Forum Topic

Chiswick Area Forum

The election was some months ago - just wondering when the 9 Chiswick Councillors will resurrect the Chiswick Area Forum. I note there was a meeting between the Gunnersbury Councillors, the Police and 'some' local residents upstairs at George IV - was this advertised anywhere?

Ruth Mayorcas ● 1513d38 Comments

RuthThe next meeting of the Chiswick Area Forum is at 7pm on the 13.9.22 at Chiswick Town Hall.Chiswick Homefields Ward held a Safer Neighbourhood Panel at the George 1V too.These meeting are organised by local police officers.John

John Todd ● 1513d

Ruth, the dates of council meetings, including area forums, are set by LB Hounslow.  There's no resurrection; only continuation.  In addition to all dates being on the council website (a passive form of publicity, I know) we actively publish them by adding the dates for significant meetings at the end of our weekly blogs. If you had scrolled down Ranjit's blog you'll have seen the date there. In fact, it's been in each blog's list of dates since the blog of 5th June (the first after the dates were confirmed) which, by coincidence, was also written by Ranjit: http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=councillorsblog255.htm

Joanna Biddolph ● 1513d

Gosh, so the forum diary is well publicised and the meeting in the George was a regular organised by the local police. What on earth was Ruth implying?

Russell Pearson ● 1513d

My guess is Ruth just got back from living abroad and is trying to catch up. Like many, it would appear she has weaponized her ignorance which always ends up with shooting one's foot.

David Lesniak ● 1512d

If she went abroad she must have managed all her luggage on a bike.  Well done, Ruth.

Claire Moran ● 1512d

Im told ruth took a pedal boat to the port of Amsterdam for a topup on flowers  😁

Julian Pavey ● 1512d

Meetings22 Nov 2022 7:00 pm13 Sep 2022 7:00 pm18 Jan 2022 7:00 pm - Agenda12 Oct 2021 7:00 pm - Agenda14 Sep 2021 7:00 pm - Agenda, MinutesWell it's a long long time from January to September!

Philippa Bond ● 1511d

Yes, it is.  Dates were compromised first by the pandemic then the local elections; the result was we could only have three meetings during 2021-2022.  I did my best to press for a fourth date but it could not be arranged.  There wasn't a date in February after which we would were in purdah during which councils can't organise anything that might be considered controversial or political.

Joanna Biddolph ● 1511d

So Ruth's question is therefore not unreasonable at all.

Philippa Bond ● 1511d

“Not unreasonable” Orwell warns us against this abuse of language and says double negatives are bad. Perhaps double plus bad. Was her ask was reasonable? No, it was ‘snarky’.

Russell Pearson ● 1511d

What about double verbs?  Calm down and don't panic!  :)

Philippa Bond ● 1510d

"Was her ask was"?? Who knows...

Brian Coyle ● 1510d

And the responses were pretty nasty.  Another one of these posts where people seem to be completely unaware of how they come across.  Or not bothered that they sound like a pack of schoolyard bullies.  And please don't have a go at me for pointing that out.

Nora Watkins ● 1510d

What you may not know, Nora, is Ruth has made her bed. Repeatedly.

David Lesniak ● 1510d

Are you saying Ruth deserves the nasty comments David?

Nora Watkins ● 1510d

Starting to remind me of Karpman’s ‘Drama Triangle’ where someone jumps in as rescuer and then quickly persecutes from victim.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle

Russell Pearson ● 1510d

What are you trying to say Russell?  Please spell it out,  because as per David's response. it seems people like to imply something,  but don't come out and say what they mean. 

Nora Watkins ● 1510d

When one makes their bed, I often find it best to tuck them in, Nora. Clear enough?

David Lesniak ● 1509d

I take from this that you feel your behaviour is justified,  and the schoolyard bullying demonstrated in this thread is OK.  This person deserves this treatment as far as you're concerned.As I said before,  you may not be aware how that comes across to the average person reading this thread,  or you may not care. 

Nora Watkins ● 1509d

Disgraceful behaviour, Ruth is always so pleasant,  oh except when she’s sticking the knife in

Maggie Dodge ● 1509d

I wonder, do Nora and Ruth know each other? Perchance.

Russell Pearson ● 1509d

1.01

Julian Pavey ● 1509d

And off you go again with your theories Russell.  I’m not a man, and no I don’t know this person. But keep up with the conspiracy theories to justify the bad behaviour.

Nora Watkins ● 1509d

Bad behavior, to me Nora, would be taking a picture of someone flat on their ass and sending it to whomever in their social circles. Adding something like "up to your shenanigans" not, you know, having a laugh or extending a hand or inquiring about someone's well being.Again, you reap what you sow.

David Lesniak ● 1508d

I find the way you all rounded on the original poster quite unpleasant and I would call that bad behaviour.  You also seemed to imply that the playground bulling was deserved, so I assume we have different standards.  This is a local forum,  if you don't like what the poster says (and I found the original question quite harmless),  then why not just scroll on past?

Nora Watkins ● 1508d

What is not being said Nora is Ruth stood as a councillor for the Labour Party in Chiswick and is a cycling enthusiast.  I do know Ruth and although she and I have a difference of opinion over one subject (not cycling) I think that the constant bickering and targeting she gets is really very juvenile and bullying in many ways. Ruth is outspoken and can stand up for herself but that does not mean she deserves the comments made about her.  She lives in Chiswick as does her whole family and they have had to put up with the bullying too.  As someone with clinical depression I can say expertly this type of harassment can be devastating especially when it turns into destruction of property which is the joked about on here.  Many terms of abuse for mental health problems are rife on this forum.  Even more so than Twitter!  If anyone thinks this is a lecture (its the usual response to my opinions here) then you don't understand the way opinions work.  I have mine you have yours mine comes with years of experience of how bullying destroys mental health and as an advocate for disabled people I would as you to stop this but that is your choice I know.  I will say do not ever think you can treat me like you do Ruth I don't care if you don't like me because you don't know me and most of you don't know Ruth or her family either.(lecture over for now)

Caroline Carney ● 1506d

Thank you Caroline for the explanation. As someone who reads the forum and does not know any of the parties I have wondered if there was some party political reason for the sociopathic criticism Ruth attracts on the forum.

Christopher Shea ● 1506d

"constant bickering and targeting she gets is really very juvenile and bullying"Indeed, Caroline. Look no further than those targeting anyone who questions or dare criticises CS9 and LTNs. I think you'll find Ruth is in good company. It's gone on for years. I know plenty of people, myself included, who have been targeted here and on Twitter. And those inane ghost accounts (how many are there for Chiswick High Road alone?) provide the thinnest veil of anonymity. Trying to strike comments from the record to benefit oneself??? It is sociopathic. As is the gasllighting that usually accompanies the script.

David Lesniak ● 1506d

Why do provocative and aggressive posters frequently see themselves as victims? Not a question for Ruth Mayorcas, by the way!

Robert Fish ● 1506d

Karpman’s Drama Triangle explains it as “persecuting from victim”.

Russell Pearson ● 1506d

Thanks for the info,  it still doesn't really explain why people were commenting in that way, but it's good to understand some of the history.  I do wonder how it would play out in real life,  I rarely encounter people this angry or paranoid.  And that includes a road trip with a family friend,  who is a huge fan of QAnon. Thanks again for a thought provoking post.

Nora Watkins ● 1506d

I see Robert and Russell demonstrate gaslighting brilliantly.

David Lesniak ● 1505d

One thing I noticed was just how selective the umbrage is.

Russell Pearson ● 1505d

Or maybe you have a bias Russell?  If only people could step back and see it as others do.

Nora Watkins ● 1505d

You must be taking he Michael, Nora. 😹

Russell Pearson ● 1503d

Not at all.  You seem to enjoy projecting on to other people,  so I assume you have a bias.I find the behaviour on this forum quite odd.  If you don't agree with an opinion then you try to discredit that person. All I have done is point out how people immediately piled on for a simple comment and you implied that I must know that person,  or be on a "side". I'm sure a psychologist would have a field day with these threads.

Nora Watkins ● 1502d

So funny. And ironic.

Russell Pearson ● 1502d

Please explain what you mean Russell,  you do seem to enjoy implying things without actually saying what you mean.  Personally I prefer someone who's more open and honest with their opinions,  even if I don't agree with what they're saying.

Nora Watkins ● 1502d