A Christian group which claimed a sex shop could attract sexual offenders into the borough has failed in its bid to stop the establishment renewing its licence.
Twickenham Christian Concern claimed the Private Shop, in Kew Road, Richmond, may be encouraging undesirable people to visit the residential area, near the Falcons Preparatory School for Boys.
However, Richmond Council’s licensing sub-committee said on Wednesday, February 29, that it had no evidence this was true and it could not make its judgement based on the group’s moral objections.
Rosemary Jarvis, of Twickenham Christian Concern, said: “It could well be undesirable people are coming to the shop which we perhaps prefer not to have in our borough.
“I could show you pictures from the papers of people who police have arrested because they’ve committed certain sexual crimes.
“I know you can’t necessarily prove that because there’s a sex shop in the vicinity that person has been into the sex shop and therefore committed that crime, but people concerned about sexual crime feel vulnerable when there’s a sex shop or anything of that nature.”
Clive Sullivan, a management consultant for the Private Shop, said none of its products were illegal or harmful to customers.
He told the committee: “The mere fact people don’t like a sex shop is not a ground on which you can refuse. Parliament has decided sex shops can exist, what it has done is given you the power to control those establishments.”
Councillor Brian Miller, of the licensing sub-committee, said no neighbours of the Private Shop or the police had complained about it since the authority first granted it a licence in 2005.
But the meeting heard 86 per cent of respondents to a council survey in 2010 said they did not want any sex shops in the borough.
The committee granted the Private Shop’s application to renew its licence because it said it had no grounds to refuse.
Comments
Not saying for one moment that I approve of them or their methods, but I'm sure if a fundamentalist muslim group had raised objections to this house of filth, the judiciary would have bent over backwards to appease them.
Not saying for one moment that I approve of them or their methods, but I'm sure if a fundamentalist muslim group had raised objections to this house of filth, the judiciary would have bent over backwards to appease them.
You may be sure, Edwina, but you would be entirely wrong.
You may be sure, Edwina, but you would be entirely wrong.
Gareth Roberts says
"You may be sure, Edwina, but you would be entirely wrong."
==================
Why, Gareth?
Gareth Roberts says
"You may be sure, Edwina, but you would be entirely wrong."
==================
Why, Gareth?
Because, Edwina, the Licensing Sub-Committee is required to act within the law of the land. This from the relevant council web page will help your understanding
"For a representation to be relevant it must be one that is about the likely effect of the application on the promotion of one or more of the four licensing objectives. Also, if the representation is made by an interested party it will not be relevant if the licensing authority considers it to be vexatious or frivolous.
In addition a representation has to be based on more than what an interested party might think or fear may happen. There needs to be real evidence to back up the representation or clear evidence of actual problems relating to the licensing objectives in the Representation. Based on the decision in Daniel Thwaites Plc v Wirral Borough Magistrates Court & Saughall Massie Conservation Society v Wirral Borough Council (2008) a sub committee determining an opposed application will judge each case on its merits; but must make its decision on firm evidence or reasonable expectations based on specific facts and not on speculation."
As you see, the background of the applicant makes not one jot, no matter how much you think it does.
Because, Edwina, the Licensing Sub-Committee is required to act within the law of the land. This from the relevant council web page will help your understanding
"For a representation to be relevant it must be one that is about the likely effect of the application on the promotion of one or more of the four licensing objectives. Also, if the representation is made by an interested party it will not be relevant if the licensing authority considers it to be vexatious or frivolous.
In addition a representation has to be based on more than what an interested party might think or fear may happen. There needs to be real evidence to back up the representation or clear evidence of actual problems relating to the licensing objectives in the Representation. Based on the decision in Daniel Thwaites Plc v Wirral Borough Magistrates Court & Saughall Massie Conservation Society v Wirral Borough Council (2008) a sub committee determining an opposed application will judge each case on its merits; but must make its decision on firm evidence or reasonable expectations based on specific facts and not on speculation."
As you see, the background of the applicant makes not one jot, no matter how much you think it does.
Gareth Roberts says...
As you see, the background of the applicant makes not one jot, no matter how much you think it does.
-------------------
Gareth, believe what you will. You seem either very young or naive. The Law of the Land forbids polygamy, but shuts its eyes so as not to offend fundamentalist muslims. Same goes for the vile practice of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation). I wish I was wrong.
Gareth Roberts says...
As you see, the background of the applicant makes not one jot, no matter how much you think it does.
-------------------
Gareth, believe what you will. You seem either very young or naive. The Law of the Land forbids polygamy, but shuts its eyes so as not to offend fundamentalist muslims. Same goes for the vile practice of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation). I wish I was wrong.
But Edwina, appalling as those practices are they bear no relevance on the subject we are discussing.
You launched into a pretty lazy, if I may say, argument and then when challenged fail to provide any proof to back up your original assertion.
But Edwina, appalling as those practices are they bear no relevance on the subject we are discussing.
You launched into a pretty lazy, if I may say, argument and then when challenged fail to provide any proof to back up your original assertion.
I'd just like to point out that the shop would not have had to have closed if it did not get its licence. The licence allows them to sell a different class of goods. In having a licence the Council has more of a say in it's operation. For example - with a licence the shop cannot have a display and has to it's windows covered. Without a licence the shop can display what it likes in its windows. What would you prefer on your high street, a relatively anonymous shop with no window display or one that has lurid sexual items on display for every passerby to see? Therefore, it makes sense to issue a licence despite how repellent the issue is to some.
I'd just like to point out that the shop would not have had to have closed if it did not get its licence. The licence allows them to sell a different class of goods. In having a licence the Council has more of a say in it's operation. For example - with a licence the shop cannot have a display and has to it's windows covered. Without a licence the shop can display what it likes in its windows. What would you prefer on your high street, a relatively anonymous shop with no window display or one that has lurid sexual items on display for every passerby to see? Therefore, it makes sense to issue a licence despite how repellent the issue is to some.
Methinks you've been reading too much of the Daily Mail Edwina...
Methinks you've been reading too much of the Daily Mail Edwina...
Gareth Roberts wrote…
Because, Edwina, the Licensing Sub-Committee is required to act within the law of the land. This from the relevant council web page will help your understanding "For a representation to be relevant it must be one that is about the likely effect of the application on the promotion of one or more of the four licensing objectives. Also, if the representation is made by an interested party it will not be relevant if the licensing authority considers it to be vexatious or frivolous. In addition a representation has to be based on more than what an interested party might think or fear may happen. There needs to be real evidence to back up the representation or clear evidence of actual problems relating to the licensing objectives in the Representation. Based on the decision in Daniel Thwaites Plc v Wirral Borough Magistrates Court & Saughall Massie Conservation Society v Wirral Borough Council (2008) a sub committee determining an opposed application will judge each case on its merits; but must make its decision on firm evidence or reasonable expectations based on specific facts and not on speculation." As you see, the background of the applicant makes not one jot, no matter how much you think it does.
Gareth, sorry to say this but you are applying the wrong legsislation to this. The licence for a sex shop isn't issued under the Licensing Act 2003, but under totally different legislation.
Gareth Roberts wrote…
Because, Edwina, the Licensing Sub-Committee is required to act within the law of the land. This from the relevant council web page will help your understanding "For a representation to be relevant it must be one that is about the likely effect of the application on the promotion of one or more of the four licensing objectives. Also, if the representation is made by an interested party it will not be relevant if the licensing authority considers it to be vexatious or frivolous. In addition a representation has to be based on more than what an interested party might think or fear may happen. There needs to be real evidence to back up the representation or clear evidence of actual problems relating to the licensing objectives in the Representation. Based on the decision in Daniel Thwaites Plc v Wirral Borough Magistrates Court & Saughall Massie Conservation Society v Wirral Borough Council (2008) a sub committee determining an opposed application will judge each case on its merits; but must make its decision on firm evidence or reasonable expectations based on specific facts and not on speculation." As you see, the background of the applicant makes not one jot, no matter how much you think it does.
Gareth, sorry to say this but you are applying the wrong legsislation to this. The licence for a sex shop isn't issued under the Licensing Act 2003, but under totally different legislation.
"Undesirable people coming to the shop..." - what, like the paedophile priests we hear so much about, perhaps? I'm sure Christian Concern have heard an old saying involving pots & kettles...
"Undesirable people coming to the shop..." - what, like the paedophile priests we hear so much about, perhaps? I'm sure Christian Concern have heard an old saying involving pots & kettles...
Gareth: I did not make a lazy reply. I mentioned the vile and cruel practices the fundamentalists continue to use in Britain. It is against the law here, but political correctness and bending over backwards not to offend the muslims, allows these practices to continue. Unfortunately, this country is in a sad state, despising at the worst and mocking at the best Wetsern Christian values. You can see how denisbrowne drones on about paedophic priests. Now that is a 'lazy' reply! Andre D remarks that I have been reading the Daily Mail. Never read such garbage, but the Daily Telegraph and evn the Guardian are full of the gross practices done NOT by Christians, but by Moslems. I can see this coversation is pointless, so all crawl back to you little NIMBY lives. I bet if a supermarket was opening near you, you'd all be up in arms.
Gareth: I did not make a lazy reply. I mentioned the vile and cruel practices the fundamentalists continue to use in Britain. It is against the law here, but political correctness and bending over backwards not to offend the muslims, allows these practices to continue. Unfortunately, this country is in a sad state, despising at the worst and mocking at the best Wetsern Christian values. You can see how denisbrowne drones on about paedophic priests. Now that is a 'lazy' reply! Andre D remarks that I have been reading the Daily Mail. Never read such garbage, but the Daily Telegraph and evn the Guardian are full of the gross practices done NOT by Christians, but by Moslems. I can see this coversation is pointless, so all crawl back to you little NIMBY lives. I bet if a supermarket was opening near you, you'd all be up in arms.
I understand that the council uses the wording to cover all license applications, Lucy. I didn't say that the Sex Shop License would have been issued under the 2003 legislation, merely that the protocols regarding representations from the public on any application are applied to all hearings.
I understand that the council uses the wording to cover all license applications, Lucy. I didn't say that the Sex Shop License would have been issued under the 2003 legislation, merely that the protocols regarding representations from the public on any application are applied to all hearings.
Surely the truly 'undesirable' people would be buying their filth anonymously online rather than in a public shop? I don't think you have to worry about perverts travelling into the area to buy some lacy pants - it's more likely that the main clientele are bored middle-class couples.
Surely the truly 'undesirable' people would be buying their filth anonymously online rather than in a public shop? I don't think you have to worry about perverts travelling into the area to buy some lacy pants - it's more likely that the main clientele are bored middle-class couples.
Edwina, I said that you made a lazy argument not a lazy reply.
The initial post in this thread is essentially lazy, in my opinion. As I say I don't support the appalling practices you mention but I think it is very easy for posts such as your original one to stoke tensions within society which spill out in the nastiest ways such as we have seen in Northern cities in recent years.
Edwina, I said that you made a lazy argument not a lazy reply.
The initial post in this thread is essentially lazy, in my opinion. As I say I don't support the appalling practices you mention but I think it is very easy for posts such as your original one to stoke tensions within society which spill out in the nastiest ways such as we have seen in Northern cities in recent years.
Gareth: The nastiest activities were instigated by moslems. In the Norhern cities, the EDL and others who simply want to protect decency were gathered up like cattle and rendered helpless. The moslems proceeded to desecrate military memorials, cry 'Death to all non-moslems'cand carry imflamatory posters.
Gareth: The nastiest activities were instigated by moslems. In the Norhern cities, the EDL and others who simply want to protect decency were gathered up like cattle and rendered helpless. The moslems proceeded to desecrate military memorials, cry 'Death to all non-moslems'cand carry imflamatory posters.
Gareth Roberts wrote…
Edwina, I said that you made a lazy argument not a lazy reply. The initial post in this thread is essentially lazy, in my opinion. As I say I don't support the appalling practices you mention but I think it is very easy for posts such as your original one to stoke tensions within society which spill out in the nastiest ways such as we have seen in Northern cities in recent years.
I rather think that it is the opposite: by suppressing dissension you increase the tension (at least in the long term.)
Gareth Roberts wrote…
Edwina, I said that you made a lazy argument not a lazy reply. The initial post in this thread is essentially lazy, in my opinion. As I say I don't support the appalling practices you mention but I think it is very easy for posts such as your original one to stoke tensions within society which spill out in the nastiest ways such as we have seen in Northern cities in recent years.
I rather think that it is the opposite: by suppressing dissension you increase the tension (at least in the long term.)
Edwina, you're rather proving my point. You started off with an attack on fundamentalist Islamists, your latest post simply refers to 'The Moslems'.
Metis, I can see the point you're driving at but there's a difference between supressing dissension and allowing borderline bigotry to go unremarked
Edwina, you're rather proving my point. You started off with an attack on fundamentalist Islamists, your latest post simply refers to 'The Moslems'.
Metis, I can see the point you're driving at but there's a difference between supressing dissension and allowing borderline bigotry to go unremarked
Gareth: Just semantics. And speaking of bigotry, how dare you defend those who spit on the graves of our fallen soldiers?
These fundamentals are priveleged to be allowed to live in our once green and pleasant land.
Gareth: Just semantics. And speaking of bigotry, how dare you defend those who spit on the graves of our fallen soldiers?
These fundamentals are priveleged to be allowed to live in our once green and pleasant land.
Edwina, I don't.
Edwina, I don't.
Oh, dear, Edwina's shown her true colours, hasn't she? Probably best we all ignore her posts from now on. She's clearly not staggeringly bright.
Oh, dear, Edwina's shown her true colours, hasn't she? Probably best we all ignore her posts from now on. She's clearly not staggeringly bright.
Gareth Roberts wrote…
Edwina, you're rather proving my point. You started off with an attack on fundamentalist Islamists, your latest post simply refers to 'The Moslems'. Metis, I can see the point you're driving at but there's a difference between supressing dissension and allowing borderline bigotry to go unremarked
I am saying, Garath, that suppressing the debate has led to bigotry together with much anger and frustration.
Gareth Roberts wrote…
Edwina, you're rather proving my point. You started off with an attack on fundamentalist Islamists, your latest post simply refers to 'The Moslems'. Metis, I can see the point you're driving at but there's a difference between supressing dissension and allowing borderline bigotry to go unremarked
I am saying, Garath, that suppressing the debate has led to bigotry together with much anger and frustration.
twickersargyle says...
12:01am Fri 9 Mar 12
Oh, dear, Edwina's shown her true colours, hasn't she? Probably best we all ignore her posts from now on. She's clearly not staggeringly bright.
===================
This is classic response a troll uses when blogging. Note the "we" assuming that he/she speaks for everybody, and the personal insults "not staggeringly bright". I concede that there is no point continuing this argument. At least, I stirred the minds of quite a few to enter into a modern form of rhetoric. Mentally stimulating for some!
twickersargyle says...
12:01am Fri 9 Mar 12
Oh, dear, Edwina's shown her true colours, hasn't she? Probably best we all ignore her posts from now on. She's clearly not staggeringly bright.
===================
This is classic response a troll uses when blogging. Note the "we" assuming that he/she speaks for everybody, and the personal insults "not staggeringly bright". I concede that there is no point continuing this argument. At least, I stirred the minds of quite a few to enter into a modern form of rhetoric. Mentally stimulating for some!
I fear Edwina that you may have stirred more stomachs than you did minds.
I fear Edwina that you may have stirred more stomachs than you did minds.
The debate should not be suppressed, I agree, and we should see people in their true colours, form our own view, and speak up against stereotyping, discrimination and racism.
If a small minority of any nationality, religion, gender, colour, or sexual orientation behave in a bad way, or commit criminal acts, then by all means have a view about them as individuals.
It is absurd to generalise and claim that if a small group of white, British, and middle class men commit a vile or wicked offence, that makes all of the white, British, middle class men bad people, who should be locked up.
Also absurd is the implication that anyone who visits a "private shop" is likely to be a sex offender, therefore they should all be closed. Or that if you are not against them, then you must be for them. Personally, I'm not bothered, one way or the other.
The debate should not be suppressed, I agree, and we should see people in their true colours, form our own view, and speak up against stereotyping, discrimination and racism.
If a small minority of any nationality, religion, gender, colour, or sexual orientation behave in a bad way, or commit criminal acts, then by all means have a view about them as individuals.
It is absurd to generalise and claim that if a small group of white, British, and middle class men commit a vile or wicked offence, that makes all of the white, British, middle class men bad people, who should be locked up.
Also absurd is the implication that anyone who visits a "private shop" is likely to be a sex offender, therefore they should all be closed. Or that if you are not against them, then you must be for them. Personally, I'm not bothered, one way or the other.
I'm not trolling, Edwina. I'm simply suggesting that the views you've expressed in this thread are those of someone who isn't very bright. Or, at least, is very ignorant about Muslims.
I'm not trolling, Edwina. I'm simply suggesting that the views you've expressed in this thread are those of someone who isn't very bright. Or, at least, is very ignorant about Muslims.
twickersargyle says...
1:35pm Fri 9 Mar 12
Last post to you. I do not think you can assess my IQ or mental abilities by the fact that I disagree with your hypothesis. In the course of my academic work, I lived among moslems for more than 30 years, and knew who I was dealing with.
twickersargyle says...
1:35pm Fri 9 Mar 12
Last post to you. I do not think you can assess my IQ or mental abilities by the fact that I disagree with your hypothesis. In the course of my academic work, I lived among moslems for more than 30 years, and knew who I was dealing with.
Yes, but you seem to support the EDL.
Yes, but you seem to support the EDL.
It has been drawn to my attention that twickersargyle has used ad hominem insults to reinforce his limited use of language. He writes that I appear not very bright and that I seem to support the EDL. With a non de plum such as he or she has, it appears that he/she is a Scottish marxist, or at the best Nat Lib. In any case, EDL, marxists, and Nat Libs are all legitimate parties. As it happens I do not belong to any political party, and did not vote for any of them as they all seem as useless as each other. twickerargyle should learn to curb his/her tongue or typing finger, and learn to debate in a civilised manner.
It has been drawn to my attention that twickersargyle has used ad hominem insults to reinforce his limited use of language. He writes that I appear not very bright and that I seem to support the EDL. With a non de plum such as he or she has, it appears that he/she is a Scottish marxist, or at the best Nat Lib. In any case, EDL, marxists, and Nat Libs are all legitimate parties. As it happens I do not belong to any political party, and did not vote for any of them as they all seem as useless as each other. twickerargyle should learn to curb his/her tongue or typing finger, and learn to debate in a civilised manner.
of course the big question in this whole debate is "where is Philip taylor?". if there was ever a flame to which Mr Taylor's moth was drawn it is the issue of the Richmond Private Shop but comment comes there none. Has anybody popped round to check he has been taking his milk bottles in?
of course the big question in this whole debate is "where is Philip taylor?". if there was ever a flame to which Mr Taylor's moth was drawn it is the issue of the Richmond Private Shop but comment comes there none. Has anybody popped round to check he has been taking his milk bottles in?
Perhaps a lower profile is being kept ahead of an unscheduled change to the make up of the council? Intriguing!
Perhaps a lower profile is being kept ahead of an unscheduled change to the make up of the council? Intriguing!
I'm interested to note that a third of the posts on this thread are from LibDem Councillor Gareth Roberts - there are many other members of the planning committee but he seems to be the only one to have taken a keen interest in this matter. Perhaps his last two posts show what his real agenda is - some sort of inter-party machination which we, poor punters, are not privy to - best kept in the Council chamber unless you are prepared to explain, don't you think Gareth? It's always a bit sad when you have to send out two invitations to your party and still nobody want's to come to play, as he has done. If I were him, I would stick to sparring with the somewhat less fragrant Edwina Waugh.
Alex
PS: As to the Private Shop, I struggle to see what all the fuss is about. It's discreet, it serves a need otherwise it wouldn't exist and we live in a supposedly secular society. What's so wrong with that?
I'm interested to note that a third of the posts on this thread are from LibDem Councillor Gareth Roberts - there are many other members of the planning committee but he seems to be the only one to have taken a keen interest in this matter. Perhaps his last two posts show what his real agenda is - some sort of inter-party machination which we, poor punters, are not privy to - best kept in the Council chamber unless you are prepared to explain, don't you think Gareth? It's always a bit sad when you have to send out two invitations to your party and still nobody want's to come to play, as he has done. If I were him, I would stick to sparring with the somewhat less fragrant Edwina Waugh.
Alex
PS: As to the Private Shop, I struggle to see what all the fuss is about. It's discreet, it serves a need otherwise it wouldn't exist and we live in a supposedly secular society. What's so wrong with that?
A few points, if I may, Alex.
This is a licensing issue, not planning.
Explanations? Why certainly. As you'll well remember from the now defunct Voxpops pages, Alex, the issue of the Private Shop has been one which has exercised Mr Taylor for many years; it has come up before licensing twice and both times under Conservative administrations, though Mr Taylor likes to suggest that it is entirely the fault of the licentious Lib Dems.
The reason I'm interested in is that the Tories may well need to call a Bye-Election in North Richmond soon, given that one of their current councillors now works in Barbados - not been seen in the council chamber since long before Christmas or at any committee meetings either. I don't know if he's still claiming his allowance. Of course that will mean they will require a candidate and as a previous councillor for the ward Mr Taylor may well be the one.
However given his rather....robust.... manner of expression perhaps he may have been instructed to follow the party line and keep schtumh online.
And - Stop Press - we're on the same page, Alex. The shop is discreet and personally I see no reason why it should have lost its license. As Angela M said, the truly objectionable shopper would be buying their niche products online or, worse still, sharing them.
A few points, if I may, Alex.
This is a licensing issue, not planning.
Explanations? Why certainly. As you'll well remember from the now defunct Voxpops pages, Alex, the issue of the Private Shop has been one which has exercised Mr Taylor for many years; it has come up before licensing twice and both times under Conservative administrations, though Mr Taylor likes to suggest that it is entirely the fault of the licentious Lib Dems.
The reason I'm interested in is that the Tories may well need to call a Bye-Election in North Richmond soon, given that one of their current councillors now works in Barbados - not been seen in the council chamber since long before Christmas or at any committee meetings either. I don't know if he's still claiming his allowance. Of course that will mean they will require a candidate and as a previous councillor for the ward Mr Taylor may well be the one.
However given his rather....robust.... manner of expression perhaps he may have been instructed to follow the party line and keep schtumh online.
And - Stop Press - we're on the same page, Alex. The shop is discreet and personally I see no reason why it should have lost its license. As Angela M said, the truly objectionable shopper would be buying their niche products online or, worse still, sharing them.
alex twickenham wrote…
I'm interested to note that a third of the posts on this thread are from LibDem Councillor Gareth Roberts - there are many other members of the planning committee but he seems to be the only one to have taken a keen interest in this matter. Perhaps his last two posts show what his real agenda is - some sort of inter-party machination which we, poor punters, are not privy to - best kept in the Council chamber unless you are prepared to explain, don't you think Gareth? It's always a bit sad when you have to send out two invitations to your party and still nobody want's to come to play, as he has done. If I were him, I would stick to sparring with the somewhat less fragrant Edwina Waugh.
Alex
PS: As to the Private Shop, I struggle to see what all the fuss is about. It's discreet, it serves a need otherwise it wouldn't exist and we live in a supposedly secular society. What's so wrong with that?
Alex said: "As to the Private Shop, I struggle to see what all the fuss is about. It's discreet, it serves a need otherwise it wouldn't exist and we live in a supposedly secular society. What's so wrong with that?"
Exactly.
alex twickenham wrote…
I'm interested to note that a third of the posts on this thread are from LibDem Councillor Gareth Roberts - there are many other members of the planning committee but he seems to be the only one to have taken a keen interest in this matter. Perhaps his last two posts show what his real agenda is - some sort of inter-party machination which we, poor punters, are not privy to - best kept in the Council chamber unless you are prepared to explain, don't you think Gareth? It's always a bit sad when you have to send out two invitations to your party and still nobody want's to come to play, as he has done. If I were him, I would stick to sparring with the somewhat less fragrant Edwina Waugh.
Alex
PS: As to the Private Shop, I struggle to see what all the fuss is about. It's discreet, it serves a need otherwise it wouldn't exist and we live in a supposedly secular society. What's so wrong with that?
Alex said: "As to the Private Shop, I struggle to see what all the fuss is about. It's discreet, it serves a need otherwise it wouldn't exist and we live in a supposedly secular society. What's so wrong with that?"
Exactly.
alex, twickenham
"I would stick to sparring with the somewhat less fragrant Edwina Waugh."
That's not very nice, stinky pants! :-(
alex, twickenham
"I would stick to sparring with the somewhat less fragrant Edwina Waugh."
That's not very nice, stinky pants! :-(
Thank you Gareth, that makes it much clearer - I think. If my interpretation of your ....robustly rude....post is correct; you have chosen to or been tasked by your party masters to launch a pre-emptive strike on Phillip Taylor, an ex-Conservative Councillor who may or may not stand for election in a bye-election which may or not take place. Is that right? If so what does it have to do with this topic which is about the grant of a licence to The Private Shop? Mr Taylor has strongly held views on this topic which I respect even though I don't share them. By contrast, I've never heard any strong views from Gareth Roberts other than his slavish adherence to the LibDem party line.
Alex
PS:Could I please suggest that Gareth refrains from castigating others who veer of topic when he does so quite shamelessly when it suits him.
PPS: Sorry Edwina, I'm not a fan of the EDL - that's what downgraded your "fragrant" status!
Thank you Gareth, that makes it much clearer - I think. If my interpretation of your ....robustly rude....post is correct; you have chosen to or been tasked by your party masters to launch a pre-emptive strike on Phillip Taylor, an ex-Conservative Councillor who may or may not stand for election in a bye-election which may or not take place. Is that right? If so what does it have to do with this topic which is about the grant of a licence to The Private Shop? Mr Taylor has strongly held views on this topic which I respect even though I don't share them. By contrast, I've never heard any strong views from Gareth Roberts other than his slavish adherence to the LibDem party line.
Alex
PS:Could I please suggest that Gareth refrains from castigating others who veer of topic when he does so quite shamelessly when it suits him.
PPS: Sorry Edwina, I'm not a fan of the EDL - that's what downgraded your "fragrant" status!
alex twickenham says...
5:56pm Mon 12 Mar 12
Forgiven and all forgotten, Alex. By the way, I am no fan of ANY of the parties. All stinkers!
alex twickenham says...
5:56pm Mon 12 Mar 12
Forgiven and all forgotten, Alex. By the way, I am no fan of ANY of the parties. All stinkers!
alex twickenham says...
5:56pm Mon 12 Mar 12
Forgiven and all forgotten, Alex. By the way, I am no fan of ANY of the parties. All stinkers!
alex twickenham says...
5:56pm Mon 12 Mar 12
Forgiven and all forgotten, Alex. By the way, I am no fan of ANY of the parties. All stinkers!
What a dear conspiracy theorist you are, Alex; though I fear I have to disappoint you by revealing that I'm not a cyberspace assassin deployed by a shadowy cabal of Liberal Democrats. No Municipal Casca, I! This is Richmond Council after all, not Borgen.
As for off topic railings, I wasn't aware I made too many of them recently - more warming to a theme attacking cowardly anonymous postings, a theme which has been warmly received by those who have communicated privately with me on this issue.
Still, come tomorrow morning this thread will be lost, bumped off the list by the week's cut off date. Sex Shops and their detractors will be tomorrow's silicon chip wrappers, as indeed will be your complete lack of concern, Alex, that the Tories (for all their talk of being the great party of representation) are not only a man short in North Richmond but that they are doing nothing about it and, quite possibly, he's drawing his monthly allowance from the council tax payer.
What a dear conspiracy theorist you are, Alex; though I fear I have to disappoint you by revealing that I'm not a cyberspace assassin deployed by a shadowy cabal of Liberal Democrats. No Municipal Casca, I! This is Richmond Council after all, not Borgen.
As for off topic railings, I wasn't aware I made too many of them recently - more warming to a theme attacking cowardly anonymous postings, a theme which has been warmly received by those who have communicated privately with me on this issue.
Still, come tomorrow morning this thread will be lost, bumped off the list by the week's cut off date. Sex Shops and their detractors will be tomorrow's silicon chip wrappers, as indeed will be your complete lack of concern, Alex, that the Tories (for all their talk of being the great party of representation) are not only a man short in North Richmond but that they are doing nothing about it and, quite possibly, he's drawing his monthly allowance from the council tax payer.
This thread is completely bonkers. I think we may all have too much time on our hands.
This thread is completely bonkers. I think we may all have too much time on our hands.
Aah - private communications between Gareth and his chums -I need to be very afraid. Is there any wonder that I prefer to retain my anonymity?
As I have said before; I do hope that those who vote LibDem in Hampton read this thread before it disappears and realise quite what they are voting for - it's a bit unpleasant isn't it?
Alex
Aah - private communications between Gareth and his chums -I need to be very afraid. Is there any wonder that I prefer to retain my anonymity?
As I have said before; I do hope that those who vote LibDem in Hampton read this thread before it disappears and realise quite what they are voting for - it's a bit unpleasant isn't it?
Alex
Not chums, Alex, local residents who read these comments and let me know their thoughts because they can't for the life of them understand why people like me bother corresponding on sites like this when there are people, such as yourself, who are keen to be nasty and bitter but don't have the guts to say who they are. They have a point.
Funnily enough 'it's a bit unpleasant' just about sums up their views but they're not talking about me.....
As i say, the old Voxpops system was much better - you knew who you were dealing with.
Not chums, Alex, local residents who read these comments and let me know their thoughts because they can't for the life of them understand why people like me bother corresponding on sites like this when there are people, such as yourself, who are keen to be nasty and bitter but don't have the guts to say who they are. They have a point.
Funnily enough 'it's a bit unpleasant' just about sums up their views but they're not talking about me.....
As i say, the old Voxpops system was much better - you knew who you were dealing with.
Well - that's told me!
I'm pleased to hear that Gareth has an anonymous fan club.
Interestingly, the few people who leap to his defence on these pages all turn out to be fellow LibDem activists - strange that, isn't it?
Alex
Well - that's told me!
I'm pleased to hear that Gareth has an anonymous fan club.
Interestingly, the few people who leap to his defence on these pages all turn out to be fellow LibDem activists - strange that, isn't it?
Alex
Sorry Gareth, I forgot to ask; I can understand why you consider me nasty but where does the "bitter" bit come from?
Alex
Sorry Gareth, I forgot to ask; I can understand why you consider me nasty but where does the "bitter" bit come from?
Alex
This is so sad, and a true reflection of all that is wrong today. 43 comments, yes, 43, and not one relates to a spiritual value missing in contemporary British life. Sex shops, corruption of traditional values, and all that is discussed are petty local politics, and being spiteful to those with whom we do not agree. It's very sad.
This is so sad, and a true reflection of all that is wrong today. 43 comments, yes, 43, and not one relates to a spiritual value missing in contemporary British life. Sex shops, corruption of traditional values, and all that is discussed are petty local politics, and being spiteful to those with whom we do not agree. It's very sad.
Erm, and people bringing the EDF and strange views on Muslims into it, Edwina.
Erm, and people bringing the EDF and strange views on Muslims into it, Edwina.
Firstly, thank you to Edwina for giving me a good laugh out loud moment with her riposte to Alex. Hilarious.
Secondly, I don't think it is cowardly to express a view online without giving any or a full identification. The Vox Pops referred to were different, they were well managed and self contained, protected from search engine robots.
A balanced perspective sees a hint of menace in persisting with calling for commenters to be fully "outed". On the other hand, it is unfair for those not using their real or full name to make persistent personal attacks on a fully identified person, or to "unmask" someone else using a pseudonym.
Yes, this has nothing to with private shops, yes, this thread is bonkers, yes, I have too much time on my hands today, and yes this thread will be tomorrow's silcone chip wrapper and forgotten. Except for some underlying tensions and spats that repeatedly resurface on a range of topics.
Could everyone kiss and make up, but all done in the best possible taste?!
Firstly, thank you to Edwina for giving me a good laugh out loud moment with her riposte to Alex. Hilarious.
Secondly, I don't think it is cowardly to express a view online without giving any or a full identification. The Vox Pops referred to were different, they were well managed and self contained, protected from search engine robots.
A balanced perspective sees a hint of menace in persisting with calling for commenters to be fully "outed". On the other hand, it is unfair for those not using their real or full name to make persistent personal attacks on a fully identified person, or to "unmask" someone else using a pseudonym.
Yes, this has nothing to with private shops, yes, this thread is bonkers, yes, I have too much time on my hands today, and yes this thread will be tomorrow's silcone chip wrapper and forgotten. Except for some underlying tensions and spats that repeatedly resurface on a range of topics.
Could everyone kiss and make up, but all done in the best possible taste?!
Alex - have you considered that your willingness to be perfectly foul to anybody who opposes your pom-pom waving Tory orthodoxy may have something to do with the fact that we are a relatively small cohort of contributors?
Twickerargyle - EDL, surely, unless you find the conversation electrifying!
Alex - have you considered that your willingness to be perfectly foul to anybody who opposes your pom-pom waving Tory orthodoxy may have something to do with the fact that we are a relatively small cohort of contributors?
Twickerargyle - EDL, surely, unless you find the conversation electrifying!
I see that the Scottosh Marxist is still whinging on this thread
I see that the Scottosh Marxist is still whinging on this thread
Please excuse typing error: should have read Scottish Marxist
Please excuse typing error: should have read Scottish Marxist