Posted by: jim, Glasgow on 11:02am Fri 7 Mar 08
In Blackpool they have a orginization that goes around looking at areas that need gating and folk get funding for it,It has helped and instead of rubbish being kicked all over back lanes .Folk have started to put plantsa and flower pots out again.
In Blackpool they have a orginization that goes around looking at areas that need gating and folk get funding for it,It has helped and instead of rubbish being kicked all over back lanes .Folk have started to put plantsa and flower pots out again.
Posted by: martin, Glasgow on 11:08am Fri 7 Mar 08
[quote]Mr Watson said a retrospective planning permission might have to be made[/quote]
As a councillor he should know, and have known before the gates went up, that a retrospective planning application will have t be made. I am all for the gates and for many more like them in other areas but we can not allow the planning laws to be flouted. I am sure that the city council will take the correct decision on this one and not be as tight ***sed as the planned in East Renfrewshire who tried to stop residents there doing a similar thing quoteing Right to Roam laws.
Mr Watson said a retrospective planning permission might have to be made
As a councillor he should know, and have known before the gates went up, that a retrospective planning application will have t be made. I am all for the gates and for many more like them in other areas but we can not allow the planning laws to be flouted. I am sure that the city council will take the correct decision on this one and not be as tight ***sed as the planned in East Renfrewshire who tried to stop residents there doing a similar thing quoteing Right to Roam laws.
Posted by: Stewie Griffin, Glasgow on 11:14am Fri 7 Mar 08
GCC should be supporting these residents instead of making life difficult for them. Why are the rights of neds always paramount?
GCC should be supporting these residents instead of making life difficult for them. Why are the rights of neds always paramount?
Posted by: Ladofglas25, Glasgow on 1:19pm Fri 7 Mar 08
so is this what it has come to?, you need a big gate everywhere to keep 13yr olds out!
so is this what it has come to?, you need a big gate everywhere to keep 13yr olds out!
Posted by: JANEY, GLASGOW on 1:33pm Fri 7 Mar 08
SCUMBAGS WIN AGAIN!
Posted by: gordyboy, glasgow on 1:36pm Fri 7 Mar 08
Planning permission ???
these poor people should be given money from the public purse to electrify the gates from these nastie little warts that are a blight on our society.
Planning permission ???
these poor people should be given money from the public purse to electrify the gates from these nastie little warts that are a blight on our society.
Posted by: Grandpaw, Glasgow on 1:48pm Fri 7 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Ladofglas25[/bold] wrote:
so is this what it has come to?, you need a big gate everywhere to keep 13yr olds out![/quote] Yes this is exactly what it has come to.Why should honest, decent, hard working taxpayers have to put up with the antics of wee toerags who have no respect for people or property?
Ladofglas25 wrote:
so is this what it has come to?, you need a big gate everywhere to keep 13yr olds out!
Yes this is exactly what it has come to.Why should honest, decent, hard working taxpayers have to put up with the antics of wee toerags who have no respect for people or property?
Posted by: Arwen, Glasgow on 1:50pm Fri 7 Mar 08
I am told, in my area, we need planning permission to erect a fence any higher than knee height!!
I am told, in my area, we need planning permission to erect a fence any higher than knee height!!
Posted by: Joe Shmo, Glagow on 2:18pm Fri 7 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Arwen[/bold] wrote:
I am told, in my area, we need planning permission to erect a fence any higher than knee height!![/quote] Whos Knee ?
Arwen wrote:
I am told, in my area, we need planning permission to erect a fence any higher than knee height!!
Whos Knee ?
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, Glasgow on 3:03pm Fri 7 Mar 08
This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on [bold]acting tough[/bold] on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say.
[bold]The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.[/bold]
This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on
acting tough on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say.
The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies. Posted by: jrb, Glasgow on 3:21pm Fri 7 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote:
This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on [bold]acting tough[/bold] on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. [bold]The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.[/bold] [/quote] Im afraid your wrong on this one Sydney councillor Watson has took the iniitive and the responsibility for the erecting of those much needed security measures.And is acting in the best interests of the community,So whether you are a labour party supporter or not Councillor Watson deserves the plaudits for doing what he was elected to do...It will be interesting to see G.c.c. response...
Sydney Meriwether wrote:
This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on acting tough on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.
Im afraid your wrong on this one Sydney councillor Watson has took the iniitive and the responsibility for the erecting of those much needed security measures.And is acting in the best interests of the community,So whether you are a labour party supporter or not Councillor Watson deserves the plaudits for doing what he was elected to do...It will be interesting to see G.c.c. response...
Posted by: Brad, Glasgow on 3:22pm Fri 7 Mar 08
I think they'll get planning permission. Lots of things make sense - but they still need planning permission. Most people who apply get it.
Sydney, this is nothing to do with Purcell. Or private companies. it's the law of the land, as laid down by Government. Anyway, who are you proposing as city leader?
I think they'll get planning permission. Lots of things make sense - but they still need planning permission. Most people who apply get it.
Sydney, this is nothing to do with Purcell. Or private companies. it's the law of the land, as laid down by Government. Anyway, who are you proposing as city leader?
Posted by: Scottish Rose, U.S.A. on 3:27pm Fri 7 Mar 08
Gates? It's a couple of two by fours that they need!!
Gates? It's a couple of two by fours that they need!!
Posted by: Douglas, Glasgow on 3:58pm Fri 7 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Scottish Rose[/bold] wrote:
Gates? It's a couple of two by fours that they need!![/quote] Maybe the residents could borow Stephen Armstrong's people carrier.
Is he [italic]still[/italic] in the jail?
Scottish Rose wrote:
Gates? It's a couple of two by fours that they need!!
Maybe the residents could borow Stephen Armstrong's people carrier.
Is he
still in the jail?
Posted by: trench, possilpark on 4:02pm Fri 7 Mar 08
the council should be very aware that there is 2 choices, either pay for these gates or be prepared to be sued by the residents if the place is taken over by those pests and injure somone,or hire security guards night and day to protect these people(i cannot believe i am suggesting these things but lets face it this is what it is coming to,) they put doors on closes years ago for the very same reason, now do something soon,or things will end up like the bronx.
the council should be very aware that there is 2 choices, either pay for these gates or be prepared to be sued by the residents if the place is taken over by those pests and injure somone,or hire security guards night and day to protect these people(i cannot believe i am suggesting these things but lets face it this is what it is coming to,) they put doors on closes years ago for the very same reason, now do something soon,or things will end up like the bronx.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, At home on 4:23pm Fri 7 Mar 08
[quote][bold]jrb[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote: This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on [bold]acting tough[/bold] on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. [bold]The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.[/bold] [/quote] Im afraid your wrong on this one Sydney councillor Watson has took the iniitive and the responsibility for the erecting of those much needed security measures.And is acting in the best interests of the community,So whether you are a labour party supporter or not Councillor Watson deserves the plaudits for doing what he was elected to do...It will be interesting to see G.c.c. response...[/quote] Sorry jrb, and [bold]my sincere apologies to Councillor Watson[/bold].
I should qualify my comment by saying that I (as usual) refer to the selfish, controlling-group of councillors on the [italic]executive committee[/italic]... i.e. the ones who appear weekly in the ET (or YouTube) to take the plaudits for things they never do.
jrb wrote:
Sydney Meriwether wrote: This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on acting tough on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.
Im afraid your wrong on this one Sydney councillor Watson has took the iniitive and the responsibility for the erecting of those much needed security measures.And is acting in the best interests of the community,So whether you are a labour party supporter or not Councillor Watson deserves the plaudits for doing what he was elected to do...It will be interesting to see G.c.c. response...
Sorry jrb, and
my sincere apologies to Councillor Watson.
I should qualify my comment by saying that I (as usual) refer to the selfish, controlling-group of councillors on the
executive committee... i.e. the ones who appear weekly in the ET (or YouTube) to take the plaudits for things they never do.
Posted by: Sydney Meriwether, At home on 4:27pm Fri 7 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Brad[/bold] wrote:
I think they'll get planning permission. Lots of things make sense - but they still need planning permission. Most people who apply get it. Sydney, this is nothing to do with Purcell. Or private companies. it's the law of the land, as laid down by Government. Anyway, who are you proposing as city leader?[/quote] Councillor Ruth Simpson sir. I was greatly impressed by her ability to conceal her dignity under pressure! ;-)
[bold]tinyurl.com/2rehnk[/bold]
Brad wrote:
I think they'll get planning permission. Lots of things make sense - but they still need planning permission. Most people who apply get it. Sydney, this is nothing to do with Purcell. Or private companies. it's the law of the land, as laid down by Government. Anyway, who are you proposing as city leader?
Councillor Ruth Simpson sir. I was greatly impressed by her ability to conceal her dignity under pressure! ;-)
tinyurl.com/2rehnk Posted by: jrb, Glasgow on 4:45pm Fri 7 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]jrb[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote: This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on [bold]acting tough[/bold] on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. [bold]The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.[/bold] [/quote] Im afraid your wrong on this one Sydney councillor Watson has took the iniitive and the responsibility for the erecting of those much needed security measures.And is acting in the best interests of the community,So whether you are a labour party supporter or not Councillor Watson deserves the plaudits for doing what he was elected to do...It will be interesting to see G.c.c. response...[/quote] Sorry jrb, and [bold]my sincere apologies to Councillor Watson[/bold]. I should qualify my comment by saying that I (as usual) refer to the selfish, controlling-group of councillors on the [italic]executive committee[/italic]... i.e. the ones who appear weekly in the ET (or YouTube) to take the plaudits for things they never do.[/quote] Thank you Sydney.As I've stated on a number of occasions Im no lover of labour party policies nor a labour supporter,But in the case of councillor Watson this is not the first time he has backed the people of cardonald regardless of their political views and in the face of labour party thinking.If you examine his record of working for the community, you will be hard pushed to find anyone from any party who can compare.And I Do agree with your good self that those who represent the voters of this city and who fail to act on their behalf should be named ,shamed and hounded out....
Sydney Meriwether wrote:
jrb wrote: Sydney Meriwether wrote: This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on acting tough on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.
Im afraid your wrong on this one Sydney councillor Watson has took the iniitive and the responsibility for the erecting of those much needed security measures.And is acting in the best interests of the community,So whether you are a labour party supporter or not Councillor Watson deserves the plaudits for doing what he was elected to do...It will be interesting to see G.c.c. response...
Sorry jrb, and my sincere apologies to Councillor Watson. I should qualify my comment by saying that I (as usual) refer to the selfish, controlling-group of councillors on the executive committee... i.e. the ones who appear weekly in the ET (or YouTube) to take the plaudits for things they never do.
Thank you Sydney.As I've stated on a number of occasions Im no lover of labour party policies nor a labour supporter,But in the case of councillor Watson this is not the first time he has backed the people of cardonald regardless of their political views and in the face of labour party thinking.If you examine his record of working for the community, you will be hard pushed to find anyone from any party who can compare.And I Do agree with your good self that those who represent the voters of this city and who fail to act on their behalf should be named ,shamed and hounded out....
Posted by: IainGlasgow07, glasgow on 5:10pm Fri 7 Mar 08
I have a better idea. Everyone could club together, buy a plot of land, build a 20ft fence around it and put all the neds inside it. That way they can't leave pavements covered in their broken Buckfast and MD 2020 bottles, chewing gum and spittle or draw on shop shutters.
Problem solved
I have a better idea. Everyone could club together, buy a plot of land, build a 20ft fence around it and put all the neds inside it. That way they can't leave pavements covered in their broken Buckfast and MD 2020 bottles, chewing gum and spittle or draw on shop shutters.
Problem solved
Posted by: Whatever, Wherever on 5:15pm Fri 7 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote:
This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on [bold]acting tough[/bold] on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. [bold]The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.[/bold] [/quote] .....And so say all of us!
Ignore jrb he'll/she'll be one of the sycophants. I've had first hand knowledge of Cllr Watson and he's as bad as the rest. Will only act if he thinks he'll lose support at the polls.
Sydney Meriwether wrote:
This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on acting tough on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.
.....And so say all of us!
Ignore jrb he'll/she'll be one of the sycophants. I've had first hand knowledge of Cllr Watson and he's as bad as the rest. Will only act if he thinks he'll lose support at the polls.
Posted by: jrb, Glasgow on 5:50pm Fri 7 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote: This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on [bold]acting tough[/bold] on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. [bold]The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.[/bold] [/quote] .....And so say all of us! Ignore jrb he'll/she'll be one of the sycophants. I've had first hand knowledge of Cllr Watson and he's as bad as the rest. Will only act if he thinks he'll lose support at the polls.[/quote] Yes and ives first hand knowledge of your type loudmouthed and not a great deal to say,away and have a chat with "holy willie"...
Whatever wrote:
Sydney Meriwether wrote: This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on acting tough on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.
.....And so say all of us! Ignore jrb he'll/she'll be one of the sycophants. I've had first hand knowledge of Cllr Watson and he's as bad as the rest. Will only act if he thinks he'll lose support at the polls.
Yes and ives first hand knowledge of your type loudmouthed and not a great deal to say,away and have a chat with "holy willie"...
Posted by: gordyboy, glasgow on 5:50pm Fri 7 Mar 08
[quote][bold]IainGlasgow07[/bold] wrote:
I have a better idea. Everyone could club together, buy a plot of land, build a 20ft fence around it and put all the neds inside it. That way they can't leave pavements covered in their broken Buckfast and MD 2020 bottles, chewing gum and spittle or draw on shop shutters. Problem solved[/quote] I hope you will be including a pack of half starved pitbulls, with a penchant for dodgy burberry clothing, to feast on in your enclosure
IainGlasgow07 wrote:
I have a better idea. Everyone could club together, buy a plot of land, build a 20ft fence around it and put all the neds inside it. That way they can't leave pavements covered in their broken Buckfast and MD 2020 bottles, chewing gum and spittle or draw on shop shutters. Problem solved
I hope you will be including a pack of half starved pitbulls, with a penchant for dodgy burberry clothing, to feast on in your enclosure
Posted by: Whoop-de_doo, Arizona on 5:56pm Fri 7 Mar 08
[quote][bold]IainGlasgow07[/bold] wrote:
I have a better idea. Everyone could club together, buy a plot of land, build a 20ft fence around it and put all the neds inside it. That way they can't leave pavements covered in their broken Buckfast and MD 2020 bottles, chewing gum and spittle or draw on shop shutters. Problem solved[/quote] I thought they had one of these already...and it was called Barlinnie !
IainGlasgow07 wrote:
I have a better idea. Everyone could club together, buy a plot of land, build a 20ft fence around it and put all the neds inside it. That way they can't leave pavements covered in their broken Buckfast and MD 2020 bottles, chewing gum and spittle or draw on shop shutters. Problem solved
I thought they had one of these already...and it was called Barlinnie !
Posted by: thistlemad, Ayrshire on 8:28pm Fri 7 Mar 08
Yet again the rights of the neds are paramount.
In a year or two when ADULTS are roaming the streets to protect their homes and surrounding areas it will be the COUNCILS and the POLITICIANS and the PC BRIGADE who have caused it!!!!!!!
Who knows, maybe then the courts might get the message, but I doubt it. They will STILL follow the "expert advice" of the bleedin heart social workers, most of whom, I SWEAR MUST live on Mars.
Yet again the rights of the neds are paramount.
In a year or two when ADULTS are roaming the streets to protect their homes and surrounding areas it will be the COUNCILS and the POLITICIANS and the PC BRIGADE who have caused it!!!!!!!
Who knows, maybe then the courts might get the message, but I doubt it. They will STILL follow the "expert advice" of the bleedin heart social workers, most of whom, I SWEAR MUST live on Mars.
Posted by: Grandpaw, Glasgow on 8:38pm Fri 7 Mar 08
We should ask ourselves why these decent people had to resort to erecting gates in the first place. Could it possibly be that they cannot rely on the almost invisible police force to prevent these neds from damaging their property and spoiling their way of life?
Could it be that they have lost faith in a system where, in the unlikely event of the neds being caught, they will be woefully dealt with ?
We should ask ourselves why these decent people had to resort to erecting gates in the first place. Could it possibly be that they cannot rely on the almost invisible police force to prevent these neds from damaging their property and spoiling their way of life?
Could it be that they have lost faith in a system where, in the unlikely event of the neds being caught, they will be woefully dealt with ?
Posted by: trench, possilpark on 11:13pm Fri 7 Mar 08
rose, i liked the idea of the 2x4!but see how quick the polis would turn up then!(i could bring my 2 freinds....smith and wesson, they are real fire crackers!.
rose, i liked the idea of the 2x4!but see how quick the polis would turn up then!(i could bring my 2 freinds....smith and wesson, they are real fire crackers!.
Posted by: Whatever, Wherever on 9:57am Sat 8 Mar 08
[quote][bold]jrb[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote: This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on [bold]acting tough[/bold] on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. [bold]The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.[/bold] [/quote] .....And so say all of us! Ignore jrb he'll/she'll be one of the sycophants. I've had first hand knowledge of Cllr Watson and he's as bad as the rest. Will only act if he thinks he'll lose support at the polls.[/quote] Yes and ives first hand knowledge of your type loudmouthed and not a great deal to say,away and have a chat with "holy willie"...[/quote] Crackin' command of English jrb, doubt if you've ever had experience of " my type". BTW did you not see my post on Holy Willie's Epitaph?
jrb wrote:
Whatever wrote: Sydney Meriwether wrote: This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on acting tough on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.
.....And so say all of us! Ignore jrb he'll/she'll be one of the sycophants. I've had first hand knowledge of Cllr Watson and he's as bad as the rest. Will only act if he thinks he'll lose support at the polls.
Yes and ives first hand knowledge of your type loudmouthed and not a great deal to say,away and have a chat with "holy willie"...
Crackin' command of English jrb, doubt if you've ever had experience of " my type". BTW did you not see my post on Holy Willie's Epitaph?
Posted by: jrb, Glasgow on 10:29am Sat 8 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]jrb[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote: This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on [bold]acting tough[/bold] on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. [bold]The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.[/bold] [/quote] .....And so say all of us! Ignore jrb he'll/she'll be one of the sycophants. I've had first hand knowledge of Cllr Watson and he's as bad as the rest. Will only act if he thinks he'll lose support at the polls.[/quote] Yes and ives first hand knowledge of your type loudmouthed and not a great deal to say,away and have a chat with "holy willie"...[/quote] Crackin' command of English jrb, doubt if you've ever had experience of " my type". BTW did you not see my post on Holy Willie's Epitaph?[/quote] Whoever or whatever you are I can guess your "type" arrogant,obnoxious and people probably leave the room when you enter.just remember dumbo you started the name calling and if you want to carry on with your childish behaviour so be it.....
Whatever wrote:
jrb wrote: Whatever wrote: Sydney Meriwether wrote: This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on acting tough on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.
.....And so say all of us! Ignore jrb he'll/she'll be one of the sycophants. I've had first hand knowledge of Cllr Watson and he's as bad as the rest. Will only act if he thinks he'll lose support at the polls.
Yes and ives first hand knowledge of your type loudmouthed and not a great deal to say,away and have a chat with "holy willie"...
Crackin' command of English jrb, doubt if you've ever had experience of " my type". BTW did you not see my post on Holy Willie's Epitaph?
Whoever or whatever you are I can guess your "type" arrogant,obnoxious and people probably leave the room when you enter.just remember dumbo you started the name calling and if you want to carry on with your childish behaviour so be it.....
Posted by: Whatever, Wherever on 4:50pm Sat 8 Mar 08
[quote][bold]jrb[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]jrb[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote: This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on [bold]acting tough[/bold] on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. [bold]The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.[/bold] [/quote] .....And so say all of us! Ignore jrb he'll/she'll be one of the sycophants. I've had first hand knowledge of Cllr Watson and he's as bad as the rest. Will only act if he thinks he'll lose support at the polls.[/quote] Yes and ives first hand knowledge of your type loudmouthed and not a great deal to say,away and have a chat with "holy willie"...[/quote] Crackin' command of English jrb, doubt if you've ever had experience of " my type". BTW did you not see my post on Holy Willie's Epitaph?[/quote] Whoever or whatever you are I can guess your "type" arrogant,obnoxious and people probably leave the room when you enter.just remember dumbo you started the name calling and if you want to carry on with your childish behaviour so be it.....[/quote] ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzz
jrb wrote:
Whatever wrote: jrb wrote: Whatever wrote: Sydney Meriwether wrote: This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on acting tough on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.
.....And so say all of us! Ignore jrb he'll/she'll be one of the sycophants. I've had first hand knowledge of Cllr Watson and he's as bad as the rest. Will only act if he thinks he'll lose support at the polls.
Yes and ives first hand knowledge of your type loudmouthed and not a great deal to say,away and have a chat with "holy willie"...
Crackin' command of English jrb, doubt if you've ever had experience of " my type". BTW did you not see my post on Holy Willie's Epitaph?
Whoever or whatever you are I can guess your "type" arrogant,obnoxious and people probably leave the room when you enter.just remember dumbo you started the name calling and if you want to carry on with your childish behaviour so be it.....
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzz
Posted by: jrb, glasgow on 5:41pm Sat 8 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]jrb[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]jrb[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Sydney Meriwether[/bold] wrote: This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on [bold]acting tough[/bold] on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. [bold]The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.[/bold] [/quote] .....And so say all of us! Ignore jrb he'll/she'll be one of the sycophants. I've had first hand knowledge of Cllr Watson and he's as bad as the rest. Will only act if he thinks he'll lose support at the polls.[/quote] Yes and ives first hand knowledge of your type loudmouthed and not a great deal to say,away and have a chat with "holy willie"...[/quote] Crackin' command of English jrb, doubt if you've ever had experience of " my type". BTW did you not see my post on Holy Willie's Epitaph?[/quote] Whoever or whatever you are I can guess your "type" arrogant,obnoxious and people probably leave the room when you enter.just remember dumbo you started the name calling and if you want to carry on with your childish behaviour so be it.....[/quote] ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz[/quote] Another LOSER bites the dust....
Whatever wrote:
jrb wrote: Whatever wrote: jrb wrote: Whatever wrote: Sydney Meriwether wrote: This is yet another sorry example of how Glasgow councillors will expend any amount of hot air on acting tough on criminal behaviour, but when it comes to taking action they are too busy pursuing their own self-interests, or ensuring the people don't have a say. The quicker we are rid of this Purcell-led fiasco, the quicker we can start to actually improve our communities, rather than enhance the accounts of private companies.
.....And so say all of us! Ignore jrb he'll/she'll be one of the sycophants. I've had first hand knowledge of Cllr Watson and he's as bad as the rest. Will only act if he thinks he'll lose support at the polls.
Yes and ives first hand knowledge of your type loudmouthed and not a great deal to say,away and have a chat with "holy willie"...
Crackin' command of English jrb, doubt if you've ever had experience of " my type". BTW did you not see my post on Holy Willie's Epitaph?
Whoever or whatever you are I can guess your "type" arrogant,obnoxious and people probably leave the room when you enter.just remember dumbo you started the name calling and if you want to carry on with your childish behaviour so be it.....
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz
Another LOSER bites the dust....
Posted by: Whatever, Wherever on 6:08pm Sat 8 Mar 08
OK Alister, you win.
Posted by: jrb, Glasgow on 8:31pm Sat 8 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote:
OK Alister, you win.[/quote] Thank you.Now we can discuss, agree, differ in a grown up and civilised manner.fair enough to point out any difference in opinion you have with fellow posters,but you can alienate yourself if you resort to personnel remarks,lighthearted rebuffs are acceptable and can add to the debate, so I'll look forward to your future postings and no doubt some lively discussion
Whatever wrote:
OK Alister, you win.
Thank you.Now we can discuss, agree, differ in a grown up and civilised manner.fair enough to point out any difference in opinion you have with fellow posters,but you can alienate yourself if you resort to personnel remarks,lighthearted rebuffs are acceptable and can add to the debate, so I'll look forward to your future postings and no doubt some lively discussion
Posted by: Whatever, Wherever on 10:08am Sun 9 Mar 08
So, it is you Mr Watson! Your arrogance astounds me seconded only by your lack of humour. You have obviously missed the whole tenor of this exchange
For you reference:
Dramatic irony (noun)- situation where the character is unaware of something the audience (i.e.rest of the posters) knows.
Lol.
So, it is you Mr Watson! Your arrogance astounds me seconded only by your lack of humour. You have obviously missed the whole tenor of this exchange
For you reference:
Dramatic irony (noun)- situation where the character is unaware of something the audience (i.e.rest of the posters) knows.
Lol.
Posted by: marshall conklin, New Jersey, USA on 10:44am Sun 9 Mar 08
We have the same problem in the US...
The victims rights are not enforced, but God forbid the civil rights of the wrongdoers should be violated!!!!
Glasgow born, Sandra Conklin
We have the same problem in the US...
The victims rights are not enforced, but God forbid the civil rights of the wrongdoers should be violated!!!!
Glasgow born, Sandra Conklin
Posted by: jrb, Glasgow on 4:43pm Sun 9 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote:
So, it is you Mr Watson! Your arrogance astounds me seconded only by your lack of humour. You have obviously missed the whole tenor of this exchange For you reference: Dramatic irony (noun)- situation where the character is unaware of something the audience (i.e.rest of the posters) knows. Lol. [/quote] Okay dum-dum you had your chance, I don't usually respond to thickos but in your case I'll make an exception....
Whatever wrote:
So, it is you Mr Watson! Your arrogance astounds me seconded only by your lack of humour. You have obviously missed the whole tenor of this exchange For you reference: Dramatic irony (noun)- situation where the character is unaware of something the audience (i.e.rest of the posters) knows. Lol.
Okay dum-dum you had your chance, I don't usually respond to thickos but in your case I'll make an exception....
Posted by: jrb, glasgow on 4:54pm Sun 9 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote:
So, it is you Mr Watson! Your arrogance astounds me seconded only by your lack of humour. You have obviously missed the whole tenor of this exchange For you reference: Dramatic irony (noun)- situation where the character is unaware of something the audience (i.e.rest of the posters) knows. Lol. [/quote] And your wrong about who you think I am.....sucker
Whatever wrote:
So, it is you Mr Watson! Your arrogance astounds me seconded only by your lack of humour. You have obviously missed the whole tenor of this exchange For you reference: Dramatic irony (noun)- situation where the character is unaware of something the audience (i.e.rest of the posters) knows. Lol.
And your wrong about who you think I am.....sucker
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 5:27pm Sun 9 Mar 08
yet more evidence or proof that the Planning legislation we have at present needs to be simplified to benefit and help everyday people, and communities as a whole.
Not just speeded up to benefit the corporate companies and private building contractors who are throwing up shoddy flats left, right and centre.
This is simply a case of G.C.C. being pernickety and awkward towards an issue which I'm sure will be granted permission anyway.
Yes - maybe permission should of been sought through the current legislation we have in place. But - why potenially have to remove the gates till permission is granted ?
All G.C.C. are doing is costing us tax payers more, in beurocracy and red tape - when we could see a far better & more straightforwards process in our current planning laws.
yet more evidence or proof that the Planning legislation we have at present needs to be simplified to benefit and help everyday people, and communities as a whole.
Not just speeded up to benefit the corporate companies and private building contractors who are throwing up shoddy flats left, right and centre.
This is simply a case of G.C.C. being pernickety and awkward towards an issue which I'm sure will be granted permission anyway.
Yes - maybe permission should of been sought through the current legislation we have in place. But - why potenially have to remove the gates till permission is granted ?
All G.C.C. are doing is costing us tax payers more, in beurocracy and red tape - when we could see a far better & more straightforwards process in our current planning laws.
Posted by: jrb, Glasgow on 6:55pm Sun 9 Mar 08
[quote][bold]People Power[/bold] wrote:
yet more evidence or proof that the Planning legislation we have at present needs to be simplified to benefit and help everyday people, and communities as a whole. Not just speeded up to benefit the corporate companies and private building contractors who are throwing up shoddy flats left, right and centre. This is simply a case of G.C.C. being pernickety and awkward towards an issue which I'm sure will be granted permission anyway. Yes - maybe permission should of been sought through the current legislation we have in place. But - why potenially have to remove the gates till permission is granted ? All G.C.C. are doing is costing us tax payers more, in beurocracy and red tape - when we could see a far better & more straightforwards process in our current planning laws. [/quote] Isn't it strange that nearly three years after the erection of the gates G.c.c tell residents that due to one complaint, planning permission is needed ,talk about comical...
People Power wrote:
yet more evidence or proof that the Planning legislation we have at present needs to be simplified to benefit and help everyday people, and communities as a whole. Not just speeded up to benefit the corporate companies and private building contractors who are throwing up shoddy flats left, right and centre. This is simply a case of G.C.C. being pernickety and awkward towards an issue which I'm sure will be granted permission anyway. Yes - maybe permission should of been sought through the current legislation we have in place. But - why potenially have to remove the gates till permission is granted ? All G.C.C. are doing is costing us tax payers more, in beurocracy and red tape - when we could see a far better & more straightforwards process in our current planning laws.
Isn't it strange that nearly three years after the erection of the gates G.c.c tell residents that due to one complaint, planning permission is needed ,talk about comical...
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 7:58pm Sun 9 Mar 08
Aye - that lot need a serious look at their planning legislation - as it is an absolute farce this situation has come about!
Perhaps some councillors could also do with having a brain scan, as I'm having serious doubts as to whether they've lost them, or if their even using them ?
Unbelieveable!
Aye - that lot need a serious look at their planning legislation - as it is an absolute farce this situation has come about!
Perhaps some councillors could also do with having a brain scan, as I'm having serious doubts as to whether they've lost them, or if their even using them ?
Unbelieveable!
Posted by: Whatever, Wherever on 9:14am Mon 10 Mar 08
jrb
Dramatic irony (noun)- situation where the character is unaware of something the audience (i.e.rest of the posters) knows. Lol.
jrb
Dramatic irony (noun)- situation where the character is unaware of something the audience (i.e.rest of the posters) knows. Lol.
Posted by: Whatever, Wherever on 9:39am Mon 10 Mar 08
[italic]Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 5:27pm Sun 9 Mar 08
Yes - maybe permission should of been sought through the current legislation we have in place.[/italic]
[italic]Definitely[/italic] permission should have been sought and the aforementioned pal of jrb should have known.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 5:27pm Sun 9 Mar 08
Yes - maybe permission should of been sought through the current legislation we have in place.
Definitely permission should have been sought and the aforementioned pal of jrb should have known.
Posted by: Whatever, Wherever on 10:04am Mon 10 Mar 08
[italic]People power said:
Perhaps some councillors could also do with having a brain scan, as I'm having serious doubts as to whether they've lost them, or if their even using them ?[/italic]
There wouldn't be anything to scan!
People power said:
Perhaps some councillors could also do with having a brain scan, as I'm having serious doubts as to whether they've lost them, or if their even using them ?
There wouldn't be anything to scan!
Posted by: jrb, glasgow on 11:12am Mon 10 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote:
jrb Dramatic irony (noun)- situation where the character is unaware of something the audience (i.e.rest of the posters) knows. Lol. [/quote] And your the only poster that can have have sensible discussion with Holy Willie...LOSER..
Whatever wrote:
jrb Dramatic irony (noun)- situation where the character is unaware of something the audience (i.e.rest of the posters) knows. Lol.
And your the only poster that can have have sensible discussion with Holy Willie...LOSER..
Posted by: Whatever, Wherever on 1:49pm Mon 10 Mar 08
[quote][bold]jrb[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote: jrb Dramatic irony (noun)- situation where the character is unaware of something the audience (i.e.rest of the posters) knows. Lol. [/quote] And your the only poster that can have have sensible discussion with Holy Willie...LOSER..[/quote] Come on, you can do better than that!
jrb wrote:
Whatever wrote: jrb Dramatic irony (noun)- situation where the character is unaware of something the audience (i.e.rest of the posters) knows. Lol.
And your the only poster that can have have sensible discussion with Holy Willie...LOSER..
Come on, you can do better than that!
Posted by: jrb, glasgow on 3:22pm Mon 10 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]jrb[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote: jrb Dramatic irony (noun)- situation where the character is unaware of something the audience (i.e.rest of the posters) knows. Lol. [/quote] And your the only poster that can have have sensible discussion with Holy Willie...LOSER..[/quote] Come on, you can do better than that![/quote] Of course I Can but I'll keep that for another time...Loooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
oooser
Whatever wrote:
jrb wrote: Whatever wrote: jrb Dramatic irony (noun)- situation where the character is unaware of something the audience (i.e.rest of the posters) knows. Lol.
And your the only poster that can have have sensible discussion with Holy Willie...LOSER..
Come on, you can do better than that!
Of course I Can but I'll keep that for another time...Loooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
oooser
Posted by: Whatever, Wherever on 5:31pm Mon 10 Mar 08
[italic]jrb wrote:
Of course I Can but I'll keep that for another time...Loooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
oooser[/italic]
Oh goody, I love you too.
jrb wrote:
Of course I Can but I'll keep that for another time...Loooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
oooser
Oh goody, I love you too.
Posted by: jrb, glasgow on 6:26pm Mon 10 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Whatever[/bold] wrote:
[italic]jrb wrote: Of course I Can but I'll keep that for another time...Loooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooo oooser[/italic] Oh goody, I love you too.[/quote] OH! MY your one of them.....
Whatever wrote:
jrb wrote: Of course I Can but I'll keep that for another time...Loooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooo oooser Oh goody, I love you too.
OH! MY your one of them.....
Posted by: Whatever, Wherever on 9:05am Tue 11 Mar 08
One of what?
Comment | Read Comments (48)
