Waltham Forest council says it has 'strong reasons' to continue publishing Waltham Forest News fortnightly

'Strong reasons' to publish freesheet twice monthly, says council

The formal letter sent to Waltham Forest Council calling for compliance of the Publicity Code

Eric Pickles has described the publicity sheets as a waste of taxpayers' money and "Town Hall Pravda"

Waltham Forest councillors Farooq Qureshi, Matt Davis, Alan Siggers and Bob Sullivan oppose the fort-nightly publication of WFN

First published in News
Last updated
East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter, covering Chingford, Highams Park and Woodford. Call me on 07795 476 625

Waltham Forest council is set to challenge the government over restrictions on the publication of its fortnightly freesheet. 

The council's chief executive, Martin Esom, received a formal letter from Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, on Thursday calling for compliance of the Publicity Code under the new Local Audit and Accountability Act.

Under the act introduced on March 30, editions of Waltham Forest News (WFN) must be limited from 26 to just four a year, and must be 'even-handed', both of which the council is alleged to have breached.

However, the council has said it will explain its actions for breaching the law, and provide 'strong reasons' for why WFN should continue being published every two week at an annual tax-payer funded cost of £500,000.

A spokeswoman said: "The letter received on April 16 from the Department for Communities and Local Government states that the Secretary of State proposes to direct the council to comply with the Recommended Code of Practice on Local Authority Publicity but without saying how we don't comply.

"The letter invites us to make written representations to the DCLG within the next 14 days. We always have regard to the Code of Practice when publishing Waltham Forest News and believe we currently comply with the Code in every way, except frequency of publication.

"We believe we have strong reasons to publish fortnightly and that it is entirely lawful to take this approach.

"Fortnightly publication allows for regular and effective communication of council and community services, statutory notices and consultations to 97,000 homes and provides value for money for residents as we do not have to pay £100,000s per year for external adverts in printed newspapers which have declining circulations.

"We will be making representations to the minister not to make the proposed statutory direction."

The Ongar MP has described the free sheet and four others across London as "propaganda on the rates", "Town Hall Pravda" and an unnecessary waste of taxpayers' money. 

Mr Pickles has said he will listen to what the council has to say before making an informed decision on the future of WFN, but if councils fail to comply with the direction, there will be legal consequences. 

Comments (44)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:39pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Techno3 says...

The only reason the senior managers of this dodgy, doctrinaire, dishonest and anti-democratic council wants to publish so much of this propaganda is to try to keep the current crop of compliant Labour councillors in office and save their over-paid jobs.
The only reason the senior managers of this dodgy, doctrinaire, dishonest and anti-democratic council wants to publish so much of this propaganda is to try to keep the current crop of compliant Labour councillors in office and save their over-paid jobs. Techno3
  • Score: 31

12:53pm Tue 22 Apr 14

GarethCheeseman says...

Well this is fascinating.

The Tories attack 5 London Labour councils six weeks before the London local elections. Coincidence?

Waltham Forest Guardian doing all it can to keep this in the news agenda to ensure the demise of its competitor. Coincidence?

I thought a previous contributor had made the point (made above by the council) that the Council newspaper avoids the Council to have to pay thousands in advertising planning applications and other legal notices which otherwise they would be obliged to advertise in the press. Not to mention all the classes and activities which are publicised to every home in the borough as opposed to the very few who can afford to or wish to purchase a copy of this paper. What's the problem?
Well this is fascinating. The Tories attack 5 London Labour councils six weeks before the London local elections. Coincidence? Waltham Forest Guardian doing all it can to keep this in the news agenda to ensure the demise of its competitor. Coincidence? I thought a previous contributor had made the point (made above by the council) that the Council newspaper avoids the Council to have to pay thousands in advertising planning applications and other legal notices which otherwise they would be obliged to advertise in the press. Not to mention all the classes and activities which are publicised to every home in the borough as opposed to the very few who can afford to or wish to purchase a copy of this paper. What's the problem? GarethCheeseman
  • Score: -27

12:57pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Techno3 says...

GarethCheeseman wrote:
Well this is fascinating.

The Tories attack 5 London Labour councils six weeks before the London local elections. Coincidence?

Waltham Forest Guardian doing all it can to keep this in the news agenda to ensure the demise of its competitor. Coincidence?

I thought a previous contributor had made the point (made above by the council) that the Council newspaper avoids the Council to have to pay thousands in advertising planning applications and other legal notices which otherwise they would be obliged to advertise in the press. Not to mention all the classes and activities which are publicised to every home in the borough as opposed to the very few who can afford to or wish to purchase a copy of this paper. What's the problem?
Nice try, but no cigar.

Every other council manages to go about its lawful business quite well enough without needing a disgraceful little rag like WFN. The sole purpose of it is to promote the Labour Party's biased messages at taxpayers' expense.
[quote][p][bold]GarethCheeseman[/bold] wrote: Well this is fascinating. The Tories attack 5 London Labour councils six weeks before the London local elections. Coincidence? Waltham Forest Guardian doing all it can to keep this in the news agenda to ensure the demise of its competitor. Coincidence? I thought a previous contributor had made the point (made above by the council) that the Council newspaper avoids the Council to have to pay thousands in advertising planning applications and other legal notices which otherwise they would be obliged to advertise in the press. Not to mention all the classes and activities which are publicised to every home in the borough as opposed to the very few who can afford to or wish to purchase a copy of this paper. What's the problem?[/p][/quote]Nice try, but no cigar. Every other council manages to go about its lawful business quite well enough without needing a disgraceful little rag like WFN. The sole purpose of it is to promote the Labour Party's biased messages at taxpayers' expense. Techno3
  • Score: 26

1:27pm Tue 22 Apr 14

ViewpointE4 says...

Council Spokesman: "The letter invites us to make written representations to the DCLG within the next 14 days. We always have regard to the Code of Practice when publishing Waltham Forest News and believe we currently comply with the Code in every way, ..............EXCEPT FREQUENCY OF PUBLICATION."

Therefore LBWF, you are admitting that you are fully not complying with the 'Code of Practice'.

Council Spokesman: "Fortnightly publication allows for regular and effective communication of council and community services, statutory notices and consultations to 97,000 homes and provides .............. VALUE FOR MONEY FOR RESIDENTS AS WE DO NOT HAVE TO PAY £100,000s PER YEAR" .

But us RESIDENTS (more precisely ones that actually pay Council Tax) are already paying £500,000 per year

Council Spokesman: "for external adverts in printed newspapers which have ............... DECLINING CIRCULATIONS".

'Declining Circulations', possibly increased by your boycotting of using such publications for advertising services and statutory notices. Maybe it's because unlike your own 'Waltham Forest News' they will on occasion question goings on at our Town Hall. Or possibly it is that 'such publications' may not always paint the 'Shangri-La' picture of the Borough that your own PR team wish to portray.
Council Spokesman: "The letter invites us to make written representations to the DCLG within the next 14 days. We always have regard to the Code of Practice when publishing Waltham Forest News and believe we currently comply with the Code in every way, ..............EXCEPT FREQUENCY OF PUBLICATION." Therefore LBWF, you are admitting that you are fully not complying with the 'Code of Practice'. Council Spokesman: "Fortnightly publication allows for regular and effective communication of council and community services, statutory notices and consultations to 97,000 homes and provides .............. VALUE FOR MONEY FOR RESIDENTS AS WE DO NOT HAVE TO PAY £100,000s PER YEAR" . But us RESIDENTS (more precisely ones that actually pay Council Tax) are already paying £500,000 per year Council Spokesman: "for external adverts in printed newspapers which have ............... DECLINING CIRCULATIONS". 'Declining Circulations', possibly increased by your boycotting of using such publications for advertising services and statutory notices. Maybe it's because unlike your own 'Waltham Forest News' they will on occasion question goings on at our Town Hall. Or possibly it is that 'such publications' may not always paint the 'Shangri-La' picture of the Borough that your own PR team wish to portray. ViewpointE4
  • Score: 24

1:42pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Villagecranberry says...

There are very strong reasons. My cats ' s litter tray needs changing daily and I find one issue is frankly not sufficient enough to cope.

The other reason, it gives me great pleasure seeing where Fifi has decided to go and I can almost swear that Loake's face cringes if she chooses him.
There are very strong reasons. My cats ' s litter tray needs changing daily and I find one issue is frankly not sufficient enough to cope. The other reason, it gives me great pleasure seeing where Fifi has decided to go and I can almost swear that Loake's face cringes if she chooses him. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 2

2:04pm Tue 22 Apr 14

GarethCheeseman says...

ViewpointE4 wrote:
Council Spokesman: "The letter invites us to make written representations to the DCLG within the next 14 days. We always have regard to the Code of Practice when publishing Waltham Forest News and believe we currently comply with the Code in every way, ..............EXCEPT FREQUENCY OF PUBLICATION."

Therefore LBWF, you are admitting that you are fully not complying with the 'Code of Practice'.

Council Spokesman: "Fortnightly publication allows for regular and effective communication of council and community services, statutory notices and consultations to 97,000 homes and provides .............. VALUE FOR MONEY FOR RESIDENTS AS WE DO NOT HAVE TO PAY £100,000s PER YEAR" .

But us RESIDENTS (more precisely ones that actually pay Council Tax) are already paying £500,000 per year

Council Spokesman: "for external adverts in printed newspapers which have ............... DECLINING CIRCULATIONS".

'Declining Circulations', possibly increased by your boycotting of using such publications for advertising services and statutory notices. Maybe it's because unlike your own 'Waltham Forest News' they will on occasion question goings on at our Town Hall. Or possibly it is that 'such publications' may not always paint the 'Shangri-La' picture of the Borough that your own PR team wish to portray.
If it turns out to be the case that cost is no issue (IF) as outlined above as WFN effectively pays for itself, why are you all fuming about this?

I put it to you that the Mr Angrys here with their capital letters and their language of the Soviet Union ("propaganda", "Pravda", "doctrinaire") are making this fit their agenda which is, in turn, anti-democratic. The council were voted in with an overwhelming majority. This paper is part of their approach to local government - hardly a secret and in fact carrying on the publication from the previous coalition council.

What exactly are you implying about the voters of Waltham Forest on behalf of whom this council is acting? Who's being anti-democratic exactly?

If only there was some sort of poll or referendum coming up so that we could see what the people of Waltham Forest really think about this and that should settle the issue once and for all, I reckon.
[quote][p][bold]ViewpointE4[/bold] wrote: Council Spokesman: "The letter invites us to make written representations to the DCLG within the next 14 days. We always have regard to the Code of Practice when publishing Waltham Forest News and believe we currently comply with the Code in every way, ..............EXCEPT FREQUENCY OF PUBLICATION." Therefore LBWF, you are admitting that you are fully not complying with the 'Code of Practice'. Council Spokesman: "Fortnightly publication allows for regular and effective communication of council and community services, statutory notices and consultations to 97,000 homes and provides .............. VALUE FOR MONEY FOR RESIDENTS AS WE DO NOT HAVE TO PAY £100,000s PER YEAR" . But us RESIDENTS (more precisely ones that actually pay Council Tax) are already paying £500,000 per year Council Spokesman: "for external adverts in printed newspapers which have ............... DECLINING CIRCULATIONS". 'Declining Circulations', possibly increased by your boycotting of using such publications for advertising services and statutory notices. Maybe it's because unlike your own 'Waltham Forest News' they will on occasion question goings on at our Town Hall. Or possibly it is that 'such publications' may not always paint the 'Shangri-La' picture of the Borough that your own PR team wish to portray.[/p][/quote]If it turns out to be the case that cost is no issue (IF) as outlined above as WFN effectively pays for itself, why are you all fuming about this? I put it to you that the Mr Angrys here with their capital letters and their language of the Soviet Union ("propaganda", "Pravda", "doctrinaire") are making this fit their agenda which is, in turn, anti-democratic. The council were voted in with an overwhelming majority. This paper is part of their approach to local government - hardly a secret and in fact carrying on the publication from the previous coalition council. What exactly are you implying about the voters of Waltham Forest on behalf of whom this council is acting? Who's being anti-democratic exactly? If only there was some sort of poll or referendum coming up so that we could see what the people of Waltham Forest really think about this and that should settle the issue once and for all, I reckon. GarethCheeseman
  • Score: -21

3:46pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Reality in WF says...

Techno3 wrote:
GarethCheeseman wrote:
Well this is fascinating.

The Tories attack 5 London Labour councils six weeks before the London local elections. Coincidence?

Waltham Forest Guardian doing all it can to keep this in the news agenda to ensure the demise of its competitor. Coincidence?

I thought a previous contributor had made the point (made above by the council) that the Council newspaper avoids the Council to have to pay thousands in advertising planning applications and other legal notices which otherwise they would be obliged to advertise in the press. Not to mention all the classes and activities which are publicised to every home in the borough as opposed to the very few who can afford to or wish to purchase a copy of this paper. What's the problem?
Nice try, but no cigar.

Every other council manages to go about its lawful business quite well enough without needing a disgraceful little rag like WFN. The sole purpose of it is to promote the Labour Party's biased messages at taxpayers' expense.
What the council should do, regardless of the supposed benefits they feel this news sheet has, is to abide by what has been requested of them, and appeal in its favour afterwards. If they dont do what they are asked by the Government, then what chance do the rest of us have.....
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GarethCheeseman[/bold] wrote: Well this is fascinating. The Tories attack 5 London Labour councils six weeks before the London local elections. Coincidence? Waltham Forest Guardian doing all it can to keep this in the news agenda to ensure the demise of its competitor. Coincidence? I thought a previous contributor had made the point (made above by the council) that the Council newspaper avoids the Council to have to pay thousands in advertising planning applications and other legal notices which otherwise they would be obliged to advertise in the press. Not to mention all the classes and activities which are publicised to every home in the borough as opposed to the very few who can afford to or wish to purchase a copy of this paper. What's the problem?[/p][/quote]Nice try, but no cigar. Every other council manages to go about its lawful business quite well enough without needing a disgraceful little rag like WFN. The sole purpose of it is to promote the Labour Party's biased messages at taxpayers' expense.[/p][/quote]What the council should do, regardless of the supposed benefits they feel this news sheet has, is to abide by what has been requested of them, and appeal in its favour afterwards. If they dont do what they are asked by the Government, then what chance do the rest of us have..... Reality in WF
  • Score: 15

5:30pm Tue 22 Apr 14

ViewpointE4 says...

GarethCheeseman wrote:
"If it turns out to be the case that cost is no issue (IF) as outlined above as WFN effectively pays for itself, why are you all fuming about this?"


Gareth, how can £500,000 not be an issue?

If LBWF placed advertisements for their services and statutory notices in a non-tax payer funded publication (i.e. WFG) even on the ridiculous fortnightly basis then the costs still have to be much less.

Do you think their spending of £19,230.76 per fortnight on the WFN is good value for money to the council tax payers of this borough?

Regardless of which party runs the council, its wrong and a waste of public finances.
GarethCheeseman wrote: "If it turns out to be the case that cost is no issue (IF) as outlined above as WFN effectively pays for itself, why are you all fuming about this?" Gareth, how can £500,000 not be an issue? If LBWF placed advertisements for their services and statutory notices in a non-tax payer funded publication (i.e. WFG) even on the ridiculous fortnightly basis then the costs still have to be much less. Do you think their spending of £19,230.76 per fortnight on the WFN is good value for money to the council tax payers of this borough? Regardless of which party runs the council, its wrong and a waste of public finances. ViewpointE4
  • Score: 10

5:37pm Tue 22 Apr 14

GarethCheeseman says...

ViewpointE4 wrote:
GarethCheeseman wrote:
"If it turns out to be the case that cost is no issue (IF) as outlined above as WFN effectively pays for itself, why are you all fuming about this?"


Gareth, how can £500,000 not be an issue?

If LBWF placed advertisements for their services and statutory notices in a non-tax payer funded publication (i.e. WFG) even on the ridiculous fortnightly basis then the costs still have to be much less.

Do you think their spending of £19,230.76 per fortnight on the WFN is good value for money to the council tax payers of this borough?

Regardless of which party runs the council, its wrong and a waste of public finances.
You have missed my point.

The council is saying that they are legally obliged to publicise certain things. As the spokesman says in the article, examples of this is "communication of council and community services, statutory notices and consultations" all of which would cost quite a bit to advertise in the local papers.

If it turns out that the cost of all this advertising would be £500,000 then WFN pays for itself and is therefore 'free' since the council would have to spend that money on advertising anyway. The council spokesman puts this figure in the hundreds of thousands in a quote in the article.

Not knowing the exact figures yet, we do not know how close WFN comes to paying for itself.

But either way, the cost of WFN is not £500,000 as people keep claiming.
[quote][p][bold]ViewpointE4[/bold] wrote: GarethCheeseman wrote: "If it turns out to be the case that cost is no issue (IF) as outlined above as WFN effectively pays for itself, why are you all fuming about this?" Gareth, how can £500,000 not be an issue? If LBWF placed advertisements for their services and statutory notices in a non-tax payer funded publication (i.e. WFG) even on the ridiculous fortnightly basis then the costs still have to be much less. Do you think their spending of £19,230.76 per fortnight on the WFN is good value for money to the council tax payers of this borough? Regardless of which party runs the council, its wrong and a waste of public finances.[/p][/quote]You have missed my point. The council is saying that they are legally obliged to publicise certain things. As the spokesman says in the article, examples of this is "communication of council and community services, statutory notices and consultations" all of which would cost quite a bit to advertise in the local papers. If it turns out that the cost of all this advertising would be £500,000 then WFN pays for itself and is therefore 'free' since the council would have to spend that money on advertising anyway. The council spokesman puts this figure in the hundreds of thousands in a quote in the article. Not knowing the exact figures yet, we do not know how close WFN comes to paying for itself. But either way, the cost of WFN is not £500,000 as people keep claiming. GarethCheeseman
  • Score: 1

5:41pm Tue 22 Apr 14

stickmanny says...

WFBC are simply resisting anti-democratic central dictats which is fair enough. Don't like it? Vote them out.

Its wrong to state that other councils don't need similar freesheets. There are plenty of them, some are produced by Tory led administrations and they have NOT received letters from Pickles. Why not? Because all he's doing is looking after his own.

Same old Tories.
WFBC are simply resisting anti-democratic central dictats which is fair enough. Don't like it? Vote them out. Its wrong to state that other councils don't need similar freesheets. There are plenty of them, some are produced by Tory led administrations and they have NOT received letters from Pickles. Why not? Because all he's doing is looking after his own. Same old Tories. stickmanny
  • Score: -12

6:02pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Brisbane says...

@stickmanny You say "Don't like it? Vote them out"

Fair enough, but surely you would accept that the distribution of a biased, one-sided publication to every household in the borough influences the opinions of some voters.

We see in many semi-democratic countries that governments control the media, making it less likely they will be voted out. This is a smaller example of exactly the same phenomena, and one that all true democrats oppose.
@stickmanny You say "Don't like it? Vote them out" Fair enough, but surely you would accept that the distribution of a biased, one-sided publication to every household in the borough influences the opinions of some voters. We see in many semi-democratic countries that governments control the media, making it less likely they will be voted out. This is a smaller example of exactly the same phenomena, and one that all true democrats oppose. Brisbane
  • Score: 8

6:25pm Tue 22 Apr 14

everoptimistic says...

Well said Brisbane.
Perhaps someone in the WFG advertising Dept. could give a rough estimate of the cost of a couple of full sheets of advertising per week, which seems to be approx. the average that is in the council publication. Then we could work out how much money would be required for statutory adverts. I doubt it would come to £500,000 per year.
Also I think the council knows that publishing planning notices in the WFNews is not legal. A few years back, when they proposed to build a school on the Leyton Cricket Ground they made sure to put a very small add in the WFG to cover themselves incase anyone said that they hadn't complied with planning procedures.
Well said Brisbane. Perhaps someone in the WFG advertising Dept. could give a rough estimate of the cost of a couple of full sheets of advertising per week, which seems to be approx. the average that is in the council publication. Then we could work out how much money would be required for statutory adverts. I doubt it would come to £500,000 per year. Also I think the council knows that publishing planning notices in the WFNews is not legal. A few years back, when they proposed to build a school on the Leyton Cricket Ground they made sure to put a very small add in the WFG to cover themselves incase anyone said that they hadn't complied with planning procedures. everoptimistic
  • Score: 9

6:27pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Howard Wolowitz says...

I have tried finding a Tory Council that publishes a free sheet outside the guidelines and have come up blank, maybe Sticky can help us out here with the facts. Labour Councils working outside the guidelines up to now and soon to be operating outside the law are:

Greenwich Time, Hackney Today, the Newham Mag, Waltham Forest News and (Tower Hamlets) East End Life.
I have tried finding a Tory Council that publishes a free sheet outside the guidelines and have come up blank, maybe Sticky can help us out here with the facts. Labour Councils working outside the guidelines up to now and soon to be operating outside the law are: Greenwich Time, Hackney Today, the Newham Mag, Waltham Forest News and (Tower Hamlets) East End Life. Howard Wolowitz
  • Score: 6

6:47pm Tue 22 Apr 14

chingford lad says...

What do residents do with these papers? think about it, do they read them, cut & paste certain items, read the statutory notices`s (should they understand them) pile them up, or just bin them? I think I know what most people do. Should the ink be fast I would cut them into small squares & hang in the downstairs loo and help save the planet.
What do residents do with these papers? think about it, do they read them, cut & paste certain items, read the statutory notices`s (should they understand them) pile them up, or just bin them? I think I know what most people do. Should the ink be fast I would cut them into small squares & hang in the downstairs loo and help save the planet. chingford lad
  • Score: 6

6:59pm Tue 22 Apr 14

livedheretoolong says...

WFN is a propaganda rag - pure and simple. We can expect the Labour party political message to be considerably ramped up as we get closer to the local elections. Unlike the leaflets from the other political parties this is all being done at the council tax payers expense.

That's what makes it so unfair - if WFN was unbiased and objective it would offer the other parties space to promote their own ideas and policies so that residents would be able to compare and then decide who to vote for.

Unlike WFN the Guardian local paper has to operate in the real world and is subject to the usual market forces of supply and demand. They also have to generate revenue from real advertisers. So its hardly surprising that they might be critical of a competing publication that can do what it likes at the tax payers expense.

I hope Pickles throws all his weight behind defeating the arrogance of Robbins and his fellow councillors. He will be up against some pretty heavyweight opposition but I think he is big enough to take them on and win.
WFN is a propaganda rag - pure and simple. We can expect the Labour party political message to be considerably ramped up as we get closer to the local elections. Unlike the leaflets from the other political parties this is all being done at the council tax payers expense. That's what makes it so unfair - if WFN was unbiased and objective it would offer the other parties space to promote their own ideas and policies so that residents would be able to compare and then decide who to vote for. Unlike WFN the Guardian local paper has to operate in the real world and is subject to the usual market forces of supply and demand. They also have to generate revenue from real advertisers. So its hardly surprising that they might be critical of a competing publication that can do what it likes at the tax payers expense. I hope Pickles throws all his weight behind defeating the arrogance of Robbins and his fellow councillors. He will be up against some pretty heavyweight opposition but I think he is big enough to take them on and win. livedheretoolong
  • Score: 14

7:29pm Tue 22 Apr 14

stickmanny says...

Yep as long as he continues to spend £76,000 annually on tea & biscuits
Yep as long as he continues to spend £76,000 annually on tea & biscuits stickmanny
  • Score: -9

7:51pm Tue 22 Apr 14

mdj says...

'the Council newspaper avoids the Council to have to pay thousands in advertising planning applications and other legal notices which otherwise they would be obliged to advertise in the press'

This would be a good point if it were true.
It's not. The Council list a vanishingly small number of planning applications in WF News, which no doubt helps a lot of illicit developments get away with murder.
There is also the point that WF News is not a newspaper ie registered at the Post Office, with an audited circulation, &C.
This may well be an obsolete requirement, and the sad thing is that such a publication could indeed be very useful, but as it stands it's a disgrace. A previous editor seemed to take perverse pleasure in how far he could distort the facts short of outright lying.
And really, how many photos of Messrs Loakes and Robbins do even their most devoted fans need?
'the Council newspaper avoids the Council to have to pay thousands in advertising planning applications and other legal notices which otherwise they would be obliged to advertise in the press' This would be a good point if it were true. It's not. The Council list a vanishingly small number of planning applications in WF News, which no doubt helps a lot of illicit developments get away with murder. There is also the point that WF News is not a newspaper ie registered at the Post Office, with an audited circulation, &C. This may well be an obsolete requirement, and the sad thing is that such a publication could indeed be very useful, but as it stands it's a disgrace. A previous editor seemed to take perverse pleasure in how far he could distort the facts short of outright lying. And really, how many photos of Messrs Loakes and Robbins do even their most devoted fans need? mdj
  • Score: 7

8:55pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Alan_1976 says...

Howard Wolowitz wrote:
I have tried finding a Tory Council that publishes a free sheet outside the guidelines and have come up blank, maybe Sticky can help us out here with the facts. Labour Councils working outside the guidelines up to now and soon to be operating outside the law are:

Greenwich Time, Hackney Today, the Newham Mag, Waltham Forest News and (Tower Hamlets) East End Life.
Gosh you must have searched for literally no time...

http://hhgrahamjones
.blogspot.co.uk/2013
/03/propaganda-on-ra
tes-desperate-local.
html?m=1

Councils produce propoganda. It's wrong.

Choosing to focus on one side. Equally wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Howard Wolowitz[/bold] wrote: I have tried finding a Tory Council that publishes a free sheet outside the guidelines and have come up blank, maybe Sticky can help us out here with the facts. Labour Councils working outside the guidelines up to now and soon to be operating outside the law are: Greenwich Time, Hackney Today, the Newham Mag, Waltham Forest News and (Tower Hamlets) East End Life.[/p][/quote]Gosh you must have searched for literally no time... http://hhgrahamjones .blogspot.co.uk/2013 /03/propaganda-on-ra tes-desperate-local. html?m=1 Councils produce propoganda. It's wrong. Choosing to focus on one side. Equally wrong. Alan_1976
  • Score: 6

9:11pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Howard Wolowitz says...

So you managed to come up with a Tory Council. Over a year ago and where is the follow up to the story as stated.

The FOI requests LCC to provide information as to;

1) How many they have printed;
2) How much the printing cost;
3) How much the delivery cost;
4) How many locations it was delivered to; and
5) Which company printed it – I want to know if it was printed in Lancashire.

I will publish these numbers on here once I receive them from County Hall.

We are waiting unless you have a link Al.
So you managed to come up with a Tory Council. Over a year ago and where is the follow up to the story as stated. The FOI requests LCC to provide information as to; 1) How many they have printed; 2) How much the printing cost; 3) How much the delivery cost; 4) How many locations it was delivered to; and 5) Which company printed it – I want to know if it was printed in Lancashire. I will publish these numbers on here once I receive them from County Hall. We are waiting unless you have a link Al. Howard Wolowitz
  • Score: 3

9:21pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Alan_1976 says...

Howard Wolowitz wrote:
So you managed to come up with a Tory Council. Over a year ago and where is the follow up to the story as stated.

The FOI requests LCC to provide information as to;

1) How many they have printed;
2) How much the printing cost;
3) How much the delivery cost;
4) How many locations it was delivered to; and
5) Which company printed it – I want to know if it was printed in Lancashire.

I will publish these numbers on here once I receive them from County Hall.

We are waiting unless you have a link Al.
"We are waiting". What all your personas Cornbeefur?

Again showing your talents in research their. You again must have spent absolutely zero time on it

http://hhgrahamjones
.blogspot.co.uk/2013
/03/tory-propaganda-
cost-taxpayers-72000
.html?m=1

a) how many copies have been printed; 504,000

b) the total cost of the printing; £36,750

c) the total cost of delivery; £35,143.59

d) how many properties it has been delivered to; 503,237

e) Which company or companies printed them. D Print

Where was the follow up story? One week later on the same blog. I can see how that would have been a challenge to find for all but the sharpest minds....
[quote][p][bold]Howard Wolowitz[/bold] wrote: So you managed to come up with a Tory Council. Over a year ago and where is the follow up to the story as stated. The FOI requests LCC to provide information as to; 1) How many they have printed; 2) How much the printing cost; 3) How much the delivery cost; 4) How many locations it was delivered to; and 5) Which company printed it – I want to know if it was printed in Lancashire. I will publish these numbers on here once I receive them from County Hall. We are waiting unless you have a link Al.[/p][/quote]"We are waiting". What all your personas Cornbeefur? Again showing your talents in research their. You again must have spent absolutely zero time on it http://hhgrahamjones .blogspot.co.uk/2013 /03/tory-propaganda- cost-taxpayers-72000 .html?m=1 a) how many copies have been printed; 504,000 b) the total cost of the printing; £36,750 c) the total cost of delivery; £35,143.59 d) how many properties it has been delivered to; 503,237 e) Which company or companies printed them. D Print Where was the follow up story? One week later on the same blog. I can see how that would have been a challenge to find for all but the sharpest minds.... Alan_1976
  • Score: 2

10:16pm Tue 22 Apr 14

ViewpointE4 says...

GarethCheeseman wrote:
You have missed my point.

The council is saying that they are legally obliged to publicise certain things. As the spokesman says in the article, examples of this is "communication of council and community services, statutory notices and consultations" all of which would cost quite a bit to advertise in the local papers.


Ahh Gareth come on, do you seriously think a few pages in the WFG is going to cost £20,0000 per fortnight ?

Gareth Cheeseman wrote:
"The council spokesman puts this figure in the hundreds of thousands in a quote in the article."

He didn't say how many hundreds of thousands. If it was four hundred thousand it would still be a saving. Hundreds of thousands is more than one. Is it 200,000, 300,000, 400,000 or 500,000. Sure maybe we've all missed a trick here and there actually saving us millions..

GarethCheeseman wrote:
"But either way, the cost of WFN is not £500,000 as people keep claiming".

Do you have some evidence of this?

WFG article quotes:" However, the council has said it will explain its actions for breaching the law, and provide 'strong reasons' for why WFN should continue being published every two week at an ANNUAL TAX PAYER FUNDED cost of £500,000."

Maybe LBWF will bring a libel suit against the WFG.................
.......I wouldn't hold your breath.
GarethCheeseman wrote: You have missed my point. The council is saying that they are legally obliged to publicise certain things. As the spokesman says in the article, examples of this is "communication of council and community services, statutory notices and consultations" all of which would cost quite a bit to advertise in the local papers. Ahh Gareth come on, do you seriously think a few pages in the WFG is going to cost £20,0000 per fortnight ? Gareth Cheeseman wrote: "The council spokesman puts this figure in the hundreds of thousands in a quote in the article." He didn't say how many hundreds of thousands. If it was four hundred thousand it would still be a saving. Hundreds of thousands is more than one. Is it 200,000, 300,000, 400,000 or 500,000. Sure maybe we've all missed a trick here and there actually saving us millions.. GarethCheeseman wrote: "But either way, the cost of WFN is not £500,000 as people keep claiming". Do you have some evidence of this? WFG article quotes:" However, the council has said it will explain its actions for breaching the law, and provide 'strong reasons' for why WFN should continue being published every two week at an ANNUAL TAX PAYER FUNDED cost of £500,000." Maybe LBWF will bring a libel suit against the WFG................. .......I wouldn't hold your breath. ViewpointE4
  • Score: 2

10:32pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Howard Wolowitz wrote:
So you managed to come up with a Tory Council. Over a year ago and where is the follow up to the story as stated.

The FOI requests LCC to provide information as to;

1) How many they have printed;
2) How much the printing cost;
3) How much the delivery cost;
4) How many locations it was delivered to; and
5) Which company printed it – I want to know if it was printed in Lancashire.

I will publish these numbers on here once I receive them from County Hall.

We are waiting unless you have a link Al.
"We are waiting". What all your personas Cornbeefur?

Again showing your talents in research their. You again must have spent absolutely zero time on it

http://hhgrahamjones

.blogspot.co.uk/2013

/03/tory-propaganda-

cost-taxpayers-72000

.html?m=1

a) how many copies have been printed; 504,000

b) the total cost of the printing; £36,750

c) the total cost of delivery; £35,143.59

d) how many properties it has been delivered to; 503,237

e) Which company or companies printed them. D Print

Where was the follow up story? One week later on the same blog. I can see how that would have been a challenge to find for all but the sharpest minds....
Stick to the point Al, you get sooooooooooooooooooo
o heated up over FOI.

Calm down dear, calm down.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howard Wolowitz[/bold] wrote: So you managed to come up with a Tory Council. Over a year ago and where is the follow up to the story as stated. The FOI requests LCC to provide information as to; 1) How many they have printed; 2) How much the printing cost; 3) How much the delivery cost; 4) How many locations it was delivered to; and 5) Which company printed it – I want to know if it was printed in Lancashire. I will publish these numbers on here once I receive them from County Hall. We are waiting unless you have a link Al.[/p][/quote]"We are waiting". What all your personas Cornbeefur? Again showing your talents in research their. You again must have spent absolutely zero time on it http://hhgrahamjones .blogspot.co.uk/2013 /03/tory-propaganda- cost-taxpayers-72000 .html?m=1 a) how many copies have been printed; 504,000 b) the total cost of the printing; £36,750 c) the total cost of delivery; £35,143.59 d) how many properties it has been delivered to; 503,237 e) Which company or companies printed them. D Print Where was the follow up story? One week later on the same blog. I can see how that would have been a challenge to find for all but the sharpest minds....[/p][/quote]Stick to the point Al, you get sooooooooooooooooooo o heated up over FOI. Calm down dear, calm down. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -13

10:37pm Tue 22 Apr 14

GarethCheeseman says...

I don't need any more evidence than what has already been provided to prove that the WFN doesn't 'cost' £500,000.

The spokesman said "hundreds of thousands" would have to be spent anyway. Even if we take this to mean only £200,000 then the cost (or money wasted) on WFN is £300,000, not £500,000. That's what I was trying to get at.

But as you say, "hundreds of thousands" could mean anything so until we have a clear figure we cannot really say how much money is wasted/spent on WFN, if any.
I don't need any more evidence than what has already been provided to prove that the WFN doesn't 'cost' £500,000. The spokesman said "hundreds of thousands" would have to be spent anyway. Even if we take this to mean only £200,000 then the cost (or money wasted) on WFN is £300,000, not £500,000. That's what I was trying to get at. But as you say, "hundreds of thousands" could mean anything so until we have a clear figure we cannot really say how much money is wasted/spent on WFN, if any. GarethCheeseman
  • Score: 1

10:44pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Villagecranberry says...

GarethCheeseman wrote:
I don't need any more evidence than what has already been provided to prove that the WFN doesn't 'cost' £500,000.

The spokesman said "hundreds of thousands" would have to be spent anyway. Even if we take this to mean only £200,000 then the cost (or money wasted) on WFN is £300,000, not £500,000. That's what I was trying to get at.

But as you say, "hundreds of thousands" could mean anything so until we have a clear figure we cannot really say how much money is wasted/spent on WFN, if any.
Even if it cost 5 k, it would be far too much for an organ that 99% of the time goes straight in the dusty bin or in my case the cats tray.
[quote][p][bold]GarethCheeseman[/bold] wrote: I don't need any more evidence than what has already been provided to prove that the WFN doesn't 'cost' £500,000. The spokesman said "hundreds of thousands" would have to be spent anyway. Even if we take this to mean only £200,000 then the cost (or money wasted) on WFN is £300,000, not £500,000. That's what I was trying to get at. But as you say, "hundreds of thousands" could mean anything so until we have a clear figure we cannot really say how much money is wasted/spent on WFN, if any.[/p][/quote]Even if it cost 5 k, it would be far too much for an organ that 99% of the time goes straight in the dusty bin or in my case the cats tray. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -7

10:50pm Tue 22 Apr 14

James O'Rourke says...

Sheer Council Arrogance!!!

http://tinyurl.com/j
vlchp5
Sheer Council Arrogance!!! http://tinyurl.com/j vlchp5 James O'Rourke
  • Score: 2

11:16pm Tue 22 Apr 14

Howard Wolowitz says...

First thing Al thank you for the trouble to reply with that outdated piece of information, we are discussing the current situation and if you would be kind enough to furnish this forum with some up to date evidence I am sure those here would be obliged.

Coincidently please be aware of the correct use of the word "their". There would be the appropriate word in the context of your diatribe.

I have never been Cornbeefur you confuse me within your grey matter of another.
First thing Al thank you for the trouble to reply with that outdated piece of information, we are discussing the current situation and if you would be kind enough to furnish this forum with some up to date evidence I am sure those here would be obliged. Coincidently please be aware of the correct use of the word "their". There would be the appropriate word in the context of your diatribe. I have never been Cornbeefur you confuse me within your grey matter of another. Howard Wolowitz
  • Score: -7

9:15am Wed 23 Apr 14

Alan_1976 says...

Howard Wolowitz wrote:
First thing Al thank you for the trouble to reply with that outdated piece of information, we are discussing the current situation and if you would be kind enough to furnish this forum with some up to date evidence I am sure those here would be obliged.

Coincidently please be aware of the correct use of the word "their". There would be the appropriate word in the context of your diatribe.

I have never been Cornbeefur you confuse me within your grey matter of another.
Odd that you seem to feel that a piece relating to a Conservative council using public funds to print propaganda for the most recent election there is "outdated".

Odd that you seem to be having a mental blank about the council free sheet that led to this new very useful legislation which was the conservative council in Hammersmith and Fulham.

Odd that someone who seems incapable of typing out four letters of a name should criticise the auto-corrected spelling of another.

Then given your use of multiple accounts odd behaviour would seem the norm.

As I said before council propaganda is bad. Pretending it is the domain of a single party idiotic.
[quote][p][bold]Howard Wolowitz[/bold] wrote: First thing Al thank you for the trouble to reply with that outdated piece of information, we are discussing the current situation and if you would be kind enough to furnish this forum with some up to date evidence I am sure those here would be obliged. Coincidently please be aware of the correct use of the word "their". There would be the appropriate word in the context of your diatribe. I have never been Cornbeefur you confuse me within your grey matter of another.[/p][/quote]Odd that you seem to feel that a piece relating to a Conservative council using public funds to print propaganda for the most recent election there is "outdated". Odd that you seem to be having a mental blank about the council free sheet that led to this new very useful legislation which was the conservative council in Hammersmith and Fulham. Odd that someone who seems incapable of typing out four letters of a name should criticise the auto-corrected spelling of another. Then given your use of multiple accounts odd behaviour would seem the norm. As I said before council propaganda is bad. Pretending it is the domain of a single party idiotic. Alan_1976
  • Score: 6

10:44am Wed 23 Apr 14

Howard Wolowitz says...

Al, I do not have multiple aliases you are confusing yourself. As I do not know you I cannot possibly comment.

So back to basics. Are you now informing us that it is Hammersmith and Fulham council that is the Tory council that Pickles has not lumped in with the Labour councils? This was a question posed earlier and a simple reporting of the fact would have sufficed.

Actually I thought let's not wait for your response, but get going with some good old research of my own.

Result: http://www.andyslaug
hter.co.uk/hammersmi
th_fulham_chronicle_
to_close

This is a recent article dated April 17th 2014 so we can presume we are bang up to date here. Would you kindly note that the Council free sheet according to this article ceased and I quote "One worrying possibility is that we may see the return of H&F news, the free paper printed by the Council that closed in 2010. This was widely seen as Council propaganda, with Eric Pickles himself criticising such 'town hall pravdas'. "

So there you have it you are old news and Pickles himself criticised it the same as he is doing now with publications still being printed and distributed.
Al, I do not have multiple aliases you are confusing yourself. As I do not know you I cannot possibly comment. So back to basics. Are you now informing us that it is Hammersmith and Fulham council that is the Tory council that Pickles has not lumped in with the Labour councils? This was a question posed earlier and a simple reporting of the fact would have sufficed. Actually I thought let's not wait for your response, but get going with some good old research of my own. Result: http://www.andyslaug hter.co.uk/hammersmi th_fulham_chronicle_ to_close This is a recent article dated April 17th 2014 so we can presume we are bang up to date here. Would you kindly note that the Council free sheet according to this article ceased and I quote "One worrying possibility is that we may see the return of H&F news, the free paper printed by the Council that closed in 2010. This was widely seen as Council propaganda, with Eric Pickles himself criticising such 'town hall pravdas'. " So there you have it you are old news and Pickles himself criticised it the same as he is doing now with publications still being printed and distributed. Howard Wolowitz
  • Score: -3

11:24am Wed 23 Apr 14

Alan_1976 says...

Ho, (as you seem to insist on such uncalled for familiarity or do you prefer VillageCranberry?)

I see you've decided to have an argument with a straw man that you've set up.

"Are you now informing us that it is Hammersmith and Fulham council that is the Tory council that Pickles has not lumped in with the Labour councils?"

I see that you've posed a question, assumed an answer and then blundered on with an answer to your own ridiculous answer.

The article you've linked to highlights exactly what I pointed out. A key trigger for this legislation was the production of the H&F News by the Tory council.

As to Pickles criticising H&F News. In actual fact he hasn't. Quite the opposite http://www.conservat
ivehome.com/localgov
ernment/2011/01/eric
-pickles-hf-is-the-a
pple-of-my-eye.html .

Pickles criticised free papers, as have I, but was careful not to criticise his own party's council. To paint this as solely a problem from the Left is disingenuous at best.

So there you have it.
Ho, (as you seem to insist on such uncalled for familiarity or do you prefer VillageCranberry?) I see you've decided to have an argument with a straw man that you've set up. "Are you now informing us that it is Hammersmith and Fulham council that is the Tory council that Pickles has not lumped in with the Labour councils?" I see that you've posed a question, assumed an answer and then blundered on with an answer to your own ridiculous answer. The article you've linked to highlights exactly what I pointed out. A key trigger for this legislation was the production of the H&F News by the Tory council. As to Pickles criticising H&F News. In actual fact he hasn't. Quite the opposite http://www.conservat ivehome.com/localgov ernment/2011/01/eric -pickles-hf-is-the-a pple-of-my-eye.html . Pickles criticised free papers, as have I, but was careful not to criticise his own party's council. To paint this as solely a problem from the Left is disingenuous at best. So there you have it. Alan_1976
  • Score: 2

12:11pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Howard Wolowitz says...

VC tell him we are not the same person, you must realise I do not want to be one of your aliases.

Pickles was praising the Council for reducing costs not their free sheet that had no part of your link. He has not painted this as solely a problem from the Left. He has simply stated the current situation. 5 Councils are still printing these free sheets, the fact they are Labour controlled is neither here nor there, they are acting illegally.

"Mr Pickles: Hammersmith and Fulham council is indeed the apple of my eye. I recall visiting it in opposition and watching that first budget go through. First, the Labour party said that those were ridiculous cuts that would destroy services. Then it said that it would reduce council tax even further, but it ended up abstaining."

Anybody seen a straw man, blowed if I can?
VC tell him we are not the same person, you must realise I do not want to be one of your aliases. Pickles was praising the Council for reducing costs not their free sheet that had no part of your link. He has not painted this as solely a problem from the Left. He has simply stated the current situation. 5 Councils are still printing these free sheets, the fact they are Labour controlled is neither here nor there, they are acting illegally. "Mr Pickles: Hammersmith and Fulham council is indeed the apple of my eye. I recall visiting it in opposition and watching that first budget go through. First, the Labour party said that those were ridiculous cuts that would destroy services. Then it said that it would reduce council tax even further, but it ended up abstaining." Anybody seen a straw man, blowed if I can? Howard Wolowitz
  • Score: -4

12:32pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Villagecranberry says...

It is impossible to tell anyone who has their head up their rear so far that they cannot hear.

Anyhow it could have been worse.

You could have been accused of being Stickmanny or worse still, Helen who is sulking away in a cob webbed filled room somewhere like Miss Havisham.
It is impossible to tell anyone who has their head up their rear so far that they cannot hear. Anyhow it could have been worse. You could have been accused of being Stickmanny or worse still, Helen who is sulking away in a cob webbed filled room somewhere like Miss Havisham. Villagecranberry
  • Score: 2

12:49pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
It is impossible to tell anyone who has their head up their rear so far that they cannot hear.

Anyhow it could have been worse.

You could have been accused of being Stickmanny or worse still, Helen who is sulking away in a cob webbed filled room somewhere like Miss Havisham.
Obsessed much?
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: It is impossible to tell anyone who has their head up their rear so far that they cannot hear. Anyhow it could have been worse. You could have been accused of being Stickmanny or worse still, Helen who is sulking away in a cob webbed filled room somewhere like Miss Havisham.[/p][/quote]Obsessed much? Alan_1976
  • Score: 1

12:53pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Alan_1976 says...

Howard Wolowitz wrote:
VC tell him we are not the same person, you must realise I do not want to be one of your aliases.

Pickles was praising the Council for reducing costs not their free sheet that had no part of your link. He has not painted this as solely a problem from the Left. He has simply stated the current situation. 5 Councils are still printing these free sheets, the fact they are Labour controlled is neither here nor there, they are acting illegally.

"Mr Pickles: Hammersmith and Fulham council is indeed the apple of my eye. I recall visiting it in opposition and watching that first budget go through. First, the Labour party said that those were ridiculous cuts that would destroy services. Then it said that it would reduce council tax even further, but it ended up abstaining."

Anybody seen a straw man, blowed if I can?
"Are you now informing us that it is Hammersmith and Fulham council that is the Tory council that Pickles has not lumped in with the Labour councils? "

There's your straw man argument.

You then go on to provide documentary evidence of Pickles praising the council which produced the free sheet whilst in your earlier comment you stated

"Pickles himself criticised it the same".

Except he didn't. He praised it.
[quote][p][bold]Howard Wolowitz[/bold] wrote: VC tell him we are not the same person, you must realise I do not want to be one of your aliases. Pickles was praising the Council for reducing costs not their free sheet that had no part of your link. He has not painted this as solely a problem from the Left. He has simply stated the current situation. 5 Councils are still printing these free sheets, the fact they are Labour controlled is neither here nor there, they are acting illegally. "Mr Pickles: Hammersmith and Fulham council is indeed the apple of my eye. I recall visiting it in opposition and watching that first budget go through. First, the Labour party said that those were ridiculous cuts that would destroy services. Then it said that it would reduce council tax even further, but it ended up abstaining." Anybody seen a straw man, blowed if I can?[/p][/quote]"Are you now informing us that it is Hammersmith and Fulham council that is the Tory council that Pickles has not lumped in with the Labour councils? " There's your straw man argument. You then go on to provide documentary evidence of Pickles praising the council which produced the free sheet whilst in your earlier comment you stated "Pickles himself criticised it the same". Except he didn't. He praised it. Alan_1976
  • Score: 3

2:28pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Howard Wolowitz says...

Nice twist Al. Just because he praised that Council for their cut backs he didn't endorse their use of the free sheet which they ditched 4 years ago.
Nice twist Al. Just because he praised that Council for their cut backs he didn't endorse their use of the free sheet which they ditched 4 years ago. Howard Wolowitz
  • Score: -3

2:50pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Alan_1976 says...

Howard Wolowitz wrote:
Nice twist Al. Just because he praised that Council for their cut backs he didn't endorse their use of the free sheet which they ditched 4 years ago.
If by twist you mean quoting your words to you then so be it. I don't feel the need to stand up strawman questions and then answer them.

I stand by what I have said. Councils producing propaganda is wrong. Pretending both sides don't engage in it is also wrong.

As is theft in general by the way. You seem a little fuzzy on that one http://www.guardian-
series.co.uk/news/11
166273.Man_sought_af
ter_cash_machine_the
ft/
[quote][p][bold]Howard Wolowitz[/bold] wrote: Nice twist Al. Just because he praised that Council for their cut backs he didn't endorse their use of the free sheet which they ditched 4 years ago.[/p][/quote]If by twist you mean quoting your words to you then so be it. I don't feel the need to stand up strawman questions and then answer them. I stand by what I have said. Councils producing propaganda is wrong. Pretending both sides don't engage in it is also wrong. As is theft in general by the way. You seem a little fuzzy on that one http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/news/11 166273.Man_sought_af ter_cash_machine_the ft/ Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Garrow says...

I have just visited the Council's budget website that gives a figure for residents communication of £298,000, but I doubt that that's a fully allocated figure, I suspect there are further costs from other departments which should be added, for instance there is no chief officer's salary and the Assistant Directors salary would have to be partly added to that figure. I don't know whether the £500,000 is correct, but it certainly seems possible. what I do know is that it is an extraordinary waste of money for something which is really just a piece of election literature. Personally, I think anyone who votes Labour now is just begging to be lied to.
I have just visited the Council's budget website that gives a figure for residents communication of £298,000, but I doubt that that's a fully allocated figure, I suspect there are further costs from other departments which should be added, for instance there is no chief officer's salary and the Assistant Directors salary would have to be partly added to that figure. I don't know whether the £500,000 is correct, but it certainly seems possible. what I do know is that it is an extraordinary waste of money for something which is really just a piece of election literature. Personally, I think anyone who votes Labour now is just begging to be lied to. Garrow
  • Score: 1

4:35pm Wed 23 Apr 14

stickmanny says...

Well hey millions people pay every day to be lied to by The Sun, Daily Mail and all the other highly tuned propaganda machines these Labour free sheets are doing their best to counter.
Well hey millions people pay every day to be lied to by The Sun, Daily Mail and all the other highly tuned propaganda machines these Labour free sheets are doing their best to counter. stickmanny
  • Score: -6

5:17pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Alan_1976 says...

stickmanny wrote:
Well hey millions people pay every day to be lied to by The Sun, Daily Mail and all the other highly tuned propaganda machines these Labour free sheets are doing their best to counter.
Whilst what you say about the media in the UK is correct I don't think the Council spending our money on the news content they do is a good use of cash.

If all the paper did was contain the details of all planning applications and general listings of local events then no problem it has a purpose and a use.

It's the rest of the content that needs put to bed.
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: Well hey millions people pay every day to be lied to by The Sun, Daily Mail and all the other highly tuned propaganda machines these Labour free sheets are doing their best to counter.[/p][/quote]Whilst what you say about the media in the UK is correct I don't think the Council spending our money on the news content they do is a good use of cash. If all the paper did was contain the details of all planning applications and general listings of local events then no problem it has a purpose and a use. It's the rest of the content that needs put to bed. Alan_1976
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Howard Wolowitz says...

Al beware the sticky left, you could be in for a long ride. Sticky is a denialist.
Al beware the sticky left, you could be in for a long ride. Sticky is a denialist. Howard Wolowitz
  • Score: 2

5:53pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Alan_1976 says...

Howard Wolowitz wrote:
Al beware the sticky left, you could be in for a long ride. Sticky is a denialist.
Sounds better than someone who is unable to resist thieving impulses like yourself
[quote][p][bold]Howard Wolowitz[/bold] wrote: Al beware the sticky left, you could be in for a long ride. Sticky is a denialist.[/p][/quote]Sounds better than someone who is unable to resist thieving impulses like yourself Alan_1976
  • Score: -2

7:50pm Wed 23 Apr 14

G Sladden says...

stickmanny wrote:
Well hey millions people pay every day to be lied to by The Sun, Daily Mail and all the other highly tuned propaganda machines these Labour free sheets are doing their best to counter.
Yes of course! While the Mirror, the Sunday Mirror, The Guardian, The Observer, the Independent, the Independent on Sunday and the 'i' and, above BBC Radio, TV and online (whose budget I am more or less forced to finance) are perfect examples of unbiased reporting and commenting of course. They wouldn't know know the word propaganda if it hit them on the head.
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: Well hey millions people pay every day to be lied to by The Sun, Daily Mail and all the other highly tuned propaganda machines these Labour free sheets are doing their best to counter.[/p][/quote]Yes of course! While the Mirror, the Sunday Mirror, The Guardian, The Observer, the Independent, the Independent on Sunday and the 'i' and, above BBC Radio, TV and online (whose budget I am more or less forced to finance) are perfect examples of unbiased reporting and commenting of course. They wouldn't know know the word propaganda if it hit them on the head. G Sladden
  • Score: 4

10:52pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Howard Wolowitz wrote:
Nice twist Al. Just because he praised that Council for their cut backs he didn't endorse their use of the free sheet which they ditched 4 years ago.
If by twist you mean quoting your words to you then so be it. I don't feel the need to stand up strawman questions and then answer them.

I stand by what I have said. Councils producing propaganda is wrong. Pretending both sides don't engage in it is also wrong.

As is theft in general by the way. You seem a little fuzzy on that one http://www.guardian-

series.co.uk/news/11

166273.Man_sought_af

ter_cash_machine_the

ft/
Just worked it out Al. You are Helen's alter ego? Welcome back into the fold.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howard Wolowitz[/bold] wrote: Nice twist Al. Just because he praised that Council for their cut backs he didn't endorse their use of the free sheet which they ditched 4 years ago.[/p][/quote]If by twist you mean quoting your words to you then so be it. I don't feel the need to stand up strawman questions and then answer them. I stand by what I have said. Councils producing propaganda is wrong. Pretending both sides don't engage in it is also wrong. As is theft in general by the way. You seem a little fuzzy on that one http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/news/11 166273.Man_sought_af ter_cash_machine_the ft/[/p][/quote]Just worked it out Al. You are Helen's alter ego? Welcome back into the fold. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -2

7:22am Thu 24 Apr 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Howard Wolowitz wrote:
Nice twist Al. Just because he praised that Council for their cut backs he didn't endorse their use of the free sheet which they ditched 4 years ago.
If by twist you mean quoting your words to you then so be it. I don't feel the need to stand up strawman questions and then answer them.

I stand by what I have said. Councils producing propaganda is wrong. Pretending both sides don't engage in it is also wrong.

As is theft in general by the way. You seem a little fuzzy on that one http://www.guardian-


series.co.uk/news/11


166273.Man_sought_af


ter_cash_machine_the


ft/
Just worked it out Al. You are Helen's alter ego? Welcome back into the fold.
You are quite obsessed with her aren't you? Hardly an article goes past without you pining for her. Did mummy not give you enough cuddles?

When you are swapping between your sock puppet accounts do remember to not reuse the same nicknames that you have applied to people.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Howard Wolowitz[/bold] wrote: Nice twist Al. Just because he praised that Council for their cut backs he didn't endorse their use of the free sheet which they ditched 4 years ago.[/p][/quote]If by twist you mean quoting your words to you then so be it. I don't feel the need to stand up strawman questions and then answer them. I stand by what I have said. Councils producing propaganda is wrong. Pretending both sides don't engage in it is also wrong. As is theft in general by the way. You seem a little fuzzy on that one http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/news/11 166273.Man_sought_af ter_cash_machine_the ft/[/p][/quote]Just worked it out Al. You are Helen's alter ego? Welcome back into the fold.[/p][/quote]You are quite obsessed with her aren't you? Hardly an article goes past without you pining for her. Did mummy not give you enough cuddles? When you are swapping between your sock puppet accounts do remember to not reuse the same nicknames that you have applied to people. Alan_1976
  • Score: 2

10:52am Thu 24 Apr 14

mdj says...

' these Labour free sheets..'
Well done! You finally admitted what the rest of us have known for years.

'"Don't like it? Vote them out"
We'd love to: but when wards get turnouts of 125%, that mysteriously award 1000 extra votes from the sky to the Labour candidates,when the returning officer is immediately paid £346,000 to retire and say nuffin, and when Labour councillors visit Pakistan to get advice on 'best practice', we don't fancy our chances.
' these Labour free sheets..' Well done! You finally admitted what the rest of us have known for years. '"Don't like it? Vote them out" We'd love to: but when wards get turnouts of 125%, that mysteriously award 1000 extra votes from the sky to the Labour candidates,when the returning officer is immediately paid £346,000 to retire and say nuffin, and when Labour councillors visit Pakistan to get advice on 'best practice', we don't fancy our chances. mdj
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree