I'm sorry: Councillor apologises for Facebook post saying Costa staff "needed a good beating"

Weymouth and Portland Borough Councillor Peter Chapman Weymouth and Portland Borough Councillor Peter Chapman

COUNCILLOR Peter Chapman has apologised ‘sincerely and unreservedly’ for remarks made about female coffee shop staff on a social networking site.

The Weymouth and Portland Borough Councillor sparked outrage amongst women’s groups, business owners and fellow councillors when he posted on his private Facebook profile that the ‘bone idle bitches’ at Costa Dorchester ‘needed a good beating’.

Coun Chapman, who is the borough council’s spokesperson for finance and assets, sent a letter to the Echo via email in which he apologises to the staff for ‘the comment, the intemperate language used and any offence or distress caused’.

But he added: “My comment was never intended for an audience beyond those who know me well enough to take the comment...with the humour that was intended.”

Coun Chapman concludes that copies of the webpage were passed to the Echo ‘for some political purpose’.

Toni McKee, of women’s group Women’s Action Network Dorset (WAND), said she was glad Coun Chapman had ‘seen the error of his ways’.

She added: “It is good to hear that he’s apologised but I don’t know if it is enough to make up for what he said.

“People need to realise that throwaway comments on sites like Facebook are not private, and in any case, as a councillor I should think his constituents would be interested to know what he thinks.

“It is not acceptable to joke about violence against women. It shows that we still have this underlying culture in our society.”

Coun Chapman previously said the comments were made ‘in jest’ and his Facebook profile was taken down after he was contacted by the Echo.

President of the Dorchester Chamber of Commerce Alison Moore said she was ‘very pleased’ to hear about the apology.

She added: “Hopefully this will make us all a bit more mindful of the things we say, or write, on the spur of them moment.

“Perhaps the councillor will learn from this and be able to be even more in touch with the people who voted for him, so that something good can come out of this awful business.”

Weymouth and Portland Borough Councillor Kate Wheller said: “I was very surprised to hear about the comments because I know Peter Chapman takes the issue of violence against women as seriously as I do and it’s clearly not a subject for light-hearted jokes.

“I hope that, if nothing else, this will highlight how important it is to treat people with the sort of respect you would want to be given yourself.”

A spokesperson for Costa Coffee said: “Our baristas work really hard to ensure our customers have an enjoyable experience and we’re sorry to learn that Councillor Peter Chapman did not enjoy his visit to our Costa store in Dorchester.

“However we do not condone any of Coun Chapman’s comments.”
 

The letter sent to the Echo by Coun Chapman reads as follows:

“Dear Sirs,

“I write with regard to your article of March 6 concerning my comment on Facebook.

“Firstly I offer my sincere and unreserved apologies to the staff at Costa Dorchester for the comment, the intemperate language used and any offence or distress caused.

“My comments were not in any way indicative of the normal standard of service that I have received at that establishment, which is why I have been a customer for several years.

“The staff there have always been extremely pleasant.

“Secondly, I wish to re-iterate that my Facebook account was always set to private and friends only access.

“My comment was never intended for an audience beyond those who know me well enough to take the comment in the context that was intended and with the humour that was intended.

“I can only conclude that the comment I made reached the Echo for some political purpose.

“Yours sincerely, Peter Chapman.”

COMMENTS

We are allowing comments on this story in order for our viewers to respond to the issues raised in this story. Anyone posting personal comments or comments not relating directly to this story will be removed and the user banned. Thanks for your co-operation.

Comments(89)

mr commonsense says...
1:54pm Thu 7 Mar 13

His apology is interesting and one has to ask the question would he have done it if his comments had not been published.
This raises a serious point about the way we live to-day. It has become so easy to write and say things about people and organisations without giving serious thought as to the likely consequences should it become public.
People in any form of public life as well as businesses need to very carefully when making comments as so often that can come back and kick you in the teeth,
This Cllr has demonstrated that he has no idea of how damaging his remarks have been and to say now he didn't mean to say them beggars belief, because he did say them. Please resign and do the honourable thing, then we will think much better of you.

JONBOY47 says...
2:19pm Thu 7 Mar 13

I think this goes to prove what poor quality most councillors are. Pity the idiot didn't have the guts or manners to go in to Costa and make his apology in person

DucksQuack says...
2:25pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Indeed, it's not the Echo he needs to apologise to, he needs to go down to the shop with an Echo photographer, and apologise to each and every member of staff.

Then resign.

scouer says...
2:35pm Thu 7 Mar 13

freedom of speech he said it on his own facebook nothink 2 do with any 1 good on him

leo210856 says...
2:38pm Thu 7 Mar 13

I love this bit

" I wish to re-iterate that my Facebook account was always set to private and friends only access."

“My comment was never intended for an audience beyond those who know me well enough to take the comment in the context that was intended and with the humour that was intended.

“I can only conclude that the comment I made reached the Echo for some political purpose.

So Councillor Chapman someone you knows you well enough to take the comment in the context that it was intended passed the comments on to the Echo.

What do they say about keeping you friends close but your enemies closer?

Bob Goulding says...
2:55pm Thu 7 Mar 13

You don't seem to have taken account of the circumstances that lead to the publication of Cllr Chapman's remarks.

I for one am prepared to accept that they were made in jest and, how ever ill-advised and tasteless, were intended to be shared only with 'friends'.

As it is it is clear that someone has chosen to take Cllr Chapman's remarks out of this context and make them public without first challenging him directly and giving him the opportunity to explain his remarks and/or withdraw them and make a direct apology.

There is no doubt in my mind that the publication of Cllr Chapman's Facebook post was opportunist and politically motivated and has nothing to do with the issues involved.

shy talk says...
2:56pm Thu 7 Mar 13

You’ve beaten me to it leo210856. No pun intended Mr Chapmen.

custos says...
3:23pm Thu 7 Mar 13

If Councillor Chapman really believes that he can post 'privately' on Facebook or any other social media website I would question his suitability to hold a responsible position on the Council.

Donkey Oatty says...
3:26pm Thu 7 Mar 13

custos wrote:
If Councillor Chapman really believes that he can post 'privately' on Facebook or any other social media website I would question his suitability to hold a responsible position on the Council.
And I believe that you haven't got your network settings correct...

custos says...
3:44pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Donkey Oatty wrote:
custos wrote:
If Councillor Chapman really believes that he can post 'privately' on Facebook or any other social media website I would question his suitability to hold a responsible position on the Council.
And I believe that you haven't got your network settings correct...
I am not sure what you mean by 'settings' but there is only one simple rule that anybody, (especially those in public office) should follow - never publish anything (text or picture) on a social media website that you would not want to see on the front page of a newspaper!

portlandresident says...
4:00pm Thu 7 Mar 13

I feel that Peter's 'Corporate Style' apology, and the fact that he couldn't do it in person to the staff, just re-affirms that he appears to not care about what he has said. I could be wrong, but the words used in his 'apology' just look too corporate, and non-personal. It's also foolish to assume that people who have access to your Facebook profile will not use it against you some day. Whether or not it's his personal account, and for 'private' consumption, he should still remember who he is, who he works for, and who he represents.

Wellbalanced says...
4:04pm Thu 7 Mar 13

mr commonsense wrote:
His apology is interesting and one has to ask the question would he have done it if his comments had not been published. This raises a serious point about the way we live to-day. It has become so easy to write and say things about people and organisations without giving serious thought as to the likely consequences should it become public. People in any form of public life as well as businesses need to very carefully when making comments as so often that can come back and kick you in the teeth, This Cllr has demonstrated that he has no idea of how damaging his remarks have been and to say now he didn't mean to say them beggars belief, because he did say them. Please resign and do the honourable thing, then we will think much better of you.
Well said.

Jezebella says...
4:48pm Thu 7 Mar 13

His comments were degrading and dishonourable to women. Whether his comments were intended for his 'friends' or the public is irrelevant - he should not hold a public office if he thinks it is acceptable to talk of women in this way. An apology to the Echo is not sufficient - he needs to accept the fact that he is not of a suitable calibre to represent the public - of which 50% of us are women, and resign.

Portland Bill says...
5:08pm Thu 7 Mar 13

The man is disgusting, as others have written ,has not got the guts to give an apology to the girls or resign. He is vile.

satisfecho says...
5:30pm Thu 7 Mar 13

When you are all ranting and raving at the TV, do you wake up in the morning and apologise for what your screamed and shouted the night before?

Everyday there is numerous 'name calling' by many on this website, and many will be 'calling names' without even knowing the person.

Maybe it's time that those who posts these comments are also made accountable?

portlandresident says...
5:34pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Satisfecho, I think the problem here is that what Councillor Chapman is different. If you shout and rant at your TV, only you and the people in the same room as you can witness it. If you're making a statement on Facebook, and the wrong person sees it, then you have to accept that it's going to be shared!

grhillidge@shaw.ca says...
5:51pm Thu 7 Mar 13

An apology is a wonderful tool when one gets caught but what does it emphasize - don't get caught!

Being responsible for words that fall out of our mouth is the only way to be.

Mrjon1 says...
6:20pm Thu 7 Mar 13

It’s his own private Facebook, yea he’s a t**t for writing it in the first place. Maybe he might learn now about how to keep his Facebook accessible to friends only.

I'mavoter says...
6:30pm Thu 7 Mar 13

The words mountain, and molehill come to mind.

Bob Goulding says...
6:42pm Thu 7 Mar 13

I'mavoter wrote:
The words mountain, and molehill come to mind.
..... and may I suggest hypocrisy.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." is a quote that comes to mind.

wey2go says...
6:55pm Thu 7 Mar 13

I'mavoter wrote:
The words mountain, and molehill come to mind.
Spot on. Waste of time/print... nothing better to report on and source than facebook.

niceonecyril says...
7:12pm Thu 7 Mar 13

JONBOY47 wrote:
I think this goes to prove what poor quality most councillors are. Pity the idiot didn't have the guts or manners to go in to Costa and make his apology in person
So you decry him for making a comment on what he obviously and rightly believed was a personal and private account on Facebook, but you think it is alright and acceptable to call him an idiot on what is obviously a PUBLIC page, talking about pot, kettle and black !

niceonecyril says...
7:12pm Thu 7 Mar 13

scouer wrote:
freedom of speech he said it on his own facebook nothink 2 do with any 1 good on him
Spot on 100%

niceonecyril says...
7:17pm Thu 7 Mar 13

custos wrote:
If Councillor Chapman really believes that he can post 'privately' on Facebook or any other social media website I would question his suitability to hold a responsible position on the Council.
Why, if you create a private page on Facebook, then that's exactly what it should be. I don't see the link between creating a private profile on Facebook and his ability to be a public servant.

Zetters says...
7:24pm Thu 7 Mar 13

The original comment was just funny!

JackJohnson says...
9:21pm Thu 7 Mar 13

This trusted pillar of the community does not appear to understand simple security and political subterfeuge, yet is allowed to deal with his constituents' personal and confidential information?

Without a doubt he should resign.

As for Costa staff, I've always found them to be polite and give very good service. Perhaps there was a queue he felt he shouldn't have to wait in.

jmc1 says...
9:39pm Thu 7 Mar 13

JackJohnson wrote:
This trusted pillar of the community does not appear to understand simple security and political subterfeuge, yet is allowed to deal with his constituents' personal and confidential information?

Without a doubt he should resign.

As for Costa staff, I've always found them to be polite and give very good service. Perhaps there was a queue he felt he shouldn't have to wait in.
I agree,they seem to think they are better than us

Billy1mate says...
9:45pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Regardless of the Facebook faux pas (schoolboy error), what were the staff not doing for Councillor Chapman to say they were bone idle?
Some of the comments posted on here are quite derogatory, does that make us as bad as Councillor Chapman?
I also, do not think that his comments mean he is violent towards women.

nystrom86 says...
12:27am Fri 8 Mar 13

Read a lot of comments about this over the last two days. As a constituent of this councillor I would like to say that he is one of the best I have ever known and that most of the people calling for his resignation wouldn't be half as capable at doing his job - I know that they will say they wouldn't want to do it anyway but if we all took that view we would just be led by a bunch of dictators. I am disappointed that the Echo printed this "story" knowing that it was intended only for his friends and not for general circulation. Personally if that's front page news then it doesn't say much for local reporting.

shaun blondz says...
7:06am Fri 8 Mar 13

I think we have the makings of an event to keep all of Weymouth happy and the Pavilion open with Costas selling the coffees and
In the Blue corner representing all male kind Mr Pete Chapman and in the Red corner representing all female kind Mrs Christine James.
Now we do not want a good clean fight and from such experienced combatants we do not expect one
But it is a fight to the end last man standing gets the prize of the mayors chain and cycle for the next year
Now that would sell out I am sure.

Woodgate says...
8:41am Fri 8 Mar 13

This whole story and the numerous comments it has attracted are all underpinned by a common and regularly re-ocurring theme (that the Echo delights in reminding us) - WPBC has long been cursed with a selection of self serving Councillors whose conduct and decision making has very little to do with whats best for the town. Sadly most people who could do an infinitely better job have to work for a living

Get a grip says...
9:02am Fri 8 Mar 13

Clearly a man has been extremely foolish and you would have to question his suitability as a counsellor

stench says...
9:25am Fri 8 Mar 13

deleted my comment?

Alkl i siad was he looks like a gump and how does he like his coffee, one spit or two?

Freedom of speech ;)

noodle06 says...
9:26am Fri 8 Mar 13

nystrom86 wrote:
Read a lot of comments about this over the last two days. As a constituent of this councillor I would like to say that he is one of the best I have ever known and that most of the people calling for his resignation wouldn't be half as capable at doing his job - I know that they will say they wouldn't want to do it anyway but if we all took that view we would just be led by a bunch of dictators. I am disappointed that the Echo printed this "story" knowing that it was intended only for his friends and not for general circulation. Personally if that's front page news then it doesn't say much for local reporting.
quite agree.....

Andy Blackwood says...
9:45am Fri 8 Mar 13

Woodgate wrote:
This whole story and the numerous comments it has attracted are all underpinned by a common and regularly re-ocurring theme (that the Echo delights in reminding us) - WPBC has long been cursed with a selection of self serving Councillors whose conduct and decision making has very little to do with whats best for the town. Sadly most people who could do an infinitely better job have to work for a living
Many of us (including Peter Chapman) do work for a living. We choose to put ourselves up for election because we want to play a part in making the Borough a better place rather than just sitting back and moaning about things. There will undoubtedly be a large number of people out there who could do a better job. Sadly they choose not to put themselves forward - maybe because they know that, whatever decisions they make, they will be criticised? For me there is a distinction between decision making and conduct. In this case I think Cllr Chapman's conduct was extremely ill-judged but actually has very little to do with his ability to act as a representative for Preston. From time to time I criticise his decision making because we do not agree about politics. There have been other councillors recently whose conduct and decision making have been questionable. However I don't think it's fair to tar everyone with the same brush. The majority of councillors conduct themselves with dignity and respect. It is always right and proper to question our decision making and we should be accountable to the public for the decisions we take. It's all too easy to lump everyone together and criticise "the council" whilst ignoring the fact that council decisions are rarely unanimous. We disagree amongst ourselves about lots of things but I am convinced that almost all councillors are trying to do what they perceive as "what's best for the town" rather than serving their own interests. But then I suppose I would say that wouldn't I?!

Redmic99 says...
10:49am Fri 8 Mar 13

This Tory councillor is just so typical of his ilk and just one of the reasons that we suffer such poor local government.

Bob Goulding says...
11:09am Fri 8 Mar 13

Redmic99 wrote:
This Tory councillor is just so typical of his ilk and just one of the reasons that we suffer such poor local government.
Andy Blackwood is not a Tory councillor. Do you reject his opinion out of hand as well?

Andy Blackwood says...
1:21pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Bob Goulding wrote:
Redmic99 wrote:
This Tory councillor is just so typical of his ilk and just one of the reasons that we suffer such poor local government.
Andy Blackwood is not a Tory councillor. Do you reject his opinion out of hand as well?
I would. ;-)

stench says...
1:51pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Andy Blackwood wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
Redmic99 wrote: This Tory councillor is just so typical of his ilk and just one of the reasons that we suffer such poor local government.
Andy Blackwood is not a Tory councillor. Do you reject his opinion out of hand as well?
I would. ;-)
ha!

cj07589 says...
2:30pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Big deal! the guy spoke the truth about the cruddy service he rec'd and the typical limp wristed do-gooders can take the crictism and throw their toys out of the pram. What ever happened to freedom of speech then..........

marabout says...
2:52pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Im sorry but no amount of an apology can justify what this man wrote. Writing that "Bone idle **** need a good beating" is so very, very wrong.

And Im sorry but apologising for advocating violence to women is just not acceptable.

I expect to see this mans resignation soon.

earlofplunket says...
3:31pm Fri 8 Mar 13

marabout wrote:
Im sorry but no amount of an apology can justify what this man wrote. Writing that "Bone idle **** need a good beating" is so very, very wrong.

And Im sorry but apologising for advocating violence to women is just not acceptable.

I expect to see this mans resignation soon.
..and Christine James for actually committing the act I presume?

echo-reader says...
4:00pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Hopefully the service will improve in costa coffee of Dorchester.

he has only said what everone else is too scared to say
i bet they service will get better there now

cj07589 says...
4:05pm Fri 8 Mar 13

marabout wrote:
Im sorry but no amount of an apology can justify what this man wrote. Writing that "Bone idle **** need a good beating" is so very, very wrong.

And Im sorry but apologising for advocating violence to women is just not acceptable.

I expect to see this mans resignation soon.
Look up the meaning of jest please.

Bob Goulding says...
4:26pm Fri 8 Mar 13

marabout wrote:
Im sorry but no amount of an apology can justify what this man wrote. Writing that "Bone idle **** need a good beating" is so very, very wrong.

And Im sorry but apologising for advocating violence to women is just not acceptable.

I expect to see this mans resignation soon.
I'm sorry but making a throw-away remark in jest in what he thought was a private space could hardly be described as 'advocating violence to women'. That is a very different matter and, if it had been the case, I would have no hesitation in supporting your call for his resignation. However I'm afraid that, in this case, you are quite wrong and it does you no credit to make such unfounded accusations. In fact, I believe your comments are defamatory and could be considered actionable.

Woodgate says...
5:17pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Andy Blackwood wrote:
Woodgate wrote:
This whole story and the numerous comments it has attracted are all underpinned by a common and regularly re-ocurring theme (that the Echo delights in reminding us) - WPBC has long been cursed with a selection of self serving Councillors whose conduct and decision making has very little to do with whats best for the town. Sadly most people who could do an infinitely better job have to work for a living
Many of us (including Peter Chapman) do work for a living. We choose to put ourselves up for election because we want to play a part in making the Borough a better place rather than just sitting back and moaning about things. There will undoubtedly be a large number of people out there who could do a better job. Sadly they choose not to put themselves forward - maybe because they know that, whatever decisions they make, they will be criticised? For me there is a distinction between decision making and conduct. In this case I think Cllr Chapman's conduct was extremely ill-judged but actually has very little to do with his ability to act as a representative for Preston. From time to time I criticise his decision making because we do not agree about politics. There have been other councillors recently whose conduct and decision making have been questionable. However I don't think it's fair to tar everyone with the same brush. The majority of councillors conduct themselves with dignity and respect. It is always right and proper to question our decision making and we should be accountable to the public for the decisions we take. It's all too easy to lump everyone together and criticise "the council" whilst ignoring the fact that council decisions are rarely unanimous. We disagree amongst ourselves about lots of things but I am convinced that almost all councillors are trying to do what they perceive as "what's best for the town" rather than serving their own interests. But then I suppose I would say that wouldn't I?!
Cllr Blackwood - I accept that there are some good Cllrs who work hard to genuinely try to make a postive difference to the Borough (you may very well be one of them) but im confident that many will agree with me that WPBC has had and continues to be blighted by far more than its share of self serving members and officers whose approach to those that they are supposed to serve is superior and downright dismissive and whose motives are driven more by self interest and status. Of course I could be wrong, but when you take all the regular adverse publicity surrounding this lot and add it to the accelerating decline in the area, arising from lack of leadership and wider, commercial and cultural ambition, somehow I dont think so.

valhalla says...
6:04pm Fri 8 Mar 13

It's hard to say what I find the most disturbing. A elected representative of the borough and his attitude to the low paid, ie that they deserve punishment for not serving him to his liking (ARROGANCE OR WHAT) or his attitude to women (THE **** NEED BEATING). This man represents you and your views. I wouldnt let him in my house much less a council chamber. If the Conservative group don't do anything we can but assume that he represents their view.

Bob Goulding says...
6:28pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Woodgate wrote:
Andy Blackwood wrote:
Woodgate wrote:
This whole story and the numerous comments it has attracted are all underpinned by a common and regularly re-ocurring theme (that the Echo delights in reminding us) - WPBC has long been cursed with a selection of self serving Councillors whose conduct and decision making has very little to do with whats best for the town. Sadly most people who could do an infinitely better job have to work for a living
Many of us (including Peter Chapman) do work for a living. We choose to put ourselves up for election because we want to play a part in making the Borough a better place rather than just sitting back and moaning about things. There will undoubtedly be a large number of people out there who could do a better job. Sadly they choose not to put themselves forward - maybe because they know that, whatever decisions they make, they will be criticised? For me there is a distinction between decision making and conduct. In this case I think Cllr Chapman's conduct was extremely ill-judged but actually has very little to do with his ability to act as a representative for Preston. From time to time I criticise his decision making because we do not agree about politics. There have been other councillors recently whose conduct and decision making have been questionable. However I don't think it's fair to tar everyone with the same brush. The majority of councillors conduct themselves with dignity and respect. It is always right and proper to question our decision making and we should be accountable to the public for the decisions we take. It's all too easy to lump everyone together and criticise "the council" whilst ignoring the fact that council decisions are rarely unanimous. We disagree amongst ourselves about lots of things but I am convinced that almost all councillors are trying to do what they perceive as "what's best for the town" rather than serving their own interests. But then I suppose I would say that wouldn't I?!
Cllr Blackwood - I accept that there are some good Cllrs who work hard to genuinely try to make a postive difference to the Borough (you may very well be one of them) but im confident that many will agree with me that WPBC has had and continues to be blighted by far more than its share of self serving members and officers whose approach to those that they are supposed to serve is superior and downright dismissive and whose motives are driven more by self interest and status. Of course I could be wrong, but when you take all the regular adverse publicity surrounding this lot and add it to the accelerating decline in the area, arising from lack of leadership and wider, commercial and cultural ambition, somehow I dont think so.
Yes, you are wrong. If you believe that agendas and decisions are based on self interest then please disclose your evidence. If you have none (which I am sure is the case) then this is nothing more that worthless and misleading propaganda.

Bob Goulding says...
6:50pm Fri 8 Mar 13

valhalla wrote:
It's hard to say what I find the most disturbing. A elected representative of the borough and his attitude to the low paid, ie that they deserve punishment for not serving him to his liking (ARROGANCE OR WHAT) or his attitude to women (THE **** NEED BEATING). This man represents you and your views. I wouldnt let him in my house much less a council chamber. If the Conservative group don't do anything we can but assume that he represents their view.
This man was elected because his views are representative of the electorate that chose to vote for him and I can see no reason to believe that anything has changed in this regard.

As far as I can see he has not criticised low paid workers per se. If Costa's workers are low paid then, given the huge profits that they make, perhaps they should be examining their remuneration policy. There is a direct correlation between motivation and reward.

biggestoaf says...
7:31pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Woodgate wrote:
Andy Blackwood wrote:
Woodgate wrote:
This whole story and the numerous comments it has attracted are all underpinned by a common and regularly re-ocurring theme (that the Echo delights in reminding us) - WPBC has long been cursed with a selection of self serving Councillors whose conduct and decision making has very little to do with whats best for the town. Sadly most people who could do an infinitely better job have to work for a living
Many of us (including Peter Chapman) do work for a living. We choose to put ourselves up for election because we want to play a part in making the Borough a better place rather than just sitting back and moaning about things. There will undoubtedly be a large number of people out there who could do a better job. Sadly they choose not to put themselves forward - maybe because they know that, whatever decisions they make, they will be criticised? For me there is a distinction between decision making and conduct. In this case I think Cllr Chapman's conduct was extremely ill-judged but actually has very little to do with his ability to act as a representative for Preston. From time to time I criticise his decision making because we do not agree about politics. There have been other councillors recently whose conduct and decision making have been questionable. However I don't think it's fair to tar everyone with the same brush. The majority of councillors conduct themselves with dignity and respect. It is always right and proper to question our decision making and we should be accountable to the public for the decisions we take. It's all too easy to lump everyone together and criticise "the council" whilst ignoring the fact that council decisions are rarely unanimous. We disagree amongst ourselves about lots of things but I am convinced that almost all councillors are trying to do what they perceive as "what's best for the town" rather than serving their own interests. But then I suppose I would say that wouldn't I?!
Cllr Blackwood - I accept that there are some good Cllrs who work hard to genuinely try to make a postive difference to the Borough (you may very well be one of them) but im confident that many will agree with me that WPBC has had and continues to be blighted by far more than its share of self serving members and officers whose approach to those that they are supposed to serve is superior and downright dismissive and whose motives are driven more by self interest and status. Of course I could be wrong, but when you take all the regular adverse publicity surrounding this lot and add it to the accelerating decline in the area, arising from lack of leadership and wider, commercial and cultural ambition, somehow I dont think so.
The biggest problem with "this lot" is that too many of them are Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. They're messing up the country and they're messing up the Borough.
*sits back and waits for the anti-Labour backlash*

JamesYoung says...
7:39pm Fri 8 Mar 13

biggestoaf wrote:
Woodgate wrote:
Andy Blackwood wrote:
Woodgate wrote:
This whole story and the numerous comments it has attracted are all underpinned by a common and regularly re-ocurring theme (that the Echo delights in reminding us) - WPBC has long been cursed with a selection of self serving Councillors whose conduct and decision making has very little to do with whats best for the town. Sadly most people who could do an infinitely better job have to work for a living
Many of us (including Peter Chapman) do work for a living. We choose to put ourselves up for election because we want to play a part in making the Borough a better place rather than just sitting back and moaning about things. There will undoubtedly be a large number of people out there who could do a better job. Sadly they choose not to put themselves forward - maybe because they know that, whatever decisions they make, they will be criticised? For me there is a distinction between decision making and conduct. In this case I think Cllr Chapman's conduct was extremely ill-judged but actually has very little to do with his ability to act as a representative for Preston. From time to time I criticise his decision making because we do not agree about politics. There have been other councillors recently whose conduct and decision making have been questionable. However I don't think it's fair to tar everyone with the same brush. The majority of councillors conduct themselves with dignity and respect. It is always right and proper to question our decision making and we should be accountable to the public for the decisions we take. It's all too easy to lump everyone together and criticise "the council" whilst ignoring the fact that council decisions are rarely unanimous. We disagree amongst ourselves about lots of things but I am convinced that almost all councillors are trying to do what they perceive as "what's best for the town" rather than serving their own interests. But then I suppose I would say that wouldn't I?!
Cllr Blackwood - I accept that there are some good Cllrs who work hard to genuinely try to make a postive difference to the Borough (you may very well be one of them) but im confident that many will agree with me that WPBC has had and continues to be blighted by far more than its share of self serving members and officers whose approach to those that they are supposed to serve is superior and downright dismissive and whose motives are driven more by self interest and status. Of course I could be wrong, but when you take all the regular adverse publicity surrounding this lot and add it to the accelerating decline in the area, arising from lack of leadership and wider, commercial and cultural ambition, somehow I dont think so.
The biggest problem with "this lot" is that too many of them are Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. They're messing up the country and they're messing up the Borough.
*sits back and waits for the anti-Labour backlash*
The only reason you are having to deal with Libs and Cons is because of the bloody mess your precious Labour party made of the economy.
Will that do?

biggestoaf says...
8:26pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Fairly half-hearted attempt James. You know I'm going to come back with "and were they to blame for the collapse in the economies of all the other countries too?"

cj07589 says...
10:09pm Fri 8 Mar 13

biggestoaf wrote:
Fairly half-hearted attempt James. You know I'm going to come back with "and were they to blame for the collapse in the economies of all the other countries too?"
That's the lamest excuse and doesn't wash with the savvy ...any muppet with half a brain cell of common sense knows you repair the roof when the sun shines. Liebour maxed the credit cards out plus some, flogged the nations gold at bottom dollar open the immrigration flood gates devaluing the labour market rate not forgetting giving away our rebate to European fascists. Bloody traitors the lot of em, I'm still waiting for tony Blair to be taken to The Hague for crimes against the UK and humanity.

biggestoaf says...
10:48pm Fri 8 Mar 13

You see James - that's more like it! What about all the ****-ups at WPBC cj. Even you surely can't blame Labour for those?

JamesYoung says...
9:21am Sat 9 Mar 13

biggestoaf wrote:
Fairly half-hearted attempt James. You know I'm going to come back with "and were they to blame for the collapse in the economies of all the other countries too?"
Half hearted, my friend, because if you've survived the last four years and have still not figured out that most of our issues are home grown, i'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise.
Not all countries saw household debt triple in just 5 years.
When you understand the ramifications, and causes, of that, then we can talk about PFI, tax policy, debt ratios, etc.

JamesYoung says...
9:22am Sat 9 Mar 13

JamesYoung wrote:
biggestoaf wrote:
Fairly half-hearted attempt James. You know I'm going to come back with "and were they to blame for the collapse in the economies of all the other countries too?"
Half hearted, my friend, because if you've survived the last four years and have still not figured out that most of our issues are home grown, i'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise.
Not all countries saw household debt triple in just 5 years.
When you understand the ramifications, and causes, of that, then we can talk about PFI, tax policy, debt ratios, etc.
PS: I think you can make a credible argument that Blair, Bush and other western leaders were indeed responsible. Their job is to regulate. They didn't.

JamesYoung says...
9:23am Sat 9 Mar 13

biggestoaf wrote:
You see James - that's more like it! What about all the ****-ups at WPBC cj. Even you surely can't blame Labour for those?
You'll find no argument from me there. Local politics is a disaster.

biggestoaf says...
9:50am Sat 9 Mar 13

But have you noticed the disastrous local politicians are mostly Tories with one or two Lib Dems thrown in? Can't remember any problems caused by our Labour councillors.

JamesYoung says...
12:06pm Sat 9 Mar 13

biggestoaf wrote:
But have you noticed the disastrous local politicians are mostly Tories with one or two Lib Dems thrown in? Can't remember any problems caused by our Labour councillors.
That's because they have no power. Meanwhile, over in Southampton.....

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/district
/southampton/1022626
8.Worst_cuts_ever_vo
ted_through_by_counc
il/

JamesYoung says...
12:14pm Sat 9 Mar 13

And an interesting view about how Brown caused the financial crisis.

In 1933 the first Roosevelt administration found that 50% of American banks had vanished in the depression. Confidence
in the banking system had to be re-established, and this was done by the passing of the Glass-Seagall Act, which
separated Main Street banking from investment banking. A depositor in Milwaukee could have confidence that his money
would not go for adventures on Wall St. Confidence was gradually restored albeit slowly. The Glass-Seagall Act remained law until it was repealed by Clinton in 2000. Why was it repealed? Because in 1997
Gordon Brown took UK bank regulation away from the Bank of England and split it between the Treasury, the Bank of
England and the FSA. None of them knew exactly what their remit was but, crucially, they didn't know the remit of the
others, resulting in Northern Rock and worse. No-one in Whitehall was monitoring Northern Rock lending long - 25 years
- and borrowing short - three and six months - on the money markets. Darling admitted that the first he knew of the run
on Northern Rock was when he read about it in the Financial Times while on holiday. But no-one in Whitehall noticed and told him! However, the light-touch, non-existent bank regulation that Brown had made available in the UK was noticed by
American banks and so many of them switched their centres of operations to London that Clinton was forced to repeal
the Glass-Seagall Act in order to prevent Wall St. becoming a ghost town for banking. Clinton was succeeded by GW Bush,
friend of Wall St, the genie was out of the bottle, and the rest is history. Gordon Brown caused the American credit
crunch. No wonder Obama didn't want to talk to him.

biggestoaf says...
1:02pm Sat 9 Mar 13

Hmm. And which Conservative/Republi
can/Banker wrote that? It's an interesting view but an obscured one. Whilst Gordon Brown changed the way the banks were regulated, this account fails to mention something of which you, James, will certainly be aware. At the time that this was happening, were David Cameron and George Osborne saying "No, don't lighten the regulation of the banks Gordon. You know what a dodgy lot the bankers are. They're bound to play fast and loose with everyone's money and we'll end up in a right mess."? Were they warning of the dangers of "light touch non-existent bank regulation."? Strangely no. They were criticising the Labour government for over-regulating the banks. They wanted the banks to have even more freedom to play fast and loose with our money. Criticise Gordon Brown by all means. Perhaps he should have grasped the chance to nationalise the banks. But never forget our present troubles would have been even worse if the Tories had been in power.

siratb says...
2:28pm Sat 9 Mar 13

Well this story goes to show how some political parties (Liberals I presume) can stoop so low as to stab one of their "friends" in the back and give the story to the Echo for political purposes....
.
Who cares, this is a non story, a flippant remark, said supposedly in private by a man who if you have ever met him, you would know is exceedingly nice and very helpful. Cllr Chapman went out of his way to help us with the council when we needed help, and I for one don't care about jokes made by him in private.
.
Cllr Dunster has a very valid point when talking about foreign workers and their work ethics if you ask me.

woodsedge says...
6:13pm Sat 9 Mar 13

biggestoaf wrote:
Hmm. And which Conservative/Republi

can/Banker wrote that? It's an interesting view but an obscured one. Whilst Gordon Brown changed the way the banks were regulated, this account fails to mention something of which you, James, will certainly be aware. At the time that this was happening, were David Cameron and George Osborne saying "No, don't lighten the regulation of the banks Gordon. You know what a dodgy lot the bankers are. They're bound to play fast and loose with everyone's money and we'll end up in a right mess."? Were they warning of the dangers of "light touch non-existent bank regulation."? Strangely no. They were criticising the Labour government for over-regulating the banks. They wanted the banks to have even more freedom to play fast and loose with our money. Criticise Gordon Brown by all means. Perhaps he should have grasped the chance to nationalise the banks. But never forget our present troubles would have been even worse if the Tories had been in power.
Quite agree, google searches will uncover all sorts of one sided dribble. What everyone forgets is that it wasn't teachers, fire fighters and council workers that crashed the economy whilst taking billions in bailouts and bonuses, it was the bankers. You know, the ones that Cameron continues to protect and who he believes it is unfair to cap their bonus at 2 years salary.

JamesYoung says...
7:29pm Sat 9 Mar 13

biggestoaf wrote:
Hmm. And which Conservative/Republi

can/Banker wrote that? It's an interesting view but an obscured one. Whilst Gordon Brown changed the way the banks were regulated, this account fails to mention something of which you, James, will certainly be aware. At the time that this was happening, were David Cameron and George Osborne saying "No, don't lighten the regulation of the banks Gordon. You know what a dodgy lot the bankers are. They're bound to play fast and loose with everyone's money and we'll end up in a right mess."? Were they warning of the dangers of "light touch non-existent bank regulation."? Strangely no. They were criticising the Labour government for over-regulating the banks. They wanted the banks to have even more freedom to play fast and loose with our money. Criticise Gordon Brown by all means. Perhaps he should have grasped the chance to nationalise the banks. But never forget our present troubles would have been even worse if the Tories had been in power.
Isn't it funny that whenever anybody posts anything factual (because it is what happened) it gets dismissed as right wing drivel.

Not only that, but Brown's own actions are claimed to be somebody else's fault. He was in charge, fella, he's got to take the blame.

Our present troubles would not have been worse had the Tories been in power at all. The Tories left the incoming Labour government with a budget surplus.

Had they continued to do that, we would have been far less exposed than we were by a chancellor who spent more than he earned.

JamesYoung says...
7:33pm Sat 9 Mar 13

woodsedge wrote:
biggestoaf wrote:
Hmm. And which Conservative/Republi


can/Banker wrote that? It's an interesting view but an obscured one. Whilst Gordon Brown changed the way the banks were regulated, this account fails to mention something of which you, James, will certainly be aware. At the time that this was happening, were David Cameron and George Osborne saying "No, don't lighten the regulation of the banks Gordon. You know what a dodgy lot the bankers are. They're bound to play fast and loose with everyone's money and we'll end up in a right mess."? Were they warning of the dangers of "light touch non-existent bank regulation."? Strangely no. They were criticising the Labour government for over-regulating the banks. They wanted the banks to have even more freedom to play fast and loose with our money. Criticise Gordon Brown by all means. Perhaps he should have grasped the chance to nationalise the banks. But never forget our present troubles would have been even worse if the Tories had been in power.
Quite agree, google searches will uncover all sorts of one sided dribble. What everyone forgets is that it wasn't teachers, fire fighters and council workers that crashed the economy whilst taking billions in bailouts and bonuses, it was the bankers. You know, the ones that Cameron continues to protect and who he believes it is unfair to cap their bonus at 2 years salary.
I actually agree with this. But that doesn't mean that the teachers, fire fighters and council staff can now escape unscathed - again, this isnt ideology, its just that there isn't the money anymore.

To be honest Cameron is pretty hamstrung. In the same way as Clinton was forced to act in the late 1990s because of Brown, Cameron cannot now take effective action because banks will go offshore (HSBC has already moved its corporate HQ). Don't forget that the EU is already trying to introduce legislation that will destroy London as a centre for financial services.
If you said we'd be better off without them, i'd absolutely agree - but with the proviso that before we can kick them all out, we need to have restored our manufacturing and agriculture industries. Which means labour costs have to come down....

marabout says...
10:04pm Sat 9 Mar 13

Bob Goulding wrote:
marabout wrote:
Im sorry but no amount of an apology can justify what this man wrote. Writing that "Bone idle **** need a good beating" is so very, very wrong.

And Im sorry but apologising for advocating violence to women is just not acceptable.

I expect to see this mans resignation soon.
I'm sorry but making a throw-away remark in jest in what he thought was a private space could hardly be described as 'advocating violence to women'. That is a very different matter and, if it had been the case, I would have no hesitation in supporting your call for his resignation. However I'm afraid that, in this case, you are quite wrong and it does you no credit to make such unfounded accusations. In fact, I believe your comments are defamatory and could be considered actionable.
Making a throw away jest in a private space is most certainly advocating violence against women. Even if this man had not written these comments the very fact that he thought that those "idle **** need a good beating" suggests that this chap is a long way from the sort of man who should be representing us.

cj07589 says...
9:42am Sun 10 Mar 13

marabout wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
marabout wrote:
Im sorry but no amount of an apology can justify what this man wrote. Writing that "Bone idle **** need a good beating" is so very, very wrong.

And Im sorry but apologising for advocating violence to women is just not acceptable.

I expect to see this mans resignation soon.
I'm sorry but making a throw-away remark in jest in what he thought was a private space could hardly be described as 'advocating violence to women'. That is a very different matter and, if it had been the case, I would have no hesitation in supporting your call for his resignation. However I'm afraid that, in this case, you are quite wrong and it does you no credit to make such unfounded accusations. In fact, I believe your comments are defamatory and could be considered actionable.
Making a throw away jest in a private space is most certainly advocating violence against women. Even if this man had not written these comments the very fact that he thought that those "idle **** need a good beating" suggests that this chap is a long way from the sort of man who should be representing us.
What a load of tosh, just because you say something the reality is it doesn't mean you believe it or would Carry it out. How fickle are you, you need to take a long hard look at yourself and stop trivialising matters by fabricating fiascos that in reality mean nothing.
By your very own statement and logic, since all politicians makes statements of intent but do not implement them does this mean they are unsuitable to represent the electorate now? The most worrying thing is why would any sane person want to enter politics with so many virtuous spiteful liberal vultures around who have nothing better to do than pass sentence from their virtuous ivory tower.

marabout says...
12:58pm Sun 10 Mar 13

Recently a member of the Government called a police Officer a Pleb. As a result, he lost his job.


If the Prime Minister had put of his facebook page that "These idle **** need a good beating" would we accept that as a joke?

If a central government politician had put on their facebook page that "these idle **** need a good beating" would we consider that as a joke?

Then why is it ok for a local politician to put on his facebook page that "these idle **** need a good beating"

Councillor Ray Nowak is absolutely correct when he writes to this paper and states that

"Suggesting its OK to beat women is so wrong."

I have to agree with Mr Nowak.

Thankfully, Mr Chapman has apologised and has deleted his facebook page but as a result of this sordid episode Im afraid that my support for the Conservative party is waning.


Final comment.

radiator says...
2:38pm Sun 10 Mar 13

Dear oh dear I have been reading all of these posts and some of them confirms why this country is in the state its in.When someone makes an obvious light hearted comment as this guy whether on facebook or not is taken so seriously as some of you the mind boggles.As for the cop being called a pleb I am sure he has been called worse than that on a friday night outside a pub.For the record I was in civil eng and construction all my life working with real men who didnt get upset about being called names, I am sure you dont need me to tell you some of them.I am sick of this handwringing liberal wishy washy way of thinking thats prevalent in this country nowadays, and Im afraid that Cameron is going down that route in the way this country is going, a shame really as I have been conservative all of my life and I did hope he would do better than this.

Tike says...
5:53pm Sun 10 Mar 13

marabout wrote:
Recently a member of the Government called a police Officer a Pleb. As a result, he lost his job.


If the Prime Minister had put of his facebook page that "These idle **** need a good beating" would we accept that as a joke?

If a central government politician had put on their facebook page that "these idle **** need a good beating" would we consider that as a joke?

Then why is it ok for a local politician to put on his facebook page that "these idle **** need a good beating"

Councillor Ray Nowak is absolutely correct when he writes to this paper and states that

"Suggesting its OK to beat women is so wrong."

I have to agree with Mr Nowak.

Thankfully, Mr Chapman has apologised and has deleted his facebook page but as a result of this sordid episode Im afraid that my support for the Conservative party is waning.


Final comment.
Problem is, the MP did NOT call a Police Officer a pleb, the police lied, another off-duty police then provided a false letter/statement and the newspapers had the 'story' provided by the police and published it. It took months for the truth to come out and a man had his career and reputation ruined. Cllr Chapman was wrong to write that Costa staff needed 'a beating' and perhaps he will now realise that not all his 'friends' can be trusted.

cj07589 says...
8:46pm Sun 10 Mar 13

marabout wrote:
Recently a member of the Government called a police Officer a Pleb. As a result, he lost his job.


If the Prime Minister had put of his facebook page that "These idle **** need a good beating" would we accept that as a joke?

If a central government politician had put on their facebook page that "these idle **** need a good beating" would we consider that as a joke?

Then why is it ok for a local politician to put on his facebook page that "these idle **** need a good beating"

Councillor Ray Nowak is absolutely correct when he writes to this paper and states that

"Suggesting its OK to beat women is so wrong."

I have to agree with Mr Nowak.

Thankfully, Mr Chapman has apologised and has deleted his facebook page but as a result of this sordid episode Im afraid that my support for the Conservative party is waning.


Final comment.
Grow up

Bob Goulding says...
10:40am Mon 11 Mar 13

marabout wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
marabout wrote:
Im sorry but no amount of an apology can justify what this man wrote. Writing that "Bone idle **** need a good beating" is so very, very wrong.

And Im sorry but apologising for advocating violence to women is just not acceptable.

I expect to see this mans resignation soon.
I'm sorry but making a throw-away remark in jest in what he thought was a private space could hardly be described as 'advocating violence to women'. That is a very different matter and, if it had been the case, I would have no hesitation in supporting your call for his resignation. However I'm afraid that, in this case, you are quite wrong and it does you no credit to make such unfounded accusations. In fact, I believe your comments are defamatory and could be considered actionable.
Making a throw away jest in a private space is most certainly advocating violence against women. Even if this man had not written these comments the very fact that he thought that those "idle **** need a good beating" suggests that this chap is a long way from the sort of man who should be representing us.
What a ridiculous thing to say. If you were to reject everyone who had had what you consider to be inappropriate thoughts IN JEST we would have no-one left to represent us at all.

monkeydog says...
2:45pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.

Bob Goulding says...
2:58pm Mon 11 Mar 13

monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.
I think (if I am allowed to) that it's those who believe Cllr Chapman's private comments were anything more that a bad joke that need counselling. Not sure why 1954 should be significant in this context but I do know that the concept of Thought Police passed us by in 1984.

JamesYoung says...
4:09pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Bob Goulding wrote:
monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.
I think (if I am allowed to) that it's those who believe Cllr Chapman's private comments were anything more that a bad joke that need counselling. Not sure why 1954 should be significant in this context but I do know that the concept of Thought Police passed us by in 1984.
I'm not so sure they did, you know.

Bob Goulding says...
4:24pm Mon 11 Mar 13

JamesYoung wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.
I think (if I am allowed to) that it's those who believe Cllr Chapman's private comments were anything more that a bad joke that need counselling. Not sure why 1954 should be significant in this context but I do know that the concept of Thought Police passed us by in 1984.
I'm not so sure they did, you know.
You may be right. Perhaps thought control still exists as an objective of today's English Socialism.

cj07589 says...
4:54pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Bob Goulding wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.
I think (if I am allowed to) that it's those who believe Cllr Chapman's private comments were anything more that a bad joke that need counselling. Not sure why 1954 should be significant in this context but I do know that the concept of Thought Police passed us by in 1984.
I'm not so sure they did, you know.
You may be right. Perhaps thought control still exists as an objective of today's English Socialism.
Which goes along way to explaining why complete morons keep on being voted in.
It ain't rocket if you feel strongly about a comment said privately in jest then don't vote for them.

Parkstreetshufle says...
5:02pm Mon 11 Mar 13

I think most council employees are all sic and need a good beating.

Everyone knows I'm kidding right? right?

Bob Goulding says...
6:25pm Mon 11 Mar 13

cj07589 wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.
I think (if I am allowed to) that it's those who believe Cllr Chapman's private comments were anything more that a bad joke that need counselling. Not sure why 1954 should be significant in this context but I do know that the concept of Thought Police passed us by in 1984.
I'm not so sure they did, you know.
You may be right. Perhaps thought control still exists as an objective of today's English Socialism.
Which goes along way to explaining why complete morons keep on being voted in.
It ain't rocket if you feel strongly about a comment said privately in jest then don't vote for them.
Whilst I don't understand your first comment I do agree with your second. I would add, however, that if comments made in private (in jest or otherwise) remained private then it would not be an issue for the electorate. I think the ethics of those that were party to the disclosure of Cllr Chapman's private comments should called into question rather than those of Cllr Chapman himself. There is no doubt that their motives and the word honorable is not included.

Bob Goulding says...
6:27pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Bob Goulding wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.
I think (if I am allowed to) that it's those who believe Cllr Chapman's private comments were anything more that a bad joke that need counselling. Not sure why 1954 should be significant in this context but I do know that the concept of Thought Police passed us by in 1984.
I'm not so sure they did, you know.
You may be right. Perhaps thought control still exists as an objective of today's English Socialism.
Which goes along way to explaining why complete morons keep on being voted in.
It ain't rocket if you feel strongly about a comment said privately in jest then don't vote for them.
Whilst I don't understand your first comment I do agree with your second. I would add, however, that if comments made in private (in jest or otherwise) remained private then it would not be an issue for the electorate. I think the ethics of those that were party to the disclosure of Cllr Chapman's private comments should called into question rather than those of Cllr Chapman himself. There is no doubt that their motives and the word honorable is not included.
...and neither is 'honourable'. Please update you website software Echo.

Bob Goulding says...
6:32pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Bob Goulding wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.
I think (if I am allowed to) that it's those who believe Cllr Chapman's private comments were anything more that a bad joke that need counselling. Not sure why 1954 should be significant in this context but I do know that the concept of Thought Police passed us by in 1984.
I'm not so sure they did, you know.
You may be right. Perhaps thought control still exists as an objective of today's English Socialism.
Which goes along way to explaining why complete morons keep on being voted in.
It ain't rocket if you feel strongly about a comment said privately in jest then don't vote for them.
Whilst I don't understand your first comment I do agree with your second. I would add, however, that if comments made in private (in jest or otherwise) remained private then it would not be an issue for the electorate. I think the ethics of those that were party to the disclosure of Cllr Chapman's private comments should called into question rather than those of Cllr Chapman himself. There is no doubt that their motives and the word honorable is not included.
...and neither is 'honourable'. Please update you website software Echo.
Oh dear my typing is getting worse by the minute.... should have read;

There is no doubt about their motives and the word honourable is not included.

cj07589 says...
7:59pm Mon 11 Mar 13

Bob Goulding wrote:
cj07589 wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Bob Goulding wrote:
monkeydog wrote:
Anyone who thinks this man's comments were a 'jest' needs counselling. It might still be 1954 in parts of Weymouth but the rest of the country has moved on.
I think (if I am allowed to) that it's those who believe Cllr Chapman's private comments were anything more that a bad joke that need counselling. Not sure why 1954 should be significant in this context but I do know that the concept of Thought Police passed us by in 1984.
I'm not so sure they did, you know.
You may be right. Perhaps thought control still exists as an objective of today's English Socialism.
Which goes along way to explaining why complete morons keep on being voted in.
It ain't rocket if you feel strongly about a comment said privately in jest then don't vote for them.
Whilst I don't understand your first comment I do agree with your second. I would add, however, that if comments made in private (in jest or otherwise) remained private then it would not be an issue for the electorate. I think the ethics of those that were party to the disclosure of Cllr Chapman's private comments should called into question rather than those of Cllr Chapman himself. There is no doubt that their motives and the word honorable is not included.
Hi Woodsedge, we agree on some aspects and not on some others i'm afraid alas the joys of freedom of expression and in my opinion the best point of democracy. Absolutely agreed on the honourable point, exclusive of the army and life safety services it has been in short supply in the public sector in particular. Not forgetting the recently announced strikes to hold the us (aka public) to random again........

Crimbo says...
11:37pm Mon 11 Mar 13

It has been an interesting debate, interesting to those with an I.Q. commensurate with the average house brick that is.
Come on people - stop being so anal! Costa gives crap service in an environment where the music is turned up to a level just below the pain threshold to drown out the noise of the screaming kids abandoned by the "mothers mafia" blocking the bottom third of the store. A councillor happened to visit and endured a "coffee from hell" experience after spending the usual ten minutes queuing whilst staff moved with their typical speed of an arthritic sloth on a go-slow...
I think I'd want to vent my spleen on Facebook too, whether I was a counsellor, a Mother Theresa impersonator, or even next in line as the Pope!
He had an opinion, he expressed it, end of story - everything else is hysterical nonsense!

Portland Bill says...
11:36am Tue 12 Mar 13

Calm down dear.

louise744 says...
3:21pm Tue 12 Mar 13

I don't know why such a big deal has come out of this, so he writes a status saying Costa staff are useless. Freedom of speech and all that Jazz. no one can say they've never gone home to there wives/husbands etc and slagged off a member of staff. So doing it on Facebook to where he obviously thought he had his 'friends' on there, is so much different is it?? people need to take a joke!!

Bob Goulding says...
4:05pm Tue 12 Mar 13

louise744 wrote:
I don't know why such a big deal has come out of this, so he writes a status saying Costa staff are useless. Freedom of speech and all that Jazz. no one can say they've never gone home to there wives/husbands etc and slagged off a member of staff. So doing it on Facebook to where he obviously thought he had his 'friends' on there, is so much different is it?? people need to take a joke!!
Exactly! I'd still like to know who conspired to make the comments public, however, because betrayal of trust is a big deal.

cj07589 says...
8:09pm Tue 12 Mar 13

Bob Goulding wrote:
louise744 wrote:
I don't know why such a big deal has come out of this, so he writes a status saying Costa staff are useless. Freedom of speech and all that Jazz. no one can say they've never gone home to there wives/husbands etc and slagged off a member of staff. So doing it on Facebook to where he obviously thought he had his 'friends' on there, is so much different is it?? people need to take a joke!!
Exactly! I'd still like to know who conspired to make the comments public, however, because betrayal of trust is a big deal.
Excellent point!

Portland Bill says...
9:41pm Tue 12 Mar 13

Why not send Costa Councillor ,to the car park ,he can sort out the travellers,just a joking.No one conspired or betrayed me in the making of this very funny joke.

lets be fair! says...
12:15pm Sun 24 Mar 13

I had to laugh at some of the support that he received from fellows councillors,
do they all congregate in Costa's?

click2find

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