Quoted from blackdog

Probably because he never was my boss. I realise that it is a sad void in my life but I have never worked for WBC.

Fair enough. You've never worked in the museum then?

Quoted from user23.3

Fair enough. You've never worked in the museum then?

This is getting to be a one way interrogation - perhaps you would like to answer a question before I answer yours.

Do you work for WBC?

Is any of this really necessary? I don't see the requirement to know peoples identities, and their employment history?

Quoted from blackdog

This is getting to be a one way interrogation - perhaps you would like to answer a question before I answer yours.

That's a yes then.

Quoted from massifheed

Is any of this really necessary? I don't see the requirement to know peoples identities, and their employment history?

No it's not. I don't know why people go on about it so much.

Quoted from massifheed

Is any of this really necessary? I don't see the requirement to know peoples identities, and their employment history?

Its not necessary at all - but I did think that as I had been honestly replying to User's questions and inferences it could be a two way thing.

Following his logic I see that he does indeed work for WBC as apparently he reads a nil response as a yes.

So User what is your view on Cllr Beck's comment on golden oldies?

Quoted from blackdog

Its not necessary at all - but I did think that as I had been honestly replying to User's questions and inferences it could be a two way thing.

Following his logic I see that he does indeed work for WBC as apparently he reads a nil response as a yes.

So User what is your view on Cllr Beck's comment on golden oldies?

You asked that question on another forum, on which I have replied.

Speaking other forums, I wonder what our obsessive friend Gumbo posts as on here.

Quoted from blackdog

So User what is your view on Cllr Beck's comment on golden oldies?

He didn't give an opinion on the statement, except to say he preferred councillors to be forthright.  User23.3 has skipped the issue of whether the pavilion should be exclusively a youth centre.

Quoted from Greenham Common

He didn't give an opinion on the statement, except to say he preferred councillors to be forthright.  User23.3 has skipped the issue of whether the pavilion should be exclusively a youth centre.

I gave my view on his comment. That's what was asked for,

Quoted from user23.3

I gave my view on his comment. That's what was asked for,

He wrote what do you think about his opinion.  For the record, he posted...

Quoted from 'blackdog' @ 'Nov 12 2009, 11:31 PM'

What do you think of Cllr Beck's opinion regarding the golden oldies?

I don't think stating you rather councillors say what they think is really saying what you think of his opinion.

You said, however, that you like these people to say what they think and to be honest.  Fair enough, but do you think in this case he was, a) correct and, b) honest?

I'm not sure he was, I think he was making excuses for a likely poor reception to the pavilion project.

This it is all a bit disappointing that a thread with some valid and interesting points about the subject has again been turned into you said/he said bickering.

Frankly I don't care who works where. What I do care about is the issues that affect Newbury, the proposed pavilion being the main one at the moment.

Please get back to the subject or post on another thread.

We are currently discussing the merits of a number of councillors opinions on the subject who sit on the TCP.  Albeit, user23.3 is skipping the issue (which he is entitled to), but I think that the councillors are showing themselves to be even more out of touch than I expected.  Especially for such a sensitive subject.

BTW - This isn't an exclusively 'Pavilion in the Park' thread!  

Quoted from Greenham Common

BTW - This isn't an exclusively 'Pavilion in the Park' thread!  

You're right, I meant to "get back to the subject"!

Quoted from Greenham Common

We are currently discussing the merits of a number of councillors opinions on the subject who sit on the TCP.  Albeit, user23.3 is skipping the issue (which he is entitled to), but I think that the councillors are showing themselves to be even more out of touch than I expected.  Especially for such a sensitive subject.

I think that the problem with the TCP is the composition and the conflict of interests this causes. I for one would feel uncomfortable sitting on two or three bodies that have overlaps in responsibilities. This may be by design or may be because of disinterest from potential suitable members.
The other issue seems to be that the composition of the TCP is principally commercial and doesn't represent a proper slice of the community. It could be argued that questionnaires and surveys provide this but as we have seen, these have been misinterpreted and misunderstood.
If things work as I understand they should, the TCP would have a range of skills, interests and backgrounds and would make recommendations to elected councillors. If this worked properly, I would have no issues with it but it.

Quoted from Bartholomew

I think that the problem with the TCP is the composition and the conflict of interests this causes. I for one would feel uncomfortable sitting on two or three bodies that have overlaps in responsibilities. This may be by design or may be because of disinterest from potential suitable members.
The other issue seems to be that the composition of the TCP is principally commercial and doesn't represent a proper slice of the community. It could be argued that questionnaires and surveys provide this but as we have seen, these have been misinterpreted and misunderstood.
If things work as I understand they should, the TCP would have a range of skills, interests and backgrounds and would make recommendations to elected councillors. If this worked properly, I would have no issues with it but it.

Think you are describing a ‘Local Council’ as most people would see it.  The need to have such groups and worse, to have it sponsored by WBC calls that into question. This simply puts more power into the hands of the Council’s staff.  One reason I don’t like local administration being described as a Local Authority.  Authority in England should be derived from the people.

Quoted from 40

Think you are describing a ‘Local Council’ as most people would see it.  The need to have such groups and worse, to have it sponsored by WBC calls that into question. This simply puts more power into the hands of the Council’s staff.  One reason I don’t like local administration being described as a Local Authority.  Authority in England should be derived from the people.

I think that you have misunderstood what I was saying. I was advocating the TCP should be seperate from the council. By members participating in more than one organisation there are obvious conflicts of interest. Also by having a separate TCP with no conflicts, the local authority would get views of the people and some reality checks. This is why I also think that the commercial bias of the TCP is also a drawback.
Looking at the minutes and the attendees, it is obvious that WBC and NTC have an influence on this organisation which supports your point on the power on the local authority having an influence.