More uselessness from DBC

[Viddy well]

1 minute ago, Roger Mexico said:

Why don't you ask DBC all those interesting questions yourself?  If you get a response it would be nice if you published it here.  I was merely pointing out that those words do not mean what you think (or hope) they mean.

Ah, only because you seemed to imply you knew the answers.

You said: "'due consultation' doesn't mean a full public consultation in every case," which implies you knew what "due consultation" actually meant (and I am grateful for your attempt to educate me in the literal rule - thanks).

You said, "in every case," which implies that you're aware of a decision-making process: a full public consultation could occur in some cases but not in others.

You said, "there were limited consultations that did take place," which suggests a distinction exists between full public consultations and limited consultations, although you do concede that arrangements for either may not in fact exist at all. It also suggests DBC knew a consultation was required as per Article 11.2 and decided a cursory SurveyMonkey to existing recyclers would suffice.

It's a bit of a confused post really. Thanks though for the advice to approach DBC. Actually I'm not inclined because their attitude on Monday was JFDI.

[Albert Tatlock]

15 minutes ago, Inky said:

You have the fatest arse of them all Albert. Why have you deleted three posts of mine? 

Can't remember doing that.

And, FYI, my arse is one of the trimmest finest arses in Douglas ever seen in the last 20yrs  

[Asthehills]

36 minutes ago, BriT said:

But nobody at all voted for them. At all. 

Are you struggling with the basic concept?  There are people who can explain it if it helps?

[P.K.]

47 minutes ago, BriT said:

But nobody at all voted for them. At all. 

If there was no elected unopposed option such is the level of apathy organisations would very quickly run out of enough folks to run them.

But it is fair to say that those who get elected by this method have no public mandate. Which is not their fault...

[woolley]

2 minutes ago, P.K. said:

If there was no elected unopposed option such is the level of apathy organisations would very quickly run out of enough folks to run them.

But it is fair to say that those who get elected by this method have no public mandate. Which is not their fault...

Or it says that everyone was so enamoured with the nomination that they were all disinclined to stand against them. What more ringing public endorsement could there be? Not one vote against.

[The Voice of Reason]

You can’t discount people who took the decision to run for election simply because nobody else wanted to.

Lets say Chelsea football club were drawn against Arsenal in a round of the FA Cup.

Arsenal couldn’t be arsed to field a team. Thus Chelsea were awarded the victory.

Would you have an argument against that or would you say chelsea shouldn’t progress because they were unopposed.?

Ridiculous

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by The Voice of Reason

[Passing Time]

2 hours ago, offshoremanxman said:

But why have they had enough? Presumably as the target is now the moderators and not everyone else as previously was the case? 

Do us all a favour and engage your brain before your mouth

[Passing Time]

1 hour ago, BriT said:

But nobody at all voted for them. At all. 

Are you really that thick that you don’t understand how this works?

[CallMeCurious]

24 minutes ago, woolley said:

Or it says that everyone was so enamoured with the nomination that they were all disinclined to stand against them. What more ringing public endorsement could there be? Not one vote against.

Maybe the ballot should have candidates name and a 'none of the above' option. If they win the majority they have a mandate. As it is, they are literally unelected as not a single vote can be cast (apart from their mates nominations) if they are unopposed. And either way, if they take the role then they are accountable to ALL residents not just those who voted for them, not even those who voted against them but those that didn't vote at all, and the criticism that comes with it.

   

[CallMeCurious]

On 12/14/2022 at 10:05 PM, Amadeus said:

OK, so I can batch-unhide. Nice. Now back to my documentary. Did you know the moon is a man made structure? 

How did they getting planning permission for that?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

1 minute ago, CallMeCurious said:

Maybe the ballot should have candidates name and a 'none of the above' option. If they win the majority they have a mandate. As it is, they are literally unelected as not a single vote can be cast (apart from their mates nominations) if they are unopposed. And either way, if they take the role then they are accountable to ALL residents not just those who voted for them, not even those who voted against them but those that didn't vote at all, and the criticism that comes with it.

   

I think the system is fine as it is

[Viddy well]

2 minutes ago, CallMeCurious said:

Maybe the ballot should have candidates name and a 'none of the above' option. If they win the majority they have a mandate. As it is, they are literally unelected as not a single vote can be cast (apart from their mates nominations) if they are unopposed. And either way, if they take the role then they are accountable to ALL residents not just those who voted for them, not even those who voted against them but those that didn't vote at all, and the criticism that comes with it.

   

Okay, let's do that.
Or,

Let's not do that; let's trust a system that started in 1215 AD and has worked ever since.

[Viddy well]

10 hours ago, Viddy well said:

Ah, only because you seemed to imply you knew the answers.

You said: "'due consultation' doesn't mean a full public consultation in every case," which implies you knew what "due consultation" actually meant (and I am grateful for your attempt to educate me in the literal rule - thanks).

You said, "in every case," which implies that you're aware of a decision-making process: a full public consultation could occur in some cases but not in others.

You said, "there were limited consultations that did take place," which suggests a distinction exists between full public consultations and limited consultations, although you do concede that arrangements for either may not in fact exist at all. It also suggests DBC knew a consultation was required as per Article 11.2 and decided a cursory SurveyMonkey to existing recyclers would suffice.

It's a bit of a confused post really. Thanks though for the advice to approach DBC. Actually I'm not inclined because their attitude on Monday was JFDI.

.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Viddy well
Uncalled for, in hindsight

[Viddy well]

8 hours ago, Viddy well said:

LOL. Roger Mexico pwnd?

I wonder how many of your other historic, wise prognostications have been of similar quality for want of challenge.

Will you give me the courtesy of a reasoned reply? Don't spend hours on a clever reply - just give me the authentic Roger Mexico as soon as you can.

.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Viddy well
ditto

[Gladys]

40 minutes ago, Viddy well said:

LOL. Roger Mexico pwnd?

I wonder how many of your other historic, wise prognostications have been of similar quality for want of challenge.

Will you give me the courtesy of a reasoned reply? Don't spend hours on a clever reply - just give me the authentic Roger Mexico as soon as you can.

I not sure you can interpret "due consultation" as a full public consultation.   It doesn't say who to consult either.  The rest of that provision refers to also taking professional advice, so I think it is more about the Council making sure it has all necessary information and advice before making a decision.