually feel engaged.
The presentation of facts - both online in and the media - are headline grabbing and scaremongering but did this bring about a high turnout at the recent elections?
All I've pushed is that Cavetown look at how they encourage others to engage in their campaign - carry supporters by a positive message provided in an accessible way.

Whilst some "Gang" members (there I go again!) are managing to do this we sadly have to continually witness a rogue who feels the need to show a side to the set-up that is dirty and in shadows.

Will this change? Doubtful!
Should it change? Not my place to say.
[quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: Mr Pullen, I can give you a " thumbs up " for your last posting, but why are you still harping on about method's and trying to find some personal motives or vendettas regarding Cavetown, who you still insult by using the word " Gang " What Gang "? You question the motives. That question has already been answered both in the K.N. and on these sites by Mrs Mitchell, How many More Times ? If this lady had a vendetta against the council, then it has taken a long time for it to surface, what rubbish, as any fool can see. Mr Forsyth explained how he got involved on these sites only a short time ago, for goodness sake Mr Pullen, How many more times ? As for me, believe it or not " I will say this only once " as I have made my own position clear when I first started to post. I wanted to find out more about what my council was doing, these sites are just one avenue, as a parishioner, I looked at these sites for a two sided debate, Cavetown were the only partners in this presenting any facts to consider, all we got from those who tried to support this council was abuse, Mr Pullen, with due respect, over twenty objections have been considered valid by the auditors, so whatever methods were employed, they seem to have borne fruit. Yes your post was good, but do stop asking questions that have already been answered.[/p][/quote]With all due respect, the "Gang" label is taken directly from the Cavetown website - http://cavetowncounc il.moonfruit.com/con tact/4575722885 My continual usage could be seen as provocative and unnecessary but I can't be blamed for using their own terminology to differentiate between the main players and supporters of the campaign. I'm not questioning the motives of Cavetown Council - but some of those spearheading the campaign have been asked questions regarding past connections with the KTC. Always a 708 Skinhead seems determined to manufacture some fictional motives or ambitions that I may have in this matter. Whilst it's all very pretty and keeps the posts flowing it lacks substance and evidence. Since I became aware of Cavetown I have expressed concerns about exactly how much the electorate really care. I'm not saying that KTC should avoid repercussions if the alleged mismanagement is proven but will the public actually feel engaged. The presentation of facts - both online in and the media - are headline grabbing and scaremongering but did this bring about a high turnout at the recent elections? All I've pushed is that Cavetown look at how they encourage others to engage in their campaign - carry supporters by a positive message provided in an accessible way. Whilst some "Gang" members (there I go again!) are managing to do this we sadly have to continually witness a rogue who feels the need to show a side to the set-up that is dirty and in shadows. Will this change? Doubtful! Should it change? Not my place to say. MarkPullen
  • Score: -4

12:26pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Wasn't aware I posted any conclusions Mr Pullen, just observations.
You do however make several of your own, and in such a manner that should you re read your comments I am sure you will see they reflect your own persona on these threads much more than my own.,

As for your multiple choice questionnairre Mr Pullen, I don't do surveys.
Keep guessing as to what my thoughts are regarding yourself, who knows, one day you may just stumble blindly onto the right answer.

Cavendo Tutus

Simon
Do I really give a flying Kookaburra as to what stirs within your mind?

Do you care what I think?

The answer to both is a big, fat, bloated, NO!

What I do know is that you haven't a clue about my motives (if I have any).
Grasping at fog seems to be your preferred hobby nowadays.

Be assured, Almighty Simon, that your ability to dish out criticism which I happily respond to isn't doing you any favours. Cavetown functions without the spare part "Gang" member that is the Aussie Mascot.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Wasn't aware I posted any conclusions Mr Pullen, just observations. You do however make several of your own, and in such a manner that should you re read your comments I am sure you will see they reflect your own persona on these threads much more than my own., As for your multiple choice questionnairre Mr Pullen, I don't do surveys. Keep guessing as to what my thoughts are regarding yourself, who knows, one day you may just stumble blindly onto the right answer. Cavendo Tutus Simon[/p][/quote]Do I really give a flying Kookaburra as to what stirs within your mind? Do you care what I think? The answer to both is a big, fat, bloated, NO! What I do know is that you haven't a clue about my motives (if I have any). Grasping at fog seems to be your preferred hobby nowadays. Be assured, Almighty Simon, that your ability to dish out criticism which I happily respond to isn't doing you any favours. Cavetown functions without the spare part "Gang" member that is the Aussie Mascot. MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

12:35pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Mr Pullen,
Your words-
"What I do know is that you haven't a clue about my motives (if I have any).
Grasping at fog seems to be your preferred hobby nowadays.

Be assured, Almighty Simon, that your ability to dish out criticism which I happily respond to isn't doing you any favours. Cavetown functions without the spare part "Gang" member that is the Aussie Mascot."

I suggest that you reread this thread from the beginning. Have a look Mr Pullen and tell me who it was that started to dish out criticism me or you?

Now get down of your high horse and start again or continue to receive the criticism you are so generous in dishing out.

Once again your comments simply reflect your own behave. But do keep it up old boy.
As I said, it serves my intended purpose.

Cavendo Tutus
Mr Pullen, Your words- "What I do know is that you haven't a clue about my motives (if I have any). Grasping at fog seems to be your preferred hobby nowadays. Be assured, Almighty Simon, that your ability to dish out criticism which I happily respond to isn't doing you any favours. Cavetown functions without the spare part "Gang" member that is the Aussie Mascot." I suggest that you reread this thread from the beginning. Have a look Mr Pullen and tell me who it was that started to dish out criticism me or you? Now get down of your high horse and start again or continue to receive the criticism you are so generous in dishing out. Once again your comments simply reflect your own behave. But do keep it up old boy. As I said, it serves my intended purpose. Cavendo Tutus Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 6

12:43pm Fri 10 Jan 14

badgergate says...

THE CAVETOWN GANG TAKEN FROM
http://cavetowncounc
il.moonfruit.com/hom
e/4575722880

Cave Town Council are

Elizabeth Mitchell - Chieftain

Simon Mitchell - Pendragon

The Gang
Ian Roberts
Mary Roberts
The Reverand AJR
Michael Mitchell
Graham Forsyth
Nicola Garner

PENDRAGON :-)
THE CAVETOWN GANG TAKEN FROM http://cavetowncounc il.moonfruit.com/hom e/4575722880 Cave Town Council are Elizabeth Mitchell - Chieftain Simon Mitchell - Pendragon The Gang Ian Roberts Mary Roberts The Reverand AJR Michael Mitchell Graham Forsyth Nicola Garner PENDRAGON :-) badgergate
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Mr Pullen,
Your words-
"What I do know is that you haven't a clue about my motives (if I have any).
Grasping at fog seems to be your preferred hobby nowadays.

Be assured, Almighty Simon, that your ability to dish out criticism which I happily respond to isn't doing you any favours. Cavetown functions without the spare part "Gang" member that is the Aussie Mascot."

I suggest that you reread this thread from the beginning. Have a look Mr Pullen and tell me who it was that started to dish out criticism me or you?

Now get down of your high horse and start again or continue to receive the criticism you are so generous in dishing out.

Once again your comments simply reflect your own behave. But do keep it up old boy.
As I said, it serves my intended purpose.

Cavendo Tutus
Works both ways my friend, works both ways.

The difference is, Cobber, that I'm not representing (knowingly or not) an organisation that's trying to engage with the public in putting pressure on KTC.

My comments are attributed to me, myself, and I - yours will always be linked to Cavetown and therefore you continue to chip away at their credibility. This isn't something that I believe should happen (or welcome) but you choose what to rise to.

So you claim that I started with the criticisms? You didn't have to respond unless you haven't the willpower to refrain.
I did reread this thread and can assure you that it was your good self that decided to post any criticism before myself - though it was targeted at others.

Other members of Cavetown manage to portray a reasonable and measured response to their critics whereas you're the little kid in the group that keeps flying off the handle. Everybody humours you as it keeps the international aspect.

Keep with it Sport!
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Mr Pullen, Your words- "What I do know is that you haven't a clue about my motives (if I have any). Grasping at fog seems to be your preferred hobby nowadays. Be assured, Almighty Simon, that your ability to dish out criticism which I happily respond to isn't doing you any favours. Cavetown functions without the spare part "Gang" member that is the Aussie Mascot." I suggest that you reread this thread from the beginning. Have a look Mr Pullen and tell me who it was that started to dish out criticism me or you? Now get down of your high horse and start again or continue to receive the criticism you are so generous in dishing out. Once again your comments simply reflect your own behave. But do keep it up old boy. As I said, it serves my intended purpose. Cavendo Tutus[/p][/quote]Works both ways my friend, works both ways. The difference is, Cobber, that I'm not representing (knowingly or not) an organisation that's trying to engage with the public in putting pressure on KTC. My comments are attributed to me, myself, and I - yours will always be linked to Cavetown and therefore you continue to chip away at their credibility. This isn't something that I believe should happen (or welcome) but you choose what to rise to. So you claim that I started with the criticisms? You didn't have to respond unless you haven't the willpower to refrain. I did reread this thread and can assure you that it was your good self that decided to post any criticism before myself - though it was targeted at others. Other members of Cavetown manage to portray a reasonable and measured response to their critics whereas you're the little kid in the group that keeps flying off the handle. Everybody humours you as it keeps the international aspect. Keep with it Sport! MarkPullen
  • Score: -3

1:02pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MorriseyRocks says...

Shall we wait and see what the external auditors findings are before descending into the usual madness? If they show the KTC acted incorrectly then those responsible should be brought to book. If not, will the Cavetowners issue an acceptance of the independent findings? Can someone from the group explain to me what the term Cave Town means as I am unaware?
Secondly, why has the important article about the newly elected UKIP Cllr Samuel Fletcher been deleted? Is this a glitch or something more sinister going on. I note he continues to comment on current issues without recourse to any explanation of his, on face value, bizarre behaviour and bigoted comments. Calling gay people 'Queers' and publicly talking about his sexual antics. Surely we deserve at least an explanation as to why he felt it necessary to make such ill considered comments and to confirm or deny his homophobic views.
Shall we wait and see what the external auditors findings are before descending into the usual madness? If they show the KTC acted incorrectly then those responsible should be brought to book. If not, will the Cavetowners issue an acceptance of the independent findings? Can someone from the group explain to me what the term Cave Town means as I am unaware? Secondly, why has the important article about the newly elected UKIP Cllr Samuel Fletcher been deleted? Is this a glitch or something more sinister going on. I note he continues to comment on current issues without recourse to any explanation of his, on face value, bizarre behaviour and bigoted comments. Calling gay people 'Queers' and publicly talking about his sexual antics. Surely we deserve at least an explanation as to why he felt it necessary to make such ill considered comments and to confirm or deny his homophobic views. MorriseyRocks
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Gobbag Vooar says...

Mr Pullen, I note your comments , I do believe that your minor autification with Mr Skinhead, might well be due to the fact that he does seem, and to be fair, have the better of you ?
Mr Pullen, I note your comments , I do believe that your minor autification with Mr Skinhead, might well be due to the fact that he does seem, and to be fair, have the better of you ? Gobbag Vooar
  • Score: 5

1:11pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Mr Pullen-
"My comments are attributed to me, myself, and I - yours will always be linked to Cavetown and therefore you continue to chip away at their credibility."
Obviously you meant to add- "in your opinion".

My measured responses to your words are done by design Mr Pullen. have no fear, once there is no longer a need for my comments here I will vanish just as quickly as I appeared. Unfortunately, while you're around, I am not afforded such a luxury.
Your obvious pining for the return of Mr Samuels has indeed left a gaping chasm in your rhetoric, that you have found a substitute in me is of little consequence.

Keep on racking up the thumbs down Mr Pullen. It does highlight how far out of touch you really are.

S
Mr Pullen- "My comments are attributed to me, myself, and I - yours will always be linked to Cavetown and therefore you continue to chip away at their credibility." Obviously you meant to add- "in your opinion". My measured responses to your words are done by design Mr Pullen. have no fear, once there is no longer a need for my comments here I will vanish just as quickly as I appeared. Unfortunately, while you're around, I am not afforded such a luxury. Your obvious pining for the return of Mr Samuels has indeed left a gaping chasm in your rhetoric, that you have found a substitute in me is of little consequence. Keep on racking up the thumbs down Mr Pullen. It does highlight how far out of touch you really are. S Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 7

1:11pm Fri 10 Jan 14

badgergate says...

MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell , you write in your secret Facebook World
" shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful "

But then elsewhere you post in reference to the letter in the KN by Joyce Newton

"Obviously the woman is stupid"
"A clown of the highest order"
"Funny woman . Stupid as well "

MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell
MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell , you write in your secret Facebook World " shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful " But then elsewhere you post in reference to the letter in the KN by Joyce Newton "Obviously the woman is stupid" "A clown of the highest order" "Funny woman . Stupid as well " MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell badgergate
  • Score: -9

1:13pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Morrisaey Rocks-
Can someone from the group explain to me what the term Cave Town means as I am unaware?

This may help-

Cavendo Tutus . (The Making of a Name)
The 7th Duke of Devonshire,
Was bestowed a special name.
Lord Cavendish of Keighley,
"Cavendo Tutus" was his claim.

Baron Cavendish of Keighley,
Was how his Grandfather was known.
Now "Cavendo Tutus" and it's meaning,
Were into Keighley's History sewn.

As Bridal paths and buildings rose,
Fronts of The Industrial Revolution.
A name was needed for Inn and Road,
Cavendish was the best solution.

When men would meet to slake a thirst,
After a long and hard days graft.
They drank and laughed and quarrelled too,
In the place known as "The Cav".

As the weft and warp grew silent,
And the shuttles had thrown their last,
Shouts of 'See thee in the Cav Tonight,"
"Be there gone five and twenty past."

Others blessed with education,
Studied science and ancient words,
So they could build better machinery,
And know Latin names for birds.

In the 'Cav" they conducted business,
But having no desire to boast.
They would seal the deal in whispers,
"Cavendo Tutus!" They would toast.

When war broke out, it fell upon,
Keighley's fathers and their sons.
To go and do their duty,
Both the Cavendo's and Cav Ton's.

Cold and huddled in the trenches,
Stories of "The Cav" kept out frostbite,
If one lay dead or wounded,
In his name they won the fight.

They were all in it together,
Were all just Lads from Keighley now.
The 'Cav" Boys from the mills of Yorkshire,
Stockbridge, Guardhouse and Thwaites Brow.

They spoke their mind, were never wrong,
And could talk till the sun had set.
But to win a fight or drink too long,
On the Cav Town boys you could always bet.

Side by side , in battles fought,
These Men of Worth did not back down,
Thoughts of home bound lasting friendships strong ,
And built the Legend of Cavetown.
SM2013
Morrisaey Rocks- Can someone from the group explain to me what the term Cave Town means as I am unaware? This may help- Cavendo Tutus . (The Making of a Name) The 7th Duke of Devonshire, Was bestowed a special name. Lord Cavendish of Keighley, "Cavendo Tutus" was his claim. Baron Cavendish of Keighley, Was how his Grandfather was known. Now "Cavendo Tutus" and it's meaning, Were into Keighley's History sewn. As Bridal paths and buildings rose, Fronts of The Industrial Revolution. A name was needed for Inn and Road, Cavendish was the best solution. When men would meet to slake a thirst, After a long and hard days graft. They drank and laughed and quarrelled too, In the place known as "The Cav". As the weft and warp grew silent, And the shuttles had thrown their last, Shouts of 'See thee in the Cav Tonight," "Be there gone five and twenty past." Others blessed with education, Studied science and ancient words, So they could build better machinery, And know Latin names for birds. In the 'Cav" they conducted business, But having no desire to boast. They would seal the deal in whispers, "Cavendo Tutus!" They would toast. When war broke out, it fell upon, Keighley's fathers and their sons. To go and do their duty, Both the Cavendo's and Cav Ton's. Cold and huddled in the trenches, Stories of "The Cav" kept out frostbite, If one lay dead or wounded, In his name they won the fight. They were all in it together, Were all just Lads from Keighley now. The 'Cav" Boys from the mills of Yorkshire, Stockbridge, Guardhouse and Thwaites Brow. They spoke their mind, were never wrong, And could talk till the sun had set. But to win a fight or drink too long, On the Cav Town boys you could always bet. Side by side , in battles fought, These Men of Worth did not back down, Thoughts of home bound lasting friendships strong , And built the Legend of Cavetown. SM2013 Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 6

1:17pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

badgergate wrote:
MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell , you write in your secret Facebook World
" shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful "

But then elsewhere you post in reference to the letter in the KN by Joyce Newton

"Obviously the woman is stupid"
"A clown of the highest order"
"Funny woman . Stupid as well "

MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell
Badgergate.

This is simply a disrespect for an individual regardless of gender.
For instance, my contempt for you councillor Badgergate would not be stifled if you were a female version of the vermin you portray.
[quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell , you write in your secret Facebook World " shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful " But then elsewhere you post in reference to the letter in the KN by Joyce Newton "Obviously the woman is stupid" "A clown of the highest order" "Funny woman . Stupid as well " MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell[/p][/quote]Badgergate. This is simply a disrespect for an individual regardless of gender. For instance, my contempt for you councillor Badgergate would not be stifled if you were a female version of the vermin you portray. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 6

1:20pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Gobbag Vooar wrote:
Mr Pullen, I note your comments , I do believe that your minor autification with Mr Skinhead, might well be due to the fact that he does seem, and to be fair, have the better of you ?
I'm sure he does but would hate to let him know that! ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: Mr Pullen, I note your comments , I do believe that your minor autification with Mr Skinhead, might well be due to the fact that he does seem, and to be fair, have the better of you ?[/p][/quote]I'm sure he does but would hate to let him know that! ;-) MarkPullen
  • Score: -1

1:22pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Mr Pullen-
"My comments are attributed to me, myself, and I - yours will always be linked to Cavetown and therefore you continue to chip away at their credibility."
Obviously you meant to add- "in your opinion".

My measured responses to your words are done by design Mr Pullen. have no fear, once there is no longer a need for my comments here I will vanish just as quickly as I appeared. Unfortunately, while you're around, I am not afforded such a luxury.
Your obvious pining for the return of Mr Samuels has indeed left a gaping chasm in your rhetoric, that you have found a substitute in me is of little consequence.

Keep on racking up the thumbs down Mr Pullen. It does highlight how far out of touch you really are.

S
Be assure Almighty Simon that you'll never fit into the shoes of Councillor Dave - even the Plastic Politician managed that in just a couple of posts.

Don't exaggerate your own importance!

P.S. Do you undertake regular daily exercise to be able to get you head so far up?
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Mr Pullen- "My comments are attributed to me, myself, and I - yours will always be linked to Cavetown and therefore you continue to chip away at their credibility." Obviously you meant to add- "in your opinion". My measured responses to your words are done by design Mr Pullen. have no fear, once there is no longer a need for my comments here I will vanish just as quickly as I appeared. Unfortunately, while you're around, I am not afforded such a luxury. Your obvious pining for the return of Mr Samuels has indeed left a gaping chasm in your rhetoric, that you have found a substitute in me is of little consequence. Keep on racking up the thumbs down Mr Pullen. It does highlight how far out of touch you really are. S[/p][/quote]Be assure Almighty Simon that you'll never fit into the shoes of Councillor Dave - even the Plastic Politician managed that in just a couple of posts. Don't exaggerate your own importance! P.S. Do you undertake regular daily exercise to be able to get you head so far up? MarkPullen
  • Score: -7

1:38pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
badgergate wrote:
MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell , you write in your secret Facebook World
" shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful "

But then elsewhere you post in reference to the letter in the KN by Joyce Newton

"Obviously the woman is stupid"
"A clown of the highest order"
"Funny woman . Stupid as well "

MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell
Badgergate.

This is simply a disrespect for an individual regardless of gender.
For instance, my contempt for you councillor Badgergate would not be stifled if you were a female version of the vermin you portray.
PS Brother Badgergate,
Once again you have posted a false and misleading comment.
You have quoted my comments-
" shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful "

These words were published in a group which is open to the public, even non members can view what is written there.
That group Keighley Forum,
https://www.facebook
.com/groups/keighley
forum/

accepts membership from anyone, even yourself councillor badgergate.
There is no IQ test.

The idea was to have an open forum where people could discuss issues regarding Keighley, be it councillors, Members of the Public or just other interested parties, no hidden agenda or secret Facebookworld Badgerface. The only people who have been removed have been people who have posted spam regarding payday loans.
Mr Pullen is welcome to join also if he wishes.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell , you write in your secret Facebook World " shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful " But then elsewhere you post in reference to the letter in the KN by Joyce Newton "Obviously the woman is stupid" "A clown of the highest order" "Funny woman . Stupid as well " MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell[/p][/quote]Badgergate. This is simply a disrespect for an individual regardless of gender. For instance, my contempt for you councillor Badgergate would not be stifled if you were a female version of the vermin you portray.[/p][/quote]PS Brother Badgergate, Once again you have posted a false and misleading comment. You have quoted my comments- " shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful " These words were published in a group which is open to the public, even non members can view what is written there. That group Keighley Forum, https://www.facebook .com/groups/keighley forum/ accepts membership from anyone, even yourself councillor badgergate. There is no IQ test. The idea was to have an open forum where people could discuss issues regarding Keighley, be it councillors, Members of the Public or just other interested parties, no hidden agenda or secret Facebookworld Badgerface. The only people who have been removed have been people who have posted spam regarding payday loans. Mr Pullen is welcome to join also if he wishes. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 10

1:44pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
badgergate wrote:
MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell , you write in your secret Facebook World
" shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful "

But then elsewhere you post in reference to the letter in the KN by Joyce Newton

"Obviously the woman is stupid"
"A clown of the highest order"
"Funny woman . Stupid as well "

MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell
Badgergate.

This is simply a disrespect for an individual regardless of gender.
For instance, my contempt for you councillor Badgergate would not be stifled if you were a female version of the vermin you portray.
PS Brother Badgergate,
Once again you have posted a false and misleading comment.
You have quoted my comments-
" shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful "

These words were published in a group which is open to the public, even non members can view what is written there.
That group Keighley Forum,
https://www.facebook

.com/groups/keighley

forum/

accepts membership from anyone, even yourself councillor badgergate.
There is no IQ test.

The idea was to have an open forum where people could discuss issues regarding Keighley, be it councillors, Members of the Public or just other interested parties, no hidden agenda or secret Facebookworld Badgerface. The only people who have been removed have been people who have posted spam regarding payday loans.
Mr Pullen is welcome to join also if he wishes.
So if the Keighley Forum page is open to allow people to post where there is "no hidden agenda" does that mean the Cavetown FB group is closed so that there can be a hidden agenda?

I'm not saying that it is but maybe I was wrong in thinking it was something I wanted to be connected to.

Surely another faux pas from Mitchell Jnr?
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell , you write in your secret Facebook World " shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful " But then elsewhere you post in reference to the letter in the KN by Joyce Newton "Obviously the woman is stupid" "A clown of the highest order" "Funny woman . Stupid as well " MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell[/p][/quote]Badgergate. This is simply a disrespect for an individual regardless of gender. For instance, my contempt for you councillor Badgergate would not be stifled if you were a female version of the vermin you portray.[/p][/quote]PS Brother Badgergate, Once again you have posted a false and misleading comment. You have quoted my comments- " shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful " These words were published in a group which is open to the public, even non members can view what is written there. That group Keighley Forum, https://www.facebook .com/groups/keighley forum/ accepts membership from anyone, even yourself councillor badgergate. There is no IQ test. The idea was to have an open forum where people could discuss issues regarding Keighley, be it councillors, Members of the Public or just other interested parties, no hidden agenda or secret Facebookworld Badgerface. The only people who have been removed have been people who have posted spam regarding payday loans. Mr Pullen is welcome to join also if he wishes.[/p][/quote]So if the Keighley Forum page is open to allow people to post where there is "no hidden agenda" does that mean the Cavetown FB group is closed so that there can be a hidden agenda? I'm not saying that it is but maybe I was wrong in thinking it was something I wanted to be connected to. Surely another faux pas from Mitchell Jnr? MarkPullen
  • Score: -7

1:44pm Fri 10 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
badgergate wrote:
MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell , you write in your secret Facebook World
" shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful "

But then elsewhere you post in reference to the letter in the KN by Joyce Newton

"Obviously the woman is stupid"
"A clown of the highest order"
"Funny woman . Stupid as well "

MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell
Badgergate.

This is simply a disrespect for an individual regardless of gender.
For instance, my contempt for you councillor Badgergate would not be stifled if you were a female version of the vermin you portray.
PS Brother Badgergate,
Once again you have posted a false and misleading comment.
You have quoted my comments-
" shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful "

These words were published in a group which is open to the public, even non members can view what is written there.
That group Keighley Forum,
https://www.facebook

.com/groups/keighley

forum/

accepts membership from anyone, even yourself councillor badgergate.
There is no IQ test.

The idea was to have an open forum where people could discuss issues regarding Keighley, be it councillors, Members of the Public or just other interested parties, no hidden agenda or secret Facebookworld Badgerface. The only people who have been removed have been people who have posted spam regarding payday loans.
Mr Pullen is welcome to join also if he wishes.
Your response says it all !.

PENDRAGON
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell , you write in your secret Facebook World " shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful " But then elsewhere you post in reference to the letter in the KN by Joyce Newton "Obviously the woman is stupid" "A clown of the highest order" "Funny woman . Stupid as well " MMMMMMMMMM Simon Mitchell[/p][/quote]Badgergate. This is simply a disrespect for an individual regardless of gender. For instance, my contempt for you councillor Badgergate would not be stifled if you were a female version of the vermin you portray.[/p][/quote]PS Brother Badgergate, Once again you have posted a false and misleading comment. You have quoted my comments- " shows a disrespect for women which i find distasteful " These words were published in a group which is open to the public, even non members can view what is written there. That group Keighley Forum, https://www.facebook .com/groups/keighley forum/ accepts membership from anyone, even yourself councillor badgergate. There is no IQ test. The idea was to have an open forum where people could discuss issues regarding Keighley, be it councillors, Members of the Public or just other interested parties, no hidden agenda or secret Facebookworld Badgerface. The only people who have been removed have been people who have posted spam regarding payday loans. Mr Pullen is welcome to join also if he wishes.[/p][/quote]Your response says it all !. PENDRAGON badgergate
  • Score: -5

1:48pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Sigh!
Good night all.
While it is amusing for a while, dealing with dim witted folk can get extremely tiresome after a while.

Looking forward to reading the 300 plus posts this week before next weeks articles....

Tick Tock
Sigh! Good night all. While it is amusing for a while, dealing with dim witted folk can get extremely tiresome after a while. Looking forward to reading the 300 plus posts this week before next weeks articles.... Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 6

1:51pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Sigh!
Good night all.
While it is amusing for a while, dealing with dim witted folk can get extremely tiresome after a while.

Looking forward to reading the 300 plus posts this week before next weeks articles....

Tick Tock
It's always amusing Bruce!

I'll let you all into a little secret - responding to the likes of yourself is what keeps me on these comment pages.

The stories are valid, the importance is recognised, but the clowns are plentiful and always willing to squirt their pretty lapel flowers and take a custard pie.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Sigh! Good night all. While it is amusing for a while, dealing with dim witted folk can get extremely tiresome after a while. Looking forward to reading the 300 plus posts this week before next weeks articles.... Tick Tock[/p][/quote]It's always amusing Bruce! I'll let you all into a little secret - responding to the likes of yourself is what keeps me on these comment pages. The stories are valid, the importance is recognised, but the clowns are plentiful and always willing to squirt their pretty lapel flowers and take a custard pie. MarkPullen
  • Score: -8

1:56pm Fri 10 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Sigh!
Good night all.
While it is amusing for a while, dealing with dim witted folk can get extremely tiresome after a while.

Looking forward to reading the 300 plus posts this week before next weeks articles....

Tick Tock
Mummy should be pleased with your posts today ,an extra rusk with your breakfast?.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Sigh! Good night all. While it is amusing for a while, dealing with dim witted folk can get extremely tiresome after a while. Looking forward to reading the 300 plus posts this week before next weeks articles.... Tick Tock[/p][/quote]Mummy should be pleased with your posts today ,an extra rusk with your breakfast?. badgergate
  • Score: -6

2:08pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Gobbag Vooar says...

I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong.
This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect.
When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?
I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong. This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect. When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ? Gobbag Vooar
  • Score: 7

2:08pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

So ...... what do we do now for amusement until the Saturday sun rises in Canberra?
So ...... what do we do now for amusement until the Saturday sun rises in Canberra? MarkPullen
  • Score: -4

2:14pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Gobbag Vooar wrote:
I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong.
This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect.
When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?
I accept your points in full and it's is childish of me to continually refer to David Samuels in such a way.

When I first arrived on these pages, a while back, Mr Samuels felt it appropriate to take me to task on any post which differed from his own thoughts.

I watched how he was prepared to use words to rip to pieces others who contributed.

During the last few years he has continued, until recently, to provide labels for others in an attempt to goad them - a tactic which has worked pretty much every time.

He has often hit back at others by referring to his advancing years or state of health - a shield which he is willing to turn into a lance at the drop of a paperback book.

David isn't a violent man physically but his words have on many occasion caused wounds which could be perceived as uncalled for.

Again maybe I should leave him be - I'll endeavour to call a truce from this point forward unless he takes it upon himself to return to his old ways.

Thanks for the virtual slap! ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong. This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect. When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?[/p][/quote]I accept your points in full and it's is childish of me to continually refer to David Samuels in such a way. When I first arrived on these pages, a while back, Mr Samuels felt it appropriate to take me to task on any post which differed from his own thoughts. I watched how he was prepared to use words to rip to pieces others who contributed. During the last few years he has continued, until recently, to provide labels for others in an attempt to goad them - a tactic which has worked pretty much every time. He has often hit back at others by referring to his advancing years or state of health - a shield which he is willing to turn into a lance at the drop of a paperback book. David isn't a violent man physically but his words have on many occasion caused wounds which could be perceived as uncalled for. Again maybe I should leave him be - I'll endeavour to call a truce from this point forward unless he takes it upon himself to return to his old ways. Thanks for the virtual slap! ;-) MarkPullen
  • Score: 8

3:02pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Gobbag Vooar wrote:
I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong.
This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect.
When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?
I have just read all the posts on this thread and come to the conclusion that the majority of them are a complete waste of time ,nothing is gained by them 40 plus what a waste .
[quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong. This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect. When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?[/p][/quote]I have just read all the posts on this thread and come to the conclusion that the majority of them are a complete waste of time ,nothing is gained by them 40 plus what a waste . Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 6

3:03pm Fri 10 Jan 14

TruthTold says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Some readers might be interested in seeing how the councils spending has spiralled out of control in the past couple of years.
The following are the figures for the recent history of the Precept rise by Keighley Town council-

2007/08
Increase 14.1 %
Revenue £294,700
.
2008/09
Increase 15.0%
Revenue £341,500

2009/10
Increase 8.8%
Revenue £371,552

2010/11
Increase 3.4%
Revenue £386,250

2011/12
Increase 0.0%
Revenue £392,750

2012/13.
Increase 72.6%
Revenue £682,351
Have you still not grasped the difference between PRECEPT & REVENUE? As I pointed out when you posted this last week THERE WAS NO INCREASE IN THE PRECEPT IN 2009/10,2010/11 or 2011/12. This can be checked on any number of resources. Re-posting your incorrect figures will not make them right. even though you proably think that if you post them enough they will be accepted as fact.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Some readers might be interested in seeing how the councils spending has spiralled out of control in the past couple of years. The following are the figures for the recent history of the Precept rise by Keighley Town council- 2007/08 Increase 14.1 % Revenue £294,700 . 2008/09 Increase 15.0% Revenue £341,500 2009/10 Increase 8.8% Revenue £371,552 2010/11 Increase 3.4% Revenue £386,250 2011/12 Increase 0.0% Revenue £392,750 2012/13. Increase 72.6% Revenue £682,351[/p][/quote]Have you still not grasped the difference between PRECEPT & REVENUE? As I pointed out when you posted this last week THERE WAS NO INCREASE IN THE PRECEPT IN 2009/10,2010/11 or 2011/12. This can be checked on any number of resources. Re-posting your incorrect figures will not make them right. even though you proably think that if you post them enough they will be accepted as fact. TruthTold
  • Score: -7

3:06pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Gobbag Vooar wrote:
I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong.
This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect.
When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?
I have just read all the posts on this thread and come to the conclusion that the majority of them are a complete waste of time ,nothing is gained by them 40 plus what a waste .
Sadly, Ian-Holt Roberts, these pages are for "comments" and not technically meant for a forum style approach.

The KN do have a much-underused forum facility.

As I'm one of those adding posts which are "a complete waste of time" I recognise that any newcomer to these pages has to be dedicated (or committed in ever sense of the word) to attempt to follow the conversations.
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong. This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect. When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?[/p][/quote]I have just read all the posts on this thread and come to the conclusion that the majority of them are a complete waste of time ,nothing is gained by them 40 plus what a waste .[/p][/quote]Sadly, Ian-Holt Roberts, these pages are for "comments" and not technically meant for a forum style approach. The KN do have a much-underused forum facility. As I'm one of those adding posts which are "a complete waste of time" I recognise that any newcomer to these pages has to be dedicated (or committed in ever sense of the word) to attempt to follow the conversations. MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

3:16pm Fri 10 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Gobbag Vooar wrote:
I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong.
This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect.
When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?
I have just read all the posts on this thread and come to the conclusion that the majority of them are a complete waste of time ,nothing is gained by them 40 plus what a waste .
Yes agree Simon's been busy today.
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong. This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect. When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?[/p][/quote]I have just read all the posts on this thread and come to the conclusion that the majority of them are a complete waste of time ,nothing is gained by them 40 plus what a waste .[/p][/quote]Yes agree Simon's been busy today. badgergate
  • Score: -4

3:19pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Kingchaser says...

Gobbag Vooar wrote:
I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong.
This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect.
When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?
Gobbag Vooar = David Samuels
[quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong. This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect. When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?[/p][/quote]Gobbag Vooar = David Samuels Kingchaser
  • Score: -3

3:22pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Gobbag Vooar says...

Kingchaser wrote:
Gobbag Vooar wrote:
I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong.
This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect.
When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?
Gobbag Vooar = David Samuels
HA HAr Right first time Kingchaser.
[quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong. This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect. When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?[/p][/quote]Gobbag Vooar = David Samuels[/p][/quote]HA HAr Right first time Kingchaser. Gobbag Vooar
  • Score: 0

3:24pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Kingchaser wrote:
Gobbag Vooar wrote:
I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong.
This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect.
When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?
Gobbag Vooar = David Samuels
Doubtful - I'm being nice so will refrain from my reasoning.
[quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong. This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect. When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?[/p][/quote]Gobbag Vooar = David Samuels[/p][/quote]Doubtful - I'm being nice so will refrain from my reasoning. MarkPullen
  • Score: 2

3:55pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Kingchaser says...

Apparently Bruce Almighty refers to himself as PENDRAGON. Obviously, with his somewhat lacking English skills, there's a spelling and grammar mistake involved.

He meant to refer to himself as 'Penned, rag-on'. :-)
Apparently Bruce Almighty refers to himself as PENDRAGON. Obviously, with his somewhat lacking English skills, there's a spelling and grammar mistake involved. He meant to refer to himself as 'Penned, rag-on'. :-) Kingchaser
  • Score: -2

4:21pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Katiery says...

I must be bored today, I read the whole thing and I agree with Ian Holt-Roberts, it's a pointless rant going over the same old arguments.

I did find the only sensible post ever made by Badgergate, just the one, so that made it almost worthwhile!

I'll leave you two to slog it out MarkPullen and Always a 708 Skinhead as you you seem to be enjoying yourselves immensely.
I must be bored today, I read the whole thing and I agree with Ian Holt-Roberts, it's a pointless rant going over the same old arguments. I did find the only sensible post ever made by Badgergate, just the one, so that made it almost worthwhile! I'll leave you two to slog it out MarkPullen and Always a 708 Skinhead as you you seem to be enjoying yourselves immensely. Katiery
  • Score: 3

4:26pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Katiery wrote:
I must be bored today, I read the whole thing and I agree with Ian Holt-Roberts, it's a pointless rant going over the same old arguments.

I did find the only sensible post ever made by Badgergate, just the one, so that made it almost worthwhile!

I'll leave you two to slog it out MarkPullen and Always a 708 Skinhead as you you seem to be enjoying yourselves immensely.
Does it show?! ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: I must be bored today, I read the whole thing and I agree with Ian Holt-Roberts, it's a pointless rant going over the same old arguments. I did find the only sensible post ever made by Badgergate, just the one, so that made it almost worthwhile! I'll leave you two to slog it out MarkPullen and Always a 708 Skinhead as you you seem to be enjoying yourselves immensely.[/p][/quote]Does it show?! ;-) MarkPullen
  • Score: 4

4:28pm Fri 10 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Katiery wrote:
I must be bored today, I read the whole thing and I agree with Ian Holt-Roberts, it's a pointless rant going over the same old arguments.

I did find the only sensible post ever made by Badgergate, just the one, so that made it almost worthwhile!

I'll leave you two to slog it out MarkPullen and Always a 708 Skinhead as you you seem to be enjoying yourselves immensely.
I am shocked deeply , a sensible post ?.

Simon also posted today in his secret Facebook World

"to remind us all that even elected officials are people, prone to all the failings and mistakes made by us all. "
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: I must be bored today, I read the whole thing and I agree with Ian Holt-Roberts, it's a pointless rant going over the same old arguments. I did find the only sensible post ever made by Badgergate, just the one, so that made it almost worthwhile! I'll leave you two to slog it out MarkPullen and Always a 708 Skinhead as you you seem to be enjoying yourselves immensely.[/p][/quote]I am shocked deeply , a sensible post ?. Simon also posted today in his secret Facebook World "to remind us all that even elected officials are people, prone to all the failings and mistakes made by us all. " badgergate
  • Score: -6

4:36pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Katiery says...

MarkPullen says... Does it show?! ;-) Only a little bit Mark ...

badgergate says... Simon also posted today in his secret Facebook Word
"to remind us all that even elected officials are people, prone to all the failings and mistakes made by us all. "

Yes, elected officials ARE just ordinary people and do make mistakes. The problems come when they try to hide those mistakes or hide behind them by trying to deflect blame, or just totally ignore them which is what most of KTC seem to be doing right now.
MarkPullen says... Does it show?! ;-) Only a little bit Mark ... badgergate says... Simon also posted today in his secret Facebook Word "to remind us all that even elected officials are people, prone to all the failings and mistakes made by us all. " Yes, elected officials ARE just ordinary people and do make mistakes. The problems come when they try to hide those mistakes or hide behind them by trying to deflect blame, or just totally ignore them which is what most of KTC seem to be doing right now. Katiery
  • Score: 4

6:23pm Fri 10 Jan 14

jimmy k says...

i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.
i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms. jimmy k
  • Score: -3

8:17pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Little Green Man says...

jimmy k wrote:
i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.
Well spotted Jimbo, Katiery - you see what some of us are up against? Even reasoned comments are immediately rtuck down by those who dare to be king - naming no names at all, just think back to last week when some folk were absent? How we managed to almost have a sensible and reasoned debate? Withing one day of certain folk returning we are back to slanging matches - to me it is obvious where the problem lies - while insults are being hurled left and right among the folk who basically agree with each other the council must be laughing their socks off! For the sake of their own personal IMAGE members of cavetown council are dragging their own cause into the gutter - whatever anyone else says about David Samuels at least he had the common sense and decency to keep refrain from the slanging matches when it was important to do so - he makes the rest of you look like little kids!
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.[/p][/quote]Well spotted Jimbo, Katiery - you see what some of us are up against? Even reasoned comments are immediately rtuck down by those who dare to be king - naming no names at all, just think back to last week when some folk were absent? How we managed to almost have a sensible and reasoned debate? Withing one day of certain folk returning we are back to slanging matches - to me it is obvious where the problem lies - while insults are being hurled left and right among the folk who basically agree with each other the council must be laughing their socks off! For the sake of their own personal IMAGE members of cavetown council are dragging their own cause into the gutter - whatever anyone else says about David Samuels at least he had the common sense and decency to keep refrain from the slanging matches when it was important to do so - he makes the rest of you look like little kids! Little Green Man
  • Score: -5

8:29pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

jimmy k wrote:
i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.
THIS IS NOT SIMONS PSEUDONYMS BUT ONE THAT BADGERGATE GAVE HIM ON A POST EARLIER
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.[/p][/quote]THIS IS NOT SIMONS PSEUDONYMS BUT ONE THAT BADGERGATE GAVE HIM ON A POST EARLIER Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 5

8:37pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.
THIS IS NOT SIMONS PSEUDONYMS BUT ONE THAT BADGERGATE GAVE HIM ON A POST EARLIER
The "Pendragon" name is shown against Simon Mitchell on the Cavetown Council website contact page - http://cavetowncounc
il.moonfruit.com/con
tact/4575722885
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.[/p][/quote]THIS IS NOT SIMONS PSEUDONYMS BUT ONE THAT BADGERGATE GAVE HIM ON A POST EARLIER[/p][/quote]The "Pendragon" name is shown against Simon Mitchell on the Cavetown Council website contact page - http://cavetowncounc il.moonfruit.com/con tact/4575722885 MarkPullen
  • Score: -5

8:39pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

MarkPullen wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.
THIS IS NOT SIMONS PSEUDONYMS BUT ONE THAT BADGERGATE GAVE HIM ON A POST EARLIER
The "Pendragon" name is shown against Simon Mitchell on the Cavetown Council website contact page - http://cavetowncounc

il.moonfruit.com/con

tact/4575722885
THANK YOU MARK I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.[/p][/quote]THIS IS NOT SIMONS PSEUDONYMS BUT ONE THAT BADGERGATE GAVE HIM ON A POST EARLIER[/p][/quote]The "Pendragon" name is shown against Simon Mitchell on the Cavetown Council website contact page - http://cavetowncounc il.moonfruit.com/con tact/4575722885[/p][/quote]THANK YOU MARK I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 3

8:52pm Fri 10 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.
THIS IS NOT SIMONS PSEUDONYMS BUT ONE THAT BADGERGATE GAVE HIM ON A POST EARLIER
You would make a good Mason !
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.[/p][/quote]THIS IS NOT SIMONS PSEUDONYMS BUT ONE THAT BADGERGATE GAVE HIM ON A POST EARLIER[/p][/quote]You would make a good Mason ! badgergate
  • Score: -5

11:27pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

TruthTold wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Some readers might be interested in seeing how the councils spending has spiralled out of control in the past couple of years.
The following are the figures for the recent history of the Precept rise by Keighley Town council-

2007/08
Increase 14.1 %
Revenue £294,700
.
2008/09
Increase 15.0%
Revenue £341,500

2009/10
Increase 8.8%
Revenue £371,552

2010/11
Increase 3.4%
Revenue £386,250

2011/12
Increase 0.0%
Revenue £392,750

2012/13.
Increase 72.6%
Revenue £682,351
Have you still not grasped the difference between PRECEPT & REVENUE? As I pointed out when you posted this last week THERE WAS NO INCREASE IN THE PRECEPT IN 2009/10,2010/11 or 2011/12. This can be checked on any number of resources. Re-posting your incorrect figures will not make them right. even though you proably think that if you post them enough they will be accepted as fact.
TruthTold wrote:
Have you still not grasped the difference between PRECEPT & REVENUE? As I pointed out when you posted this last week THERE WAS NO INCREASE IN THE PRECEPT IN 2009/10,2010/11 or 2011/12. This can be checked on any number of resources. Re-posting your incorrect figures will not make them right. even though you proably think that if you post them enough they will be accepted as fact.

Truthtold, my figures are directly taken from the relevant councillors for each respective year.
If you have issue with these figures being incorrect or are suggesting that the words of the councillors were false or misleading at the time they made them, then you may wish to take this up with them.
The fact that the figures released by the council do not match up with figures elsewhere comes as no surprise to me as they do seem to struggle with numbers and truthful statements.
That you have chosen other figures to work with does not make my reproduction of documented comments from councillors a mistake by me.
It does however beg the question as to whether the councillors were telling the truth.

Tick Tock

2007/08
Increase 14.1 %
Revenue £294,700
The chamber agreed to levy a precept for a total of £294,700 towards the cost of running services.
The proposed budget was put forward by the chairman of the council's Finance Committee, Councillor Tony Wright.
He said most of the 14.1 per cent increase in the precept would be spent on delivering better services to Keighley residents
However, Cllr Glen Miller, one of six people who voted against the proposed precept, argued a 14.1 per cent rise was too big an increase.
2008/09
Increase 15.0%
Revenue £341,500
Councillors have agreed to levy a precept for a total of £341,500 towards the cost of running services.
This is a 15 per cent rise on the precept raised in 2007/8.
The proposed budget was put forward by the chairman of the council's finance committee, Councillor John Philip.
2009/10
Increase 8.8%
Revenue £371,552
The rise will allow the council to raise an extra £30,000 for the coming year.
Cllr Philip said the increase was necessary to enable the council to continue delivering its current level of service.
2010/11
Increase 3.4%
Revenue £386,250
The 3.4 per cent increase will see the town council levy a total precept of £386,250 for 2010/11.
Finance committee chairman Cllr John Philip proposed the 3.4 per cent increase. He said this would only have been 0.4 per cent if next week's Riddlesden and Stockbridge by-election - forecast to cost the council £10,000 - had been avoided through co-opting a new member.
2011/12
Increase 0.0%
Revenue £392,750
The nought per cent rise will see the town council levy a total precept of £392,750 for 2011/12.
He asked why the amount of cash allocated to pay for the council’s financial advisor, Keith Pickles, had been “slashed”.
He said his expertise was needed more than ever, as the council was taking on more financial responsibilities with the conversion of the old North Street police station into a civic centre.
2012/13.
Increase 72.6%
Revenue £682,351
Councillors have partly blamed its unprecedented 72.6 per cent precept hike on the centrepiece building being £74,000 in the red, less than a year after the former police station was launched in its new guise.


Tick Tock
[quote][p][bold]TruthTold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Some readers might be interested in seeing how the councils spending has spiralled out of control in the past couple of years. The following are the figures for the recent history of the Precept rise by Keighley Town council- 2007/08 Increase 14.1 % Revenue £294,700 . 2008/09 Increase 15.0% Revenue £341,500 2009/10 Increase 8.8% Revenue £371,552 2010/11 Increase 3.4% Revenue £386,250 2011/12 Increase 0.0% Revenue £392,750 2012/13. Increase 72.6% Revenue £682,351[/p][/quote]Have you still not grasped the difference between PRECEPT & REVENUE? As I pointed out when you posted this last week THERE WAS NO INCREASE IN THE PRECEPT IN 2009/10,2010/11 or 2011/12. This can be checked on any number of resources. Re-posting your incorrect figures will not make them right. even though you proably think that if you post them enough they will be accepted as fact.[/p][/quote]TruthTold wrote: Have you still not grasped the difference between PRECEPT & REVENUE? As I pointed out when you posted this last week THERE WAS NO INCREASE IN THE PRECEPT IN 2009/10,2010/11 or 2011/12. This can be checked on any number of resources. Re-posting your incorrect figures will not make them right. even though you proably think that if you post them enough they will be accepted as fact. Truthtold, my figures are directly taken from the relevant councillors for each respective year. If you have issue with these figures being incorrect or are suggesting that the words of the councillors were false or misleading at the time they made them, then you may wish to take this up with them. The fact that the figures released by the council do not match up with figures elsewhere comes as no surprise to me as they do seem to struggle with numbers and truthful statements. That you have chosen other figures to work with does not make my reproduction of documented comments from councillors a mistake by me. It does however beg the question as to whether the councillors were telling the truth. Tick Tock 2007/08 Increase 14.1 % Revenue £294,700 The chamber agreed to levy a precept for a total of £294,700 towards the cost of running services. The proposed budget was put forward by the chairman of the council's Finance Committee, Councillor Tony Wright. He said most of the 14.1 per cent increase in the precept would be spent on delivering better services to Keighley residents However, Cllr Glen Miller, one of six people who voted against the proposed precept, argued a 14.1 per cent rise was too big an increase. 2008/09 Increase 15.0% Revenue £341,500 Councillors have agreed to levy a precept for a total of £341,500 towards the cost of running services. This is a 15 per cent rise on the precept raised in 2007/8. The proposed budget was put forward by the chairman of the council's finance committee, Councillor John Philip. 2009/10 Increase 8.8% Revenue £371,552 The rise will allow the council to raise an extra £30,000 for the coming year. Cllr Philip said the increase was necessary to enable the council to continue delivering its current level of service. 2010/11 Increase 3.4% Revenue £386,250 The 3.4 per cent increase will see the town council levy a total precept of £386,250 for 2010/11. Finance committee chairman Cllr John Philip proposed the 3.4 per cent increase. He said this would only have been 0.4 per cent if next week's Riddlesden and Stockbridge by-election - forecast to cost the council £10,000 - had been avoided through co-opting a new member. 2011/12 Increase 0.0% Revenue £392,750 The nought per cent rise will see the town council levy a total precept of £392,750 for 2011/12. He asked why the amount of cash allocated to pay for the council’s financial advisor, Keith Pickles, had been “slashed”. He said his expertise was needed more than ever, as the council was taking on more financial responsibilities with the conversion of the old North Street police station into a civic centre. 2012/13. Increase 72.6% Revenue £682,351 Councillors have partly blamed its unprecedented 72.6 per cent precept hike on the centrepiece building being £74,000 in the red, less than a year after the former police station was launched in its new guise. Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 4

11:30pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

jimmy k wrote:
i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.
Jimmy K-
you missed an apostrophe out in the word can't.
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.[/p][/quote]Jimmy K- you missed an apostrophe out in the word can't. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 4

11:51pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Little Green Man says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.
Jimmy K-
you missed an apostrophe out in the word can't.
An admission I think! Don't forget though - Bruce Almighty still continues to post under a pseudonym and still has a go at others who do! Come on Bruce, you're a non Keighley resident posting under a pseudonym and you're telling us you don't have a personal agenda? Of course you do - someone on the council called your mommy names and so you're trying to 'get revenge'. Well the sentiment is there Bruce, we can all sympathise with that, we're on your side matey, dont worrry :)
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.[/p][/quote]Jimmy K- you missed an apostrophe out in the word can't.[/p][/quote]An admission I think! Don't forget though - Bruce Almighty still continues to post under a pseudonym and still has a go at others who do! Come on Bruce, you're a non Keighley resident posting under a pseudonym and you're telling us you don't have a personal agenda? Of course you do - someone on the council called your mommy names and so you're trying to 'get revenge'. Well the sentiment is there Bruce, we can all sympathise with that, we're on your side matey, dont worrry :) Little Green Man
  • Score: -4

11:55pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

So as you can see TruthTold Tony,
according to the documented comments issued by the relevant councillors there was only one year in which there was no increase in the Precept.
2011/12
Increase 0.0%
Revenue £392,750

What is very interesting about that year is the reason why the council managed to refrain from imposing further costs on the people of Keighley and that is the words of Councillor Brian Hudson-

"He asked why the amount of cash allocated to pay for the council’s financial advisor, Keith Pickles, had been “slashed”.
He said his expertise was needed more than ever, as the council was taking on more financial responsibilities with the conversion of the old North Street police station into a civic centre."

The words of Councillor Hudson do seem very profound now particularly in light of the massive 72.6% increase inflicted in the next Financial Year which resulted in the council taking well in excess of 1/2 a million pounds out of Keighley peoples pockets.
Scandalous.

Cavendo Tutus

Simon
So as you can see TruthTold Tony, according to the documented comments issued by the relevant councillors there was only one year in which there was no increase in the Precept. 2011/12 Increase 0.0% Revenue £392,750 What is very interesting about that year is the reason why the council managed to refrain from imposing further costs on the people of Keighley and that is the words of Councillor Brian Hudson- "He asked why the amount of cash allocated to pay for the council’s financial advisor, Keith Pickles, had been “slashed”. He said his expertise was needed more than ever, as the council was taking on more financial responsibilities with the conversion of the old North Street police station into a civic centre." The words of Councillor Hudson do seem very profound now particularly in light of the massive 72.6% increase inflicted in the next Financial Year which resulted in the council taking well in excess of 1/2 a million pounds out of Keighley peoples pockets. Scandalous. Cavendo Tutus Simon Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

12:28am Sat 11 Jan 14

Kingchaser says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.
THIS IS NOT SIMONS PSEUDONYMS BUT ONE THAT BADGERGATE GAVE HIM ON A POST EARLIER
The "Pendragon" name is shown against Simon Mitchell on the Cavetown Council website contact page - http://cavetowncounc


il.moonfruit.com/con


tact/4575722885
THANK YOU MARK I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT
Well, the season of good will has passed. But I still feel like I'm warming to IHR.

At least he owns up when he's in the dark and seems to take on board the 'neutrals' concern about the methods and end-game that some of his fellow cave-towners are pursuing.

He invited me to meet him at Rossi's Café. To diuscuss the merits of a good education and the benefits of proper parenting.

I'm easy to spot Ian, I'm the one who's 6 foot 2 (or actually more like 3 first thing in a morning). 16 and a half stone of mostly muscle. I still play rugby. No tattoos. Drawing on oneself is so childlike. But I'm a cheap date. Some decaff tea, a nice fruit smoothie and poached eggs on brown?

Perhaps you could then watch me do the DT crossword?
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.[/p][/quote]THIS IS NOT SIMONS PSEUDONYMS BUT ONE THAT BADGERGATE GAVE HIM ON A POST EARLIER[/p][/quote]The "Pendragon" name is shown against Simon Mitchell on the Cavetown Council website contact page - http://cavetowncounc il.moonfruit.com/con tact/4575722885[/p][/quote]THANK YOU MARK I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT[/p][/quote]Well, the season of good will has passed. But I still feel like I'm warming to IHR. At least he owns up when he's in the dark and seems to take on board the 'neutrals' concern about the methods and end-game that some of his fellow cave-towners are pursuing. He invited me to meet him at Rossi's Café. To diuscuss the merits of a good education and the benefits of proper parenting. I'm easy to spot Ian, I'm the one who's 6 foot 2 (or actually more like 3 first thing in a morning). 16 and a half stone of mostly muscle. I still play rugby. No tattoos. Drawing on oneself is so childlike. But I'm a cheap date. Some decaff tea, a nice fruit smoothie and poached eggs on brown? Perhaps you could then watch me do the DT crossword? Kingchaser
  • Score: -3

12:43am Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

More info from the Audit Commission-

Q: Other than the legal power(s) I have asked the external auditor to
use, does the auditor have any other powers they can use when
investigating my objection?
A: Yes.
You cannot ask for this, but the external auditor can also consider whether to:
■ make a written recommendation which the council must consider and respond to publicly;
and/or
■ issue an advisory notice; and/or
■ make an application for a judicial review of the council’s actions.
More info from the Audit Commission- Q: Other than the legal power(s) I have asked the external auditor to use, does the auditor have any other powers they can use when investigating my objection? A: Yes. You cannot ask for this, but the external auditor can also consider whether to: ■ make a written recommendation which the council must consider and respond to publicly; and/or ■ issue an advisory notice; and/or ■ make an application for a judicial review of the council’s actions. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 4

12:44am Sat 11 Jan 14

Stand up to bullies says...

Did u know all these investigations because of cavetown council group have already cost thousands of pounds of tax payers money
Did u know all these investigations because of cavetown council group have already cost thousands of pounds of tax payers money Stand up to bullies
  • Score: -3

12:50am Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

From the DCLG-
Keeping Council Tax down for hard-working people
Local authorities should be looking to protect their residents and give them help with the cost of living. Extra funding is on offer to councils to freeze Council Tax for a fourth year in a row. The government has provided up to £550 million for the next 2 years. A fourth year of freeze could be worth up to £718 for the average bill payer with more savings to come next year. Between 1997 and 2010 Council Tax bills more than doubled.

From April next year funding for previous 2011-12 and 2013-14 freezes will now be in the main local government settlement total for future years. Ministers have agreed that funding for the next 2 freeze years will also be built into the spending review baseline. This will give maximum possible certainty for councils that the extra funding for freezing Council Tax will remain available without a ‘cliff edge’ effect on freeze grant. With this help, councils should now play their part by helping hard-working people with the cost of living and freeze their Council Tax.

Council Tax referendum threshold principles will be published in the New Year. Ministers today indicated they are particularly open to representations suggesting that some lower threshold be applied to councils, given the strong need to protect taxpayers wherever possible from unreasonable increases in bills.

Eric Pickles said:

Every bit of the public sector needs to do their bit to pay off the budget deficit, including local government which accounts for a quarter of all public spending. This year, councils should continue to focus on cutting waste and making sensible savings to protect frontline services and keep Council Tax down. Extra funding is on offer to councils to freeze Council Tax for a fourth year in a row.
From the DCLG- Keeping Council Tax down for hard-working people Local authorities should be looking to protect their residents and give them help with the cost of living. Extra funding is on offer to councils to freeze Council Tax for a fourth year in a row. The government has provided up to £550 million for the next 2 years. A fourth year of freeze could be worth up to £718 for the average bill payer with more savings to come next year. Between 1997 and 2010 Council Tax bills more than doubled. From April next year funding for previous 2011-12 and 2013-14 freezes will now be in the main local government settlement total for future years. Ministers have agreed that funding for the next 2 freeze years will also be built into the spending review baseline. This will give maximum possible certainty for councils that the extra funding for freezing Council Tax will remain available without a ‘cliff edge’ effect on freeze grant. With this help, councils should now play their part by helping hard-working people with the cost of living and freeze their Council Tax. Council Tax referendum threshold principles will be published in the New Year. Ministers today indicated they are particularly open to representations suggesting that some lower threshold be applied to councils, given the strong need to protect taxpayers wherever possible from unreasonable increases in bills. Eric Pickles said: Every bit of the public sector needs to do their bit to pay off the budget deficit, including local government which accounts for a quarter of all public spending. This year, councils should continue to focus on cutting waste and making sensible savings to protect frontline services and keep Council Tax down. Extra funding is on offer to councils to freeze Council Tax for a fourth year in a row. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 3

12:53am Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Stand up to bullies wrote:
Did u know all these investigations because of cavetown council group have already cost thousands of pounds of tax payers money
The costs are a direct result of the councils ineptitude. If, as you claim Stand Up, these costs have already run into the thousands of pounds, then this shows what a financial mess KTC has created.

By the way, where are you getting your information from?
[quote][p][bold]Stand up to bullies[/bold] wrote: Did u know all these investigations because of cavetown council group have already cost thousands of pounds of tax payers money[/p][/quote]The costs are a direct result of the councils ineptitude. If, as you claim Stand Up, these costs have already run into the thousands of pounds, then this shows what a financial mess KTC has created. By the way, where are you getting your information from? Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 4

1:10am Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Speaking of costing tax payers thousands Stand Up,

How much will the following cost if the council go ahead with it-

Some documented comments from the last available minutes of the Civic Centre Committe from the 18th Nov 2013-
"2013/186
(CCC) TO CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ACCOUNTANT TO BRING THINGS TOGETHER WITH REGARD TO HOW TO BEST RUN THE WHOLE OPERATION, AS SUGGESTED BY THE LETTINGS AGENT AND THE SOLICITOR
It was agreed that the Town Clerk and Councillor Corkindale should speak to Lloyds Bank regarding this matter.

Proposed by Councillor Mitchell,
Seconded by Councillor Ward, and

RESOLVED
That the Town Clerk and Committee Members should research whether a Business Consultant or an Accountant would be best placed advise the Committee on how to proceed, for a decision to be made at the January meeting."

If a one off investigation by a firm of accountants is allegedly costing thousands Stand Up, then how much will the tax payer be forking out for a similar firm of Accountants to regularly oversee the daily operations of the Civic Centre?

Remember Stand Up- the whole Civic Centre Fiasco was promoted as being self financing and not costing the tax payer a single penny.

As you seem to imply that you have some knowledge of the financial affairs of KTC then how many pennies have been thrown at it so far Stand Up?
Have any of these pennies helped to make the Civic Centre a success?
How many more pennies will the council extract from peoples wallets and purses before they finally realise that they are wasting other people's hard earned money?

Tick Tock
Speaking of costing tax payers thousands Stand Up, How much will the following cost if the council go ahead with it- Some documented comments from the last available minutes of the Civic Centre Committe from the 18th Nov 2013- "2013/186 (CCC) TO CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ACCOUNTANT TO BRING THINGS TOGETHER WITH REGARD TO HOW TO BEST RUN THE WHOLE OPERATION, AS SUGGESTED BY THE LETTINGS AGENT AND THE SOLICITOR It was agreed that the Town Clerk and Councillor Corkindale should speak to Lloyds Bank regarding this matter. Proposed by Councillor Mitchell, Seconded by Councillor Ward, and RESOLVED That the Town Clerk and Committee Members should research whether a Business Consultant or an Accountant would be best placed advise the Committee on how to proceed, for a decision to be made at the January meeting." If a one off investigation by a firm of accountants is allegedly costing thousands Stand Up, then how much will the tax payer be forking out for a similar firm of Accountants to regularly oversee the daily operations of the Civic Centre? Remember Stand Up- the whole Civic Centre Fiasco was promoted as being self financing and not costing the tax payer a single penny. As you seem to imply that you have some knowledge of the financial affairs of KTC then how many pennies have been thrown at it so far Stand Up? Have any of these pennies helped to make the Civic Centre a success? How many more pennies will the council extract from peoples wallets and purses before they finally realise that they are wasting other people's hard earned money? Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 4

4:05am Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

The following is information which applies to Keighley Town Council.
Publishing council spending and salaries online
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has asked all local councils and fire and rescue authorities in England to publish spending information over £500 online.

The Code of Recommended Practice for Local Authorities
on Data Transparency

12. As a minimum, the public data that should be released are:
• Expenditure over £500, (including costs, supplier and transaction information).
Any sole trader or body acting in a business capacity in receipt of payments of at least £500 of public money should expect such payments to be transparent.
• Senior employee salaries, names (with the option for individuals to refuse to consent for their name to be published), job descriptions, responsibilities, budgets and numbers of staff. ‘Senior employee salaries’ is defined as all salaries which are above £58,200 and above (irrespective of post), which is the Senior Civil Service minimum pay band. Budgets should include the overall salary cost of staff reporting to each senior employee.
• An organisational chart of the staff structure of the local authority including salary bands and details of currently vacant posts.
• The ‘pay multiple’ – the ratio between the highest paid salary and the median average salary of the whole of the authority’s workforce.
• Councillor allowances and expenses.
• Copies of contracts and tenders to businesses and to the voluntary community and social enterprise sector.
• Grants to the voluntary community and social enterprise sector should be clearly itemised and listed.
• Policies, performance, external audits and key inspections and key indicators on the authorities’ fiscal and financial position.
• The location of public land and building assets and key attribute information that is normally recorded on asset registers and
• Data of democratic running of the local authority including the constitution, election results, committee minutes, decision - making processes and records of decisions.



OPEN
13. Provision of public data should become integral to local authority engagement with residents so that it drives accountability to them. Its availability should be promoted and publicised so that residents know how to access it and how it can be used.
Presentation should be helpful and accessible to residents and other interested persons.

TIMELY
17. The timeliness of making public data available is often of vital importance. It should be made published as soon as possible following production even if it is not accompanied with detailed analysis. Where practical, local authorities should seek to publish in real time.

So can anyone tell me why it is that even though KTC are required to publish their spending over £500" ONLINE" in a "OPEN" and "TIMELY" manner, he council has refused to update this information since May 2013?

Certainly isn't the actions of a council making any attempt to be Open and Transparent as instructed and required to do.
Much more in keeping with a council who has a lot to hide and who wishes to conceal it's true Financial standing from the Public who it serves and who have the legal right to know.

For those who question why the council is now the subject of an investigation by the External Auditors, hopefully this helps to explain just how blatant this council is in ignoring it's Legal Obligations and it's contempt for the Public which it serves.

Cavendo Tutus

Simon
The following is information which applies to Keighley Town Council. Publishing council spending and salaries online The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has asked all local councils and fire and rescue authorities in England to publish spending information over £500 online. The Code of Recommended Practice for Local Authorities on Data Transparency 12. As a minimum, the public data that should be released are: • Expenditure over £500, (including costs, supplier and transaction information). Any sole trader or body acting in a business capacity in receipt of payments of at least £500 of public money should expect such payments to be transparent. • Senior employee salaries, names (with the option for individuals to refuse to consent for their name to be published), job descriptions, responsibilities, budgets and numbers of staff. ‘Senior employee salaries’ is defined as all salaries which are above £58,200 and above (irrespective of post), which is the Senior Civil Service minimum pay band. Budgets should include the overall salary cost of staff reporting to each senior employee. • An organisational chart of the staff structure of the local authority including salary bands and details of currently vacant posts. • The ‘pay multiple’ – the ratio between the highest paid salary and the median average salary of the whole of the authority’s workforce. • Councillor allowances and expenses. • Copies of contracts and tenders to businesses and to the voluntary community and social enterprise sector. • Grants to the voluntary community and social enterprise sector should be clearly itemised and listed. • Policies, performance, external audits and key inspections and key indicators on the authorities’ fiscal and financial position. • The location of public land and building assets and key attribute information that is normally recorded on asset registers and • Data of democratic running of the local authority including the constitution, election results, committee minutes, decision - making processes and records of decisions. OPEN 13. Provision of public data should become integral to local authority engagement with residents so that it drives accountability to them. Its availability should be promoted and publicised so that residents know how to access it and how it can be used. Presentation should be helpful and accessible to residents and other interested persons. TIMELY 17. The timeliness of making public data available is often of vital importance. It should be made published as soon as possible following production even if it is not accompanied with detailed analysis. Where practical, local authorities should seek to publish in real time. So can anyone tell me why it is that even though KTC are required to publish their spending over £500" ONLINE" in a "OPEN" and "TIMELY" manner, he council has refused to update this information since May 2013? Certainly isn't the actions of a council making any attempt to be Open and Transparent as instructed and required to do. Much more in keeping with a council who has a lot to hide and who wishes to conceal it's true Financial standing from the Public who it serves and who have the legal right to know. For those who question why the council is now the subject of an investigation by the External Auditors, hopefully this helps to explain just how blatant this council is in ignoring it's Legal Obligations and it's contempt for the Public which it serves. Cavendo Tutus Simon Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 3

8:13am Sat 11 Jan 14

Graham Forsyth says...

Stand up to bullies wrote:
Did u know all these investigations because of cavetown council group have already cost thousands of pounds of tax payers money
Finance Committee Minutes 7 July 2010

“A final version of the capital expenditure was circulated as negotiations had progressed with regards the cost of the building. £86,000 is being used from the sale of the allotments to supplement the budget rather than increase the proposed borrowing. There will still be a balance of £24,000 left from the allotment sale following this allocation plus the amount agreed for the Allotments Committee.”

That would be the sale of Skipton Road Allotment while having a waiting list of 150.


“The Special Projects Co-ordinator advised that the franchise fees will cover the cost of the interest on the loan and an excess of a minimum of £71,000 per annum which can be used for capital repayment, reinvestment, investment etc. at the Council’s pleasure. These fees have already been agreed with our partners in principle. A 10% profit share will also be received.”


The franchise fee has failed to cover the cost of the loan, rate payers have been made to help pay for it? There is no excess which can be used for capital repayment, reinvestment, investment etc. at the Council’s pleasure.


“The Business Plan has been created using the maximum bills and minimum income to provide figures that are ‘worst case’. These figures do not include income from profit share or marketing.”


How realistic was the business plan if created using the maximum bills and minimum income to provide figures that are ‘worst case’ when it is losing over £200,000 per year. And the recession cannot be blamed for this as the council were aware it had been ongoing since 2008, as can be read here from the town clerk Miggy Baily when the K.N did an article titled: Shock as Keighley Civic Centre is found to be £162,000 in the red

“Town clerk Mrs Miggy Bailey said that in the current economic climate it was uncertain if the centre would ever become fully self-funding, but no-one would work harder than the town council to make that happen.
“Obviously everyone wholeheartedly wishes the project was already ‘in profit’ but the council has to operate in the real world - which includes a continuing economic downturn that has been going on since 2008,” she said.”

And this from the K.N. Thursday 19th December 2013
“The North Street building was revealed to be £74,000 in the red in February. That figure had increased to £162,000 by May, after which the council has refused to issue any updates.”

The real world was operating back in 2008 and this same real world continued to operate during 2010 when the council took on this self-financing, even in a worse case scenario ambitious project when the business plan was finalised and accepted? From the day it opened it started to loose money, so how realistic was the business plan? And why has Mr Grant Doyle, ex civic centre tenant, made a sworn statement containing serious allegations, and why did KTC keep from the full council the findings of the investigative report done by Cllr Pedley into Financial and Staffing Irregularities? How KTC has handled this civic centre débâcle and dealt with concerned members of the public is why we now read:
T&A. Auditors to check Keighley Town Council accounts. Friday 3rd January 2014
“External auditors have been appointed by the Government to go through the books of Keighley Town Council following a series of complaints about the way it is being run.
London-based PKF Littlejohn has assessed the objections and concluded that many need close scrutiny.”

Note PKF Littlejohn has assessed and concluded many objections need close scrutiny. That is why it is costing Keighley parishioners thousand of pound in investigative fees. It is not the fault of parishioners who have raised their concerns after spending time collating the evidence and doing the maths before making their concerns known to the external auditors, which is their legal right to do.

The problem is caused by KTC. The costs being incurred are the results of how KTC has conducted itself which has brought about the need for an investigation. And these costs are on top of the costs of keeping afloat the loss making civic centre through the use of rate payers money.

Tick Tock
[quote][p][bold]Stand up to bullies[/bold] wrote: Did u know all these investigations because of cavetown council group have already cost thousands of pounds of tax payers money[/p][/quote]Finance Committee Minutes 7 July 2010 “A final version of the capital expenditure was circulated as negotiations had progressed with regards the cost of the building. £86,000 is being used from the sale of the allotments to supplement the budget rather than increase the proposed borrowing. There will still be a balance of £24,000 left from the allotment sale following this allocation plus the amount agreed for the Allotments Committee.” That would be the sale of Skipton Road Allotment while having a waiting list of 150. “The Special Projects Co-ordinator advised that the franchise fees will cover the cost of the interest on the loan and an excess of a minimum of £71,000 per annum which can be used for capital repayment, reinvestment, investment etc. at the Council’s pleasure. These fees have already been agreed with our partners in principle. A 10% profit share will also be received.” The franchise fee has failed to cover the cost of the loan, rate payers have been made to help pay for it? There is no excess which can be used for capital repayment, reinvestment, investment etc. at the Council’s pleasure. “The Business Plan has been created using the maximum bills and minimum income to provide figures that are ‘worst case’. These figures do not include income from profit share or marketing.” How realistic was the business plan if created using the maximum bills and minimum income to provide figures that are ‘worst case’ when it is losing over £200,000 per year. And the recession cannot be blamed for this as the council were aware it had been ongoing since 2008, as can be read here from the town clerk Miggy Baily when the K.N did an article titled: Shock as Keighley Civic Centre is found to be £162,000 in the red “Town clerk Mrs Miggy Bailey said that in the current economic climate it was uncertain if the centre would ever become fully self-funding, but no-one would work harder than the town council to make that happen. “Obviously everyone wholeheartedly wishes the project was already ‘in profit’ but the council has to operate in the real world - which includes a continuing economic downturn that has been going on since 2008,” she said.” And this from the K.N. Thursday 19th December 2013 “The North Street building was revealed to be £74,000 in the red in February. That figure had increased to £162,000 by May, after which the council has refused to issue any updates.” The real world was operating back in 2008 and this same real world continued to operate during 2010 when the council took on this self-financing, even in a worse case scenario ambitious project when the business plan was finalised and accepted? From the day it opened it started to loose money, so how realistic was the business plan? And why has Mr Grant Doyle, ex civic centre tenant, made a sworn statement containing serious allegations, and why did KTC keep from the full council the findings of the investigative report done by Cllr Pedley into Financial and Staffing Irregularities? How KTC has handled this civic centre débâcle and dealt with concerned members of the public is why we now read: T&A. Auditors to check Keighley Town Council accounts. Friday 3rd January 2014 “External auditors have been appointed by the Government to go through the books of Keighley Town Council following a series of complaints about the way it is being run. London-based PKF Littlejohn has assessed the objections and concluded that many need close scrutiny.” Note PKF Littlejohn has assessed and concluded many objections need close scrutiny. That is why it is costing Keighley parishioners thousand of pound in investigative fees. It is not the fault of parishioners who have raised their concerns after spending time collating the evidence and doing the maths before making their concerns known to the external auditors, which is their legal right to do. The problem is caused by KTC. The costs being incurred are the results of how KTC has conducted itself which has brought about the need for an investigation. And these costs are on top of the costs of keeping afloat the loss making civic centre through the use of rate payers money. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth
  • Score: 6

8:18am Sat 11 Jan 14

badgergate says...

I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?.
I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?. badgergate
  • Score: -6

8:36am Sat 11 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

MarkPullen wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Gobbag Vooar wrote:
I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong.
This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect.
When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?
I have just read all the posts on this thread and come to the conclusion that the majority of them are a complete waste of time ,nothing is gained by them 40 plus what a waste .
Sadly, Ian-Holt Roberts, these pages are for "comments" and not technically meant for a forum style approach.

The KN do have a much-underused forum facility.

As I'm one of those adding posts which are "a complete waste of time" I recognise that any newcomer to these pages has to be dedicated (or committed in ever sense of the word) to attempt to follow the conversations.
I am aware I am a newcomer to the site but the thread as I understand it was in connection with what our MP had commented on ,however I may be wrong as I often am ,for instance I could have sworn Mark that you applied again to join cavetown on Thursday but as you have stated previously that you do not I must be wrong
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: I will say this Mr Pullen, your postings have never been silly, or even worse like some, and I respect you for such. What I do not understand is why you keep on bringing" Councillor Dave "into your posts" ? I presume that you are referring to David Samuels, who is absent from these sites. Please accept my apologies if I am wrong. This gentleman of advancing years I believe is entitled to be addressed by his correct name, as you corrected myself, and rightly so for spelling your own name incorrectly, deserves the same respect. When others, as we both have seen on these sites use insults and vile, it falls on decent people, to reply with dignity and decorum, if you or I, and others fail to maintain our dignity, what example do we set to The Badgergates etc ?[/p][/quote]I have just read all the posts on this thread and come to the conclusion that the majority of them are a complete waste of time ,nothing is gained by them 40 plus what a waste .[/p][/quote]Sadly, Ian-Holt Roberts, these pages are for "comments" and not technically meant for a forum style approach. The KN do have a much-underused forum facility. As I'm one of those adding posts which are "a complete waste of time" I recognise that any newcomer to these pages has to be dedicated (or committed in ever sense of the word) to attempt to follow the conversations.[/p][/quote]I am aware I am a newcomer to the site but the thread as I understand it was in connection with what our MP had commented on ,however I may be wrong as I often am ,for instance I could have sworn Mark that you applied again to join cavetown on Thursday but as you have stated previously that you do not I must be wrong Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 6

8:41am Sat 11 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Kingchaser wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.
THIS IS NOT SIMONS PSEUDONYMS BUT ONE THAT BADGERGATE GAVE HIM ON A POST EARLIER
The "Pendragon" name is shown against Simon Mitchell on the Cavetown Council website contact page - http://cavetowncounc



il.moonfruit.com/con



tact/4575722885
THANK YOU MARK I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT
Well, the season of good will has passed. But I still feel like I'm warming to IHR.

At least he owns up when he's in the dark and seems to take on board the 'neutrals' concern about the methods and end-game that some of his fellow cave-towners are pursuing.

He invited me to meet him at Rossi's Café. To diuscuss the merits of a good education and the benefits of proper parenting.

I'm easy to spot Ian, I'm the one who's 6 foot 2 (or actually more like 3 first thing in a morning). 16 and a half stone of mostly muscle. I still play rugby. No tattoos. Drawing on oneself is so childlike. But I'm a cheap date. Some decaff tea, a nice fruit smoothie and poached eggs on brown?

Perhaps you could then watch me do the DT crossword?
Well come and introduce yourself,do not be shy your size does not interest or concern me in the slightest .
[quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.[/p][/quote]THIS IS NOT SIMONS PSEUDONYMS BUT ONE THAT BADGERGATE GAVE HIM ON A POST EARLIER[/p][/quote]The "Pendragon" name is shown against Simon Mitchell on the Cavetown Council website contact page - http://cavetowncounc il.moonfruit.com/con tact/4575722885[/p][/quote]THANK YOU MARK I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT[/p][/quote]Well, the season of good will has passed. But I still feel like I'm warming to IHR. At least he owns up when he's in the dark and seems to take on board the 'neutrals' concern about the methods and end-game that some of his fellow cave-towners are pursuing. He invited me to meet him at Rossi's Café. To diuscuss the merits of a good education and the benefits of proper parenting. I'm easy to spot Ian, I'm the one who's 6 foot 2 (or actually more like 3 first thing in a morning). 16 and a half stone of mostly muscle. I still play rugby. No tattoos. Drawing on oneself is so childlike. But I'm a cheap date. Some decaff tea, a nice fruit smoothie and poached eggs on brown? Perhaps you could then watch me do the DT crossword?[/p][/quote]Well come and introduce yourself,do not be shy your size does not interest or concern me in the slightest . Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 4

9:04am Sat 11 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

badgergate wrote:
I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?.
Most of the people on this site can at times make interesting comments, I am not saying that they are always relevant but they can be interesting ,however I can not place you in that category you really are useless ,how on earth you got elected by the people of our town or accepted by the Masons is beyond my comprehension ,the only thing I give you credit for is using the name badgergate simply as a result of it having the same no of letters 9 which is the level of your IQ
[quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?.[/p][/quote]Most of the people on this site can at times make interesting comments, I am not saying that they are always relevant but they can be interesting ,however I can not place you in that category you really are useless ,how on earth you got elected by the people of our town or accepted by the Masons is beyond my comprehension ,the only thing I give you credit for is using the name badgergate simply as a result of it having the same no of letters 9 which is the level of your IQ Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 5

9:18am Sat 11 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
badgergate wrote:
I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?.
Most of the people on this site can at times make interesting comments, I am not saying that they are always relevant but they can be interesting ,however I can not place you in that category you really are useless ,how on earth you got elected by the people of our town or accepted by the Masons is beyond my comprehension ,the only thing I give you credit for is using the name badgergate simply as a result of it having the same no of letters 9 which is the level of your IQ
HOW ABOUT BULLYING LADIES ON THE KEIGHLEY FACEBOOK FORUM THEN SULKING WHEN YOU DON'T GET YOUR OWN WAY. DO NOT JUDGE OTHERS..............
...
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?.[/p][/quote]Most of the people on this site can at times make interesting comments, I am not saying that they are always relevant but they can be interesting ,however I can not place you in that category you really are useless ,how on earth you got elected by the people of our town or accepted by the Masons is beyond my comprehension ,the only thing I give you credit for is using the name badgergate simply as a result of it having the same no of letters 9 which is the level of your IQ[/p][/quote]HOW ABOUT BULLYING LADIES ON THE KEIGHLEY FACEBOOK FORUM THEN SULKING WHEN YOU DON'T GET YOUR OWN WAY. DO NOT JUDGE OTHERS.............. ... badgergate
  • Score: -5

9:37am Sat 11 Jan 14

Graham Forsyth says...

Kingchaser says..

“I'm easy to spot Ian, I'm the one who's 6 foot 2 (or actually more like 3 first thing in a morning). 16 and a half stone of mostly muscle. I still play rugby. No tattoos. Drawing on oneself is so childlike. But I'm a cheap date. Some decaff tea, a nice fruit smoothie and poached eggs on brown? “

My goodness Kingchaser, with such physical proportions I would have thought you were big enough to post under your real name.

Tick Tock
Kingchaser says.. “I'm easy to spot Ian, I'm the one who's 6 foot 2 (or actually more like 3 first thing in a morning). 16 and a half stone of mostly muscle. I still play rugby. No tattoos. Drawing on oneself is so childlike. But I'm a cheap date. Some decaff tea, a nice fruit smoothie and poached eggs on brown? “ My goodness Kingchaser, with such physical proportions I would have thought you were big enough to post under your real name. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth
  • Score: 8

9:54am Sat 11 Jan 14

Katiery says...

badgergate says...HOW ABOUT BULLYING LADIES ON THE KEIGHLEY FACEBOOK FORUM THEN SULKING WHEN YOU DON'T GET YOUR OWN WAY. DO NOT JUDGE OTHERS..............


Bullying who? I didn't notice any bullying at all.
badgergate says...HOW ABOUT BULLYING LADIES ON THE KEIGHLEY FACEBOOK FORUM THEN SULKING WHEN YOU DON'T GET YOUR OWN WAY. DO NOT JUDGE OTHERS.............. Bullying who? I didn't notice any bullying at all. Katiery
  • Score: 7

10:13am Sat 11 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Katiery wrote:
badgergate says...HOW ABOUT BULLYING LADIES ON THE KEIGHLEY FACEBOOK FORUM THEN SULKING WHEN YOU DON'T GET YOUR OWN WAY. DO NOT JUDGE OTHERS..............



Bullying who? I didn't notice any bullying at all.
The thread regarding the Kipper Councillor where God (Pendragon ) posts
"To now make attempts to justify his comments by making him the victim due to a condition he suffers is also not the best option in how to deal with his comments in my opinion."

And IHR posts later on the thread
Ian Holt-Roberts I ONLY USE CAPITALS AT NIGHT WHEN MY EYES ARE TIRED OR WHEN i HAVE PUT MY EYE DROPS IN .
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: badgergate says...HOW ABOUT BULLYING LADIES ON THE KEIGHLEY FACEBOOK FORUM THEN SULKING WHEN YOU DON'T GET YOUR OWN WAY. DO NOT JUDGE OTHERS.............. Bullying who? I didn't notice any bullying at all.[/p][/quote]The thread regarding the Kipper Councillor where God (Pendragon ) posts "To now make attempts to justify his comments by making him the victim due to a condition he suffers is also not the best option in how to deal with his comments in my opinion." And IHR posts later on the thread Ian Holt-Roberts I ONLY USE CAPITALS AT NIGHT WHEN MY EYES ARE TIRED OR WHEN i HAVE PUT MY EYE DROPS IN . badgergate
  • Score: -5

10:23am Sat 11 Jan 14

jimmy k says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.
Jimmy K-
you missed an apostrophe out in the word can't.
at least i didn't get the vowel mixed up with a u
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.[/p][/quote]Jimmy K- you missed an apostrophe out in the word can't.[/p][/quote]at least i didn't get the vowel mixed up with a u jimmy k
  • Score: -2

10:26am Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

jimmy k wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.
Jimmy K-
you missed an apostrophe out in the word can't.
at least i didn't get the vowel mixed up with a u
There is no I in team Jimmy, but there is a u in cnt. smiley face!
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.[/p][/quote]Jimmy K- you missed an apostrophe out in the word can't.[/p][/quote]at least i didn't get the vowel mixed up with a u[/p][/quote]There is no I in team Jimmy, but there is a u in cnt. smiley face! Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 3

10:27am Sat 11 Jan 14

jimmy k says...

lgm i too was impressed last week with the consensus that nearly broke out on here,i guess it was still the season of goodwill though.imho the cavetown people who proberbly have a valid cause do not help themselves by insulting anyone who dares have a slightly differing opinion then themselves and not having an open and transparent forum.i wonder if the irony is lost on them?
lgm i too was impressed last week with the consensus that nearly broke out on here,i guess it was still the season of goodwill though.imho the cavetown people who proberbly have a valid cause do not help themselves by insulting anyone who dares have a slightly differing opinion then themselves and not having an open and transparent forum.i wonder if the irony is lost on them? jimmy k
  • Score: -2

10:28am Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.
Jimmy K-
you missed an apostrophe out in the word can't.
at least i didn't get the vowel mixed up with a u
There is no I in team Jimmy, but there is a u in cnt. smiley face!
Obviously a joke JK- no offence intended. It is one of my favorite responses to the I in team quote and I thought it apt to share it with you...
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.[/p][/quote]Jimmy K- you missed an apostrophe out in the word can't.[/p][/quote]at least i didn't get the vowel mixed up with a u[/p][/quote]There is no I in team Jimmy, but there is a u in cnt. smiley face![/p][/quote]Obviously a joke JK- no offence intended. It is one of my favorite responses to the I in team quote and I thought it apt to share it with you... Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 1

10:29am Sat 11 Jan 14

Katiery says...

Badgergate, I'm still at a loss here. What is bullying about those posts?

Kipper? I know it's breakfast time, but what does a kipper have to do with it?

I too have glaucoma, when the light fades, so does my eyesight. I have to use magnifying glasses to see properly, so I understand why Ian Holt-Roberts cannot see properly. How is having a medical condition being a bully?
Badgergate, I'm still at a loss here. What is bullying about those posts? Kipper? I know it's breakfast time, but what does a kipper have to do with it? I too have glaucoma, when the light fades, so does my eyesight. I have to use magnifying glasses to see properly, so I understand why Ian Holt-Roberts cannot see properly. How is having a medical condition being a bully? Katiery
  • Score: 5

10:29am Sat 11 Jan 14

jimmy k says...

there's no i in team but there is a me in team.
there's no i in team but there is a me in team. jimmy k
  • Score: -1

10:36am Sat 11 Jan 14

jimmy k says...

don't worry skinhead it takes more then that to upset me.as previously said ive no interest in the tc but was impressed last week when many came close to agreeing,i just wish both sides would stop insulting each other because it does the town no good to the outside world.
don't worry skinhead it takes more then that to upset me.as previously said ive no interest in the tc but was impressed last week when many came close to agreeing,i just wish both sides would stop insulting each other because it does the town no good to the outside world. jimmy k
  • Score: 3

10:45am Sat 11 Jan 14

Graham Forsyth says...

badgergate wrote:
I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?.
Despite appearing to possibly have a learning difficulty badgergate, I will try to explain again the actual situation.

Any investigation by external auditors is dependent on their being something to investigate.

Any objections sent to the external auditors will only invoke an investigation if the external auditors see the objections have merit and give grounds for concern.

That an investigation is now to take place is based upon the decision by the external auditors there is something to investigate.

That 21 objections have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be looked into is again a decision taken by a fully qualified professional auditing company.

Obviously, as a company it has to charge for the work it undertakes, so yes a fee is charged to KTC.

Now, the really easy part of this to understand is if there were no grounds for concerns by parishioner who inspected the councils account and raised their concerns with the external auditors, there may not be any investigation. I say may because it is also possible the external auditors may have found problem with the accounts of KTC during their annul inspection, irrespective of the objections sent in by parishioners.

If the objections to the councils account being sent to the external auditors, and after they looked at the objections they saw no need to hold an investigation, then yes the council would still be charged for the work undertaken in looking at the objections.

The parishioners, and sitting councillors, objections which they had a legal right to make have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be investigated further. So the fact there were problems with the councils account, which only the council deal with, makes the council responsible for all that is now taking place and the costs which will be incurred.
[quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?.[/p][/quote]Despite appearing to possibly have a learning difficulty badgergate, I will try to explain again the actual situation. Any investigation by external auditors is dependent on their being something to investigate. Any objections sent to the external auditors will only invoke an investigation if the external auditors see the objections have merit and give grounds for concern. That an investigation is now to take place is based upon the decision by the external auditors there is something to investigate. That 21 objections have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be looked into is again a decision taken by a fully qualified professional auditing company. Obviously, as a company it has to charge for the work it undertakes, so yes a fee is charged to KTC. Now, the really easy part of this to understand is if there were no grounds for concerns by parishioner who inspected the councils account and raised their concerns with the external auditors, there may not be any investigation. I say may because it is also possible the external auditors may have found problem with the accounts of KTC during their annul inspection, irrespective of the objections sent in by parishioners. If the objections to the councils account being sent to the external auditors, and after they looked at the objections they saw no need to hold an investigation, then yes the council would still be charged for the work undertaken in looking at the objections. The parishioners, and sitting councillors, objections which they had a legal right to make have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be investigated further. So the fact there were problems with the councils account, which only the council deal with, makes the council responsible for all that is now taking place and the costs which will be incurred. Graham Forsyth
  • Score: 7

10:51am Sat 11 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
badgergate wrote:
I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?.
Despite appearing to possibly have a learning difficulty badgergate, I will try to explain again the actual situation.

Any investigation by external auditors is dependent on their being something to investigate.

Any objections sent to the external auditors will only invoke an investigation if the external auditors see the objections have merit and give grounds for concern.

That an investigation is now to take place is based upon the decision by the external auditors there is something to investigate.

That 21 objections have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be looked into is again a decision taken by a fully qualified professional auditing company.

Obviously, as a company it has to charge for the work it undertakes, so yes a fee is charged to KTC.

Now, the really easy part of this to understand is if there were no grounds for concerns by parishioner who inspected the councils account and raised their concerns with the external auditors, there may not be any investigation. I say may because it is also possible the external auditors may have found problem with the accounts of KTC during their annul inspection, irrespective of the objections sent in by parishioners.

If the objections to the councils account being sent to the external auditors, and after they looked at the objections they saw no need to hold an investigation, then yes the council would still be charged for the work undertaken in looking at the objections.

The parishioners, and sitting councillors, objections which they had a legal right to make have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be investigated further. So the fact there were problems with the councils account, which only the council deal with, makes the council responsible for all that is now taking place and the costs which will be incurred.
QUESTION DOES ANYBODY READ THIS DRIVEL ANYMORE ?.
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?.[/p][/quote]Despite appearing to possibly have a learning difficulty badgergate, I will try to explain again the actual situation. Any investigation by external auditors is dependent on their being something to investigate. Any objections sent to the external auditors will only invoke an investigation if the external auditors see the objections have merit and give grounds for concern. That an investigation is now to take place is based upon the decision by the external auditors there is something to investigate. That 21 objections have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be looked into is again a decision taken by a fully qualified professional auditing company. Obviously, as a company it has to charge for the work it undertakes, so yes a fee is charged to KTC. Now, the really easy part of this to understand is if there were no grounds for concerns by parishioner who inspected the councils account and raised their concerns with the external auditors, there may not be any investigation. I say may because it is also possible the external auditors may have found problem with the accounts of KTC during their annul inspection, irrespective of the objections sent in by parishioners. If the objections to the councils account being sent to the external auditors, and after they looked at the objections they saw no need to hold an investigation, then yes the council would still be charged for the work undertaken in looking at the objections. The parishioners, and sitting councillors, objections which they had a legal right to make have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be investigated further. So the fact there were problems with the councils account, which only the council deal with, makes the council responsible for all that is now taking place and the costs which will be incurred.[/p][/quote]QUESTION DOES ANYBODY READ THIS DRIVEL ANYMORE ?. badgergate
  • Score: -8

10:51am Sat 11 Jan 14

jimmy k says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
badgergate wrote:
I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?.
Despite appearing to possibly have a learning difficulty badgergate, I will try to explain again the actual situation.

Any investigation by external auditors is dependent on their being something to investigate.

Any objections sent to the external auditors will only invoke an investigation if the external auditors see the objections have merit and give grounds for concern.

That an investigation is now to take place is based upon the decision by the external auditors there is something to investigate.

That 21 objections have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be looked into is again a decision taken by a fully qualified professional auditing company.

Obviously, as a company it has to charge for the work it undertakes, so yes a fee is charged to KTC.

Now, the really easy part of this to understand is if there were no grounds for concerns by parishioner who inspected the councils account and raised their concerns with the external auditors, there may not be any investigation. I say may because it is also possible the external auditors may have found problem with the accounts of KTC during their annul inspection, irrespective of the objections sent in by parishioners.

If the objections to the councils account being sent to the external auditors, and after they looked at the objections they saw no need to hold an investigation, then yes the council would still be charged for the work undertaken in looking at the objections.

The parishioners, and sitting councillors, objections which they had a legal right to make have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be investigated further. So the fact there were problems with the councils account, which only the council deal with, makes the council responsible for all that is now taking place and the costs which will be incurred.
this is what i mean skinhead,accusing someone of having a learning problem is just wrong and wholly offensive no matter who started it or what the prover-cation.
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?.[/p][/quote]Despite appearing to possibly have a learning difficulty badgergate, I will try to explain again the actual situation. Any investigation by external auditors is dependent on their being something to investigate. Any objections sent to the external auditors will only invoke an investigation if the external auditors see the objections have merit and give grounds for concern. That an investigation is now to take place is based upon the decision by the external auditors there is something to investigate. That 21 objections have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be looked into is again a decision taken by a fully qualified professional auditing company. Obviously, as a company it has to charge for the work it undertakes, so yes a fee is charged to KTC. Now, the really easy part of this to understand is if there were no grounds for concerns by parishioner who inspected the councils account and raised their concerns with the external auditors, there may not be any investigation. I say may because it is also possible the external auditors may have found problem with the accounts of KTC during their annul inspection, irrespective of the objections sent in by parishioners. If the objections to the councils account being sent to the external auditors, and after they looked at the objections they saw no need to hold an investigation, then yes the council would still be charged for the work undertaken in looking at the objections. The parishioners, and sitting councillors, objections which they had a legal right to make have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be investigated further. So the fact there were problems with the councils account, which only the council deal with, makes the council responsible for all that is now taking place and the costs which will be incurred.[/p][/quote]this is what i mean skinhead,accusing someone of having a learning problem is just wrong and wholly offensive no matter who started it or what the prover-cation. jimmy k
  • Score: -3

11:10am Sat 11 Jan 14

Graham Forsyth says...

jimmy k wrote:
don't worry skinhead it takes more then that to upset me.as previously said ive no interest in the tc but was impressed last week when many came close to agreeing,i just wish both sides would stop insulting each other because it does the town no good to the outside world.
“Keighley Town Council last night approved a 72.6 per cent increase in its precept at a heated meeting in the town hall.”

“Kris Hopkins, left, will introduce a ten minute rule motion in the House of Commons on Tuesday seeking MPs’ approval for him to put forward a Private Members’ Bill to bring local councils in line with their district counterparts.”

“A dispute regarding Keighley Town Council’s financial position has again been raised in Parliament.”

“Objections to Keighley Town Council’s 2012-13 accounts will be investigated, according to an auditors’ letter seen by the Keighley News. “

“Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has said his home town's council "lost the plot" when it ejected members of the public who tried to film a meeting.”
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: don't worry skinhead it takes more then that to upset me.as previously said ive no interest in the tc but was impressed last week when many came close to agreeing,i just wish both sides would stop insulting each other because it does the town no good to the outside world.[/p][/quote]“Keighley Town Council last night approved a 72.6 per cent increase in its precept at a heated meeting in the town hall.” “Kris Hopkins, left, will introduce a ten minute rule motion in the House of Commons on Tuesday seeking MPs’ approval for him to put forward a Private Members’ Bill to bring local councils in line with their district counterparts.” “A dispute regarding Keighley Town Council’s financial position has again been raised in Parliament.” “Objections to Keighley Town Council’s 2012-13 accounts will be investigated, according to an auditors’ letter seen by the Keighley News. “ “Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has said his home town's council "lost the plot" when it ejected members of the public who tried to film a meeting.” Graham Forsyth
  • Score: 5

11:14am Sat 11 Jan 14

jimmy k says...

Graham Forsyth wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
don't worry skinhead it takes more then that to upset me.as previously said ive no interest in the tc but was impressed last week when many came close to agreeing,i just wish both sides would stop insulting each other because it does the town no good to the outside world.
“Keighley Town Council last night approved a 72.6 per cent increase in its precept at a heated meeting in the town hall.”

“Kris Hopkins, left, will introduce a ten minute rule motion in the House of Commons on Tuesday seeking MPs’ approval for him to put forward a Private Members’ Bill to bring local councils in line with their district counterparts.”

“A dispute regarding Keighley Town Council’s financial position has again been raised in Parliament.”

“Objections to Keighley Town Council’s 2012-13 accounts will be investigated, according to an auditors’ letter seen by the Keighley News. “

“Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has said his home town's council "lost the plot" when it ejected members of the public who tried to film a meeting.”
and that relates to my post because?
[quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: don't worry skinhead it takes more then that to upset me.as previously said ive no interest in the tc but was impressed last week when many came close to agreeing,i just wish both sides would stop insulting each other because it does the town no good to the outside world.[/p][/quote]“Keighley Town Council last night approved a 72.6 per cent increase in its precept at a heated meeting in the town hall.” “Kris Hopkins, left, will introduce a ten minute rule motion in the House of Commons on Tuesday seeking MPs’ approval for him to put forward a Private Members’ Bill to bring local councils in line with their district counterparts.” “A dispute regarding Keighley Town Council’s financial position has again been raised in Parliament.” “Objections to Keighley Town Council’s 2012-13 accounts will be investigated, according to an auditors’ letter seen by the Keighley News. “ “Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has said his home town's council "lost the plot" when it ejected members of the public who tried to film a meeting.”[/p][/quote]and that relates to my post because? jimmy k
  • Score: -2

11:22am Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

jimmy k wrote:
Graham Forsyth wrote:
badgergate wrote:
I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?.
Despite appearing to possibly have a learning difficulty badgergate, I will try to explain again the actual situation.

Any investigation by external auditors is dependent on their being something to investigate.

Any objections sent to the external auditors will only invoke an investigation if the external auditors see the objections have merit and give grounds for concern.

That an investigation is now to take place is based upon the decision by the external auditors there is something to investigate.

That 21 objections have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be looked into is again a decision taken by a fully qualified professional auditing company.

Obviously, as a company it has to charge for the work it undertakes, so yes a fee is charged to KTC.

Now, the really easy part of this to understand is if there were no grounds for concerns by parishioner who inspected the councils account and raised their concerns with the external auditors, there may not be any investigation. I say may because it is also possible the external auditors may have found problem with the accounts of KTC during their annul inspection, irrespective of the objections sent in by parishioners.

If the objections to the councils account being sent to the external auditors, and after they looked at the objections they saw no need to hold an investigation, then yes the council would still be charged for the work undertaken in looking at the objections.

The parishioners, and sitting councillors, objections which they had a legal right to make have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be investigated further. So the fact there were problems with the councils account, which only the council deal with, makes the council responsible for all that is now taking place and the costs which will be incurred.
this is what i mean skinhead,accusing someone of having a learning problem is just wrong and wholly offensive no matter who started it or what the prover-cation.
I disagree Jimmy K. A quick use of the "CTRL F" function on any of the relevant article threads you care to choose quickly reveals some telling facts.
People such as Graham and myself, as well as partaking in the banter of hte threads, as we should be entitled to do, also issue relevant and important facts on the subject at hand.
Using the same find funtion on others names does also provide the researcher with a clear understanding of the nature of that persons comments.
To be so vocal on these threads and yet offer nothing of relevance or substance does make it obvious why such people are spending their time and effort on these sites.
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?.[/p][/quote]Despite appearing to possibly have a learning difficulty badgergate, I will try to explain again the actual situation. Any investigation by external auditors is dependent on their being something to investigate. Any objections sent to the external auditors will only invoke an investigation if the external auditors see the objections have merit and give grounds for concern. That an investigation is now to take place is based upon the decision by the external auditors there is something to investigate. That 21 objections have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be looked into is again a decision taken by a fully qualified professional auditing company. Obviously, as a company it has to charge for the work it undertakes, so yes a fee is charged to KTC. Now, the really easy part of this to understand is if there were no grounds for concerns by parishioner who inspected the councils account and raised their concerns with the external auditors, there may not be any investigation. I say may because it is also possible the external auditors may have found problem with the accounts of KTC during their annul inspection, irrespective of the objections sent in by parishioners. If the objections to the councils account being sent to the external auditors, and after they looked at the objections they saw no need to hold an investigation, then yes the council would still be charged for the work undertaken in looking at the objections. The parishioners, and sitting councillors, objections which they had a legal right to make have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be investigated further. So the fact there were problems with the councils account, which only the council deal with, makes the council responsible for all that is now taking place and the costs which will be incurred.[/p][/quote]this is what i mean skinhead,accusing someone of having a learning problem is just wrong and wholly offensive no matter who started it or what the prover-cation.[/p][/quote]I disagree Jimmy K. A quick use of the "CTRL F" function on any of the relevant article threads you care to choose quickly reveals some telling facts. People such as Graham and myself, as well as partaking in the banter of hte threads, as we should be entitled to do, also issue relevant and important facts on the subject at hand. Using the same find funtion on others names does also provide the researcher with a clear understanding of the nature of that persons comments. To be so vocal on these threads and yet offer nothing of relevance or substance does make it obvious why such people are spending their time and effort on these sites. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

11:46am Sat 11 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
Graham Forsyth wrote:
badgergate wrote:
I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?.
Despite appearing to possibly have a learning difficulty badgergate, I will try to explain again the actual situation.

Any investigation by external auditors is dependent on their being something to investigate.

Any objections sent to the external auditors will only invoke an investigation if the external auditors see the objections have merit and give grounds for concern.

That an investigation is now to take place is based upon the decision by the external auditors there is something to investigate.

That 21 objections have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be looked into is again a decision taken by a fully qualified professional auditing company.

Obviously, as a company it has to charge for the work it undertakes, so yes a fee is charged to KTC.

Now, the really easy part of this to understand is if there were no grounds for concerns by parishioner who inspected the councils account and raised their concerns with the external auditors, there may not be any investigation. I say may because it is also possible the external auditors may have found problem with the accounts of KTC during their annul inspection, irrespective of the objections sent in by parishioners.

If the objections to the councils account being sent to the external auditors, and after they looked at the objections they saw no need to hold an investigation, then yes the council would still be charged for the work undertaken in looking at the objections.

The parishioners, and sitting councillors, objections which they had a legal right to make have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be investigated further. So the fact there were problems with the councils account, which only the council deal with, makes the council responsible for all that is now taking place and the costs which will be incurred.
this is what i mean skinhead,accusing someone of having a learning problem is just wrong and wholly offensive no matter who started it or what the prover-cation.
I disagree Jimmy K. A quick use of the "CTRL F" function on any of the relevant article threads you care to choose quickly reveals some telling facts.
People such as Graham and myself, as well as partaking in the banter of hte threads, as we should be entitled to do, also issue relevant and important facts on the subject at hand.
Using the same find funtion on others names does also provide the researcher with a clear understanding of the nature of that persons comments.
To be so vocal on these threads and yet offer nothing of relevance or substance does make it obvious why such people are spending their time and effort on these sites.
Utter nonsense , unless your a Cavetowners .
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Graham Forsyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: I can smell something this morning it mainly lies in fields and is left by the male of a species. Bull S--t. Still in self denial regarding the extra costs incurred by the KTC ?.[/p][/quote]Despite appearing to possibly have a learning difficulty badgergate, I will try to explain again the actual situation. Any investigation by external auditors is dependent on their being something to investigate. Any objections sent to the external auditors will only invoke an investigation if the external auditors see the objections have merit and give grounds for concern. That an investigation is now to take place is based upon the decision by the external auditors there is something to investigate. That 21 objections have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be looked into is again a decision taken by a fully qualified professional auditing company. Obviously, as a company it has to charge for the work it undertakes, so yes a fee is charged to KTC. Now, the really easy part of this to understand is if there were no grounds for concerns by parishioner who inspected the councils account and raised their concerns with the external auditors, there may not be any investigation. I say may because it is also possible the external auditors may have found problem with the accounts of KTC during their annul inspection, irrespective of the objections sent in by parishioners. If the objections to the councils account being sent to the external auditors, and after they looked at the objections they saw no need to hold an investigation, then yes the council would still be charged for the work undertaken in looking at the objections. The parishioners, and sitting councillors, objections which they had a legal right to make have been accepted by the external auditors as needing to be investigated further. So the fact there were problems with the councils account, which only the council deal with, makes the council responsible for all that is now taking place and the costs which will be incurred.[/p][/quote]this is what i mean skinhead,accusing someone of having a learning problem is just wrong and wholly offensive no matter who started it or what the prover-cation.[/p][/quote]I disagree Jimmy K. A quick use of the "CTRL F" function on any of the relevant article threads you care to choose quickly reveals some telling facts. People such as Graham and myself, as well as partaking in the banter of hte threads, as we should be entitled to do, also issue relevant and important facts on the subject at hand. Using the same find funtion on others names does also provide the researcher with a clear understanding of the nature of that persons comments. To be so vocal on these threads and yet offer nothing of relevance or substance does make it obvious why such people are spending their time and effort on these sites.[/p][/quote]Utter nonsense , unless your a Cavetowners . badgergate
  • Score: -5

12:07pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Badgergate-
Your comments=
Utter nonsense , unless your a Cavetowners .

Ok then councillor try it. Use CTRL F and use the keyword "badgergate"
You with be presented (at this moment in time) with 88 results.

While not all these are post made by you councillor, I still challenge you to find one where you have made a relevant contribution.

After you've done that Brother badgergate.
Do the same using MarkPullen as the keyword. Tell me which of the 28 results you get is relevant or offers any informative insight into the subject.

Nonsense? I think not councillor.
Badgergate- Your comments= Utter nonsense , unless your a Cavetowners . Ok then councillor try it. Use CTRL F and use the keyword "badgergate" You with be presented (at this moment in time) with 88 results. While not all these are post made by you councillor, I still challenge you to find one where you have made a relevant contribution. After you've done that Brother badgergate. Do the same using MarkPullen as the keyword. Tell me which of the 28 results you get is relevant or offers any informative insight into the subject. Nonsense? I think not councillor. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 4

12:13pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

100 posts badgerrape. And not a single contribution from yourself on the subject.... Tick Tock councillor.
100 posts badgerrape. And not a single contribution from yourself on the subject.... Tick Tock councillor. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

12:25pm Sat 11 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Badgergate-
Your comments=
Utter nonsense , unless your a Cavetowners .

Ok then councillor try it. Use CTRL F and use the keyword "badgergate"
You with be presented (at this moment in time) with 88 results.

While not all these are post made by you councillor, I still challenge you to find one where you have made a relevant contribution.

After you've done that Brother badgergate.
Do the same using MarkPullen as the keyword. Tell me which of the 28 results you get is relevant or offers any informative insight into the subject.

Nonsense? I think not councillor.
I used CTRL. F and used the keyword "Bull sh-t" and was presented with the drivel and nonsense posted by PENDRAGON.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Badgergate- Your comments= Utter nonsense , unless your a Cavetowners . Ok then councillor try it. Use CTRL F and use the keyword "badgergate" You with be presented (at this moment in time) with 88 results. While not all these are post made by you councillor, I still challenge you to find one where you have made a relevant contribution. After you've done that Brother badgergate. Do the same using MarkPullen as the keyword. Tell me which of the 28 results you get is relevant or offers any informative insight into the subject. Nonsense? I think not councillor.[/p][/quote]I used CTRL. F and used the keyword "Bull sh-t" and was presented with the drivel and nonsense posted by PENDRAGON. badgergate
  • Score: -5

12:37pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

badgergate wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Badgergate-
Your comments=
Utter nonsense , unless your a Cavetowners .

Ok then councillor try it. Use CTRL F and use the keyword "badgergate"
You with be presented (at this moment in time) with 88 results.

While not all these are post made by you councillor, I still challenge you to find one where you have made a relevant contribution.

After you've done that Brother badgergate.
Do the same using MarkPullen as the keyword. Tell me which of the 28 results you get is relevant or offers any informative insight into the subject.

Nonsense? I think not councillor.
I used CTRL. F and used the keyword "Bull sh-t" and was presented with the drivel and nonsense posted by PENDRAGON.
So no real argument to offer have you vermingate? Just another load of false comments.
You really do make this easy for me.
Using the keyword " Always a 708 Skinhead" you will be presented with 63 results councillor.
So here is an easy question for you-
How many relate to legislation, documentation or relevant subject matter?
Get out your calculator councillor, because you won't beable to count them on your fingers and toes numpty.

Cavendos Tutus (you really should consider the meaning of this councillor)

Simon
[quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Badgergate- Your comments= Utter nonsense , unless your a Cavetowners . Ok then councillor try it. Use CTRL F and use the keyword "badgergate" You with be presented (at this moment in time) with 88 results. While not all these are post made by you councillor, I still challenge you to find one where you have made a relevant contribution. After you've done that Brother badgergate. Do the same using MarkPullen as the keyword. Tell me which of the 28 results you get is relevant or offers any informative insight into the subject. Nonsense? I think not councillor.[/p][/quote]I used CTRL. F and used the keyword "Bull sh-t" and was presented with the drivel and nonsense posted by PENDRAGON.[/p][/quote]So no real argument to offer have you vermingate? Just another load of false comments. You really do make this easy for me. Using the keyword " Always a 708 Skinhead" you will be presented with 63 results councillor. So here is an easy question for you- How many relate to legislation, documentation or relevant subject matter? Get out your calculator councillor, because you won't beable to count them on your fingers and toes numpty. Cavendos Tutus (you really should consider the meaning of this councillor) Simon Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

12:49pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

A: The external auditor has legal powers to make written recommendations to the
council about any matter related to the audit of the accounts.
If the external auditor decides to make written recommendations, they can be made in a
separate report or included within other reports by the auditor.

The council must consider these recommendations and respond to them. (Statutory recommendations are covered by Section 11 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 and Chapter 5
of the Code of Audit Practice.)
A: The external auditor has legal powers to make written recommendations to the council about any matter related to the audit of the accounts. If the external auditor decides to make written recommendations, they can be made in a separate report or included within other reports by the auditor. The council must consider these recommendations and respond to them. (Statutory recommendations are covered by Section 11 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 and Chapter 5 of the Code of Audit Practice.) Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

12:52pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Q: What does it mean if the external auditor issues an advisory
notice?
A: The external auditor can issue an advisory notice if he or she has reason to believe a
council or an officer of the council:
■ is about to make, or has made, a decision that involves, or would involve, the body
incurring expenditure that is unlawful;
■ is about to take, or has begun to take, a course of action which, if continued to its conclusion, would be unlawful and likely to cause a loss or deficiency; or
■ is about to enter an item of account, the entry of which is unlawful.

The effect of the advisory notice is to provide the council with some ‘breathing space’.
It creates the opportunity for council members to take some time and think again about the action they are about to take and seek proper advice.
If they have not already done so, the council can ask for a second opinion. (Issuing an advisory notice is covered in Sections 19A – 19C of the Audit Commission Act 1998.)
Q: What does it mean if the external auditor issues an advisory notice? A: The external auditor can issue an advisory notice if he or she has reason to believe a council or an officer of the council: ■ is about to make, or has made, a decision that involves, or would involve, the body incurring expenditure that is unlawful; ■ is about to take, or has begun to take, a course of action which, if continued to its conclusion, would be unlawful and likely to cause a loss or deficiency; or ■ is about to enter an item of account, the entry of which is unlawful. The effect of the advisory notice is to provide the council with some ‘breathing space’. It creates the opportunity for council members to take some time and think again about the action they are about to take and seek proper advice. If they have not already done so, the council can ask for a second opinion. (Issuing an advisory notice is covered in Sections 19A – 19C of the Audit Commission Act 1998.) Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

12:54pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

This one's a good one councillor-
Q: What does it mean if the external auditor applies for judicial
review?
A: If matters are serious enough, and other special powers are inadequate or considered inappropriate, the external auditor can decide to apply to the court for judicial review.
Only a judge can decide whether a council’s decision, or failure to take a decision it should have, is lawful.

The external auditor can apply for judicial review on any decision of the council, or any failure bythe council to act, which it is reasonable to believe would have an effect on the council’s accounts. (Judicial review is covered by Section 24 of the Audit Commission Act 1998.)
This one's a good one councillor- Q: What does it mean if the external auditor applies for judicial review? A: If matters are serious enough, and other special powers are inadequate or considered inappropriate, the external auditor can decide to apply to the court for judicial review. Only a judge can decide whether a council’s decision, or failure to take a decision it should have, is lawful. The external auditor can apply for judicial review on any decision of the council, or any failure bythe council to act, which it is reasonable to believe would have an effect on the council’s accounts. (Judicial review is covered by Section 24 of the Audit Commission Act 1998.) Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

12:54pm Sat 11 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
badgergate wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Badgergate-
Your comments=
Utter nonsense , unless your a Cavetowners .

Ok then councillor try it. Use CTRL F and use the keyword "badgergate"
You with be presented (at this moment in time) with 88 results.

While not all these are post made by you councillor, I still challenge you to find one where you have made a relevant contribution.

After you've done that Brother badgergate.
Do the same using MarkPullen as the keyword. Tell me which of the 28 results you get is relevant or offers any informative insight into the subject.

Nonsense? I think not councillor.
I used CTRL. F and used the keyword "Bull sh-t" and was presented with the drivel and nonsense posted by PENDRAGON.
So no real argument to offer have you vermingate? Just another load of false comments.
You really do make this easy for me.
Using the keyword " Always a 708 Skinhead" you will be presented with 63 results councillor.
So here is an easy question for you-
How many relate to legislation, documentation or relevant subject matter?
Get out your calculator councillor, because you won't beable to count them on your fingers and toes numpty.

Cavendos Tutus (you really should consider the meaning of this councillor)

Simon
"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong."
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Badgergate- Your comments= Utter nonsense , unless your a Cavetowners . Ok then councillor try it. Use CTRL F and use the keyword "badgergate" You with be presented (at this moment in time) with 88 results. While not all these are post made by you councillor, I still challenge you to find one where you have made a relevant contribution. After you've done that Brother badgergate. Do the same using MarkPullen as the keyword. Tell me which of the 28 results you get is relevant or offers any informative insight into the subject. Nonsense? I think not councillor.[/p][/quote]I used CTRL. F and used the keyword "Bull sh-t" and was presented with the drivel and nonsense posted by PENDRAGON.[/p][/quote]So no real argument to offer have you vermingate? Just another load of false comments. You really do make this easy for me. Using the keyword " Always a 708 Skinhead" you will be presented with 63 results councillor. So here is an easy question for you- How many relate to legislation, documentation or relevant subject matter? Get out your calculator councillor, because you won't beable to count them on your fingers and toes numpty. Cavendos Tutus (you really should consider the meaning of this councillor) Simon[/p][/quote]"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." Jean-Jacques Rousseau badgergate
  • Score: -4

12:59pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

And this one is for ex councillor Newton, just so she knows how stupid her comments in the press recently were-

Q: How much will this cost and who pays?
A: Unless you appeal or commission your own advice, there will be no direct cost to you.
But both the auditor and the council will spend time answering questions or considering objections. The council is responsible for paying for the auditor’s time which can sometimes be significant.
Councils generally meet their own and the external auditor’s costs of dealing with questions and objections.


Please do note ex councillor Newton-
The council is responsible for paying for the auditor’s time which can sometimes be significant.

Tick Tock
And this one is for ex councillor Newton, just so she knows how stupid her comments in the press recently were- Q: How much will this cost and who pays? A: Unless you appeal or commission your own advice, there will be no direct cost to you. But both the auditor and the council will spend time answering questions or considering objections. The council is responsible for paying for the auditor’s time which can sometimes be significant. Councils generally meet their own and the external auditor’s costs of dealing with questions and objections. Please do note ex councillor Newton- The council is responsible for paying for the auditor’s time which can sometimes be significant. Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 4

1:01pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Katiery says...

Hopefully at the end of the audit we will have a clear idea of things and the glorified parish council may then respond to questions in a sensible manner, rather than the bunkum that is posted on here and in the Keighley News.

Their continually slinging blame onto parishoners is ridiculous. Had they kept everything above board, responded honestly to questions and not tried to smoke screen the whole sorry affair then there would be no need for an external audit.

Having ex-councillors who, on one hand runs a website decrying the town council and on the other makes excuses for their poor performance is of no help whatsoever.

The continued silence, not responding to letters and ignoring concerns does them absolutely no favours either.
Hopefully at the end of the audit we will have a clear idea of things and the glorified parish council may then respond to questions in a sensible manner, rather than the bunkum that is posted on here and in the Keighley News. Their continually slinging blame onto parishoners is ridiculous. Had they kept everything above board, responded honestly to questions and not tried to smoke screen the whole sorry affair then there would be no need for an external audit. Having ex-councillors who, on one hand runs a website decrying the town council and on the other makes excuses for their poor performance is of no help whatsoever. The continued silence, not responding to letters and ignoring concerns does them absolutely no favours either. Katiery
  • Score: 6

1:05pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

councillor badgergate-
Your words-
"I used CTRL. F and used the keyword "Bull sh-t" and was presented with the drivel and nonsense posted by PENDRAGON."

And followed up by your words again-
"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong."
Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Do you stop to consider what you post?

Here is a tip- whatever it is you think, write it down, read it back to yourself. If it sounds stupid, don't post it.
Just a word of advice to try and stop you making even more of a fool out of yourself councillor.

Tick................
.............Tock...
....................
....................
.
councillor badgergate- Your words- "I used CTRL. F and used the keyword "Bull sh-t" and was presented with the drivel and nonsense posted by PENDRAGON." And followed up by your words again- "Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Do you stop to consider what you post? Here is a tip- whatever it is you think, write it down, read it back to yourself. If it sounds stupid, don't post it. Just a word of advice to try and stop you making even more of a fool out of yourself councillor. Tick................ .............Tock... .................... .................... . Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

1:06pm Sat 11 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Katiery wrote:
Hopefully at the end of the audit we will have a clear idea of things and the glorified parish council may then respond to questions in a sensible manner, rather than the bunkum that is posted on here and in the Keighley News.

Their continually slinging blame onto parishoners is ridiculous. Had they kept everything above board, responded honestly to questions and not tried to smoke screen the whole sorry affair then there would be no need for an external audit.

Having ex-councillors who, on one hand runs a website decrying the town council and on the other makes excuses for their poor performance is of no help whatsoever.

The continued silence, not responding to letters and ignoring concerns does them absolutely no favours either.
I must agree my concerns which are never answered by the Cavetowners does them absolutely no favours.
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Hopefully at the end of the audit we will have a clear idea of things and the glorified parish council may then respond to questions in a sensible manner, rather than the bunkum that is posted on here and in the Keighley News. Their continually slinging blame onto parishoners is ridiculous. Had they kept everything above board, responded honestly to questions and not tried to smoke screen the whole sorry affair then there would be no need for an external audit. Having ex-councillors who, on one hand runs a website decrying the town council and on the other makes excuses for their poor performance is of no help whatsoever. The continued silence, not responding to letters and ignoring concerns does them absolutely no favours either.[/p][/quote]I must agree my concerns which are never answered by the Cavetowners does them absolutely no favours. badgergate
  • Score: -5

1:09pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

jimmy k wrote:
there's no i in team but there is a me in team.
I must admit I like this
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: there's no i in team but there is a me in team.[/p][/quote]I must admit I like this Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 3

1:20pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Katiery wrote:
Badgergate, I'm still at a loss here. What is bullying about those posts?

Kipper? I know it's breakfast time, but what does a kipper have to do with it?

I too have glaucoma, when the light fades, so does my eyesight. I have to use magnifying glasses to see properly, so I understand why Ian Holt-Roberts cannot see properly. How is having a medical condition being a bully?
Katiery sorry to hear you also have glaucoma ,it really is not to much of a problem however ,I have cataracts on both eyes,dry eyes requiring drops 3 times a day and as you say at night even tho my computer is run through the tv it is not easy to see.The lady last night used the word NETIQUETTE as I said never heard of it
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Badgergate, I'm still at a loss here. What is bullying about those posts? Kipper? I know it's breakfast time, but what does a kipper have to do with it? I too have glaucoma, when the light fades, so does my eyesight. I have to use magnifying glasses to see properly, so I understand why Ian Holt-Roberts cannot see properly. How is having a medical condition being a bully?[/p][/quote]Katiery sorry to hear you also have glaucoma ,it really is not to much of a problem however ,I have cataracts on both eyes,dry eyes requiring drops 3 times a day and as you say at night even tho my computer is run through the tv it is not easy to see.The lady last night used the word NETIQUETTE as I said never heard of it Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 5

1:20pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Badgegate-
at 4.05am Sat 11th Jan 2014 on this thread I posted a very detailed comment which included the following-
"So can anyone tell me why it is that even though KTC are required to publish their spending over £500" ONLINE" in a "OPEN" and "TIMELY" manner, he council has refused to update this information since May 2013?"

No answer from any of you yet about this. As per usual with any question raised by a member of Cavetown.
But here we find you stating that you never receive answers from Cavetown.
Another lie. I myself have answered you on many occassions, if I couldn't answer I requested from you further input to help answer your vague accusations. That you then failed to supply relevant details does not mean you were left unanswered councillor. It simply means you had no question to ask.
So now, why not answer the question above, obviously, after reading my original post which supplies a very detailed background to the question.

Or are we to take it that the answer is obviously that the council has not posted the required information, as it is obligated to do so by Law, simply because by doing so it would present them in a bad light and embarrass both members and staff alike?
Ponder this councillor, because I will shortly be expanding on this topic so get your records and minutes out from your recent council meetings.

Tick Tock
Badgegate- at 4.05am Sat 11th Jan 2014 on this thread I posted a very detailed comment which included the following- "So can anyone tell me why it is that even though KTC are required to publish their spending over £500" ONLINE" in a "OPEN" and "TIMELY" manner, he council has refused to update this information since May 2013?" No answer from any of you yet about this. As per usual with any question raised by a member of Cavetown. But here we find you stating that you never receive answers from Cavetown. Another lie. I myself have answered you on many occassions, if I couldn't answer I requested from you further input to help answer your vague accusations. That you then failed to supply relevant details does not mean you were left unanswered councillor. It simply means you had no question to ask. So now, why not answer the question above, obviously, after reading my original post which supplies a very detailed background to the question. Or are we to take it that the answer is obviously that the council has not posted the required information, as it is obligated to do so by Law, simply because by doing so it would present them in a bad light and embarrass both members and staff alike? Ponder this councillor, because I will shortly be expanding on this topic so get your records and minutes out from your recent council meetings. Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

1:26pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Katiery says...

You have concerns about a group that has brought to light the alleged dodgy dealings of the parish council by using their own initiative? Why? Because they are doggedly working to bring the parish council to the attention of parishioners? Because no longer can the council blunder on safe in the knowledge that most of the population couldn't give two hoots about how they waste the precept? Because people with no connection to cavetown are now asking questions?

Cavetown is a group of residents who have no obligation to answer your questions, Badgergate. Why should they when the town councillors can't be bothered to respond.
You have concerns about a group that has brought to light the alleged dodgy dealings of the parish council by using their own initiative? Why? Because they are doggedly working to bring the parish council to the attention of parishioners? Because no longer can the council blunder on safe in the knowledge that most of the population couldn't give two hoots about how they waste the precept? Because people with no connection to cavetown are now asking questions? Cavetown is a group of residents who have no obligation to answer your questions, Badgergate. Why should they when the town councillors can't be bothered to respond. Katiery
  • Score: 7

1:35pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Katiery says...

Ian Holt-Roberts. Netiquette is just another word for online etiquette. Typing in capitals equates to shouting, smiley faces - ;0) - mean the poster is either smiling, winking, frowning or sad and 'trolling' or being a troll is posting vulgar or pointless comments just for attention or to start an argument. Once people know that you post in capitals because of sight problems then they understand.

The glaucoma isn't too bad, at least it's not painful. Just eye drops and reduced vision at night, which I can live with.
Ian Holt-Roberts. Netiquette is just another word for online etiquette. Typing in capitals equates to shouting, smiley faces - ;0) - mean the poster is either smiling, winking, frowning or sad and 'trolling' or being a troll is posting vulgar or pointless comments just for attention or to start an argument. Once people know that you post in capitals because of sight problems then they understand. The glaucoma isn't too bad, at least it's not painful. Just eye drops and reduced vision at night, which I can live with. Katiery
  • Score: 8

1:43pm Sat 11 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Badgegate-
at 4.05am Sat 11th Jan 2014 on this thread I posted a very detailed comment which included the following-
"So can anyone tell me why it is that even though KTC are required to publish their spending over £500" ONLINE" in a "OPEN" and "TIMELY" manner, he council has refused to update this information since May 2013?"

No answer from any of you yet about this. As per usual with any question raised by a member of Cavetown.
But here we find you stating that you never receive answers from Cavetown.
Another lie. I myself have answered you on many occassions, if I couldn't answer I requested from you further input to help answer your vague accusations. That you then failed to supply relevant details does not mean you were left unanswered councillor. It simply means you had no question to ask.
So now, why not answer the question above, obviously, after reading my original post which supplies a very detailed background to the question.

Or are we to take it that the answer is obviously that the council has not posted the required information, as it is obligated to do so by Law, simply because by doing so it would present them in a bad light and embarrass both members and staff alike?
Ponder this councillor, because I will shortly be expanding on this topic so get your records and minutes out from your recent council meetings.

Tick Tock
WHAT CONNECTIONS HAVE THE LEADING CAVETOWN GANG MEMBERS HAD WITH KTC IN THE PAST AND AT PRESENT ?.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Badgegate- at 4.05am Sat 11th Jan 2014 on this thread I posted a very detailed comment which included the following- "So can anyone tell me why it is that even though KTC are required to publish their spending over £500" ONLINE" in a "OPEN" and "TIMELY" manner, he council has refused to update this information since May 2013?" No answer from any of you yet about this. As per usual with any question raised by a member of Cavetown. But here we find you stating that you never receive answers from Cavetown. Another lie. I myself have answered you on many occassions, if I couldn't answer I requested from you further input to help answer your vague accusations. That you then failed to supply relevant details does not mean you were left unanswered councillor. It simply means you had no question to ask. So now, why not answer the question above, obviously, after reading my original post which supplies a very detailed background to the question. Or are we to take it that the answer is obviously that the council has not posted the required information, as it is obligated to do so by Law, simply because by doing so it would present them in a bad light and embarrass both members and staff alike? Ponder this councillor, because I will shortly be expanding on this topic so get your records and minutes out from your recent council meetings. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]WHAT CONNECTIONS HAVE THE LEADING CAVETOWN GANG MEMBERS HAD WITH KTC IN THE PAST AND AT PRESENT ?. badgergate
  • Score: -8

1:54pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Gobbag Vooar says...

Again I would request that further dialogue with badgergate is pointless, his contribution to these sites is void of both sense, and value. even worse, packed with stupidity. It is an embarrassment to Keighley, and as a councillor, if our assumptions are correct, he presents himself as something of "The Fall Guy ",
Over Christmas I watched a small film called " The Plank " two actors, I think one was Eric Sykes, the other Tommy Copper, a really amusing little film. I could not help but relate these two characters to two on these sites who, I am sure need no further clues from myself.
Again I would request that further dialogue with badgergate is pointless, his contribution to these sites is void of both sense, and value. even worse, packed with stupidity. It is an embarrassment to Keighley, and as a councillor, if our assumptions are correct, he presents himself as something of "The Fall Guy ", Over Christmas I watched a small film called " The Plank " two actors, I think one was Eric Sykes, the other Tommy Copper, a really amusing little film. I could not help but relate these two characters to two on these sites who, I am sure need no further clues from myself. Gobbag Vooar
  • Score: 6

2:02pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

OK councillor Badgergate, are you sitting comfortably with the relevant notes to hand?
Good.
Lets begin.
At the upcoming Extraordinary General meeting of the Town Council to be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Keighley on THURSDAY 16 JANUARY 2014 at 6.30p.m, there is one particular item-
3 To discuss the possible splitting of the roles of the Town Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer and the way forward.

That in view of the nature of the business about to be transacted, it is advisable in the public interest that the press and public be temporarily excluded. Public Bodies Act 1960.


Shall we now explore this confidential item councillor?
Yes?
Ok then.

The current role of the RFO and Town Clerk is a unified role, one filled by a Miggy Bailey from Ilkley.
In return for her services in fulfilling her duties she receives a substantial amount on money.
According to the Good Councillors Guide-

"The responsible financial officer (RFO) is the officer responsible for
administering the council’s finances. The RFO is often the clerk."

It then goes on to explain-

"As a councillor, you share collective responsibility for financial management of the council. The council will have made arrangements for its finances to be administered by an officer known, in law, as the responsible financial officer (RFO). Your role is to ensure that the RFO acts properly so that the council avoids the risk of loss, fraud or bad debt, whether through deliberate or careless actions.
As a minimum control two councillors must sign every cheque
4. If you are asked to sign as an approved signature, always make sure that both purchase and payment have been agreed by the council, and that supporting paperwork matches the cheque (payee and amount). Never sign a blank cheque."


So what are we the Public to make of the confidential Item 3 of the upcoming EGM?

That Miggy Bailey is not suitable to fulfil her role, either as Town Clerk (based on her failure to maintain the relevant information on the website),
or as the Responsible Finance Officer (based on the upcoming investigation by the External Auditors).

So what is this confidential discussion regarding the unusual step of splitting the role about?

To remove Miggy from one or both roles?

If removed from both roles, will she receive severance pay?
Why?
For being incompetent in both duties assigned to her?
If the role is to be split, which one does Miggy get to keep?
Surely not the RFO?
But hang on, it can't be that of Town Clerk?

In either case if she does remain on the council, performing an inadequate role, it does leave still more questions-
Who will take over the role she is no longer filling?
How much will this person be paid?
How much reduction in salary will Miggy take to keep the same job but only perform half the duties?
Where will the money for this new Role come from?


How much will this splitting of Roles end up costing the Taxpayer?????

Hmmmmm.
No doubt you will be blaming Cavetown for this one as well Badgergate, but lets face it, incompetence is not the fault of the Public, it is the fault of the individual and those who allow it to flourish.
Remember this from the Good Councillor Guide? (Surely you have read it councillor)-

Furthermore, the council will have difficulty if it:
• allows one person or a small group of councillors to dominate its work;
• allows a councillor (including the chairman) to make decisions on its behalf;
• doesn’t listen to and communicate with its community, other local
councils, principal authorities, outside bodies;
• ignores or antagonises the press;
• doesn’t have contracts of employment for staff;
• doesn’t keep its records in order;
• lacks a robust system of financial control;
• doesn’t manage meetings effectively;
• is not well-informed on topics to be discussed.
Everyone in the team is responsible for checking that the council avoids these dangers; ultimately the council is liable. By contrast, well-prepared and wellinformed councillors avoid difficulties and spend their energies on serving their communities.

Tick Tock
Cavendo Tutus
Simon Mitchell
Cavetown Council
OK councillor Badgergate, are you sitting comfortably with the relevant notes to hand? Good. Lets begin. At the upcoming Extraordinary General meeting of the Town Council to be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Keighley on THURSDAY 16 JANUARY 2014 at 6.30p.m, there is one particular item- 3 To discuss the possible splitting of the roles of the Town Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer and the way forward. That in view of the [confidential] nature of the business about to be transacted, it is advisable in the public interest that the press and public be temporarily excluded. Public Bodies [Admissions to Meetings] Act 1960. Shall we now explore this confidential item councillor? Yes? Ok then. The current role of the RFO and Town Clerk is a unified role, one filled by a Miggy Bailey from Ilkley. In return for her services in fulfilling her duties she receives a substantial amount on money. According to the Good Councillors Guide- "The responsible financial officer (RFO) is the officer responsible for administering the council’s finances. The RFO is often the clerk." It then goes on to explain- "As a councillor, you share collective responsibility for financial management of the council. The council will have made arrangements for its finances to be administered by an officer known, in law, as the responsible financial officer (RFO). Your role is to ensure that the RFO acts properly so that the council avoids the risk of loss, fraud or bad debt, whether through deliberate or careless actions. As a minimum control two councillors must sign every cheque 4. If you are asked to sign as an approved signature, always make sure that both purchase and payment have been agreed by the council, and that supporting paperwork matches the cheque (payee and amount). Never sign a blank cheque." So what are we the Public to make of the confidential Item 3 of the upcoming EGM? That Miggy Bailey is not suitable to fulfil her role, either as Town Clerk (based on her failure to maintain the relevant information on the website), or as the Responsible Finance Officer (based on the upcoming investigation by the External Auditors). So what is this confidential discussion regarding the unusual step of splitting the role about? To remove Miggy from one or both roles? If removed from both roles, will she receive severance pay? Why? For being incompetent in both duties assigned to her? If the role is to be split, which one does Miggy get to keep? Surely not the RFO? But hang on, it can't be that of Town Clerk? In either case if she does remain on the council, performing an inadequate role, it does leave still more questions- Who will take over the role she is no longer filling? How much will this person be paid? How much reduction in salary will Miggy take to keep the same job but only perform half the duties? Where will the money for this new Role come from? How much will this splitting of Roles end up costing the Taxpayer????? Hmmmmm. No doubt you will be blaming Cavetown for this one as well Badgergate, but lets face it, incompetence is not the fault of the Public, it is the fault of the individual and those who allow it to flourish. Remember this from the Good Councillor Guide? (Surely you have read it councillor)- Furthermore, the council will have difficulty if it: • allows one person or a small group of councillors to dominate its work; • allows a councillor (including the chairman) to make decisions on its behalf; • doesn’t listen to and communicate with its community, other local councils, principal authorities, outside bodies; • ignores or antagonises the press; • doesn’t have contracts of employment for staff; • doesn’t keep its records in order; • lacks a robust system of financial control; • doesn’t manage meetings effectively; • is not well-informed on topics to be discussed. Everyone in the team is responsible for checking that the council avoids these dangers; ultimately the council is liable. By contrast, well-prepared and wellinformed councillors avoid difficulties and spend their energies on serving their communities. Tick Tock Cavendo Tutus Simon Mitchell Cavetown Council Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 6

2:13pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Katiery wrote:
Ian Holt-Roberts. Netiquette is just another word for online etiquette. Typing in capitals equates to shouting, smiley faces - ;0) - mean the poster is either smiling, winking, frowning or sad and 'trolling' or being a troll is posting vulgar or pointless comments just for attention or to start an argument. Once people know that you post in capitals because of sight problems then they understand.

The glaucoma isn't too bad, at least it's not painful. Just eye drops and reduced vision at night, which I can live with.
Thanks for that Katiery I am not used to all this ,nor do I really want to be I say things as I see them and if people take offence when it is not intended then I am sorry for them being dyslexic I am used to people attempting to make fun at my expense and I remind them that Einstein (if that is how you spell his name ) was also dyslexic.
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Ian Holt-Roberts. Netiquette is just another word for online etiquette. Typing in capitals equates to shouting, smiley faces - ;0) - mean the poster is either smiling, winking, frowning or sad and 'trolling' or being a troll is posting vulgar or pointless comments just for attention or to start an argument. Once people know that you post in capitals because of sight problems then they understand. The glaucoma isn't too bad, at least it's not painful. Just eye drops and reduced vision at night, which I can live with.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that Katiery I am not used to all this ,nor do I really want to be I say things as I see them and if people take offence when it is not intended then I am sorry for them being dyslexic I am used to people attempting to make fun at my expense and I remind them that Einstein (if that is how you spell his name ) was also dyslexic. Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 2

2:17pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

badgergate wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Badgegate-
at 4.05am Sat 11th Jan 2014 on this thread I posted a very detailed comment which included the following-
"So can anyone tell me why it is that even though KTC are required to publish their spending over £500" ONLINE" in a "OPEN" and "TIMELY" manner, he council has refused to update this information since May 2013?"

No answer from any of you yet about this. As per usual with any question raised by a member of Cavetown.
But here we find you stating that you never receive answers from Cavetown.
Another lie. I myself have answered you on many occassions, if I couldn't answer I requested from you further input to help answer your vague accusations. That you then failed to supply relevant details does not mean you were left unanswered councillor. It simply means you had no question to ask.
So now, why not answer the question above, obviously, after reading my original post which supplies a very detailed background to the question.

Or are we to take it that the answer is obviously that the council has not posted the required information, as it is obligated to do so by Law, simply because by doing so it would present them in a bad light and embarrass both members and staff alike?
Ponder this councillor, because I will shortly be expanding on this topic so get your records and minutes out from your recent council meetings.

Tick Tock
WHAT CONNECTIONS HAVE THE LEADING CAVETOWN GANG MEMBERS HAD WITH KTC IN THE PAST AND AT PRESENT ?.
You are forever asking this question and I just do not why as you will not believe the answer but I will answer as follows if it will shut you up , To my knowledge the answer to your question is non .
[quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Badgegate- at 4.05am Sat 11th Jan 2014 on this thread I posted a very detailed comment which included the following- "So can anyone tell me why it is that even though KTC are required to publish their spending over £500" ONLINE" in a "OPEN" and "TIMELY" manner, he council has refused to update this information since May 2013?" No answer from any of you yet about this. As per usual with any question raised by a member of Cavetown. But here we find you stating that you never receive answers from Cavetown. Another lie. I myself have answered you on many occassions, if I couldn't answer I requested from you further input to help answer your vague accusations. That you then failed to supply relevant details does not mean you were left unanswered councillor. It simply means you had no question to ask. So now, why not answer the question above, obviously, after reading my original post which supplies a very detailed background to the question. Or are we to take it that the answer is obviously that the council has not posted the required information, as it is obligated to do so by Law, simply because by doing so it would present them in a bad light and embarrass both members and staff alike? Ponder this councillor, because I will shortly be expanding on this topic so get your records and minutes out from your recent council meetings. Tick Tock[/p][/quote]WHAT CONNECTIONS HAVE THE LEADING CAVETOWN GANG MEMBERS HAD WITH KTC IN THE PAST AND AT PRESENT ?.[/p][/quote]You are forever asking this question and I just do not why as you will not believe the answer but I will answer as follows if it will shut you up , To my knowledge the answer to your question is non . Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 3

2:18pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Gobbag Vooar wrote:
Again I would request that further dialogue with badgergate is pointless, his contribution to these sites is void of both sense, and value. even worse, packed with stupidity. It is an embarrassment to Keighley, and as a councillor, if our assumptions are correct, he presents himself as something of "The Fall Guy ",
Over Christmas I watched a small film called " The Plank " two actors, I think one was Eric Sykes, the other Tommy Copper, a really amusing little film. I could not help but relate these two characters to two on these sites who, I am sure need no further clues from myself.
Gobbag,
If your intention was to imply that I might be one of these actors in the Plank (Great film by the way). Please can I be Eric.
I think Badgergate deserves to follow in the footsteps of Tommy, dying in full view of the public, doing what he does best- making a fool out of himself.
RIP Tommy Cooper. Died what he loved doing, Where he loved to be.
[quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: Again I would request that further dialogue with badgergate is pointless, his contribution to these sites is void of both sense, and value. even worse, packed with stupidity. It is an embarrassment to Keighley, and as a councillor, if our assumptions are correct, he presents himself as something of "The Fall Guy ", Over Christmas I watched a small film called " The Plank " two actors, I think one was Eric Sykes, the other Tommy Copper, a really amusing little film. I could not help but relate these two characters to two on these sites who, I am sure need no further clues from myself.[/p][/quote]Gobbag, If your intention was to imply that I might be one of these actors in the Plank (Great film by the way). Please can I be Eric. I think Badgergate deserves to follow in the footsteps of Tommy, dying in full view of the public, doing what he does best- making a fool out of himself. RIP Tommy Cooper. Died what he loved doing, Where he loved to be. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 2

2:19pm Sat 11 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
OK councillor Badgergate, are you sitting comfortably with the relevant notes to hand?
Good.
Lets begin.
At the upcoming Extraordinary General meeting of the Town Council to be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Keighley on THURSDAY 16 JANUARY 2014 at 6.30p.m, there is one particular item-
3 To discuss the possible splitting of the roles of the Town Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer and the way forward.

That in view of the nature of the business about to be transacted, it is advisable in the public interest that the press and public be temporarily excluded. Public Bodies Act 1960.


Shall we now explore this confidential item councillor?
Yes?
Ok then.

The current role of the RFO and Town Clerk is a unified role, one filled by a Miggy Bailey from Ilkley.
In return for her services in fulfilling her duties she receives a substantial amount on money.
According to the Good Councillors Guide-

"The responsible financial officer (RFO) is the officer responsible for
administering the council’s finances. The RFO is often the clerk."

It then goes on to explain-

"As a councillor, you share collective responsibility for financial management of the council. The council will have made arrangements for its finances to be administered by an officer known, in law, as the responsible financial officer (RFO). Your role is to ensure that the RFO acts properly so that the council avoids the risk of loss, fraud or bad debt, whether through deliberate or careless actions.
As a minimum control two councillors must sign every cheque
4. If you are asked to sign as an approved signature, always make sure that both purchase and payment have been agreed by the council, and that supporting paperwork matches the cheque (payee and amount). Never sign a blank cheque."


So what are we the Public to make of the confidential Item 3 of the upcoming EGM?

That Miggy Bailey is not suitable to fulfil her role, either as Town Clerk (based on her failure to maintain the relevant information on the website),
or as the Responsible Finance Officer (based on the upcoming investigation by the External Auditors).

So what is this confidential discussion regarding the unusual step of splitting the role about?

To remove Miggy from one or both roles?

If removed from both roles, will she receive severance pay?
Why?
For being incompetent in both duties assigned to her?
If the role is to be split, which one does Miggy get to keep?
Surely not the RFO?
But hang on, it can't be that of Town Clerk?

In either case if she does remain on the council, performing an inadequate role, it does leave still more questions-
Who will take over the role she is no longer filling?
How much will this person be paid?
How much reduction in salary will Miggy take to keep the same job but only perform half the duties?
Where will the money for this new Role come from?


How much will this splitting of Roles end up costing the Taxpayer?????

Hmmmmm.
No doubt you will be blaming Cavetown for this one as well Badgergate, but lets face it, incompetence is not the fault of the Public, it is the fault of the individual and those who allow it to flourish.
Remember this from the Good Councillor Guide? (Surely you have read it councillor)-

Furthermore, the council will have difficulty if it:
• allows one person or a small group of councillors to dominate its work;
• allows a councillor (including the chairman) to make decisions on its behalf;
• doesn’t listen to and communicate with its community, other local
councils, principal authorities, outside bodies;
• ignores or antagonises the press;
• doesn’t have contracts of employment for staff;
• doesn’t keep its records in order;
• lacks a robust system of financial control;
• doesn’t manage meetings effectively;
• is not well-informed on topics to be discussed.
Everyone in the team is responsible for checking that the council avoids these dangers; ultimately the council is liable. By contrast, well-prepared and wellinformed councillors avoid difficulties and spend their energies on serving their communities.

Tick Tock
Cavendo Tutus
Simon Mitchell
Cavetown Council
Very comfortable , thankyou.

WHAT CONNECTIONS HAVE THE LEADING CAVETOWN GANG MEMBERS HAD WITH KTC IN THE PAST AND AT PRESENT ?.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: OK councillor Badgergate, are you sitting comfortably with the relevant notes to hand? Good. Lets begin. At the upcoming Extraordinary General meeting of the Town Council to be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Keighley on THURSDAY 16 JANUARY 2014 at 6.30p.m, there is one particular item- 3 To discuss the possible splitting of the roles of the Town Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer and the way forward. That in view of the [confidential] nature of the business about to be transacted, it is advisable in the public interest that the press and public be temporarily excluded. Public Bodies [Admissions to Meetings] Act 1960. Shall we now explore this confidential item councillor? Yes? Ok then. The current role of the RFO and Town Clerk is a unified role, one filled by a Miggy Bailey from Ilkley. In return for her services in fulfilling her duties she receives a substantial amount on money. According to the Good Councillors Guide- "The responsible financial officer (RFO) is the officer responsible for administering the council’s finances. The RFO is often the clerk." It then goes on to explain- "As a councillor, you share collective responsibility for financial management of the council. The council will have made arrangements for its finances to be administered by an officer known, in law, as the responsible financial officer (RFO). Your role is to ensure that the RFO acts properly so that the council avoids the risk of loss, fraud or bad debt, whether through deliberate or careless actions. As a minimum control two councillors must sign every cheque 4. If you are asked to sign as an approved signature, always make sure that both purchase and payment have been agreed by the council, and that supporting paperwork matches the cheque (payee and amount). Never sign a blank cheque." So what are we the Public to make of the confidential Item 3 of the upcoming EGM? That Miggy Bailey is not suitable to fulfil her role, either as Town Clerk (based on her failure to maintain the relevant information on the website), or as the Responsible Finance Officer (based on the upcoming investigation by the External Auditors). So what is this confidential discussion regarding the unusual step of splitting the role about? To remove Miggy from one or both roles? If removed from both roles, will she receive severance pay? Why? For being incompetent in both duties assigned to her? If the role is to be split, which one does Miggy get to keep? Surely not the RFO? But hang on, it can't be that of Town Clerk? In either case if she does remain on the council, performing an inadequate role, it does leave still more questions- Who will take over the role she is no longer filling? How much will this person be paid? How much reduction in salary will Miggy take to keep the same job but only perform half the duties? Where will the money for this new Role come from? How much will this splitting of Roles end up costing the Taxpayer????? Hmmmmm. No doubt you will be blaming Cavetown for this one as well Badgergate, but lets face it, incompetence is not the fault of the Public, it is the fault of the individual and those who allow it to flourish. Remember this from the Good Councillor Guide? (Surely you have read it councillor)- Furthermore, the council will have difficulty if it: • allows one person or a small group of councillors to dominate its work; • allows a councillor (including the chairman) to make decisions on its behalf; • doesn’t listen to and communicate with its community, other local councils, principal authorities, outside bodies; • ignores or antagonises the press; • doesn’t have contracts of employment for staff; • doesn’t keep its records in order; • lacks a robust system of financial control; • doesn’t manage meetings effectively; • is not well-informed on topics to be discussed. Everyone in the team is responsible for checking that the council avoids these dangers; ultimately the council is liable. By contrast, well-prepared and wellinformed councillors avoid difficulties and spend their energies on serving their communities. Tick Tock Cavendo Tutus Simon Mitchell Cavetown Council[/p][/quote]Very comfortable , thankyou. WHAT CONNECTIONS HAVE THE LEADING CAVETOWN GANG MEMBERS HAD WITH KTC IN THE PAST AND AT PRESENT ?. badgergate
  • Score: -6

2:40pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Gobbag Vooar says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Gobbag Vooar wrote:
Again I would request that further dialogue with badgergate is pointless, his contribution to these sites is void of both sense, and value. even worse, packed with stupidity. It is an embarrassment to Keighley, and as a councillor, if our assumptions are correct, he presents himself as something of "The Fall Guy ",
Over Christmas I watched a small film called " The Plank " two actors, I think one was Eric Sykes, the other Tommy Copper, a really amusing little film. I could not help but relate these two characters to two on these sites who, I am sure need no further clues from myself.
Gobbag,
If your intention was to imply that I might be one of these actors in the Plank (Great film by the way). Please can I be Eric.
I think Badgergate deserves to follow in the footsteps of Tommy, dying in full view of the public, doing what he does best- making a fool out of himself.
RIP Tommy Cooper. Died what he loved doing, Where he loved to be.
708, Not you, sorry, Tommy Cooper and Eric Sykes were both clever and entertaining, I have fond memories of both, and meant neither disrespect. Watching this little masterpiece, caused added amusement for the reasons that I said
Carry on posting.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: Again I would request that further dialogue with badgergate is pointless, his contribution to these sites is void of both sense, and value. even worse, packed with stupidity. It is an embarrassment to Keighley, and as a councillor, if our assumptions are correct, he presents himself as something of "The Fall Guy ", Over Christmas I watched a small film called " The Plank " two actors, I think one was Eric Sykes, the other Tommy Copper, a really amusing little film. I could not help but relate these two characters to two on these sites who, I am sure need no further clues from myself.[/p][/quote]Gobbag, If your intention was to imply that I might be one of these actors in the Plank (Great film by the way). Please can I be Eric. I think Badgergate deserves to follow in the footsteps of Tommy, dying in full view of the public, doing what he does best- making a fool out of himself. RIP Tommy Cooper. Died what he loved doing, Where he loved to be.[/p][/quote]708, Not you, sorry, Tommy Cooper and Eric Sykes were both clever and entertaining, I have fond memories of both, and meant neither disrespect. Watching this little masterpiece, caused added amusement for the reasons that I said Carry on posting. Gobbag Vooar
  • Score: 4

2:49pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

badgergate wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
OK councillor Badgergate, are you sitting comfortably with the relevant notes to hand?
Good.
Lets begin.
At the upcoming Extraordinary General meeting of the Town Council to be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Keighley on THURSDAY 16 JANUARY 2014 at 6.30p.m, there is one particular item-
3 To discuss the possible splitting of the roles of the Town Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer and the way forward.

That in view of the nature of the business about to be transacted, it is advisable in the public interest that the press and public be temporarily excluded. Public Bodies Act 1960.


Shall we now explore this confidential item councillor?
Yes?
Ok then.

The current role of the RFO and Town Clerk is a unified role, one filled by a Miggy Bailey from Ilkley.
In return for her services in fulfilling her duties she receives a substantial amount on money.
According to the Good Councillors Guide-

"The responsible financial officer (RFO) is the officer responsible for
administering the council’s finances. The RFO is often the clerk."

It then goes on to explain-

"As a councillor, you share collective responsibility for financial management of the council. The council will have made arrangements for its finances to be administered by an officer known, in law, as the responsible financial officer (RFO). Your role is to ensure that the RFO acts properly so that the council avoids the risk of loss, fraud or bad debt, whether through deliberate or careless actions.
As a minimum control two councillors must sign every cheque
4. If you are asked to sign as an approved signature, always make sure that both purchase and payment have been agreed by the council, and that supporting paperwork matches the cheque (payee and amount). Never sign a blank cheque."


So what are we the Public to make of the confidential Item 3 of the upcoming EGM?

That Miggy Bailey is not suitable to fulfil her role, either as Town Clerk (based on her failure to maintain the relevant information on the website),
or as the Responsible Finance Officer (based on the upcoming investigation by the External Auditors).

So what is this confidential discussion regarding the unusual step of splitting the role about?

To remove Miggy from one or both roles?

If removed from both roles, will she receive severance pay?
Why?
For being incompetent in both duties assigned to her?
If the role is to be split, which one does Miggy get to keep?
Surely not the RFO?
But hang on, it can't be that of Town Clerk?

In either case if she does remain on the council, performing an inadequate role, it does leave still more questions-
Who will take over the role she is no longer filling?
How much will this person be paid?
How much reduction in salary will Miggy take to keep the same job but only perform half the duties?
Where will the money for this new Role come from?


How much will this splitting of Roles end up costing the Taxpayer?????

Hmmmmm.
No doubt you will be blaming Cavetown for this one as well Badgergate, but lets face it, incompetence is not the fault of the Public, it is the fault of the individual and those who allow it to flourish.
Remember this from the Good Councillor Guide? (Surely you have read it councillor)-

Furthermore, the council will have difficulty if it:
• allows one person or a small group of councillors to dominate its work;
• allows a councillor (including the chairman) to make decisions on its behalf;
• doesn’t listen to and communicate with its community, other local
councils, principal authorities, outside bodies;
• ignores or antagonises the press;
• doesn’t have contracts of employment for staff;
• doesn’t keep its records in order;
• lacks a robust system of financial control;
• doesn’t manage meetings effectively;
• is not well-informed on topics to be discussed.
Everyone in the team is responsible for checking that the council avoids these dangers; ultimately the council is liable. By contrast, well-prepared and wellinformed councillors avoid difficulties and spend their energies on serving their communities.

Tick Tock
Cavendo Tutus
Simon Mitchell
Cavetown Council
Very comfortable , thankyou.

WHAT CONNECTIONS HAVE THE LEADING CAVETOWN GANG MEMBERS HAD WITH KTC IN THE PAST AND AT PRESENT ?.
Once again councillor- I will answer your question- NONE. Unless you provide further information on this I cannot help you anymore on this subject.
Now your turn. Answer the questions asked of you.
[quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: OK councillor Badgergate, are you sitting comfortably with the relevant notes to hand? Good. Lets begin. At the upcoming Extraordinary General meeting of the Town Council to be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Keighley on THURSDAY 16 JANUARY 2014 at 6.30p.m, there is one particular item- 3 To discuss the possible splitting of the roles of the Town Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer and the way forward. That in view of the [confidential] nature of the business about to be transacted, it is advisable in the public interest that the press and public be temporarily excluded. Public Bodies [Admissions to Meetings] Act 1960. Shall we now explore this confidential item councillor? Yes? Ok then. The current role of the RFO and Town Clerk is a unified role, one filled by a Miggy Bailey from Ilkley. In return for her services in fulfilling her duties she receives a substantial amount on money. According to the Good Councillors Guide- "The responsible financial officer (RFO) is the officer responsible for administering the council’s finances. The RFO is often the clerk." It then goes on to explain- "As a councillor, you share collective responsibility for financial management of the council. The council will have made arrangements for its finances to be administered by an officer known, in law, as the responsible financial officer (RFO). Your role is to ensure that the RFO acts properly so that the council avoids the risk of loss, fraud or bad debt, whether through deliberate or careless actions. As a minimum control two councillors must sign every cheque 4. If you are asked to sign as an approved signature, always make sure that both purchase and payment have been agreed by the council, and that supporting paperwork matches the cheque (payee and amount). Never sign a blank cheque." So what are we the Public to make of the confidential Item 3 of the upcoming EGM? That Miggy Bailey is not suitable to fulfil her role, either as Town Clerk (based on her failure to maintain the relevant information on the website), or as the Responsible Finance Officer (based on the upcoming investigation by the External Auditors). So what is this confidential discussion regarding the unusual step of splitting the role about? To remove Miggy from one or both roles? If removed from both roles, will she receive severance pay? Why? For being incompetent in both duties assigned to her? If the role is to be split, which one does Miggy get to keep? Surely not the RFO? But hang on, it can't be that of Town Clerk? In either case if she does remain on the council, performing an inadequate role, it does leave still more questions- Who will take over the role she is no longer filling? How much will this person be paid? How much reduction in salary will Miggy take to keep the same job but only perform half the duties? Where will the money for this new Role come from? How much will this splitting of Roles end up costing the Taxpayer????? Hmmmmm. No doubt you will be blaming Cavetown for this one as well Badgergate, but lets face it, incompetence is not the fault of the Public, it is the fault of the individual and those who allow it to flourish. Remember this from the Good Councillor Guide? (Surely you have read it councillor)- Furthermore, the council will have difficulty if it: • allows one person or a small group of councillors to dominate its work; • allows a councillor (including the chairman) to make decisions on its behalf; • doesn’t listen to and communicate with its community, other local councils, principal authorities, outside bodies; • ignores or antagonises the press; • doesn’t have contracts of employment for staff; • doesn’t keep its records in order; • lacks a robust system of financial control; • doesn’t manage meetings effectively; • is not well-informed on topics to be discussed. Everyone in the team is responsible for checking that the council avoids these dangers; ultimately the council is liable. By contrast, well-prepared and wellinformed councillors avoid difficulties and spend their energies on serving their communities. Tick Tock Cavendo Tutus Simon Mitchell Cavetown Council[/p][/quote]Very comfortable , thankyou. WHAT CONNECTIONS HAVE THE LEADING CAVETOWN GANG MEMBERS HAD WITH KTC IN THE PAST AND AT PRESENT ?.[/p][/quote]Once again councillor- I will answer your question- NONE. Unless you provide further information on this I cannot help you anymore on this subject. Now your turn. Answer the questions asked of you. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 5

2:55pm Sat 11 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
badgergate wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
OK councillor Badgergate, are you sitting comfortably with the relevant notes to hand?
Good.
Lets begin.
At the upcoming Extraordinary General meeting of the Town Council to be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Keighley on THURSDAY 16 JANUARY 2014 at 6.30p.m, there is one particular item-
3 To discuss the possible splitting of the roles of the Town Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer and the way forward.

That in view of the nature of the business about to be transacted, it is advisable in the public interest that the press and public be temporarily excluded. Public Bodies Act 1960.


Shall we now explore this confidential item councillor?
Yes?
Ok then.

The current role of the RFO and Town Clerk is a unified role, one filled by a Miggy Bailey from Ilkley.
In return for her services in fulfilling her duties she receives a substantial amount on money.
According to the Good Councillors Guide-

"The responsible financial officer (RFO) is the officer responsible for
administering the council’s finances. The RFO is often the clerk."

It then goes on to explain-

"As a councillor, you share collective responsibility for financial management of the council. The council will have made arrangements for its finances to be administered by an officer known, in law, as the responsible financial officer (RFO). Your role is to ensure that the RFO acts properly so that the council avoids the risk of loss, fraud or bad debt, whether through deliberate or careless actions.
As a minimum control two councillors must sign every cheque
4. If you are asked to sign as an approved signature, always make sure that both purchase and payment have been agreed by the council, and that supporting paperwork matches the cheque (payee and amount). Never sign a blank cheque."


So what are we the Public to make of the confidential Item 3 of the upcoming EGM?

That Miggy Bailey is not suitable to fulfil her role, either as Town Clerk (based on her failure to maintain the relevant information on the website),
or as the Responsible Finance Officer (based on the upcoming investigation by the External Auditors).

So what is this confidential discussion regarding the unusual step of splitting the role about?

To remove Miggy from one or both roles?

If removed from both roles, will she receive severance pay?
Why?
For being incompetent in both duties assigned to her?
If the role is to be split, which one does Miggy get to keep?
Surely not the RFO?
But hang on, it can't be that of Town Clerk?

In either case if she does remain on the council, performing an inadequate role, it does leave still more questions-
Who will take over the role she is no longer filling?
How much will this person be paid?
How much reduction in salary will Miggy take to keep the same job but only perform half the duties?
Where will the money for this new Role come from?


How much will this splitting of Roles end up costing the Taxpayer?????

Hmmmmm.
No doubt you will be blaming Cavetown for this one as well Badgergate, but lets face it, incompetence is not the fault of the Public, it is the fault of the individual and those who allow it to flourish.
Remember this from the Good Councillor Guide? (Surely you have read it councillor)-

Furthermore, the council will have difficulty if it:
• allows one person or a small group of councillors to dominate its work;
• allows a councillor (including the chairman) to make decisions on its behalf;
• doesn’t listen to and communicate with its community, other local
councils, principal authorities, outside bodies;
• ignores or antagonises the press;
• doesn’t have contracts of employment for staff;
• doesn’t keep its records in order;
• lacks a robust system of financial control;
• doesn’t manage meetings effectively;
• is not well-informed on topics to be discussed.
Everyone in the team is responsible for checking that the council avoids these dangers; ultimately the council is liable. By contrast, well-prepared and wellinformed councillors avoid difficulties and spend their energies on serving their communities.

Tick Tock
Cavendo Tutus
Simon Mitchell
Cavetown Council
Very comfortable , thankyou.

WHAT CONNECTIONS HAVE THE LEADING CAVETOWN GANG MEMBERS HAD WITH KTC IN THE PAST AND AT PRESENT ?.
Once again councillor- I will answer your question- NONE. Unless you provide further information on this I cannot help you anymore on this subject.
Now your turn. Answer the questions asked of you.
NONE ----Thankyou ------Now are you sure it would be an embarrassment
if i listed all the connections .
However you are never wrong !.
Which connection should i start with first mmmm i wonder.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]badgergate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: OK councillor Badgergate, are you sitting comfortably with the relevant notes to hand? Good. Lets begin. At the upcoming Extraordinary General meeting of the Town Council to be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Keighley on THURSDAY 16 JANUARY 2014 at 6.30p.m, there is one particular item- 3 To discuss the possible splitting of the roles of the Town Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer and the way forward. That in view of the [confidential] nature of the business about to be transacted, it is advisable in the public interest that the press and public be temporarily excluded. Public Bodies [Admissions to Meetings] Act 1960. Shall we now explore this confidential item councillor? Yes? Ok then. The current role of the RFO and Town Clerk is a unified role, one filled by a Miggy Bailey from Ilkley. In return for her services in fulfilling her duties she receives a substantial amount on money. According to the Good Councillors Guide- "The responsible financial officer (RFO) is the officer responsible for administering the council’s finances. The RFO is often the clerk." It then goes on to explain- "As a councillor, you share collective responsibility for financial management of the council. The council will have made arrangements for its finances to be administered by an officer known, in law, as the responsible financial officer (RFO). Your role is to ensure that the RFO acts properly so that the council avoids the risk of loss, fraud or bad debt, whether through deliberate or careless actions. As a minimum control two councillors must sign every cheque 4. If you are asked to sign as an approved signature, always make sure that both purchase and payment have been agreed by the council, and that supporting paperwork matches the cheque (payee and amount). Never sign a blank cheque." So what are we the Public to make of the confidential Item 3 of the upcoming EGM? That Miggy Bailey is not suitable to fulfil her role, either as Town Clerk (based on her failure to maintain the relevant information on the website), or as the Responsible Finance Officer (based on the upcoming investigation by the External Auditors). So what is this confidential discussion regarding the unusual step of splitting the role about? To remove Miggy from one or both roles? If removed from both roles, will she receive severance pay? Why? For being incompetent in both duties assigned to her? If the role is to be split, which one does Miggy get to keep? Surely not the RFO? But hang on, it can't be that of Town Clerk? In either case if she does remain on the council, performing an inadequate role, it does leave still more questions- Who will take over the role she is no longer filling? How much will this person be paid? How much reduction in salary will Miggy take to keep the same job but only perform half the duties? Where will the money for this new Role come from? How much will this splitting of Roles end up costing the Taxpayer????? Hmmmmm. No doubt you will be blaming Cavetown for this one as well Badgergate, but lets face it, incompetence is not the fault of the Public, it is the fault of the individual and those who allow it to flourish. Remember this from the Good Councillor Guide? (Surely you have read it councillor)- Furthermore, the council will have difficulty if it: • allows one person or a small group of councillors to dominate its work; • allows a councillor (including the chairman) to make decisions on its behalf; • doesn’t listen to and communicate with its community, other local councils, principal authorities, outside bodies; • ignores or antagonises the press; • doesn’t have contracts of employment for staff; • doesn’t keep its records in order; • lacks a robust system of financial control; • doesn’t manage meetings effectively; • is not well-informed on topics to be discussed. Everyone in the team is responsible for checking that the council avoids these dangers; ultimately the council is liable. By contrast, well-prepared and wellinformed councillors avoid difficulties and spend their energies on serving their communities. Tick Tock Cavendo Tutus Simon Mitchell Cavetown Council[/p][/quote]Very comfortable , thankyou. WHAT CONNECTIONS HAVE THE LEADING CAVETOWN GANG MEMBERS HAD WITH KTC IN THE PAST AND AT PRESENT ?.[/p][/quote]Once again councillor- I will answer your question- NONE. Unless you provide further information on this I cannot help you anymore on this subject. Now your turn. Answer the questions asked of you.[/p][/quote]NONE ----Thankyou ------Now are you sure it would be an embarrassment if i listed all the connections . However you are never wrong !. Which connection should i start with first mmmm i wonder. badgergate
  • Score: -7

3:08pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Badgergate-
NONE ----Thankyou ------Now are you sure it would be an embarrassment
if i listed all the connections .
However you are never wrong !.
Which connection should i start with first mmmm i wonder.


Fire away councillor. But do please provide evidence to substantiate anything you post, afterall, we have proven you to post post lies and misinformation on several occasions.
Should you present anything that verifies your claims, I will of course , humbly offer my apologies for doubting your accusations.
Until then... Put up or shut up...

Tick Tock
Badgergate- NONE ----Thankyou ------Now are you sure it would be an embarrassment if i listed all the connections . However you are never wrong !. Which connection should i start with first mmmm i wonder. Fire away councillor. But do please provide evidence to substantiate anything you post, afterall, we have proven you to post post lies and misinformation on several occasions. Should you present anything that verifies your claims, I will of course , humbly offer my apologies for doubting your accusations. Until then... Put up or shut up... Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 8

3:48pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Little Green Man says...

Another totally pointless slanging match between Badger Breath and and the inappropriately numbered 708 Skinhead (should be 4?) You continually present Badger Breath as a brainless troll yet you continue to argue with him - achieving precisely nothing, at least nothing positive. Don't you see that as self appointed leader of the CaveDwellers you are harming your own cause by arguing with a known kinobhead? -It makes you look daft mate :) Just my opinion!
Another totally pointless slanging match between Badger Breath and and the inappropriately numbered 708 Skinhead (should be 4?) You continually present Badger Breath as a brainless troll yet you continue to argue with him - achieving precisely nothing, at least nothing positive. Don't you see that as self appointed leader of the CaveDwellers you are harming your own cause by arguing with a known kinobhead? -It makes you look daft mate :) Just my opinion! Little Green Man
  • Score: -4

3:48pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Kingchaser says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Kingchaser wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.
THIS IS NOT SIMONS PSEUDONYMS BUT ONE THAT BADGERGATE GAVE HIM ON A POST EARLIER
The "Pendragon" name is shown against Simon Mitchell on the Cavetown Council website contact page - http://cavetowncounc




il.moonfruit.com/con




tact/4575722885
THANK YOU MARK I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT
Well, the season of good will has passed. But I still feel like I'm warming to IHR.

At least he owns up when he's in the dark and seems to take on board the 'neutrals' concern about the methods and end-game that some of his fellow cave-towners are pursuing.

He invited me to meet him at Rossi's Café. To diuscuss the merits of a good education and the benefits of proper parenting.

I'm easy to spot Ian, I'm the one who's 6 foot 2 (or actually more like 3 first thing in a morning). 16 and a half stone of mostly muscle. I still play rugby. No tattoos. Drawing on oneself is so childlike. But I'm a cheap date. Some decaff tea, a nice fruit smoothie and poached eggs on brown?

Perhaps you could then watch me do the DT crossword?
Well come and introduce yourself,do not be shy your size does not interest or concern me in the slightest .
Much better things to do this morning, unfortunately IHR. I mention my physical characteristics only so that you could be more sure it was I and not some imposter.

After all, there are so many on here playing with different pseudonyms. Gobbag, Samuels and Keighley watch Chips and his lovechild Skinhead Urethra Penned, rag-on, for example that I think I'm sometimes the only non-schizophrenic here!
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: i remember about a year back an uther pendragon having a go at me for something like not using a comma correctly.surely it cant be mr skinhead who berates people for hiding behind pseudonyms.[/p][/quote]THIS IS NOT SIMONS PSEUDONYMS BUT ONE THAT BADGERGATE GAVE HIM ON A POST EARLIER[/p][/quote]The "Pendragon" name is shown against Simon Mitchell on the Cavetown Council website contact page - http://cavetowncounc il.moonfruit.com/con tact/4575722885[/p][/quote]THANK YOU MARK I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT[/p][/quote]Well, the season of good will has passed. But I still feel like I'm warming to IHR. At least he owns up when he's in the dark and seems to take on board the 'neutrals' concern about the methods and end-game that some of his fellow cave-towners are pursuing. He invited me to meet him at Rossi's Café. To diuscuss the merits of a good education and the benefits of proper parenting. I'm easy to spot Ian, I'm the one who's 6 foot 2 (or actually more like 3 first thing in a morning). 16 and a half stone of mostly muscle. I still play rugby. No tattoos. Drawing on oneself is so childlike. But I'm a cheap date. Some decaff tea, a nice fruit smoothie and poached eggs on brown? Perhaps you could then watch me do the DT crossword?[/p][/quote]Well come and introduce yourself,do not be shy your size does not interest or concern me in the slightest .[/p][/quote]Much better things to do this morning, unfortunately IHR. I mention my physical characteristics only so that you could be more sure it was I and not some imposter. After all, there are so many on here playing with different pseudonyms. Gobbag, Samuels and Keighley watch Chips and his lovechild Skinhead Urethra Penned, rag-on, for example that I think I'm sometimes the only non-schizophrenic here! Kingchaser
  • Score: -6

3:53pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Little Green Man wrote:
Another totally pointless slanging match between Badger Breath and and the inappropriately numbered 708 Skinhead (should be 4?) You continually present Badger Breath as a brainless troll yet you continue to argue with him - achieving precisely nothing, at least nothing positive. Don't you see that as self appointed leader of the CaveDwellers you are harming your own cause by arguing with a known kinobhead? -It makes you look daft mate :) Just my opinion!
Should I ignore you based on these same merits LGM?
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Another totally pointless slanging match between Badger Breath and and the inappropriately numbered 708 Skinhead (should be 4?) You continually present Badger Breath as a brainless troll yet you continue to argue with him - achieving precisely nothing, at least nothing positive. Don't you see that as self appointed leader of the CaveDwellers you are harming your own cause by arguing with a known kinobhead? -It makes you look daft mate :) Just my opinion![/p][/quote]Should I ignore you based on these same merits LGM? Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 3

3:54pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Katiery says...

Kingchaser says... After all, there are so many on here playing with different pseudonyms. Gobbag, Samuels and Keighley watch Chips and his lovechild Skinhead Urethra Penned, rag-on, for example that I think I'm sometimes the only non-schizophrenic here!

Nope, there are at least two of us. There is only me, myself and I in my head. Oh ! Maybe you were correct.
Kingchaser says... After all, there are so many on here playing with different pseudonyms. Gobbag, Samuels and Keighley watch Chips and his lovechild Skinhead Urethra Penned, rag-on, for example that I think I'm sometimes the only non-schizophrenic here! Nope, there are at least two of us. There is only me, myself and I in my head. Oh ! Maybe you were correct. Katiery
  • Score: 5

4:03pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Kingchaser says...

Gobbag Vooar wrote:
Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Gobbag Vooar wrote:
Again I would request that further dialogue with badgergate is pointless, his contribution to these sites is void of both sense, and value. even worse, packed with stupidity. It is an embarrassment to Keighley, and as a councillor, if our assumptions are correct, he presents himself as something of "The Fall Guy ",
Over Christmas I watched a small film called " The Plank " two actors, I think one was Eric Sykes, the other Tommy Copper, a really amusing little film. I could not help but relate these two characters to two on these sites who, I am sure need no further clues from myself.
Gobbag,
If your intention was to imply that I might be one of these actors in the Plank (Great film by the way). Please can I be Eric.
I think Badgergate deserves to follow in the footsteps of Tommy, dying in full view of the public, doing what he does best- making a fool out of himself.
RIP Tommy Cooper. Died what he loved doing, Where he loved to be.
708, Not you, sorry, Tommy Cooper and Eric Sykes were both clever and entertaining, I have fond memories of both, and meant neither disrespect. Watching this little masterpiece, caused added amusement for the reasons that I said
Carry on posting.
Gobbag Vooar wrote:

'708, Not you, sorry, Tommy Cooper and Eric Sykes were both clever and entertaining, I have fond memories of both, and meant neither disrespect. Watching this little masterpiece, caused added amusement for the reasons that I said Carry on posting'

So there you have it. Gobbag Samuels has just admitted that his lovechild Skinhead Mitchell is neither clever or entertaining and that comparing him to TC and ES would cause them disrespect....

Couldn't agree more.

Did you mean to put that 't' in the last word Gobbag? :-)
[quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gobbag Vooar[/bold] wrote: Again I would request that further dialogue with badgergate is pointless, his contribution to these sites is void of both sense, and value. even worse, packed with stupidity. It is an embarrassment to Keighley, and as a councillor, if our assumptions are correct, he presents himself as something of "The Fall Guy ", Over Christmas I watched a small film called " The Plank " two actors, I think one was Eric Sykes, the other Tommy Copper, a really amusing little film. I could not help but relate these two characters to two on these sites who, I am sure need no further clues from myself.[/p][/quote]Gobbag, If your intention was to imply that I might be one of these actors in the Plank (Great film by the way). Please can I be Eric. I think Badgergate deserves to follow in the footsteps of Tommy, dying in full view of the public, doing what he does best- making a fool out of himself. RIP Tommy Cooper. Died what he loved doing, Where he loved to be.[/p][/quote]708, Not you, sorry, Tommy Cooper and Eric Sykes were both clever and entertaining, I have fond memories of both, and meant neither disrespect. Watching this little masterpiece, caused added amusement for the reasons that I said Carry on posting.[/p][/quote]Gobbag Vooar wrote: '708, Not you, sorry, Tommy Cooper and Eric Sykes were both clever and entertaining, I have fond memories of both, and meant neither disrespect. Watching this little masterpiece, caused added amusement for the reasons that I said Carry on posting' So there you have it. Gobbag Samuels has just admitted that his lovechild Skinhead Mitchell is neither clever or entertaining and that comparing him to TC and ES would cause them disrespect.... Couldn't agree more. Did you mean to put that 't' in the last word Gobbag? :-) Kingchaser
  • Score: -6

4:20pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Little Green Man says...

Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' The fact is that it is impossible to verify someones identitiy over the internet, whether using a pseudonym or not Mr 4 Skinhead claims to be Simon Mitchell but we have no proof of that - David Samuels might well be Graham Forsyth and vice versa - totally unprovable! I know for sure that if I 'came out' with my real name the CaveDwellers would only deny it anyway!! Even of Facebook where its more difficult to 'fake' an identity - it is actually possible, quite easily, to fake an ID and join a group such as Cavetown - I should know :)
Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' The fact is that it is impossible to verify someones identitiy over the internet, whether using a pseudonym or not Mr 4 Skinhead claims to be Simon Mitchell but we have no proof of that - David Samuels might well be Graham Forsyth and vice versa - totally unprovable! I know for sure that if I 'came out' with my real name the CaveDwellers would only deny it anyway!! Even of Facebook where its more difficult to 'fake' an identity - it is actually possible, quite easily, to fake an ID and join a group such as Cavetown - I should know :) Little Green Man
  • Score: -5

4:21pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Little Green Man says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
Another totally pointless slanging match between Badger Breath and and the inappropriately numbered 708 Skinhead (should be 4?) You continually present Badger Breath as a brainless troll yet you continue to argue with him - achieving precisely nothing, at least nothing positive. Don't you see that as self appointed leader of the CaveDwellers you are harming your own cause by arguing with a known kinobhead? -It makes you look daft mate :) Just my opinion!
Should I ignore you based on these same merits LGM?
If you think I am a brainless troll then yes! You've called me similar enough times :)
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Another totally pointless slanging match between Badger Breath and and the inappropriately numbered 708 Skinhead (should be 4?) You continually present Badger Breath as a brainless troll yet you continue to argue with him - achieving precisely nothing, at least nothing positive. Don't you see that as self appointed leader of the CaveDwellers you are harming your own cause by arguing with a known kinobhead? -It makes you look daft mate :) Just my opinion![/p][/quote]Should I ignore you based on these same merits LGM?[/p][/quote]If you think I am a brainless troll then yes! You've called me similar enough times :) Little Green Man
  • Score: -6

4:37pm Sat 11 Jan 14

badgergate says...

Little Green Man wrote:
Another totally pointless slanging match between Badger Breath and and the inappropriately numbered 708 Skinhead (should be 4?) You continually present Badger Breath as a brainless troll yet you continue to argue with him - achieving precisely nothing, at least nothing positive. Don't you see that as self appointed leader of the CaveDwellers you are harming your own cause by arguing with a known kinobhead? -It makes you look daft mate :) Just my opinion!
Please don;t offer him advice,
I have been out for some more bait.

If a Troll is ignored it will go away a Troll craves the attention and once given it will continue, i can only presume there is some element of truth that proves so irksome he replies.

I did offer earlier on this thread my true thoughts regarding Cavetown , but alas he chose to ignore it, self gratification could be a logical reason for the replies to my illogical ramblings. .
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Another totally pointless slanging match between Badger Breath and and the inappropriately numbered 708 Skinhead (should be 4?) You continually present Badger Breath as a brainless troll yet you continue to argue with him - achieving precisely nothing, at least nothing positive. Don't you see that as self appointed leader of the CaveDwellers you are harming your own cause by arguing with a known kinobhead? -It makes you look daft mate :) Just my opinion![/p][/quote]Please don;t offer him advice, I have been out for some more bait. If a Troll is ignored it will go away a Troll craves the attention and once given it will continue, i can only presume there is some element of truth that proves so irksome he replies. I did offer earlier on this thread my true thoughts regarding Cavetown , but alas he chose to ignore it, self gratification could be a logical reason for the replies to my illogical ramblings. . badgergate
  • Score: -5

4:58pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Katiery says...

Little Green Man says...Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good'

It's called a screen name, LGM, most online forums and comment boxes have them. It doesn't mean anyone is hiding - usually. I don't think I am 'up to no good' but others may disagree.
Little Green Man says...Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' It's called a screen name, LGM, most online forums and comment boxes have them. It doesn't mean anyone is hiding - usually. I don't think I am 'up to no good' but others may disagree. Katiery
  • Score: 3

5:20pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Little Green Man says...

Katiery wrote:
Little Green Man says...Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good'

It's called a screen name, LGM, most online forums and comment boxes have them. It doesn't mean anyone is hiding - usually. I don't think I am 'up to no good' but others may disagree.
I know what its called! The subject comes up every now and then - usually brought up by someone claiming to be posting under their own name when they are losing an argument. I thought I would get in first before the excuses roll in :)
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Little Green Man says...Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' It's called a screen name, LGM, most online forums and comment boxes have them. It doesn't mean anyone is hiding - usually. I don't think I am 'up to no good' but others may disagree.[/p][/quote]I know what its called! The subject comes up every now and then - usually brought up by someone claiming to be posting under their own name when they are losing an argument. I thought I would get in first before the excuses roll in :) Little Green Man
  • Score: -4

5:32pm Sat 11 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Glad to see we're all getting along like good boys and girls.
Glad to see we're all getting along like good boys and girls. MarkPullen
  • Score: -3

5:40pm Sat 11 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Little Green Man wrote:
Katiery wrote:
Little Green Man says...Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good'

It's called a screen name, LGM, most online forums and comment boxes have them. It doesn't mean anyone is hiding - usually. I don't think I am 'up to no good' but others may disagree.
I know what its called! The subject comes up every now and then - usually brought up by someone claiming to be posting under their own name when they are losing an argument. I thought I would get in first before the excuses roll in :)
I'm known as Betty on a Saturday at the club!
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Little Green Man says...Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' It's called a screen name, LGM, most online forums and comment boxes have them. It doesn't mean anyone is hiding - usually. I don't think I am 'up to no good' but others may disagree.[/p][/quote]I know what its called! The subject comes up every now and then - usually brought up by someone claiming to be posting under their own name when they are losing an argument. I thought I would get in first before the excuses roll in :)[/p][/quote]I'm known as Betty on a Saturday at the club! MarkPullen
  • Score: -5

6:05pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Little Green Man wrote:
Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' The fact is that it is impossible to verify someones identitiy over the internet, whether using a pseudonym or not Mr 4 Skinhead claims to be Simon Mitchell but we have no proof of that - David Samuels might well be Graham Forsyth and vice versa - totally unprovable! I know for sure that if I 'came out' with my real name the CaveDwellers would only deny it anyway!! Even of Facebook where its more difficult to 'fake' an identity - it is actually possible, quite easily, to fake an ID and join a group such as Cavetown - I should know :)
I TRY TO IGNORE THE PSEUDONYM AND PUT A NAME TO THE PERSON LGM I HAVE OPTED ROBERT FOR YOU .
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' The fact is that it is impossible to verify someones identitiy over the internet, whether using a pseudonym or not Mr 4 Skinhead claims to be Simon Mitchell but we have no proof of that - David Samuels might well be Graham Forsyth and vice versa - totally unprovable! I know for sure that if I 'came out' with my real name the CaveDwellers would only deny it anyway!! Even of Facebook where its more difficult to 'fake' an identity - it is actually possible, quite easily, to fake an ID and join a group such as Cavetown - I should know :)[/p][/quote]I TRY TO IGNORE THE PSEUDONYM AND PUT A NAME TO THE PERSON LGM I HAVE OPTED ROBERT FOR YOU . Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 7

6:07pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Little Green Man says...

MarkPullen wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
Katiery wrote:
Little Green Man says...Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good'

It's called a screen name, LGM, most online forums and comment boxes have them. It doesn't mean anyone is hiding - usually. I don't think I am 'up to no good' but others may disagree.
I know what its called! The subject comes up every now and then - usually brought up by someone claiming to be posting under their own name when they are losing an argument. I thought I would get in first before the excuses roll in :)
I'm known as Betty on a Saturday at the club!
Betty? Really? It's me Reg - from the club! And I thought... OMG I don't believe it! What are we going to tell the kids?
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: Little Green Man says...Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' It's called a screen name, LGM, most online forums and comment boxes have them. It doesn't mean anyone is hiding - usually. I don't think I am 'up to no good' but others may disagree.[/p][/quote]I know what its called! The subject comes up every now and then - usually brought up by someone claiming to be posting under their own name when they are losing an argument. I thought I would get in first before the excuses roll in :)[/p][/quote]I'm known as Betty on a Saturday at the club![/p][/quote]Betty? Really? It's me Reg - from the club! And I thought... OMG I don't believe it! What are we going to tell the kids? Little Green Man
  • Score: -3

6:08pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Little Green Man says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' The fact is that it is impossible to verify someones identitiy over the internet, whether using a pseudonym or not Mr 4 Skinhead claims to be Simon Mitchell but we have no proof of that - David Samuels might well be Graham Forsyth and vice versa - totally unprovable! I know for sure that if I 'came out' with my real name the CaveDwellers would only deny it anyway!! Even of Facebook where its more difficult to 'fake' an identity - it is actually possible, quite easily, to fake an ID and join a group such as Cavetown - I should know :)
I TRY TO IGNORE THE PSEUDONYM AND PUT A NAME TO THE PERSON LGM I HAVE OPTED ROBERT FOR YOU .
Close!! In the sense that its a name - otherwise nowhere near! Try Reg!
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' The fact is that it is impossible to verify someones identitiy over the internet, whether using a pseudonym or not Mr 4 Skinhead claims to be Simon Mitchell but we have no proof of that - David Samuels might well be Graham Forsyth and vice versa - totally unprovable! I know for sure that if I 'came out' with my real name the CaveDwellers would only deny it anyway!! Even of Facebook where its more difficult to 'fake' an identity - it is actually possible, quite easily, to fake an ID and join a group such as Cavetown - I should know :)[/p][/quote]I TRY TO IGNORE THE PSEUDONYM AND PUT A NAME TO THE PERSON LGM I HAVE OPTED ROBERT FOR YOU .[/p][/quote]Close!! In the sense that its a name - otherwise nowhere near! Try Reg! Little Green Man
  • Score: -7

6:25pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Little Green Man wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' The fact is that it is impossible to verify someones identitiy over the internet, whether using a pseudonym or not Mr 4 Skinhead claims to be Simon Mitchell but we have no proof of that - David Samuels might well be Graham Forsyth and vice versa - totally unprovable! I know for sure that if I 'came out' with my real name the CaveDwellers would only deny it anyway!! Even of Facebook where its more difficult to 'fake' an identity - it is actually possible, quite easily, to fake an ID and join a group such as Cavetown - I should know :)
I TRY TO IGNORE THE PSEUDONYM AND PUT A NAME TO THE PERSON LGM I HAVE OPTED ROBERT FOR YOU .
Close!! In the sense that its a name - otherwise nowhere near! Try Reg!
NO YOU ARE STUCK WITH ROBERT .
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' The fact is that it is impossible to verify someones identitiy over the internet, whether using a pseudonym or not Mr 4 Skinhead claims to be Simon Mitchell but we have no proof of that - David Samuels might well be Graham Forsyth and vice versa - totally unprovable! I know for sure that if I 'came out' with my real name the CaveDwellers would only deny it anyway!! Even of Facebook where its more difficult to 'fake' an identity - it is actually possible, quite easily, to fake an ID and join a group such as Cavetown - I should know :)[/p][/quote]I TRY TO IGNORE THE PSEUDONYM AND PUT A NAME TO THE PERSON LGM I HAVE OPTED ROBERT FOR YOU .[/p][/quote]Close!! In the sense that its a name - otherwise nowhere near! Try Reg![/p][/quote]NO YOU ARE STUCK WITH ROBERT . Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 3

6:26pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Little Green Man wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' The fact is that it is impossible to verify someones identitiy over the internet, whether using a pseudonym or not Mr 4 Skinhead claims to be Simon Mitchell but we have no proof of that - David Samuels might well be Graham Forsyth and vice versa - totally unprovable! I know for sure that if I 'came out' with my real name the CaveDwellers would only deny it anyway!! Even of Facebook where its more difficult to 'fake' an identity - it is actually possible, quite easily, to fake an ID and join a group such as Cavetown - I should know :)
I TRY TO IGNORE THE PSEUDONYM AND PUT A NAME TO THE PERSON LGM I HAVE OPTED ROBERT FOR YOU .
Close!! In the sense that its a name - otherwise nowhere near! Try Reg!
NO YOU ARE STUCK WITH ROBERT
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' The fact is that it is impossible to verify someones identitiy over the internet, whether using a pseudonym or not Mr 4 Skinhead claims to be Simon Mitchell but we have no proof of that - David Samuels might well be Graham Forsyth and vice versa - totally unprovable! I know for sure that if I 'came out' with my real name the CaveDwellers would only deny it anyway!! Even of Facebook where its more difficult to 'fake' an identity - it is actually possible, quite easily, to fake an ID and join a group such as Cavetown - I should know :)[/p][/quote]I TRY TO IGNORE THE PSEUDONYM AND PUT A NAME TO THE PERSON LGM I HAVE OPTED ROBERT FOR YOU .[/p][/quote]Close!! In the sense that its a name - otherwise nowhere near! Try Reg![/p][/quote]NO YOU ARE STUCK WITH ROBERT Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 6

6:49pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Little Green Man says...

Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' The fact is that it is impossible to verify someones identitiy over the internet, whether using a pseudonym or not Mr 4 Skinhead claims to be Simon Mitchell but we have no proof of that - David Samuels might well be Graham Forsyth and vice versa - totally unprovable! I know for sure that if I 'came out' with my real name the CaveDwellers would only deny it anyway!! Even of Facebook where its more difficult to 'fake' an identity - it is actually possible, quite easily, to fake an ID and join a group such as Cavetown - I should know :)
I TRY TO IGNORE THE PSEUDONYM AND PUT A NAME TO THE PERSON LGM I HAVE OPTED ROBERT FOR YOU .
Close!! In the sense that its a name - otherwise nowhere near! Try Reg!
NO YOU ARE STUCK WITH ROBERT
Why Robert?
[quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' The fact is that it is impossible to verify someones identitiy over the internet, whether using a pseudonym or not Mr 4 Skinhead claims to be Simon Mitchell but we have no proof of that - David Samuels might well be Graham Forsyth and vice versa - totally unprovable! I know for sure that if I 'came out' with my real name the CaveDwellers would only deny it anyway!! Even of Facebook where its more difficult to 'fake' an identity - it is actually possible, quite easily, to fake an ID and join a group such as Cavetown - I should know :)[/p][/quote]I TRY TO IGNORE THE PSEUDONYM AND PUT A NAME TO THE PERSON LGM I HAVE OPTED ROBERT FOR YOU .[/p][/quote]Close!! In the sense that its a name - otherwise nowhere near! Try Reg![/p][/quote]NO YOU ARE STUCK WITH ROBERT[/p][/quote]Why Robert? Little Green Man
  • Score: -4

7:36pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Little Green Man wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
Ian-Holt Roberts wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' The fact is that it is impossible to verify someones identitiy over the internet, whether using a pseudonym or not Mr 4 Skinhead claims to be Simon Mitchell but we have no proof of that - David Samuels might well be Graham Forsyth and vice versa - totally unprovable! I know for sure that if I 'came out' with my real name the CaveDwellers would only deny it anyway!! Even of Facebook where its more difficult to 'fake' an identity - it is actually possible, quite easily, to fake an ID and join a group such as Cavetown - I should know :)
I TRY TO IGNORE THE PSEUDONYM AND PUT A NAME TO THE PERSON LGM I HAVE OPTED ROBERT FOR YOU .
Close!! In the sense that its a name - otherwise nowhere near! Try Reg!
NO YOU ARE STUCK WITH ROBERT
Why Robert?
I DO NOT KNOW JUST THE NAME THAT SPRINGS TO MIND WHEN I READ YOUR POSTS ,MANY A TIME I WILL TELL THE WIFE THE PHONE IS GOING TO RING BEFORE IT DOES AND OFTEN I WILL SAY WHO IT IS .
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian-Holt Roberts[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: Regarding the pseudonym question - a lot of controversy over whether we should be posting under real names or not and its generally the opinion that those posting under a pseudonym are 'up to no good' The fact is that it is impossible to verify someones identitiy over the internet, whether using a pseudonym or not Mr 4 Skinhead claims to be Simon Mitchell but we have no proof of that - David Samuels might well be Graham Forsyth and vice versa - totally unprovable! I know for sure that if I 'came out' with my real name the CaveDwellers would only deny it anyway!! Even of Facebook where its more difficult to 'fake' an identity - it is actually possible, quite easily, to fake an ID and join a group such as Cavetown - I should know :)[/p][/quote]I TRY TO IGNORE THE PSEUDONYM AND PUT A NAME TO THE PERSON LGM I HAVE OPTED ROBERT FOR YOU .[/p][/quote]Close!! In the sense that its a name - otherwise nowhere near! Try Reg![/p][/quote]NO YOU ARE STUCK WITH ROBERT[/p][/quote]Why Robert?[/p][/quote]I DO NOT KNOW JUST THE NAME THAT SPRINGS TO MIND WHEN I READ YOUR POSTS ,MANY A TIME I WILL TELL THE WIFE THE PHONE IS GOING TO RING BEFORE IT DOES AND OFTEN I WILL SAY WHO IT IS . Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 7

1:08pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Behind_the_8-Ball says...

Abuse and accusations. Sock-Puppets and pseudonyms... name calling and back-biting. No wonder the KTC casts not a thought toward their detractors. Its makes a KTC Council Meeting look open, measured and honest.
Abuse and accusations. Sock-Puppets and pseudonyms... name calling and back-biting. No wonder the KTC casts not a thought toward their detractors. Its makes a KTC Council Meeting look open, measured and honest. Behind_the_8-Ball
  • Score: -3

6:35pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Signed For says...

As an interested passer by I saw there were over 100 comment on this thread and looked forward to the contents.
Having read most of it I think it is excellent background material for the auditors and will forward it to them as I think it may put much into context for their visit to Keighley.
As an interested passer by I saw there were over 100 comment on this thread and looked forward to the contents. Having read most of it I think it is excellent background material for the auditors and will forward it to them as I think it may put much into context for their visit to Keighley. Signed For
  • Score: 2

8:21pm Mon 13 Jan 14

notthecivic says...

just one question to the cavetown group . IF the auditors find no irregularities in ktc accounts will you be willing to place a public appoligie to ktc in the keighley news and also pay the bill for the work undertaken ? and mr simon mitchell aka always a skin will you be standing for election to the council in the near future or would you be excluded due to the fact you ar12000 miles away and not a resident of this country let alone town .
just one question to the cavetown group . IF the auditors find no irregularities in ktc accounts will you be willing to place a public appoligie to ktc in the keighley news and also pay the bill for the work undertaken ? and mr simon mitchell aka always a skin will you be standing for election to the council in the near future or would you be excluded due to the fact you ar12000 miles away and not a resident of this country let alone town . notthecivic
  • Score: -4

9:25pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Little Green Man says...

Signed For wrote:
As an interested passer by I saw there were over 100 comment on this thread and looked forward to the contents.
Having read most of it I think it is excellent background material for the auditors and will forward it to them as I think it may put much into context for their visit to Keighley.
I'm not sure why you would think that - there's not a single relevant piece of evidence that the auditors would even slightly be interested in!
[quote][p][bold]Signed For[/bold] wrote: As an interested passer by I saw there were over 100 comment on this thread and looked forward to the contents. Having read most of it I think it is excellent background material for the auditors and will forward it to them as I think it may put much into context for their visit to Keighley.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure why you would think that - there's not a single relevant piece of evidence that the auditors would even slightly be interested in! Little Green Man
  • Score: -3

11:01pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Kingchaser says...

Little Green Man wrote:
Signed For wrote:
As an interested passer by I saw there were over 100 comment on this thread and looked forward to the contents.
Having read most of it I think it is excellent background material for the auditors and will forward it to them as I think it may put much into context for their visit to Keighley.
I'm not sure why you would think that - there's not a single relevant piece of evidence that the auditors would even slightly be interested in!
Yep agreed. But that won't stop almighty bruce 4 skin and his mates giving it 150 thumbs up!
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Signed For[/bold] wrote: As an interested passer by I saw there were over 100 comment on this thread and looked forward to the contents. Having read most of it I think it is excellent background material for the auditors and will forward it to them as I think it may put much into context for their visit to Keighley.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure why you would think that - there's not a single relevant piece of evidence that the auditors would even slightly be interested in![/p][/quote]Yep agreed. But that won't stop almighty bruce 4 skin and his mates giving it 150 thumbs up! Kingchaser
  • Score: -4

7:42am Tue 14 Jan 14

Graham Forsyth says...

Little Green Man wrote:
Signed For wrote:
As an interested passer by I saw there were over 100 comment on this thread and looked forward to the contents.
Having read most of it I think it is excellent background material for the auditors and will forward it to them as I think it may put much into context for their visit to Keighley.
I'm not sure why you would think that - there's not a single relevant piece of evidence that the auditors would even slightly be interested in!
The external auditors already have 21 objections to investigate. What has been posted here the external auditors are already in possession of, and they have found that interesting enough to see the need to investigate it further.

Tick Tock
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Signed For[/bold] wrote: As an interested passer by I saw there were over 100 comment on this thread and looked forward to the contents. Having read most of it I think it is excellent background material for the auditors and will forward it to them as I think it may put much into context for their visit to Keighley.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure why you would think that - there's not a single relevant piece of evidence that the auditors would even slightly be interested in![/p][/quote]The external auditors already have 21 objections to investigate. What has been posted here the external auditors are already in possession of, and they have found that interesting enough to see the need to investigate it further. Tick Tock Graham Forsyth
  • Score: 6

8:15am Tue 14 Jan 14

Katiery says...

Signed For, I'm sure the auditors can manage with what they already have, they are unlikely to trawl through the KN comments page for information.

notthecivic, if there are no irregularities why are the auditors interested? If the civic centre is not really a possible drain on the precept then why won't the council say so? If everything is hunkey dorey, why are councillors ignoring letters from residents? Perhaps we will find out more after the extraordinary meeting on the 16th January, if we are lucky.

The council's motto on the website is Here To Serve You. Not Self Service.
Signed For, I'm sure the auditors can manage with what they already have, they are unlikely to trawl through the KN comments page for information. notthecivic, if there are no irregularities why are the auditors interested? If the civic centre is not really a possible drain on the precept then why won't the council say so? If everything is hunkey dorey, why are councillors ignoring letters from residents? Perhaps we will find out more after the extraordinary meeting on the 16th January, if we are lucky. The council's motto on the website is Here To Serve You. Not Self Service. Katiery
  • Score: 6

9:15am Tue 14 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

notthecivic wrote:
just one question to the cavetown group . IF the auditors find no irregularities in ktc accounts will you be willing to place a public appoligie to ktc in the keighley news and also pay the bill for the work undertaken ? and mr simon mitchell aka always a skin will you be standing for election to the council in the near future or would you be excluded due to the fact you ar12000 miles away and not a resident of this country let alone town .
If I may be permitted to answer the first part of your post notthecivic ,I assume by auditors you are referring to the external ones as quite obviously the internal ones did not ,hence them being replaced as such the answer is quite simple .they already have found irregularities to the accounts based on the information forwarded to them taken from KTC own records and the accounts to a total of 21.DO you seriously expect cavetown to pay for this in the event that nothing is found you are living in a dream world why should we ,as members of the public plus 2 existing councilors pay?all we have forwarded to the external auditors anomalies in their accounts (accounts I may had that were not distributed to the main body of the council prior to the request for acceptance ) as is our right we have not broken any law.If you called out the police or fire brigade out to what you genuinely considered to be worthy of their presence but it was proven to not be the case would you pay for the associated expense No of course not and no one would expect you to pay for it .I would now ask you a question when the external auditors have completed their investigation confirming the objections will the council pay for the auditors in addition to the hundreds of thousand pounds that the civic center is costing the people of Keighley?.
[quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: just one question to the cavetown group . IF the auditors find no irregularities in ktc accounts will you be willing to place a public appoligie to ktc in the keighley news and also pay the bill for the work undertaken ? and mr simon mitchell aka always a skin will you be standing for election to the council in the near future or would you be excluded due to the fact you ar12000 miles away and not a resident of this country let alone town .[/p][/quote]If I may be permitted to answer the first part of your post notthecivic ,I assume by auditors you are referring to the external ones as quite obviously the internal ones did not ,hence them being replaced as such the answer is quite simple .they already have found irregularities to the accounts based on the information forwarded to them taken from KTC own records and the accounts to a total of 21.DO you seriously expect cavetown to pay for this in the event that nothing is found you are living in a dream world why should we ,as members of the public plus 2 existing councilors pay?all we have forwarded to the external auditors anomalies in their accounts (accounts I may had that were not distributed to the main body of the council prior to the request for acceptance ) as is our right we have not broken any law.If you called out the police or fire brigade out to what you genuinely considered to be worthy of their presence but it was proven to not be the case would you pay for the associated expense No of course not and no one would expect you to pay for it .I would now ask you a question when the external auditors have completed their investigation confirming the objections will the council pay for the auditors in addition to the hundreds of thousand pounds that the civic center is costing the people of Keighley?. Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 5

9:43am Tue 14 Jan 14

Gobbag Vooar says...

notthecivic wrote:
just one question to the cavetown group . IF the auditors find no irregularities in ktc accounts will you be willing to place a public appoligie to ktc in the keighley news and also pay the bill for the work undertaken ? and mr simon mitchell aka always a skin will you be standing for election to the council in the near future or would you be excluded due to the fact you ar12000 miles away and not a resident of this country let alone town .
The public have the right of objection to the accounts, It is not Cavetown who have decided that an auditors investigation is necessary, it is the auditors, who have sifted through the objections along with the evidence supplied, that have made the decision to investigate,
Now notthecivic, What is the point of having a window for viewing accounts, if the public, can not raise objections ?
Would you not agree that if the councils accounts are seen to be in order, objections would be disregarded.
As Mr Roberts points out, the Civic Centre was promised to be free with no increase in precept. so notthecivic, should precept payers have the same rights as you suggest, and claim off the council ?
[quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: just one question to the cavetown group . IF the auditors find no irregularities in ktc accounts will you be willing to place a public appoligie to ktc in the keighley news and also pay the bill for the work undertaken ? and mr simon mitchell aka always a skin will you be standing for election to the council in the near future or would you be excluded due to the fact you ar12000 miles away and not a resident of this country let alone town .[/p][/quote]The public have the right of objection to the accounts, It is not Cavetown who have decided that an auditors investigation is necessary, it is the auditors, who have sifted through the objections along with the evidence supplied, that have made the decision to investigate, Now notthecivic, What is the point of having a window for viewing accounts, if the public, can not raise objections ? Would you not agree that if the councils accounts are seen to be in order, objections would be disregarded. As Mr Roberts points out, the Civic Centre was promised to be free with no increase in precept. so notthecivic, should precept payers have the same rights as you suggest, and claim off the council ? Gobbag Vooar
  • Score: 7

11:34am Tue 14 Jan 14

Ian-Holt Roberts says...

Little Green Man wrote:
Signed For wrote:
As an interested passer by I saw there were over 100 comment on this thread and looked forward to the contents.
Having read most of it I think it is excellent background material for the auditors and will forward it to them as I think it may put much into context for their visit to Keighley.
I'm not sure why you would think that - there's not a single relevant piece of evidence that the auditors would even slightly be interested in!
I find my self mostly agreeing with you you lgm on the basis that on here it is just comments not backed up with any evidence .That is not to say it is not true ,in the main it is on here in response to a comment or to inform members of the public some of the reasons for the objections ,any one reading them can take note or simply ignore them as is their right It is nice to think that the public are interested enough to offer help but in this instance the auditors are aware of the objections and they have advised us not to send additional items covering last years financial period .
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Signed For[/bold] wrote: As an interested passer by I saw there were over 100 comment on this thread and looked forward to the contents. Having read most of it I think it is excellent background material for the auditors and will forward it to them as I think it may put much into context for their visit to Keighley.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure why you would think that - there's not a single relevant piece of evidence that the auditors would even slightly be interested in![/p][/quote]I find my self mostly agreeing with you you lgm on the basis that on here it is just comments not backed up with any evidence .That is not to say it is not true ,in the main it is on here in response to a comment or to inform members of the public some of the reasons for the objections ,any one reading them can take note or simply ignore them as is their right It is nice to think that the public are interested enough to offer help but in this instance the auditors are aware of the objections and they have advised us not to send additional items covering last years financial period . Ian-Holt Roberts
  • Score: 4

1:46pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

A letter sent to all councillors-

Well councillors and staff,
Despite having not yet received any form of acknowledgement or response to my last correspondence with you, I am now once again communicating with you regarding other matters pertaining to the council which are a cause for concern.

It has come to my attention that a Member of the Public who recently requested to speak at the upcoming Extraordinary General Meeting called for the 16th Jan 2014 concerning item 4 on the Agenda has had their request refused.

4 To consider the draft budget for 2014/2015.

It is my understanding that this Member of the Public was denied permission to speak at this meeting on the grounds that this was an Extraordinary Meeting and not a normal general meeting of the full council.

If this is the case councillors and staff, then I now request that you provide a full explanation as to the grounds on which this decision can be justified.

The councils own Standing Orders on the subject of Extraordinary Meetings are found under Standing Order 17 and annexed to Standing Order 1.

17 Extraordinary meetings

See also standing order 1 above



a The Chairman of the Council may convene an extraordinary meeting of the Council at any time.



b If the Chairman of the Council does not or refuses to call an extraordinary meeting of the Council within 7 days of having been requested to do so by two councillors, those two councillors may convene an extraordinary meeting of the Council. The statutory public notice giving the time, venue and agenda for such a meeting must be signed by the two councillors.



c The Chairman of a committee (or a sub-committee) may convene an extraordinary meeting of the committee or sub-committee at any time.



d If the Chairman of a committee (or a sub-committee) does not or refuses to call an extraordinary meeting within 7 clear days of having been requested In writing to do so by the quorum of the respective Committee, those councillors may convene an extraordinary meeting of a committee (or a sub-committee). The statutory public notice giving the time, venue and agenda for such a meeting must be signed by 2 of those councillors.

The relevant items of Standing Order 1 are items 'C' to 'L' as below.

1 Meetings

c Meetings shall be open to the public unless their presence is prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted or for other special reasons. The public’s exclusion from part or all of a meeting shall be by a special resolution which shall give reasons for the public’s exclusion.


d Subject to standing order 1(c) above, members of the public are permitted to make representations, answer questions and give evidence in respect of any item of business included in the agenda at a time agreed by the meeting. Councillors with a Prejudicial Interest may exercise the same rights but must then leave the meeting.


e The period of time which is designated for public participation in accordance with standing order 1(d) above shall not exceed 15 minutes.

f Subject to standing order 1(e) above, each member of the public is entitled to speak once only in respect of business itemised on the agenda and shall not speak for more than 2 minutes.

g In accordance with standing order 1(d) above, a question asked by a member of the public during a public participation session at a meeting shall not require a response or debate.

h In accordance with standing order 1(g) above, the Chairman may direct that a response to a question posed by a member of the public be referred to a Councillor for an oral response or to an employee for a written or oral response.

i A record of a public participation session at a meeting shall be included in the minutes of that meeting.


j A person shall raise his hand when requesting to speak and stand when speaking (except when a person has a disability or is likely to suffer discomfort). The Chairman may at any time permit an individual to be seated when speaking.


k Any person speaking at a meeting shall address his comments to the Chairman.

l Only one person is permitted to speak at a time. If more than one person wishes to speak, the Chairman shall direct the order of speaking.

As you can see councillors and staff, there is nothing contained in the councils own Regulations which gives justification to exclude a Member of the Public from speaking at an Extraordinary Meeting simply because of the non standard and unscheduled nature of such a meeting.

Furthermore, there is no item of any of the current Legislation which governs the actions of a Town or Parish Council which permits this denial of a Member of the Public having their concerns or opinions heard at any kind of council meeting, be it usual or out of the ordinary.

To refuse a Member of the Public the Right to Speak due to the meeting being an Extraordinary one is not within either the Standing Orders Regulating the Council or Legislation Governing Town and Parish Councils.

I would now like to add my comments on the nature of Item 4 on the Agenda for this Extraordinary Meeting.

The highly unusual nature of considering the Draft Budget at an Extraordinary Meeting held in January of the current Financial year raises a number of concerns due, no only to the irregularity in doing so, but also due to the lack of information and confirmed Financial Analysis in doing so.

Should the council proceed in discussing the budget requirements for the Financial Year 2014/2015 at this meeting then it would not only be reckless and irresponsible to do so, but it would also be a neglect of duties by the council in that any discussion on this matter would not be based on confirmed and approved Financial Statements and as such, even discussing the Budget without substantiated facts and figures is in itself taking an Unacceptable Risk with Public Money due to the influence such discussions may have on serving councillors.

As well as the above matter of the Unacceptable Risk with Public Money which the council would be taking in discussing this matter, there are a number of issues which it is relevant to address regarding item 4 on the Agenda.

According to the Keighley Town council Website,for the past 3 years, from 2011 to 2013, there has been a scheduled Full Town Council Meeting held in early January. In the years 2012 and 2013 there were also Extraordinary Meetings of the Full Council held in January as well as the scheduled meetings.

At no point in any of these 5 meetings held in January was the item of The next Financial years Budget a topic for discussion.

Any discussions on the Budget by the council are normally left until closer to the start of the next Financial Year for many obvious reasons.

To discuss the relevance of the Budget requirements too early would obviously leave the council susceptible to miscalculations and errors in judgement regarding matters such as the Precept.

To Highlight this, I would refer you to the Local Audit and Accountability Bill which will be implemented in the very near future.

This Bill has now completed all the required stages in both Houses of Parliament and is currently awaiting Royal Assent prior to making it Law.

This imminent Legislation includes Amendments which will address matters relevant to Town and Parish councils.

One such Amendment is an item which will regulate councils such as Keighley Town Council in the same manner as District Council by way of imposing a Capped Level on any Rise in the Precept.

Any intention by a council to raise the Tax Level beyond this capped amount would require the council to seek Public Approval for such a rise by way of a Referendum.

Obviously holding a Referendum to Seek Public Approval would incur costs to the council and these substantial costs would not of been considered when setting the Budget.

To clarify this, the cap level set last year for District Council was restricted to 2%.

In the same year, when KTC was not governed by the same Legislation, the Precept amount imposed on the Electorate of Keighley was a massive 72.6%.

To Discuss the Budget so early and to do so when the usual January Meeting has been omitted from the Schedule of Meetings and then an Extraordinary Meeting called which would address this matter, is irresponsible and reckless due to the lack of verified facts and figures and also due to the unfinalised Legislation which will Govern Town and Parish Councils in this next Financial Period.

Based on the above clarification of the Regulations and Legislation and the explanation of the reasons why item 4 on the Agenda is a reckless and irresponsible matter to address so early in the Year, I would now request that the council re evaluate the situation and now remove from the Agenda-

4 To consider the draft budget for 2014/2015.

Finally, due to the ongoing issues with councillors receiving correspondence via their Official .gov.uk email addresses I will endevour to bring this matter to those councillors who may not receive this email via alternative means.

While this will obviously not ensure that all councillors are given the opportunity to read my above letter I would expect, in the name of Openness and Transparency that the clerk ensures that a reproduction of this letter is included in the notes supplied to each councillor attending the meeting on the 16th Jan 2014.

While this does leave a very limited amount of time for councillors to digest the information, it will have to suffice until the technical difficulties currently unresolved at KTC are rectified.

The time and cost of supplying these copies would be minimal to the council.

Regards

Simon Mitchell
A letter sent to all councillors- Well councillors and staff, Despite having not yet received any form of acknowledgement or response to my last correspondence with you, I am now once again communicating with you regarding other matters pertaining to the council which are a cause for concern. It has come to my attention that a Member of the Public who recently requested to speak at the upcoming Extraordinary General Meeting called for the 16th Jan 2014 concerning item 4 on the Agenda has had their request refused. 4 To consider the draft budget for 2014/2015. It is my understanding that this Member of the Public was denied permission to speak at this meeting on the grounds that this was an Extraordinary Meeting and not a normal general meeting of the full council. If this is the case councillors and staff, then I now request that you provide a full explanation as to the grounds on which this decision can be justified. The councils own Standing Orders on the subject of Extraordinary Meetings are found under Standing Order 17 and annexed to Standing Order 1. 17 Extraordinary meetings See also standing order 1 above a The Chairman of the Council may convene an extraordinary meeting of the Council at any time. b If the Chairman of the Council does not or refuses to call an extraordinary meeting of the Council within 7 days of having been requested to do so by two councillors, those two councillors may convene an extraordinary meeting of the Council. The statutory public notice giving the time, venue and agenda for such a meeting must be signed by the two councillors. c The Chairman of a committee (or a sub-committee) may convene an extraordinary meeting of the committee or sub-committee at any time. d If the Chairman of a committee (or a sub-committee) does not or refuses to call an extraordinary meeting within 7 clear days of having been requested In writing to do so by the quorum of the respective Committee, those councillors may convene an extraordinary meeting of a committee (or a sub-committee). The statutory public notice giving the time, venue and agenda for such a meeting must be signed by 2 of those councillors. The relevant items of Standing Order 1 are items 'C' to 'L' as below. 1 Meetings c Meetings shall be open to the public unless their presence is prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted or for other special reasons. The public’s exclusion from part or all of a meeting shall be by a special resolution which shall give reasons for the public’s exclusion. d Subject to standing order 1(c) above, members of the public are permitted to make representations, answer questions and give evidence in respect of any item of business included in the agenda at a time agreed by the meeting. Councillors with a Prejudicial Interest may exercise the same rights but must then leave the meeting. e The period of time which is designated for public participation in accordance with standing order 1(d) above shall not exceed 15 minutes. f Subject to standing order 1(e) above, each member of the public is entitled to speak once only in respect of business itemised on the agenda and shall not speak for more than 2 minutes. g In accordance with standing order 1(d) above, a question asked by a member of the public during a public participation session at a meeting shall not require a response or debate. h In accordance with standing order 1(g) above, the Chairman may direct that a response to a question posed by a member of the public be referred to a Councillor for an oral response or to an employee for a written or oral response. i A record of a public participation session at a meeting shall be included in the minutes of that meeting. j A person shall raise his hand when requesting to speak and stand when speaking (except when a person has a disability or is likely to suffer discomfort). The Chairman may at any time permit an individual to be seated when speaking. k Any person speaking at a meeting shall address his comments to the Chairman. l Only one person is permitted to speak at a time. If more than one person wishes to speak, the Chairman shall direct the order of speaking. As you can see councillors and staff, there is nothing contained in the councils own Regulations which gives justification to exclude a Member of the Public from speaking at an Extraordinary Meeting simply because of the non standard and unscheduled nature of such a meeting. Furthermore, there is no item of any of the current Legislation which governs the actions of a Town or Parish Council which permits this denial of a Member of the Public having their concerns or opinions heard at any kind of council meeting, be it usual or out of the ordinary. To refuse a Member of the Public the Right to Speak due to the meeting being an Extraordinary one is not within either the Standing Orders Regulating the Council or Legislation Governing Town and Parish Councils. I would now like to add my comments on the nature of Item 4 on the Agenda for this Extraordinary Meeting. The highly unusual nature of considering the Draft Budget at an Extraordinary Meeting held in January of the current Financial year raises a number of concerns due, no only to the irregularity in doing so, but also due to the lack of information and confirmed Financial Analysis in doing so. Should the council proceed in discussing the budget requirements for the Financial Year 2014/2015 at this meeting then it would not only be reckless and irresponsible to do so, but it would also be a neglect of duties by the council in that any discussion on this matter would not be based on confirmed and approved Financial Statements and as such, even discussing the Budget without substantiated facts and figures is in itself taking an Unacceptable Risk with Public Money due to the influence such discussions may have on serving councillors. As well as the above matter of the Unacceptable Risk with Public Money which the council would be taking in discussing this matter, there are a number of issues which it is relevant to address regarding item 4 on the Agenda. According to the Keighley Town council Website,for the past 3 years, from 2011 to 2013, there has been a scheduled Full Town Council Meeting held in early January. In the years 2012 and 2013 there were also Extraordinary Meetings of the Full Council held in January as well as the scheduled meetings. At no point in any of these 5 meetings held in January was the item of The next Financial years Budget a topic for discussion. Any discussions on the Budget by the council are normally left until closer to the start of the next Financial Year for many obvious reasons. To discuss the relevance of the Budget requirements too early would obviously leave the council susceptible to miscalculations and errors in judgement regarding matters such as the Precept. To Highlight this, I would refer you to the Local Audit and Accountability Bill which will be implemented in the very near future. This Bill has now completed all the required stages in both Houses of Parliament and is currently awaiting Royal Assent prior to making it Law. This imminent Legislation includes Amendments which will address matters relevant to Town and Parish councils. One such Amendment is an item which will regulate councils such as Keighley Town Council in the same manner as District Council by way of imposing a Capped Level on any Rise in the Precept. Any intention by a council to raise the Tax Level beyond this capped amount would require the council to seek Public Approval for such a rise by way of a Referendum. Obviously holding a Referendum to Seek Public Approval would incur costs to the council and these substantial costs would not of been considered when setting the Budget. To clarify this, the cap level set last year for District Council was restricted to 2%. In the same year, when KTC was not governed by the same Legislation, the Precept amount imposed on the Electorate of Keighley was a massive 72.6%. To Discuss the Budget so early and to do so when the usual January Meeting has been omitted from the Schedule of Meetings and then an Extraordinary Meeting called which would address this matter, is irresponsible and reckless due to the lack of verified facts and figures and also due to the unfinalised Legislation which will Govern Town and Parish Councils in this next Financial Period. Based on the above clarification of the Regulations and Legislation and the explanation of the reasons why item 4 on the Agenda is a reckless and irresponsible matter to address so early in the Year, I would now request that the council re evaluate the situation and now remove from the Agenda- 4 To consider the draft budget for 2014/2015. Finally, due to the ongoing issues with councillors receiving correspondence via their Official .gov.uk email addresses I will endevour to bring this matter to those councillors who may not receive this email via alternative means. While this will obviously not ensure that all councillors are given the opportunity to read my above letter I would expect, in the name of Openness and Transparency that the clerk ensures that a reproduction of this letter is included in the notes supplied to each councillor attending the meeting on the 16th Jan 2014. While this does leave a very limited amount of time for councillors to digest the information, it will have to suffice until the technical difficulties currently unresolved at KTC are rectified. The time and cost of supplying these copies would be minimal to the council. Regards Simon Mitchell Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 2

7:58am Wed 15 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

It begins...
This is the reason why KTC have taken the unusual step of discussing next years Budget and Precept in January.

COUNCIL tax contributions in Barnard Castle will rise by almost eight per cent after councillors decided against exercising caution in case of a national cap on rate increases.
Councillor John Blissett encouraged the precept to be increased by the proposed figure while there was still no cap in place.

He said: “They (the Government) are going to do it sooner or later and if we haven’t got the money there then we are going to start falling backwards.”

The figure will be formally decided by the full town council next week.
It begins... This is the reason why KTC have taken the unusual step of discussing next years Budget and Precept in January. COUNCIL tax contributions in Barnard Castle will rise by almost eight per cent after councillors decided against exercising caution in case of a national cap on rate increases. Councillor John Blissett encouraged the precept to be increased by the proposed figure while there was still no cap in place. He said: “They (the Government) are going to do it sooner or later and if we haven’t got the money there then we are going to start falling backwards.” The figure will be formally decided by the full town council next week. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 4

8:22am Wed 15 Jan 14

Graham Forsyth says...

Taken from the back slapping, self praising, aren't we doing spiffing parish (Pravda) magazine, Spring 2013 regarding the 72.6% precept hike.


“If it had NOT been almost certain that all town and parish council increases will be capped next year, and HAD Bradford been able to stagger our loss of precept over say four years, we could have phased-in our increase in steps rather than in one hit.”

If the 72.6% precept hike was one hit, instead of the same costs being phased in, say over four years, then we should not see any further precept rise for, say over four years.


Is the Local Audit and Accountability Bill with it's inclusion of capping town and parish councils, which is now awaiting Royal Assent, the excuse which KTC will use again to make hard pressed parishioners help pay for the loss making civic centre and the council's utter incompetence?

Tick Tock
Taken from the back slapping, self praising, aren't we doing spiffing parish (Pravda) magazine, Spring 2013 regarding the 72.6% precept hike. “If it had NOT been almost certain that all town and parish council increases will be capped next year, and HAD Bradford been able to stagger our loss of precept over say four years, we could have phased-in our increase in steps rather than in one hit.” If the 72.6% precept hike was one hit, instead of the same costs being phased in, say over four years, then we should not see any further precept rise for, say over four years. Is the Local Audit and Accountability Bill with it's inclusion of capping town and parish councils, which is now awaiting Royal Assent, the excuse which KTC will use again to make hard pressed parishioners help pay for the loss making civic centre and the council's utter incompetence? Tick Tock Graham Forsyth
  • Score: 5

8:35am Wed 15 Jan 14

Katiery says...

Graham Forsyth, It would be far more honest than their last stupid statement, which placed the blame for a possible huge increase onto extra work caused by a few members of the public. I doubt that KTC know how to be honest about anything though, so they will probably stay quiet and hope we don't notice.
Graham Forsyth, It would be far more honest than their last stupid statement, which placed the blame for a possible huge increase onto extra work caused by a few members of the public. I doubt that KTC know how to be honest about anything though, so they will probably stay quiet and hope we don't notice. Katiery
  • Score: 4

8:46am Wed 15 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

In February 2011 Keighley Town Council issued a memo to the Government regarding the then upcoming introduction of the Localism Bill.
http://www.publicati
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/cm201011/cmpublic/l
ocalism/memo/loc83.h
tm

Within this memo you can find KTC's own estimate on the cost of a referendum-

"In the Town Council’s case, the cost of a stand-alone election could be £120K and it can be assumed that a referendum would cost the same amount, which would equate to 30% of its current precept."


Discussing next years budget without taking into account the very real possibility of the council's levy of a Precept being capped, could essentially leave the council in a situation where they would be required to spend the suggested £120K on seeking the Approval of the Public.
This amount will now need to be considered when discussing next years Budget if the discussion includes a Precept level which is in excess of last years cap of 2%.

Of course including this amount in the discussion would then obviously then mean that the proposed Precept increase would then need to be increased to cover this cost.

To include this amount would be to make an assumption which may not eventuate- making the Budget Forecast inaccurate and placing and undue burden on the Tax Payesr of Keighley


To not include this amount would be neglectful by the council in failing to take into account all matters to be considered when making the Budget and could lead to a shortfall which would have a detrimental effect on the services provided by the council.

Conclusion- Budget discussions by the Council as early as 16th January 2014 lead to any decision by the council which would go against the Rules for Dealing with Public Money for Town & Parish Councils

The rules
set by Government are designed to make sure that the council takes
no unacceptable risks with public money. The words risk management
should be engraved upon every councillor’s mind.

Regards

Simon Mitchell
In February 2011 Keighley Town Council issued a memo to the Government regarding the then upcoming introduction of the Localism Bill. http://www.publicati ons.parliament.uk/pa /cm201011/cmpublic/l ocalism/memo/loc83.h tm Within this memo you can find KTC's own estimate on the cost of a referendum- "In the Town Council’s case, the cost of a stand-alone election could be £120K and it can be assumed that a referendum would cost the same amount, which would equate to 30% of its current precept." Discussing next years budget without taking into account the very real possibility of the council's levy of a Precept being capped, could essentially leave the council in a situation where they would be required to spend the suggested £120K on seeking the Approval of the Public. This amount will now need to be considered when discussing next years Budget if the discussion includes a Precept level which is in excess of last years cap of 2%. Of course including this amount in the discussion would then obviously then mean that the proposed Precept increase would then need to be increased to cover this cost. To include this amount would be to make an assumption which may not eventuate- making the Budget Forecast inaccurate and placing and undue burden on the Tax Payesr of Keighley To not include this amount would be neglectful by the council in failing to take into account all matters to be considered when making the Budget and could lead to a shortfall which would have a detrimental effect on the services provided by the council. Conclusion- Budget discussions by the Council as early as 16th January 2014 lead to any decision by the council which would go against the Rules for Dealing with Public Money for Town & Parish Councils The rules set by Government are designed to make sure that the council takes no unacceptable risks with public money. The words risk management should be engraved upon every councillor’s mind. Regards Simon Mitchell Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 2

9:00am Wed 15 Jan 14

Katiery says...

What services do KTC actually provide, other than management of the allotments?
What services do KTC actually provide, other than management of the allotments? Katiery
  • Score: 4

9:06am Wed 15 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Katiery wrote:
What services do KTC actually provide, other than management of the allotments?
Katiery, KTC currently extracts over 1/2 a Million pounds from Keighley Tax Payers via the Precept.
While I myself can find little which the council does with this vast sum, I am sure we will be inundated with responses from the supporters of the council to highlight what services are provided by this Public Piggy Bank.

I look forward to reading them...........

Tick Tock
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: What services do KTC actually provide, other than management of the allotments?[/p][/quote]Katiery, KTC currently extracts over 1/2 a Million pounds from Keighley Tax Payers via the Precept. While I myself can find little which the council does with this vast sum, I am sure we will be inundated with responses from the supporters of the council to highlight what services are provided by this Public Piggy Bank. I look forward to reading them........... Tick Tock Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 3

9:27am Wed 15 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Katiery wrote:
What services do KTC actually provide, other than management of the allotments?
It has to be noted that a "duty" is a requirement whereas a "power" is an option and doesn't have to be accepted. This allows for variations between town/parish councils due to factors such as precept income and population size etc.

Communities, Parishes, and Local Councils
http://www.cpalc.org
.uk/q-what-can-a-par
ish-council-do

National Association of Local Councils (NALC) offer:
Allotments - Duty to provide allotments. Power to improve and adapt land for allotments, and to let grazing rights.
Baths and washhouses - Power to provide public baths and washhouses.
Burial grounds, cemeteries and crematoria - Power to acquire and maintain. Power to provide. Power to agree to maintain monuments and memorials. Power to contribute towards expenses of cemeteries.
Bus shelters - Power to provide and maintain shelters
Bye-laws - Power to make bye-laws in regard to pleasure grounds; Cycle parks; Baths and washhouses; Open spaces and burial grounds; Mortuaries and post-mortem rooms.
Clocks - Power to provide public clocks
Closed churchyards - Powers as to maintenance
Common pastures - Powers in relation to providing common pasture
Conference facilities - Power to provide and encourage the use of facilities
Community centres - Power to provide and equip buildings for use of clubs having athletic, social or recreational objectives.
Crime prevention - Powers to install and maintain equipment and establish and maintain a scheme for detection or prevention of crime. Power to contribute to police services e.g. PCSOs. Duty on Parish Councils to consider crime reduction in every policy and action.
Drainage - Power to deal with ponds and ditches.
Dogs - Power to make a Dog Control Order. Power to take enforcement action against those who commit an offence against a Dog Control Order.
Entertainment and the arts - Provision of entertainment and support of the arts
Flyposting and Graffiti - Power to take enforcement action against those that flypost or graffiti
Gifts - Power to accept
Highways - Power to maintain footpaths and bridle-ways. Power to light roads and public places. Provision of litter bins. Powers to provide parking places for bicycles and motor-cycles, and other vehicles. Power to enter into agreement as to dedication and widening. Power to provide roadside seats and shelters. Consent of parish council required for ending maintenance of highway at public expense, or for stopping up or diversion of highway
Power to complain to highway authority as to unlawful stopping up or obstruction of highway or unlawful encroachment on roadside wastes. Power to provide traffic signs and other objects or devices warning of danger. Power to plant trees and lay out grass verges etc. and to maintain them.
Investments - Power to participate in schemes of collective investment.
Land - Power to acquire by agreement, to appropriate, to dispose of. Power to accept gifts of land.
Litter - Provision of receptacles. Power to take enforcement action against those that litter
Lotteries - Powers to promote.
Mortuaries and post mortem rooms - Powers to provide mortuaries and post mortem rooms.
Open spaces - Power to acquire land and maintain.
Parish documents - Powers to direct as to their custody.
Telecommunications facilities - Power to pay public telecommunications operators any loss sustained providing telecommunication facilities.
Public buildings and village hall - Power to provide buildings for public meetings and assemblies.
Public conveniences - Power to provide.
Sustainable communities - Able to be represented on a panel of representatives to be consulted on proposals that would contribute to sustainable communities.
Town and country planning - Right to be notified of planning applications.
Tourism - Power to encourage visitors and provide conference and other facilities.
Traffic calming - Powers to contribute financially to traffic calming schemes
Transport - Powers in relation to car-sharing schemes, taxi fare concessions and information about transport. Powers to make grants for bus services
War memorials - Power to maintain, repair, protect and alter war memorials.
Water supply - Power to utilise well, spring or stream and to provide facilities for obtaining water from them.
Well-Being - Power to well-being of the area (for eligible councils)

Phew! Sorry for the Cut-and-Paste.
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: What services do KTC actually provide, other than management of the allotments?[/p][/quote]It has to be noted that a "duty" is a requirement whereas a "power" is an option and doesn't have to be accepted. This allows for variations between town/parish councils due to factors such as precept income and population size etc. Communities, Parishes, and Local Councils http://www.cpalc.org .uk/q-what-can-a-par ish-council-do National Association of Local Councils (NALC) offer: Allotments - Duty to provide allotments. Power to improve and adapt land for allotments, and to let grazing rights. Baths and washhouses - Power to provide public baths and washhouses. Burial grounds, cemeteries and crematoria - Power to acquire and maintain. Power to provide. Power to agree to maintain monuments and memorials. Power to contribute towards expenses of cemeteries. Bus shelters - Power to provide and maintain shelters Bye-laws - Power to make bye-laws in regard to pleasure grounds; Cycle parks; Baths and washhouses; Open spaces and burial grounds; Mortuaries and post-mortem rooms. Clocks - Power to provide public clocks Closed churchyards - Powers as to maintenance Common pastures - Powers in relation to providing common pasture Conference facilities - Power to provide and encourage the use of facilities Community centres - Power to provide and equip buildings for use of clubs having athletic, social or recreational objectives. Crime prevention - Powers to install and maintain equipment and establish and maintain a scheme for detection or prevention of crime. Power to contribute to police services e.g. PCSOs. Duty on Parish Councils to consider crime reduction in every policy and action. Drainage - Power to deal with ponds and ditches. Dogs - Power to make a Dog Control Order. Power to take enforcement action against those who commit an offence against a Dog Control Order. Entertainment and the arts - Provision of entertainment and support of the arts Flyposting and Graffiti - Power to take enforcement action against those that flypost or graffiti Gifts - Power to accept Highways - Power to maintain footpaths and bridle-ways. Power to light roads and public places. Provision of litter bins. Powers to provide parking places for bicycles and motor-cycles, and other vehicles. Power to enter into agreement as to dedication and widening. Power to provide roadside seats and shelters. Consent of parish council required for ending maintenance of highway at public expense, or for stopping up or diversion of highway Power to complain to highway authority as to unlawful stopping up or obstruction of highway or unlawful encroachment on roadside wastes. Power to provide traffic signs and other objects or devices warning of danger. Power to plant trees and lay out grass verges etc. and to maintain them. Investments - Power to participate in schemes of collective investment. Land - Power to acquire by agreement, to appropriate, to dispose of. Power to accept gifts of land. Litter - Provision of receptacles. Power to take enforcement action against those that litter Lotteries - Powers to promote. Mortuaries and post mortem rooms - Powers to provide mortuaries and post mortem rooms. Open spaces - Power to acquire land and maintain. Parish documents - Powers to direct as to their custody. Telecommunications facilities - Power to pay public telecommunications operators any loss sustained providing telecommunication facilities. Public buildings and village hall - Power to provide buildings for public meetings and assemblies. Public conveniences - Power to provide. Sustainable communities - Able to be represented on a panel of representatives to be consulted on proposals that would contribute to sustainable communities. Town and country planning - Right to be notified of planning applications. Tourism - Power to encourage visitors and provide conference and other facilities. Traffic calming - Powers to contribute financially to traffic calming schemes Transport - Powers in relation to car-sharing schemes, taxi fare concessions and information about transport. Powers to make grants for bus services War memorials - Power to maintain, repair, protect and alter war memorials. Water supply - Power to utilise well, spring or stream and to provide facilities for obtaining water from them. Well-Being - Power to well-being of the area (for eligible councils) Phew! Sorry for the Cut-and-Paste. MarkPullen
  • Score: 1

9:34am Wed 15 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Mr Pullen,
Which of these 'powers' do KTC actually provide?

Also I note that your cut and paste from NALC appears out of date as it includes the Power of Well Being, which is now obsolete.
Mr Pullen, Which of these 'powers' do KTC actually provide? Also I note that your cut and paste from NALC appears out of date as it includes the Power of Well Being, which is now obsolete. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 2

9:36am Wed 15 Jan 14

Katiery says...

Public baths and wash houses? Can't say I have seen those in Keighley recently.

Springs and Streams? Power to accept gifts? That list is hilarious.

That may be what they are allowed to provide, but what do they, rather than BDMC, ACTUALLY provide?
Public baths and wash houses? Can't say I have seen those in Keighley recently. Springs and Streams? Power to accept gifts? That list is hilarious. That may be what they are allowed to provide, but what do they, rather than BDMC, ACTUALLY provide? Katiery
  • Score: 4

9:44am Wed 15 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Katiery wrote:
What services do KTC actually provide, other than management of the allotments?
The council sold off the allotments on Skipton Road and used the majority of the money to prop up the Civic Centre.
The recently also placed land allocated for allotment use at Hog Holes up for sale bu this was quickly taken of the market after enquiries were made by members of the Public about the sale.

Not sure if everyone would agree that this is defined as management of the allotments, perhaps the inclusion of the prefix 'mis' might be required.
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: What services do KTC actually provide, other than management of the allotments?[/p][/quote]The council sold off the allotments on Skipton Road and used the majority of the money to prop up the Civic Centre. The recently also placed land allocated for allotment use at Hog Holes up for sale bu this was quickly taken of the market after enquiries were made by members of the Public about the sale. Not sure if everyone would agree that this is defined as management of the allotments, perhaps the inclusion of the prefix 'mis' might be required. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 4

9:53am Wed 15 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Mr Pullen,
Which of these 'powers' do KTC actually provide?

Also I note that your cut and paste from NALC appears out of date as it includes the Power of Well Being, which is now obsolete.
I can't answer your first question but wanted to provide what they "could" offer if they decided to do so.

The information was provided directly from the NALC website and therefore I accept no responsibility for the accuracy of the details provided.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Mr Pullen, Which of these 'powers' do KTC actually provide? Also I note that your cut and paste from NALC appears out of date as it includes the Power of Well Being, which is now obsolete.[/p][/quote]I can't answer your first question but wanted to provide what they "could" offer if they decided to do so. The information was provided directly from the NALC website and therefore I accept no responsibility for the accuracy of the details provided. MarkPullen
  • Score: 2

10:02am Wed 15 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Thankyou Mr Pullen,

"I can't answer your first question but wanted to provide what they "could" offer if they decided to do so.

The information was provided directly from the NALC website and therefore I accept no responsibility for the accuracy of the details provided."

the National Association of Councils is a body which is funded by payments made to them by Town and parish Councils.
I believe they receive about £8,000 per year from KTC.
It is disappointing that it appears they do not maintain up to date information for the councils they are funded by.
Thankyou Mr Pullen, "I can't answer your first question but wanted to provide what they "could" offer if they decided to do so. The information was provided directly from the NALC website and therefore I accept no responsibility for the accuracy of the details provided." the National Association of Councils is a body which is funded by payments made to them by Town and parish Councils. I believe they receive about £8,000 per year from KTC. It is disappointing that it appears they do not maintain up to date information for the councils they are funded by. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 3

10:12am Wed 15 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

I do wonder how many Councillors (in KTC and elsewhere) take the time to understand their role.

http://www.nalc.gov.
uk/Document/Download
.aspx?uid=8f96f184-2
5fe-4395-900e-6ab6d3
97e850
I do wonder how many Councillors (in KTC and elsewhere) take the time to understand their role. http://www.nalc.gov. uk/Document/Download .aspx?uid=8f96f184-2 5fe-4395-900e-6ab6d3 97e850 MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

8:39am Thu 16 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Whilst talking about precept rises....Under the headline on the BBC News Website "Nottinghamshire County Council: Public rejects 5% council tax rise"

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-not
tinghamshire-2574801
8
Whilst talking about precept rises....Under the headline on the BBC News Website "Nottinghamshire County Council: Public rejects 5% council tax rise" http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-not tinghamshire-2574801 8 MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

9:32am Thu 16 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Mr Pullen,
here is another interesting article on the subject of Precept Rises-

COUNCIL tax contributions in Barnard Castle will rise by almost eight per cent after councillors decided against exercising caution in case of a national cap on rate increases.
Councillor John Blissett encouraged the precept to be increased by the proposed figure while there was still no cap in place.

He said: “They (the Government) are going to do it sooner or later and if we haven’t got the money there then we are going to start falling backwards.”

The figure will be formally decided by the full town council next week.

http://www.thenorthe
rnecho.co.uk/news/10
936062.Town_council_
increases_precept_de
spite_risk_of_nation
al_cap_on_rises/?ref
=var_0
Mr Pullen, here is another interesting article on the subject of Precept Rises- COUNCIL tax contributions in Barnard Castle will rise by almost eight per cent after councillors decided against exercising caution in case of a national cap on rate increases. Councillor John Blissett encouraged the precept to be increased by the proposed figure while there was still no cap in place. He said: “They (the Government) are going to do it sooner or later and if we haven’t got the money there then we are going to start falling backwards.” The figure will be formally decided by the full town council next week. http://www.thenorthe rnecho.co.uk/news/10 936062.Town_council_ increases_precept_de spite_risk_of_nation al_cap_on_rises/?ref =var_0 Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 0

9:37am Thu 16 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Mr Pullen,
here is another interesting article on the subject of Precept Rises-

COUNCIL tax contributions in Barnard Castle will rise by almost eight per cent after councillors decided against exercising caution in case of a national cap on rate increases.
Councillor John Blissett encouraged the precept to be increased by the proposed figure while there was still no cap in place.

He said: “They (the Government) are going to do it sooner or later and if we haven’t got the money there then we are going to start falling backwards.”

The figure will be formally decided by the full town council next week.

http://www.thenorthe

rnecho.co.uk/news/10

936062.Town_council_

increases_precept_de

spite_risk_of_nation

al_cap_on_rises/?ref

=var_0
I think you've already included this contribution on the thread yesterday morning.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Mr Pullen, here is another interesting article on the subject of Precept Rises- COUNCIL tax contributions in Barnard Castle will rise by almost eight per cent after councillors decided against exercising caution in case of a national cap on rate increases. Councillor John Blissett encouraged the precept to be increased by the proposed figure while there was still no cap in place. He said: “They (the Government) are going to do it sooner or later and if we haven’t got the money there then we are going to start falling backwards.” The figure will be formally decided by the full town council next week. http://www.thenorthe rnecho.co.uk/news/10 936062.Town_council_ increases_precept_de spite_risk_of_nation al_cap_on_rises/?ref =var_0[/p][/quote]I think you've already included this contribution on the thread yesterday morning. MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

9:42am Thu 16 Jan 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

I did refer to the story Mr Pullen,
But I believe I did not provide the link as you have done, so thought it a useful resource to include on this thread.
I did refer to the story Mr Pullen, But I believe I did not provide the link as you have done, so thought it a useful resource to include on this thread. Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 0

9:43am Thu 16 Jan 14

MarkPullen says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
I did refer to the story Mr Pullen,
But I believe I did not provide the link as you have done, so thought it a useful resource to include on this thread.
I stand amended
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: I did refer to the story Mr Pullen, But I believe I did not provide the link as you have done, so thought it a useful resource to include on this thread.[/p][/quote]I stand amended MarkPullen
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree