P.K. Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 Sad is the word all right. It's almost as though it was invented just to describe you..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Cheesy Wheezy said: I logged out 20 minutes ago. I think you and Dilligaf (and Dilligafs angry wife) are now just arguing with yourselves. It’s sad really. Isn't it funny how it all gets revealed in the end? You only have to stay up long enough for it all to show. No doubt Dilligaf or his silly wife will now start a grammar picking contest to try to start some sort of pointless fight Take a few hours out and think about what you are saying CW. You may be surprised at what is in fact reality. Edit to add that my wife would never ever write on a forum or facebook. She actually pulls me up frequently for joining in the shite that is MF at the moment and stops me posting what I would like to. Edited May 5, 2019 by dilligaf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 3 minutes ago, Cheesy Wheezy said: Your childish jibes are pretty pointless. They don't work on me. I’m sure after your dropping of your guard and your revealing late night behaviour in the last few weeks most of the regulars are now laughing at you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 5, 2019 Share Posted May 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Cheesy Wheezy said: Your childish jibes are pretty pointless. They don't work on me. I’m sure after your dropping of your guard and your revealing late night behaviour in the last few weeks most of the regulars are now laughing at you You think so...? Then you're sadder then I thought. Clutching at any straw. "Dropping my guard" indeed. Laughable! Basically your (see what I did there?) constant accusations about others drinking are laughable! And you're still online after midnight. I wonder why that is....? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 I think this was the last on topic post so let’s begin afresh this morning. 15 hours ago, Ham_N_Eggs said: Nothing to do with Council experience Ashford was the person who put Quayle forward as the Chief Minister. He was also in the Cabinet Office and the closest Member to Quayle. Allinson is now in Cabinet Office so he'll probably get the next available ministerial position. It’s a chicken and egg dilemma. Was Ashford chosen to nominate Quayle and placed in the Cabinet Office because his time at the council put him in pole position from the newbies for the next minister’s job? He’d proven his establishment credentials in Council whilst the others were unknown quantities. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 45 minutes ago, Declan said: It’s a chicken and egg dilemma. Was Ashford chosen to nominate Quayle and placed in the Cabinet Office because his time at the council put him in pole position from the newbies for the next minister’s job? He’d proven his establishment credentials in Council whilst the others were unknown quantities. Surely the dilemma is making the best out of what you have...? Wait and see mode in the hope that the next "advisory" opinion piece doesn't get the "Lisvane treatment" as it's know. It often seems to me that the "Collective Responsibility" is all about maintaining the status quo and eff-all else.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buncha wankas Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 On 5/5/2019 at 9:53 AM, Ham_N_Eggs said: My understanding is that new MHK's were asked for what Department they prefer to be in. It was then up to the minister to decide who to take on. It could be said that having taken him on Mrs Beecroft rapidly realised his capabilities and so limited his ability to do harm to an incredibly sensitive area (see my previous comment where he contradicts himself within 2 minutes also tune into any committee he sits on). It may also have been that Beecroft herself had limited powers given Crouch's attitude towards politicians and so adding a bull in China shop into the mix probably wouldn't have been a great idea. Why she didn't just remove him is another question that only she can answer. More like, she chose Callister because his head was stuck firmly up her arse during the elections, a few laxatives later and he was ‘dumped’ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ham_N_Eggs Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, Declan said: I think this was the last on topic post so let’s begin afresh this morning. It’s a chicken and egg dilemma. Was Ashford chosen to nominate Quayle and placed in the Cabinet Office because his time at the council put him in pole position from the newbies for the next minister’s job? He’d proven his establishment credentials in Council whilst the others were unknown quantities. I am led to believe they knew each other hence the nomination. That's not to say you may not be on to something but working on your logic Anne Corlett would have been in with a shot. She was not only a Councillor but ran the government canteen. You couldn't get more establishment than the person who helped mould the Chief Minster into the fine figure he is. Granted she hasn't been mayor but that's not saying much if you look at the current incumbent. The other reason they may have given him the ministers role it to stop him asking questions before he stumbled on to something. Edited May 6, 2019 by Ham_N_Eggs 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 4 hours ago, Ham_N_Eggs said: I am led to believe they knew each other hence the nomination. That's not to say you may not be on to something but working on your logic Anne Corlett would have been in with a shot. She was not only a Councillor but ran the government canteen. You couldn't get more establishment than the person who helped mould the Chief Minster into the fine figure he is. Granted she hasn't been mayor but that's not saying much if you look at the current incumbent. The other reason they may have given him the ministers role it to stop him asking questions before he stumbled on to something. And too give him a ready supply of fresh blood 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentience Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 22 hours ago, dilligaf said: You actually are a sad little person, aren't you ? Do you by any chance know a poster called Charlie Brown ? And he's off and running! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 1 minute ago, Sentience said: And he's off and running! Er, That was yesterday, in a different situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentience Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, dilligaf said: Er, That was yesterday, in a different situation. Dilli...same old, same old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 Just now, Sentience said: Dilli...same old, same old. Can you not keep up then ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rushen Spy Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 On 5/4/2019 at 7:40 PM, Cheesy Wheezy said: Beecroft apparently tried to sack Couch last year. She asked for backing from her DHSC members. Callister had been a member of the DHSC for about 8 weeks but he refused to sign the letter sacking Couch then in a huff he went to the media (surprise there!) and resigned in a very high profile way saying Beecroft was wrong to try to sack Couch. He clearly was backing Couch and stopped the Minister from dealing with the situation as she saw it. Roll forward a year and a bit and Beecroft has been sacked as DHSC Minister after Robs “expose” to the media and Couch has now gone anyway. Makes you wonder why he went against his Minister by backing a CEO who clearly the Minister had no confidence in over a year ago. Here is the report http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=32583 So you could say perhaps he’s ensured that he have wasted a year dealing with a problem that could have been dealt with relatively easily last March had he not tried to use the situation to enhance his own profile in the media by pulling a silly stunt to attack Kate Beecroft and get her sacked. Oh, OK. I've been checking Rob's blog but he hasn't really explained his actions in light of the latest revelations. Strange, given he is Mr Transparent. I wonder if Teddy Smith could help explain...... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 Mr Callister doesn't really include political issues in his blog, which is a shame - could be interesting if he did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.