Geez, why do these threads get so silly ?.I pointed out from the very outset that others behave inappropriately too but that 2 (or more) wrongs don't make a right. Despite that you've took me to task about 'singling' out an individual, and mooted several notions about the motivations behind my contributions, all of which I've dismissed because they are total nonsense - i.e. I've never had any personal or professional dealings with that particular Councillor, I know nothing about him, I don't live in the Borough anymore, I don't vote and so forth.Yet you're still persisting. Why can't you just take me at my word when I say that I skimmed through the video of the meeting, and, putting to one side all the usual hot air, pontificating and such like from several Members I was struck by how one Councillor conducted himself on camera ?. And as I've said, I was struck by his generally 'animated' physical performance because, unlike many people on here, I've sat through hundreds of committee meetings so to some extent I am 'immune' to much of the pantomime that goes on.And yes, I thought that conduct was unprofessional and wholly inappropriate, and, just like Adrian comments on Cllr. Lambert's blog, if you or I were employed by a company and conducted ourselves like that during a company meeting then we'd be up on a disciplinary and/or sacked for gross misconduct.What disappoints me, but perhaps doesn't surprise me, is that no-one else on the forum has said the same about Cllr. Mushiso's actions and that the front page article, whilst reporting about other parts of the meeting and focusing upon allegations of bullying, inappropriate behaviour and such like, didn't make any reference to those actions.And yes, I do think the company that runs this website is biased in its reporting in so far as that many of the articles on it are not particularly 'neutral' and are written to go down well with the readership (putting to one side how often the articles are factually inaccurate). I guess that applies to some extent to every media output, but to me they should be more 'neutral' or comprehensive in their coverage - which would include, in its report on this meeting, a reference to how the 'fractious' meeting including one Councillor implying that another was mentally ill.I'm saying that the conduct of many Councillors, both during that meeting and in general, is inappropriate and acceptable, and that one doesn't excuse the other. Surely we all agree on that ?.That's all I'm saying David, so stop digging deeper for something that doesn't exist. And don't bring up the hoarding issue and try to insult me - as I said earlier in this thread, often the public, quite understandably, do not understand the fineries and nuances of legislation and want the authority (be it Hounslow or anywhere else) to act on the basis of what to them is common sense. But common sense often cannot take precedence upon the relevant legislative process/considerations. The hoarding was one such example. I don't know the fineries of running a cafe David, and you don't know much about the fineries of planning legislation David.
Adam Beamish ● 2060d